Slave Girls

format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi

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.

As opposed to the assumption that slaves are too stupid and lazy to be able to support themselves - they need a master to look after them? I am intrgued by your sense of insult.

What is the logical fallacy here?

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.

Sure. Because of racism, not because of the problems of freedom. This is not the mind set Islam was trying to tackle. As it happens the standard orthodox interpretation of Islam condemned racism. But then pre-Islam the Arabs were not notably racist anyway so Islam did little to change that.

Many ex-slaves went back to their former masters as they did not know what to do execept work in farms and plantations.

What is your source for this odd claim? You may notice that your source below directly contradicts it.

This reminds me of what Tocqueville wrote in his book Democracy in America:[INDENT]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.

Again you are blurring racism and slavery. As the Muslims were not racists it does not apply. In fact as far as I can see this does not apply to this thread at all. Perhaps you might like to explain why you think it does?

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

Which is an outrage - based on forcing people to work for their former masters during the post-Reconstruction period. Notice, of course, the basic assumption that former slaves did not normally work for their former masters and had to be forced to do so. Obviously most of them were perfectly capable of feeding themselves and would not have worked for their former owners unless forced to.

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

I will continue to quibble a little, but I am more or less in agreement with that. Notice that differs from the original claim that Islam does not allow the enslavement of any free person.

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.

He did not instruct the soldiers to breathe. He did not instruct them to eat and drink. Why would he command the obvious? You will notice that he does not forbid the enslavement of the men either. Evidence of what? The enslavement of men who did not fight?

Sahih Muslim, 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 m". ing 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.

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.

Sure. Once they have been granted protection. Does this mean they are not enslaved though?

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.

Oddly enough he does not say it was forbidden to enslave non-Muslims residing in the Dar al-Harb. Why is that do you think?

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

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

Sure - if you are a secularist. If not you might think God had views on the subject. The alternative was work for all Muslims.

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.

In early Islam. Be careful because you may associate yourself with someone who follows Crone et al.

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.

"Prepared the ground" being, I assume, typical apologetics that should not be taken seriously.

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.

It is manifestly not based on a presumption about defence from aggression. Nor is it based on an assumption that they will enslave every prisoner they take. Indeed either of those claims are relevant to what I said. There is no need to read your previous response, because you have not responded to what I said yet. Perhaps you might like to respond to the text I have included again above?

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.
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."

Of course. He also said that the Quraysh would never be slaves - they are his own people after all. But your comments are not relevant. As I said, surely it would depend on whether the rate of freeing out-paced the rate of enslavement. And there is still no evidence that this was ever the case. In fact I know of no Islamic society without slaves and I assume you do not either.

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?

According to Ibn Ishaq, “Then the apostle sent Sa’d b. Zayd with some of the captive women of the Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.” [Sira, p. 466 reproduced in Tabari Vol 8, p 39]

Admittedly the slave market in Arabia does not seem to have been big, but may I ask - does Islamic law forbid the sale of slaves as commodities?

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.

What is your evidence for these claims abotu the producers of alcohol?

If alcohol was such a big social problem, it must have been a major industry.

God did gradually abolish alcohol production and consumption. He could have gradually banned slavery too. But He did not in the Islamic world. He did, in the end, in the West.

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.

I am perfectly content to note it referred to the bedouin. Of course if any sedentary trbie fought for forty years it is unlikely to have been a notably bloody affair. World War Two only lasted six.

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.

If you like. Clearly they were not particularly dedicated or ruthless. They did not fight that way. They were refused an opportunity to fight like men usually did - man to man - by the Trench. Faced with bad weather, and a lack of planning for what to do if the Muslims refused to fight and hence a lack of food, they went home. As I said.

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.

A segue into another claim. You will notice the two other Jewish tribes were exiled. So the choice was not slavery or freedom. There was mass murder and exile as well.

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.

Well we have seen that with the Banu Mustaliq already. In fact women very rarely fought but were very often enslaved.

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.

Actually I did think about what it meant. I asked too. You ask for evidence. I provide it. If my explanation is wrong I am happy to hear your views.

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.

Another tribe planning another attack against Muhammed. I will merely point out this is utterly irrelevant. They were not fighting, they were surprised. The Hadith clearly says so and you have not explained to me why that hadith is wrong. They were made captive - which as we have shown, means they were enslaved. As it happens they became Muslims and Muhammed had to ask for them to be freed. Which the Muslims did.

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

First of all that is an absurd claim. It is simply not true that everything in any work by any Orientalist is true because it is printed. Second Leeder does not make that claim - he reports an Arab making that claim. Third Leeder does not even endorse it. Fourth, of course, it is irrelevant. Slave raiding by Muslims forced Africans to become Muslims out of protection - which moved the frontier of raiding further South. If they had been raided by Christians they could have converted to Christianity and won the same protection. It has nothing to do with Islam per se.

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.

And ignoring what pious Muslims did in the belief it was Islam because it is no longer socially acceptable, is a frequently employed tactic of apologists for Islam. Why shouldn't I take Islamic reformists seriously?

Reverend Bosworth-Smith says:

Nothing of any relevance

Lancelot Lawton writes:

Nothing of any relevance.

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.

