Slave Girls

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

We have confirmed that the Prophet prohibited making free people into slaves. If we note that this prohibition was not new and was maintained by all Prophets it means that slavery could have only been brought about through unlawful means, consequently it was always considered unlawful. In the context of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh he had to gradually remove it.

I am sorry but where did you confirm this? If I have followed this thread correctly, you have asserted that Muhammed forbade the enslavement of free people except as prisoners of war. That is not quite the same thing is it?

Also, of course, the child of a slave is surely a slave? Thus a slave is created through entirely legal means.

Why do you think Muhammed had to gradually remove it? First of all, why didn't God simply forbid it like idolatry or eating non-Hallal food? Second, if it was to be removed gradually, why is freeing a slave a standard form of penalty in Islam? Surely God would have allowed another way of redeeming yourself if He foresaw an abolition of slavery?

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

I explain in great detail, especially in my discussion with Truth Seeker, the reasons behind potential enslavement of war captives.

May I take that as acknowledgement that Muslims were traditionally allowed to take slaves during raids?

Would this be what you mean?

As for war, this was explained earlier in this thread. No soldier was EVER allowed to enslave a captive that they chanced upon in war. Any captives obtained in war were turned over to the Islamic gov't which decided they're fate. This included the following options:
-ransoming captives or trading trading them for muslim prisoners of war captured by the enemy
-often freed in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh if they could teach ten Muslims to read/write
-since the Islamic state did not have institutions or resources to shelter and take care of so many prisoners of war, they were entrusted to various families as servants. Slavery was the norm for prisoners of war but the Prophet Muhammad pbuh mandated that they be treated properly and not abused.

I have a few problems with that as far as I understand Islam's early history. Why weren't they allowed to enslave a captive that they chanced on in war? This is in fact what Muslims have traditionally done - were they wrong to? Turned them over to the Islamic government? Are you sure? Didn't they just turn over the Royal Fifth?

I agree that they could be held for ransom. You quoted from Sahih Bukhari 3:34:430, but two down Bukhari 3:34:432 clearly shows that Muslims took captives and held them hostage for ransom.

But the traditional terminology used to describe these people is not "servant" but "slave". This is how it has always been translated. Why do you use "servant"? Mandated proper treatment - the problem that I have is that I think I have different ideas of what proper treatment amounts to. Could you explain what that proper treatment consisted of? For instance, do you doubt the authenticity of the hadith from Bukhari I mentioned above?

Freeing a slave is a standard for of expiation because Islam intended the removal of slavery. Islam obligated the freeing of a slave at so many points that it was very effective in removing slavery. And Islam has also prescribed other forms of expiation if one cannot find slaves to free (depending on the sin) there is fasting, feeding the poor, etc.

Except it is likely that freeing a slave as expiation created a demand in the Islamic world for slaves. You see this is China where the Buddhists try to set free a small bird every year. So every year people go out to trap lots and lots of small birds in order to sell them to people who want to set them free. They create a market. Wouldn't it have been more effective - as with major sins like idolatry and haram food - just to ban it? Very effective in removing it? Why do you think that?

Salam brother Ansar,

I suggest looking at [Link only for registered members] where I pointed out the fallacy in such arguments

Brother the following is the text of what U had to say.

If we wanted to talk about atrocities perpetrated against Muslims, we'd be here forever. We can talk about the some 30 000 civilians killed from the invasion in Iraq, concerning which experts say "most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths.". Or we can talk about the 28 masacres of palestinian Muslims. Or maybe let's talk about the 360 000 Muslims executed in China and the torture of Imaams. Or the "Many old and weak Tibetan Muslims as well as children that died of starvation". And we haven't even begun looking at Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia or Kosovo either

Brother, first of all I must tell U that killing is a killing, no matter whether its muslim or non muslim, at the end of day its always some innocent creation of GOD. Regarding killing of Iraqis, we must all condemn it coz those killed were humans.................but in Iraq, what I fail to understand, why no muslim tear trickled down the cheeks when Saddam was killing and brutalizing muslims for 3 decades? When he was gassing Kurds? when he was crushing shias? when his pchychopath sons were raping at will?

