Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Slavery in Islam

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    "Lawful" does not mean "rape" (I seriously don't understand where you got this from). It basically means you are allowed to engage in sexual relations with your wife and your slaves. Otherwise people would marry and never have kids, which is what Christian Priests would do.
    -
    Are you serious, do you know what the definition of a slave or rape is? A slave must follow every command of their master and rape is sex against someone's will. If a master ordered their slave to have sex with them, against the slave's will, the slave would have to comply. You disgust me.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Some random guy)
    Are you serious, do you know what the definition of a slave or rape is? A slave must follow every command of their master and rape is sex against someone's will. If a master ordered their slave to have sex with them, against the slave's will, the slave would have to comply. You disgust me.
    Thats what i thought as well. Surely if you would be allowed to have sex with your slaves, the incidence of forced intercourse would rise inevitably regardless of whether rape was not allowed or not given that the central issue of the commondification of human beings is never addressed.

    Just as muslims argue that drinking would increase the ills in society, so would this.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    "Lawful" does not mean "rape" (I seriously don't understand where you got this from). It basically means you are allowed to engage in sexual relations with your wife and your slaves. Otherwise people would marry and never have kids, which is what Christian Priests would do.

    That's why the Prophet(pbuh) used to say, "consider it a gift that women are lawful to you", otherwise you would have no right to come near them, and them to you.

    Read the commentry of that verse here - http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...1839&Itemid=89



    Again, in no way does this show or imply "rape". Also, this translation isn't accurate, a more accurate translation is;


    "On authority of Abi Sa'id al-Khudri, that the Messenger of Allah SAWS sent an army to 'Awtas on the day of Hunayn. So they encountered an enemy, fought them, overcame them and they acquired captives. Then it was as though men from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah SAWS abstained from sleeping with them on account of their husbands among the polytheists. So Allah, exalted is He, revealed about that: {...and the married among women except for whatever your right hands possess}[an-Nisa': 24], meaning: they are permissible for them when they complete their waiting period [i.e. deliver if they are with child or menstruate if they are not pregnant]."

    Here the companians(ra) refrained from sexual intercourse with the slave captives, as they believed that "sexual relations are only permissible in marriage".


    مَعْنَى تَحَرَّجُوا خَافُوا الْحَرَجَ وَهُوَ الْإِثْمُ مِنْ غِشْيَانِهِنَّ أَيْ مِنْ وَطْئِهِنَّ مِنْ أَجْلِ أَنَّهُنَّ زَوْجَاتٌ وَالْمُزَوَّجَةُ لَا تَحِلُّ لِغَيْرِ زَوْجِهَا...فَإِن َهُ يَنْفَسِخُ نِكَاحُ زَوْجِهَا الْكَافِرِ وَتَحِلُّ لَكُمْ

    Sharh Sahih Muslim 10/35:

    "...[they abstained] meaning 'they feared embarrassment' and that it was a sin; [from sleeping with them] meaning 'having sex with them'; because they were married and the one who is married is not permissible to anyone other than her husband"..."So indeed [captivity] nullifies the marriage of her husband, the Disbeliever, and she is permissible for [the captors]..."


    However, that verse was revealed to say that slaves are permissible for them to have sexual intercourse with.

    It should be noted that if they are polytheists, then they are not permissible to have sexual intercourse with. That is why we know the slaves in this particular hadith had converted to Islam. As the classical scholar Imam Nawawi states;


    And know that the school of thought of Al Shafi'i and who agreed with him from amongst the scholars have stated that the idol worshipper and those whom have no religious book cannot be approached for sexual intercourse unless they convert to Islam first. As long as they are following their religion they are forbidden to approach. These slave girls (i.e. in the particular narration) are idol worshippers. This hadith and whatever resembles it must be interpreted as implying that the slave girls accepted Islam. There is no other choice but to interpret the hadiths this way and Allah knows best. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Ridaa', Bab: Jawaaz Wati' Al Missbiyyah Ba'd Al Istibraa' wa en Kaana laha Zawj Infasakh, Commentary on Hadith no. 2643, Source)


    It should also be noted, that like Christianity/Judaism (and many other slave/captive customs), the previous marriages of captives are annulled. (Keep in mind that this was the expected custom, in Islamic warfare, you always get 3 choices; Convert to Islam and live amongst us, live as Protected Dhimmi's - with all your rights, relations and everything being protected, or fight till the death - with the chance of captivity/slavery). Not all chose the last option, but once they did, they knew exactly what to expect.

