Was Muhammad (P.B.U.H) a True Prophet?

[Chuck]

The key word in both cases is allow/encourage rather than command. The Quran doesn't command to free slaves, it doesn't prescribe the slave's right to earn his freedom, I don't even think it commands master to treat their slaves well, though if tehy can go to court, that is probably teh case.
And of course, slavery is owning a human being no matter what rights they may have.

(1) It doesn't allow to make new slaves with the exception in war.
(2) Both Quran and sunnah commands to treat slaves kindly. This was the reasons Islamic jurist would look at the complaint from a slave.
(3) It sets provisions to free the slave (against sins, etc..).
(4) In addition to above, a slave can negotiate his/her freedom.

[Treatment]
"…do ‘Ihsan’ (goodness) to parents …and (to) what your right hands posses."[4:36]

Hadith - Sahih Al-Bukhari 3.721, Narrated Al Marur bin Suwaid

I saw Abu Dhar Al-Ghifari wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a cloak. We asked him about that (i.e. how both were wearing similar cloaks). He replied, "Once I abused a man and he complained of me to the Prophet. The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked me, 'Did you abuse him by slighting his mother?' He added, 'Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if one has one's brethren under one's control, one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe them with the like of what one wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job).' "

[Slave can negotiate freedom]
"And if any of your slaves ask you for a deed in writing (for emancipation) give them such a deed; If ye knew any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you…"[24:33]

Annemarie Schimmel writes in "Islam: An Introduction", p. 67

Slavery was not abolished by the Koran, but believers are constantly admonished to treat their slaves well. In case of illness a slave has to be looked after and well cared for. To manumit [free] a slave is highly meritorious; the slave can ransom himself by paying some of the money he has earned while conducting his own business. Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam. The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from among the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (the Mamluks). Eunuchs too served in important capacities, not only as the guardians of the women's quarters, but also in high administrative and military positions.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Actually, masters aren't required to sign anything, they're asked to do so if they can see good in their slaves which is vague and non-binding.
And none of this changes the fact, thats laves are not free and are not equal to their masters since the moment they're born.
None of the provisions you mentioned seem to have deterred Arabs form trading slaves, or treating them badly for that matter...

 

[Chuck]

Actually, masters aren't required to sign anything, they're asked to do so if they can see good in their slaves which is vague and non-binding.
And none of this changes the fact, thats laves are not free and are not equal to their masters since the moment they're born.
None of the provisions you mentioned seem to have deterred Arabs form trading slaves, or treating them badly for that matter...

Following verse is related as far as ransoming themselves is considered.

"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates…"[47:4]

It deterred them thats the reason Arabs who went against it looked outside Arabian peninsula.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Following verse is related as far as ransoming themselves is considered.


It deterred them thats the reason Arabs who went against it looked outside Arabian peninsula.

this verse speaks of war and war prisoners, it doesn't necessarily apply to all slaves.
Do you consider enslaving of non-muslims moral?

 

[Chuck]

this verse speaks of war and war prisoners, it doesn't necessarily apply to all slaves.
Do you consider enslaving of non-muslims moral?

Signing and ransoming to free are connected/extended and thats how many jurist took it. Freeing for free didn't require signing a contract.

As for enslaving non-muslims that was only done in a war, and those non-muslims were enslaving too at that time.

 

[Chuck]

Here is a good essay http://history.osu.edu/students/PhiAlphaTheta/review/2006/Dulles_Higley.pdf

 

[Thinker]

Segregation

By segregation and preference I had in mind verses like this . . .

3:28 Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

I seems to me to be unjust to segregate people or show preference to people based upon their religion and as God must be just, by definition the Qu'ran cannot be the word of God.

 

[Thinker]

Technically they were servants with the rights that were given to them.

Servants with rights - is that your definitions of slavery?

The point I was trying to make was that condoning slavery contradicts the definition of God and as the Qu’ran condones slavery it by definition, is not the word of God.

4:24. Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:

24:31. And say to the believing women . . . . . or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs

2.221 Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, . . . . . A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever.

 

[aamirsaab]

By segregation and preference I had in mind verses like this . . .

3:28 Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

I seems to me to be unjust to segregate people or show preference to people based upon their religion and as God must be just, by definition the Qu'ran cannot be the word of God.

