Slavery In Quran

[Hijrah]

When westerners think of slavery they think of people shacked in chains, doing forced labour.

which ain't in Islam=no chains and a far as labour, no overburdening

 

[Mohsin]

@Ansar
"Islam encouraged the emanciplating of slaves; The Qur'an does so in many places"

No doubt!! Emancipation implies that slavery was allowed!! ( discouraged sure ) but allowed!! ( Do you disagree?? )

"There are three people whose prayers are not accepted. And one of these three is a man who enslaves a free person"
See NOW we are getting somewhere!!
Enslaving a free person is obviously through this hadith known to be dissallowed ( I would like to know the book no and hadith number if you would be so kind )
The whole portion about treating slaves nicely et al irrelevant to me. My question is keeping slaves. Do you imply that by the above quoted hadith the taking of slaves has been prohibited?? That seems so to me.
By what I understand of this hadith & the implication that since no slaves can be taken that Islam effectively abolished slavery!! But if a man born to a slave is a slave then Slavery was not abolished by Islam!!

So now if you would be so kind could you guide me here. How ( if at all ) can a slave be taken. I believe captives of war are taken as slaves untill they pay their ransom which gives them their freedom as Muslims are under orders from ALLAH to free them. Is there any other way of acquiring slaves.

p.s I will look into it myself and would be very dissappointed if there were any way to take a slave and you wouldnt mention it if you knew!!

I think what you are asking is why wasn't slavery completely abolsihed. the problem was it was everywhere, slaves were in every household. A lot of these were uneducated unskilled slaves, who couldn't live independantly. if you look at when all the black slaves in America got freed, they had nowhere to go, nowhere to stay, no qualifications to work and earn money, so instead some of these were forced into crime to make a living.

So since the laws of islam come from God, God knows all, he knows what would happen if he commanded every muslim to free his slaves, they would become a burden on the community as they would have nowhere to go, and couldn't work. So instead it was abolshed gradually. the fact that islam didn't permit any free person to become enslaved proved it saw slavery as evil, however it abolsihed slavery gradually with the steps Bro. Ansar Al Adl mentioned earlier. So yes slavery was allowed, but only so that to help them.

Remember the status of slaves were elevated. If you made a slave do work you had to help him, you had to clothe him, you had to feed him. When the leader of the believers, the Caliph 'Umar bin Khattab RA went to Jerusalem, the people thought Umar Bin Khattab, the leader of all these muslims, would be coming with these huge army. But they were shocked to see he was coming on just a camel, and only accompanied by his slave. And they were taking turns on riding on the camels. Imagine that! The leader of the muslim empire would be walking in the sun in the desert, and his slave would be riding on the camel. this is how islam treated the slaves

 

[saludada]

@FISHMAN

I am saying that the conditions that the slaves of the early Muslims lived in were not as bad as westerners are made to think.

Oh OK []

@Mohsin
That is exactly the kind of economic argument that I reject as unfounded, simplistic & naive.

A lot of these were uneducated unskilled slaves, who couldn't live independantly.

They could have worked for the same people but as free men. Come ON!!
This wasnt an employment opportunity!! The role that slaves used to have in society they could have continued as free men - servents of their previous masters only being paid for their services & able to decide by themselves what they want to do with their lives as as all men should be able to.

they would become a burden on the community as they would have nowhere to go and couldn't work.

NO THEY DEFINITELY WOULD NOT!! How can you assume they would have no where to go!?!? They could have very well played the same role in society as they did previously. Freedom only now would have meant that they could do better - they would have been free to make lives better for themselves. Their masters werent keeping them for their good company. They had purpose for them. Even if the slaves had been free the purpose would still be there and the slave could very well serve it and the master would pay the former slave as he would pay any free man for any service!!!

So instead it was abolshed gradually.

There is one major problem with that!! Slavery was NOT abolished for centuries after the revelation of Islam. The concept of slavery existed till very recently. :|

 

[Hijrah]

@FISHMAN

Oh OK []

@Mohsin
That is exactly the kind of economic argument that I reject as unfounded, simplistic & naive.


They could have worked for the same people but as free men. Come ON!!
This wasnt an employment opportunity!! The role that slaves used to have in society they could have continued as free men - servents of their previous masters only being paid for their services & able to decide by themselves what they want to do with their lives as as all men should be able to.


NO THEY DEFINITELY WOULD NOT!! How can you assume they would have no where to go!?!? They could have very well played the same role in society as they did previously. Freedom only now would have meant that they could do better - they would have been free to make lives better for themselves. Their masters werent keeping them for their good company. They had purpose for them. Even if the slaves had been free the purpose would still be there and the slave could very well serve it and the master would pay the former slave as he would pay any free man for any service!!!


