Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Redeem

Slavery

Recommended Posts

Continued from a discussion in: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=7340&st=20entry622478"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic...mp;#entry622478[/url]

 

RIght hz Bilal the Habshi, stuttered, people adored how he performed we all know about him yes.gif ..he accepted Islam so it would make no sense to not free him.

 

Then again, many slaves (and poor/weak people) were the first to accept Islam, as they were the most willing to accept change. Though this isn't relevant to either of our points.

 

Ok let me restablish my understanding here.....

 

conquering non muslims and those that refused to pay Jizya or Accept Islam were enslaved.

 

Where did you get this from? You've wandered off into jizya, which was never discussed.

 

1.Islam abolished slavery based on ethnicity

2.Arabs had no black slaves that they acquired from markets to do their chores.

 

1: Yes

2: Where did you get this from? This is certainly something I never mentioned.

 

I asked for the verse or hadith that prohibits the practice of slavery based on ethnicity.

 

Once again, where did you get this from? You never asked for a verse or Hadith concerning this specific issue. You keep saying things that we have neither discussed, nor mentioned. :sl:

 

I got this from wikipedia

 

I wasn't aware that wikipedia was an Islamic source. Nonetheless, are we discussing history, or the laws of Islam itself? If you want to tackle history, then by all means, but if you wish to discuss Islamic shariah, that is the only interest I have. Let's not wander into a subject we weren't previously discussing. :sl:

 

.Anyhoo..human equality whether said explicitly or not, is the underlying concern to my probing this slavery thing.

 

So you think to expose inequality based on your own code of morality? How very futile.

 

At the turn of 7th century, when Islam was trying to spread...

 

The problem with this sentence is that we WEREN'T discussing the spread of Islam, or the actions of the Muslims. We were discussing Islamic shari'ah itself. Everything else is irrelevant in this situation.

 

Hard Liquor... doesn't suit Arabia's climate because it causes one to loose all water by not allowing kidneys to reabsorb..which is kinda the opposite thing u want to do aronnd desert climate ....BUT if you live say in Alaska, and on a cold night your heating/electric/gas system gets shot down...Boom there is that dire need.

Skipping Beer since refrigeration and superbowl haven't been around for ever.

 

And what would alcohol be doing lying around in the first place? You lack objectivity. :j:

 

It's true..but same can be said of a donkey.

 

Except that there are plenty of Hadiths that speak of the treatment of animals (and nature in general).

 

Not everything can be mentioned in Quran ..Like gravity perhaps ...but common sense can teach us that.

 

"Cannot" is a word that does not apply to Allah. As you said, common sense should teach you valuable lessons in how to live in this world. You shouldn't expect to be spoon-fed every little bit of information.

 

It seems to me that you are nitpicking at every little point, trying to pull up a flaw. If I said the sky is blue because of XYZ, you would probably say "What about at night? What about when it's cloudy? What about if my eyes are closed?"

 

Ah, young minds. :no:

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

It's all well and good to sit in front of a computer in the 21st century and decry slavery but what is perhaps most remarkable about Islam is the fact that in the 7th century slavery was abolished.

 

In some senses conditionally, and complete equality under the law was never achieved (nor expected to, this isn't a pluralistic society) but nevertheless, when did the Western world catch up?

 

The United States was importing slaves up until 1808. It wasn't until the 1860s that slavery was officially abolished, and it could be argued that was a political movement, not a moral one.

 

So to argue a perfectionist standpoint when you're several hundred years behind and we haven't even discovered a way to stably integrate our society is a little insulting, and a tad ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all well and good to sit in front of a computer in the 21st century and decry slavery but what is perhaps most remarkable about Islam is the fact that in the 7th century slavery was abolished.

 

Peace Seacow,

 

You are, sadly, quite mistaken about this. Muslims had a long history of slavery, including eunuchs and they were active in the African slave trade. In fact, slavery was not made illegal in Saudi Arabia until 1962. Please read up on Muslim history and slavery.

 

I am not saying this to villianize Muslims in any way. Slavery has been an historical issue with almost all civilizations and a stain upon all of them. We must keep these discussions intellectually honest, though.

 

I am not aware of any Hadith or any verses in the Quran that outlaw slavery. In fact there are some Muslim scholars who will argue that it is still permissable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace Seacow,

 

You are, sadly, quite mistaken about this. Muslims had a long history of slavery, including eunuchs and they were active in the African slave trade. In fact, slavery was not made illegal in Saudi Arabia until 1962. Please read up on Muslim history and slavery.

