News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu

Quran Fails to Ban Slavery

Started by david_rs_aitken, June 06, 2010, 08:22:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

david_rs_aitken


The derivatives of "abd" (slave) have been put in RED for the purpose of a consistent study.

The Quran recognizes the inequality of SLAVERY (عبودية) and ENSLAVEMENT (استعباد), but does not forbid the institution.

16:75
ضرب الله مثلا
عبدا
مملوكا لا يقدر على شىء ومن رزقنه منا رزقا حسنا فهو ينفق منه سرا وجهرا هل يستون
God has cited an example: the slave that is owned and powerless against the one We gave a good provision to, which he spends secretly and openly. Are they equal?

16:71
والله فضل بعضكم على بعض فى الرزق فما الذين فضلوا برادى رزقهم على ما ملكت ايمنهم فهم فيه سواء
God has favored some of you over others regarding provisions. Those who have been favored will not give up their provision to those whom they rightfully own, lest they become equal.

30:28
ضرب لكم مثلا من انفسكم هل لكم من ما ملكت ايمنكم من شركاء فى ما رزقنكم فانتم فيه سواء
Cited for you is an example of yourselves: are any of those whom you rightfully own made partners in your provision, to the point of becoming equal?

Thus, slaves are in an unequal position according to the Quran. No one can claim that slaves are in a good position given the above verses. In fact, the Quran reports that Moses used slavery as evidence of Pharaoh's injustice.

"I ran away from you when I feared you. My Lord granted my judgment and made me one of the messengers... You enslaved the Israelites!"
- Moses, in 26:21-22



This begs the question: if slavery is so bad, why isn't it forbidden in the Quran?

Not only does the Quran fail to ban slavery, but it regulates the practice of the institution and thus implicitly accepts it. It recommends freeing slaves, but does not require it. In fact, only "good" slaves were to be given the decree of freedom.

24:32
وانكحوا الايمى منكم والصلحين من
عبادكم
وامائكم
Marry the single among you and the righteous of your male and female slaves.

24:33
والذين يبتغون الكتب مما ملكت ايمنكم فكاتبوهم ان علمتم فيهم خيرا
Those who seek the decree of those whom you rightfully own, decree it for them if you know that they are good.

Fortunately, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) bans slavery, as does the Cairo Declaration made in the 1990s.



All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
يولد جميع الناس أحرارا ومتساوين في الكرامة والحقوق
وهم قد وهبوا العقل والوجدان وعليهم أن يعاملوا بعضهم بعضا بروح الإخاء

No one shall be held in bondage or slavery;
bondage and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
لا يجوز استرقاق أحد أو
استعباده
ويحظر الرق والاتجار بالرقيق بجميع صورهما




الأمم المتحدة
The United Nations

9 June 1993

اعلان القاهرة
حول حقوق الانسان في الاسلام
Cairo Declaration
on Human Rights in Islam

يولد الانسان حرا وليس لأحد أن
يستعبده
Human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave them.


It would be great if Egypt, and other predominately Muslim states, would abide by some of the righteous resolutions put forth in these Arabic documents. The Quran uses "abd" (slave) in the same way as these documents (see 16:75 and 26:22) - it's not a good thing, and it ought to be banned. Too bad the Quran failed at this.

seattletruth


RA786

Quote from: seattletruth on June 06, 2010, 08:54:32 PM
So? What's your point.

Yes, I would like to know aswell.....

So what exactly does this mean according to you david? GOD's words (Quran) has failed?...

SarahY

Quran hasn?t ?banned? slavery though does it need to? do you think Quran promotes injustices?

42:42 (Asad) blame attaches but to those who oppress [other] people and behave outrageously on earth, offending against all right: for them there is grievous suffering in store!

Isn?t oppression worse than slaying a life?

Is Quran in need to fulfil people?s concern of slavery by explicitly labelling it out for people to read? I rather think the Quran is clear in its message.

You cite the example of Moses, though do you think all forms of slavery are the same?

A maid might be seen as a ?slave? because they listen to their ?master?, is that necessarily oppression?

If we?re told to free slaves, isn?t that eradicating the practice?

I don?t necessarily think ma malikat aymanakum is slave.

Besides aren?t we all slaves of God 72:19? Wasn?t Jesus a slave of god? 19:30 Isn?t that evidence of differing forms of slavery??

