The Holy Quran's take on slaves put to prostitution

[Abz2000]

You say Islamic slavery was different from those that shipped slaves off the America but that's not true. Muslims used to raid non-Muslim areas and round up people to sell in the same way other groups did. These people were sold by Muslims slave merchants for profit, not for protection or anything of the sort. Do you think the girls were happy with their new life shipped to foreign lands and sold to men who had the "right" to sleep with them?

The Islamic system is very different from the western system in many aspects Laura,
One thing which strikes as quite obvious is the fact that the western system is racist.
The Muslims had Arab white, Arab black, non Arab white and non Arab black slaves whom they would refer to as 'abd".
In contrast, the westerners called their slaves "nigguhs" and regarded them as sub-human and these "nigguhs" definitely weren't pale faced.

When he Muslims took land from Rome or Persia or any other despot, all who accepted Islam in any land that it ruled over were seen as brothers and they were exempt from paying taxes - only the 2.5% zakat was payable.
In contrast, when westerners took any land they would take anything of any value as spoils to the country of the king who took it over and taxed everyone in those lands - those kings even taxed their own people lol (though they spent on them. The others just had to deliver the tax every harvest because they were "foreigners".

Finally, slavery still exists in the west.
Those whom the governments take as prisoners are made to work long hours for little or no money, and when I say little, I mean enough to buy cigarettes, they are given free food and shelter of course.
But the Muslim's slaves were able to marry, work for others and buy their freedom or be ransomed, some became scholars, some army generals. One of the most famous scholars of Islam (an-nafi) was a slave, who related some of the most important authentic sayings of the prophet pbuh, imam ahmad ibn hanbal's chains usually go through nafi'.
Some were also memorisers of Quran and were given the battle standard out of respect,
One slave famously said: I am the worst carrier of Quran if I let the standard fall.

And the most famous slave in Islam was bilal (may God be pleased with him)
At whose call everyone would leave their businesses and fields and rush to prayer.
When he climbed onto the ka'bah to call to prayer after the conquest of Mecca, one pagan said: praised be "god" who caused x (my father) to die before he witnessed this day (when a black slave would dare to stand on the roof of the ka'bah.

Lol when al"q"da wanted to call Obama a house nig***, they had to use the term "abd al bait" (slave of the home) because they cant translate the term "nig***" into Arabic in that context coz such a racist term doesn't exist in the language.

 

[Scimitar]

Bottom line - If Allah had never commanded in the Quran to give slaves their rights, then the world would still be trading in slaves today. We set the example by which the world followed - albeit, a full millenia later (USA).

The Prophet pbuh always maintained that to buy a slaves freedom was an act of sadaqah. And he advised anyone who was able - to buy the freedom of slaves.

As for modern slavery, this whole RIBA system is slavery, and it's much more worrying problem "traditional" slavery...

But that, is a whole new thread.

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

As a side note, how has society today advanced, and how would one judge that its ideas are more 'advanced' than the laws of God?

If advancing means in the fields of technology and the sciences - i'd say by quite a span - but nowhere near the laws the HE set.... and if we are talking about the human condition, and being able to champion it in order to be a better human being in the sight of the creator - then I'd say we're pretty much failing in that regard too. And the reason being - we didn't take heed from the book, neither did we try to emulate the nature of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

Same with the Christians, who claim that "Jesus is LOVE" but when you talk with them, they got nothing but hatred in their eyes (not all Christians, just the zealots - we have them too in Islam).

What is missing then? A balance... a balance between humanity and wisdom. The uniting crux point is knowledge. And the reason why we are failing is because "knowledge" is being abused - in order to further certain agendas.

When this happens, your own humanity is curbed, and the wisdom is forever elusive. Because Wisdom can be found in the practical application of knowledge - whereas - experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted.

Knowing how to recognise the two, is wholly dependant on your own spiritual progress. Some easily mistaken wisdom for experience, when clearly that is not the same thing.

So to go back to the question - can anything be more advanced than the Laws of God Almighty? I highly doubt it, because the more I aim to get closer to HIM, the clearer things seem to become. And my focus is multiplied. So is my will. So is my determination to be worthy for HIM. And that is where the ultimate benefit is. In Understanding what True Wisdom is, even if it is unattainable in this life.

Scimi

 

[Independent]

So in other words, you're upset because you think that in the West not many people know about the Barbary slave trade and you think that's wrong

Well no, it doesn’t upset me, I’m just pointing it out as surprising and a little remarkable. Naturally you would expect countries to favour their best bits.