 

I am not saying this to villianize Muslims in any way. Slavery has been an historical issue with almost all civilizations and a stain upon all of them. We must keep these discussions intellectually honest, though.

 

I am not aware of any Hadith or any verses in the Quran that outlaw slavery. In fact there are some Muslim scholars who will argue that it is still permissable.

This is what I mean by conditional slavery. I am certainly not proposing that eunuchs or Janissaries were entirely free in the Western sense of the word. As I understand it (and it would like the confirmation of an adherent of Islam to make certain I am correct in this) when someone converts to Islam if their master is Islamic then they are required to free the slave as all men are equal under Islam, a concept that was rather foreign to the time and region.

 

It is also important that we tease out the difference between what Islam teaches, and what countries with a primary religion of Islam do, as often there is a large difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when someone converts to Islam if their master is Islamic then they are required to free the slave as all men are equal under Islam, a concept that was rather foreign to the time and region.

 

I am not Muslim but I can tell you that this is true.

 

It is also important that we tease out the difference between what Islam teaches, and what countries with a primary religion of Islam do, as often there is a large difference.

 

True, but not always in this case. Slavery was never abolished by Islam as you stated.

 

So to argue a perfectionist standpoint when you're several hundred years behind and we haven't even discovered a way to stably integrate our society is a little insulting, and a tad ignorant.

 

This quote is from a previous post of yours but I feel the need to respond to it also.

 

Neither side in this discussion can argue from a perfectionist standpoint, and for either side to do so would be ignorant.

 

Neither Christian nor Muslim has clean hands when it comes to slavery, in either of their histories or in either of their religions. In both religions slavery is tolerated, even though both religions implore their followers to treat each other humanely.

 

I find ignorance in questions such as " is slavery inherently bad, or is it just bad treatment of slaves that is evil?". Is this seriously being asked on this forum? If the person truly believes this then I invite them to come and be my slave. I promise to treat them well.

 

I find ignorance in people arguing that slavery is necessary for any economy.

 

How can anyone find virtue in freeing a slave based on their religion? How can any religion say that there is no compulsion, but then turn around and enslave someone as long as they don't convert to their religion?

 

You seem to be tiptoing around the issue when you make comments about someone not being "entirely" free or "conditional slavery". Eunuchs had their sexuality ripped from them, their bodies mutilated and were only allowed to do what their masters allowed them to do. Just because the masters were supposed to free them if they changed their religion does not mitigate this in any way, shape or form.

 

Man is born free and should be allowed to live that way as long as they commit no crimes against humanity. It is no better to be a slave because of your religion than it is to be a slave because of the color of your skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what I mean by conditional slavery. I am certainly not proposing that eunuchs or Janissaries were entirely free in the Western sense of the word. As I understand it (and it would like the confirmation of an adherent of Islam to make certain I am correct in this) when someone converts to Islam if their master is Islamic then they are required to free the slave as all men are equal under Islam, a concept that was rather foreign to the time and region.

 

It is also important that we tease out the difference between what Islam teaches, and what countries with a primary religion of Islam do, as often there is a large difference.

Sadly this isnt true. Muhammad Ali launched a massive slave raid into the Sudan in 1827, a sudan which by then was overwhelmingly muslim. Slavery, though not as brutal as slavery in the western world never the less took on strong racial undertones as can be seen in the special position of the mamluk class(white slaves) in egypt.

 

in the 13th century we also have a record of what the famous Muslim sociologist Ibn Khaldun thought about the nature of white and black slaves.

 

“The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes (Sudan) owing to their low degree of humanity and their proximity to the animal stage. Other persons who accept the status of slave do so as a means of attaining high rank or power, as is the case with the Mameluke Turks in the East and with those Franks ad Galicians who enter the service of the state. (Spain)†Gordon Murray, Slavery in the arab world, 102.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

 

If people today have no problem with asylum seekers finding refuge and protection in foreign countries, then I guess there should be no problems with slavery 1400 years ago in Islamic communities?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your analogy Yasnov.

 

If someone seeks your protection that does not give you the right to make them slaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

If people today have no problem with asylum seekers finding refuge and protection in foreign countries, then I guess there should be no problems with slavery 1400 years ago in Islamic communities?