It does nothing to contradict what I said. In fact it clearly shows that what I said was true. They do not have the same rights. An example of this is the problem of wills and inheritance. Freed slaves have different rights to free men. Simple. It may be justice. I do not care if you call it that. It is still not the same as or equal to. I think I said fewer rights, but I am happy to be corrected. A freedman is not the same as a free man except in the eyes of God. The wala is proof of that.

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

Because it is not relevant. What did I say that might have any bearing on the subject?

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

Do they also wear the same clothes and eat the same food?

Do they claim that theoretically they should? Absolutely. Same as Islam. Do they? Well of course not. Same as the Muslim world.

Re-read what I wrote. I never said anything about the specific fiqh rulings with regard to inheritance. I said that all human beings are of equal value in Islam. And Kadafi gave you a list of THIRTY-ONE caliphs who had slave mothers.

Then you are not talking about anything I have said as I have repeatedly pointed out that souls have equal value in Islam, but that in Islamic law, the Freedman is not the same as the Free and, by way of extention, Islamic law recognises descent to a small extent. The slave mothers issue is irrelevant. Who is denying it?

Everywhere in the Islamic world, the slavery had been weakened and the treatment of slaves improved, which paved the way for its abolition.

Is that you agreeing that it had not been abolished anywhere until the British came?

Becuase she was unmarried and he married her!

Well she was widowed, not unmarried as such. Surely he should have waited a full month before having sexual relations with her?

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

Do they claim that theoretically they should? Absolutely. Same as Islam. Do they? Well of course not. Same as the Muslim world.

You continually drag the discussion away from what Islamic law states to your imaginative ideas of what possibly might have been done by some Muslims, which is of course irrelevant. If a Muslim followed the laws of eating the same food and sharing the same clothes and calling them servant with respect, then of course there is no sense of superiority.

Then you are not talking about anything I have said as I have repeatedly pointed out that souls have equal value in Islam, but that in Islamic law, the Freedman is not the same as the Free and, by way of extention, Islamic law recognises descent to a small extent.

You attempted to indicate that a freed man was inferior to a free man, a claim which was soundly debunked. Both have equal rights and the only issues you raised about inheritance was concerning the Prophet's descendants, not slaves!

The slave mothers issue is irrelevant. Who is denying it?

So you admit that Islam took slaves from their lowly position and elevated them to leaders of the Islamic empire?

Is that you agreeing that it had not been abolished anywhere until the British came?

The British colonialists who subjugated and enslaved the African peoples?

While it may not have been decisively abolished, Islam elevated slaves in society, making them rulers, leaders and scholars. All of this paved the way for the abolishment of slavery.

Well she was widowed, not unmarried as such. Surely he should have waited a full month before having sexual relations with her?

First of all, she was not a slave, so her case is irrelevant to the discussion. She was a non-muslim woman who converted to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her. At any rate, it is recorded in Sirah An-Nabawiyah by Ibn Kathir, vol 3, p. 288 that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her after waiting after her period to determine that she was not pregnant. This is in accordance with the hadith:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Sexual intercourse is not allowed with a pregnant woman until she gives birth and with a woman who is not pregnant until she passes one menstrual period.” [Musnad Ahmad(3/28), Sunan Abu Dâwûd (2157), and Mustadrak al-Hâkim (2/212). Al-Hâkim said: “It is authentic according to the conditions of Imam Muslim”.]

format_quote Originally Posted by Jeness18

Is there a possibility for slavery to come back-Under issues according to Islam? or just on its own and no religion involved...?

Depends sister.
There are evil people in every society, culture, and religion. And when they get influential they bring bad to the society in general. If all people follow their Abrahamic religion(s) properly then there won't be any slaves in the first place. Regarding Islam, Islam gives slaves the right to be treated equally and slaves have the right to earn their freedom if they want to.

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

As opposed to the assumption that slaves are too stupid and lazy to be able to support themselves - they need a master to look after them?

[Br. Kadafi and Ansar have already address some points that were addressed to me, so I won't go through them]
Supporting oneself is not as easy as you are making it out to be esp. in desert.
i) One needs a capital to start a business.
ii) One needs skills that have favorable demand, supply, and environment to make a living out of it.

I've been to villages in deserts and life is very harsh there. Land is abundant but the climate is not suitable to start even plantations there. Most likely a person would find a job herding local animals, repairing houses & farms, limited vet and medical jobs, etc.... overall demand is very low, which is insufficient serve large supply of labor.

All the examples you have given are very vague in this regard. They are not specific or concrete enough to show the ground realities of that time. What if freeing them all made most of them die out of hunger due to the lack of money paying jobs? What if most of them moved to other lands in search of jobs, and taken slaves, without any rights, and treated very badly? Impartial person looking at both sides of the coin should keep these points in mind too.

However, what we do know is that Islam has given slaves the right to free themselves, which is a very important point, because it do gives them the freedom to leave their master and start their own business (or move to a better paying job) if the opportunity comes their way.

By the way, a salary is not only what you get at the end of the month as money, but it is the whole package what you get from the employer: non-monetary benefits, allowances, and respect and treatment from the employer. I'd take slavery of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) any given day over my current well paid job.