    In the end, it only shows that Muslims were allowed to have sexual relations with their slaves (consensual). It had a few benefits;

    - Greater chance of freedom through slaves pregnancy.
    - Sexual desires of slaves being fulfilled.
    - Greater chance of freedom through marriage, as Masters tended to marry slaves they had relations with.

    Otherwise, as proven in the hadiths above very vividly, you can't force yourself upon a slave. And if a Master was that desperate, they may just sell the slave to someone who wasn't after any sexual desires.

    And lastly, let this be a lesson to people, that this is why you don't take a inaccurate random english hadith translation and make up random judgments based on it. You would never have known the slaves became Muslim etc.



    As already explained above, this verse was only to notify the companians(ra) that they were allowed to have sexual relations with slaves.

    You can read the commentary here - http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...=684&Itemid=59
    Do you realize that the principle of man as commodity is not questioned in Islam? Regardless of whether they have rights or not, there still is a disparity of status between free men and slaves. How is this equity?


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is what makes the Palestine situation all the more ironic. If Mohammed were in Israel's shoes he would have killed every man in Palestine and allowed his men to enslave and rape all the women, whilst distributing all their wealth among themselves. Israel has behaved much more humanely than even their supposedly perfect prophet would have done. Yet they are despised by Muslims the world over.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    This is what makes the Palestine situation all the more ironic. If Mohammed were in Israel's shoes he would have killed every man in Palestine and allowed his men to enslave and rape all the women, whilst distributing all their wealth among themselves. Israel has behaved much more humanely than even their supposedly perfect prophet would have done. Yet they are despised by Muslims the world over.
    You're confusing yourself with the Crusades.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Florrick)
    You're confusing yourself with the Crusades.
    You mean those wars to push back an expanding Islamic empire that was making moves on Europe? Yeah I can see why Christians were at fault there. And no, i'm not confusing myself with that. I'm pointing out that Mohammed happily destroyed entire tribes of Jews who refused to submit or who fought against him.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    You mean those wars to push back an expanding Islamic empire that was making moves on Europe? Yeah I can see why Christians were at fault there. And no, i'm not confusing myself with that. I'm pointing out that Mohammed happily destroyed entire tribes of Jews who refused to submit or who fought against him.
    Those wars were primarily motivated by the fact Muslims had control of the Holy city, Jerusalem. Coupled with a speech laced with propaganda courtesy from Pope Urban II for his own agendas to gain power, the Crusades formed. This was more do with regional politics than religion itself. You seem to justify the Crusades, yet condemn the same action taken by the Muslims.



    Now, you’re putting words in my mouth, nowhere, did I put ‘Christians at fault’, for that but their oppressive rulings- killing every man, enslaving and raping all the women which happened to the inhabitants in Jerusalem during the Crusades- along with cannibalism. If you are refusing to submit to the authority, of course, you’re going to get punished. Herp de derp derp. You can either fight till death with the chance of becoming a prisoner of war gaining the same rights as a member of a Muslim household. Compared to the Church’s doctrine of perpetual servitude, it makes Islam look like a dip in the ocean of being intolerant. As for Mohammed, destroying the entire tribe of Banu Qurayza, er when did that come in as a foundation for Islam against all Jews? I'm not going to brush aside Muslim anti-Semitism but let's not forget- the holocaust. Pogroms. Eugenics. Kicked out of 79 'countries'. Christ-killers. Eternal Jew. I'm sure you see the pattern now.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Florrick)
    Those wars were primarily motivated by the fact Muslims had control of the Holy city, Jerusalem. Coupled with a speech laced with propaganda courtesy from Pope Urban II for his own agendas to gain power, the Crusades formed. This was more do with regional politics than religion itself. You seem to justify the Crusades, yet condemn the same action taken by the Muslims.



