Was Muhammad (P.B.U.H) a True Prophet?

Before rabidly criticising the Quran's approach to slavery you have to be realistic.

I think you are missing the point I am trying to make.

I believe it is likely that taking the enemies wives’ and children as slaves was common and accepted practice in the 7C in the Middle East. I believe that taking the enemies wives’ and children as slaves was common and accepted practice in many cultures prior to the 7C and even after that date. I am not criticising Muhammad for adopting this practice I am suggesting that God would not condone such a practice and I am suggesting that if God were to dictate a manual for life he would not include verses in that manual that condoned slavery hence the verses in the Qu’ran that do condone slavery could not have been dictated by God.
 
[snip]

In his response to the question, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council ofNorth America, states:
The Qur'an does not say that non-Muslims cannot be Muslims' friends, nor does it forbid Muslims to be friendly to non-Muslims. There are many non-Muslims who are good friends of Muslim individuals and the Muslim community. There are also many good Muslims who truly and sincerely observe their faith and are very friendly to many non-Muslims at the same time.

This reply says that non-Muslims can be the friends of Muslims but Muslims can only be ‘friendly’ with non-Muslims. In my opinion, being friendly towards someone is not the same as being their friend.
I think you have misunderstood his wording. From the context, we can deduce what the scholar is saying: the Quran does not forbid muslims or non muslims from being friends. Indeed he does say friendly, but it's a case of hearing it and reading it.

If you were to hear someone say that, you'd understand it. Isolating it and simply reading it does not always evoke the intended meaning.
 
Last edited:
I think you are missing the point I am trying to make.

I believe it is likely that taking the enemies wives’ and children as slaves was common and accepted practice in the 7C in the Middle East. I believe that taking the enemies wives’ and children as slaves was common and accepted practice in many cultures prior to the 7C and even after that date. I am not criticising Muhammad for adopting this practice I am suggesting that God would not condone such a practice and I am suggesting that if God were to dictate a manual for life he would not include verses in that manual that condoned slavery hence the verses in the Qu’ran that do condone slavery could not have been dictated by God.



Instead of these ambiguous attacks bring up a verse and we can help you one by one.
 
Instead of these ambiguous attacks bring up a verse and we can help you one by one.
It is not debatable whether or not Islam condones slavery.
From what I can tell, thinker is opposed to the very idea of owning a human being and the existence of "underpriviliged borhters" as Chuck put it.
 
That is not what I'm asking. I asked Thinker to bring up one by one the verses he has a problem with so the Islamic explanation can be given to him.
 
I think you are missing the point I am trying to make.

I believe it is likely that taking the enemies wives’ and children as slaves was common and accepted practice in the 7C in the Middle East. I believe that taking the enemies wives’ and children as slaves was common and accepted practice in many cultures prior to the 7C and even after that date. I am not criticising Muhammad for adopting this practice I am suggesting that God would not condone such a practice and I am suggesting that if God were to dictate a manual for life he would not include verses in that manual that condoned slavery hence the verses in the Qu’ran that do condone slavery could not have been dictated by God.



Fun fact: The Prophet pbuh, his household, and friends freed in total 39,237 slaves.

Not bad for a man who "adopted" the slave taking practice.
 
The point I'm trying to make is that Quran doesn't prescribe the ransom option but rather leaves it to the good will of the master.
So technically, this is a slave.
I does read the posts again. I'll try to make it more clearer.

First part of the verse [24:33] :
And if any of your slaves ask you for a deed in writing (for emancipation) give them such a deed;
Means if they ask their freedom give it to them in return of a deed in writing. This deed in writing was usually in the form of compensation as far as I know.

Second part:
If ye knew any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you…"
Second part says if master see any good in them, they should go further and give them something from them (wealth) which Allah has given to them.
 
That is not what I'm asking. I asked Thinker to bring up one by one the verses he has a problem with so the Islamic explanation can be given to him.

Again, I think you’re missing my point. I don’t (in this instance) have a problem with any verse. The author of this thread made a statement, from that followed a debate on the truth of that statement. One of the arguments I used to support my premises was that God would not condone slavery and if God were to dictate a manual for life he would not include verses in that manual that condoned slavery hence the verses in the Qu’ran that do condone slavery could not have been dictated by God.

In short, there are verses in the Qu’ran that condone slavery (fact). There are stories amongst the hadith explaining that, for a large part, those slaves were the wives and children of slain enemy combatants (fact). For the Qu’ran to condone slavery for any reason is wrong and in this example of individuals simply because you were married to or the child of an enemy combatant - that cannot be just - God must be just - consequently God cannot have dictated those verses.
 
