Ask a Muslim

[warpus]

I do not understand how a person can be a follower of *any* religion and not be a fundamentalist. Following the fundamentals of a religion, is, well, fundamental to that religion!

It's kinda like.. playing Civilization, but changing the rules a bit, and maybe installing a mod. Hmm diplomatic win is out, let's do temperate climate, and how about no barbarians.

You're still playing the same game but you're not adhering to the initial & fundamental rules.

You like what the religion teaches, but you disagree that everything has to be followed to the letter. Most religious people in the West are like this, and IMO, this is a very good thing.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

As long as you don't follow that Sharia or extremism that's pretty much my same thinking.

I do not consider myself an extremist. An extremist to me is a heretic who believes such things that terrorism is justified, killing innocents is justified, etc. All of these things are forbidden by the fundamentals of the faith.

But what do you mean by follow "that Shariah"? I very much do believe in following the Shariah, which refers to the Divine Law, i.e. Islamic Law. The Shariah can be further sub-divided: laws that apply universally and those laws that apply to an Islamic government only.

Currently, I follow the laws that apply universally. When an Islamic revolution occurs in a Muslim majority country, then Shariah would be implemented in full. Basically, Shariah can only be practised on a global level if there is an Islamic Caliph in power. Therefore, in the absence of a Caliph, it is impossible to "implement" Shariah on others. However, the Shariah is still binding on yourself. I am instructed to follow the Islamic Laws that apply to myself, and the reward (and any punishment) will be meted out on the Day of Judgment.

For example, the punishment for fornication in Islam is whipping. However, Islamically this Hadd (divine punishment) can only be carried out by an Islamic government under the rule of a Caliph. Vigilante justice in Islam is compeletly Haram (forbidden), and in fact it would be a *greater* crime than the initial sin itself. For example, for some vigilante to whip a fornicator would be considered assault and heresy, and strictly Haram (forbidden). Nonetheless, I personally cannot engage in fornication because this would be a violation of the Shariah, and I will be taken into account on the Day of Judgment.

In any case, the Shariah is more than a set of punishments, lol. In fact, the Hadd (punishments) are just a very small segment, and in fact the bulk of the Shariah is designed to implement social justice, welfare, and relief to the poor, needy, and weak. However, these elements of the Shariah do not appeal to Western media as they do not garner as good a reaction as saying "oh my gosh, you guys chop hands!"

Anyways, I would not be a Muslim if I forsook the Shariah. But because there is no Islamic government, then the Shariah is much more restricted in my day-to-day life. But it is *still* there. Even the prohibition on eating pork--as you mentioned in the last post--is a part of the Shariah. Every jurisprudential command is under the umbrella of Shariah.

Islam can be broken down into two parts actually. It is sub-divided in Aqeedah (doctrine) and Shariah (law). Under Aqeedah (doctrine) would come all the important Islamic beliefs (i.e. monotheism, belief in the Prophets, etc). The minimum requirement to be a Muslim is to believe in the Doctrine, as the Law (Shariah) is secondary. But *belief* in the Shariah is part of the doctrine, so if I didn't believe in the Shariah, I would cease to be a Muslim.

Just so you know, the Shariah is what commands me to be kind-hearted and soft with non-Muslims.

It's kinda like.. playing Civilization, but changing the rules a bit, and maybe installing a mod. Hmm diplomatic win is out, let's do temperate climate, and how about no barbarians.

You're still playing the same game but you're not adhering to the initial & fundamental rules.

I haven't bought Warlords yet, and I like to stick to the Vanilla edition. When you download mods, there is a good chance that it just sucks, doesn't work, or contains a virus!

------------

I will reply to the earlier posts soon, Allah Willing...hehe.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Question: Why is Slavery not forbidden in Islam?

In Islam, the basic principle is that anything which is not expressely forbidden in the Islamic canon can by default be termed Halal (permissible) until proven otherwise. Therefore, because there is no explicit text banning slavery, people have mistakenly stated that Islam encourages or advocates slavery, when this is quite simply not the case. Therefore, Islam does not allow slavery, but rather it only did not explicitly forbid it.

In fact, no major religion explicitly forbids slavery. So I do not understand why the Islamaphobes pick on Islam for this. Indeed, we find that the religious texts of Judaism and Christianity not only fail to ban slavery but they actually advocate it and facilitate it.

Slavery was an institution that was in vogue at the time, and it would take hundreds of years for society as a whole to abandon it. I do not see why Islam needs to be mentioned in specific. We could look at all of the West's role models and societies of the past, where we find that slavery was actually allowed.

Having said that, a questioner might ask: but if this is the religion of God, then shouldn't there be a ban on such an inhumane thing?

Excellent question.

The fact is that Islam was quite literally one of the earliest abolitionist movements in history. However, it was not abolitionism in the traditional sense of the word. No Muslim of that time tried to change the institution of slavery from a top-down approach (i.e. passing legislation against slavery) but rather the freeing of slaves was done by a bottom-up approach. Muslims bought slaves from their slave masters in order to free them. In that society, *that* was a legal means of freeing slaves: you buy them and free them. This was the method adopted by the Muslims. [The Muslims were *not* the rulers of Arabia until only afterwards, and *that* was when the second Caliph categorically banned slavery amongst the Arabs. So until they were not the rulers, the only method they could have used was the bottom-up approach, using the system available to buy and then free slaves.]

Liberate, Emancipate, and Even Marry Slaves

The Quran repeatedly calls on Muslims to help those under the yolk of slavery, to free slaves, and to even marry them!

