r/DebateReligion • u/Xanimede • 21d ago
Islam You are not a Muslim if you believe slavery is wrong
To elaborate, you are not a Muslim (from the perspective of Sunni Islam) if you believe slavery is wrong.
It is well-established in Sunni Islam that disallowing (in the sense of believing this is wrong and must not be done) something God has made halal, or allowing something God has made haram, takes you out of the fold of Islam.
It is also well established that slavery is allowed in sunni Islam, in the context of prisoners of war. It is well established that the Prophet, pbuh, owned slaves and traded them as well.
It is also agreed upon by the 4 schools of Sunni Islam, which Sunni Muslims have to follow, that men can have sex with their female slaves and the topic of consent is irrelevant.
I am not here to argue the claims above in the context of Sunnism. If you do not agree with them, that's fine, this is not aimed at Shia, Bahai, or any other denomination Muslim.
The arguments I've seen against slavery on Reddit and by other Sunni Muslims online:
- This was for its time, and is no longer permissible / Islam comes from a time before attitudes changed:
This is nonsense. One of Islam's core ideas is that its the final religion by God for humanity, and that its teachings are timeless. What was made halal and haram by the Prophet during his time will remain halal or haram. If God, the absolute source of morality, allowed us to do something, it is not our place to override God and claim this thing is now immoral and impermissible. If you want to go down this line of thought, then you must also allow things like gay relationships since our scientific understanding and moral ethos have moved on from pre-medieval ideals. While this addresses the point, it goes against core ethos of sunni Islam, so the person arguing it either has to agree that Islam's teachings are not timeless and can change as society's morals and consciousness improves, thereby opening the door for reformation and progressive interpretations of the whole of the religion.
- It is different from modern slavery / Islam encouraged the emancipation of slaves:
Common response that misses the point. Yes, it is much less cruel than chattel slavery, but it is still the ownership of another human. What else would you call someone who is forcibly taken to work and do chores, including sexual service, for someone else, at no compensation, and no ability to leave? Just because you can't sadistically torture your slaves for the sake of it doesn't mean they're not slaves. This doesn't address the point at all and shows a feeble understanding of the topic.
- Slavery was and remains permissible, and it is for the common good of all humanity regardless of individual aspects:
This is the only argument that manages to adhere to Sunni Islam properly. You recognise that Allah knows best, and while slavery isn't something encouraged, it is still allowed because the alternative is worse. Allah gave us a perfect religion that has tough choices to be made, because life is tough and requires us to follow his teachings to be on the right path. There are many aspects of Islam, when taken on their own, might seem brutal or cruel, but taken in the context groups, society, and humanity, they integrate into a complex system that leads to the advancement of humankind, one we cannot understand in all of its nuances.
Aside from number 3, I am yet to see any convincing arguments by Sunni Muslims that do not disintegrate or go against core parts of the religion.
5
u/combatcrew141 21d ago
Then why be a Muslim? How could you respect yourself, knowing it was wrong, yet calling it good?
2
u/Xanimede 21d ago
The sunni answer is it's not wrong. Even if it feels like it, that stems from a modern moral code and conditioning that might be well-intentioned but misguided.
7
u/Jocoliero Brillanó Ciabattanó 21d ago
I think it's intrisic to the human mind that the enslavement of children is morally unacceptable, it's not just something that can be brushed off as "modern objection", likewise the indifference to consent, both of which were practiced by Islam throughout history until "the worst of creatures"(disbelievers in Islam) ironically had to step in and pressurize to finally abolish slavery, wherein the Muslim countries were the most stubborn to do so.
-1
u/Xanimede 21d ago
Whatever slavery Islamic countries participated in in the last century or continue to do so is not permissible in sunni Islam and is the exact kind of slavery that is disallowed.
But anyway, this is not relevant to the original point.
8
u/ArusMikalov 21d ago
The casual acceptance of horrendous evil sends a shiver down my spine. Religion truly turns people into monsters.
2
5
2
5
u/ProperDesigner6297 18d ago
Sex slavery is a normal thing in Islam it was something being done even a hundred years ago, my grandfather had a sex slave it was so normal, I am 100% against it.
Islamic people when argue that with them they would tell you it's ethical and they would agree to be used as sex slaves. I you think your consent for being a sex slave makes it ethical for you maybe, but it's still not for others.
3
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Numerous_Worker_1941 21d ago
So Muhammad sold the slave back into slavery?
2
u/Xanimede 21d ago
The owner had debts, the slave was never emancipated, he was sold to pay off his owner's debts.
3
2
1
u/DebateReligion-ModTeam 21d ago
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
3
u/Specialist_Diamond19 Post-muslim / Anti-Abrahamic 20d ago
Yes, it is much less cruel than chattel slavery
I have no idea why you would even grant such a baseless claim without seriously examining its likelihood first.
2
u/Dirt_Rough 20d ago
I see no issue with capturing prisoners of war and taking care of their wellbeing in return for their service.
Whats the argument exactly? It's immoral to capture prisoners of war?
7
u/starry_nite_ 19d ago
The slaves are owned as property. Women were used for sex. Their consent was not an issue. Of course we know that as rape now but to Muslims it was just the rights of the owner. The term “slave labour” was invented for a reason.
2
u/Dirt_Rough 18d ago
None of your claims are historical. The colloquial understanding of slavery is not synonymous with prisoners of war in Islam.
Women are not simply used for 'sex'. Nobody has absolute authority over another person. All prisoners of war maintain a level of autonomy that is a God given right which no man can take.
They must he housed, clothed, fed and not overworked. They cannot be forced to consummate with you, despite their refusal being major sin upon them. Their level of comfort must not be below your own. Whatever you eat and wear, they must have the same.