This isn’t strictly relevant and it doesn’t make a point either way, but have you ever come across the history of Harry Washington, one of George Washington’s slaves? His life to me symbolises the wild swings of fortune that can happen in history. He ran away to fight for the British in the War of Independence – was evacuated to Novia Scotia along with other black soldiers after the British defeat – then joined the first settlement of returning slaves to Sierra Leone in Africa – and finished up leading a revolt against the colonial authorities there.

What a life. Deserves a film script.

 

[Independent]

I'd say rising to the ranks in a ruling court is better than being castrated to sing sporano in an opera...

Ouch. What a choice.

 

[Scimitar]

What a life. Deserves a film script.

truth is stranger than fiction, so blessed be the strangers

Scimi

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Laura,

Thank you for the link. I accept that Islam teaches slaves should be treated with kindness and many were freed (I have read it elsewhere in the past too), but again it makes out it was only Europeans and Americans that look slaves via raids whilst Muslim slaves were only prisoners of war. That was what annoyed me to begin with on this thread.

There has to be a distinction between the teachings of Islam and the actions of certain Muslims. I believe the primary purpose of this thread was to ask about the concept of slavery in Islam, so that is what the posts were focusing on: the guidelines given in Islam. You chose to highlight specific instances where Islamic teachings may not have been upheld, but then that is a different issue and we cannot blame Islam or God but rather those followers who chose to disregard Islamic teachings. In the initial post you responded to, I cannot find the implication that it was only European and Americans that took slaves via raids. Perhaps the main point being made thhough, was that taking slaves by means of kidnapping and raids (and other means) was a prevalent practice before the time of Islam and continued to be the main source of slaves for a long time afterwards in places such as Europe and America, such that when the word ‘slavery’ is used, these negative connotations spring to mind and people mistakenly believe that is what Islam allows. However, Islam from the outset blocked many ways of enslaving people and created many new ways of liberating them. Some Muslims may not have adhered to this during the course of history, but that is not the focus here.

I'm actually reading a book about Christian Quakers at the moment and they used similar arguments, about the rights of slavery, to those being used on this forum, that they are not allowed to mistreat their slaves and must free them after a number of years. Again though, regardless of how the slaves are treated, it comes down to the arrogance of believing you have the right to take a person from their home and control their lives because you, through your skin colour of beliefs, are somehow superior.

I don’t know which article or post made you think this, because it is completely wrong. Arrogance and racism are completely irrelevant here, and nobody suggested that Islam allows us to enslave anyone and everyone. Rather Islam permitted slaves who resulted from war captives and existing slaves. From the link I gave:

Islam affirms that Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, created man fully accountable, and enjoined duties upon him, to which reward and punishment are connected on the basis of man’s free will and choice.

No human being has the right to restrict this freedom or take away that choice unlawfully; whoever dares to do that is a wrongdoer and oppressor.
...The texts of Islam took a strong stance against this. It says in a hadeeth qudsi: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227)...

Freedom is a basic human right which cannot be taken away from a person except for a reason. When Islam accepted slavery within the limits that we have described, it put restrictions on the man who exploits his freedom in the worst possible way. If he was taken prisoner in a war of aggression in which he was defeated, then the proper conduct is to keep him in reasonable conditions throughout his detention.


​

It also says in the post immediately above your first one in this thread:

The Messenger of Allah (saws) declared it a sin to kidnap any free man, woman or child and make them slaves. After the wars, the Prophet (saws) used to exchange the Prisoners of War if both the warring parties agreed to it. If not, the captives were set free by taking a ransom for them. If the slaves or their families could not afford the ransom, most times the Prophet (saws) showed generosity and released them without any ransom. Only if none of the above were possible, and the captives had no place to return to, then these captives were made slaves and all efforts were taken to inculcate them into the existing Islamic Society.

​

The same thing with Islam, Allah accepted slavery hundreds of years ago, but today even the non-brutal form of slavery discussed in the Quran is considered unacceptable (I assume), but there has been no message from Allah that slavery is now completely forbidden. There are no updated laws if you know what I mean.

To the best of my knowledge, slavery is still permitted in Islam provided the conditions are fulfilled, but I think we will be hard pressed to find examples of where this is currently the case. Note that it was only ever the ‘non-brutal’ form of slavery that was acceptable in Islam, and the ample evidences, details and examples of that have already been listed elsewhere.

