Did God ever command to slavery per Quran?

[Link]

I don't know.. and I really can't follow Link's argument.

I am not a Muslim but as I have read the Koran I thought slavery was frowned upon and considered normal for the times.

It's hard for you, because, you don't know Arabic! But stick around, I got to go for now, and maybe till Friday won't be posting. I have to work on some assignments!

 

[firedragon]

I don't know.. and I really can't follow Link's argument.

I am not a Muslim but as I have read the Koran I thought slavery was frowned upon and considered normal for the times.

See, the Quran must be understood based on the context of the whole book. You are right, slavery is frowned upon. But the thing is, its not only frowned upon. It goes beyond that.

The word abd could mean slave, worshiper or servant. I asked you a question based on a hypothetical situation where "Abd" means slave alone.

I asked you how do you say "Slaves amid you". Its Ibadikum.

The verse in the Quran that some have translated as "Your Slaves" has done so with his preconceived notion that we can have slaves. But if you think from a natural, Sufa at turat point of view, it means "Slaves amidst you". So my point is, even if that verse is speaking of slaves, it still does not mean "Your Slaves". It means slaves amid you.

Apologies to pour this on you. I shall stop right here.

Slavery is not just frowned upon.

Peace.

 

[sooda]

See, the Quran must be understood based on the context of the whole book. You are right, slavery is frowned upon. But the thing is, its not only frowned upon. It goes beyond that.

The word abd could mean slave, worshiper or servant. I asked you a question based on a hypothetical situation where "Abd" means slave alone.

I asked you how do you say "Slaves amid you". Its Ibadikum.

The verse in the Quran that some have translated as "Your Slaves" has done so with his preconceived notion that we can have slaves. But if you think from a natural, Sufa at turat point of view, it means "Slaves amidst you". So my point is, even if that verse is speaking of slaves, it still does not mean "Your Slaves". It means slaves amid you.

Apologies to pour this on you. I shall stop right here.

Slavery is not just frowned upon.

Peace.

My experience is quite limited.. King Ibn Saud freed the slaves in 1952 with a caveat that they couldn't be put out with no grubstake so he allowed a 10 year window for those who wanted to stay and work and save their money.

Mubarak came to work for us.. He was Somali and he was a slave to a Saudi national. He saved his money for 2 years and took his freedom.

 

[james bond]

Ismail and "Hajar"

One of the things I noticed in Quran, is that Quran says not a word regarding Hajar who supposedly was a slave of Abraham and Sarah and who Abraham had Ismail through. Somethings to recall is that according to the Torah, Abraham had other children before that, but it was pertaining to the covenant and chosen guides type children he and Sarah were awaiting.

Of course, it's easier to dismiss the importance of Ismail despite clear words praising him in the Torah and the Twelve princes promised in his offspring, which is in context of the Kingship bestowed by God and not worldly type authority, if you make up a story that Ismail was not born from Sarah. Sarah was a holy lady at the level of Abraham. So it seems to follow, if God wanted Ismail to be as important as Isaac, he would have made him born from Sarah.

In the hadiths it is said that Sarah was so severely jealous of Hajar that he made her and Ismail to be settled by themselves. The Quran however, never confirms this, and instead shows there was a divine purpose and plan from settling Ismail there and Hajar not mentioned anywhere.

Implications of Hajar being a slave

Aside from trying to be belittle the covenant of Ismail, there is the problem of slavery. Right from the start, you have Abraham, God's elite and chosen and guided and enlightened, having a slave. You have Sarah so angry at this poor slave and so jealous. It's a story that not only justifies cruelty in the form of banishing Hajar, it also, allows slavery.

If Quran were to do away with this notion, it must provide alternative story. The alternative story, was the Abraham and Ismail built the Kaba and were preparing the way for the Messenger to come from Ismail. Not a mention of Hajjar and alternative more noble purpose of settling them there is provided.

Story of Imam Reda (as) and slaves by the Sultan

There is ahadith about Imam Reda (as) where the Sultan gets the slaves of his to all eat. Imam Reda (as) says they should be eating with them and there is no ranks except by Taqwa and says that ALL are in fact servants of God. Now this has significance, in that, this is what Moses (as) is quoted to say regarding the slaves of Pharaoh in Quran. He says "let the servants of God go with me", and the fact they are servants of God is used to argue they shouldn't be slaves.

