Did God ever command to slavery per Quran?

[firedragon]

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



And now in english?




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



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.



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...

Ciao.

 

[Link]

@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.

Salam

If "right hands possess" refers to what I said instead "who they have authority (pertaining to sex) over through their oaths", the meaning would be similar except it's saying it regarding their spouse or Muta partner... also one translation is they will not, and another "will they not throw back their gifts … so as to be equal in that respect?" and that can be said you should give some money to your Muta partner or Wife, and spend on them.

I've thought about all the verses about malakat aymanihim, so bring the next one that bothers you.

 

[Link]

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

The man and woman have the right to command the other to have sex in either muta or marriage is what I'm proposing, however, this doesn't mean if they disobey, you can rape them.

 

[Link]

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.

If anyone were to be allowed to be taken as slaves, it would be war captives. But I showed a verse that Quran didn't allow this, and instead said either release them through grace or ransom them.. and the second option was only allowed so as long as the war continued, but when it was over, the first option becomes obligatory. Other verses also show if captives became Muslim even during war after hearing the message and being taught properly to let them go.

So if it doesn't allow war captives to become slaves, it naturally follows, it's not going to let others be slaves.

You can be obtuse. Aside from that, is that Mastership belongs to God and who you make Master is equated to Worship in Quran. That is why misguiding leaders are called the "taghut", since they are obeyed while God is disobeyed. On the other hand, the Messengers are obeyed so that God is obeyed. But if the intention was not to obey God, it becomes idolatry.

And Moses uses the fact we are servants or slaves of God to imply it was wrong to have a people as slaves to the Pharaoh. Aside from that, Quran emphasized on freeing people all the time and even says it's part of the high road. Then it's opposite (enslaving or keeping someone as a slave) is the low road that leads to hell.

 

[Link]

Also, the Quran condemns children of Israel for taking captives and using them as ransom. The reason is as I said, when the war is over, they should all be freed. So ransom outside of war time is evil, let alone keeping them as captives, let alone keeping them as slaves!

 

[Link]

Here is the verse that I'm talking about condemning ransoming them.

ثُمَّ أَنْتُمْ هَٰؤُلَاءِ تَقْتُلُونَ أَنْفُسَكُمْ وَتُخْرِجُونَ فَرِيقًا مِنْكُمْ مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ تَظَاهَرُونَ عَلَيْهِمْ بِالْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ وَإِنْ يَأْتُوكُمْ أُسَارَىٰ تُفَادُوهُمْ وَهُوَ مُحَرَّمٌ عَلَيْكُمْ إِخْرَاجُهُمْ ۚ أَفَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِبَعْضِ الْكِتَابِ وَتَكْفُرُونَ بِبَعْضٍ ۚ فَمَا جَزَاءُ مَنْ يَفْعَلُ ذَٰلِكَ مِنْكُمْ إِلَّا خِزْيٌ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۖ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ أَشَدِّ الْعَذَابِ ۗ وَمَا اللَّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ {85}
[Shakir 2:85] Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes, backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them-- while their very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the re ward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.
[Pickthal 2:85] Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression? - and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do.
[Yusufali 2:85] After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.


This is obviously because they continued to take them as captive and ransom them after the war is over, while Islam only allows while war is continuing.

 

[Link]

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?

Why I believe in the Quran is a different topic. This going off-topic.

 

[Link]

There is another important concept, Quran shows God gives the authority (and the authority is his) to who he pleases, and the ones he pleases is the ones he has chosen above others.

It shows for example, non-chosen scholars don't have a share in the authority of the Prophets at all. This pertained to political, social, moral, and spiritual religious authority. It's only God and his chosen Masters upon humanity that have this authority and the true King in all that is God the King of all kings he appoints.

This concept definitely shows no human as authority over another human except God's chosen. The chosen guides of course can appoint governors on their behalf, but even their obedience is partial, and conditional. If they command things to disobey God, they shouldn't be obeyed. If they say something stupid, they shouldn't believed in since they can go astray.

So let alone another human having total control over another human life even more then God's appointed Kings execute on their followers!

What does this mean pertaining to government today, well I believe in democratic organized anarchy for this reason. Till the Mahdi is back, we can't have top down authority, but we have to instead have bottom to up authority where up is just people entrusted to implement the will of the people and hence no real authority. However, Islam wise, we would look to revelation of God and the legacy of the Imams (as) as to guide us to our will.

 

[Link]

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.

It's as you said which is why a lot of Quran is appealing to the fact Jews have made lessons for all times, into stories just relevant to them as being God's special people as opposed to God's way for all times which Quran proposes is the real way to recite the Torah.

The last people who will be God's group, maybe, for all we know, a bunch of Western Pagans while Muslims including Shiites, may for all we know, abandon the Mahdi when he appears. I hope we Shiites, don't abandon the Mahdi and I hope the Muslims let go of their envy towards the household of Mohammad, but this is a possibility.