In Quran, there is the concept that Muslims are to take the Uphill Path, and this is the highest calling of a Muslim...it refers to how doing good is difficult to do (i.e. the Uphill Path) and sinning is easy (i.e. the Downhill Path). These are called the Two Paths.

In a very beautiful Chapter in the Quran, Allah talks about how sinful free-men take the DownHill Path and enslave others, squander wealth, and oppress. But Allah has called them to take the Uphill Path. Allah says:

"You are a freeman of this city...Does he think that no one has power over him? He may say boastfully: 'Wealth have I squandered in abundance!' Does he think that no one sees him? Have We not given him two eyes, and a tongue, and two lips? And shown him the two paths? But he made no attempt to take the Uphill Path. And what will explain to you what the Uphill Path is? It is to free a slave, and to feed in the day of hunger an orphan who is near in kin, or the poor man in misery! Then will he be of those who believe, and who enjoin patience, and enjoin deeds of kindness and compassion. Such are the People of the Right Hand. But those who reject Our Signs, they are the People of the Left Hand: on them will be Fire..." (Quran, Chapter 90)

Such a beautiful chapter in the Quran! It is commanding all the free men of the city to take the Uphill Path which is to free a slave and feed the needy, to enjoin kindness and compassion. And those who do *not* do this will be condemned to Hell-Fire.

What more do you guys want of Islam??? This is 1400 years ago! Find *one* other religious text that is so old which has such beautiful commandments to free slaves!

In the next verse, Allah tells us that just praying is not good enough...it is not good enough to engage in your religious rites. Instead, you are encouraged to do social justice, and to free slaves, feed the needy, etc. Allah says:

"It is not righteousness that you (simply) turn your faces towards east or west (in prayer); but it is righteousness to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend wealth in charity, out of Love for Allah, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and to free slaves, to be steadfast in prayer and practise regular charity, to fulfill promises when promises are made, to exhibit fortitude and to have patience, in pain, suffering, and adversity, and in times of conflict. Such are the People of Truth, the God-Fearing!" (Quran, 2:177)

Not only has Allah so thoroughly encouraged and commanded His followers to set about freeing slaves, but He also made it a requirement as expiation for certain sins, exhibiting how Islam advocates the freeing of slaves as a pious act and encouraged to do so at every corner.

"[Expiation for breaking an oath is] the liberation of a slave." (Quran, 5:89)

The expiation for committing manslaughter is also to free a slave:

"He who has killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave..." (Quran, 4:92)

Even the expiation for insulting one's wife is to free a slave:

"(The) penalty in that case is the freeing of a slave before they [married couple] touch one another." (Quran, 58:3-4)

Allah commands the Muslims to marry slaves and thereby free them. Back in the time of the Pre-Islamic Arabs, people would scoff at marrying a "lowly" slave. Look how Islam gave dignity to humanity. Allah says to marry the poor slaves and don't worry about money because Allah will give enrichment Himself:

"... And marry such of you as are solitary and the pious of your slaves and maid servants. If they be poor, Allah will enrich them of His bounty..." (Quran, 24:32)

Allah says:

"Do not wed disbelievers until they believe. A slave woman who believes is better than a disbelieving woman, even though she (the latter) allures you. Nor marry your girls to disbelievers until they believe. A man slave who believes is better than a disbeliever, even though he (the latter) allures you." (Quran, 2:221)

This was a shocking social reform which turned the Arab society upside down. The Pre-Islamic Arabs and the enemies of Islam were *shocked* at the radical social reform and social justice that the Prophet (s) came to preach.

It should be remembered that Islam came down in stages and steps. The Quran itself was revealed over the course of 23 years. For example, in the beginning, there was no restriction on alcohol and in fact many Sahabah (Companions of the Prophet) drank alcohol. Then, Allah revealed a verse saying it was bad (but not categorically forbidding it). When the people had thus prepared themselves, then a verse in the Quran forbade approaching prayer whilst drunk (but still did not categorically forbid alcohol). Then only later was the final commandment revealed which was that alcohol is completely forbidden.

The reason for this step by step process was to prepare the people so that it would not come as a shock and become apostates due to that shock. Allah thus gave His Message gradually. In the matter of slavery, a similar position was taken. At first, Allah commanded His Prophet (s) to simply preach kindness towards slaves, and this is narrated in several of the Prophetic Sayings:

The Prophet (s) said: "Your slaves are your brothers upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if a person has his own brother's under his command, he should feed them with the like of what he (himself) eats and clothe them with the like of what he (himself) wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, then help them (in their hard job)."

In another Prophetic Saying (i.e. Hadith), the Second Caliph would go to the villages every Saturday and if he found a slave doing work which he was not capable of doing, he lightened it for him. This was based on what the Prophet (s) said:

"Your slaves are your brothers, so treat him well. Ask for their help in what is too much for you and help them in what is too much for them." (narrated in Bukhari)

In yet another saying in the Prophetic Sayings (narrated in Sahih Muslim), the Prophet (s) declared it a sin to withold the provision for a slave (i.e. to not feed him properly, clothe him properly, etc)

The Prophet (s): "Give the slave food and clothing. Do not burden a slave with work which he is incapable of doing." (narrated in Bukhari)

He (s) also said: "Not one of you (Muslims) should [when introducing someone] say: 'This is my slave'...he should call them 'my daughter' or 'my son' or 'my brother.'" (narrated ibn Hanbal)

The Prophet (s) said: "And your slaves, see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them what you yourself wear. And if they commit a mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented!" (narrated Ibn Sa'd)

And the Prophet (s) even then forbade people from punishing slaves as was the custom. He (s) said: "Feed them from what you eat and clothe them from what you wear. Do not punish what Allah has created." (narrated Bukhari)

And the Prophet (s) said: "Your servants and your slaves are your brothers. Anyone who has slaves should give them from what he eats and wears. He should not charge them with work beyond their capabilities. If you must set them to hard work, in any case I advise you to help them." (narrated Bukhari)

The Prophet (s) said: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he (the master) should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share)" (Narrated Sahih Muslim)

So in the beginning, kindness towards slaves was proscribed. Eventually, the commands would come to marry them, liberate them, and free them...even to buy the slaves of other people and set them free as well, meaning spending from your own wealth to free another man's slave. Indeed, the First Caliph is reported to have spent a great deal of his wealth freeing other peoples' slaves by buying them and then writing them a deed of emancipation.

