Caliphate system and Slavery

SayyidAbdullahSerif

On the concept of Slavery in the Quran

424 - Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

2221 - Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allures you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the Garden (of bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His Signs clear to mankind That they may celebrate His praise.

589 - Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful.

It would seem prima facie that Islam does condone slavery and which can only occur by taking captives. (But as someone already pointed out, Muslims may only engage in defensive fighting). However, even a slave women must be sought in marriage - though the opinion of others is that it is nothing short of the institutionalization of sex-slavery and concubinage.

But on a more thorough reading of the Quran one can see that slavery is discouraged.

Bigmo

When a sunni tries to defend rape in the name of god you should simply ask him of whether he also approves rape of his own mother.

Its only an imbecile who can defend rape. Being a sunni is being an imbecile.

Peace

The reality is most Muslims are not aware what the Sunnah teaches and are not aware of what Islamic history was actually doing. Unlike the Europeans, the Muslim authorities kept their population in the dark. Clerics are very selective which aspects of the Sunnah and their Shariah law they preach. Most Muslims are not ware of slavery and prisoners of war in the Shariah law preached by these sects.

Muslim authorities did what the political establishement wanted them to do. This way the Sunnis can cotrol the mosques while the dictator controls the palace and the army. Its only recently when some of this stuff started coming out. Mostly its the Salafist and terrorist and the availablity of the printing press and the internet that helped many aspect of the Sunnah to come out.

After 9-11, many Wetsreners became heavy Islami critics and many found the Sunnah as an easy way to attack Islam. This actually helped some Muslims get acquianted with the more problematic aspect of the Sunnah.

But,

Those same Islam bashers will deny us since we are harder to critique than the sects since the Koran is not the Sunnah. They will try to downplay our significance and insist on the authority of the Sunnah since they need it to attack Islam. Most of these guys want to justify some wars and they find Islam bashing an expedient way to garnish public support to justify wars against Muslim countries. The Neocons are probably at the forefront of this Islam bashing campaign. We therefore are not good news to them.

Also, as far as we are concerned, we have a lot more issues with sectarian Islam than simply the problematic issues. Our differences with the sects ranges many areas including many rituals, beliefs and practices that Muslims are told to do. Many of them maybe not be problematic such as eating with the right hand or prohibiting men from wearing gold and silk etc or forcing women not to pray during their menstraution or the belief in stoning the devil practice during the haj etc. Plus there are many aspects of the Koran that the sects simply ignored.

Its our job to educate the public. But our agenda is much larger than just problematic issues.

Maha

On the concept of Slavery in the Quran

424 - Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

2221 - Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allures you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the Garden (of bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His Signs clear to mankind That they may celebrate His praise.

589 - Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful.

It would seem prima facie that Islam does condone slavery and which can only occur by taking captives. (But as someone already pointed out, Muslims may only engage in defensive fighting). However, even a slave women must be sought in marriage - though the opinion of others is that it is nothing short of the institutionalization of sex-slavery and concubinage.

But on a more thorough reading of the Quran one can see that slavery is discouraged.

please keep your haditherized translation of the quran to yourself and. Secondly if you are such a huge supporter of slavery, than sell yourself to me, I really wanna buy you because I need someone to clean my toilet.

Maha

The reality is most Muslims are not aware what the Sunnah teaches and are not aware of what Islamic history was actually doing. Unlike the Europeans, the Muslim authorities kept their population in the dark. Clerics are very selective which aspects of the Sunnah and their Shariah law they preach. Most Muslims are not ware of slavery and prisoners of war in the Shariah law preached by these sects.

Muslim authorities did what the political establishement wanted them to do. This way the Sunnis can cotrol the mosques while the dictator controls the palace and the army. Its only recently when some of this stuff started coming out. Mostly its the Salafist and terrorist and the availablity of the printing press and the internet that helped many aspect of the Sunnah to come out.

After 9-11, many Wetsreners became heavy Islami critics and many found the Sunnah as an easy way to attack Islam. This actually helped some Muslims get acquianted with the more problematic aspect of the Sunnah.

