West must learn to respect Islam

[awan4ever]

Rights and Slave do not go together. In the History of slavery in US conditions of slavery were legislated several times. That does not change anything. Relationship of an employee and employer has rights for both parties.

Freedom is not a relative term for those who rather die free than to live in slavery.
Those who surrender to slavery in order to pay bills are the weak of the society they don't deserve it.

A slave can buy his freedom if he wishes meaning if the 'slave' does not want to stay in the service of the 'master' he can work his way out of it as per agreed terms and conditions. Again some terms have been given a negative connotation due to genuine problems so no matter how anyone tries to explain it, a non-believer will not accept the premise. Moreover Islam didnt ask its followers to go into new worlds in search of slaves. It was a prevailing custom and Islam regulated it on humane terms including giving the option to a slave to choose his freedom which was easily granted if the slave was not an enemy combatant.

Im not quite sure how to interpret your words 'weak of society and they deserve it' so i will not comment on it right now.

 

[awan4ever]

How many 'sex slaves' are there today? How many in the Muslim world as compared to the west especially europe where it is a thriving business?

Anyway again slavery wasnt 'invented' by islam but it was one of the first ones to regulate it on strict terms.
Like I said before if you will see everything in todays terms you will most definitely end up drawing negative conclusions. You should also read the way the Prophet pbuh and his companions actually treated their slaves to get an idea of how Islamic law vis a vis slaves was formulated and implemented.
It is easy to start bashing by taking quotes to suit your own arguments.
I would suggest a deeper reading as I mentioned above.

 

[Unicorn]

Please refer to an authentic islamic scholar on slavery... and not use bloggers for justifications and counter justifications...

I am not looking at slavery from any religious perspective. My opinions are based on my own humanitarian view. I don't know enough about Islam to engage in any debate I only know bits and pieces some from this forum mostly posted by Mr Mirza and a book I read a few years ago.

 

[Unicorn]

A slave can buy his freedom if he wishes meaning if the 'slave' does not want to stay in the service of the 'master' he can work his way out of it as per agreed terms and conditions. Again some terms have been given a negative connotation due to genuine problems so no matter how anyone tries to explain it, a non-believer will not accept the premise. Moreover Islam didnt ask its followers to go into new worlds in search of slaves. It was a prevailing custom and Islam regulated it on humane terms including giving the option to a slave to choose his freedom which was easily granted if the slave was not an enemy combatant.

Im not quite sure how to interpret your words 'weak of society and they deserve it' so i will not comment on it right now.

My opinions are only based on my personal humanitarian view. Without going into the religious aspect If i may ask, a slave who does not earn any wage and has no possessions how could he buy his freedom?

 

[awan4ever]

@Pegasus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery#Contemporary_sexual_slavery

Read up. The slave trade is still thriving in the liberators of slavery's own lands.

 

[awan4ever]

My openions are only based on my personal humanitarian view. Without going into the religios aspect If i may ask, a slave who does not earn any wage, how could he buy his freedom.

024.033
YUSUFALI: Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),

This verse answers your question.

If a slave asks for freedom a muslim is bound to give it to them. The written deed being that the slave can agree to work for a certain period of set time. Also if you read the next line it exhorts the master to give a part of his 'wealth' to the slave meaning to pay him salary which he can in turn use as a fee for bying freedom.
Read next line.
Sexual slavery is NOT allowed in Islam.

 

[Unicorn]

.

Im not quite sure how to interpret your words 'weak of society and they deserve it' so i will not comment on it right now.

I will give you an example I watched CNN report where members of coalition troops were destroying Poppies planted by a poor Afgani farmer. While they were destroying his crops he was begging and his pleas were translated into English: " Please don't do it I have boworowed money from the Taliban and if i do not return the money than I have to give my son to the Taliban as a slave."

 

[awan4ever]

Heres something I read in a journal paper and you might find useful on how Islam actually moved to limit slavery gradually.

