₦airaland Forum

In a profound endorsement of slave trading and racism, a prophet exchanges two black slave for an Arab slave. Thus, slavery is allowed as a legal form of commerce in Islam till today. How do we explain this?

There came a slave and pledg- ed allegiance to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1602

Slaves were properties! And properties have values!

Pounds is higher in value that the dollar.

A similar treatment can be deduced from Yahweh were non-israelite slaves have more harsher treatments than Israelites slaves.

In the Old Testament, there is a clear distinction between the treatment of Israelite slaves and non-Israelite slaves, with Israelite slaves generally receiving more protections and better treatment under the law.

Treatment of Israelite Slaves
Israelite slaves were often treated more like hired workers or indentured servants rather than permanent slaves.
They were to be released after six years of service (Exodus 21:2):

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing."

Abuse of Israelite slaves was prohibited, and if a master caused serious injury, the slave was to be freed (Exodus 21:26-27):

"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye."

The Year of Jubilee (every 50th year) mandated the release of Israelite slaves and the return of property (Leviticus 25:10, 39-41).

Treatment of Non-Israelite Slaves
Non-Israelite slaves were considered permanent property and could be inherited as possessions (Leviticus 25:44-46):

Permanent Ownership: Unlike Israelites, foreign slaves could be purchased as permanent property.

Leviticus 25:44–46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Generally, Israelite slaves were afforded more protections and were often treated more like indentured servants, while foreign slaves were considered permanent property.

So Yahweh's slaves get class according to race viz: Israelites or non-israelites!

AntiChristian:
Slaves were properties! And properties have values!

Pounds is higher in value that the dollar.

A similar treatment can be deduced from Yahweh were non-israelite slaves have more harsher treatments than Israelites slaves.

In the Old Testament, there is a clear distinction between the treatment of Israelite slaves and non-Israelite slaves, with Israelite slaves generally receiving more protections and better treatment under the law.

Treatment of Israelite Slaves
Israelite slaves were often treated more like hired workers or indentured servants rather than permanent slaves.
They were to be released after six years of service (Exodus 21:2):

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing."

Abuse of Israelite slaves was prohibited, and if a master caused serious injury, the slave was to be freed (Exodus 21:26-27):

"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye."

The Year of Jubilee (every 50th year) mandated the release of Israelite slaves and the return of property (Leviticus 25:10, 39-41).

Treatment of Non-Israelite Slaves
Non-Israelite slaves were considered permanent property and could be inherited as possessions (Leviticus 25:44-46):

Permanent Ownership: Unlike Israelites, foreign slaves could be purchased as permanent property.

Leviticus 25:44–46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Generally, Israelite slaves were afforded more protections and were often treated more like indentured servants, while foreign slaves were considered permanent property.

So Yahweh's slaves get class according to race viz: Israelites or non-israelites!

First of all, you need to point out where Exodus 21 mentions that it's specifically for Israelites slaves as you deceitfully claim.

The only place where distinction is made is concerning the year of jubilee in Leviticus being that it's a Jewish festival. Apart from that, no other distinction is made concerning slaves in the Bible. The word servant and slave are even used interchangeably.

Thus, the conditions set out in Exodus 21 applies to both Israelites and non-Israelite slaves. But more importantly, the idea of slave raids is expressly forbidden in same Exodus 21:16 which forbids kidnapping for the purpose of slavery. This is unlike what we see in the case of Muhammad who explicitly carried out raids to kidnap slaves and his followers continued in that practice.

But most importantly is the fact that Jesus Christ by his own mission put an end to slavery when he declared the following as his mission in Luke 4:18

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord

We can see that in declaring his ministry, the mention of liberty or freedom is mentioned twice: first for those who are captive and then for those who are oppressed. Thus, it is obvious that part of Jesus's ministry on earth was to abolish slavery which is why it's no coincidence that slavery was ultimately abolished by the Christians and even the Muslim world had to accept the abolition of slavery despite their early opposition to it.

