Did God ever command to slavery per Quran?

[oldbadger]

@Link
The Muslims ransomed King Richard II when he was captured, which certainly supports the point about 'ransom'.

Saint Paul supported slavery several times in his letters, and the Old Testament laws ruled that outsider combatants should be killed but that young virgin women could be taken and kept by Israelite warriors. Presumably this shows that Israelutes could keep them as concubine slaves in addition to their wives.

The Quran can't equal that, I expect.

 

[firedragon]

It is my opinion that you simply read into it what you want to read into it.

Not a valid argument. It can easily be reverted back to you because it is a typical rhetoric that can be thrown as a Circumstantial Ad Hominem.

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

So what you are doing here is appealing to who you deem are "Not so nice" for authority.

Fallacious argument.

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.

Thats the first thing God did in the Quran (following through with your argument). You just have not understood it. You should try and take a step back.

 

[Link]

There is no verse that says don't beat your wives, but there are verses that say it's not permissible to even put hardship on your wife at all or to be hard with them. You can derive from a more comprehensive prohibition, that beating is not allowed from that. Furthermore, there are verses that obligate the opposite, affection, love, and compassion between husband and wife.

Not everything has to be explicit. A comprehensive book that has judgment pertaining to all human needs cannot be explicit in everything.

Furthermore, if it proves by reasoning slavery is evil, then if it doesn't explicitly say don't do it, it's shown it's evil and God says he forbids evil in general. At if emphasizes on the opposite so much, like freeing any neck be they captives, jailed wrongly, or slaves, there is no doubt slavery is not allowed.

You can't impose "God must say it this way". But as far this issue goes, it's been linked with Tawheed as firedragon said, no one has the right to Master upon anyone but God, and through that right, his Messengers have authority, but the intention in all that is to obey God.

There is also the verse about Muta which I will be quoting soon, but if translated as slavery, there is an absurd thing that happens. It's so bad that God permits you to have sex with a married slave to another slave you own. Like a slave can be married to another person, and both your slaves, and you have right to have sex. But if we take a step back, and rethink what the verse is saying, you will see it's asserting marriage is a form of who your oaths give authority over as far as sex goes, then says, and ASIDE FROM THIS.... then introduces Muta, which is a form that is not marriage. It's a permissible relationship. The verse after then is to be seen in this context, and not about slaves either.

I will be addressing the translation. And I think no person can really believe God will allow us to have sex with two married slaves to each other, and it's permissible to have sex with the slave's wife, just because they are both slaves!

This is absurd really!!

 

[Link]

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.

In Islam, it's already believed the Husband has this right by all Muslims. I'm just saying it's a mutual right that goes both ways. Furthermore you can derive, that the husband cannot marry another wife without their permission, since they have authority over him as far as sex goes.

You can derive a lot from this verse, but it's saying when you marry, you have the right to demand sex from another, and furthermore you can derive the husband cannot marry another without permission of the wife.

These laws have been lost, but are important dimensions of this authority revealed in Quran. Part of what Quran means when it says "if you fear not doing justice", it means if you fear your relationship will be breached and she dislikes you having another wife, don't get another wife, don't even bring it up, don't even ask her as she has full right over you as far sex goes. If you know she hates the idea and she has manifested that, then don't even bring it up. This is true of wife or muta partner, whether, one has the noble intention to raise orphans or help widows, is said to be not relevant in this regard unless you have her full support and know you do without fear.

 

[Link]

These are some of the translations of 4:24.

Sahih International: And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

Pickthall: And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

Yusuf Ali: 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.

Shakir: And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

Muhammad Sarwar: You are forbidden to marry married women except your slave-girls. This is the decree of God. Besides these, it is lawful for you to marry other women if you pay their dower, maintain chastity and do not commit indecency. If you marry them for the appointed time you must pay their dowries. There is no harm if you reach an understanding among yourselves about the dowry, God is All-knowing and All-wise.

Mohsin Khan: Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever AllKnowing, AllWise.

