Slave Girls

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

If the female slave gave birth to her master's child.

So slaves can be taken in war and distributed by the emir, and then bought and sold unless they have a recognised child by their Muslim master. I have no more to add to that.

The Roman forces began to mobilize their army and marched to destroy the Muslim state. When the Muslims recieved news of this, they head north with their army and met their opponents at Tabuk.

I found an Islamic site, http://--------------/restatement/34.htm, that discusses this battle - it mentions rumors of a Roman Army but,

After a laborious march the army arrived at the Syrian frontier, and halted at a hamlet called Tabuk but the Prophet could find no sign of the Roman army or of any other army or enemy. The frontier was peaceful and quiet. The reports he had heard in Medina about an imminent invasion by the Romans, were false.

So no mobilisation it seems.

Thank you for bringing these up. All of them provide explicit proof that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh enforced the command that whoever beats their slave must free him as expiation.

Although only one says so. The other place conditions - beating without a good reason for instance.

The Prophet Muhammad pbuh asked the man why he beat his slave. if it was acceptable, there would be no reason to ask. And all the other hadith clarify that when someone beats their slave they must free them.

If it was banned he would not have to ask as it would not matter. If it was acceptable within limits he might well ask to see if those limits had been transgressed. You do not ask a man drinking wine what he is drinking, but you might ask a man who is drinking out of an anonymous container.

We are speaking of the ACTUAL REALITY of what Islam teaches and whether it was just or not. One will always be able to find people who are not following Islamic teachings; the blame goes on them, not Islam. It seems many people have difficulty understanding this simple point especially with respect to problems in the Muslim world today. Why do you equate the wrong done by a particular Muslim with a flaw in Islam? There is no justification for such a conclusion.

Well for me it was hard to tell if you were discussing the history of the early Islamic state or the theoretical nature of a theoretical Islamic state. I do not so equate the two - I think that they can be equated in some circumstances but that is not relevant here.

The hadith says what might have happened to the women had the Prophet Muhammad pbuh not taken the action he did which allowed them to be freed.

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.

I would have thought the implication of that was that they were already doing it and wanted to make sure it was acceptable. In any case, if they did not do it to these women, they were clearly given permission to do it to others.

In this case, they had to free them since the Prophet Muhammad pbuh had married Juwayriyah.

Except that they are not really prisoners of war that belong to the state, but the personal possessions of the fighters. It is a clarification of the position.

Not true. There are several hadith compilations, but of course that is beyond the scope of the current discussion.

Well I am interested if you do not mind referring me to some.

He was not killed; non-serious means that no torture or severe pain was inflicted upon him, nor any bodily harm.

What the other thread said was the treatment was "non-serious" but I notice the Jew talked and told them where the money was. I have checked the Sunan Abu Dawud and it says he was killed. No matter. I'll keep looking.

Islam is designed to eradicate both poverty and slavery. Converting one into the other does not help. The Islamic system effectively placed steps to allow for rapid elimination of both.

I'll accept that it placed steps to allow for it. But it did not happen. That has taken the West to do both.

The verse says that if a slave seeks a writing of emancipation, give it to him.

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

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.

Greetings

I disagree with you strongly on that issue. Can you provide [any] evidence that freed slaves had personal, psychological or economic resources to secure themselves a dignified independence. I assume you are aware of the past consequence that was heaped on the freed slaves after the civil war.

Frederick Douglas said, regarding the ex-slaves after the civil war:

"free, without roofs to cover them, or bread to eat, or land to cultivate, and as a consequence died in such numbers as to awaken the hope of their enemies that they would soon disappear."

Islaam aimed at abolishing slavery gradually without introducing any negative consequences on the stability neither of the community nor in the economical status. This is because slaves represented a big economic power before the advent of Islaam. Another additional reason was that during that period, nations were lacking a solid system to exchange POWS. The only options that they enforced was either by putting the POWS to sword, keep them as captives, allow them to return to their people or distribute them as part of the spoils of war.

And the oft-used option was the last one. But Islaam replaced the cruel inhumane treatment that captives used to receive with compassion and justice.

Let me cite an example of a captive named Emmanuel d'Aranda, a student from Flanders who was caught at sea in 1640, and remained captive in the Regency of Algiers for two years (1640-2), narrated his experience. His first master was Cataborne Mostafa, who shared his meals with him, and his company. Then at some point his master, as a punishment following a quarrel with an army officer, was sent away for military duty for six months. Here is what d’Aranda has to say:

"I was sad about my master, who told me: `henceforth you will go and live at Mahomet Celibi Oiga; I hope with God’s help, before my return you will be free, and if I had money I will share it with you.’’ I answered: `Master, I know about your good will and your poverty; I kiss your hands, thanking you as much as I can for the good treatment I received in your house.’ He said "When you are back in Flanders, give my greetings to your parents."
Found in Emmanuel d’Aranda: Relation; op cit; In Denise Brahimi: Opinions et regards; op cit; pp. 45-6.

Labat (Priest) addresses the misconception that the slaves were treated inhumane by their Muslim captors. He wrote in his memoir:

"We imagine that the Christians who have the misfortune to be slaves in Barbary, are tortured in a very cruel manner and the most in-humane treatment inflicted on them. There are people who in order to stir the charity of the faithful pour with great assurance these lies: their intention, although good, is still always a lie. They forget that in this instance that it is not right to cause harm so as to derive good. I, too, have been in this situation like many others…. But what I saw in Tunis has convinced me these people are full of humanity, as I witnessed that our slaves on the boats waiting to sail were fed every day (fruit, meat, bread…)… and some of these slaves demanded that they stayed with their masters until the day they left for home; and I agreed. Their masters shared their meals with them, gave them tobacco, and looked after them as if they were their own children. They kissed them on the day of parting, and assured them, that if business or misfortune brought them back to the country, they could freely live with them, and they will be more than welcome."

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.

As I have mentioned above, these slaves were enemies who have been taken captive by the Muslims. The pre-Islamic practise was put them to sword, release them or distribute amongst Muslims as slaves. By releasing, it would set the Muslims to a huge disadvantage in the battle as the enemies still harbour animosity against them. By taking them as captives and dealing justly with them, these same captives would experience the humane treatment and realize the compassion and justice of their enemies which in turn leads them to drop their hatred for them.

Abu Dawood reports on the authority of Al-Ma'roor bin Suwaid that he said

"We entered Abu Thar's house at Al-Ribthah and found him dressed in a garment called 'burd', and found his slave dressed in an identical 'burd'. So we said : ' Why don't you, Abu Thar, wear that 'burd' of your slaves so that you may have a full suit, and give him instead a less sumptuous garment ?'

He replied : 'I heard the Messenger of Allaah (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say :

"Those slaves are your brothers, only God gave you an upper hand over them. So let that who has his brother (i.e. slave) under him give him the same food he himself eats, and the same clothing as he himself wears. The master may not give his brother a task that is beyond his ability. If he does give him such task, let him lend him a hand.".

Abdul-Lah bin 'Umar freed a slave of his then picked a twig from the ground and said:

"I shall not receive for freeing him the worth of this in the Hereafter. I heard the Messenger of Allaah say : ' If a man hits or beats his slave, his atonement is the freeing of that slave." (Muslim and Abu Dawood)

'Umar bin Al-Khattab (May Allaah be pleased with him) once walked in Makkah and saw some slaves standing aside waiting, while their master ate. He was angry at this and inquired of the master :

"Why do some masters regard themselves as superior to their slaves ?"

Then he ordered the slaves to advance and eat.

A man once entered the house of Salman (May Allaah be pleased with him) and saw him kneading his dough.

"What are you doing, Abu 'Abdullah? " " I have sent my servant on an errand, " he answered. " So I didn't like to give him some more work"

The above mentioned narrations dispel the myth that the captives (slaves) were not treated well. Islaam has forbidden enslaving a free person and has provided encouragement and countless reasons for manumission of slaves.

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 -

I do not know your sources but the plantation system was developed in Virgina and Maryland (Americas). No reliable historian has ever stated that humane treatment found in the Islaamic Empire could be compared to the treatment that slaves received in the West. It was simply incomparable.

Unfortunately, the treatment of the slaves in the West was usually derived from Christianity.

Will Durant describes the position of the Church as follows:

"The Church did not condemn slavery. Orthodox and heretic, Roman and barbarian alike assumed the institution to he natural and in-destructible. Pagan laws condemned to slavery any free woman who married a slave; the laws of Constantine [a Christian emperor] ordered the woman to be executed, and the slave to be burned alive. The Emperor Gratian decreed that a slave who accused his master of any offence except high treason to the state should be burned alive at once, without inquiring into the justice of the charge"

The following quotation graphically shows the attitude of Islam and Christianity on the subject of slavery and race:

"Take away the black man! I can have no discussion with him," exclaimed the Christian Archbishop Cyrus when the Muslim conquerors had sent a deputation of their ablest men to discuss terms of surrender of the capital of Egypt, headed by Negro 'Ubaydah as the ablest of them all. To the sacred Archbishop's astonishment, he was told that this man was commissioned by General 'Amr; that the Muslims held Negroes and white men in equal respect judging a man by his character and not by his colour."

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.

The black-slaves-revolting-in-Iraq tale is found in only one book by the biased historian Robert Payne. The man narrates any degrading inauthenthic tales about Muslims and alters the Qur'aanic passages in his book "The History of Islam" to suit his agenda. His factual errors and biased commentary would base the book in the category of fiction and should be disregarded by any student of history. Mamluks ruling Egypt is a clear example of the tolerance that the Islamic Empire preached, the same tolerance occured in India where Calips who were proud of being slaves ruled India. In fact, India was found by slaves.

Here are the names of those caliphs and of their slave mothers:-

1. Ma'mun al-Rashid: Murajil, a black slave-girl.
2. Mu'tasim Billah: a slave-girl from Kufah, named Maridah.
3. Wathiq Billah: a Roman named Qaratis.
4. Mutawakkil 'Allallah: son of Shuja.
5. Muntasir Billah: a Roman named Habashiyyah.
6. Musta'in Billah: Mukhariq.
7. Mu'tazz Billah: a Roman named Qabihah.
8. Muhtadi Billah: Wards, or Qurb.
9. Mu'tamid 'Alallah: a Roman named Fityan.
10. Mu'tazid Billah: Sawab (or Hirz or Dhirar).
11. Muktafi Billah: a Turkish slave-girl named Jijaq or Khudi.
12. Muqtadir Billah: a Roman or Turkish slave-girl called Gharib or Shaghab.
13. Qahir Billah: Fitnah.
14. Radhi Billah: a Roman, Zalum.
15. Muttaqi Lillah: Khalub or Zuhra.
16. Mustakfi Billah: Awjahun Naa or Ghusn.
17. Muti' Lillah: Mash'alah.
18. Atta'i Lillah: Hazar or Atab.
19. Qadir Billah: Dumanah or Tamanni.
20. Qa'im Billah: an Armenian called Badrudduja or Qatrunnada.
21. Muqtadi Bi Amrillah: Arjwan.
22. Mustazhir Billah: a slave (name not recorded).
23. Mustarshid Billah: a slave (name not recorded).
24. Rashid Billah: a slave (name not recorded).
25. Muqtafi Li Amrillah: an Ethiopian slave-girl.
26. Mustanjid Billah: a Karjiyya slave named Ta'us.
27. Mustadi' Bi Amrillah: an Armenian named Ghaddha.
28. Nasir Li Dinillah: a Turkish slave, Zamurrad.
29. Zahir Bi Amrillah~: Name not recorded.
30. Munstansir Billah: a Turkish slave (name not recorded).
31. Musta'sim Billah: Hajir

In the words of Will Durant,

"It is astonishing how many sons of slaves rose to high place in the intellectual and political world of Islam, how many, like Mahmud and the early Mameluks, became kings."

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?

Once again, that is the Western definition of slaves who were victims of cruel treatment. Definition varies from language to language and from nation to nation.

Mouradgea d'Ohsson (a main source of information for the Western writers on the Ottoman empire) declared:

"There is perhaps no nation where the captives, the slaves, the very toilers in the galleys are better provided for or treated with more kindness than among the Muhammedans."

P. L Riviere writes:

"A master was enjoined to make his slave share the bounties he received from God. It must be recognised that, in this respect, the Islamic teaching acknowledged such a respect for human personality and showed a sense of equality which is searched for in vain in ancient civilization"

Napoleon Bonaparte is recorded as saying about the condition of slaves in Muslim countries:

"The slave inherits his master's property and marries his daughter. The majority of the Pashas had been slaves. Many of the grand viziers, all the Mamelukes, Ali Ben Mourad Beg, had been slaves. They began their lives by performing the most menial services in the houses of their masters and were subsequently raised in status for their merit or by favour. In the West, on the contrary, the slave has always been below the position of the domestic servants; he occupies the lowest rug. The Romans emancipated their slaves, but the emancipated were never considered as equal to the free-born. The ideas of the East and West are so different that it took a long time to make the Egyptians understand that all the army was not composed of slaves belonging to the Sultan al-Kabir."

