Hello, below is the cut and paste of the article at the link:

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00000711.aspx>

Just in case anyone may have had any trouble clicking on the link.


Slavery: How is it that Islam, a religion inspired by God for the good
of humanity, allows slavery?
Answered by Fethullah Gulen

How is it that Islam, a religion inspired by God for the good of
humanity, allows slavery?

adview

There are historical, social and psychological dimensions to this
question, which we must work through patiently, if we are to arrive at
a satisfactory
answer.

First of all, it is useful to recall why the institution of slavery is
thought of or remembered with such revulsion. Images of the brutal
treatment of slaves,
especially in ancient Rome and Egypt, provokes sorrow and deep
disgust. That is why even after so many centuries, our conception of
slaves is of men and
women carrying stones to the pyramids and being used up in the
building process like mortar, or fighting wild animals in public
arenas for the amusement
of their owners. We picture slaves wearing shameful yokes and chains
around their necks.

Nearer modern times there is the practice of slavery on an enormous
scale by the Western European nations; the barbarity and bestiality of
this trade beggars
all description. The trade was principally in Africans who were
transported across the oceans, packed in specially designed ships,
thought of and treated
exactly like livestock. These slaves were forced to change their names
and abandon their religion and their language, were never entitled to
hope for freedom,
and were kept, again like livestock, for hard labouring or for
breeding purposes-a birth among them was celebrated as if it were a
death. It is difficult
to understand how human beings could conceive of fellow human beings
in such a light, still less treat them thus. But it certainly
happened: there is much
documentary evidence that shows, for example, how ship-masters would
throw their human cargo overboard in order to claim compensation for
their loss. Slaves
had no rights in law, only obligations; their owners had absolute
rights over them to dispose of them as they wished-brothers and
sisters, parents and
children, would be separated or allowed to stay together according to
the owner's mood or his economic convenience.

After centuries of this dreadful practice had made the West European
nations rich from exploitation of such commodities as sugar, cotton,
coffee, they abolished
slavery-they abolished it, with much self-congratulation, first as a
trade, then altogether. Yet the Muslim regions had also known
considerable prosperity
through the exploitation of sugar, cotton, coffee (these words in
European languages are of Arabic origin), and achieved that prosperity
without the use
of slave labour. More important, let us also note, when the Europeans
abolished slavery, it was the slave-owners who were compensated, not
the slaves-in
other words, the attitude to fellow human beings which allowed such
treatment of them had not changed. It was not many years after the
abolition of slavery
that Africa was directly colonized by the Europeans with consequences
for the Africans no less terrible than slavery itself. Further,
because the attitude
to non-Europeans has changed little, if at all, in modern times, their
social and political condition remains, even where they live amid the
Europeans
and their descendants as fellow-citizens, that of despised inferiors.
It is barely a couple of decades since the anthropological museums in
the great capitals
of the Western countries ceased to display, for public entertainment,
the bones and stuffed bodies of their fellow human beings. And such
displays were
not organized by the worst among them, but by the best-the scientists,
doctors, learned men, humanitarians.

In short, it is not only the institution of slavery that causes
revulsion in the human heart, it is the attitudes of inhumanity which
sustain it. And the
truth is, if the institution no longer formally exists but the
attitudes persist, then humanity has not gained much, if at all. That
is why colonial exploitation
replaced slavery, and why the chains of unbearable, unrepayable
international debt have replaced colonial exploitation: only slavery
has gone, its structures
of inhumanity and barbarism are still securely in place. Before we
turn to the Islamic perspective on slavery, let us recall a name
famous even among Western
Europeans, that of Harun al-Rashid, and let us recall that this man
who enjoyed such authority and power over all Muslims was the son of a
slave. Nor is
he the only such example; slaves and their children enjoyed enormous
prestige, authority, respect and (shall we say it) freedom, within the
Islamic system,
in all areas of life, cultural as well as political. How could this
have come about?

