It is all right to do a little evil in order to do a greater good.

  • Thread starter Thread starter crayon
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 96
  • Views Views 15K

Do you agree with the statement in the title?

  • Total voters
    0
Whatsthepoint said:
It's not off topic. Quite the contrary.
And it's definitely not employment (that's what you said), it's owning a human being, no matter what you call it.
Click to expand...

Employment in this case would be servant I think, slave is different. Allahu a'lim.

Osman bro' by the way, I think you missed my post replying to you up there ^
 
Fine. It was just a thought and clearly an il-informed one at that. I haven't really read into the topic myself, so I'm not really in a position to discuss/debate it. :)
 
i think maybe it depends upon the situation. But it's still an evil deed... Ya Allah please guide us all in such situations, Ameen.
 
Regarding slavery, according to evidences cited in this thread, Islam aimed to eliminate slavery completely, but slowly. Much in the same way as the limit on Alcohol consumption, eventually leading to it's total prohibition.
 
Osman said:
Regarding slavery, according to evidences cited in this thread, Islam aimed to eliminate slavery completely, but slowly. Much in the same way as the limit on Alcohol consumption, eventually leading to it's total prohibition.
Click to expand...
It's not the same at all. The Quran never says slavery is haram nor that it should be gradually abolished (liberation of slaves doesn't necessarily lead to that), and it's got specific rules about enslavement of war prisoners for instance, or unbelievers.
Whatever the Quran says about slavery, the muslim world failed to abolish it. In fact it was one of the most important players in the global slave market.
 
Last edited:
Greetings,

Ansar Al-'Adl said:
No, the law hasn't changed at all. The situation has changed thanks to the implementation of the law. So it is not that slavery itself has become prohibited in Islam but that the implementation of the Islamic laws have alleviated the injustices associated with slavery, restricted the sources, and encouraged and mandated the release of slaves, so that today the re-implementation of slavery is no longer feasible.
Click to expand...

Regards
 
Whatsthepoint said:
It's not the same at all. The Quran never says slavery is haram nor that it should be gradually abolished (liberation of slaves doesn't necessarily lead to that), and it's got specific rules about enslavement of war prisoners for instance, or unbelievers.
Whatever the Quran says about slavery, the muslim world failed to abolish it. In fact it was one of the most important players in the global slave market.
Click to expand...

Please refer to this ayat:-

33. Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah 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 wealth which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them), {24:33}

If you ask me, slaves were treated quite nicely... becoming servents almost. Hence: NO SLAVERY.
 
"There are three people whose prayers are not accepted. And one of these three is a man who enslaves a free person (Rajulun iitabada muharraran)" (Sunan Abî Dawûd)

From this post by Ansar.
 
Slaves were treated in a rather humane manner in Islam, I'm not denying that, Rosegold. But slavery is salvery nonetheless.
Osman: Slavery was abolished in the muslims world in the past century due to colonialism and pressures coming from the West. You have yet to prove Islam aims to abolish slavery completely. Liberting good (muslim?) slaves alone does not necessarily imply this. and as I said, there's specific rules about aquiring new slaves, which I wouldn't expect to find in a books which supposedly aims to eliminate slavery.
 
Osman said:
"There are three people whose prayers are not accepted. And one of these three is a man who enslaves a free person (Rajulun iitabada muharraran)" (Sunan Abî Dawûd)

From this post by Ansar.
Click to expand...
But it's still allowed to enslave prisoners of war and unbelievers.
 
Whatsthepoint said:
Slaves were treated in a rather humane manner in Islam, I'm not denying that, Rosegold. But slavery is salvery nonetheless.
Click to expand...

But the ayat states that a portion of wealth should be given to the slave. Doesn't that equal pay? and didn't we establish that to be paid you then become a servent? and not a slave? Also, each and every language is influenced by its culture. For example, a word in arabic, which would be translated to 'hour', simply meant a short period of time. So, the ayat uses the word 'slave', but that doesn't necassarily translate to what we would take 'slave' to mean.
 
RoseGold said:
But the ayat states that a portion of wealth should be given to the slave. Doesn't that equal pay? and didn't we establish that to be paid you then become a servent? and not a slave? Also, each and every language is influenced by its culture. For example, a word in arabic, which would be translated to 'hour', simply meant a short period of time. So, the ayat uses the word 'slave', but that doesn't necassarily translate to what we would take 'slave' to mean.
Click to expand...
What the verse says is that masters should help their former slaves to emancipate into the society, which is a good thing. and a useful thing, considering a liberated slave had to pay his master to be set free. So, no, I don't think the help verse mentions equals pay nor changes the fact the the slave was a slave and not a servant.
 
Whatsthepoint said:
Osman: Slavery was abolished in the muslims world in the past century due to colonialism and pressures coming from the West. .
Click to expand...

salvery abolished ascribable to pressure from the west? is this an oxymoron or what? we are talking the same west that asked a woman to take the back seat on the bus for a white man not 50 or so years ago? the same west that left us with such indelible images on our minds?
burning.jpg



I am sorry.. but the west as I see it, hasn't come far from its medieval style of trial by ordeal.. pls read about that sometime.. I think holywood has painted a quixotic picture of folks who have been steeped for so long in the mire and dark ages, that they have started to believe in their own fairy tales...

cheers
 
Whatsthepoint said:
What the verse says is that masters should help their former slaves to emancipate into the society, which is a good thing. and a useful thing, considering a liberated slave had to pay his master to be set free. So, no, I don't think the help verse mentions equals pay nor changes the fact the the slave was a slave and not a servant.
Click to expand...


You're right, Slavery is allowed in Islam, but slaves have to be treated well. It is also one of the greatest deeds to free a slave in Islam. Slaves should wear the same clothes their master wears and eat the same food their masters eat.

cummon guys. complicating things. Its clear that the slaves in the time of the prophet peace be upon him were slaves. Not servants. You dont buy servants. And Servants dont have to pay their masters for freedom.

Oh and back on topic. I dont believe in doing a little bit evil for a greater good in any case if it can be avoided. Its not good if something starts in a haram way.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so here's the scenario in the film I had watched, let me know what you guys think should have been done.

The story is set during the crusades. The king of jerusalem is peace loving, and on good terms with Salah AlDeen. Only problem is, he has a disease, and will die in a very short amount of time. The person who will inherit the throne is his sister, sybilla. She is married to an evil, war hungry, horrible man. And then there's this other guy, Balian, your typical movie hero, a knight, honorable, honest, etc. The king asks Balian to marry his sister, so that when he dies, Balian will be king, and not the current husband. But the husband must be "gotten rid of" before he can marry the sister. Even though he is a vile person, he is still technically innocent of any crime. So what happens is either this:
1-Balian refuses, and the evil man becomes king. He breaks the truce with Salah AlDin, goes to war, and has thousands of people killed, and eventually loses jerusalem.
2-Balian accepts, the evil man is executed (this is the little evil), jerusalem stays on good terms with Salah AlDin, they work something out, there is no war, and no one is killed.

What happens in the movie (and history, of course), is the first case. If you had been Balian, what would you have done?
 
crayon said:
What happens in the movie (and history, of course), is the first case. If you had been Balian, what would you have done?
Click to expand...

I would have refused.

edit: What he could have done, is have an fair match against the bad man, after the sister has asked for a divorce and is to choose one of them (because it would be an evil thing to do if you wanna steal someone's wife just like that). If he lost, then he lost, but he still would have tried and still not have committed an evil.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say I'd do a little evil for alot of good, I would prefer to say I do the lesser evil than the greater evil, though through this I will, insha'Allah, plan to, bring about more good than doing the greater evil.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top