I remember in India, once government banned mourning for shias sensing some shia sunni riots. I saw truckloads of shia men, women, and even children beating their chest, shouting Ya Hasan slogans, getting them arrested in protest against such orders. And similar orders were imposed in Iraq too during. But no shia dared to mourn. One can imagine how brutally Saddam must have got those no mourning orders imposed. But then it was all okay for the muslim world. But when America raided Iraq, all hell broke loose for muslim world, suddenly they develpoed sympathy for their muslim bretherns in Iraq, what an example of hypocricy?................does it hurt anything less when muslims kill muslims?

Now lets talk Kashmir. Kashmiris enjoys a great amount of sympathy by Pakistan. Pakistan think that there are over 7 lakhs of Indian hindu soldiers who are brutalizing, killing, and raping pooor kashmiris at will.

Brother Ansar I m sure that U must be knowing that although there are majority of muslims in Kashmir, but there are hindus too called kashmiri pandits. They were living from ages there, with their muslim brothers and sissters. U know that all approx 5 lakh kashmiri hindus are forced to leave their homes by their muslim brothers and sisters. they were killed and raped till they didnt flee their homes. Now which sane person can think that 7 lakh hindu army who are killing at will cant save their lesser number of hindu brethens from leaving their homes? This all happening in India when almost all the states in India except kashmir is hindu dominated. And U are talking about killing of muslims in Kashmir. how sad brother................I never expected this at least from U.

And further brother U havent included killings of muslims in Darfur region of Sudan? Which is supposed to be the biggest genocide. they were muslims too, and u must be knowing who killed them? were they muslims or non muslims? I hope that U dont believe like most muslims that they are given licence to kill from ALLAH.

The reasons behind this are numerous: ignorance, poverty, oppression, desperation.

These people want to change the plight of their people (see earlier link) and they are willing to sacrifice themselves to do so, but unfortunately they have not been taught the correct Islamic teachings.

Well brother I partially agree with U. But see, who is getting most affected by their ignorance? Its humanity only. And as U admitted just now that its wrong islamic lessons which are forcing them to do so. Again comes misinterpretation of holy quran. My point again pops out, can message of ALLAH cause so much damage to mankind? even if misinterpretated? I m sure NO. U are free to differ.

One more question brother, why only muslims? Why US and its allies doesnt massacre muslims on its land? why so that most muslims feel safer in those kufr countries than in their own countries? why so that they even feel more free than their own countries? Why so that America, which is considered to be the enemy of muslims and islam, has a long queue of muslims outside its embassies?

Thanks

format_quote Originally Posted by Chuck

Think what would have happened if Muslims have freed all the slaves? How these slaves would have earned a living if all of them were freed at once? In my opinion, the economy would have collapsed, which would have hurt all people including the freed slaves. The case for slavery is not like the case of alcohol. Slavery, depending on the socio-economic conditions of a society, is not a bad thing if it is done within the bounds of human rights. In another words, if paying for domestic work is not affordable by socio-economic situations of a society, then a person would work happily if you provide him/her food, shelter, clothing, and treat him/her with respect. It doesn't matter if you call this person slave, servant, or anything else – these are only the names for which people tend to confuse themselves – the important thing is the treatment of the person.

I find it hard to believe I am even reading this. Those slaves would have gone on earning a living the same way anyone else did - by producing goods in the economy. Obviously they are doing something productive of they would not be kept by their masters. The difference is they would get to keep the wages they have earnt instead of being forced to hand some or all over to their masters. The economy might have collapsed, if it is based on slave labor. Good. Slavery is similar to alcohol in that banning it would have put people out of work. Not a bad thing? Care to be my slave then? If paying for domestic labor is not affordable, then clearly the slave is not being paid a living wage - if you cannot afford a servant, but use a slave, the slave must cost less to feed and look after than a servant. It is impossible to reconcile this with human rights. Slaves, by definition, are not treated with respect. They are beaten. And they would not be happy if they do not have the right to leave if they are treated rudely, or are offered better wages elsewhere, or want to marry, or do not want to have sex with their masters or whatever. The important thing is the treatment of the person - which is why slavery is worse than being a servant.

