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

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by muhammad, Jan 15, 2005.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### CarcanoValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,865
DiamondHearts is stunned no doubt...by the practical logic of it all.

3. ### DiamondHeartsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,557
There is quite alot of difference between servants who served the Prophet (s) out of their own will and slaves.

It is noted that many of the Sahabah would sit outside the Prophet's (s) house in the morning to see him and walk him back home at night due to their veneration of him.

Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) was once on a journey with his companions.

On the way they stopped at a place to have some food and rest. They decided to roast some meat.Each one volunteered to do some work.

One of the companions said: "I shall slaughter the sheep!"
The other said: "I will remove the skin."
Another said: "I will roast the meat!"
The Prophet (S.A.W.) said: "I will collect and bring the firewood from the forest."

The companions said: " O Prophet! We will see to everything. Please do not trouble yourself."

The Prophet (S.A.W.) replied: "I know you can do everything but I do not wish to be favoured over you."

He said that Allah does not like people who think they are better than others.

The Prophet (S.A.W.) then went and fetched the firewood and did his share of the work.

Peace.

5. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
Yes there is a difference a servant is free while a slave is another person’s property.

Muhammad owned people - otherwise know in the vernacular as Slaves.

AGAIN in case you missed it:

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya , as you know, is one of the greatest scholars and chroniclers of Islam.

"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,
Yamamin,
Karkara,
Abu Rafi',
Thawban,
Ab Kabsha,
Salih,
Rabah,
Yara Nubyan,
Waqid,
Mabur,
Abu Waqid,
Kasam,
Abu 'Ayb,
Abu Muwayhiba,
Zayd Ibn Haritha,
Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (ship').

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. Maid Slaves: In this same Section (One, p. 116), Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya as well as other Muslim authors of chronicles recorded
this list of names of Muhammad's maid(female)-slaves.
Salma Um Rafi',
Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib,
Maymuna daughter of Sa'd,
Razina,
Um Damira,
Rayhana,
Mary the Coptic

It’s as simple as that.

Last edited: May 4, 2006

7. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
Here is how a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (ship'), writes of his treatment. You may refer to Ibn Qayyim, pp. 115-116; al-Hulya, Vol. 1, p. 369, quoted from Ahmad 5:222

"The apostle of God and his companions went on a trip. (When) their belongings became too heavy for them to carry, Muhammad told me, Spread your garment.' They filled it with their belongings, then they put it on me. The apostle of God told me, Carry (it), for you are a ship.' Even if I was carrying the load of six or seven donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load. The prophet told me, You are a ship"

This is the way your Prophet treats people?

Diamondhearts, do you not think that the ill treatment Muhammad and his companions made of Mahran is very repulsive?

8. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
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.'"

I’m quoting the highest and most respected MUSLIM SCHOLARS .

It’s as simple as that.

Did Mosses personally own Slaves?
Did Jesus personally own Slaves?
Did The Buddha personally own Slaves?

Think on that for awhile.

Michael

PS: Do you not find the reference to race ignorant?

9. ### DiamondHeartsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,557
I find it quite interesting that your copy and paste quotes completely diasgree with the Quran and the Hadith which quoted 100%. Care to comment on this.

Your sources are biased, and indeed your translations are biased as well giving false views which Muslims do not share.

The Prophet Muhammad (s) did have servants (some of the above women were his wives which you wrongly called slaves), we do not deny this fact he had servants, however I firmly know as fact that he did not have a slave. It is quite interesting to note that he himself called for a man who has a slave, to free him, why would he himself have a slave. Being a servant in the home of the Prophet (s) is not equal to being a slave, a servant has the right to leave, has the right to do anything he wants.

I suggest you actually real the books of source your misunderstand and find that in these very sources (like Bukhari), there is a hadith that the Prophet Muhammad (s) sometimes would not eat for more than two weeks and live only on dates and water. One time after a Muslim brought a stack of dates to the Prophet (s), he would not eat until everyone one of his neighbors was full, then he ate only scarcely, while saving some for others.

This is the example of the kindest and most benevolent man in the history of the world, a man which is better than you or me could never even compare to.