Some people erroneously point to the fact that Prophet Muhammad (s) had slaves in one time of his life. However, the Message of Islam was *still* being revealed, and it would only be later that the verses in the Quran came to free slaves. Indeed, the Prophet (s) freed his slave and then adopted him as a son! (His name was Zaid, and he would become a hero in Islam.) The Prophet (s) also married his slaves and freed them. In fact, the Prophet (s) adopted all of his slaves as part of his family, referring to them all as "Ahlul Bayt" (People of the House). It should be noted that the title of Ahlul Bayt is the highest rank a Muslim can ever attain. Those unfamiliar with Islam may not know this, but Ahlul Bayt is a heavily sought after position. Anyways, by the time of his death, all of his slaves had been set free. Not only did he set his own slaves free after the Quranic injunctions came down but he also went about buying other peoples' slaves and setting them free as well.

First, Allah revealed that it was a good thing to marry slaves, to free them, etc. Then finally Allah categorically commanded the Muslims to free any slave that asked for emancipation, and to not only free them but give them a part of your wealth so that they can sustain themselves until they get a job. Allah says in the Quran:

"And such of your slaves that seek a deed of emancipation, do write it for them if you know aught* of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you !" (Quran, 24:33)

*aught: n : a quantity of no importance

Therefore, although Islam did not categorically ban slavery par se, it did fight slavery on many fronts:

1. It encouraged the believers to buy other peoples' slaves in order to set them free.
2. It encouraged Muslims to marry slaves to set them free.
3. It mandated that the believers buy and free a persons' slaves if he was engaged in certain sins.
4. And most sweeping of all, *any* slave that asked for a deed of emancipation, do write it for them. Emancipation Proclamation about 1400 years before the Americans.

In one of the most authenticated sayings of the Prophet (s), we see his shining example:

"Some slaves of the disbelievers went out to meet the Prophet of Allah on the day of al-Hudaybiyyah before the treaty. Their masters wrote to him saying: 'O Muhammad, they have not gone out to you with an interest in your religion, but they have gone out to escape from slavery.' Some people said: 'They have spoken the truth, Prophet of Allah, send them back to them.' The Prophet of Allah became angry and said: 'I do not see your restraining yourself from this action, group of Quraysh, but that Allah send someone to you who strike your necks.' He then refused to return them, and said: 'They are emancipated and (only) slaves of Allah, the Exalted." (narrated Abu Dawood)

I challenge *anyone* to provide any other religious text from a major religion that provides such a revolutionary emancipation of slaves. In fact, this challenge extends to even non-religious texts that are from that time or before: can anyone even show one other such revolutionary and progressive text that is 1400 years old?? The Quran was the *first* Emancipation proclamation in history...it was what the Magna Carta is to democracy.

The Prophet (s) banned slavery of believers. The Second Caliph, who was delegated the task by the Prophet (i.e. the Sunnah of the Four Caliphs is legislative and binding in the Shariah), extended this ban to non-Muslims and banned slavery in all of Arabia. And so it was that Islam banned slavery in the land of Arabia, 1400 years before the West would do it.

As the Muslims went away from Islam and adopted lax attitudes towards religion, the so-called Muslim leaders began drinking alcohol, womanizing, gambling, hording wealth of the poor, and--you got it--facilitating slavery. However, this has nothing to do with Islam but rather it has to do with people going *away* from Islam. As fervent Islamists, you will see that we always shun the princes and kings that ruled so long in the Muslim lands (and led to Islam's downfall), and we call for a return to the glorious Path of the Prophet (s), the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the early generations of the Muslims (i.e. the Salaf).

In fact, the last words of the Prophet (s) as he lay dying were to remember prayer and remember freeing of slaves.

"Ali reported that the last words of the Prophet were: 'The prayer! The prayer! Fear Allah concerning your slaves!" (narrated Bukhari)

It is difficult to criticize a man whose main concern was freedom of slaves on his deathbed.

A Muslim, Abu Masood, was beating his slave, to which the Prophet (s) said to him: "Abu Masood, bear in mind that Allah has more dominance over you than you have upon him." Abu Masood replied: "Allah's Messenger, (then) I set him free for the sake of Allah." Thereupon the Prophet (s) said: "Had you not done that, (then) the gates of Hell would have opened for you." (narrated Sahih Muslim)

 

[Katheryn]

Salah, you said this:

Quote:


"Belief" does not equal merit.

We believe that action is a manifestation of belief. A person who had belief would act on this belief; otherwise, he really doesn't believe. In fact, this is one of the differences between Christianity and Islam. Christianity preaches that Paradise is granted strictly on belief and not on actions. Islam, on the other hand, preaches that belief and action are identical twin sisters. You cannot have belief without action. Action is the inexorable result of belief. A person who claims to have belief but does not act on it does not have belief.

