Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

I was a little surprised to uncover that there are number of verses in the New Testament which refer to slavery and that slaves should be obedient to their masters. Up to a few days ago, I was unaware that this was the case. I'd be interested in how these are interpreted - for they all appear to be clear instructions and the number of verses saying the same point appears to emphasise the message.

I'm not sure if any of these are quoting Jesus' teachings, so perhaps it is an issue raised by Paul or others? Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing a justification for these instructions to slaves and servants.


Ephesians 6:5-9
5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
9 And, masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

(Colossians 3:22–4:1).
22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men; 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. 25 For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality. 4:1 Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven

(1 Timothy 6:1-2).
1 Let all who are under the yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine may not be spoken against. 2 And let those who have believers as their masters not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but let them serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles


(Titus 2:6-10).
6 Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; 7 in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, 8 sound in speech which is beyond reproach, in order that the opponent may be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us. 9 Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect


(1 Peter 2:18-21).
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. 19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. 21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps


Cheers,
Shafique

I thought I'd check to see what Jesus is reported to have said about slavery in the Bible as well and found this write up:

In the Gospels, slavery was frequently mentioned. Our Lord told a number of parables in which slaves and their masters were key characters. Never did He condemn slavery as evil in any of these stories. (Neither did He indicate that slavery was an asset to society) In some stories, the slave was punished for his unfaithful service (see Matthew 25:14-46; Luke 17:7-10). Jesus’ words to His disciples in John 15:15 indicate that a slave-master was under no obligation to explain to his slave why he was commanding him to do a certain task. A slave doesn’t need to be told “why,” just “what.”

Sometimes, the slave master was represented in a favorable light (see Luke 7:2-10). Faithful slaves were highly commended, while unfaithful slaves were condemned. What Jesus taught about one’s standing in the kingdom of God turned the value system of that society (and our own) upside-down. He taught that greatness was not to be measured in terms of being served, but in terms of being a servant. He was the greatest example of this truth the world has ever seen:

And calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45).

Cheers,
Shafique

Jesus didn't condemn slavery because he knew that the ultimate and last prophet would.

oh wait...

freza wrote:Jesus didn't condemn slavery

'nuff said

Cheers,
Shafique

From what I have read the Mohammad traded slaves, albeit introduced some measures to to improve their life's. Isn't there also mention of concubinage for female booty?

jabbajabba wrote:From what I have read the Mohammad traded slaves, albeit introduced some measures to to improve their life's. Isn't there also mention of concubinage for female booty?

Not sure about trading slaves - but happy to look into it.

The only way for people to become slaves according to the Quran was as an alternative to the usual practice of executing prisoners of war. Concubinage is not allowed in Islam - specifically forbidden. Marrying of female POW was encouraged - but this required the woman's consent eg:

4:24
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

4:25
If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful

It is interesting to contrast the many Quranic injunctions advocating the freeing of slaves with the Biblical instructions for slaves to be obedient and fear their masters.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,

we have been thru this before. I know your memory fails you sometimes, but we have. Slavery has different meanings in the Bible, after all, it's a book written over many years, generations, societies and geographic locations. Slavery has been used in the Bible to mean a good thing: being a slave to God, meaning spiritual surrender. The bad type of slavery, the one we're most familiar with: absolute loss of freedom, as the Hebrews in the OT. Then there's the common slaves which were not slaves as we know them, but servants, workers, which were a fact of life then as they are now.

Jesus would not need to condemn having servants. But he did condemn injustice. He died unjustly after all, stripped of his human freedom..one would say, like a slave in the most extreme terminology that we know.

The theme of obedience is often metaphorical and at other times it's addressing a particular group of people of a particular social or historical situation. for example some passages might have been stating something to the effect of: if you want to change society, change yourself first.
also Shafique, what I see that you ignore is that some passages instruct the "master" to be as kind to his servant as the servant to the master. While other holy books might say, treat them well, but they don't go as far as saying treat them equally. Anyway, if this really interests you you should read a theological explanation on this subject, something from a true expert.

btw, what version of the Bible did you use for these quotes? I see that you did not use your favorite version, KJ, because if you would have you would noticed that instead of slaves, the word "servant" is used, actually most of the versions use servants for most of these situations as that is the most correct translation and application of the word. So the premise of your arguments would seem misplaced in the first place.

freza,

I'd be interested in hearing your view on
"In what way are your arguments/explanations for slaves/slavery/servitude not valid for the Quran as well as the Bible?"

I mean, if I used the same arguments to explain the Quranic verses which talk about slaves, freeing them, treating them well - would you agree that this is an acceptable interpretation of the Quran and therefore can be consistent with God's scripture?

