Zakir Naik’s Untruths On Islamic Slavery

In one of his many TV appearances, Zakir Naik was asked a question about Islam and slavery:

Even though Islam uplifted the status of slaves but why did it not abolish slavery completely?

Naik’s response is to waffle on, in his inimitable manner, irrelevantly about the banning of intoxicants during the Prophet’s lifetime. When he finally comes round to the answering the question posed on slavery, his answer is to throw up some truly bizarre fabrications, as can be seen from 2:10 into the video:

A transcript of his answer:

The abolishment of slavery came in stages. Initially Allah (swt) says give them rights, if you have to marry them them give mah’r (dowery) etcetera etcetera, slowly, slowly. But there various verses which say ‘Free the slaves etcetera, help them, give them charity. But there’s no direct verse in the Qur’an itself which totally prohibits [slavery]. The reason why Qur’an did not abolish slavery was because it was supposed to be abolished…afterwards. Because it was so much ingrained that most of the things which came as completely, alhamdulillah, during the time of the Prophet, they did. But certain things – like slavery, as said by scholars, were so ingrained that Islam set the ball rolling and the final outcome was supposed to take place, maybe, a few decades or a few years. Many things took place while he was alive. This abolishment of slavery, Islam set the ball rolling and saw to it that it was completed if not in the time of the Prophet then at least after that. Therefore if you read the Qur’an, there are several verses about the slaves and their rights. But it was so much ingrained, it was so much there in the society that it was supposed to be stopped maybe a few years afterwards.

So Naik admits that slavery should have been abolished but excuses Islam by saying that it “set the ball rolling and saw to it that it was completed if not in the time of the Prophet then at least after that”.

But as we know nothing of the sort happened; the Arabs did not abolish slavery anytime during or after the death of the Prophet. In fact they went on to profit hugely from the slave trade. Looking at the system of low-paid manual labour imported from Asian and African countries which operates in Arab states, it is not an exaggeration to say that modern day slavery in the Middle East exists to this day.

Consumption of alcohol was also “ingrained” in Meccan society during the Prophet’s life – but it was banned by dint of a single law revealed to the Prophet in the form of a Quranic verse. So where does Naik get the idea that slavery was too ingrained to be banned during the Prophet’s life but “was supposed to be stopped maybe a few years afterwards”?

Or is he just re-writing and fabricating Islamic history as he goes along?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

101 Comments

  1. Wajid al-Icecreami
    Posted January 14, 2011 at 2:06 PM | Permalink

    These ‘gradual’ arguments are stupid. Islam was prepared to challenge the foundational beliefs and traditions of pre-Islamic Arabian society but was scared of banning slavery.

  2. Abu Afak
    Posted January 14, 2011 at 5:16 PM | Permalink

    Shows how fucked the ummah is when a manchild like this Zakir Naik is one of its biggest and brightest scholars.

  3. Amaar
    Posted January 15, 2011 at 6:12 AM | Permalink

    Zakir Naik, who becomes a source of embarrassment many a times, had a defeatist and weak answer. Making of free men as slaves had been prohibited by the Prophet except in case of war where the opponent was also engaging in making slaves out of Muslim freemen.

    The argument that slavery was ingrained is also pretty weak since Islam, as agreed by Wajid al-Icecreami, was prepared to challenge the very basis of society.

    What do you do with thousands of men and women (slaves or prisoners of war)? If you set them all free you create a law and order problem, social unrest, with no guarantee for their subsequent livelihood. ‘Gradualism’ was the only pragmatic approach to emancipation.

    If you disagree with this assertion what practical solutions would Wajid al-Icecreami have proposed to integrate thousands of men and women who had lost their freedom?

  4. Kisan
    Posted January 15, 2011 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    Quote:
    Making of free men as slaves had been prohibited by the Prophet except in case of war where the opponent was also engaging in making slaves out of Muslim freemen.

    Ok, so when the Jews at Quraiza and Khaibar were defeated, their men beheaded their women and children enslaved or some sold off (to non-Muslims) to buy weapons that was specifically because the Jews of Khaibar had been making slaves out of Muslim freemen????

    You should have some modicum of shame in lying.

    Actually Muslims made slaves out of anyone without any type of bullshit rule of whether those people were making slaves out of the Muslim freemen or not.

    Were the Persians, the Afghans, the Sindhis, the Bengalis, the Gujaratis, the Kashmiris, the Indonesians, the Georgians, the Greeks, the Slavs, the Africans etc all attacking and making slaves of Muslim freemen?

    They were all attacked by Muslims acting under the logic of Quran 9:29.

    The number one commodity of the Muslim world was human slaves throughout most of history.

  5. Wajid al-icecreami
    Posted January 15, 2011 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

    I think having free slaves with no where to go or live is better than them being enslaved and humiliated. I believe you do have decent moral principles Amaar but I’m not sure the same can be said of the first generation of Muslim.

  6. Amaar
    Posted January 16, 2011 at 5:36 PM | Permalink

    Wajid al-icecreami,

    ‘but I’m not sure the same can be said of the first generation of Muslim.’

    I am not sure that without high moral values that people from across Egypt to Mesopotamia to Persia would have accepted Islam. If what you claim is correct than I would ask you as to why would fiercely independent people become Muslims out of choice ?

    Also, it is perhaps unique to Muslim empires that you have countless slaves rising to become generals, viziers and kings even centuries later than the spoch of the Prophet. The era of Banu Umaya, Seljuks, Oghurs, Ghaznanavis, Dehli sultanate
    bears witness to the rise of countless slaves to highest posts of the state – something that has no precedent even in the Western world even today.

    Surely, what history tells indicates that the way you are interpreting events in the era of the Prophet need a serious revisiting.

  7. Amaar
    Posted January 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM | Permalink

    Kisan,

    ‘Ok, so when the Jews at Quraiza and Khaibar were defeated, their men beheaded their women and children enslaved or some sold off (to non-Muslims) to buy weapons that was specifically because the Jews of Khaibar had been making slaves out of Muslim freemen????’

    May I point out that the punishment, harsh as it is, was based on Jewish law for treachery and was adjudicated by Saad bin Muaz – an ally of the Jews before Islam.

    ‘Actually Muslims made slaves out of anyone without any type of bullshit rule of whether those people were making slaves out of the Muslim freemen or not.
    Were the Persians, the Afghans, the Sindhis, the Bengalis, the Gujaratis, the Kashmiris, the Indonesians, the Georgians, the Greeks, the Slavs, the Africans etc all attacking and making slaves of Muslim freemen?’

    All these nationalities you enlisted were non-Muslim and then they became Muslims out of their free will. Why if it were not for high moral standards of the original Muslims?

  8. Kisan
    Posted January 17, 2011 at 2:44 AM | Permalink

    Amaar, Muslims enslaved Jews and members of all the above ethnicities and much much more. Practically none of them however enslaved Muslims. That gives a lie to your lies above.

    They were all attacked by Muslims under Quran 9:29 in which the word fight is qatal more accurately meaning slaughter or kill:

    9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

    Islam taught open ended war on all of humanity and this involved a lot of slavery.
    Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:

    Narrated Anas bin Malik:

    Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.

    Muslims are still teaching the legality of enslaving non-Muslims and using the women as Quranic ‘right hand possessions’ ie. sex slaves:

    http://www.binoria.org/q&a/miscellaneous.html#possessions ’Question: What is the meaning of right hand possession and what was the purpose of having them. Some brothers in America think it is okay to have right hand possessions now in the USA.

    Answer:

    Right hand possessions (Malak-ul-Yameen) means slaves and maids, those came in possession of Muslims through war or purchase. After having the possession of slave maid it is lawful and correct to have sexual relation with them. Even today if Muslims get possession over infidel country, this condition is possible, lawful and correct.’

    Nowhere was there any law that the slaves must come from a society that is enslaving Muslim freemen just to make it just.

    The Caliphs who were the ‘shadows of Allah’ on the planet kept harems with up to several thousands of slave girls for their sexual gratification. They were acting perfectly within the laws of Islam as the number of ‘right hand posssessions’ is not limited unlike wives which may be only 4 at a time (although you can divorce them all simultaneously and marry another 4 every few days or so if you wish).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery
    In 2003 a high-level Saudi jurist, Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa claiming “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.”[120]

    Anyone, non-Muslim can be captured as a slave during Jihad wars if they haven’t converted to Islam prior to the Muslims attacking them. Whether they are enslavers of Muslims is totally unrelated but Amaar just pulls apologia straight out of his backside without any factual basis to it.

  9. Amaar
    Posted January 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

    Kisan Miyan,

    You cannot figure out what would have happened to the Muslim minority had the marauding Arab army succeeded in overrunning Medina with the help of Banu Qurazah – in all certainty Muslim men would have been killed and women made into slaves. There are many cases where the Quraish paid to kidnap some Muslim men who killed their leaders during the battle of Badr.

    There is something called context which you seem to be unaware of:

    ”9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”

    Read a few verses earlier:Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers (9:13)

    Is that clear! Why the instruction in 9:29? Because the opponents of the Prophet had engaged in war, breaking of peace treaties, expulsion from the city and being the first to engage in open hostility.

    ”Islam taught open ended war on all of humanity and this involved a lot of slavery.”

    Where and how? What do you make of ‘There is no compulsion in religion (2:256)’ ?
    Your choice to pick and choose verses is pretty unfortunate.

  10. Amaar
    Posted January 18, 2011 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

    @Kisan:

    The later Calpihs or ‘Shadows of Allah’ were Caliphs in name only. Muslim historian always distinguish Khulafai- Rashideen and the soverigns who ruled in the name of God but were hardly representatives of God. An intelligent critic understands the obvious differences between the two. I have been berating this point.

    As far as the number of Banu Qurazah is concerned it is highly unlikely that they were 800 or even thousands. Otherwise why would they give up so easily when they knew their fate? It is likely that the number of executed tribesmen was small – even as low as 20 as per the research of some scholars.

  11. Amaar
    Posted January 18, 2011 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

    @Kisan:

    Islam can be judged from the words and actions of Prophet Muhammad and Quran alone – not through false judgements of Ulema of Binoria or Saudia.

  12. Mubarak
    Posted January 18, 2011 at 7:34 PM | Permalink


    I think having free slaves with no where to go or live is better than them being enslaved and humiliated.