This is not accurate. Christians preach that man is born in 'sin', and is therefore, by nature, unreconciled with God.

Belief in the atonement of Jesus Christ reconciles the believer with God.

This belief WILL cause the Christian to behave in a way consistent with his new spiritual nature and his new belief system.

However, they are still living in the world, which is under the control of both sinful man and the current owner of the world, Satan, so they will fall from time to time.

And yet, "faith without works is dead", which of course means that the concept is the same: behavior will follow belief. And yet that behavior may be different than just 'doing good'. It is trusting in God, trusting in His love, power, and His purpose for your life, following His lead.

 

[CCA]

I have just one question: In a Muslim's Eye what is more evil, Capitalism or Communism

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@Katheryn: Some Christians believe that this is how it works; not all do.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

This is not accurate.

Actually, Sister, it *is* accurate. Christians believe that Paradise is attained by faith and not by works. I believe that this was a belief started by Saint Paul. I recall this from when I studied Christianity awhile ago, but I'm pretty darn sure of it. Saint Paul sought to bring pagans to the religious fold, and this was an appealing idea that faith was all that was needed and not actions.

On the other hand, in Islam we believe that Paradise is gained by faith and works.

I did not mean to belittle your faith by saying that you do not advocate good works. Of course your faith does! No Christian priest on earth would say that you shouldn't do good works, lol. I am simply talking from a doctrinal standpoint (i.e. the specific criterion for Paradise).

Christians have been criticized by Islam for their lack of action and failure to adhere to the Laws, since it seems that Christ died for all your sins so there is no sense of accountability. Of course, I am sure that different branches of Christianity have different views on this, and I would love to hear about them. My interlude with Christianity was very short in my life, so I would love to hear about your elaboration on this topic.

As for my post that you commented on, I was simply talking about the criterion for entering Paradise, which in Christianity is faith and not works.

Christians preach that man is born in 'sin', and is therefore, by nature, unreconciled with God.

This is another difference with Islam. In Islam, we do not believe in Original Sin. We believe that each baby is born sinless, and that each man earns his own good deeds and bad deeds based on his merit.

Take care, Sister.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I have just one question: In a Muslim's Eye what is more evil, Capitalism or Communism

Both are criticized and go against the Islamic ethos. During the Cold War, both capitalism and communism sought to intellectually colonialize the Muslim world, and the Islamists who would later arise would condemn both of these ideologies.

Capitalism is considered antithetical to the social justice and communal obligation that is mandated in Islam.

However, I'd say communism is more odious since of course communists were athiests who sought to destroy religion. In the countries controlled by the USSR, religion was prohibited and Muslims were heavily persecuted.

So I would have to say that communism is a greater evil. Just my opinion though.

 

[Masquerouge]

Wow. This thread has taken a very interesting turn! Salah-al-Din

 

[Katheryn]

The fact is that Islam was quite literally one of the earliest abolitionist movements in history. However, it was not abolitionism in the traditional sense of the word. No Muslim of that time tried to change the institution of slavery from a top-down approach...

That is not anywhere near accurate.

Slavery in Britain

The trade in slaves in England was made illegal in 1102, and the last form of enforced servitude (villeinage) had disappeared in Britain by the beginning of the seventeenth century. However, by the eighteenth century, black slaves began to be brought into London and Edinburgh as personal servants. They were not bought or sold, and their legal status was unclear until 1772, when the case of a runaway slave named James Somerset forced a legal decision. The owner, Charles Steuart, had attempted to abduct him and send him to Jamaica to work on the sugar plantations. While in London Somerset had been baptised and his godparents issued a writ of habeas corpus. As a result Lord Chief Justice William Murray, Lord Mansfield, of the Court of King's Bench had to judge whether the abduction was legal or not under English Common Law as there was no legislation for slavery in England. In his judgement of 22 June 1772 he declared: "Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged." It was thus declared that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law. This judgement emancipated the 10 to 14 thousand slaves in England and also laid down that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the American colonies) could not be enforced in England.[1]

After reading of the Somerset case, a black slave in Scotland, Joseph Knight, left his master, John Wedderburn. A similar case to Steuart's was brought by Wedderburn in 1776, with the same result: that chattel slavery did not exist under the law of Scotland (nevertheless, there were native-born Scottish slaves until 1799, when coal miners previously kept in serfdom gained emancipation).


First steps

Despite the disappearance of slavery in Great Britain, in the American and West Indian colonies of the British Empire, slavery was a way of life.

By 1783, an anti-slavery movement was beginning among the British public. That year the first English abolitionist organisation was founded by a group of Quakers. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the way for the campaign. On June 17, 1783 the issue was formally brought to government by Sir Cecil Wray (Member of Parliament for Retford), who presented the Quaker petition to parliament. Also in 1783, Dr Beilby Porteus issued a call to the Church of England to cease its involvement in the slave trade and to formulate a workable policy to draw attention to and improve the conditions of Afro-Caribbean slaves.

Black people played an important part in the move towards abolition. For example, in Britain Olaudah Equiano, whose autobiography went into nine editions in his lifetime, campaigned tirelessly against the slave trade, and Frederick Douglass, who escaped from slavery and became a powerful orator and statesman, came over to Europe on a speaking tour and 'took England by storm' (quoted from 'Roots of the Future', Commission for Racial Equality, 1996).[2]


Growth of the movement

In May 1787, the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed, referring to the Atlantic slave trade, the trafficking in slaves by British merchants operating in West African British colonies and other Caribbean countries by means of the so-called Triangle trade. Influenced by James Ramsay, who had seen the cruelty of the trade at firsthand, Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, and other members of the Clapham Sect of evangelical reformers were among the twelve committee members, most of whom were Quakers. Because they were Dissenters, Quakers were not eligible to become MPs, so William Wilberforce was persuaded to become the leader of the parliamentary campaign. Clarkson was the group's researcher who gathered vast amounts of information about the slave trade, gaining firsthand accounts by interviewing sailors and former slaves at British ports such as Bristol, Liverpool and London.