There is one major problem with that!! Slavery was NOT abolished for centuries after the revelation of Islam. The concept of slavery existed till very recently. :|

You put up a great argument indeed but even after all that there is no denying that if slaves were freed all together it wuld have been a huge blow economically, as far as slavery not being abolished until recently, that's a matter of individualism, I don't see how Islam can be taken to account with that one.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

No doubt!! Emancipation implies that slavery was allowed!! ( discouraged sure ) but allowed!! ( Do you disagree?? )

I answered this in my last post (I take it you have run out of useful comments since you are repeating the ones that have been debunked). Islam did not simply leave slavery to be as you imply when you say it allowed it, instead Islam did the best thing possible in working towards the removal of slavery and the elimination of any associated injustices. 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. Islam took several steps to eliminate the injustices of slavery and drive humanity in the direction of its gradual elimination. As for what those steps were, I have outlined them clearly in my previous post.

The whole portion about treating slaves nicely et al irrelevant to me.

No it is not irrelevant. The abuse of slaves was rampant in those times and was a severe injustice that had to be removed. It is to the credit of Islam that it was able to not only remove such injustices, but elevate the status of slaves to the same level as everyone else. Once this was done, the institution of slavery began to naturally dissolve. It is certainly convenient for you to label all the monumental achievements of Islam in the way of removing injustices associated with slavery as 'irrelevant', and then complain about all the injustices associated with slavery and why Islam did not place an immediate prohibition on slavery.

See NOW we are getting somewhere!!

No need to embarrass yourself - this exact quote was in my last post!! And yet, it is only after I pasted it for you a SECOND time, that you read it and said "now we're getting somewhere!!" YES. We are getting somewhere because you have only begun to read the information that was repeatedly posted in this thread AND in the thread that members referred you to earlier! I think it is only fair that we expect you to read the responses on this forum rather than needing to be spoon-fed these quotes over and over again in the hopes of generating a response.

My question is keeping slaves. Do you imply that by the above quoted hadith the taking of slaves has been prohibited??

No free person can be taken as a slave.

By what I understand of this hadith & the implication that since no slaves can be taken that Islam effectively abolished slavery!!

Welcome to the thread. By eliminating and restricting the sources of slavery, Islam effectively drove humanity towards its gradual elimination. After that, slaves only resulted from war captives and existing slaves. And when a slave-girl gives birth to her master's child, the child is not a slave, and when the master dies the child's mother automatically becomes free as well.

Is there any other way of acquiring slaves.

Outside of war-captives, there is no other way of acquiring more slaves.

That is exactly the kind of economic argument that I reject as unfounded, simplistic & naive.

I would prefer the researched conclusions of historians, sociologists and economists over your ill-informed conjecture, any day. Roger Du Pasquier, Edward Blyden, Mouradgea d'Ohsson, Napoleon Bonaparte, Annemarie Schimmel, P. L Riviere, Leeder, etc. This was discussed in great detail in the other thread. Some excerpts:

Think what would have happened if Muslims have freed all the slaves? How these slaves would have earned a living if all of them were freed at once? In my opinion, the economy would have collapsed, which would have hurt all people including the freed slaves. The case for slavery is not like the case of alcohol. Slavery, depending on the socio-economic conditions of a society, is not a bad thing if it is done within the bounds of human rights. In another words, if paying for domestic work is not affordable by socio-economic situations of a society, then a person would work happily if you provide him/her food, shelter, clothing, and treat him/her with respect. It doesn't matter if you call this person slave, servant, or anything else – these are only the names for which people tend to confuse themselves – the important thing is the treatment of the person.

Then clearly you're not well acquainted with the econimcal condition in Middle Ages. Back then, the gap for economic opportunies was very narrow for freedslaves as was independency for a freedslave who didn't posses any property nor was educated. This in turn leads the freedslave going back to his former master and sell his labour in return for economical dependancy. This is also from the Islamic POV as I haven't mentioned the economical disasters in Americas slavery but then again, I wouldn't justify the slavery in Americas and the cruel treatment that they had to endure. I hope such part of history never repeats itself.

Your definition of slaves is what any historian refers to as western definition. The Islamic definition is the same as the definition of a servant. I suppose the humane treatment, the ability to achieve great ranks, etc, has been already mentioned.
[...] I disagree with you strongly on that issue. Can you provide [any] evidence that freed slaves had personal, psychological or economic resources to secure themselves a dignified independence. I assume you are aware of the past consequence that was heaped on the freed slaves after the civil war.

