Quran Fails to Ban Slavery
-
So? What's your point.
-
Quran hasn?t ?banned? slavery though does it need to? do you think Quran promotes injustices?
4242 (Asad) blame attaches but to those who oppress people and behave outrageously on earth, offending against all right for them there is grievous suffering in store!
Isn?t oppression worse than slaying a life?
Is Quran in need to fulfil people?s concern of slavery by explicitly labelling it out for people to read? I rather think the Quran is clear in its message.
You cite the example of Moses, though do you think all forms of slavery are the same?
A maid might be seen as a ?slave? because they listen to their ?master?, is that necessarily oppression?
If we?re told to free slaves, isn?t that eradicating the practice?
I don?t necessarily think ma malikat aymanakum is slave.
Besides aren?t we all slaves of God 7219? Wasn?t Jesus a slave of god? 1930 Isn?t that evidence of differing forms of slavery??
Peace
-
No, the Quran VERY STRONGLY bans slavery. Here is proof
And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who are weak and opprssed?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!" (4/75)
So lets say Kunta Kinte is being taken across the sea to his plantation. He'd want to rescued and the believers duty is to rescue him. However, 2 generations later (Chicken George's time), the slaves at the plantation may be so settled that they dont want to leave. Malcolm X calls these people the 'house ni**ers'. So David, you're not expecting us to FORCE liberation on such people, are you?
I don't know why you understand ibada to be slavery. I understand it to be servantship. The people of Firaun willingly served him. He had no need for force until Musa came along. Then, when Musa planted the seeds of the message and basically told Bani Israil, they don't need to serve anyone at all. THAT'S when Firaun started using force and when 'drastic events' happened.
I guess what I'm saying is , ibada isnt slavery in the chains and plantations sense of the word. I am an abd to the State who will put me in jail for not paying my taxes. I am an abd to my hawa/delusions who paint a false reality and stop me from serving Allah. Maybe one day I'll have a business and have people serve me. People who will be my ibad but as a believer, I should seek to liberate them and let them have their own freedom.
With the Quran, there simply isn?t any room at all for FORCED servitude. People want to be liberated, believers need to liberate them. However, people who willingly serve in a given system are abidoon and if they?re happy serving their Lords, we can?t really do much for?em.
As a last note, I would look into the multitude of words denoting power relations like ?raghb?, ?asra?, ?malakat?. It?s not as simple as the traditionalists make it out to be.
-
I've been researching about slavery in the quran (thanks to Jack, Wakas, abdalquran and CD for the help/discussion) and it's not done yet and I've yet to go through MMA but I'm posting what I've researched/got so far in response to what has been raised in the thread
3BD refers to serving, service, servants etc. Please see PRL for the overwhelming usage of 3BD referring to such.
When we check the occurrences for personal servants we come across 2221, 2432 for female servants and 2178, 2221, 2432 and 1675 for male servants. Household servants is in verse 2431 but mentioned as or male attendants. There is no oppression or force being alluded to in all these occurrences until we come to 1675.
1675 God propounds the parable of a man enslaved, unable to do anything of his own accord, and a man upon whom We have bestowed goodly sustenance from Ourselves, so that he can spend thereof secretly and openly. Can these be deemed equal? All praise is due to God but most of them do not understand it.
Here we have a servant who is . This term refers to owned/enslaved as is commonly understood. Given the root MLK and the fact that it is in passive form, it means that the subject (3BD) receives the action expressed in the verb MLK which can be translated as controlled/having dominion or authority over. We have the example/parable of a controlled servant contrasted with a man who can do as he chooses due to resources/provisions granted by God. The emphasis on and the inclusion of resources/provisions as the reason he is able to choose freely is revealing. The controlled servant on the other hand, has little choice as to a direction of his own choosing. He is under the authority/control of another due to his lack of resources/provisions.
God gives to whom he chooses (1671), but this example should show that it is not because the servant is controlled/under someone else?s authority, but the lack of resources that the contrast highlights as the difference. The servant has little choice but to enter into an arrangement that may not be to his liking because of lack of resources. We can see this even today in the form of people entering into jobs that they do not particularly wish to do but do so out of necessity, for adequate survival, under someone else's authority/control. Compared to people that can take the direction that they want/choose in life due to these resources/provisions and do not need to be under the authority/control of someone else.
Even if, for a moment, we take the conventional understanding of the verse as ?slave? it still does not mean that believers have the right to own slaves from this verse alone.
Additionally, the next verse we will see is the only one in Al Qur?an using verb form 2 of 3BD in 2622. Verb form 2 is generally intensive and causative in meaning, i.e. Pharaoh is the agent/cause of the effect, implying he made them serve intensely. This can only refer to forced servitude by Pharaoh. This we are told is wrong based on general principle (We are told that oppression is worse than killing (2191, 2217). We are told not to transgress our bounds/aggress or use undue force (2190, 2260) etc). Pharaoh is not a poster boy for the believers.