There are probably reasons to excuse slavery. But this is merely crassly offensive.

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

I find it hard to believe I am even reading this. Those slaves would have gone on earning a living the same way anyone else did - by producing goods in the economy. Obviously they are doing something productive of they would not be kept by their masters. The difference is they would get to keep the wages they have earnt instead of being forced to hand some or all over to their masters. The economy might have collapsed, if it is based on slave labor. Good. Slavery is similar to alcohol in that banning it would have put people out of work. Not a bad thing? Care to be my slave then? If paying for domestic labor is not affordable, then clearly the slave is not being paid a living wage - if you cannot afford a servant, but use a slave, the slave must cost less to feed and look after than a servant. It is impossible to reconcile this with human rights. Slaves, by definition, are not treated with respect. They are beaten. And they would not be happy if they do not have the right to leave if they are treated rudely, or are offered better wages elsewhere, or want to marry, or do not want to have sex with their masters or whatever. The important thing is the treatment of the person - which is why slavery is worse than being a servant.

There are probably reasons to excuse slavery. But this is merely crassly offensive.

Then clearly you're not well acquainted with the econimcal condition in Middle Ages. Back then, the gap for economic opportunies was very narrow for freedslaves as was independency for a freedslave who didn't posses any property nor was educated. This in turn leads the freedslave going back to his former master and sell his labour in return for economical dependancy. This is also from the Islamic POV as I haven't mentioned the economical disasters in Americas slavery but then again, I wouldn't justify the slavery in Americas and the cruel treatment that they had to endure. I hope such part of history never repeats itself.

Your definition of slaves is what any historian refers to as western definition. The Islamic definition is the same as the definition of a servant. I suppose the humane treatment, the ability to achieve great ranks, etc, has been already mentioned.

I have to say that Roger Du Pasquier sums it best in his book 'Unveiling Islam':

To answer this question, it should first be remarked that Islam has tolerated slavery but has never approved of it, and that all its teachings and prescriptions in this regard lead to its alleviation as far as possible in the short term, and, in the longer term, conduce to its progressive suppression. To abolish it would have been impossible in a world in which it was generally practiced by all the states which bordered on the new Muslim empire, and in which the idea of challenging the principle itself had not occurred to anyone. It was the custom to enslave prisoners of war -- when these were not simply massacred -- and the Islamic state would have put itself at a grave disadvantage vis-a-vis its enemies had it not reciprocated to some extent. By guaranteeing them humane treatment, and various possibilities of subsequently releasing themselves, it ensured that a good number of combatants in the opposing armies preferred captivity at the hands of Muslims to death on the field of battle.

It should be very clearly underlined that the slavery once practiced in the Muslim world cannot be compared to the form it had assumed -- for instance -- in the Roman Empire. Islamic legislation subjected slaveowners to a set of precise obligations, first among which was the slave's right to life, for, according to a hadith, 'Whoever kills his slave shall be killed by us'. In consequence, the murder of a slave was punished like that of a free man.

There are many other hadiths which define Islam's true attitude in this regard. The Prophet said: 'Your slaves are your brethren; therefore whoever has a brother who depends upon him must feed and clothe him in the way he feeds and clothes himself; and should not impose upon him tasks which exceed his capacity; should you ask them to do such things, then you are obliged to help them.' The Sharia takes this injunction, among many others, into account when defining the responsibilities and duties of slaveholders.

There is another teaching which enjoins respect for the human dignity of slaves: 'Let none of you say, "This man, or this woman, is my slave". He must rather say: "This is my man, and this my woman."' Putting into relief the provisional character of social ties and the authority exercised by slaveowners over their slaves, the Prophet said: 'It is true that God has made you their masters, but, had He so wished, He could equally well have made you their slaves.'

To manumit a slave has always been regarded as one of the most meritorious of all acts, and many passages of the Qur'an recommend or even require it, particularly as a means of expiation for serious faults. Traditional legislation lays down the methods of voluntary liberation of slaves by their masters (itq), and there were very many Muslims who observed these, especially at the end of their lives, so as not to die and appear before God without having given full freedom to the human beings placed in their power during their earthly lives.

