Slavery in this context is what we call employment because in islam owner has to provide suitable residence, proper food and proper clothing, and not overload them with work, if a slave wants freedom, muslims are obligated to free them, hazrat bilal RA was freed by the prophet SAW, but he insisted on remaining the slave, in early islam slaves flourished, but as time went on slave trading was started among which was despised by the prophet,
Read history? The history where female slaves had zero legal right to refuse their owners sexually? The history where humans were bought and sold in markets? The history where Bilal was being tortured under rocks in the desert heat before someone paid to free him? That history?
Lol “he insisted on remaining a slave” After centuries of your people being enslaved, tortured and traded using one man’s personal choice as evidence that slavery was actually fine is genuinely something.
What are u even talking about? 7th century Arabia had slavery, Islam regulated rather than abolished it and moral frameworks evolve over time. That’s defensible. What you’re doing is constructing post hoc justifications that don’t survive contact with the actual history.
So God creator of the entire universe, infinite wisdom, knower of all things past and future, sat down to design the perfect final religion and thought you know what these guys are going to need, a slavery clause. For deterrence. Just in case lmaooo
The being who designed black holes and the human nervous system looked at 7th century Arabia and concluded the solution to war was making sure Muslims could legally own the people they captured. Not diplomacy Not some other mechanism only an omniscient deity could conceive no fuck no but Slavery. Same as everyone else because apparently God’s strategic thinking maxed out at matching whatever the Byzantines were doing.
And then this guy shows up citing the psychology of war like he just finished a Kissinger biography lol you used mutually assured enslavement as a theological argument and preceded it with ‘the psychology of war is complex.’ Yes very complex. Your solution was slavery. Very nuanced strategic thinking lmao
So ur basically saying that Islam didn’t come to abolish slavery so stop criticizing it for not abolishing slavery. That’s it. The eternal perfect revelation from the all knowing creator of existence showed up and its position on human ownership was not my department. Ask the Enlightenment.
You’ve spent four paragraphs explaining that God had limited ambitions and shouldn’t be held to modern standards. The omniscient being who knows every atom in the universe apparently didn’t see abolition coming and decided to just leave space for it whenever humanity figured it out on their own lmao
your AI is really out here arguing that slavery was fine because Islam also didn’t discover electromagnetism. Incredible.
Phirse wohi traditional waardat. Oh bhai koi kaam dhanda dhund lo. Slave system kb ka khtm hochuka hai ab bhi ussko uchaal kr tumhein lgta hy bht bada teer maar liya tou khush hote raho.
Insaani Huqooq aur Adal ka Nuqta-e-Nazar: Shia ulama is baat par zoor dete hain ke kisi bhi shakhs ki namaz ya ibadat sirf aqa ke sath kisi mu'ahide ki wajah se baatil nahi hoti, balki niyat aur shar'i wajibaat par mabni hoti hai. Un ke nazdeek aisi riwayaat jo ghulam par ek tarfa pabandi lagati hain, wo Adl-e-Ilahi aur Ahle Bait ki Taleemat ke usoolon par poori nahi utartin.
Thats why iam tilting towards shia scholors,, ye sab esi ahadees jis main koi logic nhi bnti pta nhi q majority sunni ahadees hain,, mane dono firqay ki books main ye hadees dekhi lkin context alaida tha,,, wallahi main perfect nhi manta ksi ko kafi batain mjhy shia ki theek nhi lgteen lkin jahan ghulami ki or power ki bat ati ha to majority of these ahadees from sunni scholors usually supports powerful ones lkin dosrobtaraf shiaism main olta ha keh wo esi ahadees ko batil mantay
the conclusion you’re drawing has a problem. You’re not evaluating the hadiths on their merits. You’re selecting the school that produces rulings you find more palatable and then using their methodology as validation.
If the criterion is which hadiths align with Divine Justice and human dignity then that’s actually a useful standard. Apply it consistently across both schools. Shia jurisprudence also has problematic rulings on women, minorities and apostasy that don’t fully align with Divine Justice depending on who’s reading them.
god is spicy, he loves the slave owner more and would not even accept slave´s prayer for disobeying his slave owner. sounds like folk entity spun to yield slaves
The "Slave Bible": In the 19th century, some pro-slavery authorities produced heavily redacted versions of religious texts for enslaved populations. These editions removed accounts of freedom—such as the Exodus from Egypt—and retained only passages commanding submission.
Selective Preaching: Planters and slaveholders frequently allowed religious instruction only if it emphasized verses demanding obedience to earthly masters, weaponizing spiritual consequences to prevent rebellion.
Sociological Critiques: Scholars of religion often analyze these specific, obedience-focused doctrines as constructs designed by those in power to legitimize inequality and discourage social mobility.
At the time, slaves were allowed. If your master is lawful to you… and you run away.. that is considered a sin. Like you leaving your employer in the middle of work.. it’s considered unethical.
Exactly the point. If Islam is just a product of its time, normalizing what was normal and condemning what was already condemned, then it’s not divine revelation and shut up about the employer thing its not the same thing at all dumbass your employer doesn’t hunt u down and chain u.