Mainly because of Clarkson's efforts, a network of local abolition groups was established across the country. They campaigned through public meetings, the publication of pamphlets and petitions. The movement had support from Quakers, Baptists, Methodists and others, and reached out for support from the new industrial workers of the cities in the midlands and north of England. Even women and children, previously un-politicised groups, became involved in the campaign.

One particular project of the abolitionists was the establishment of Sierra Leone as a settlement for former slaves of the British Empire back in west Africa.

In 1796, John Gabriel Stedman published the memoirs of his five-year voyage to Surinam as part of a military force sent out to subdue bosnegers, former slaves living in the inlands. The book is critical of the treatment of slaves and contains many images by William Blake and Francesco Bartolozzi depicting the cruel treatment of runaway slaves. It became part of a large body of abolitionist literature.


Slave Trade Act 1807

The Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed by the British Parliament on March 25, 1807. The act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship. The intention was to entirely outlaw the slave trade within the British Empire, but the trade continued and captains in danger of being caught by the Royal Navy would often throw slaves into the sea to reduce the fine. In 1827, Britain declared that participation in the slave trade was piracy and punishable by death.


Slavery Abolition Act 1833

After the 1807 act, slaves were still held, though not sold, within the British Empire. In the 1820s, the abolitionist movement again became active, this time campaigning against the institution of slavery itself. The Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1827. Many of the campaigners were those who had previously campaigned against the slave trade.

On August 23, 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act outlawed slavery in the British colonies. On August 1, 1834, all slaves in the British Empire were emancipated, but still indentured to their former owners in an apprenticeship system which was finally abolished in 1838. £20 million was paid in compensation to plantation owners in the Caribbean.


Campaigning after the act

From 1839, the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society worked to outlaw slavery in other countries and to pressure the government to help enforce the suppression of the slave trade by declaring slave traders pirates and pursuing them.This organization continues today as Anti-Slavery International.

Arabs developed the trade of African slaves:

Slave Trade in Africa

According to research, about 24 million Africans were taken by force as slaves from the West Africa alone. Most popular are the Benin rulers who sold slaves to the Portuguese and who used slaves first on Sao Tome, and then on the plantations in Brazil, which was then a colony of Portugal. On the East Coast, the slave trade was developed by the Arabs who controlled the the Zanzibar slave market.

White Slave Trade

David Brion Davis, in The New York Review of Books, relates that...

"The origins of African slavery in the New World cannot be understood without some knowledge of the millennium of warfare between Christians and Muslims that took place in the Mediterranean and Atlantic and the piracy and kidnapping that went along with it. In 1627 pirates from the Barbary Coast of North Africa raided distant Iceland and enslaved nearly four hundred astonished residents. In 1617 Muslim pirates, having long enslaved Christians along the coasts of Spain, France, Italy, and even Ireland, captured 1,200 men and women in Portuguese Madeira. Down to the 1640s, there were many more English slaves in Muslim North Africa than African slaves under English control in the Caribbean. Indeed, a 1624 parliamentary proclamation estimated that the Barbary states held at least 1,500 English slaves, mostly sailors captured in the Mediterranean or Atlantic."[52]

Barbary pirate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle between the British frigate HMS Mary Rose and seven Algerine pirates, 1669.
Oluf Eigilsson was captured by Murat Reis the Younger (known as Morat Reis in the West) in 1627 at the island of Vestmannaeyjar near Iceland. He was taken to Algiers, but ransomed and released in 1628. After returning back to Iceland, he wrote a book, in Danish language, about his experience with the corsairs.Though at least a portion of them are better described as privateers, the Barbary pirates, or corsairs, were pirates that operated out of Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Salé and ports in Morocco, preying on shipping in the western Mediterranean Sea from the time of the Crusades as well as on ships on their way to Asia around Africa until the early 19th century. Their stronghold was along the stretch of northern Africa known as the Barbary Coast (a medieval term for the Maghreb after its Berber inhabitants), although their predation was said to extend throughout the Mediterranean, south along West Africa's Atlantic seaboard, and into the North Atlantic, purportedly as far north as Iceland. As well as preying on shipping, raids were often made on European coastal towns. The pirates were responsible for capturing large numbers of Christian slaves from Europe, who were sold in slave markets in places such as Morocco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates


As you can see, the slave trade flourished under Islam. Under Christianity, it was abolished.

Unfortunately, the slave trade is still alive and well - Muslims enslaving Christians in Africa and Muslims enslaving Indonesians and Philippinos.


http://www.iabolish.com/aasg/bought_and_sold.pdf

http://cghs.dade.k12.fl.us/african-american/europe/globe_backs_anti-slavery_group.htm


Christians are fought, the men killed, the women and children enslaved and sold, as permitted by Mohammed in the Koran.

Even in the United States, we are finding immigrants from Islaimc countries are bringing into this country, which is very illegal, usually they are Philippino girls.

Just a couple of months ago, two Muslims were convicted of slavery in the city next door to mine, in Irvine, and another in Colorado. Both are servicing sentences in the penitentary. Both stories and more are here:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2687

 

[Masquerouge]

As you can see, the slave trade flourished under Islam. Under Christianity, it was abolished.

