Slavery

[nihil est]

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.

Being a servant isn't all bright and dandy either, there are instances of abuses.

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.

They're not at all comparable. A worker is not the legal property of a company, and if you believe differently, show me a contract that allows workers to be inherited as slaves were.

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.

Can a slave say 'no' to his or her master? That is the liberty I'm talking about. It's the ability to take your life wherever you choose it to go. Now that's a simplification, becuase external factors limit the things you can do. But you get the point I think.

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?

None of those things are guaranteed. A slave owner doesn't have to do any of those things, because they aren't mandated in the Qur'an or Sunnah. There are encouragements, like the encouragement to free slaves, but they had no binding force. You didn't have to free slaves.

The conditions of your servitude may be fantastic, but that's like being a slave in a gilded cage. There may be positives to slavery, but as an institution, slavery is at the core a moral evil. Good things may come from sinful acts, but they're still sinful. Besides, if things were so good, why abolish slavery in the first place?

Again, Muslims can't just go around enslaving people.

War slaves. During the Middle Ages, Muslims enslaved the soldiers of the opposing armies. Christians did it too. Both sides should hang their heads in shame in my opinion.

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.

I disagree with slavery in all its forms.

 

[nihil est]

but that's like being a slave in a gilded cage.

That should be a bird in a gilded cage.

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.

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

And who made it so that their economies were dependent on slavery in the first place?

You accept that the Torah is the word of God. Well, in the Torah, God institutes a system of slavery for the newly freed Israelites. They've just escaped from Egypt and before they enter Israel, before they even have a nation or economy to worry about, God lays down laws about slaves and such. It would have been trivial for God to tell the newly emancipated peoples that slavery was wrong, but he doesn't.

 

[Faye]

Hey, who says slavery is not allowed anymore in Islam? Its an Islamic institute, mentioned in the Quran, and all, so what abolished it?

In order for slavery to exist, the conditions for taking slaves (ie. a proper Jihad) must exist. But if such a Jihad comes to pass in modren times, the slave rules should still apply, and slavery should still be allowed.

That said, I think the institution of slavery as found in Islam, is largely benevolent, as prisioners of war need not be returned to the enemy to fight on their side again, nor do they have to be supported by Muslim money without any benefit to the Muslims, and they also get a chance to live in Muslim culture and be influenced by Islam and its teachings.

When prisioners of war (or surrendered people) are taken prisioner, many of them are unable or unsuitable for making a living for themselves, or are likely to harrass and hinder Muslim efforts if released. People who do not belong to these two categories are allowed to earn for their freedom, which is called Mukatbat. Those people who remain slaves are guaranteed support in their lifetimes.

 

[Faye]

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.

Well, Quran did abolish alcohol, even though the Arab's economy was highly dependent on its trade.

And the day the ayat for forbidding alcohol was revealed, the merchants emptied out their stores of alcohol on the streets. And there was so much alcohol spilled that for years after that, you could smell alcohol every time it rained.

 

[nihil est]

Slaves could rise to become members of the royal courts and you actually compare them in status to the ones America had?!

That's disingenuous for two reasons. One, I didn't compare Islamic slaves to American slaves. Two, not all slaves could rise to become members of royal courts. It's only because slaves filled every social niche that you occasionally see slaves amassing great power. There were slaves of powerful people and there were slaves who looked after flocks, there were military slaves (Mamlukes) and there were slaves in the mines. Most domestic slaves would never have the opportunity to get anywhere in their life.

 

[alcurad]

hmm, what's your view on prison labor then?
the only time a muslim can indeed 'enslave' is as mentioned above a prisoner of war, releasing the enemy like that in the middle of campaign is folly, so you need to keep him locked somewhere, hence what could be called slavery. also, the earlier Muslims didn't have the means to free all laves in the first place, afterward the Muslim rulers weren't following Islam properly and were imitating the Persians and Byzantines, or going back to their old ways, as such that conduct could hardly be blamed on Islam, rather on people who didn't follow it properly.

 

[Pomak]

nihil est, the problem with your logic is that your coming from a Utopian angle. All organisations and groups that espouse a utopian ideology end up failing. So if we understand that, then we should understand that any change has to be gradual.

Nowthen, two issues need to be said here.

1. There is the issue of minimum requirement. The prophet saws had to give minimum bar.

2. Then there is the actions which bring you closer to god. Which in this case you look at how many slaves the prophet saws or his near companions had.

Now onto the why question. Well in those days there were two assumptions, the first being that war is the norm and that peace is the exception and that empires of other states could not guarantee your religious rights. So it would most likely have come down to an issue of greater harm.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Being a servant isn't all bright and dandy either, there are instances of abuses.

There are instances of abuse in every imaginable occupation.

They're not at all comparable. A worker is not the legal property of a company, and if you believe differently, show me a contract that allows workers to be inherited as slaves were.

When a company get bought by a different one, the new one inherits the all the assets (including workers) and baggage of the old one. And yes, a worker is the legal property. Hence the contract you sign.

