News:

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

Main Menu

Slavery: Why does the Quran not issue a direct prohibition on slavery?

Started by ths, July 05, 2024, 01:01:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ths

Salaam all,

I believe that the Quran has a clear emancipatory message. Many verses talk about freeing slaves. I also don't think 'ma malakat aymanukum' refers to slaves or captives at all. However- there is no outright prohibition on slavery that I can see, and this bothers me.

In recent weeks I've listened to many mainstream Sunni sheikhs talk about this, to see if there's any dissent to the commonly held views. The standard apologist nonsense is that slavery was universal and it would've been 'too radical and disruptive' to just ban slavery outright, or that it would've upset the economy, or that it would've caused tens of thousands of freed slaves to starve because they suddenly had no one paying for their food. I find these arguments absurd. The Quran bans polytheism. That's not disruptive? It bans usury outright. It was completely disruptive and encourage disruption by giving us examples of several prophets going against their entire communities.

The only answer I can think of to this, is that the Quran's message seems to me to focus on personal responsibility. In the Quranic worldview, true believers are always the minority, forever. And the things that the Quran bans are all things that can be done by a believer who lives in any society. It's not a political or economic blueprint for society, nor a constitution. The entire message can be boiled down to: doing good deeds and believing in God and the Last Day. That's pretty much it, as far as I can see. In that sense, the constant reminders to free slaves are a message to the believers that it is not acceptable for believers to take slaves.

Would like to hear your opinions
فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ ۚ
So strive as in a race in all virtues!
5:48

Emre_1974tr

[url="https://twitter.com/Emre_1974tr"]https://twitter.com/Emre_1974tr[/url]

[url="http://emre1974tr.blogspot.com/"]http://emre1974tr.blogspot.com/[/url]

ths

فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ ۚ
So strive as in a race in all virtues!
5:48

Emre_1974tr

Quote from: ths on July 05, 2024, 04:30:40 AMCan you give a direct quote from the Quran where it clearly abolishes slavery?

I did this, please read it.
[url="https://twitter.com/Emre_1974tr"]https://twitter.com/Emre_1974tr[/url]

[url="http://emre1974tr.blogspot.com/"]http://emre1974tr.blogspot.com/[/url]

ths

Salaam,

None of the verses in your article actually ban slavery. Most of the verses are calling on people not to worship any other deities besides God. The word used in these verses is 'Abd. This is not the same word used by the Quran (raqabah) when talking about freeing slaves.

The other verses you've quoted talk about the importance of freeing slaves. As I stated in my opening comment, the Quran has an emancipatory message. It instructs us to free slaves. But it never prohibits it. It never says that the taking of riqaab is unlawful. It never says it is prohibited or banned (حُرّم عليكم) as it does for many other things

Edit: I think 47:4 is the closest indication of a ban on slavery. It says to "strike at the necks (riqaab)" and then to either release them or ransom them for a reward. It doesn't give the option of taking them as slaves or turn them into mulk yameen. Nevertheless, this isn't a ban on slavery, it's an inference from the text.
فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَاتِ ۚ
So strive as in a race in all virtues!
5:48

Emre_1974tr

The Quran prohibits slavery very clearly.

The emancipation of slaves is a process that occurs especially when non-Muslims do not free their slaves. Otherwise, the Qur'an prohibits and forbids slavery from the very beginning, not in stages.

There are also verses that talk about the release of captured prisoners of war.

Slavery is forbidden.
[url="https://twitter.com/Emre_1974tr"]https://twitter.com/Emre_1974tr[/url]

[url="http://emre1974tr.blogspot.com/"]http://emre1974tr.blogspot.com/[/url]

Anoushirvan

Quote from: ths on July 05, 2024, 08:42:49 AMSalaam,

None of the verses in your article actually ban slavery. Most of the verses are calling on people not to worship any other deities besides God. The word used in these verses is 'Abd. This is not the same word used by the Quran (raqabah) when talking about freeing slaves.

Salam,

I agree with you that Qur'an doesn't clearly ban slavery, and claims that it does, in my opinion, are inspired by a great heart, but are mere wishful thinking.

It looks like more the conditions on which people could be made into slavery that are criticized than the principle of slavery itself.

I see several reasons why Qur'an doesn't clearly ban slavery:
* At that time, 7th CE, especially in Arabia, slavery was not perceived as crime against humanity as it is today.