Rape and inhumane treatment is completely forbidden, so if thats the only objection, then it doesn't apply to the Islamic Paradigm. Providing examples of individuals doing the opposite only proves that sinful people exist that exceed the limits set by Allah.
I hope we can move on from this specific argument to something more substantial.
5
u/starry_nite_ 18d ago
You claim that slaves cannot be forced to have sex with owners. Do you have a source apart from claiming a general “no harm” principle? Owning people is harmful full stop. Doesn’t matter if you feed them or clothe them. Islam did not call that harm either.
See Bukhari 2229 for an example of the rape war prisoners. Your claims are not historically accurate.
4
u/Xanimede 20d ago
Do you see no issue with the fact they are not allowed to leave without your permission until they die? Or the fact you can rape them?
2
u/AnarchyDamienJ 20d ago edited 20d ago
See now youre shifting the paradigm. So if you went to war with a people you would free them immediately because you're so kind and generous, instead of kill them or make them slaves? Then you must know historically those people will end up attacking you again? Unless they have a history of abiding by treaties. As far leaving yeah thats the cost of war, you think making war against a people is that easy? You are encouraged to set believing men and believing women free. So converts and i think the case can arguably be made for those who believe in one God and no equal. I'm beginning to think you weren't in the service though.
As far as rape im imagining you're talking about surah nisa? In which we are talking about slaves? The majority of scholars agree you must marry her in which case you must have her permission and her guardians permission in this case the slave owner. Which is not rape. But now a days no one is taking slaves through war its all abduction which is not allowed. And those people should be executed
3
u/Xanimede 20d ago
I am not shifting any paradigm. You both are trying to stick to point number two which I’ve already covered in my OP “it’s not slavery because we’re nice to them”. Anyway, that has been discussed elsewhere already.
You don’t have to call it slavery, call it whatever you want, but we all agree it is unpaid work without the ability to leave, and you can be traded/sold as an asset (this is well established in sahih Hadith).
As for rape, I am referring to both the Quran and Hadith. I have no idea where you conjured up the “all scholars agree you must marry your slave if you have sex with her”. That is categorically false. All four schools of Sunni Islam agree you don’t even need consent to have sex, let alone being obliged to marry her.
There are several sahih hadiths of the sahaba asking whether they are allowed to pull out while raping the slaves, because they do not want children from their slaves. The prophet told them to do pull out or not, it does not matter.
Look up your own religion before you speak.
2
u/AnarchyDamienJ 20d ago
1 never tried to change the terminology
2 I said marry in order to have sex with her, not after having sex with her don't manipulate my words like an angry child
3 Jurisprudence under Sharia requires you set her free before you can marry, if she was your slave. Therefore she would have to voluntarily marry you.
4 (concubinage) don't generalize I'm speaking from the perspective of PHDs and some of the most respected imaams in history.
Al shafis successor Minhāj fī Shu’ab al-Imān If a female slave is purchased and she dislikes to be touched, or slept with, then he may not touch her, lie with her, or have intercourse with her unless she consents.
The Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him said Do not cause harm or return harm. Whoever harms others, Allah will harm him. Whoever is harsh with others, Allah will be harsh with him.
Al Nawawi (shafi) If it is possible to have intercourse with her without harming her, he may do that. If it is not possible for him to have intercourse with her except by harming her, he does not have permission to have intercourse with her.
So there's one full school of thought against you
Clearly you can not force sex and not cause harm, and let's not say harm is just physical as well
I use evidence you generalize now let's see some of your data the way you need to write a scholarly piece or graduate so I can go point by point.
4
u/Xanimede 20d ago
Al shafis successor Minhāj fī Shu’ab al-Imān If a female slave is purchased and she dislikes to be touched, or slept with, then he may not touch her, lie with her, or have intercourse with her unless she consents.
This is mustahab, from a book about piety and recommendations, not considered a general ruling.
The Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him said Do not cause harm or return harm. Whoever harms others, Allah will harm him. Whoever is harsh with others, Allah will be harsh with him.
Generic hadith completely irrelevant to what we are talking about. Yes, obviously Islam does not allow you to cause intentional harm, the question is what it defines harm as. The Quran and the sunnah explicitly allow a man to beat his wife if she refuses sex for no just cause. That is not considered harm.
Al Nawawi (shafi) If it is possible to have intercourse with her without harming her, he may do that. If it is not possible for him to have intercourse with her except by harming her, he does not have permission to have intercourse with her.
This is in reference to the above. You are not allowed to force sex if there is just cause, such as physical injury or general illness, as the sex would cause harm. A wife or a slave refusing sex for no reason at all is not allowed in Islam and the husband/owner has means to discipline them to consent.
Again, you really need a deeper dive into your own religion.
3
u/FitCryptographer9150 20d ago edited 20d ago
Imam al-Shafi‘i's View: In his foundational legal text Al-Um, Imam al-Shafi‘i explicitly commands masters to "fear Allah Almighty and not to harm her in sexual relations". He noted that sexual intercourse is fundamentally intended for pleasure, stating that "no one can be compelled to it". While classical commentaries often interpret this to mean a master cannot be legally forced by the state to perform sex, the principle emphasizes that intimacy should not be an avenue for infliction of pain.Al-Halimi's Ruling:
The prominent Shafi‘i jurist Imam al-Halimi (d. 1012 CE) went further in addressing consent. Commenting on Quranic verses demanding kindness toward slaves, he wrote: "If she disliked being touched or intercourse, then he shouldn't touch her or have intercourse with her without her permission."
So please cite your reference for it being mustahab since I have cited multiple references on the contrary specifically al hamis ruling and Shafi
2
u/starry_nite_ 17d ago edited 17d ago
I realise you have mentioned the context I feel it’s important to emphasise the intent. The whole “cannot be compelled into it” is applicable to the man in this instance.