Last edited:
It is not debatable whether or not Islam condones slavery.
From what I can tell, thinker is opposed to the very idea of owning a human being and the existence of "underpriviliged borhters" as Chuck put it.

On top of that a text does not need to shout outright NO SLAVERY. For it to be against it.

As you can see from the verses brother Chuck provided AMONG others out there, the Quran provides many ways to end slavery and raise the standard of living for slaves.


For Pete's sake a Muslim is supposed to grant a slave freedom if they request it and even give them farewell gifts if they want. And while the person is a slave they are to be taken care of by their master in sickness and health and be treated as brothers.


What more do you want??????
 
Last edited:
Again, I think you’re missing my point. I don’t (in this instance) have a problem with any verse. The author of this thread made a statement, from that followed a debate on the truth of that statement. One of the arguments I used to support my premises was that God would not condone slavery and if God were to dictate a manual for life he would not include verses in that manual that condoned slavery hence the verses in the Qu’ran that do condone slavery could not have been dictated by God.

In short, there are verses in the Qu’ran that condone slavery (fact). There are stories amongst the hadith explaining that, for a large part, those slaves were the wives and children of slain enemy combatants (fact). For the Qu’ran to condone slavery for any reason is wrong and in this example of individuals simply because you were married to or the child of an enemy combatant - that cannot be just - God must be just - consequently God cannot have dictated those verses.

Dude you are flogging a strawman. Look at the rules the Quran gives for slaves. You are getting ridiculous.

http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/slav4.htm

Read that. This discussion is done.
 
Sorry, I thought I emntioned this but I didn't. the verse you posted has a slightly different puncuation that changes the whole thing.
If you check this site:
http://www.internetmosque.net/read/english_translation_of_the_quran_meaning/24/33/
You'll find that all translations suggest that the master can let them ransom themselves, if he finds good in them.
Yusuf Ali translation is normally considered one with the closest meaning. Other translations adding that if you see good in them, and imo, you are nitpicking :D as I don't see this as a problem with overall instructions given on this issue to believers on this issue.

Anyway, Asad translation goes in detail and explains it linguistically and with context which is at the bottom of your link. I'll quote it:
And as for those who are unable to marry, [I.e., because of poverty or because they cannot find a suitable mate, or for any other personal reason.] let them live in continence until God grants them sufficiency out of His bounty, And if any of those whom you rightfully possess [Lit., "whom your right hands possess", i.e., male or female slaves.] desire [to obtain] a deed of freedom, write it out for them if you are aware of any good in them: [The noun kitab is, in this context, an equivalent of kitabah or mukatabah (lit., "mutual agreement in writing"), a juridical term signifying a "deed of freedom" or "of manumission" executed on the basis of an agreement between a slave and his or her owner, to the effect that the slave undertakes to purchase his or her freedom for an equitable sum of money payable in installments before or after the manumission, or, alternatively, by rendering a clearly specified service or services to his or her owner. With this end in view, the slave is legally entitled to engage in any legitimate, gainful work or to obtain the necessary sum of money by any other lawful means (e.g., through a loan or a gift from a third person). In view of the imperative form of the verb katibuhum ("write it out for them"), the deed of manumission cannot be refused by the owner, the only pre-condition being an evidence - to be established, if necessary, by an unbiased arbiter or arbiters - of the slave's good character and ability to fulfill his or her contractual obligations. The stipulation that such a deed of manumission may not he refused, and the establishment of precise juridical directives to this end, clearly indicates that Islamic Law has from its very beginning aimed at an abolition of slavery as a social institution, and that its prohibition in modern times constitutes no more than a final implementation of that aim. (See also next note, as well as note on 2:177.) and give them [their share of the wealth of God which He has given you. [According to all the authorities, this relates (a) to a moral obligation on the part of the owner to promote the slave's efforts to obtain the necessary revenues by helping him or her to achieve an independent economic status and/or by remitting part of the agreed-upon compensation, and (b) to the obligation of the state treasury (bayt al-mal) to finance the freeing of slaves in accordance with the Quranic principle - enunciated in 9:60 - that the revenues obtained through the obligatory tax called zakah are to be utilized, among other purposes, "for the freeing of human beings from bondage" (fi r-riqab, an expression explained in note on 2:177). Hence, Zamakhshari holds that the above clause is addressed not merely to persons owning slaves but to the community as a whole - The expression "the wealth of God" contains an allusion to the principle that "God has bought of the believers their lives and their possessions, promising them paradise in return" 9:111 - implying that all of man's possessions are vested in God, and that man is entitled to no more than their usufruct.] And do not, in order to gain [Lit., "so that you might seek out" or "endeavour to attain to".] some of the fleeting pleasures of this worldly life, coerce your [slave] maidens into *****dom if they happen to be desirous of marriage; [Lit., "if they desire protection against unchastity (tahassun)", i.e., through marriage (cf. the expression muhsanat as used in 4:24). Most of the classical commentators are of the opinion that the term fatayat ("maidens") denotes here "slave-girls": an assumption which is fully warranted by the context hence, the above verse reiterates the prohibition of concubinage by explicitly describing it as "*****dom" (bigha).] and if anyone should coerce them, then, verily, after they have been compelled [to submit in their helplessness], God will be much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace!
 