Lastly, you have taken few cases in hadiths of bad treatment of slaves as proof of norm in its society. It is like taking criminal murder records in a country to prove that murders are norm in a country, when in fact these records are insufficient on their own to be used as statistics to represent the overall picture.

format_quote Originally Posted by sargon

I've been reading along and I think I have the same question as TruthSeeker

Then shouldn't you comment on the answer I already gave truth_seeker?

if there was a war that depleted the main functions of distributing resources or, for example in a small community that is seperate from the rest of the world until communications and systems are restored, and there were slaves from war, would Muslim families be entrusted with these people?

How is such a scenario possible when warfare can only be conducted by the Islamic state? If captives are taken by the Islamic state, they are normally imprisoned/detained until they are ransomed or released. Nevertheless, if your proposed scenario did occur, the Muslim government looks at what is the best option, and in modern times it is difficult to see slavery as a viable alternative.

If so, could their masters really have sex with them and would the slave have a say in yes or no?

In any case, slaves must be treated with kindness and this means that they are not forced to do difficult tasks or something they would hate/fear doing.

http://www.islamcan.com/cgi-bin/incr...46792874.shtml

DAJJAL APPEARS
Dajjal appears. His followers, the Yahudis, will number 70,000 and will wear expensive silk attire and carry double edged swords.

If when the dajjal appears and they're using swords, that should mean that the world probably has been destroyed partially by war or natural disasters, which would make it logical to assume that resources would be different, and that during these times slaves would have to be distributed like the old times.

So if the servent/slave agreed could you have sex with her? What if in your marriage contract your wife states that she doesn't want you to get married to any other girl, but then a holy war happens (I know this is out there but I have a crazy imagination :X ), could you still have intercourse with your servent/slave?

What if you have sex with the slave/servent girl because she agrees and then your wife wants a divorce, would the divorce be lawful?

What if the slave/servent girl wanted to be freed but you were poor and she fulfilled a vital role in housekeeping, doesn't that mean she can't be freed?

If you have sex with your slave/servent girl and she blatantly disagrees, is that grounds for manumission?

I appreciate all the hard work done and long posts to clear up this propaganda and questions, so far this is the best place I have to clear up misconceptions, so thanks a lot for all the hard work.

format_quote Originally Posted by sargon

If when the dajjal appears and they're using swords, that should mean that the world probably has been destroyed partially by war or natural disasters, which would make it logical to assume that resources would be different, and that during these times slaves would have to be distributed like the old times.

The source you quoted does mention double'edged swords, but I don't recall reading this in any authentic hadith. Do you know of any?

So if the servent/slave agreed could you have sex with her? What if in your marriage contract your wife states that she doesn't want you to get married to any other girl

About the marriage contract, it must be followed, and if the contract is violated, then the woman has the right to terminate the marriage.

but then a holy war happens (I know this is out there but I have a crazy imagination :X ), could you still have intercourse with your servent/slave?

As I said earlier, relations with slaves are permissable, but it is difficult to see this happening in the future.

What if you have sex with the slave/servent girl because she agrees and then your wife wants a divorce, would the divorce be lawful?

If it violates the marriage contract, or if she feels he has become unjust to her, yes.

What if the slave/servent girl wanted to be freed but you were poor and she fulfilled a vital role in housekeeping, doesn't that mean she can't be freed?

The encouragement is for everyone to do what is possible to free them.

If you have sex with your slave/servent girl and she blatantly disagrees, is that grounds for manumission?

The Prophet pbuh made it clear that whoever physically assaults their slave, the expiation is to free them.

format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi

Yes indeed racism and this was the mind that Islaam was also trying to tackle. The pre-islaamic Arabs considered them superior to all the other peoples of the world. This was expressed in their poems and this why the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that no Arab is superior over a non-Arab, and no white is superior over black.

First of all I am not going to debate the Farewell speech but it does exist in several copies - not all of which contain that bit about the non-Arab.

Second, belief that the "Arabs" are best is not necessarily racism. It depends on what basis you define "Arabs". As one of the greatest pre-Islamic Arab poets was half-African, I do not see signs of racism. What evidence do you have that they were before Islam?

You did not get the point that I was portraying. In spite of the fact that their 'masters' disliked them, they forced themselves to return to them.

No - the State forced them back to their masters despite their wish to be gone. They did not force themselves.

Pre-Islaamic Arabs were racist.

What is the evidence for this?

I am quite surprised that you acknowledge that whilst you wrote earlier that:

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.

Or is this not a terrible consequence according to your criterion?

A terrible consequence but of the racism in the South, not of the freeing of the slaves. The problem was not emancipation.

The mere fact that I was forced to add that part reveals your lack of acquaintance with the Islaamic teachings.

Which is self evident and I have never denied.

An enemy soldier can be ransomed, freed generously or be enslaved. I have stated the Islaamic Law on captives more 3 times and yet you continue to iterate whether a captive can be enslaved? This is what we call circular reasoning.

How is it circular? We are all in agreement that a captive can be enslaved. There is some dispute about whether a peasant peacefully tending his or her fields can be enslaved and whether the women and children can be. But nothing else.