"Though slavery was maintained, the Islamic dispensation enormously improved the position of the Arabian slave, who was now no longer merely a chattel but was also a human being with a certain religious and hence a social status and with certain quasi-legal rights. The early caliphs who ruled the Islamic community after the death of the Prophet also introduced some further reforms of a humanitarian tendency. The enslavement of free Muslims was soon discouraged and eventually prohibited. It was made unlawful for a freeman to sell himself or his children into slavery, and it was no longer permitted for freemen to be enslaved for either debt or crime, as was usual in the Roman world and, despite attempts at reform, in parts of Christian Europe until at least the sixteenth century. It became a fundamental principle of Islamic jurisprudence that the natural condition, and therefore the presumed status, of mankind was freedom, just as the basic rule concerning actions is permittedness: what is not expressly forbidden is permitted; whoever is not known to be a slave is free. This rule was not always strictly observed. Rebels and heretics were sometimes denounced as infidels or, worse, apostates, and reduced to slavery, as were the victims of some Muslim rulers in Africa, who proclaimed jihad against their neighbors, without looking closely at their religious beliefs, so as to provide legal cover for their enslavement. But by and large, and certainly in the central lands of Islam, under regimes of high civilization, the rule was honored, and free subjects of the state, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, were protected from unlawful enslavement.

Since all human beings were naturally free, slavery could only arise from two circumstances: (1) being born to slave parents or (2) being captured in war. The latter was soon restricted to infidels captured in a jihad.
These reforms seriously limited the supply of new slaves. Abandoned and unclaimed children could no longer be adopted as slaves, as was a common practice in antiquity, and free persons could no longer be enslaved. Under Islamic law, the slave population could only be recruited, in addition to birth and capture, by importation, the last either by purchase or in the form of tribute from beyond the Islamic frontiers. In the early days of rapid conquest and expansion, the holy war brought a plentiful supply of new slaves, but as the frontiers were gradually stabilized, this supply dwindled to a mere trickle. Most wars were now conducted against organized armies, like those of the Byzantines or other Christian states, and with them prisoners of war were commonly ransomed or exchanged. Within the Islamic frontiers, Islam spread rapidly among the populations of the newly acquired territories, and even those who remained faithful to their old religions and lived as protected persons (dhimmis) under Muslim rule could not, if free, be legally enslaved unless they had violated the terms of the dhimma, the contract governing their status, as for example by rebelling against Muslim rule or helping the enemies of the Muslim state or, according to some authorities, by withholding pa'yment of the Kharaj or the Jizya, the taxes due from dhimmls to the Muslim state."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html

Also the article says w.r.t the posting about Ottoman slaves that this practice was done AGAINST the earlier Islamic principals of slavery.
So please try to differentiate between what Islam says and what Muslim rulers end up doing for their own benefit.

 

[awan4ever]

I will give you an example I watched CNN report where members of coalition troops were destroying Poppies planted by a poor Afgani farmer. While they were destroying his crops he was begging and his pleas were translated into English: " Please don't do it I have boworowed money from the Taliban and if i do not return the money than I have to give my son to the Taliban as a slave."

Again this is against the early Islamic reforms. The Taliban have a demented interpretation of Islamic laws. No one is allowed to sell their children into slavery according to Sharia Law but since the Taliban needed foot soldiers they conveniently over looked this law or maybe twisted it like they twist everything with their stupid twisted and unevolved mental capacities.

 

[Unicorn]

024.033
YUSUFALI: Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),

This verse answers your question.

If a slave asks for freedom a muslim is bound to give it to them. The written deed being that the slave can agree to work for a certain period of set time. Also if you read the next line it exhorts the master to give a part of his 'wealth' to the slave meaning to pay him salary which he can in turn use as a fee for bying freedom.
Read next line.
Sexual slavery is NOT allowed in Islam.

(to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum) This is the part how can a slave regardless of the gender can buy freedom for a certain sum specially if the sum is outlined by the owner it seems this is with regards to female slave.

 

[awan4ever]

(to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum) This is the part how can a slave regardless of the gender can buy freedom for a certain sum specially if the sum is outlined by the owner.

The owner is outlining the sum in agreement with the slave. A slave his being given a wage for his work. SO he can set aside that wage or forgo his wages for a period of time as per the agreement.
You have to understand that a Quranic verse is not something to be fiddled around with by a believer. If the Quran is ordering a person to make way for a person to earn his freedom then it means that owner must not try to find ways to circumvent the law of God.

 

[Unicorn]

The owner is outlining the sum in agreement with the slave. A slave his being given a wage for his work. SO he can set aside that wage or forgo his wages for a period of time as per the agreement.
You have to understand that a Quranic verse is not something to be fiddled around with by a believer. If the Quran is ordering a person to make way for a person to earn his freedom then it means that owner must not try to find ways to circumvent the law of God.