This, my friend, is progressive supression.

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.

Not odd at all as some non-Muslims have some sort of in-denial for any quotations of Muslim historians. Apparently, the first excuse that they develop after seeing such quote is the word "biased". Hence why I occasionally resort to the statements of reliable orientalists.

Gradualism was applied for many requirements in the Shariah. For instance, alcohol, interest, etc.

A good explanation of applying gradualism in the Shariah is found at the following link:
Gradualism in Applying the Shari`ah

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

Rhetorical question,,,

If the Muslims had released the captives straight upon caption, then wouldn't you agree that it would have caused a major disadvantage in battle between the two armies? Having POWS is a strategic tactic.

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.

That is incorrect. I do concede that the Roman slavery improved after a few centuries but it never matched the laws that Islaam had imposed to eradicate slavery. For instance, slaves in late Roman Empire had very low-protected rights compared to the Early Roman Empire where they had none. This reform was abolished by the Christian emperor Constantine who added some really inhumane new laws. One of these stated that if an abandoned or wandering child were found, it person who found it could sell it into slavery.

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi

I disagree with you strongly on that issue. Can you provide [any] evidence that freed slaves had personal, psychological or economic resources to secure themselves a dignified independence.

What? Every single one? You ask the impossible.

I assume you are aware of the past consequence that was heaped on the freed slaves after the civil war.

Frederick Douglas said, regarding the ex-slaves after the civil war:

"free, without roofs to cover them, or bread to eat, or land to cultivate, and as a consequence died in such numbers as to awaken the hope of their enemies that they would soon disappear."

I notice you are quoting an opponent of slavery who would be fairly appalled to hear his words misused as a justification of the institution. And second, plantation slaves are a completely different matter to the urban workers of the Islamic world.

Islaam aimed at abolishing slavery gradually without introducing any negative consequences on the stability neither of the community nor in the economical status. This is because slaves represented a big economic power before the advent of Islaam.

I think I would object to both those claims. The claim that Islam intended the abolition of slavery is an inference. No one has produced a single piece of evidence to suggest that anyone ever foresaw the abolition of slavery. Not even a suggestion Muslims thought slavery was wrong, but useful. What has been produced is evidence of freeing individuals and lightening their burdens. That is a different claim to abolishing the institution. Indeed, you are defending it still. Second, the wars of Islam brought about large numbers of slaves. I know of no evidence that pre-Islamic Arab society had a fraction of that number of slaves. The Malwa are a major phenomena after Islam. But not before.

Another additional reason was that during that period, nations were lacking a solid system to exchange POWS. The only options that they enforced was either by putting the POWS to sword, keep them as captives, allow them to return to their people or distribute them as part of the spoils of war.

I am sure that is true. But then society also lacked many things Islam enforced. Islam still enforced those things. Even at some economic cost.

And the oft-used option was the last one. But Islaam replaced the cruel inhumane treatment that captives used to receive with compassion and justice.

Really? What is the evidence of cruel and inhuman treatment before Islam in Arabia?

Let me cite an example of a captive named Emmanuel d'Aranda, a student from Flanders who was caught at sea in 1640, and remained captive in the Regency of Algiers for two years (1640-2), narrated his experience. His first master was Cataborne Mostafa, who shared his meals with him, and his company. Then at some point his master, as a punishment following a quarrel with an army officer, was sent away for military duty for six months. Here is what d’Aranda has to say:
[INDENT]"I was sad about my master, who told me: `henceforth you will go and live at Mahomet Celibi Oiga; I hope with God’s help, before my return you will be free, and if I had money I will share it with you.’’ I answered: `Master, I know about your good will and your poverty; I kiss your hands, thanking you as much as I can for the good treatment I received in your house.’ He said "When you are back in Flanders, give my greetings to your parents."
Found in Emmanuel d’Aranda: Relation; op cit; In Denise Brahimi: Opinions et regards; op cit; pp. 45-6.

I do not see a comment about slavery but about one slave owner. It is not fair to select out the few comments on the few good masters and argue this somehow means they all were when there is a vast Western literature on the bad treatment of slaves in North Africa.

As I have mentioned above, these slaves were enemies who have been taken captive by the Muslims. The pre-Islamic practise was put them to sword, release them or distribute amongst Muslims as slaves. By releasing, it would set the Muslims to a huge disadvantage in the battle as the enemies still harbour animosity against them. By taking them as captives and dealing justly with them, these same captives would experience the humane treatment and realize the compassion and justice of their enemies which in turn leads them to drop their hatred for them.

I am not even convinced they were the only options before Islam. After all tribal society is interested in raiding for camels, not killing people. Indeed the Bedouin usually still carefully avoid killing people. The wars of religion were much more harder fought and so many people were taken prisoner. I doubt that there was ever a war before Islam with huge numbers of prisoners. I notice, in passing, that there was another option which Muhammed used. He did not kill all the Jews of Medina. He exiled some after negotiating their surrender. The An-Nadir for instance. So there was a third option - to make them leave Arabia. What is the evidence that the enemies of the Muslims ever took prisoners in large numbers? It looks to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, they fought in the old limited way, without intending to take prisoners or kill many people. The Muslim fought a new style of war.

A man once entered the house of Salman (May Allaah be pleased with him) and saw him kneading his dough.

"What are you doing, Abu 'Abdullah? " " I have sent my servant on an errand, " he answered. " So I didn't like to give him some more work"

The above mentioned narrations dispel the myth that the captives (slaves) were not treated well. Islaam has forbidden enslaving a free person and has provided encouragement and countless reasons for manumission of slaves.

Except that refers to a servant. Not to a slave. It does not dispell the myth. Finding one good master is not proof of how most owners behaved. Talking about Islamic rules in the abstract does not mean they were obeyed or even enforced in real life. Which are you talking about? Islam does not forbid the enslavement of a free person. Haven't we covered this. It forbids the enslavement of a Free Muslim, and other people in times of peace. It allows the enslavement of people in times of war. It has provided reasons and encouragement for manumission - but that is not the same as ending the institution.

I do not know your sources but the plantation system was developed in Virgina and Maryland (Americas). No reliable historian has ever stated that humane treatment found in the Islaamic Empire could be compared to the treatment that slaves received in the West. It was simply incomparable.

Well no, the plantation system was brought to the Americas by the Spanish and Portuguese who learnt it from the Arabs. Most people are happy to say that Islamic slavery was very different from New World slavery. Which is what I said.

Unfortunately, the treatment of the slaves in the West was usually derived from Christianity.

Will Durant describes the position of the Church as follows:

"The Church did not condemn slavery. Orthodox and heretic, Roman and barbarian alike assumed the institution to he natural and in-destructible. Pagan laws condemned to slavery any free woman who married a slave; the laws of Constantine [a Christian emperor] ordered the woman to be executed, and the slave to be burned alive. The Emperor Gratian decreed that a slave who accused his master of any offence except high treason to the state should be burned alive at once, without inquiring into the justice of the charge"

Much the same could be said for Christianity as for Islam - neither condemned slavery. Both forbade the enslavement of their own fellow believers. Both were unhappy with sexual relations of various sorts.

The following quotation graphically shows the attitude of Islam and Christianity on the subject of slavery and race:

"Take away the black man! I can have no discussion with him," exclaimed the Christian Archbishop Cyrus when the Muslim conquerors had sent a deputation of their ablest men to discuss terms of surrender of the capital of Egypt, headed by Negro 'Ubaydah as the ablest of them all. To the sacred Archbishop's astonishment, he was told that this man was commissioned by General 'Amr; that the Muslims held Negroes and white men in equal respect judging a man by his character and not by his colour."

No, that shows the attitude of one man. It has nothing to do with the attitude of Egyptian Christians or even Byzantine Christians. After all Rome had been ruled by Africans, and even Arab, Emperors.

The black-slaves-revolting-in-Iraq tale is found in only one book by the biased historian Robert Payne. The man narrates any degrading inauthenthic tales about Muslims and alters the Qur'aanic passages in his book "The History of Islam" to suit his agenda. His factual errors and biased commentary would base the book in the category of fiction and should be disregarded by any student of history.

There is no credible history book that does not discuss the sort of the Black slaves in Iraq. It is a historical fact as certain as most facts can be. Look it up in Phillip Hitti's book, Albert Hourani's.

Mamluks ruling Egypt is a clear example of the tolerance that the Islamic Empire preached, the same tolerance occured in India where Calips who were proud of being slaves ruled India. In fact, India was found by slaves.

Tolerance? I notice that the Mamluks excluded African slaves in favour of Turkish ones even though both races there enrolled in the Army. It is a sign of the power of the slaves (and the oppression of Egyptians). No more.

In the words of Will Durant,

"It is astonishing how many sons of slaves rose to high place in the intellectual and political world of Islam, how many, like Mahmud and the early Mameluks, became kings."

It is astonishing. The West is used to freedom and so it is surprising to find the slaves of the powerful ruling over the mass of the population. That does not mean the slaves are treated well. Just that most people are treated worse than slaves.

Once again, that is the Western definition of slaves who were victims of cruel treatment. Definition varies from language to language and from nation to nation.

Mouradgea d'Ohsson (a main source of information for the Western writers on the Ottoman empire) declared:

"There is perhaps no nation where the captives, the slaves, the very toilers in the galleys are better provided for or treated with more kindness than among the Muhammedans."

That may be so but it is irrelevant. The slaves were treated badly.

Napoleon Bonaparte is recorded as saying about the condition of slaves in Muslim countries:

"The slave inherits his master's property and marries his daughter. The majority of the Pashas had been slaves. Many of the grand viziers, all the Mamelukes, Ali Ben Mourad Beg, had been slaves. They began their lives by performing the most menial services in the houses of their masters and were subsequently raised in status for their merit or by favour. In the West, on the contrary, the slave has always been below the position of the domestic servants; he occupies the lowest rug. The Romans emancipated their slaves, but the emancipated were never considered as equal to the free-born. The ideas of the East and West are so different that it took a long time to make the Egyptians understand that all the army was not composed of slaves belonging to the Sultan al-Kabir."

This, my friend, is progressive supression.

First of all, the master inherits the property of the freed slave. It is true that many Egyptians, like many Athenians, bought slaves and eventually made them their heirs and married them to their daughters. That says something about Egyptian men I think. But that does not mean that the system was not cruel. The slave is lowly in the West because free men are free and it is intolerable that citizens should be lower than a slave. They are not in the Middle East. The Islamic rules on freed slaves are very similar to those of the pagan Greek Middle East. A freed man in Islam is no more the equal in law of a free man than he was in Rome or Athens. He is a malwa.

And again there is no evidence here of gradual suppression - indeed the quote clearly shows that the Egyptians saw slavery as natural and inevitable so much so they assumed the French were slaves too. The idea that men could be citizens had not occurred to them.

Gradualism was applied for many requirements in the Shariah. For instance, alcohol, interest, etc.

Certainly. Just not to slavery.

Rhetorical question,,,

If the Muslims had released the captives straight upon caption, then wouldn't you agree that it would have caused a major disadvantage in battle between the two armies? Having POWS is a strategic tactic.

Not really. The pagan Arabs seemed to be fighting in the old camel raiding style to me and so did not take prisoners. They had nothing to do with them anyway. Nor did they kill that many people if they could avoid it. Muslim warfare was ambitious in a way that pagan warfare was not.

That is incorrect. I do concede that the Roman slavery improved after a few centuries but it never matched the laws that Islaam had imposed to eradicate slavery. For instance, slaves in late Roman Empire had very low-protected rights compared to the Early Roman Empire where they had none. This reform was abolished by the Christian emperor Constantine who added some really inhumane new laws. One of these stated that if an abandoned or wandering child were found, it person who found it could sell it into slavery.

That was always the case in pagan society. Foundlings were often raised as slaves.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

If someone cannot even refer to their slave as 'slave' then how can they consider themselves superior?

By exercising power over them. You do not need a specific label to feel more powerful than the weak.

Also, in response to one of your previous comments that Muslims were concerned about descent, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh compared the one who proudly asserts his lineage to the dung beetle and emphasized that all human beings are from Adam pbuh and Adam was created form dust. (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)

Sure. Although Islam also introduced an element of ancestry in that the Quraysh became more important as did the descendents of Ali and Fatima.

This quotation demonstrates that Islam elevated slaves to the lofty status of leaders within two generations.

