Rejecting practices endorsed by Mohammed?

[duncan_bayne]

By mentioning slavery, I was merely trying to provide a concrete example to illustrate my original question which was:

"... how is it possible for Muslims to reform Islam to reject practices carried out by Mohammed during his life, and approved (tacitly or explicitly) in the Quran itself?"

I raised slavery as a straightforward example of Mohammed doing something that is endorsed in the Koran, but that nowadays is recognized as immoral and is treated as a criminal act.

Some critics of Islam have argued that it is simply impossible for Muslims to criticize slave owners because Mohammed himself was one and endorsed the practice, and slavery is permitted (albeit under specific circumstances) in the Koran. Their argument is that an outright ban on all types of slavery would be impossible in the context of Sharia.

What I'm hoping for is for someone here to refute that assertion - to show that despite that fact that Mohammed owned slaves, and despite the fact that slavery is permitted within the Koran, it is possible for Islamic authorities to completely reject slavery.

Slavery was never initiated by Muslims.

In the Hadith of Bukhari's[1] it is said that that Muslim warriors took female slaves from conquered populations and raped them. Do you dispute that specific account, or the providence of that Hadith in general?

[1]http://www.muslimhope.com/BukhariHadiths.htm

 

[mudasir shah]

slavery in islam

as salaam alaikyum i think people need to learn islam from islamic sources rather than consulting anti-islamic websites which are very easily available on the internet.Regarding slavery,islam ended it,but in a gradual process.If all the slaves would have been freed at once it would have overcrowded the streets of arabia with freed slaves for whom there would have been no shelter as they were free people now.In view of these problems islam ended slavery in steps just like deaddiction of a drug which on abrupt removal causes deaddiction problems,even may lead to death

 

[duncan_bayne]

as salaam alaikyum i think people need to learn islam from islamic sources rather than consulting anti-islamic websites which are very easily available on the internet

The source of an argument doesn't alter its validity[1] - it is conceivable that a non-Muslim may be correct in a particular criticism of Islam, just as it is conceivable that a Muslim may be correct in a particular criticism of a non-Islamic philosophy or religion. Truth is truth, regardless of who is saying it or why.

That said, the reason I'm here is specifically because your mission statement says that you want to correct common misconceptions about Islam. I thought that this would be a good Islamic source to ask questions about Islam, and to seek refutation of the claims made by Spencer et al.

My frustration though is that we seem to be becoming concrete-bound in this discussion ... focusing on the issue of slavery (fascinating though it is - and I agree that Islam was more enlightened regarding slavery than its contemporaries in the Middle Ages through to the early 1900s) and ignoring the actual question I asked.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

 

[tabaria]

Read this;

Through your same example (slavery) you can understand the way Islam approached many social ills.

http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015526&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

 

[sha587]

Quote:
Slavery was never initiated by Muslims.
In the Hadith of Bukhari's[1] it is said that that Muslim warriors took female slaves from conquered populations and raped them. Do you dispute that specific account, or the providence of that Hadith in general?

Are you trying to prove that this act was initiated by Muslims? If you think or may be you have read it than i am sorry you are wrong. This act of female slave was never initiated by Muslims. But the question how Muslims practiced it this is completely a new thread so it is better not to discuss it here.

I think you are more concerned about your question of prophet(SAW) infallibility?
right.

I think here we have a problem regarding the system of morality we are practicing. Like we are practicing Islamic laws of morality so on the basis of these laws Muhammad(SAW) was innocent. Now the problem is you have different ground so all we need is a common system.

Like gays and lesbians were considered a psychological problem throughout history until yet. But we still think it is psychological problem. So we are different in opinion. Like fornication is strictly condemned by Christianity and Islam but now a days it is not a crime any more.So again we have a problem of system of morality that we are practicing. So my question to you is what system you are practicing.

Are you practicing Christianity or atheism?

 

[duncan_bayne]

Now the problem is you have different ground so all we need is a common system.

Why I'm focused on the issue of prophet infallibility is that it's my opinion that a system that consistently upholds human rights would be fundamentally incompatible with Islam (and Christianity for that matter), because it would entail absolute prohibitions on practices actually carried out by Mohammed and endorsed in the Koran and Hadith.

I asked the question I did specifically in the hopes of having that opinion refuted, and I'm still waiting for someone to address it.

Are you practicing Christianity or atheism?

Atheism isn't a philosophy that one practices; it's merely an opinion about whether or not the existence of God can be proved (or, arguably, whether it is subject to proof - many theists agree with atheists that the existence God cannot be proved, but must be accepted on faith).