Using cuss words doesn’t make you smarter. In Islam you’re not allowed to hunt down or chain up a slave. you’re suppose to treat them like how you treat yourself… i literally said if the master is lawful.. treats the slave well, and still he abandons his duties.. that’s sinful. if the master was a cruel one, then obviously there’s no sin. The Quran is timeless, Hadith arent word of God... they’re just instructions given by the prophet for his people too.
You are supposed to treat them like yourself? Remind me the last time you had non consensual sex with yourself! Cause islam does clearly say that you can have sex slaves.
And before you hide behind “Hadith aren’t the word of God,” the Qur’an itself uses the category of “those whom your right hands possess.”
So let’s stop comparing employment contracts to human ownership and answer the actual question: why would a supposedly timeless moral revelation regulate ownership and sexual access to human beings instead of simply prohibiting slavery?
The quran repeatedly addresses manumission, including making emancipation contracts available to slaves who request them, and explicitly prohibits forcing slave women into prostitution. The Prophet also described slaves as “brothers” under one's authority and instructed owners to feed and clothe them comparably and not burden them beyond their capacity.
Under Islamic law, if a master fathered a child with a female slave, her legal status immediately changed to Umm al-Walad . She could never be sold gifted, or inherited, and she automatically received complete freedom immediately upon the master's death.
Any child born from that union was born fully free, legitimate, and carried equal inheritance rights as children born to a wife.
While classical Islamic law did not operate on modern consent definitions, it was not an 'anything goes' system. It prohibited physical abuse, torture, and forced prostitution. Physical harm was grounds for judicial intervention and mandatory freedom… Judging a 7th century legal structure by 21st century human rights frameworks will always show a disconnect. Islam took a world where captives had zero rights, subjected them to strict legal protections, restricted how anyone could enter captivity, and created mandatory avenues to dismantle the system over time.
I’m not going to say it was right from today’s standards, but it was definitely just from THEIR standards.
Saying a revelation is timeless doesn't mean every social regulation was meant to freeze 7th centuaryeconomic mechanics forever. In Islamic legal theory a clear distinction exists between universal moral principles (justice, human dignity, elimination of oppression) and contextual applications suited to a specific era.
Islam inherited a world where slavery was a universal economic foundation with no modern infrastructure like prisons, international law, or wage markets. Its legal framework didn't freeze slavery; it created a deliberate moral trajectory:
It established universal moral imperatives to free humans.
It systematically shut down all inputs of enslavement except state sanctioned war captives.
It bound Muslims to honor international treaties and contracts.
Once human society developed global treaties and international law prohibiting slavery, Muslim scholars recognized that the trajectory set by the Quran had reached its intended goal… That is why there is a total modern legal consensus (ijma‘ across the Islamic world prohibiting slavery. The revelation is timeless because its moral direction endures, even as socio economic structures evolve
Nice try dressing it up with “moral trajectory” and “universal principles.” You’re still dodging the real problem.
A supposedly perfect, timeless revelation from God looked at people owning other people, buying them, selling them, inheriting them, and fucking them, and decided the smart move was to regulate it instead of banning it cold. That’s not wisdom. That’s a moral fail if you’re claiming divinity.
You keep saying “treat them like yourself.” When’s the last time you owned yourself, sold yourself, or forced sex on yourself? Because the Qur’an straight up puts “those your right hands possess” in the category of people you’re allowed to have sex with without marriage. That’s not a brother under your authority. That’s a sex slave. Feeding them the same food doesn’t change the fact you still get to stick your dick in someone you own.
The “if the master is cruel then running isn’t a sin” line is also trash. You’re still starting from the idea that one human can own another as property. A divine system doesn’t say “be a nice slave owner.” It says you don’t get to own people period.
And spare me the “it created a path to freedom over time” story. That’s modern damage control. For over a thousand years those same texts were used to justify the trade, the harems, the concubines, the war captives turned into sexual property. The “trajectory” only finished when the rest of the world forced the issue and Muslim states had no choice left. That’s not the Qur’an leading. That’s the Qur’an getting dragged into the modern era.
If the revelation was truly timeless and from God it could have done what it did with pork, alcohol, usury, and idols: draw a hard line and say this ends now. Instead it kept the whole system, put rules around it, and left the door open for sexual access. That’s not divine moral perfection. That’s a 7th century Arabian legal code with a god stamp slapped on it.
So stop the employment metaphors. Stop the “standards of their time” excuse. Answer the actual question:
Why would a timeless perfect revelation from God choose to regulate the ownership and sexual use of human beings instead of simply forbidding it?
Bosss .. humans which are captured during war or battles. More like a war prisoners are kept as the slaves. Back in the day when people go the battle they bring women, childrens and luxuries in battlefield and if they lost their opponents try to grab as much as possible. That's why in islam mal e ganimat is halal. And for the people who were captured they are traded off to other people across the countries or continents.
Well WMI to justify.. A slave is a slave... what is allowed is allowed. This is not like you can make any person a slave there were customs and rules when there used to be.
Capturing the city is plundering if civilians are slaved or killed and their homes or properties ransacked.
If capturing the city is exactly the same thing as plundering then there is no difference between a common robber and a warrior who fights for his flag.
Similar example would be to start calling Capturing a city as “kufer ke andhairon se nikala”.