Islam amended and educated the institution of slavery and the
attitudes of masters to slaves. The Qur'an taught in many verses that
all human beings are
descended from a single ancestor, that none has an intrinsic right of
superiority over another, whatever his race or his nation or his
social standing.
And from the Prophet's teaching, upon him be peace, the Muslims learnt
these principles, which they applied both as laws and as social norms:

Whosoever kills his slave: he shall be killed. Whosoever imprisons his
slave and starves him, he shall be imprisoned and starved himself, and
whosoever
castrates his slave shall himself be castrated. (Abu Dawud, Diyat, 70;
Tirmidhi, Diyat, 17; Al-Nasa'i, Qasama, 10, 16)

You are sons of Adam and Adam was created from clay. (Tirmidhi,
Tafsir, 49; Manaqib, 73; Abu Dawud, Adab, 111)

You should know that no Arab is superior over a non-Arab and, no
non-Arab is superior over any Arab, no white is superior over black
and no black is superior
over white. Superiority is by righteousness and God-fearing [alone].
(Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 411)

Because of this compassionate attitude, those who had lived their
whole lives as slaves and who are described in ahadith as poor and
lowly received respect
from those who enjoyed high social status (Muslim, Birr, 138; Jannat,
48; Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 54, 65). 'Umar was expressing his respect in
this sense when
he said: 'Master Bilal whom Master Abu Bakr set free' (Bukhari,
Fada'il al-Sahaba, 23). Islam (unlike other civilizations) requires
that slaves are thought
of and treated as within the framework of universal human brotherhood,
and not as outside it. The Prophet, upon him be peace, said:

Your servants and your slaves are your brothers. Anyone who has slaves
should give them from what he eats and wears. He should not charge
them with work
beyond their capabilities. If you must set them to hard work, in any
case I advise you to help them. (Bukhari, Iman, 22; Adab, 44; Muslim,
Iman, 38–40;
Abu Dawud, Adab, 124)

Not one of you should [when introducing someone] say 'This is my
slave', 'This is my concubine'. He should call them 'my daughter' or
'my son' or 'my brother'.
(Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 2, 4)

For this reason 'Umar and his servant took it in turns to ride on the
camel from Madina to Jerusalem on their journey to take control of
Masjid al-Aqsa.
While he was the head of the state, 'Uthman had his servant pull his
own ears in front of the people since he had pulled his. Abu Dharr,
applying the hadith
literally, made his servant wear one half of his suit while he himself
wore the other half. From these instances, it was being demonstrated
to succeeding
generations of Muslims, and a pattern of conduct established, that a
slave is fully a human being, not different from other people in his
need for respect
and dignity and justice.

This constructive and positive treatment necessarily had a consequence
on the attitudes of slaves to their masters. The slave as slave still
retained his
humanity and moral dignity and a place beside other members of his
master's family. When (we shall explain how below) he obtained his
freedom, he did not
necessarily want to leave his former master. Starting with Zaid bin
Harith, this practice became quite common. Although our Prophet, upon
him be peace,
had given Zayd his freedom and left him a free choice, Zayd preferred
to stay with him. Masters and slaves were able to regard each other as
brothers because
their faith enabled them to understand that the worldly differences
between people are a transient situation-a situation justifying
neither haughtiness
on the part of some, nor rancour on the part of others. There were, in
addition, strict principles enforced as law:

Whosoever kills his slave, he shall be killed, whosoever imprisons his
slave and starves him, he shall be imprisoned and starved himself.
(Tirmidhi, al-Ayman
wa l-Nudhur, 13)

Beside such sanctions which made the master behave with care, the
slave also enjoyed the legal right to earn money and hold property
independently of his
master, the right to keep his religion and to have a family and family
life with the attendant rights and obligations. As well as personal
dignity and
a degree of material security, the Islamic laws and norms allowed the
slave a still more precious opening-the hope and means of freedom.

Human freedom is by God, that is, it is the natural and proper
condition which must be regarded as the norm. Thus, to restore a human
life, wholly or partly,
to this condition is one of the highest virtues. To set free half of a
slave's body has been considered equal to saving half of one's own
from wrath in
the next world. In the same way to set free a slave's whole body is
considered equal to assurance of one's whole body. Seeking freedom for
enslaved people
is one of the causes for which the banner of war may be raised in
Islam. Muslims were encouraged by their faith to enter into agreements
and contracts
which enabled slaves to earn or be granted their freedom at the expiry
of a certain term or, most typically, on the death of the owner.
Unconditional emancipation
was, naturally, regarded as the most meritorious kind, and worthiest
of recognition in the life hereafter. There were occasions when whole
groups of people,
acting together, would buy and set free large numbers of slaves in
order to obtain thereby the favour of God.