Concerning the claim of racism, Israel is not a human race as you are trying to dishonestly paint it. Israelites are part of the Semitic race among whom are also the Arabs so it's simply a case of false representation to claim a distinction between an Israelite and non-Israelite as racism

In the case of Muhammad, the distinction is clear. An Arab slave is equal to two slaves of African race.
We also see same in the area of witnesses where the witness of a man is equal to three women according to Muhammad, another classic case of sexism. So it's both racism and sexism that are both allowed in Islam based on the actions of the Prophet!!

Kukutente23:
In a profound endorsement of slave trading and racism, a prophet exchanges two black slave for an Arab slave. Thus, slavery is allowed as a legal form of commerce in Islam till today. How do we explain this?

There came a slave and pledg- ed allegiance to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1602

Sahih Muslim 1602 reports a trade involving slaves but it does not say that the trade was because the slaves were black, nor does it say the other slave was Arab. There is nothing in that hadith report itself to indicate that black people were racially inferior. So to use this report as proof that Muhammad pbuh taught racial inequality is to go beyond what the text says.
Islam regulated an already existing institution and repeatedly encouraged emancipation including freeing slaves as an act of righteousness and as expiation for certain wrongs. The hadith records a transaction involving slavery and does not establish a doctrine of racial inequality . To equate the existence of slavery with evidence of a specifically racial ideology is to misrepresent what the report itself shows.
The quest to find problems in another faith shouldn't distract you from better practising yours. Don't loose track of the goal chasing balls in another field.

honesttalk21:
Sahih Muslim 1602 reports a trade involving slaves but it does not say that the trade was because the slaves were black, nor does it say the other slave was Arab. There is nothing in that hadith report itself to indicate that black people were racially inferior. So to use this report as proof that Muhammad pbuh taught racial inequality is to go beyond what the text says.
Islam regulated an already existing institution and repeatedly encouraged emancipation including freeing slaves as an act of righteousness and as expiation for certain wrongs. The hadith records a transaction involving slavery and does not establish a doctrine of racial inequality . To equate the existence of slavery with evidence of a specifically racial ideology is to misrepresent what the report itself shows.
The quest to find problems in another faith shouldn't distract you from better practising yours. Don't loose track of the goal chain balls in another field.

The hadith clearly shows that two black slaves were exchanged for another slave. If the other slave was also black, there would have been no need to emphasise the race of the two slaves used to redeem him.
This particular hadith is important because it was used as a reference for why slavery is allowed in Islam throughout the ages. If the Prophet could own slaves and even use them to exchange for the other, then slavery is allowed in Islam and the means of exchange is also a standard. That's why the Arabs after the time of the Prophet traded a lot of blacks as slaves even before the transatlantic slave trade began and long after it ended
If Islam discouraged slavery as you claim, why did the Islamic world engage in slavery for centuries of Africans, Europeans, Asians, Indians and even non-Muslim Arabs until the Christians intervened?
Send your advice to your brother in this thread who is fond of opening thread upon thread to ridicule Christianity. Just look at his moniker!!

Kukutente23:
The hadith clearly shows that two black slaves were exchanged for another slave. If the other slave was also black, there would have been no need to emphasise the race of the two slaves used to redeem him.
This particular hadith is important because it was used as a reference for why slavery is allowed in Islam throughout the ages. If the Prophet could own slaves and even use them to exchange for the other, then slavery is allowed in Islam and the means of exchange is also a standard. That's why the Arabs after the time of the Prophet traded a lot of blacks as slaves even before the transatlantic slave trade began and long after it ended
If Islam discouraged slavery as you claim, why did the Islamic world engage in slavery for centuries of Africans, Europeans, Asians, Indians and even non-Muslim Arabs until the Christians intervened?
Send your advice to your brother in this thread who is fond of opening thread upon thread to ridicule Christianity. Just look at his moniker!!

Check Sahih Muslim 1602 itself. The report says the Prophet pbuh bought the slave for two black slaves. It does not say the slave being purchased was Arab, nor does it say Africans were considered inferior because of race.So the distinction is important that

Yes A slave was purchased in the hadith
Not stated that he was Arab
Two black slaves were given in exchange: explicitly stated.

It's true that classical Islamic law recognized slavery but no it's wrong to say slavery was a divine command in every historical instance.

It's however not true that Islam taught racial inferiority. The Farewell Sermon teaches that an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab or vice versa except by piety.

