[Variable]

So as not to de-rail another topic - here's one that's been argued to death already. But hey, that's what Islamica is for no?

In response to:

Originally Posted by wheelworks

Actually it did an excellent job of [abolishing slavery]. That is when people followed Islam.

The law only works if you follow it donchaknow

It didn't. Slaves were held in lands governed by Islamic ideals for more than a thousand years after the 7th C, under the sanction of Islamic law. Several Muslim countries' governments still uphold mandates for slavery - drawing on Islamic sources.

I'm obviously no scholar, but it seems to me the ruling is something like "it's better to free slaves, but you are permitted to keep them" The fact that it's written in there that it's an act of charity, even desirable to release slaves isn't a clear blueprint for the end of the institution.

It's often made out that the Islamic take on slavery was some kind of kindly practice. The fact that people instantly juxtapose it to the model of slavery in the American South, in my mind one of the biggest crimes against humanity in our species' history, only serves to further assure me that Islam's take on slavery was no picnic.

[Jamroll]

Hi,

I'm not sure if I've understand the point you're trying to make, but if you're imagining that "slavery" as understood in the American South, and "slavery" as understood in Islam is anyway comparable I think you're mistaken.

A great emphasis was placed on early Muslims freeing their slaves - this is not something we find in recent American-style slavery.
Muslims were in effect prohibited from enslaving free-men - the same cannot be said for American slavery.
Islam effectively cut off the input to the slavery system, along with very strong urging to free existing slaves.
The only possible remaining source would be prisoners-of-war.

Also, Islam clearly states that the "slave" has to have similar rights to that of a free-man. It's not even comparable to American slavery.

[wheelworks]

One of the rulings about freeing slaves was that you also had to make sure the Slave could earn a sustainable income. You couldn't just let him free and he didn't have any way to support himself thus condemning him to being poor and Miserable.

Ever wonder why a lot of blacks are still very poor and many slaves in the Islamic era became leaders?

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Hi,

I'm not sure if I've understand the point you're trying to make, but if you're imagining that "slavery" as understood in the American South, and "slavery" as understood in Islam is anyway comparable I think you're mistaken.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the fact that people need to contrast it to such a heinous period, doesn't really do anything to make it more palatable.

A great emphasis was placed on early Muslims freeing their slaves - this is not something we find in recent American-style slavery.

Well, sort of. Thomas Jefferson (a slave holder, as was the Prophet) and others made it clear it was an objectionable practice and explicitly said should end. It unfortunately took all out civil war to do it.

The only possible remaining source would be prisoners-of-war.

Great. Again, that still doesn't sound any more palatable. How many of the female concubines found in the possession of slave holders were members of enemy armies?

I've heard so many arguments about how "it's better to free your slaves" and this is supposed to translate somehow into Islam making slavery humane and effectively banning it long term. Maybe it did make it more humane - but it certainly isn't. And it definitely wasn't successful in banning it, for more than a milennia slaves were held in Muslim societies, until the 20th Century. In the 19th, the British and other colonial powers did in fact exert pressure on various Muslim lands to bring them closer in accordance with the ban on slavery in British law.

So to me, having sex with captured females, tended to by castrated slave men - isn't something that sounds divinely sanctioned.

[ChotooMotoo]

even if you ban something, people still do it. Slavery is banned in western countries, but one could easily argue that illegal immigrants are not much better than slaves.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

even if you ban something, people still do it. Slavery is banned in western countries, but one could easily argue that illegal immigrants are not much better than slaves.

There are fundamental differences between the abuse of illegal immigrants and slavery.

[Adara]

You have to understand that slavery was an institution that was in place before Muhammad (P)'s message and (consider what Wheelworks' post) it was also an economic institution, which makes it harder to dismantle... HOWEVER...

Make no mistake, the practice was indeed condemned in Islam in the Qur'an:


Charities shall go to the poor, the needy, the workers who collect them, the new converts, to free the slaves, to those burdened by sudden expenses, in the cause of Allah, and to the traveling alien. Such is Allah's commandment. Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.
At-Tauba- 9:60.

What do you suppose that means? Again, consider what Wheelworks' posted.

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah.fearing.
2:117


The fact that the practice did continue for such a length represents societal problems, not problems in Islam.

[Aryan_]

No part of Islam calls for the abolition of slavery. It calls for the release of believing slaves (though it isn't compulsory), and I've read conflicting evidence whether it was permissible to enslave Muslims.

But kaffir slaves could certainly be kept. Enslaving infidels (distinct from merely owning them) is also permissible, and was practised by the prophet Mohammed himself.

[curiousgirl]

Originally Posted by Variable

So as not to de-rail another topic - here's one that's been argued to death already. But hey, that's what Islamica is for no?

In response to:



It didn't. Slaves were held in lands governed by Islamic ideals for more than a thousand years after the 7th C, under the sanction of Islamic law. Several Muslim countries' governments still uphold mandates for slavery - drawing on Islamic sources.

