THE REAL [GOD] = ALLAH ...... join here you all need to know

Yes, that is something I realize and the type of answer I'm looking for. While I don't think in Muhammed's mind he was doing it out of very bad intention or wrong choice, I do believe that it would be wiser if he adopted her if she was in need of shelter or wasn't, doesn't matter. That was not the best decision judging by the facts I have recieved.

It also seems to be the case in all the prophets. Whatever is socially acceptable, ie, causes more harm than good to deviate from, seems to be the norm of holy texts. Neither prophets I know of spoke bad of slavery. And we all know our life isn't for another to own. And in my belief, only God owns us. And I see the prophets' viewpoints. Even too much deviation from the norm, even for the good, can bring chaos. So I feel it must be done gradually over time. And that is my answer as to why the prophets seemingly allowed slavery. If I was sinning much, on drugs, violent, perverse, smoked, drank, etc, yes, all of them are wrong. But to quit one at a time or all of them slowly and gradually, that would be the way to bring about more peace. Otherwise, there would be lots of chaos going on inside and more chance for impulsive actions and doing something I would regret. In asking these questions, I'm trying to get us all to think as to why we do what we do. To test ourselves. Simple as that. We test why we bevieve as such, and after the test, our belief is that much stronger and can feel more secure in telling others what we know and why/how we got there. One that doesn't question his beliefs will be guilty of ignorance and the consequences of it if it is found to be wrong.

And those that shed bled too readily, value not others nor their own blood, therefore don't value creation nor it's creator.
And those that expend money too readily, value not their own nor others sweat, toil, and labor.
And those that expend their words too readily and speak as if they are endless, value not their own words nor the words of others. A wise man speaks only when he is sure his words are valid. And I have never seen a wise man who is a blabbermouth.
And those that shed tears readily value less the tears of others. Along with those that are quick to share jester with others. These people are rich in emotion and value the emotion of others less. These are the ones that spread impulse on others so as to not feel guilty for having their own impulses. God help these people, for peace is hard to find for those that are in excess. Peace is the middleground between not enough and too much, it is content. Not so much you have to give to others and not so little you have to beg for it. Excess is the lover of no sound mind. There mustn't be a remainder, leave it for God. He handles all that is excess and all that is infinite. In that way, the mind can be free of excess wants and have true peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please read the Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s). Unless you read the sources of Islam, you cannot understand Islam. I thought this was common sense though. Please ask me if you need the links.

He did not, Hazrat Aisha (ra) as related by the majority view of Muslims Muslim have been above 14 years of age when he consummated the marriage. Allah swt told the Prophet (s) in a dream that he was to marry her. The Prophet (s) never questioned Allah swt. The position of Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) as the successor of the Holy Prophet (s) was secured by the marriage and Hazrat Aisha (ra) is one of the major transmitters of Hadith and also was a scholar of Islamic theology, the greatest of all the wives of the prophet Muhammad (s) in teaching Islam to the people. We call the wives of the Prophet, Umm Al Mu'mineen, which means Mothers of the faithful, this is the role of them among the Muslims and the respect we give them.

The Prophet Muhammad (s) never killed a man with his own hands. The laws of Allah swt in the Quran presented the execution of criminals, which he decreed as law in the Islamic State.

My views are clear. If anyone needs to ask me, they can post after me or they can send me a private message.

The Prophets of Allah (peace be to them) aren't perfect and did make mistakes, however they were corrected by Allah swt and these corrections were made examples for the rest of us to teach us. The Prophets (peace be to them) are sinless and do not do wrong on purpose. They are pure and better than other human beings, this is why they are chosen by Allah swt above all humanity.

As you have seen from my knoweldge of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s), I am quite learned in the beliefs and laws of Islamic theology. I never accept a thing unless I find its proof and its reason in the books of Islam. Unlike many others, I judge my faith by reason and common sense. I embrace Islam fully as I view it as the perfect system of guidance for humankind. Islam will bring people from the depths of humiliation and suffering, to the heights of the world and give them security and peace. Allah swt will personally smile on those who do good and love Him.

I agree completely. The laws of religion are not to be accepted without researching the topics in the Holy books. No belief or action should be accepted if it is contrary to your reason and logic. Religion and reason should go together.

Might I suggest, you also research the Quran and the Sunnah before commenting on Islam.

Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly, some forms of Slavery are actually supported by Qur'anic teachings. Hence in a millenia it was still practiced. If there was to be some sort of gradual withdrawal from the selling of humans one would have thought that it would have happened in 1000 years. It did not. That leads me to two conclusions.
1) That Slavery was not meant to be abolished.
2) Islam is not enlightening enough for people to come to the conclusion that Slavery is wicked.

