Slavery

[nihil est]

Does Islam say that slavery is wrong?

 

[Uthman]

Please see this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/32353-slavery.html

 

[nihil est]

Please see this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/32353-slavery.html

Thank you, I'll read it.

 

[nihil est]

The fantasy of someone simply snapping their fingers and declaring the immediate abolishment of slavery in the 7th century is a nice idea, but unfortunately unrealistic and impossible. Slavery was deeply entrenched in the society and consequently could not be eliminated immediately.

The same could be said of polytheism and idolatry, perhaps more so. But God took a much harsher stance against those last two than against the institution of slavery.

In any case, a commandment against slavery did not need to dissolve slavery outright. It would serve to let Muslims know that slavery was wrong. Without such a commandment, is it any wonder that for centuries, Muslims thought slavery was permissible? A warning against drinking alcohol never stopped people from drinking alcohol, but it did outline what was right (abstaining from alcohol) and what was wrong.

An off-topic question, how would you like me to call the deity of Islam, God or Allah? Or do you not mind either way?

 

[AntiKarateKid]

The same could be said of polytheism and idolatry, perhaps more so. But God took a much harsher stance against those last two than against the institution of slavery.

In any case, a commandment against slavery did not need to dissolve slavery outright. It would serve to let Muslims know that slavery was wrong. Without such a commandment, is it any wonder that for centuries, Muslims thought slavery was permissible? A warning against drinking alcohol never stopped people from drinking alcohol, but it did outline what was right (abstaining from alcohol) and what was wrong.

An off-topic question, how would you like me to call the deity of Islam, God or Allah? Or do you not mind either way?

I disagree. A man can change his heart about polytheism in a moment but if his family's (or even his whole civilization) income depends on the work of slaves, it is a different animal.

In no way does polytheism influence the economy. Indirectly maybe, through the beliefs of it's adherents but slavery provided the direct backbone for much of society.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

The same could be said of polytheism and idolatry, perhaps more so. But God took a much harsher stance against those last two than against the institution of slavery.

In any case, a commandment against slavery did not need to dissolve slavery outright. It would serve to let Muslims know that slavery was wrong. Without such a commandment, is it any wonder that for centuries, Muslims thought slavery was permissible? A warning against drinking alcohol never stopped people from drinking alcohol, but it did outline what was right (abstaining from alcohol) and what was wrong.

An off-topic question, how would you like me to call the deity of Islam, God or Allah? Or do you not mind either way?

In order for slavery to be finished, the mentality towards slaves had to be dissolved.

The Quran dissolves that mentality of slaves being inferior outright by mandating that they be given an education, fed, and treated like family. Just look at the example of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. His slaves chose to work for him rather than return to their family because they loved him so.

Then, is a slave a slave if he is treated so? Is a slave a slave if he has so many routes to freedom?

Also, one musn't confuse the actions of Muslims with the beliefs of Muslims. The Quran may mandate us to not drink alcohol, but if some fail in that respect, there is no blame on the Quran.

 

[nihil est]

In all honestly, that is completely false. A man can change his heart about polytheism in a moment but if his family's income depends on the work of slaves, it is a different animal.

In no way does polytheism influence the economy. Indirectly maybe, through the beliefs of it's adherents but slavery provided the direct backbone for much of society.

I'll cop that. I didn't realise that the author meant slavery was deeply engrained in economical terms, I thought he meant it was a deeply held social belief. But that's a good point that slavery was useful for the economy.

However, I would question why God didn't abolish the institution of slavery from the beginning, perhaps from Adam or Noah's time, so that it didn't have to become the backbone of society.

 

[nihil est]

In order for slavery to be finished, the mentality towards slaves had to be dissolved.

The Quran dissolves that mentality of slaves being inferior outright by mandating that they be given an education, fed, and treated like family. Just look at the example of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. His slaves chose to work for him rather than return to their family because they loved him so.

A mentality to treat slaves well only encourages well-meaning slavery. A commandment against slavery on the other hand encourages the abolition of slavery, eventually.

Then, is a slave a slave if he is treated so? Is a slave a slave if he has so many routes to freedom?

I would argue yes. A slave is property, regardless of whether he or she is treated well. Every time a slave is told to fetch the water, he is being treated as a slave. Even a slave's freedom is dependent on his master's generosity.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

I'll cop that. I didn't realise that the author meant slavery was deeply engrained in economical terms, I thought he meant it was a deeply held social belief. But that's a good point that slavery was useful for the economy.

However, I would question why God didn't abolish the institution of slavery from the beginning, perhaps from Adam or Noah's time, so that it didn't have to become the backbone of society.

In Adam's time, there wasn't an issue with slavery. Allah reveals it when the time is right. Keep in mind, you and I are not omnipotent and don't know everything.

I surmise that as the other religions had their scriptures corrupted, it wouldn't have been as effective as putting it in the Quran (the first and only one meant for all mankind) which has remained unchanged down to the letter in 1400 years. So the teachings about slavery would not be corrupted and forgotten.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

A mentality to treat slaves well only encourages well-meaning slavery. A commandment against slavery on the other hand encourages the abolition of slavery, eventually.