    Thanks for you thought. However that is what it is, a thought. Evils, of a vegabond homeless culture is quite serious. While you assume the slaves were humiliated, the teachings of the prophet remain, “treat them as you treat yourself”.

    thanks

  13. Mubarak
    Posted January 18, 2011 at 7:35 PM | Permalink


    I think having free slaves with no where to go or live is better than them being enslaved and humiliated.

    Thanks for you thought. However that is what it is, a thought. Evils, of a vegabond homeless culture is quite serious. While you assume the slaves were humiliated, the teachings of the prophet remain, “treat them as you treat yourself”.

    thanks

  14. Mubarak
    Posted January 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM | Permalink


    They were all attacked by Muslims under Quran 9:29 in which the word fight is qatal more accurately meaning slaughter or kill:

    unfortunately the word is qaatal rather than qatal, which does not mean slaughter or kill.

  15. Kisan
    Posted January 19, 2011 at 12:55 AM | Permalink

    ”Islam taught open ended war on all of humanity and this involved a lot of slavery.”

    Where and how? What do you make of ‘There is no compulsion in religion (2:256)’ ?

    “In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
    From Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah to Jaifer and ‘Abd Al-Jalandi.
    Peace be upon him who follows true guidance; thereafter I invite both of you to the Call of Islam.
    Embrace Islam. Allâh has sent me as a Prophet to all His creatures in order that I may instil fear of
    Allâh in the hearts of His disobedient creatures so that there may be left no excuse for those who
    deny Allâh. If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if you refuse
    my Call, you’ve got to remember that all your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will
    appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship.”

    Sounds to me like a bit of compulsion here. Either convert or get attacked and have your sovereignity destroyed. The Omanis were just minding their own business and got a threatening ultimatum to join Islam or get invaded, occupied and looted. That of course would involve having their wives and children enslaved. The wives could become sex-slaves to the conquering Muslim army like this:

    Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)

    Threats of that nature certainly represent a form of compulsion.

    Qaatal means showering with rose petals does it Mubarak?

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?22388-comprehensive-explanation-of-AL-JIHAD
    When Allah (swt) describes fighting in Jihad He (swt) uses the word Qaatala and the one fighting those who fight him is called Muqaatil (Qatala is to murder and the murderer is called Qatil).

    Imam Shafi said that the reason why we fight the kuffar (offensive Jihad) is because they reject our deen i.e. are at war with our deen.

  16. Amaar
    Posted January 19, 2011 at 5:03 AM | Permalink

    Kisan miyan,

    1. Where did you find this letter with no reference? Did you make this up? I would like to see a credible source before making any remarks. If you cite Sayuti or Waqidi then I would be very hesitant to accept this letter’s content as such since both have had problems with producing credible accounts.

    2. Let me check the background for the Hadith on Sunan of Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150 before replying.

    3. Imam Shafi’s ruling is overruled by Quran ”There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256)

  17. Kisan
    Posted January 19, 2011 at 9:56 AM | Permalink

    Letter has its source.
    http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/oman.gif
    http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/oman_e.gif
    http://www.ostamyy.com/museums/Oman.htm
    Salalah Museum
    The museum is located in the government building quarter next to the Office of the Minister of State and Governor of Dhofar. It is found inside the Cultural Centre, and it can also be called a museum of human history. Its contents consist of engravings and inscriptions in southern Arabic, known as the Al Musnad calligraphy, a collection of Chinese, Austrian, and Omani coins dating back to the eleventh century AD, pottery pieces from the Middle Ages, and documents and manuscripts, including a copy of a letter from Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to Abd and Jeefar, sons of Al Julandi, and king of Oman.

    It is however very similar in tone to other threatening letters sent out offering options of accepting Islam, paying jizya or getting invaded, slaughtered and having your loved ones enslaved. Here’s one such letter from an Islamic preaching website:

    http://alquranulkareem.com/blog/?p=34
    When Allah was with them they did not fear any power. Once he wrote a letter to a commander of Persian army near Hira

    “All praise is due to Allah who humbled your pride, and dis-united you, and destroyed your might. Accept Islam you will be in peace; or pay Jizya (the Defence Tax) and let us spread Allah’s Message. If you do not accept any of these conditions then listen I have brought with me such people who love death more than you love life”.

    2:256 is over-ruled by much other even in the Quran.

    I remember a Portuguese Christian Priests account of making mass conversions in Goa and how the conversions were all voluntary and uncoerced. The truth however was very much different. Like Muslims the Portuguese were destroying other religious places and building triumphant churches on them, then the impoverished remnant populations were offered Christianity with all kinds of material bonuses (like Muslims did) and financial penalties for non-conversion and then they were running the inquisition, torturing heretics and enforcing orthodoxy. Just like Muslims were killing apostates like Abu Bakr did.
    The Arabs were given the choice of islam or death as per the Prophets wish that there be no two religions in Arabia.
    How does that square with Quran 2:256?

    The truth of the conversions to Islam also was at the threat of violence which is certainly coercive.

  18. Kisan
    Posted January 19, 2011 at 10:05 AM | Permalink

    Just a note, the second threatening letter was penned by ‘sword of Islam’ Khalid ibn al-Walid although there are other threatening letters / invitations to Islam from the Prophet.

  19. Abu Afak
    Posted January 19, 2011 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    “No compulsion in religion or be ready to feel the point of my ‘sword of Allah’…”

  20. qidniz
    Posted January 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

    How does that square with Quran 2:256?

    It squares just fine. There is no contradiction. Read the full passage of Q2:256. It says that the “true religion” — Islam — has been revealed. Which means, there is no excuse for not accepting Islam.

    Except that some — in fact, many — will not. That too is explained in the Qur’an: it is the will of Allah that they are blind to the “truth”.

    So, in practice, only some will convert when presented with the “truth”. Some others will submit to dhimma.

    The rest will have to die.

    So sad, but no contradiction.

  21. meriem
    Posted January 19, 2011 at 8:28 PM | Permalink

    @Abu Afak: “Shows how fucked the ummah is when a manchild like this Zakir Naik is one of its biggest and brightest scholars.”

    There’s Reza Aslan and Tariq Ramadan also. Far from manchilren one would say.

    Of course, there discourse is unintelligible because it’s so far from the doctrines. At least, this Zakir fellow is not a blatant hypocrite.

    The Ummah is so fucked up that I wouldn’t be surprised if the official billion point two figure doesn’t shrink by at least 25% should freedom of religion and expression be instated in Muslim countries.

  22. Amaar
    Posted January 20, 2011 at 3:44 AM | Permalink

    @Kisan

    You present the Hadith
    ‘Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)’

    Bear in mind a few facts:
    1. Marriage of slaves is encouraged (the said women already were) in Quran
    ”And marry such of you as are solitary and the pious of your slaves and maid servants. ” (Quran 24:27-34)

    2. A known Arab custom was that an owner of a mlk i yameen (slave girl) cannot have conjugal rights if she is already married to another slave (their husbands were already enslaved and were present as per the same Hadith).

    3. The said Quranic verse in the Hadith does not try to remove the inhibition of companions on account of the marriage of the enslaved women rather it prohibits such relationships only if they were having periods. Surely, if you are right then the verse should have spoken of disregarding the former marriage status of those women and going ahead.

    4. In all well-known cases where female prisoners of war were taken, the Prophet would first have an announcement made for any claimant to come and have his female relative released (e.g. battle with Banu Saqeef). In most cases the female captives were released without any fine. The only exceptions were those where a female captive was released in return for a Muslim female captive. Let us not forget that the Prophet was engaged against an enemy that lacked all human decencies.

    Conclusion: It appears that the details in the hadith are inconsistent with known facts and is a typical case of misreported Shaan i Nazool.

  23. Amaar
    Posted January 20, 2011 at 3:53 AM | Permalink

    @Kisan

    You say ”Just like Muslims were killing apostates like Abu Bakr did.”

    Prophet Muhammad did not punish Musailima as long as his claims were merely limited to being a prophet. During Abu Bakr’s Khilafat, the apostasy of Musailima Kazab was not a mere renouncement of faith rather his offenses included rebellion against the authority stationed in Madina, killing of Muslim Zakat collectors and raising an army to impose his writ. Surely, even a worldly authority would put down such a violent rebel.

    You present Ibn Waleed’s letter ”’“All praise is due to Allah who humbled your pride, and dis-united you, and destroyed your might. Accept Islam you will be in peace; or pay Jizya (the Defence Tax) and let us spread Allah’s Message. If you do not accept any of these conditions then listen I have brought with me such people who love death more than you love life”.’

    Bear in mind that the Muslim army was already in a state of war with the mighty Persians. This was Khalid’s letter during the heat of the hostilities rather than in peace time. Your claims would be reasonable if Khalid bin Waleed had sent this letter when the Muslim and Persians had been living peacefully.

  24. Amaar
    Posted January 20, 2011 at 3:58 AM | Permalink

    Kisan,

    Portuguese missionaries have no bearing on the initial period of Islam. Await my response to the purported letter by the Prophet to the king of Oman.

  25. Amaar
    Posted January 20, 2011 at 5:24 AM | Permalink

    @Kisan

    Correction:

    I would revisit my earlier point (3): ”The said Quranic verse in the Hadith does not try to remove the inhibition of companions on account of the marriage of the enslaved women rather it prohibits such relationships only if they were having periods. Surely, if you are right then the verse should have spoken of disregarding the former marriage status of those women and going ahead. ” as I also need to check the context of the verse which has been mentioned in the supposed Hadith. So wait for that.

    But even without this, points (1), (2) and (4) should be sufficient to clarify that this hadith is probably dubious.

  26. Kisan
    Posted January 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    Amaar,

    Good luck with your research, as you are even attempting to deny this hadiths validity with no serious basis other than its morally challenged message shows perhaps that you are uncomfortable with this which is encouraging.

    This very hadith is quoted in Ibn Kathirs Tafsir.
    http://store.dar-us-salam.com/Eng_Quran/Q09.html
    Tafsir Al-Qur’an Al-Azim, which is famous by the title Tafsir Ibn Kathir, by Al-Hafiz. Abu Al-Fida’ ‘Imad Ad-Din Isma’il bin ‘Umar bin Kathir Al-Qurashi Al-Busrawi (d. 774 H.), is the most popular interpretation of the Qur’an in the Arabic language, and the majority of the Muslims consider it to be the best source based on Qur’an and Sunnah.

