There are a number of issues that are raised by detractors and sincere questioners alike, among them being the institution of slavery, in particular sex slavery. In recent years, the emergence of ISIS and BOKO HARAM in Nigeria ( whose leadership actually declared themselves loyal to ISIS), and their actions of kidnapping girls and reportedly selling them on the open market has led to this particular question being asked once again raised in the world stage.
The answers that are typically given are either incorrect, over-simplified, or simply misrepresented, without depth both theologically and historically.
This is understandable when we consider that as a term, slavery has been universally outlawed and not practiced on the world stage for a long time, as well as a natural aversion to images of oppression that comes from the areas where these activities are taking place.
ISIS themselves presented a long document defending their taking Yazidi and Shiite girls as slaves, replete with references to Islamic texts. As if this was not bad enough, in more recent times migrants from a number of African countries, seeking to work in Europe, have been captured in war-torn Libya by groups who have been filmed beating, torturing, extorting for ransom and actually selling as slaves has rightly caused an outrage.
With these realities in mind, let us look at the Islamic texts and history.
Slavery as a social institution during Prophet Muhammad's time
It is undeniable that for a good portion of human history, slavery in some forms has existed. It did exist in Arabia in the time of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Slavery, in much of the world's history, would happen in a number of ways, such as (1) Enemies captured during conflict. (2) Debts. (3) As punishment for certain crimes.
It is also to be noted that the Quranic revelation acknowledged the presence of this institute, and sought to deal with it in a number of ways.
Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous.(Q 2:177, Saheeh International translation).
There are other verses which has a similar message of freeing of slaves as an expiation for certain incorrect actions(Ft.1), but in the above verse we see the emancipation of slaves as a demonstration of virtue. Thus, the Prophet (Sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and the early Muslims were known to purchase slaves from their owners in order to free them.
In the Prophet's final address, he says "feed and clothe them (your slaves) as you feed and clothe yourselves".
The words of the above ahadeeth, if practiced, actually put an end to slavery practically.
We do not claim that this actually happened on a massive scale after the Prophet's death. Indeed, it is our view that many of the Islamic principles enshrined in the Qur'an and Prophetic tradition were in fact never fully crystallized(2), nonetheless the point is that throughout the Qur'an itself, we find that it preaches a religion that seeks to remove harm and oppression, and it is this reason that it had such wide appeal(3).
Slavery in Muslim history
As an institution, slavery was not eliminated, and would occur largely in the ways described in the introduction, in particular through the process of war and debt. Yet, this institution did not prevent social advancement. Slaves actually became the rulers in places such as Egypt and India.
One narration attributed to the Prophet states "If a maimed slave is appointed leader, and he conducts your affairs according to the Book of Allah, obey him.( Saheeh Muslim, 20:4533).
Slavery in Muslim jurisprudence (Fiqh)
There are a number of rules associated with slavery. Indeed, the discussions are extremely lengthy, and often uses examples that are related to owning and regulating slaves.
Slaves could negotiate their way to freedom by agreeing upon a contract, in which after payment, he was freed. A woman who gives birth to the child of the master( known as Umm Al Walad) is automatically freed, even hitting a slave could win the latter's freedom, according to some authorities.
Slaves themselves, according to the jurists, had almost the same rights as the free. One rather pointed
example is that of marriage. Maliki jurisprudence allows for a slave to have four wives, whereas other madhaahib allowed only two.
This sort of debate shows us that the lives of slaves in Muslim control was nothing like the chattel slavery of the Western hemisphere, to which we are so accustomed to knowing about.
Sex slavery
It is our view that this aspect is the most misunderstood aspect of this topic, in part because of the presence of the Arabic term in the Qur'an known as Milk-ul-Yameen, which is typically translated into English as "right hand possessed" or even "handmaid". Even among Muslims whose first language is Arabic, this term is understood to reference a woman captured and sold to a buyer.
It is sometimes said that the Prophet himself had a harem (Arabic "Hareem"), filled with captured women, to serve him at his whims. The Prophet, upon whom be peace and blessings, certainly had wives, but he lived in an extremely humble manner, so much so that the Qur'an itself mentions his wives complaining about this, and they are given a choice to divorce the Prophet or to stay with him in such a living situation ( Q 33: 28-29).
Linguistically, Milk Ul Yameen {Malakat Aymaanakum often in the Quranic phraseology} refers to those whose maintenance and livelihood are largely dependent upon one person. Perhaps a person who does not have family support, because of being a foreigner in a strange land, or financial hardships, or other reasons. Such a person in such a situation needs a solution to their problems.
The Qur'an uses the term in both intimate and non intimate contexts. It appears in the context of working in a household ( 24:58 and 33:55- the latter speaking of malakat aymaanahunna, for women) .
It seems to be a sort of relationship that is not socially seen as the same level as that of a wife, yet treated as an equal relationship in the Qur'an itself ( 4:3, 24, 25 23:6, and other places).
So, it should be seen that Milk Ul Yameen is not a slave, at least not as conceptualized according to the Qur'an, but rather a relationship that is similar to the marriage relationship.
Islam does not teach or allow rape, murder, kidnapping, exploitation and mistreatment of others. Indeed, even if one were to concede that Milk ul yameen meant a slave, the Qur'an itself says Milkulyameen is to be treated well ( Q 4:36) . One other text even says that female and male slaves alike should be sought out as marriage partners if they are found to have righteous character ( 24:32).
If people indeed transgress bounds and commit crimes against other human beings, they will be accountable before Allah for that.
Islam is a faith that has a very realistic approach to life and the issues one encounters therein. It is nice to give charity occasionally to an orphan or a widow, but the best solution is the long-term or permanent solution. Solutions are not only financial, but they also are found within emotional, physical, and family support. The Quranic term Milk Ul Yameen is one of those solutions, but in no way should it be mistaken for slavery.
Endnotes
[1] Freeing of slaves as an expiation for certain wrong acts are found in many places in the Qur'an, such as 5:89, 24:33, 58:3 and 90:13. With regards to Q 2:177, I think another application for the term "liberation of one in bondage"(Fir Riqaab) is funding an education.
