https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XwGNcQpt1I


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zmOCX7beyo

The African slave trade was not created, or invented by Muslims.
In the first instance, the first slavers were Portuguese and Dutch. But then, in effect, traffic, and the hunting of slaves, was done almost exclusively by Muslims.
It is a historical fact.

Ptolomeus: The African slave trade was not created, or invented by Muslims.
In the first instance, the first slavers were Portuguese and Dutch. But then, in effect, traffic, and the hunting of slaves, was done almost exclusively by Muslims.
It is a historical fact.

Google it, and learn for yourself !!

Ptolomeus: The African slave trade was not created, or invented by Muslims.
In the first instance, the first slavers were Portuguese and Dutch. But then, in effect, traffic, and the hunting of slaves, was done almost exclusively by Muslims.
It is a historical fact.

The African slave trade started with Arabic muslims. The dutch/portugese/Europeans came after.

So all those slaves mentioned in the Old testament who enslaved them? Remember we are talking of thousands of years before Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

"frosbel",

it looks like your season of repetition has started again-where you repeat past topics to spite others with lies.

here are the two previous threads you created on this your allegation of attributing (the creation of) slavery to arabs and you lost:

https://www.nairaland.com/704349/islam-not-christianity-first-perpetrator

https://www.nairaland.com/808814/black-africa-arab-muslim-slave

you have being told the following points previously and i hope you'd not have me to elaborate on them again in this thread:

1.) christianity and the bible encourages slavery

2.) the church participated in slave trade

3.) with the coming of Islam into arabia,Islam systemically abolished slavery

4.) the bible speaks of and encourages slavery and slave trade before both the religion of Islam in arabia and before the existence of arabians themselves as a distinct ethnic group.

5.) we know how you feel to face the shame that your religion treats you as a slave and encourages slavery.it is therefore better for you to keep quiet and bury the issue than for you to disgrace yourself.

"Slavery Is Authorized And Blessed In The Bible By The Bible God Himself!":

https://www.nairaland.com/838001/slavery-authorized-blessed-bible-bible

LagosShia: "frosbel",

it looks like your season of repetition has started again-where you repeat past topics to spite others with lies.

here are the two previous threads you created on this your allegation of attributing (the creation of) slavery to arabs and you lost:

https://www.nairaland.com/704349/islam-not-christianity-first-perpetrator

https://www.nairaland.com/808814/black-africa-arab-muslim-slave

you have being told the following points previously and i hope you'd not have me to elaborate on them again in this thread:

1.) christianity and the bible encourages slavery

2.) the church participated in slave trade

3.) with the coming of Islam into arabia,Islam systemically abolished slavery

4.) the bible speaks of and encourages slavery and slave trade before both the religion of Islam in arabia and before the existence of arabians themselves as a distinct ethnic group.

5.) we know how you feel to face the shame that your religion treats you as a slave and encourages slavery.it is therefore better for you to keep quiet and bury the issue than for you to disgrace yourself.

"Slavery Is Authorized And Blessed In The Bible By The Bible God Himself!":

https://www.nairaland.com/838001/slavery-authorized-blessed-bible-bible

1) Both the Koran and Bible regulate slavery

2) Islamic societies were the last to abolish slave trade

3) Slavery is still theoretically possible under Sharia law

Read before to talk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

logicboy:


1) Both the Koran and Bible regulate slavery

2) Islamic societies were the last to abolish slave trade

3) Slavery is still theoretically possible under Sharia law

Read before to talk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

1.) you are lying.using a word such as "regulate" is apparently trying to pass a message that is false.regulate could be to curb or eliminate or maintain in a way.so which are you attributing to Islam?

2.) Islamic societies can mean societies governed by the shariah or societies with majority muslims that may be following secular law or tribal traditions.a society following shariah law with learned islamic scholar does not maintain or promote slavery.however,societies with majority muslims could practice slavery just as you cited some muslims who drink alcohol even though the Quran orders us not to.

3.) talking about sharia is not an issue anyone can comment on.bring the opinion of a learned islamic jurist who is an expert on sharia law that is saying slavery is possible under sharia law theoretically or in whatever way.

the very BBC link you presented makes it clear that slavery predates in Islam in arabia and it is more of a traditional and tribal reasons that makes people adhere to slavery and not the islamic religion.it is also clear from the link that Islam did not encourage slavery but freeing slaves is seen as a virtuous acts.and even when people are enslaved in times of war (known also as prisoners of war),Islam orders kind treatment of human beings.all,that said what nonsense are you doing by giving me a BBC article about Islam? am i to take their opinion? base on what criteria am i to believed the BBC oon islamic matters? i see their article as contradictory all in a bid too cast doubt even when they know the truth.