    Now, you’re putting words in my mouth, nowhere, did I put ‘Christians at fault’, for that but their oppressive rulings- killing every man, enslaving and raping all the women which happened to the inhabitants in Jerusalem during the Crusades- along with cannibalism. If you are refusing to submit to the authority, of course, you’re going to get punished. Herp de derp derp. You can either fight till death with the chance of becoming a prisoner of war gaining the same rights as a member of a Muslim household. Compared to the Church’s doctrine of perpetual servitude, it makes Islam look like a dip in the ocean of being intolerant. As for Mohammed, destroying the entire tribe of Banu Qurayza, er when did that come in as a foundation for Islam against all Jews? I'm not going to brush aside Muslim anti-Semitism but let's not forget- the holocaust. Pogroms. Eugenics. Kicked out of 79 'countries'. Christ-killers. Eternal Jew. I'm sure you see the pattern now.
    You miss the point. I am capable of saying these things are un-Christian. You are not capable of saying they are un-Islamic because Mohammed partook of these actions. Were Mohammed in charge of Israel he would have murdered every man in Palestine by now, and enslaved and allowed the rape of every woman in Palestine too. Palestinians are refusing to submit to Israels greater power - it's the same validation you are using. So according to Islam, and by extension you, it's fine for Israel to commit these actions. I don't say that what the Christians did in the crusades was right, I say it was provoked by an expanding Islamic empire. It was push back or be taken over by the cult...
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    You miss the point. I am capable of saying these things are un-Christian. You are not capable of saying they are un-Islamic because Mohammed partook of these actions. Were Mohammed in charge of Israel he would have murdered every man in Palestine by now, and enslaved and allowed the rape of every woman in Palestine too. Palestinians are refusing to submit to Israels greater power - it's the same validation you are using. So according to Islam, and by extension you, it's fine for Israel to commit these actions. I don't say that what the Christians did in the crusades was right, I say it was provoked by an expanding Islamic empire. It was push back or be taken over by the cult...
    Then it'd be quite Christian, for the Church and the state to remain separate as God forbid, we saw what happened the last time it didn't. I guess you should read up on that bit of history you seem to brush aside at every opportunity.


    Mohammed partook in war, you're right and no it wouldn't be fine to commit those actions that you're advocating You know why that is? Because he didn't advocate them. These are unIslamic, probably more reflective of the Church's policy towards Jews and Muslims in history, where it was in power, than Muslims.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Owl of Minerva)
    Thats what i thought as well. Surely if you would be allowed to have sex with your slaves, the incidence of forced intercourse would rise inevitably regardless of whether rape was not allowed or not given that the central issue of the commondification of human beings is never addressed.
    If forced intercourse (rape) happened, then the slave would be able to go to the authorities and report their master for mistreatment.

    Slaves weren't locked up or chained or anything. They were considered family;


    The Prophet(pbuh) said;

    Not one of you should say ‘This is my slave’, He should call them ‘my daughter’ or ‘my son’ or ‘my brother’.


    - Source: Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 2 ,4



    "What I sincerely believe is that slavery among the Muslims is better than slavery among any other people, and that the situation of slaves in the east is better than that of servants in Europe, and that slaves in the east are part of the family. Slaves who wanted to be free could attain freedom by expressing their wish. But despite that, they did not resort to exercising this right. - Gustave le Bon says in Hadaarat al-‘Arab (Arab Civilization) (p. 459-460)


    , and would freely roam around the house, area etc. They would be known in the community, and at any stage had opportunities to get help against mistreatment.




    What was notably different from the slavery of the western world, however, was the degree to which they [slaves] were protected by Muslim law. When the law was observed, their treatment was good. They might expect to marry and have families of their own, and they had a good chance of being freed. There were also built in avenues of escape. - Gwyn Campbell; Frank Cass, The Structure of Slavery in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia, 2004


    And if you want hadiths, there's amples of them;



    Whosoever kills his slave: he shall be killed. Whosoever imprisons his slave and starves him, he shall be imprisoned and starved himself, and whosoever castrates his slave shall himself be castrated. (Abu Dawud, Diyat, 70; Tirmidhi, Diyat, 17; Al-Nasa’i, Qasama, 10, 16)

    Whosoever kills his slave, he shall be killed, whosoever imprisons his slave and starves him, he shall be imprisoned and starved himself. (Tirmidhi, al-Ayman wa l-Nudhur, 13)


    So the idea people have that Islam allows the rape of slave is without any basis. Rather, the evidence is completely contrary to it.


    (Original post by The Owl of Minerva)
    Do you realize that the principle of man as commodity is not questioned in Islam? Regardless of whether they have rights or not, there still is a disparity of status between free men and slaves. How is this equity?
    If I remember correctly, not a single person ever implied that a "slave" and a "free person" are completely equal. If they were, then what point would there be for any slave to ever attain freedom?

    If you read my first post, I stated that Islam could not, in any way have stopped slavery in that society. I'll re-quote;


    "slavery was ingrained in the structure of society, and its overnight wholesale liquidation would have created problems which it would have been absolutely impossible to solve, and only a dreamer could have issued such a visionary statement." - Fazlur Rahman, Islam, University of Chicago Press, p.38



    What we can say that Islam did is the following;

    1. It protected Slaves from abuse/mistreatment. In Pre-Islamic Arabia, they would tie slaves to a poll and start shooting darts at it, whoever hits the eye would win. And they could do this because slaves had no one to protect them, and were seen as lowly people.