Sure. The Arabs were a tribal nation before Islam. They were under the Umayyads as well. The freed slaves were trusted servants of the King. The Roman Emperors also made their freedmen and even their slaves powerful ministers. It is a measure of how low everyone else was, not of how high the slaves were.

What do non-Muslims say about Islam's stancw on slavery?

As you and Kadafi seem to be reading the same website (as opposed to books) would you mind telling me which website you are cuting and pasting this from?

All this evidence makes it very clear that it was Islam which paved the way to the abolition of slavery and it protected countless peoples from further enslavement. The global abandoning of slavery was only possible thanks to the steps taken by Islam.

How is this evidence that Islam paved the way for the abolition of slavery? It looks like evidence for the widespread nature of slavery in Islamic society to me. What steps did Islam take that encouraged the British to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century? Why was it, do you think, that the last nations to abolish slavery were Muslim ones, that they usually did so only when the Europeans colonised them or otherwise made them, and many Muslims at the time defended slavery as Islamic?

The majority of the historians are agreed that the Romans mobilized their forces (see Al-Wâqidî, Kitâb Al-Maghâzî, vol 3, p. 990). Once the Muslims arrived there, the Romans had retreated so the Muslims returned after quelling the rebellion of local tribes.

Although that may well be a problem in itself. Do you know of any non-Muslim historian who thinks so?

But even this was not the first confrontation. The first open hostilities began before when the Prophet Muhammad pbuh sent a messenger, Al-Harith ibn Umayr, to the Ghassan tribe in Busra, a governate of the Byzantine empire. The chieftain of the tribe, Surahbil ibn 'Amr had the Prophet's messenger tied up and beheaded. In response to this open act of agression the Prophet Muhammad pbuh order a a force of 3 000 soldiers to meet the Ghassan tribe (Battle of Mut'ah). Shurahbil, however, mobilized 100 00 soldiers from local arab tribes and recieved an addition 100 000 soldiers from the Roman empire as reinforcements. The Muslims were quickly outnumbered and defeated by the Roman coalition.

This is clearly non-historic. The Ghassan tribe were allies, not a governate. And the entire Roman Empire only had about 150,000 soldiers and we know where they were stationed in the Seventh century.

Yes, relations with one's female slave were accepted. But notice how the Prophet always considered the treatment of the prisoners of war and whenever possible had them freed, as in this case.

So "good treatment" in this case includes having sexual relations with your female captives if you so wish? As well as buying and selling if you want. This is not quite the way most people treat servants.

Also, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh forbade having relations with one's female servant until they had waited to ensure she was not already pregnant.

Yes. Although it occasionally occurs to me that I don't think he followed that himself in every case. There must be a reason for it, or I must be wrong. But as that is unlikely to be a subject of polite conversation I will not discuss it.

Of course, but you will need to make a new thread.

That, alas, would be beyond my technical competence.

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

What? Every single one? You ask the impossible.

Clearly when I am asking for such evidence, I automatically imply observations from historians, or any historical reference that is pertained to the matter.

I notice you are quoting an opponent of slavery who would be fairly appalled to hear his words misused as a justification of the institution. And second, plantation slaves are a completely different matter to the urban workers of the Islamic world.

I did not quote the abolitionist’s view to vindicate the slavery institution, but rather as an evidence that a whole-scale abolishment would result in disastrous consequences as evident in the words of Frederick Douglas. The slaves, whether they're urban slaves or plantation slaves do not matter as in the end, one has to cater for the needs of a large army of slaves who were dependent on various families. Considering that a large number of them were old and incapable of supporting themselves.

I think I would object to both those claims. The claim that Islam intended the abolition of slavery is an inference. No one has produced a single piece of evidence to suggest that anyone ever foresaw the abolition of slavery. Not even a suggestion Muslims thought slavery was wrong, but useful. What has been produced is evidence of freeing individuals and lightening their burdens. That is a different claim to abolishing the institution. Indeed, you are defending it still. Second, the wars of Islam brought about large numbers of slaves. I know of no evidence that pre-Islamic Arab society had a fraction of that number of slaves. The Malwa are a major phenomena after Islam. But not before.

Your objection is nothing more than a stubborn one. After presenting the Islaamic evidence on the gradual abolishment of slavery, you still object and claim that Islaam encourages slavery. Let me outline the rules laid out for the abolishment of the instituation.

- It placed restrictions on acquistition of slaves (no free man can be enslaved)
- It commenced an active compaign to emancipate slaves
- Treat them with kindness, enclothe them from your own clothes, and feed them from your own food
- Marry them


This gradual approach would have eradicated slavery. Aisha (May Allaah be pleased with her) said:

"If the Glorious Qur'aan first told the Muslims not to drink, gamble, perform fornication, or adultery they would have said: "No, we cannot". The Glorious Qur'aan kept putting in their hearts the fear and love for Allaah. The description of the life hereafter with its Paradise and Gardens of Eden for those obey and Hell and its fire for those who rebel, until their hearts softened. Then they were commanded to stop alcohol, adultery and gambling, and they complied" (Bukharee)

In the pre-Islaamic days, slaves were a commercial commodity and it was an established institution. Every household had a slave and free men were sold as slaves like a pack of animals. For those with high ranks, the number of slaves in the house was was a symbol of status. Arabs used to wage many tribal wars which increased the number of slaves and made it deep-rooted in the society. It had its roots in commerce, in social structure and in agriculture undertakings then how can one eradicate this problem except apply the law of gradualism. Additionally, a chief/ruler could enslave, depending on his whim, anyone residing under his domain, a father or grandfather had absolute authority over his offspring which could mean that he could sell or gift him or exchange him with another's son or daughter. These were the practises of the Pre-Islaamic society.

Let's compare gradualism with whole-scale abolition. The US has used whole-scale abolition which in turn leads to more hostility and hatred against the Black community. They were discriminated, denied jobs, denied mental healthcare, etc. What Islaam offered is gradualism, and that is by changing the attitude and mentality of the whole society, so that after emancipation, slaves would become its full-fledged members, without any need of demonstrations, strikes, civil disobedience and racial riots.

I am sure that is true. But then society also lacked many things Islam enforced. Islam still enforced those things. Even at some economic cost.

"Many things" is not a satisfactory answer. Elaborate in order for me to reply adequately.

Really? What is the evidence of cruel and inhuman treatment before Islam in Arabia

Previously, it was the custom to deprive them from food and water. Sometimes they had to work for it or get through private means. Islaam abolished that and laid rules that the captive is sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injure.

Allaah (Exalted is He) said:

"Lo! the righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of water of Kafur. A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allaah drink, making it gush forth abundantly. Because they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide spreading. And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him. (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allaah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you."

Abu Aziz-ibn Umair, one of the captives of Badr battle, recalls:

"Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me the bread and themselves the dates, in view of the Prophet's recommendation in our favor (in that desert situation bread was the more luxurious item of food than dates)"

This is why many of the captives were amazed at the compassion and just treatment that they had received from their Muslim captors. Similar to the Christian captives who attested that they had received nothing but good from their Muslim captors.

I do not see a comment about slavery but about one slave owner. It is not fair to select out the few comments on the few good masters and argue this somehow means they all were when there is a vast Western literature on the bad treatment of slaves in North Africa.

These are examples. Surely you do not want me to list every account of captives. I will only list examples that followed the Islaamic teachings. Sure, there were some bad treatments but these people have strayed from the correct understandings of Islaam. I do not wish to argue for their actions; rather I only wish to highlight what Islaam says about the issue. I am not responsible for the actions of others nor do I wish to defend it.

I am not even convinced they were the only options before Islam. After all tribal society is interested in raiding for camels, not killing people. Indeed the Bedouin usually still carefully avoid killing people. The wars of religion were much more harder fought and so many people were taken prisoner. I doubt that there was ever a war before Islam with huge numbers of prisoners. I notice, in passing, that there was another option which Muhammed used. He did not kill all the Jews of Medina. He exiled some after negotiating their surrender. The An-Nadir for instance. So there was a third option - to make them leave Arabia. What is the evidence that the enemies of the Muslims ever took prisoners in large numbers? It looks to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, they fought in the old limited way, without intending to take prisoners or kill many people. The Muslim fought a new style of war.

These were the only options in the Pre-Islaamic period. This is why Allaah (Exalted is He) forbade the killing of the captives. Inter-tribal raids were conducted to inflict injury on the other tribe. They kidnapped, killed other tribes and shared their stock (livelihood). For example, Zaid bin Harithah (May Allaah be pleased with him) was one of those who was kidnapped in tribal raids.

Banu an-Nadir were banished from the city, not Arabia. The reason for their banishment is that one cannot captivate the whole tribe since it doesn't bring any benefit to the Muslims. This option was not present in the pre-Islaamic period. The tribes that conquered other tribes wouldn't be satisfied with merely letting them go but either enslaved them or put them to sword. Even though Banu an-Nadir plotted to kill the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he still released them.

As for your question, whether they are any evidence of the Muslim enemies taking large POWs, then there is one. For example, Richard imprisoned the Muslim soldiers alongside with their wives and children and announced a prisoner exchange. A failure of communications in the negotiations resulted in Richard ordering the executions of 3000 Muslim soldiers and their wives and children in front of Salahuddin Ayyubi and his army. Another reason why you won't find many Muslim captives is that most early wars were won by the Muslim armies. It also enhanced the fact that the enemies of Islaam usually killed their captives straightaway instead of ransoming them.

Except that refers to a servant. Not to a slave.

Why do you think he didn't call him 'my slave'. In Islaam, it is forbidden to call a slave, "my slave". Abu Huraira reported that Allaah's Messenger (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as saying:

None of you should say: My slave and my slave-girl, for all of you are the slaves of Allaah, and all your women are the slave-girls of Allaah; but say: My servant, my girl, and my young man and my young girl. (Saheeh Muslim)

Islam does not forbid the enslavement of a free person. Haven't we covered this. It forbids the enslavement of a Free Muslim, and other people in times of peace. It allows the enslavement of people in times of war. It has provided reasons and encouragement for manumission - but that is not the same as ending the institution.

Islaam does forbid the enslavement of a free person except on the condition that he does not wage war against Islaam.

The Lajna ad-Daa’imah (Permanent Committee for Islamic Research issued a Fatwaa wherein they were asked about the issue of slavery and why does not Islaam outlaw slavery, from their reply:

"By this it is known that the basis of slavery is only through prisoners-of-war or captives obtained when fighting Jihad against the disbelievers. Its purpose is to reform those enslaved by removing them from an evil environment and allowing them to live in a Muslim society, who will guide them to the path of goodness, save them from the clutches of evil, purify them from the filth of disbelief and misguidance, and
make them deserving of a life of freedom in which they enjoy security and peace."

They furthered stated:

"And if there are no lawful Islamic wars, then it is not permissible to establish or institute slavery."

Well no, the plantation system was brought to the Americas by the Spanish and Portuguese who learnt it from the Arabs. Most people are happy to say that Islamic slavery was very different from New World slavery. Which is what I said.

The plantation system was developed in the Americas in Virgina and to a lesser extent Maryland.

Much the same could be said for Christianity as for Islam - neither condemned slavery. Both forbade the enslavement of their own fellow believers. Both were unhappy with sexual relations of various sorts.

Islaam forbade the enslavement of any free person except the ones who wage war against Islaam. Even then, Islaam encourages the Muslims to treat them with kindness, ransom them or free them. Compare that to the POWs in Abu Ghraib. It's also silly to compare Islaam with Christianity in terms of slavery as both view the subject in different matter.

No, that shows the attitude of one man. It has nothing to do with the attitude of Egyptian Christians or even Byzantine Christians. After all Rome had been ruled by Africans, and even Arab, Emperors.

We are talking about Archbishop here and not a single ordinary Christian. Why would he be surprised that Islaam held the black and white men in equal respect. This means that the attitude that black men are inferior to the white men was prevalent in that period.

Rome was ruled by Africans and Arabs after they invaded the city. That is completely extraneous to what's being discussed. That's like saying that the Nubians once ruled Egypt but what does that reveal in relation what I have quoted?

There is no credible history book that does not discuss the sort of the Black slaves in Iraq. It is a historical fact as certain as most facts can be. Look it up in Phillip Hitti's book, Albert Hourani's.

I would have appreciated if you had used the correct names for such revolts. What you're referring to is the Zanj revolt and I do not know why you referred me to Hitti's and Hourani's books while the Zanj revolt has only one primary source and that it's in the tareekh of Tabari.

