Ghulami

[Das_Reich]

Re: Ghulami

@psyah

Brother TLK

I heavily contest the idea that:

a) There were atrocities done by the best of people. b) That in some sense of personal superiority that we are in any way better than them.

Slavery had different kinds and forms and this is what Islam had done with slavery

a) Islam promoted the freeing of slaves - this in modern day mindset is understood in a way where people think slaves were kept by the early Muslim community in shackles and tied up with ropes and to free them they cut their tethers and let them run off in to the distance much like a cage animal would do. This is a limitation of our own minds.

Slaves of the early Muslim community were the first brand of modern employee. What we know as the term employee today is actually the manifestation of the concept of Islamic slavery or vice versa ... Islamic slavery is modern day employment.

Setting slaves free is actually to be understood in our minds today as giving your employee a start-up business and cancelling the contract they have with you thereafter. This is why many slaves didn't want to be freed. They enjoyed employment and didn't want to take on the risk of having their own businesses. Look to the Feudal system. There are landowners and on those lands are people living there and in exchange of living on those lands they work the soils for the owners. This is actually slavery - but the English speaking world call it something else. The English speaking world separate peasant life and slavery into two groups and they further classify employees and servants differently to either peasants and slaves.

The types of slaves kept by the West - i.e. in the Black African slave trade to America and the versions of slaves understood by Greek and Roman history is completely alien to Islam. When Islam speaks of slaves it speaks of peasants and employed servants. The difference between a slave of the early Muslim community and a noble was - risk. The noble took the risk of the extra cost at the benefit of ownership (of lands) whereas the slave was saved from the risk of insecure income for the price of being accountable to another person - in the same way as an employee is accountable to his hiring manager.

Daesh slavery is idiocy and alien to Islam.

b) The earliest Muslim community are the best of the believers and have the highest of ranks in Jannah. How can a person entertain the idea that we are more ethically advanced than them yet reach lower heights in rank in the spiritual world. If a person says they are better than the Sahabah then that is a different matter. But if you truly believe they were the best then come on ... Give them some credit!

It is a disease to think we live in the pinnacle of human moral society today ... We don't ... The best people have lived earlier and we are interpreting their lives with our own corrupt perceptions. They were the best for reasons which envelope the very reasons we have of loving nature, being kind and Godly, honest and hard working - except they were better at it than us.

You have a point Sahaba didn't treat slaves generally speaking like the ones treated by dynasties both shia and sunni in later times see also my thread on eunuchs, I didn't see a practice amongst Sahaba Tabaeen of making eunuchs but we all know later muslim rulers did so you can't say all Muslim slavery was benevolent and beneficial to the slaves ...maybe many individual cases of kindNess can be quoted even from the times of muslim kings but the system itself was rotten aND exploitative

look at the mistreatment of maWali persian slaves in ummayyad time
zanj rebellion
Slavery of Europeans by ottomans etc etc

So how is Daesh slavery so different hell if anything these crazy blokes are more well intentioned than our kings (shia and sunni) they are like modern khawarij who unfortunately suffer from bad PR.I chuckle at these "moderate " muslims ...Daesh slavery is repulsive to them yet repeated inroads by muslim kings into lands of nonmuslims and enslaving them in the thousands are chapters in the glorious history of "islamic golden age".Please stop this hypocrisy

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Ghulami

@Das_Reich

Typical muslim arrogance! Read about the Barbary pirates aND their slave trade ...not to mention in Turkey and Saudi Arabia slavery existed until 20th century.What the Europeans did was also immoral but that does not mean Everyone in the Middle East was buying slaves just to set them free.

Those "Some dudes" Sahaba are the pillars of faith without them there is no hadith and no fiqah

How the heck am I supposed to look to the Barbary Pirate trade as my example in how to practice my Islam? Are you smoking something?

The basis for our belief system is primarily the Quran, and then as a secondary, we tend to use the hadith as a historical guide. (It should not be used as anything more than an academic guide, not as a policy base, since these are anectodal reports of what people REMEMBERED of an oral tradition that went up to 3 or 4 generations after Muhammad SAW's death).

And there is NOTHING in the Quran that asks you to bind someone into slavery. In fact, the only verses regarding slavery ask that it is better for you if you set your slave free, or if you marry them, and then there is painstaking efforts to equate a free believing wife with a slave woman you've married - that their rights in the marriage are the same.

