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.

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.

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.

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

1. Slavery isn't really bad.
2. 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

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

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

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

does it say the practice itself is derogatory to the human dignity in the first place?

Peace RasulHamsa, everyone,

Being owned is not a good thing. This concept comes naturally, even to children. Children often feel guilty if their family has even a paid servant doing all the dirty work, let alone a piece of human property. The Quran does speak about how it isn't good to be owned, but doesn't prohibit slavery outright

1675 God puts forth the example of a slave who is owned and cannot achieve anything, against one whom We have provided a good provision which he spends of it secretly and openly. Are they the same? God be praised, but most of them do not know.

Obviously being a piece of human property is really terrible. This is why I want to ask this important question, particularly to brother Wakas why would materials/money/wealth/economy take precedent over freeing human slaves? Can't God enrich an economy for people who give up owning human beings?

Peace,

-David

Peace Herbman, Wakas, everyone else,

I read your replies. Thank you. So basically

1. It's okay to own people if they commit a crime, and it's okay to put them to work.
2. Human dignity doesn't apply fully to unbelievers. Believers should be freed first.
3. 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

Peace. Follow-up here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600545.0

-David

Salaam David,
Is there an article, on this topic specifically, online that you are aware of? And if not, is there a way we could get this information posted in the articles section?

Peace Ths,

In truth, my post was the result of a discussion I had with Dr. Ayman about his articles. I was working on a possible website where I had used "peacefulness" for "islam" and "peaceful" for "muslimun", but he told me that his latest research had concluded that the MAKING of peace is a far better and more meaningful translation. After searching on the forum I saw the etymological evidence myself and also found the evidence overwhelming.

Perhaps Ayman would re-write and refine his article in the articles section. I would love that. We do need to get cracking in both islam (peacemaking) and islah (fixing). This world is broken, it's inhabitants are starved to death by the greed of empires and subject to endless imperial bloodletting and extreme brutality. I really hope the message of peacemaking will become universal, which might be the best way to look at this passage

933 He is the one who sent his messenger with guidance and the true obligation , to make it expose/overtake all other obligations, in spite of the idolaters.

So while they're busy arguing this and that (re Muhammad, Ali, Hassan, Hussayn, Hadith, Sunnah, etc.), sipping tea and coffee and eating sweets, others will be out there trying to make a real difference. For example, I just got an e-mail in my inbox from Yuksel talking about peacemaking. While I admire that message, I wonder how devoted he is when he spends so much time chasing 19 "miracles" and defending a liar like Rashad Khalifa. How much of a peacemaker was Khalifa, constantly bashing "the Arabs" - a group that's been kept down by a long line of tyrannical leaders with Western backing, not to mention an unholy assault by US and Israeli thugs, vandals and marauders.

PEACE ,

-David R. S. Aitken

Peace Herbman,

Good question. It's actually "subhanahu" (be he glorified), not just "subhana". My search yeilded the following results

6100

Be he glorified in the highest, above what they describe.

1018

Be he glorified in the highest, above what they set up.

161

Be he glorified in the highest, above what they set up.

1743

Be he glorified in the highest, above what they say.

3040

Be he glorified in the highest, above what they set up.

3967

Be he glorified in the highest, above what they set up.

All these passages seem to be saying the same thing - falsehood about the god is countered by his limitless glory, which is raised high above what they describe, set up, and say (yasifun / yushrikun / yaqulun). My humble translation of "in the highest" is unrefined, and I'm sorry that I do not know how we grammatically arrive at the word (taala). I too would be very interested in some kind of grammatical explanation.

Peace,

-David

Peace Khad3ja,

No; the great reading (al-quran al-adhim) does not mention tattoos anywhere. They are not prohibited.

They are prohibited in today's version of the Bible, in the book of Leviticus, but this does not apply to the followers of the great reading (al-quran al-adhim). )

What tattoo were you thinking of getting?

Peace,

-David

I would like to connect with other like minded individuals on this awesome forum who are from Canada (Toronto).

Peace Salman,

I was born and raised in the TO area. If you want to keep clear of 19ers, you'll want to avoid Feroz Karmally, who was an original disciple of Rashad Khalifa. He's still puttering around up there with about 20+/- followers. Like Yuksel, he thinks he's better than the people at submission.org because of a few tweaks in the Sunnah that Khalifa copied and pasted into his message.

http//free-minds.org/ayman19

http//free-minds.org/debate19

So, they're calling themselves "God Alone" or whatever, but it's basically just a Sunnah group with a twist of 19.