I was under the impression the slave trade did quite well under Christian times, with French catholics selling slaves to American Protestants.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

623 - Battle of Waddan 623 - Battle of Safwan 623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir 624 - Muhammad (ansar and muj) begin raids on caravans to fund the movement. Battle of Badr 624 - Battle of Bani Salim 624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr 624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa' 624 - Battle of Sawiq 624 - Battle of Ghatfan 624 - Battle of Bahran 625 - Battle of Uhud 625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad 625 - Battle of Banu Nudair 625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa 626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra 626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal 626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah 627 - Battle of Al-Khandaq 627 - Battle of Ahzab 627 - Battle of Banu Qurayzah 627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan 627 - Battle of Ghaiba 627 - Battle of Khaibar 630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca. 630 - Battle of Hunsin. 630 - Battle of Tabuk

You have simply listed all of the battles the Prophet (s) took part in. These were all legitimate Holy Wars (Jihad) that were fought to defend Muslims.

Only a complete ignoramus would bring this list forth as evidence of any wrongdoing on the Prophet's part. (I'm not saying you are an ignoramus, but whoever you copied and pasted it from.) These battles were fought by the State of Medinah against the Meccan Quraish who persecuted the Prophet (s) and his early followers. The minute the Prophet (s) declared the Message of Islam, the leaders of the Quraish began the process of persecuting the early Muslims. This is a fact that is known to anyone who has even an iota of knowledge about early Islamic history, which you obviously do not, or you simply wish to misguide or impress us with your copy-and-paste.

In fact, the Muslims had lived in Mecca, but their properties were confiscated and stolen by the Meccan Quraish who expelled many Muslims, beat and tortured yet others, economically boycotted the Muslims, stole their wealth, and eventually attempted to assassinate the Prophet (s) himself, who barely fled Mecca with his life. He (s) found refuge in Medinah, which was no match for the more powerful Mecca. Repeatedly the Meccans sought to conquer Medinah and destroy the nascent Islamic state, but with the Grace of Allah, the Muslims prevailed.

All of the wars you have mentioned were in this rivalry between (infidel) Mecca and (Muslim) Medinah, in which the former aggressed the latter.

Which do you want to talk about? Lets briefly examine the Battle of Banu Qurayzah.
After the successful outcome of the Battle of al-Khandaq were the Quraysh abandoned the siege and departed, Muhammad and his army approached the fortifications of the Banu Qurayzah at the command of the angel Gabriel.

When Allah's Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, "you have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet." Allah's Apostle said, "Where (to go now)?" Gabriel said, "This way," pointing towards the tribe of Bani Quraiza. So Allah's Apostle went out towards them . (Book #52, Hadith #68)

Muhammad laid siege to the Qurayza strongholds for twenty five days until they surrendered. After some deliberations Muhammad decided to put the fate of the Jewsih tribe into the hands of Sad bin Mua'adh. When the Banu Qurayzah were ready to accept judgment for their crime (breaking the treaty with the Muslims), Muhammad sent for Sad. When Sad rode up riding a donkey he replied "I give the judgement that their warriors should be killed and their women and children should be taken captives."
Muhammad was pleased to hear this. "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah." (Book #52, Hadith #280)

You have mentioned the Battle of Qurayza. Let us talk about this then. There were many Jewish clans in Medinah, and overall the relationship between the Prophet (s) and them was cordial enough. They signed a mutual pact and treaty to help each other in battle and protect the State of Medinah.

However, one of the tribes (Banu Qurayza) betrayed the State of Medinah, broke the treaty, and committed high treason, by giving inside help to the enemy armies. The Muslims paid a steep price for this treachoury, and many Muslims lost their lives for this.

So after the Muslims and their Jewish allies barely managed to save the day, it was time to take punitive action against the traitors, the People of Qurayza. The Prophet (s) laid seige to this township. Any leader of any country would punish traitors and those guilty of high treason.

In fact, the Prophet (s) delegated the role of judging these people to Sad bin Mua'adh. The latter asked the men of the tribe--who by the way confessed to their crime--if they wanted to be punished by Islamic Law or Jewish Law. In other words, he gave them the choice: either accept Islamic Law for treason or Jewish Law for treason. These people did not realize that Islamic Law was much more forgiving than the harsh Torah, and they asked to be ruled by Jewish Law.

Based on Jewish Law, traitors were to be killed. And it was so. The traitors were put to death.

One of the captives, Attiyah al-Quarazi, explained how Muhammad determined who was a man and who was a child, "I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubic) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair." Ibn Ishaq, 468-469.

I see your parenthetical insertion is designed to make it look embarassing to the Muslims. As if the Muslims would check pubic hair...this is deciet on the part of whoever you copied and pasted from. Basically, those with *facial* hair were punished and those without were forgiven. The Arabs of that time (and even today) attribute manhood to facial hair. The beard has special significance in the Arab and Islamic custom.

Therefore, the Prophet (s) was so forgiving that he only punished the traitors who were adults, and he spared the minors, despite the fact that they had also engaged in treason to which they readily admitted. But this is the great code of Islam.

Take care, brother.

 

[Katheryn]

Actually, Sister, it *is* accurate. Christians believe that Paradise is attained by faith and not by works. I believe that this was a belief started by Saint Paul. I recall this from when I studied Christianity awhile ago, but I'm pretty darn sure of it. Saint Paul sought to bring pagans to the religious fold, and this was an appealing idea that faith was all that was needed and not actions.

