Islam and slavery

[Red Devil's Advocate]

This is from BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

How Islam moderated slavery

Islam's approach to slavery added the idea that freedom was the natural state of affairs for human beings and in line with this it limited the opportunities to enslave people, commended the freeing of slaves and regulated the way slaves were treated:

• Islam greatly limited those who could be enslaved and under what circumstances (although these restrictions were often evaded)
• Islam treated slaves as human beings as well as property
• Islam banned the mistreatment of slaves - indeed the tradition repeatedly stresses the importance of treating slaves with kindness and compassion
• Islam allowed slaves to achieve their freedom and made freeing slaves a virtuous act
• Islam barred Muslims from enslaving other Muslims

But the essential nature of slavery remained the same under Islam, as elsewhere. It involved serious breaches of human rights and however well they were treated the slaves still had restricted freedom, and, when the law was not obeyed their lives could be very unpleasant.
The paradox

A poignant paradox of Islamic slavery is that the humanity of the various rules and customs that led to the freeing of slaves created a demand for new slaves that could only be supplied by war, forcing people into slavery or trading slaves.
Muslim slavery continued for centuries

The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries). The impetus for the abolition of slavery came largely from colonial powers, although some Muslim thinkers argued strongly for abolition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The below is from wikipedia:
The Qur'an 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 Brunschvig 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."[4] [15] The Qur'an also recognizes concubinage.[16][17] A master may take 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.[3] 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.[3] 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

 

[ashtar]

This is from BBC:
But the essential nature of slavery remained the same under Islam, as elsewhere. It involved serious breaches of human rights and however well they were treated the slaves still had restricted freedom, and, when the law was not obeyed their lives could be very unpleasant.

This is absolutely incorrect. If anything Islam was and remains the only religion that changed the essential nature of slavery. For Muslims slavery became only a means of dealing with prisoners of war (at a time when prison camps and jails did not exist) regardless of color, creed, race or nationality of the person. If serious breaches of human rights occurred by various individuals is a different case. But Islam, Koran and Prophet changed the very nature of slavery as existed in the world. It is one thing for someone to preach not to be cruel to slaves it is another to be ordered (as it is by Islam) to be kind to a slave and it is yet a completely different idea to actually define and protect their rights (as was done by Islam). Of course the very definition of slave is to have restricted freedom otherwise the person would be called free not a slave. And "when the law was not obeyed" the life could become very unpleasant for any person regardless of being a slave or free.

A poignant paradox of Islamic slavery is that the humanity of the various rules and customs that led to the freeing of slaves created a demand for new slaves that could only be supplied by war, forcing people into slavery or trading slaves.

It is also wrong to insinuate that the restrictions set by Islam and the demand for slavery lead to wars. In fact, because of the restrictions set by Islam those who became Muslims could no longer enslave defenseless and peaceful people as the Europeans and non-Muslims before them did for years. A Muslim cannot start a war for the purpose of acquiring more slaves. However, if the byproduct of defending yourself against an aggressor or rising up against tyrants/non-believers would be prisoners of war then using those prisoners of war as slaves was permitted. And gain, mind you that enslaving the prisoner of war did not mean putting chains around their necks or legs. In fact, it was a direct order of the prophet to treat prisoners of war with humanity and feed them with the same food and drink as the Muslim army. And the rest of the article touches upon how in turn these prisoners of war had the opportunity to regain their freedom and incorporate back in to society unlike the practice of slavery among non-Muslims before or after Islam.

This is not just the bias of a Muslim talking but rather and objective review of history shows that NO OTHER religion, school of thought, philosophy or even person before or after Islam has been as vocal, specific, and ACTIVLEY concerned and involved with the broad issue of human rights in general and then specifics of women’s' rights, children's rights, slaves/prisoner's rights, the rights of the minorities, animal rights and even treatment and dealing with trees and environment. Different individuals and organizations (especially post Islam) may be active in one or two particular human rights issues but none was or is as comprehensively involved, as was the prophet of Islam. And this not even considering the type of environment and group of people that Muhammad (PBUH) had to endure and deal with.