Peace
We all have blind spots.
Follow your heart but take your brain with you.
ambiguity is there for a reason, why do you think?
We're all different, so how can we all be equal?

abdalquran


No, the Quran VERY STRONGLY bans slavery. Here is proof:

And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who are weak and opprssed?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"  (4/75)

So lets say Kunta Kinte is being taken across the sea to his plantation. He'd want to rescued and the believers duty is to rescue him. However, 2 generations later (Chicken George's time), the slaves at the plantation may be so settled that they dont want to leave. Malcolm X calls these people the 'house ni**ers'. So David, you're not expecting us to FORCE liberation on such people, are you?

I don't know why you understand ibada to be slavery. I understand it to be servantship. The people of Firaun willingly served him. He had no need for force until Musa came along. Then, when Musa planted the seeds of the message and basically told Bani Israil, they don't need to serve anyone at all. THAT'S when Firaun started using force and when 'drastic events' happened.

I guess what I'm saying is , ibada isnt slavery in the chains and plantations sense of the word. I am an abd to the State who will put me in jail for not paying my taxes. I am an abd to my hawa/delusions who paint a false reality and stop me from serving Allah. Maybe one day I'll have a business and have people serve me. People who will be my ibad but as a believer, I should seek to liberate them and let them have their own freedom.

With the Quran, there simply isn?t any room at all for FORCED servitude. People want to be liberated, believers need to liberate them. However, people who willingly serve in a given system are abidoon and if they?re happy serving their Lords, we can?t really do much for?em.

As a last note, I would look into the multitude of words denoting power relations like ?raghb?, ?asra?, ?malakat?. It?s not as simple as the traditionalists make it out to be.
Farouk A. Peru

savage_carrot

I've been researching about slavery in the quran (thanks to Jack, Wakas, abdalquran and CD for the help/discussion) and it's not done yet and I've yet to go through MMA but I'm posting what I've researched/got so far in response to what has been raised in the thread:

3BD refers to serving, service, servants etc. Please see PRL for the overwhelming usage of 3BD referring to such.

When we check the occurrences for personal servants we come across 2:221, 24:32 for female servants and 2:178, 2:221, 24:32 and 16:75 for male servants. Household servants is in verse 24:31 but mentioned as ٱلتَّٰبِعِينَ or male attendants. There is no oppression or force being alluded to in all these occurrences until we come to 16:75.

16:75 God propounds the parable of a man enslaved, unable to do anything of his own accord, and a man upon whom We have bestowed goodly sustenance from Ourselves, so that he can spend thereof secretly and openly. Can these be deemed equal? All praise is due to God but most of them do not understand it.

Here we have a servant who is مَّمْلُوكًا. This term refers to owned/enslaved as is commonly understood. Given the root MLK and the fact that it is in passive form, it means that the subject (3BD) receives the action expressed in the verb MLK which can be translated as controlled/having dominion or authority over. We have the example/parable of a controlled servant contrasted with a man who can do as he chooses due to resources/provisions granted by God. The emphasis on and the inclusion of resources/provisions as the reason he is able to choose freely is revealing. The controlled servant on the other hand, has little choice as to a direction of his own choosing. He is under the authority/control of another due to his lack of resources/provisions.

God gives to whom he chooses (16:71), but this example should show that it is not because the servant is controlled/under someone else?s authority, but the lack of resources that the contrast highlights as the difference. The servant has little choice but to enter into an arrangement that may not be to his liking because of lack of resources. We can see this even today in the form of people entering into jobs that they do not particularly wish to do but do so out of necessity, for adequate survival, under someone else's authority/control. Compared to people that can take the direction that they want/choose in life due to these resources/provisions and do not need to be under the authority/control of someone else.

Even if, for a moment, we take the conventional understanding of the verse as ?slave? it still does not mean that believers have the right to own slaves from this verse alone.

Additionally, the next verse we will see is the only one in Al Qur?an using verb form 2 of 3BD in 26:22. Verb form 2 is generally intensive and causative in meaning, i.e. Pharaoh is the agent/cause of the effect, implying he made them serve intensely. This can only refer to forced servitude by Pharaoh. This we are told is wrong based on general principle (We are told that oppression is worse than killing (2:191, 2:217). We are told not to transgress our bounds/aggress or use undue force (2:190, 22:60) etc). Pharaoh is not a poster boy for the believers.

So who are these ?slaves? we are told to free as an act of righteousness (2:177), the better path ( 90:12, 90:13), to atone (4:92, 5:89, 58:3) and as charity (9:60)? Surprisingly, the term used for them in all occurrences dealing with such is RQB not 3BD.

RQB

Taken as ?tied by the neck? or bound/constrained.