DH herself supports Islmaic sanctioned enslavement of humans.

Secondly, the English ended slavery under their colonial mandate. It ended as soon as they made it illegal.

Thirdly, as the Qur'an is the word of God (if you believe in God) and God can do anything. That is, ANYTHING. That means that it is possible for God to put some words into Mohammads mouth and these words are soooooo inspirational that all of humanity realizes when hearing these words that Slavery is wrong. You see, that's the thing about believing in a creator that can so ANYTHING.

So what does all of this mean?
It means that

i) either the creator loves the wicked institution of slavery. And therefor is wicked.

ii) that Mohammed did not hear the voice of angels realying Gods words and made everything up or, that the very least, compiled many stories from many cultures (probably both).

iii) There is no God.

iv) a combination of the above.



You decide,

Michael

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mishkat Al-Masabih: book 8, ch. 3, last hadith

Ibn Abbas said he asked Uthman what had induced them to deal with al-Anfal which is one of the mathani and with Bara`a which is one with a hundred verses, joining them without writing the line containing "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,"[5] and putting it among the seven long ones. When he asked again what had induced them to do that, Uthman replied, "Over a period suras with numerous verses would come down to God's messenger, and when something came down to him he would call one of those who wrote and tell him to put these verses in the sura in which such and such is mentioned, and when a verse came down he would tell them to put it in the sura in which such and such is mentioned. Now al-Anfal was one of the first to come down in Medina and Bara`a was among the last of the Qur'an to come down, and the subject-matter of the one resembled that of the other, so because God's messenger was taken without having explained to us whether it belonged to it, for that reason I joined them without writing the line containing `In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,' and put it among the long suras."



Well I'd like a consensus, when people read the above Islamic information what conculsoin do people draw? To me it seems that using some small amout of reason and logic, one will simply conclude that (in his own words) Uthman joined them without writing the line containing `In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,' and put it among the long suras.


Ergo, Uthman had a hand in the creation of the Qur'an. And actually, if DH was fair she would recognize that any Muslim scholar worth his/her salt agrees to this. Anyone remember the palastinian scholar that was tossed from the 4th floor of a school building by his students for teaching them such?


reason and logic..... yea right.... baaaaaa baaa baaaaaa is more like it

 

As I have presented my point of view before, I do not accept enslavement of human beings, however I do accept the taking of prisoners of war (which in Arabic terminology is a slave of the state), however this slave of the state (prisoner of war) is not similar at all to what you people in the west would regard as a slave, as was demonstrated in the slavery of Blacks in America.

I do not agree with your meaning of slave and I am against the slavery, but I do believe that prisoners of war are allowed to be taken. Majority of the world's nations allow this and engage in it, including America.

As you have seen, Islam is indeed the most just and most honest religion in all of humanity.

Peace.

 

I've read large portions of the Qur'an, and find it composed mostly of unconnected, disjointed statements about civil and religious rules for living.

• Mohammed receiving "revelations" of the Qur'an while ensconced in a cave is also the case with John receiving the Christian Book of Revelations while in a cave during his exile.
• Jiins are a holdover from the Arab pantheon where spirits inhabited things like trees, rocks, water, etc.
• The crescent symbol of Islam is a holdover from the worship of Nanna/Sin in ancient Mesopotamia.
• "I am a slave of (fill in the blank) " is consistent with the religious practice of the ancient Mesopotamians.
• The acknowledgement of Abram (Abraham) is an attempt to lend legitimacy to Islam by associating it with Judaism and early Christianity.
• The inclusion of jiins and the crescent was to make it more acceptable to the Arab tribes.
• Mohammed founded Islam as a military/political movement to conquer Arab tribalism, but Arab tribalism conquered Islam instead.
• Islam has no real theology; the mosques being a simple transformation of the Arab tribal culture, each imman being in effect a tribal chief.

​

 

I've read your post, and find it composed mostly of unconnected, disjointed statements about Islam.

You obviously have not read the Quran, or the history of Islam if you make such statements.

Peace.

 

Ever notice how nothing DH ever posts slips by without a political shot at the West or the US?

This statement, in any event, is totally unfounded. How is the life of a slave in islam supposed to be better? There don't seem to be any survivors of the massive African slave-trade in islamic countries today; nothing at all comparable to the extant African-American community in the US. How are we meant to believe that their lives were any better under islam?

