[Variable]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Do you mean the Qur'an in its statements didn't set about conditions that would effectively end slavery?

Or, do you mean the Qur'an didn't end slavery, in the same way that the Qur'an didn't bring world peace?

I mean both. Time and time again, all that is brought to the table is the statement that 'it's better to free slaves' - well what does that mean? Declaring that it's 'better to free slaves' isn't abolition. Treating them well isn't abolition. None of what is said ever translates explicitly to "owning and trading humans as property is wrong, stop doing it"... the Prophet engaged in the slave trade, his closest followers did. It continued on until it was eventually stopped by pressures from outside forces.

There was no stage set to end slavery as an institution. The whole idea that it couldn't be done immediately I find baseless too.

[Hanbali]

Variable, I agree with you if you say that the initial post was a bit over-simplistic.

Nonetheless, the early Muslims were very much known as Liberators and Emancipators of slaves. This is how they were known amongst the pagan infidels of the time. This was one of the major gripes of the Quraysh pagan leaders, i.e. that the early Muslims were creating social disorder by the emancipation of slaves.

Abu Bakr (ra), for example, was known to have spent a great deal of his wealth freeing slaves.

Abu Bakr (ra) himself said to a slave: “Allah’s messenger (s) does not want human beings to be slaves. He wants them to be free servants of Allah. Therefore I am going to write a document of emancipation for you so that people know and respect you as a free man.”

So historically, if we were objective, then we would know that the Prophet (s) and his companions SHOULD be looked at as liberators and emancipators of slaves, because in the grand scheme of things, that is what they were.

However, the problem is that history is written by the victors, so right now, the Christians are the ones who write history.

So let's look at how the West portrays history.

If you study the history of the abolitionist movements in the West, you will find that many of the early abolitionists did not call for the complete eradication of slavery everywhere. You would actually be astonished at some of the views of early abolitionists. Many of them were racists themselves. This is a well known fact.

A lot of the people who helped out in the Underground Railroad, for instance, owned slaves themselves. This may seem shocking, but it is just a ground reality.

In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation itself did not free many slaves. Abraham Lincoln himself was a racist. I mean, if we take into account many of his words, he was not the ideal pie-in-the-sky kind of guy we imagine him to be.

These are harsh realities.

Slavery everywhere was abolished step by step, gradually. That is the reality. Even in the West.

If we can look to Abraham Lincoln as the emancipator of slaves, then we can surely look at Prophet Muhammad (s) as such. Lincoln only freed the slaves in ENEMY territory, which effectively means he didn't free a single slave, since how can you emancipate a slave in occupied enemy territory. Lincoln didn't free the slaves in the Union, but only the Confederacy. As for Prophet Muhammad (s), he forbade slavery amongst his own Muslim citizens, and Umar (ra) effectively banned it amongst Arabs...so the only slaves were from enemy civilizations who were taken as POWs.

So the Prophet's sweeping prohibition on taking citizens as slaves, was actually way more revolutionary than the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Prophet (s) categorically banned all avenues for slavery, except from POWs. So that IS sweeping. Yes, the Muslim empire expanded far and wide, so that did result in a helluva lot of POWs. But Islam gives the option to the Caliph to not take slaves at all, and so in today's day and age, the Caliph would not take slaves, if he signs an agreement with other nations (i.e. Geneva) which would prevent either nation from taking slaves. You see, taking POWs as slaves is included in the doctrine of responding like with like. So the enemy nations took Muslim fighters as slaves, so the Muslim nation can take their soldiers as slaves in like. And then there can be prisoner swaps, as there often was.

One last point...which is that the POWs were not actually slaves, but rather "indentured servants". The reason I say that is that the Quran explicitly says that if a slave asks for a deed of emancipation, then the slave owner is obligated to give him that. In other words, the slave can work for his freedom, which is more like indentured servitude than slavery.

Bottom line point is that Islam banned all avenues of taking slaves, except allowing POWs to be taken as slaves, and really they were not slaves but indentured servants.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Hanbali

Variable, I agree with you if you say that the initial post was a bit over-simplistic.

Nonetheless, the early Muslims were very much known as Liberators and Emancipators of slaves. This is how they were known amongst the pagan infidels of the time. This was one of the major gripes of the Quraysh pagan leaders, i.e. that the early Muslims were creating social disorder by the emancipation of slaves.

Abu Bakr (ra), for example, was known to have spent a great deal of his wealth freeing slaves.

Abu Bakr (ra) himself said to a slave: “Allah’s messenger (s) does not want human beings to be slaves. He wants them to be free servants of Allah. Therefore I am going to write a document of emancipation for you so that people know and respect you as a free man.”

So historically, if we were objective, then we would know that the Prophet (s) and his companions SHOULD be looked at as liberators and emancipators of slaves, because in the grand scheme of things, that is what they were.

However, the problem is that history is written by the victors, so right now, the Christians are the ones who write history.

So let's look at how the West portrays history.

If you study the history of the abolitionist movements in the West, you will find that many of the early abolitionists did not call for the complete eradication of slavery everywhere. You would actually be astonished at some of the views of early abolitionists. Many of them were racists themselves. This is a well known fact.

A lot of the people who helped out in the Underground Railroad, for instance, owned slaves themselves. This may seem shocking, but it is just a ground reality.

In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation itself did not free many slaves. Abraham Lincoln himself was a racist. I mean, if we take into account many of his words, he was not the ideal pie-in-the-sky kind of guy we imagine him to be.

These are harsh realities.

Slavery everywhere was abolished step by step, gradually. That is the reality. Even in the West.

If we can look to Abraham Lincoln as the emancipator of slaves, then we can surely look at Prophet Muhammad (s) as such. Lincoln only freed the slaves in ENEMY territory, which effectively means he didn't free a single slave, since how can you emancipate a slave in occupied enemy territory. Lincoln didn't free the slaves in the Union, but only the Confederacy. As for Prophet Muhammad (s), he forbade slavery amongst his own Muslim citizens, and Umar (ra) effectively banned it amongst Arabs...so the only slaves were from enemy civilizations who were taken as POWs.

So the Prophet's sweeping prohibition on taking citizens as slaves, was actually way more revolutionary than the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Prophet (s) categorically banned all avenues for slavery, except from POWs. So that IS sweeping. Yes, the Muslim empire expanded far and wide, so that did result in a helluva lot of POWs. But Islam gives the option to the Caliph to not take slaves at all, and so in today's day and age, the Caliph would not take slaves, if he signs an agreement with other nations (i.e. Geneva) which would prevent either nation from taking slaves. You see, taking POWs as slaves is included in the doctrine of responding like with like. So the enemy nations took Muslim fighters as slaves, so the Muslim nation can take their soldiers as slaves in like. And then there can be prisoner swaps, as there often was.

One last point...which is that the POWs were not actually slaves, but rather "indentured servants". The reason I say that is that the Quran explicitly says that if a slave asks for a deed of emancipation, then the slave owner is obligated to give him that. In other words, the slave can work for his freedom, which is more like indentured servitude than slavery.

Bottom line point is that Islam banned all avenues of taking slaves, except allowing POWs to be taken as slaves, and really they were not slaves but indentured servants.

So when it's said that a man has sexual rights over his slaves... they're talking about these strapping POWs.

Is there anything explicitly that bans the sale of slaves?