But,

Those same Islam bashers will deny us since we are harder to critique than the sects since the Koran is not the Sunnah. They will try to downplay our significance and insist on the authority of the Sunnah since they need it to attack Islam. Most of these guys want to justify some wars and they find Islam bashing an expedient way to garnish public support to justify wars against Muslim countries. The Neocons are probably at the forefront of this Islam bashing campaign. We therefore are not good news to them.

Also, as far as we are concerned, we have a lot more issues with sectarian Islam than simply the problematic issues. Our differences with the sects ranges many areas including many rituals, beliefs and practices that Muslims are told to do. Many of them maybe not be problematic such as eating with the right hand or prohibiting men from wearing gold and silk etc or forcing women not to pray during their menstraution or the belief in stoning the devil practice during the haj etc. Plus there are many aspects of the Koran that the sects simply ignored.

Its our job to educate the public. But our agenda is much larger than just problematic issues.

very well said Bigmo. Thanks for your enlightment, and sure we have other more important issues with them. However, the sexual perversion in sectarian islam is just so disgusting just look what i recently found

"Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom, 1990"

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

Not only do these SICK people condone and practise rape and sex-slavery, they also dont have any problem in sexually abuse of an infant child.

Bigmo

very well said Bigmo. Thanks for your enlightment, and sure we have other more important issues with them. However, the sexual perversion in sectarian islam is just so disgusting just look what i recently found

"Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom, 1990"

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

Not only do these SICK people condone and practise rape and sex-slavery, they also dont have any problem in sexually abuse of an infant child.

GEMARA. ? Rab said Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that. (2) What is the basis of their dispute? ? Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt ; whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty . (3) But Samuel maintains Scripture writes, as with the lyings of a woman. (4)

It has been taught in accordance with Rab Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally; or a woman who causes herself to be bestially abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment. (5)

I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.

So that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less that eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not
When a boy of that age could cause conception.

instead of the in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day who commits etc.] There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first ? a male aged nine years and a day ? refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning ? because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable.

http//www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_2.html

Thats part of the Talmudic influence. Notice the 9 years age is identical to the Aisha age the hadith came with.

The need of creating some kind of theoretical justification for what so far had been an instinctive reliance on the opinions of the majority, led, from the first decades of the second/eighth century onwards, to the living tradition being retrojected, and to its being ascribed to some of the great hgures of the past. This process, too, began in Kufa, where the stage of doctrine achieved in the time of Hammad b. Abi Sulayman (d. I20/73 was attributed to Ibrahim al-Nakha'i (d. 95-6/7I3-I5). The Medinese followed suit and retrojected their own teaching to a number of ancient authorities who had died about the turn of the century, some of whom later became known as the 'seven jurists of Medina'. At the same time as the doctrine of the school of Kufa was retrospectively attributed to Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, a similar body of doctrine was directly connected with the very beginnings of Islam in Kufa by being attributed to Ibn Mas'ud, a Companion of the Prophet who had come to live in that city, and Ibrahim al-Nakha'i became the main transmitter of that body of doctrine, too. In the same way, other Companions of the Prophet became the eponyms of the schools of Medina and of Mecca. One further step in the search for a solid theoretical foundation of the doctrine of the ancient schools was taken in 'Iraq, very early in the second/eighth century, when the term ' Sunna of the Prophet ' was transferred from its political and theological into a legal context, and identified with the sunna, the ideal practice of the local community and the corresponding doctrine of its scholars. This term, which was taken over by the school of Syria, expressed the axiom that the practice of the Muslims derived from the practice of the Prophet, but it did not as yet imply the existence of positive information in the form of ' Traditions ' (Hadith), that the Prophet by his words or acts had in fact originated or approved any particular practice. It was not long before these Traditions, too, came into existence, and the persons who put them into circulation were the Traditionists.