Which you would make slaves of. Yes, we understand.

Could we speak to a more just and honest practitioner of it then?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Geoff

 

Interesting perspective, Marv.

Geoff

 

Theres a funny commentary on this question at the answeringinfidels site:
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/content/view/73/42/

 

Sounds like Mohammed had a wet dream about a little girl........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, you define slave according to your taste of the day? Slaves are people who are owned by someone else. Prisoners of war are not slaves, they are not owned by anyone. Yet, Islam would have them treated as slaves, which is far worse.

It doesn't matter whether you agree or not, the definition of a slave is well-known and agree upon, and prisoners of war are not slaves by any stretch of the imagination. Islamic law is wrong in that regard.

If the law states to take prisoners as slaves, then Islam is cruel and inhumane. It should be abolished immediately.

 

DH, the modern day apologist you quote from is at odds with both his fellow Islamic chroniclers and history itself. So which is it? Was the Qur’an an instrument to rid the world or Slavery or was it a tool used to continue the practice? Well, I think history and its chroniclers speaks for itself.

Question: Was slavery ended in 1.4 millennia after the introduction of Islam in the ME?
Answer: No, Muslims were buying and selling slaves right up until this last generation.

Question: Does the Qur'an forbid owning humans?
Answer: No, Muslims were buying and selling slaves right up until this last generation.

Question: What example did The Prophet set?
Answer: He owned Slaves.

That is the truth. There is no way to get around it. The only thing left is to ask why? Well, not only do the

You neglected to mention The Prophet owned slaves.
Did he have to own slaves? No. But he liked owning Slaves didn't he? So guess what - he owned them.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya , as you know, is one of the greatest scholars and chroniclers of Islam. In his book, "Zad al-Ma'ad" (Part I, p. 160), he says, "Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased (more slaves) than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He (once) sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more (than he sold). He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out."

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya relies always on the prophet's biographies written by great ancient scholars. Therefore, he is regarded by Muslims as an authority, a primary source and a leader among the students of the Islamic religion. This scholar tells us in his book, "Zad al-Ma'ad" (part 1, pp. 114, 115, and 116), the following,
"These are the names of Muhammad's male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, 'Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad'am, Karkara, Abu Rafi', Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu 'Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (`ship').

He himself relates his own story; he says:

The story shows their ruthlessness and does not need explanation or clarification. The ill treatment Muhammad and his companions made of Mahran is very repulsive. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya is not the only one who recorded this episode and the list of names of Muhammad's slaves. The Tabari also (in his Chronicles, Volume 2 p. 216, 217, 218) presents us with these accounts. No one among the contemporary Muslim leaders denies these matters, especially if he is faced with the Tabari's and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's records.

Still, in regard to Muhammad's slave Zayd Ibn Haritha, Muhammad set him free and adopted him, then he married him to his (Muhammad's) cousin Zaynab. Later Zayd divorced her after he realized that Muhammad was captivated by her. We've already discussed this scandalous story maybe now its starting to make a little more sense? But I doubt it.

Maid Slaves: In this same Section (One, p. 116), Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya as well as other Muslim authors of chronicles recorded the list of names of Muhammad's maid-slaves. They are Salma Um Rafi', Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa'd, Khadra, Radwa, Razina, Um Damira, Rayhana, Mary the Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war.


Lastly, in case you missed: Ibn Timiyya says emphatically,
"Her child whom she bore from him would be the property of her master according to all the Imams (heads of the four Islamic schools of law) because the child follows the (status) of his mother in freedom or slavery. If the child is not of the race of Arabs, then he is definitely an owned slave according to the scholars, but the scholars disputed (his status) among themselves if he was from the Arabs - whether he must be enslaved or not because when A'isha (Muhammad's wife) had a maid-slave who was an Arab, Muhammad said to A'isha, `Set this maid free because she is from the children of Ishmael.'"
Remember these are the highest and most respected MUSLIM SCHOLARS I’m quoting.


If you are unconvinced then just ask yourself. Did Muhammad own Slaves? Did Muslims trade in Slaves for over 1400 years? Who was it that ended Slavery? Islam or had the attitude change in the slave trading Europeans end it with their laws? The answers are quite obvious.

Michael

 

In case it was missed from above:

In Part 4, p. 177 of the "Prophet Biography" (Al-Road Al-Anf'), Ibn Hisham says,
"According to Islamic law concerning prisoners of war, the decision is left to the Muslim Imam. He has the choice either to kill them or to exchange them for Muslim captives, or to enslave them. This is in regard to men, but women and children are not permitted to be killed, but must be exchanged (to redeem Muslim captives) or enslaved - take them as slaves and maids."