LagosShia:

1.) you are lying.using a word such as "regulate" is apparently trying to pass a message that is false.regulate could be to curb or eliminate or maintain in a way.so which are you attributing to Islam?

2.) Islamic societies can mean societies governed by the shariah or societies with majority muslims that may be following secular law or tribal traditions.a society following shariah law with learned islamic scholar does not maintain or promote slavery.however,societies with majority muslims could practice slavery just as you cited some muslims who drink alcohol even though the Quran orders us not to.

3.) talking about sharia is not an issue anyone can comment on.bring the opinion of a learned islamic jurist who is an expert on sharia law that is saying slavery is possible under sharia law theoretically or in whatever way.

the very BBC link you presented makes it clear that slavery predates in Islam in arabia and it is more of a traditional and tribal reasons that makes people adhere to slavery and not the islamic religion.it is also clear from the link that Islam did not encourage slavery but freeing slaves is seen as a virtuous acts.and even when people are enslaved in times of war (known also as prisoners of war),Islam orders kind treatment of human beings.all,that said what nonsense are you doing by giving me a BBC article about Islam? am i to take their opinion? base on what criteria am i to believed the BBC oon islamic matters? i see their article as contradictory all in a bid too cast doubt even when they know the truth.

1) Regulate means regulate. The Quran talks about having sex with female slaves. It controls slavery

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Even sex with married slaves is permissible

Why is pork haraam but not slavery?



2)Denial. USA and Britain (infidel west, immoral west ) abolished slavery in 1834 and 1865- 19th century.

Your favourite countries

-Iran abolished slave trade in 1928 (20th century)
-Iraq abolished slave trade in 1934 (20th century)
-Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery in 1962 (20th century)
-Yemen abolishes slavery in 1962 (20th century)
-United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery in 1963 (20th century)
-Oman abolishes slavery in 1970 (20th century)
-Mauritania abolishes slavery in 1981 (20th century)

Islam loved slaver more than the immoral West. Are you not ashamed that the immoral West repented from slavery before your muslim countries? Are you now going to claim that all these countries do not practice sharia properly?


3) So the BBC is now lying? Remember that there are muslim scholars in Britain. Furthermore, please prove the BBC wrong. The BBC uses qualified people and research their work. Name one error there on that link.

logicboy:

1) Regulate means regulate. The Quran talks about having sex with female slaves. It controls slavery

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Even sex with married slaves is permissible

Why is pork haraam but not slavery?

regulate as i said could also mean to curb or make ways to abolish.

you see how dishonest you are? why dont you quote the entire verse 4:24?why only quote half and leave the remaining half? you also have to know that there is a difference between slaves and prisoners of war as in the time of the Prophet (sa).here is the complete verse 4:24:

"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

2)Denial. USA and Britain (infidel west, immoral west ) abolished slavery in 1834 and 1865- 19th century.

Your favourite countries

-Iran abolished slave trade in 1928 (20th century)
-Iraq abolished slave trade in 1934 (20th century)
-Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery in 1962 (20th century)
-Yemen abolishes slavery in 1962 (20th century)
-United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery in 1963 (20th century)
-Oman abolishes slavery in 1970 (20th century)
-Mauritania abolishes slavery in 1981 (20th century)

all those dates you have mentioned,at that point in time,it is either those countries newly got their independence or they were not having islamic governments.with the exception of iran in 1979,up to this day non of the other countries have islamic governments.

also,if slavery is a virtuos act islamically,then it would never have been abolished.polygamy is an option and permitted in islam and in islamic countries,polygamy to this day is allowed.when you speak of "abolition of slavery",it simply means that law was put into place to enforce a ban and punish anyone who deals with slaves.however,Islamic law and what the Quran says has always being there regardless if countries promote a ban or are tolerant of the practice.alcohol is forbidden even if countries around the world have not pass a law to ban it and punish those who sell it.as for slavery,let us dont talk much.instead let us see what the Quran has to say.in my next post i will do just that.

Islam loved slaver more than the immoral West. Are you not ashamed that the immoral West repented from slavery before your muslim countries? Are you now going to claim that all these countries do not practice sharia properly?

those countries also did not practice slavery or encourage it.simply because there isn't law drafted to punish perpetrators in a constitution does not mean that the crime or breach of law is acceptable.the Quran has the final say on how muslims should live their lives and we will see what the Quran has to say.the Quran has set a precedence 1300 years before your beloved west hypocritically and reluctantly abolished slavery in one form.