You also stated previously:
"What last resort? The last resort is surely to kill them"

and instead of acknowledging the flaw in your preconceived claim, you assert another claim?

There is no flaw in my claim and obviously death is worse than slavery. It was not a last resort.

Do you even know what Dar al-Harb is and what the term refers to? Dar al-Harab is simply a term introduced to distinguish Muslims lands and non-Muslim lands. It sometimes is called Dar al-Kufr. If a non-Muslim does not wage war against Islaam, we cannot take the initiative to start a war.

None of which I have denied or even disputed.

You have made another blunder by reading the works of Sham from answering-islam. Why am I not surprised? Furthermore, you quoted the English translation of Ibn Ishaq which you have never read but directly quoted from answering-islam website. My demand to you is to provide the arabic quote of that statement and I will verify and see if it agrees with the Islaamic teachings.

Actually I did not get that from Answering Islam. I have read the English translation as it happens.

I am not going to look for an Arabic version. I have given you a quote and a citation. If you do not want to look it up that is fine by me. The only real question is whether is it in accordance with Islamic teachings and I do not see why you need an Arabic version to decide that. Either captives can be bought or sold or they cannot. What Tabari says or Ibn Ishaq said is neither here nor there to this discussion.

You again compare slavery with alcohol. How can one compare these two while knowing that slavery has wider socio-economic repercussions?

Because I do not see the wider social repercussions. Slavery was never that big on pre-Islamic Arabia. Nor was it concentrated in the economy but in the household.

Your initial claim:
I did not say they did not kill people, I said they did not aim to do so.

Evidence was provided which confuted your initial claim, so you backtracked that the ‘raids’ could not have been bloody.

I have not backtracked. I am insisting that I said what I said and not what you would have liked me to say. My words are clear. If you think otherwise please feel free to quote me directly.

This is the third time that you seem to twist your primary claim which was:
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.

How does exhaust equal to boredom?

The two are obviously related. What you will notice I did not say is what you said I said. I am not twisting my claims. I say what I say and no more.

You did not answer the question:[INDENT]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?

This is utterly irrelevant and I do not care to be drawn into nit picking. Did they have another option besides slavery? Yes they did. They had exile and they had mass murder for the entire tribe. They used both solutions on Jews. On that, I assume, we are in agreement. So. Fine. Slavery was not their only option.

This is the second that you have re-iterated this assertion and did not provide evidence. Banu Mustaliq who were planning to invade Madinah and kill the Prophet were not enslaved but imprisoned and later freed without ransom. Once they were freed, they entered the fold of Islaam.

Actually your source below shows clearly that they were enslaved. As you say "the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet’s in-laws." You do not manumit prisoners. You manumit slaves. They were freed without ransom - but because Muhammed married one of them.

That is called a pre-emptive strike. The tribe were planning to invade Madinah and murder the Prophet.

Ibn Hishaam (May Allaah have mercy on him) narrated in his Seerah:

News reached the Prophet on Sha‘ban 2nd. to the effect that the chief of Bani Al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Dirar had mobilised his men, along with some Arabs, to attack Madinah. Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami was immediately despatched to verify the reports. He had some words with Abu Dirar, who confirmed his intention of war. He later sent a reconnoiterer to explore the positions of the Muslims but he was captured and killed. The Prophet summoned his men and ordered them to prepare for war. Before leaving, Zaid bin Haritha was mandated to see to the affairs of Madinah and dispose them. On hearing the advent of the Muslims, the disbelievers got frightened and the Arabs going with them defected and ran away to their lives. Abu Bakr was entrusted with the banner of the Emigrants, and that of the Helpers went to Sa‘d bin ‘Ubada. The two armies were stationed at a well called Muraisi. Arrow shooting went on for an hour, and then the Muslims rushed and engaged with the enemy in a battle that ended in full victory for the Muslims. Some men were killed, women and children of the disbelievers taken as captives, and a lot of booty fell to the lot of the Muslims. Only one Muslim was killed by mistake by a Helper. Amongst the captives was Juwairiyah, daughter of Al-Harith, chief of the disbelievers. The Prophet married her and, in compensation, the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet’s in-laws.

Sorry but where in that did it say they were going to kill Muhammed?

What I also noticed is that you cling unto one hadeeth without looking at collaborating ahadeeth and the authentic seeras. This is also a known tactic used by some non-Muslims who go through the English-transled hadeeths and find a hadeeth. Without asking what the hadeeth means how it is understood, you claim to forward your twisted opinion on the hadeeth and say that it is the truth.

I have repeatedly asked what some hadiths mean and I often get an answer. Of course I tend to use a limited number of hadiths - if I knew the answers I would not be asking the questions. I am, as I have pointed out many times, not an expert.

You also said that once they were imprisoned, they were enslaved. Now you tell me how imprisonment leads to automatically being enslaved. If the Islaamic teachings say that the a captive can be ransomed, freed without any ransom or enslaved, then how did you derive that if he is imprisoned, he is enslaved straight away. Doesn’t this reveal your stubbornness and rejection of the true Islaamic teachings.

No it reveals my trust in my own opinion and the fact that you have not made your case very clearly yet. your source clearly says they were manumitted. Not just released. What was Juwairiyah's dowry?