Arberry: and wedded women, save what your right hands own. So God prescribes for you. Lawful for you, beyond all that, is that you may seek, using your wealth, in wedlock and not in licence. Such wives as you enjoy thereby, give them their wages apportionate; it is no fault in you in your agreeing together, after the due apportionate. God is All-knowing, All-wise.




This verse if we take "malakat aymanikum" to be about slaves, would say, that you can have sex with slave woman who is married to another slave for example. This put's them in a position of ultimate disgrace and it's as if God doesn't even care about slaves at all or their emotions.

But if we take a step back, and see in the translations I already provided, it would means "all married women except who you are married to", but instead of "married to", it says "malakat aymanikum" which shows marriage is way to have sexual ownership on a person. That is the woman has full authority over the man in this regard and the man has full authority on the woman in this regard.

But then it talks about another type of thing is lawful, which is Muta…. Where it's translated as "you enjoy" "istamatu", it can be seen given the historical context of Muta, to be about Muta. That, and it's giving another scenario where women are lawful to have sex with, so it has to be about another type of relationship.

We will look next at the verse follows it in this context, which can also be seen as about slaves, but in the context of Muta, is really about Muta and whence you should do it (when you fear curse of God and can't get married) and also other things pertaining to it.

 

[Link]

As for the next verse, Nikah although usually means marriage, the original meaning is sex. In this case, the next verse is saying who can't do it with a married person (ie. finds it hard to get married), so as to seek it from who your oaths possess, which negating it now from married, would mean, those who you contracted with your oaths and this is in context of Muta which the preceding verse is about. Then it says however, you can only have sex with them by PERMISSION OF THEIR FAMILY, which is important. It doesn't mean owners here, but that seeking permission from their family is required. It then puts' further conditions your intention must be chaste, and says even not to take them as secret friends that you have sex with, which means, you shouldn't hide this relationship from public or at least it means her family should know. Then if they get married after that, and do sex outside of marriage, they get half the punishment then that of other married women. Then it says it (muta) is for those who fear a curse from us and says if we are patient (as to get married without Muta) it is better for us.

 

[England my lionheart]

@Link
The Muslims ransomed King Richard II when he was captured, which certainly supports the point about 'ransom'.

Saint Paul supported slavery several times in his letters, and the Old Testament laws ruled that outsider combatants should be killed but that young virgin women could be taken and kept by Israelite warriors. Presumably this shows that Israelutes could keep them as concubine slaves in addition to their wives.

The Quran can't equal that, I expect.

Richard the ll was imprisoned in england,he was never ransomed.

 

[England my lionheart]

Translations. Bernard Lewis translates ma malakat aymanukum as "those whom you own." Abdullah Yusuf Ali translates it as "those whom your right hands possess", as does M. H. Shakir. N. J. Dawood translates the phrase more idiomatically as "those whom you own as slaves."

What your right hand posses seem pretty straightforward to mean slave.

The old testament includes how to treat your slaves,everybody had slaves back then,slavery was still ok till relatively recently.

 

[Link]

Translations. Bernard Lewis translates ma malakat aymanukum as "those whom you own." Abdullah Yusuf Ali translates it as "those whom your right hands possess", as does M. H. Shakir. N. J. Dawood translates the phrase more idiomatically as "those whom you own as slaves."

What your right hand posses seem pretty straightforward to mean slave.

The old testament includes how to treat your slaves,everybody had slaves back then,slavery was still ok till relatively recently.

Yes, I am aware of all this. I'm trying to understand your point?

 

[oldbadger]

Richard the ll was imprisoned in england,he was never ransomed.

Sorry.
Richard the Lionheart would be To hard first, captured by Muslims and ransomed.

 

[England my lionheart]

Yes, I am aware of all this. I'm trying to understand your point?

The point is it was ok to own slaves and instructions on how to keep them in both the OT and Quran,there are also Hadith about slavery.

 

[Link]

The point is it was ok to own slaves and instructions on how to keep them in both the OT and Quran,there are also Hadith about slavery.

Your point is not proven. OT I won't debate, I don't know original translations or it's language too well. Quran, I provided alternative and more reasonable translations. Hadiths - there exists a poison and a cure. You can emphasize on the poison allowing slaves, and I will emphasize on the cure hadiths that forbid it like the one from Imam Reda (as).