Firstly, what happened during the Zanj Revolt has nothing to do with Islaam. It seems that you have slowly strayed from discussing the Islaamic teachings to discussing the actions of some Muslims. The zanj suffered terrible conditions and treatments and they shouldn't have been enslaved except if they waged war against Islaam. However, they were manipulated by the apostate Ali Muhammad who stirred them up for his own political agenda against the Abbasid empire. What happened during the revolt should never happen again. The Zanj were manipulated and committed savaged actions when they repelled. They viciously murdered any child, woman or man. The source of the conflict was many and I suggest you read the tareekh of Tabari who discusses this revolt in great detail.

Tolerance? I notice that the Mamluks excluded African slaves in favour of Turkish ones even though both races there enrolled in the Army. It is a sign of the power of the slaves (and the oppression of Egyptians). No more.

You misunderstood what I had stated. The tolerance that I was referring to was that even a slave could reach a high rank. I would like to re-iterate that I do not wish to defend the actions of men, just as a Christian does not want to defend the immoral actions of the Crusaders.

First of all, the master inherits the property of the freed slave. It is true that many Egyptians, like many Athenians, bought slaves and eventually made them their heirs and married them to their daughters. That says something about Egyptian men I think. But that does not mean that the system was not cruel. The slave is lowly in the West because free men are free and it is intolerable that citizens should be lower than a slave. They are not in the Middle East. The Islamic rules on freed slaves are very similar to those of the pagan Greek Middle East. A freed man in Islam is no more the equal in law of a free man than he was in Rome or Athens. He is a malwa.

How is a freed Muslim man not equal to a free Muslim man? Such statements in the light of the Islaamic teachings reveal nothing but sheer ignorance as has been discussed in the last few pages. How can one after providing the Islaamic rulings on freed slaves still hold the same opinion that they're not equal in law? This would mean that Bilaal (may Allaah be pleased with him) who was once a freed-slave was not equal to a free Muslim. What about Salman, or Zayd bin Haritha. Not to mention, Ammar bin Yasir. Some companions who were once freed slaves were also the foremost of the sahabas. I have noticed that you have neither provided Islaamic proof for your assertions but simply relied on the few social evils in slavery that was practiced throughout the Islaamic world.

Certainly. Just not to slavery.

It was applied for slavery.

That was always the case in pagan society. Foundlings were often raised as slaves.

It was re-endorsed by Constantine, the Christian emperor who was not a pagan. But your claim was that the slavery laws in late Roman Empire was similar to the Islaamic laws, which I proved, was an incorrect assertion.

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi

I did not quote the abolitionist’s view to vindicate the slavery institution, but rather as an evidence that a whole-scale abolishment would result in disastrous consequences as evident in the words of Frederick Douglas. The slaves, whether they're urban slaves or plantation slaves do not matter as in the end, one has to cater for the needs of a large army of slaves who were dependent on various families. Considering that a large number of them were old and incapable of supporting themselves.

Which is, in effect, to vindicate the institution. It does matter. Plantation workers were often illiterate and had no skills. That is very different from the Urban educated workers of the Islamic world.

Your objection is nothing more than a stubborn one. After presenting the Islaamic evidence on the gradual abolishment of slavery, you still object and claim that Islaam encourages slavery.

I am unaware that I said Islam encourages slavery. And I not being stubborn. You just have not produce any evidence.

Let me outline the rules laid out for the abolishment of the instituation.

- It placed restrictions on acquistition of slaves (no free man can be enslaved)

Which is not true - no free Muslim may be enslaved, but free kaffirs were - and has nothing to do with the abolition of the institution. America did not allow the enslavement of Americans. Just Africans.

- It commenced an active compaign to emancipate slaves

On a case by case basis. Not as an institution. Can you point me to a single Islamic author or philosopher who doubted the morality of slavery and called for the institution to be banned before the West banned it?

- Treat them with kindness, enclothe them from your own clothes, and feed them from your own food

Which is useful for the slaves, if it was ever observed, but of course has nothing to do with abolishing the institution.

- Marry them

See above. Reform is not revolution. Amelioration is not abolition.

This gradual approach would have eradicated slavery.

I would ask how but I suspect I would not get a useful answer. May I ask if we both agree that there was no sign of slavery disappearing in the Islamic world before, oh, 1800?

In the pre-Islaamic days, slaves were a commercial commodity and it was an established institution. Every household had a slave and free men were sold as slaves like a pack of animals. For those with high ranks, the number of slaves in the house was was a symbol of status.

As they were in post-Islamic days as well.

Arabs used to wage many tribal wars which increased the number of slaves and made it deep-rooted in the society. It had its roots in commerce, in social structure and in agriculture undertakings then how can one eradicate this problem except apply the law of gradualism.

Which is nothing compared to the deep-roots of paganism which was abolished over night. Even alcohol was abolished in a few years. Islam did not abolish slavery over several centuries. How gradual do you want? It is likely that Islam still has not abolished slavery in all of Africa.

Let's compare gradualism with whole-scale abolition. The US has used whole-scale abolition which in turn leads to more hostility and hatred against the Black community. They were discriminated, denied jobs, denied mental healthcare, etc. What Islaam offered is gradualism, and that is by changing the attitude and mentality of the whole society, so that after emancipation, slaves would become its full-fledged members, without any need of demonstrations, strikes, civil disobedience and racial riots.

You are making a huge assumption there that it was the speed of the end of slavery that caused the hatred. This is a-historic I think. Where is the evidence that Islamic society changed its attitudes before the British (or whoever) arrived and made them?

These are examples. Surely you do not want me to list every account of captives. I will only list examples that followed the Islaamic teachings. Sure, there were some bad treatments but these people have strayed from the correct understandings of Islaam. I do not wish to argue for their actions; rather I only wish to highlight what Islaam says about the issue. I am not responsible for the actions of others nor do I wish to defend it.

Then would it be fair to compare what Christianity teaches with what Islam teaches, not what Islam teaches with what Christians do?

These were the only options in the Pre-Islaamic period. This is why Allaah (Exalted is He) forbade the killing of the captives. Inter-tribal raids were conducted to inflict injury on the other tribe. They kidnapped, killed other tribes and shared their stock (livelihood). For example, Zaid bin Harithah (May Allaah be pleased with him) was one of those who was kidnapped in tribal raids.

There was another option - not fight at all. Pre-Islamic warfare was just raiding and even that did not aim at taking prisoners or killing people. They stole camels, but the aim was to avoid feuds by not killing people.

Banu an-Nadir were banished from the city, not Arabia.

Gradualism remember - first from Medina (to Khaybar) and then from all of Arabia.

The reason for their banishment is that one cannot captivate the whole tribe since it doesn't bring any benefit to the Muslims. This option was not present in the pre-Islaamic period. The tribes that conquered other tribes wouldn't be satisfied with merely letting them go but either enslaved them or put them to sword. Even though Banu an-Nadir plotted to kill the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he still released them.

And yet some of the other Jews of Medina were turned into slaves. Well the women and children were. They were either enslaved or put to the sword. So the option was there - the Banu an-Nadir had friends in the Medinese community though.

Islaam does forbid the enslavement of a free person except on the condition that he does not wage war against Islaam.

Sure. It permits the enslavement of free men. And of course it also allows the enslavement of children born to slaves - they are born free but are then turned into slaves at birth.

The plantation system was developed in the Americas in Virgina and to a lesser extent Maryland.

I have no problem with "developed" but it was adopted from the Spanish who took it from the Muslims. Sugar cane too.

Islaam forbade the enslavement of any free person except the ones who wage war against Islaam. Even then, Islaam encourages the Muslims to treat them with kindness, ransom them or free them. Compare that to the POWs in Abu Ghraib. It's also silly to compare Islaam with Christianity in terms of slavery as both view the subject in different matter.

You are comparing Christian behaviour with Islamic theory again. Of course Islam allowed the enslavement of anyone who was not a Muslim or a Dhimmi in times of war - they did not have to be waging war against Islam. They could be just minding their own business.

We are talking about Archbishop here and not a single ordinary Christian. Why would he be surprised that Islaam held the black and white men in equal respect. This means that the attitude that black men are inferior to the white men was prevalent in that period.

That is not what he is expressing surprise at. It is a Muslim story as well and so can hardly be taken seriously as history given how late it is. It means very little really. It may mean he thought the Arabs were racists.

Rome was ruled by Africans and Arabs after they invaded the city. That is completely extraneous to what's being discussed. That's like saying that the Nubians once ruled Egypt but what does that reveal in relation what I have quoted?

Rome was ruled by Africans and Arabs before Islam. Well before Islam. So it is obviously not surprising for the Bishop given he was used to Arabs ruling Rome. The Romans were many things but not racists. It reveals a lot about what was acceptable to the Egyptians.

I would have appreciated if you had used the correct names for such revolts. What you're referring to is the Zanj revolt and I do not know why you referred me to Hitti's and Hourani's books while the Zanj revolt has only one primary source and that it's in the tareekh of Tabari.

Tabari is not a primary source. I do not see the difference, "Zanj" means what exactly? but I am happy to oblige.

Firstly, what happened during the Zanj Revolt has nothing to do with Islaam. It seems that you have slowly strayed from discussing the Islaamic teachings to discussing the actions of some Muslims. The zanj suffered terrible conditions and treatments and they shouldn't have been enslaved except if they waged war against Islaam. However, they were manipulated by the apostate Ali Muhammad who stirred them up for his own political agenda against the Abbasid empire. What happened during the revolt should never happen again. The Zanj were manipulated and committed savaged actions when they repelled. They viciously murdered any child, woman or man. The source of the conflict was many and I suggest you read the tareekh of Tabari who discusses this revolt in great detail.

I agree it has not been clear whether we are discussing Islam in theory or in practice, but as you like to talk about Christianity is practice, it is not all that unreasonable to talk about the implications of Islamic law. It has a lot to do with Islam. Islam allowed people to produce interpretations of the law that allowed them to do this to these African slaves. They became Muslims even if they became Kharijis. They did commit savage actions like many Kharijis who adopted an extreme form of Islam that made them view all sinners (ie their opponents) as kaffirs. This is not entirely unrelated to Islam although obviously it is not Islam as most people understand it.

How is a freed Muslim man not equal to a free Muslim man? Such statements in the light of the Islaamic teachings reveal nothing but sheer ignorance as has been discussed in the last few pages. How can one after providing the Islaamic rulings on freed slaves still hold the same opinion that they're not equal in law? This would mean that Bilaal (may Allaah be pleased with him) who was once a freed-slave was not equal to a free Muslim. What about Salman, or Zayd bin Haritha. Not to mention, Ammar bin Yasir. Some companions who were once freed slaves were also the foremost of the sahabas. I have noticed that you have neither provided Islaamic proof for your assertions but simply relied on the few social evils in slavery that was practiced throughout the Islaamic world.

Well correct me if I am wrong, but a freed slave did not have the same social rights in early Islam - no doubt you would dispute that and I would get banned so I will stick to the lesser argument and point out that a freed slave was not a free man but a freedman, a malwa. This imposed legal obligations and restrictions. In theory the moral value of a slave's soul might equal that of a free man's, but in the real world, a freed slave was not the same. There are any number of examples. Let me take the most obvious - a freed slave was not free to dispose of his property exactly how he would like. His former owner would inherit part of his estate and this, the wala was heritable. For example,

Malik's Muwatta, Section: Inheritance of Children of Women against whom Lian has been Pronounced, Book 29, Number 29.13.36:

Yaha related to me from Malik that he had heard that Urwa ibn az-Zubayr said that if the child of the woman against whom lian had been pronounced or the child of fornication, died, his mother inherited from him her right in the Book of Allah the Exalted, and his maternal half-brothers had their rights. The rest was inherited by the owners of his mother's wala' if she was a freed slave. If she was an ordinary free woman, she inherited her right, his maternal brothers inherited their rights, and the rest went to the muslims.

Malik said,"I heard the same as that from Sulayman ibn Yasar, and it is what I saw the people of knowledge in our city doing."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 65, Number 341:

Narrated Qasim bin Muhammad:

Three traditions have been established because of Barira: 'Aisha intended to buy her and set her free, but Barira's masters said, "Her wala' will be for us." 'Aisha mentioned that to Allah's Apostle who said, "You could accept their condition if you wished, for the wala is for the one who manumits the slave." Barira was manumitted, then she was given the choice either to stay with her husband or leave him; One day Allah's Apostle entered 'Aisha's house while there was a cooking pot of food boiling on the fire. The Prophet asked for lunch, and he was presented with bread and some extra food from the home-made Udm (e.g. soup). He asked, "Don't I see meat (being cooked)?" They said, "Yes, O Allah's Apostle! But it is the meat that has been given to Barira in charity and she has given it to us as a present." He said, "For Barira it is alms, but for us it is a present."