As far as my own philosophy, I'm an Objectivist[1].

[1]http://www.solopassion.com/objectivism

 

[sha587]

Why I'm focused on the issue of prophet infallibility is that it's my opinion that a system that consistently upholds human rights would be fundamentally incompatible with Islam (and Christianity for that matter), because it would entail absolute prohibitions on practices actually carried out by Mohammed and endorsed in the Koran and Hadith.

I asked the question I did specifically in the hopes of having that opinion refuted, and I'm still waiting for someone to address it.

I think to make sure the correctness of a system one rule must be int there "Consistent". Right. We can not adopt a system which changes after every decade. So consistency is one of a constant value that a system must contain for its correctness. Islam has this characteristic. We are practicing the same morality system which we were practicing 1400 years before. The problem with existed systems are they changed with time. So we can not really judge one's action on those newly created moral systems. It is possible after some time people will be practicing slavery because their existed system allow them to do so and that exactly what happened in past. Nobody in that age criticized Islam on the issue of slavery because everybody was practicing it and now when they prohibited slavery they started criticizing Islam(the very same people).

As for the objectivism, your principal for moral value is "Ethics: Rational self-interest". So for you it is merely a self interest and depends ones own thoughts. Right. So what you believe does not give you a path but gives you freedom to choose a path.

 

[duncan_bayne]

By mentioning slavery, I was merely trying to provide a concrete example to illustrate my original question which was:

"... how is it possible for Muslims to reform Islam to reject practices carried out by Mohammed during his life, and approved (tacitly or explicitly) in the Quran itself?"

And I'm still waiting ... to make this even clearer, I envisage an exchange that looks a little like this:

Imam: You can't keep slaves.
Believer: But the Quran says I can, under certain clearly explained constraints. And Mohammed himself did, as did members of his army.
Imam: Oh, fair enough. Go right ahead.

What I'm hoping for, what I'm asking from you, is an explanation of how this conversation could go differently. I'm looking for an explanation of how an Imam could agree with a blanket ban on something - not necessarily just slavery - permitted and in the Quran and endorsed in the Hadith.

This would go a long way to disproving my opinion that Islam is inimical to the human rights guaranteed by secular Western societies.

 

[duncan_bayne]

Bump ... still hoping for an answer on this one.

 

[a_muslimah86]

to make this even clearer, I envisage an exchange that looks a little like this:

Imam: You can't keep slaves.
Believer: But the Quran says I can, under certain clearly explained constraints. And Mohammed himself did, as did members of his army.
Imam: Oh, fair enough. Go right ahead.

The little conversation you put...made me laugh!!!..so thank you for giving me the first laugh of the day!

First of all...an Imam would NEVER say something such as *oh..fair enough..go right ahead*...because the Imam speaking will be a SCHOLAR knowledged in PRINCIPLES AND LAWS of a RELIGION..he won't be your well-read *buddy*!!!...so I am sure he will give an answer worthy of his status..knowledge and religion!!!

second of all...spare us the human rights talk...because YOU KNOW...as a westerner...most likely watching all the current WEST-AFFLICTED-HORRORS AROUND THE WORLD...you do not possess even a SPEC of a right to speak about HUMAN RIGHTS...which is a joke ANYWAY!

third of all...while reading all about human rights so dearly cradled in and by western societies...it seems that you forgot to read about courtesy of speech...so here is a reminder to do that!...and lose the "I'm-superior-to-you" attitude because it's all in *your* head and it won't get you anywhere...

 

[Optimist]

My answer will be brief:

1. The picture of "slavery" in Islam have a huge difference to that in the Western mindset. Slaves in Islam have independent finances. Beating/torture/overworking is not allowed. Even when calling them, one should use "my boy" and "my girl" instead of "my slave" as we are all slaves of Allah (glorified He may be). There are stories in muslim history of slaves that rose to the highest ranks in the state including the highest leadership position.

I'm not saying that abuse of slaves did not happen in muslim history but then this is a different story .... we were told that we will follow the mistakes of past nations after all.