[2] One important example is that of Shuraa, or consultation as necessary for governing. The Qur'an (42:38) has this as next to religious rituals, yet while we have understood the ritual of Salaah and spending in charity, yet, unfortunately, much of our history has been filled with dictators, some of whom even saw themselves as "God's shadow on Earth".
[3] Slaves counted as among the earliest followers of the Prophet, but more importantly is that the Islamic message of worship of God and brotherhood of man, as well as universal justice. The Qur'an even says that it is necessary to stand for justice, even if it runs counter to family ( 4:135)
40 comments:
Waheed, you are really stretching it by quoting that ahadeeth out of context.
Volume 4 / Book 52 / Hadith Number 275
Narrated by Abu Burda
That his father said, "The Prophet sent Mu'adh and Abu Musa to Yemen telling them. 'Treat the people with ease and don't be hard on them; give them glad tidings and don't fill them with aversion; and love each other, and don't differ."
This is advice to missionaries in how to deal in non-Muslims territories. It's good advice. However, unless these Yemenites were slaves, it doesn't say anything about slavery.
The hadeeth referenced here has guidance with application in the slavery situation as well. Indeed, I argue that as an institution slavery is to be eliminated according to the Islam of the Qur'an and of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
You also referenced Q 24:32, and by doing that, you drew my attention to the Campaign against Bani al-Mustaliq. This is another of Muhammad's atrocities and led to the enslavement of hundreds of people, besides the seizure of thousands of livestock and large quantities of household property. It is a tortured argument that you make that the institution of slavery is to be eliminated when Muhammad and his army is travelling hundreds of miles to capture undefended herdsmen and their families into slavery. Clearly, the guidance of this hadeeth did not have application to these people.
The question that all non-Muslims have is "how are the raids of Muhammad different from the raids of modern day Islamists like Boko Haram?" It seems to me that any standard that you could apply to condemn Boko Haram's raids would also condemn Muhammad's raids. You must have a double standard.
One other point: The Qur'an can be very clear in its prohibitions, for example, Q 4:22-23. If slavery was to be abolished, it shouldn't be necessary to "argue" based on unrelated traditions. It could've been abolished with a single verse. The reality is that Muhammad was unable to abolish slavery during his lifetime, for much the same reasons that the Founding Fathers of the USA were not able to. The American Emancipation had to wait for Lincoln 87 years later.
This confirms two things for me:
1. The Shariah was not yet complete when Muhammad died,
2. More "prophets" were needed after Muhammad to finish the job.
Hello N.B.
This is Ramadan, I have been very busy and thus am just now getting a chance to post a reply.
[1] The Banu Musta'liq campaign was actually inspired by the actions of that group themselves, as they had began to mobilize an army against the Prophet. The details of this are given in the biographies.
[2] With regards to slavery, the institution itself was manifested in many ways, including what we today call as "prisoners of war". Wars will exist as long as there are human beings, and prisoners of war will be a consequence of that.
[3] What we have shown is by analysis of the Quranic verses and terminologies, we see that Islam seeks to-in effect- to get rid of the institution. Thus, in Islam, there are ways slaves could be freed, there are things which are expiated through freeing slaves, and so forth.
[4] Why was not slavery banned with a single verse? That's a good question. My answer is that the conditions created by Islam is a way to eliminate the institution. I am arguing that it-like other concepts- was never fully matured or implemented by Muslims afterwards.
[5] BOKO HARAM is not comparable to the Prophet -peace be on him- and his followers. The former reluctantly goes to war, teaches that even if you have slaves, they are to be fed and clothed as you are, that even making a futile oath is expiated by freeing slave, who he himself would raise money to free slaves, whereas BOKO HARAM is a group that emerged out of local issues/thinking and a desire to pressure government/satisfy their soldiers.
I meant above Latter, not former.
Hi Waheed. I might not post again after this. I can see that our discussions are going to be fruitless. When I first started reading at whyislam.org I was shocked at how little respect the Catholic posters were showing you, an Imam. If you look there, you may be able to find some of my posts where I called them out and where I defended you. However, I can see that I've become like them. I imagined that "Imam" was something like "Rabbi", however, any rabbi that I've ever met is quite capable of examining an issue from many sides.
It's disappointing because I would like to engage in a more meaningful way, but it's impossible if you won't take a more detached view of these issues.
Going back to the question at hand:
As I'm sure you're aware, there has been much discussion over the centuries about the justifications for war and the just conduct during war. In the matter of the Banu Mustaliq, these was a campaign which you believe is a justified act of preemptive self-defence. Furthermore, you believe that the enslavement of the entire population that was captured and the confiscation of all of their belongings during this expedition was also justified. However, based on the accounts, we know that neither the cause nor the conduct was just. For a preemptive action to be justified, the threat must be imminent and all peaceful avenues must have been tried. We know that the Muslim army marched for days before arriving at Al-Muraysi and found that the Banu Mastaliq were not preparing for battle. We also know that they were attacked without warning. There was no imminent threat. The subsequent plunder of these people and their enslavement violates all principles of an action of "self-defence". This was not a action of self-defence; it was plunder. Muhammad and his men profited immensely from this attack.
We also know from the accounts about the sexual perversity of Muhammad and his men. Any reasonable, sane person would recognize the atrocity of Muhammad taking captured women for wives. Can you imaging the mayhem that would result if an Israeli soldier took a beautiful young Palestinian widow as a gift to the Israeli Prime Minister? Would anyone dare to say how fortunate the woman was to be wed to such an esteemed man?
Regarding POWs... you aren't able to distinguish the taking of prisoners and the enslavement of the entire population? What happened at Al-Muraysi was despicable!
As for slavery... you can argue all you like from the verses, but actions speak louder than words. I understand that it might have been impossible to free all the slaves at once, however, going out on expeditions with the actual intent of enslaving people is outrageous.
How dare you say that Muhammad reluctantly went to war? That's just not supported by the histories, not at all! And, I would argue that Muhammad's Islamists arose for exactly the same reasons you say that Boko Haram arose.
Until you separate your belief in Allah from your belief in Muhammad, it will be hard for us to have a meaningful discussion. This is something the Jews got right... they don't worship any man; they understood the consequences.