What exactly is well-meaning slavery? You can't just take any person as a slave no matter what you intentions. Moreover, do you see the contradiction? If a man is trying to make money from the slave, why would he take on someone he has to spend so much money on to keep as he would his own kids? The economic incentive is practically moot.

I would argue yes. A slave is property, regardless of whether he or she is treated well. Every time a slave is told to fetch the water, he is being treated as a slave. Even a slave's freedom is dependent on his master's generosity.

A slave can request their freedom if they wish. But back then things like education were hardly guaranteed but a Muslim is required to provide for his slave.

"Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. -Quran

 

[AntiKarateKid]

"The law of slavery in the legal sense of the term is now obsolete. While it had any meaning, Islam made the slave's lot as easy as possible. A slave, male or female, could ask for conditional manumission by a written deed fixing the amount required for manumission and allowing the slave meanwhile to earn money by lawful means and perhaps marry and bring up a family. Such a deed was not to be refused if the request was genuine and the slave had character. Not only that, but the master is directed to help with money out of his own resources in order to enable the slave to earn his or her own liberty."

 

[nihil est]

If a man is trying to make money from the slave, why would he take on someone he has to spend so much money on to keep as he would his own kids? The economic incentive is practically moot.

So why did people take slaves?

What exactly is well-meaning slavery?

What I mean is that nice treatment of slaves is laudable, but it doesn't address the morality of slavery. Saying that it's okay to own slaves if you treat them nicely only makes people complacent. It made the whole Muslim community complacent until the last few hundred years, when abolitionist movements began.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

So why did people take slaves?

Ask the ones who took them. I didn't. None of my relatives across the world did. Neither did anyone they knew.

What I mean is that nice treatment of slaves is laudable, but it doesn't address the morality of slavery. Saying that it's okay to own slaves if you treat them nicely only makes people complacent. It made the whole Muslim community complacent until the last few hundred years, when abolitionist movements began.

Hardly. The abolitionist movements would have been crushed had the US actually depended upon slaves at that time. Why do you think it took so many years? If they had done it before, there would be no US ( or a significantly weaker one) since they thrived on the sweat of slaves.

In the end, whether or not you disagree with the way Allah banished slavery doesn't affect Islam. The Quran blurred the line between slave and family, gave slaves a way out, reduced the economic incentive of having them, and made releasing them charity and a way of atonement in many situations thereby paving a way for the elimination of slavery in society without collapsing it and you STILL have a problem with it?

I think you are inflating the failures of later Muslims and diminishing the success of the first ones (the best ones). Slaves could rise to become members of the royal courts and you actually compare them in status to the ones America had?!

1400 years before Martin Luther King, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh said this:

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.

 

[nihil est]

Hardly. The abolitionist movements would have been crushed had the US actually depended upon slaves at that time. Why do you think it took so many years? If they had done it before, there would be no US ( or a significantly weaker one) since they thrived on the sweat of slaves.

I'd argue that a nation that grows strong on the basis of a great moral evil isn't deserving of its greatness. That includes the Ummah. I've heard an argument that God allowed slavery because it allowed Islam to grow strong.

I think you are inflating the failures of later Muslims and diminishing the success of the first ones (the best ones). Slaves could rise to become members of the royal courts and you actually compare them in status to the ones America had?!

I haven't done that. There are different forms of slavery, I think all of them are bad. Yes, slaves could reach high positions, they could be treated well and so on. But, morally, the fact that a slave was a slave to someone is just plain wrong. And if I was a Muslim, I'd argue that the position of slave master belongs only to God.

1400 years before Martin Luther King, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh said this:

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.

500 years before the Prophet Muhammad, Seneca the pagan said this:

Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives and dies. It is just as possible for you to see in him a free-born man as for him to see in you a slave.

Unfortunately, very few people in the ancient world thought of abolishing the institution of slavery. Actually, I can't think of even one.

In the end, whether or not you disagree with the way Allah banished slavery doesn't affect Islam. The Quran blurred the line between slave and family, gave slaves a way out, reduced the economic incentive of having them, and made releasing them charity and a way of atonement in many situations thereby paving a way for the elimination of slavery in society without collapsing it and you STILL have a problem with it?

Yes, I do. The mere fact that God could have said that slavery was wrong, but didn't, disturbs me greatly. Like I said before, slavery didn't have to be cut out immediately...the very fact that God himself despised slavery would be an unstoppable force for abolition. But if we could go back in time and talk to a Muslim from the 11th century, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any Muslim who thought slavery was evil.

God's silence was (to me) unforgivable.

Another question, what does Islam say about the enslavement of prisoners of war?

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Before I address that last post, I need some clarification.

What in your opinion is a slave and what are the negatives of being one? Any positives?

And how do you distinguish a slave from a servant?

 

[AntiKarateKid]

I'd argue that a nation that grows strong on the basis of a great moral evil isn't deserving of its greatness. That includes the Ummah. I've heard an argument that God allowed slavery because it allowed Islam to grow strong.