Emancipation of a slave was also the legally required expiation for
certain sins or failures in religious duties, for example, the
breaking of an oath or
the breaking of a fast: a good deed to balance or wipe out a lapse.
The Qur'an commands that he who has killed a believer by mistake must
set free a believing
slave and pay the blood-money to the family of the slain (al-Nisa',
4.92). A killing has repercussions for both society and the victim's
family. The blood-money
is a partial compensation to the family of the victim. Similarly, the
emancipation of a slave is a bill paid to the community-from the point
of view of
gaining a free person for that community. To set free a living person
in return for a death was considered like bringing someone back to
life. Both personal
and public wealth were expended to obtain the freedom of slaves: the
examples of the Prophet, upon him be peace, and of Abu Bakr are well
known; later,
especially during the rule of 'Umar bin 'Abd al-'Aziz, public zakat
funds were used for this purpose.

Alas, there are, even among Muslims themselves, people who feel the
need to somehow 'disprove' the worth of Islam, especially on
socio-political issues.
In reality they feel this need because they have been more or less
seduced by Western values, even though these values are only formal,
theoretical utterances
of law and principle and not, not by any means, lived realities. Such
people do not go among the wretched and poor of the so-called 'third
world' and ask
them about the merits of Western values as they are practised. Rather,
they listen to an account such as we have given of the practised
reality of Islamic
values and claim, on purely theoretical grounds, that Islam is lacking
in the best principles. This is what they say:

'It is true that Islam has commended humanity in the treatment of
slaves, and encouraged most forcefully their emancipation. We can see
from the history
of many different peoples in the Islamic world that slaves quickly
integrated into the main society and achieved positions of great
prestige and power,
some even before they gained their freedom. And yet, if Islam regards
slavery as a social evil, why did the Qur'an or the Prophet not ban it
outright?
There are, after all, other social evils which pre-existed Islam, and
which Islam sought to abolish altogether-for example, the consumption
of alcohol,
or gambling, or usury, or prostitution. Why does Islam, by not
abolishing slavery, appear to condone it?'

Until the evil of the European trade in black slaves, slavery was
largely a by-product of wars between nations, the conquered peoples
becoming the slaves
of their conquerors. In the formative years of Islam, no reliable
system existed of exchanging prisoners of war. The available means of
dealing with them
were either (i) to put them all to the sword; or (ii) to hold them and
attend to their care in prison; or (iii) to allow them to return to
their own people;
or (iv) to distribute them among the Muslims as part of the spoils of war.

The first option must be ruled out on the grounds of its barbarity.
The second is practicable only for small numbers for a limited period
of time if resources
permit-and it was, of course, practised-prisoners being held in this
way against ransom, many so content with their treatment that they
became Muslims
and changed sides in the fighting. The third option is imprudent in
time of war. This leaves, as a rule for general practice, only the
fourth option, whence
followed the humane laws and norms instituted by Islam for what is, in
effect, the rehabilitation of prisoners of war.

The slave in every Muslim house had the opportunity to see at close
quarters the truth of Islam in practice. His heart would be won over
by kind treatment
and the humanity of Islam in general, especially by the access the
slave had to many of the legal rights enjoyed by Muslims, and,
ultimately, by getting
his freedom. In this way, many thousands of the very best people have
swelled the numbers of the great and famous in Islam, whose own
example has then
become a sunna, a norm, for the Muslims who succeeded them-imams such
as Nafi', Imam Malik's sheikh, and Tawus bin Qaisan, to name only two.

The reality is that in Islam it is overwhelmingly the case that being
a slave was a temporary condition. Unlike Western civilisation, whose
values are so
much in fashion, slavery was not passed down, generation after
generation in a deepening spiral of degradation and despair, with no
hope for the slaves
to escape their condition or their status. On the contrary, regarded
as fundamentally equal, the slaves in Muslim society could and did
live in secure
possession of their dignity as creatures of the same Creator, and had
steady access to the mainstream of Islamic culture and civilisation-to
which, as
we have noted, they contributed greatly. In the Western societies
where slavery was widespread, particularly in North and South America,
the children of
the slaves, generations after their formal emancipation, remain for
the most part on the fringes of society, as a sub-culture or
anti-culture-which is
only sometimes tolerated, and mostly despised, by the still dominant community.