The same standard should be applied to the New Testament. It addresses slavery in passages such as Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, and Philemon, but does not explicitly command its abolition. Christian abolitionism was a later theological development, just as Muslim reformers later argued for abolition.

And regarding the other moniker, why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own? (Matthew 7:3). Is there a special reward for what you do?

honesttalk21:
Check Sahih Muslim 1602 itself. The report says the Prophet pbuh bought the slave for two black slaves. It does not say the slave being purchased was Arab, nor does it say Africans were considered inferior because of race.So the distinction is important that

Yes A slave was purchased in the hadith
Not stated that he was Arab
Two black slaves were given in exchange: explicitly stated.

It's true that classical Islamic law recognized slavery but no it's wrong to say slavery was a divine command in every historical instance.

It's however not true that Islam taught racial inferiority. The Farewell Sermon teaches that an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab or vice versa except by piety.

The same standard should be applied to the New Testament. It addresses slavery in passages such as Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, and Philemon, but does not explicitly command its abolition. Christian abolitionism was a later theological development, just as Muslim reformers later argued for abolition.

And regarding the other moniker, why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own? (Matthew 7:3). Is there a special reward for what you do?

It's obvious though that the purchased slave was not black cause if he was, the race of the price paid would have become irrelevant. The quantity was highlighted to show at what rate the sale was agreeable to the original owner. It only shows that both the seller and the buyer understand that one black slave cannot be a fair ransome for the escaped slave thus requiring two and the deciding factor in that instance was race.

Slavery was a divine command in Islam. The Qur'an explicitly gave the men right to keep women they obtained as slaves for sex. What more evidence do you need for endorsement of slavery than that along with this hadith making two?

The Farewell Sermon was in relation to Muslims and not human race in general. It was simply to emphasise the equality in worship of a Muslim.

But Jesus already commanded the abolition of slavery in declaring his earthly mission. He has sent me to declare liberty to the captives Luke 4:18 is certainly an announcement of freedom from slavery.

And no Muslim reformer argued for abolition out of the blue. They did so under pressure from the rest of the world especially the Western nations and we all know that even till today some Muslims still practice it even if not at the scale of the former times

Regarding the other moniker "Give and it will come back to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over" Luke 6:38
Why don't you ask him your question as well?

Kukutente23:
It's obvious though that the purchased slave was not black cause if he was, the race of the price paid would have become irrelevant. The quantity was highlighted to show at what rate the sale was agreeable to the original owner. It only shows that both the seller and the buyer understand that one black slave cannot be a fair ransome for the escaped slave thus requiring two and the deciding factor in that instance was race.

Slavery was a divine command in Islam. The Qur'an explicitly gave the men right to keep women they obtained as slaves for sex. What more evidence do you need for endorsement of slavery than that along with this hadith making two?

The Farewell Sermon was in relation to Muslims and not human race in general. It was simply to emphasise the equality in worship of a Muslim.

But Jesus already commanded the abolition of slavery in declaring his earthly mission. He has sent me to declare liberty to the captives Luke 4:18 is certainly an announcement of freedom from slavery.

And no Muslim reformer argued for abolition out of the blue. They did so under pressure from the rest of the world especially the Western nations and we all know that even till today some Muslims still practice it even if not at the scale of the former times

Regarding the other moniker "Give and it will come back to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over" Luke 6:38
Why don't you ask him your question as well?

Race decided the price is inference while the hadith only states the exchange, not the reason. That gap stays open until a text explicitly says race set the value.
Separate two things. Islamic slavery between the historical institution as classical jurists regulated it and Islam in what the Qur'an and Sunnah actually command. Conflating them is the whole problem in this thread.
What Islam from the sources establish is permission, not command; Q90:13 calls freeing a slave righteous; 24:33 mandates emancipation contracts and forbids forcing slave women into prostitution. Regulation aimed at exit, not perpetuation.
The Farewell Sermon clarifies no Arab superior to non-Arab except by piety (Musnad Ahmad);a direct claim against ethnic hierarchy, not a worship footnote.
What Islamic slavery (classical practice) shows are:

- Jurists retained slavery and concubinage as lawful for centuries is a real institution, real criticism.
- But restraint existed early too: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz curbed unlawful enslavement near Islam's founding not reform against an entrenched system, just early limits.
- In negation to your only Western pressure is Ahmad Baba al-Timbukti, 1615, a named, dated text arguing against enslaving free Muslims, centuries before Europe intervened.
Islam permitted and regulated an inherited institution while pushing toward its exit; Islamic slavery is what centuries of jurists and rulers did with that permission not identical to the command you're claiming exists.