Whosoever kills his slave: he shall be killed. Whosoever imprisons his slave and starves him, he shall be imprisoned and starved himself, and whosoever castrates his slave shall himself be castrated. (Abu Dawud, Diyat, 70; Tirmidhi, Diyat, 17; Al-Nasa’i, Qasama, 10, 16)

You are sons of Adam and Adam was created from clay. (Tirmidhi, Tafsir, 49; Manaqib, 73; Abu Dawud, Adab, 111)

You should know that no Arab is superior over a non-Arab and, no non-Arab is superior over any Arab, no white is superior over black and no black is superior over white. Superiority is by righteousness and God-fearing [alone]. (Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 411)

The Slave Trade of Western Nations:
Maulana Maududi

After the occupation of America and the West Indies, for three hundred and fifty years, traffic in slave trade continued. The African coasts where the black-skinned captured Africans were brought from the interior of Africa and put on the ships sailing out from those ports, came to be known as the Slave Coast.

During only one century (from 1680 to 1786) the total number of free people who were captured and enslaved only for British Colonies amounts, according to the estimate of British authors, to 20 million human beings. Over the period of only one year (1790) we are told that 75,000 human beings were captured and sent for slave labour in the Colonies. The ships which were used for transporting the slaves were small and dirty. These unfortunate Africans were thrust into the holds of these ships like cattle right up to the top and many of them were chained to the wooden shelves on which they could hardly move because these were only eighteen inches apart, kept one on top of the other. They were not provided with suitable food, and if they fell ill or were injured, no attempt was made to provide them with medical treatment.

The Western writers themselves state that at least 20% of the total number of people who were captured for slavery and forced labour perished during their transportation from the African coast to America. It has also been estimated that the total number of people who were captured for slavery by the various European nations during the heyday of the slave trade comes to at least one hundred million. This is the record of the people who denounce Muslims day and night for recognizing the institution of slavery. It is as if a criminal is holding his finger of blame towards an innocent man.

10. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
Your argument is with Islam not with me DiamondHearts. I have simply brought to your attention information as quoted by Islam’s greatest Chorologicalists, Imams, Historians and Scholars as THEY have written. They are Muslim historians DH. Also, I have given you the exact references including page number. Please feel free to look them up. They are simply writing that Islam supports Slavery. Perhaps they are true Muslims and as such obviously feel no shame in the Islamic institution of Slavery as sanctioned by Mohammed.

Again, your quarrel is with Islam not me. Here a couple quotes directly from ISLAMIC websites from the Holy Qur’an.

33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah) with thee; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[23:6] Only with their spouses, or those who are rightfully theirs, do they have sexual relations; they are not to be blamed.

This is repeated again here
[70:30] (They have relations) only with their spouses, or what is legally theirs –

Again argue with the Muslim Scholars they are the ones I have cited, YOU have their references, feel free to look them up if you’d like.

Michael

11. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
Yes I totally agree with you here - - ALL forms of Slavery are EVIL, VILE, and WICKED including those done by the "West" and also the Slavery done by Mohammed.

Michael

12. ### DiamondHeartsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,557
You are right completely, except your last point, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s) never engaged in slavery.

My argument is with people like you who try to shed Islam in a wrong light, you are comparable to the same terrorists who try to make Muslims look bad because of their own actions. Exact same. Neither of you have respect for Islam, nor know Islam.

Peace.

13. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,545
No one here is making Islam look bad more than you. You've single-handedly destroyed any credibility Muslims might have had arguing their cases.

If we lack respect for Islam, it is due to idiots like you.

14. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
I don't think I really need out that "companions" implies "equals" or "near-equals". It does not connotate that he was out for a walk with his slaves or servants. His presumed desire to do his share might be quite different in the presence of his lessers.

I think I should also add here that I've never seen anyone so utterly hammered on a thread of argumentation in my entire life.

Geoff

15. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
And yet he had people murdered, executed. This is benevolence??

On a theological note, then, a question to you: would he be less benevolent than or more benevolent than Jesus?

Ah - and who was it who stopped the slave trade, finally? Was it an islamic country? I was under the impression that Great Britain, a non-islamic country (though I'm sure, as with the Biblical figures of Moses and Abraham, that you could find a way to take credit somehow) stopped the slave trade, among the last of which in the Atlantic was administered by an islamic nation there, not to mention the American-Libyan example referred to in the phrase "To the shores of Tripoli". The anti-slavery movement also took root in American, Canadian, British and European public policy long before that of the islamic world. Saudi Arabia only outlawed slavery in the 60's! and it still goes on today, under a different caption - economic slavery.