But why, our critics will ask, when the Muslims were secure in their
conquests did they not grant emancipation wholesale to former captives
or slaves? The
answer has, again, to do with realities not theories. Those former
captives or slaves would not have either the personal, psychological
resources or the
economic resources needed to establish a secure, dignified
independence. Those who doubt this would do well to examine the
consequences upon the slaves
in the former European or American colonies of their sudden
emancipation-many were abruptly reduced to destitution, rendered
homeless and resourceless
by owners who (themselves compensated for their loss of property) no
longer accepted any kind of responsibility for their former slaves. We
have already
noted the failure of these ex-slaves to enter upon or make a mark in
the wider society from which they had been so long excluded by law.

By contrast, every good Muslim who embraced his slave as a brother,
encouraged him to work for his freedom, observed all his rights,
helped him to support
a family, to find a place in the society before emancipating him,
might well be pleased with an institution that opened to him a means
of pleasing God.
The example that comes first to mind: Zayd bin Harith who was brought
up in the Prophet's own household and set free, who married a
noblewoman, who was
appointed as the commander of a Muslim army which included many of
noble birth. But one might swell the list of examples to many
thousands if one had the
space.

Ah yes, our critics will say, it may be so, but now there are
exchanges of prisoners if there are wars, now the institution of
slavery does not exist, so
are not the Islamic injunctions, however good, an irrelevance? No,
indeed. There is nothing in Islam whose origin is in the commands and
guidance of the
Qur'an which can ever become irrelevant. Rather, we would say to these
critics: open your eyes, study by what subtle means wars are now
conducted, by what
cunning devices whole nations are now conquered; how they are reduced
to a state of absolute slavery (which is yet not called slavery) and
made to devote
their whole energies, indeed to dedicate the lives of their children
for generations to come, to sustain their masters (who are yet not
called masters)
in a lifestyle of unbelievable affluence. We say, study how national
currencies are bought and sold, how impossible sums of money are lent
on terms of
extraordinary brutality, not in order to help the poor nations, but in
order to permanently entrap them in a state of dependence. To those
who say, now
there is no slavery, we say look into the faces of the earth's poor
peasants, striving to grow (in an increasingly barren soil)
commodities which are not
food for themselves but luxuries for the rich, and only if they have
grown enough of these, have they some hope of buying something to
eat-but there are
still millions of others too poor to be poor peasants, who live upon
mountains of urban rubbish, earn from it, eat from it. If you study
the expressions
of such people, locked in endless, fruitless toil, you will understand
that slavery is not an evil that Western civilisation has eradicated,
rather one
which Western civilization has ably disguised and distanced from itself.

Let no person, at least let no Muslim, claim that mankind has nothing
now to learn from Islamic values about how to deal with the problem of
slavery. On
the contrary, we have everything to learn. How urgent, then, is our
need to pray for guidance of God lest we persist in error, for His
forbearance lest
we persist in arrogance, for His help in finding a sure way to end the
domination of those who do not know compassion except as a
fine-sounding word.

(c) Author, 2002-2004. Except for fair usage, no part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by
any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the Copyright owner. Fair
usage is defined as
sharing printed or electronic copy with others through email or
keeping for own record. For information, contact
[log in to unmask]
"
ADVERTISEMENT
adview

This site has been optimised for Internet Explorer 5+, Netscape 7+ and
a resolution of 1024x768
SunniPath.com |
Question and Answer |
Contact Us |
Advertise

(c) Copyright 2003-2004, SunniPath, LLC. All Rights Reserved.


On 7/31/05, Ginny Quick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ginny Quick saw this page on SunniPath and thought you should see it.
> 
> *** Message ***
> 
> 
> 
> *** Slavery: How is it that Islam, a religion inspired by God for the
> good of humanity, allows slavery? ***
> 
> <http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00000711.aspx>
> 
> ** Disclaimer **
> 
> SunniPath is not responsible for the content of thise-mail, and anything
> said in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect SunniPath's views.
> 
> If you don't wish to receive such mails in the future, please e-mail
> [log in to unmask] making sure you include the following text: I do not
> want to receive 'E-mail a friend' mailings.
> 
> いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface
> at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
> 
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
> 


-- 
Visit my blog at: http://GinnysThoughts.blogspot.com/
0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�翳�殪够�&撖藳笔鈔杌�鈡?诃萣诫��/棰薭���
�犊韱苆f鈝罂Y缈妠^�鰷y�?�m���櫑ゲ阼��-巿g亏澔霁r痾相jf鈝�?嗁�N恳y�軗���豝黤�n';霁r瘂