Same rule applies to your counter as Luke 4:18 proclaims liberty, fulfilled per v21 yet Ephesians 6:5 still tells slaves to obey. Can you clarify? Neither scripture legislates abolition outright; both leave a trajectory later believers acted on, under real historical pressure in both cases.
Every inference you've drawn in this thread; race deciding the price, farewell Sermon as worship-only, Islam commanding slavery has run the same direction toward the harshest possible reading the text doesn't support. That's a pattern worth noticing, whatever the reason for it.

honesttalk21:
Same rule applies to your counter as Luke 4:18 proclaims liberty, fulfilled per v21 yet Ephesians 6:5 still tells slaves to obey. Can you clarify?

My pleasure .

The salient point and the relevant context here, is Christianity’s beginnings. How did it arise how was it spread? What was the era and time of the passages quoted?

Christianity at inception was a small and although growing – a raggedy band - of mostly converted Jews. Rejected, if not outright despised by their own, often suffering great persecution.

There were no armies, zero military might. A campaign of conquest was not even the remotest of possibilities. Neither was there any form of political presence. It did not have high-profile celebrity figures or a social media presence. At once, slavery was not only practiced worldwide, it was legal. Pray tell, how should, how could Christianity have abolished slavery?

What should the apostle Paul have advised converts who were slaves? To rebel? To ecape? Against or from masters who could have them summarily executed on a whim? And what of converts who were slave owners? The book of Philemon clearly addresses them and is an appeal to free slave convts as an act of brotherly love, not out of compulsion.

God has revealed himself to us as the God of Love, the God who is love. The Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate, Who “came to set the captives free”. The author of the epistles you referenced, also wrote 1 Corinthians 13, commonly known as the chapter of love – read at celebrations of holy matrimony everywhere. It is characterised by the verse “love does no harm to anther”. Nowhere in the Christian scriptures is slavery even remotely in view.

I won’t gainsay the fact that in reality, some who claim to be Christians may have practised chattel slavery, even read it into the scriptures, but it is simply not there. And over time that became increasingly apparent and inexorably the norm in Christian communities and nations worldwide.

And beyond, as Christian abolitionist campaigned globally to end slavery, where it was de jure even in Saudi Arabia until late last century, and is still exists de facto in much of the moose.slim world.

Slavery is not haram in ees.lam. Therefore it cannot ever truly be abolished. It is writ large with the clear permission to own sex slaves. Ees.lam’s traducing of holy matrimony and denial of agency to women, although side issues for the purpose of this discussion, are also reasons to outright reject an ideology which outright denies human rights, civil liberties and personal freedoms. Although I can see why it would appeal to 7th century Arabian brigands, it will always be discordant to modern day thiners with even a basic understanding and a modicum of knowledge.

That is why for me, Christianity leaves ees.lam in it’s wake – not just as Gods clear path to salvation, but also as a social charter. Ees.lam has no notion of love, not as thematically explicated in Christian scripture. In ees.lam, human interactions are wholly transactional, often decided by force or might, typically based on hatred (the very opposite of love), and enforced by violence and bloodshed.

Just as early Christianity could not abolish slavery, neither can any Christian force you to leave your religion or join our faith. Rather we would appeal to you, for the love of God and out of love.

Know the Love of God in Christ Jesus. Please join us.