Read me

In any case, this is moving far off the topic (you're other verses can/will/have been refuted in another thread - please make use of the search function first). We're discussing if Muhammad [saw] was a true prophet - not an analysis of the Qur'an.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Read me

In any case, this is moving far off the topic (you're other verses can/will/have been refuted in another thread - please make use of the search function first). We're discussing if Muhammad [saw] was a true prophet - not an analysis of the Qur'an.

I don't see how this is off-topic. The Qur'an is obviously an important part of the Messenger's Message, and it is necessary to discuss it if one is to discuss whether or not Muhammad (pbuh) was a true prophet.

Anyone could be forgiven for thinking you're just trying to shut the discussion down.

But you're a good man and I'm sure you wouldn't do something like that.

Peace

 

[MO783]

Jazakallah

 

[Chuck]

No. I mean, slaves don't have the right to get themselves free if any rights at all by definition. But in Islam they underprivileged brothers as the hadith says, they have rights including the right to free themselves with compensation. Technically, this not a slave.

I don't really see your point in the following verses.

Servants with rights - is that your definitions of slavery?

The point I was trying to make was that condoning slavery contradicts the definition of God and as the Qu’ran condones slavery it by definition, is not the word of God.

4:24. Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:

24:31. And say to the believing women . . . . . or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs

2.221 Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, . . . . . A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever.

 

[sirajstc]

ya true agree with you

 

[aamirsaab]

Greetings,


I don't see how this is off-topic. The Qur'an is obviously an important part of the Messenger's Message, and it is necessary to discuss it if one is to discuss whether or not Muhammad (pbuh) was a true prophet.

Anyone could be forgiven for thinking you're just trying to shut the discussion down.

But you're a good man and I'm sure you wouldn't do something like that.

Peace

Lol, sneaky. By all means discuss but making statements along the lines of such and such verse of the Qur'an cannot be likened to God is indeed different to analysing/questionning if Muhammad [saw] was a true Prophet. Certainly, some analysis of the Quran can be included in such a discussion but primarily the focus should be on Muhammad's [saw] actions.

 

[Thinker]

Read me

In any case, this is moving far off the topic (you're other verses can/will/have been refuted in another thread - please make use of the search function first). We're discussing if Muhammad [saw] was a true prophet - not an analysis of the Qur'an.

Greetings respected moderator,

On topic / off topic

The member who started this thread posted a series of (as she called them) ‘proofs’ that Muhammad was the true prophet. The ‘topic’ is then, I suggest, to produce evidenced argument that this premise is true or false. I produced my structured argument which showed (in my opinion) that verses of the Qu’ran directed or condoned certain behaviour that God could not have condoned and consequently that made the Qu’ran not the word of God and by extension Muhammad was not delivering God’s mesasage.

I suggested that God could not have condoned slavery and could not have condoned segregation as both are unjust and God cannot be unjust. That, I humbly suggest is ‘on topic.’

I produced verse 3:28 as an example of the Qu’ran promoting segregation. Again, I humbly suggest still ‘on topic.’ That verse commands that Muslims not take as friends anyone other than other Muslims. You referred me to a link where ‘scholars’ have been asked that question.

In that link is the following answer. . . .

In his response to the question, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council ofNorth America, states:
The Qur'an does not say that non-Muslims cannot be Muslims' friends, nor does it forbid Muslims to be friendly to non-Muslims. There are many non-Muslims who are good friends of Muslim individuals and the Muslim community. There are also many good Muslims who truly and sincerely observe their faith and are very friendly to many non-Muslims at the same time.

This reply says that non-Muslims can be the friends of Muslims but Muslims can only be ‘friendly’ with non-Muslims. In my opinion, being friendly towards someone is not the same as being their friend.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Before rabidly criticising the Quran's approach to slavery you have to be realistic.


When Muslims say the Quran is a practical book they mean it.

If the people in an area practice slavery widely, then chances are that their livelihoods or at least their daily lives depend upont he work that their slaves do. But at the same time they often view the slaves as lesser humans.


The Quran provides an ingenious way of destroying slavery. This is not an exhaustive list, I am not ultra knowledgeable.

Part 1: The attitude towards the slave.

Allah in the Quran forbids mistreatment of the slave and requires the people to care for them as they would their family. Thus neutralizing the abhuman aura cast upon them by other people and enabling them to be seen as humans too by narrow minded people. Ina ddition to this, the freeing of a slave is a form of repentance or charity in the Quran.