 

I knew the Government were trying to restrict numbers of asylum seekers but I didn't know they'd stooped to advertising the option accross the globe as pseudo-enslavement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said multiple times, the only situation in which slavery was permitted was in dealing with war prisoners. Of course "slavery" is a crude way of labeling what was, in essence, nothing more than house-arrest. A slave, according to the Hadiths, was just another member of the family and was even given his own wages.

 

As for "Muslims did this and that", that wasn't the matter of discussion here. I created this topic to tackle llogical's belief that Islam promotes or tolerates slavery, which it doesn't. What Muslims chose to do is not really our concern.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but I didn't know they'd stooped to advertising the option accross the globe as pseudo-enslavement...
I don't understand your analogy Yasnov.

It's financial, social and security issues back then, only that they were not too creative as finding a new correct term for the system, such as welfare instead of slavery

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoken like a card carrying Republican, Yasnov.

Am I? :sl:

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Welfare as slavery? Spoken like a card carrying Republican, Yasnov.

Nope, it's the other way around: slavery as welfare ..

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well…how long did you think I was going to stay out of this one? Here’s my 2 dollars worth:

 

Before the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, slavery really was slavery. Slaves were treated…as slaves. Very much the way women were considered property and treated as cattle. After the Prophet Muhammad, women were treated – never mind as property – but as equals. And slaves went from being treated as slaves, to being treated as live-in servants; along with all the rights afforded to live-in servants such as respect as human beings.

 

Now the thing is servants were an integral part of the economic infrastructure of tribal society back then. In America, when slavery was finally abolished, what do you think happened to all the black folk? Do you think they up and got white collar jobs? Heck, for the most part, they still haven’t. No, they were doing what they were always doing; they were still picking cotton, they were still hammering the railroads, they were still doing chores around the rich man’s house, and they still slept in the same slave quarter’s they always slept in; except they were now called servants and they were given rights – including the right to be treated as human beings who had all the same legal rights as their employer. Now mind you, in America, that didn’t really happen until the civil rights movement, but you get my point.

 

Bringing us to present day, what do you think would happen to all those live-in servants, who presently work for the wealthy in developed countries if you abolished their jobs? They would be out of a job, and the rich folk would to be scrubbing their floors themselves. Not very practical is it, and doesn’t make any economic sense. How about in third world countries…say India for example. Live-in servants are as common as curry and kites. If you got rid of all those live-in servants, I kid you not, the country would come to a stand still. And I’m not exaggerating. So it isn't welfare, it's absolute economic reality.

 

Fundamentally, that’s exactly what happened during the Prophet’s time. He effectively transformed slaves from ownership status, with no rights, to live-in servants with equal rights as human beings – he just didn’t change what they were called.

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

Fundamentally, that’s exactly what happened during the Prophet’s time. He effectively transformed slaves from ownership status, with no rights, to live-in servants with equal rights as human beings – he just didn’t change what they were called.

 

Could these 'live-in servants' choose to leave their 'job' whenever they wanted without fear of repercussion, no strings attached? (Except perhaps a months notice?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could these 'live-in servants' choose to leave their 'job' whenever they wanted without fear of repercussion, no strings attached? (Except perhaps a months notice?)

Who will then be responsible for their protection from hostile individuals?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace,

Could these 'live-in servants' choose to leave their 'job' whenever they wanted without fear of repercussion, no strings attached? (Except perhaps a months notice?)

Hi Eoin…good to hear from you again. Hope you are doing well.

 

I know what you’re getting at it…and it’s a fair question. And the short answer is ‘No’. But it is important to realize the Prophet Muhammad inherited many centuries’ old practice – with the result that slavery was integrated as an inherent part of the economy. If it was decreed that slaves can give a ‘months notice’, it would have produced mass chaos. If slaves, who have always craved freedom, were suddenly renamed servants…well imagine if you will; they’d all be thinking at the level of the individual and quit, meanwhile society at large would be in serious turmoil.

 

The measures the prophet introduced eliminated the possibility of sudden upheaval, but instead encouraged a slow but seamless transition. Sister Redeem already covered these measures in great detail in previous posts, including the right to purchase their own freedom. It was also encouraged to free your slaves voluntarily.

 

Now people weren’t going to line up at the door to free their slaves, and slaves weren’t suddenly going to inherit a windfall to purchase their freedom. So these measures encouraged an evolution away from slavery rather than a shock-bolt to the system.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamz

For lack of possible establishments of correctional facilities etc, I left the P.O.Ws alone..for now

My initial point was as following:

According to my research Slave Trade still continued In Arabia well after 7th century.