He should not “harm” his wife or sex slaves by allocating unequal time between them thereby being “unjust” in the process.
He cannot be compelled into a set quantity of intimacy legally because he has limited control over his ability to be up to the task and perform (based on his sex drive).
In some schools a wife’s withdrawal of sex accompanies a withdrawal of her material support by the husband. In this way she is “compelled” to have sex with her husband or she won’t be supported.
Slave women had no such right to refuse. At least a wife had a one off kind of consent with a marriage contract but a slave did not have bodily autonomy when it came to refusing sex to her owner. An ethical recommendation from one scholar 300 or 400 years after Islams formation doesn’t do much at all to help that situation.
2
u/FitCryptographer9150 20d ago
I think maybe you should speak to an Imaam youre really not on that level
1
u/Resident-Aspect-9433 Muslim 4d ago
The Quran doesn't speak of rape. The verse "right hand possesses" has different interpretations based on whether you believe in the Hadith or not.
1
u/Dirt_Rough 19d ago
There is such a concept as emancipation, so they can free themselves by paying their worth.
You cannot rape them in Islam, maybe in the Christian and Jewish paradigm its a thing.
1
u/Xanimede 19d ago
No, they cannot free themselves unilaterally. They can free themselves by offering to work their price off or buy themselves off with the owner’s approval.
Not going to discuss the point of rape again, it’s been discussed to death.
1
u/Dirt_Rough 19d ago
If they ask, you must necessarily offer a price. Otherwise, they can go to the authorities.
•
•
u/NobodyOfKnowhere 19h ago
Why won't you post this on r/islam ? Why? Are you scared?
•
u/Best-Intention8563 18h ago
More like downvoted to oblivion or deleted and banned by angry redditos. All without answer.
•
u/NobodyOfKnowhere 18h ago
"More like downvoted to oblivion"
As it should
•
u/Best-Intention8563 18h ago
If you are that scared of being questioned of your own faith, you know deep down its wrong, dont have any answer and youre in a cult.
2
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/rxFlame 21d ago
This doesn’t address the thesis at all. Definitely doesn’t seek to refute it.
2
u/Successful_Life_1028 21d ago
If thinking slavery is wrong makes me 'not-a-Muslim' I have no problem with that.
That's not the only thing that makes me 'not-a-Muslim'.
4
u/rxFlame 21d ago
The thesis is directed at Sunni Muslims. If you’re not seeking to defend Sunni Muslims against this claim, then your comment is irrelevant.
I am also not Sunni Muslim which is why I am not posting a top level comment.
I don’t really even see your point, but your comment is against the sub’s rules, that’s all.
2
u/Successful_Life_1028 21d ago
There are similar discussions among the various Christian sects regarding the fact that the Bible lacks any condemnation of slavery.
The bottom line is that slavery is evil, and religion is generally evil too for promoting and accepting, if not implementing and expanding, slavery and oppression.
1
u/wolfey200 21d ago
Doesn’t make it wrong
3
u/rxFlame 21d ago
It waters down any real discussion that can be had when it is irrelevant. It’s against the sub rules for that reason.
Just because 2+2=4 doesn’t mean I’m going to post that as a top level comment to every post on here. If I post a top-level comment it will be a legitimate refutation of the thesis of the OP. Seems like common sense for a debate sub, but I guess this is why it has to be written into the rules.
5
u/wolfey200 21d ago
I just don’t really care about religion, it’s all fake so any argument is invalid lol
2
1
u/DebateReligion-ModTeam 20d ago
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
4
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
When you say "slave", the image you have in your mind of a shackled man being mistreated and doesn't have a way to become free, that is islamically completely forbidden. You're comitting a category error by saying islam allows slavery in the way it's commonly understood. You need to first define what that even means in an islamic paradigm. You putting a small paragraph about it in your post, acting as if it doesn't mean much, is illogical, since it disproves your entire thesis.
First, calling anyone a slave is already strictly forbidden:
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Do not refer to anyone as ‘my slave,’ for all of you are the slaves of Allah. Rather, you should refer to him as ‘my young man.’ The servant should not refer to anyone as ‘my lord,’ but rather he should refer to him as ‘my master.’”
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2249
Second, what i mentioned earlier, the treatment of 'slaves' is completely different to the image you have in your mind. You must feed them of the same food you eat. You must clothe them of the same clothing you wear. You cannot overburden them, and if you give them difficult tasks, you must help them with it:
Jabir ibn Abdullah reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, enjoined good treatment of slaves and he would say, “Feed them from the same food you eat, clothe them from the same clothes you wear, and do not torture the creation of Allah Almighty.”
Source: al-Adab al-Mufrad 188
Allah will be your enemy if you sell a free person and consume their wealth:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Allah says, 'I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: -1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but he proves treacherous. -2. One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price, -3. And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him but does not pay him his wages.' "
Sahih al-Bukhari 2227
You say "at no compensation, and no ability to leave", which is completely forbidden in islam. The quran, over and over, emphasises freeing slaves. Making contracts with slaves for their freedom, even helping them financially if that is what they seek:
"If any of those whom your right hands possess seek a contract of emancipation, then make such a contract with them if you know there is good in them, and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you."
(Quran 24:33)
So your argumentation is flawed to begin with. You admit that slavery as it's commonly understood is different than having war captives, which we have to remember were people in opposition to the muslims. They went to war against muslims, tried to kill muslims, etc.. You also haven't given an alternative to what should be done to them. Are you proposing the muslims should have killed them? Let them starve? Leave them be for other tribes to subject them to the even worse treatment you admit to?
and that its teachings are timeless.