 

[General Parsaian]

بنده در مورد برده داری و تاریخ ان در همین سایت مقاله و گفتاری نوشتم
ولی اکنون وقت انرا ندارم که باز در این مورد بنویسم
اگر دوستان خواستند در این مورد باز می نویسم

 

[Iranpaak]

بنده در مورد برده داری و تاریخ ان در همین سایت مقاله و گفتاری نوشتم
ولی اکنون وقت انرا ندارم که باز در این مورد بنویسم
اگر دوستان خواستند در این مورد باز می نویسم

Teymsar JAn, in the interest of time, just find the thread you discussed the issue, and copy it here. Alternatively, you can copy and past your posts here.

 

[Bi-honar]

So Ashtar jaan based on what you're saying, can we just look at a country like Saudi Arabia (the birthplace of Islam) and admit once and for all that Islam has failed miserably in getting its message across? All this is good on paper, but if no one follows it, and no one stands up for it when people don't follow it, and those who are doing the exact opposite are doing it in the name of following it, What's the use?! (not a rhetorical question)

If these are the words of God (not being sarcastic) and you believe in them so much, why aren't you on a crucade fighting for the rights of women and Filipino slaves in S. Arabia?! I mean, what could be more grand and meaningful than fighting for God's cause? (again not a rhetorical or sarcastic question)

 

[Meehandoost]

...If anything Islam was and remains the only religion that changed the essential nature of slavery...

This is factually incorrect. Although Muslims were counseled to treat their slaves kindly and fairly, and the slavery allowed by Islam was different from the colonial slavery, slavery was allowed under Islam with many references to it in Islamic scripture.

31. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. (The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 24 - The Light)

58. O ye who believe! Let your slaves, and those of you who have not come to puberty, ask leave of you at three times (before they come into your presence): Before the prayer of dawn, and when ye lay aside your raiment for the heat of noon, and after the prayer of night. (The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 24 - The Light)


For the first time in religious history, Slavery was abolished in the Baha'i faith in mid 1800s, and gradually disappeared after that. Although it has to be said that the intention of Almighty has never been for his servants to enslave each other, humankind was not spiritually developed enough in the past to carry out this Will of God until this dispensation.

 

[PashaBahman]

pass dar morede selselye "mamluk" chi migan? hameshoon ke "slave" budan o padeshah shodan.

tarikhe eslam, yani oon selselehayee ke selselhaye islami mahsoob mishavand, nesbat be barde dari tarikhe khoobi darand.

"slavery" be oon mani ke dar gharb dare nemishe ba tarikhe eslam rabt dad, choon dar gharb, ye barde vaghean badbakht o bichare bud, vai dar tarikhe eslam, ye barde mitavanest hata be magham shah ham berese

 

[Iranpaak]

This is factually incorrect. Although Muslims were counseled to treat their slaves kindly and fairly, and the slavery allowed by Islam was different from the colonial slavery, slavery was allowed under Islam with many references to it in Islamic scripture.

Which part of Ashtar's statement is factually incorrect? He says:

If anything Islam was and remains the only religion that changed the essential nature of slavery...

which is a fact as prior to Islam slaves had no protection at all, and were at the mercy of their owners completely. I think your statement is incorrect that Muslim were "counseled" to treat their slaves kindly and fairly. Islam did not just counseled it, Islam mandated fair and humane treatment, Islam ordered kindness toward slaves and encourage freeing of the slaves, and by doing so, it changed the nature of slavery.