3) So the BBC is now lying? Remember that there are muslim scholars in Britain. Furthermore, please prove the BBC wrong. The BBC uses qualified people and research their work. Name one error there on that link.

there are things stated in the link of the BBC which i agree with.and there are points which i do not agree with.BBC is not a league of muslim scholars in britain.

isn't this the same BBC that was caught last week of using a fake picture of a massacre in iraq and displaying it as a picture from syria to spread propaganda?

i really do not have the time to go through the entire article in the link (which is long) and then refute the points i do not agree with.

for you to know a comprehensive perspective on slavery and what muslims believe including a comparative study with christianity's views and actions on slavery and also the secular west's actions,you instead should read this written by a Muslim scholar:

"Slavery :From Islamic and Christian Perspectives

by Sayyid Sa'eed Akhtar Rizvi

http://www.al-islam.org/slavery/

@logicboy

the Quran recognize the issue of slavery and provides ways and measures to curtail it.those measures are effective enough.we can examine the Quran and see for ourselves.one important thing you would notice is the fact that while the Quran provides effective measures to curtail and wipe out slavery,not in one case does the Quran unlike other books supports slavery or nurtures its growth.


"…ye…may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands posses….wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dower…"[4:25]

"…do ‘Ihsan’ (goodness) to parents …and (to) what your right hands posses."[4:36]

"Alms are for…those in Bondage, "[9:60]

"…But it is righteousness…to spend of your substance out of love for Him…for the ransom of slaves, "[2:177]

"And whoever kills a believer by mistake, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, "[4:92]

"He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation…give a slave his freedom, "[5:89]

"And if any of your slaves ask you for a deed in writing (for emancipation) give them such a deed; If ye knew any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you…"[24:33]

"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free [/b]as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates…"[47:4]
==============================================================================================
Thus the Quran has restricted the victor with [b]either freeing prisoners for ransom or as a favor. There is no third choice given by the Quran, and thereby it has not only abolished slavery but abolished the very source of this evil, i.e. prisoners of war.

The basic and fundamental teaching of the Quran is that subservience is due to Allah alone and not to any human or group of humans. Obedience and sovereignty is only and only for Allah, says the Quran at numerous places. Qur'anic Islam does not accept Slavery. Unlike the Bible which states:

"ye, shall take them (the slaves) as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them (the slaves) for a possession, they shall be, your BONDMEN (slaves) for ever . . . LEVITICUS 25:46

====================================================================================================
The Qur'an unambiguously states that no man no matter how high a status he may occupy, be that status of a direct recipient of Divine messages even (Nabuwah) ,no human being has the right to enslave any other human or group of humans, says the Qur’an:

"It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and 'Nabuwah' (prophethood), then he should say to men: Be my slaves rather than Allah's; but rather (he would say): Be sustenance providers (Rabaniyoon) because of your teaching the Book and your studying (it yourselves)."[3:79]

LagosShia:

regulate as i said could also mean to curb or make ways to abolish.

you see how dishonest you are? why dont you quote the entire verse 4:24?why only quote half and leave the remaining half? you also have to know that there is a difference between slaves and prisoners of war as in the time of the Prophet (sa).here is the complete verse 4:24:

"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

And how does full text change the fact that
1) the Koran instructs muslims to have sex/marriage with already married slaves?

2) the fate of non-muslim females slaves is not so good?

The question will always be- Why is something as trivial as pork haraam but slavery not haraam?


If slavery was good, what about the eunuchs? Castrating slaves was not haraam? Look, christianity was bad as well with slavery, I know.

LagosShia:
all those dates you have mentioned,at that point in time,it is either those countries newly got their independence or they were not having islamic governments.with the exception of iran in 1979,up to this day non of the other countries have islamic governments.

also,if slavery is a virtuos act islamically,then it would never have been abolished.polygamy is an option and permitted in islam and in islamic countries,polygamy to this day is allowed.when you speak of "abolition of slavery",it simply means that law was put into place to enforce a ban and punish anyone who deals with slaves.however,Islamic law and what the Quran says has always being there regardless if countries promote a ban or are tolerant of the practice.alcohol is forbidden even if countries around the world have not pass a law to ban it and punish those who sell it.as for slavery,let us dont talk much.instead let us see what the Quran has to say.in my next post i will do just that.

those countries also did not practice slavery or encourage it.simply because there isn't law drafted to punish perpetrators in a constitution does not mean that the crime or breach of law is acceptable.the Quran has the final say on how muslims should live their lives and we will see what the Quran has to say.the Quran has set a precedence 1300 years before your beloved west hypocritically and reluctantly abolished slavery in one form.

I wish I had your talent for intellectual dishonesty. You have remixed everything now. So, there was no slavery in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia before the ban?