2. Muhammad (peace be upon him) did own slaves AND freed them all. See "The sealed nectar" seerah book.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch7s10.html#A Day before his Death

 

[nyerekareem]

:salam2:

i think i can make my response pretty quick.

we here in america celebrate certain days for certain past presidents, the majority of those presidents were in fact slave owners, yet the country celebrates them as heroes and calls them the founding fathers of the country. my father is an american black, so slavery is always a sensitive issue for me, however i have come to realize that, even though those past presidents were slave owners, the majority of the people will mostly remember them for being heroes and founders of the nation. there were two sides of victims, the slave and the slave owner. the slaves, simply for being slaves and the slave owners for being victims of their times.

the good thing that these former presidents/ slave owners did, like islam was that they set up a system that can make things better. yes, there were slaves in islam but the system was created to eventually rid islam of it.

 

[Zaynab123]

salam(peace)

Mercy for Slaves

The Noble Prophet (saw) was particularly kind to slaves. He used to say, "They are your brothers; give them to eat what you eat, and give them to wear what you wear." Whenever he received any slaves, he always gave them freedom but they could never free themselves from his kindness and generosity. They left their parents, relatives and families and regarded it as an honor to live in bondage to him.

Zaid Ibn Haritha (ra) was a slave. Muhammad (saw) freed him and gave him the choice to go with his father, who had come, to take him, but he refused to go with his father and preferred to stay with the Prophet. Muhammad (saw) loved Usama, son of Zaid, so much that he used to say that if he had been a girl, he would have adorned him with ornaments.

Slaves felt humiliated at being called slaves. He advised his companions not to say "my slave" or "my slave-girl" but to say, "my son" or "my daughter." He also told the slaves not to call their masters "lord" for Allah alone was the Lord. He was so kind to slaves that his last admonition before he died was, "Fear Allah in regard to your slaves." Abu Dharr (ra) was one of the converts and Muhammad (saw) praised him for his honesty. Once he abused a non-Arab slave, who complained to the Noble Prophet (saw) about this.

He reprimanded Abu Dharr (ra) and said, "You still have some traces of Days of Ignorance; these slaves are your brothers. Allah has given you authority over them; if they are not suited to your temperament, sell them. Don't harm Allah's creatures. Give them to eat what you eat; and to wear what you wear. Don't give them that much work which they cannot do. If you assign a piece of work to them which is beyond their capacity, then give them a helping hand to finish their work."

Once Abu Masud Ansari (ra) was beating his slave when he heard a voice behind him say, "Abu Masud! Allah has more power and control over you than you have over this slave." Abu Masud (ra) turned and saw that it was Allah's Messenger (saw). He said, "O Allah's Messenger! I free this slave for the pleasure of Allah." Prophet Muhammad (saw) replied, "If you had not done so, the fire of Hell would have touched you."

People in those days arranged the marriages of slaves but forcibly separated them whenever they wished. One man arranged the marriage of his slave to his slave-girl and then waited to separate them. The slave complained to Allah's Messenger (saw), who stood up in the Mosque and addressed the people, "Why do people marry slaves and then separate them? The right of marriage and divorce belongs only to the husband and wife."

The effect of this kindness was that many slaves of polytheists used to run away and come to him. He used to grant them freedom. When the spoils of war were distributed, slaves were given their due share. The newly freed slaves received their shares first for they did not have any property.

Once a man came to Prophet Muhammad (saw) and said, "O Allah's Messenger! How many times should I forgive the mistakes of slaves?" The Noble Prophet (saw) kept quiet. The man repeated his question three times, and the Prophet replied at the third time, "Forgive them seventy times every day." A man had two slaves but was not happy with them. He used to beat and abuse them but they did not change their ways. He complained to the Prophet (saw) and asked for his advice. Prophet Muhammad (saw) said that if his punishment was in proportion to their wrongs, well and good; otherwise Allah would punish him for his excesses.

On hearing this, the man was upset and began crying. Prophet Muhammad (saw) recited the verse from the Qur'an, "We shall set up scales of justice on the Day of Judgment." (1:47), and observed that the man did not read the Qur'an. After this he said, "O Allah's Messenger, it is better that I release them from my possession. Be witness that they are now free."

quran:www.quranexplorer.com

wasalam(peace)

 

[Optimist]

I'll elaborate on my response above. I have to admit that a brother inspired me to put this answer together and contributed heavily to its making. His identity, on his own request, shall remain unknown.