Additionally, slaves had the ability to enfranchise themselves at their own initiative, without waiting passively for the goodwill of their masters: the procedure known as mukataba allowed them to buy their own freedom with sums which they saved from their work, and which the state frequently augmented with advances -- a measure which the slaveowner had no right to oppose. In contrast to the situation under Roman law, slaves were not deprived of the legal ability to exercise their rights and to appeal to a judge against their masters in all cases of illegal treatment.

Besides domestic slavery, which was generally imbued with a patriarchal character, there also existed a form of military slavery, which was frequently employed by princes in need of recruits, especially for their personal guards. This situation had the effect of conferring an often considerable influence and power on men of servile condition or origin, and some of these became the founders of great and illustrious dynasties such as the Tulunids and Mamlukes of Egypt.

The object of a prosperous commercial sector, which under the Abbasid Empire was often the speciality of non-Muslims, particularly Byzantine and Venetian Christians, and Jews, slavery gradually declined in importance until, at the beginning of the present century, it was confined to a few survivals which have now disappeared entirely. Thanks to the strict traditional controls which have always regulated the practice, it would be difficult to deny that social conditions were remarkably humane during the great periods of Muslim civilization, and that these, moreover, were in conformity with the 'egalitarian' spirit of Islam, which, in a hadith, teaches that 'the blackest of Abyssinians' is superior to most noble of Qurai****es, if he has more faith

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

Sister Fenix-Angel,
Your question has been discussed in great detail in this thread and it is difficult for me to simply repeat what I have already posted and what has been posted by others. I'm sure if you read the entire thread you will obtain a good understanding of the issue, inshaa'Allah. Briefly, ma malakat aymanukum refers to one's servants and relations with one's female servant were socially accepted in arabia at that time. Islam put steps in place to remove slavery beginning with the prohibition to enslave free people and the command to treat servants with gentleness and kindness.

wr wb
oh.... ok. Jazak-Allahu khayran.
:rose:

format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi

Then clearly you're not well acquainted with the econimcal condition in Middle Ages. Back then, the gap for economic opportunies was very narrow for freedslaves as was independency for a freedslave who didn't posses any property nor was educated. This in turn leads the freedslave going back to his former master and sell his labour in return for economical dependancy. This is also from the Islamic POV as I haven't mentioned the economical disasters in Americas slavery but then again, I wouldn't justify the slavery in Americas and the cruel treatment that they had to endure. I hope such part of history never repeats itself.

I suspect I am fairly well acquainted with economic conditions back then. It is not necessarily true that economic opportunities for freed slaves were limited. It depends on the time and place. Some periods were periods of great economic expansion. Some were not. It does not follow that slaves did not have property or an education. Many slaves were educated - hence the rule that if they taught ten Muslims to read they should be freed. After all the bedouin were coming out of the desert and attacking older centers of civilisation and so you would expect educated slaves. And many had real property - Islamic law, and correct me if I am wrong, allows a slave to buy himself. This is not possible unless they had money to do so. Islamic law assumes that a freed slave would be dependent on his master. To some extent it enforces it because a master is responsible for the freedslave's diya and gets a part of his estate when he dies. But the bottom lines remains, why would someone keep a slave if they could hire a servant? The only reason is because it costs less to force someone to do a job badly, as opposed to hiring someone to do it well. Which means the price of labor for free men is pushed down as well. And it also means slaves are not treated well.

Your definition of slaves is what any historian refers to as western definition. The Islamic definition is the same as the definition of a servant. I suppose the humane treatment, the ability to achieve great ranks, etc, has been already mentioned.

The humane treatment is a religious obligation and to a lesser extent a legal one, but it was in the West as well. Islamic slavery has been mixed. On the one hand Muslims invented the plantation system the Spanish took to the Americas - and the Black slaves in Iraq rose in revolt they were treated so badly. On the other the Mamluks ruled Egypt. In either case they are not servants. They cannot quit. They cannot demand more wages. They cannot change employers or go home. They can be beaten.

I have to say that Roger Du Pasquier sums it best in his book 'Unveiling Islam':

To answer this question, it should first be remarked that Islam has tolerated slavery but has never approved of it, and that all its teachings and prescriptions in this regard lead to its alleviation as far as possible in the short term, and, in the longer term, conduce to its progressive suppression.

