Owned Servants? Slaves?

david_rs_aitken

I'm not sure what you're imagining as "slaves" here, but I would think it would also include in-house maids/servants/cooks/nanny/etc. If so, I dont see that as particularly bad.
Also, there may be a difference between an agreed upon "slave" and enslaving others, i.e. without agreement, as per Pharaoh.

Peace Wakas, everyone,

Someone who is paid to do a job is not owned - they are not slaves. As for "an agreed upon 'slave'", that also would not be slavery, that would be some kind of psychotic relationship. If someone is crazy enough to agree to be owned by another human being, they're free to do so. However, a just society would have clinical treatments for such unfortunate people, and a just person would never agree, "Okay, Bob, I'll be your master. You'll be my slave. Whatever you say, Bob". That's sick.

Plainly, owning humans is wrong. In any capacity, owning a human being is wrong. Our species has evolved enough, socially, to understand this.

Peace,

-David

david_rs_aitken

I don't think we have a very accurate concept of slavery, as it concerns the ancient past.

Peace Shadowpuppet, everyone,

Slavery - old and new - is wrong. It doesn't matter how the ancients treated the human beings that they owned, they shouldn't have been trading their fellow men and women to begin with.

Peace,

-David

shadowpuppet

David, yes.

You are correct. It is wrong.
But if you go back and read my post, thoroughly....
you will see that I am simply using the full perspective to understand the concept of slavery.

Not saying whether it is right or wrong.
You & I do not live under a feudal system any longer and this must be considered when
trying to understand the mentality of the past.

Did you know that the native Americans would not submit to slavery, in the U.S.
but, in fact, enslaved one another in their ancient societies?

david_rs_aitken

It is wrong.

Peace Shadowpuppet,

That's true. However, we have a responsibility as enlightened people not to look back on the history of our species and say, "Well, things were different back then. People thought differently." The Americans are always doing this to make excuses for their idols. For example, they love George Washington and Thomas Jefferson so much that they blind themselves to the fact that both were slave-owning, misogynistic aristocrats. How many times did Jefferson get his slaves pregnant? It's not something in the schoolbooks because they continually enjoin us to remember that "things were just different back then".

I know you don't think slavery was ever right. My question is with regard to how slavery fits into the framework of righteousness outlined by the Quran. Why does the Quran say that freeing slaves is good, but not address the matter of how it's bad to have slaves to begin with. Indeed, it says slavery sucks (1675), but doesn't set a prohibition on it.

Peace,

-David

shadowpuppet

Did you know that the native Americans would not submit to slavery, in the U.S.
but, in fact, enslaved one another in their ancient societies?

In fact, in the native flood epic... it was white people who were subservient to the red people.

So my point is not to determine the right or wrong but to simply present the bigger picture,
that we might better understand how "slavery" fits into Quranic concept.

Human civilisation is not in the same mode as was back then, at least where I am concerned.
We're at a pivotal point in our history and do not live under the same circumstances as our ancestors did
and we must take these circumstances into account when trying interpret any part of the Quran.

That is the only answer I can give.

you_gunna_eat_that

Peace,

I sort of buy the argument that it would be too revolutionary to have outright banned slavery. Yet, the verses in the Quran do make it easy to make the case to later ban slavery as a society. For example...

Did we not show him the two paths? He should choose the difficult path. Which one is the difficult path? The freeing of slaves. Feeding, during the time of hardship...

Also, I think our idea of slavery is different than the one prescribed by the Quran. This is not a relationship of abuse.

Also, I do not think that believing slaves were the only ones freed. The verse I cited says nothing about it and neither do most verses.

Salaam

Hoppean

Peace brothers and sisters,

Peace

QUESTIONS

Why doesn't the Quran flat-out abolish slavery?

Your question is loaded and misleading. Define slavery. Why did you try to include maids/servants in your definition and then back off? Is a thief or a debtor who is "forced" to work to pay back his victim/creditor, a slave?

You said

"So basically

It's okay to own people if they commit a crime, and it's okay to put them to work."
Then you said "Plainly, owning humans is wrong. In any capacity, owning a human being is wrong."