In this regard Imam Reda (as) is only reminding of a fact in Quran, but the fact, the story of Moses freeing the children of Israel is a story, that humans should not be enslaved as we are servants of God. Yes part of that was they were believers and it's upon God to deliver the believers eventually from their oppressors but aside from that, slavery was wrong and clear injustice of Pharaoh is seen in this regard where he heightens a portion of his people and lowers a portion of his people, and this said to be mischief in the earth.

Malakat Aymanihim - And translations

Language is contextual, and I believe the translation should be "who they have authority (to have sex with) through their oaths (of either marriage or Muta)". Malakat aymanim mentioned as alternative to marriage is due to Muta, which is a relationship allowed in Islam but has conditions like if there is a child, the father is responsible to make sure it's raised well, and takes responsibility as a father over it. It maybe there were even further rules that have been lost like it might've been obligatory to extend to a full marriage if a child was ensued but I don't know. So many things lost in Islam it's hard to say.

What is noted is that through verses, this works both way. The Husband is that to the wife as well, so what is making sense to me, is the wife actually has the right to demand sex from the husband just like the husband has the right to. In fact, the mother is also probably as responsible over the child as the father through Muta, which to me suggests there are some lost rules in this regard. But there is no doubt in my mind that slavery is not what is meant by this term.

What was to be done with war captives?

An easy way to advocate slavery is to say, there was no other way back then to deal with war captives.

فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَثْخَنْتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّىٰ تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانْتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَٰكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَ بَعْضَكُمْ بِبَعْضٍ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَنْ يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ {4}
[Shakir 47:4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to be lost.

Two options:
(1)Free as a favor (grace)
(2)let them ransom themselves

As for (2), it's only valid to do this while there is war. So (1) becomes an obligatory command if the war terminates.

This is the true way Islam advocates to have dealt with war captives in the past right there written in that verse.

Therefore, this verse not only does away with the need of holding them as slaves, it shows the proper way to conduct yourself with war captives and not to make them pay the price forever due to having gone to war with the Muslims.

In the Bible, God does not condemn slavery. Instead, he talks about how to treat a slave. I think in the ancient times slavery was a class of people. People could get jobs as slaves in order to be ensured they would be provided for. Of course, there was forced slavery. Today, in the US, it's associated with racism. If modern slavery were brought back, then it could be a way for the homeless to get jobs and work.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Think about this question and respond clearly if you wish to.

How do you understand a word like "Ibadhikum"?

it can mean your slaves, or your servants. But I think, in those days, slave or servant was the same thing. It is just the person who is in possession of another person to do the things it is ordered. In some other verses it uses the expression "those your right hand possesses". What does that mean to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Link You've certainly done your homework and bring some interesting points. I have read the Quran, but am by no means an expert on it. I am much more familiar with the Christian Bible having been brought up in a Christian family in the USA. Regarding slavery; IMHO, I don't think God approved of slavery so much as it was just tolerated in the times that the Bible and Quran were written. I see many places in scriptures that talk about slavery, but I don't see anywhere that God calls it good.

Imho opinion, to not speak out against it, is to condone and allow it.

Also, in the bible, there's actual law regulating the practice.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@Link and @firedragon

I understand that your intention is good. To me the 'Spirit' of Quran teaching is that slavery is an inappropriate act, and an ideal human being would not take another person as a slave. However it does not completely forbids, in the way that stealing is forbidden in the Quran.

Here is another verse:

"Allah has bestowed His gifts of sustenance more freely on some of you than on others: those more favoured are not going to throw back their gifts to those whom their right hands possess, so as to be equal in that respect. Will they then deny the favours of Allah?" 16:71


Now let's think. If slavery in Quran, was as forbidden as stealing, do you not think this verse contradicts it? This verse in a way, is accepting the idea of possessing someone else by another human, but just giving some equal rights in that respect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I want to put out there. I believe in human rights first, and am a human first. If someone can prove Quran definitely allows slavery, I will leave this religion, not out of hatred but because I can't accept slavery being allowed by God at any time in history.

By not saying "don't do it", he implicitly allowed it.

In fact, not explicitly speaking con or pro slavery, in some sense makes it even worse imo. Because then it's treated like just another trivial fact of life.

Think about it.

This abrahamic god, in all books, speaks out against the most trivial of things - and even implements quite harsh punishment for those rather trivial things at times. Yet he doesn't bother to mention "ow and right, ye shall not keep or treat people as your private property".