The ancient world's economy was based on slavery among other things. Islam is a practical religion so it provided laws to eliminate moral evils if possible outright or in the case of some like slavery (which would take longer), kill it off slowly and efficiently. It would collapse the households and economies of people if they were mandated to stop it outright. This would hinder people from accepting Islam and ending their other moral evils and even open the door for people who would accept Islam but not obey rules like the outright end of slavery because it was inconvenient. This would lead people to disregard other mandates they perceived as inconvenient.

I haven't done that. There are different forms of slavery, I think all of them are bad. Yes, slaves could reach high positions, they could be treated well and so on. But, morally, the fact that a slave was a slave to someone is just plain wrong. And if I was a Muslim, I'd argue that the position of slave master belongs only to God.

You seem to be hung up on the word slave. What if they were called maids? Servants? Butlers even? You don't seem to understand that whatever negatives of being a slave were in place, were effectively eliminated and makes the position parallel to a maid/butler/etc.

500 years before the Prophet Muhammad, Seneca the pagan said this:

Seneca only seems to be saying "treat the slave nice because you could be a slave to someone else". Nothing about slavery due to racial superiority was said which you may remember was part of the reason blacks were mistreated by whites in America. While in the ancient world, slaves are people who have lost everything or owe a debt to someone and come from different races. As such, I'm not impressed with Seneca.

Unfortunately, very few people in the ancient world thought of abolishing the institution of slavery. Actually, I can't think of even one.

Because during those times their economies were based on it and to say so would have been naive.

Yes, I do. The mere fact that God could have said that slavery was wrong, but didn't, disturbs me greatly. Like I said before, slavery didn't have to be cut out immediately...the very fact that God himself despised slavery would be an unstoppable force for abolition. But if we could go back in time and talk to a Muslim from the 11th century, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any Muslim who thought slavery was evil.

God's silence was (to me) unforgivable.

Now you're coming across as melodramatic. Islam is a practical religion. It is not naive and Allah does what works, not what sounds the best. If you can't accept that outright condemnation of slavery would have destroyed the economy of Muslims and prevented it's truth from spreading to other lands, I don't know what to say. I personally see the genius in Allah's mandates of treating slaves like family and giving them an education and a way out. It eliminates the main problem of slavery, namely people viewing a certain group as inferior, and provides a way for all slaves to get out of it and makes freeing them a great charity. It also fights the monetary incentive of slavery and turns them into something akin to today's maids and servants.

Keep in mind also that Muslims are not going around enslaving people. Enslaving someone against their will would itself be a crime and Muslims who choose to buy slaves from their marketplace or accept a person who owes them money to be a slave, have to abide by Islam's laws.

I do hope you read my whole post before responding because I don't see where you are going anymore. And your last few sentences seem more to be a pseudo-moral outburst against a strawman than an actual point you'd like me to address. Muslims believe mistreating others is evil and I don't see where slaves were mistreated.

Another question, what does Islam say about the enslavement of prisoners of war?

BTW I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak on the rules of war so you're better off reading the link provided to you and asking scholars.

Here is a link to get you started.

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/anti-islamic-refutations/islam-slavery-437

 

[nihil est]

What in your opinion is a slave

Human property.

and what are the negatives of being one?

Being unable to direct the course of their own life, which one could say is a loss of 'liberty'. I personally think that self-actualisation, that is the ability to achieve what they want, is a very important thing to humans.

Any positives?

Hm...maybe if the conditions of slavery were better than not being a slave, that would count as a positive.

And how do you distinguish a slave from a servant?

A servant can be indentured for a time, or hired like a worker. They get pay as well.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Human property.

If you have a problem with this then you need to look at the contracts one signs when they get a job in a company, for example. The worker is the property of the company then.

Being unable to direct the course of their own life, which one could say is a loss of 'liberty'. I personally think that self-actualisation, that is the ability to achieve what they want, is a very important thing to humans.

And where does the ISLAMIC version of it hinder the slave who is free to try and get out of it. Other than working for their owner, there is no reason why they can't get a family, education, and social life. Remember, we are arguing about slavery under Islamic rules.

Hm...maybe if the conditions of slavery were better than not being a slave, that would count as a positive.

I'll give a quick example, where in the ancient world would a man be guaranteed health care, an education, or a proper lodge for his work?

A servant can be indentured for a time, or hired like a worker. They get pay as well.

Again, Muslims can't just go around enslaving people. If a slave is bought from the marketplace or a person willingly submits themselves to be a slave to pay off debts, they have the opportunity to get out of it. In the meantime, they would be taken care of and able to earn money.


It seems that you don't have a problem with the Islamic concept of slavery per se. You just have a problem with the word and mix up things like the American treatment of slaves with how Islam mandates them to be.

 

[Zafran]

slavery still exists in the world. It also took a long time for the whole world to come to terms with so called end of slavery - a bit like black people and how they were treated in the US. Today we can say with a balck president that it shouldnt have even been an issue - it clearly was and its easy to say "oh why didnt they eradicate it then".

 

[Zafran]

A servant can be indentured for a time, or hired like a worker. They get pay as well.

depends on what you mean by "pay". In some countries people are servants and they dont get good pay - they actually get terrible pay.

Lets not even forget about child labour around the world.