    2. It gave slaves rights. These rights were extremely good, although not quite as "equal as a free man", the difference of margin in rights was fairly small. Stuff like over-working/over-burdening a slave wasn't allowed, or giving them jobs that the master themselves would not do, or telling them to do something against Islamic principle.



    "The masters were obliged not to put slaves under hardship; slaves were not to be tortured, abused or treated unjustly. They could marry among themselves with their master's permission - or with free men or women ! They could appear as witnesses and participate with free men in all affairs. Many of them were appointed as governors, commanders of army and administrators. In the eyes of Islam, a pious slave has precedence over “an impious free man." Source: Al-Tabataba'i, Tafsir ( vol.16, pp. 338-358 )

    3. It limited who could become a slave (for example; through warfare). It created so many ways for slaves to become free.

    Not only this, but considering most slaves were war criminals. If a slave has mended their ways, and is "righteous" in their conduct, then it becomes mandatory to free them. And when you do free them, it's mandatory to ensure they can take care of themselves, this means giving them money etc. or letting them keep their previous job but as free workers (even slaves got paid before for their labors).

    4. Greatly encouraged the free'ing of slaves, which we saw in its peak practice during the early years of Islam.

    Elaborating more on that last point. It's estimated that nearly 32,000 slaves were free'd, in a period of 23 years (possibly longer if you want to take into account the free'ing of slaves after Muhammad(pbuh)'s death). But the chunk of it came during his lifetime.

    Now, the population in 7th century was very small, and slave population was even smaller, that's why we know that within the early years of Islam, slavery in the arabian peninsula was almost extinct.

    And then after expansion in the later generations etc. as i mentioned above (in previous post), did the tradition become counteracted, to the point where at one stage, it was almost discouraged to free slaves as it "hurts business".

    But make no mistake, Islamic ethics on slavery is pretty clear. Both through the teachings and the life of the Prophet(pbuh), as demonstrated above.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Florrick)
    Then it'd be quite Christian, for the Church and the state to remain separate as God forbid, we saw what happened the last time it didn't. I guess you should read up on that bit of history you seem to brush aside at every opportunity.


    Mohammed partook in war, you're right and no it wouldn't be fine to commit those actions that you're advocating You know why that is? Because he didn't advocate them. These are unIslamic, probably more reflective of the Church's policy towards Jews and Muslims in history, where it was in power, than Muslims.
    You don't seem to understand that Mohammed did commit genocide on a few tribes... They aren't unIslamic, they are very much Islamic. Mohammed took thousands of slaves and killed anyone who got in his way who wouldn't submit. So why can't Israel do this to Palestine? They are just following your holy books... and no i'm not advocating it, i'm showing you how horrid your so called prophet was.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    You don't seem to understand that Mohammed did commit genocide on a few tribes... They aren't unIslamic, they are very much Islamic. Mohammed took thousands of slaves and killed anyone who got in his way who wouldn't submit. So why can't Israel do this to Palestine? They are just following your holy books... and no i'm not advocating it, i'm showing you how horrid your so called prophet was.
    So do explain to me where did the term, ''Christ-Killers'' arise from and the ''the people of the Book'' come from and why have a Christian group themselves have begun claiming to be from the book?


    I think we can find the differences there. Oh but Jesus would have loved all his enemies doesn't seem to help justify the millenia of abuse at the hands of Christians. And even today, we can find them being the biggest supporters of the Iraq war which left nearly half a million dead and not forgetting just over half of US Christians support that non-combatants dying is perfectly acceptable.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This guy does has some sense, and a lot of truth.
    Also rape?
    The reason i believe there are so many rapists Muslims around is due to Muhammad, everyone thinks he's perfect, and by saying this, everything he did was perfect... so marrying Alisha when she was 8 is perfect, no. that's disgusting.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Florrick)
    So do explain to me where did the term, ''Christ-Killers'' arise from and the ''the people of the Book'' come from and why have a Christian group themselves have begun claiming to be from the book?