I do not deny the attempt at alleviation - but of course that can only go so far without suppressing the institution. By definition slavery involves treating humans like cattle, dragging them from their homes and families and forcing them to do work they would not otherwise do. But the progressive suppression? Where is the evidence for this?

To abolish it would have been impossible in a world in which it was generally practiced by all the states which bordered on the new Muslim empire, and in which the idea of challenging the principle itself had not occurred to anyone.

It is odd that you quote a non-Muslim, or at least a Westerner. Of course God knew it would be abolished. And if God wanted to tell Muslims to do so, He could have. The countries around the Muslims also worship idols. Yet that was abolished. They also ate haram foods. A lot of things were generally practiced. And yet many of them were abolished.

It was the custom to enslave prisoners of war -- when these were not simply massacred -- and the Islamic state would have put itself at a grave disadvantage vis-a-vis its enemies had it not reciprocated to some extent. By guaranteeing them humane treatment, and various possibilities of subsequently releasing themselves, it ensured that a good number of combatants in the opposing armies preferred captivity at the hands of Muslims to death on the field of battle.

Which is true of Islam's enemies too. How would they have been at a great disadvantage?

It should be very clearly underlined that the slavery once practiced in the Muslim world cannot be compared to the form it had assumed -- for instance -- in the Roman Empire. Islamic legislation subjected slaveowners to a set of precise obligations, first among which was the slave's right to life, for, according to a hadith, 'Whoever kills his slave shall be killed by us'. In consequence, the murder of a slave was punished like that of a free man.

Actually I think that is unfair to the Romans. By the late Empire Roman laws on slavery look a lot like Islamic laws to me.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

I have explained that tribes in that time used to enslave those whom they defeated in battle.

I am sorry to keep on at this, but I think it is important. Therefore it is the case that Muslims could enslave the women and children of those they were at war with?

Yet Islam intended to remove slavery. The question was what was to be done with the captives? Ideally, they would be kept in some form of secure holding like a prison and taken care of from there (in fact that is exactly what the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did with captives like Thumamah). However, the Muslims did not possess either the institutions nor the resources to shelter and take care of such a vast number of captives. The solution was to entrust captives to families as servants, yet maintain good treatment of such people.

Well perhaps the situation could have been avoided by not taking so many prisoners by not going to war quite so often?

I still reject the word "servant" given they could be bought and sold.

And I am extremely dubious about "good treatment". To ask the question again, could Muslims who took women prisoner have sex with them even if they did not intend to marry them and they did not ask their permission?

The hadith from Bukhari is

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

The captives were first tunred over to the Islamic state so that it coulde ensure that the decision was in the best interests of the state and that the captives were not abused, as it is categorically forbidden according to Islamic law:

I notice that the description of the treatment handed out after the capture of Khaybar as "non-serious" odd. The account I read said that a fire was kindled on his chest. But that is not important.

I will not argue over that "turned over". From what I have read, the booty was divided up fairly among all the men who took part in the raid. If that is what you mean, I will not argue.

I already mentioned that. One of the options for the Islamic state is that prisoners of war may be released in exchange for Muslim prisoners or ransomed.

I would not argue with that. It is an option. How about the poor who could not afford to ransom their women?

As was mentioned earlier by Br. Chuck, the important point is the treatment of these people. Since Islam mandated good treatment, the word servant is actually more appropriate as opposed to slave, the latter implying some mistreatment.

Actually I think the important point is the conditions under which they are kept. You can demand that people treat their slaves well in the same way you can demand people treat their pets well. But the difference is that a man is a thinking creature and knows what freedom is - any captivity is cruel if it denies freedom and choice. The mistreatment is implicit. Let me ask a simple question to illustrate the point - if a "servant" wished to go home, or change jobs or marry whomever he chose, could he in Islam?

Nothing is left up to what people think. Very clear measures have been laid down in the hadith:

Which good Muslims should obey. Perhaps. It is noticable that they did not all the time. I'll grant that a slave girl who was burnt on the face with a red hot iron won her freedom. But the African slaves in Iraq rose because they were treated so badly.