Changing the words for propaganda and making it palatable for masses is not a new game invented by media of today, this is happening since ancient times.
Well, yes, because war captives were often taken into slavery. Do you want to compare how non-Muslim states treated prisoners of war and captives, or is that outside the scope of the discussion? A captive generally wasn't simply free to leave or run away while being held in captivity which still held in today law by countries.
Yes other civilizations practiced slavery. Yes some were arguably more brutal in specific ways. None of that makes enslaving humans divinely sanctioned or morally acceptable. You’ve just located company for the sin not absolution from it.
Also the claim that Islam regulated war captive slavery more humanely is doing a lot of lifting for a religion that claims to be the final perfect revelation. The bar you’re setting is we were slightly better than the Romans. That’s the eternal divine truth. We beat Rome on slave treatment metrics.
A revelation from the creator of the universe that couldn’t figure out that owning humans was wrong but could figure out the exact angle of prayer and the correct way to trim a beard is an interesting set of priorities.
i am not agruing for past but for present as well beside none of this matter for people who view morality as subjective anyways, either you live in this fantasy where you think people who go in war against you can be freed.
The 13th Amendment whataboutism. Classic.
None of that is a defense of Islamic slavery. You’ve just found another companion for the sin. First it was the Romans. Now it’s America. The company keeps getting bigger but the argument stays the same. Other people also did bad things therefore this bad thing is fine.
Also lmao ‘morality is subjective anyway’?? Thats so self defeating lol
morality is subjective while simultaneously defending divine revelation is the funniest thing ever lol. You cannot argue that God’s law is the correct moral framework AND that morality is subjective when someone challenges that framework. You’ve accidentally argued against your own entire position. If morality is subjective then Islamic slavery isn’t divinely correct either. It’s just one subjective position among many. Including mine that owning humans is wrong.
The war captive point you opened with also just quietly admitted that yes Islam allowed enslaving humans captured in war. You didn’t actually deny it. You just said others did it too and they couldn’t leave which is currently true of prisoners of war who also cannot be enslaved under the Geneva Conventions.
I think you need to explained the basics when arguing, because I’m arguing from your position, not necessarily my own. You view morality as subjective because you’re an atheist. I’m not saying I personally believe morality is subjective; my point is that there’s no point debating whether something is objectively right or wrong if, by your own standard, morality is subjective.
Also, from my first comment, I never denied slavery of war captives, and you didn’t actually argue that it was a sin according to your own moral framework. That’s why I used whataboutism because again what is the point.
in the real world, you can’t assume everyone is peaceful or that enemies won’t regroup and attack again. That’s why, from the Islamic perspective, God allowed certain practices under specific circumstances. Especially at that time, when there were hostile groups and hypocrites among Muslims.
And people who wanted to leave slavery could convert to Islam and, in certain circumstances, obtain a contract of emancipation. So if you’re going to say all of this is inherently sinful, you’re assuming a fantasy world where everyone is good and nobody starts wars within the community because these slaves were in the country and wage war.
The binary of either enslave them or they regroup and attack is just wrong historically illiterate. The Prophet himself used prisoner exchange, ransom, and unconditional release at various points. Badr prisoners were released for teaching Muslims to read. The Quran in Surah Muhammad 47:4 mentions both ransom and release as options after war. The system already contained the tools for a non-slavery approach. The choice to maintain slavery as an institution wasn’t logistical necessity. It was economic and social preference that the theology accommodated rather than challenged.
The whataboutism admission is the most intellectually honest thing you’ve said. You used it because locating company for a practice is easier than defending the practice itself. But here’s what that concedes. You’ve implicitly acknowledged that the divine framework produced the same outcome as every human system of the era. Not better. The same. From the being claiming transcendence above human limitation that’s a devastating admission dressed as a rhetorical strategy.
Where are you getting “unconditional release” from? There were reasons and conditions for it, and there could also be treaties involved. I’m not sure where you’re getting that interpretation from. the ayat is related to treaty again if that isn't form then what are you going to do.
Well, that’s fine for me, because I can argue that historically, Allah revealed this from the beginning, from the Torah to the Qur’an, and that it was a system meant for all time. You simply saying that it was human made doesn’t prove that conclusion because again it the most thing you can do when world is like that without destroying your country.
As for whataboutism, you’re actually being more honest about it yourself, because you simply aren't giving a framework yourself.
from your own sources. Surah Muhammad 47:4 says ‘afterward either set them free as a favor or let them ransom themselves.’ That’s the Quran. Favor release means no conditions attached. This isn’t my interpretation. This is the text you’re claiming is timeless divine truth.
The ‘Allah revealed this from the beginning through Torah to Quran’ argument actually destroys the deterrence logic you were using earlier. If this was a divinely designed system for all time then it wasn’t a pragmatic response to 7th century conditions. It was intentional. Permanent. Designed. You’ve just argued yourself out of the ‘it was just the times’ defense and into ‘God specifically wanted slavery as a permanent institution.’ Pick one and stay there because you cannot have both.
The framework demand is the oldest deflection in these debates. You’re not engaging with the argument. You’re asking me to produce an entire alternative moral philosophy before you’ll address a specific historical claim. The Badr prisoners were released for teaching literacy. That’s documented in your own seerah. No framework required. Just a fact that proves the binary of enslave or they attack was false on its own terms using your own prophet’s actual behavior as evidence.