Actually, Paul did not begin this teaching, it is simply a carry through from Judaism, Jesus taught the same thing, as did Isaiah, Zechariah, Jeremiah, etc.

Sample:

"The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them, "
declares the LORD.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

That is from Jeremiah, an Old Testament prophet. It describes Christianity very well.

Can one stop being a Jew? No, of course not. It is the same with a Christian. I agree that Christians do become Christians by belief alone, but that was not the contrast I was making. When you 'believe', you are really accepting vicarious atonement, it is simply a beginning. Your actions then prove your belief.

On the other hand, in Islam we believe that Paradise is gained by faith and works.

I did not mean to belittle your faith by saying that you do not advocate good works. Of course your faith does! No Christian priest on earth would say that you shouldn't do good works, lol. I am simply talking from a doctrinal standpoint (i.e. the specific criterion for Paradise).

Christians have been criticized by Islam for their lack of action and failure to adhere to the Laws, since it seems that Christ died for all your sins so there is no sense of accountability. Of course, I am sure that different branches of Christianity have different views on this, and I would love to hear about them. My interlude with Christianity was very short in my life, so I would love to hear about your elaboration on this topic.

As for my post that you commented on, I was simply talking about the criterion for entering Paradise, which in Christianity is faith and not works.

Yes, I think I know why you misunderstood me, I was not making a case for 'works' getting a Christian into heaven. The inaccuracy I saw was that you thought Christians did not have the concept that behavior follows belief, as a logical pattern. We do believe that, and to be more precise, we believe it is "Christ in you" or "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit" that does the work. We call that 'sanctification'. When we do not behave well, it is due to his tendency to return to his natural state, which is sinful, born into "original sin".

I will elaborate on the "Ask a Christian..." thread, if you don't mind.

This is another difference with Islam. In Islam, we do not believe in Original Sin. We believe that each baby is born sinless, and that each man earns his own good deeds and bad deeds based on his merit.

Take care, Sister.

Especially when I remember the behavior of my children at 2, 3, 4. I babysit my 22 month niece for two days a week... I believe in original sin, oh yes! You don't have to teach a toddler to lie, to be greedy, to be harmful. It is there always lurking, ready to jump out and take over!

 

[Katheryn]

I was under the impression the slave trade did quite well under Christian times, with French catholics selling slaves to American Protestants.

I don't remember any French, perhaps you have a link for that?

Yes, in America there was slavery, specifically in the South. There were many of the Founding Fathers that demanded an abolition of slavery in the Bill of Rights, but they were overruled. Men like Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson. They had to be satisfied that under the cursory reading of the Bill of Rights, the concept was there and it would soon be abolished. It took another 50 years, and a Civil War, but eventually it was abolished.

 

[knigh+]

I will elaborate on the "Ask a Christian..." thread, if you don't mind.

Noooooo.....



edit: Not laughing at you Katheryn, just amused by the idea of starting yet another "Ask a..." thread.

 

[Katheryn]

Noooooo.....



edit: Not laughing at you Katheryn, just amused by the idea of starting yet another "Ask a..." thread.

Hehe, I know there's alot of them, but this one already exists!

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

As you can see, the slave trade flourished under Islam. Under Christianity, it was abolished.

Sister, please do not be myopic in your view of history. Slavery has "flourished" in both Christian and Muslim countries/empires throughout history. Do you seriously need for me to list the Christian empires in which slavery flourished? Pretty much every one of them.

In 1457, the Council of Cardinals met in Holland where they sanctioned, as a righteous and progressive idea, the enslavement of Africans for the purpose of their conversion to Christianity and exploitation in the labor market as chattel property. This scheme speedily gained the blessing of the Pope and became a standard policy of the Catholic Church, and later of the Protestant churches, enduring for three centuries.

On the flip side, there were also many Islamic empires in which slavery flourished, and in fact, there was even a Muslim empire ruled by slaves, or Mamluks.

So our debate is not about under which empires did slavery flourish. The answer is both. In fact, I have already stated in my initial post on this matter that the Muslim leaders would abandon Islam and become corrupt leaders who would do many things such as drink alcohol, gamble, squander wealth, oppress, and facilitate slavery.

However, it is an established fact that this happened in Christian Empires as well.

The fact that this occurred has nothing to do at all with the fact that these empires were Muslim or Christian, but rather that it was a norm in *all* empires of that time.

The *real* debate is which faith encourages slavery in its canon, and which does not. Because the truth is that neither Christians nor Muslims have been true to their faiths throughout history, and sinful Christians and sinful Muslims cannot be held representative of the faiths themselves.

I have already shown the Islamic view of slavery from the two main sources of Islam, the Quran and the Prophetic Sayings.

If we look at slavery in the Old and New Testament, we find:

"Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed." (From the RSV Bible, 1 Timothy 6:1)"

"A slave is not greater than the master." (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 10:24)

I have shown how in Islam you are forbidden to beat slaves but should free them. Let us see what the Christian canon says:

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21)

"Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed." (Exodus 23:12)

"If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible...This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter....If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned. (but not to death)" (Exodus 21:28-32)


"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" (Leviticus 25:44-46)

"And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her." (Exodus 21:7-8)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." (1 Peter 2:18)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." (Colossians 3:22)

And there are many other disturbing verses. Please look at the innumerable quotes from the Quran and Hadith which I have provided that talk about freeing slaves. Please show even a handful from the Bible.

Unfortunately, the slave trade is still alive and well - Muslims enslaving Christians in Africa and Muslims enslaving Indonesians and Philippinos.

Even in the United States, we are finding immigrants from Islaimc countries are bringing into this country, which is very illegal, usually they are Philippino girls.