The ancient schools of law themselves represented, in one aspect, an Islamic opposition to popular andadministrativepracticeunderthe later Umayyads, and the opposition group which developed into the Traditionist movement emphasized this tendency. As long as a Companion of the Prophet had been the final authority for the doctrine of a school on a particular point, it was sufficient for a divergent doctrine to be put under the aegis of another Companion of equal or even higher authority, as happened in Kufa where all kinds of minority opinions were attributed to the Caliph 'Ali, who had made Kufa his capital. But after the general authority of the Prophet himself had been invoked by identifying the established doctrine with his sunna, a more specific reference to him was needed, and there appeared detailed statements or 'Traditions' which claimed to be the reports of ear- or eye-witnesses on the words or acts of the Prophet, handed down orally by an uninterrupted chain of trustworthy persons. Very soon the emphasis shifted from proposing certain opinions in opposition to the ancient schools to disseminating Traditions from the Prophet as such, and the movement of the Traditionists, which was to develop into a separate branch of Islamic religious learning, came into being. It was the main thesis of the Traditionists that formal Traditions from the Prophet superseded the living tradition of the school. The Traditionists existed in all great centres of Islam, where they formed groups in opposition to, but nevertheless in contact with, the local schools of law. Initially the ancient schools offered strong resistance to the disturbing element represented by the Traditions, but they had no real defence against their rising tide; they had to express their own doctrines in Traditions which allegedly went back to the Prophet, and to take increasing notice of the Traditions produced by their opponents. Finally the outlines and many details of Islamic law were cast into the form of Traditions from the Prophet. In this way, one of the greatest and most successful literary fictions came into being.

http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/schacht.asp

Everything had to be traced to Muhammad for it to have authority since given Islam's complicated history, Muhammad was the one figure everybody can agree with. This meant that any practice for it to be binding and Islamically acceptable had to be traced to Muhammad. It was Imam Al Shafi in his treatise "the Risala" that first gave argument about the Sunnah of the prophet as being a binding revelation alongside the Koran.

You can see the arguments he presented

On Legal Knowledge

Someone asked me What is knowledge and how much should men know of it?
Shafi?i replied Legal knowledge is of two kinds one is for the general public, and no sober and mature person should be ignorant of it.
He asked For example?
replied For example, that the daily prayers are five, that men owe it to God to fast the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to the House whenever they are able, and to the legal alms in their estate; that He has prohibited usury, adultery, homicide, theft, wine, and of that sort which He has obligated men to comprehend, to perform, to pay in their property, and to abstain from He has forbidden it to them.

This kind of knowledge may be found textually in the Book of God, or may be found generally among the people of Islam. The public relates it from the preceding public and ascribes it to the Apostle of God, nobody ever questioning its ascription or its binding force upon them. It is the kind of knowledge which admits of error neither in its narrative nor in its interpretation; it is not permissible to question it.

He asked What is the second kind?
Shafi?i replied It consists of the detailed duties and rules obligatory on men, concerning which there exists neither a text in the Book of God, nor regarding most of them, a sunna. Whenever a sunna exists , it is of the kind related by few authorities, not by the public, and is subject to different interpretations arrived at by analogy.
He asked Is replied There is a third kind .
He asked Will you explain it, give its source, and state what of it is obligatory, and on whom it is binding and on whom it is not binding?
replied The public is incapable of knowing this kind of knowledge, nor can all specialists obtain it. But those who do obtain it should not all neglect it. If some can obtain it, the others are relieved of the duty ; but those who do obtain it will be rewarded.

.

Indelwyn

"Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom, 1990"

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

As one friend has said You can spend you whole life studying the Koran and not be called a Koran scholar, but you f*** one sheep...

These people are sick and beyond. Bigmo, nice post really.

When did men (sorry guys, but I have not heard many stories of females having such perversions) become lower than scum? Don't the good muslim men want to stand up against this? UGGH!

huruf

I have read from someone who knows about this and who happens to dislike khomeini and ayatolas that that piece attributed to him (Khomeini) which is making the rounds of forums and blogs and all that is fully invented. Khomeini never said such a thing, what he did write about was if somebody was such a scum as to do such a thing then that scum should become moneywise responsible for the upbring of the abused child, which obviously is quite different of what is being repeated everywhere.

By the way I also dislike and am very suspicious of Khomeini, but on the other hand I am surprised that many times in this forum and others there is like a rush to believe anything that paints shias or sunnis or presumed so in the blackest ink possible. What can we get out of it?

It is fine that all distortions made to bear on Qur'an be uncovered and any uses or traditions against it or outright lies be brought to light in clear terms, but this quest for greater and greater monstrosities or filth reported anywhere regardless whether they are truth or not is sick. That is not going to make us any better.

Even amonst sunnis or purported sunnis are good, balanced people, just as there are amongst catholics or jews or any other.