'Finally, Allah allowed us to enslave the captives, but encouraged us to free them. So if the different countries of the world sign treaties by which they exchange the captives during the time of war, we would be the first to sign such a treaty that will be a double win for us. On one side, we will reclaim our own people, and on the other side we will free the captives, as we are encouraged by God and His Messenger.'
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifi...4315146-excellent-treatment-slaves-islam.html
​

Surely a society in which no human is allowed to take slaves becuase everyone is free to control their own lives is more advanced than a society that allows slavery.

Again, nobody can take a slave in any way they wish. It is only limited circumstances that can lead to slavery. And as the link I gave says, ‘Islam is not thirsty for the blood of prisoners, nor is it eager to enslave them.’ Now if we look at the society we live in today, we find many instances of free individuals having their houses raided, being beaten and then detained for years on end without any evidence or real reason to do so. Many of these have suffered immensely in prison, some of them raped and humiliated in the worst ways imaginable... how does any of this compare with the rights and privileges Islam affords people taken as slaves? Is such a society still so advanced just because it claims it abolished ‘slavery’?

It was narrated that Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “They are your brothers whom Allaah has put under your authority, so if Allaah has put a person’s brother under his authority, let him feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears, and let him not overburden him with work, and if he does overburden him with work, then let him help him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6050).

​

 

[Independent]

Bottom line - If Allah had never commanded in the Quran to give slaves their rights, then the world would still be trading in slaves today. We set the example by which the world followed - albeit, a full millenia later (USA).

If you say that the introduction of Islamic law reduced slavery in the Arabian peninsula, as well as improving the lot of existing slaves, I wouldn’t disagree.

But to claim this was the key event in the eventual abolition of slavery is not credible. The slave trade continued longer in more islamic countries than any others, and on the whole was abolished only as a result of outside pressure. Here are some key dates for Islamic states, 'a full millennium later' as you say:

1846: Under British pressure the Bey Tunia outlawed the slave trade; the policy was reversed by his successor
1847: Under British pressure the Ottoman Empire abolishes slave trade from Africa.
1848: Treaty between Britain and Muscat to suppress slave trade
1849: Treaty between Britain and Persian Gulf states to suppress slave trade
1882: Ottoman firman abolishes all forms of slavery, white or black.
1922: Morocco abolishes slavery
1923: Afghanistan abolishes slavery
1924: Iraq abolishes slavery
1928: Iran abolishes slavery
1952: Qatar abolishes slavery
1960: Niger abolishes slavery (though it was not made illegal until 2003)
1962: Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
1962: Yemen abolishes slavery
1963: United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
1970: Oman abolishes slavery
1981: Mauritania abolishes slavery

Taking the Ottoman Empire, where abolition occurred in 1847, even this didn’t finish the trade. For example in 1860, state authorities regulated slave prices at 3,000 coins for each woman slave (Toledano, 1994:54, Toledano, Ehud R. (1994).

It’s very common on this forum to be asked for Islamic writers, like the above, as references - to the extent that absolutely anything any western commentator says is automatically distrusted. But if Islamic writers don’t choose to cover a subject, this makes it difficult.

For example, contemporary Ottoman historians of the Ottoman Empire scarcely mention slavery. They preferred to celebrate the spectacular military success of Suleiman the Magnificient etc. You can find descriptions of the thriving Istanbul slave market in writers like Evliya Celebi, (‘Seyahatname’ – Book of Travels) but he’s the exception rather than the rule. In 1670 he describes how the Istanbul slave warehouse was used to control the slave trade as a source of revenue to the State, with about 2000 slave traders listed as taxpayers.

So for a wider perspective I am obliged to quote western sources:

‘In one of the sad paradoxes of human history, it was the humanitarian reforms brought by Islam that resulted in a vast development of the slave trade inside, and still more outside, the Islamic empire.’ He notes that the Islamic injunctions against the enslavement of Muslims led to massive importation of slaves from the outside. Lewis, Bernard (1990). Race and Slavery in the Middle East. New York: Oxford University Press.

‘Islam by recognizing and codifying the slavery seems to have done more to protect and expand slavery than the reverse.’ Manning, Patrick (1990). Slavery and African Life: Occidental, Oriental, and African Slave Trades. Cambridge University Press

So to summarise: the new Islamic restrictions had the effect of permitting slavery to continue within Islamic borders, and – even worse – made it necessary for new slave supplies to be obtained from outside (ie by conquest or slave raiding).