It is very evident that prisoners of war are to be either killed, exchanged, or enslaved. Therefore, being a prisoner of war is different to that of being enslaved.

Enslavement occurs TO prisoners of war.
Prisoners of war are MADE INTO slaves.


Michael

 

If soldiers are told that if they were to be taken prisoner and made into slaves, they most likely would never let that happen and would fight to the death.

"All men lose when they die and all men die. But a slave and a free man lose different things. They both lose life. When a free man dies, he loses the pleasure of life. A slave loses his pain. Death is the only freedom a slave knows. That's why he's not afraid of it. That's why we'll win."

~~Spartacus

And that is why Muslims would never win.

 

Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said :"if one takes a free person and sells him or her in slavery, one will never have the smell of Paradise."

Prophet Muhammad (s): "There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah).


The Position of Slavery in Islam
by Abul Ala Mawdudi

Islam tried to solve the problem of the slaves that were in Arabia by encouraging the people in different ways to set their slaves free. The Muslims were ordered that in expiation of some of their sins they should set their slaves free. Freeing a slave by one's own free will was declared to be an act of great merit, so much so that it was said that every limb of the man who manumits a slave will be protected from hell-fire in lieu of the limb of the slave freed by him.

The result of this policy was that by the time the period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs was reached, all the old slaves of Arabia were liberated. The Prophet alone liberated as many as 63 slaves. The number of slaves freed by 'Aishah was 67, 'Abbas liberated 70, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar liberated one thousand, and 'Abd al-Rahman purchased thirty thousand and set them free. Similarly other Companions of the Prophet liberated a large number of slaves, the details of which are given in the Traditions and books of history of that period. Thus the problem of the slaves of Arabia was solved in a short period of thirty or forty years.

After this the only form of slavery which was left in Islamic society was the prisoners of war, who were captured on the battlefield. These prisoners of war were retained by the Muslim Government until their government agreed to receive them back in exchange for Muslim soldiers captured by them, or arranged the payment of ransom on their behalf. If the soldiers they captured were not exchanged with Muslim prisoners of war, or their people did not pay their ransom money to purchase their liberty, then the Muslim Government used to distribute them among the soldiers of the army which had captured them. This was a more humane and proper way of disposing of them than retaining them like cattle in concentration camps and taking forced labour from them and, if their women folk were also captured, setting them aside for prostitution. In place of such a cruel and outrageous way of disposing of the prisoners of war, Islam preferred to spread them in the population and thus brought them in contact with individual human beings. Over and above, their guardians were ordered to treat them well.

http://saif_w.tripod.com/questions/slavery/islam_slavery_mawdudi.htm

Peace.

 

Again, lets go to the historic MUSLIM sources shall we? Maybe add a little balance and color to this picture.

So what would happen if a Muslims woman was open-minded and did not discriminate between one man and another? Say she had fallen in love with her slave who also loved her and they intended, officially, to get married. What is the attitude of Islam in this case? If something like that took place in Islamic society, it would be a disaster! Let us see the reaction of Umar Ibn Khattab in these situations. In Vol. 8, Part 11, pp. 248, 249, Ibn Hazm remarks,

"A woman was wed to her male slave. Umar intended to stone her, but instead he made them separate and sent the slave to exile. He told the woman, `It is unlawful for you to get married to your owned slave!' Another woman got married to her slave. Umar scourged her with a whip and forbade any man to marry her. Another time, a freewoman came to Umar and told him, `I am not a pretty woman and I have a slave to whom I would like to get married.' Umar refused to do so. He whipped the slave and ordered him to be sold in a foreign country. He told the woman, `It is unlawful for you to get married to what your right hand owns. Only men have the right to get wed to what their right hand owns. Even if you set him free in order to marry him and he becomes a freeman, the manumission will be invalid and the marriage is not valid."'

Is there any comment on the ruthlessness of this second caliph who was Muhammad's father-in-law and one of the ten to whom Muhammad promised paradise? He is one of the two whom Muhammad requested the people to follow as a model when he declared, "Emulate Abu Bakr and Umar." Yet Umar was a tyrant, a ruthless man without a heart who attempted to stone a woman for no reason except she married a man who was her slave. He also scourged another woman, forbidding any other man to marry her, and beat and exiled a slave. And when a third woman wanted to free her slave in order to marry him and live happily together, especially after she lost hope in getting married to a freeman, Islam and Umar intervened and said, "No, this is not permissible." He scourged the slave and sold him into a foreign country. By that, he became an example of relentlessness, a hard heart, and detestable oppression.

