Theres already a thread on this subject at this site. Here it is. http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=181033
If you have any questions about this practice then open a new thread because unfortuneatley that thread has been locked.
As to your question, beyond the preposterous situation that, me as a muslim arab, would have the female members of my family enslaved by other arabs, which would never happen, I suppose I would feel angry that my family is enslaved, unless of course if they were enslaved by muslims. This is because I would know that the progeny of such a contract would be raised believers themselves, thus increasing the total muslim population, ultimately helping my people.
Think about this, a thought experiment if you will.
There are 12 muslims(6 men 6 women) and 12 non-muslims(6 men 6 women) linving in close proximity of each other. If the muslims make a ghazi raid on the non-muslims for resisting the call to islam, killing 4 men while losing two of their own, but end up capturing 3 women this leaves 10 muslims(4 men 6 women) + 3 right hand possessions, and 5 non-muslims(2 men 3 women). Automatically the non-muslims are at a demographic disadvantage which will become further pronounced in the next generation. Continuing infinitely, the muslims will have conquered the non-muslim tribes, just as how india was conquered in the past(25% of it so far). Ultimately my tribe will prosper. Its almost darwinian in a way, as he said the animal(or the ideology in this case being islam) that would survive to due to natural selection is the one who can succesfully breed and produce the greatest amount of offspring. Its all about demographics. A flawless medium through which islam can be spread while still appealing to men(missionary work not being as attractive as the missionary position to most men) which is truely the production of a divine wisdom that we can’t fathom to understand.
I've split the thread. Please don't cram everything into a single thread. If it's something not related to the topic, then by all means start another thread, rather than derailing threads.
[quote]
Man, i didn't get two things.....Do you like al-anfal?. Answer in yes or no. Pls no offence meant.
if yes, do you want it be done on non-muslims?.
[/quote]
Al-Anfal means the spoils of war or war booty. This isn't just women, but gold, silver etc., land, cattle and horses. Anything worth of value to a man. Its should be of no concern to me if I "like al-anfal".
Would I want it done on non-muslims? This depends. Towards jews and christians it is dependent on situation. When muslims conquered egypt, to spread the deen, the christians copts did not resist and were made dhimma, protected people who would be tolerated. Towards pagans however, such as the greeks residing in egypt, no protection was offered and their women and property were legal to taking as keeps.
[quote]
So those who dont resist will be protected and those who do resist, will not be protected or tolerated. I hope, i am right. am i ?
[/quote]
Only christians and jews. Although, througout time the people of the book has also included zoroastrians, but this is a controversial topic. Also, some revisionists try to include hindus in this section.
[quote]
to syed
why did you choose this topic and how can we apply this in recent times?
[/quote]
I didn't choose this topic. I was responding to someone elses question and Sadiyah thought it was off topic so she opened this thread.
Recent applications can be seen in Iraq when al-Sadr issued a fatwa that if any of his soldiers capture a female british soldier they can keep her as a slave or in certain parts of Sudan.
[quote]
can you provide some references regarding what you've written
would you like to describe the background and method of anfal in the light of quran n sunnah
[/quote]
I don't have the time right now but hopefully I can answer some time next week. I'm still learning about this so maybe someone more knowledgable can answer or correct my mistakes.
Slavery isn't as evil as some people claim. You have to realize that it wasn't until mercantilism that slavery became associated with the terrible practice it is today. In islam, muslims are commanded to treat their slaves well. Also as most women aren't as complicated as people like to believe, they would have accepted their kismat in time.
Good discussion. If you don't have time, I can come up with something in English. There is a lot of misconception about this issue even among our own Muslim people for various reasons.
But yeah, you are right.
"Anfal" is not just pertaining to women as the Islam bashers want to project. Because they want to bash Islam.
There are spepific laws in Islam about the Captives, Wealth etc
Sadiyah sahab,I request you to close this thread.
Be responsible for your own self. Not others, including Muslims and Non-Muslims.
Everytime you tend to have played all cards and have no more argument you ask to alose the thread.
I can bring it soon although I am also tied up on my side...
I wrote this up in response to a hindu/sufi but I think it would fit in here.
Women are fickle creatures that are mainly after security, which means marrying someone with power, which itself has been historically related to the financial security of individuals.
Take for example russian mail brides. Here are a group of women who would marry foreign strangers just for a chance to escape their poverty stricken godless country. Or another pertinent example, how many old rich men do you see married to young supermodels? Contrast this with the number of young male supermodels married to old rich women.
It can be gleaned from these examples that men and women are after two different things.
The archetype of social contracts between men and women throughout history are thus:
Men try to gain young women who they can mate with.
Women are attracted to powerful(rich) men who can insure the safety of their progeny.
So even if you hindus/crusaders/zionists spread your sob stories about muslims taking women as war booty it can be understood that most likely these women accepted their fate as a natural social contract.
if the religion allowed it why did the mere mortals abolished it?
IMO slavery is slavery you cannot classify it as good slavery and bad slavery.
why cant we call a spade a spade?
afterall in the past everybody was involved in slavery why single out one?
justifying slavery by saying it comes with lot of responsibilities is the sorriest excuse ive ever heard. what wrong in saying yes it was wrong and this is the reason that slavery was abolished.
A mistake that needs ,and will be, rectified in the near future.
Islamic slavery is righteous!
You can call a spade a spade all you desire, but it is not possible to place islamic slavery on the same level as the slavery of the western capitalists. Infact, it was largely the abhorrant slavery of the west that lead to the reactionary policy of ‘global emancipation’ of slaves. What the ‘emancipators’ did not realize was that islamic slavery differs from the rest!
This is a western view of slavery that is being force fed to the rest of the world. The word slave itself has undertaken such negaitve qualities that it is deemed an insult.
Its funny that you don't answer my questions and in an unfocused manner diverge the thread towards a childish:D tangent.
I don't have to answer any questions which I feel will take the discussion away from the topic. You have the same choice, answer my question with an answer or not at all, upto you.
I have already said it once what I feel, slavery is inhuman done by muslims or anybody else.
I am not saying its not allowed in Islam, but these are different time. it's not necessary the practice which was acceptable hundreds of years back should be acceptable now.
If you want to respond upto you but this is my last mail on this topic because I feel we are just going around in circles without learning anything useful.
Responding to articles written by scholars is not the job of a person like me, i have limited knowledge, but in relation to the topic being discussed, i would like to mention what Rasoolullah saw did when he captured Makkah.
He did not slaughter anyone, he did not take any women into possession and he did occupy anyones house.
