Re: Ghulami
Got to say you are a talented turd deflector.... the guy who rejects hadith wants to hang me for tawheen e risalat lol
Re: Ghulami
.....slavery was never outlawed by any means was thriving industry throughout the period of the caliphate...it was finally abolished becauae European Navy's basically put an end to it for their own reasons......
I would like to know more about it. I thought it was 'slave trade' that was outlawed by some european countries, not slavery as an institution.
Demand for African slaves actually increased in North-America post 'abolishment' of slave trade. The cross-Atlantic trading in slave still continued for several decades.
Re: Ghulami
Slavery is still not abolished. Employment is modern slavery and there are good employment laws and bad ones. Fact is the Muslim countries are currently behind in terms of employment justice. This is in my view a switch that took place only about 100 years ago prior to that however the Muslim world was was still better than its non-Muslim counterparts. If comparative treatment is to be seen.
However I agree somewhat with what Das Reich is saying regarding treatment of people in absolute Islamic terms the Muslim world had fallen far from that position from post early Caliphate times. However, the ulema were always aloof of this and it was the ruler who was to blame not the religious/pious from whom we have received the religion.
Re: Ghulami
slavery and employment cannot be equated. there is a huge difference.
Re: Ghulami
slavery and employment cannot be equated. there is a huge difference.
My argument is that Islam founded modern employment methods by giving slaves rights though it kept the same name the essence of Islamic slavery is equivalent to employment without the salary payment. What then happened after that is rather than abolishing old slavery - it just existed anyway. The mention of slaves in our scriptures should be taken to mean employees without a salary. No huge difference if you want to assess Islamic injunctions accurately.
Re: Ghulami
Got to say you are a talented turd deflector.... the guy who rejects hadith wants to hang me for tawheen e risalat lol
LMAO... enough said.
Re: Ghulami
Got to say you are a talented turd deflector.... the guy who rejects hadith wants to hang me for tawheen e risalat lol
It's not about rejecting hadith. It's about not taking every hadith literally and at it's word, because like I said, it's a man-written piece of literature. It's a written form of oral history that was handed from one generation to another in a time when the oral history was becoming severely contaminated with false rumors, so it's a man-made effort at best to purify this oral history to make it as rumor-less as possible. But it's still a written form of oral history, and there are multiple steps in the pathway from words exiting Prophet Muhammad's mouth and being written in these collections where these words and contextual scenarios could have been intentionally or unintentionally altered.
It's a science, and so it needs to be viewed scientificially. It has it's flaws. The problem with muslims today is we take this literature as gospel when people 1400 years ago did not. Remember, "hadith" didn't exist at the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). They came 100-200 years later.
Re: Ghulami
My argument is that Islam founded modern employment methods by giving slaves rights though it kept the same name the essence of Islamic slavery is equivalent to employment without the salary payment. What then happened after that is rather than abolishing old slavery - it just existed anyway. The mention of slaves in our scriptures should be taken to mean employees without a salary. No huge difference if you want to assess Islamic injunctions accurately.
Maybe you mean "indentured servant".
An employee without salary IS a slave. A slave by default can't leave this position and do his own thing. He is prohibited from having the FREEDOM to leave.
Islam got rid of that prohibition, and this is very clear in the Quran. There are more than one verses that I recall alone right now about this. If a man wants his freedom, then we are to give it to them.
Why did slavery continue on? In some circumstances, those slaves found their indentured servanthood lifestyle was better than freedom - they had shelter, clothes, and food, and protection and in exchanged they worked a farm or a trade for their employer. And if Islam was prohibiting the abuse, then life may have been pretty sweet for some people. Others kept on keeping slaves and after Prophet Muhammad SAW died probably went back to their abuses and these evils may have continued. Doesn't mean the Quran dictates it. Just means there were people who continued to not follow the Islamic message on this topic.
Just like today, there are muslims who do things they're not supposed to. They take bribes like they're free cupcakes being handed out in Pakistan. Does that mean Allah wants us to take bribes??