    Commenting on Quran 4:24 Ibn Kathir writes:
    http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=10803

    Forbidding Women Already Married, Except for Female Slaves

    Allah said,

    [وَالْمُحْصَنَـتُ مِنَ النِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ]

    (Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,

    [إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ]

    (except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, “We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed, e

    [وَالْمُحْصَنَـتُ مِنَ النِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ]

    (Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.” This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. Allah’s statement,

    [كِتَـبَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ]

    (Thus has Allah ordained for you) means, this prohibition was ordained for you by Allah. Therefore, adhere to Allah’s Book, do not transgress His set limits, and adhere to His legislation and decrees.

    ———————————

    As you can see this is a mainstream and well accepted hadith used to make perfect sense of a weird Quranic verse allowing having sex with women who have husbands whom you have captured.

    I hope if you think about it you may realise that this is an imoral and wicked teaching from a ‘Holy’ book supposedly from God.

  27. Amaar
    Posted January 20, 2011 at 4:20 PM | Permalink

    Kisan,

    Hadith literature was gathered 2-3 centuries after the Prophet’s era. It is not impossible that the incidents were misrecorded or critical details were lost – something that renders traditional interpretation void. Blindly accepting all Ahadith even from Sahih Bukhari itself is not our belief.

    But, it not only a morally challenging issue as I had highlighted points (1), (2), (4) which seem to go against this understanding of the verse. But if you insist I would like to hear more such Ahadith if their theme is similar to this particular Hadith.

  28. Abu Faris
    Posted January 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    All these nationalities you enlisted were non-Muslim and then they became Muslims out of their free will. Why if it were not for high moral standards of the original Muslims?

    Actually, this is factually incorrect.

    The non-Muslim (Coptic Christian) population of Egypt remained at around a steady 40% of the population until the implementation of punitive and discriminatory fiscal and other measures aimed at the Christian population from the mid-16th Century.

    The decline of Coptic as a language and the use of punitive taxation rates against the Christian communities in Egypt led over a very short period to the rapid demise of most of the poor Coptic communities – to this day in Egypt, the Coptic minority (+10% of the population) tends to be middle class.

    In Syria and elsewhere in the Levant, even the Syriac Orthodox Church retain the tradition (elsewhere verified) that the motivation for compliance with the new Muslim rulers had more to do with the resentment of the Byzantine Empire than a mass conversion of the people to Islam. Again, the emergence of high taxation and assorted depredations against the Christian communities in that region accounts for the sudden, rapid decline in the numbers of non-Muslims and the rise in conversions to Islam in the late medieval/ early modern period.

    In short, mass conversions to Islam in the Middle East did not occur until nearly a thousand years after the death of the Prophet and were largely motivated by very pragmatic and non-religious causes.

    Intriguingly, the Syriac Orthodox Church purport to hold copies of letters from the Prophet to his followers prohibiting them in the strongest terms from the destruction of non-Muslim property, forced conversions of the non-Muslims and demanding they care for Christian religious persons. Depressingly, and firmly based in the historical record, however, is the evidence that – in the main – the Muslim incomers hardly respected the letter or spirit of any such demand.

    In short, the claim that Islam was embraced because of its moral superiority is not simply insulting to the moral status of (in particular) the Orthodox Christian communities of the Middle East; but is factually inaccurate – indeed a fantasy distortion of the pragmatic and sometimes compelled decisions made by the ancient Christian communities in the face of overwhelming force.

    Abu Faris

    Cairo

  29. Amaar
    Posted January 21, 2011 at 3:34 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris,

    You say: ”The non-Muslim (Coptic Christian) population of Egypt remained at around a steady 40% of the population until the implementation of punitive and discriminatory fiscal and other measures aimed at the Christian population from the mid-16th Century. ”

    So even you admit that around 60% of the Copts became Muslim of their own vocation well before the punitive laws against non-Muslims were implemented.
    Non-Muslims may indeed have had discrimination unfortunately at the hands of abusive Kings who at the same time were also busy harrassing their Muslim subjects as well. The greed for jizya can only be called deplorable. I know that some administrators like Yusuf bin Hajjaj even taxed jizya from people who had converted to Islam – which is an outrage.

    But we are speaking of Islam and its pioneers – not later usurpers of thrones. A few thousand ‘uncivilized’ Arabs marched across Egypt, Syria and Persia which must have a population of several million and were leaps ahead of them in terms of culture according to you. It does not make any sense for a major chunk of population to convert to Islam so strongly. Even in Persia -which hated the Arabs-, Islam took firm root. This is simply not possible through coercion and threats. You are arguing against human nature.

  30. Abu Faris
    Posted January 21, 2011 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

    Amaar

    With respect, please re-read my last post.

    The key point is that the (largely but not exclusively) Christian communities of the Middle East were chiefly converted (and in a rather coercive manner) some 1000 years after the death of the Prophet.

    I note that you do not contest this.

    Incidentally, the Egyptian and Syrian experience shows that the earlier converts tended to come from the upper and middle classes – whereas the poor (especially the rural poor) tended to stick to what they knew best (the Orthodox Christian faith, in the main). The conversion of the poor masses tended to occur later in the history of these lands and regions – not earlier.

    Of course, this should come as little surprise. The spread of Christianity was mainly amongst, initially, the urban elites, mercantile middle classes and proletariat. The pesky peasants tending to cling to the worship of their ancient gods quite solidly and late into the so-called Christian period of the late Roman Empire. Indeed, the English word “pagan” derives from the Latin term for a country person. That a similar pattern should repeat itself with the arrival of Islam in Christianised lands is unremarkable – save as a comment on the traditionalism of the peasantry everywhere.

    The Coptic middle classes in Egypt in the late medieval period were about the only part of their community able to stand the incredibly onerous taxation (for example) levied against the Christian community. The urban poor and peasantry rapidly gave up the ghost in the face of such deliberate impoverishment.

    It is intriguing and odd that you should claim that it was bad/naughty rulers who latterly persecuted religious minorities. Let us recall that it was Salah al-Din and his horrid brother who hanged in excess of 20 000 Copts from palm trees in the mid 12th Century campaigns in Egypt because they rebelled against their tax demands. That is, the individual mostly regarded as some sort of exemplar of Muslim princes. Of course, not forgetting the original followers persecution, mass-murder and ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Arabian Peninsula. Are you suggesting that even the very original followers were also so bad and naughty? Shurely shome mishtake!

    As for your comment about human nature – well, there is some controversy as to what exactly this amounts to as a concept; let alone whether such a commodity exists de facto. However, it is telling that you now resort to another intangible other than your original sleight that Islam offered some sort of morally superior way to the Christian faith of the inhabitants of the Middle East.

  31. Abu Faris
    Posted January 22, 2011 at 1:17 PM | Permalink

    Whilst I disagree (as do other, more modern scholars) with Watt’s (1963) position on the mass conversion to Islam in the early period of the expansion of Islam, this quote from the introduction to his study of al-Ghazali rather kills Amaar’s wilfully romantic conception of the morally upright early Muslim imperialists:

    Islam was by tradition a missionary religion, and was, at least implicitly, of universal validity. Because of its Arabic origin, however, there was a tendency to think of it as primarily for Arabs. This tendency was reinforced during the first century of the caliphate by the desire of the Arab Muslims to retain their privileged position as first-class citizens. Little effort was made in the early decades to convert non-Arabs to Islam. When non-Arabs insisted on becoming Muslims, whatever their motives may have been, they had to be attached to Arab tribes as clients. This still had a suggestion of inferiority [or racism, as we would today dub it - AF]. As the number of non-Arab Muslims increased, their discontent with their status and demand for equality was one of the factors behind the movement which replaced the Umayyad caliphs of Damascus (who had ruled from 660 to 750) by the ‘Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad.

    W Montgomery Watt, Al-Ghazali – Muslim Intellectual – A Study, Edinburgh (1963).

    On on-line copy, here:

    http://www.ghazali.org/articles/watt.htm

    Slavery, ethnic cleansing and racism – whatever next?

  32. Abu Faris
    Posted January 22, 2011 at 1:35 PM | Permalink

    Oh, that’s right “divinely sanctioned” (TM) homophobia and sexism, as well.

    What is it with Allah and *violence*?

  33. Rahim
    Posted February 19, 2011 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

    That is a lie the Christians enslaved muslims, and non christians, where do you people get your info? That was the Crusades think yall better study some more. Abyssinia had Arab and slaves also and even African cheifs had slaves! Stop making it out like Islam is the only faith that had prisoners of war. Egypt was the first on record to have slaves.

  34. Rahim
    Posted February 19, 2011 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

    Abu why would you bring up homosexuals? First of you don’t need a Quran to tell homosexuality is wrong, it goes against the very nature we live in. It wasn’t meant for men to be with women and women to be with men. So are you trying to suggest that two nasty sweaty men having sex and not being productive and trying to act like WOMEN is right? Are you saying that? I gotta here this.

  35. Rahim
    Posted February 19, 2011 at 8:58 AM | Permalink

    Abu, so how did the Christians in Egypt/Kemet end up as Christians? It is false to even say Islam was based on the sword and it’s a lie none the less!

  36. Abu Faris
    Posted February 19, 2011 at 5:13 PM | Permalink

    Rahim

    Do give over. I don’t respond to such transparent Islamist trolls.

  37. Posted February 19, 2011 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

    “That is a lie the Christians enslaved muslims, and non christians, where do you people get your info? “

    Try this and this for instances of traditional and modern day slavery practiced in the Islamic world.

  38. Stuart Parsons
    Posted February 22, 2011 at 4:09 AM | Permalink

    Allah is a figment of the imagination of the deluded and pathologically narcissistic Muhammad. There is no verifiable evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god.
    The principal author of the Quran was Muhammad. Indeed, it would be the most gross of all insults to suggest an omniscient deity was the author of this pathetic, rambling, inaccurate and dangerously ridiculous book.

    Because Muslims are raised from birth and indoctrinated into believing all this obvious nonsense, Islam is a much greater threat to the well-being of mankind than Fascism, Communism and the hordes of Genghis Khan ever were.

    Oh when ! Oh when are Muslims going to realised they have been duped by a 7th century barbarian, throw off the chains of Islam and learn to live in peace and harmony with the rest of us ? Wake up Islam…. Muhammad was psychotic…. HE LIED.

  39. Ajay Vasudev Dar
    Posted January 8, 2012 at 9:30 AM | Permalink

    Fools here who are pulling off a two-wrongs-make-a-right move by saying it’s okay for their silly scriptures (Quran) to condone slave-rape because the books of the Jews does so, too, are the sad excrement of wasted human lives.