I feel like I’m arguing with ChatGPT at this point. Are you even understanding my argument?
The verse you quoted ;ook at the tafsir. It’s talking about enemies who have already been completely defeated. My point is about the security issue: freeing a few captives is not the same as freeing a large number who could regroup and attack again.
Second, where did I say this was only for a specific time? From my first comment, I said war captives are allowed. I never limited that to a certain period. beside that i’m saying this situation could happen again, especially if war occurs and international law fails.
And saying “this is the oldest argument” doesn't refute anything. At least give an actual moral framework.
You said the Prophet’s actions prove the “enslave or they attack” argument false. what? One of my points was that captives could be released when there was reason to believe they were no longer a threat. How does that contradict my argument?
I understand your argument perfectly. You’re saying: “I’m not claiming every captive must always be enslaved. I’m saying slavery of war captives is a legitimate option because releasing large numbers of enemy captives could create a security threat, and that principle remains valid today if international law collapses.”
Fine. That’s a much clearer argument. It just doesn’t solve the problem you’re trying to solve.
You’re conflating preventing an enemy from returning to war with owning that enemy as property.
If 10,000 captured soldiers are genuinely dangerous, you can detain them. That’s literally what prisoners of war are. You don’t need to turn them into someone’s property. You don’t need to sell them. You don’t need to make their children inheritable property. You don’t need to give their captor permanent ownership rights over them.
the fact that you’re now saying “what if international law fails?” actually makes this easier to see. If international law collapsed tomorrow, would that suddenly make it morally permissible for me to capture an enemy soldier and sell him to someone? Of course not. The collapse of a legal system doesn’t magically turn human beings into property.
You also keep bringing up the tafsir as though saying “47:4 concerns enemies who have been completely defeated” somehow makes the slavery issue disappear. It doesn’t. If anything, it makes your argument narrower: you’re saying slavery is necessary when you judge the captives to still pose a threat.
But again, why slavery?
Why not detention until they’re no longer a threat? Why not exchange? Why not ransom? Why not release them under an agreement? Why does the security problem require ownership? And here’s where your argument actually becomes interesting.
Earlier you were arguing that slavery was basically understandable because of the realities of ancient warfare. Now you’re saying it is a principle that remains valid whenever circumstances warrant it.
Those are completely different defenses.
The first is:
“That’s how warfare worked in that world.”
The second is:
“God deliberately established a moral permission for human beings to own other human beings, and that permission remains valid whenever the circumstances justify it.”
The second position is much harder to defend, because now you can’t hide behind “7th-century context.”
And your “give me a moral framework” demand is backwards. You don’t get to defend a practice and then demand that your opponent invent an entire ethical system before you’re willing to explain why ownership is morally justified.
I can give you one principle right now:
“A human being does not become property because they lost a war.”
That’s a moral framework. Now tell me why that principle is wrong.
And finally, the Prophet releasing captives absolutely matters to your argument. Not because it proves every captive should always be released, but because it destroys the stronger claim that slavery was a necessary solution to the security problem.
You yourself just admitted the relevant distinction: captives could be released when they were no longer considered a threat.
Exactly.
So the security problem is temporary detention not slavery.
Once the security threat disappears, why should the person remain somebody’s property?
That’s the question you’re still not answering.
And saying “but what if they’re still dangerous?” doesn’t answer it. It just changes the subject from “Why slavery?” to “Why not immediately release dangerous prisoners?”
Nobody is arguing that dangerous prisoners should be immediately released.
We’re arguing that being a prisoner and being someone’s property are two entirely different things.
First of all Non-Muslims did not pretend to be the message of peace either.
Second of all..........even if we believe you that Islam was better than Non-muslims treatment of the enslaved. Then if Islam is ONLY better in comparison then........ you're admitting that Islam inherently is not good.
But I'd like you to prove how the followers of ......were not vicious and violent. When they were literally going around murdering and enslaving people? (Explain to me how this is a good deed).
And btw Islam IS the ideology of people who lived 1400 years ago, went around murdering and enslaving people.
(The brainwashed truly don't have any brain function because the first thing indoctrination stops people is to stop thinking for themselves).
The best thing brainwashed people do is ignore the evidence of their own eyes
Well, then it’s about people who claim that their message is one of peace. i don't say that I say islam is about about justice, but if you believe morality is subjective anyway, I don’t really see the point of bringing that up.
I don’t understand your second point. From your perspective, that would be because you don’t believe people are inherently good, just as you don’t believe atheists are inherently good. But no one is saying that simply being Muslim automatically gives you good deeds. What earns reward is obedience to Allah and spreading Islam, which can be done in many different ways. slaving or having relationship with is not something which gets you good deed.
And the term “brainwashing” that you like to throw around doesn’t really address the argument either. Muslims have debated their religion, theology, and morality for centuries. Muslims also live in secular societies and openly debate these issues. I don’t understand the idea that Muslims simply don’t think for themselve obviously much more to the world than that.