PS. I came upon this explanation while researching my post:
"Every Muslim has to respect and hold the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) in high esteem. Likewise, he has to honor all the Prophets and believe in their infallibility. One has to believe that they are chosen personalities; Allaah The Almighty protected them from every abominable act and deed. This is a generally accepted fact, no one disagrees with it except Jews who accuse the prophets of bad deeds and atheists who do not respect Allaah The Almighty and His prophets and who do not recognize their rights. After believing in this well-known and well-established fact, if one comes across any report that is contrary to the above fact, it should not make one doubtful, as either it is a fabricated story or it is to be interpreted in a way that befits the honorable status of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention )"
If you aren't able to disagree with that statement, then we really do have nothing to talk about.
You are of course free to post or not post, comment or not comment, but please try to understand that not everyone will think like you! That does not mean they are bigoted or unintelligent, it simply means that they see it in a different way.
I don't mind that you disagree with my assertions, but know that I share what I believe to be correct, particularly in the religious realm. I do feel that your posts tend to swerve in the direction of attacking me because I don't automatically validate what you have posted.
With regards to the particular discussion, let's deal with it one at a time.
" As I'm sure you're aware, there has been much discussion over the centuries about the justifications for war and the just conduct during war. In the matter of the Banu Mustaliq, these was a campaign which you believe is a justified act of preemptive self-defence"
Yes, just about every civilization and faith community have struggled with forming rules of war, or even opposing war altogether. Yes, I believe it was a situation of self-defense because the history does in fact support this. Out of curiosity, I did an internet search in English to see what comes up regarding the campaign. There is much out there which in fact supports the assertion that it was a situation of, as you described "Preemptive self-defense". In addition to this, I also depend upon something which you don't see as authoritative, and that is the Quranic presentation on the character and life of Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him. I will return to this point later on.
" We also know from the accounts about the sexual perversity of Muhammad and his men. Any reasonable, sane person would recognize the atrocity of Muhammad taking captured women for wives. Can you imaging the mayhem that would result if an Israeli soldier took a beautiful young Palestinian widow as a gift to the Israeli Prime Minister? Would anyone dare to say how fortunate the woman was to be wed to such an esteemed man?"
I know the particular account you are referring to, but I think what you are thinking here is simply a modern imposition on something which may or may not have happened long ago. These reports in the hadeeth/seerah literature, particularly when it comes to wars, oftentimes summarizes (much like the soundbites we see on the news) situations which developed over periods of time. In other words, it's not an instant thing, war, defeating an enemy in battle, capturing the enemy and having relations with their women.
Marriages often happened as a means to bring forth healing between the parties and, as you certainly know, women were sent as "presents". If memory serves, it was Christian Egypt which sent two women to the Prophet Muhammad as "gifts". Yes, he married . To reject such would bring forth more problems and conflict. This may not be the way we as modern westernized people think today, but that is what happened in much of history. Indeed, I can recall that during the Bill Clinton administration as US president, Libya's Mu'ammar Qadhdhafi proposed his son to marry President Clinton's daughter Chelsea Clinton.
Other examples include within the Arabian peninsula itself, in the conflict which eventually created Saudi Arabia. The Saudi clan overcame their foes, and afterwards entered into marriage ties with them. That sort of relationship is seen as a means to prevent future conflict.
" Regarding POWs... you aren't able to distinguish the taking of prisoners and the enslavement of the entire population? What happened at Al-Muraysi was despicable!"
Again, this is a modern reading of something which may or may not have happened long ago. There was no such thing as the draft and objection to war based on belief. In other words, the entire fighting population was seen as actually fighting. I should say that even in this, The Qur'an and hadeeth both have copious rules on war. Non combatants are supposed to not be harmed, sacred places are not to be destroyed, women and children are not to be harmed, and so forth.
" As for slavery... you can argue all you like from the verses, but actions speak louder than words. I understand that it might have been impossible to free all the slaves at once, however, going out on expeditions with the actual intent of enslaving people is outrageous."
I think this particular assertion has serious flaws therein. When we read on the Prophet and the early Muslims, there was much poverty as well as renunciations of worldly luxuries. When the Prophet died, there was only a few coins in his home. The same situation existed overall for much of the early history. So how can these people be expected to go out capturing slaves? The slaves would have to be fed and clothed, and put to some tasks. All of that required much resources.
" How dare you say that Muhammad reluctantly went to war?"
What I am attempting to convey is that (a) In defense of the community, Muhammad The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be on him) did have to do battle sometimes. (b) Any people captured were what we call in today's language prisoners of war.
The Prophet's history is full of forgiving people, helping people, praying for people, even praying for his enemies. The Qur'an refers to him as a mercy to all nations. It says that he worried about his society if they don't accept God's guidance.
I am of course summarizing, but based on what I know about the Prophet from the historical information as well as the presentation of him from the Qur'an, I am confident in saying that the Prophet was reluctant for conflict. There is a nice hadeeth which has him, upon whom be peace, say "Do not hope for war, but when you are in it, be patient therein" .
" Until you separate your belief in Allah from your belief in Muhammad, it will be hard for us to have a meaningful discussion. This is something the Jews got right... they don't worship any man; they understood the consequences"
You have to understand that you are speaking with a believer in Allah and in Muhammad. That does not mean I am mean or angry with those who do not believe as I do, or that I know everything there is to know about subjects of this nature, but I do share what I believe to be accurate both historically and in terms of religious teachings.
As for the Jews, I assume you are going into critical readings of events and characters in the Old Testament. I will briefly mention here that Islam too has it's perspectives on these things. Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, honors and respects Prophets and great teachers. We often have honor for the same personalities, thus, our reading of some of those histories differs. Islam- as a principle- teaches that God's messengers do not disobey God. Thus, we believe the reports in the O.T, such as Lot committing incest with his daughters, to be inaccurate. That is, of course, a different subject, and I admit that it probably cannot be proven either way, but nonetheless that is what Muslims believe.
Hello N-B,
In posting I seem to keep getting formatting problems, so I had to divide one post into two. The Google alert must have been nonfunctional, because I just now saw your posts.
