format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
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.
Then clearly you haven't read his biography (which is actually very brief). Graham W. Irwin briefly discusses him in his book 'Africans Abroad: A Documentary History of the Black Diaspora in Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean during the Age of Slavery'.
He mentions that ibn Shaddad was owned by his father and was initially refused to be freed because of his colour [and rank]. He mentions that ibn Shaddad after engaging into many battles; was still denied freedom. He also asked for the hand of his niece but was denied because of his colour and rank. He was freed after he refused to fight for them and is reported to have said:
"The slave is not for fighting; he is only needed to milk the camels and tie up their udders."
Bear also in mind that Pre-islaamic Arabs boasted about their lineage from the father's side and consequently, the lineage of the mother was usually neglected. If Ibn Shaddad had an African father, it would have been a different story. But then again, can you provide an example of an African slave who reached the same rank as the pre-Islaamic Arabs?
I do not see any justification why you compared the present topic to the African ex-slaves after 1865? What we are discussing is the Pre-Islaamic racism. Let me re-quote all the evidence(s) that suggest the racism prevalent in the days of Ignorance.
Sania Hamady said in Temperament and Character of the Arabs:
Thus the social organization of Islaam rested on the equality and fraternity of all believers. The religious bond attempted to cancel distinctions of rank and pedigree; it did away theoretically with clannish feuds, contests for honour, and pride of race
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 Adaam, and Adaam 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
The Prophet said on the authority of Ubayy Bin Ka'b:
"If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islaamic people, tell him to bite his father's penis, and do not use a euphemism".
Abu Dharr narrated that the Prophet said:
"You are not better than people with red or black skins unless you excel them in piety."
Thirmidhi
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.
How does it not imply racism? All the evidence that I posted suggested that Pre-Islaamic Arabs possessed exessive pride in their lineage which automatically denotes to racism. A Pre-Islaamic half-Arab who had a African father would never boast about the lineage of his father as he had nothing to boast about it.
This is why Sania Hamady said in Temperament and Character of the Arabs:
Thus the social organization of Islaam rested on the equality and fraternity of all believers. The religious bond attempted to cancel distinctions of rank and pedigree; it did away theoretically with clannish feuds, contests for honor, and pride of race
And the countless reports from the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) denoucing the practices of the Jahiliyyah.
The only example that you have provided proved to be in favour of the Pre-Islaamic Racism.
Permissible is not the same as complusory.
It is getting quite tiredsome that you shift your argument from one point to another. First you assert that captives can be killed after captivitating and now you have interjected a complete different scenario that has nothing to do with those who are captivated.
Why don't you to stick the argument and that is whether captives can be killed after imprisoned.
And yet you ignore the bit first which says
I did not ignore that since the ikhtilaaf between killing some of the captives stems from the crimes of the captive. If Hitler was caught, would you argue that he either be ransomed or freed without a ransom? In Islaam, the Muslim government cannot hold the captives for an extreme long time. They have to release them at some point. Compare this to your argument where captives should be killed regardless of their crimes. This is also endorsed by the last part of the statement you quoted (which you ommited):
What is certain, however, is that a prisoner of war cannot be killed for nothing. The prisoner must be guilty of crimes that warrant the death penalty.
The article states:
Many of the scholars of the past loathed the idea of killing prisoners of war. Throughout all of the wars and battles that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) waged, he killed very few prisoners of war. These were all among the worst criminals among the enemy who had previously engaged in atrocities against the Muslims. Many of them would today be called war criminals.
Notice the word few.
In another article, it is written:
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted ransom from some prisoners of Badr. That ransom was for them to teach the children of the Muslims how to read and write.
Killing the prisoner is not an option at all. It was not mentioned in the verse.
On some occasions, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) executed some prisoners. However, they were not killed because they were prisoners of war, but because of heinous crimes that they had committed. They were executed for what would now be referred to as war crimes.
Ibn Rushd says in his book Bidayat Al-Mujtahid,
A number of scholars say that it is not permissible to kill a captive.
Ibn Katheer mentions in his tafseer that:
Scholars say that the Muslim ruler’s only choice is to set captives free, either as an act of grace or in return for ransom, but it is prohibited to kill a captive.
Al-Alousi says
The apparent meaning of the Qur’aanic verse is that it is forbidden to kill a person after taking him prisoner.
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?
I guess the first sententence reveals that you cannot provide the evidence for your claim that Muslims 'killed' tribes [plural]. Since you claim to have studied the Banu Mustaliq scenario, then why on earth do you ask me what the dowry was. Is this another blunder that demonstrates that you haven't read any of the seeras.