We see this in the example of Maria the Coptic Christian woman who was taken as a prisoner of war, NOT as a slave, and she married the Prophet and was set free as a prisoner of war once she had a child who was muslim. Even though she may never have converted to Islam.

There is a difference between prisoners of war, and slaves, btw.

So, I'm sorry. Your effort to point out some Pirate slave trade in history as a justification of what Allah expects of me in reality as a muslim is just *****. That's like saying there are people blowing themselves up today as suicide bombers, THEREFORE, that is a value espoused in Islam.

It's the other way around. We should be questioning whether these people are adhering to the basic tenents of Islam. And just like now there are a lot of people who don't really practice Islam even if they think they do, there were people in the 1700's and 1400's who also thought they were practicing Islam, but maybe they weren't doing a great job. So why the heck am I supposed to follow their example? It would be the blind leading the blind.

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Ghulami

@Theorist

Agreed. We are taught a lot of things that are really not true or are sugar coated. When I picked up the books myself, I was disheartened and felt like everything I had known and was taught was a lie.

I have read some weird Hadith too, but I honestly don't think the entire body of "Hadith" are entirely accurate, and for that matter there are chains and chains of narrarators that today we know nothing about. So why would I hang my hat on any of these hadith?

I think they're fine to read as a historical text, understanding how these quotes were collected. Understanding that it wasn't a perfect process, and that the intent of the collectors may not have been to accumulate an ACCURATE collection of statements that Prophet Muhammad SAW definitely made, but maybe it was to put a lid on the uncontrolled claims people at the time were making about thinks their grandfathers and grandmothers remembered seeing and hearing at the time of the Prophet (SAW), i.e. limiting all the inaccurate gossip at the time.

The remainder of the quotes that were left that hadn't been discarded were simply put into writing and placed in books on shelves. It doesn't mean that we have to live our lives by these quotes. It's not fardh, and there is no direction in the Quran that we have to follow this body of literature because it didn't exist at the time of the Quranic revelations. These books came into being 200 years or so later. And even today, different hadith collections have varying theories on various hadith (ex. Shia hadith collectors refused to collect anything narrarated by certain people like Abu Hurrairah, which is the main narrarator in the sunni collections). So I can't bring myself to believe that there are NO hadith that would be of dubious quality.

There are hadith's that suggest the sahabah participated in a slave trade and had sex w/female slaves and prisoners of war. I just don't buy that when I know that Ali (R) was admonished by Rasulullah (SAW) when he thought about taking a second wife upsetting Fatima (R) at the very idea.

So then...he's shacking up with other ladies and that doesn't bother Fatima (R)?

So, like I said, the historical accuracy of these hadith may not be as accurate as we have been led to believe by our corner street mullahs.

What's accurate to the faith is the Quran. If the Quran's verses on slaves is giving incentive after incentive in letting your slaves go, and giving incentives to marry slaves and treat them like you would treat a regular wife and that there shouldn't be differences, then...that's what I'm going to go by. And those verses are not compatible with ENCOURAGING enslavement of people. Islam wants you to get away from slavery, not go towards it.

[Das_Reich]

Re: Ghulami

@PyariCgudia

How the heck am I supposed to look to the Barbary Pirate trade as my example in how to practice my Islam? Are you smoking something?

The basis for our belief system is primarily the Quran, and then as a secondary, we tend to use the hadith as a historical guide. (It should not be used as anything more than an academic guide, not as a policy base, since these are anectodal reports of what people REMEMBERED of an oral tradition that went up to 3 or 4 generations after Muhammad SAW's death).

And there is NOTHING in the Quran that asks you to bind someone into slavery. In fact, the only verses regarding slavery ask that it is better for you if you set your slave free, or if you marry them, and then there is painstaking efforts to equate a free believing wife with a slave woman you've married - that their rights in the marriage are the same.

We see this in the example of Maria the Coptic Christian woman who was taken as a prisoner of war, NOT as a slave, and she married the Prophet and was set free as a prisoner of war once she had a child who was muslim. Even though she may never have converted to Islam.

There is a difference between prisoners of war, and slaves, btw.

So, I'm sorry. Your effort to point out some Pirate slave trade in history as a justification of what Allah expects of me in reality as a muslim is just *****. That's like saying there are people blowing themselves up today as suicide bombers, THEREFORE, that is a value espoused in Islam.