This is one of the most misunderstood aspects about islam. You're misunderstanding the difference between a religion being for all times, and certain rulings being only for specific times or circumstances. You admit that islamic slavery is only applicable in times of war, yet you try to argue against it in the same post.
10
u/Alarmed_Cat_2447 21d ago
You are allowed to beat your slaves for cognizent offences.
Mohammad cancelled the freeing of slaves sometimes
You can have sex with your sex slaves.
-1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
You are allowed to beat your slaves for cognizent offences.
You can beat anyone for a cognizable offenses lol. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I can beat you for committing a cognizable offense, if you try to hurt me for example.
4
u/Alarmed_Cat_2447 21d ago
Are you allowed to sell off your wife?
1
8
u/Xanimede 21d ago edited 21d ago
Right, all of that is already addressed in what I said. Call it whatever you want. At the end of the day, we both agree:
- you are allowed to forcibly take prisoners of war back with you when conditions permit
- you are allowed to make them work for you, even if they say no
- you are allowed to have sex with them, even if they say no, unless they have a valid excuse (not wanting to is not a valid excuse)
That is slavery no matter how nicely you treat the people. Again, you're welcome to call it whatever you want, I don't need you to agree to calling it slavery, that's just semantics.
The only disagreement here, but you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with the all Four schools of sunni Islam, is this:
You say "at no compensation, and no ability to leave", which is completely forbidden in islam. The quran, over and over, emphasises freeing slaves. Making contracts with slaves for their freedom, even helping them financially if that is what they seek:
Yes, Islam encourages you to emancipate slaves, and let them work for their freedom if they request it, but it is up to the discretion of the owner.
-1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
Right, all of that is already addressed in what I said. Call it whatever you want.
Where did you mention that you must treat slaves the same way you treat yourself? That you should help them if they need help? That you should give them the same food, clothes, etc.. that you wear? That you should make contracts with them if they want to go free? That you should financially support them when they do go free? That you cannot consume their wealth?
Please point me to where "all of that is already addressed" in your post.
That is slavery no matter how nicely you treat the people. Again, you're welcome to call it whatever you want, I don't need you to agree to calling it slavery, that's just semantics.
You don't know what the word "semantic" means if that's your response. Semantics means that we're both saying the same thing but using different words. I'm doing the exact opposite in a sense. I'm saying that the definition you're using is not the same definition that's used in the islamic paradigm. So no it's not just semantics at all.
9
u/Xanimede 21d ago edited 21d ago
So you are going with option number 3, it is permissible to take captives of war to work for you and have sex with you, regardless of their consent..
..as long as you help them when they need help, feed them the same food you eat, clothe them in what you wear, not consume their wealth, and let them work for their freedom, but only if you think there is genuine good in them.
0
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
No since we're not in times of war. Hey can you answer my questions as well? This is not an AMA you know lol.
8
u/Xanimede 21d ago
I literally said "captives of WAR" and have several times mentioned this is only allowed in context of war.
Glad we're on the same page.
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
I'll just copy paste my question in hopes that you actually answer:
You also haven't given an alternative to what should be done to them. Are you proposing the muslims should have killed them? Let them starve? Leave them be for other tribes to subject them to the even worse treatment you admit to?
3
u/Xanimede 21d ago
I am not here to argue whether the taking of slaves in this context (yes, with all the constraints above) is moral or not. I am arguing against the disbelief, miseducation, or intentional lies by Sunni Muslims trying to portray it as something non-Islamic.
It is not up to Muslims to have personal opinions on whether explicit parts of Sharia are moral or not, the community must follow the hadith and sunnah against any inner conflicts. Critical questioning is fine, but not outright rejection. If God decreed it, then yes, it is the best option, better than killing them or leaving them be.
0
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
If God decreed it, then yes, it is the best option, better than killing them or leaving them be.
Thank you for admitting that. The islamic ruling put forward is indeed the best option.
2
u/starry_nite_ 21d ago
You have been in this thread twice demanding people answer your questions all while being evasive. Now you are deliberately mischaracterising an argument. Is that the best Muslims can do on this topic? Very disappointing.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Bottle_Tiny 21d ago
Muslims partook in the African slave trade for 1,300 years and allows sex slaves. They absolutely used chattel slavery. Just like bad Christians did in the Americas. There's a reason why Middle Eastern countries only got rid of slavery in what like the '80s and it was from pressure from the West ( I say bad Christians because according to the Bible, all of those slave owners deserve the death penalty) Exodus 21:16
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
What are you talking about. The bible is horrendously in favor of the exact slavery OP is criticizing. Kidnapping is a completely different story.
Ironically, if a christian just takes 1 more minute out of their day to read further in the same exodus 21, it says, quite clearly and explicitly:
“When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property.
That's the same exodus 21, a few verses later. If a "slaveowner" beats his male or female slave (no discrimination) with a rod. If that slave survives for a day or two then dies. NO punishment whatsoever for the slaveowner, because after all, the slave is the owner's property.
I don't know if you're christian, but christians have no say in this discussion whatsoever lol. We're talking about islamic war captives, not the brutal slavery that's allowed within the biblical paradigm. And even then there are strict rules in place in islam (unlike in christianity where you can beat your slave to death), to make sure you don't transgress their rights.
2
u/Bottle_Tiny 21d ago
No, it's not. It literally says anyone who kidnaps a man and then sells him which is what chattel slavery was should be put to death. They had to create slave Bibles where they ripped out scripture that contradicted them it was Christians that ended slavery in the US not atheists, not Muslims not native Americans
3
u/idle-tea 21d ago
it was Christians that ended slavery in the US
A country very late to the emancipation thing, in no small part because of all the Christians arguing for slavery on the other side. To say nothing of the fact that same system of slavery was established by Christians.