I am talking in terms that the owner has good intentions there is still the matter of practicality. If am bought by a well intentioned owner for the sum of $6000 at age 21 now at age 35 I am asking for freedom a well intentioned owner would still have to think how much he has to pay for my replacement, If the replacement is $2000 than the price of freedom might be 1000 for a really good owner. Since I don't have any money nobody knows when I will be released. I think under the circumstance I will make an escape if I die I will die a free man.

 

[awan4ever]

I am talking in terms that the owner has good intentions there is still the matter of practicality. If am bought by a well intentioned owner for the sum of $6000 at age 21 now at age 35 I am asking for freedom a well intentioned owner would still have to think how much he has to pay for my replacement, If the replacement is $2000 than the price of freedom might be 1000 for a really good owner. Since I don't have any money nobody knows when I will be released. I think under the circumstance I will make an escape if I die I will die a free man.

This is where we look to the Hadith of the Prophet pbuh.

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “Whoever manumits his share of a jointly possessed slave, it is imperative for him to get that slave manumitted completely by paying the remaining price, and if he does not have sufficient money to manumit him, then the price of the slave should be estimated justly, and he is to be allowed to work and earn the amount that will manumit him (without overburdening him)”. – [Bukhari, Vol.3, Book 44, #672]

So it has been decreed that their shall be no over burdening the slave. Which not only means in monetary terms but also in terms of the time adjustments as per the stated agreement between master and slave.

Please understand that Islam accepts everyones right to freedom. But instead of abolishing a very intrinsic part of the economic system of the day, Islam set about to make slavery obsolete over time.
That is why more and more restrictions were placed on who could be enslaved.

 

[Unicorn]

Heres something I read in a journal paper and you might find useful on how Islam actually moved to limit slavery gradually.

"Though slavery was maintained, the Islamic dispensation enormously improved the position of the Arabian slave, who was now no longer merely a chattel but was also a human being with a certain religious and hence a social status and with certain quasi-legal rights. The early caliphs who ruled the Islamic community after the death of the Prophet also introduced some further reforms of a humanitarian tendency. The enslavement of free Muslims was soon discouraged and eventually prohibited. It was made unlawful for a freeman to sell himself or his children into slavery, and it was no longer permitted for freemen to be enslaved for either debt or crime, as was usual in the Roman world and, despite attempts at reform, in parts of Christian Europe until at least the sixteenth century. It became a fundamental principle of Islamic jurisprudence that the natural condition, and therefore the presumed status, of mankind was freedom, just as the basic rule concerning actions is permittedness: what is not expressly forbidden is permitted; whoever is not known to be a slave is free. This rule was not always strictly observed. Rebels and heretics were sometimes denounced as infidels or, worse, apostates, and reduced to slavery, as were the victims of some Muslim rulers in Africa, who proclaimed jihad against their neighbors, without looking closely at their religious beliefs, so as to provide legal cover for their enslavement. But by and large, and certainly in the central lands of Islam, under regimes of high civilization, the rule was honored, and free subjects of the state, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, were protected from unlawful enslavement.

Since all human beings were naturally free, slavery could only arise from two circumstances: (1) being born to slave parents or (2) being captured in war. The latter was soon restricted to infidels captured in a jihad.
These reforms seriously limited the supply of new slaves. Abandoned and unclaimed children could no longer be adopted as slaves, as was a common practice in antiquity, and free persons could no longer be enslaved. Under Islamic law, the slave population could only be recruited, in addition to birth and capture, by importation, the last either by purchase or in the form of tribute from beyond the Islamic frontiers. In the early days of rapid conquest and expansion, the holy war brought a plentiful supply of new slaves, but as the frontiers were gradually stabilized, this supply dwindled to a mere trickle. Most wars were now conducted against organized armies, like those of the Byzantines or other Christian states, and with them prisoners of war were commonly ransomed or exchanged. Within the Islamic frontiers, Islam spread rapidly among the populations of the newly acquired territories, and even those who remained faithful to their old religions and lived as protected persons (dhimmis) under Muslim rule could not, if free, be legally enslaved unless they had violated the terms of the dhimma, the contract governing their status, as for example by rebelling against Muslim rule or helping the enemies of the Muslim state or, according to some authorities, by withholding pa'yment of the Kharaj or the Jizya, the taxes due from dhimmls to the Muslim state."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html

Also the article says w.r.t the posting about Ottoman slaves that this practice was done AGAINST the earlier Islamic principals of slavery.
So please try to differentiate between what Islam says and what Muslim rulers end up doing for their own benefit.