As for the postscript you shared, a couple of thoughts [1] Sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam does not mean "May Allah exalt his mention". That is actually a rather odd translation.
[2] From the Islamic perspective, Prophets of God, people who have an authentic connection with God, have a much higher responsibility. Thus, we don't accept that they commit sins, atleast not the sins attributed to them in the Old Testament. The O.T. says things that even for average people, it would be found to be distasteful and repugnant, to say the least. It says that Lot- after the destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah, was made drunk by his daughters, that they had relations with him in order to preserve the family line. Average people don't do that, so how about a representative of God? David not only does adultery, but arranges the death of the woman's husband. Again, average people don't do that.
So I have quoted those examples to show that when Islam says "prophets don't disobey Allah"- it is referring to assertions such as quoted in the above examples. The precise meaning of "sinless" is debated in Muslim theological circles. Some say that "minor sins" [or "mistakes" a better term] can happen, some say that the Prophets can do mistakes in judgement.
To be more clear, I have the view that the Prophet Muhammad, as was the other Prophets, were human beings, and can be mistaken sometimes. The Qur'an and hadeeth literature both make that clear. However, that is not the same thing as the deep character assassinations found in the Old Testament accounts.
Hi Waheed. Thank you for your lengthy and detailed response. You show much patience with me!
It would be nice to know that our efforts are being read by others. If anyone is lurking out there, please say hello!
My goal is to find out what is correct. If what I say, based on the evidence that I'm able to gather, is correct, then I like to hear confirmation. If I'm mistaken, then tell me so and cite your evidence. I don't give much weight to belief-based assertions that aren't backed by knowable facts. However, you are able to read the original Arabic sources and you should be able to correct me when I am mistaken in facts.
My comment about the difference between Jewish worship and Islamic worship relates to the role of faith in prophets. I have difficulty in understanding how you reconcile this difference, since the source of belief in prophets is the same for both Jews and Muslims, so must their perception be the same within the two religions. It makes no sense that you would believe that Allah revealed to Muslims that their prophets did not commit sins while God did not not reveal the same message to the Jews. It's such an important part of Islamic theology that it is impossible for me to think that you believe that God just forgot to mention it to the Jews, or that the Jews didn't hear the message or that the Jewish "deep state" somehow conspired to suppress this message. It makes no sense.
However, it is not at all difficult for me to think that Muhammad invented this idea. We know that he corrupted the Jewish stories of the prophets. He had to first transform the Jewish prophets into something the Jews themselves never imagined so that he could then advance himself as a man without sin.
By contrast, Jews do not worship prophets at all. This is clear from the Torah, Deuteronomy 6:4, the Jewish affirmation of faith (and re-affirmed in the Gospel, Mark 12:29). In Deuteronomy 6, the only prophets that are mentioned are the forefathers and only in connection with the Covenant; and Psalm 145, another important declaration of faith, doesn't mention any prophets.
The only evidence you have to contradict me is Muhammad's own words. Sorry, but when a man claims to be perfect, you can be pretty sure that it is far from the truth. Muhammad's accusation in Quran 9:30 is slanderous; his testimony is untrustworthy.
...2
Returning to the primary subject of this thread: Muhammad's sanctioning of slavery...
It is clear that Muhammad enslaved people. Your defence so far is what? It would be sinful for Muhammad to do this and that contradicts your beliefs. Well, that doesn't work for me. You claim that you found information on the internet that justifies the unprovoked attack on the Banu Mustaliq, people who were clearly not prepared to defend themselves from such an attack, but you don't offer the evidence for discussion. You justify the capture of the entire population by claiming that they were all part of the fighting, even though this population wasn't prepared to fight at all!
You mention that the timelines are longer than they seem, which I agree with, however, we also agree that all of Muhammad's campaigns took place within a 10 year period, right? That doesn't leave much time for peace talks. And there is much evidence to support that Muhammad's marriages to captured women happened very soon after their capture. It would still be outrageous if, as you suggest, these woman were exploited as peace offerings, but they weren't. The idea that a woman should surrender herself to Muhammad as a wife to secure the release of her captured kinsfolk fully exposes the immorality of these Muslims. And please don't bring Chelsea Clinton into this. That's just unimaginable.
You also try to make an economic argument against slave ownership, however, it is seriously flawed. When has any society released its slaves because slave ownership was uneconomical? Slaves could be ransomed or sold; slaves might agree to pay their owners money to gain their freedom; you've also mentioned that releasing slaves could be for expiation.
You also seem to overlook the value of the booty that the Banu Mustaliq brought home and that Muhammad claimed 20% for "the state". I've seen an article that tries to quantify in modern terms the value of all the booty seized by Muhammad. It was considerable!
Hello N.B.
Hopefully you are well. I am traveling much these days, and thus have limited time to come to the blog and share thoughts. It would be nice if people post replies. This blog is read by many, but in terms of comments we don't attract many commentators.
I WILL TRY to share some thoughts now on your last two comments. [1] Muslims don't worship or exalt the Prophets. Perhaps I should phrase it another way, the Qur'an clearly states that the Prophets were human beings, but it also places them as exemplars, as people of high character and true dedication to God. [2] The Old Testament, The Jewish scripture and tradition (Talmud), the latter having practically more importance than the Torah as relevant to their practices, is not a document given at one time or written by one author. The Biblical studies of the last 150 years or so have revealed much in terms of interpolations and contradictory assertions and the like. The Quranic perspective ( Q 2:79)- given 14 centuries ago, is precisely what has been revealed in the world of Biblical studies, so I have no issue with rejecting some of the odd things the OT attributes to them, such as Lot committing incest. This maybe a faith based assertion, but it is the perspective that I am coming from.
In terms of Prophet Muhammad, what I have been saying is that the way "slaves" came into being is mainly through conflict, i.e. war. I mentioned Chelsea Clinton to illustrate the culture of the region, which seeks to end conflict and create peace via marriage relationships. This happened in many societies, indeed, even in the OT itself, it is said that Solomon had close to a thousand wives. An exaggerated number, more likely, but reflecting that as a ruler, these relationships would minimize conflict.