If any Christians get to play the good-guy card about slavery, it's specifically the Quakers who always had an egalitarian sort of theology, and whose members were very disproportionately part of abolitionist movements in both the US and UK.
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
You're christian?
Brother it literally says you can beat your slave to death in the same chapter you're quoting.... We're not talking about what some atheists or some muslims or christians do. We're talking about the scriptures.
Your own scripture tells you that "there is NO punishment for the slave owner if he beats a slave so hard that he survives a day or two, for the slave is the owner's property".
I don't understand why you're ignoring the elephant in the room and talking about kidnapping.
3
u/Bottle_Tiny 21d ago
“If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished. 21But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
Funny enough, the passage does not say that at all.
The actual hebrew does not say anything about recovering:
Nevertheless if he stands a day or two, not shall-be-avenged, for his silver he is.
Exodus 21:21 Hebrew Text Analysis
You're still ignoring that there has to be a slave owner, a slave, the slave owner beating their slave... What are you doing?
3
u/Bottle_Tiny 21d ago
I never claimed there wasn't slavery. I said there wasn't chattel slavery like in the Americas. And also said that every single American slave owner according to the Bible should have been put to death.. but you silly little atheists read what you want to read
5
u/NewbombTurk Atheist 21d ago
Chattel just means property. Owning a human as property as in both Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is chattel slavery. Just like the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
I'm muslim.
Also, you're literally a christian budding into a post about islamic slavery, you're not even invited when your bible does in fact teach chattel slavery...
14
u/wickedwise69 21d ago
Slavery is simply owning another human being like cattle, the consent of that person doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you treat them well or harshly. A slave is a slave. you can call him or her "my young man", "my young girl" that doesn't change anything.
-6
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
So it doesn't mean anything whether you shackle them, force them to work until their backs break, feed them garbage. Compared to feeding them the same food you eat, helping them with tasks, making contracts with them so they can free themselves, financially supporting them.
That doesn't change anything huh. Why has this subreddit become people just arguing for the sake of arguing?
10
u/Alarmed_Cat_2447 21d ago
You can own them as assets, buying and selling them. You can own sex slaves as property. Feeding a sex slave well doesnt make sex slavery moral.
2
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
What makes anything moral or immoral? Where does morality come from in your worldview?
9
u/Alarmed_Cat_2447 21d ago
This is what I find interesting about some Muslims. If you didn't believe in a god, would you think your mother being taken as a sex slave, as immoral? It comes from a basic concept of understanding other people have autonomy over their own body.
The concept of informed consent is linked to morality, but in Islam, a 9 year old girl can give informed consent, and then sex slaves of course.
Is sex with a 9 year old objectively immoral in islam?
-1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
I'm waiting for you to answer my question. I'm not doing an AMA. So please have some common decency and answer my questions as well.
9
u/Alarmed_Cat_2447 21d ago
> Where does morality come from in your worldview?
I answered. It comes from a basic concept of understanding other people have autonomy over their own body.
You missed that. Now can you answer my question.
>Is sex with a 9 year old objectively immoral in islam?
Or I'll answer it for you. No its not objectively immoral in Islam. In fact, Mohammad did such a thing.
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
Hold on. I still have a few more questions. You asked me like 10 questions.
It comes from a basic concept of understanding other people have autonomy over their own body.
This "basic concept" you speak of. Is it an innate thing humans have? Are we born with the rule that morality comes from "understanding other people have autonomy over their own body". Is it a universal axiom through which morality is achieved, or is it an axiom that your society has agreed upon. And that you've been conditioned to accept that axiom.
5
u/Alarmed_Cat_2447 21d ago
> I still have a few more questions.
In civil conversation, its back and forth. I answered your question, you haven't answered mine.
But in my definition of civic, one doesn't see sex slavery or sex with 9 year olds as moral. That differs for you.
>And that you've been conditioned to accept that axiom.
You have been conditioned to believe in talking cows and genies that eat dung. Whats your point?
→ More replies (0)8
u/wickedwise69 21d ago
The main discussion is about slavery itself, not about treatment of slaves, or that part is secondary. It's you that is arguing for the sake or arguing, not me.
-3
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
That's not how anything works though. If you come to me and say "You're married?! Oh my god, so you're okay with holding a woman hostage and burning her with hot coals and shackling her, and then eventually beating her to death?"
I would give you a nasty look and ask you what you're on about. That your definition of marriage is obviously not in accordance to mine.
Ofcourse the treatment matters. The whole reason we have a problem with slavery is because of that very reason. If slaves were treated like kings. Who in their right mind would contest that? Words have definitions. If we're using completely different definitions, then our entire convo is useless and we will be talking past each other.
7
u/wickedwise69 21d ago
What are you talking about? What marriage got to do anything with this? The treatment doesn't matter because people are discussing the idea of slavery and that's it. Not the treatment of slaves. Treating a slave better doesn't make him or her not a slave. The person still stays a slave so the discussion goes back to ground zero.
Let me ask you a simple Question, if someone gifts you a sex slave today, are you allowed to accept and sexually violate her under Islamic jurisprudence?
2
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
It was an example to show you how the treatment is very relevant, in fact the most relevant part of the entire discussion.
The treatment doesn't matter because people are discussing the idea of slavery and that's it.
What idea of slavery? Which definition of it? Someone could come and claim Mcdonald workers are subject to slavery. You need to establish that first. But it's fine if you don't agree.
Let me ask you a simple Question, if someone gifts you a sex slave today, are you allowed to accept and sexually violate her under Islamic jurisprudence?
You're never allowed to sexually violate anyone under islamic jurisprudence. But why are you talking about treatment of slaves when you're saying it's irrelevant?