I'm obviously no scholar, but it seems to me the ruling is something like "it's better to free slaves, but you are permitted to keep them" The fact that it's written in there that it's an act of charity, even desirable to release slaves isn't a clear blueprint for the end of the institution.

It's often made out that the Islamic take on slavery was some kind of kindly practice. The fact that people instantly juxtapose it to the model of slavery in the American South, in my mind one of the biggest crimes against humanity in our species' history, only serves to further assure me that Islam's take on slavery was no picnic.

Ummm, I'm not too aware of the history of slavery, etc. in the islamic world or from an islamic viewpoint. However, I think it is important when discussing to remember that there is often a difference between "real islam" as according the Quran, and the islam practiced by muslims the world over...e.g. Countries with so-called Islamic laws often have very unislamic laws and methods of carrying them out. I think it's important to keep in mind that what a muslim may do or practice does not mean that they are practicing the real Islam...

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by Variable

There are fundamental differences between the abuse of illegal immigrants and slavery.

I don't know. It's a very thin line people cross when they import illegal immegrants into the country, force them to work below minimum wage, don't allow them to contact their families, and charge them double for room and board so that in the end they don't end up with a cent, have to work 60 hours a week, and cannot contact the police about the abuse becuase they are afraid of being punished as illegal immigrants. Sounds like slavery to me.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

I don't know. It's a very thin line people cross when they import illegal immegrants into the country, force them to work below minimum wage, don't allow them to contact their families, and charge them double for room and board so that in the end they don't end up with a cent, have to work 60 hours a week, and cannot contact the police about the abuse becuase they are afraid of being punished as illegal immigrants. Sounds like slavery to me.

The big difference being the fact that it's illegal. It's not sanctioned by the state authority.

But also, I'm somewhat suspect of how many illegal immigrants are actually 'imported'. Most Latinos (the group which make up the largest component in N America) are not captured POW's or victims of slave drivers. And perhaps contrary to popular belief, their only other option isn't starvation. Most illegals come from a relatively stable back ground by Latin American standards, they have cars, houses and they definitely aren't in any danger of starving... they're just drawn to what they see as a better life in the US. They can leave if they want, but most choose to stay. Those in need of help most immedietely likely wouldn't be able to point to the direction of the border. They aren't the ones attempting the trip.

If I'm sounding insensitive... all I can do is suggest going down to have a look for yourself. Just be careful.

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by Variable

The big difference being the fact that it's illegal. It's not sanctioned by the state authority.

But also, I'm somewhat suspect of how many illegal immigrants are actually 'imported'. Most Latinos (the group which make up the largest component in N America) are not captured POW's or victims of slave drivers. And perhaps contrary to popular belief, their only other option isn't starvation. Most illegals come from a relatively stable back ground by Latin American standards, they have cars, houses and they definitely aren't in any danger of starving... they're just drawn to what they see as a better life in the US. They can leave if they want, but most choose to stay. Those in need of help most immedietely likely wouldn't be able to point to the direction of the border. They aren't the ones attempting the trip.

If I'm sounding insensitive... all I can do is suggest going down to have a look for yourself. Just be careful.

It's impossible to get a number on human traficking in the USA because... it's illegal. I was listening to reports broadcast on NPR about people who were imported to clean up and re-build after Hurricaine Katrina, and about how companies purposely hire illegal immigrants in all kinds of menial labour positions and exploit them. I know of one instance in my home town were Thai immigrans were imported to pick fruit, charged for their room and board, charged income tax (there is no income tax in Washington) so in the end they were left with nothing. I can't recall if they were legal or illegal in that case, but they were still incredibly exploited. I have very mixed feeling about the whole idea of a gues worker program too. The way it's been proposed, there are way too many loopholes for companies to exploit the workers.

We love to think we've evolved beyond endentured servitude and slavery, but we haven't really.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

It's impossible to get a number on human traficking in the USA because... it's illegal. I was listening to reports broadcast on NPR about people who were imported to clean up and re-build after Hurricaine Katrina, and about how companies purposely hire illegal immigrants in all kinds of menial labour positions and exploit them. I know of one instance in my home town were Thai immigrans were imported to pick fruit, charged for their room and board, charged income tax (there is no income tax in Washington) so in the end they were left with nothing. I can't recall if they were legal or illegal in that case, but they were still incredibly exploited. I have very mixed feeling about the whole idea of a gues worker program too. The way it's been proposed, there are way too many loopholes for companies to exploit the workers.

We love to think we've evolved beyond endentured servitude and slavery, but we haven't really.

I'm agreeing with you in every way that the abuse of illegal immigrants is a bad thing. But it's not slavery. They aren't being kept their through force of authority of the state. What's happening there is a crime.

[Skinwalker]

You Tube - Francis Bok, Story of an escaped slave from Sudan

Slavery is a disgusting practice and no religion should endorse it.

[SaidAbdullahofDarfur]

Originally Posted by Variable

There are fundamental differences between the abuse of illegal immigrants and slavery.

Like you said compare and contrast.

How is a wage slave, different than one bound in chains?