 

[Faran]

Although it has to be said that the intention of Almighty has never been for his servants to enslave each other, humankind was not spiritually developed enough in the past to carry out this Will of God until this dispensation.

well, there didn't seem to be any problems in 539 BC

 

[General Parsaian]

This is from BBC:

هنوز بوی خون از کشتیهای انگلیسی که بردگان افریقایی را به بریطانیا می اوردند به مشام تاريخ ميرسد

من از تمامی انهای که در این میان زجرها کشیدند ان هزاران هزار که جان دادند تا گوری را برای ان فرعون یا مزرعه ای را برای ان یانکی یا قصری را برای ان لورد بسازند از طرف بشریت پوزش میطلبم
ژنرال پارسائیان
اکنون می خواهم در مورد برده داری و تاریخ ان برای شما بگویم
نشانه های برده داری در دوران ما قبل از تاریخ تاهزارهای 2 و 3 قبل از میلاد دیده شده است در دوران ما قبل از تاریخ قبایلی که درجنگ با قبایل دیگر پیروز میشدند مردان و زنان انها را به عنوان برده به بیگاریمیگرفتند در کتیبه ها و متون مصر باستان بردهای هیتی (سوریه و فلسطین کنونی) دیدهمیشوند که اخناتون ویا رعمسیس اول انها را به عنوان برده به مصر اورده و حتی بردهکوتوله ای دیده میشود که بعنوان هدیه ای برای پسرش به ار مغان اورده استو دردوران رعمسیس دوم بيشتر از بردگان بنی اسرائيل و حبشیان استفاده میشده
در بسیاری از کتیبه ها باستان پادشاهان با افتخار از تعداد بردگان خود یاد کرده اند و انرا بعد از بزرگی قلمرو خود از افتخارات ملی دانسته اند زیرا داشتن برده های زیاد نشانه پیشرفت یک کشور بوده است چنانکه اکنون صنعت نشانی پیشرفت است
برده گان در قدیم به دو نوع تقسیم میشدند که به نامهای برده و( زر خرید) معروف بوده اندنوع اول یعنی بردگان هیچ حق و حقوقی در اجتماع نداشته اند تا پایان عمر خویش می بایستی به اربابان خویش خدمتکنند ولی زر خریدها میتوانستند بعد از مدتی ازادی خود را به دست اورندزرخریدها بیشتردر ارتش به خدمت گرفته میشدنددر ايران باستان قسمت بزرگی از ارتش شاهنشاهی از زر خریدان یونانی . بابلی تشکیل می شده
رومیان در جشنهایشان بردگان را به جان یکدیگر می انداختند و همچنین نبردبردگان با حیوانات درنده از تفریحات انان بوده است

در شبه جزیره عرب قبل از اسلام اکثر ا بردها از حبشه و سایر نقاطق افریقا به شبه جزیره اورده میشدند که تقریبا تمامی انها از سران قبايل افريقایی خریداری یا مبادله میشدند
انها از کوچکترین حقی مانند دیگران بر خوردار نبودند
بعد از اسلام بلال حبشی که یکی از بردگان بود به اسلام گرایید و این باعث شد که
انقلابی در طرز برخورد با بردگان بوجود اید چنانکه بسیاری از انصار و مهاجرین بردگان خود را ازاد کردند و همچنبن قول مشهوری از عمر ابن خطاب است که می گوید

: چطور شخصی را که ازاد بدنیا می ایید به بردگی میگیرید
.ولی بعد از اسلام همچنان برده داری رونق خود را داشت چون اقتصاد . کشاورزی و دیگر امور شهر یا روستا بر پایه برده داری میچرخید و ازادی بردگان در یک ان میسر نبود ه
ولی قران مجید در ایاتی ازادی بردگان را از مومنان خواسته است مانند
ايه 89 سوره مائده
ايه 13 سوره البلد
و صدها حدیث از محمد ص که در انها تشویق به ازادی بردگان کرده است
بعد از سالها
که رونق برده داری ازبین رفته بود دو باره در قرنهای 17 و 18 با بوجود امدن قدرتهای جدید و رقابت انهابا یکدیگر برده داری به اوج خود رسید در بین این سالها ملیونها برده از افریقا
به امریکا و اروپا مخصوصا بریطانیا برده شدند که بیش از نیمی از انها را حتی بدون دادن پول یا کالا از قبایل ساحلی افریقا می دزدیدند!!!!!او انها را چنان روی یکدیگر در کشتیهای بار بری می گنجا ندند که بسیاری از انها در بین راه تلف میشدند
که در این دوران تنها از نوع اول بردهاستفاده میشده و از نظر نوع انها و مکان منحصر به افریقا و سیاهپوستان بوده است.