    I think we can find the differences there. Oh but Jesus would have loved all his enemies doesn't seem to help justify the millenia of abuse at the hands of Christians. And even today, we can find them being the biggest supporters of the Iraq war which left nearly half a million dead and not forgetting just over half of US Christians support that non-combatants dying is perfectly acceptable.
    Wow, I used to have you down as one of the less-mental more reasonable Muslims on here. I guess I was wrong. Have fun as you slowly degrade into becoming Persevance. It seems Islam really is bad for the mind.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Wow, I used to have you down as one of the less-mental more reasonable Muslims on here. I guess I was wrong. Have fun as you slowly degrade into becoming Persevance. It seems Islam really is bad for the mind.
    Actually thanks.


    Unfortunately because of the hatred and lies you spew out against Islam just annoys me tbh. I did get out of hand and I'm sorry if I offended all Christians on here. There are some really reasonable ones, such as Christian Lady and the Lonely Goatherd.

    And contrary to the posts above, Christians can be peaceful and I do believe Biblical Jesus did advocate peace.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    "Lawful" does not mean "rape" (I seriously don't understand where you got this from). It basically means you are allowed to engage in sexual relations with your wife and your slaves. Otherwise people would marry and never have kids, which is what Christian Priests would do.

    That's why the Prophet(pbuh) used to say, "consider it a gift that women are lawful to you", otherwise you would have no right to come near them, and them to you.

    Read the commentry of that verse here - http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...1839&Itemid=89



    Again, in no way does this show or imply "rape". Also, this translation isn't accurate, a more accurate translation is;


    "On authority of Abi Sa'id al-Khudri, that the Messenger of Allah SAWS sent an army to 'Awtas on the day of Hunayn. So they encountered an enemy, fought them, overcame them and they acquired captives. Then it was as though men from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah SAWS abstained from sleeping with them on account of their husbands among the polytheists. So Allah, exalted is He, revealed about that: {...and the married among women except for whatever your right hands possess}[an-Nisa': 24], meaning: they are permissible for them when they complete their waiting period [i.e. deliver if they are with child or menstruate if they are not pregnant]."

    Here the companians(ra) refrained from sexual intercourse with the slave captives, as they believed that "sexual relations are only permissible in marriage".


    مَعْنَى تَحَرَّجُوا خَافُوا الْحَرَجَ وَهُوَ الْإِثْمُ مِنْ غِشْيَانِهِنَّ أَيْ مِنْ وَطْئِهِنَّ مِنْ أَجْلِ أَنَّهُنَّ زَوْجَاتٌ وَالْمُزَوَّجَةُ لَا تَحِلُّ لِغَيْرِ زَوْجِهَا...فَإِن ّهُ يَنْفَسِخُ نِكَاحُ زَوْجِهَا الْكَافِرِ وَتَحِلُّ لَكُمْ

    Sharh Sahih Muslim 10/35:

    "...[they abstained] meaning 'they feared embarrassment' and that it was a sin; [from sleeping with them] meaning 'having sex with them'; because they were married and the one who is married is not permissible to anyone other than her husband"..."So indeed [captivity] nullifies the marriage of her husband, the Disbeliever, and she is permissible for [the captors]..."


    However, that verse was revealed to say that slaves are permissible for them to have sexual intercourse with.

    It should be noted that if they are polytheists, then they are not permissible to have sexual intercourse with. That is why we know the slaves in this particular hadith had converted to Islam. As the classical scholar Imam Nawawi states;


    And know that the school of thought of Al Shafi'i and who agreed with him from amongst the scholars have stated that the idol worshipper and those whom have no religious book cannot be approached for sexual intercourse unless they convert to Islam first. As long as they are following their religion they are forbidden to approach. These slave girls (i.e. in the particular narration) are idol worshippers. This hadith and whatever resembles it must be interpreted as implying that the slave girls accepted Islam. There is no other choice but to interpret the hadiths this way and Allah knows best. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Ridaa', Bab: Jawaaz Wati' Al Missbiyyah Ba'd Al Istibraa' wa en Kaana laha Zawj Infasakh, Commentary on Hadith no. 2643, Source)


    It should also be noted, that like Christianity/Judaism (and many other slave/captive customs), the previous marriages of captives are annulled. (Keep in mind that this was the expected custom, in Islamic warfare, you always get 3 choices; Convert to Islam and live amongst us, live as Protected Dhimmi's - with all your rights, relations and everything being protected, or fight till the death - with the chance of captivity/slavery). Not all chose the last option, but once they did, they knew exactly what to expect.

