Slavery In Quran

format_quote Originally Posted by luvziran

A person who frees a Muslim slave, Allah will deliver every one of his limbs from the fire of Hell in return for each of the limbs of the slave (Sahîh Bukhârî, and Sahîh Muslim)

Only Muslim slaves ?


The pagan aristocracy in Makkah, Jewish landowners and merchants in Madinah and many wealthy Christian Arabs were slave owners


Here we go, Jews and Christians again...


“The atonement for beating or slapping a slave (Muslim or non-Muslim) on the face, for no fault of his, is that he should be set free.” - Muhammad (S) [Muslim: Ibn Umar (RA)]



So does this imply that if you treat your slave 'right', you can keep them ?



Restrictions were placed on enslavement. It was forbidden to enslave free members of Islamic society, including dhimmis (nonMuslims) residing in dar al-Islam.


So as long as the slave was the 'right' type of slave, it was O.K. ? WOW !!

Here we go, same old lame criticisms again, so you find it wrong that free members of society can't randomly become slaves, what are you talking about, right type of slave? If you treat your slave right, yes keeping them is allowed but it seems you just want to look at the aspects that seem negative to you other than for example the fact that freeing them is encouraged.

To the skepticism of luzviran...

format_quote Originally Posted by luvziran

A person who frees a Muslim slave, Allah will deliver every one of his limbs from the fire of Hell in return for each of the limbs of the slave (Sahîh Bukhârî, and Sahîh Muslim)

Only Muslim slaves ?

The ruling of kind treatment and encouragement for freeing slaves applies to muslims and non-muslims, as another hadith in Sahîh Muslim (2776) says:
عن رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏من أعتق رقبة أعتق الله بكل عضو منها عضوا من أعضائه من النار حتى فرجه بفرجه
The Messenger of Allah said: He who emancipates a slave, Allah will set free from Hell every limb (of his body) for every limb of his (slave's) body, even his private parts.

And here it does not specify the condition of 'believing'. And Imam An-Nawawî notes in his commentary the virtues of freeing both muslim and non-muslim.

The pagan aristocracy in Makkah, Jewish landowners and merchants in Madinah and many wealthy Christian Arabs were slave owners

Here we go, Jews and Christians again...

Was this intended to be a coherent response or just a collection of musings? Reading in context, we're talking about how slavery was embedded in that historical time and was not restricted to any religious group but was practiced almost universally, despite the injustices associated with it.

“The atonement for beating or slapping a slave (Muslim or non-Muslim) on the face, for no fault of his, is that he should be set free.” - Muhammad (S) [Muslim: Ibn Umar (RA)]

So does this imply that if you treat your slave 'right', you can keep them ?

It implies that it is forbidden to abuse your slave. You have to treat them well. And if you intend by this that Islam is complicit in slavery, then again you have not been paying attention:

So the claim that Islam simply allowed slavery is not true at all. Islam was actually instrumental in the gradual elimination of slavery for the reasons listed above. Muhammad (S) bought freedom of 63 former slaves, A’isha (RA) 67, Abbas (RA) 70, Abdullah ibn Umar (RA) 1000 and Abdur Rahman ibn Awf 30,000.

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.

Restrictions were placed on enslavement. It was forbidden to enslave free members of Islamic society, including dhimmis (nonMuslims) residing in dar al-Islam.

So as long as the slave was the 'right' type of slave, it was O.K. ? WOW !!

As above.

Regards

format_quote Originally Posted by luvziran

If a person is a slave, how are they a 'free member of society' ? It is impossible to 'treat a slave right'. A slave is a slave is a slave ! And EVERY ASPECT of keeping slaves is NEGATIVE ! I CAN'T BELEIVE YOU ARE EVEN DEFENDING SLAVERY !!! Your defense of slavery is right out of the Middle Ages. I find it sickening !!! :vomit:

I recommend you see, the thread slavery in the Qur'aan, Ansar refuted your points in there more thoroughly, if my points are str8 out of the middle ages, so is the Bible's view on slavery. Of course you can only think of the slavery that ameriKKKa breeds which is not allowed in Islam, which wasn't in the middle ages, haha...

Slavery has changed name in the west. its called employment! Thats if you are not confused by the stigma of arfrican slavery where they did not get paid. Islamic slaves had to get paid before their sweat dried!