Part 2: The rights of a slave

Slaves generally have few to any rights and are often forever trapped in the position. The Quran guarantees slaves the ability to ransom themselves and the ability to get an education. These among other things grant the slave a way out of his position if he so wishes. In fact, many slaves rose to public office in the history of the Muslim dynasties.




This combination is guaranteed to wean even the most slave dependent society off of slavery without destroying the livelihoods of the people there. Whereas demanding an immediate end to slavery would be impossible for many societies.

So in the end, human dignity is preserved and freedom is provided. Anytime a new society comes in and makes use of slaves, these Quranic laws are here to guide them back through practicality.

 

[islamlover_girl]

Befor Islam slaverety was at its highst peak .Islam can`t forbid slaverety in a momment (nor any other religon) coz that would give a huge no. of people who has no houses ,famillies or money .Islam gradually elimineted slaverety if it enforce it all at once, it would've caused Islam to be an unsuccessful religion toward freeing slaves, and would certainly have broken Islam's system for ending slavery.

 

[islamlover_girl]

Islam urged the freeing of slaves. It made the freeing of the slave as helping the human being to be grateful for the splendid favours of Allah and assists him to attempt the steep path.

Allah (swt) says in quran:
“Yet he has not attempted (iqtiham) the steep path (‘aqabah). What will explain to you what the steep path (‘aqabah) is? It is freeing the neck.” [TMQ 90:11-13]

prophet mohammed said
“Whichever man frees a Muslim man, Allah ta’ala will liberate for each of his organ an organ from the Fire” (narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Islam also gave the slave a method of freeing himself by entering into a manumission contract (mukatab) with his owner. This contract is where the slave agrees a value of money with his owner in exchange for his freedom in the future. Islam encouraged this contract.

Islam made the freeing of the slave as a compulsory atonement (kaffara) for many sins. So whoever kills a believer accidentally, his atonement is freeing a believing slave.

Allah (swt) says in quran:
“Never should a believer kill another believer, except by mistake. If anyone kills a believer by mistake he must free one Muslim slave and pay blood money (diyya) to the victim’s relatives, unless they charitably forgo it; if the victim belonged to a people at war with you but is a believer, then the compensation is only to free a believing slave; if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty, then blood money should be handed over to his relatives, and a believing slave set free.” [TMQ 4:92]

and said

“Allah does not take you [to task] for what is thoughtless in your oaths, only for your binding oaths: the atonement for breaking an oath is to feed ten poor people with food equivalent to what you would normally give your own families, or to clothe them, or to set free a slave.” [TMQ 5:89]


“Those of you who say such a thing to their wives (i.e. ‘you are to me like my mother’s back’), then go back on what they have said, must free a slave before the couple may touch one another again.”


[TMQ 58:3]

 

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


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


"We entered Abu Thar's house at Al-Ribthah [7] and found him dressed in a garment called 'burd' (cloak), and found his slave dressed in an identical 'burd'. So we said : ' Why don't you, 0 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 Allah, peace and blessings of God 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."

Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29



​

more info;
http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/anti-islamic-refutations/islam-slavery-refutation-doubts-699.html


One could simply state that a 'slave' is a servant, we're not even permitted to call a slave as "'abdee" [my slave], because no-one is a slave to anyone except Allah. So someone could even argue that these are infact servants.


Islam did abolish slavery gradually, (until Queen Victoria brought it up once again) however - even during the times it was present, Islam gave equal rights to slaves, to the extent that there were slaves who were Kings! (a famous dynasty to prove this are the Mamluks.)



In regard to taking Jews and Christians as friends, the word awliyaa' [used in that verse] means someone who you take as a helper, protecter and supporter. In Islam, mankind is not split up into races or nationalities, but based on belief and disbelief only, and united on faith. Islam recognises that you should be good and treat justly those who do not wage war against you, or expel you from your homes, but that you do justice when others oppress you;

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

[Qur'an 60: 8-9]​

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Signing and ransoming to free are connected/extended and thats how many jurist took it. Freeing for free didn't require signing a contract.

As for enslaving non-muslims that was only done in a war, and those non-muslims were enslaving too at that time.

No. I mean, slaves don't have the right to get themselves free if any rights at all by definition. But in Islam they underprivileged brothers as the hadith says, they have rights including the right to free themselves with compensation. Technically, this not a slave.

The point I'm trying to make is that Quran doesn't prescribe the ransom option but rather leaves it to the good will of the master.
So technically, this is a slave.