So who are these ?slaves? we are told to free as an act of righteousness (2177), the better path ( 9012, 9013), to atone (492, 589, 583) and as charity (960)? Surprisingly, the term used for them in all occurrences dealing with such is RQB not 3BD.
RQB
Taken as ?tied by the neck? or bound/constrained.
Can these be referring to war captives taken in battle? According to 867 the term used for captives taken as such is Al Asra, further confirmed in 870.We can set them free or ransom/exchange them for our own until the war ends. There is no reason to suppose that they can be forced into servitude whilst captive, firstly on the general principle against such in the quran along with no references to 3BD as being forced by believers into anything and secondly, because we are told what to do with them as per the instructions given in 474. They must be dealt with as soon as the war is over.
This brings us back to what RQB is. Forced servitude is eliminated by general principle as well as the fact that none of the personal 3BD are termed as RQB.
In my opinion till now, RQB is pointing to a set of bound believing/unbelieving people (not war OR debt 492, 960) whether justly or unjustly but never unjustly by believers. This binding if just, is dealing with felons/etc who have to go through community service/working for the people whom they stole from or something and maybe after a certain time/term by paying off/compensating what they stole is an act of charity/freeing them and if unjust can be bound slaves (as is traditionally understood) by unbelievers/whatever which is unequivocally wrong and must be freed. Slavery as it is understood commonly (unjust forced labour etc) is out on general principle as it is in the quran, thus one cannot find any reference to such in all occurrences by believers in their 3bd. RQB is not mentioned as 3bd. So in summary, RQB can mean those bound by community service, thieves for example. Setting them free after a term or whatever would be an act of charity as is done even today.
-
Wow, FANTASTIC analysis, SC.
-
Thanks bro, the discussion helped a lot.
I see the terms 3BD and RQB used interchangeably or to mean both at times in translations where "slave" is used, whereas the terms used are very precise in the quran.
-
1675
God has cited an example the slave that is owned and powerless against the one We gave a good provision to, which he spends secretly and openly. Are they equal?
.The perception went distorted by wrongly placing the words and their relationship.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/016.%20An%20Nahl/16.75.gifAllah quoted/surfaced the contrast
between a person the characteristic of whom is that of a possessiveless person . And his pecularity is explicitly defined as he does not have control/possession/authority over any material thing. As against him the other person contrasted is
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/016.%20An%20Nahl/16.75a.gif
and the one whom We have given sustenance, from Us sustenance stable and proportionate for which reason/consequentially he spends out of it secretly and publicly.http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/016.%20An%20Nahl/16.75b.gif
Are they both identical ?Where is slavery discussed in this Verse?
-
Peace david_rs_aitken
The universal declaration of human rights have banned slavery, but slavery still exists
Modern day slavery
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599833.0If you ban something but do not actively work to eliminate it from society, then it will not disappear. A human right mean nothing if it is not practiced.
Let me give you an example. If a country creates a law which that stealing is wrong, but do not punish the thiefs when they steal, then that law is meaningless. Slavery is banned, but slavery still exists. Slavery has just changed its shape and color. The skin of the slavery is eliminated, but its skeleton still exists. Slavery can only be removed, when both the skin and the skeleton of slavery is eliminated.The Quran tells us to free the slaves (see 2177, 960, 9012-13).
To totally ban slavery at the time when the prophet lived would be impractical. From my understanding, Quran eliminates slavery gradually. Change takes time.
Besides, taking captives of war (slaves) in a defence-war can help you negotiate with the aggressors, and maybe even end the war.
You say that the declaration of human rights has forbidden slavery while the Quran has not. I don't know what the point of your argument is, but if your point is to show us that the declaration of human rights is more advanced and gives more rights to humanity than the Quran, i disagree. The quran tells us to not mock/ridicule anyone
Quran 4911
O you who believe, let not any people ridicule other people, for they may be better than they. Nor shall any women ridicule other women, for they may be better than they. Nor shall you mock one another, or call each other names; miserable indeed is the name of wickedness after attaining faith. And anyone who does not repent, then these are the transgressors.As far as i know, the declaration of human rights does not tell us to not mock anyone. So if we are going to compare the Quran with the declaration of human rights, we can see that the Quran gives a right to human beings (not to be ridiculed) which the declaration of human rights don't give. So instead of asking why the Quran does not make slavery forbidden, we should ask why does not the declaration of human rights condemn the act of mocking or ridiculing people? This is an important question we should reflect upon. The system of our creator is above all systems. It is the criteria to judge other systems, not the other way around. Think about it.
-
Thanks Mazhar, that is interesting information regarding the translation of 1675.