Actually yes they could! - slaves could request their freedom and on top of that they was entitled to charity!

1. slaves can request their freedom 24:33
2. they can be given zakat to purchase their freedom ibn kathir vol one p59
3. they are not allowed to be abused or beaten sahih Muslim volume 3a p100 up until 102 see this hadith Bukhari vol one hadith 29
4. they must not be burdened page 103 sm vol 3a 1661
5. you must pay them before their sweat drys ibn majah vol 3 2443
6. equal share 16:71

WHY DID MUSLIMS KEEP SLAVES

After battles the Muslims would take slaves , women and children from the families of those who were killed on the battlefield because the muslims knew they had nobody to support them so the muslims took them in as slaves at this stage in Islamic history there was no Islamic gorverment so the muslims had to take care of them from their own means. Prophet Muhammad [s] commanded the muslims to be very kind to their slaves and not to mistreat them , children to be fed and clothed as they were their own children , and no violence and aggression be shown towards the slaves Prophet Muhammad [s] also encouraged strongly that wealthy muslims buy slaves from the pagans and then liberate them

The Prophet had a slave woman that refused to become a Muslim, did you know he left her alone to be a Jew and that he gave her religious freedom?
And also if you would have studied a bit more, if somebody didnt have the money to free themselves then they had to be given money to free themselves and even when they were liberated they would have been given a grant. by the way , Blah blah was refering to your style of argumentation which stands to be poor considering that you havent presented a valid reason for your opinions. I think you owe it to yourself to at least gain some level of respect by answering peoples questions without avoiding the issue.

Why not? The black slaves who were brought to the Americas by FORCE and SOLD were forced to change their faith. They were MUSLIM! If you were to capture a slave, you MUST treat them with respect and give them their rights. Since when do prisoners of war get equal treatment? Tell me of any other religion or people who treated them with respect? By the way, we are talking about prisoners of war, not just capturing a slave because they feel like it(Like the US did).

Islam advocates clemency with captives. History has never known warriors so merciful to their captives as the early Muslims who followed the teachings of their religion. Numerous religious texts demand clemency with captives.

Prisoners are usually taken when a battle is at its height and there is danger that rage may lead the victorious warriors to harm those who have been defeated in order to take revenge. The Prophet, however, urged his followers to treat their captives with clemency. He said to them “You have to treat your captives kindly.” He also urged his Companions on the day of Badr to be kind to their captives. Accordingly, the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) gave their captive preference over themselves in matters of food. This is the tolerance of Islam and its respect for the human dignity.

In this way Muslims learned two kinds of Jihad. The first is Jihad in the battlefield where people give themselves to the cause of Allah and the second one is Jihad against one’s desires that restrains man’s rage and allows him to fight his foes with clemency and not in accordance with the laws of the jungle.

What are the teachings of Islam as regards the prisoners of war? Does Islam grant them freedom, ransom or enslave them to the Muslims? Here, we should again refer to the religious texts and the example given by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The most direct of these texts is Allah’s saying: [So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates] (Muhammad 47: 4).

The Qur’anic verse thus provides alternatives: either the Muslim commander should free those captives who cannot offer ransom either in the form of money or an equivalent number of Muslim captives, or he should ransom his captives for money or for a similar number of Muslim captives. This is what is now known as an exchange of prisoners.

The religion of freedom, therefore, esteems the freedom of those who do not follow it as much as it does that regarding its followers, for if the advocate of freedom is himself free, he will not make any discrimination on regional, racial or religious grounds, because freedom is a natural right to every human being.

The Qur’anic verse does not mention a third choice, namely the enslavement of captives; the Qur’anic text explicitly forbids it by limiting the choice to only two alternatives – free dismissal or ransoming – without referring to enslavement. Thus enslavement is not involved in the choice.

No slave was held against their wil , you will find that if you studied, the ransom was paid for them if they couldnt pay it so whats the problem? Islam set free the captives ... dont you know?

This thread is rapidly going no place. The main Questions have been answered several times. But, either the answers were not understood or the asker is trying to get the answers changed to something he/she believes.

Originally Posted by luvziran
I offered many, many reasons for my opinion. I'll give them to you one more time. Try to focus.

1) One human owning another human is wrong.
2) No one should have to pay another for their freedom.

1) One human owning another human is wrong.