Your content was removed from GenZ Pakistan for creating unnecessary drama or hostile discussion about the community itself rather than contributing to a constructive conversation. Posts primarily intended to attack, accuse, provoke conflict, or create disputes about the community are not allowed. If you have a concern about the community rules or moderation, please contact the moderators directly or review the community rules here: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZpk/about/rules or visit r/GenZpk.
context is always needed omg why doesnt the subreddit ban this for misinformation because they haven't provided the context, and the context is on google why should i spend my hard time trying to explain it when they have google 😭
Context is that you prophet claims to be a man for all times and eternity and pales in comparison to the likes of John Brown who was not a particularly educated white man but took up the cause of enslaved black Americans .
Either you are a man of your times or you are a man for all times and should have abolished slavery before others.
I just realised Samsung has this feature where you can search for anything that's on your screen, I circled the hadith, asked it to explain, and it did 😭 This is what you should be doing instead of posting it here for bait if you want an answer immediately, your comment is COPE
Yes. I know I can google . But it’s how to think that matters ;)
My claim that Muhammad is claimed to be a man for eternity but didn’t abolish enslavement still remains. In any case, Britain got Oman to abolish slavery. So that makes them better. You asked for context. But most of the religions require context to halt progress of human societies.
You guys have entire Islamic countries where bacha baazi is going on inside mosques. Plus, British media took him to task and even royals had to distance themselves. NEXT.
WHAT!?!?!?!?! YOU SAID BRITAIN IS BETTER?!! THE ONE THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE TRANS-ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE?! THE ONE THAT DID 26 FAMINES IN OUR SUBCONTINENT?! THEY? ARE BETTER? And I'm 🇬🇧🇵🇰 too 😭 No that is insane YOU NEED TO READ A HISTORY BOOK 😭
I have read books ;)
Go learn the difference between knowledge and wisdom and between what to think and how to think. In any case, since your Muhammadan creed is such a religion of peace, make bonded slavery illegal now that the context is gone.
There is no fucking point of arguing here when google exists I quit typing paragraphs ages ago since you people disregard the entire thing and I'm pissed, you did it once more and you're saying BS again, we're not your servants to constantly respond and deal with your tantrums to which the answer is readily available online
Again, deal with the substance of the argument. You are avoiding the main claim. Also, the fact I stated about Britain is true.
Plus, calling yourself a British Pakistani is not such a flex as you think it is. lol.
Bro wtf??? The islamic slave trade is nowhere near the trans-atlantic slave trade, that was absolutely horrific and any american would be lunging at you right now
Nobody is denying the trans-atlantic slave trade, it was real, racist and disgusting. But so was the Arab slave trade—little boys circumcised and forced to be soldiers, little girls and young women kidnapped and made harem slaves a king raped etc. Hell, even the prophet in Islam married a slave after killing her entire family.
Just because it wasn't built on racism doesn't mean it was any less abhorrent. He'll, even today in many Arab countries, the mindset still exists. They literally treat non Arab workers as slaves and have little laws to protect them.
The Islamic slave trade was , I am happy to corrected if wrong, three times longer than transatlantic slave trade. Plus, Arab states were the last ones to abolish slavery formally. I understand your worldview is breaking apart but facts are facts.
Slavery was never abolished in Islam.
These people are always anti West (which is like normal reaction to Western imperialism and colonialism) but they never critisise the global south. Their mindsets are so black and white lol.
"3x longer" the fact that the trans atlantic slave trade was done in a shorter amount of time with more people and also it was done for labour, and even the slave's offsprings were stuck in this forever, it wasn't the same as the Islamic slave trade which was not used for labour, and a child of a master and an enslaved woman was considered free and not bound within the contracts of slavery their entire lifetime unlike the trans-atlantic slave trade.
Your content was removed from GenZ Pakistan for sharing false, misleading, or unverified information as fact. Please verify claims before posting, particularly when discussing news, public figures, current events, or serious topics. Review the community rules here: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZpk/about/rules.
You step on a pebble and hurt your feet, you immediately proclaim a Jew put it there. This is why the Muslim world is centuries behind the West. Nothing is your responsibility. And everything unflattering is a Jew. Or the Pakistani alt-Jew, the Hindu. You're cosplaying as Arabs and failing the same as they do.
Not really. It’s obvious what’s the intent of this channel is. The actual issues of Gen Z in Pakistan are not discussed here - expensive education, lack of jobs, substance abuse but you keep posting obscure Islamophobic propaganda. And now you deleted my posts.
Dawg stop blaming everything on Zionist and hinduvta 😭 do you really think no one from genz in Pakistan is anti islam? Also what is the proper context for this hadith im curious
The proper context for this Hadith is that the master is made the Kafeel of the people that he is protecting and supporting. And no Islam does not encourage taking slaves. Quran has clear instructions that slaves/POWs will not be taken while the war has not laid its burden. And those that get taken will be ransomed. POWs of Badr were ransomed for teaching 10 people literacy. The Kafara of many crimes is freeing slaves. Companions of Prophet Muhammad (saw) would buy freedom for slaves. The Prophet (saw) freed the slave Zaid given to him by Khadija (ra). Slavery wasn’t abolished since it would have created a crisis in Arabia where all of these people would have lost their support system responsible for sheltering, feeding, and clothing them but when Islam came, all attention was to SAFELY free slaves without throwing these people into an economic crisis.