Geoff

16. ### Alejandro-2 Minutes To Midnight-Registered Senior Member

Messages:
407
give us a break, will ya?

17. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
No DiamondHearts, I cited the Islamic Scholars so your problem is with them not me. They are resepcted Muslim Scholars and simply are wirting what they know to be true. They wrote the Biographies and the Commentaries and the Histories. Unlike me they are MUSLIMS.

I simply quoted their writings. So actually I said nothing. I cited Islamic Historical information written by Muslims and then presented it to you.

They write:
1) Slaves are different than prisoners of war.
2) Mohammed owned saves, (they also list the exact names of these Slaves that Mohammed owned).

So, your argument is with Muslim Scholars not me. I did not provide the names, THEY did. I did not define what a Slaves is THEY did.

Again:
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in his book, "Zad al-Ma'ad" (Part I, p. 160), writes:
"Muhammad had many male and female slaves.” He then sets out to write their exact names and some things about them.

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.

Malik Ibn Anas repeated the same text as did Ibn Hisham In Part 4, p. 177 of the "Prophet Biography" (Al-Road Al-Anf').

All of that said, I am glad to see that you now think ALL Slavery is wicked. At least I’ll assume so. Initially you were in favour of some Slavery, Slavery that conformed to the rules of Islam. That is called Fundamentalism. Now, it appears, you are becoming a typical apologist. Which means you have changed your mind on Slavery, you now disagree with MUSLIM Scholars. You think that sure prisoners of war are fine but not Slaves. Now you are attempting to redefine what a Slaves is. Either a free-servant or a jailed prisoner.

Good.

Your first attempt as an apologist is weak because you are attempting to insinuate that I am the one who wrote the above about Islam and your Prophet. No, I did not. I cited Muslim Scholars. So you will have to discredit them, not me.

You have moved from Muslim Fundamentalist to Muslim Apologist.

Good.

It’s a first small step,

Cheers,
Michael

18. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
Incidentally, I'm going out tonight to have a beer with my friend from Lebanon who happens to be Muslim.

Also, this is a Religious Debate Forum after all.

While it does get heated, overall it is about debating religious history and doctrine.

So no I don’t have a problem with Islamic people I know. They are just normal everyday people like me. They like to drink (well not Sadek) and eat and be merry like everyone else. Really, the only time religion seems to be a problem is when people take it too seriously. If they don’t, then one could hardly tell a Muslim from a Jew from a Xian from a Hindu from a Buddhist. People are pretty much the same. Its only when someone becomes seriously religious that I find then Religion is can pose a serious problem. For example, a Xian Japanese that will no longer enter a Shinto temple because they are afraid they will be damned to Hell by God. Yeah, that’s a problem. Baptists Xian’s that can not speak kindly with Catholics. Muslims that have converted to Xianity and now can not speak with their Muslim family. Jehovah’s witnesses that will not allow blood transfusions or (in the case of a recent convert) can not share Xmass holiday with their Catholic family.

Anyway, I’ll drink a toast to this round with my Muslim buddy and call it a night

Cheers,
Michael

19. ### DiamondHeartsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,557
My points have been consistent that Islam does not allow Slavery. The word for prisoners of war in Islamic terminology is a slave of the state (the reason why some Islamic texts talk of prisoners of war in such a regard), yet they are far different than what the West has practiced of slavery. Prisoners of war are human beings as viewed in Islam and have the right to pay for their freedom, they are either allowed to stay in prisons (as is consistent with Western practice) or they are allowed to serve Muslims in their home to gain freedom.

This shows the benevolent nature of Islam in regards to the treatment of war captives, Islam's mercy and justice shines grewater than any system.

Contrary to your labelling of me as an apologist, I am presenting the proper and true word of Islam (being a student of Islamic Theology) and am very much entitled for this view to give my opinion, while you aren't qualified as all.

You are desperate, which is obvious, to prove Islam is wrong so you have resulted in using labels to decrease the credibility of your opponent.