Last edited:
Yusuf Ali translation is normally considered one with the closest meaning. Other translations adding that if you see good in them, and imo, you are nitpicking :D as I don't see this as a problem with overall instructions given on this issue to believers on this issue.

Anyway, Asad translation goes in detail and explains it linguistically and with context which is at the bottom of your link. I'll quote it:
Yusuf Ali's translation also contains the "if you see god in them" clause.
I don't know where Asad found the information about a third person judging the slave's goodness, I don't think there's a direct verse or hadith about it, but it could derive form the islamic law as such.
And I may be nitpicking but so is everyone else in here. What I've been trying to say all along is that no one should be born a slave and no on should have to pay ransom for his or her freedom. Slaves may be treated nicely but that doesn't change the issue of slavery itself.
 
Dude you are flogging a strawman. Look at the rules the Quran gives for slaves. You are getting ridiculous.

http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/slav4.htm

Read that. This discussion is done.

I have read the script at the link you gave and of course it is a sanatised version put out to try and counter this unnacceptable aspect of the Qu’ran.

Below is the wikipedia version which, I would suggest, is unbiased. And please note that all references to Muhammed freeing slaves was only after they converted to Islam - (no conversion - no freedom).

Slavery in the Qur'an ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_in_the_Qur.27an )

The Qur'an includes multiple references to slaves, slave women, slave concubinage, and the freeing of slaves. It accepts the institution of slavery. It may be noted that the word 'abd' (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ma malakat aymanukum ("that which your right hands own"). The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter. The historian Bruschvig states that from a spiritual perspective, "the slave has the same value as the free man, and the same eternity is in store for his soul; in this earthly life, failing emancipation, there remains the fact of his inferior status, to which he must piously resign himself."[3] [15] The Qur'an also recognizes concubinage.[16][17] A master may make his female slave as his concubine and, if she is a Muslim, he can marry her. Abstinence however is said to be a better choice.[2] The Qur'an urges, without commanding, kindness to the slave[18] and recommends, their liberation by purchase or manumission. The freeing of slaves is recommended both for the expiation of sins[19] and as an act of simple benevolence.[20] It exhorts masters to allow slaves to earn or purchase their own freedom (manumission contracts)."[16]
Slaves are mentioned in at least twenty-nine verses of the Qur'an, most of these are Medinan and refer to the legal status of slaves. The legal material on slavery in the Qur'an is largely restricted to manumission and sexual relations.[2] According to Sikainga, the Qur'anic references to slavery as mainly contain "broad and general propositions of an ethical nature rather than specific legal formulations."[21]
The Quran accepts the distinction between slave and free as part of the natural order and uses this distinction as an example of God's grace,[22] regarding this discrimination between human beings as in accordance with the divinely-established order of things.[2][23] "The Qur'an, however, does not consider slaves to be mere chattel; their humanity is directly addressed in references to their beliefs,[24] their desire for manumission and their feelings about being forced into prostitution.[25] In one case, the Qur'an refers to master and slave with the same word, rajul. Later interpreters presume slaves to be spiritual equals of free Muslims. For example,[26] urges believers to marry 'believing maids that your right hands own' and then states: "The one of you is as the other," which the Jalaalayn interpret as "You and they are equal in faith, so do not refrain from marrying them." The human aspect of slaves is further reinforced by reference to them as members of the private household, sometimes along with wives or children.[2] Pious exhortations from jurists to free men to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as "my boy" and "my girl" stemmed from the belief that God, not their masters, was responsible for the slave's status.[27]
There are many common features between the institution of slavery in the Qur'an and that of neighboring cultures. However, the Qur'anic institution had some unique new features.[2] Bernard Lewis states that the Qur'anic legislation brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects: presumption of freedom, and the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances.[16] According to Brockopp, the idea of using alms for the manumission of slaves appears to be unique to the Qur'an, assuming the traditional interpretation of verses [Qur'an 2:177] and [Qur'an 9:60]. Similarly, the practice of freeing slaves in atonment for certain sins appears to be introduced by the Qur'an (but compare Exod 21:26-7).[2] The forced prostitution of female slaves, a Near Eastern custom of great antiquity, is condemned in the Qur'an.[14][28]Murray Gordon notes that this ban is "of no small significance."[29] Brockopp writes: "Other cultures limit a master's right to harm a slave but few exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly, and the placement of slaves in the same category as other weak members of society who deserve protection is unknown outside the Qur'an. The unique contribution of the Qur'an, then, is to be found in its emphasis on the place of slaves in society and society's responsibility toward the slave, perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in its time."[2]
Muhammad's traditions
The Islamic prophet Muhammad encouraged manumission of slaves, even if one had to purchase them first. On many occasions, Muhammad's companions, at his direction, freed slaves in abundance. Muhammad personally freed 63 slaves, and his wife Aisha freed 67.[30] In total his household and friends freed 39,237 slaves.[31] The most notable of Muhammad's slaves were: Safiyya bint Huyayy, whom he freed and married; Maria al-Qibtiyya, given to Muhammad by a Byzantine official, whom he freed and who may have become his wife;[32] Sirin, Maria's sister, whom he freed and married to the poet Hassan ibn Thabit[33] and Zayd ibn Harithah, whom Muhammad freed and adopted as a son.[3
 