    Neither can they think as humans, nor do they make any effort to get out of their ossified immorality.

  40. Posted March 22, 2012 at 4:22 PM | Permalink

    If you are a human being, then you should know this. You should know this, because …

    http://debatebasedonscriptures.blogspot.in/2012/03/debate-on-slavery-intro-1.html

  41. Amin Riaz
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

    Looking at the system of low-paid manual labour imported from Asian and African countries which operates in Arab states, it is not an exaggeration to say that modern day slavery in the Middle East exists to this day.

    Yet the same people would earn a lot less in their native countries. At least quarter of my extended family is supported by Saudi Arabia of what is termed as “Modern Day Slavery”. Yet the same unskilled labourers wouldn’t even a fraction of what they do earn in either India or Pakistan.

    On the other hand – those who are educated they are well paid. I have members of family who are teachers, engineers and in military (contractors) in several Arab states and they earn well.

    What is not the interest of Arab sates is to offer educational or training opportunities – no one really campaigns on their behalf – neither do they themselves object much.

    In short it is not just an exaggeration to call it slavery but mostly wrong. Things could be lot better… but that is true for just about anywhere.

  42. Amin Riaz
    Posted March 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM | Permalink

    “Do give over. I don’t respond to such transparent Islamist trolls.”

    Yet when did Rahim attack you once Abu Farris? Else your accusation is baseless and in itself “trolling”.

  43. Posted March 31, 2012 at 6:27 AM | Permalink

    @Kisan,

    ““We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed.”

    You will find the explanation of this Hadith soon, at http://debatebasedonscriptures.blogspot.in.

    You can start at http://debatebasedonscriptures.blogspot.in/2012/03/debate-on-slavery-intro-1.html

  44. gabriel
    Posted May 14, 2012 at 6:09 AM | Permalink

    The most barbarous atrocities were at the hands of Christians. Adolph Hitler killed 6 million jews, 2 million gypsies etc.. Christianity empowered slavery was the most brutal of all – and based on skin color. -Now let’s compare to a civilized Islam.

  45. Kisan
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 3:32 PM | Permalink

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

    Hitler may have been born a Christian but his philosophy wasn’t Christian. What he did he did in the name of a racialist supremacist ideology. He was also impressed with the martial religion of Islam: “The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” – Hitler

    @Nizam, that silly mumb-jumbo you are promoting is for the braindead, grow up….

  46. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

    Kisan

    “@Nizam, that silly mumb-jumbo you are promoting is for the braindead, grow up….”

    What kind of answer is this?

    “The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

    And? Hitler was, it safe to say a bit touched in the head… he made contradictory statements about many things – especially Christianity. What does airing his one quote have to do with anything?

  47. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 4:35 PM | Permalink

    “They were all attacked by Muslims under Quran 9:29 in which the word fight is qatal more accurately meaning slaughter or kill”

    The above is simply inaccurate… قاتل is a verb of Form III. It means to fight not slaughter or kill as implied by Kisan.

  48. Posted May 16, 2012 at 6:39 PM | Permalink

    @Kisan

    “mumb-jumbo” ?

    Michelle Obama is “mumb-jumbo” ?
    What Barack Obama said is “mumb-jumbo” ?
    What Malcolm X said is “mumb-jumbo” ?
    What Cassius Clay said is “mumb-jumbo” ?
    What Reverend Wright said is “mumb-jumbo” ?

    “I have read in Moslem writings such deep and tender expressions of respect and reverence for Jesus that for the time I almost forgot, I was not reading the words of a Christian writer. How different, it is sad to say, has been the way in which Christians have spoken and written of Muhammad. Let us put it down to it’s true cause, ignorance.” – Reverend R. Maxwell King

    Ignorance = mumb-jumbo

  49. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 10:13 PM | Permalink

    The person posting here as Avicenna often posts factually incorrect information about Islam.

    Look at how Naiks words are twisted:

    So Naik admits that slavery should have been abolished but excuses Islam by saying that it “set the ball rolling and saw to it that it was completed if not in the time of the Prophet then at least after that”.

    Yet Naik goes further on to say:

    Therefore if you read the Qur’an, there are several verses about the slaves and their rights. But it was so much ingrained, it was so much there in the society that it was supposed to be stopped maybe a few years afterwards.

    Avicenna conveniently forget to mention any fabrications and his conclusion:

    Or is he just re-writing and fabricating Islamic history as he goes along?

    …is not supported and hence false. Naik never claimed that Islam had abolished slavery. It would’ve been a pathetic claim to make. Read the full transcript he simply says “Supposed to”.

    Naik is guilty of many “creative” back-tracking and ambiguous answers… but this isn’t one of them

    As to where Naik get his idea that:

    “So where does Naik get the idea that slavery was too ingrained to be banned during the Prophet’s life but “was supposed to be stopped maybe a few years afterwards”?”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Slavery_in_the_Qur.27an

    So why are such fabrications repeatedly posted?

  50. Turku
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    The wikipedia reference shows that slavery was deeply ingrained into Arab society during the time of Mohammed but it does not say anything about the idea that Quran intended to stop slavery. The Quran exhorts free men to treat their slaves kindly but says nothing about ending the practice of slavery.

    This suggest that Naik’s interpretation is a modern day apology based on the idea that slavery is bad. But this is not a notion held by the Quran.

  51. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 9:49 PM | Permalink

    Turku

    It appears you’ve overlooked a few things…

    You are right on two counts:

    1. Slavery was deeply ingrained in and around Arabia.

    2. Quran does not say anything about stopping slavery.

    However:

    “This suggest that Naik’s interpretation is a modern day apology based on the idea that slavery is bad. But this is not a notion held by the Quran”

    This conclusion is not supported by the above video – or what Quran says about slavery…

    Muslim laws are NOT solely based on Quran – they extend to Hadith, Consensus, Analogical reasoning, cultural norms and few more subsidiary branches.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Slavery_in_the_Qur.27an

    The article does present a fairly balanced view.

    Many early converts to Islam were largely slaves… from them likes of Bilal of Ethiopia and Nafi – the slave of Ibn Umar for example played a crucial role in development of early Islam

    Then slaves further played a crucial roles in Islamic history too – the Mamluks or the Tugluqs of India.

    The point is that during a long Muslim history slavery wasn’t stopped – especially in the Arab world. It should have come to a natural end…

    …however NO ONE brought slavery to an end… Not even the Africans …. they too to some extent are guilty.

    Islam should take it fair share of blame… however Zakir Naik is not to blame for that. A descendant of the untouchable class of Hindus….

    Simply by saying Naik is creatively re-interpreting without backing up with evidence is useless.

  52. Abu Abdul Mannaan
    Posted May 19, 2012 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

    >>Quran does not say anything about stopping slavery.

    Where did you get this ?
    Quran does not say anything about stopping slavery ?

    What you mean by stopping ? An abrupt and incapable decision like what Abraham Lincoln took ?

    Dear Brother,

    1. The Glorious Quran took a practical approach in The Eradication of Slavery.

    2. The Glorious Quran wanted to Eradication By Integration.

    3. The Glorious Quran did not wanted a forced eradication.

    And we read in the Glorious Quran –

    Verse – 1
    It is not Birr (good deed) that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west; but Birr is the one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets, and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masakin (the poor), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set slaves free, performs As-Salah (Iqamat-As-Salah, prayer), and gives the Zakah(mandatory charity in each year), and who fulfill their covenant when they make it, and who are patient in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of fighting (during the battles).Such are the people of the truth and they are Al-Muttaqun (the pious).Quran 2:177

    - The above verse says FREEING SLAVES is part of Virtue.

    Verse – 2
    As-Sadaqat (i.e., Zakah) are only for the Fuqara’, and Al-Masakin and those employed to collect (the funds); and to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islam); and to free the captives (slave); and for those in debt; and for Allah’s cause, and for Ibn As-Sabil; a duty imposed by Allah.And Allah is All-Knower, All-Wise. Quran 9:60

    - The Above verse stands for FREEING THE SLAVES who are Prisoners of War.

    Verse – 3
    But he has not attempted to pass on the path that is steep.And what will make you know the path that is steep.Freeing slaves. Or giving food in a day full of Masghabah (difficult times), o an orphan near of kin.Or to a Miskin cleaving to dust.Then he became one of those who believed and recommended one another to patience, and recommended one another to compassion.They are those on the Right. Quran 90:11-18

    - The above verse introduces the FREEING OF SLAVES as part of a steep path of Righteousness

    Verse – 4

    And whoever of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess, and Allah has full knowledge about your faith, you are one from another. … Quran 4:25

    - The above verse commands Muslims to conduct the Marriages of their Right-Hand Possessions i.e. SLAVES.

    There are more Quranic verses.

    It dose not stops there.

    - Mohammad The Messenger of God implemented the above Quranic verses that brought Justice, Peace and Freedom for Slaves.

    - Mohammad The Messenger of God brought several laws for the protection, well-treatment and The Ingegration of Slaves into the main stream society.

    It goes on and on …

    Please don’t let your ignorance and prejudice lead you. Lead yourself by Knowledge. The Knowledge of Glorious Quran and The Sayings of Mohammad The Messenger of God.

  53. Stuart Parsosn
    Posted May 19, 2012 at 9:59 PM | Permalink

    Gentlemen, Gentlemen !! The Quran is neither glorious or Holy. Muhammad was a fake. There is much slavery associated with Islam even today. Furthermore in the 57 nations of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, non-Muslims are disciminated against and persecuted even unto rape and death. Their homes, businesses and places of worship are attacked and destroyed…… WHY ?? All because a non-existant Allah is supposed to have said, ‘non-Muslims are the vilests of creatures’ (8:55) and ‘Fight them until their is no more mischief and the religuion is for Allah alone.’ (8:39

  54. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 19, 2012 at 10:46 PM | Permalink

    Stuart Parsosn

    How perceptive and original! Sure blew my socks off!

  55. Abu Abdul Mannaan
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 1:44 AM | Permalink

    @Stuart Parsosn

    Why you put a blind eye on the above Quranic verses ?

    - When a namesake Muslim does an evil then the name of his religion is brought !
    - When a namesake Christian/Jew does an evil then the name of his religion is NOT brought !

    This is what is called double standard. Don’t you have shame ?

    And you are so quick to shift the TOPIC in discussion !

    It is not the Quran but YOUR QUOTE from Quran is FAKE !