TV

honesttalk21:
Race decided the price is inference while the hadith only states the exchange, not the reason. That gap stays open until a text explicitly says race set the value.
Separate two things. Islamic slavery between the historical institution as classical jurists regulated it and Islam in what the Qur'an and Sunnah actually command. Conflating them is the whole problem in this thread.
What Islam from the sources establish is permission, not command; Q90:13 calls freeing a slave righteous; 24:33 mandates emancipation contracts and forbids forcing slave women into prostitution. Regulation aimed at exit, not perpetuation.
The Farewell Sermon clarifies no Arab superior to non-Arab except by piety (Musnad Ahmad);a direct claim against ethnic hierarchy, not a worship footnote.
What Islamic slavery (classical practice) shows are:

- Jurists retained slavery and concubinage as lawful for centuries is a real institution, real criticism.
- But restraint existed early too: Umar ibn al-Khattab and Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz curbed unlawful enslavement near Islam's founding not reform against an entrenched system, just early limits.
- In negation to your only Western pressure is Ahmad Baba al-Timbukti, 1615, a named, dated text arguing against enslaving free Muslims, centuries before Europe intervened.
Islam permitted and regulated an inherited institution while pushing toward its exit; Islamic slavery is what centuries of jurists and rulers did with that permission not identical to the command you're claiming exists.

Same rule applies to your counter as Luke 4:18 proclaims liberty, fulfilled per v21 yet Ephesians 6:5 still tells slaves to obey. Can you clarify? Neither scripture legislates abolition outright; both leave a trajectory later believers acted on, under real historical pressure in both cases.
Every inference you've drawn in this thread; race deciding the price, farewell Sermon as worship-only, Islam commanding slavery has run the same direction toward the harshest possible reading the text doesn't support. That's a pattern worth noticing, whatever the reason for it.

Two black slaves were exchanged for a single slave.
It is known even from pre-Islamic era that blacks were often considered inferior to other races

If you insist that slavery is not a divine command how do you explain the quranic verse that endorses sexual slavery and this particular hadith that endorses slave trading. The Prophet could have exchanged the slave for money or other goods but he chose instead to indulge in slave trading. And how does regulation of an industry lead to perpetual exit? Regulation leads to boom. That's what economic history has taught us.
The Farewell Sermon was in relation to Muslims which is why it ended with "except in piety and good works" and then Muslim brotherhood. The argument of al-Timbukti stemmed from that same Sermon. It became a standing rule throughout the caliphate. Enslavement of Muslims was forbidden while other religions including Christians were allowed to be enslaved. This continued until the 1970s when most of the Muslim world was forced to disavow slavery by the UN Charter. If Islam pushed for an end to slavery the muslim caliphates wouldn't have had such a booming slavery industry of different races including even Europeans.

You misinterpret the Bible verses you quote. First of all, Luke 4 was the direct word of Jesus detailing his ministry on earth. The Bible verses you quote in mistaken belief of contradiction was actually addressed to slaves who had embraced Christianity. The admonishing was to encouragethem in their predicament as slaves and not an endorsement of slavery. The other option would be to encourage them to take up arms against their masters which would in effect turn Christianity to a political religion which was not the intention of Christ the redeemer. Afterall he had preached in Matt 5 that "blessed are you when men hate you and despise you for my sake". Paul also taught "patient in hope and rejoicing in tribulation". Thus the teaching to slaves was consistent with these teachings and not an endorsement of slavery.

Kukutente23:
Two black slaves were exchanged for a single slave.
It is known even from pre-Islamic era that blacks were often considered inferior to other races

If you insist that slavery is not a divine command how do you explain the quranic verse that endorses sexual slavery and this particular hadith that endorses slave trading. The Prophet could have exchanged the slave for money or other goods but he chose instead to indulge in slave trading. And how does regulation of an industry lead to perpetual exit? Regulation leads to boom. That's what economic history has taught us.
The Farewell Sermon was in relation to Muslims which is why it ended with "except in piety and good works" and then Muslim brotherhood. The argument of al-Timbukti stemmed from that same Sermon. It became a standing rule throughout the caliphate. Enslavement of Muslims was forbidden while other religions including Christians were allowed to be enslaved. This continued until the 1970s when most of the Muslim world was forced to disavow slavery by the UN Charter. If Islam pushed for an end to slavery the muslim caliphates wouldn't have had such a booming slavery industry of different races including even Europeans.