Frederick Douglas said, regarding the ex-slaves after the civil war:

"free, without roofs to cover them, or bread to eat, or land to cultivate, and as a consequence died in such numbers as to awaken the hope of their enemies that they would soon disappear."
​

Islaam aimed at abolishing slavery gradually without introducing any negative consequences on the stability neither of the community nor in the economical status. This is because slaves represented a big economic power before the advent of Islaam. Another additional reason was that during that period, nations were lacking a solid system to exchange POWS. The only options that they enforced was either by putting the POWS to sword, keep them as captives, allow them to return to their people or distribute them as part of the spoils of war.

And the oft-used option was the last one. But Islaam replaced the cruel inhumane treatment that captives used to receive with compassion and justice.

Let me cite an example of a captive named Emmanuel d'Aranda, a student from Flanders who was caught at sea in 1640, and remained captive in the Regency of Algiers for two years (1640-2), narrated his experience. His first master was Cataborne Mostafa, who shared his meals with him, and his company. Then at some point his master, as a punishment following a quarrel with an army officer, was sent away for military duty for six months. Here is what d’Aranda has to say:

"I was sad about my master, who told me: `henceforth you will go and live at Mahomet Celibi Oiga; I hope with God’s help, before my return you will be free, and if I had money I will share it with you.’’ I answered: `Master, I know about your good will and your poverty; I kiss your hands, thanking you as much as I can for the good treatment I received in your house.’ He said "When you are back in Flanders, give my greetings to your parents."
Found in Emmanuel d’Aranda: Relation; op cit; In Denise Brahimi: Opinions et regards; op cit; pp. 45-6.
​

Labat (Priest) addresses the misconception that the slaves were treated inhumane by their Muslim captors. He wrote in his memoir:

"We imagine that the Christians who have the misfortune to be slaves in Barbary, are tortured in a very cruel manner and the most in-humane treatment inflicted on them. There are people who in order to stir the charity of the faithful pour with great assurance these lies: their intention, although good, is still always a lie. They forget that in this instance that it is not right to cause harm so as to derive good. I, too, have been in this situation like many others…. But what I saw in Tunis has convinced me these people are full of humanity, as I witnessed that our slaves on the boats waiting to sail were fed every day (fruit, meat, bread…)… and some of these slaves demanded that they stayed with their masters until the day they left for home; and I agreed. Their masters shared their meals with them, gave them tobacco, and looked after them as if they were their own children. They kissed them on the day of parting, and assured them, that if business or misfortune brought them back to the country, they could freely live with them, and they will be more than welcome."
​

Not only would there have been a collapse of the economy from the sudden generation of independent economic entities causing the suffering of ex-slaves and ex-masters alike, but it also would have been the cause of much injustice. Let's consider an analogy. If a billion dollars of counterfeit money is introduced secretly into a city over an extended period of time until it was sufficiently distributed, then imagine the case if it was suddenly identified and people were ordered to dispense of it immediately. Some people would lose very little, but there would be many who would lose almost all their wealth, their property, their life's work and be thrown into poverty. It would be more appropriate to introduce a system to gradually filter out the counterfeit money in a way that would not reap injustice on any members of society.

This is what Islam did with slavery - it introduced a system to eliminate any injustices and allow for the gradual removal of the practice without causing injustice to any members of society.

 

[saludada]

@Hijrah
"I don't see how Islam can be taken to account with that one."
Well if our argument is that Islam slowly abolished slavery its rather necessary for the said argument that slavery actually did get abolished. ( it didnt though )

@Ansar
"The abuse of slaves was rampant in those times and was a severe injustice that had to be removed."
That all nice and dandy irrelevant to me because that was not my question.

"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."
Was that the only radical change Islam brought. How about equality of the genders. Islam proclaimed the women to be equal how do you think that would have rested with the misogynic society of the time. No misogyny was not slowly abolished. Be reasonable. The Arabs of the time could hardly adjust to anything Islam brought. But yes Islamic injunction as radical as any were revealed to the ARABS.

this exact quote was in my last post!!
I was reffered to a very large thread. How do you suppose that I could without missing anything go through it all.

Would be coming back to the economics of it in a moment. But let me clear things up for myself.

The second ( most certainly by the third ) generation of Muslims from arab would have had no slaves except captives of war. Which in the absence of Geneva conventions serves to protect prisoners of war!! So that is the abolishment of slavery right there!!

 

[saludada]

Also captives of war were to be freed if they paid their ransom. That is fundamentally different from a free man for no justifiable reason being made a slave and having to purchase his freedom. Captives of war were prisoners who could pay with service or money to secure their freedom and as long as they were prisoners labour being extorted through them!

Than you again.

 

[saludada]

I'll get back to the economic fallacy later!! But now it is pointless - I will however persue it as an intellectual excercise.

 

[saludada]

Sunan abu dawood which book - I need to look up that hadith

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

@Ansar
"The abuse of slaves was rampant in those times and was a severe injustice that had to be removed."
That all nice and dandy irrelevant to me because that was not my question.