 

[Independent]

(Toledano, 1994:54, Toledano, Ehud R. (1994).

Apologies, this guy is not Islamic

 

[Aprender]

1963: United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery

There is a problem with this argument and I advise you to check your sources. The United Arab Emirates didn't become a sovereign nation until 1971. And back then the UAE was one of the poorest regions in the world--especially after the pearl trade went south from all of the counterfeits that flooded the market. So by what you just posted above, the UAE was so advanced that they abolished slavery before they even became a country.

 

[Independent]

The United Arab Emirates didn't become a sovereign nation until 1971.

Wasn't it called the Trucial States or something at the time? Whatever – in a long list of states that could be much longer, it makes no difference to the argument. What I ask you to consider is, when you look at the extended legislation record, which event seems to have triggered world abolition? The dissemination of the Qur'an in the 7[SUP]th[/SUP] century, 13 hundred years previously? Or William Wilberforce’s Slave Trade Act of 1807, just before it all started? (Together with the direct action taken by British naval forces to inhibit the trade eg the West Africa Squadron.)

This seems difficult to believe to me, but from what i read here, for a faithful Muslim even that abolition legislation is wrong. If slavery has a place in Islamic law, albeit highly regulated and limited, then any legislation that attempts an absolute prohibition is therefore un-Islamic. Please tell me, is that the case? I would never have believed it before reading this forum, but it seems to be the case.

Surely we would all wish to see slavery abolished 100%, in every aspect, even the limited slavery that appears to be endorsed by Islamic law? I genuinely don't understand this.

(Please don’t say, as others have earlier, that those rules were made for 7[SUP]th[/SUP] century conditions, so we should read them in context. The rules have to be consistent for all time.)

 

[جوري]

Does it all matter, is it ‘just’ history? Well, the Crusades are ‘just’ history and I hear plenty enough about them. A selective Islamic approach to history is the mirror image of Orientalism and two wrongs do not make a right. Quoting from Salahudeen's response earlier:

I wanted to comment on this portion alone which I find prevalent in many scenarios here on the forum (and even if the forum maintains some air of civility it is certainly more rampant than ever outside and is appears to be the least evil but is equally so) I don't know if it were you or perhaps another person I should go check the SN who took my words twisted them so that Zionism is akin to Judaism and interchanged; followed by the statement or else calling all Muslims terrorists etc. etc.
Do you find this kind of exchange productive or truthful? in other words we have to be on equal footing into an exchange for some sort of diplomatic end result? appeasement or political correctitude? Shouldn't the role of truth & justice be the uppermost and not simply to make all ideologies equal even if they're frankly faulty? You've to fine comb through everything to find a source whether true or not to instill what is wrong into the fray to ignite it?
Why is that? I really would like to understand because I am a firm believer that at the end of the day:

Al-Anbiya (The Prophets)[21:18] [RECITE]

[top] [next match]​

Bal naqthifu bialhaqqi AAala albatili fayadmaghuhu faitha huwa zahiqun walakumu alwaylu mimma tasifoona​

21:18 Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us)

and as we say in Arabic La yohiq illa al'haq- wa tamyeez al'mostahaq
لا يحق الا الحق والتميز المستحق
It isn't called bias and those other words that are used to mislead are innovated for the sake of semantics and not for the sake of truth. Yes many westerners want to sweep under the rug their transgressions, whether eradicating entire populations, unleashing unnecessary wars, invading nations, racial slurs, clear abuses of human rights and to modern day, complete lack of regard to their historical mishaps with terms like (we hear about it enough) well where do you hear about it because frankly all I see is Islam under the microscope and every little thing whether or not is actually a favorable or comparable to be demeaned, mocked, trivialized, marginalized and where simple passive transmission should take place evolves into active creation of what the mass mind should perceive.


best,
​

 

[جوري]

What alarms me is that even in moderate Islamic opinion

What in your mind is a 'moderate' or 'extremist' as we don't have such stratifications to have a clue where you're coming from!

 

[Aprender]

Now of course I realise that the notion of a coherent, international conspiracy against Muslims is regarded as established fact by many Muslims. Many? Most? All? You tell me. I can see that there are as many versions of it as there are grains of sand. But the basic picture is clear enough.

You won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t agree that this conspiracy exists. There are so many, many reasons why I don’t believe this.