SS Leeder is a Christian Orientalist who recognized that there is no colour line in Islaam. He never reports that an Arab made that claim. That is an absurd lie and he ENDORSES the report he quoted.

Actually I went to a great deal of trouble to get hold of that book and look your reference up and that is precisely what he does.

He may make other comments elsewhere - I did not read the entire book. But that is not my problem. I checked what you provided.

It has come to my notice you still failed to adequately reply to my evidence as opposed to your assertions. You did not provide evidence for your claim that Muslims invented the plantation system. Most of your posts are nothing but circular reasoning. And anyone who has followed the discussion would see these fallacies.

I am working on it. You do not understand my posts if you think they are full of circular reasoning. And if you think you're wasting your time please don't feel obliged to discuss it any more. How did it come to your attention?

So next time, if you want my reply, at least cite any credible authorities. Your words here do not hold weight unless you substantiate it with evidence.

Your own sources agree with me on the issue of the enslavement of Juwairiyah's relatives.

format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi

That speech has been authentically related and is found in the Musnad. It is also repeated in the Glorious Qur'aan where Allaah (Exalted is He) says:

"O Mankind! We have created you from a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you in the Sight of Allah is the believer who has the most piety. Verily Allaah is All Knowing, All-Aware"

Not a word on race here that I can see.

Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

"Indeed Allaah has removed from you the blind loyalties of jahiliyyah and the pride for ancestry. Either be a pious believer or a miserable insolent. (All of) you are children of Adam, and Adam is from dust. Let some men cease to take pride in others, who are nothing but burning coal for the HellFire, it will be easier for Allaah to handle them than a dung beetle driving his nose into filth" Musnad, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi

Not a hint of race here either from what I can see.

The Prophet said on the authority of Ubayy Bin Ka'b:

"If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, tell him to bite his father's penis, and do not use a euphemism".

Wow. I find that one hard to believe. Asserts his descent. Arabs were proud of their descent, but that does not make them racists. They counted their descent mainly in the male line after all. The son of someone was still the son of someone even if his mother was a slave.

Abu Dharr narrated that the Prophet said:

"You are not better than people with red or black skins unless you excel them in piety."

I like that one.

All these are reports denouncing the practises of the days of Ignorance where racial prejudice was prevalent

And yet none of them contain an explicit claim about race. One of the great poets of Arabia before Islam was Antarah ibn-Shaddad al-Absi who was born a slave to an African slave mother. But that did not stop him nor is there any sign of racial discrimination. Pride in ancestry does not always mean racism.

Firstly, the primary source of any historical evidence from the days of Jahiliyyah is found the Islaamic literature. The arabs had immense pride in their descent and this is reported in many ahadeeth (refer above). The Quraysh looked down upon the lesser Arab tribes whilst Arabs in general looked down upon those of different race. Racism was amongst the social evils that Islaam tackled.

I am sure that the Quraysh looked down on other Arab tribes. Something that Islam does not seem to have done a lot to stop. And I am sure that the Arabs looked down on non-Arabs, but not on racial grounds. After all people could become Arabs by assimilation. This is one of those odd areas where the Abbasids seem to have returned to Rashidun practice as the Umayyads insisted that non-Arab converts become Arabs. Somewhere I have a claim by Anu Hanifa (I think) about "equality" in marriage - a non-Arab convert had to wait three generations before he would be allowed to marry an Arab woman.

The following poem written by the chief of Tameem exhibits the sense of superiority:

We are the noble ones, and no other clan is our equal;
From our number kings [are raised], and among us temples erected.How many clans we have overpowered during [our] raiding! It is [only] a surfeit of might [such as ours] that finds imitators...
Donner, Conquests, p. 287 n. 46.

Sure. Pride in clan, and nobility, but not in race.

As for the half african poet, then they might have tolerated him due the lineage of his mother. Perhaps you could tell me who that half-african poet is.

Because of his father actually. Antarah ibn-Shaddad al-Absi (525-615)

Let me requote the statement from Charles, in his book The Ex-Slaves' Account of Their Bondage and Freedom:

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!

The problem resulted in a fullscale abolition instead of enforcing rules to show them kindness and tackle the racism harbored in their minds.

The problem resulted from racism alone. Abolition had nothing to do with it except it meant that some of them were forced to work for food and board instead of all of them doing it. If they had remained slaves but had been treated more kindly they still would have worked for food abd board alone and would have remained in bondage.

Many ex-slaves were killed and many groups sprung up after the emancipation (eg KKK). These are terrible consequences and contradict what you inititally said.

They do not contradict what I said earlier, and they simply continued the bad treatment under slavery. The problem here is racism not emanicpation.

Islaam attacked the mindset of the days of Ignorance and removed their ill-feelings against slaves by endorsing rules and encouraging emancipation. I have quoted several non-Muslims orientalists who concede that Islaam was the first creed to layout rules to eridicate slavery. So far, you have not responded to these quotations.

Because they are utterly irrelevant and I have in fact responded to the relevant bits.

You primary claim was that the last resort is killing the captives which I have refuted in the light of the Islaamic teachings. You then twisted the statement into saying that death is worse than slavery? How is that pertinent to what we are we discussing? In fact, how can the kind treatment that captives received be worse than death?