    Firstly you have shifted to the topic.
    Secondly, you have cut the left and right from what you have quoted from Quran.

    Read the four verses of the Quran, regarding Slavery and then comment. Please don’t intentionally divert the topic in discussion !

  56. Abu Abdul Mannaan
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 2:40 AM | Permalink

    “There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgment. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money.” Reported By Imam Bukhari.

    – Who in the History of Mankind made such a statement ever, if not Mohammad The Messenger of God ?

  57. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 1:47 PM | Permalink

    Abu Abdul Mannaan

    You repeatedly fail to answer the actual question… unfortunately lot of the “religious” do this. They waffle.

    Learning to reason – used to be backbone of Islamic scholars and scientists and academics in general. Nowadays standards have really slipped.

  58. Abu Faris
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM | Permalink

    “a verb of Form III. It means to fight not slaughter or kill as implied by Kisan.”

    Oh dear – a wannabe Arabist gets it wrong. The root Q-T-L means, directly “to kill”, the verb form “Qaatal” (as given above) is derivative and is used in the sense of “fight” *and only* when applied to the *lethal warfare* of groups (mostly, *armies).

    If you are going to learn Arabic, try to be accurate.

  59. Abu Abdul Mannaan
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    @Amin Riaz

    Question
    ———–
    “Even though Islam uplifted the status of slaves but why did it not abolish slavery completely?”

    Answer – 1
    ————-
    Mohammad The Messenger of God PROHIBITED the ENSLAVEMENT OF FREE MEN, by the following Hadith (saying)

    “There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgment. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money.” Reported By Imam Bukhari.

    Now,

    When Mohammad The Messenger of God took his responsibility, the majority of the population were slaves. This is a historical fact.

    What you want to do with the mass existing slave population ? Given the fact that

    - Slaves did not have legal status.
    - Slaves were treated worse than cattle.
    - Slaves were castrated.
    - Slaves were used as a discardable sex objects.
    - Slaves were bearing FATHERLESS children
    - …

    The question before this forum is -

    - Simply free them ?
    - Simply free them ?
    - Simply free them ?

    Please write-down your stand very clearly, right here :)

    Answer-2
    ————
    Under the above mentioned historical facts of slaves, Mohammad The Messenger of God brought practical guidelines to integrate the slave population to the main stream community. He brought a broad plan for transforming the humanity from being the slaves of puny humans to the The Slaves of Almighty God.

    It is a great-deal to understand this plan, implementation and the Great Historical Achievement of Mohammad The Messenger of God. Anybody who can go through this guideline, can very easily understand that –

    - Mohammad The Messenger of God stood for The Eradication of Slavery By Integration, instead of a blind overnight prohibition.

    But before that I would like you (or you like people) to answer the very question -

    What you want to do with the mass existing slave population ?

    - Simply free them ?

  60. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    “Oh dear – a wannabe Arabist gets it wrong.”

    How about dropping the “troll” attitude.

    “If you are going to learn Arabic, try to be accurate.”

    انا لا احتاج ان اتعلم اللغة العربية، اما ان اكون صحيحا نحويا فهي مسألة اخرى. إذا تريد مناقشة في اللغة العربية…. ثم تجيبني في العربية

    the verb form “Qaatal” (as given above) is derivative and is used in the sense of “fight” *and only* when applied to the *lethal warfare* of groups (mostly, *armies).

    1. Any references?

    2. You have changed your story:

    “They were all attacked by Muslims under Quran 9:29 in which the word fight is qatal more accurately meaning slaughter or kill”

    Here you imply that قاتل QAATALA means to kill and slaughter – where as the base Form I means ‘to kill’ and Form II means ‘to slaughter’.

    Form III means to to fight, to combat. Qaatala is never used to mean ‘to kill’ or to ‘to massacre’ – these have their own verb forms.

    Lanes Lexicon:

    http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/

    Hans Wehr:

    http://kalamullah.com/learning-arabic.html


    In Brief:

    As far accuracy is concerned- I was far more accurate – your subsequent “re-interpretation” is proof enough.

    As for your attitude – try to drop the “trollness” you have done several times now. Abode of the ignorant….

  61. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 6:20 PM | Permalink

    9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

    Abu Faris and Kisan – gave their own meaning to the word قاتل

    Consider the above verse and compare with what Abu Faris said:

    the verb form “Qaatal” (as given above) is derivative and is used in the sense of “fight” *and only* when applied to the *lethal warfare* of groups (mostly, *armies).

    By his own logic – the word means “to fight”. However this verb generally means “to fight”. He has given no evidence for:

    “* when applied to the *lethal warfare* of groups (mostly, *armies).”

  62. Stuart Parsons
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 10:23 PM | Permalink

    Apologies, apologies, apologies. I was just attempting to make the point that there is absolutely no verifiable evidence whatsoever for the actual existence of Allah, Muhammad was delusional and the Quran is most certainly not the revelations of an omniscient deity. Indeed if it were the case that an omniscient did exist, it would be the grossest of insults to cedit him with the authorship of this pathetic hate-filled book.

    Consequently prattling on about what the Quran says about slavery is a somewhat futile exercise……. or at least it would be if 1.5 billion of mankind had not been indoctrinated from birth to believe it really is the word of a god. To judge from what apostates say, most Muslims have not read the Quran. (an Christians the Bible.) They rely on the mendacious, taqiyya spouting imams, mullahs and ayatollahs to tell them. As dear old Al ghazali said, ” It is permissible to lie if achieving the goal is permissible.”

    Must go now my Muslim master is threatening to beat me if I don’t tend to his goats.

  63. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    I generally ignore people like Stuart Parsons – for obvious reasons.

    However ” It is permissible to lie if achieving the goal is permissible.” is not a Ghazzali quote.

  64. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

    When Mohammad The Messenger of God took his responsibility, the majority of the population were slaves. This is a historical fact.

    Prove it? Where are your references? If you cannot provide any then it would mean you simply made this up.

    You did not and could not answer the question – there is no answer. Islam did not abolish slavery.

    I am not contesting Islam’s treatment of Slaves – which was good and for the 1st time it brought status to the slaves – the least of which – that they were human.

    What you want to do with the mass existing slave population ?

    You have posed this question on a statement which you have not verified …. please back up:

    When Mohammad The Messenger of God took his responsibility, the majority of the population were slaves. This is a historical fact.

    Also you have overlooked the fact that – Muslims were a new society – at Medinah they established a new society – and when they conquered Makkah.

    Free or Slave – after the Hijrah it did not matter – all were equal in having no official status.

  65. Turku
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

    “You did not and could not answer the question – there is no answer. Islam did not abolish slavery.”

    Thanks for stating the obvious. Now the point is, where does Zakir Naik get the notion that Muhammed as the mouthpiece of Allah had plans to abolish slavery sometime in the ‘future’?

    “The reason why Qur’an did not abolish slavery was because it was supposed to be abolished…afterwards.”

  66. Abu Abdul Mannaan
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 6:19 PM | Permalink

    @Amin Riaz

    You wrote –
    >>Prove it? Where are your references? If you cannot provide any then it would mean you simply made this up.

    Let me start form the Law of Babylon

    Slaves were having the lowest grade in the society during the time of king Hammurabi.
    “The third class, wardum-amtum, consisted of male and female slaves.” – The Code Of Hammurabi, by Robert F Harper.

    - The inception of Slavery dates backs to the inception of human civilization.

    “In the case of a slave the name of the slave’s father is never given. The slave is not regarded or spoken of as a man, but as a thing, and is reckoned in the
    same way as cattle.” – THE LAW OF BABYLONIA. Historical Jurisprudence by Guy Carleton Lee.

    - The fatherless slaves dates backs to The Babylonian “Civilization”.

    Now comes Aristotle -

    “Slavery is natural; in every department of the natural universe we find the relation of ruler and subject. There are human beings who, without possessing reason, understand
    it. These are natural slaves.” form ARISTOTLE’S POLITICS, translated by Benjamin Jowett.

    - Slaves did not have legal status.
    - This was the world before the arrival of Mohammad The Messenger of God.

    “The slave, the serf, the oriental or feudal vassal, may suffer and lament, but he does not dispute the authority of his oppressor, or rebel against it. On the contrary, he would be shamed and scandalized at any attack on that power.” – Page 281, Making of Humanity by Robert Briffault.

    - Slaves did not have legal status.
    - This was the world before the arrival of Mohammad The Messenger of God.

    “That meant putting every man, old or young, to the sword and selling the women and children into slavery. That is the Way, in which Melos and Scione and Histiaea and other Greek towns’ were treated by the Athenians, that is the way in which they calmly decided under the shadow of the Acropolis to treat Mytilene. At best all were sold into slavery, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters separated and scattered in the markets of Delos and the brothels of the Levant. Page 31-32, Making of Humanity by Robert Briffault.

    - Slaves were used as a discardable sex objects.
    - This was the world before the arrival of Mohammad The Messenger of God.

    “There were four classes of property. The first was that of immovables, to which belonged land; the second, movables which were inanimate, such as tools, clothing, money,
    etc. ; the third, movables which were animate, such as animals and slaves.</b?" THE LAW OF EGYPT – Page 63, Historical Jurisprudence by Guy Carleton Lee

    - Slaves were treated worse than cattle.
    - This was the world before the arrival of Mohammad The Messenger of God.

    "Slavery did exercise a profoundly pernicious effect upon Greek culture, and ultimately contributed to its downfall". Page 124, Making of Humanity by Robert Briffault.

    - Slavery was a norm of this world during the time of Greece.
    - This was the world before the arrival of Mohammad The Messenger of God.

    "The most frequent objects of trade were precious metals and slaves. Phoenicia was, in fact, the great slave-market of the world. By visiting many ports, her traders were
    enabled to collect large numbers of slaves. These were generally prisoners taken in war, or possibly kidnapped, and were sold to the surrounding countries.” THE LAW OF
    PHOENICIA – Page 90, Historical Jurisprudence by Guy Carleton Lee.

    - Significant part of the world population was slaves.
    - This was the world before the arrival of Mohammad The Messenger of God.

    “In Rome, the result of victory and conquest was wealth and luxury and gold and slaves poured in from the conquered lands” – Page – 28, Glimpses of World History by India’s first Prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

    I have quoted only Non Islamic sources. If I am to quote Islamic sources, it won’t simply fit here.

    Please learn and please learn – This was the state of this world before The Arrival of Mohammad The Messenger of God.