The Prophet Muhammad pbuh commanded Muslims to give their servants even the same food and the same clothes that they wear. If someone does this, how can they feel any superiority over such a person?

First of all it is clear that this rule was not widely observed. Second the exercise of power can be subtle. It does not need obvious statements. The fact that slavery involves the consistent exercise of power by one over another person is enough for superiority.

No it did not because as I explained to you freeing a slave was not the only form of expiation. Today, slavery is almost non-existant yet Muslims do not have any problems with expiation because there are other alternatives.

Are those alternatives commanded and in the Quran or the work of scholars who have had to work out what to do in the absence of slaves?

The problem with this analogy is that Islam has forbidden the enslavement of free people. So the only way more slaves can be taken is if a war was undertaken by the whole Islamic state and even then there is no assurance for someone that they will be entrusted with one of the captives, even if any captives are taken and are left over after exchanging and ransoming.

Islam has not, from what I can see, forbidden the enslavement of free people. It has forbidden it in times of peace. You may enslave in times of war. And of course through birth to a slave mother. The decision on the distribution of the booty is, surely, the responsibility of the commander - if he says that everyone can keep whatever they catch, isn't that permissible and a guarantee?

You're right, and it would have hurt everyone including the slaves.

I do not agree with that. It is not a hurt to be freed.

The difference between slavery and the prohibition of alcohol is that slaves are people who would be hurt if they had no one to take care of them, but alcohol is an inanimate substance.

Except the makers of alcohol are now faced with finding work as well. Slaves do not need people to take care of them. If they did, they would not be kept. Their owners must get a benefit from them or they would sell them. There is no reason to think they could not go on getting a benefit after being freed. Do you know of any example of a slave in all of Islamic history who refused to be freed?

But in fact, Islam has actually put in a system that allows for any servants who desire freedom to not only be released, but provided with money to help them in their future. Shaykh Abu Bakr Al-Jaza'iry explains with reference to the Qur'an:

Islam orders making an agreement to facilitate a slave in buying back his freedom if he requests such an agreement, and it encourages helping him in that with shares or wealth. Allah the Almighty said:
And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation) give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you. (24:33)
(Al-Jaza'iry, Minhaj Al-Muslim, vol. 2, p.551)

This makes it very clear that Islam allowed for rapid removal of slavery through its effective methods of freeing slaves, raising their status to that of their masters and restricting the sources of slavery.

I find that an odd interpretation of that passage. Far from being freed with money, it says that slaves should be allowed to work hard to save up enough money to buy themselves from their master - the same rule as in the late Roman Empire and the Latin American states (Brazil even added a rider that the price was to be no more than they cost - I notice nothing here says that an owner cannot charge what he likes). The money flows from the slave to the owner, not from the owner to the slave. Sure they are encouraged to give the slaves something. But only something. It is not clear that Islam rapidly removed slavery - because it did not - although it may have allowed for its rapid removal if that is what owners desired. It is not enough to free slaves, you also have to stop creating them at the same time. At no time was there a lack of slaves in any Muslim country I know of - perhaps you can tell me of one. And, again correct me if I am wrong, but a freed slave in Islam is not the equal of a free man. He is a malwa and as such has lesser and fewer rights than a free man.

I do not mind the claim that Islamic slavery was not as bad as American slavery. But to call slaves "servants is offensive.

format_quote Originally Posted by Chuck

It is not easy to create jobs and reduce unemployment even in modern economic system, and it is very difficult regarding unskilled labor. Let's look at the issue more deeply: what goods they could have produced in that economy and with their skills, who have hired them, and where they would have obtained the capital to start their own business if most of them couldn't find a job?

What makes you think the slaves were unskilled? The early Muslims attacked people who were getting by and making a living. Many of them were enslaved and taken elsewhere. By and large it was the bedouin who attacked older centers of civilisation - Egypt, Iraq, Rome and Persia. These people had real skills the tribesmen of the desert did not. It is the owners who were usually unskilled and the slaves who were not. They could have produced the same goods they produced as slaves - they were not field hands as in America. They were usually urban workers. The people who would have bought a slave could have hired them.

Yea sure, if the economy goes into depression and I can't find a paying job... but only on Islamic standards.