That was too much apparantly. Or maybe he just forgot.
He did take the time to forbid people from eating shrimp or pork though. But keeping slaves? Na, not worth mentioning it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I see, but I believe Quran condemns it and forbids it in multiple places. I believe the Torah implicitly does with the injustice of Pharaoh and to let God's servants or people go.

It has always looked to me like that was just the writers of Torah trying to say that they were God's favourites. In the rest of Torah, it was always fine to make slaves of other people -- who weren't Jews. There were even a bunch of nice, tidy laws about the practice -- regulations from God about the slave trade, as it were.

 

[danieldemol]

What is noted is that through verses, this works both way. The Husband is that to the wife as well, so what is making sense to me, is the wife actually has the right to demand sex from the husband just like the husband has the right to.

Modern western societies frown upon marital rape and regard it as domestic violence so this will be a hard sell for you.

 

[firedragon]

@Link and @firedragon

I understand that your intention is good. To me the 'Spirit' of Quran teaching is that slavery is an inappropriate act, and an ideal human being would not take another person as a slave. However it does not completely forbids, in the way that stealing is forbidden in the Quran.

Here is another verse:

"Allah has bestowed His gifts of sustenance more freely on some of you than on others: those more favoured are not going to throw back their gifts to those whom their right hands possess, so as to be equal in that respect. Will they then deny the favours of Allah?" 16:71


Now let's think. If slavery in Quran, was as forbidden as stealing, do you not think this verse contradicts it? This verse in a way, is accepting the idea of possessing someone else by another human, but just giving some equal rights in that respect.

This verse doesnt say anything about slavery. The problem is this common misunderstanding of Ma Malakat Aymanukum. But are you willing to explore this?

 

[firedragon]

it can mean your slaves, or your servants. But I think, in those days, slave or servant was the same thing. It is just the person who is in possession of another person to do the things it is ordered. In some other verses it uses the expression "those your right hand possesses". What does that mean to you?

Not really.

It means "slaves/servants/observants amidst you", not "Your Slaves". This is why i am asking you this question.

And you are wrong to think that "Those days" slave and servant were the same thing. According to any kind of historical literature its wrong. Because slaves and servants are completely different even those days. Also, the Quran is not a history book i hope you can place that.

And according to the monotheism of Islam, no one can "Possess" someone. You are thinking from an English point of view and making an equation not found in the Quran. You cant own someone and be a master of someone. That is going against the Quran. Quran says Allah is the only Maula.

Brother. You must study the Quran fully.

Now, right hand possess is a phrase that represents a Yamin or Oath. It is used in various contexts. In any language, no phrase means the same thing everywhere. NO LANGUAGE. And this does not mean slavery. No way.

Yamin means oath. Explore further.

 

[firedragon]

Modern western societies frown upon marital rape and regard it as domestic violence so this will be a hard sell for you.

Not only "modern/western" societies. Even in the 8th century A.D there are enough and theological scholarship that shuns marital rape or marital forced sex as alaunful zawjiiyu. Maybe even thousands of years ago they had other societies that thought this way. So you are not making an informed statement although it is true that modern western societies at large think of it as a crime. All good, but be informed.

 

[firedragon]

Imho opinion, to not speak out against it, is to condone and allow it.

Also, in the bible, there's actual law regulating the practice.

Not really. thats inference. It is against Islamic law to have slaves. Lots of people violated this and that is why trajectory hermeneutics has to go both ways, into and out of the Quran. Anyway, thats another subject.

The foundation of the Islamic theology as stated in the Quran dictates no slavery in the theology.

 

[danieldemol]

Not only "modern/western" societies. Even in the 8th century A.D there are enough and theological scholarship that shuns marital rape or marital forced sex as alaunful zawjiiyu. Maybe even thousands of years ago they had other societies that thought this way. So you are not making an informed statement although it is true that modern western societies at large think of it as a crime. All good, but be informed.

It appears to me that @Link claimed marital rape (ie demanding sex from marital partners) was in the Quran, so it seems strangely apologetic to jump on me for it but not address Link for making the claim.

Also if you are going to use transliterations of non-English words that don’t appear in google (alaunful zawjiiyu) i’d appreciate it if you provided explanation or a link (no pun intended) to an explanation of them.

Thank you

 

[firedragon]

It appears to me that @Link claimed marital rape (ie demanding sex from marital partners) was in the Quran, so it seems strangely apologetic to jump on me for it but not address Link for making the claim.

Also if you are going to use transliterations of non-English words that don’t appear in google (alaunful zawjiiyu) i’d appreciate it if you provided explanation or a link (no pun intended) to an explanation of them.