It's the other way around. We should be questioning whether these people are adhering to the basic tenents of Islam. And just like now there are a lot of people who don't really practice Islam even if they think they do, there were people in the 1700's and 1400's who also thought they were practicing Islam, but maybe they weren't doing a great job. So why the heck am I supposed to follow their example? It would be the blind leading the blind.

Your hadith is not a source of fiqah for you ?

If so you are a muslim who forms beliefs bases on Quran alone ignore all hadith and historical precedents that's great then don't call yourself a sunni or shia as you are not

Maria was a gift from Alexandria not a prisoner of war and her sister was gifted by Prophet SaW to another sahabi

Just look at the children of the major sahaba and their mothers and you will get your answer if having relations with concubines is legal or not in islam.

Another wife of prophet forget her name was jewish prisoner of war and the first night togather great sahabi abu ayyub r.a stood outside the gate as he didn't trust this new bride alone with Rasolullah.

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Ghulami

^ And you really buy a hadith that says some dude stood outside the house of Rasullullah (SAW) and didn't trust Rasullullah (SAW) with this woman? Doesn't that speak of disrespect of the Prophet SAW? Wouldn't that contradict revelation? Why would God select a prophet to deliver his message who pounces on women against their will?

No, not all the hadith make sense, even from a sunni OR shia perspective. It's a simple logic. If all the books of hadith are not all identical and even the hadith collectors had varying opinions on the legitimacy of the hadith then it follows that there are hadith in each collection that may very well be inaccurate.

One of the criterion the hadith collectors SUPPOSEDLY used was if the hadith contradicted the Quran, it was out.

But yet we see hadith in the collection on women being married at age 6 and that women cannot hold leadership positions when in the Quran it is clear that a woman must consent to marriage (so she can't possibly be 6 years of age - that's a kindgergarten/1st grade student by American perspective and NONE of those kids have gotten their periods yet nor are fully developed into puberty! Check out any KG or 1st grade class, and tell me if you see otherwise, if you do, that child needs to see a pediatric endocrinologist!), and the Quran talks about Queen Sheba's leadership.

So, no, even as a sunni muslim, I do not buy that the Hadith are infallible. They are simply a historical collection of quotes of the Prophet (SAW) and Allah knows best which ones are more accurate than others, and we need to use our common sense to pick and choose which hadith fit with our life and with the values of the time.

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Ghulami

And bottom line, you have not been able to make sense of why or how Islam could possibly condone or encourage slavery when each Quranic verse in reference to this issue encourages good treatment towards these people, marrying them, giving them their rights, giving them freedom, and treating them as your own brothers? These two perspectives on slavery are totally opposite, not similar at all!

[Das_Reich]

Re: Ghulami

^ so you are saying a new model reformed islam is needed free of historical precedents and law based on hadith ?

If so then sure go ahead declare it openly and CONFRONT those traditional muslims with this version of islam

But please explain without hadith tafsir or seerah how do u explain the historical context of ayah ? Or do u read Quran as a book isolated and devoid of any historical context ?

Against will ? lol she was a damn prisoner whose relatives plotted...against muslims and that's how tribal societies dealt with such situations. khalid b zayd r.a aka abu ayyub was concerned that she might harm the prophet since her relatives were recently killed by muslims that's why he stood guard hope u can understand this high degree of loyalty shown by this sahabi...best example of namak haLali...if you only could a appreciate... you think he didn't trust Rasool with what ? God forbid you misunderstood or are a delibrately trying to inflame me ...she was Rasolullahs lawful wife he had freEdom to do what he wanted but her intentions were unknown that's why caution was needed ,

You pick and choose what you want and fashion your own version but atlEast be honest about it and don't confuse others

[Das_Reich]

Re: Ghulami

@PyariCgudia

And bottom line, you have not been able to make sense of why or how Islam could possibly condone or encourage slavery when each Quranic verse in reference to this issue encourages good treatment towards these people, marrying them, giving them their rights, giving them freedom, and treating them as your own brothers? These two perspectives on slavery are totally opposite, not similar at all!

Bottomline is you want to interpret Quran in a vacuum and just the verses you like and ignore those you don't want to face up to aND blot out the seerah

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Ghulami

I am interpreting based on the history. The historical fact was when people heard these verses many slaves were freed and many married into Muslim families and became Muslim and their kids became Muslim and even if a few slaves didn't convert the kids of these unions did and so the factual history shows that slaves were freed by being truly freed or being absorbed into families and so therefore being freed. And this is historical fact. If slavery had actually been encouraged you would still see a slave practice today in Makkah and Madinah and you don't. The locals clearly look like they have African blood in them, they look like they are a products of mixed racial relations over generations. And there has not been a slave in either 2 cities for centuries now so that tells you a lot.