All you have been presenting is weak arguments (sources which have been using the word slave for servant and even companion, copied and pasted from who knows where), stating that Islam and Islam's dear founder of guilty of such an ugly charge.

A final question I have for you is this, what is the reason for such a malicious and constant barrage of ugly charges against Islam and Muslims? What do you get from all this? Why are you engaging in this propaganda?

I suggest you take a thorough look at yourself, is this what you want to be? Do you want to live your life in such a way?

I suggest you take a look at Islamic sources by yourself, to read the Quran in english translation with a desire to actually understand, read the books of the above scholars (in a proper translation) seeking to learn and further yourself as a human being.

I wish the best for you and your family.

Peace.

20. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
Firstly, the 1400 years of Slavery practiced in ME Islamic countries suggests you may be wrong on this one.

Secondly, I cited Islamic sources that explicitly stated that Mohammed held Slaves.

Please feel free to look them up. They are written by eminent Islamic Scholars so you will have to debate with them.

Again:
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in his book, "Zad al-Ma'ad" (Part I, p. 160), writes:
"Muhammad had many male and female slaves.” He then sets out to write their exact names and some things about them.

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.

Malik Ibn Anas repeated the same text as did Ibn Hisham In Part 4, p. 177 of the "Prophet Biography" (Al-Road Al-Anf').

I meant that as a compliment.

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."
Well I could say: if we do not learn from our past we are doomed to repeat it. But that’s a bit much.

Basically, its a good way to learn about Religion and I enjoy the debate. . I personally do not see it as slanderous that Mohammed owned Slaves. That was the culture back then and so it was the norm, for example: Julius Caesar held Slaves and so did Alexander of Macedonia (both of whom have been slightly incorporated into the Qur’an). So it does not come as a surprise that Mohammed owned Slaves as well.

If you enter a Religious debate then expect to defend your position.

I understand that you want to believe that Mohammed did not own Slaves. But the Islamic sources say he did. One of the Islamic sources even lists the names of Mohammed's Slaves. And they were Slaves not Servants. They were not free. You may want to say that they were servants but that can not be. Servants are free to go as they please.

You see here you agree with me.

Slave
One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.

Servant
One who is privately employed to perform domestic services.

See the difference?

If I didn’t know better I’d think you were slipping back into thinking that Slavery is OK? I sure hope I don’t hear you saying something about Muslim Mans Burden.

Think on this:
Do you suppose that it would be fair if Americans were to take as many Prisoners as possible from the Iraq war and then make them serve as Slaves to American Masters? To take their wives and make them Maids or Slaves? To take their children and make them Slaves or Maids?

Does that sound right? Of course not. So why are you trying to peddle it off as if it was. It obvious is not.

Michael

Last edited: May 6, 2006
21. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
What do these verses mean to you?

From the Holy Qur’an.

33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah) with thee; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[23:6] Only with their spouses, or those who are rightfully theirs, do they have sexual relations; they are not to be blamed.

This is repeated again here
[70:30] (They have relations) only with their spouses, or what is legally theirs

Michael

22. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,545
No, it show the utter barbaric nature and cruelty of Islam and aligns perfectly with a religion that teaches war. Islam=conquest.

You are qualified only in the delivering of propaganda.

It is you who refuses to accept the facts of Islams past and present barbarism and cruelty. Of course, like most religions, the way in which people conduct themselves has improved, as a result of reason and rationale demanded by simple human rights, that which is ignored by Muslims.

Haven't you figured it out yet? No one here wants to be anything like you.

That was done long before you ever arrived here.

Those are lies.

23. ### Michael歌舞伎Valued Senior Member

Messages:
20,285
DiamondHearts, I have quoted directly from the Holy Qur’an and I want to know what these versus mean to you?

33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah) with thee; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[23:6] Only with their spouses, or those who are rightfully theirs, do they have sexual relations; they are not to be blamed.

This is repeated again here
[70:30] (They have relations) only with their spouses, or what is legally theirs

To me the versus seem to say that Mohammed can take women as war-booty.

Quite literally.

It also gives Mohammed permission to be a polygamist and to wed and have sex with his first cousins – which will lead to genetic disorder but never mind that. I wonder, would you DiamondHearts be happy if your husband was to take 3 additional wives? What about 15 additional wives? Or as many has he wished?

What do these versus mean to you?

Michael