Volume 3, Book 46, Number 739:

Narrated 'Abdul Wahid bin Aiman:

I went to 'Aisha and said, "I was the slave of Utba bin Abu Lahab. "Utba died and his sons became my masters who sold me to Ibn Abu Amr who manumitted me. The sons of 'Utba stipulated that my Wala' should be for them." 'Aisha said, "Buraira came to me and she was given the writing of emancipation by her masters and she asked me to buy and manumit her. I agreed to it, but Buraira told me that her masters would not sell her unless her Wala' was for them." 'Aisha said, "I am not in need of that." When the Prophet heard that, or he was told about it, he asked 'Aisha about it. 'Aisha mentioned what Buraira had told her. The Prophet said, "Buy and manumit her and let them stipulate whatever they like." So, 'Aisha bought and manumitted her and her masters stipulated that her Wala' should be for them." The Prophet;, said, "The Wala' will be for the liberator even if they stipulated a hundred conditions."

[quote]It was re-endorsed by Constantine, the Christian emperor who was not a pagan. But your claim was that the slavery laws in late Roman Empire was similar to the Islaamic laws, which I proved, was an incorrect assertion. [QUOTE]

Similar is not the same as equal to. Nor is Constantine all that late.

Come to that, it is not as if Islamic law is fundamentally different. They simply made the foundling a freed slave - which probably meant a lot more of them died in infancy.

Section: Judgement on the Abandoned Child
Book 36, Number 36.20.19:

Yahya said that Malik related from Ibn Shihab that Sunayn Abi Jamila, a man from the Banu Sulaym, found an abandoned child in the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab. Sunayn took him to Umar ibn al-Khattab. He asked, "What has induced you to take this person?" He answered, "I found him lost, so I took him.'' Umar's advisor said to him,' 'Amir al-Muminin! He is a man who does good." Umar inquired of him, "Is it so?" He replied, "Yes." Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "Go, he is free, and you have his wala' inheritance, and we will provide for him."

Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about an abandoned child is that he is free, and his wala' inheritance belongs to the muslims, and they inherit from him and pay his blood money."

A quick note to say that I have merged some of your one line replies. This is for the sake of organizing the responses.

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

Which is, in effect, to vindicate the institution. It does matter. Plantation workers were often illiterate and had no skills. That is very different from the Urban educated workers of the Islamic world.

You did not answer the question. How would one cater for the needs of a large army of freed slaves who were dependent on various families bearing in mind that most of them were old and incapable of supporting themselves.
How could one abolish an international custom without introducing disastrous consequences?

Which is not true - no free Muslim may be enslaved, but free kaffirs were - and has nothing to do with the abolition of the institution. America did not allow the enslavement of Americans. Just Africans.

Does Islaam allow enslavement of any free man who has not waged war against Islaam? If that was the case, they would have enslaved all the non-Muslims who were living under the Islaamic rule. Moreover, the enslavement of the captives is usually carried out as the last resort. They first serve as an exchange for captured Muslim prisoners. If not, then they are ransomed or freed depending on the situation. As a last resort, they are enslaved and distributed amongst Muslims who take care of them, educate them, etc.

The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

Three types of people will not have rewards for their prayer : a man who forces himself as an imam, a man who postpones prayer until its time is out and a man who enslaves a free person. (Abu Dawood & Ibn Majah)

Ibn al-Jauzi (May Allaah have mercy on him) said:

'The free person is the slave of Allaah. So, anybody who enslaves him, Allaah as his Master, will defend and support this free person'.

On a case by case basis. Not as an institution. Can you point me to a single Islamic author or philosopher who doubted the morality of slavery and called for the institution to be banned before the West banned it?

Why would one want statements from Muslim scholars for something that has been unequivocally recognized in the teachings of Islaam. That’s like asking for statements from Muslim scholars to strengthen the fact that Muslims have monotheistic belief. Why would one ask for more evidence and disregard the previous cited statements and narrations. It's even attested by non-Muslim orientalists that the Islamic system to eradicate slavery would have worked if it was practised throughout the Muslim world.

Annemarie Schimmel:

...therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam.

I would ask how but I suspect I would not get a useful answer. May I ask if we both agree that there was no sign of slavery disappearing in the Islamic world before, oh, 1800?

That's because you're concentrating on the abandonment of the Islaamic teachings. If the Muslim world had practiced the Islaamic teachings throughout the Muslim history, slavery would have disappeared gradually.

As they were in post-Islamic days as well.

This is incorrect. Slaves in the post-Islaamic era (during the era of the Prophet and his companions) were not a commercial commodity. Free men were not sold as slaves like a pack of animals. For that I require evidence and in the future insha'Allaah, I will require evidence for every claim that you assert. Single lines wouldn't do.

Which is nothing compared to the deep-roots of paganism which was abolished over night. Even alcohol was abolished in a few years. Islam did not abolish slavery over several centuries. How gradual do you want? It is likely that Islam still has not abolished slavery in all of Africa.

How could one equate alcohol to a worldwide institution? Gradualism is the keyword. Islaam would have abolished slavery in centuries if practised right.

You are making a huge assumption there that it was the speed of the end of slavery that caused the hatred. This is a-historic I think. Where is the evidence that Islamic society changed its attitudes before the British (or whoever) arrived and made them?

See above.

There was another option - not fight at all. Pre-Islamic warfare was just raiding and even that did not aim at taking prisoners or killing people. They stole camels, but the aim was to avoid feuds by not killing people.

There is not a single shred of evidence to support your assertion. Patricia Crone said in The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World regarding the Pre-Islamic raids:

Tribesmen took immense pride in their ability to defend themselves and their dependants, and they regularly boasted of their strength in poetry, giving pleasure to themselves and warning potential predators at the same time. The ability to get the better of others (not of one's own tribe) by taking their camels, abducting their women, killing their men, or slitting the noses of their defenceless slaves was also highly prized.

Here, she lists the options that I have mentioned before and at the same confutes your claim that they did not kill other tribes.

And yet some of the other Jews of Medina were turned into slaves. Well the women and children were. They were either enslaved or put to the sword. So the option was there - the Banu an-Nadir had friends in the Medinese community though.

Firstly, Banu Quraydha were subjected to the punishment in accordance with their Jewish Law found in the Tauwrat. The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not administer the punishment but Saad ibn Muaz (May Allaah be pleased with him). The leaders of Banu Quraydha met him and agreed to submit to whatever punishment they will receive from him.

The punishment was based on the Tauwrat law:

"When the Lord thy God hath delivered it unto thy hands, thou shalt smite every male therein with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself."(Deuteronomy 20:12)

I have no problem with "developed" but it was adopted from the Spanish who took it from the Muslims. Sugar cane too.

Sugarcane cultivation did came from the Muslims but what we’re referring is the capitalist plantation system. And it would be nice for once to present evidence for your fictitious claims.

You are comparing Christian behaviour with Islamic theory again. Of course Islam allowed the enslavement of anyone who was not a Muslim or a Dhimmi in times of war - they did not have to be waging war against Islam. They could be just minding their own business.

I did not know that I was comparing Christian treatment of POWS in Abu Ghraib with Islaamic treatment. I was rather equating it with the modern treatment. Your second point is the exact reason why I feel this discussion is going in circles. Remember that the very nature of a debate is based on facts. Repeating the same assertion does not make it true and it does not evolve into an argument.

That is not what he is expressing surprise at. It is a Muslim story as well and so can hardly be taken seriously as history given how late it is. It means very little really. It may mean he thought the Arabs were racists.

The story was mentioned by an orientalist named SS Leeder in his book Veiled Misteries of Egypt. How does the statement endorse that he thought the Arabs were racists.

Let me also add the rest of the statement.

“Well if the black man must lead, then he must speak gently,” ordered the prelate, “so as not to frighten his white auditors.”

Tabari is not a primary source. I do not see the difference, "Zanj" means what exactly? but I am happy to oblige.

The chronicle of Tabari is the only history source that discusses the Zanj revolt as he witnessed the event. You introduced the Zanj revolt but do not know what Zanj means?

Islam allowed people to produce interpretations of the law that allowed them to do this to these African slaves. They became Muslims even if they became Kharijis. They did commit savage actions like many Kharijis who adopted an extreme form of Islam that made them view all sinners (ie their opponents) as kaffirs. This is not entirely unrelated to Islam although obviously it is not Islam as most people understand it.

Now the question is, what interpretation did "some Muslims" use to justify the enslavement of Africans? Instead of accepting that they did not adhere to the Islaamic teachings, you instead introduced a new excuse that they interpreted the Qur'aan wrongly.

Well correct me if I am wrong, but a freed slave did not have the same social rights in early Islam - no doubt you would dispute that and I would get banned so I will stick to the lesser argument and point out that a freed slave was not a free man but a freedman, a malwa. This imposed legal obligations and restrictions. In theory the moral value of a slave's soul might equal that of a free man's, but in the real world, a freed slave was not the same. There are any number of examples. Let me take the most obvious - a freed slave was not free to dispose of his property exactly how he would like. His former owner would inherit part of his estate and this, the wala was heritable.

How would a disputation lead to banning? Banning only occurs when you have violated the forum rules numerous times and so far you haven't.

A freed slave was a free man. Not only didn't you list these so-called restriction and obligations but you misinterpreted the rights of inheritance based on a few hadeeths.

The al-wala (rights of inheritance of a slave) is based on the condition that if a Muslim frees a slave, his inheritance right (al-wala) belongs to the one who manumitted him. That's why the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

"...the Wala is for the one who manumits." (Bukharee).

This only based on the condition that the Muslim frees him/her. If the slave buys his own freedom, if he was tortured and becomes a free man or many other reason apart from a willingly manumission, then the al-wala does not apply. In addion, the word al-wala also encompasses the fact that the one who freed the slave has to provide financial support which means that he was the patron of the free slave.

Come to that, it is not as if Islamic law is fundamentally different. They simply made the foundling a freed slave - which probably meant a lot more of them died in infancy.

I am amazed at how you have derived such interpretation from a single obvious hadeeth An illegitimate child was not a made a freed slave as the child wasn't a slave in the first place. When 'Umar (May Allaah be pleased with him) said, he is free, he meant that he can go. According to the fiqh of Islaam, an illegimate child is entitled to receive all the rights in a Muslim society as others do. The Muslim community and their government are responsible to spend on them, raise them and educate them. The word wala was used but in the context of the hadeeth, it referred to 'Guardanship' or patron. Therefore, your claim that alot of them died in infancy becomes futile since it's one of the obligations to raise and educate them.

Anyone who challenges that Islaam does not provide equal and just rights to freed slaves and free men is either ignorant of the Islaamic Laws or plain in denial. By studying the lives of former slaves such as Bilaal, Zayd ibn Harithah (May Allaah be pleased with them), reveals the true stance of Islaam in regard to equality in society.

The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is reported to have said:

"Listen and obey if a black slave becomes your leader, so long as he should enforce amongst you the Law of Creator".

Ibn as-Salaah narrated a report which is found in his book Rihlah that az-Zuhree (may Allaah have Mercy on him) related:

“I introduced myself to ‘Abdul-Maalik.
“Where do you come from, Oh az-Zuhree?” he asked me.
I responded, “from Makkah.”
Whom have you left in your place to lead (as Imaams and teachers)
their inhabitants?” he asked me.
“’Ataa Ibn Abee Rabaah,” I answered.
“Is he an Arab or a freed slave?” he asked.
“A freed slave,” I said.
“How can he lead the Makkans?” he asked.
“By Deen (religion) and Sunnah,” I replied.
“Certainly it is suitable that those who possess Deen and Sunnah
lead men. But who then leads the people of Yemen?”
“Ta’oos Ibn Kaysaan,” I answered.
He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
“A freed slave,” I responded.

“How can he lead them?” he asked.
“In the same way as ‘Ataa,” I responded.
He then said, “It is suitable that people of this kind lead men, but then who will then lead the people of Egypt?”
I replied, “Yazeed Ibn Abee Habeeb.”
He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
It was the same response as for the others. Then who will lead and
command the people of Syria?” he asked.
I said “Makhoot ad-Dimishqee.”
He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
I replied, “He is a Nubian that was a slave and released by
Hadooyl.”
then ‘Abdul-Maalik asked, “Who
will then lead (in prayer as Imaams and teachers) the people of ‘Iraaq?”
The response, “Maymoon Ibn Mahraam.”
He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
Then who will lead the people of Khurasaan?”
“Ad-Dakhaah Ibn Muzaahin,” I replied.
He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
“A freed slave,” I replied"
“Then who leads the people of Basrah?” ‘Abdul-Maalik asked.
I responded, “al-Hasan Ibn Abi’l-Hasan.”
He asked, “Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
“A freed slave,” I responded.
“And who leads the people of Koofah? Is he an Arab or a freed slave?”
“An Arab,” I replied.
Abdul-Maalik said, “Oh az-Zuhree you relieve me. By Allaah the
freed slaves rule the Arabs to such an extent that they preach to them
from the pulpits whilst the Arabs remain beneath them.”
“Oh commander of the faithful,” I responded, “such is the will of
Allaah and such is the Deen. Whoever practices it is the leader and
whoever ignores it shall fall."