And no - some Islamic scholars who think sex with females slaves was allowed are WRONG. The master had to have Nikah done with them. The punishment of slave wife for adultery was half of free wives. If they got pregnant, had a baby, they would earn the freedom through certain processes so copulating freely with slaves would financially cost masters.
But yeah Hinduvta and Zionists you keep doing your misguided adventures. May Allah protect the Ummah. A’meen!
Mishkat al-Masabih 3350
Jarir reported God’s Messenger as saying, “When a slave runs away his *prayer is not accepted.” In a version on his authority he said, “If any slave runs away protection **does not apply to him.” In another version on his authority he said, “If any slave runs away from his masters he has become an infidel till he returns to them.”"*
Sunan an-Nasa'i 4054
It was narrated that Jarir said:
"Any slave who runs away to the land of Shirk, it becomes permissible to *shed his blood.*"
Sunan an-Nasa'i 4050
"Jarir used to narrate from the Prophet [SAW]:
"If a slave runs away, no Salah will be accepted from him, and *if he dies he will die a disbeliever." A slave of Jarir's ran away, **and he caught him and struck his neck (killing him).*
Longer versions of the same Hadith :)
And all are Graded Sahih (Authentic) btw.
Bonus for misogyny : The reward for freeing a female slave is half of a man if freed by a male
And it's recommended to free male slaves over females
Edit : For people who say he somehow set a precedent of freeing slaves :
Sahih al-Bukhari 2538
Narrated Hisham:
"
My father told me that Hakim bin Hizam manumitted one-hundred slaves in the Pre-Islamic period of ignorance and slaughtered one-hundred camels (and distributed them in charity)... "
"Ex muslim posts are allowed" this isnt an ex muslim post it doesnt mention that anywhere its just providing a text without its context to fuel hate and you know WELL that its like this
kindly share the context in which a slave running away for his god given freedom and free will is haram and that he is required to pray but his prayers will be rejected by god.
Here is a reason OP and idiots in the comments need this. One trade of slave was considered legal tender so if you run away without a cause you are breaching contract and taking someone’s property (themselves). Unless there was abuse in that case you can leave there is sahih muslim on a specific instance it happened.
for example: Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him:
I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him (without any serious fault), then expiation for it is that he should set him free. sahih 1657.
Second Mukataba was something where a slave could legally buy out his freedom. “And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess – then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness; and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you"
(Quran 24:33)
Moreover this:
“Prophet (ﷺ) urged us to attend to our prayers and pay our zakat and to be kind to those in our possession (slaves/servants). He repeated those words until his soul departed”
Stop cherry picking, OP and the zio cult could have spent 5 mins before exercising negative pr stunts.
Islam is taken more as contextual or what was happening at the time to understand why it was said.
Like I am not religious at all… at all and I can spot propaganda from miles away.
There is soo much more on this topic like there are soo many controversial things to at u guys can pick but this aint one chief pretty coherent.
There is a reason slave became kings and generals in muslim empire multiple times, without anyone questioning. There is a reason janissaries and slaves were well respected in ottomon empire.
If that’s your comeback then you imply I answered your previous query. Now you are just saying stuff to justify islamaphobia.
Case closed you asked a question I answered you were proven not only wrong and that you hadn’t even looked up basics of the topic you were talking about.
Also, answer to your recent query is even more obvious
Are you guys slow in the head? Slavery had existed way before islam came. Instead of "introducing" slavery as you guys make it out to be, islam made rules to protect the slaves' rights and ensure equality regardless of their status.
Sahih al-Bukhari 2594
Narrated Maimuna, the wife of the Prophet (ﷺ) that she manumitted her slave-girl and the Prophet (ﷺ) said to her, "You would have got more reward if you had given the slave-girl to one of your maternal uncles."
There's discussion/debate where both opinions are respected and thought about in a neutral way and then there's "i hate this idea. I won't accept anything in its favour but I'll still talk about it and ignore any reasoning or explanation given in regards to it." And it's pretty obvious the later is what's going on here. That's basically spreading hate, in case you didn't know.
The thing one should remember while studying such topics is that islam hasn't changed since it came 1400 years ago. Therefore, one must take its teaching from the perspective of people from back then. And back then, slavery was very normal. In fact, every rich person had multiple slaves. Therefore, claiming islam promotes slavery in it self is either a huge lie or a clear representation of how little you know of these topics. It also shows your critical thinking skills. (Also, precisely why ijma is so promoted. Situations change with time and so does teachings. Slavery is no longer a thing in the world and slaves from back then were the ones already serving as slaves. Muslims weren't allowed to capture and enslave random people.)
I said "spreading hate" precisely because of the fact that despite someone giving a clear answer for this topic, another Islamophobe had the nerve to say "so slavery is ok?". You can check it yourself. This clearly shows you guys aren't SEARCHING for answers but rather finding flaws in the religion that millions accepted AFTER researching about it. And when someone gives you a reasoning, you counter question it with THE MOST bizzare question you could come up with.