A minor passing comment of mine remains that the last resort was killing, not slavery. You seem to insist that slavery is worse than killing. It is not a big deal and if that is your view I am happy to accept it.

And I repeat, I need the arabic version of that statement. This is to prove that you looked it up yourself and not simply glanced at the distortions of the answering-islam team. This is a debate and for that, I will refer back to every claim you have asserted.

And I will repeat I am not going to bother looking for it. You have the full reference. You show no signs of looking anything up - it is a bit rich to complain about something I am not doing (cutting and pasting from polemical websites) when you are doing exactly that and no more - and this looks like an attempt to waste my time.

This is not irrevelant at all. You clearly said that Muslims destroyed entire tribes and sodl all the women and children into slavery. In plain english, you're claiming that Muslims enslaved every tribe that they have encountered

That is such a blatant distortion of what I said I cannot believe you said it. I said the Muslims destroyed entire tribes. They did. But that is not the same as saying they destroyed every tribe. The outrageously unfair nature of that claim is appalling.

and I asked for evidence which you have brushed aside with an evasive reply that it is irrelevant.

We have established what I want to establish - the Muslims did destroy at least one such tribe. Therefore, it is clear, I was right. The Muslims did destroy entire tribes.

You then made another claim that they commited mass-murder? What murder. The Jewish tribe AGREED to face the punishment based on THEIR LAW (The Torah) which is to execute the men.

Actually no. They resisted as long as they could and rather than face death from starvation of suicide, agreed to judgement by a man who had been their friend, but who had left the field after the Battle of the Trench determined to wreak his revenge on them. That man may have judged according to Jewish law, but they were not promised that and they did not ask for it. At least not as far as I can see in the texts - what is your evidence they did?

They did not had any objection and willingfully submitted to the punishment.

They had already submitted and so were in no position to resist.

Capital punishment = not murder.

Hmm, I think we could debate that a little more.

Then clearly, the word should have been freed (perhaps a mistranslation) since Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentions in Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya under the heading Juwayriyya bint al-Harith (may Allaah be pleased with her):

As soon as the marriage was announced, all the booty that had been taken from the Banu Mustaliq was returned, and all the captives were set free,

In addition, our mother Juwayriyya requested for a ransom which denotes that she was still a captive and not a slave.

But the word was not. It was manumitted. And there is no contradiction with that text. Slaves are captives - the Jews were captives in Egypt until Moses - and they were set free, not released. Before they were not free. After they were. Slaves can be ransomed. Why do you think they cannot?

Greetings,
I haven't receieved a response to my last post.

format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi

I am suprised that you have mentioned ibn Shaddad al-absi since he was initially disowned for his colour and lineage. He was only recongized by his father after a battle and before that, he was a slave, owned by his father. If Antarah, a half-african, whose father is the chief of his tribe, is your best example, then I rest my case.

He was born a slave and it was only when he father recognised him as his son, that he was freed. On that we can agree. But I know of no evidence that was because of his color nor is there any sign that he was discriminated against after being freed - compare with the African-Americans after 1865.

Pride in ancestry denotes racism since the pre-Islaamic Arabs were proud of their lineage and descendant. They all agreed and boasted over the superiority of the arabs over the rest of the world.

As some of them still do. But it still does not imply racism as their lineage was traced down the male line. If that had a slave in it it would be something but I know of no evidence they cared if the Mother was a slave.

And I say to you, provide evidence. My previous response to that claim:[INDENT][COLOR=DarkRed] 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."

And it also says

Allah has set down laws dealing with prisoners of war. He says in the Qur'ân: "If you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks. Then, if you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, so there will be a time for either generosity or ransom for them until cessation of the war." [Sûrah Muhammad: 4]
....
Scholars differ whether this second verse abrogates the ruling of the first. The strongest view is that it does not, since both convey essentially the same meaning. In the first verse, Allah says that there should be no prisoners of war until the Muslims have "thoroughly subdued the land." The second verse states that when they have "thoroughly subdued" the enemy so that they are full of fear and dread, then it is permissible to take prisoners. All this means is that prisoners of war should not be taken before or while subduing the land. There is no categorical prohibition in either of these verses to taking prisoners of war.

Permissible is not the same as complusory.

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.

And yet you ignore the bit first which says

7. The Prophet (peace be upon him) killed a few people after their capture who posed a danger to the Muslims and who had been responsible for heinous deeds. One of these was Ibn Khatl who was killed during the conquest of Mecca. [al-Bukhârî (1846) and Muslim (1357)] The question then arises: Is it permissible for the Muslim government to kill prisoners of war? This is a matter of disagreement in Islamic Law.

So you have given me the Hanbali verdict, but that is just one of four schools. How about the other three?

No, what is appalling is how you retract your claims numerous times and claim to say something else. You made claim that Muslims destroyed entire tribes (note the plural) while the only tribe who received a capital punishment was Banu Qurayza. You cannot get out of this claim by claiming that I distorted your words. I still await the evidence.

You will wait a long time. We have established what I want - that the Muslims had other options besides slavery such as exile and death. You have also declined to answer my questions such as what was Juwairiyah's dowry?