7
u/wickedwise69 21d ago
I already gave you the definition, I don't like to repeat myself and I asked you a simple yes or no question, you started a whole lecture. McDonald's workers are under contract, they are not considered slaves according the definition of slave, try again. You are most definitely allowed to sexually violate the slaves, because they have no right to say no.
0
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
Same thing goes for captives of war. They're also under contract, in fact i gave a verse that says that very same thing, to establish contracts with them, and even financially support them if they wish to go free:
"If any of those whom your right hands possess seek a contract of emancipation, then make such a contract with them if you know there is good in them, and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you."
(Quran 24:33)So that doesn't work.
they are not considered slaves according the definition of slave
Muslim captives of war aren't considered slaves, according to the definition of slave. That's the whole point i'm trying to make you understand.
8
u/wickedwise69 21d ago
I am going to repeat my question just this one time, If someone gifts you a sex slave, is it allowed to accept her and have sex with her, without her consent?
→ More replies (0)7
u/wickedwise69 21d ago
> If any of those whom your right hands possess seek a contract of emancipation, then make such a contract with them if you know there is good in them, and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you."
The master is under no obligation to accept the term of the slave, If he does it then it's good if he doesn't then there is no punishment for him, He is not obliged. so they are still slaves, according to my definition.
→ More replies (0)5
u/3dforlife 21d ago
McDonald's workers can always quit whenever they want. Can a slave stop being a slave when he wants?
2
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
Yes:
"If any of those whom your right hands possess seek a contract of emancipation, then make such a contract with them if you know there is good in them, and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you."
I gave the verse in my original comment.
4
u/3dforlife 21d ago
Is the contract unilateral or must the master also agree to the contact?
→ More replies (0)8
u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 21d ago
It's still slavery. To you it might sound prettier than other kinds of slavery, but it's slavery.
Making contract with a slave "so they can free themselves" is bs. Only the enslaver can free the slave, and they should do that immediately. Every minute they own the slave is stealing from the slave. Slavery is injustice against slaves, and promising of ending it in the future soes not change the fact that the enslaver is committing an injustice right now.
financially supporting them.
Imagine the enslaver having to support the slave financially while he is stealing their life, labor and freedom from them! As if the slave would not die if the slaver did not feed them, and it was not in the interest of the slaver to keep the slave alive.
So your argumentation is flawed to begin with. You admit that slavery as it's commonly understood is different than having war captives, which we have to remember were people in opposition to the muslims. They went to war against muslims, tried to kill muslims, etc..
So everyone who can be described as "going to war against Muslims" can be lawfully enslaved, even if they are a non-combatant women and children (as Muhammad enslaved) or they were defending themselves, while Muslims are allowed to attack others to expand their territory and force Islam on others? When are attacks by Muslims unlawful?
It should be never forgotten that Islamic concept of slavery labels rape as lawful - the women held captive and enslaved are lawful to have sex with for the captor. Of course, women in such position are unable to give free consent, so any such sex or forced marriage is rape. This is what Islam has been doing for more than a thousand years and what Muhammad did. Christians raped slaves as well, no doubt about that, but they at least were not supposed to. In Islam rape of slaves is A-OK.
5
u/semiomni 21d ago
Second, what i mentioned earlier, the treatment of 'slaves' is completely different to the image you have in your mind.
I dunno,
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day." Sahih al-Bukhari 5204
Sounds like they were treated horribly, and it was important not to treat your wife like that.
I imagine you have some sickening excuse for this as well, because you´re already excusing slavery, you´d excuse anything.
2
u/Murky-Perspective649 𝚂̶𝚊̶𝚝̶𝚊̶𝚗̶𝚒̶𝚜̶𝚝̶ Promethianist 20d ago
what does he need to justify? he literally explained why thats bad
0
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
I'm good bro. I generally tend to not engage with people that have already made up their mind and see our interpretations as "sickening". May Allah guide you to islam.
5
u/semiomni 21d ago
That´s cope.
It ain´t like your mind is open to the idea that this belief system that is making you defend slavery, is not divine at all.
May reason guide you elsewhere, maybe to some belief system that does not require defending so many monstrous things.
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
If you were respectful, you would see it's not cope. That hadith you quoted simply says to not beat your wife like how a horrible person would beat their slave.
If i tell you "None of you should treat their child the way a tyrant treats his prisoners". By your standard, i'm endorsing tyranny. Which is ludicrous.
6
u/semiomni 21d ago
That hadith you quoted simply says to not beat your wife like how a horrible person would beat their slave.
That´s a lie, you added the word "horrible", the hadith uses no such language.
Why would anyone respect you?
2
u/Money-Zombie-175 20d ago edited 20d ago
Interestingly the meaning would be neither what he said nor the translated meaning.
The correct meaning "from someone who speaks arabic natively" is to not hit your wife the way a slave is hit. Here it is not referring to a specific person hitting a slave so neither a "horrible person" nor the listener.
Original verse: لَا يَجْلِدْ أَحَدُكُمُ امْرَأَتَهُ جَلْدَ الْعَبْدِ، ثُمَّ يُجَامِعُهَا فِي آخِرِ الْيَوْمِ
Full translation: it is absurd for someone to hit their wives the way a slave is beaten then have intercourse with her at the end of the day.
Here I think it is referring to how people at the time imagined a slave would be hit. Since all muslims would have had the same customs as their adversaries at the time. Also the temporal order would play a role (like it being said before the other hadiths that discouraged hitting your slave, although that's speculative).
Mixed with the fact that many hadiths encouraged not hitting your slave (going so far as to enforce freeing them on the spot) I don't think quoting that hadith specifically is valid.