You misinterpret the Bible verses you quote. First of all, Luke 4 was the direct word of Jesus detailing his ministry on earth. The Bible verses you quote in mistaken belief of contradiction was actually addressed to slaves who had embraced Christianity. The admonishing was to encouragethem in their predicament as slaves and not an endorsement of slavery. The other option would be to encourage them to take up arms against their masters which would in effect turn Christianity to a political religion which was not the intention of Christ the redeemer. Afterall he had preached in Matt 5 that "blessed are you when men hate you and despise you for my sake". Paul also taught "patient in hope and rejoicing in tribulation". Thus the teaching to slaves was consistent with these teachings and not an endorsement of slavery.

TV01:
My pleasure .

The salient point and the relevant context here, is Christianity’s beginnings. How did it arise how was it spread? What was the era and time of the passages quoted?

Christianity at inception was a small and although growing – a raggedy band - of mostly converted Jews. Rejected, if not outright despised by their own, often suffering great persecution.

There were no armies, zero military might. A campaign of conquest was not even the remotest of possibilities. Neither was there any form of political presence. It did not have high-profile celebrity figures or a social media presence. At once, slavery was not only practiced worldwide, it was legal. Pray tell, how should, how could Christianity have abolished slavery?

What should the apostle Paul have advised converts who were slaves? To rebel? To ecape? Against or from masters who could have them summarily executed on a whim? And what of converts who were slave owners? The book of Philemon clearly addresses them and is an appeal to free slave convts as an act of brotherly love, not out of compulsion.

God has revealed himself to us as the God of Love, the God who is love. The Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate, Who “came to set the captives free”. The author of the epistles you referenced, also wrote 1 Corinthians 13, commonly known as the chapter of love – read at celebrations of holy matrimony everywhere. It is characterised by the verse “love does no harm to anther”. Nowhere in the Christian scriptures is slavery even remotely in view.

I won’t gainsay the fact that in reality, some who claim to be Christians may have practised chattel slavery, even read it into the scriptures, but it is simply not there. And over time that became increasingly apparent and inexorably the norm in Christian communities and nations worldwide.

And beyond, as Christian abolitionist campaigned globally to end slavery, where it was de jure even in Saudi Arabia until late last century, and is still exists de facto in much of the moose.slim world.

Slavery is not haram in ees.lam. Therefore it cannot ever truly be abolished. It is writ large with the clear permission to own sex slaves. Ees.lam’s traducing of holy matrimony and denial of agency to women, although side issues for the purpose of this discussion, are also reasons to outright reject an ideology which outright denies human rights, civil liberties and personal freedoms. Although I can see why it would appeal to 7th century Arabian brigands, it will always be discordant to modern day thiners with even a basic understanding and a modicum of knowledge.

That is why for me, Christianity leaves ees.lam in it’s wake – not just as Gods clear path to salvation, but also as a social charter. Ees.lam has no notion of love, not as thematically explicated in Christian scripture. In ees.lam, human interactions are wholly transactional, often decided by force or might, typically based on hatred (the very opposite of love), and enforced by violence and bloodshed.

Just as early Christianity could not abolish slavery, neither can any Christian force you to leave your religion or join our faith. Rather we would appeal to you, for the love of God and out of love.

Know the Love of God in Christ Jesus. Please join us.


TV

We've reached the point where the disagreement isn't about missing information but the standard of evidence applied. This is my final response and where I leave it.

On Sahih Muslim 1602 there's no dispute it establishes two black slaves were exchanged for one slave. It doesn't establish that the other slave was Arab, that race caused the valuation, or that the Prophet pbuh taught black people were worth less. The chain claim — two black slaves exchanged, the other was non-black, race set the price, racial inequality endorsed — only has its first step in the text. The rest are assumptions needing demonstration, not assertion. Worth adding though the hadith itself doesn't say the Prophet pbuh then freed him, classical commentators like Ibn Raslan and al-Nawawi explain the purchase as made specifically to secure the man's freedom so he could remain for the hijra. The resulting wala made him the Prophet's pbuh mawla thus legally free, though retaining the patronage ties that status carries, not a slave, and giving him a secure footing to continue living from. What the hadith does explicitly record is that this incident changed the Prophet's pbuh practice going forward, prompting him to ask every person who pledged allegiance whether they were free or enslaved. So he remained enslaved indefinitely has no support in either the text or the classical understanding of it.

