Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ansar Al-'Adl
Quote:
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.
This is the reality. You keep missing the point. We are discussing ISLAM and ISLAMIC LAW, not the misconduct of some Muslims.
When you talk about how Islam paved the way for abolition we are clearly not talking about your idealised version of Islamic law, but the conduct of some Muslims. When you talk about which Caliph had a slave mother, again, we are talking about the reality, not the Islamic theory.
You move between the two and so it is hard to keep up. I would ask for more patience.
Quote:
Quote:
I have firmly established that a freed men has fewer and lesser rights than a free man.
Where have you established that? You mentioned the case of walaa, which means that the former master will inherit from the freed slave if there are no heirs or if there is a portion of wealth left after the heirs have taken theirs. This is in no way 'fewer rights'. Can an individual who has been born to a large family complain that he has fewer rights because he has more heirs?! If the only example you can bring is walaa, then clearly you have been soundly debunked on your claim of fewer rights.
No he is unlikely to complain about heirs because that does not affect him. Now a son born into a large family might complain. But he has the same rights everyone else in his family, or at least all the boys, does. What a freed slave has is fewer rights over how to dispose of his estate - Islamic law lays down another condition he must follow - and lesser rights in that he is also a malwa by law and not a free man. This has not been debunked. You deny it means what it means, but it still means what I said.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Which in no way contradicts my point that they are not superior.
I think it does. If you do not I am happy to leave it there.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
First of all, these were not 'bad' 'non-islamic' societies. This was in the time period immediately following the companions when the Muslims were the most righteous and the scholars of Islam were the leaders. The fact that by this time the slaves had become leaders in the society shows how Islam worked as a dynamic force to elevate the status of the slaves.
Except the slaves did not seize power then. Some of them and more of their descendents just rose because of their abilities. The Mamluks seized power. The Army of the late Abbasids did in all but name.
This too seems to have little relevance and I am happy to let it go unless you have some point you still wish to make?
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Had it not been for Islam, slavery would have become deeper and the oppression of slaves would have continued without restriction. Twice I have quoted to you a statement from Edward Blyden, which you have twice ignored:
The first sentence is a guess on your part. There is no way of knowing. And the historical record suggests otherwise - Muslim societies were the last to abolish slavery, not the first.
I am ignoring Blyden yet again because he is of course utterly irrelevant. He does not make the claim you are making. He is not an Islamic scholar. I am doubtful that you have read the book even.
Quote:
I was already familiar with these articles on Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan. Mistranslated? No, misquoted actually. There is a distinct difference between 'advocating' slavery and saying that it is permissible in Islam. It is quite obvious that he has been misquoted if the article attributes to him views that most Muslims are polytheists and similar kharaji views when Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan is known to be a staunch opponent of such views!
Actually I fail to see a distinction between the two. If slavery is permissible in Islam then all good Muslims must want to see it come back. How can any Muslim make illegal what God has made licit? Isn't that innovation?
I am not interested in his takfir-ing. I do not have expertise in this area.
Quote:
Now the issue of Safiyyah, the wife of the Prophet Muhammad saws. First of all, I am amazed at how you seem to miss simple english phrases, such as in this hadith you quoted:
Quote:
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
If one understands english they will realize very quickly that this hadith proves that she WAS NOT a slave girl because the Prophet Muhammad pbuh made her wear the veil, indicating he had married her as his wife.
I have tried to edit this to make it easier to follow. Let me know if I have not done you justice.
Actually I disagree with that totally. As you have pointed out many many times, Muhammed cursed anyone who made a free person a slave. There was only one way that Safiyyah could have become a slave and that was if she was captured. So she was a slave - when she belonged to someone else - she came to Muhammed as a slave, but she agreed to convert and he then married her. That is the only interpretation consistent with the quotation I have provided and your claims about Islamic law. How could she have been a slave if she was free? Why would they even think of it? And yet they clearly considered the option of her being a slave.
Quote:
The same thing is true for all the other hadith you have quoted - they all show that she was among the captives i.e. she could have been taken as a slave girl but SHE WAS NOT taken as a slave girl, INSTEAD the Prophet Muhammad pbuh manumitted her and MARRIED HER. So to bring her up in the discussion on slave girls is irrelevant because she was the wife of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, not his slave.
I think they all show that she was a slave, but she converted and then Muhammed married her. In fact they explicitly and clearly say so. Tell me how you can interpret that in any other way?
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."
Are you saying that Bukhari is wrong here to say this in this order?
And incidentally, how does she get a name like Safiya if she was not a slave?
Quote:
Quote:
So she does not have to pass the entire menstrual period, just until her [menstrual] period has passed?
The two things are identical. Safiyyah did not pass her entire menstrual period in three days. That was when her period ended so the Prophet pbuh married her. He did not keep her as a slave. If a non-muslim woman converts to Islam, as is the case with Safiyyah, one may marry her at the end of her period.
Well originally the claim was they had to wait a month - the menstrual period. Of course this may not equal one whole menstrual cycle. Safiya did not pass her entire cycle or an entire month, but just three days when, I assume, her period was over. So the two are not identical. I have just not been clear.