I am all for reforms and I understand slavery cannot be abolished in one day. It seems that you have taken a different position after reading this article but I am for it.

It has been a very interesting discussion I am going home. Thanks

 

[awan4ever]

I am all for reforms and I understand slavery cannot be abolished in one day. It seems that you have taken a different position after reading this article but I am for it.

It has been a very interesting discussion I am going home. Thanks

You are for what and how are our positions different?
Im not pro slavery. Im just trying to understand like you how Islam proposed the reduction in slavery over time.
Anyway I should get some sleep too.
Have a good day.

 

[karachiwala]

Unicorn you are only interested in articles where Muslim beliefs are in question but you are no where to be seen something comes up showing the ugly face of India. Do you get paid for spending so much time on a Pakistani forum? You should be thankful though no body is abusive on this forum. If you look at Indian forums whenever a Pakistani would open his mouth Indians start farting abuses like an old motorbike.

 

[QaiserMirza]

What about slavery in our country.
There are private jails in Sindh, Balochistan.
The mine workers in Khaber P. K. are almost all working as slave. They were abducted from different places and forced to work without any compensation.
There are hundreds of villages in Balochistan where the residents never seen any outsiders in their life.
There are hundreds of villages in Balochistan where the residents dont know what the currency is.
They were given amount of food which is barely sufficient for them to survive, while they work their whole life for the Sardars.

Same situation in Sindh.
These wealthy Peers of Sindh, one cant imagine how they treat their slave.
The Peer's family treat the women as free for all.

I feel the old time slavery was much better then this, at least the slave had the chance to get himself free on conditions.

 

[adnan_younus]

pakistan is not an islamic state neitehr was meant to be by MA jinnah... its a muslim majority state.... religious parties hat time were against paksitan as it will divide muslim population into two...

I am completely oblivious to this part of the history. Is this Mahdudi is same who opposed Mr. Jinnah? If he is than why he was against an Islamic state? can you tell me the name of his most detailed book it would make an interesting read. Thank you

 

[bons]

How can you equate bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with terrorism. Can you tell me who attacked Perl Harbor, without giving any ultimatum of war?

Who refused to surrender when Island of Japan was surrounded by the American Navy. Who wanted to fight until death and had the slogan NO-SURRENDER. Who ignored two warnings to surrender. Who still refused to surrender after first bomb was dropped despite of another warning for the second bomb.

I guess you would have felt better if US had bombed every one with conventional bombs.

For your Information it was the terrorist US who supplied aid at the grandest scale to help the Japanese get back on the feet.

Have you ever wondered why the Japanese don't consider US as terrorists despite being bombed.

Japan is a great nation today it realized its mistakes and took steps to insure that they don't repeat the past.

Have you ever wonder why Chinese considered the Japanese of the time as terrorists, yes because they suffered enslavement, summary execution were considered sub human beings.

In your earlier response to a post with regards to Khadfi, you stated that he was your hero when he was financing hijacking, bombings of public places and blowing passenger jet liners from the sky, and when he gave it up you hated him.

Its a good post but I think you should also practice what you post.

Unicorn,
I think you only have half side of your brain and you are unable to think rationally with a single horn. You have given lame excuses to justify brutal killing of millions of innocent people. Killing of innocent people is NOT justifiable in ANY circumstances. If we accept your ridiculuos logic then Pakistan can bomb your Mumbai because you are not stopping insurgency in Pakistan.
I think you should practice how to think rationally before writing any post. To think ratinally first you have to stop worshiping America like your idols.

P.S. Your post gives an impression of "Shah se barh kar shah ka wafadar". Americans do read posts on this forum let them reply (if they have any). You have enough Indian crap to defend.

 

[bons]

if u will respect others others will respect u.. simplzzz... zarb-e-momin ke 2-3 article parh raha thaa.... itni hatred.... that paper shud be banned....

Have you read any paper of the OTHER side? You can find their hatred not only in papers but also on tv channels. Why don't you demand ban on them? It is Musharraf's doctrine. Apnay logon par tank le kar charh doro aur dushman ke agay lait jao.