Permission isn't command, regulation isn't endorsement of an ideal, historical practice isn't automatically revelation. So it's not disputed that slavery existed in classical Islamic civilization and law regulated it, but two separate questions follow. On the institution, the Qur'an praises emancipation (90:13) and provides legal paths to freedom (24:33), which doesn't make Islam abolitionist, but permitted isn't commanded forever. On race specifically, nothing in the Qur'an or farewell sermon ties enslaveability to blackness or teaches Arab superiority. Two different questions, so don't use gaps in one to cover gaps in the other.

TV01, reading Paul's instructions to slaves as pastoral guidance in historical context, not endorsement, is legitimate. But if context is legitimate for Christian texts, it's legitimate for Islamic ones too. Ephesians 6:5 instructs slaves to obey their masters; Philemon appeals to a Christian slaveowner to receive a runaway slave back as a brother, and is commended, not commanded. Luke 4:18 is a profound proclamation, but it isn't a legal statute abolishing slavery any more than 90:13 or 24:33 is for Islam. Neither testament contains a verse explicitly abolishing slavery as an institution. Interpretation isn't the problem here but the unequal standards of interpretation are.

The farewell Sermon addressing Muslims doesn't undercut the principle. Teaching Arabs have no inherent superiority over non-Arabs, tied to piety not ancestry, is the opposite of Arab supremacy. That Muslims didn't always live up to it is historical failure, not absence of the teaching; the same standard applies to Christian societies and slavery.

So, yes, slavery existed in Muslim societies. Yes, law regulated it. Yes, injustices occurred. No, Muslim 1602 doesn't establish racial inequality was taught. No, the hadith doesn't say the purchased man was valued higher for being non-black; if anything, the classical reading points toward manumission, not permanence. No, historical practice equals divine command. No, Christian abolitionism exempts Christian texts from the same standard being applied to Islam's. So judge both traditions by the same rule. And if the real question is what is Islam? Know it isn't slavery, race, or Arab superiority. It's nothing is worthy of worship except Allah. That's the foundation everything else stands on.

honesttalk21:
We've reached the point where the disagreement isn't about missing information but the standard of evidence applied. This is my final response and where I leave it.

On Sahih Muslim 1602 there's no dispute it establishes two black slaves were exchanged for one slave. It doesn't establish that the other slave was Arab, that race caused the valuation, or that the Prophet pbuh taught black people were worth less. The chain claim — two black slaves exchanged, the other was non-black, race set the price, racial inequality endorsed — only has its first step in the text. The rest are assumptions needing demonstration, not assertion. Worth adding though the hadith itself doesn't say the Prophet pbuh then freed him, classical commentators like Ibn Raslan and al-Nawawi explain the purchase as made specifically to secure the man's freedom so he could remain for the hijra. The resulting wala made him the Prophet's pbuh mawla thus legally free, though retaining the patronage ties that status carries, not a slave, and giving him a secure footing to continue living from. What the hadith does explicitly record is that this incident changed the Prophet's pbuh practice going forward, prompting him to ask every person who pledged allegiance whether they were free or enslaved. So he remained enslaved indefinitely has no support in either the text or the classical understanding of it.

Permission isn't command, regulation isn't endorsement of an ideal, historical practice isn't automatically revelation. So it's not disputed that slavery existed in classical Islamic civilization and law regulated it, but two separate questions follow. On the institution, the Qur'an praises emancipation (90:13) and provides legal paths to freedom (24:33), which doesn't make Islam abolitionist, but permitted isn't commanded forever. On race specifically, nothing in the Qur'an or farewell sermon ties enslaveability to blackness or teaches Arab superiority. Two different questions, so don't use gaps in one to cover gaps in the other.

TV01, reading Paul's instructions to slaves as pastoral guidance in historical context, not endorsement, is legitimate. But if context is legitimate for Christian texts, it's legitimate for Islamic ones too. Ephesians 6:5 instructs slaves to obey their masters; Philemon appeals to a Christian slaveowner to receive a runaway slave back as a brother, and is commended, not commanded. Luke 4:18 is a profound proclamation, but it isn't a legal statute abolishing slavery any more than 90:13 or 24:33 is for Islam. Neither testament contains a verse explicitly abolishing slavery as an institution. Interpretation isn't the problem here but the unequal standards of interpretation are.