This example is a stern refutation to the assertion that a freed slave does not have the same rights as a free man.

wow intresting ppl

format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi

You did not answer the question. How would one cater for the needs of a large army of freed slaves who were dependent on various families bearing in mind that most of them were old and incapable of supporting themselves.
How could one abolish an international custom without introducing disastrous consequences?

And yet people did. Look at the history of America and the Caribbean. Most men work to support themselves. Slaves are no different. In fact it is not likely to be hard as there are unlikely to be many old slaves. People do not feed their animals into retirement. I doubt they fed their slaves much past their useful working lives either.

The West managed to abolish it and did so without terrible consequences despite the fact they freed slaves much less able to support themselves - plantation workers who were usually illiterate.

Does Islaam allow enslavement of any free man who has not waged war against Islaam? If that was the case, they would have enslaved all the non-Muslims who were living under the Islaamic rule. Moreover, the enslavement of the captives is usually carried out as the last resort. They first serve as an exchange for captured Muslim prisoners. If not, then they are ransomed or freed depending on the situation. As a last resort, they are enslaved and distributed amongst Muslims who take care of them, educate them, etc.

Well Islam does, obviously, allow the enslavement of any free person (not just men) who have not waged war themselves, but just live in a country that is waging war on Islam. What would they do with all those slaves? Better to accept them as dhimmis and make them pay taxes. What last resort? The last resort is surely to kill them which, from my reading of Abu'l Hasan al-Mawardi's "Al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah", is permissible if the emir so orders. Perhaps I am wrong - if so please correct me.

Why would one want statements from Muslim scholars for something that has been unequivocally recognized in the teachings of Islaam. That’s like asking for statements from Muslim scholars to strengthen the fact that Muslims have monotheistic belief. Why would one ask for more evidence and disregard the previous cited statements and narrations. It's even attested by non-Muslim orientalists that the Islamic system to eradicate slavery would have worked if it was practised throughout the Muslim world.

Annemarie Schimmel:

...therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam.

Sure, no one is denying this - ultimately, when the entire world is Muslim, when there are no more kafirs to enslave. You can argue that there is some ultimate theoretical horizon there, but it is so extended that it is meaningless. So to ask the question again - can you point me to a single Islamic author or philosopher who doubted the morality of slavery and called for the institution to be banned before the West banned it? You will notice I am asking for something different.

That's because you're concentrating on the abandonment of the Islaamic teachings. If the Muslim world had practiced the Islaamic teachings throughout the Muslim history, slavery would have disappeared gradually.

I take it we are in agreement that there was no sign of slavery being abolished in the Islamic world before 1800. How exactly would it have disappeared gradually? Surely it would depend on one thing - as long as the rate of freeing slaves out-paced the rate of enslavement and births to slave women. Can you see why that is unlikely to have happened?

This is incorrect. Slaves in the post-Islaamic era (during the era of the Prophet and his companions) were not a commercial commodity. Free men were not sold as slaves like a pack of animals. For that I require evidence and in the future insha'Allaah, I will require evidence for every claim that you assert. Single lines wouldn't do.

They obviously were a commercial commodity. There were slave markets in most big towns. Islamic literature is replete with references to them. Slaves were drawn from the Caucasus mountains for serve as, among other things, mamluks. This was a purely commercial operation. I do not know how else you sell slaves - perhaps you might like to expand on what you mean. There are not shortage of accounts of them being sold by auction. What sort of evidence do you want? You tell me what you need in terms of proof and I will provide it.

How could one equate alcohol to a worldwide institution? Gradualism is the keyword. Islaam would have abolished slavery in centuries if practised right.

As long as the Muslims conquered the entire world and reduced everyone to dhimmis. Sure. Alcohol was a major industry in the pre-Islamic world. It still is in the non-Islamic world. Banning it put people out of work. What provisions were made to find those people other work or were they left to starve?

There is not a single shred of evidence to support your assertion. Patricia Crone said in The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World regarding the Pre-Islamic raids:

Tribesmen took immense pride in their ability to defend themselves and their dependants, and they regularly boasted of their strength in poetry, giving pleasure to themselves and warning potential predators at the same time. The ability to get the better of others (not of one's own tribe) by taking their camels, abducting their women, killing their men, or slitting the noses of their defenceless slaves was also highly prized.

Here, she lists the options that I have mentioned before and at the same confutes your claim that they did not kill other tribes.

I did not say they did not kill people, I said they did not aim to do so. I like it that you quote Crone. I notice that Crone does not say they did kill the men, just that they prized their ability to do so if they wanted. I can trivially find other scholars that support me. From Philip K. Hitti, "History of the Arabs",

The ghazw (razzia), otherwise considered a form of brigandage, is raised by the economic and social conditions of desert life to the rank of a national institution. It lies at the base of the economic structure of Bedouin pastoral society. In desert land, where the fighting mood is a chronic mental condition, raiding is one of the few manly occupations. ... According to the rules of the game - and ghazw is a sort of national sport - no blood should be shed except in cases of extreme necessity.

You can see the difference is styles of fighting at things like the Battle of the Trench when the pagans just got bored and went home.

Firstly, Banu Quraydha were subjected to the punishment in accordance with their Jewish Law found in the Tauwrat. The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not administer the punishment but Saad ibn Muaz (May Allaah be pleased with him). The leaders of Banu Quraydha met him and agreed to submit to whatever punishment they will receive from him.

I am not interested in arguing the justification. I am merely pointing out that there was another option available. Muslims did, as it happen, destroy entire tribes and sell all the women and children into slavery.

Sugarcane cultivation did came from the Muslims but what we’re referring is the capitalist plantation system. And it would be nice for once to present evidence for your fictitious claims.

I notice you have appended the word "capitalist" to that. It will take me a little while to find evidence of it, but it is not a matter of historical dispute. It is not a fictitious claim.

I did not know that I was comparing Christian treatment of POWS in Abu Ghraib with Islaamic treatment.

"Even then, Islaam encourages the Muslims to treat them with kindness, ransom them or free them. Compare that to the POWs in Abu Ghraib."

Funny that. My English is perhaps not as good as it should be, but that looks like a direct comparison of Abu Ghraib with Islamic treatment.

I was rather equating it with the modern treatment. Your second point is the exact reason why I feel this discussion is going in circles. Remember that the very nature of a debate is based on facts. Repeating the same assertion does not make it true and it does not evolve into an argument.

Modern treatment? You mean the treatment by Muslims of POWs? You mean like the American pilot that was raped in Iraq? Or of their own POWs like Algerian treatment of suspected GIA members?

As for going round and round, I think we have clearly established that the Muslims took women as slaves. They did not fight and they were previously free. Moreover there is ample evidence that the Muslims attacked people who were not fighting for instance,

Chapter 1: REGARDING PERMISSION TO MAKE A RAID, WITHOUT AN ULTIMATUM, UPON THE DISBELIEVERS WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVITED TO ACCEPT ISLAM
Book 019, Number 4292:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.

Those that fought were killed, the rest enslaves.

The story was mentioned by an orientalist named SS Leeder in his book Veiled Misteries of Egypt. How does the statement endorse that he thought the Arabs were racists.

Obviously I did not say he did. This is a book published by an Orientalist in 1912. It represents an Arab story.

Now the question is, what interpretation did "some Muslims" use to justify the enslavement of Africans? Instead of accepting that they did not adhere to the Islaamic teachings, you instead introduced a new excuse that they interpreted the Qur'aan wrongly.

I am not in a position to judge whether people interpret the Quran correctly or not. So I do not make that claim. What I say is that Muslims came to Africa and raided the non-Muslims for slaves and in doing so did so in the belief that what they were doing was permissible in Islam.

How would a disputation lead to banning? Banning only occurs when you have violated the forum rules numerous times and so far you haven't.

Islamic sites tend to take a rather restrictive view of what is or is not acceptable. Banning is inevitable. However if I argued with a Muslim about whether the early Muslims assumed that to become a Muslim meant becoming an Arab, I think the whole process would be speeded up.

A freed slave was a free man. Not only didn't you list these so-called restriction and obligations but you misinterpreted the rights of inheritance based on a few hadeeths.

The al-wala (rights of inheritance of a slave) is based on the condition that if a Muslim frees a slave, his inheritance right (al-wala) belongs to the one who manumitted him. That's why the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

"...the Wala is for the one who manumits." (Bukharee).

This only based on the condition that the Muslim frees him/her. If the slave buys his own freedom, if he was tortured and becomes a free man or many other reason apart from a willingly manumission, then the al-wala does not apply. In addion, the word al-wala also encompasses the fact that the one who freed the slave has to provide financial support which means that he was the patron of the free slave.

Well I am happy with that. I do not agree with all of it, but I have no problems with it as it does not contradict what I said. Clearly a freed slaves has fewer and lesser rights than free man. He has a relationship with a man who will inherit part of his estate. A lesser right. Few rights. In Islamic law, a freed man is not the same as a free man.

I am amazed at how you have derived such interpretation from a single obvious hadeeth An illegitimate child was not a made a freed slave as the child wasn't a slave in the first place. When 'Umar (May Allaah be pleased with him) said, he is free, he meant that he can go. According to the fiqh of Islaam, an illegimate child is entitled to receive all the rights in a Muslim society as others do.

I am not talking about illigitimate child but a foundling. And perhaps my words were not chosen well, but his status was not that of a free man but a freed man. Another case with a wala. It is an interesting text but no more.

Anyone who challenges that Islaam does not provide equal and just rights to freed slaves and free men is either ignorant of the Islaamic Laws or plain in denial. By studying the lives of former slaves such as Bilaal, Zayd ibn Harithah (May Allaah be pleased with them), reveals the true stance of Islaam in regard to equality in society.

And yet we have established that a freed man does not have the same rights in inheritance as a free man. No one is disputing that. Justice is one thing. But we all agree on the lack of equality except in a general religious sense. We can all agree that in the eyes of God a man is a man is a man whether slave or not. But as a matter of law, a freedman is not the same as a free one.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

If someone is forbidden to even refer to them as "my slave" it completely demolishes any idea of superiority.

Communists and Socialists refer to each other as "comrade", but it would not do to annoy Mao or President Asad. Superiority is manifested in displays of power over others. You command. They obey. It does not matter if you are dressed the same or not.

False. All human beings are equally important, and only piety distinguishes them in the eyes of God.

In the eyes of God. But Muslim scholars have traditionally taught that the Caliph must come from the Quraysh. And when it comes to the division of the fay there are elements of descent,

From al-Mawardi's book

"The fay is divided in five equal parts:

First, this portion was for the Messenger of Allah..., during his lifetime, and he spent of it to feed himself and his wives, and for his needs and those of the Muslims. People have differed concerning it after his death: those who consider that Prophets may bequeath inheritance say that it is used by his descendents....

Second, this portion is for the close relations of the Prophet. Abu Hanifa claims that their claim to it no longer stands today, while for ash-Shafi'i it does. The close relations refer to the Banu Hashim and the Banu Muttalib, the two sons of Abd Manaf especially and no others from the Quraysh have any other claim.....

Third, this portion goes to needy orphans....

Fourth, this portion is for the miskin....

Fifth, this portion is for travellers...."

So in the eyes of God I agree with you. On this earth, there is an element of descent - especially as the Diwan traditionally handed out pensions based on the date of conversion.

The freeing of slaves, elevation of their status, restricting sources, mandating good treatment - all of this unrooted slavery and paved the way to its abolition.

Where did it uproot slavery? Where in the Islamic world were there no slaves before the West came?

As mentioned in the quotes from historians, Islam preserved much of Africa from slave traders allowing the institution to become gradually weak enough for the world to abolish..

I am sorry I missed any mention by any history that would suggest that anything the Muslims did weakened the institution of slavery or had the slightest impact on Britain. May I ask for that cite again?

Feel free to bring historical evidence to disprove my claims that the Ghassan tribe as a governate and the number of Roman soldiers. Even if we accept what you say, for the sake of argument, the fact still remains that the Romans initiated agressions against the Muslims.

From Philip Hitti,

"About the end of the fifth century they were brought within the sphere of Byzantine political influence and used as a buffer state to stay the overflow of Bedouin hordes, serving a purpose not unlike that of Transjordan under the British today"

I still do not accept the claim that the alleged actions of their client means they started the wars, but it is not worth arguing over.