Can a slave say 'no' to his or her master? That is the liberty I'm talking about. It's the ability to take your life wherever you choose it to go. Now that's a simplification, becuase external factors limit the things you can do. But you get the point I think.

If a slave is relying on the master for their education, housing, and welfare, then they should pull their own weight or else ask to be freed and take care of themselves.

None of those things are guaranteed. A slave owner doesn't have to do any of those things, because they aren't mandated in the Qur'an or Sunnah. There are encouragements, like the encouragement to free slaves, but they had no binding force. You didn't have to free slaves.

I'd advise that you read the Quran and Sunnah again. The rules of slavery are just that, rules. That is like saying Allah only encourages us to be good when in actuality it is a requirement to be a true Muslim.

The conditions of your servitude may be fantastic, but that's like being a slave in a gilded cage. There may be positives to slavery, but as an institution, slavery is at the core a moral evil. Good things may come from sinful acts, but they're still sinful. Besides, if things were so good, why abolish slavery in the first place?

This is getting nonsensical. There is no moral evil in the Islamic version of slavery. Nothing wrong is being done to them. Liberty? They can ask for freedom. Food? They are entitled to it. etc etc. You seem to forget everything I say in favor of repeating an assertion that is patently false in Islam.

War slaves. During the Middle Ages, Muslims enslaved the soldiers of the opposing armies. Christians did it too. Both sides should hang their heads in shame in my opinion.

Read this before making a judgment about who is to be ashamed.

http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/politics/System/article05.shtml

I disagree with slavery in all its forms.

Islam's stance on slavery is clear. It provides for them a way of living and freedom. They are only slaves by name yet treated like human beings with rights. If you wish to ignore my posts on this matter and continue to argue against a strawman, it is your choice. Just don't come here putting down Islam for moral problems which don't exist for it.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

That's disingenuous for two reasons. One, I didn't compare Islamic slaves to American slaves. Two, not all slaves could rise to become members of royal courts. It's only because slaves filled every social niche that you occasionally see slaves amassing great power. There were slaves of powerful people and there were slaves who looked after flocks, there were military slaves (Mamlukes) and there were slaves in the mines. Most domestic slaves would never have the opportunity to get anywhere in their life.

You brought up the abolitionist movement so I went ahead. And your description of the chances of a slave rising to a high position apply to the common man just as much. Not all rise to power, most would never have the opportunity to rise higher anyways.

As for getting anywhere in life, a high ranking social position is not necessary. Most people are fine with a home, health, food and safety; slave or otherwise.

 

[Pomak]

Hey, who says slavery is not allowed anymore in Islam? Its an Islamic institute, mentioned in the Quran, and all, so what abolished it?

In order for slavery to exist, the conditions for taking slaves (ie. a proper Jihad) must exist. But if such a Jihad comes to pass in modren times, the slave rules should still apply, and slavery should still be allowed.

That said, I think the institution of slavery as found in Islam, is largely benevolent, as prisioners of war need not be returned to the enemy to fight on their side again, nor do they have to be supported by Muslim money without any benefit to the Muslims, and they also get a chance to live in Muslim culture and be influenced by Islam and its teachings.

When prisioners of war (or surrendered people) are taken prisioner, many of them are unable or unsuitable for making a living for themselves, or are likely to harrass and hinder Muslim efforts if released. People who do not belong to these two categories are allowed to earn for their freedom, which is called Mukatbat. Those people who remain slaves are guaranteed support in their lifetimes.

The last Khalifate with an agreement of the major scholars at the time banned it. Thus it is binding on muslims until another khalif tries to revive it.

 

[Muhaba]

Allah could've outright banned slavery if He wanted to, if not at the start then later. But He chose not to. There were obviously benefits of allowing slavery. For example, the case of prisoners of war. what can be done with prisoners of war? nowadays they are placed in prisons possibly for life, but that's not the best way to deal with them. A better way is to enslave them, giving one to each Muslim family. The Muslim family watches the slave for a while. If the slave seems harmless and good, then the Muslim family can free him/her. If not, the slave remains with the family. Also, slaves are to be treated well. When POVs receive such good treatment, they may be impressed with Islam and become Muslim. So which is better? Imprisoning POVs or making them slaves?

 

[Faye]

The last Khalifate with an agreement of the major scholars at the time banned it. Thus it is binding on muslims until another khalif tries to revive it.

I've never heard this before. Can you give me a source?

 

[nihil est]

hmm, what's your view on prison labor then?
the only time a muslim can indeed 'enslave' is as mentioned above a prisoner of war, releasing the enemy like that in the middle of campaign is folly, so you need to keep him locked somewhere, hence what could be called slavery.

The Geneva Conventions allow a prisoner of war to be used for labour. That is unfree labour, and though I don't like it, it's definitely not as bad as shooting them.

The problem I have is that slavery brings other problems of its own. For example, the children of slaves were slaves as well. Aren't the children of war prisoners innocent of the actions of their parents?