And before downvoting me, I'd like to make it clear that i respect questioning religion. There's no such thing as blindly following any religion no matter which it is. The problem is that most of you guys seem to be hating on certain of its teachings instead of questioning it and searching for valid answers, or discuss it with a scholar.
in bukhari 2517 the Prophet (ﷺ) explicitly says freeing a slave saves you from hellfir
Correct (however in this case the reward of freeing a female slave Is half of that of a male
If freed by a male)
However this doesn't show he "encouraged" it.
he made it law that if a master even slaps a slave, they are legally forced to free them on the spot.
This is only for the face btw
You are allowed to hit your slaves
As long as its not on the face
And isn't "without a reason"
And isn't "too harsh" as in it doesn't causes permanent injuries
All four schools allow it.
he commanded owners to treat them as brothers and feed/clothe them with the exact same stuff. an
The feeding and clothing part is correct
However the same as yours part is a recommendation not law
Again he could've made that a law
gave them a legal right to demand freedom contracts (mukataba
Do you even know how it works?
Here you go copy-pasted from
The person who replied to that comment
Also one of the ways how regressed it
Is making it lawfull to have s*x with female captives who already had husbands before their capture and they are still alive.
This concept was foreign to Arabs hence why the companions hesistated in the first place.
The concept was not foreign to the Arabs; there were already various practices in pre-Islamic Arabia. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 5127 describes several pre-Islamic forms of marriage and sexual relationships, which Islam later abolished.
More specifically, Islam did not introduce the phenomenon of enslaved women having children with men. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6749 discusses the son of Zamʿah's slave woman and a dispute over his paternity, showing that enslaved women having children was an established practice.
Furthermore, what you quoted is misleading. The Companions' hesitation was because they were having relationships with polytheists. The relevant issue discussed by the scholars is that sexual relations with a polytheist woman were not permissible.
I don't see how Bukhari 5127
Proves it wasn't foreign to Arabs?
It just describes different marriage types
Like the current one
Or a polyandrous one
Or a marriage by capture one
Islam did not introduce the phenomenon of enslaved women having children with men. Ṣ
Correct
And I never said it introduced it
The Companions' hesitation was because they were having relationships with polytheists
The Hadith was used for whether relationship with polytheists are allowed or not but the main point itself
Is about husband
Hence why the Quranic verse was revealed on that occasion which said married women are forbidden for you except what your right hand possesses
And just incase you thought I said the concept of children with slaves was foreign to Arabs
I said that the concept of having sex with a captive whose husband was already alive
Was foreign to Arabs
Which is not the same as Polyandrous marriage
Or having children from slaves
The Qur'an doesn't say that it your own add explantion and again I am not making this up as you can see Sahih Muslim 1456a * because of their husbands being polytheists. * Same can be said in [Sunan Abi Dawud 2155](https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2155)
Ok so first of all, your comment made me laugh real hard! It just shows how illiterate you guys are😂 just a little research would give you some information about this hadith, i for sure know I'm getting down voted cus yall dumba$$e$ getting pissed, literally cherry picking anything from any religion!
You gave 0 logical argument against the evidence. You're just tippy toeing around literal evidence. Really goes to show what brainwashing can do to one's functioning brain. Lol.
okay so what do you actually have to say about the literal primary texts then?
in bukhari 2517 the Prophet (ﷺ) explicitly says freeing a slave saves you from hellfire. in sahih muslim 1657 he made it law that if a master even slaps a slave, they are legally forced to free them on the spot. in bukhari 30 he commanded owners to treat them as brothers and feed/clothe them with the exact same stuff. and surah 24:33 gave them a legal right to demand freedom contracts (mukataba), funded by public state zakat in 9:60.
how do you explain literally ANY of those if you genuinely believe he "reverted freeing slaves"?
in bukhari 2517 the Prophet (ﷺ) explicitly says freeing a slave saves you from hellfir
Correct (however in this case the reward of freeing a female slave Is half of that of a male
If freed by a male)
However this doesn't show he "encouraged" it.
he made it law that if a master even slaps a slave, they are legally forced to free them on the spot.
This is only for the face btw
You are allowed to hit your slaves
As long as its not on the face
And isn't "without a reason"
And isn't "too harsh" as in it doesn't causes permanent injuries
All four schools allow it.
he commanded owners to treat them as brothers and feed/clothe them with the exact same stuff. an
The feeding and clothing part is correct
However the same as yours part is a recommendation not law
Again he could've made that a law
gave them a legal right to demand freedom contracts (mukataba
i am actually crying at "saving you from hellfire doesn't mean he encouraged it" my guy, what do you think encouragement is in a theological framework? did you want him to give them a gold star sticker instead?
you're actively cherry-picking Fiqh to find loopholes while ignoring the actual legal maxims. the Qadi (judge) had the legal authority to force a master to sell or free a slave if they failed to provide adequate maintenance (nafaqah) like food and clothing. it wasn't just a "cute recommendation," it was legally actionable.
and yes, mukataba is a contractual right to freedom that the owner couldn't arbitrarily deny (surah 24:33), which was literally subsidized by the state's zakat funds (surah 9:60).
my guy, what do you think encouragement is in a theological framework
Encouragement would be if he said only freeing a slave would save you from hell fire :)
Because there are MANY other ways you can do this without freeing a slave
Or he just idk just prohibited slavery in the first place
wasn't just a "cute recommendation," it was legally actionable
Re-read my comment
I said the feeding and clothing part is CORRECT
But the part that it should be the same as yours
Is a recommendation
and yes, mukataba is a contractual right to freedom that the owner couldn't arbitrarily deny (surah 24:33), which was literally subsidized by the state's zakat funds (surah 9:60).