So obviously you don't think any form of "slavery" or forced labour can be justified. Maybe it is you and your ethical theories that are wrong, has that occured to you?

Human dignity doesn't apply fully to unbelievers. Believers should be freed first.

Yeah that's right, God does not view believers and unbelievers equally. Did you not grasp that in your quranic "studies"? And what does "human dignity" have to do with anything?

The Quran "eventually" abolishes slavery...

I agree with you here, the "economy" argument is pathetic. This is simply an argument made by modernists, surreptitiously borrowed, from Muhammad Asad's notes in his translation of the quran. There is no reason to believe that the quran "gradually abolishes slavery", anymore than it gradually abolishes
killing. Killing, like forced labour/slavery, can be either justified or unjustified depending on the context.

As for "an agreed upon 'slave'", that also would not be slavery, that would be some kind of psychotic relationship.

Really? Psychotic? The master/disciple relationship is quite normal in all societies, and as you say it's not "slavery" so why would it be a big deal?

If someone is crazy enough to agree to be owned by another human being, they're free to do so.

Do you really believe that? No you don't (see below).

However, a just society would have clinical treatments for such unfortunate people,

"a just society" what exactly does that mean?? is that a euphemism for the state?? or are private individuals going to go around determining who is "unfortunate" and who is not? Either way though, you clearly believe that anybody you deem to be "unfortunate" must receive treatment. So you are in fact pro slavery, you're just using this topic as a smokescreen for your unbelief. Well done!

...and a just person would never agree, "Okay, Bob, I'll be your master. You'll be my slave. Whatever you say, Bob". That's sick.

Again, who gets the privilege of determing who is a "just" person, and who is not?? More importantly, why do you care? You just said it's not slavery!!

Our species has evolved enough, socially, to understand this.

Obviously the irony of your absurd statement escapes you. The level of public, private and corporate debt in the Western world has defacto put the population in bondage to the creditors, this is what you call social evolution! And we don't even need to address the non western world on this issue.

Wakas

peace David,

It seems your misunderstanding is stemming from the terms "owned" (which does not exist in your verse references except perhaps 1675) and "slave" (which you have not defined as per AQ). Please review this info and let us know your findings.

Also, the link I referenced clearly mentions freeing of slaves, and does not mention their belief. The difference between when it is mentioned and when it is not may yield some extra insight with regard to the reason behind the freeing.

I say perhaps in 1675 because it is in the passive form, meaning the object/person receives the action expressed in the verb, i.e. slave receives control/command. I have not studied it though.

shadowpuppet

Yet, the verses in the Quran do make it easy to make the case to later ban slavery as a society.

Yes, this is how I have seen the Quran, in many aspects...

It provides rules of conduct for a certain historic influx of culture and society, yet provides
a path for growth as well, in its way of directing human affairs.

Wakas

peace,

I agree with you here, the "economy" argument is pathetic. This is simply an argument made by modernists, surreptitiously borrowed, from Muhammad Asad's notes in his translation of the quran. There is no reason to believe that the quran "gradually abolishes slavery", anymore than it gradually abolishes
killing. Killing, like forced labour/slavery, can be either justified or unjustified depending on the context.

If we assume AQ is revealed in a situation where slaves exist and people have them, and if AQ does not provide a way of gaining more slaves, and it discusses freeing them individually and collectively, raises their status, rebukes those who do not give them their due rights etc, then the only conclusion is it would eventually lead to abolishing slavery. To disprove this, you'd have to find a reference from AQ in which it tells us how to acquire new slaves.

david_rs_aitken

Peace Hoppean, everyone,

Define slavery.

Let's go by the definition in the Quran. I began my question with the definition given in the Quran in 26/22. The Quran talks extensively about Pharaoh owning the descendants of Israel, right? Moses told Pharaoh two clear things 1) "Let the descendants of Israel go", and 2) "You enslaved them!"

26/17 "Send us with the descendants of Israel."
26/18 He said, "Did we not raise you amongst us as a child, and you stayed among us prospering for years?"
26/22 "That was a favor that you blessed me with, (but) you enslaved the descendants of Israel!"