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Ghulami

I think you are mistaken about the real history here of what really happened. I am taking history and historical context very much into account and also the plain black and white words in the Quran where there is NO AYAT asking us to take slaves but there are plenty asking us to set people free!

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Ghulami

If there were Sahabah that kept a slave or two despite this then that's their problem.God will ask them why they were keeping slaves when there was verse after verse encouraging them to free these people. And then you have to keep in mind that slaves like someone else mentioned back then did not have the life that Africans did in America in the 1800's. They were more like indentured servants or like the peasants you see working land in Pakistan. So it's very possible there were people that didn't want to be set free. They liked being taken care of. Doesn't mean they were in shackles and abused because the Quran forbids that. But they were getting free housing and free clothing etc so maybe some preferred to keep it that way. The fact that you were encouraged to marry them and make them part of your family shows you were supposed to treat them like your family. But if anyone wanted to be set free and leave Quran tells us to let them be free then. They didn't have to convert to Islam even to get freed. They just needed to ask and it was expected to be done.

Maybe you need to read all the Hadith out there. So much historical examples in the Hadith that slaves were routinely freed. In fact every Friday prayers it was a thing to announce folks who were free men. Rather than what IsIs does which is every Friday they hold a sex slave auction.

[Das_Reich]

Re: Ghulami

@PyariCgudia

I am interpreting based on the history. The historical fact was when people heard these verses many slaves were freed and many married into Muslim families and became Muslim and their kids became Muslim and even if a few slaves didn't convert the kids of these unions did and so the factual history shows that slaves were freed by being truly freed or being absorbed into families and so therefore being freed. And this is historical fact. If slavery had actually been encouraged you would still see a slave practice today in Makkah and Madinah and you don't. The locals clearly look like they have African blood in them, they look like they are a products of mixed racial relations over generations. And there has not been a slave in either 2 cities for centuries now so that tells you a lot.

How are you interpreting based on history ? You keep repeating that Quran commands humane treatment of slaves and thats true but we are discussing status of slavery in traditional islamic law and the historically how slaves have fared in the muslim heartlands You keep avoiding this by
1-Totally disregarding any source of islamic law except Quran
2-vague refs to humane treatment ( which did exist in some cases) but totally disregarding the mountain of evidence in the most common sources of mistreatment.

Firstly you have to determine which timeframe we are talking about as islam and slavery coexisted for 13 centuries thats a long time ! and secondly which specific areas /and what kind of slaves yo are refering to

yes islam did encourage humane treatment of slaves no doubt
yes many slaves were freed but many more slaves were acquired esp amongst nonarabs in the futhat
yes these slaves esp nonarabs were treated poorly not ALWAYs but very frequently and with ummayyads it became a state practice even though in ummayyad times christians of syria enjoyed great privilages but muslims of iraq/persia fared poorly
many people in arabia have "mixed blood" , a lot of people in balkans have "mixed blood" that is no proof of humane treatment see the arab african slave trade and the enormous number of black /white euncuchs in arabia/persia /turkey

[Das_Reich]

Re: Ghulami

@PyariCgudia

I think you are mistaken about the real history here of what really happened. I am taking history and historical context very much into account and also the plain black and white words in the Quran where there is NO AYAT asking us to take slaves but there are plenty asking us to set people free!

oh really so please tell me what really happened
lets start with which war was maria qibtia was taken prisoner and the big wedding celebration

there is no ayat about number of rakats in salah or the knitty gritty of hajj what do you do in these situations

So all the slaves that were taken in the conquests during even time of the Rashidun caliphs was an illegal practice ? They didnt know the Quran i guess ?

perfect example of a great master slave relationship was salim mawla abihudhaiyfa r.a and his master abi hudhayfa r.a who raised him like his own son and there are many other examples from times of sahaba

bad example from Rashidun dynasty is probably the capture of sodighan princes who were made to work in the quarries like common slaves

But what are you going to say about the hundreds of other references to slaves captured and concubines that are in almost every historical work of that era starting from 7th century till 20th century ottoman caliphate ?