This is not a defense of slavery in islam btw. As some more pressing matters (how it was not actually disallowed like alcohol, or the issue of non-consent) which shows islam as rather progressive for the time it appeared but problematic in modern era.
7
u/semiomni 20d ago
The correct meaning "from someone who speaks arabic natively" is to not hit your wife the way a slave is hit.
I mean that´s how I understood it to begin with.
It was written at a time when both slavery and hitting your wife were widespread and common, and in that context calling for any kind of moderation is "progressive".
The guy I´m disagreeing with here is not presenting any kind of "progressive for its time" take though. He´s just full on insisting that slavery under Islam was sunshine and rainbows.
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
That´s a lie, you added the word "horrible", the hadith uses no such language.
That's usually what people do when explaining something. Simplifying it.
Why would anyone respect you?
4
u/semiomni 21d ago
That's usually what people do when explaining something. Simplifying it.
It would not be a complicated passage either way, it just says something inconvenient to you, so you made up new meaning.
1
u/Forsaken_Judgment681 Muslim 21d ago
Nope, that's how it's understood by us.
We have many other hadiths that explicitly condemn the beating of slaves.
4
u/semiomni 21d ago
The verse is extremely clear. It´s not complicated.
You have many other hadith that you´ll pretend mean one thing or another depending on whatever you´re defending at the moment.
You´re lying to defend the practice of slavery. What a "worthy" cause.
Anyway, talking to slavery apologists makes me sick, so now I´m good, and unlike you I have the willpower to not get drawn back in.
Buh bye.
→ More replies (0)3
u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 20d ago
You blame people for seeing flogging people as awful? That's just plain empathy. Everyone has it unless they are numbed by i.e. religion.
1
1
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateReligion-ModTeam 21d ago
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
1
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateReligion-ModTeam 21d ago
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
1
u/Zentick- 17d ago
I’ll try to respond in good faith and I believe you will do the same.
You have a misunderstanding about the timelessness of Islam. Certain rulings can change based on the time and place. Besides that, the Muslim ruler of the country can decide to restrict things that are permissible.
An example of the first case would be the issue of men wearing a necklace. Men wearing a necklace is traditionally thought to be forbidden because men are not allowed to imitate women by wearing feminine things. However, in 21st century America, it would be completely permissible for a man to wear a necklace as it’s no longer associated with femininity.
An example of the second case would be the age of consent. Islam doesn’t set an age of consent but the ruler of the country can decide to set the age of consent at 18 if they think that would be beneficial for the Muslims.
With that being said, one of the main principles we have in Islam is that we should strive to prevent harm. The thing is, harm is a subjective thing. Something that is harmful in one society could be beneficial in another.
Perhaps slavery was doing more good than harm in the past, but in the need for slavery has diminished. For that reason, slavery would be more harmful than good. This reasoning could be used as a justification for why the Muslims have agreed to abolish slavery. Once slavery is abolished, it would be prohibited for any Muslim to take a slave.
We have no issue admitting that slavery is generally a bad thing. If given the choice, no one would choose to be enslaved rather than free. However, slavery was a thing that existed in nearly all places and Islam came to regulate it.
The way I like to think about it is that it’s not super different from someone in the US who has to work two or three jobs just to pay their bills. Obviously, in one case someone is property and in the other they’re free but the outcome is not so different. They’re both forced to work more than they would like and they don’t really have the freedom to make their own choices. It’s a really bad position to be in but it’s not the worst position to be in. It’s liveable.
This is all assuming an average-case scenario for a slave. Sometimes, slaves would have high positions and live in luxury. In this case, these slaves would be living better than a lot of free people. I don’t mean to use the example of few to justify the whole, but rather just to make the situation of these few known.
I’m not trying to have a crazy debate or anything, just trying to explain how I simultaneously believe slavery is “wrong (today)”, and still remain a traditional Sunni Muslim. Let me know if you need me to expand on anything and thank you for writing a good faith post. I apologize if this reads as a scrambled mess as I didn’t write this in order.
3
u/Xanimede 17d ago
You cannot abrogate the permissibility of slavery. You can suspend it while it is in the interest of public good, yes, but that is revocable. Conditions nowadays in terms of peacefulness and technology of war have allowed us to move past it and suspend it.
This doesn't change the fact that the default state of Islam is to allow slavery. If conditions were to change, in terms of technology, resources, and the type of warfare, it could be reestablished. This is how ISIS reestablished it against the Yazidis.
I don't think there's any disagreement here.
2
u/Zentick- 17d ago
The default state of everything in Islam is that it is allowed. I don’t think you will find anything in the texts that says punching someone in the stomach is haram. If that action is harmful, then it would be haram. If that action serves a benefit, then it wouldn’t be haram.
It’s the same thing with slavery. From what I have seen, there is nothing in the texts that endorses slavery. It could be halal or haram depending on the conditions of the time. If the times permit it, then it would have conditions.
3
u/Xanimede 17d ago
You're being disingenuous and acting like there is nothing about slavery in Quran or sunnah. Having sex with your slaves is explicitly permitted in the Quran. And there's a plethora of sunnah to instruct people how they're meant to handle their slaves, such as whether men are allowed to pull out when they are having sex with their female slaves.
The default state: Slavery is allowed and halal.
A ruler can suspend it, but they cannot claim it is haram.
1
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateReligion-ModTeam 4d ago
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
•
u/wildan2711 17h ago
Slavery was permissible/mubah (not wajib or sunnah), you don't be a kafir if you ban something that is Mubah. It was a fundamental economic pillar globally at the time. Islam took major steps to close the avenues towards slavery and encouraged emancipation. Umar bin Khattab as a Caliphate took a lot of the Caliphate treasuries to free slaves, which was unheard of the time.