Peace.
-
peace David A,
Your analysis suffers from a major flaw. It equates terms yet you have not provided evidence that they can be equated. In your post you say the term 3BD is highlighted in red which will help clarify, but then reference verses without 3BD then in your conclusion use the catch-all term "slaves". This was also pointed out by abdalquran. The problems have also been highlighted in sister SC's reply.
The only thing I'd add is, for RQB a classical arabic meaning worth considering is "captive who has contracted with his master or custodian for his freedom". And my rendering of 474 which implies taking captives/RQB, then when the bind is strengthened/tightened it is likely that only then can they be considered ASR (prisoners of war), using 867. Only applicable in war of course.
-
I gotta really thank David A for bringing this matter up. Something else struck me today. Quran says
8/39And fight them on until there is no more fitnah, and and the deen in totality is for Allah and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
Fitnah is something which is trying, oppressive and tumultous and here the absence of fitnah is equated with the prevalence of ad-deenu lillah (all the systems in the land orientate towards Allah). And as we know, there is no compulsion in ad-deen (2/256)!
Therefore, Quran's primary cause of struggle is the liberation of any kind of compulsionism. This doesn't mean that it will stop a person from serving but rather being forcefully made to serve.
-
I'm glad that many agree that slavery is wrong, but that doesn't change what the Quran says on the matter.
Ask yourselves one question why would it be good (birr) to free (tahreer) a slave if the slave-master relationship was good to begin with? Why would it be a good thing to free them if there's nothing wrong the institution? It's a classic double standard of morality.
492
So, free a believing slave.Why would it be good to free a person who was not a slave? Obviously it's a good deed to free them because slavery is the opposite of goodness. The fact is the slavery is dead wrong and the Quran assumes it as a normal part of reality, instead of coming right out and banning it, or perhaps even questioning slave owners (like the Prophet) about their wrongdoing.
Do you want to define 3abd honestly? Okay. Marry an 3abd vs. free an 3abd. Clearly the Quran uses the word for slavery, with even the chance to marry a slave if you're down on your luck.
-
I'm glad that many agree that slavery is wrong, but that doesn't change what the Quran says on the matter.
If the quran actually says it, that is. You?ve had a deluge of responses which show that the kind of slavery you're talking about contradicts the very fundamentals of the Quranic social vision. Maybe if you addressed them you?ll see they?ll overturn your current perception. I?ve personally put forward 4/75 and 8/39 to show that the Quran absolutely abhors slavery (as you?ve described it)
Ask yourselves one question why would it be good (birr) to free (tahreer) a slave if the slave-master relationship was good to begin with? Why would it be a good thing to free them if there's nothing wrong the institution? It's a classic double standard of morality.
It?s not good to begin with but you see, The Quran is not like Sunni Islamic State theory. One day its jahiliyah and the next day, the impeccable state appears and everything is running like clockwork. The Quran advocates a process whereby the Rasul and the believers gradually realise that state of being on earth. That is why it tells the Nabi to say ?do not serve me? but rather become nourishers and sustainers. (3/79). That is also why ?ribaa? (fruits of unjust trade) are absolutely forbidden. All is towards the formation of a perfectly just society. But the Quran is for all situations and before that society is formed, there are processes to run.
492
So, free a believing slave.Why would it be good to free a person who was not a slave? Obviously it's a good deed to free them because slavery is the opposite of goodness. The fact is the slavery is dead wrong and the Quran assumes it as a normal part of reality, instead of coming right out and banning it, or perhaps even questioning slave owners (like the Prophet) about their wrongdoing.
The ayah doesn?t use the word ?3abd? but talks about riqabah. This person is bonded by someone and the Quran is telling the believer to free him. Note that this person is NOT mustadhafoon (as per 4/75) who cries for help because if he was, 4/75 would apply.
We must free from bondage anyone who wants to be free. No doubt about it but unless that person is being FORCED into it (i.e. he is willing to be bonded), we cant just go killing his master and freeing him.
Do you want to define 3abd honestly? Okay. Marry an 3abd vs. free an 3abd. Clearly the Quran uses the word for slavery, with even the chance to marry a slave if you're down on your luck.
I really don?t follow your reasoning here. The Quran never uses the word 3abd as SLAVES (people who are COMPELLED to serve). There are people who willingly serve (to get a wage). What exactly are you expecting believers to do, to kidnap them from their employers against their will or something? Come on, dude.
-
379 (M. Pickthall ) It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and the Prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind Be slaves of me instead of Allah; but (what he said was) Be ye faithful servants of the Lord by virtue of your constant teaching of the Scripture and of your constant study thereof.
It is not allowed for any human being (even if he is a prophet) even to mention enslavig other people.