Salaam

Bigmo

I have read from someone who knows about this and who happens to dislike khomeini and ayatolas that that piece attributed to him (Khomeini) which is making the rounds of forums and blogs and all that is fully invented. Khomeini never said such a thing, what he did write about was if somebody was such a scum as to do such a thing then that scum should become moneywise responsible for the upbring of the abused child, which obviously is quite different of what is being repeated everywhere.

By the way I also dislike and am very suspicious of Khomeini, but on the other hand I am surprised that many times in this forum and others there is like a rush to believe anything that paints shias or sunnis or presumed so in the blackest ink possible. What can we get out of it?

It is fine that all distortions made to bear on Qur'an be uncovered and any uses or traditions against it or outright lies be brought to light in clear terms, but this quest for greater and greater monstrosities or filth reported anywhere regardless whether they are truth or not is sick. That is not going to make us any better.

Even amonst sunnis or purported sunnis are good, balanced people, just as there are amongst catholics or jews or any other.

Salaam

The only child abuse I know of in Sunni and Shia Islam is the marriage of Aisha at age nine. And it probably made its way into Islam through the Talmudic influences in Islam. I have never heard anything else regarding child abuses in sectarian Islam other than the Aisha issue. This is regarding both Sunni and Shia since Shia also believe Aisha was nine. Shiasm seems to follow what Sunnis believe except regarding the companions.

There is also the beat the child if they don't pray stuff. And some might add circumcission.

Bigmo

On the concept of Slavery in the Quran

424 - Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

2221 - Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allures you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the Garden (of bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His Signs clear to mankind That they may celebrate His praise.

589 - Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful.

It would seem prima facie that Islam does condone slavery and which can only occur by taking captives. (But as someone already pointed out, Muslims may only engage in defensive fighting). However, even a slave women must be sought in marriage - though the opinion of others is that it is nothing short of the institutionalization of sex-slavery and concubinage.

But on a more thorough reading of the Quran one can see that slavery is discouraged.

The second verse is talking about spirituality. Anotherwords status should not be taken more importantly than faith. The Koran also used the argument that those who take idols as gods are like a helpless slave. In another anaology it used a spider building a home. It also used a donkey carrying packages as an analogy to those who abandoned the Torah. The Koran also used an eye for an eye as an analogy for justice and equity, but it also used a slave for a slave and a man for man and female for a female to talk about justice and equity. It could have used an orange for an orange and an apple for an apple. So we must look at how the Koran is using terms.

As far as aboloshing slavery or not, I think that depends on how you see the Koran's mission. Is its mission to change mankind or is its mission to guide the believers to salvation? What happens if the believers are a minority as the case with Moses in Egypt or Noah among his people? Here what believers can do is limited. So I am not sure if its the job of the Koran to change mankind especially when most mankind are non believers as the Koran says.

As far as the believers are concerned the only thing the Koran actually told the believers to do is to free the slaves by way of charity. Nowhere did the Koan ever indicate that believers can have and own slaves.

If we are talking about a Quranic state or a Quranic nation then we can say abolishing slavery but for the most part most believers live in lands dominated by disbelievers or people gone astray. A Quranic state will of course abolish slavery since the Koran never gave believers the authority to own another human being.
For the most part there will probably never be a Quranic state, maybe it will come. But throughtout history that has not been the case. The Koran seems to recognize that evil will prevail among mankind. Even the angels recognized that. But the Koran guides those who believe to salvation. That is its mission. As far as changing mankind or erasing injustice, well if the society is a Quranic one than yes. But that is not always the case.

Maha

The second verse is talking about spirituality. Anotherwords status should not be taken more importantly than faith. The Koran also used the argument that those who take idols as gods are like a helpless slave. In another anaology it used a spider building a home. It also used a donkey carrying packages as an analogy to those who abandoned the Torah. The Koran also used an eye for an eye as an analogy for justice and equity, but it also used a slave for a slave and a man for man and female for a female to talk about justice and equity. It could have used an orange for an orange and an apple for an apple. So we must look at how the Koran is using terms.

As far as aboloshing slavery or not, I think that depends on how you see the Koran's mission. Is its mission to change mankind or is its mission to guide the believers to salvation? What happens if the believers are a minority as the case with Moses in Egypt or Noah among his people? Here what believers can do is limited. So I am not sure if its the job of the Koran to change mankind especially when most mankind are non believers as the Koran says.