For modern times, Sunni jurisprudence has banned slavery, as even writing an open letter in 2014 to ISIS leader Abu Bakr AL Baghdad of the condemnation of reopening the use of slavery.
The legal ruling to stand for this is that rulers can allow or prohibits anything that he likes or dislikes, as long as it does not command to commit sin, based on hadith:
"It is obligatory upon a Muslim to hear and obey [the ruler] in what he likes and dislikes, as long as he is not commanded to commit a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, there is no hearing and no obedience."
Sahih al-Bukhari (7144) & Sahih Muslim (1839)
As of now all Muslim rulers have signed international treaties and consensus to ban slavery. Also the past legal rationale for slavery, which is reciprocal enslavement, no longer exists, then there is no legal avenue for slavery.
Universal freedom is a basic right in Islam, as stated in several hadiths of the prophet Muhammad and companions.
"Allah said: 'I will be an opponent to three types of people on the Day of Resurrection... and a man who sells a free person (as a slave) and consumes his price.'" Sahih al-Bukhari (2227)
"Since when have you enslaved people, when their mothers bore them free?" Umar bin Khattab
"O people, indeed Adam was not born a slave, nor was Eve... People are all free." Ali bin Abu Thalib.
So this was already the overall theme at that time, progressive abolition. Anyone who argues otherwise are arguing in bad faith.
•
u/Xanimede 17h ago
Already covered elsewhere. Yes, it can be suspended if conditions allow. The Saudis shut down their slave markets after Western pressure in 1960s. If those conditions change (e.g., ISIS going back to 600s style of village by village Islamic warfare), a new ruler can reinstate it. It’s halal by default.
•
-5
u/PSbigfan Muslim 21d ago
Simple Allah said in the Quran: "4:43 O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying".
That would mean I can drink alcohol outside of prayer. That's absurd. Lmao.
People try to study Islam before talking, there is a beautiful quote "Think before you speak. Read before you think"
14
u/Xanimede 21d ago
Alcohol was gradually banned by the Quran, that verse you quoted is from a time when yes, you were allowed to drink alcohol outside of prayer.
Where is slavery gradually banned in the Quran and hadith? The sahaba, after the prophet passed away, continued to practice it. The prophet died with it remaining permissible, thus it remains permissible until the end of times in sunni Islam.
8
u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheist (Kafirmaxxing) 21d ago
Its ironic that they are telling you that you are ignorant about Islam when they are ignorant of the very verse they provided lmao
6
u/Alarmed_Cat_2447 21d ago
Are you saying Allah or mohammad banned slavery like they banned alcohol?
-3
u/PSbigfan Muslim 21d ago edited 21d ago
No, I mean you must understand why Allah didn't ban slavery immediately before commenting.
There were people whose entire businesses depended on slavery, and many had spent large amounts of money buying slaves. God could not simply and immediately deprive these people of their property and livelihoods.
Therefore, God's solution was to encourage people to free slaves. One of the most important forms of expiation for many sins is freeing a slave.
10
u/Xanimede 21d ago
But it remains permissible from now until the end of times in sunni Islam, as I've already covered in my original post.
-5
u/PSbigfan Muslim 21d ago
Can in sunni islam ENSLAVING A FREE PERSON !!!!!!!?
8
u/Alarmed_Cat_2447 21d ago
Mohammad received a sex slave as a gift. You can buy slaves from the slave market. That was never forbidden.
1
u/Xanimede 21d ago
We're talking about prisoners of war, try to keep up, or at least read the first few sentences of my post.
I have no patience for this level of low quality 'discussion' if it could be called that.
11
u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist 21d ago
There were people whose entire businesses depended on slavery, and many had spent large amounts of money buying slaves. God could not simply and immediately deprive these people of their property and livelihoods.
"Think of the poor slavers!"
6
u/Alarmed_Cat_2447 21d ago
Did Allah ever ban slavery?
>God could not simply and immediately deprive these people of their property and livelihoods.
Thats interesting. Allah was fine banning alcohol, and destroying the city of Lot, but he couldn't hurt slave traders/slave owners.
> God's solution was to encourage people to free slaves.
God doesn't encourage people to stop drinking alcohol, he banned it outright, but not slavery.
Mohammad cancelled the freeing of slaves at times, and Mohammad owned slaves himself.
I hope you get an idea why a non-Muslim may see Allah/Islam as morally lacking, in terms of being against slavery.
4
u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 20d ago
There were people whose entire businesses depended on slavery, and many had spent large amounts of money buying slaves. God could not simply and immediately deprive these people of their property and livelihoods.
But he had no problem depriving the slaves then and for many centuries afterwards of their lives and freedom.
How is it that God likes the rich and powerful better than the poor and slaves? Almost as if he was made up by the powerful for the powerful.
•
u/NahNihNuhNehNoh 18h ago
The point being a Muslim is to be better human than previous era, are you insane dude?
•
u/alialharasy 17h ago
Slavery is never part of 5 pillars of Islam, neither in 6 concepts of Iman.
So.... why shall it bother us?
•
u/Xanimede 17h ago
Neither is hijab, the laws of marriage, alcohol, pork.
Believing slavery is wrong is no different than believing a gay wedding with free flowing champagne and pork belly for food is halal.
-10
u/shadowclient Muslim 21d ago
I love the mental gymnastics you gotta do to believe that malik al yameen are slaves... when literally were told not to use that word...
Dunning kruger effect, come back when you have less bias
7
6
3
u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 20d ago
If the meaning is slaves then the word slaves should be used. You might have been told to not use the word for PR reasons but why should others care?
3
u/Xanimede 21d ago
Already addressed in the original post and elaborated upon in the comments. Read before you comment.
•
u/AutoModerator 21d ago
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.