Technically, to be Muslim, you have to testify to Oneness of God and Mohammad's Messengership. But reality, is God knows the truth seekers, and it can be an Atheist is being more true to themselves then a Shiite Muslim, as for as morality and light of God and guidance of God goes pertaining to morals.

When Mohammad came, the religious monotheists weren't his primary supporters, but rather, they and their leaders confused people saying Mohammad is not in the Torah and Gospels, which till this day continues, though when I read it, I see him and his family clearly in both.

The primary supporters were seekers of God who loved God but were surrounded by people manipulating them into polytheism and were treated with injustice. They were poor seekers of God's light who were in a dark world with dark spiritual leaders as well as tribal leaders and evil conjecture surrounded them.

They didn't even think of monotheism or polytheism as an issue, but, were just trying to survive and were confused with all the injustice they were facing. It was they who constantly were awaiting for a Master and Helper from God in their prayers, and even though they might thought this would be Avatar of the gods or something, it was them who supported Mohammad and believed in him when clear miracles were shown.

The Mahdi will come with clear miracles, I hope most of the world accepts him. I hope Shiites become like children of Israel awaiting Moses and accept the Mahdi.

But none of this is guaranteed. No one knows the future absolutely, that is why the prophecies are almost all conditional as far this issue goes, and there is different scenarios, and which one will happen, not even God knows!

 

[Milton Platt]

Islam says that God smiles when a slave is freed.

Oddly, this is the same god who in the Old Testament gives specific instructions on how to buy and own slaves.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

So you believe what your preferred book says over the Old Testament version of the same god. It's just a matter of which group of stories you like.

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.

 

[Link]

So you believe what your preferred book says over the Old Testament version of the same god. It's just a matter of which group of stories you like.

The topic of why I believe in the Quran is not the topic. The Quran confirms the Torah was revealed by God but also shows many ways it was corrupted. It appeals to it's light to do away with darkness attributed to the Torah.

 

[Milton Platt]

The topic of why I believe in the Quran is not the topic. The Quran confirms the Torah was revealed by God but also shows many ways it was corrupted. It appeals to it's light to do away with darkness attributed to the Torah.

I did not question why you believe a specific story over others, nor do I care. I only acknowledged that you did and that the same god you worship is characterized in the Old Testament as condoning slavery.

 

[Link]

The topic is about Quran though, not the Torah.

 

[firedragon]

I did not question why you believe a specific story over others, nor do I care. I only acknowledged that you did and that the same god you worship is characterized in the Old Testament as condoning slavery.

Is that even relevant to the OP? If you want to prove or discuss that the same God revealed the "Old Testament" you should do so in a new thread. You should see that its an irrelevant topic.

 

[Milton Platt]

Is that even relevant to the OP? If you want to prove or discuss that the same God revealed the "Old Testament" you should do so in a new thread. You should see that its an irrelevant topic.

Thank,,,perhaps you are right.

 

[Link]

firedragon, it's been honor having you as my ally in this thread. I will return tomorrow to this thread, but want to finish an assignment by tonight!

 

[firedragon]

firedragon, it's been honor having you as my ally in this thread. I will return tomorrow to this thread, but want to finish an assignment by tonight!

The honour is mine brother. And best of luck with the assignment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If anyone were to be allowed to be taken as slaves, it would be war captives. But I showed a verse that Quran didn't allow this, and instead said either release them through grace or ransom them.. and the second option was only allowed so as long as the war continued, but when it was over, the first option becomes obligatory. Other verses also show if captives became Muslim even during war after hearing the message and being taught properly to let them go.

So if it doesn't allow war captives to become slaves, it naturally follows, it's not going to let others be slaves.

You can be obtuse. Aside from that, is that Mastership belongs to God and who you make Master is equated to Worship in Quran. That is why misguiding leaders are called the "taghut", since they are obeyed while God is disobeyed. On the other hand, the Messengers are obeyed so that God is obeyed. But if the intention was not to obey God, it becomes idolatry.

And Moses uses the fact we are servants or slaves of God to imply it was wrong to have a people as slaves to the Pharaoh. Aside from that, Quran emphasized on freeing people all the time and even says it's part of the high road. Then it's opposite (enslaving or keeping someone as a slave) is the low road that leads to hell.

It is my opinion that you simply read into it what you want to read into it.
Your moral compass informs you that slavery is wrong, so that's what you read into the quran because that's what you expect to find there.

Other people aren't so nice and read very different things into it.

This ambiguity is strange to me.
It's not hard. "Don't keep slaves".

If I were Allah and I were revealing my religion during that time, when slavery was simply a fact of life and had been for centuries / millenia, it would have been one of the first things on my list of commandments.

 

[danieldemol]

The man and woman have the right to command the other to have sex in either muta or marriage is what I'm proposing, however, this doesn't mean if they disobey, you can rape them.

You have a strange definition of what constitutes a “right”.

Rights are non-negotiable. In other words using the standard definition of a “right” sex would be owed to them if it were a right, which it is not.

In matters of religion people should really avoid ambiguity and doublespeak where claiming to speak for God who is the author of clarity in matters simple for humans to understand.