The life of Muhammad, God's Prophet, has to be looked at in a whole, not in parts. Moreover, there are things wrongly associated with him, as does happen with important personalities. If Prophet Muhammad had all of these slaves, living like a despot, surely he would have had wealth and food in his home when he died. Yet, he did not have that. He would have all sorts of luxuries, but he is said to have been a person who would tend the animals and even fix his own sandals.
There is more to this, to which I will have to post later. Later tonight, God willing.
Regards
S Waheed
I don't know what more you can say about this.
You are being unreasonable.
My logic is simple:
1. Muhammad enslaved hundreds of people; maybe thousands.
2. Muslims believe that if Muhammad did something, not only is it permitted, but it is encouraged.
The acts of capturing non-Muslims, whether in Nigeria, or Syria, or Somalia, whether pressed into slavery or ransomed as hostages are not unlike what Muhammad did. The slave trade existed in pre-Islamic Arabia and has continued throughout the Arab world for the centuries since. Millions have been enslaved by the Muslims.
If Muslims wish to break this pattern for all time, they must denounce Muhammad's acts of enslavement. Only by discrediting Muhammad for his crimes against humanity can Islam "come clean". It's that simple.
Hi N.B.
Just a quick comment.
[1] I don't really see it like that. In fact, I don't believe it, other than the situation ( in terms of POWs and the like) described earlier.
The history after the Prophet is another matter entirely.
Your assertion that "Muhammad must be denounced"- I can understand the assertion but again as Muslims we look at the entire scope of his teaching and life. There are some things wrongly attributed to him, upon whom be God's peace and blessings. That fact has been recognized by Muslim scholarship throughout history. Indeed, in terms of conflict, there is a maxim that -essentially- says that reports regarding the conflicts ( regarding In the Prophet's time) cannot be trusted. Two days ago I thought of you when watching this particular lecture by Shaikh Hamza Yusuf. The whole lecture is interesting, starting around the 11th minute, wherein the Prophet's battles are discussed. Actually, look at the whole lecture, because I actually cannot find the exact clip I wanted you to have a listen.
At the 20th minute, he speaks about the Banu Quraydhah issue, and reasonably argues that such report should not be accepted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p97_ZgWUnFk
Hi Waheed, there is much to respond to here. I've commented on some of these issues in other threads, perhaps you haven't seen my responses.
To be clear, my primary concern is not Muhammad's obviously violent nature; rather it is the arrogant attitude that comes from a people who believe themselves to be specially blessed by a supernatural entity. This problem isn't unique to Muslims and it is something I criticized Christians for in my early posts on whyislam. You can look them up. As I have mentioned before, I find Hamza Yusuf particularly difficult to listen to for this reason. He just reeks of arrogance; more on this in a moment.
Please look at my comments in your post http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2016/02/accessing-our-lost-spiritual-wealth.html. I hope that you can find time to think about my criticism there and to take it seriously. You must try to understand why people like me find such posts to be problematic.
I cannot change who Muhammad was or what he did. However, I feel obliged to continue my struggle against the wrongfulness of those who attempt to emulate him.
Now to specifics:
What is it that I've said that you don't believe? Your excuse that these were POWs fails because there was no war; you can't be a prisoner of war unless you engaged in warfare. Defending yourselves when an army descends on your people in the field or when an army beseiges your settlement is never considered an act of aggression. Of course we have no idea what "really" happened, however, these accounts are the ones provided by Muslim sources, not Fake News media sources attempting to discredit Islam. It is the Muslims who have kept these stories alive in the form that we find them today. Muslims have had many, many centuries to sanitize these stories; instead they show no shame in repeating these stories.
In contrast (I've written about this on whyislam), here in Canada we are busy revising our stories to make them more respectful and sensitive to the native population which was treated with such great injustice. I'm expected to take responsibility for this injustice even though I personally did not participate nor do I have any connection with the British or French who were responsible. As I said on whyislam, everyone can learn from the Canadian attempt at Truth and Reconciliation. All Canadians are part of this process; whether descended from colonists or newly arrived or anywhere in between. I'm sorry to say, I don't see any evidence of a reconciliation process at any time or in any place in the Muslim world, beyond a handful of men who submitted to Islam and begged for forgiveness.
...2
Now about the Hamza Yusuf video:
8:10 What's his point? He smirks when he uses a different Arabic word for "secular" like its a joke. Who is he speaking to, and why is he mocking people like me without any basis?
13:10 "Only 11 expeditions had fighting... and how many delegations where there? 50. Why didn't they write about all the delegations? Why are all the books about the battles and the expeditions? 50 delegations and 29 expeditions and only 11 battles."
He asks these questions, but he doesn't answer them. I have no idea what he thinks the answers are. I can tell you: the expeditions were successful and the delegations were not. Whether there was fighting or whether Muhammad's victims surrendered without a fight, most of the expeditions were successful. Even some unsuccessful expeditions have been described as victories. However, what can be said about the delegations? Was even one of them successful in any sense? Imagine, please... a delegation of Muslims arrive at your town proclaiming a new "prophet" who is "Allah's Messenger" and demanding that you submit to the prophet; threatening you that if you don't obey "the prophet" there would be dire consequences. And we know what would happen after that...
20:30 He's grinning as he recounts the atrocious story of the Banu Qurayzah and he gets his audience to laugh. This is good? And then he declares it to be Fake News. Earlier he said that the biggest slaughter was "only" 70 people. I said earlier that Muslims show no shame in repeating these stories but now this jackal thinks that this atrocity is a big joke?
Hello NB,
I have moved, and so I have been very busy and just now getting a chance to share a thought or two on the posts you have made.
[1] Hamza Yusuf is actually being critical of Muslim and Arab translators, who render concepts from English or another culture into Arabic. He is not "mocking people like you". He is arguing that the common word for "secular" in Arabic is incorrect, and he explains why he makes this assertion.
[2] There are, in fact, many books on the delegations and letters of the Prophet. If you like, I can send you a couple of titles.
[3] The Banu Quraydhah issue, he argues, is, at best, exaggerated. It is a established fact that reports dealing with conflict has been treated with suspicion, historically, by the Muslim traditional scholarship.