LagosShia:
there are things stated in the link of the BBC which i agree with.and there are points which i do not agree with.BBC is not a league of muslim scholars in britain.

isn't this the same BBC that was caught last week of using a fake picture of a massacre in iraq and displaying it as a picture from syria to spread propaganda?

i really do not have the time to go through the entire article in the link (which is long) and then refute the points i do not agree with.

for you to know a comprehensive perspective on slavery and what muslims believe including a comparative study with christianity's views and actions on slavery and also the secular west's actions,you instead should read this written by a Muslim scholar:

"Slavery :From Islamic and Christian Perspectives

by Sayyid Sa'eed Akhtar Rizvi

http://www.al-islam.org/slavery/

Wow. Whatever. Forget the BBC. Answer this question that debunks your religion- Why was slavery not haraam? Why did many people have to suffer until the 20th century before Allah granted the freedom from slavery?

logicboy:

And how does full text change the fact that
1) the Koran instructs muslims to have sex/marriage with already married slaves?

you have to make things clear for people to understand what you are saying.

the people you are refering to as "slaves" in this context are prisoners of war.the muslims were in a state of war.when you fight war and you win,you take prisoners.most of the females there on the losing end,had their husbands killed.there is two options the Quran presented to deal with that situation:either free them or you ransom them.if they wish to embrace the religion and become part of you,then there is no guilt in marrying them.when you quoted half of the verse,you wanted to make it sound that muslim men were on the rampage having $ex with the female captives.

2) the fate of non-muslim females slaves is not so good?

that is your opinion and you are entitles to it.

The question will always be- Why is something as trivial as pork haraam but slavery not haraam?

in Islam,there is nothing as slavery or selling fellow human beings even if they be muslims.slavery occurs when there are prisoners of war.the Quran says you either free them or you ransom them.

however,when you talk of slavery removing the idea of prisoners of war,there is no where you can say slavery is not haram.bring me evidence where slavery is halal in the Quran.simple.

If slavery was good, what about the eunuchs? Castrating slaves was not haraam? Look, christianity was bad as well with slavery, I know.

whoever did that is on his own.islam has guidelines and they are clear enough.whoever strays,that is his business.

I wish I had your talent for intellectual dishonesty. You have remixed everything now. So, there was no slavery in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia before the ban?

you want to generalize.in those countries,there are also muslims who drink alcohol and islam does not allow it.the point is no one can say something does not exist somewhere.i am trying to make you see the difference between what islam teaches and what muslims do or do not.i am also trying to let you see the differences between a law being present and a law not being present.

Wow. Whatever. Forget the BBC. Answer this question that debunks your religion- Why was slavery not haraam? Why did many people have to suffer until the 20th century before Allah granted the freedom from slavery?

the Quran was not revealed in the 20th century.it was revealed 1300 years before europe abolished slavery.the Quran tells us that slaves in the meaning of those captured in war (prisoners of war) are either to be freed or ransomed.and if they embrace Islam,they become one of us.

LagosShia:

you have to make things clear for people to understand what you are saying.

the people you are refering to as "slaves" in this context are prisoners of war.the muslims were in a state of war.when you fight war and you win,you take prisoners.most of the females there on the losing end,had their husbands killed.there is two options the Quran presented to deal with that situation:either free them or you ransom them.if they wish to embrace the religion and become part of you,then there is no guilt in marrying them.when you quoted half of the verse,you wanted to make it sound that muslim men were on the rampage having $ex with the female captives.

-You talk as if slaves did not work or do hard labour or were not punished or treated unjustly by muslims
-There is a difference between a prisoner of war and a slave. Your religion decided not to vote against turning prisoners of war into slaves
-Muslim men were on the rampage having $ex with female captives, yes. The Quran clearly allowed concubinage with female slaves. Why are you denying the truth that many of your muslim websites even agree to?

LagosShia:
in Islam,there is nothing as slavery or selling fellow human beings even if they be muslims.slavery occurs when there are prisoners of war.the Quran says you either free them or you ransom them.

however,when you talk of slavery removing the idea of prisoners of war,there is no where you can say slavery is not haram.bring me evidence where slavery is halal in the Quran.simple.

What is the ransom for slaves then?

There is a difference between slaves and prisoners of war. My forefathers beheaded prisoners of war from other villages. Your religion chooses to keep POW's as slaves.

LagosShia:
whoever did that is on his own.islam has guidelines and they are clear enough.whoever strays,that is his business.

That means that your Islam was misunderstood by majority of muslims. Your muslims created a lot of black eunuchs. Some from West Africa. How do you think Islam came to Nigeria?

If the Koran accepts concubinage with slaves how is that not making slavery halal?

LagosShia:
you want to generalize.in those countries,there are also muslims who drink alcohol and islam does not allow it.the point is no one can say something does not exist somewhere.i am trying to make you see the difference between what islam teaches and what muslims do or do not.i am also trying to let you see the differences between a law being present and a law not being present.

You are only trying to defend your religion. Pitifully, I must add.