Just a couple of months ago, two Muslims were convicted of slavery in the city next door to mine, in Irvine, and another in Colorado. Both are servicing sentences in the penitentary. Both stories and more are here:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2687

Yes, in fact Muslims are actively running the slave trade in Colorado and California!!! In fact, just last week I read an article from an Islamaphobe that the Muslims were going to take the governor's daughter as a slave!

Daniel Pipes is a big joke, and he is a crazy Islamaphobe. I just read an interesting article about how some Chrsitian guy recently chopped off his male private part because he said Jesus (as) told him to do so. Wow, big deal. This is just an isolated event, and so are the silly events you have brought up in your post. I would never say that the man who chopped off his private part would be indicative of Christians.

In regards to slave trade still active in Africa, those are very isolated cases and the remnants of the old slave trade which the Americans only happily participated in. And it is conducted not only by Muslims but by their opponents as well. They are just uneducated people warring with each other, and it has nothing at all to do with religion.

I suggest you reflect on the difference between the Quran's stance on slavery and the Bible's. This is the crux of the matter.

Take care, Sister.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Actually, Paul did not begin this teaching, it is simply a carry through from Judaism, Jesus taught the same thing, as did Isaiah, Zechariah, Jeremiah, etc.

I just looked it up , and yes--all academics say that St. Paul started this philosophy, or rather, he was one of the great proponents of the idea.

Of course, there are different ways to view a religious faith and its texts, and I am sure that you could make the case that there are previous texts which also support what St. Paul said. But simply from a historical perspective, he was the first to really talk about this.

Especially when I remember the behavior of my children at 2, 3, 4. I babysit my 22 month niece for two days a week... I believe in original sin, oh yes! You don't have to teach a toddler to lie, to be greedy, to be harmful. It is there always lurking, ready to jump out and take over!

Hehe. Awwww...kids are cute!

But yeah, this is completely opposite of Islam, in which we believe that children are completely innocent. We believe that they are on Fithrat which means the innate nature of man which is good. We believe that it is only outside influences that lead a person away from his Natural State.

I think that the major gripe we have with Original Sin is the idea that a person could be held responsible for a sin he hasn't committed yet or by his own hands.

In the Quran, it says:

“…no soul benefits except from its own work, and none bears the burden of another” (Quran, 6:164)

And again, Allah repeats it “that no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another–And that man shall have nothing but what he [himself] strives for” (Quran, 5:38-39)

As well as: “that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts” (Quran, 6:70)

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Yes, in America there was slavery, specifically in the South. There were many of the Founding Fathers that demanded an abolition of slavery in the Bill of Rights, but they were overruled.

So the obvious corollary is that the *majority* of Founding Fathers *supported* slavery. I do not see how this is anything to celebrate.

Certainly I don't see how a Christian would ever bring up the example of the Founding Fathers as an example of Christian benevolence to slaves.

Men like Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson. They had to be satisfied that under the cursory reading of the Bill of Rights, the concept was there and it would soon be abolished.

Sister, this looks seriously like wishful thinking and just hoping without hope that you can look at these people as Christian role-models. Where is your proof for this claim?

In fact, these same people in that same paper declared that blacks were 3/5ths of a human being. Maybe they weren't that good at fractions?

Let us list the people you mentioned...

George Washington owned a few hundred slaves and was a known racist.

Alexander Hamilton was the major architect of the annihilation of the Indians who he viewed as inferior and heathens. He eradicated many tribes altogether.

Thomas Jefferson had slaves and raped them, having many illegitimate kids. he was a flaming racist as well. An article by PBS said:

He (Jefferson) suggests that blacks mate with orangutans. He suggests they prefer white women to their own. He also goes on and on about the inferiority of blacks, that they aren't as smart as whites, that they don't have the same skills, that they have no musical skills, no poetry. He says they're as brave as whites but that's only because they lack forethought. And he does all this very articulately because he's perhaps the most articulate man of his generation. So that Americans come to believe in racism by reading Jefferson. And in the 1840's and 50's, these Southern racists who are defending slavery are reading Jefferson and quoting him on these issues.

Is Thomas Jefferson a racist?

Jefferson probably invented in a sense American racism. In the Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson goes on and on for many pages about the inferiority of blacks. He suggests on one hand that they mate with orangutans in Africa but, on the other hand, he suggests that they are also always after white women. He says that blacks are not as smart as whites, that they have no skills in poetry, in music. He says that they can never accomplish what whites can accomplish. He compares Roman slaves to black slaves and says Roman slaves did all these wonderful things but that's 'cause they were white. He also says that blacks are brave, as brave as whites, maybe even braver, but he says that's because they lack forethought so they can't see the causes or the consequences of their actions. This is very damaging, horrible ideas and they are used over and over again in the 1840's and 50's by the defenders of slavery to argue in favor of continuing slavery. Jefferson justifies slavery, in fact, by arguing that blacks are inferior to whites on almost all levels. Furthermore, throughout his life he expresses fear of miscegenation, race-mixing. He is obsessed with the question. He is also obsessed with the problem of free blacks. He thinks if you ever end slavery, you must transport all blacks out of the United States. This is impossible to do. He knows it. And if it's impossible to do, then the logical conclusion is you can never end slavery. So, in fact, his own racism justifies the continuation of slavery because he can't conceive of free blacks in his own society.

source: http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/Finkelman.htm

written by: Paul Finkelman, Professor at the Hamline University School of Law.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were not, in fact, Christians, at any rate. Good men, to be sure, despite supporting slavery, but not Christian.