Peace,

-David

?Fight violence with nonviolence if you can, and if you can?t do that, fight violence by any means, even if it means your utter extinction. But in no case should you leave your hearths and homes to be looted and burnt.?

"An eye for an eye" is often misinterpreted, IMO. To me, he was saying that it's not the best to fight fire with fire in every situation ("whole world" stands for all the time). If your house is getting burned down.. 'screaming peace' won't accomplish much. It's nice in theory (and believe me, I wish it were that easy), but it is very impractical.

I 100% agree. Tyrants don't just go away when you ask them to make peace, all throughout the great reading we see brave believers fighting tyranny to achieve enduring peace. Please these imperfect/unrefined proposals

http//free-minds.org/peacefulness

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600414.msg246867#msg246867

If you just watch the first 20 seconds of that thing you might think

1. How many Zoroastrian fire-worshipers does it take to burn a temple to ash?
2. What impact does a 2000-year-old fire have on global warming?
3. Does smoke inhalation cause enough brain damage to perpetuate a pagan religion?

Peace brother Khailil,

I've been reading a lot of your posts and I can tell that you have a strong personality, so it may be difficult for you to imagine some of the things in the following 2 articles. However, please give them a fair read and see what you think

http//free-minds.org/name

http//free-minds.org/ayman

Peace,

-David

This is the same in the Torah. When Moses and the Children of Israel come to the Promised Land the people living there already were not hurting Moses or the Children of Israel and they were no threat. But Gods command has come to take the land from them with force. But did you notice what the ?peaceful ones? said. ?Let them leave, then we will enter". But what did the believing ones said? ?Attack?. Which of the two is the better submitter?

Peace Warner,

Leaving aside for a moment that horrid image of Solomon, which I already addressed by recalling the righteous armies of Taloot and David (Solomon's forerunners), let's take a look at the truthful history of Moses and the land.

523 Two men of those who feared and were blessed by the god said, "Enter on them using the gate."

Traditionalists see this entering as an attack, which is clearly negated by 1269.

1269 When they entered on Joseph.

His brothers didn't attack him! Back to Moses, the unrighteous were the only ones who said ANYTHING about fighting! Reminds me of the Zionists, honestly...

524 They said, "Yo Moses, we will never enter it as long as they are in it - so you and lord go and fight, we will stay right here!"

Who said anything about fighting? Read it all in context. It's really funny - they basically come out of nowhere and start making assault plans. Don't use the Bible to say that a righteous army killed thousands of men, women and children just because they weren't bani Israel.

You see aggression and warmongering where there is none - absolutely none. It's no wonder you disgrace Solomon as such. The great reading, however, maintains his honor as a peacemaker and a righteous military leader. As for the "dhibh" regarding "hadhad", did you ever consider that it might not refer to slaughter? See http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13069.msg233662#msg233662 The basic meaning of "sacrifice" is to give something up, not to open something's throat.

Did you know that white Europeans thought they were doing the god's work by enslaving African pagans? Do you really think that the god used to make armies to go and kill people for not serving the god? What kind of god is this? Allah al-salam = the god is peace.

Peace,

-David

Peace Jack,

• No, the "hur" are not strictly conversationalists/interlocutors. Of course not. I was just saying that even "hur" can have more than one meaning. Even "zawg" doesn't have to mean spouse, it can refer to any kind of pairing.

• As for "what was given to us previously" in 225, I theorize this may be in some way related to "al-mawt al-ula" (the first death) which apparently took place "in/fi" the garden - 4456. They don't taste death IN IT (fi-ha), except the first. You know? I don't know for sure.

• No offense, but I have no idea what you mean when you say that the reading (quran) is not the book (kitab). The reading is a book. Any links for study?

• In 2260 Abraham was nowhere near questioning resurrection. He said "arini kayfa" meaning "show me how", not "are you able to". The bird experiment showed him how it'll be, again using symbols and allegories (the birds, the call, the hills).

Peace,

-David

And moreover then what was the need for doing this

Even if "abkara" was about virginity in the passage, it would still be an allegory. However, "abkara" probably refers more to the women of the god's paradise as being foremost in virtue/enlightenment/honor/goodness/etc. The word refers to the early morning in about a dozen passages (e.g. 341, 489). So how can it describe a woman? Just as the morning is the first light, women of that description are first in obtaining the god's light.

Peace,

-David