 

[Meehandoost]

Which part of Ashtar's statement is factually incorrect? He says: which is a fact as prior to Islam slaves had no protection at all, and were at the mercy of their owners completely. I think your statement is incorrect that Muslim were "counseled" to treat their slaves kindly and fairly. Islam did not just counseled it, Islam mandated fair and humane treatment, Islam ordered kindness toward slaves and encourage freeing of the slaves, and by doing so, it changed the nature of slavery.

Factually incorrect was the assertion that Islam is the only religion causing change in slavery, since its abolishment in Baha'i dispensation is also a change, and a fundamental one at that. I do agree that Islam regulated slavery and made it more humane and it was different than the colonial slavery as I already stated before.

 

[Iranpaak]

Factually incorrect was the assertion that Islam is the only religion causing change in slavery, since its abolishment in Baha'i dispensation is also a change, and a fundamental one at that. I do agree that Islam regulated slavery and made it more humane and it was different than the colonial slavery as I already stated before.

I respectfully disagree, first Baha's abolishment of slavery could not have "caused" any change in slavery in the 19th century (or later for that matter) as the practice of slavery was on the decline in the first place (of course except in the US), second, the followers of Bahai faith were only a small group (incosequential) and not in a postion to make or cause any changes in slavery, and third (and I mean no disrespect to Bahais) when referring to "religions" most people refer to the major religions of the world with big followings which could impact/change social behavior of a large group of people.

 

[Meehandoost]

I respectfully disagree, first Baha's abolishment of slavery could not have "caused" any change in slavery in the 19th century (or later for that matter) as the practice of slavery was on the decline in the first place (of course except in the US), second, the followers of Bahai faith were only a small group (incosequential) and not in a postion to make or cause any changes in slavery, and third (and I mean no disrespect to Bahais) when referring to "religions" most people refer to the major religions of the world with big followings which could impact/change social behavior of a large group of people.

Aziz jaan, I appreciate your candor, and that is valid question. However, the greatest influence of the appearance of a Manifestation of God is by releasing spiritual forces in the world that would renew all things and their teachings penetrate the hearts and minds of people even without their knowledge.

As an example, in Baha'i writings great importance is put on equality of men and women and consultation, that all members of society should be included in the decision-making. Before the appearance of Baha'u'llah NO country in the world allowed its women to vote. However, gradually one after the other allowed the participation of women in the electoral process. As well, most countries were dictatorships that refused to share power with the people. Baha'u'llah in one of His tablets (epistle) has said to the rulers that because they failed to include the people in decision-making, ease their sufferings and work towards universal peace, He has removed the power from their hands and bestowed it upon the peoples of the earth. As absurd as it seemed at the time, gradually all these great empires and monarchies fell and country after country became a democracy.

Likewise, all other Revelations of God had a very small following in the beginning, but they still had the same impact. Their message and teachings did not change from the beginning until later when they had a large following. Jesus Christ at the time of His physical death had but two followers, and it took Christianity centuries to be established in a country. Muhammad waited years before the people were ready to hear His Message; all Revelations have created a civilization in due course. And above all, the transformative power comes from the Word of God, not from the people that accept it.

Therefore, slavery has been abolished in this dispensation because humanity had the required spiritual aptitude, and God willed it. This is the power of the Will of God; He changes what He wills through the revolutionizing power of His creative Word.

 

[raminio05]

Slavery under Islam was not slavery but actually servitude for an appointed time. If one was captured as a prisoner of war, or a prisoner period, then they could work for their freedom for an appointed time. It was not slavery without the possibility of gaining freedom.

 

[Iranpaak]

Aziz jaan, I appreciate your candor, and that is valid question. However, the greatest influence of the appearance of a Manifestation of God is by releasing spiritual forces in the world that would renew all things and their teachings penetrate the hearts and minds of people even without their knowledge.