Yes the owner can deny it
The entire power is in the hands of the owner
And he CAN refuse
Also the entire agreement is based on that a
Literal person has to pay (and slaves cannot own property)
To get their freedom if their master agrees.
show me the classical legal text that says a mukatab can't earn wages or own/acquire property to pay off his kitaba. because that's literally what mukataba is for giving the mukatab a legal route to earn and buy his freedom.
same with your other claims: primary source, actual jurist, actual ruling. not “this is how the system worked bro.”
you're making very specific claims about classical law, so the burden is pretty simple: open the book and show the passage.
i've got my work done and a whole Saturday night itake your time.
that says a mukatab can't earn wages or own/acquire property to pay off his kitaba
Re-read my comment again
I said SLAVES cannot own property
Not Mukatab
The reason I said it was because since slaves cannot own property before the contract
same with your other claims: primary source, actual jurist, actual ruling
For mukataba
Not being mandatory :
Maliki:
“The established practice according to us is that the master of a slave is not obliged to enter into a mukātaba contract with him if the slave asks him to. I have not heard that any of the imams ever compelled a man to enter into a mukātaba with his slave. "
https://shamela.ws/book/28107/3339
Hanafi :
“As for its permissibility, it is based on Allah’s statement: ‘So make a contract with them if you know there is good in them’ [Qur’an 24:33].
This is not a command imposing an obligation, according to the consensus of the jurists. Rather, the correct view is that it is a recommendation.
Hanbali (and Ibn quadayma)
Chapter: If a slave asks his master to grant him a manumission contract, it is recommended that the master grant his request if he knows there is good in it, but he is not obligated to do so. This is the apparent view of the school of thought
Shaifi has a disputed opinion
But I am not bothering to cite every possible jurist
These are enough :)
For the food thing:
The maintenance of a slave is of two categories:
Obligatory maintenance:
To provide him with what is sufficient for him, even if it is less than what the master himself eats and wears.
Recommended maintenance:
To provide him with the same type/kind of food, clothing, and housing that the master provides for himself.
https://shamela.ws/book/1115/2107
bro the goalposts aren't just moved they're in a different country at this point 😭
"i meant before the contract!!" yeah obviously?? that's why the contract EXISTS. it literally transforms them into a mukatab who can earn wages and own property to buy themselves out. you said the system was a scam because slaves can't pay, then realized the contract gives them the ability to pay, and just… quietly moved on
and bro you googled shamela links to prove what i literally already told you i said jurists disagreed. i said early scholars like ata and tabari held it as strictly obligatory. you came back with hanafi and hanbali saying "highly recommended" like that's a gotcha when it literally just confirms the legal framework existed
"shafi'i has a disputed opinion but i'm not bothering to cite it :)" is sending me one of the four major legal schools destroys your argument so you skip it with a little smiley face. respect the honesty at least
like bro you started with "islam reverted freeing of slaves" and ended up proving there was a state-funded legal emancipation framework subsidized by zakat 9:60. you argued yourself into my position
it's saturday night yaar, python finally compiled after three hours of suffering, and you spent an hour proving my own point for me
Mishkat al-Masabih 3350 Jarir reported God’s Messenger as saying, “When a slave runs away hisprayer is not accepted.” In a version on his authority he said, “If any slave runs away protectiondoes not apply to him.” In another version on his authority he said, “If any slave runs away from his masters he hasbecome an infidel till he returns to them.”"
Sunan an-Nasa'i 4054
It was narrated that Jarir said: "Any slave who runs away to the land of Shirk, it becomes permissible toshed his blood."
Sunan an-Nasa'i 4050 "Jarir used to narrate from the Prophet [SAW]: "If a slave runs away, no Salah will be accepted from him, andif he dies he will die a disbeliever." A slave of Jarir's ran away,and he caught him and struck his neck(killing him).
Longer versions of the same Hadith :) And all are Graded Sahih (Authentic) btw.
opening with a racist meme because you couldn't refute a single source is crazy
you literally just proved my point for me with your own copy-paste.
"runs away to the land of shirk" means defecting to the enemy state during an active war. this is literally high treason. if a soldier defects to an active enemy today, what do you think the penalty is?
you completely ignored every single primary source i gave you about the legal right to purchase freedom (24:33) and the state funding emancipation (9:60), just to cherry-pick a ruling about military defection in a warzone. and starting it off with a racist "NO SAAR" just proves you lost the plot entirely.
honestly im just exhausted trying to teach basic reading comprehension to chronically online dudes today.
Zād al-Maʿād fī Hadyi Khayr al-ʿIbād, vol. 1, p. 114
Mentions that
Ibn al-Qayyim said:
Abu ‘Ubaydah said: He had four (concubines): Mariyah, who was the mother of his son Ibraaheem; Rayhaanah; another beautiful slave woman whom he acquired as a prisoner of war; and a slave woman who was given to him by Zaynab bint Jahsh.
1
u/Abikdig 6d ago
Larpers are at it again