-We established that muslim countries in general were slower in abolishing slave trade compared to the infidel west.
-Slavery was practiced well in those countries. Please do not act like it was isolated

LagosShia:
the Quran was not revealed in the 20th century.it was revealed 1300 years before europe abolished slavery.the Quran tells us that slaves in the meaning of those captured in war (prisoners of war) are either to be freed or ransomed.and if they embrace Islam,they become one of us.

Slavery was finally abolished by law in the 20th century. Your Quran failed to do this. How can Allah's book not be able to abolish slave trade?

POW's of today are treated with humane conditions as required by the 3rd Geneva convention. Your Quran turns POW's into slaves.

@logicboy

i have posted verses from the Quran that deals with the topic of slavery and prisoners of war to be precise.you can go through those verses again if you like.the take of the Quran is clear.i am not interested to know or argue over what Muslims did right or wrong.i am interested to defend my faith and that i have done because the Quran's guidelines are pure and clear.you can be boasting that your ancestors like those jews in the bible would behead or kill everyone including women and children.Islam does not do that.they are taken as prisoners with the hope of reforming them into better human beings or freeing them and showing mercy or ransoming them.

LagosShia: @logicboy

i have posted verses from the Quran that deals with the topic of slavery and prisoners of war to be precise.you can go through those verses again if you like.the take of the Quran is clear.i am not interested to know or argue over what Muslims did right or wrong.i am interested to defend my faith and that i have done because the Quran's guidelines are pure and clear.you can be boasting that your ancestors like those jews in the bible would behead or kill everyone including women and children.Islam does not do that.they are taken as prisoners with the hope of reforming them into better human beings or freeing them and showing mercy or ransoming them.

Lies again!!!!

@ the bolded part; Muhammad himself lead conquests and beheaded other people killing is killng man or woman. Did Muhammad not go to war? Your lies are catching up to you.



You claim that the Quran's guidelines are pure and clear and it clearly regulated slavery and agreed to concubinage of slave girls. The 3rd Geneva convention (from the infidel west) has better guidelines than your Quran as it forbids the enslavement of POW's.


Please, correct me where I am wrong.

logicboy:


Lies again!!!!

@ the bolded part; Muhammad himself lead conquests and beheaded other people killing is killng man or woman. Did Muhammad not go to war? Your lies are catching up to you.

killing is killing.no doubt.but in Islam during war only combatants are to be killed.when you raise a sword to kill you should be prepared to die.you dont go about killing harmless people with no arms.

You claim that the Quran's guidelines are pure and clear and it clearly regulated slavery and agreed to concubinage of slave girls. The 3rd Geneva convention (from the infidel west) has better guidelines than your Quran as it forbids the enslavement of POW's.


Please, correct me where I am wrong.

please show me a verse from the Quran stating that "concubinage with slave girls" is allowed.i want you to point out the word "concubine" in the Quran and what is its equivalent in arabic.

as i know of the Quran,the below (4:24) is what i read:

"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful intimate intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

LagosShia:

killing is killing.no doubt.but in Islam during war only combatants are to be killed.when you raise a sword to kill you should be prepared to die.you dont go about killing harmless people with no arms.



please show me a verse from the Quran stating that "concubinage with slave girls" is allowed.i want you to point out the word "concubine" in the Quran and what is its equivalent in arabic.

as i know of the Quran,the below (4:24) is what i read:

"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful intimate intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

Just because "concubine" is not written doesnt mean that the slave girls were not used as concubines. Many of your islamic websites say this. There is no argument since you want to lie about this.


This is my problem. You are good person and a good muslim. The only problem is that you believe that your Koran is perfect which is not true.

Slavery will always be a stain on islam.

Facts;

-Slavery is addressed in the Koran
-Sex and Marriage with slaves is disucssed
-Prohibition or the haraam of slavery is not discussed.

logicboy:


Just because "concubine" is not written doesnt mean that the slave girls were not used as concubines. Many of your islamic websites say this. There is no argument since you want to lie about this.


This is my problem. You are good person and a good muslim. The only problem is that you believe that your Koran is perfect which is not true.

Slavery will always be a stain on islam.

Facts;

-Slavery is addressed in the Koran
-Sex and Marriage with slaves is disucssed
-Prohibition or the haraam of slavery is not discussed.

you have failed another time.you are now debating based on speculation.

you said the Quran agreed to the conbinage of slave girls.i have asked you to provide a verse and you have failed to do so.

i also asked for a verse where slavery is halal and you failed.

i provided verses from the Quran where prisoners of war referred to as slaves should either be released or ransomed.and if they become one of us,we embrace them.we can also marry them if they wish so.

LagosShia:

you have failed another time.you are now debating based on speculation.

you said the Quran agreed to the conbinage of slave girls.i have asked you to provide a verse and you have failed to do so.

i also asked for a verse where slavery is halal and you failed.

i provided verses from the Quran where prisoners of war referred to as slaves should either be released or ransomed.and if they become one of us,we embrace them.we can also marry them if they wish so.