As an example, in Baha'i writings great importance is put on equality of men and women and consultation, that all members of society should be included in the decision-making. Before the appearance of Baha'u'llah NO country in the world allowed its women to vote. However, gradually one after the other allowed the participation of women in the electoral process. As well, most countries were dictatorships that refused to share power with the people. Baha'u'llah in one of His tablets (epistle) has said to the rulers that because they failed to include the people in decision-making, ease their sufferings and work towards universal peace, He has removed the power from their hands and bestowed it upon the peoples of the earth. As absurd as it seemed at the time, gradually all these great empires and monarchies fell and country after country became a democracy.

Likewise, all other Revelations of God had a very small following in the beginning, but they still had the same impact. Their message and teachings did not change from the beginning until later when they had a large following. Jesus Christ at the time of His physical death had but two followers, and it took Christianity centuries to be established in a country. Muhammad waited years before the people were ready to hear His Message; all Revelations have created a civilization in due course. And above all, the transformative power comes from the Word of God, not from the people that accept it.

Therefore, slavery has been abolished in this dispensation because humanity had the required spiritual aptitude, and God willed it. This is the power of the Will of God; He changes what He wills through the revolutionizing power of His creative Word.

I am sorry to say, but claiming that slavery disappeared from the face of the earth because a founder of a faith with small followings in Persia, in mid 19th century (whose name nobody had heard outside a small region) decreed so, or "released spiritual forces" causing abolishment of slavery is totally illogical, not based on facts, historical basis and does not make any sense to me.

 

[AliMR]

Slavery seems to be allowed:

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well-acquainted. (The Noble Quran, 49:13)"

Note: "Right hand possession" are the human-captives of war who lived as slaves among Muslims.

"Serve God, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For God loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;- (The Noble Quran, 4:36)"

(marrying a believing slave is better than marrying a free non-believer)
"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (The Noble Quran, 4:3)"

"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. (The Noble Quran, 4:24)"

"If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 4:25)"


Freeing of slaves is Commanded by Allah Almighty:

"It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing. (The Noble Quran, 2:177)"


"Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to God: for God hath all knowledge and all wisdom. (The Noble Quran, 4:92)"

"God will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth God make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful. (The Noble Quran, 5:89)"

"But those who divorce their wives by Zihar, then wish to go back on the words they uttered, (It is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other: Thus are ye admonished to perform: and God is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 58:3)"

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"

'Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that 'Umar b. Khattab asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as he was at ji'rana (a town near Mecca) on his way back from Ta'if: Messenger of Allah, I had taken a vow during the days of Ignorance that I would observe I'tikaf for one day in the Sacred Mosque. So what is your opinion? He said: Go and observe I'tikaf for a day. And Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave him a slave girl out of the one-fifth (of the spoils of war meant for the Holy Prophet). And when Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) set the war prisoners free. 'Umar b. Khattab heard their voice as they were saying: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) has set us free. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: What is this? They said: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) has set free the prisoners of war (which had fallen to the lot of people). Thereupon he (Hadrat 'Umar) said: Abdullah, go to that slave-girl and set her free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4074)"



If a slave requests his freedom from the Muslim master, he can get it:


First, it is important to know that thousands of years ago life was different than today. Today, people wouldn't accept slavery for any reason. The reason for this is because people are a lot more independent both financially, education wise, mentally, etc... But people back then were different. When a tribe or a group of people lose a major battle and their money is mostly, if not all, is taken as war booty by the other side, then people could and would accept being slaves for the following reasons:

1- Both financial and social security. When their country or tribe lost the war, they also lost most or all of their money as war booty. Being out of money and food, it becomes necessary for an individual to find the means for basic survival in life. Living as a slave would provide this.

2- Protection from hostile individuals. Even under the Islamic rule, you can still find hostile individuals who violate the Law and take matters into their own hands. An enemy family can be sometime in danger if they don't have a "protector".

3- Widows, Orphans, and the extremely poor of the enemy side need the financial and social protection from a Master. Back then, there were no governments with good social system that protects everyone. Slavery back then was that social system in special cases.