On the surface that sounds right and most people will immediatly agree with that. Sadly in real life that is not true. Most people have to work for a living. During their working hours they are "owned" by their employers. The "slaves" during the early period after the revelation of the Noble Qur'an were much less slaves than todays minimum wage employee. What is commenly referred to as "Slaves" were more like respected family members. I'm not going to waste my time repeating the many posts that discussed the treatment of "Slaves".


2) No one should have to pay another for their freedom.

Again that sounds very agreeable. Please tell that to the judge when he is sentencing you to 90 days in jail because you refuse to pay the ransom to keep out of jail because of a driving violation.

format_quote Originally Posted by Tayyaba

Your claims are honestly useless right now, because the kind of slavery your thinking of isnt the slavery known to Islam. Actually slavery isnt even the right word! That kind of slavery is NOT, i repeat, NOT allowed.
Either read my post or stop posting your ignorance.
You obviously have no feel to learn whatsoever. Your only "refutation" is that its wrong, and little do u realize that the slavery your thinking of is not the same to whats known to Islam. That word isnt even the right word to use.

That seems to sum it up quite well. There is no real need to offer further explanations.

Fascinating... the user 'luzviran' spammed the thread with over 50 posts and not a single one responded to my refutation in my last post. In fact, the only one that even referred to my post said:

format_quote Originally Posted by luvziran

Ansar refuted NOTHING !!! Slavery is WRONG in any form !!! :vomit:

That's the only response? Clearly we can expect no intellectual contribution from this member. No one here denied that there is injustice associated with slavery, but what she completely ignored was the fatwa posted earlier from Shaykh Abdullah Al-Faqîh's on IslamWeb:

From this factual information it should be clear that slavery was to be eliminated in Islam. It is our view that when the Islaamic Shariah is practiced faithfully slavery will eventually be eliminated; we might add, so will all other acts of man's inhumanity to man. (SOURCE)

And as I said before:

So the claim that Islam simply allowed slavery is not true at all. Islam was actually instrumental in the gradual elimination of slavery for the reasons listed above. Muhammad (S) bought freedom of 63 former slaves, A’isha (RA) 67, Abbas (RA) 70, Abdullah ibn Umar (RA) 1000 and Abdur Rahman ibn Awf 30,000.

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.

50+ posts from this member and not a single one could touch on this point.

format_quote Originally Posted by nospam

How, for one moment, can anyone defend SLAVERY ??

Shows you still were incapable of understanding the most simple points. No one is defending slavery. We are defending Islam's gradual elimination of deep-rooted slavery, which we confirmed is one of man's many inhumanities:

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

Shaykh Abdullah Al-Faqîh's on IslamWeb:

From this factual information it should be clear that slavery was to be eliminated in Islam. It is our view that when the Islaamic Shariah is practiced faithfully slavery will eventually be eliminated; we might add, so will all other acts of man's inhumanity to man. (SOURCE)

It's actually funny that even when you try to come back to the forum you don't go back and respond to my posts and the arguments you ignored the first time; instead you launch into an emotional outburst peppered with ad hominem attacks and repeating the same ignorant notion that people here are pro-slavery! We're not pro-slavery; we're pro-Islam's method of eliminating the injustices assocated with slavery.

I know it is difficult for you to appreciate such manifest distinctions but you'll have enough time to struggle with it.

Regards

format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Ibraheem

The Prophet had a slave woman that refused to become a Muslim, did you know he left her alone to be a Jew and that he gave her religious freedom?
And also if you would have studied a bit more, if somebody didnt have the money to free themselves then they had to be given money to free themselves and even when they were liberated they would have been given a grant. by the way , Blah blah was refering to your style of argumentation which stands to be poor considering that you havent presented a valid reason for your opinions. I think you owe it to yourself to at least gain some level of respect by answering peoples questions without avoiding the issue.

yea, the woman from the bani quraiza

would you like the actual reference from Ibn Ihsaq's sirat ur Rasoolullah

format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Ibraheem

would you like the actual reference from Ibn Ihsaq's sirat ur Rasoolullah

no, I've read that part

mashallah ... keep reading

Greetings and welcome to the forum,

It looks like you have misunderstood what brother Hijrah meant. When plucked out of context, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but if we go back to post #64, he is actually saying that it is wrong to randomly make free members of society slaves and that it is only acceptable to keep a slave if they are treated properly.

The brother can confirm Insha'Allaah.