The farewell Sermon addressing Muslims doesn't undercut the principle. Teaching Arabs have no inherent superiority over non-Arabs, tied to piety not ancestry, is the opposite of Arab supremacy. That Muslims didn't always live up to it is historical failure, not absence of the teaching; the same standard applies to Christian societies and slavery.

So, yes, slavery existed in Muslim societies. Yes, law regulated it. Yes, injustices occurred. No, Muslim 1602 doesn't establish racial inequality was taught. No, the hadith doesn't say the purchased man was valued higher for being non-black; if anything, the classical reading points toward manumission, not permanence. No, historical practice equals divine command. No, Christian abolitionism exempts Christian texts from the same standard being applied to Islam's. So judge both traditions by the same rule. And if the real question is what is Islam? Know it isn't slavery, race, or Arab superiority. It's nothing is worthy of worship except Allah. That's the foundation everything else stands on.

Are you in summary saying the prophet was against slavery and never held slaves nor traded slaves? If so how did slavery become a thing that's allowed in Islam and all the Caliphs practiced and encouraged it?

And you seem to take a legalistic view of slavery when Islam is involved. You claim that slavery was a matter of civilisations and eras. If that is the case, can this defence be applied to other aspects of Islam? The punishments for blasphemy, adultery, paying jizya and zakat, pilgrimage to Mecca etc. Are they bound by civilisations and eras or are they exempted. How do you decide where to exempt and where not to?

In the final analysis, it's very simply a matter of standards. Muhammad held slaves and even endorsed sexual slavery. Jesus preached freedom to the captives. They are poles apart.
The Islamic world perpetuated slavery for centuries non-stop. The Christian world practiced slavery, came to the truth of Christ and abolished it! They also got the muslim world to do likewise.
End of story

honesttalk21:
TV01, reading Paul's instructions to slaves as pastoral guidance in historical context, not endorsement, is legitimate. But if context is legitimate for Christian texts, it's legitimate for Islamic ones too.

Historical, but also, theological, doctrinal and most importantly, the practical outworking. Feel free to apply the same to Islam.

honesttalk21:
Ephesians 6:5 instructs slaves to obey their masters; Philemon appeals to a Christian slaveowner to receive a runaway slave back as a brother, and is commended, not commanded. Luke 4:18 is a profound proclamation, but it isn't a legal statute abolishing slavery any more than 90:13 or 24:33 is for Islam. Neither testament contains a verse explicitly abolishing slavery as an institution. Interpretation isn't the problem here but the unequal standards of interpretation are.

I have already explained the pastoral approach in context. Christianity is by love, not compulsion - as I have noted. Islam by contrast is wholly legalistic.

Luke 4:18 is a leitmotiv of the Christian faith. Once rightly apprehended and internalised, it will logically and inexorably lead to the abolition of slavery and, in as much as possible all harmful actions against your fellow man. As noted Islam has no parallel. It is tribal, and "others", non-believers and infidels. Effectively dehumanising them, leading to hate and violence - making slavery an obvious outworking.

honesttalk21:
So, yes, slavery existed in Muslim societies. Yes, law regulated it. Yes, injustices occurred. No, Muslim 1602 doesn't establish racial inequality was taught. No, the hadith doesn't say the purchased man was valued higher for being non-black; if anything, the classical reading points toward manumission, not permanence. No, historical practice equals divine command. No, Christian abolitionism exempts Christian texts from the same standard being applied to Islam's. So judge both traditions by the same rule. And if the real question is what is Islam? Know it isn't slavery, race, or Arab superiority. It's nothing is worthy of worship except Allah. That's the foundation everything else stands on.

Slavery still exists in Muslim societies - and always will as long as there are non-Muslims. It is not haram and no one can make it so. The belief that the word and will of Islam's deity is unchanging ensures that. De jure changes in Muslim countries were forced and never really became de facto - it's the outworking! Your reading, is discordant with contemporary mainstream Islamic scholarship.


TV