As far as the believers are concerned the only thing the Koran actually told the believers to do is to free the slaves by way of charity. Nowhere did the Koan ever indicate that believers can have and own slaves.

If we are talking about a Quranic state or a Quranic nation then we can say abolishing slavery but for the most part most believers live in lands dominated by disbelievers or people gone astray. A Quranic state will of course abolish slavery since the Koran never gave believers the authority to own another human being.
For the most part there will probably never be a Quranic state, maybe it will come. But throughtout history that has not been the case. The Koran seems to recognize that evil will prevail among mankind. Even the angels recognized that. But the Koran guides those who believe to salvation. That is its mission. As far as changing mankind or erasing injustice, well if the society is a Quranic one than yes. But that is not always the case.

Very good points. However, I want to add two more points.

Quran tells us to avoid idolworshipp
Quran tells us to avoid evil.

Anyone with even a low IQ would know that forcing another person to obey him unconditionally (owning another human person) is idolworship due to the fact that you force another person to obey you as you was his God. Furthermore anyone with even a low IQ would know that slavery is pure evil, which is also forbidden according to the quran. If that slave is lucky enough to run away and if you catch him you would begin to beat and lash him in order to ensure that he wont run away again, if torture isnt evil than what is evil?
Quran does not mention child abuse, slavery, rape, cheating, lying by telling half-truths etc. as being DIRECTLY prohibited, since the Quran is ment for the believers, and thus only lay down basic principles since the believers dont need a book to tell them that they should not indulge in child abuse, slavery, rape, torture etc. They know these things are wrong already by the grace and guidance of God. Quran only confirms what they already knew - and a book to help them further in their quest for God.

But of course, many people justify child abuse, slavery, rape, cheating, lying, and murder in the name of the Quran and these people are called ''munafeqeen' in the quran itself.

Peace

Maha

I have read from someone who knows about this and who happens to dislike khomeini and ayatolas that that piece attributed to him (Khomeini) which is making the rounds of forums and blogs and all that is fully invented. Khomeini never said such a thing, what he did write about was if somebody was such a scum as to do such a thing then that scum should become moneywise responsible for the upbring of the abused child, which obviously is quite different of what is being repeated everywhere.

By the way I also dislike and am very suspicious of Khomeini, but on the other hand I am surprised that many times in this forum and others there is like a rush to believe anything that paints shias or sunnis or presumed so in the blackest ink possible. What can we get out of it?

It is fine that all distortions made to bear on Qur'an be uncovered and any uses or traditions against it or outright lies be brought to light in clear terms, but this quest for greater and greater monstrosities or filth reported anywhere regardless whether they are truth or not is sick. That is not going to make us any better.

Even amonst sunnis or purported sunnis are good, balanced people, just as there are amongst catholics or jews or any other.

Salaam

dear sister, i have personally SPOKEN to shiities who believe in this and confirms that khomeini said that. And they use a lot of creative arguments in order to defend it. And I also saw a program on TV which reported that its officially for shiite men to marry a babygirl and get sexual pleasure from the baby child in Bahrain. Having said that, I assume that very rare shiite men do this evil thing since most shiite - hopefully - dont feel themselves sexually attracted to babygirls.
Peace

Sunnah-hero

Hello,

I have a question about the Caliphate system - is it specified in the Quran? According to other Muslims, it is permissible if a Caliph choses to fight disbelievers if they refuse Islam or paying jizyah as subdied dhimmis to keep their religion as an alternative - do you agree? And slavery - the Islamic slave trade in Asia and Africa saw the enslavement of millions simply on the basis that they were not Muslims. Most of the female slaves were used as sex slaves. Some Caliphs required children to be given as jizyah. Is it permissible according to the Quran in your view?

Peace to all.