Even without providing a verse. What happens to the "POW's" that were non-muslim and not married and not ransomed? Hmmm? See how lies will always make you forget simple facts?


These verse clearly allows concubinage with


(4:24)

"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful intimate intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

Clearly, the first part of the allows sex with the female slaves. The part of unlawful intimate intercourse is debatable. If concubinage is allowed then s.ex with concubines is not unlawful.


Further proof of concubinage;

23:5 And they keep covered their private parts.
23:6 Except around their spouses (azwaaj), or those who are maintained by their oaths (ma malakat aymanukum, Right hand posses), they are free from blame.

23:7 But whoever seeks anything beyond this, then these are the transgressors


lol.....two different categories wives and ma malakat aymanukum. "Maintianed by their oats".....hmmm

logicboy:

Even without providing a verse. What happens to the "POW's" that were non-muslim and not married and not ransomed? Hmmm? See how lies will always make you forget simple facts?


These verse clearly allows concubinage with


(4:24)

"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful intimate intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

Clearly, the first part of the allows sex with the female slaves. The part of unlawful intimate intercourse is debatable. If concubinage is allowed then s.ex with concubines is not unlawful.


Further proof of concubinage;

23:5 And they keep covered their private parts.
23:6 Except around their spouses (azwaaj), or those who are maintained by their oaths (ma malakat aymanukum, Right hand posses), they are free from blame.

23:7 But whoever seeks anything beyond this, then these are the transgressors


lol.....two different categories wives and ma malakat aymanukum. "Maintianed by their oats".....hmmm

no matter what you say,"those your right hand poseess" ("ma malakat aymanukum" ) are under this condition in verse 4:24:

" [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful intimate intercourse".

also,note that Muslim men are not allowed to marry (permanent or temporary) women who are not muslim,christian or jew.most of those women in battles with the pagans of arabia therefore were not muslim nor christian or jewish (people of the book).therefore,any $exual intercourse amounts to fornnication/adultery.

LagosShia:

no matter what you say,"those your right hand poseess" ("ma malakat aymanukum" ) are under this condition in verse 4:24:

" [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful intimate intercourse".

also,note that Muslim men are not allowed to marry (permanent or temporary) women who are not muslim,christian or jew.most of those women in battles with the pagans of arabia therefore were not muslim nor christian or jewish (people of the book).therefore,any $exual intercourse amounts to fornnication/adultery.

Did you forget conversion? Conversion of female slaves?


I think this argument has gone too far. Let me give you the knockout punch;


Slavery, hardcore slavery was around before Muhammad and existed in Mecca or Arab society. Why was slavery never Haraam in Allah's Quran? Is the Quran not complete?

logicboy:


Did you forget conversion? Conversion of female slaves?


I think this argument has gone too far. Let me give you the knockout punch;


Slavery, hardcore slavery was around before Muhammad and existed in Mecca or Arab society. Why was slavery never Haraam in Allah's Quran? Is the Quran not complete?

check the verses i presented earlier,you will see that enslaving another human is a crime in islam because servitude is only for Allah (swt).but when it comes to prisoners of war,the story is different.Muslims should not use slavery as a trade:

"It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and 'Nabuwah' (prophethood), then he should say to men: Be my slaves rather than Allah's; but rather (he would say): Be sustenance providers (Rabaniyoon) because of your teaching the Book and your studying (it yourselves)."[3:79]

"…ye…may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands posses….wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dower…"[4:25]

"…do ‘Ihsan’ (goodness) to parents …and (to) what your right hands posses."[4:36]

"Alms are for…those in Bondage, "[9:60]

"…But it is righteousness…to spend of your substance out of love for Him…for the ransom of slaves, "[2:177]

"And whoever kills a believer by mistake, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, "[4:92]

"He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation…give a slave his freedom, "[5:89]

"And if any of your slaves ask you for a deed in writing (for emancipation) give them such a deed; If ye knew any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you…"[24:33]

"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates…"[47:4]

LagosShia:

check the verses i presented earlier,you will see that enslaving another human is a crime in islam because servitude is only for Allah (swt).but when it comes to prisoners of war,the story is different.Muslims should not use slavery as a trade:

"It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and 'Nabuwah' (prophethood), then he should say to men: Be my slaves rather than Allah's; but rather (he would say): Be sustenance providers (Rabaniyoon) because of your teaching the Book and your studying (it yourselves)."[3:79]

"…ye…may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands posses….wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dower…"[4:25]

"…do ‘Ihsan’ (goodness) to parents …and (to) what your right hands posses."[4:36]

"Alms are for…those in Bondage, "[9:60]

"…But it is righteousness…to spend of your substance out of love for Him…for the ransom of slaves, "[2:177]

"And whoever kills a believer by mistake, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, "[4:92]

"He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation…give a slave his freedom, "[5:89]

"And if any of your slaves ask you for a deed in writing (for emancipation) give them such a deed; If ye knew any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you…"[24:33]

"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates…"[47:4]

You have started again.[b]So you are now claiming that slavery is a crime in Islam? [/b]Majority of muslims disagree with you on that. You fail but I will still address the quotes you put up!