If it was abolished then It wouldn't exist period.......as per the definition of the word abolished.

 

Now.. the best to my understanding, there were economical reasons for holding on to the slaves...who's gonna pick the cotton? :sl:

That's about a week worth of explanation, but also a weak explaination, because I still don't understand how letting go of slavery would bring the economy to a screeching halt? They can still doing their job while holding their identity as a normal human not subserviant to another.

Besides

I do know there were economical reasons to hold on to the wine..like who's gonna buy all the wine, yet it was stopped dead on.There were economies that thrived on alcohol and designed their calendar around beer brewing weeks for example....so if those guys were to revert, would they be allowed to hold on to their brown juice? ..I doubt that.

If morality is still > economics there, and they must give up alcohol abruptly, give up their ancentoral Gods abruptly, and give and give up all the other fun stuff abruptly, then it is possible for slavery to be phased out atleast over a century. I am not saying letting 100s and 1000s of slaves run free instantly, but I have nothing to work with here... perhaps an Islamic ban on slave trade, or a rule prohibiting the markets would support the fine virtue of human morality that I am still unable to grasp, would change things . Having right to be fed or clothed/ or have basic necessities isn't really different from animal rights. The only thing that I have so far is the fact that if they accept Islam they are welcomed into the brotherhood and God doesn't see color..but as far as the other dumb human slaves separated by language barriers or lacking apptitude...there is no way to separate them from animals. Still looking to fill in the blanks becaz that's not what I expect from perfection.

 

peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to my research Slave Trade still continued In Arabia well after 7th century.

Yep...it's true.

 

If it was abolished then It wouldn't exist period.......as per the definition of the word abolished.

Can't speak for others bro, but I never used the word abolished. Went out of my way to say it wasn't abolished...it was suppose to be a gradual process that never got carried out properly after the Prophet died.

 

Now.. the best to my understanding, there were economical reasons for holding on to the slaves...who's gonna pick the cotton? :sl:

That's about a week worth of explanation, but also a weak explaination, because I still don't understand how letting go of slavery would bring the economy to a screeching halt?

Servant-Slaves, were like 20% or more of the population. You think the US economy is in trouble now, wake up tomorrow with a 24% unemployment rate...that'll make the subprime fiasco look like Mary Poppins.

 

They can still doing their job while holding their identity as a normal human not subserviant to another.

Dude, I already stated that the prophet gave them rights as human beings, which they didn't have before. They were not subservient in terms of human beings, only social and economic status...just like class systems now (lower class, middle class, upper class).

 

Besides

I do know there were economical reasons to hold on to the wine..like who's gonna buy all the wine, yet it was stopped dead on.There were economies that thrived on alcohol and designed their calendar around beer brewing weeks for example....so if those guys were to revert, would they be allowed to hold on to their brown juice? ..I doubt that.

If morality is still > economics there, and they must give up alcohol abruptly, give up their ancentoral Gods abruptly, and give and give up all the other fun stuff abruptly, then it is possible for slavery to be phased out atleast over a century.

Alcohol production was not the mainstay of the economy of Arabian desert tribes. Livestock and trade were with alcohol thrown in for fun. Eliminating alcohol wouldn't undo the economy. You wake tomorrow in New York, and they ban alcohol; odds are the economy will be alright (well, maybe not right now), but if you wake up to 24% unemployment rate...can't compare the two dude.

 

...but I have nothing to work with here...

whatcutalkinboutwillis?

 

perhaps an Islamic ban on slave trade, or a rule prohibiting the markets would support the fine virtue of human morality that I am still unable to grasp, would change things . Having right to be fed or clothed/ or have basic necessities isn't really different from animal rights. The only thing that I have so far is the fact that if they accept Islam they are welcomed into the brotherhood and God doesn't see color..but as far as the other dumb human slaves separated by language barriers or lacking apptitude...there is no way to separate them from animals.

The prophet asked all slaves to be treated as human beings, and all slaves were given that right...not just those who converted to Islam...so what gives bro?

 

The only reason slavery was not abolished, was because the prophet only lived for 23 years after this first calling...if he had lived for another 20 or 30 years...I dare say it would likely have been phased out completely. But he didn't, and as rightly guided as the 4 caliphates were, they were not the prophet. Don't get people's practice of a faith mixed up with what the faith's intention. And the faith's intention was to eventually phase out slavery in a pragmatic way, given the socio-economic realities.