1. Please see post above for details of how "slaves" were treated in Islam.

I'll add to this by mentioning two famous examples of "slaves" that became kings in the muslim history. The first was Kafoor Alakh-shidi. His biography is here:

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

and the second is one of the most famous kings in muslim history: Saif Ad-Din Qutuz. Please find his biography in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_ad-Din_Qutuz

2. No learned Imam will tell you that Islam put a blanket ban on "slavery" (and I shall continue to use the quote sign since we seem to understand the word in different ways). Please find a detailed explanation of this in the following link:

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/94840

3. I understand that you approach this whole topic from a secular & humanist mindset which rather opens a bigger debate to the value of Islam vs. Secularism. Allow me to refer you to one of the good books on the subject:

http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showpost.php?p=74045&postcount=1
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=36626

and for this purpose it is perhaps worth mentioning that secularism does not equal abolishing slavery. Secularism has a fluid ethic and law structure where there are no real boundaries except the economical and the "feel good" factor which can mean anything. Allow me to remind you that slavery was legal under the United States constitution (effective from 1789 until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865).

And the Constitution of the United States called for secularism in the First Amendment [ratified in 1791] which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And the Supreme Court of the United States has stated in Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947) that:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1

In fact, under the United States Constitution and before the ratification of the 13th Amendment, the Supreme Court in Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1857) said the following statements:

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html

So no ... secularism does not equal abolishment of slavery.

Closer to home, if secularism is all good as you claim, how come it failed so miserably in stopping prostitution, which is in many ways the worst bit of slavery ? If anything, prostitution is glorified and promoted in many secular countries in the world. Take the UK for example, where prostitution is legal and there are an estimated 80,000 (these are career prostitutes):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6172273.stm

BW

 

[duncan_bayne]

I'll elaborate on my response above. I have to admit that a brother inspired me to put this answer together and contributed heavily to its making. His identity, on his own request, shall remain unknown.

Thanks to both of you for the more detailed post.

2. No learned Imam will tell you that Islam put a blanket ban on "slavery" (and I shall continue to use the quote sign since we seem to understand the word in different ways). Please find a detailed explanation of this in the following link:

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/94840

I'm aware that slavery has a different connotation in Islam, and that it is limited to captives taken during war[1]. IslamonLine.net[2] makes the following point (my emphasis):

Having clarified the above, we would like to state that it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with them.

So, when Muslims are ready to take the next step and completely prohibit slavery ... how would that be possible? How can you say "well now we want to take the next step and ban slavery entirely" when the Quran and Hadith clearly permit slavery during warfare?

This is what I'm getting at when I say "I'm looking for an explanation of how an Imam could agree with a blanket ban on something - not necessarily just slavery - permitted and in the Quran and endorsed in the Hadith."

As I understand it, it would simply not be possible to completely prohibit slavery without changing the Quran, disregarding the Hadith, and implying that Mohammed had done wrong to own slaves - and so there is no possible way for Islam to abolish slavery. I'm hoping I'm wrong about this, which is why I'm posting here.

So far, no-one has answered me directly; I have seen comparisons of Islam to Christianity and secular humanism, I have seen explanations of the historical context of Mohammed's position on slavery, but I have not seen anyone prepared to stand up and say "yes, complete abolition is possible, and here's how it could be done" or "no, Islam is immutable and will forever condone the taking of slaves as per the Quran and Hadith."

[1] http://www.al-islam.org/slavery/

[2] http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...nglish-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar

 

[Almeftah]

Dear duncan_bayne;

Slavery has long been practiced before the coming of Islam (Submission). In the
pre-Islamic Egyptian, Jewish, Greek and Roman societies , slavery was in full use in different aspects. Aristotle subscribed to the idea that men were born not to be equal as some will become master due to their superior brain power and intellectual capacity while others will become slaves.

The approach taken by Islam (Submission) is full of wisdom and at the same time provides a package of pro-active measures to eliminate this practice. It is a gradual but effective approach which combines several affirmative measures. The main strategy is:

To narrow down the sources of slavery with a view to eliminating it all-together; and

OPENING a wide avenue for slaves to gain independence.

People became slaves because of criminal actions, unpaid debts, gambling, kidnapping, piracy, irresponsible parents who sold their children into slavery, being descendants of slaves, prisoners of war and voluntary submission to be a slave in order to get out from the miseries of life such as acute poverty. These were effectively reduced by Islam.

The provision of slavery through wars was no longer important after the Islamic civilization redefined the mode of interaction between nations -- from power struggle to peaceful and productive coexistence. Indirectly but effectively Islam has closed this source of slavery.

Islam (Submission) opened all the doors to free the slaves by setting up rules which greatly facilitated the emancipation of slaves:

The initiative of Islam in promoting independence for slaves was carried out in the following ways:

(1) Encouraging the masters and the Muslim societies at large to help in freeing the slaves. The act of freeing the slave is considered a noble one which is highly valued by God. The slaves themselves entered into an agreement with the master to buy their independence by paying certain amounts of money. The society was encouraged to help in providing the freedom money.