Another question, were the women and children allowed to be taken as slaves as well, if they weren't non-combatants?

also, the earlier Muslims didn't have the means to free all laves in the first place, afterward the Muslim rulers weren't following Islam properly and were imitating the Persians and Byzantines, or going back to their old ways, as such that conduct could hardly be blamed on Islam, rather on people who didn't follow it properly.

I agree with that. I've been trying to stay clear of historical slavery in Muslim countries, because those practices don't necessarily reflect what the Prophet taught.

 

[MSalman]

Bismillah

@nihil

At the end of the day, the difference between your methodology and our methodology is that we deem the Creator as our Judge, Legislator and the One who tells us what is moral and what is immoral. We say the Creator knows what is best for us because He is the Most Wise and Knowledgeable; therefore, we follow whatever He has legislated for us. Whereas you consider yourself capable and an authority to differentiate between truth and falsehood. Unless and until we understand this difference and ponder upon it, there will never be any agreement between us and you will never be able to understand why Allah revealed certain rulings which may be displeasing to you.

do you know who are slaves in Islam? It is the short coming of the brother for not clarifying the meaning of the term in Islamic concept. In Islam, the slaves are prisoners of war and when Muslims take prisoners of war then it is depended upon the Muslim ruler to pass any judgment about them: a) free them without any ransom or b) free them for ransom or c) exchange them for their fellow Muslim prisoners or d) distribute them to Muslims aka slaves. Regarding prisoners of war, Islam came up with a better and practical solution. The prisoners can freely work, be treated justly and fairly by their masters, gain their freedom by paying some money to their masters or their masters free them. This is completely contrary to ancient and modern treatment of prisoners of war: tortured, starved and thrown in dungeons. Not to mention that salves can learn about Islam and achieve the highest thing that is possible - embrace Islam.

Regarding Islamic rulings, we have a basic concept: we may perceive some harm or risk in some of the Islamic rulings; however, it is only due to our limitations and lack of knowledge or the harm/risk is outclassed by the benefit. In addition, if the risk outweighs the benefit then the permissible acts become haraam (prohibited). Off course, this has to be decided by those who are qualified to issue the verdicts: the scholars. In the case of slavery, the benefits for prisoners of war clearly outweigh the risk or whatever you wanna call it.

and indeed Allah knows best

 

[Faye]

The problem I have is that slavery brings other problems of its own. For example, the children of slaves were slaves as well. Aren't the children of war prisoners innocent of the actions of their parents?

To be a slave is not necessarily to be a criminal. The children grow up in a household as members of the family (though maybe lower class members) and enjoy many of the benefits of belonging to a family. Once they grow up, if they desire their freedom, they can earn it, but they may wish to remain with the family. After all, its a job which guarantees food, clothing, shelter and education, while with other jobs, income is not so assured.

Another question, were the women and children allowed to be taken as slaves as well, if they weren't non-combatants?

Yes

 

[nihil est]

Yes

Oops. I meant if they were non-combatants e.g. just civilians. Typo.

 

[Faye]

If they were in a country/city that surrendered as a whole, then they're all prisioners. Then they can negotiate a treaty allowing the people to live as dhimmis or enslave them.

Usually if they surrendered before they had lost completely, they could negotiate dhimmi status, but if they surrendered as a last effort to save their lives, they got enslaved. Still, it depended on the leader of the army.

 

[justahumane]

Well, Quran did abolish alcohol, even though the Arab's economy was highly dependent on its trade.

And the day the ayat for forbidding alcohol was revealed, the merchants emptied out their stores of alcohol on the streets. And there was so much alcohol spilled that for years after that, you could smell alcohol every time it rained.

Holy quran abolished usuary too, I think that Economy must had been highly dependent on practise of giving and taking interest too. Just like today's economy of almost all nations.

 

[justahumane]

Allah could've outright banned slavery if He wanted to, if not at the start then later. But He chose not to. There were obviously benefits of allowing slavery. For example, the case of prisoners of war. what can be done with prisoners of war? nowadays they are placed in prisons possibly for life, but that's not the best way to deal with them. A better way is to enslave them, giving one to each Muslim family. The Muslim family watches the slave for a while. If the slave seems harmless and good, then the Muslim family can free him/her. If not, the slave remains with the family. Also, slaves are to be treated well. When POVs receive such good treatment, they may be impressed with Islam and become Muslim. So which is better? Imprisoning POVs or making them slaves?

Well the best way to treat POVs, in my(Kafir's) views is the treatment Kafir India gave to Muslim Pakistan's POVs in 1971 BanglaDesh war. They freed them all.

So sister, my humble question to U. Which way to treat POVs is better in ur views? Muslims or Kuffar?

 

[Faye]

They freed them all, after a long imprisonment and after a treaty had been made that required that they be freed as a condition of the peace, (not out of the goodness of their hearts). I've also heard that the treatment in the POW camps was pretty horrible ...