-
Ask yourselves one question why would it be good (birr) to free (tahreer) a slave if the slave-master relationship was good to begin with? Why would it be a good thing to free them if there's nothing wrong the institution? It's a classic double standard of morality.
Nice attempt at building a straw man argument. Please tell us where we're literally told that it's 'good' to 'free' an ABD. Thanks.
You still haven't proven that abd= slave. The clock is ticking.
492
So, free a believing slave.Where is ABD in this verse? Please point it out to us. You keep equating slave with the quranic usage of ABD, which you still have yet to provide ANY evidence for. This is a forced interpretation of yours, to appease to some hippie sense of morality.
No, Translations aren't 'evidence', nor are Pharaoh's actions. He is not an example to follow, in any way. You're welcome to "enslave" people like he did though, If it really appeals to you that much.Lest we forget that EVERYONE in the heavens/earth is an 'abdan' to God (1993).
Do you want to define 3abd honestly? Okay. Marry an 3abd vs. free an 3abd
Either/or logical fallacy. How deep does your dungeon really go?
-
peace David A,
It's a little disappointing you did not address the points brought up.
We are also asked to atone/expiate by way of fasting, thus by your reasoning, is eating/drinking also bad?
But I do understand your reasoning. Let's say, for sake of argument, prior to AQ, there is an 3BD who wilfully agrees to serve his master, for whatever reason (e.g. paying off a debt, tribal law, poverty, admiration etc) then why would AQ say it's wrong and immediately ban it? That would be akin to saying "whatever you mutually agreed upon, even if it involved no wrongful act" is wrong. Sorry, but that's not logical.
If you disagree with AQ in terms of not immediately banning it and releasing all 3BD/RQB, then that's a valid position to take. I disagree however. For me, AQ is for all people at all times, and it aims to balance practicality and idealism, in a sustainable/building way. I would think it is very rare for any individual or society in any sphere to implement the peak of something immediately, rather than building up to it.
-
Peace,
Respectfully.Chapter 90
In the name of God, the Almighty, the Merciful.
901 I do swear by this land.
902 And you are a dweller in this land.
903 And a father and what he begets.
904 We have created man in struggle.
905 Does he think that no one is able to best him?
906 He says I spent so much money!
907 Does he think that no one saw him?
908 Did We not make for him two eyes?
909 And a tongue and two lips?
9010 And We guided him to both paths?
9011 He should choose the better path.
9012 Do you know which is the better path?
9013 The freeing of slaves.
9014 Or the feeding on a day of great hardship.
9015 An orphan of relation.
9016 Or a poor person in need.
9017 Then he has become one of those who have believed, and exhort one another to patience, and exhort one another to kindness.
9018 Those are the people of the right.
9019 As for those who rejected Our revelations, they are the people of misery.
9020 Upon them is a Fire closed over.Read The Quran carefully and ponder over the verses, amigo.
God bless you all.
Peace. -
But I do understand your reasoning. Let's say, for sake of argument, prior to AQ, there is an 3BD who wilfully agrees to serve his master, for whatever reason (e.g. paying off a debt, tribal law, poverty, admiration etc) then why would AQ say it's wrong and immediately ban it? That would be akin to saying "whatever you mutually agreed upon, even if it involved no wrongful act" is wrong. Sorry, but that's not logical.
Mutual agreement is PRECISELY the crux of the matter. Thanks for putting it so well, Wakas. Ibada is something mutual on the part of the rabb/lord/master AND the 3abd. It's when it's NOT mutually agreed upon that the 3abd becomes something else and THAT Quran does not accept.
-
Background info
Taken from Mustansir Mir's "Dictionary of Quranic Terms and Concepts"
NB 3 = Arabic letter Ayn
3BD
In its literal sense of "slave, bondsman" 3bd (pl. ibad, 3bid) occurs in such verses as 2176, 221 and 1675. But its typical Quranic meaning is "servant-worshipper." 3bd in this sense is essentially a statement of man's proper role - man ought to serve and worship God, his Creator and Lord - whether or not that role is actually performed. This explains the usage in a verse like 3413 ("Only a few of My ibad are the grateful ones", where ibad includes those who perform the stated role and those who do not. It is only when he actually performs that role that man becomes an 3bd in the true sense, as in 1765 "Indeed you shall have no power over My ibad" (also 1542). David is called a "good 3bd" in 3817, and so, in 3830, is Solomon (see also 192 and 3841).
Insofar as it is man's duty to serve God, 3bd carries ethical connotations. Occasionally, however, it is used as a value-free term. In 175, which alludes to Nebuchadnezar's attack on Jerusalem (586 B.C.), the invading troops are called "Our ibad" not because they were particularly righteous, but simply because they served as an instrument for executing a certain divine scheme.The book is rare, about 23 years old, but it is quite good sometimes.