Yusuf Ali's translation also contains the "if you see god in them" clause.
I don't know where Asad found the information about a third person judging the slave's goodness, I don't think there's a direct verse or hadith about it, but it could derive form the islamic law as such.
And I may be nitpicking but so is everyone else in here.
Yusuf Ali puts it in second part of the verse. But I'll go with Asad's translation and explanation, he spent a great time studying classical Arabic and hadiths, and he understood the grammatical depth of Semitic languages. As for the third party, it is overall instruction on the issue. If slave is not happy he can go to authority and get his/her freedom. If you don't have your negativity, unbiased arbitrator would be understandable to you. Quran doesn't have to put every detail in the verse that were already used in the society. Al though, Quran does mention arbitration in other places for other things, it is natural they would be extended over to other similar issues and Quran doesn't have to put it every time for every situation.

What I've been trying to say all along is that no one should be born a slave and no on should have to pay ransom for his or her freedom. Slaves may be treated nicely but that doesn't change the issue of slavery itself.
And where would freed slaves live, earn their livelihood, etc... if they were all freed abruptly. Main issue was providing their rights and systematic freeing of slaves who were capable of making their own living.
 
Yusuf Ali puts it in second part of the verse. But I'll go with Asad's translation and explanation, he spent a great time studying classical Arabic and hadiths, and he understood the grammatical depth of Semitic languages. As for the third party, it is overall instruction on the issue. If slave is not happy he can go to authority and get his/her freedom. If you don't have your negativity, unbiased arbitrator would be understandable to you. Quran doesn't have to put every detail in the verse that were already used in the society. Al though, Quran does mention arbitration in other places for other things, it is natural they would be extended over to other similar issues and Quran doesn't have to put it every time for every situation.


And where would freed slaves live, earn their livelihood, etc... if they were all freed abruptly. Main issue was providing their rights and systematic freeing of slaves who were capable of making their own living.
1. Ok, fair enough.
2. Well, they could stay with their master, but but be free and payed for their work. How does having to pay for freedom help a slave to get a house, earn their livelihood?
And as Thinker stated, apparently Muhammad only freed slaves after they converted to Islam, so it doesn't seem to me it was about freeing ones capable of making their own living.
 
2. Well, they could stay with their master, but but be free and payed for their work.
That was one way that was used were it was possible. But paying for work depends on the type of economy. Even in the definition of servants they are not always paid for their work. Food, shelter, and clothing is a form of payment depending on the economy.

How does having to pay for freedom help a slave to get a house, earn their livelihood?
If slave thinks he/she can they can ask to let go.
 
That was one way that was used were it was possible. But paying for work depends on the type of economy. Even in the definition of servants they are not always paid for their work. Food, shelter, and clothing is a form of payment depending on the economy.


If slave thinks he/she can they can ask to let go.
You said several isues would have arisen if all slaves had been freed abrubtly, bt I don't see why this would have the case. tehc apable ons could live as free men, even as servants if they wanted, whereas the less capable ones could stay with their masters and work in order to get food, clothing etc. Nothing would change except they'd be free!
what are you saying? They don't need to pay the ransom?
 
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),
Above verse is came for whom? Slave-girls converted to Islam but that were under non-muslims in Madina?
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top