Some of your quotes are not full and you have remixed them out of context eg

-9;60, which you remixed to say that alms are for slaves (slaves are now beggars? even your remix fails)

Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler - an obligation [imposed] by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise.

-24;33, which you cut, so that we wouldnt see the part where your female slaves can be compelled (if someone else compels them) into prostitution with Allah's forgiveness. Also, the deed for emancipation comes at a price to the slave. Why should one pay for his or her freedom? Furthermore, the slave has to be a good slave before the deed can be accepted by the slave master

USUFALI: Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),
=========================================================================================================================================================

As for the rest of your quotes, I will confess that yes, the Quran says you be good to your slave and also says that it is good to free slaves. However, 3 problems exist.

-Being good to ur slave is meaningless when you understand the relativity of "good" itself and the conditions of slaves in those times. Slaves did hard labour and slaves were beaten.

-Freeing slaves is a good thing but but there is no punishment for not freeing slaves. Furthermore, there was no mention of slavery being haraam

-The fate of female non-muslim slaves would have been worse. No marriage and no trust on them in the society. Slaves for life with no marriage. Cursed never to get married

logicboy:


You have started again.[b]So you are now claiming that slavery is a crime in Islam? [/b]Majority of muslims disagree with you on that. You fail but I will still address the quotes you put up!


Some of your quotes are not full and you have remixed them out of context eg

-9;60, which you remixed to say that alms are for slaves (slaves are now beggars? even your remix fails)

Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler - an obligation [imposed] by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise.

-24;33, which you cut, so that we wouldnt see the part where your female slaves can be compelled (if someone else compels them) into prostitution with Allah's forgiveness. Also, the deed for emancipation comes at a price to the slave. Why should one pay for his or her freedom? Furthermore, the slave has to be a good slave before the deed can be accepted by the slave master

USUFALI: Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),
=========================================================================================================================================================

As for the rest of your quotes, I will confess that yes, the Quran says you be good to your slave and also says that it is good to free slaves. However, 3 problems exist.

-Being good to ur slave is meaningless when you understand the relativity of "good" itself and the conditions of slaves in those times. Slaves did hard labour and slaves were beaten.

-Freeing slaves is a good thing but but there is no punishment for not freeing slaves. Furthermore, there was no mention of slavery being haraam

-The fate of female non-muslim slaves would have been worse. No marriage and no trust on them in the society. Slaves for life with no marriage. Cursed never to get married

what you are saying is what you bellieve and not what the Quran says.

slavery is not haram because in the islamic context,people become "slaves" by taking them prisoners of war.in modern times,you cannot refer to those taken as prisoners of war as "slaves".but in the ancient they are referred to as "slaves".the possible change in modern time in not referring to prisoners of war as slaves is because of the trans-atlantic slave trade.the british and europeans made it a thriving trade and objectified human beings.

all you said that the Quran orders muslims to be kind to slaves is aside.there is a verse you are ignoring that commands muslims on what to do with slaves:

"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates…"[47:4]

also,punishment in the shariah for committing a crime or breaking a rule or not following a religious injunction may not be indicated in the Holy Quran.it becomes a jurisprudential question where a marja-al-taqlid who is a shariah expert in a shariah court can issue verdict.it could be as low as a fine or asking the person to do optional fast.also,our handling of prisoners of war is an issue of iman (faith).we are to emulate the Prophet (sa) who would order muslims to walk in the desert sun while the prisoners of war are giving privilege to ride on camel while in a journey returning from a battle.so if one fights for Allah (swt) and take prisoners,being cruel to other humans is not islamic.now,i as a muslim can have a slave if i go to war and we get prisoners of war.other than that,i free them or allow them to ransom themselves through years of work and then set them free or allow someone else to pay the ransom.in the event they embrace islam,and become one of us,we embrace them.even in that case,they may decide to still be working for you but all with a different treatement than when they were unbelievers.but would i go to the market to buy a slave as a muslim for the purpose of enslaving another human being when i know servitude is only for Allah? no,i would not!would i do like the british who would lead expeditions to capture slaves?no!if the muslims were not oppressed,there is no need for war or battles.fighting in islam is solely for defense.we do not lead campaigns to capture slaves to do business or get rich as the british did.but we fight to defend ourselves because those prisoners of war were among those who oppressed muslims.