 

[England my lionheart]

Sorry.
Richard the Lionheart would be To hard first, captured by Muslims and ransomed.

Wrong again,Richard the lionheart was captured by Leopold of Austria and ransomed by German Henry VI.

 

[England my lionheart]

Your point is not proven. OT I won't debate, I don't know original translations or it's language too well. Quran, I provided alternative and more reasonable translations. Hadiths - there exists a poison and a cure. You can emphasize on the poison allowing slaves, and I will emphasize on the cure hadiths that forbid it like the one from Imam Reda (as).

I'm aware of how problematic ahadith can be,which are sahih or not or not agreed by everyone but I read it as it is.

 

[oldbadger]

Wrong again,Richard the lionheart was captured by Leopold of Austria and ransomed by German Henry VI.

England my Lionheart 10/10

Old Badger nil

 

[Link]

I'm aware of how problematic ahadith can be,which are sahih or not or not agreed by everyone but I read it as it is.

I don't believe "ilmel rijaal" is "science of men" or "knowledge of men", I believe it's totally conjecture.

Again, the problem is you don't know Arabic. The word malakat aymanihim was not a common word before Quran, it was created by God to mean something. In this respect, it was to emphasize marriage is a form where husband and wife have authority over each other as far sex goes. The Surah were Muta is introduced, it's emphasized the married people have "a great covenant" with respect to their "oaths". Not only Oaths is a better more natural reading of it Arabic wise, it has context. Marriage was said to be instance and Muta which was a common word as the practice in more chaotic form did exist, was said to be a form of that as well.

The alternative is to believe two believers who are slaves married to each other and you can have sex with the woman even though she is a believer and married to another believer who is a slave, and both are your slaves. Who in their right mind can believe in this? (Not withstanding our supposed scholars of the past to present who do).

 

[England my lionheart]

England my Lionheart 10/10

Old Badger nil

It's easy to get mixed up with Richard I because he did crusade and made a deal with sahaladin so no sweat.

 

[England my lionheart]

I don't believe "ilmel rijaal" is "science of men" or "knowledge of men", I believe it's totally conjecture.

Again, the problem is you don't know Arabic. The word malakat aymanihim was not a common word before Quran, it was created by God to mean something. In this respect, it was to emphasize marriage is a form where husband and wife have authority over each other as far sex goes. The Surah were Muta is introduced, it's emphasized the married people have "a great covenant" with respect to their "oaths". Not only Oaths is a better more natural reading of it Arabic wise, it has context. Marriage was said to be instance and Muta which was a common word as the practice in more chaotic form did exist, was said to be a form of that as well.

The alternative is to believe two believers who are slaves married to each other and you can have sex with the woman even though she is a believer and married to another believer who is a slave, and both are your slaves. Who in their right mind can believe in this? (Not withstanding our supposed scholars of the past to present who do).

I don't know Arabic for sure,I can only ask an imam or get it from Islam online or islamqa and because I rely on their interpretations that how I read it.

 

[Link]

I don't know Arabic for sure,I can only ask an imam or get it from Islam online or islamqa and because I rely on their interpretations that how I read it.

The Quran warns not to trust humans not chosen by him for anything pertaining to his books, you give everyone a chance, find the truth and hopefully follow the clear proofs and insights and then find it's people after you build only on what is clear and proven, and you are to seek the family of the reminder spiritually telepathy wise and light wise they can help, and physically their sayings will contain a cure even if much falsehood is attributed to them and much poisons are claimed to be what they said.

 

[England my lionheart]

The Quran warns not to trust humans not chosen by him for anything pertaining to his books, you give everyone a chance, find the truth and hopefully follow the clear proofs and insights and then find it's people after you build only on what is clear and proven, and you are to seek the family of the reminder spiritually telepathy wise and light wise they can help, and physically their sayings will contain a cure even if much falsehood is attributed to them and much poisons are claimed to be what they said.

I don't trust humans or books that cannot provide evidence,the Bible and Quran are books of faith not facts imo.