[Das_Reich]

Re: Ghulami

[QUOTE]
If there were Sahabah that kept a slave or two despite this then that's their problem.God will ask them why they were keeping slaves when there was verse after verse encouraging them to free these people
[/QUOTE]
.
good but there were not one or two slaves it was a HUGE industry see the books on biographies to get an idea and later dynasties flourished based on a hierchy of slave kings like in dehli sultanate and mamluks this is a great example of islams meritocracy system at its best AND a sad reminder that slavery was endemic in all muslim lands

[QUOTE]
And then you have to keep in mind that slaves like someone else mentioned back then did not have the life that Africans did in America in the 1800's. They were more like indentured servants or like the peasants you see working land in Pakistan. So it's very possible there were people that didn't want to be set free.
[/QUOTE]

African slaves in america fared a LOT better than the serfs of Europe where whites enslaved whites , so all of you fed on a steady diet of alex haley esque propoganda it will come as a shock but it is very common knowledge.
Not all slaves in muslim lands fared equally some did really well, others lived in shocklingly appaling conditions.BTW peasents in pakistan or irish indentured servants suffered immensely so that is not something to be proud of

[QUOTE]
They liked being taken care of. Doesn't mean they were in shackles and abused because the Quran forbids that. But they were getting free housing and free clothing etc so maybe some preferred to keep it that way.
[/QUOTE]

Ha Ha are you serious ?
yeah ask a 6 yr old boy captured by a raiding muslim general handed over to christian copt priests to cut of his genitals to make him an eunuch for the sultans harem. Most died as of pain, blood loss or the urnary obstruction that followed this horrible mutilation 2 out of 10 are estimated to survive and out of those who survived a handful in history became powerful and those are the examples you apologists like to quote but if 1 out of 200-300 led a comfortable life that is pretty appaling odds
To kept it fair almost all cultures christian,jews, chinese etc made eunuchs and not just muslims , islam definately forbids the practice and I did not see anything to suggest any sahabi or tabaeen ever did so but muslim kings that followed allowed this to flourish

[QUOTE]
The fact that you were encouraged to marry them and make them part of your family shows you were supposed to treat them like your family. But if anyone wanted to be set free and leave Quran tells us to let them be free then. They didn't have to convert to Islam even to get freed. They just needed to ask and it was expected to be done
[/QUOTE]
.
Thats best case scenario, and was commonplace only in times of the early companions afterwards it was the expection rather than the rule

[QUOTE]
Maybe you need to read all the Hadith out there. So much historical examples in the Hadith that slaves were routinely freed. In fact every Friday prayers it was a thing to announce folks who were free men
[/QUOTE]
.
I did and maybe you seen to see the hadith on futuhat ( conquests ) when so many slaves were captured

[QUOTE]

Rather than what IsIs does which is every Friday they hold a sex slave auction.
[/QUOTE]

as was done in islamic middle east for centuries before calling them criminals, revisit your own "golden age" the height of arab/persian/turkish imperialism and see what kind of social order prevailed back then. ISIS the big thugs as they are but by reintroducing many things which were in some shape or form ( albiet not so malignant) prevalent during the heyday of islamic rule are forcing the muslims of today to take a closer and more nuanced view of that era

[Theorist]

Re: Ghulami

@PyariCgudia

I am interpreting based on the history. The historical fact was when people heard these verses many slaves were freed and many married into Muslim families and became Muslim and their kids became Muslim and even if a few slaves didn’t convert the kids of these unions did and so the factual history shows that slaves were freed by being truly freed or being absorbed into families and so therefore being freed. And this is historical fact. **If slavery had actually been encouraged you would still see a slave practice today in Makkah and Madinah and you don’t. **The locals clearly look like they have African blood in them, they look like they are a products of mixed racial relations over generations. And there has not been a slave in either 2 cities for centuries now so that tells you a lot.

We do, PCG! Arab nations were the last to abolish slavery. They were forced to give it up by the West or they would be charged with violation of human rights. You need a serious lesson on World History. You can go on cherrypicking and practice what you think is actual Islam, but seriously don’t give out wrong information on public forums.

Fact: ISIS is really fond of sex slavery and they claim to be the only true Islamic State. Well?

[kakaballi]

Re: Ghulami

@Theorist

.... Fact: ISIS is really fond of sex slavery and they claim to be the only true Islamic State. Well?

'claim' is the key word here.