LagosShia:

what you are saying is what you bellieve and not what the Quran says.

Wrong. I am clearly stating what is in the Koran and what it meant in Muhammad's time.

LagosShia:
slavery is not haram because in the islamic context,people become "slaves" by taking them prisoners of war.in modern times,you cannot refer to those taken as prisoners of war as "slaves".but in the ancient they are referred to as "slaves".the possible change in modern time in not referring to prisoners of war as slaves is because of the trans-atlantic slave trade.the british and europeans made it a thriving trade and objectified human beings.

Yes, because slaves did not do hard labour? Or concubinage of females slaves wasnt practiced? Majority of your own muslims (even Shia) disagree with you. So, you lose. Even islamic websites claim that slavery was allowed in Muhammad's time. Not my words and not words from the infidel West but from your own muslim brethren.

LagosShia:
all you said that the Quran orders muslims to be kind to slaves is aside.there is a verse you are ignoring that commands muslims on what to do with slaves:

"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates…"[47:4]

Stop acting as if you did not see the two words that I highlighted in your verse.

-Why is it a favor to give people their "God-given" freedom, that is theirs in the first place? So, if not willing to give a favir, then you wont free slaves

-Ransom? What happens when the slave can not buy his or her freedom. Or no one wants to buy the slave?

-Furthermore, the full verse says nothing about freeing.

"So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds."

LagosShia:
also,punishment in the shariah for committing a crime or breaking a rule or not following a religious injunction may not be indicated in the Holy Quran.it becomes a jurisprudential question where a marja-al-taqlid who is a shariah expert in a shariah court can issue verdict.it could be as low as a fine or asking the person to do optional fast.also,our handling of prisoners of war is an issue of iman (faith).we are to emulate the Prophet (sa) who would order muslims to walk in the desert sun while the prisoners of war are giving privilege to ride on camel while in a journey returning from a battle.so if one fights for Allah (swt) and take prisoners,being cruel to other humans is not islamic.now,i as a muslim can have a slave if i go to war and we get prisoners of war.other than that,i free them or allow them to ransom themselves through years of work and then set them free or allow someone else to pay the ransom.in the event they embrace islam,and become one of us,we embrace them.even in that case,they may decide to still be working for you but all with a different treatement than when they were unbelievers.but would i go to the market to buy a slave as a muslim for the purpose of enslaving another human being when i know servitude is only for Allah? no,i would not!would i do like the british who would lead expeditions to capture slaves?no!if the muslims were not oppressed,there is no need for war or battles.fighting in islam is solely for defense.we do not lead campaigns to capture slaves to do business or get rich as the british did.but we fight to defend ourselves because those prisoners of war were among those who oppressed muslims.

You went off topic here and you said something that really annoyed me. You talk as if Arab muslims did not take slaves from Nigeria and West Africa. Took my fellow Nigerians and made some of them Eunuchs.

17 million black african slaves taken by Arab muslims.

^

my friend i am telling you what Islam says and not what muslims say or do or do not do.i am not denying slavery out of taking prisoners of war existed.but you have to understand the perspective of Islam and not opinions.

LagosShia: ^

my friend i am telling you what Islam says and not what muslims say or do or do not do.i am not denying slavery out of taking prisoners of war existed.but you have to understand the perspective of Islam and not opinions.

huh, nice try, what I say is from the Koran.

logicboy:

The African slave trade started with Arabic muslims. The dutch/portugese/Europeans came after.

Yes it's true.
My mistake arises from what was the slave trade to America.
A destination that I meant.
That (the trade to America) was initiated by the Portuguese, and followed by the Dutch and Spanish (the latter in smaller numbers)
Obviously, the Indian Ocean trade will go back to the ninth century, had not yet discovered America!
My apologies.

Ptolomeus:
Yes it's true.
My mistake arises from what was the slave trade to America.
A destination that I meant.
That (the trade to America) was initiated by the Portuguese, and followed by the Dutch and Spanish (the latter in smaller numbers)
Obviously, the Indian Ocean trade will go back to the ninth century, had not yet discovered America!
My apologies.

I agree!


Football;

Uruguay 1 Venezuela 1

logicboy:


huh, nice try, what I say is from the Koran.

lol...never heard of that in the Quran!

Ptolomeus:
Yes it's true.
My mistake arises from what was the slave trade to America.
A destination that I meant.
That (the trade to America) was initiated by the Portuguese, and followed by the Dutch and Spanish (the latter in smaller numbers)
Obviously, the Indian Ocean trade will go back to the ninth century, had not yet discovered America!
My apologies.

after all d explanations, u come bak to say ds?
Are u saying that the Islam of Muhammad(S.A.W) predates the historical accounts of the bible.