So, slavery is morally objectionable. In fact, it's disgusting. Moses was able to see this how many thousands of years ago, brother?

But clearly the prophet and his people had slaves. The only explanations offered are these

Slavery isn't really bad.
Slavery is bad, but the Quran makes it go away after a period of time by encouraging the release of slaves.

That doesn't cut it. Keeping people in bondage to let the economy adjust isn't right.

Any other theories?

Peace,

-David

david_rs_aitken

Peace Wakas, everyone,

peace David,
It seems your misunderstanding is stemming from ... "slave" (which you have not defined as per AQ). Please review this info and let us know your findings.

26/17 "Send us with the descendants of Israel."
26/18 He said, "Did we not raise you amongst us as a child, and you stayed among us prospering for years?"
26/22 "That was a favor that you blessed me with, (but) you enslaved the descendants of Israel!"

So Pharaoh owning the Hebrews and putting them to work was flat out wrong, and Moses throws it in Pharaoh's face with good reason.

So why, thousands of years after Moses, did the prophet and the believers have slaves? Please help me answer this question.

shadowpuppet

Because a prophet does not assume the role of a conquering Emperor.

However, there were many in existence, long before and after his time on Earth.
The last Pharaoh died only 2, 000 years ago.

Mostly what we see around us, in Western culture, is the remains of Greco-Roman and Egyptian based rule...
and that which those societies were based on.

We do what turns a buck and keeps society in motion, ultimately.
You can't interpret an ancient world with the rules of today. It just doesn't work.

And who is to say that his servants were not treated like kings and queens?
No one who was "anyone" back then ...was without servants. Their word wasn't worth much to the masses.

Perhaps he was serving as a proper model for what a ruler should be.
He thought of himself as Al Lah's "slave" ...which is actually pretty defiant, if you think about it
from the viewpoint of an oppressor or one who opposes oppression.

Peace be upon him.

Hoppean

peace,

Peace

If we assume AQ is revealed in a situation where slaves exist and people have them, and if AQ does not provide a way of gaining more slaves,

Your use of the term "slave" is anachronistic.
The fact that these people were in bondage does not tell us anything about its legality. A person may be in bondage for any number of reasons he may have committed a crime, taken on debt he is unable to repay, become a prisoner of war etc.

and it discusses freeing them individually and collectively, raises their status, rebukes those who do not give them their due rights etc, then the only conclusion is it would eventually lead to abolishing slavery.

Not only is this NOT the "only" conclusion, it doesn't even follow from the premise. The fact that God commands us to be charitable to those who are in bondage, does not mean that their bondage was unjustified. Creditors are asked to forgive the debts of borrowers, does that mean that a borrower is justified in making no effort to pay back what he has borrowed??

To disprove this, you'd have to find a reference from AQ in which it tells us how to acquire new slaves.

Sorry the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, that's you. Your logic does not stand up to elementary scrutiny and you cannot provide any evidence that "slavery", as you have anachronistically defined it, was abolished in anyway.

Your post is entiely disingenuous though, since the relevant claim is that the alleged gradual abolition of slavery, was done in order to ease some sort of "economic" adjustment. So even if you could demonstrate this "gradual abolition" theory, which you can't, it still would not follow that it was done for "economic" reasons.

You're just another modernist, desperately trying to force your own notions onto the scripture, because you're unwilling to accept what is says, or in this case does not say; slavery is not abolished in the quran, because, as anyone who is honest can see, there are justifiable contexts in which some people must be "forced" to comply against their will, and none of this has anything to do with showing charity towards such people.

you_gunna_eat_that

Peace
Interesting points Hoppean.

Do you feel a utopian quranic state would be within it's rights if it abolished slavery (even the more humane version)?

savage_carrot

26/22 "That was a favor that you blessed me with, (but) you enslaved the descendants of Israel!"

Given the context of that passage, it appears more like an enslavement of a country/people/community through force and oppression. I can understand this as being unequivocally wrong. Take the concept of indentured servitude for example in a kind of fair manner...I tend to agree with shadow puppet here "We do what turns a buck and keeps society in motion, ultimately." It's a grey area where the better thing might be (in our modern sensibilities) to try and take the high road but if you can't, you deal with it in the best possible manner until you don't have to. Most times in order to survive adequately you try to adjust to whatever society you live in and if you are a good person, you have a good code of ethics, like being fair.