    >>Prove it? Where are your references? If you cannot provide any then it would mean you simply made this up.
    Isn’t this enough ?

    Now please answer – What you want to do with the mass existing slave population ?

  67. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 8:58 PM | Permalink

    Turku

    There is something called common decency… a way of referring to ‘unknown’ people cordially and politely. In other words manners. Or are you just a ‘troll’?

    Thanks for stating the obvious. Now the point is, where does Zakir Naik get the notion that Muhammed as the mouthpiece of Allah had plans to abolish slavery sometime in the ‘future’?

    There is plenty of evidence of that…. just read posts of Abdul Manan… Binding new people to slavery was forbidden – which should have led to a decrease and eventual

    Also releasing slaves was/is an act of high reward and charity.

    Also I have pointed out that – ex Slaves in 2 different parts of the Muslim world rose to become the masters.

    However human “greed” got in the way. Slave trade was a very lucrative business.

    —-

    “The reason why Qur’an did not abolish slavery was because it was supposed to be abolished…afterwards.”

    huh?

  68. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 9:35 PM | Permalink

    Abu Abdul Mannaan

    Your assertion was:

    When Mohammad The Messenger of God took his responsibility, the majority of the population were slaves. This is a historical fact

    And you were quoting – Aristotle? Why?

    The proof required was about Arabia – and Arabia specifically. You did not give on shred of evidence that most of the population AT THAT time was slave.

    Hence – you did not answer the question.

    —-

    What you probably did was a quick Google search and pasted meaningless chunks. Yet you made out that most inhabitants of Arabia were slaves.

    You haven’t answered – so you made this “fact” up.

  69. Stuart Parsons
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 9:52 PM | Permalink

    Sorry to interrupt again. The Reliance of the Traveller page 745 r8.2
    ‘ Imam Abu hamid Ghazali…….”When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not be tellingthe truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.”

    Thank you for your attention gentlemen……. I will return to my master’s goats, Inshallah

  70. Turku
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 10:11 PM | Permalink

    “The reason why Qur’an did not abolish slavery was because it was supposed to be abolished…afterwards.”

    “huh?”

    The quote is taken from the transcript of Ravi Naik’s ridiculous brainfart about the Quran’s non-existent intention to abolish slavery. Did you look at the video or even read the post before you entered into this debate?

  71. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 10:12 PM | Permalink

    ”When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not be tellingthe truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.”

    ” It is permissible to lie if achieving the goal is permissible.”

    Both quotes are not what Ghazzali said.

  72. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 10:26 PM | Permalink

    Turku

    Thanks for stating the obvious. Now the point is, where does Zakir Naik get the notion that Muhammed as the mouthpiece of Allah had plans to abolish slavery sometime in the ‘future’?

    “The reason why Qur’an did not abolish slavery was because it was supposed to be abolished…afterwards.”

    Look at what you wrote… and how you wrote it. You stuck a meaningless quote at the end… why?

    As far as Quran’s intention abolishing slavery goes – I gave you an answer – and you had no comeback. All you could point out was an objective “huh”

    and this rant:

    The quote is taken from the transcript of Ravi Naik’s ridiculous brainfart about the Quran’s non-existent intention to abolish slavery. Did you look at the video or even read the post before you entered into this debate?

    Just because you label something “ridiculous” or others – doesn’t make it so. It is more an insight into ones own prejudices, ignorance, hate and etc.

  73. Stuart Parsons
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 10:33 PM | Permalink

    Amin…… All I can say is read page 745 of the Reliance of the Traveller. It quite clearly attributes the lying quote to Imam Abu Hamid Ghazzali. I have the Reliance of the Traveller in front of me at this very moment, open at page 745. It reads:-

    ‘The besta nalysis of it I have seen is by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazzali who says, “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is obtainable both by telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” Regards Stuart.

  74. Turku
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 10:41 PM | Permalink

    Look at what you wrote… and how you wrote it. You stuck a meaningless quote at the end… why?

    I’ll rephrase it for your elucidation:

    Where does Zakir Naik get the notion that Muhammed, as the “mouthpiece of Allah”, had plans to abolish slavery sometime in the ‘future’- when he says:

    “The reason why Qur’an did not abolish slavery was because it was supposed to be abolished…afterwards.”

  75. Abu Abdul Mannaan
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 2:33 AM | Permalink

    @Amin Riaz

    >>And you were quoting – Aristotle? Why?

    Please try to have a bit of historical perspective. This world was immersed in Aristotle’s view of “Slavery being a natural”. And Aristotle was supposed to be a great thinker.

    And it was Mohammad The Messenger of God who put forward the notion of enslaving the free men being a sin. It was Mohammad The Messenger of God who put an end to the Aristotelian view on slavery. I want to show this and for that I quoted Aristotle.

    Traditionally Arabs were traders. They went to the territories of Roman and Persian empires (today’s Egypt, Syria, Yemen etc etc). All such territories had slave markets. Arabs brought in slaves just like they brought any other commodities. The existence of such slave markets is backed by the historical quoting in the last post.

    >>What you probably did was a quick Google search and pasted meaningless chunks.

    Please don’t do guess business here. If what I quoted is not in the books that I mentioned then you can say that. Otherwise it is disrespecting others valuable time and efforts.

    If you know where in Google one can found the pages of the book named Glimpses of World History, then please let me know. I just spent some good amount of money to get it into my hands. Please don’t go for the “probability” especially on what and how others do.

    Now you want proof of slaves in Arabia.

    “On the day of his marriage, Muhammad set free Barakah, the faithful slave he had inherited from his father; and on the same day Khadijah made him a gift of one of her own slaves” – Muhammad by Martin Lings

    - Slaves were part of the Arabian life.
    - Slaves were delivered as gifts just like we gift mobile phones.

    “The followers of the Prophet were continually increasing, but whenever a new convert came to him and pledged his or her allegiance, it was more often than not a slave, or a freed slave, or a member of Quraysh of the Outskirts or else a young man or woman from Quraysh of the Hollow, of influential family but of no influence in themselves, whose conversion would increase tenfold the hostility of their parents and elder kinsmen.” Page 64, Muhammad by Martin Lings.

    - Most of the early followers of Mohammad The Messenger of God were Slaves.
    - Those slave people were the slaves of Arabian Masters.

    Try to read “Muhammad” by Martin Lings. It contains numerous references to the existence of Slaves in their day-to-day life of an Arab.

    Try to learn the history of any of the following slaves who accepted Mohammad The Messenger of God and you will find the presence of Slaves and Slave Markets in the Arabian Peninsula.

    1. The History of Zaid Son of Harithah.
    2. The History of Barakah (Umm Aiman), The Ethiopian Slave Woman.
    3. Bilal Al Habsh.
    4. History of Salman The Persian.
    5. History of Ammaar & Yasir
    6. History of Thauban the freed slave.
    7. History of Salim the freed slave.
    8. History of Yuhannis the freed slave.
    9. History of Muslim bin Yasar the freed slave.
    10. History of Aflah the freed slave.
    11. History of Abu Rafi the freed slave.
    12. History of Abu Atiyyah the freed slave.
    13. History of ‘Umair, the freed slave.
    14. History of Abu Murra, the freed slave

    The list goes on and on. There are plenty of other references. Please don’t attribute the above list of 14 slaves to Google :)

    The above list of freed slaves serves two things.

    1. Slavery and Slaves were present in The Arabian continent.

    2. These Slaves got their freedom only by Mohammad The Messenger of God.

    And don’t be deluded by my limited knowledge. There are numerous books written by both Muslims & Non Muslims. All these books have references to Slaves and Slavery right in the Arabian continent.

    Now please answer – What you want to do with the mass existing slave population ?

  76. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 10:05 AM | Permalink

    Turku

    Look at what you wrote… and how you wrote it. You stuck a meaningless quote at the end… why?

    I’ll rephrase it for your elucidation:

    Where does Zakir Naik get the notion that Muhammed, as the “mouthpiece of Allah”, had plans to abolish slavery sometime in the ‘future’- when he says:

    “The reason why Qur’an did not abolish slavery was because it was supposed to be abolished…afterwards.”

    I am glad we got that sorted. As for answer – see above.

    -

  77. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

    Stuart Parsons

    I am glad you dropped this ridiculous charade of:

    Sorry to interrupt again.

    Thank you for your attention gentlemen……. I will return to my master’s goats, Inshallah

    WTF – was that all about!

    —-

    As for the quote – it is attributed quote – not found in any works of Ghazali that I know of.

  78. Turku
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

    Contextualising the Arab slave trade and pointing out the Qur’an’s exhortations to treat slaves with kindness are both irrelevant to Zakir Naik’s claims and does not answer the question as pertinently as you think it does.

  79. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

    Mr Manan

    Please don’t do guess business here. If what I quoted is not in the books that I mentioned then you can say that. Otherwise it is disrespecting others valuable time and efforts.

    What? Why should I respect your time and effort? THAT is purely your business. Then why are you bothering to waste time here – go and do something useful. Also your misplaced anger shows that I guessed correctly.

    What you quote DOES NOT answer what you falsely claimed? How does the time Aristotle answer for Arabia at the dawn of Islam. You chose to waste your own time over pasting meaningless chunks. Why?

    You alleged that Arabia was mostly slave. Which simply isn’t true. Logically untrue as well….

    What has time of Aristotle – centuries before Age of Islam – has got to do with anything. Meaningless

    —-

    “Now you want proof of slaves in Arabia. “

    Again meaningless – that is NOT what I asked. I asked you to prove what you claimed.

    When Mohammad The Messenger of God took his responsibility, the majority of the population were slaves. This is a historical fact

    No it isn’t – else where is your proof? So far you have failed to give any… why?

    And you go off into pasting meaningless historical facts from Aristotle and what not. How is that answering this one question.

    - Most of the early followers of Mohammad The Messenger of God were Slaves.
    - Those slave people were the slaves of Arabian Masters.

    Try to read “Muhammad” by Martin Lings. It contains numerous references to the existence of Slaves in their day-to-day life of an Arab.

    Again this doesn’t answer what you claimed to be “a historical fact”. We are not quibbling about whether Arabia had slaves. Just over your fanciful claim. WHich was not true.

    —-

    Try to learn the history of any of the following slaves who accepted Mohammad The Messenger of God and you will find the presence of Slaves and Slave Markets in the Arabian Peninsula.