Re: Ghulami
It's not about rejecting hadith. It's about not taking every hadith literally and at it's word, because like I said, it's a man-written piece of literature. It's a written form of oral history that was handed from one generation to another in a time when the oral history was becoming severely contaminated with false rumors, so it's a man-made effort at best to purify this oral history to make it as rumor-less as possible. But it's still a written form of oral history, and there are multiple steps in the pathway from words exiting Prophet Muhammad's mouth and being written in these collections where these words and contextual scenarios could have been intentionally or unintentionally altered.
It's a science, and so it needs to be viewed scientificially. It has it's flaws. The problem with muslims today is we take this literature as gospel when people 1400 years ago did not. Remember, "hadith" didn't exist at the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). They came 100-200 years later.
Hadith didn't exist in time of prophet ! Shocker !!!
Maybe because Sahaba aND Tabaeen knew thousands of hadith by heart were a living example of them plus they knew sunnah by living with the prophet! Last sahabi amir b wathila r.a does not die till 100 AH
I understand the limitations of hadith but you pick and choose based on the criteria what is palatable to a 21st century liberal minded person that's intellectual dishonesty
Your views on what slavery was like is extremely disconnected with reality and your argument "well the Quran dosent mention this "is no excuse as muslims sharia law is based on other sources as well.
Like I said if u want to start a new sect of Quran only followers please be my guest ...but stop misleading people by your fanciful assumptions of what a life of a slave was like in those days or the suggestion that islam outlawed slavery like alcohol and riba
Re: Ghulami
I would like to know more about it. I thought it was 'slave trade' that was outlawed by some european countries, not slavery as an institution.
Demand for African slaves actually increased in North-America post 'abolishment' of slave trade. The cross-Atlantic trading in slave still continued for several decades.
Yes you are right slave trade was outlawed serfdom in some central European countries continued till much later but not as late as the middle east.
antisLavery was a big movement in 19th century America and Europe based on moral grounds with no equivalent in islamic world in the 19th century
Best that can be said prophet aND first few caliphs tolerated slavery as a reality of the day as it was lynch pin of the economy of the middle east , the futuhat yielded huge number of slaves aND that was a standard practice of the time for any imperial power but in this period slaves of muslims fared much better than those of other powrers had an escape route by conversion (as you cannot enslave fellow muslims captured in war) and this contributed to many mass conversions but this also led to drying up of revenue as u cannot jizya muslims this led to later dynasties taxing even muslims aND treating them for all practical purposes as slaves and a renewed effort for military conquests primarily to capture slaves.
But to say slave girls willingly participated in sexual relations is a matter of debate , how is consent defined in those times ? Esp When their male relatives were fighters captureed or slain in combat , seems harsh ?yes it was but this is not something that Islam either introduced or promoted any more than the other imperial powers of its time.Plus if tables were turned these opponents would happily do the same to muslims.
problem is muslims today still think atleast in theory thats ok to go back to those days and start living like the good old Sahaba ! That does not just entail regular prayers , acts of piety but also constant war between muslims and nonmuslims and enslavement of the conquered people a fact that "moderates"tend to ignore but extremists tend to highlite ...that is all fine and dandy as the moral argument is a weak one whether enslavement is worse or cluster bombs and embargoes.
But what bothers me is this hypocrisy of "moderates "who totally ignore these politically incorrect aspects of early islamic period ...I have fully embraced the fact that I'm not a good muslim and I DON'T WANT to go back to a time of Sahaba of constant warfare with nonmuslims.I fully appreciate the fact that living in nonmuslim country although discouraged in islam is definitely in my best interest and Im very grateful to the nonmuslim country that let's me practice my faith freely and does not discriminate at least openly far as a matter of policy on basis of race or religion unlike holy KSA gulf states or iran.
I'm also very critical of those socalled liberals who potray islam as kind of the warrior cult akin to the Mongols what they fail to realize is that although the life in the early caliphate can be harsh and austere by the standards of 21st century was actually very progressive by the standards of 7th century and obviously any state or country that wants to revert back to times will run into all kinds of trouble as the expectations of the people everywhere in the world with respect to human rights and living standards are very different now.
The social economic and political reality that existed in time of early caliphate do not exist today and it would be foolish to think that we can recreate the same conditions without the historical external and internal factors of those times.That is the primary delusion of this pseudo caliphate of the 21st century.