So I can beat you? And force you to move to another country where you do not speak the language and work at a task that I set for you? Fine.

A servant can be treated as bad as your definition of slave, on the other hand, slave can be kept better than your definition of servant... changing labels doesn't make a difference - and Islam didn't came to change labels, it came to change people.

A servant cannot be in practice because the servant can leave and find another job. Servants, in the West at least where they are allowed to keep their passports and can travel without their employer's permission, do not put up with that sort of treatment. Slaves have no choice. How can a slave be kept better than a servant? A servant can quit. A servant can move. A servant can get married when he wants. I agree changing labels does not make a difference - which is why calling slaves servants amounts to nothing. And to change people you have to change the circumstances they find themselves in - if they can make money oppressing the weak, they will. You need to remove their ability to make money by oppressing people. By freeing the slaves for instance.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

As mentioned earlier, captives came under the authority of the state, and in the absence of proper institutions to shelter so many captives, they were entrusted to families.

It is hard to work out if that is agreement with what I said or not. I think it is. May I ask if captives could be bought and sold by those families?

Every single military expedition, without exception, was undertaken as a necessity as the surrounding arabian tribs sought to crush the new Muslim state and wife it off the face of the planet. War was always used as a last resort. In the conquest of Makkah, they Prophet Muhammad pbuh entered Makkah with a large army and he had the option to enslave its citizens who had persecuted him and his followers years before, but he pardoned them all.

Was Mecca taken by force or did it surrender peacefully through negotiation?

I am interested, what was the necesssity of attacking the Romans and Persians? Did they too try to crush the new Muslim state and if so what is the evidence of it?

You have conveniently failed to comment on the authentic hadith I quoted such as:
Whoever strikes his slave or beats him, then his expiation is to free him. (Sahîh Muslim)

Well I have failed because I am uncertain on this issue. I know there are hadith that refer to beating slaves.

For instance Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 68:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Zam'a:

The Prophet forbade laughing at a person who passes wind, and said, "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?" And Hisham said, "As he beats his slave"

Sahih Muslim, Book 005, Number 2237:

'Umair, the freed slave of Abi'l-Lahm, said: My master commanded me to cut some meat in strips; (as I was doing it) a poor man came to me and I gave him some of it to eat. My master came to know of that, and he beat me. I came to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and narrated it to him. He (the Holy Prophet) summoned him and said: Why did you beat him? He (Abi'l-Lahm) said: He gives away my food without being commanded to do so. Upon this he (the Holy Prophet) sbid: The reward would be shared by you two.

Malik Muwatta, Malik said, "The binding oath is for example, that a man says that he will not sell his garment for ten dinars, and then he sells it for that, or that he will beat his young slave and then does not beat him, and so on. One does kaffara for making such an oath, and there is no kaffara in rashness."

And an odd one, Sahih Muslim, Book 015, Number 4089:

Abu Mas'ud reported that he had been beating his slave and he had been saying: I seek refuge with Allah, but he continued beating him, whereupon he said: I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger, and he spared him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: By Allah, God has more dominance over you than you have over him (the slave). He said that he set him free. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters, but made no mention of (these words) of his: I seek refuge with Allah, I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him).

So I have no idea and am seeking sources on this. Could you please give me a proper reference for the Sahih Muslim hadith?

You seem to ignore the point that slaves cannot be beaten or else they must be freed.

I am afraid I am studying the issue further. It is clear that slaves were beaten and were not freed in the Muslim world.

Since Muslims are commanded not to hit their servants or abuse them, when a female servant is entrusted to their family they must ensure that she is taken care of. Relations with one's female servants were accepted just as relations with one's wife.

So relations with one's servants. May I point out the particular nature of the relations with the captives in this case - no intention of keeping them and no intention of having children with them.

Please support you arguments by quoting authentic hadith otherwise they will be dismissed as unsubstantiated allegations on your part.

I suspect if I looked the only source I would find would be Ibn Ishaq. May I ask what the source is for the "non-serious" treatment? Did he die of it by the way?