Can these be referring to war captives taken in battle? According to 8:67 the term used for captives taken as such is Al Asra, further confirmed in 8:70.We can set them free or ransom/exchange them for our own until the war ends. There is no reason to suppose that they can be forced into servitude whilst captive, firstly on the general principle against such in the quran along with no references to 3BD as being forced by believers into anything and secondly, because we are told what to do with them as per the instructions given in 47:4. They must be dealt with as soon as the war is over.

This brings us back to what RQB is. Forced servitude is eliminated by general principle as well as the fact that none of the personal 3BD are termed as RQB.

In my opinion till now, RQB is pointing to a set of bound believing/unbelieving people (not war OR debt 4:92, 9:60) whether justly or unjustly but never unjustly by believers. This binding if just, is dealing with felons/etc who have to go through community service/working for the people whom they stole from or something and maybe after a certain time/term by paying off/compensating what they stole is an act of charity/freeing them and if unjust can be bound slaves (as is traditionally understood) by unbelievers/whatever which is unequivocally wrong and must be freed. Slavery as it is understood commonly (unjust forced labour etc) is out on general principle as it is in the quran, thus one cannot find any reference to such in all occurrences by believers in their 3bd. RQB is not mentioned as 3bd. So in summary, RQB can mean those bound by community service, thieves for example. Setting them free after a term or whatever would be an act of charity as is done even today.
God has a plan, Gaius. He has a plan for everything and everyone.

abdalquran

Farouk A. Peru

savage_carrot

Thanks bro, the discussion helped a lot.

I see the terms 3BD and RQB used interchangeably or to mean both at times in translations where "slave" is used, whereas the terms used are very precise in the quran.
God has a plan, Gaius. He has a plan for everything and everyone.

Mazhar

Quote16:75
ضرب الله مثلا
عبدا
لا يقدر على شىء ومن رزقنه منا رزقا حسنا فهو ينفق منه سرا وجهرا هل يستون
God has cited an example: the slave that is owned and powerless against the one We gave a good provision to, which he spends secretly and openly. Are they equal?
.

The perception went distorted by wrongly placing the words and their relationship.


ضرب الله مثلا Allah quoted/surfaced the contrast

عبدا مملوكا between a person the characteristic of whom is that of a possessiveless person [مملوكا is serving here as adjective of عبدا]. And his pecularity is explicitly defined as لا يقدر على شىء he does not have control/possession/authority over any material thing. As against him the other person contrasted is:

and the one whom We have given sustenance, from Us sustenance stable and proportionate for which reason/consequentially he spends out of it secretly and publicly.


Are they both identical [in public eye]?

Where is slavery discussed in this Verse?

[url="http://haqeeqat.pk/index.htm"]http://haqeeqat.pk/index.htm[/url]

David_K

Peace david_rs_aitken

The universal declaration of human rights have banned slavery, but slavery still exists:

Modern day slavery
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599833.0

If you ban something but do not actively work to eliminate it from society, then it will not disappear. A human right mean nothing if it is not practiced.
Let me give you an example. If a country creates a law which that stealing is wrong, but do not punish the thiefs when they steal, then that law is meaningless. Slavery is banned, but slavery still exists. Slavery has just changed its shape and color. The skin of the slavery is eliminated, but its skeleton still exists. Slavery can only be removed, when both the skin and the skeleton of slavery is eliminated.

The Quran tells us to free the slaves (see 2:177, 9:60, 90:12-13).

To totally ban slavery at the time when the prophet lived would be impractical. From my understanding, Quran eliminates slavery gradually. Change takes time.

Besides, taking captives of war (slaves) in a defence-war can help you negotiate with the aggressors, and maybe even end the war.  

You say that the declaration of human rights has forbidden slavery while the Quran has not. I don't know what the point of your argument is, but if your point is to show us that the declaration of human rights is more advanced and gives more rights to humanity than the Quran, i disagree. The quran tells us to not mock/ridicule anyone:

Quran 49:11
O you who believe, let not any people ridicule other people, for they may be better than they. Nor shall any women ridicule other women, for they may be better than they. Nor shall you mock one another, or call each other names; miserable indeed is the name of wickedness after attaining faith. And anyone who does not repent, then these are the transgressors.

As far as i know, the declaration of human rights does not tell us to not mock anyone. So if we are going to compare the Quran with the declaration of human rights, we can see that the Quran gives a right to human beings (not to be ridiculed) which the declaration of human rights don't give. So instead of asking why the Quran does not make slavery forbidden, we should ask why does not the declaration of human rights condemn the act of mocking or ridiculing people? This is an important question we should reflect upon. The system of our creator is above all systems. It is the criteria to judge other systems, not the other way around. Think about it.