It is not irrelevant; slave abuse is one of the major injustices associated with slavery and the fact that Islam eradicated it entirely is not smething to be overlooked when evaluating Islam's role in the gradual removal of slavery.

"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."
Was that the only radical change Islam brought. How about equality of the genders. Islam proclaimed the women to be equal how do you think that would have rested with the misogynic society of the time. No misogyny was not slowly abolished. Be reasonable. The Arabs of the time could hardly adjust to anything Islam brought. But yes Islamic injunction as radical as any were revealed to the ARABS.

Yes, Islam brought radical change in terms of beliefs and views. It immediately promoted gender equity and declared racial and social equality. But these are beliefs and values. You can declare that the slave and the master are equal, but until you have developed a system of viable alternatives you cannot effect economic and societal change in this manner. So your mistake is in comparing Islam's immediate changes to the value/belief system with its gradual changes to the economic/societal system. As I indicated earlier a more fitting example would be the introduction of counterfeit money into an economy.

this exact quote was in my last post!!
I was reffered to a very large thread. How do you suppose that I could without missing anything go through it all.

I'm not talking about the other thread. I'm talking about my first post IN THIS THREAD.

The second ( most certainly by the third ) generation of Muslims from arab would have had no slaves except captives of war.

No there were all the existing slaves as well. They didn't magically disappear.

Sunan abu dawood which book - I need to look up that hadith

I don't have the reference for the book, but the arabic phrase in the hadith was mentioned so you can search for it if you need it.

 

[searchingsoul]

It depends on what type of slavery you are talking about. If it is the slavery that occured in America against Blacks, that is not allowed. If it is normal slavery where you a person or persons to work for you because of some kind of mutual deal then it is permitted as far as I know.

It's sometimes called being a wife.:giggling:

 

[saludada]

They didn't magically disappear.

Come on - by the third generation the existing slaves would have died - how long do you want them to live? Their offspring would be free men. So there you go. Slavery abolished.

 

[saludada]

I searched the entire Sunan Abu dawood. That was alot of work!!
CTRL+F looked through all mentions of slaves through the entire Sunan Abu Dawood. I couldnt find it. I could have very well made a mistake - but its too much trouble to do that again. Could you please find out which book.

 

[Hijrah]

@Hijrah
"I don't see how Islam can be taken to account with that one."
Well if our argument is that Islam slowly abolished slavery its rather necessary for the said argument that slavery actually did get abolished. ( it didnt though )

even so, Islam can't be taken to account for certain individuals...

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Come on - by the third generation the existing slaves would have died - how long do you want them to live? Their offspring would be free men.

Yes the offspring of the master and slave would, but otherwise not.

So there you go. Slavery abolished.

Eventually yes you are right that the sources became quite depleted but here is the fundamental problem you're forgetting - ISLAM SPREAD. So in the third generation there were many people who had just become Muslims in many newly conquered lands. The Muslims population expanded tremendously in a very short period of time. If Islam had remained confined to a few tribes in the Arabian desert, then we would expect it to have depleted as quickly as you suggest.

I searched the entire Sunan Abu dawood.

Arabic or english? If it was the latter then you should know that only a partial translation is available for Sunan Abi Dawud on the net.

Regards

 

[Hijrah]

Are u sure u searched the entire sunan abu dawood

http://searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=slaves&translator=3&search=1&book=&start=0

 

[saludada]

Yeah - I know - I searched on MSA - its not complete.
I will have no peace till I find it.

Hajirah - the result does not contain the said hadith.

p.s Ansar
Your point being The spread of Islam created new slave?

 

[searchingsoul]

The slavery of old would correspond more closely with what is considered minimum wage employment today. There were many restrictions placed on how a slave had to be treated and the slave also had opportunity to move out of slavery. Sadly, our current language has few words that correspond to the accurate meanings used in the past.

However, some words that we do have would are more accurate then the word "slave" for what was meant by the original word such as:

Laborer
Intern
serf
Share Holder
student


And many others, depending on the specific task the slave's services were for.

It is nearly impossible to convey yesterdays meanings into the terms of today's connontations.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Thanks

 

[searchingsoul]

ummm...they were good on the most part, slaves were freed for simple reasons, masters weren't allowed to beat the slaves and masters were to feed and dress the slaves as they dressed themselves so I don't see what the West has on that kind of slavery compared to other kinds in history....

Weren't they allowed to castrate them and turn them into eunichs? ouch!

 

[searchingsoul]

I need something clarified. Slavery was abolished in Islam as society changed. Is this correct?

Are other aspects of Islam allowed the same progression? If so, which aspects are allowed to change and who decides that they may change?