    1. The History of Zaid Son of Harithah.
    2. The History of Barakah (Umm Aiman), The Ethiopian Slave Woman.
    3. Bilal Al Habsh.
    4. History of Salman The Persian.
    5. History of Ammaar & Yasir
    6. History of Thauban the freed slave.
    7. History of Salim the freed slave.
    8. History of Yuhannis the freed slave.
    9. History of Muslim bin Yasar the freed slave.
    10. History of Aflah the freed slave.
    11. History of Abu Rafi the freed slave.
    12. History of Abu Atiyyah the freed slave.
    13. History of ‘Umair, the freed slave.
    14. History of Abu Murra, the freed slave

    You have posted 14 names – how does that mean that majority of the population was slave? How?

    http://www.inter-islam.org/Biographies/SalmanfarsiR.htm

    Also Salman Farsi was not a slave and never was.

    —-

    And don’t be deluded by my limited knowledge. There are numerous books written by both Muslims & Non Muslims. All these books have references to Slaves and Slavery right in the Arabian continent.

    huh? – this is bad cop out – you alleged:

    When Mohammad The Messenger of God took his responsibility, the majority of the population were slaves. This is a historical fact

    - This is the only thing I asked you to prove.

    Two post from you – and you couldn’t do it. Hence you made this up. A bit of Googling and then claiming limited knowledge won’t get you out of it.

    Do the decent thing and admit it and move on.

  80. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

    Contextualising the Arab slave trade and pointing out the Qur’an’s exhortations to treat slaves with kindness are both irrelevant to Zakir Naik’s claims and does not answer the question as pertinently as you think it does.

    Yet you (conveniently) overlooked that if binding more people to slavery is outlawed and freeing slaves is a virtue – the net result eventually is ZERO slavery.

    The thing is – when you are dead set against something – it doesn’t really matter what one offers as evidence – the other can simply overlook the difficult bits.

  81. Turku
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    That’s a good plan, but how long is your “eventually” in terms of chronological time?

    Zakir Naik’s happens to be “ten or twenty” years and *during the Prophet’s lifetime*, in the video posted in this article.

    But in reality, Islam never abolished slavery. And if Muslims choose to keep slaves in this day and age it might be unconventional and culturally prohibited, but there is no religious law forbidding them to do so.

  82. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    Turku

    That’s a good plan, but how long is your “eventually” in terms of chronological time?

    I am glad you agree.

    Zakir Naik’s happens to be “ten or twenty” years and *during the Prophet’s lifetime*, in the video posted in this article.

    No it isn’t – else where does Naik say: “ten or twenty” years. Also Naik has so many “perhaps” and “maybes” that he knows he is on shaky grounds.

    But in reality, Islam never abolished slavery. And if Muslims choose to keep slaves in this day and age it might be unconventional and culturally prohibited, but there is no religious law forbidding them to do so.

    True enough. But you cannot bind a free person into slavery… virtually impossible – hence slavery cannot return. However – it will bit more than “unconventional and culturally prohibited” – illegal under international law. Which even Muslims adhere to on common ground.

  83. Turku
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

    “No it isn’t – else where does Naik say: “ten or twenty” years. Also Naik has so many “perhaps” and “maybes” that he knows he is on shaky grounds.”

    Take a look at the video where Naik says as much, and which has been transcribed in this article.

    Because it was so much ingrained that most of the things which came as completely, alhamdulillah, during the time of the Prophet, they did. But certain things – like slavery, as said by scholars, were so ingrained that Islam set the ball rolling and the final outcome was supposed to take place, maybe, a few decades or a few years. Many things took place while he was alive. This abolishment of slavery, Islam set the ball rolling and saw to it that it was completed if not in the time of the Prophet then at least after that.

    “Also Naik has so many “perhaps” and “maybes” that he knows he is on shaky grounds.”

    Well, quite. And I respect the polite way of saying he’s a liar.

  84. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

    Well, quite. And I respect the polite way of saying he’s a liar.

    Ah…. but lying about what? He is non-committal but not a liar. Jeez – every politician worth his salt is good at this kind of speech. But it it doesn’t equate to a lie.

  85. Turku
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    Is Naik a politician?

  86. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

    Is Naik a politician?

    As slippery as any… but he isn’t a politician.

  87. Turku
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    It’s a lot more dangerous when religious figures are liars and are as “slippery” as corrupt politicians.

  88. Abu Abdul Mannaan
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 5:53 PM | Permalink

    @Amin Riaz

    I used the word “majority” not to mean that more than 50% were slaves. If you took it that word “majority” in that sense, it is my mistake and I am sorry for that.

    What I want to say that Arabia had enough slaves to be liberated by the hands of Mohammad The Messenger of God.

    I have brought the evidence to prove that this world was immersed in slavery and you called it a “meaningless chunk from Google” !!

    - Historical Jurisprudence by Guy Carleton Lee (London 1900).
    - Making of Humanity by Robert Briffault (London 1919).
    - Glimpses of World History by Jawaharlal Nehru (Dehra Dun Jail, 22 August 1933).

    All the Authors came long before Google came. and I don’t think that these three books are a “meaningless chunk from Google”.

    Even just for the sake of argument, what so called “meaningless chunk of Google” you brought, as a counter evidence to say that slaves were not the majority in Arabia in the 6th century ?

    And you have almost forgotten the question –

    – What you want to do with the mass existing slave population ?

    The question has anything to do with whether slaves were majority or not ?

    >>Also Salman Farsi was not a slave and never was.
    In your own words, who is posting “meaningless chunk from Google” ?

    “Narrated Salman Al-Farisi: That he was sold (as a slave) by one master to another for more than ten times (i.e between 13 and 19). – Imam Bukhari.

    Which is more authentic – Imam Bukhari or your “chunk” from Google ?

    And where is the “chunks” on the remaining 13 freed slaves ?

    Bring some references, instead of the so called chunks from Google.

    It seems that you almost forgotten the question -

    - What you want to do with the mass existing slave population ?

  89. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 22, 2012 at 10:09 PM | Permalink

    I used the word “majority” not to mean that more than 50% were slaves. If you took it that word “majority” in that sense, it is my mistake and I am sorry for that.

    I am glad you have finally come around. However the majority does mean more than 50%. That is why I challenged you over this. Your quote again:

    When Mohammad The Messenger of God took his responsibility, the majority of the population were slaves. This is a historical fact

    Clearly what you are alleging is that Arabian population was more than 50% and then you labelled it as a historical fact. Which turned out to be untrue.

    You wasted 2 posts over answering something completely different – than alleging that you had answered this.

    I have brought the evidence to prove that this world was immersed in slavery and you called it a “meaningless chunk from Google” !!

    Yes… because I asked you something specific – and not that was there slavery in Arabia or not. That was NOT under argument. Hence what you posted WAS meaningless in order to answer:

    When Mohammad The Messenger of God took his responsibility, the majority of the population were slaves. This is a historical fact


    - Historical Jurisprudence by Guy Carleton Lee (London 1900).
    - Making of Humanity by Robert Briffault (London 1919).
    - Glimpses of World History by Jawaharlal Nehru (Dehra Dun Jail, 22 August 1933).

    All the Authors came long before Google came. and I don’t think that these three books are a “meaningless chunk from Google”.

    And which one of them answers the question? Imagine that at school you were set to write about WW2 and you hand in the homework about the Greco-Persian wars.

    Even just for the sake of argument, what so called “meaningless chunk of Google” you brought, as a counter evidence to say that slaves were not the majority in Arabia in the 6th century ?

    Ah… you are asking me to prove something that I know is false? How idiotic is that?

    That is illogical:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

    It is up to you to prove what you say is true – as you have made the claim. I already know:

    When Mohammad The Messenger of God took his responsibility, the majority of the population were slaves. This is a historical fact

    The above is a classic logical fallacy.

    “In your own words, who is posting “meaningless chunk from Google” ?”

    Ha ha – I answered something specific with the right answer – not by your logic employed above. By using your logic, I would have given reference for Hz Abu Bakr Siddique.

    When you knew I was wrong in something see how quickly you gave the right answer by giving an exact answer. Where as for the above I asked you to prove your “historical fact” and you started talking about Aristotle. The end result being that – you admitted you were wrong.

    Hope the lesson is well learned!

  90. Abu Abdul Mannaan
    Posted May 23, 2012 at 2:03 AM | Permalink

    @Amin Riaz

    - What you want to do with the mass existing slave population ?

  91. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 23, 2012 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

    Abu Abdul Mannaan

    - What you want to do with the mass existing slave population ?

    As Makkah became virtually a new society – after defeat of the pagans and when Muslims took over – then integrated the slaves into the society as equals.

  92. Kisan
    Posted May 23, 2012 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    Slavery continued until 1970, 14 centuries later when under pressure from the West it was finally ended. There are reports of trading of slaves in Mecca until 1960. There are still fatwas from many learned sheikhs making slavery lawful even now, only condition being that Muslims are strong enough to enslave the Kafirs. Even super strict literalist Sunnis the Taliban made enslaving heretic Shiite women as sex slaves halal and did this recently in Afghanistan.

    If you kill the men and keep their women as sex-slaves in your harem and pump out lots of kiddies who are all momin then of course you are integrating people as “equals”. When you make captured womens marriages null and void and make their women halal for raping then you can do ‘integration’ in full swing.

    How about I capture Amin Riaz, castrate him and enjoy his wife and daughters and integrate them into my society, would he find that agreeable?

  93. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM | Permalink

    Kisan

    Trolling again my dear… :-)

    Or enjoying a “shag” off one of your lower castes? The ones that weren’t saved when most converted to Islam by the Sufis! May you are one of lowest caste… may be you want saving?

    —!

  94. Abu Abdul Mannaan
    Posted May 23, 2012 at 7:19 PM | Permalink

    @Amin Riaz, @Everyone right on this forum

    The whole point in talking to you is that you said – “Quran does not say anything about stopping slavery.”

    This is a misinformation on this forum.

    Finally you said – “As Makkah became virtually a new society – after defeat of the pagans and when Muslims took over – then integrated the slaves into the society as equals.”

    This is a great misinformation.

    Please don’t get offended. I don’t know who you are. I can only know you from what you said.

    Mohammad The Messenger of God took the trouble of slavery into his hands, from the very beginning of his mission.

    Look at the early followers of Mohammad The Messenger of God, we see

    1. Ammar the slave.
    2. Yasir the slave.
    3. Khabbab the slave.
    4. Bilal the slave.
    5 Sumayya the slave.

    Now coming to The Glorious Quran.