Slavery is permissible in Islam. However, we should note that Slavery exsisted long before Islam but islam improved the living conditions for slaves e.g. muslim masters are obligated to feed and clothe their slaves. Keep in mind that slavery in islam is only permissible during war which would automatically limit the numbers of slaves and keep in mind that islam forbids enslaving of muslims, even non-muslims are not allowed to enslave muslims.
Muslim masters having sex with their slavegirls is permissible, our own prophet sws had sex with his slavegirls, prophet ibrahim alaihi salam had sex with his slavegirl Hagar and so on. The reason for why muslim masters can have sex with their slavegirls is because promiscuity back then and even today is so common that limiting a man to one sexpartner would force him to commit adultery. Keep also in mind that the slavegirls also have sexual needs which should be satisfied and the consequences of a master not having sex with his slavegirls would be slavegirls seeking sexual pleasure from prostitution, and a islamic state cannot tolerate prostitution at any cost. However when a slavegirl gives birth to her muslim masters child the child would be born as a free person unlike in christianity which deprived children of slaves that right.
In the instance of illness its required for the slave to be looked after. In which religion do you see so much compassion and love for the slaves as the islamic religion?

Islam is a mercy for the humanity. If Islam was so cruel why would millions of billions people each year convert to Islam ?

huruf

Sunnah heroe, I kindly warn you that you are propagating slandering against the Prophet on hearsay. You were not there, you didn't see or hear such a thing, you do not even know anybody who may have known the Prophet, Dbs, still you dare slander him on mere hearsay, a Prophet of God who is a mercy for all the worlds including prisoners and women, and you slander him, in spite of knowing that he did transmit faithfully the truthful Qur'an and that he wouln't do anything that is not be best conduct as per the Qur'an. Either one is nuts or one is a provocator and a godless person to diseminate slander against the beloved Prophet sent as the khatamnnabiyin.

I am very worried when I read people saying such awful things.

But you are warned that no doubt you like everybody else will be asked as to why you slandered a person, and a person non less than the one sent as the mercy to the worlds. I would hate to see you suffer the torments of hell for that.

Salaam

curiousgirl

Sunnah Heroe, Christianity does not allow slavery. Europeans did not even abide by the rules set in the Old Testament. For instance, Moses forbade kidnapping people to keep or sell them as slaves, yet Islam allows this.

I'm sure the slavegirls enjoy sex! -\

curiousgirl

Laws applying to slaves

General treatment of slaves

The law protected slaves from being abused by their masters

Killing a slave merited punishment.1 (Ex 2120)
Permanently injured slaves had to be set free (Ex 2126-27)
Slaves who ran away from oppressive masters were effectively freed (Dt 2315-16)

The law also gave slaves a day of rest every week (Ex 2010, Dt 514).

Hebrew slaves

Hebrews could become slaves of a fellow Hebrew if they committed a crime such as theft and had no other way of paying the fine (Ex 221-3) or if they became impoverished and sold themselves and/or their family into slavery. (See also Did slavery take advantage of the poor? below.) Kidnapping someone and selling them into slavery was forbidden (Dt 247).

When one Hebrew owned another Hebrew as a slave, the law commanded lenient treatment

Slaves were to be treated as hired workers, not slaves (Lev 2539-43)
All slaves were to be freed after six years (Ex 212, Dt 1512)
Freed slaves were to be liberally supplied with grain, wine and livestock (Dt 1512-15)
Every fiftieth year (the year of jubilee), all Hebrew slaves were to be freed, even those owned by foreigners (Lev 2510, 47-54)

In special cases, slaves could choose to remain with their masters if they felt it was in their best interests (Dt 1516-17).

If a Hebrew sold himself as a slave to a foreigner, he reserved the right to buy his freedom (Lev 2547-49) and was still to be treated as a hired man (Lev 2553).

Foreign slaves

While foreign slaves could be made slaves for life, the laws regarding the general treatment of slaves applied to them as well (Lev 2422, Num 1515-16). The law made it clear that foreigners were not inferiors who could be mistreated (Ex 239); instead they were to be loved just as fellow Israelites were (Lev 1933-34). For more information, see the article on Gentiles in the OT.

Female slaves

In some cases, fathers could sell their daughters as a maidservant and wife. Since they were then married to their master, they were not automatically set free after six years (though unmarried female slaves were freed, as Dt 1512 explicitly states). However, they were still protected by the law

If the husband divorced his wife, the law labelled it "unfair treatment" and allowed for her to be freed (Ex 21
If someone bought a wife for his son, he was to treat her as his daughter (Ex 219)
Neglected wives were automatically freed (Ex 2110-11)

Captives of war apparently became slaves, and men could choose to marry female captives. There were similar laws for the protection of these women, even though they would have been in the lowest class of society

Captive women were given a month to mourn their families and adjust to their new home before marrying (Dt 2113)
If divorced by their husband, they were freed (Dt 2114)
They could not be sold to anyone else (Dt 2114)

See also Were female slaves raped? below.
Specific objections

Dt 2110-11 Were female slaves raped?