* Surah 2 testifies that the early muslim community was on the process to define legal rulings in the mosques, but this task might have been not achieved when Qur'an itself was frozen. By that time, it became a sacred book and could not be updated anymore.
Also they had to face troubles and war, which surely didn't help.
With more quiet conditions, it could have been possible to see clearer rulings about slavery into Qur'an.

* Also the Nessana papers discovered some years ago, and dated back from the end of the 7th CE show that in fact, when you had a work contract to work for someone, you had a status very close from slavery.
So people at that time didn't fully distinguish a work contract from slavery, let's say, because you were captured in war.
When you worked for someone, you were his / her slave.

Wakas

Re: 47:4

17)
fa darba al rriqabi hattaitha athkhantumoohum = so strike the necks until when you have overcome them
[47:4]

Some use "hit", "smite", "strike-off". Whilst this is the most common translation, it should be noted that it is taken by many as an idiom (e.g. Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Kathir), meaning slay or kill. This seems a plausible interpretation as in a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone. Similarly, "put forth" could also be used. Interestingly, Mustansir Mir's book mentions a similar expression "daraba raqabatahu" and renders it as "to cut off somebody's head / kill somebody".

However, upon closer examination, there is an alternative translation, which seems the most likely based on the evidence:

So, when you encounter those who have rejected/concealed, then put forth /bring about the captives (RiQaB); until when you have subdued/overcome them, then strengthen the bind. Then after either grace/favour or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That, and had God willed, surely He would have gained victory Himself from them, but He tests some of you with others. And those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

Notes for the above translation:
1) "darba" is a verbal noun, indicating the act of doing as well as the noun itself, e.g. then putting forth / bringing about the captives.
2) In a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone.
3) The root RQB and its derivatives are NEVER used to mean neck elsewhere in The Quran, as the word for neck is "unuq" (as used in 8:12 also with DRB). This specific word RiQaB is always used to mean slaves/captives.
4) If they were supposed to be beheaded, there would not be a need for an instruction regarding captives. Thus to overcome this apparent omission, many traditional commentators translate "fa shuddoo al wathaqa" as "then tie the bond" and say this refers to taking prisoners of war. However, the word "strengthen/tighten (Arabic: shuddoo)" implies a pre-existing thing to strengthen/tighten (see its usage in 38:20, 76:28, 28:35, 10:88, 20:31), but if this is true, where is it in context? It can only relate to "darba al rriqabi", and thus provides strong proof that this phrase is about bringing about captives from the enemy.
5) This translation makes sense because during open/active fighting, the captives may not be totally secure, and could only really be secured once the enemy has been subdued/overcome. Thus, this verse is implying aim to bring about captives, not necessarily kill them, which shows mercy and less aggression in such a situation, even if it means getting killed.
6) One meaning of DaRaBa found in Lane's Lexicon is "he made or caused to be or constituted" which is similar to the suggested meaning discussed above.
7) I am not aware of a Classical Arabic Dictionary which references verse 47:4 under the root entry of DRB or RQB.
8) 47:4 refers to those mentioned in the previous verses, going by its use of connective particle "fa", then these people were not fighting or killing, thus killing them may violate the law of equivalence [2:190, 4:90, 5:8, 16:126, 42:39-43].
9) Interestingly, Traditional Tafsirs (altafsir.com) also mention this possibility along with the common understanding. Ibn 'Abbas: "...and taken them prisoners, (then making fast of bonds) keep the prisoners in captivity...". Tafsir al-Jalalayn: "...take them captive and bind firmly, the bonds (al-wathāq is what is used to bind [yūthaqu] a captive).".

As a side note, it is interesting to note the difference in phrasing of this verse compared to 8:12, giving further weight to each of them having different meanings as discussed.


From
http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. [url="http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/"]My articles[/url]

[url="//www.studyquran.org"]www.studyQuran.org[/url]

Bajram Hoxhaj

Quote from: Wakas on July 06, 2024, 04:06:46 AMfa darba al rriqabi hattaitha athkhantumoohum

47:4
 so when of (anytime in the future) meet you (pl.) the ones reject they of
 so shun the necks (war prisoners) until when of has thou defeated ye them

Lane's Lexicon, "he was turned away from, avoided, or shunned"

Salaam

Wakas

Peace BH,

But what do u mean by that and explain what follows.

Until then I do not understand what u mean thus cannot consider it credible
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. [url="http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/"]My articles[/url]

[url="//www.studyquran.org"]www.studyQuran.org[/url]