    If there exists a book under the sky that unambiguously states the methods of abolition of slavery, then it is The Glorious Quran.

    For most of the people the term Abolition means a sudden prohibition. But Quran’s approach was a controlled abolition. For the controlled abolition of the centuries old slavery, the Glorious Quran brought tremendous rulings.

    1. It brought the feeling of equality between different classes of people. “The most honorable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has God Fearing Mind” – Quran 49:13

    2. It said do good deed to parents, orphans … slaves. “and those (slaves) whom your right hands possess.” Quran 4:36

    3. Command to conduct the marriages of slaves. “And marry those among you who are single (Al-Ayama) and the pious of your servants and maidservants (slave women). Quran 24:32

    4. Raised the status of a Slave woman and a Slave man over a non believing Free woman and a non believing Free man. Quran 4:25

    5. Quran prohibited the use of slave women as an object of sex. “And force not your slave-girls to prostitution” Quran 24:33

    6. Brought several verses of generous Freedom of slaves. Quran 2:177, 90:11-18, 9:60

    Mohammad The Messenger of God further strengthened these guidelines that resulted in a slave becoming The Commander-In-Chief of a Great Army.

    Mohammad The Messenger of God Brought and Achieved the following in order for The Controlled Abolition of The Slavery.

    The 10++ Lessons on The Good Treatment of Slaves.
    The 5++ Laws on The Freedom of Slaves.
    The 3++ Results on The guidelines of Freedom of Slaves.
    The 10++ Practices on Slaves.
    The 10++ Advices to Slaves.
    The 10++ Slave Marriage Rules.
    The 15++ Intercourse Rules.
    The 10++ Punishable Slave Intercourse Rules.
    The 10++ Slave Freeing Occasions.
    The 10++ Slave Manumission Rules.
    The 10++ Slave Connections.
    The 10++ Freed Slave Narrations.
    The 5++ Slave Dignitaries.
    The 10++ Being The-Slave-of-The-Creator lessons.
    The 5++ Results of Being The-Slave-of-The-Creator lessons.
    The 10++ Being The-Slave-of-The-Creator Names.


    The explanation of the above titles won’t simply fit on this forum.

    In a single sentence, this controlled abolition of slavery by Mohammad The Messenger of God placed a discarded, disdained slave in the position of a Commander-In-Chief.

    He achieved the unmatched historical episode by making both slaves and masters, A True Slave of Almighty God.

    Brother Nizam who had commented on this forum, a bit earlier, has started a blog on the same subject. One can clearly see those explanation on the blog. He started by having the title – “A Journey From Babylon To WhiteHouse.” The blog name can be found somewhere above this forum.

    The point is, Mohammad The Messenger of God put forwarded The Idea of The Controlled Abolition of The Slavery. He eradicated the slavery by Integration.

    But

    The Forces of Evil were active in pursuing their need for slaves. They continued by having their own agenda. The result was the most evil code on the planet earth such as the following –

    - The Alabama Slave Codes.
    - The Code Noir of Louisiana
    - …

    The Forces of Evil brought new names for those slaves –

    Forces of Evil called them a Wench !
    Forces of Evil called them a Nigger !
    Forces of Evil called them a Mulatto !
    Forces of Evil called them a Metic !
    Forces of Evil called them a Negro !

    The same forces of evil continued their slavery till the 18 th century. When they found that they cannot move forward with the slavery, they “Abolished” it because they did not have any other option.

    As a result of this “Abolition” we have Michelle Obama and Barack Obama.

    How come Michelle Obama and Barack Obama ? You need to travel more and more.

  95. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 23, 2012 at 8:13 PM | Permalink

    Abu Abdul Mannaan

    You have habit of “waffling” and missing the point .

    1. Quran DID NOT outright ban Slavery like Alcohol. The point stands. Nothing you have said has added up against that.

    Good treatment of slavery – and freeing them as a virtue is a completely different thing.

    —-

    The same forces of evil continued their slavery till the 18 th century. When they found that they cannot move forward with the slavery, they “Abolished” it because they did not have any other option.

    As a result of this “Abolition” we have Michelle Obama and Barack Obama.

    How come Michelle Obama and Barack Obama ? You need to travel more and more.

    This doesn’t even make much sense.

  96. Abu Abdul Mannaan
    Posted May 24, 2012 at 4:42 AM | Permalink

    @Kisan

    >>How about I capture Amin Riaz
    Amin Riaz is a free man. A Muslim cannot enslave a free man because Mohammad The Messenger of God said –

    “There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgment. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money.” Reported By Imam Bukhari.

    >>castrate him
    A Muslim cannot castrate anybody, especially a slave because Mohammad The Messenger of God said –

    Whoever kills a slave, we will kill him; whoever mutilates a slave, we will mutilate him and whoever sterilizes a slave, we will sterilize him”. Reported by Muslim, Abu Dawud.

  97. Abu Abdul Mannaan
    Posted May 24, 2012 at 5:13 AM | Permalink

    @Amin Riaz

    >>Quran DID NOT outright ban Slavery like Alcohol.

    It is true. I didn’t say there was an outright ban of Slavery. But I did say that it was a controlled abolition.

    Even Alcohol was not banned outright. It took Three Stages. You know that.

    In the case of slavery it took several stages because

    - Unlike alcohol which can be thrown away by a person who had it, a Slave couldn’t be thrown away or Mohammad The Messenger of God didn’t want to throwaway a slave.

    - Unlike the alcohol, a Slave required to be taught good manners.

    - Unlike the alcohol, a Slave had to be given in marriage.

    - …

    - Unlike the alcohol, a Slave required to be integrated to the main stream community.

    The Prophet said, “He who has a slave-girl and

    - teaches her good manners and
    - improves her education and
    - then manumits and
    - marries her,

    will get a double reward; and any slave who observes Allah’s right and his master’s right will get a double reward.” Reported by Imam Bukhari.

    It was a long process to do all these things and for that Mohammad The Messenger of God brought The Massive Guidelines for The Controlled Abolition.

    The result of this controlled abolition placed a discarded, disdained slave in the position of a Commander-In-Chief.

    >>and freeing them as a virtue is a completely different thing.
    Freeing them as a virtue is NOT a completely different thing; it was part of The Controlled Abolition.

  98. Amin Riaz
    Posted May 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

    “It is true. I didn’t say there was an outright ban of Slavery.”

    I am glad you finally agree… that was the whole point of the discussion.
    The “eventual” ending of slavery in that context was not meant.

    Your enthusiasm was misplaced.

  99. porphyry of tyre
    Posted February 21, 2013 at 6:16 AM | Permalink

    @Abu Abdul Mannaan

    Salaamaleikum,

    (I am not a Muslim)

    You say “It is true. I didn’t say there was an outright ban of Slavery.”

    You say “But I did say that it was a controlled abolition.
    Even Alcohol was not banned outright. It took Three Stages. You know that.”

    My answers (later on more elaborate)
    - Ban on alcohol and slavery are not easily to compare with one another.
    - Quran is considered universal (timeless and for all places), not bound to a particular place or time in history.
    - Allah is not the author of confusion.
    - Book with the highest authority is the Quran, then come other books like the ahadith.
    - Allah is the most Merciful
    - Prophet Mohammed was not afraid to shaken societies and introduce new practices.
    - Islam is about spreading justice.
    - How slavery is against the spirit of Islam.

    Those three stages to ban alcohol are all to be found WITHIN the Noble Quran…aren’t they?? Yet the total ban on slavery is not to be found in the Noble Quran…is it??

    Why it has to be a controlled abolition (of slavery) taking such a long time that it wasnt even in the time-reach of the writing of the timeless Quran to totally abandon this practice? In other words why does the Quran not simply say “slavery must die out eventually” or something similar?

    Why so many pages have to written to find and explain this hidden meaning (abolition slavery in stages) of the Quran, a book that comes from Allah who is not the author of confusion?

    Or do we have to look for this ban OUTSIDE the Quran? That would mean those writings written by ordinary humans have a more clear or “moral” (according to immoral western standards) stance on slavery & Islam than the Quran, a book directly commanded by Allah the Most Merciful.

    Maybe you say Prophet Mohammed who had Allah the Almighty, the Bringer of Life and Death and all his powers on his side was carefully no to shaken the society by banning slavery?? To say Prophet Mohammed did not want to shaken society is not knowing the great character of him. He fought eight major battles, led eighteen raids, and planned another thirty-eight military operations in order to establish Islam and the influence of the only true religion he was the head of. Prophet Mohammed was not afraid to lose respect, gain less connverts or find opposition against him. He was incredible brave and even got wounded in battle. He was not a coward! He fought campaigns to establish Islam…yet he fought not one battle to stop slavetraders from doing their practices (declared inhumane by the UN).

    Maybe you think slavery is not that big of an issue compared to the establishing of Islam? But the slavery institution is considered by some westerners as the most vile of all human practices (therefore you can’t deny it…they claim).

    Islam was good and was all about spreading justice, yet it left this supposedly evil practice largely unchallenged during the time of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh)?

    Maybe you mean that slavery (owning, buying or selling slaves) is against the spirit if Islam?? Ask yourself, did Prophet Mohammed owned slaves, made slaves, sold slaves, made use of his own slaves and bought slave? Yes he did! Therefore slavery is NOT evil, wrong or bad. And therefore it is NOT against the spirit of Islam…right?

    Let’s be honest. Slavery is not condemned in Islam…at all.

  100. Abu Abdul Mannaan
    Posted March 5, 2013 at 5:58 PM | Permalink

    @porphyry of tyre

    >>Salaamaleikum,
    Wa alikum :)

    I have read your comment fully. It is replied in the below two points.

    1. When Mohammad The Messenger of God came, Slavery was rampant. Free people were enslaved. For that he said –

    “There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgment. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money.” Reported By Imam Bukhari.

    2. When Mohammad The Messenger of God came, a Significant portion of people were Slaves. For that he implemented the above said Controlled Abolition.

    The centuries long practice of taking the free men as Slaves were PROHIBITED by Mohammad The Messenger of God.

    The centuries long Slaves were INTEGRATED to the main stream society by Mohammad The Messenger of God by the means of Controlled Abolition.

  101. Amin Riadh
    Posted March 18, 2013 at 10:46 PM | Permalink

    “Let’s be honest. Slavery is not condemned in Islam…at all.”

    But this NOT being honest. . . .

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting

  • Categories

  • Archives