 

Still looking to fill in the blanks becaz that's not what I expect from perfection.

Never let perfection stop you from doing good.

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace,

Could these 'live-in servants' choose to leave their 'job' whenever they wanted without fear of repercussion, no strings attached? (Except perhaps a months notice?)

 

I wasn't aware that prisoners can leave prisons without repercussions.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

 

I've never heard any stories about slaves who were trying to escape from their Muslim master, or stories about the Muslim masters who punished their slaves for such crimes.

 

I think there is no any difference between those slaves and our modern slaves (referring to the exremely low-paid workers in some manufacturers today)

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to my research Slave Trade still continued In Arabia well after 7th century.

If it was abolished then It wouldn't exist period.......as per the definition of the word abolished.

You are too dogmatic with the word definition. Jefferson, helped frame all the 'everyone is equal' stuff in the American constitution, but kept a bunch of slaves. My point, there are some psychological aspects at play in this case, either from the part of the slave or the master.

 

I am not saying letting 100s and 1000s of slaves run free instantly, but I have nothing to work with here... perhaps an Islamic ban on slave trade

Some people just can't stand on their own feet. Why would you ban a slave trade when the slaves concerned are willing to be a slave if it gives them social, security, financial and psychological protection? Given the same reasoning, I don't think you would want your govt to ban prostitution business? Or maybe a ban on cigarette trades? Arms deals? Why would you expect the people in the past to be such an idealists, when we in this modern time can't even ban all those things that I have mentioned? The slaves would have tried to escape in the first place if they don't agree with such system like the slaves in America land who were exploited for their labor only but never given their proper rights. But I've never heard any stories where slaves tried to run away from their Muslim masters. Have you heard any stories during the Prophet's time where slaves were mistreated? What I know is that the slaves at that time can voice their protests if they were mistreated by their master (employers). A paid man-servant is not a slave. They got wage, same clothes as worn by the master, same food etc.

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you ban a slave trade when the slaves concerned are willing to be a slave if it gives them social, security, financial and psychological protection?

 

I am willing to bet most of them would have taken their chances on being free.

 

Given the same reasoning, I don't think you would want your govt to ban prostitution business? Or maybe a ban on cigarette trades? Arms deals?

 

Prostitution is illegal already in the vast majority of this country and around the world.

 

The rest is a bad analogy. Noone is forcing people to buy cigarettes. People were forced into slavery. Seriously, how many people have you ever heard of that ever asked to be slaves? No matter what anyone wants to say about how they were treated, they were still property. Human beings owned other human beings.

 

A paid man-servant is not a slave. They got wage, same clothes as worn by the master, same food etc.

 

I could put a dress on a pig, but that wouldn't make it a supermodel.

 

These men and women, even if they were getting paid, were not allowed basic freedoms. They couldn't even get married without their masters approval. Their children, if they were allowed by their master to have any, automatically became the property of their masters also. The wages were worthless. The most they could hope to attain with their wages was their own freedom. That alone should tell you what kind of conditions they lived in when they save everything they have to buy their freedom.

 

Servant-Slaves, were like 20% or more of the population. You think the US economy is in trouble now, wake up tomorrow with a 24% unemployment rate...that'll make the subprime fiasco look like Mary Poppins.

 

If the intention was the gradual abolition of slavery then why not actually put any mechanics in place to encourage it? Why not basic acts like saying that children cannot be born into slavery? Why would Mohammed keep slaves himself if he was against it? Why allow women and children to be slaves?

 

From everything I know about this issue there were no arguments that Islam was trying to do away with slavery until the last couple of centuries. From all that I have read Mohammed had little problem with the institution of slavery. Can anyone show me a hadith in which he shows he has any problems with slavery itself? It is revisionist history to say that Islam wanted the end of slavery. It not only condones it, it sets parameters for it.

 

Many of the arguments I am hearing sound very much like what slave owners in the South said before the Civil War. "The slaves need their masters, they would helpless without them. Slavery is actually good for them, it gives them structure and food to eat and a roof over their heads. Our economy would collapse without them".

 

I wasn't aware that prisoners can leave prisons without repercussions.

 

This included all of the women and children prisoners too, and their descendants. I guess they were all too dangerous to be allowed to roam free? When it comes to being a PoW I think I would much rather fall under the edicts of the Geneva Convention than what is being proposed in this thread. Just imagine German slaves all over Britain and Europe, descendants of the PoW's caught at the end of WWII, their grandchildren still owned by the Allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×