" To be clear, my primary concern is not Muhammad's obviously violent nature; rather it is the arrogant attitude that comes from a people who believe themselves to be specially blessed by a supernatural entity. This problem isn't unique to Muslims and it is something I criticized Christians for in my early posts on whyislam. You can look them up" (N.B.)
I strongly dispute the characterization of Prophet Muhammad as being violent in nature, but in any case arrogant people can be found in any society or religious/non religous community.
"What is it that I've said that you don't believe? Your excuse that these were POWs fails because there was no war; you can't be a prisoner of war unless you engaged in warfare. " {NB}
If a state of conflict, "cold war" or not ( to use modern terms), it is still a feeling or state of conflict.
" It is the Muslims who have kept these stories alive in the form that we find them today. Muslims have had many, many centuries to sanitize these stories; instead they show no shame in repeating these stories." {NB}
As stated before, many of these stories and details given therein are in serious doubt, even if recorded. Those doubs have always been there, for reasons too numerous to get into right now. Sh.Hamza was alluding to that in his presentation.
" I'm expected to take responsibility for this injustice even though I personally did not participate nor do I have any connection with the British or French who were responsible. As I said on whyislam, everyone can learn from the Canadian attempt at Truth and Reconciliation. All Canadians are part of this process; whether descended from colonists or newly arrived or anywhere in between. I'm sorry to say, I don't see any evidence of a reconciliation process at any time or in any place in the Muslim world, beyond a handful of men who submitted to Islam and begged for forgiveness." ( N.B.)
You as an individual should not be held responsible for what your ancestors did. That is even an Islamic teaching ( Qur'an says "you will not be asked about their actions, nor they asked about your actions", among many other verses).
I admit that Muslim history is not always rozy. Muslims have been villians too, and I actually agree that Muslim societies could learn something from Truth and Reconciliation efforts, such as what happned in South Africa. To my knowledge, the only similar thing in modern history was Qadhdhafi [Mu'ammar Al-Qaddafi] apologizing, on behalf of Arabs, for their involvement in slavery.
"Hamza Yusuf is actually being critical of Muslim and Arab translators, who render concepts from English or another culture into Arabic. He is not "mocking people like you". He is arguing that the common word for "secular" in Arabic is incorrect, and he explains why he makes this assertion."
Please explain. He says that if a different Arabic expression had been used to translate "secular" then there would be no confusion because Muslims would understand that they do not want "those kind of people" ruling us. And he says this all with a disrespectful smirk.
What I'm interested in about delegations is if they ever bore fruit. All of the treaties that I've read about had serious flaws, either they were coercive (if you don't sign, we will kill you), extortionate (if you don't pay taxes, we will kill you), or they were violated by Muhammad within a short time (you will, of course, argue that Muhammad had a valid excuse for his massively disproportionate response to some minor violation)
I have yet to find an instance where non-Muslims were clearly at fault for initiating hostilities. For example, I do not see anywhere where it says in the Sira that the Banu Qurayza participated in fighting against the Muslims when it would have been advantageous for them to do so. And on and on... There are 101 expeditions listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad and the many that I have read about always began with Muhammad mounting an armed force.
The start of the Muslim murders appears to be when Muslims killed during the Raid of Nakhla (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Nakhla). According to Muslim accounts, there was little remorse for the killing. The murders went unpunished and Muhammad even dreamed up an excuse for it (Quran 2:217), saying, in essence, that Meccans have no human rights.
And, no, I do not agree with your view of responsibility. I believe that we are all responsible for what happens. This is the same collective unity that many religious people claim to believe in. I am not so tribal that I can detach myself from the crimes perpetrated by others in distant parts of the world. I ask myself every day "what can I do?"
This is one of the reasons that I post here. If I can convince a Muslim or two that there are aspects to their religion that are truly harmful to our world, and they are changed by this understanding, then I will have succeeded in something that matters to me.
As'salam alaikim: Im hoping this message was able to make it through ok due to the technical issues ive been experiencing. However, i was hoping to give my views on the "Deep Dive" topic involving "the controversial Expeditions of Muhammad" Wali Djazzique,
TOPICS TO BE ADDRESED: 1: "The controversial Expeditions of Muhammad" 2:"What Laws did Allah/Ahyeh prescribed to Jews & Christians?"( according to the Quran), 3:"The Muslim perspective of the book Revelations & their role in the last days" 3:"Is Allah & The God of Israel the same God?"(according to the Quran)
@Wali Djazzique:
The Deep Dive article's comment section is still open. Just as you have posted above, you can post there. Here is the link. http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-deep-dive-into-false-ideas-regarding.html
Of the four items you have mentioned, they can be addressed as follows (1) War: regardless of context, winners or losers, there will always be "controversy", misattributions, lack of clarity on all details, and outright falsehoods. As I have generally addressed these issues in both articles and comments on this blog, (and I believe you have accessed them), I don't see a need to repeat them again in this comment. (2) The "Deep Dive" article has addressed some of this query regarding God's communication to Jewish and Christian communities respectively, however there are more articles on the blog, such as https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2017/08/common-christian-concerns-regarding.html . You can search on the tags section for "Bible" and similar tags, to access more articles on this issue.
(3) The Book of Revelations, at least in my understanding, has no relevance for Muslims, and when research is conducted on it, being the last book of the New Testament, we find that it has always been viewed with skepticism. Tradition itself asserts it is nothing more than a dream. I cannot go into details for space reasons, but a good book to read on it is Elaine Pagel's work "Revelations: Visions, Prophecy and Politics"
(4) This last question, yes, according to the Qur'an, the God who communicated to Abraham, Moses and Jesus also communicated to Muhammad, upon them all be peace. This question is addressed in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVZrxOvaeeY (A Critical Review of "The Quran with Christian Commentary" Part 4).