In a society where indentured servitude abounds, the concept of a contractual term for work in return for food/benefits on mutually agreed upon terms is not so bad. It's the way the society works and if people are fair on both ends, it is fulfilling a need both ways. In Pakistan, in certain feudal areas you have the same concept, some people willingly and happily stay in a kind of indentured servitude when their needs are met and the "boss" is fair. I've seen it myself, they're content on that count. It wouldn't work for me, my circumstances or the person that I am but it does for someone else. The "master" in return offers to educate them/their kids if they chose and so "free" them in a sense. He feeds them, houses them, clothes them, gives medical benefits, intervenes for them if they have outstanding issues inclusive of money. I suppose he does it for the votes or he's just a good person I don't know, I can only say what I've seen/experienced. They didn't even have any legal agreed upon terms, all word of mouth "you take care of me (housing, food, other favours) and I'll work on whatever you want for life because my father did the same thing"'. Of course, this doesn't mean people won't abuse a system, because they will abuse any system if they can get away with it.

It's unwise imo to say that this type of a scenario just can't work for any one at all because it's completely wrong, awful and the people involved are psychotic. It does work for some and it satisfies both parties, they're happy and no whips or revolts are involved/planned. In a society where this sort of thing is common, people work with it, there's the employer/boss/master aspect and the servant/worker/slave aspect...we have a very diverse world and people through the ages and so on in the future will have different circumstances surrounding them. The key thing is to be fair and balanced, which would probably be key for everything.

What I've seen sometimes on the board and in people around me and I've been guilty of it myself on occasion is insistence on just one way it can be (especially in a grey area) because that's the only way it can be because it works for ME. These days enslavement comes in the form of damn phone contracts. Stick it to the man I say.

Wakas

peace all,

David, you are not comparing like with like, sorry.

Hoppean, I never said "slavery was abolished by the quran" or "slavery is unjustified" etc. Perhaps you should read more carefully. My proof is The Quran itself, all evidence points to what I said in the article I linked to. Simple.

david_rs_aitken

Not only is this NOT the "only" conclusion, it doesn't even follow from the premise. The fact that God commands us to be charitable to those who are in bondage, does not mean that their bondage was unjustified. Creditors are asked to forgive the debts of borrowers, does that mean that a borrower is justified in making no effort to pay back what he has borrowed??

In the Quran the debtor/borrower is called "alladhi 3alayhi al-haqq" (2282), while enslavement is consistently "ghayr al-haqq" (quite the opposite). "3abd" means slave. You're confusing all kinds of issues, as is savage_carrot, in order to defend the actual ownership of human beings. That's going too far. Your definition doesn't even resemble "3abd" in the Quran.

savage_carrot

"3abd" means slave
It can't mean servants? It has to involve force, torture, oppression, whips and selling souls. If a person himself decides to work for a master in exchange for benefits, why is that "going too far"? Are all the verses dealing with "3abd" in that context irrelevant in today's day and age like 2432?

Hoppean

Peace
Interesting points Hoppean.

Do you feel a utopian quranic state would be within it's rights if it abolished slavery (even the more humane version)?

Peace,

I don't know what "humane slavery" means, but as I stated before, if one person is under the control/dominion of another then this could either be for just reasons, or unjust reasons. I gave the example of killing; there is justified killing and unjustified killing. The scriptures clearly state that there are temporal punishments that a Godly society should carry out against those who commit certain crimes, such as 538, 242 etc. What if these people resist their due punishment? Should we say "Oh well, we don't want to force them against their will" ? Once you arrest and hold someone against their will this is enslavement! The problem is that some on this thread take their anachronistic and false definition of slavery and superimpose it on the quran.
Regarding "quranic state", it is really an oxymoron. The state as a monopoly of taxation and adjudication is not compatible with our Lord's decree that there be no compulsion in deen. There are better, scriptural, ways in which society can be organized than the use of the coercive powers of the state. Since this is off-topic I will leave it at that.