Re: Ghulami
Quran and Sunnah of the holy prophet takes precedence in all matters. Quran being the pivotal source. Sunnah and Hadith are not the same. Sunnah is at the core of deen and tells us how deen is practiced. As stated already, it has been transferred from heart to heart over several generations. How to offer prayer how to perform hajj, how to fast. all these things are very well understood and part of sunnah. Hadith and fiqah comes after these. Hadith is an important source but cannot be equated to Quran. if we see a conflict in Quranic verses and hadith, Quranic verdict takes precedence. We know that the sayings of the holy prophet (pbuh) cannot go against holy Quran so the conflict may be due to errors in documentation or interpretation. Even in the holy Quran, there are certain verses that are muhkamat. these are rather clearer and oft repeated verses. then comes mutashabihat that needs to be interpreted in the light of muhkamaat.
Re: Ghulami
We can keep going round and round, but you still haven't shown me where in the Quran it asks people to take slaves. And don't use the namaz argument. Prayer is repeatedly mentioned in the Quran, the methodology is not specified. But it's mentioned repeatedly. Similarly slavery is mentioned multiple times, and each time in the context of setting them free, and giving them more rights. So, I still don't see how you're justifying anything you're reading in the history on what's in the Quran?
Re: Ghulami
We can keep going round and round, but you still haven't shown me where in the Quran it asks people to take slaves. And don't use the namaz argument. Prayer is repeatedly mentioned in the Quran, the methodology is not specified. But it's mentioned repeatedly. Similarly slavery is mentioned multiple times, and each time in the context of setting them free, and giving them more rights. So, I still don't see how you're justifying anything you're reading in the history on what's in the Quran?
Does Quran say "thou shalt not own slaves" ?
I'm not going round and round you are , same weak argument using verses of Quran out of context ...
if that's the case nobody amongst Sahaba understood the quran but these new age muslims who have kicked the Sunnah and hadith to the curb
Re: Ghulami
It says to free the slaves and so that's the inverse of "thou shalt not have slaves", so yeah, I'm glad you figured out finally that Islam is anti-slavery.
Re: Ghulami
It says to free the slaves and so that's the inverse of "thou shalt not have slaves", so yeah, I'm glad you figured out finally that Islam is anti-slavery.
You should the highest award in theology for decoding Quranic views on slavery
You didn't answer why didn't any single sahabi said slavery as an institution should be outlawed
Re: Ghulami
Because the Quran has already said it. And they already were showing this in their practice. Like I said, there was a fashion to free a slave like every Friday.
Re: Ghulami
8:68) It does not behove a Prophet that he should have captives until he engages in regular fighting in the land. You desire the goods of the world, while Allah desires for you the Hereafter. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.
no one can be kept in bondage unless he is engaged in fighting against you.
47-5)And when you meet in regular battle *those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, bind fast the fetters —* then afterwards either* release them as a favour or *by taking ransom** — until the war lays down its burdens.
even the people captured as POWs, there are only two possibilities:
1) free them as a favor
2) free them for a ransom
no third possibility mentioned. nothing like selling them in slave markets or keeping them in permanent bondage.
As for slaves already existing in Muslim homes from the days before Islam, their freeing was put at a high premium. Thus details of 'high virtue' (Birr) in 2:178 [of the Holy Quran] include 'to set slaves free'. Similarly, in deploring man for not taking 'the uphill road' of moral progress, it puts in the premier position 'to free a slave' (90:14). And there are other occasions when the freeing of a slave is accepted as a compensation for the violation of Divine law (e.g., 58:4). Even the State is directed to spend a part of the funds raised by *Zakat *(poor-rate) on purchasing the freedom of slaves (9:60)
Re: Ghulami
Re: Ghulami
Yes freeing slaves was encouraged but does not mean slavery as an institution was abolished there is a big difference..like I said constant warfare with other nations yielded new slaves.
Re: Ghulami
So would say by 10 yes after prophet there should have been no slaves ?
Any penalty for those who purchase new slaves ?
Any fine if u own a slave past a few Fridays ?
Also penalty in law for having sex with a slave girl ?