Yes slaves were taken from the blood-thirsty and hostile enemies, but they were also given the right to get their freedom when ever they want. The Noble Quran not only allows slaves to request their freedom from their Muslim masters, but also orders the Muslim masters to pay the slaves money to help them stand on their feet and to be able to face life with a good jump start.

Let us look at Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. 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 God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)," In this Noble Verse, we see that if a slave requests his freedom from his Muslim master, then his master not only must help him earn his freedom if there is good in the Slave, but also pay him money so the slave can have a good start in his free life.

The bottom line is that in order for the Muslims to remain as a purified and GOD Almighty-fearing and obeying society, one of the requirements that they had to accomplish was to gradually and completely eliminate slavery - the same slavery that was at its peak during the Jews', Christians' and Pagans' times.


http://answering-islam.com/quran/incomplete_rebuttal.htm#slavery

 

[ashtar]

So Ashtar jaan based on what you're saying, can we just look at a country like Saudi Arabia (the birthplace of Islam) and admit once and for all that Islam has failed miserably in getting its message across?

Not at all. Your question is nonsensical to begin with. It doesn't even make sense to say "Islam failed to get its message across". Islam is not an individual or living being to want to get its message across. Islam is the message. It is the messenger and the people who either succeed or fail to get that message across.

You can ask if Muhammad failed to get the message of Islam across and the answer to that will obviously be a big NO as well. By all historical accounts Muhammad as the messenger of Islam was absolutely successful in getting the message across during his lifetime.

You can also ask if other people failed to carry, understand, or accept the message of Islam and the answer to that would be a big YES. But that does not discredit the message of Islam but rather those who failed to either carry it, understand it or accept it.

All this is good on paper, but if no one follows it, and no one stands up for it when people don't follow it, and those who are doing the exact opposite are doing it in the name of following it, What's the use?! (not a rhetorical question)

1st, the use is that not everyone is ignoring it as you suggest. There are some if not many who follow good portions of the message.

2nd, if certain people do the exact opposite of a message that does not and should not discredit either the message or the messenger. I you come here and invite people not to be honest and I start lying and say I'm doing it because of what you said does that some how make you or the message of honesty useless? I hope you'd agree NO.

If these are the words of God (not being sarcastic) and you believe in them so much, why aren't you on a crucade fighting for the rights of women and Filipino slaves in S. Arabia?! I mean, what could be more grand and meaningful than fighting for God's cause? (again not a rhetorical or sarcastic question)

Because I am weak, selfish, lazy, narrow-minded, busy, etc. Pick your choice. Because doing the right thing is usually much harder than not doing it. Because it is harder to believe in what you cannot see as opposed to the thing that you can see immediately.

It's perhaps the same reason that most people don't choose to pursue higher education than what they already have. It's because having fun now, sleeping now, partying now, working now and making money now and buying the stuff you want now is more tangible than the idea and promise of gaining all that and more if you take away from your sleep, fun and relaxing now and work hard and study and pay to go to school for promise of something in future.

 

[tajrish]

Baba shoma hame rahe door mirid.

All women in Islam are considered slaves, even to this date.

 

[Bi-honar]

...

I was in no way suggeting that the message or messenger should be discredited, but you did hit it right on the nail with your last paragraph.

I don't want to be mean to you bro, especially since you're being pretty harsh on yourself, but how can you defend such a grand message (as you believe it to be) and expect others to understand it and follow it, when you say you're lazy, selfish and narrow-minded. Is that what you learnt from the message, that it's okay to be all those things? What to expect of those you're trying to peach the message to?

 

[buzz]

Baba shoma hame rahe door mirid.

All women in Islam are considered slaves, even to this date.

That is so true! You would think by now the women in saudi arabia (the source of islam) would allow their women to vote!

It is interesting that moslem start bitching at France when they ban head-cover but then they hold their peace when saudi arabs won't allow their women to vote or drive!

How can the rest of the moslem world stay so ignorant, bias, and sexist about this for 100s of years!!!