    In the end, it only shows that Muslims were allowed to have sexual relations with their slaves (consensual). It had a few benefits;

    - Greater chance of freedom through slaves pregnancy.
    - Sexual desires of slaves being fulfilled.
    - Greater chance of freedom through marriage, as Masters tended to marry slaves they had relations with.

    Otherwise, as proven in the hadiths above very vividly, you can't force yourself upon a slave. And if a Master was that desperate, they may just sell the slave to someone who wasn't after any sexual desires.

    And lastly, let this be a lesson to people, that this is why you don't take a inaccurate random english hadith translation and make up random judgments based on it. You would never have known the slaves became Muslim etc.



    As already explained above, this verse was only to notify the companians(ra) that they were allowed to have sexual relations with slaves.

    You can read the commentary here - http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...=684&Itemid=59
    You know your whole acceptance and justification of masters being granted sexual rights with their captures slave-girls reminds me so much of the way some Shia accept and try to justify temporary marriage.

    It reminds me, because any objective, unbiased, and clear thinking person would just laugh and dismiss outright sex with slave-girls and temporary marriage as something very immoral. Though to be fair, temporary marriage is less immoral than capturing slave-girls and coercing them into sex.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    If forced intercourse (rape) happened, then the slave would be able to go to the authorities and report their master for mistreatment.
    How would it be proved that the intercourse was forced?

    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    If I remember correctly, not a single person ever implied that a "slave" and a "free person" are completely equal.
    So you accept that Islam does not teach the equality of rights of man?

    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    Not only this, but considering most slaves were war criminals.
    Really, including the slave girls?

    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    Elaborating more on that last point. It's estimated that nearly 32,000 slaves were free'd, in a period of 23 years (possibly longer if you want to take into account the free'ing of slaves after Muhammad(pbuh)'s death). But the chunk of it came during his lifetime.

    Now, the population in 7th century was very small, and slave population was even smaller, that's why we know that within the early years of Islam, slavery in the arabian peninsula was almost extinct.
    Any proper statistics to back up you claim, or just hopeful faith?

    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    But make no mistake, Islamic ethics on slavery is pretty clear.
    Yep, slavery is allowed, and there is no equality of the rights of man. It is very clear
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    If forced intercourse (rape) happened, then the slave would be able to go to the authorities and report their master for mistreatment.
    If only it were that simple. Disparity in wealth alone can create problems as to who gets Justice and who does not in even the most prosperous and equitable nations. And if the disparity in status due to slavery is added to this economic disparity whereby one man is the owner whilst the other is owned, justice will indefinitely be delayed for the slave or denied altogether.

    Your view in this regard, to me, is quite utopian.

    What I am struggling to understand here is that you are arguing that Islam gave a lot rights to slaves. That may be the case but it is still stifling individual human aspirations and dreams. To be a slave is being denied the right to act and think as one wishes even if one is not abused. I am talking about the limitations slavery imposes on an individual capabilities and desires.

    Human beings are not commodities that can be sold like white goods. They possess feelings and intellect and hence deserve to be unfettered from the bonds of indefinite servitude so that they may be able to fulfil their wishes as and when they see fit. The right to liberty is inalienable.

    In the words of Immanuel Kant: Human beings are not a means to an end but are an end in themselves.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    Now, the population in 7th century was very small, and slave population was even smaller, that's why we know that within the early years of Islam, slavery in the arabian peninsula was almost extinct.
    Lest we forget, the Ummayad and Abbasid caliphates that arose after this supposed "extinction" of slavery, were amongst history's greatest slave traders.

    In fact, the Turks who now constitute the majority in modern day Turkey are originally from Central Asia and were brought down to Anatolia (modern day Turkey) as slaves and mercenaries.

    Yes, slavery was practised by virtually all nations prior to the mid 19th century but to say that slavery was extinct in the Middle East after the advent of Islam is historically incorrect.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Some random guy)
    Muslims do you find the fact that slavery is perfectly legal in Islam and the prophet Mohammed indulged in it himself regularly OK? Or how it's legal to rape female slaves like what the Saudi monarch does to his many concubines?

    Muslim nations were amongst the last in the world to ban slavery, only doing so due to international pressure, but slavery still continues in the Muslim world to this day.
    WHAT THE FUDGE!
    You're obviously making this up as the prophet (pbuh) in fact made sure that slavery was one of the first things to be extinguished in Islam! We are so against that! How could you say such a thing when it was Christians in america which used black people as slaved not so long ago!

    Get your facts right you hooligan!

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 22, 2012
New on TSR

THE world university rankings 2014-2015 revealed

Will they affect your uni choices?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.