This is something I would think you would know already, however the above should be sufficient to address that question.
to; S. Waheed,
You stated that Bible Revelations has no relevance to Muslims (to your own understanding) which i find a bit odd & out of touch) - I say this because judgment was already pre-ordained for mankind (including muslims) since before the beginning of creation. Just because you practice a different belief, which revealed a final book, i.e; (the Quran) which also sent a final messenger, that still doesn't mean Muslims will be exempt from "biblical" judgement, Especially considering Surah, 43:61, clearly implicating Jesus as the Mah'dee. That day has been sealed (regardless of YOUR OWN understanding)
And besides;.. The whole entire belief system of Revelations is solely based on "the 6 Articles of faith of Islam." - So when you say, "It has no relevance no Muslims,- I'm sure many muslims would think that you're speaking on your own and not for THEM,. You cant speak for ALL muslims. - The 4th belief speaks about ALL appointed Messengers/Prophets of God throughout history; whom the Quran even spoke about Jesus being a "sign" for the coming of the Hour of Judgement"(not Muhammad) ...And if I may I also add; was NEVER any mention of Muhammad in John 14 as well, (as muslims believe.) - If you read carefully, the scripture clearly describes Jesus speaking of HIMSELF as being the "Advocate" & "Holy spirit" in John 14:26, Which is also stated in Surah 2:27 & 253,. - But again, if you read carefully in John 14:3,26,28 Jesus is clearly speaking of HIMSELF returning,- Clearly Stating; "I" shall return again, & "I" shall return to you" (which Surah 43:61 evidently supports upon his returning,.. Not Muhammad, - So I hope that sums things up for you.
@ Wali Djazzique,
Copy/paste the above in the appropriate places, this article is not related to the issues you are raising here.
The appropriate article is here
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-deep-dive-into-false-ideas-regarding.html
(A deep dive into false ideas regarding Islam: with a focus on the Abrahamic ties)
Ok... But to be fair, I was only responding to the comment you made about revelations, so I felt the need to give a response to it, so that's what I did,.- However; as of your deep Deep dive link, I thought this section was all the same. Of the 4 topics I wanted to address, I guess l have to decipher which topic goes where (as far as the sections/categories of this site) which you may need to direct me to the appropriate areas (if necessary) as this is YOUR website. So l may not be too familiar with how to navigate through this site. But sense I'm on the section of "slavery & Islam," I can continue here to address that particular matter at hand as one of my topics anyways.
T@Wahli Djazzique,
I did show you, twice above as well as elsewhere, how to access the appropriate article. Your comment above was mostly in response to the Deep Dive article, and my reply on the Book of Revelations was rather quick (and generally irrelevant to any of these subjects).
Let's make this easier for you, read the deep dive article, you can post your comments about that article in the comment section of that article. Here's the link again, all you need to do is copy/paste your post above in the comment section there. http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-deep-dive-into-false-ideas-regarding.html .
Post it there, and I will reply.
IF YOU have a comment regarding the slavery article, yes, this thread is the place to post that. But make sure to actually read the content, to make sure you are posting in the correct thread.
This makes it easier to reply.
And on this blog, most articles have the comment section open, but the comment must be relevant to the content of that article.
Links were posted above to content both on this blog as well as outside (such as youtube). Any comments on those, once again, should be posted on the comment thread of those platforms, in the comment section of those specific articles or videos.
On your last comment on messenger, regarding "The Expeditions of Muhammad," I gave my views. And I'm also very much aware of the previous comments on this article by another reader you had;.. which I must say; was pretty much on the same page as I'm on about this topic. But just to summarize about the scans I presented on messenger about Muhammad's expeditions; - The conclusion I came to about the rape, kidnapping & killings of black Jews was solely based on what I've read & studied in hadith itself ok?, (not some "conspiracy theory based on theological reading") or what have you;.- But if you feel those events were "disputed," then why is that? Were the narrators lying? - Especially if the hadith is supposed to be SOUND. But regardless if Hadith is scripture or not,.. or just "varying authenticities" ( as you called it ) that shouldn't make any difference,- Its still a sound documentation of the time & life of Muhammad.,- Which seems lately you've been separating yourself from, (Having doubts about it) as you once stated. And as for those scans I sent to you on messenger; There IS in fact clear implications of rape that you conveniently ignore, but yet you use bible texts from Deut, 20:13 & Numbers 31:17 to justify Muhammad's actions; -When in reality; Muslims studied Jewish scripts and learned of Gods curse on his people for disobedience,. therefore taking advantage of Gods curse on his people (fulfilling biblical prophecy for their own convenience) But failing acknowledge the consequences in scripture about "others" who curse and harm His people as well,.. which led to the ultimate demise of Muhammad. ( Poisoned by a Jewish woman of Kaybar )
It would actually be easier if there was a content or index area where l could go to see a list of categories of deep dive topics. You keep mentioning of what you already showed me above but it doesn't seem to be helping much, which is beginning to get bit tedious to navigate. But in any case, you stated that l was already in the correct section for giving any views regarding slavery & lslam, so that's where l am now, so let's just stay in THIS area for the moment, because it's still relevant - as it will eventually lead to expedition of Muhammad anyway,.
Whenever l go to the next topic just direct me to the next appropriate area. Just bring the article to me,( if possible) As l stated before, this is YOUR site, so lm not sure how to manuver my way through this
Some of what you have stated is replies to the deep dive article. I have shared the link numerous times, so place that material in that link.
On what you have stated regarding rape and sex slavery (relevant to this article), a quick reply is below.
* Not every report in the literature is sound, particularly when it comes to affairs of conflict. This is something well established in Muslim scholarship.
* I referenced Deut.20 and Numbers 13:17 to show that- frankly- you have nothing to stand upon to attack anything in the reports (which are not considered sacred, scriptural or infallible) when the source you are taking as sacred and 100 % correct depicts Moses as a genocidal maniac whose hatred extends even to animals!
* To be clear, I don't believe Moses did any of those things, nor do I believe Muhammad raped women! Why? Because they are emissaries of God, they do not do these sorts of things. This is what Islam teaches, that the Prophets don't commit these sorts of actions, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon them.
* As for this- and I call it as a I see it- odd conspiracy theory based on projections into the past- the only thing I am going to say here is that Islam teaches that each person is accountable for their own actions. This notion as expressed above ('taking advantage of God's curse on his people") in connection to Jewish groups in Arabia, is historically unsound, and quite contrary to Islam as it is. For the cursing issue, here's a link.https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2011/01/divine-punishment-quranic-teaching.html.