Ibn Timiyya states:

"The one who owns the mother also owns her children. Being the master of the mother makes him the owner of her children whether they were born to a husband or they were illegitimate children. Therefore, the master has the right to have sexual intercourse with the daughters of his maid-slave because they are his property, provided he does not sleep with the mother at the same time" (Vol. 35, p. 54).



These are Muslim historians, Imams and The Prophet DH. Not apologists like what you quoted but the real deal. Islam’s greatest minds at work. Islam’s greatest leaders setting the example. Islam’s path was secured long ago and I think we can agree to whence it led.

Michael

 

DH, the modern day apologist you quote from is at odds with both his fellow Islamic chroniclers and history itself. So which is it? Was the Qur’an an instrument to rid the world or Slavery or was it a tool used to continue the practice? Well, I think history and its chroniclers speaks for itself.

Question: Was slavery ended in 1.4 millennia after the introduction of Islam in the ME?
Answer: No, Muslims were buying and selling slaves right up until this last generation.

That is the truth. There is no way to get around it. The only thing left is to ask why?

You neglected to mention The Prophet owned slaves.
Did he have to own slaves? No. But he liked owning Slaves didn't he? So guess what - he owned them.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya , as you know, is one of the greatest scholars and chroniclers of Islam. In his book, "Zad al-Ma'ad" (Part I, p. 160), he says, "Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased (more slaves) than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He (once) sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more (than he sold). He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out."

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya relies always on the prophet's biographies written by great ancient scholars. Therefore, he is regarded by Muslims as an authority, a primary source and a leader among the students of the Islamic religion. This scholar tells us in his book, "Zad al-Ma'ad" (part 1, pp. 114, 115, and 116), the following,
"These are the names of Muhammad's male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, 'Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad'am, Karkara, Abu Rafi', Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu 'Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (`ship').

He himself relates his own story; he says:

The story shows their ruthlessness and does not need explanation or clarification. The ill treatment Muhammad and his companions made of Mahran is very repulsive. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya is not the only one who recorded this episode and the list of names of Muhammad's slaves. The Tabari also (in his Chronicles, Volume 2 p. 216, 217, 218) presents us with these accounts. No one among the contemporary Muslim leaders denies these matters, especially if he is faced with the Tabari's and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's records.

Still, in regard to Muhammad's slave Zayd Ibn Haritha, Muhammad set him free and adopted him, then he married him to his (Muhammad's) cousin Zaynab. Later Zayd divorced her after he realized that Muhammad was captivated by her. We've already discussed this scandalous story maybe now its starting to make a little more sense? But I doubt it.

Maid Slaves: In this same Section (One, p. 116), Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya as well as other Muslim authors of chronicles recorded the list of names of Muhammad's maid-slaves. They are Salma Um Rafi', Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa'd, Khadra, Radwa, Razina, Um Damira, Rayhana, Mary the Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war.


Lastly, in case you missed: Ibn Timiyya says emphatically,
"Her child whom she bore from him would be the property of her master according to all the Imams (heads of the four Islamic schools of law) because the child follows the (status) of his mother in freedom or slavery. If the child is not of the race of Arabs, then he is definitely an owned slave according to the scholars, but the scholars disputed (his status) among themselves if he was from the Arabs - whether he must be enslaved or not because when A'isha (Muhammad's wife) had a maid-slave who was an Arab, Muhammad said to A'isha, `Set this maid free because she is from the children of Ishmael.'"
Remember these are the highest and most respected MUSLIM SCHOLARS I’m quoting.


If you are unconvinced then just ask yourself. Did Muhammad own Slaves? Did Muslims trade in Slaves for over 1400 years? Who was it that ended Slavery? Islam or had the attitude change in the slave trading Europeans end it with their laws? The answers are quite obvious.

Michael

 

Question: Was slavery ended in 1.4 millennia after the introduction of Islam in the ME?
Answer: No, Muslims were buying and selling slaves right up until this last generation.

Question: Does the Qur'an forbid owning humans?
Answer: No, Muslims were buying and selling slaves right up until this last generation.

Question: What example did The Prophet set?
Answer: He owned Slaves.

 

How many Muslims will not share in that smell?

Utter rubbish! What religion rewards those who have no morals; THEY OWN SLAVES! Freeing them should not be rewarded.

Disposing of people into slavery humane? Islam has no concept of what is humane!

Barbarism at its finest!