What texts? The answering-islam garbage? I doubt you ever read any Islaamic seeras that explitly speak about the punishment of Banu Qurayza. It is related in the seerah of the Prophet by Ibn Katheer that Banu Qurayza leaders met with Saaid ibn Muaz and agreed to SUBMIT to whatever his judgement would be for their crimes against the Muslims.

So now the Sira, and an unusual one at that, is acceptable when before it was not? Tell me on what basis you accept the historical sources?

The apostle besieged them for twenty-five nights until they were sore pressed and God cast terror into their hearts.

Now Huyayy b. Akhtab had gone with B. Qurayza into their forts when Quraysh and Ghatafan had withdrawn and left them, to keep his word to Ka`b b. Asad; and when they felt sure that the apostle would not leave them until he had made an end of them Ka`b b. Asad said to them: 'O Jews, you can see what has happened to you; I offer you three alternatives. Take which you please.' (i) We will follow this man and accept him as true, for by God it has become plain to you that he is a prophet who has been sent and that it is he that you find mentioned in your scripture, and then your lives, your property, your women and children will be saved. They said, 'We will never abandon the laws of the Torah and never change it for another.' He said, 'Then if you won't accept this suggestion (ii) let us kill our wives and children and send men with their swords drawn to Muhammad and his companions leaving no encumbrances behind us, until God decides between us and Muhammad. If we perish, we perish, and we shall not leave children behind us to cause us anxiety. If we conquer we can acquire other wives and children.' They said, 'Should we kill these poor creatures? What would be the good of life when they were dead?' He said, 'Then if you will not accept this suggestion (iii) tonight is the eve of the sabbath and it may well be that Muhammad and his companions will feel secure from us then, so come down, perhaps we can take Muhammad and his companions by surprise.' They said: 'Are we to profane our sabbath and do on the sabbath what those before us of whom you well know did and were turned into apes?' He answered, 'Not a single man among you from the day of your birth has ever passed a night resolved to do what he knows ought to be done.' [Sirat, pp. 461-462]
....
Then they sent to the apostle saying, 'Send us Abu Lubaba b. `Abdu'l-Mundhir, brother of B. `Amr b. `Auf (for they were allies of al-Aus), that we may consult him.' So the apostle sent him to them, and when they saw him they got up to meet him. The women and children went up to him weeping in his face, and he felt sorry for them. They said, 'Oh Abu Lubaba, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad's judgement ?' He said, 'Yes,' and pointed with his hand to his throat, signifying slaughter. Abu Lubaba said, 'My feet had not moved from the spot before I knew that I had been false to God and His apostle.' Then he left them and did not go to the apostle but bound himself to one of the pillars in the mosque saying, 'I will not leave this place until God forgives me for what I have done,' and he promised God that he would never go to B. Qurayza and would never be seen in a town in which he had betrayed God and His apostle. [Sirat, p. 462]
....
In the morning they submitted to the apostle's judgement and al-Aus leapt up and said, 'O Apostle, they are our allies, not allies of Khazraj, and you know how you recently treated the allies of our brethren.' Now the apostle had besieged B. Qaynuqa` who were allies of al-Khazraj and when they submitted to his judgement `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul had asked him for them and he gave them to him; so when al-Aus spoke thus the apostle said: 'Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them ?' When they agreed he said that Sa`d b. Mu`adh was the man. [Sirat, p. 463]

Now on your advice I did get this from a certain well known site. Is any of that wrong or incorrectly quoted? If you think so I'll get out the original and quote it correctly.

I am just disappointed that this debate cannot be constructive because the opposite side continously ignores evidences and asserts claims. This will result into circular reasoning as I have noticed the traces already. Until I see some evidence for your assertions, you will not receive my reply.

If you do not feel like replying please feel free not to. But I will provide evidence for what I say and not what you say I say.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

You continually drag the discussion away from what Islamic law states to your imaginative ideas of what possibly might have been done by some Muslims, which is of course irrelevant. If a Muslim followed the laws of eating the same food and sharing the same clothes and calling them servant with respect, then of course there is no sense of superiority.

And I will continue to point out that superiority comes with the exercise of power, not the visible signs of it. And of course you put up a never-realised idealistic version of Islam and claim it is the measure of all things. Of course I am interested in the reality.

You attempted to indicate that a freed man was inferior to a free man, a claim which was soundly debunked. Both have equal rights and the only issues you raised about inheritance was concerning the Prophet's descendants, not slaves!

I have firmly established that a freed men has fewer and lesser rights than a free man. It has not been soundly debunked. And as a bonus I pointed out Islamic law also considers the descendents of the Prophet - therefore some forms of descent are important in Islam.

So you admit that Islam took slaves from their lowly position and elevated them to leaders of the Islamic empire?

Of course not. Islam does nothing political - it is not a motive force. I agree that in some Muslim societies (bad, non-Islamic one usually as it happens) some slaves were able to seize power. You think that is important for some reason. Why?

While it may not have been decisively abolished, Islam elevated slaves in society, making them rulers, leaders and scholars. All of this paved the way for the abolishment of slavery.

But did not have any noticeable influence on Britain, which did abolish slavery and forced the Muslim world too as well, and did not actually lead to the Muslims abolishing slavery either.