"good treatment" with one's wife includes having relations if you so wish?

You are making the claim about slave women, not me. Is this what you mean by good treatment?

Feel free to bring historical evidence; I welcome debate that is done in a respectful manner.

Well OK I can only get banned once. As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, you are required to wait the full period of one month before sleeping with your slave girl. Is that right? Yet Muhammed seems to have had relations with Safiya within three days of the fall of Khaybar (I can't quite work it out)

From the Sahih Bukhari

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 523:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiya was amongst those who were ordered to use a veil.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 524:

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet stayed for three rights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. I invited the Muslim to h s marriage banquet and there wa neither meat nor bread in that banquet but the Prophet ordered Bilal to spread the leather mats on which dates, dried yogurt and butter were put. The Muslims said amongst themselves, "Will she (i.e. Safiya) be one of the mothers of the believers, (i.e. one of the wives of the Prophet ) or just (a lady captive) of what his right-hand possesses" Some of them said, "If the Prophet makes her observe the veil, then she will be one of the mothers of the believers (i.e. one of the Prophet's wives), and if he does not make her observe the veil, then she will be his lady slave." So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him (on his and made her observe the veil.

It is not an important issue, but it is an interesting point of law and I know there must be an answer to it.

I got a question again

Say after a war, fighting is finished, muslims have won.
say hypothetically muslim army contained 1000 captives, opposition contained 500 muslims captives. why not as gesture of goodwill have a full swap, muslims ive 1000 back and take all their own captives, since war had finished it would no longer matter
the prisoners held by muslims could go back to their old way of life, as could women, go back to their families etc, rather than be enslaved against their own freewill and made to have sex with strangers. The enslaved women go go back home marry free men from their own cities/villages etc. I'm sure there would still be men around who could get jobs. this would avoid the problem of slavery

Also i am still not 100% convinced of why islam permitted allowing sex with captives. You said they lived together and would always be in same contact. Well why wouldn't the man instead be commanded to marry her rather than encouraged. Or if he was already married why wasn't the woman left at home with his wives and do work there, and have male slaves around him. Either way if at any time he got "excited" or had desire because of close proximity with female slave why didn't he instead take it out on his wive, i mean up to 4 wives were allowed, surely that was enough

Finally i disagaree with your view on how islam would treat slavery today, they would have institutions etc. Again do you honestly think people would not look at how the Prophet SAW dealt with slavery rather than build institutions.
You said before resources etc werent available, but from what i understand you kind of contradict yourself
I asked

2) Also you said how it was impossible for institutions to have been built with the resources they had. Well Allah SWT made the Prophet SAW's whole Seerah a lesson for us, so surely in his infinite power it would have been possible, resources would have been available. Why didn't Allah will it for slavery not to be so deep rooted in society, that way a command could have come down abolishing slavery, rather than all this ambiguity

Your reply was

2. This is like asking, "Why did Allah swt create evil? Surely, in His infinite power He could have placed us all in paradise" or "Why did the Prophet Muhammad pbuh have to flee Makkah - surely Allah could have made him victorious from the start". Were there no slavery there would be no struggle to liberate people.

Well ok then, if it was to be and people were enslaved into hi-tech institutions etc. where would be the test? Where would be the struggle to liberate people?

Jazakallah Khair for read, inshallah i await your reply

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

And yet people did. Look at the history of America and the Caribbean. Most men work to support themselves. Slaves are no different. In fact it is not likely to be hard as there are unlikely to be many old slaves. People do not feed their animals into retirement. I doubt they fed their slaves much past their useful working lives either.
The West managed to abolish it and did so without terrible consequences despite the fact they freed slaves much less able to support themselves - plantation workers who were usually illiterate.

Such statements are a direct insult to those ex-slaves who suffered after the emancipation. Such wishful thinking should be completely avoided in a discussion as it's a logical fallacy.

After Lincon issued the Emancipation proclamation, ex-slaves found it difficult to integrate in to the 'white' society. The white community still regarded the black people as inferior beings who did not deserve the full citizen rights. This is exactly the same mindset that Islam was trying to tackle.


Many states had different laws so not to elongate the post, I will only cite the Louisiana one.

Section 1. Be it ordained by the police jury of the parish of St. Landry, That no negro shall be allowed to pass within the limits of said parish without special permit in writing from his employer. Whoever shall violate this provision shall pay a fine of two dollars and fifty cents, or in default thereof shall be forced to work four days on the public road, or suffer corporeal punishment as provided hereinafter.

Section 3, of the Louisiana Black Code states “No negro shall be permitted to rent or keep a house within said parish.”


Section 9 declares that “No negro shall sell, barter, or exchange any articles of merchandise or traffic within said parish.”

Section 4 of the Louisiana Black Code. “Every negro is required to be in the regular service of some white person, or former owner, who shall be held responsible for the conductor of said negro.”

Section 5, No public meetings or congregations of negroes shall be allowed within said parish after sunset; but such public meetings and congregations may be held between the hours of sunrise and sunset, by the special permission in writing of the captain of patrol, within whose beat such meetings shall take place

Section 6 No negro shall be permitted to preach, exhort, or otherwise declaim to congregations of coloured people, without a special permission in writing from the president of the police jury

Section 7 No negro who is not in the military service shall be allowed to carry fire-arms, or any kind of weapons, within the parish, without the special written permission of his employers, approved and indorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol.

Section 8 No negro shall sell, barter, or exchange any articles of merchandise or traffic within said parish without the special written permission of his employer, specifying the article of sale, barter or traffic

Many ex-slaves went back to their former masters as they did not know what to do execept work in farms and plantations. This reminds me of what Tocqueville wrote in his book Democracy in America:

The Negro transmits the eternal mark of his ignominy to all his descendants; and although the law may abolish slavery, God alone can obliterate the traces of its existence... The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against... the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race and the prejudice of colour.

Charles H. Nichols comments on this quote in his book 'Many Thousand Gone: The Ex-Slaves' Account of Their Bondage and Freedom':

It is nearly a century since the Emancipation, and this baleful observation by the author of Democracy in America has, for any informed person, an irrefutable kernel of truth. The vexed question of colon and democracy has just been forced on the agenda, and the western world has at last begun to act on it. Slavery created patterns of life which are still very much in evidence in America. Furthermore, "white supremacy" propagated by the slave-owning mentality has been a cardinal principle in the American creed, little affected by logical argument and statistics on Negro achievement.

Let's not forget the white supremacist groups that sprung up after the emancipation. The "heroic" men -- "The Knights of the White Camellias," the "Ku-Klux-Klan," "The White League," "The Southern Cross" -- began their reign of terror. The cross burning in the night, the beating, shooting and torture of black people, the lynch mob were much in evidence.

Redding quotes one of their speeches in They Came in Chains:

Let every man at the South, through whose veins the unalloyed Caucasian blood courses, who is not a vile adventurer or carpetbagger, forthwith align himself in the rapidly increasing ranks of his species, so that we may the sooner overwhelmingly crush, with one mighty blow, the preposterous wicked dogma of negro equality! We must render this either a white man's government of convert the land into a negro man's cemetery.

One ex-slave said:

"The Ku Klux kept the coloured men scared. They cowed them down so that they wouldn't go to the polls ... They killed many coloured people down there."

Another one declared:

When I was a boy on the Gilmore place the Ku Klux would come along at night a-riding the coloured men like they was goats. Yes sir, they had 'em down on all fours a-crawling, and they would be on their backs. They would carry the coloured men to Turk Creek bridge and make them set up on the banisters of the bridge and then they would shoot 'em offen the banisters into the water.

Rayford Logan said in 'The Negro in American Life and Thought' that two hundred Negroes were killed in the week before the city election of 1874

Charles writes in Many Thousand Gone: The Ex-Slaves' Account of Their Bondage and Freedom:

The civil officers of Mississippi, for example, were empowered to arrest and return to his "master" any Negro who dared to run away from his job. As a matter of fact many of the freed slaves were so desperately poor that they willingly worked for board and keep. Others were forced back into bondage. One ex-slave told a W. P. A. interviewer that he had been subjected to this form of peonage in Mississippi for forty years!

He quotes the account of the ex-slave who said:

I couldn't git away 'cause they watched us with guns all the time. When the levee busted that kinda freed me. Man, they was devils; they wouldn't 'low you to go nowhere -- not even to church. You done good to git something to eat. They wouldn't give you no clothes, and if you got wet you just had to lay down in what you got wet in . . . If you didn't work in a hurry, they would whip you with a strap that had five-six holes in it. I ain't talking 'bout what I heard -- I'm talking 'bout what I done seed . . . I done seen Mack Williams kill folks, and I done seen him have folks killed. One day he told me that if my wife had been good looking, I never would sleep with her again 'cause he'd kill me and take her and raise childrens offen her. They used to take women away from their husbands, and put with some other man to breed just like they would do cattle. They always kept a man penned up, and they used him like a stud hoss. When you didn't do right, Old Mack Williams would shoot you or tie a chain round your neck and throw you in the river ...

He further writes:

Job discrimination against the Negro is, of course, a well known story all over America. In general American employers have hired Negroes in other than unskilled and domestic work only as a last resort. The late Senator Bilbo of Mississippi expressed the sentiments of many southerners when he declared that he would sooner lose the war to Hitler than abolish restrictions against Negro employment or do away with segregation in the army. The discrimination is perpetuated not only by industry, but also by unions and even the Federal government. Myrdal insists that a tradition of human exploitation -- and now not only of Negroes -has remained from slavery as a chief determinant of the entire structure of the South's economic life. The observer is told that a great number of fortunes are achieved by petty exploitation of the poor, a practice sometimes belonging to the type referred to in that region as 'mattressing the ------s'. . . The explanation for the economic backwardness of the South must be carried down to the rigid institutional structure of the economic life of the region which, historically, is derived from slavery and, psychologically, is rooted in the minds of the people.

I could go on quoting the consequences but these above statements will serve as a good example.

Well Islam does, obviously, allow the enslavement of any free person (not just men) who have not waged war themselves, but just live in a country that is waging war on Islam. What would they do with all those slaves? Better to accept them as dhimmis and make them pay taxes. What last resort? The last resort is surely to kill them which, from my reading of Abu'l Hasan al-Mawardi's "Al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah", is permissible if the emir so orders. Perhaps I am wrong - if so please correct me.

Islaam does not allow any enslavement of any free person who doesn't wage war against Islaam.

Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said to Usamah bin Zayd (may Allaah be pleased with him):

See that you avoid treachery. Depart not in any wise from the right. Do not mutilate any one. You should not kill children, women or old men. Do not injure the date palm; do not burn it. Do not cut down any tree wherein there is food for men and beasts. Do not slay the flocks of herds of camels save for needful sustenance. You may eat of the meat that the men of the land may bring to you in their vessels, making mention thereon of the name of Allah. Do not molest the monks in the churches, and leave them to themselves. Now march forward in the name of Allaah. Fulfill the mission entrusted to you. May Allah protect you from sword and pestilence!

If Islaam allowed the enslavement of any individual who lives in the land of the enemy, then Abu Bakr who was the first rightly guided Caliph would have instructed and commanded it. Furthermore, Islaam enslaves the captives as a last resort. I explictly wrote in my last post to cite any Islaamic evidence if you're going to refer to the Islaamic law.

If one wants to the read the ethics of warfare in Islaam, please refer to the article produced by islamtoday where they refer to the views of some of the salaf such as Ibn 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him). The governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, brought a prisoner in irons to Ibn 'Umar and ordered him to come up and kill him. Ibn Umar refused, saying: "This is not the way we do things. Allaah says: 'either generosity or ransom' and He does not say anything about killing them."

Ibn Muflih, the Hanbali jurist, writes:

"The correct position on the matter is that if an enemy soldier is captured, it becomes unlawful to kill him." This is the official position of the Hanbali School of Law. Al-Hasan b. Muhammad al-Tamimi claims that this was an ijma among the Sahabas.

It also discusses that POWs can be killed if they are guilty of crimes that warrant the death penalty.

For more information:
http://www.islamtoday.net/english//s...sub_cat_id=491


Malise Ruthven writes:

Restrictions were placed on enslavement. It was forbidden to enslave free members of Islamic society, including dhimmis (nonMuslims) residing in dar al-Islam.

Marjorie Kelly writes in Islam: The Religious and Political Life of a World Community:

Because of socioeconomic considerations, however, slavery was not abolished.

John L. Esposito writes in Islam and Politics:

Slavery had long existed among the Arabs. Although the Quran commanded the just and humane treatment of slaves ( 4:40, 16:73) and regarded their emancipation as a meritorious act, the system of slavery was adopted in modified form. Only captives in battle could be taken as slaves. Neither Muslims nor Jews and Christians could be enslaved in early Islam.