* THIS particular article on sex slavery looks at how the Qur'an, hadeeth and traditional Islamic jurisprudence speaks on this subject, and the overall point is that Islam does not, in any shape or form, advocate rape, murder, or even sex slavery.
* For the other issues you have mentioned that were relevant to the Deep Dive article, copy/paste your statements in that thread, and I can respond there! Perhaps you should simply reread the entire deep dive article, so you can make sure you are sticking to the content and not going in a different direction.
So basically, it sounds to me that you've already came to a conclusion to believe that the book of Revelations is pretty much a "myth" (as to your own understanding) - As well as saying "not every report in literature is sound" and that I have nothing to stand on to attack the hadith, (which I actually do) - But if that's the case, why SHOULDN'T I attack something that's not sound or sacred?,.. So why even defend it? I guess all the narrations in hadith & revelations are false and no more than a dream (according to you
) Usually if something is not sound, then it must be false to some degree.
As for hadith itself;.. This sounds to me like a desperate attempt to absolve Muhammad of any wrong doing by simply claiming "the hadith itself is not sound" because that would conveniently exempt him of any responsibility. So I guess this means the narrators are liars. I have to wonder how you arrived to such a conclusion & What would other muslims think about your views? The whole thing doesn't make sense,.. First, You feel the hadith is not sound, but yet, I shouldn't attack it. And by the way, I cant go by modern day muslim scholarships as you described,. I have to go by original historical doctrine. Unfortunately; Its a stain you'll just have to accept instead of going in denial,- & looking for ways to deny that it ever happened
And yes,.. I HAVE to call it as I see it, because there's no other way to call it or see it, - Not looking for other narratives. And for the record,.. No one ever said Islam advocates rape, kidnapping, mass murder, ok? - Islam itself has nothing to do with it, Its mankind that misrepresented all 3 faiths - ( many clearly being "emissaries") being on a special mission & agenda. And no one would ever believe that Muhammad was reluctant to go to war,.. it was his own personal will & purpose, regardless what Islam prohibits. But im sure that whole thing would just be moot - going on for ever & ever, which I don't really wish to do at all because there's other important topics id like to address. - l'll just have to leave you with your own views.
* I am saying, with regards to the topics specific to The Deep Dive article, to post your reply there.
* If the Prophet Muhammad, or anyone else for that matter, is actually innocent of the accusation, there is no "need" TO defend or explain anything.
* Hadeeth is not sacred, in the sense that everything in it is viewed as authentic. This contrast to what it seems like you believe, it seems you believe in the Bible as we have it as being 100% correct and authentic. If that's the case, you have to believe that the Bible accurately portrays Moses (peace be upon him) as a genocidal maniac! The Bible text says he had entire populations wiped out, even animals, sparing only virgin girls!
* "I'll just have to leave you with your own views". This is funny, since you have been sending messages with basically the same repeated mantras for years.
I actually in general don't mind engaging with people, even with those who disagree with my views, however it has to be within certain parameters, and in this context, that also means keeping responses to articles actually in that section and relevant to the article text.
Ok,. You keep saying to keep responses in the articles relevant to the deep dive topic,.. Well,.. the last time i looked, the main the topic the top of this page was, " Does Islam sanction slavery?" - which I thought was the correct area, so what other relevant area were you referring too?
But to quickly respond to your point about Moses an other "genocidal maniac" religious figures,. You may as well include who king Saul whom murdered himself while fleeing the Philistines (in 1st or 2nd Samuel) And the mass suicide @ MT Masada ( which was sacrificial fleeing roman paganism & purcicussion)- And Sampson, whom murdered 400 people and other 3000 afterwards (including himself) at a banquet which God clearly gave him the strength to do. - So those were things God ALLOWED them to do (to the wicked pagan nations) whom took advantage of the curses God put on his people. (See Psalms 83) - So that would explain Muhammad's demise, as well as all those other people Moses had murdered, including Sampson's martyrisum upon those people at the banquet (See Judges 16 23-21) - Theres no mention in Quran or Hadith of Allah ever allowing Muhammad to bring genocide upon a nation. He did that on his own free will, - resulting in his death afterwards. So who the REAL genocidal maniac?
Perhaps, you need to be more specific of what area l should be. As I stated before, I'm not too familiar with all the cutting & pasting
True, this article focus is on slavery, but you keep bringing issues which are actually responses to the deep dive article. Maybe a better solution for you is to simply read that article again and type your comments ON THE CONTENTS OF THAT ARTICLE afresh in that section. This is for organizational purposes. Here is the link again.
http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-deep-dive-into-false-ideas-regarding.html
If copy/pasting an article is too difficult, simply scroll through the blog until you see the deep dive article. You can also see it by searching the tags on the far right of the blog.
* Another reader (by the alias "Non -Believer" or NB) raised much the same arguments about the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be God's peace and blessings, being a killer and all that. Since I addressed that then, and to a certain extent with you in this thread, I don't see a need to keep on repeating it endlessly. Also, Prophet Muhammad was not killed by poison, but even if that was the case, it has no bearing on anything.
* I think you need to read again, or ponder again, on your own statements. You seem to have accepted that Moses was indeed a man who committed genocide, you seem to accept that, claiming it to have been God's will, but will condemn what is attributed to the Prophet Muhammad as being "did that on his own free will". This is inherent contradiction.
* I have stated above already that I don't accept that with neither Moses nor Muhammad, peace be on them both. Much of the above states why.
In any case, let's make this easier for you again. Go to the deep dive article. Read it, take notes if necessary, and post your comments there that have to do with the contents of that article. Who knows, perhaps reading it again afresh will help in clarifying some of the incorrect notions being held and presented.
I don't want to clutter the comment sections with content not related to the article in question.
[2] When it says in the "end notes"One important example is that of Shuraa, or consultation as necessary for governing. The Qur'an (42:38). What about the Quranic verse (3:159)? Doesn't it say the same❓️Almost❓️
Dear "Anonymous"
I am unsure if I understand your question properly. Qur'an 3:159 speaks on God's help and how the mu'minoon (believers ) should trust in that.
Can you please elaborate on your question further? Thank you.
Post a Comment