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.
And that certain well known site is the answering-islam site. I have already stated in the Assassination thread that the Seerat you quoted is the translation done by the Islamophobe Guilaume, the mere fact that you quoted them already proves your bigoted stance towards Islaam by taking information from anti-Islaamic websites who distort statements. Ibn Ishaq's work seerat of the Prophet is only known to us in the recension of Ibn Hishaam. So if you going to quote him, then quote the original [full] words instead of some biased translation of a Islamophobe.
I will list some of the authentic seeras as a starting point for you to learn about the Islaamic history in general. Ibn Katheer's Bidayah wa'l-Nihayah, the seerah compiled by Albaani (may Allaah have mercy on him) which only includes accounts with strong sanad and there is also a seerah titled Raheeq al-Maktoum by al-Mubarakpuri.
Lastly, I have noticed you have not responded to many of my points so I will attempt to re-list them.
My point regarding SS Leeder, where he reports the story and endorses it.
What he states about Slavery in Islaam.
The historic fact is that Islam brought hope to the slaves, Mecca on his farewell pilgrimage. although its traducers sometimes speak as though it invented slavery. The first Koranic word on the subject is to reprove the rich for their treatment of slaves, and for the first time in history to enjoin such consideration and kindness as practically made the slave a member of his master's family, to be treated as one of his own children. “And your slaves! See that ye feed them with such food as ye eat yourselves, and clothe them with the stuff ye wear … for they are the servants of the Lord. … Know that all Moslems are brothers unto one another,” said Mohammed in his address in Abu Bekr, the Prophet's friend, believing the kindly rules in this matter established by Mohammed to be the will of heaven, spent nearly all his large fortune to purchase slaves, to free them from the religious persecution of their masters on account of their adherence to the teaching of Islam. Bilal, the faithful negro, who first sang the famous call to prayer, and who added the words to the early morning call, “Prayer is better than sleep,” was one of these slaves who found equality, and the path to freedom, in the new religion. One of the stated purposes of the alms, which are enjoined on every Moslem, is for the benefit of slaves who wish to buy their freedom and have not the means for so doing. To this day the true Moslem regards it as a great virtue, particularly pleasing to God, to grant freedom to his slaves—in this way he will mark some happy domestic celebration, or he will join this virtue to repentance for sin and preparation for death.
The friends with whom we were staying had not only freed their slaves long since, but Halima, their foster-nurse, had for many years enjoyed the happy life of a pensioner, and, above all, as I have said, had accompanied her master and mistress to Mecca as a friend. We heard of a sheikh who some time ago married his only daughter to a slave, refusing other offers, because the lad “was the best man he knew.” A recognition of equality like this is greater than the granting of freedom.
And these freed slaves have never found their origin an “invidious bar” to their attainment of the very highest posts to which their natural talents entitled them. Egypt itself has had a negro ruler “of deep black colour with a smooth shining skin,” who rose to be an excellent Governor, from the position of a slave. Kafur had shown himself to be equally great as a soldier and a statesman, and his dominion extended not only over Egypt, but Syria also. Bagdad also had a negro caliph.
Christian captives have often been treated in such a way that the teachings of Christ must have seemed to the slaves like a mockery of their hopeless misery. Sir William Stirling Maxwell, speaking of the condition of the galley slaves, says, “The poor wretches who tugged at the oar on board a Turkish ship of war lived a life neither more nor less miserable than the galley slaves under the sign of the Cross.” If we go to Arabia, where we are closer to the practice of the first teachings of Islam, we find, in Palgrave's words, that slavery to this day, as practised in that country, "has little but the name in common with the system hell-branded by those atrocities of the Western Hemisphere."
The statements of some of the non-Muslims who acknowledged that Islaam laid out rules to eliminate slavery:
Annemarie Schimmel:
...therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam.
Marjorie Kelly writes in Islam: The Religious and Political Life of a World Community:
Because of socioeconomic considerations, however, slavery was not abolished.
Kenneth W. Morgan writes in Islam- The Straight Path: Islam Interpreted by Muslims
Slavery was customary at the time that Islam was revealed, but Islaam 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.
The pre-Islaamic raids where the killing was higlu prized:
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.
Your assertion that Muslim developed the first plantation:
Your assertion that a freed slave cannot be equal to a free man.
Your assertion that there were no repercussions after the abolition of slavery in Americas.
Bookmarks