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Ghulami

@Theorist

We do, PCG! Arab nations were the last to abolish slavery. They were forced to give it up by the West or they would be charged with violation of human rights. You need a serious lesson on World History. You can go on cherrypicking and practice what you think is actual Islam, but seriously don’t give out wrong information on public forums.

Fact: ISIS is really fond of sex slavery and they claim to be the only true Islamic State. Well?

I have been to Umrah never saw a slave there.

And so going back to reality, the Quran doesn’t ask that we put people INTO slavery. It suggests ways on which we can get people OUT OF slavery.

I have yet to see anyone post an ayah that commands us to take people as slaves. Where is the verse? I will end it here, because you can have as many historical debates as you want. NATO recommendations do nothing in Saudia and they behead who they want, and there is no freedom of speech. If they wanted to have slaves, they’d keep them. And some individuals do under the radar of “she is my maid”. But why would anyone conjecture what Allah wants from us based on actions of people, vs. the actual verses in the Quran??

That’s like saying no one follows traffic laws in Karachi, so therefore, God wants us all to be road rage drivers.

Why wouldn’t you assume that drivers in Karachi just are driving in a way that displeases God?

Likewise, why would you assume because certain individuals have tried to keep the practice of slavery alive that Allah must want us to keep slaves? When maybe Allah is displeased with those that do? The latter is supported by Quranic verses, the former is not.

People also slut around, have sex before marriage, commit adultery - but we don’t say this is what Allah wants from us?

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Ghulami

@Das_Reich

. good but there were not one or two slaves it was a HUGE industry see the books on biographies to get an idea and later dynasties flourished based on a hierchy of slave kings like in dehli sultanate and mamluks this is a great example of islams meritocracy system at its best AND a sad reminder that slavery was endemic in all muslim lands

African slaves in america fared a LOT better than the serfs of Europe where whites enslaved whites , so all of you fed on a steady diet of alex haley esque propoganda it will come as a shock but it is very common knowledge. Not all slaves in muslim lands fared equally some did really well, others lived in shocklingly appaling conditions.BTW peasents in pakistan or irish indentured servants suffered immensely so that is not something to be proud of

Ha Ha are you serious ? yeah ask a 6 yr old boy captured by a raiding muslim general handed over to christian copt priests to cut of his genitals to make him an eunuch for the sultans harem. Most died as of pain, blood loss or the urnary obstruction that followed this horrible mutilation 2 out of 10 are estimated to survive and out of those who survived a handful in history became powerful and those are the examples you apologists like to quote but if 1 out of 200-300 led a comfortable life that is pretty appaling odds To kept it fair almost all cultures christian,jews, chinese etc made eunuchs and not just muslims , islam definately forbids the practice and I did not see anything to suggest any sahabi or tabaeen ever did so but muslim kings that followed allowed this to flourish

. Thats best case scenario, and was commonplace only in times of the early companions afterwards it was the expection rather than the rule

. I did and maybe you seen to see the hadith on futuhat ( conquests ) when so many slaves were captured

as was done in islamic middle east for centuries before calling them criminals, revisit your own "golden age" the height of arab/persian/turkish imperialism and see what kind of social order prevailed back then. ISIS the big thugs as they are but by reintroducing many things which were in some shape or form ( albiet not so malignant) prevalent during the heyday of islamic rule are forcing the muslims of today to take a closer and more nuanced view of that era

Again, do you think God commanded these atrocities to happen? Do you think it is supported by Quranic commandments?

If so, show me the line in the Quran that justifies the above.

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Ghulami

@Das_Reich

oh really so please tell me what really happened lets start with which war was *maria qibtia was taken prisoner and the big wedding celebration *

there is no ayat about number of rakats in salah or the knitty gritty of hajj what do you do in these situations

So all the slaves that were taken in the conquests during even time of the Rashidun caliphs was an illegal practice ? They didnt know the Quran i guess ?

perfect example of a great master slave relationship was salim mawla abihudhaiyfa r.a and his master abi hudhayfa r.a who raised him like his own son and there are many other examples from times of sahaba

bad example from Rashidun dynasty is probably the capture of sodighan princes who were made to work in the quarries like common slaves

But what are you going to say about the hundreds of other references to slaves captured and concubines that are in almost every historical work of that era starting from 7th century till 20th century ottoman caliphate ?

There wouldn't have been a big celebration if Maria the Copt wasn't willing. There is no evidence that she was raped. As you are suggesting.

Mods take care of this guy. He is insulting Prophet Muhammad SAW.