The law explicitly condemned all of the following

Rape (Dt 2225-27)
Prostitution (2317-1
Sex outside of marriage, whether consensual or not (Ex 2216-17, Dt 2228-29)
Sex with a slave who was betrothed or married to someone else (Lev 1920-22)

Therefore any forced intercourse would have been against both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Ex 2120-21 Could masters beat slaves to death?

The NIV translates Ex 2121 as, "...but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." While there is an argument for this translation,2 it is not necessarily the correct translation, so I am using the standard meaning of "he is not to be punished if the slave survives for a day or two."

Most likely, this law was intended to distinguish between cases where a slave died as a direct result of their master's mistreatment and where they died of natural causes. It could of course be the case that a slave was severely beaten but didn't succumb to their injuries for a few days. In that situation, the case could have been brought before the priests and they could have used common sense and ruled that it was murder (cf. Dt 178-11). One should keep in mind that the laws given in the OT are examples, not legalese. For instance, Ex. 2133-34 mentions only an ox or donkey falling into a pit, but that hardly means that if another animal fell into someone's pit the owner wouldn't receive compensation.

Lev 2539 Did slavery take advantage of the poor?

Skeptics have objected that poverty would force people to sell themselves as slaves; impovershed Hebrews could not then be said to have chosen slavery of their own free will. However, the law provided several safety nets for the poor within society

Gleanings left over from harvest were left for the poor to pick up (Dt 2419-21)
Towns had the equivalent of food pantries for the poor, which were stocked using tithes (Dt 1428-29)
People were commanded to lend generously to the poor and provide for them (Dt 157-11, Lev 2535-37), without charging interest (Ex 2225)

Finally, the law was adamant about providing justice for the poor and not taking advantage of them (Dt 2719, Ex 2222-27). Only under extreme circumstances would someone be forced to sell themselves into slavery because of their poverty. If the Israelites had followed the law faithfully, there would not have been any financial need at all (Dt 154-5).

Ex 215-6, Dt 1516-17 Were slaves forced to say they "loved" their masters and/or serve them for life?

The law plainly states that Hebrew slaves were to be freed after serving six years (Ex 212, Dt 1512). If a slave wished to remain, it was his free choice. Since Hebrews typically became slaves only due to poverty, some may have felt they were better off working for a rich family and being provided for rather than struggling to make it on their own (cf. Dt 1516).

Slaves weren't forced to say they loved their masters if they wanted to stay; the speech given in Exodus 215 is only an example. A parallel passage in Deuteronomy 1516 only has the slave saying he doesn't want to leave.

As for whether slaves could be forced into lifelong slavery, Exodus 216 says the ceremony for lifelong slaves was to take place in front of a judge. Slaves had to publicly state their intention to remain as slaves; their master couldn't lie and say they'd expressed their intentions privately. While an evil master could force his slaves to make the proclamation by threatening them, it was the responsibility of the priests/judges and the community at large to observe masters' treatment of their slaves (cf. Lev 2553). This observation was also in their best interests, since one person's disobedience brought guilt on those who knew what was going on and failed to do anything about it (Lev 1917), which in turn would result in adverse consequences for the entire community (Dt 1126-2.
Footnotes

What punishment was given to a master who killed a slave? In an earlier version of this article, I said it was death, based on Ex 2112. However, I don't think this is necessarily the case. For one, the preceding verses 2112-17 list multiple crimes that were explicitly punishable by death, yet 2120 does not explicitly say the master should be put to death. For another, 2128-32 says that when the owner of an ox is culpable for its goring someone to death, he is to be killed, but if the victim was a slave, he is only subject to a fine. (Back to article)
I received this explanation from GotQuestions.org (quoted with permission)

The Hebrew word translated "gets up" in the NIV, "remains alive" in the NKJV, and "survives" in the NASB literally means "arise, endure, remain, raise up". So, the differences in translation result from debate on whether the verb in this passage means to literally "stand up" or metaphorically to "remain" as in stay alive. I lean towards the meaning of "live" taken by the NKJV and NAS. Punishment of slaves was considered the right of the owner (Pr 1013; 1324), but this did not allow for violence. An owner who caused the death of a slave was to be punished (Ex 2120). If the slave lived a few days it was evidence that the owner had no intent to kill. Any permanent injury brought freedom to the slave (Ex 2126-27). The master's power over the slave was limited, which made these laws unprecedented in the ancient world.

