Owned Servants? Slaves?

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.

AK85

Peace Herbman, Wakas, everyone else,

I read your replies. Thank you. So basically

It's okay to own people if they commit a crime, and it's okay to put them to work.
Human dignity doesn't apply fully to unbelievers. Believers should be freed first.
The Quran "eventually" abolishes slavery by calling the freeing of slaves righteous, but it doesn't abolish it immediately. It's okay to keep slaves for a while longer while the economy adjusts. In other words just be my slave for a few more years until I can afford to hire you.

Wouldn't a slave prefer to be FREE and begging on the street for work/money than to be OWNED?

Peace,

-David

1.) I believe that in the North American justice system, people are required to perform community service sometimes as a punishment. And they face jail if they do not comply with this. They are usually sometimes even required to pay the victim a set amount. If they cannot pay the amount immediately, they may perhaps have to work (maybe not directly for the victim) but simply work anywhere and anyhow till they make money to pay off the person? Do you think this is not a form of "slavery"? And what if they are rich and can pay the person immediately? And can simply continuously commit crime and keep on paying off people? Wouldn't it be more fair for them to be "enslaved" to community service or even the victim till the value of their labour makes up for whatever it is that they owe the person? I am not sure if in the North American legal system the service can be made to be carried out towards the person who was wronged, however I think that may be a better idea? Especially in cases of theft?

2.) I think the reason the placement of priority may be there, is because of the status of the believers above the non believers (this sounds redundant, but let me explain).

For example, a person may believe that stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, (especially if it happens to them) but still do it anyway? Yes, in that case they are hypocrites, but can they still believe in the wrongness of these things and sincerely preach the wrongness against of it to others? Despite the fact that they themselves have done it, and have ignored their own beliefs (Man is created weak) but in the end they still believe that it is wrong. Sincerely even, although it is troublesome that they do not adhere to their own sincere belief in the wrongness of the act.

Another example is a parent who smokes cigarettes but always preaches the evil of smoking to their children. They are hypocritical, but what they are doing is still commendable. It would be better of course if they could follow their own advice, but that doesn't mean that they were wrong in enjoining their beliefs upon their children on the evils of smoking simply because they themselves were smokers.

So applying this to those who are believers in the Qu'ran, regardless of what they have done (which made it legal for them become slaves) their sincere belief (which they transgressed because of their own weakness) elevates their status above the non believer. And what is the definition of a non believer? Is it simply non belief in everything or non belief in the things that will affect his ability to live peacefully in society without unacceptable universally agreed upon transgressions against others? Or is it his non belief in things like do not kill, do not steal? And if he is a peaceful non believer who does not transgress against beliefs which do not harm society, then he is believing in the peace, harmony and goodwill aspect of the Qu'ran, whether he likes to admit it or not, whether the idea of believing something from the Qu'ran, believing anything in the Qu'ran is pleasant to him or not, bottom line is he believes in that part of the Qu'ran. Perhaps his non belief is in the other things which may give him a bad standing on judgement day, but not make him a threat to the community? Maybe he doesn't believe in God and judgement day, but he doesn't kill, steal, oppress and suppress faith either? Then most likely he will never land himself in a situation which would require him to be enslaved?

And the situation with the pharoah is different, because he enslaved them specifically out of cruelty and arrogance and racism/inferiority complex, not because they had lost an oppressive war which they started, or because they had stolen/committed a crime which gave them a debt to society.

And yes, someone who owes someone an agreed upon debt/amount borrowed is definitely different from someone who is indebted because of a transgression I am assuming.

I think the islamic system of punishment is better than jail. Are these people truly slaves? They work, but of course we still must treat them righteously. To my knowledge there is nothing that says we must make them work 24/7 or deny them their freedom completely. If anything it might even be like a job, you come to work for your "boss" and perform an agreed amount of labour, and then you are free till the next day. Of course if they refuse this merciful (and fair in my opinion) punishment and rebel against it, or they escape the area simply to escape their obligation for "community service" then its a different story.

AK85