[24:33] “Those who cannot afford to get married shall maintain morality until GOD provides for them from His grace. Those among your servants who wish to be freed in order to marry, you shall grant them their wish, once you realize that they are honest. And give them from GOD's money that He has bestowed upon you. ………”

(2) Making the act of freeing the slave a part of punishment for any criminal act as well as for non-conformity of the Islamic rituals. There are several verses in the Holy Quran which specifically mentioned the requirement of freeing the slave as a way of meeting the punishment for wrongdoing. See 4:92, 5:89 and 58:3

(3) Using Charity money as a financial source to free the slave.

[9:60] Charities shall go to the poor, the needy, the workers who collect them, the new converts, to free the slaves, to those burdened by sudden expenses, in the cause of GOD, and to the traveling alien. Such is GOD's commandment. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

[2:177] “Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west. Righteous are those who believe in GOD, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; and they give the money, cheerfully, to the relatives, the orphans, the needy, the traveling alien, the beggars, and to free the slaves; and they observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat); and they keep their word whenever they make a promise; and they steadfastly persevere in the face of persecution, hardship, and war. These are the truthful; these are the righteous.”

[90:10-13] Did we not show him the two paths? He should choose the difficult path. Which one is the difficult path? The freeing of slaves.

Finally we can say that Islam found the slavery system already existing and put forward a plan to abolish it.

No slaves or Free the slaves:

Some people question why God in the Quran did not prohibit slavery and instead commanded and rewarded the freeing of the slaves.

God, The Almighty, knows that slavery is a social disease that will persist as long as humans are present on earth. If the order in the Quran is to prohibit slavery, it would be a noble command but since ONLY the believers in the Quran would be the ones following the Quran, the command would not help slavery outside Islam (Submission.) Every Muslim would then free his slaves and remind the other Muslims not to have slaves any more and their duty stop at that. The command in the Quran to FREE THE SLAVES, does not stop at the Muslims or Islam but extend to all the slaves wherever they are. A muslim (Submitter) would therefore free any slaves he might have had and after that turns to any other slaves in any location and of any religion to free, as commanded by God in the Quran. In other words, the command to free the slaves is far more reaching and far more effective than the mere order to stop having slaves.

you can read more about it at the following website:
http://www.submission.org/islam/slavery.html

 

[AleahKoto]

Salvery In Islam Not quite what we think it was

Slavery in Islam was more like having an employee that is extended family. IT wasn't like the beating them and making them live in shacks and not taking care of them. Every slave ate the same food, wore the same clothes as the "owner", they received medical attention, and care and were allowed to marry into the owners family. They were also protected.

In the other "slave sense", the people who were slaves, were worked hard, went without food or medical attention, were beaten mercilessly, most didn't have a place to sleep or clothing to wear. They were treated like lessor people.

Slavery wasn't always what we think of now. It used to be going into the employ of someone for food, shelter, clothing and protection. LOl kinda like working for someone now days.

The treatment of people is what gave slavery a bad connotation.

Aren't we slaves of Allah? yet we are fed, clothed, protected, loved etc.

 

[Optimist]

So, when Muslims are ready to take the next step and completely prohibit slavery ... how would that be possible? How can you say "well now we want to take the next step and ban slavery entirely" when the Quran and Hadith clearly permit slavery during warfare?

1st I'm sorry for the delay in reply. Muslims don't fiddle with their religion every time a new wave of fashionable ethics arrive. I hope this answers your question.

This does not mean you have to practice slavery to be a Muslim or even a good one. Not at all. There is no reason why Muslims cannot join a global agreement on banning slavery to all and this is factual reality in our time. Slavery is banned in Saudia Arabia. Muslims did not wage any wars to preserve slavery. This is not in the spirit of Islam. Remember that the practice at the time was reciprocal. There is no real reasons why the practice shall not come back. During WWII, the Japaneses & the Germans took girls from defeated nations and put them in brothels. There were sex slaves for all practical purposes (maybe not the name). These were industrial modern nations. Just because we have electricity & PCs does not make us any less able of wrong doing I'm afraid. This practice is totally banned in Islam (for both free & slave women). Islam is a very honest religion. It is all too good to say yeah .. we banned it and then give it a different name for the sake of publicity ... this is hypocrisy and is a major sin in Islam.