Kenneth W. Morgan writes in Islam- The Straight Path: Islam Interpreted by Muslims

Slavery was customary at the time that Islam was revealed, but Islam prepared the grounds for its elimination. It encourages the emancipation of slaves by giving them the possibility of purchasing their freedom, it urges that part of zakat be given to slaves to help them free themselves, and it offers the possibility of atonement for certain sins, such as having sexual intercourse during fasting days, by releasing slaves.

Sure, no one is denying this - ultimately, when the entire world is Muslim, when there are no more kafirs to enslave. You can argue that there is some ultimate theoretical horizon there, but it is so extended that it is meaningless. So to ask the question again - can you point me to a single Islamic author or philosopher who doubted the morality of slavery and called for the institution to be banned before the West banned it? You will notice I am asking for something different.

Your premise from that statement is indeed flawed. It's based on the presumption that the Khilafah will continous defend themselves from agression and enslave every POW that they obtain. This is fallacious. Enslavement of a captive is based on the third option and the scenario whilst the first two options are to free them generously or or ransom them, respectively. As for the last point, read my previous response.

I take it we are in agreement that there was no sign of slavery being abolished in the Islamic world before 1800. How exactly would it have disappeared gradually? Surely it would depend on one thing - as long as the rate of freeing slaves out-paced the rate of enslavement and births to slave women. Can you see why that is unlikely to have happened?

Not quite.

1. It made freeing slaves a highly desirable act
2. Freeing slaves by paying expiations. For examples:
2.a When a person kills somebody by mistake, he has to free a slave.
2.b When a person makes DHIHAR on his wife, i.e., comparing the wife to the mother's back by saying to her: You are to me like the back of my mother, (i.e., unlawful for me to approach).
2.c When one makes sexual intercourse in the day of Ramadan.
2.d When a person breaks his oath, he has to free a slave.
3. Granting emancipating through al-Mukataba ((the slave buys himself from his master by paying instalments)
4. Granting freedom through the state welfare.
5. Freeing any woman with a child from her master as soon as the latter dies.
6. Freeing any slave who was beaten unfairly.

So many different ways of manumission and only one way of acquiring slaves (prisoners of war) and enslavement of POWS is still the last resort. The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), after the fall of Makkah, said to its inhabitants: "You may go, for I give you your freedom."

Highly unlikely? I think not.

They obviously were a commercial commodity. There were slave markets in most big towns. Islamic literature is replete with references to them. Slaves were drawn from the Caucasus mountains for serve as, among other things, mamluks. This was a purely commercial operation. I do not know how else you sell slaves - perhaps you might like to expand on what you mean. There are not shortage of accounts of them being sold by auction. What sort of evidence do you want? You tell me what you need in terms of proof and I will provide it.

I clearly said "Slaves in the post-Islaamic era (during the era of the Prophet and his companions) were not a commercial commodity." and you responded to that by citing the examples of the later generations? Could you list examples where the sahabas enslaved free individuals and sold them like products?

Sure. Alcohol was a major industry in the pre-Islamic world. It still is in the non-Islamic world. Banning it put people out of work. What provisions were made to find those people other work or were they left to starve?

Such question doesn't even deserve an answer. I am propelled by the illogical questions that you seem to be asking. Alcohol was indeed prominent in the days of Ignorance. Those who engaged in the sale of alcohol were usually wealthy business men as opposed to poor individuals. Furthermore, not many people engaged in the selling of alcohol. Allaah (Exalted is He) gradually prohibited alcohol in 3 stages during the course of 3 years. Compare that to slavery where every household had at least one slave. This also proves my point that alcohol which was actually a minor social evil was abolished over a course of years and slavery which was a large-scale problem was given more time.

I did not say they did not kill people, I said they did not aim to do so. I like it that you quote Crone. I notice that Crone does not say they did kill the men, just that they prized their ability to do so if they wanted. I can trivially find other scholars that support me. From Philip K. Hitti, "History of the Arabs",

What Hitti is referring are the sports raids between the pastoral tribes while the quote that I have stated refers the sedentary tribes, who were larger than the pastoral tribes. An example that comes in my mind are the pagan tribes of Khazraj and the Aus who had been fighting and raiding each other for four decades.

As for the battle of Ahzab, the tribes were exhausted, not bored. It was winter, and the supply of food and water and forage was becoming more and more scarce every. Furthermore, Nu'aim bin Masood (May Allaah be pleased with him) who worked as a spy caused divisions between the besiegers. A severe windstorm accompanied by thunder and lightning hit the besiegers' camp which added cold and darkness. This put them in disarray which caused them to return to their homes. Boredom? Certainly not.

I am not interested in arguing the justification. I am merely pointing out that there was another option available. Muslims did, as it happen, destroy entire tribes and sell all the women and children into slavery.

Why did you think I cited banu Quraydha? It was the only tribe that was subjected to slavery and not to mention the fact that it was based on the Jewish Law since they wouldn't accept the Islaamic Law. Tell me, which other tribe was enslaved apart from Quraydha.

Hostile Banu Al-Mustaliq - taken captives and freed later and as a result, embraced Islaam. Banu Hawazin taken captive, and then freed.

Tell me, which tribes did the sahabas [destroy] and sell them into slavery?

I notice you have appended the word "capitalist" to that. It will take me a little while to find evidence of it, but it is not a matter of historical dispute. It is not a fictitious claim.

I am still waiting for this so-called evidence. The reason why I added the word captalist is that the plantation system in the Americas was an unique which imposed many hardship to the slaves.

Funny that. My English is perhaps not as good as it should be, but that looks like a direct comparison of Abu Ghraib with Islamic treatment.

Re-read what I wrote. I never introduced 'Christian treatment', rahter I used the phrase 'modern treatment'.

As for going round and round, I think we have clearly established that the Muslims took women as slaves. They did not fight and they were previously free.

Muslims did not enslave women that did not wage war against Islaam. For that you have to provide evidence. I will ignore your unsubstained assertions next time.

Moreover there is ample evidence that the Muslims attacked people who were not fighting for instance,

This reveals your lack of knowledge in Islamic history while you continually search for hadeeths without inquiring what it means. Not only that, but it shows your bias and total lack of analyzing the hadeeth.

Banu Al-Mustaliq was a tribe who were planning an invasion of Madinah and kill the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The Prophet thereupon led a Muslim force and confronted them, he gave them the option to submit or chose to fight. There was a duel and after that, the tribe lost the will to fight. The Prophet captivated them and freed them which result them to enter Islaam with honour. The hadeeth you quoted explictly said imprisoned (captivated). Please tell me where it says they were enslaved.

Obviously I did not say he did. This is a book published by an Orientalist in 1912. It represents an Arab story.

It's an authentic story otherwise Leeder wouldn't have reported it.

I am not in a position to judge whether people interpret the Quran correctly or not. So I do not make that claim. What I say is that Muslims came to Africa and raided the non-Muslims for slaves and in doing so did so in the belief that what they were doing was permissible in Islam.

Concentrating on the few bad applies while negating what Islaam did for Africa is a frequently employed tactic by those who wish to attack Islaam.

Reverend Bosworth-Smith says:

“Nor as to the effects of Islam when first embraced by a Negro tribe, can there, when viewed as a whole, be any reasonable doubt. Polytheism disappears almost instantaneously; sorcery, with its attendant evils, gradually dies away; human sacrifice becomes a thing of the past. The general moral elevation is most marked; the natives begin for the first time in their history to dress, and that neatly. Squalid filth is replaced by some approach to personal cleanliness; hospitality becomes a religious duty; drunkenness, instead of the rule becomes a comparatively rare exception. Though polygamy is allowed by the Koran, it is not common in practice, and, beyond the limits laid down by the Prophet, incontinence is rare; chastity is looked upon as one of the highest, and becomes, in fact, one of the commoner virtues. It is idleness henceforth that degrades, and industry that elevates, instead of the reverse. Offences are henceforth measured by a written code instead of the arbitrary caprice of a chieftain-a step, as every one will admit, of vast importance in the progress of a tribe.”

He adds:

“Truly if the question must be put, whether it is Mohammadan or Christian nations that have done most for Africa, the answer must be that it is not the Christian. Christian travelers, with every wish to think otherwise have remarked that the Negro who accepts Mohammadanism acquires at once a sense of dignity of human nature not commonly found even among those who have been brought to accept Christianity. Here we find in central Africa, the use of decent clothing, the arts of reading and writing and, what is more, which had forbidden and to a great extent, has abolished immodest dancing and gambling and drinking, which inculcated upon the whole a pure morality, and sets forth a sublime and at the same time, a simple theology, is surely deserving of other feelings than the hatred and the contempt which some portions of our religion’s press habitually pour onto it."

Lancelot Lawton writes:

“As a religion the Mohammadan religion, it must be confessed, is more suited to Africa than is the Christian religion; indeed, I would even say that it is suited to the world as a whole.”

Islamic sites tend to take a rather restrictive view of what is or is not acceptable. Banning is inevitable. However if I argued with a Muslim about whether the early Muslims assumed that to become a Muslim meant becoming an Arab, I think the whole process would be speeded up.

Substantial criticism is one thing but repeating assertions is another thing. If you want to have a fruitful discussion with a Muslim, you have to present your argument in a factual manner. I have witnessed several non-Muslims coming on the forum and repeating the same old allegation without providing any evidence and then question why they are banned. This is not a bash and run forum, this is a factual discussion forum.

Well I am happy with that. I do not agree with all of it, but I have no problems with it as it does not contradict what I said. Clearly a freed slaves has fewer and lesser rights than free man. He has a relationship with a man who will inherit part of his estate. A lesser right. Few rights. In Islamic law, a freed man is not the same as a free man.

It totally contradicts what you have stated. I provided an explanation where it opposed your argument that they do not have the same rights. If the previous owner has to provide for the freed slave, doesn't that indicate he be his patron (wala) and inherit when he dies. It's called justice. I am still waiting for the "few rights" that you claimed in a couple posts back. A freed man is the same as a free man.

You have also ignored the discourse that I posted between two Muslims where a freed slave ruled an entire government.

I am not talking about illigitimate child but a foundling. And perhaps my words were not chosen well, but his status was not that of a free man but a freed man. Another case with a wala. It is an interesting text but no more.

An illegitimate child or a foundling, they all came under the same category and that is that the Muslim society has to provide for them. Where does it state that he becomes a freed slave? I have already provided the fiqh on foundlings and their status.

And yet we have established that a freed man does not have the same rights in inheritance as a free man. No one is disputing that. Justice is one thing. But we all agree on the lack of equality except in a general religious sense. We can all agree that in the eyes of God a man is a man is a man whether slave or not. But as a matter of law, a freedman is not the same as a free one.

I will quote myself:

This only based on the condition that the Muslim frees him/her. If the slave buys his own freedom, if he was tortured and becomes a free man or many other reason apart from a willingly manumission, then the al-wala does not apply. In addion, the word al-wala also encompasses the fact that the one who freed the slave has to provide financial support which means that he was the patron of the free slave.

So a slave who bought his freedom and is classified as a freed slave, does the wala apply? Then why seem to take the term freed man so strict as brush all freed slaves regardless how they obtained their freedom as the same. If you can't see the justice in that, then I clearly want to know your [definition] of justice.

format_quote Originally Posted by Truth_Seeker

I have come accross an issue i have had great difficulty in understanding, even when speaking to bothers who are students of knowledge. The particular issue is the treatment of slaves, in this case specifically the female slaves. This is a topic i simply can't understand
From what i understand, a man at that time of the Prophet SAW was able to have sexual intercourse with a female slave at any time. I do not understand this as, since a slave has no choice but to obey the commands of their master, they are basically being forced to have sex. Isn't this in violation of women and human rights? I mean surely a man already has wives, so why is it that a slave can also be used for sex, and then that's it, after having sex with her no other rights are observed. It seems to me that it's like free sex with no strings attached, like a one night stand. The thing is, this is what happens in the west, men go clubbing, find a girl and have sex with her, and next day act as if nothing happened. I thought with islam it's different as we can't simply use a women for their beauty and have sex with her and that's it, since she is due rights and respect? Why is this the way it is? Have i completely misunderstood this concept? If so can you please clarify this, and forgive me for anything incorrect i have said.

Jazkallah Khair for taking the time to read this

I don't know about the Islamic issue, however from my understanding. Firstly, they are not called salves they are called concubines. And were the spoils of war after you have won a war with your enemies it was a common practice to take concubines. Its hard to understand why this happened but it was a common practice all around the world.