Why would you believe it? You're on the outside looking in. It's different once you switch sides and walk in the shoes of another person. You're not a Muslim and therefore there are many things about Islam that you most likely don't understand. I first noticed the issue when I was studying Islam as a non-Muslim. It began with reading news articles about Muslims. They were written in a way that that caused the reader to infer negative things about Muslims. I kept reading, and reading, and reading and each time any news outlet covered anything about Muslims, the conclusions that I drew from there were negative at first but as I learned more about Islamic teachings, I noticed a high amount of factual errors and generalizations being made in news articles about Muslims. One of the major ones is the idea that the word "jihad" is constantly translated as holy war when that's not really the best way to define the concept.

I don't know what it is, but I've noticed that you and a few other members on this message board have this idea of "If I didn't see it, if I didn't notice it, if I didn't witness it, then it is not happening and there is nothing there to it. It's all imagined." One of the reasons why I loved being a journalist was so I could talk to people and get to see the world through another point of view. I got the opportunity to speak to a lot of Latino immigrants in the community in covering U.S.-Mexico border issues and I learned about some awful things that happen to men and women while their crossing over into the U.S. that the media doesn't usually cover.

Drug cartels often kidnap women and sell them into sex slavery or rape them, men are sometimes attacked and murdered, bodies decapitated and left in mass graves. While I haven't been in those areas to see these things happen, I don't dismiss them as not true simply because I wasn't around it enough to see it happen. And there is a problem here in the U.S. against Latino immigrants because many people believe that they cause crime rates to rise, that they're all illegal, that they're all illiterate, and their children are called "anchor babies". People make fun of them calling them derogatory terms. The battles each one of us fights is different and I think it's wrong for you to dismiss the struggles of others just because you "fail to see that happening" from your outside point of view. It's not happening to you.

With that said, I don't think that the systematic discrimination against Muslims around the world is a conspiracy theory as you call it. If that were the case, states in the U.S. wouldn't be pushing anti-shariah laws that have no basis. Americans wouldn't be holding anti-Shariah law protests as a result of the misinformation that people put out there about it. These lawmakers shouldn't have to be here speaking out against it.

Op-Ed pieces like this one wouldn't have to appear in newspapers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/us-muslims-are-not-measured-by-the-exemplary-work-of-its-mainstream/2012/09/19/ef651132-0277-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html

Documentaries like this one wouldn't have to be produced to discuss the overwhelming negative attitude that many have against Muslims and Islamic teachings:
[video=vimeo;38759319]http://vimeo.com/38759319[/video]

Mosques in the U.S. shouldn't have to have extra security measures put in place because some crazy people take it too far and want to burn the mosque down or shout obscenities at people.

Don't dismiss the problems of other human beings just because it's not affecting you directly at the moment. Other non-Muslims see it too.

 

[Independent]

[FONT=&quot]Hi Aprender, didn’t think anyone but me and Muhammad was left in this thread.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]‘I've noticed that you and a few other members on this message board have this idea of "If I didn't see it, if I didn't notice it, if I didn't witness it, then it is not happening and there is nothing there to it.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Is that fair? I said I’ve learned lots of things here – especially about Islam which, as I said, is far more different than I expected. Give me a chance, I’ve only been on this site a couple of weeks.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I’m very happy to see you posting guys like Neal Ferguson and Robert Fisk, rather than the Webster Tarpleys of this world. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I do agree with you that Muslims in the US and other countries are currently the victim of widespread discrimination and prejudice in a variety of ways, and so are the Mexican immigrants for that matter.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What I don’t agree with, is that this is part of a massive, coherent, international conspiracy going back decades or perhaps even to the Crusades. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As it happens, in this case ‘not noticing it’ is part of the problem with the idea. That’s because it’s extremely difficult to achieve such a conspiracy across so many countries, in so many eras, without developing a huge trail of evidence. I mean direct evidence of active, self-conscious conspiracy, not just the acts of discrimination themselves. (You don’t need to have a conspiracy to discriminate against someone.) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Where is the equivalent of the Wannsee Conference for Muslims? In fact, we will need scores of such conferences to account for a 1,000 year campaign.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How could these shadowy leaders manage to wage this war against Muslims, without the vast majority of ordinary citizens ever knowing? And for that matter, why bother? Just because they don’t like Muslims? Is that it?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Although you don’t want to believe this of me, I do think I can respond to reasonable evidence and I’ve joined this site because I hope to find it concentrated here, whereas it would be hard work sifting it from western reporting. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]However, I’m not going to be persuaded by any old lunatic fringe material which I would reject in any other context. To be fair, I don’t recall you posting anything that I would place in that category.[/FONT]