And what exactly happens to POWs in our days ? Guantanamo any one ? Get killed ? Sent to concentration camps ? At least Islam will put POWs in their masters houses and feed them what they feed and dress them what they dress. Islam's focus is on guiding humanity and will consider this even for the POW who have just been captured killing Muslims. You will agree that a POW is more likely to see the positives of Islam by living with Muslims. This has been one of the routes many people came to Islam.

As I understand it, it would simply not be possible to completely prohibit slavery without changing the Quran, disregarding the Hadith, and implying that Mohammed had done wrong to own slaves - and so there is no possible way for Islam to abolish slavery. I'm hoping I'm wrong about this, which is why I'm posting here.

You don't need to reject the religion or wrong Muhammad (peace Be upon him) to stop practicing slavery. The ruler can simply ban Muslims from doing it if this would stop other nations from taking Muslims as slaves. This is just one of many reasons how you can stop it without rejecting the religion.

It is unfair that you judge Islam by the lowest denominator. For e.g. Islam permits divorce but fully acknowledge it is not a good thing although sometimes a necessity. You cannot conclude from this that Islam promotes divorce.

Hope this answers your question.

 

[NGL11]

Ok, Duncan Bayne, yes I as a Muslim accept that Muhammad (P) did practice slavery but to say that our enlightened standards or modern times invalidate his infallibility is false.
The first reaosn for this is because the prophet Muhammad (P) enforced many humanitarian reforms of slavery which were unprecedented in his time to say that he by our standards today would be immoral for this and therefore could not be infallilbe is wrong for the reason that the current ecnomic situation of the Arabian Peninsula largely depended on slavery.
The way you judge Muhammad is unreasonable to begin with as I could say well Islam permitted abortion and divorce for women as well as allowing them property rights which only came into effect in the West in the last century or so. It would have taken longer than the time Muhammad had to eradicate slavery completely. The fact that Islam allows slaves to ask for freedom and that owners should pay the ransom for slaves as well as uphold the basic human rights of being treated fairly and like 'a brother' shows that Islam was against slavery and everything it stood for.
You apparently listed a hadith from Bukhari that shows Muslims who raped captives after conquering other peoples is a gross lie. The source you quote to begin with is a Christian website - there goes the objectivity on anything regarding Islam.
First of all please do not knowingly portray Muslims as the ones who went around waging war when in fact war is only fought in self defense.
Secondly, the issue of raping slave women is wrong the Qur'an states that a master may only have intercourse with his slave girl if she permits him to 'lie with her', rape is a grave sin in Islam as it violates a woman's chastity and dignity and is punishable by death which shows that Islam doe snot tolerate it.
People assume because the slave is the possession of the master he can do anything with his 'possession', well let me tell you something the perceprion of the slave being a possession is not what one would regard to be strictly correct because possession entails basically doing anything you want with the slave. Islam forbids this as I stated earlier Muslims are required to treat our slaves as brothers and to not beat them and treta them with kindness and respect; we are not even meant to call them slaves when addressing them.
Another point I would like to make is Islam's stance on the freeing of slaves as mentioned by fellow Muslims above charity money was to be used to feed poor, orphans and free slaves etc. Muslims were encouraged to marry slavewomen to free them (no obligation upon the part of the slavegirl to do accept) but it did offer her the opportunity to higher status. Also if a slavegirl did become pregnant then the Prophet ordained that she could not longer be sold and that the maintenance of her and the child was obligatory upon the master and her status was lifted so that she now had rights to education and the child was born free.
Muhammad (P) knew that a complete abolishment of slavery would have resulted in a backlash by the Arabs as it was deeply rooted in their culture so Islam steadily began to eradicate the sources of slavery and also encouraged Muslims to free slaves. So one can deduce from this overwhelming evidence that Islam progressively tried to end slavery much like the prohibition of alcohol (wine) - first it was do not come to prayers intoxicated and eventually it was outright banned. The same can be said for slavery however the ending of slavery would require a longer period of time as it was a fundamental part of Arab culture as well as maintaining economic stability in the region so many businesses depended on it. The Qur'an gives many principles and guidelines for Muslims to follow so we could eventually eradicate slavery so total abolishment of slavery is a plausible concept.

 

[NGL11]

sorry to have been so firm in my response but I believe that people nowadays just want to attack Islam at on every issue even when you consider that Islam reformed slavery dramatically amongst other things such as saying women are equal to men and outlining ethics of war.