And by the way, cruised passed this today

Posted: November 10, 2003
5:00 p.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A leading Saudi government cleric and author of the country's religious curriculum believes Islam advocates slavery.

"Slavery is a part of Islam," says Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan, according to the independent Saudi Information Agency, or SIA.

In a lecture recorded on tape by SIA, the sheik said, "Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam."

His religious books are used to teach 5 million Saudi students, both within the country and abroad, including the United States.

Al Fawzan – a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia's highest religious body – says Muslims who contend Islam is against slavery "are ignorant, not scholars."

"They are merely writers," he said, according to SIA. "Whoever says such things is an infidel."

Al-Fawzan's best-known textbook, "Al-Tawheed – Monotheism," says most Muslims are polytheists, and their blood and money are therefore free for the taking by "true Muslims."

SIA said although the Saudi government claims religious curriculum is being reformed, Al-Fawzan's books are still in wide use.

Al-Fawzan is a member of the Council of Religious Edicts and Research, the Imam of Prince Mitaeb Mosque in Riyadh and a professor at Imam Mohamed Bin Saud Islamic University, Saudi Arabia's main center of learning for the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam.

SIA noted Al-Fawzan, a leading opponent of curriculum reform, opposes elections and demonstrations as Western influences, is against Arab women marrying non- Arab Muslims and has issued a fatwa forbidding the watching of television.

Al-Fawzan has threatened to behead a Saudi writer and scholar, Sheik Hassan Al-Maliki, for his criticism of Wahhabism, according to SIA. Al-Maliki was fired from his position with the ministry of education after writing a 50- page paper criticizing Al-Fawzan's book "Al-Tawheed."

Please tell me he was mistranslated.

First of all, she was not a slave, so her case is irrelevant to the discussion.

I disagree. I am told that the Sunan Abu Dawud 19:2985-1989 discusses it. I will ask how does a girl end up with a name like Saffiyyah if she is not a slave? She is mentioned in the Sahih Bukhari

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz:

Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."

Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, 'Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.' He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-SawTq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walrma (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle ."

Volume 2, Book 14, Number 68:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) offered the Fajr prayer when it was still dark, then he rode and said, 'Allah Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. When we approach near to a nation, the most unfortunate is the morning of those who have been warned." The people came out into the streets saying, "Muhammad and his army." Allah's Apostle vanquished them by force and their warriors were killed; the children and women were taken as captives. Safiya was taken by Dihya Al-Kalbi and later she belonged to Allah's Apostle go who married her and her Mahr was her manumission.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 143:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet said to Abu Talha, "Choose one of your boy servants to serve me in my expedition to Khaibar." So, Abu Talha took me letting me ride behind him while I was a boy nearing the age of puberty. I used to serve Allah's Apostle when he stopped to rest. I heard him saying repeatedly, "O Allah! I seek refuge with You from distress and sorrow, from helplessness and laziness, from miserliness and cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by men." Then we reached Khaibar; and when Allah enabled him to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah's Apostle selected her for himself and took her along with him till we reached a place called Sad-AsSahba,' where her menses were over and he took her for his wife. Haris (a kind of dish) was served on a small leather sheet. Then Allah's Apostle told me to call those who were around me. So, that was the marriage banquet of Allah's Apostle and Safiya. Then we left for Medina. I saw Allah's Apostle folding a cloak round the hump of the camel so as to make a wide space for Safiya (to sit on behind him) He sat beside his camel letting his knees for Safiya to put her feet on so as to mount the camel. Then, we proceeded till we approached Medina; he looked at Uhud (mountain) and said, "This is a mountain which loves us and is loved by us." Then he looked at Medina and said, "O Allah! I make the area between its (i.e. Medina's) two mountains a sanctuary as Abraham made Mecca a sanctuary. O Allah! Bless them (i.e. the people of Medina) in their Mudd and Sa (i.e. measures)."

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 513:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz bin Suhaib:

Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet took Safiya as a captive. He manumitted her and married her." Thabit asked Anas, "What did he give her as Mahr (i.e. marriage gift)?" Anas replied. "Her Mahr was herself, for he manumitted her."

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 his marriage banquet and there was 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.

So that was some other slave girl called Safiya perhaps?

Can we now all agree that Saffiyya was a slave?

And in passing,

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 m". ing 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.

Book 019, Number 4293:

This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Aun and the name of Juwairiya bint al-Harith was mentioned beyond any doubt.

She was a non-muslim woman who converted to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her.

She was a Jew who was captured as it happens.

At any rate, it is recorded in Sirah An-Nabawiyah by Ibn Kathir, vol 3, p. 288 that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her after waiting after her period to determine that she was not pregnant. This is in accordance with the hadith:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Sexual intercourse is not allowed with a pregnant woman until she gives birth and with a woman who is not pregnant until she passes one menstrual period.” [Musnad Ahmad(3/28), Sunan Abu Dâwûd (2157), and Mustadrak al-Hâkim (2/212). Al-Hâkim said: “It is authentic according to the conditions of Imam Muslim”.]

So she does not have to pass the entire menstrual period, just until her period has passed? Which in Safiya's case was three days.