Thank you

Oh sorry. Alaunful Zawjiiyu means marital rape.

And i didnt jump on you mate. Reasoning is not jumping. But i understand what you say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The foundation of the Islamic theology as stated in the Quran dictates no slavery in the theology.

Where does it explicitly forbid slavery?

 

[PruePhillip]

I realize this is in the Torah, but Quran doesn't confirm this, and provides even a whole alternative reason as to why Ismail settled in Becca/Mecca.

Why do you seek confirmation in the Quran? Have you sought confirmation
in the Book of Mormon?
Some pedophile warlord cherry picks verses from the bible and creates his
own religion to support his murder and conquest - why do you give such a
person or his book any credibility?

 

[firedragon]

Where does it explicitly forbid slavery?

I would like you to think.

You mean one verse? Is that what you mean by "Explicitly"?

You want a sentence like "We tell you not to have slaves"? Whats the arabic you are looking for?

Then in the Quranic arabic it would be something like "La Thumsiku alabidhu". Now follow my reasoning. You must understand how this language works.

If i tell you that in the Quran it says "La Thumsiku Alabidhu" you will revert and tell me "But it doesnt mean slaves, it means servants". So you could if you wish (Not in reality, but hypothetically) that "Quran tells you not to have servants, but that doesnt mean you cant have slaves".

Because you know why? People have translated words like Rikab and Fathaya as slaves. And as you yourself is always pointing out even words like yamin are interpreted as slaves. So one could argue with all of these words or what ever tool they could find to tell me that the Quran condones slavery.

The Quran takes a different approach. Try and understand this. Ive told you already, but you seem to have missed it somehow.

If you have a slave, you have purchased the slave that means the slave is a possession and you are the owner, the master.

Quran tells you over and over again that God is the only master. He is the only mawlana. You cant be a slave master because it is against the principle of the Quranic monotheism. Slavery is polytheism. This is the foundation.

What has happened is that people have got used to picking one word or sentence at a time. Don't do that. Understand the book holistically. The reason to understand the book holistically is because it's written in one language, by one single person. If you believe its Gods word or not, whether Muhammed wrote it or not, what ever your belief about this book maybe, since it's written by one person, one language, one single writing pattern, it should be understood as one thought.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would like you to think.

You mean one verse? Is that what you mean by "Explicitly"?

You want a sentence like "We tell you not to have slaves"? Whats the arabic you are looking for?

I'm going to take that as a "No, there's no explicit mention anywhere to forbid anyone to keep slaves"

I already told you what I'm looking for.
The Abrahamic scriptures are filled with god commanding and dictating what can and can't be done.
That's what I'm looking for.

In the words of Matt Dilahunty: if he can tell you not to eat shrimp, he can also tell you not to keep slaves

Then in the Quranic arabic it would be something like "La Thumsiku alabidhu"

And now in english?

Now follow my reasoning. You must understand how this language works.

If i tell you that in the Quran it says "La Thumsiku Alabidhu" you will revert and tell me "But it doesnt mean slaves, it means servants". So you could if you wish (Not in reality, but hypothetically) that "Quran tells you not to have servants, but that doesnt mean you cant have slaves".

Because you know why? People have translated words like Rikab and Fathaya as slaves. And as you yourself is always pointing out even words like yamin are interpreted as slaves.

I never pointing such out because I do not speak any arabic.

If you have a slave, you have purchased the slave that means the slave is a possession and you are the owner, the master.

Quran tells you over and over again that God is the only master. He is the only mawlana. You cant be a slave master because it is against the principle of the Quranic monotheism. Slavery is polytheism. This is the foundation.

That makes no sense. For slavery to be polytheism, a slave master must be worshipped as a god, which obviously is not the case. I don't think any slave master ever considered himself a god or demanded worship as a god. I'm sore some crazies believed that, but surely this wasn't the norm.

What has happened is that people have got used to picking one word or sentence at a time. Don't do that. Understand the book holistically. The reason to understand the book holistically is because it's written in one language, by one single person. If you believe its Gods word or not, whether Muhammed wrote it or not, what ever your belief about this book maybe, since it's written by one person, one language, one single writing pattern, it should be understood as one thought.

That "one" thought is apparantly seriously open for interpretation though.

You'ld think that the allmighty all knowing creator of the universe would foresee this and not be so ambiguous, confusing and vague as a result, but alas...