If someone has to share their clothes and food with their servant then there is no feeling of superiority. Sine you are unable to refute this point I noticed that you claim it is 'clear' that this rule was not widely observed, yet you fail to provide any sources! You intend to use your imagination to respond to the concrete facts I have presented!

I will continue to point out that superiority does not rest on clothing or food but power. China during the Cultural Revolution looked equal but cadres had power and were almost treated like mini-Gods. I am not using my imagination.

A very clear admission that you are ignorant of the subject you are trying to debate. Qur'an 58:3-4 provides the expiation of freeing a slave, and if a person cannot do that they must fast two consecutive months,, and if they cannot do that they must feed 60 poor people. Qur'an 90:12-16 offers similar options. This is just one of many examples.

I am not trying to debate, but learn and in so far as my competence stretches, and it does not to matters of Islamic law, question.

058.004
YUSUFALI: And if any has not (the wherewithal), he should fast for two months consecutively before they touch each other. But if any is unable to do so, he should feed sixty indigent ones, this, that ye may show your faith in Allah and His Messenger. Those are limits (set by) Allah. For those who reject (Him), there is a grievous Penalty.
PICKTHAL: And he who findeth not (the wherewithal), let him fast for two successive months before they touch one another; and for him who is unable to do so (the penance is) the feeding of sixty needy ones. This, that ye may put trust in Allah and His messenger. Such are the limits (imposed by Allah); and for disbelievers is a painful doom.
SHAKIR: But whoever has not the means, let him fast for two months successively before they touch each other; then as for him who is not able, let him feed sixty needy ones; that is in order that you may have faith in Allah and His Messenger, and these are Allah's limits, and the unbelievers shall have a painful punishment.

So the Muslim world accepted that people might be too poor to free a slave. Fair enough.

The hadith I quoted ealier refutes this point by explicitly stating that the enslavement of free people is forbidden. The only exception is in war if the Islamic state does not possess the resources or the instituions to shelter the prisoners then they are entrusted to individual Muslim families.

I don't think it does refute the point. As I understand you, Islam does not forbid the enslaving of free people, but allows it only in times of war for enemies. May I ask where is the condition specifically added that the state must lack the institutions to care for them properly?

The makers of alcohol are analogous to the masters of slaves. But there is nothin analogous to the slaves with the alcohol. If the slave is freed he has absolutely no money, no food, no shelter - where is he going to sleep at night? What is he going to eat? How is he going to find immediate emplyment?

He can sleep in the mosque like any other poor Muslim. He can ask for charity from those Muslims who no longer have slaves to free. He can get a job. Presumably no Muslim kept a slave who did not perform some function. Why wouldn't the slave go on doing that? If a weaver, weave. If a baker, bake.

Since you know absolutely nothing of Qur'anic exegesis, your personal opinion in this matter is meaningless. I have quoted for you the authoritative legal tests on this matter, not my personal opinion. The verse clearly states if a slave desires to be freed, then free them and give them some of your wealth to help them.

An interesting response. I did not offer my personal opinion. I pointed out what I thought was the obvious interpretation of those English words. May I ask if the Arabic was not translated correctly?

You're wrong.

Having read your post I find the majority of your arguments constructed upon personal conjecture and ignorance of the Islamic teachings in many respects, such as expiation. There is also an obstinate refusal on your part to accept the authentic proofs I have used to substantiate my assertions.

I am sorry you feel that way, but if I do not understand it is because I do not know. I do not deny my ignorance. I would not be here if I did not think I had something to learn. Nor have I refused authentic proofs.

For example, you write in your post to Chuck:

Mention beating even though I showed that according to Islamic law as defined in the hadith from Sahih Muslim, the expiation for striking one's slave is to free them. For some reason, you read that and refuse to acknowledge it!

Because I cannot find it and there are also clear references to the beating of slaves. I do not know the answer. I have not refused to acknowledge it. I have deferred judgement until I know better and in the meantime pointed out that slavery and beating go together.

The irrefutable fact is that Islamic laws restricted the sources of slavery, elevated the status of slaves and mandated good treatment for them. And it obligated the freeing of slaves whenever one was able (Qur'an 90:13).

Actually I disagree with very little of that. And never have. But "restricting the sources" is not the same as banning enslavement of free people.