(Back to article)

http//www.rationalchristianity.net/slavery_ot.html#foreign

Bigmo

Very good points. However, I want to add two more points.

Quran tells us to avoid idolworshipp
Quran tells us to avoid evil.

Anyone with even a low IQ would know that forcing another person to obey him unconditionally (owning another human person) is idolworship due to the fact that you force another person to obey you as you was his God. Furthermore anyone with even a low IQ would know that slavery is pure evil, which is also forbidden according to the quran. If that slave is lucky enough to run away and if you catch him you would begin to beat and lash him in order to ensure that he wont run away again, if torture isnt evil than what is evil?
Quran does not mention child abuse, slavery, rape, cheating, lying by telling half-truths etc. as being DIRECTLY prohibited, since the Quran is ment for the believers, and thus only lay down basic principles since the believers dont need a book to tell them that they should not indulge in child abuse, slavery, rape, torture etc. They know these things are wrong already by the grace and guidance of God. Quran only confirms what they already knew - and a book to help them further in their quest for God.

But of course, many people justify child abuse, slavery, rape, cheating, lying, and murder in the name of the Quran and these people are called ''munafeqeen' in the quran itself.

Peace

Exactly.

Sunnah-hero

Sunnah Heroe, Christianity does not allow slavery. Europeans did not even abide by the rules set in the Old Testament. For instance, Moses forbade kidnapping people to keep or sell them as slaves, yet Islam allows this.

I'm sure the slavegirls enjoy sex! -\

I don't care about christianity anyway. Islam is mercy for humanity and people who dont understand this are the people Allah tells us would stay in hell fire forever.

Why do you want a sex-slave to enjoy sex....... You OWN her like you own a cell phone. Have you ever asked your cell phone before using it if it likes to be used or not?

MaverickMonotheist

Islam is mercy for humanity...

And then, right to...

Why do you want a sex-slave to enjoy sex....... You OWN her like you own a cell phone. Have you ever asked your cell phone before using it if it likes to be used or not?

Wow. Just. Wow. I have no words.

Indelwyn

limiting a man to one sexpartner would force him to commit adultery. Keep also in mind that the slavegirls also have sexual needs which should be satisfied and the consequences of a master not having sex with his slavegirls would be slavegirls seeking sexual pleasure from prostitution, and a islamic state cannot tolerate prostitution at any cost.

This is about the dumbest thing I have heard, next to Monkeys stoning each other and Goats eating pages of the Quran.

I was a single mother of two, did I become a prostitute... umm no. Would I ... umm no. Back then I understand ppl did things to survive, being raped should not have been one of them. I know many men in monogamous relationships who are happy and content. Using this excuse to be an animal does not work. It does not force adultery to have a loving, one on one relationship. So men are pigs to help save us poor women. Hagar was the daughter of the pharaoh aka princess (Sealed Nectar). Many prophets had just one wife, including Ishmael.

Slavery is a form of oppression. Allah wanted us to free slaves and made a way that would help get rid of slavery. If every slave married and had a child then there would be less and less and less, till there would hopefully, by His mercy and grace be none.

Rape is not only oppression, it damages someone emotionally. The effect on the mental health of someone who had survived rape is not a pleasant one. It has horrible consequences. How would you feel if your sister was raped? Don't say oh she is muslim. A christian could take her captive and rape her. If God's system is for all humanity, then her being raped is part of the rights of the men who capture her. The ppl of the book are still termed as believers.

brickwall

Indelwyn

Why do you want a sex-slave to enjoy sex....... You OWN her like you own a cell phone. Have you ever asked your cell phone before using it if it likes to be used or not?

You idiot, because it is a PHONE, not a HUMAN BEING! Go back to your hole in the ground, plz!