Please review the hadith on this topic. There are hadith narrarating how Prophet Muhammad (SAW) did not approach her. He let her be. She had been taken as a prisoner of war, so yes ,she was in captive state. Despite that, during the caravan ride back home, she was drawn to listening to Prophet Muhammad (saw) as he spoke, and she approached him and then consented to be with him. He treated her equivalent to any other woman he married. She was set free by him, as an example on how you treat prisoners of war. Also extended to slaves. She was not a slave, she was a prisoner of war.

Last I checked, no one is marrying and setting free people in GITMO.

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Ghulami

@Das_Reich

oh really so please tell me what really happened lets start with which war was maria qibtia was taken prisoner and the big wedding celebration

there is no ayat about number of rakats in salah or the knitty gritty of hajj what do you do in these situations

So all the slaves that were taken in the conquests during even time of the Rashidun caliphs was an illegal practice ? They didnt know the Quran i guess ?

perfect example of a great master slave relationship was salim mawla abihudhaiyfa r.a and his master abi hudhayfa r.a who raised him like his own son and there are many other examples from times of sahaba

bad example from Rashidun dynasty is probably the capture of sodighan princes who were made to work in the quarries like common slaves

But what are you going to say about the hundreds of other references to slaves captured and concubines that are in almost every historical work of that era starting from 7th century till 20th century ottoman caliphate ?

No, there are no ayat numbers, etc. But that's where the sunnat comes in and the tradition of prayer has been handed down family to family and thus interestingly with some mild variations, most of us pray very similarly. Likewise if you feel that you don't want to pray in the style of Prophet Muhammad, you can pray in other ways. Quran recognizes ascetics who dedicated their life to worshipping God and meditating, so it's not like the muslim form of namaz is the only way to worship God. Maybe that's why God didn't describe it as such, because he doesn't want people who worship in their own way to feel excluded in their worship.

And that's the true muslim way to understand prayer. It's not just 5x namaz.

During the Rashidun Caliphs, there was civil war between muslims, and hundreds lost their lives. Caliphs were assasinated, and their families , i.e. the family of the Prophet SAW himself were massacred and violated.

So, no, my guide on how to be muslim is not Islamic history alone. It's primarily the Quran. Hadith gives a historical context and gives additional information to guide us, but mostly is a historical piece of work rife with it's imperfections. Since it is man-written.

The rule of the first 4 caliphs is NOT a guide to how to be a muslim. There are things to be learned from history, both good and bad, so no harm in reading history. But to say something was done a certain way back then, and that's how it should be done now - there is nothing in the Quran that commands me to follow Ali (R) (sorry, my shia friends), nor is there anything that commands me to follow Abu Bakr (R). Or Uthman (R) or Umar (R). They all did some amazingly wonderful things, and they all made their mistakes. Abu Bakr (R) took Fatima's inheritance and against her will handed it to the poor. So he violated a Quranic rule that a woman has her right to her inheritence. So am I going to follow Abu Bakr (R)? No. What happened happened, and even the Sahabah will be judged by God. To assume they won't and that they're infallible and we are to do what they did is a slap to God's face. God will judge them, so why are we to follow them? We follow God, not another human being. That's the essence of Islam. Even the Quran talks about not treating Muhammad (SAW) himself as anything more than a man doing a servitude to God by delivering His message to us.

The whole concept of Islam is --> obedience to God. The very word Islam means we submit to God and God alone, and there is verse after verse on this. We do not submit to a Caliph or even Muhammad (SAW) himself.

I give Muhammad (SAW) the benefit of the doubt when I hear of a hadith that seems unlike his character, that this might be a misquoted hadith, or there was inaccuracy among the narrarators, or it's been taken out of historical context, or it's inaccurate completely.

Because remember the hadith's are narrarations handed from one person to another. Any one person in that narraration claim mis-translated the hadith or mis-translated the historical context of it, the entire meaning is changed. We know this as kids when we play the game "telephone". So therefore, no, as a muslim, I do not rely on hadith. I rely on the Quran. Anyone who reads hadith vs. Quran will notice there are hadith's that are congruent with the Quran and then there are hadith's that don't fit with the spirit of the Quran. So it's up to the critical reader to make sense of this. God didn't tell us in the Quran to write down the Hadith, so this is just ancillary literature, not something on which we should be forming our opinions on.

Otherwise, if Muslims were to read all the Hadith, about 70% of them would convert out of the religion. Sadly.