I quoted the scriptures from this essay/article:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2460

I didn't quote it before, as I wanted to see your explanations of the verses. This author clearly states that Slavery was not condemned by Jesus and not condemned by the disciples. He is particular in the use of the term slavery and is not confusing it with servitude (i.e. servants).

Cheers,
Shafique

It was this quote below from the article that led me to ask whether the verses meant Christians should obey the law/those in power and ask whether this extended to employers. The author seems to say it does:

Masters are construed to exercise legitimate authority over slaves, and thus slaves are obligated to obey them. In Romans 13:1-7, Paul indicates that “there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God” (Romans 13:1). Thus, if anyone resists this authority, he resists God (13:2). In Romans 13 Paul is speaking of government authorities. This includes the laws of that government, unless they clearly violate God’s laws. When the Roman government gave slavery legal authority, it was assumed that Christians should submit to their status as slaves, and thus to their masters. Peter makes the connection between the authority of government and that of masters even more clear, by speaking of the two side by side in 1 Peter 2:11-25).

yes I knew you quoted from bible.org because I looked it up

Re: Romans 13:1-7 Before jumping into conclusion and taking things out of context, you should have figured out who Paul was writing this letter to and most importantly why? (hint: to save their hides).

you do understand that the word slavery Does indeed have different meanings and connotations in the Bible, right? because if you can't accept this basic HISTORICAL fact, then what's the point of once again focusing on the Bible incorrectly (instead of lets say focusing on the very interesting shia vs sunni interpretation debates..).

this is my very basic explanation: when slavery is not spoken in metaphorical terms and when not referred to servants, it's not something that is condoned but something that the people of that time lived with because it was part of their reality. Also in some of the letters of Paul for example, he exhorts the marginalized and early Christians to stay calm, not rebel..not with violence, because what would happen if they rebelled? heads would roll, limbs would be crucified, they would have been persecuted and killed (as many clearly were). So some of these letters applied to certain people in particular, not to all of us. (Yet one can argue that they can still apply today in certain cases, look at the non-violent methods of Martin Luther King Jr. for example...his faith and some of his methods extracted from the Bible.) so here's the thing, like I mentioned before, the apostles preached that change comes within the individual first, then can people affect society. The oppressors of that time, the Roman Empire were the masters. The working class people, the poor, destitute, servants, slaves were the oppressed, which included Jesus and his people, he was a laborer after all. And sure enough, the change started from within because that same empire that put Jesus to death eventually became a follower of him.


now I think you're saying that the word slave in the Bible has the same differences in connotation as in the Quran. Well you have been arguing for weeks that the Quran's words don't need interpreting unlike the Bible. So I would assume that a slave means a slave in this case especially if he/she was captured by Mohammad's army. Whereas Jesus was part of that class of people that were marginalized, he ended up with no rights, succumbed to an oppressor. Mohammad said to treat slaves nicely BUT he also became the oppressor to some, his armies killing off families of what were to become his slaves...Parallels? Not quite.

Luther is actually using Romans 13:1-7 when he states that individuals are not allowed to rebel any government. Calvijn afterwards said that people are allowed to rebel.

^
I'm referring to Martin Luther King Jr. the civil rights leader.

I know freza, apologies for not being clear. I only meant that Romans 13:1-7 is indeed used in discussions whether you are allowed to rebel or not. Which is actually a main discussion point in Protestants teaching. And Maarten Lurther (1483–1546) is using Romans iot teach that people are not allowed to rebel ever.

Edit: think about the influence Lurther has/had in Germany and the reign of Hitler, with very little resistance from the German population....(just a theory that came to mind)

FD,
aha, got it.

Interesting discussion.

Yes, I do realise slavery has different forms - the Quran tends not to use the Arabic word for slave ('abd') but the more prosaic 'what the right hand possesses'.

I am normally making this point (usually vis-a-vis prisoners of war), so it is refreshing to have someone trying to convince me of this point

My view is that there is a world of difference between slaves as a result of a war vs going to war for slaves.

In any case, we seem to agree that slavery existed in the past.

The interesting thing for me is the similarities in teachings as well as the differences in scripture.

How the weak and oppressed should act is to be found in the Quran - and also in history, for 13 years it was the Muslims who were oppressed, weak and generally the Muslims were from among the poor, servants and slaves of Mecca.

What is striking, for me, is that the Quran does make the freeing of slaves a recurring theme. This appears to be something not mentioned in the Bible, which rather emphasises (going by what the article says) the submission and acceptance of one's fate.

The similarities in teachings vis-a-vis treatment of slaves/servants is striking, however for me it appears Islam's teachings take the next step and emphasise the freeing of slaves.

It is interesting that it took the reformation for the Biblical interpretation to move from not being able to rebel against authority to allowing it.

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:yes I knew you quoted from bible.org because I looked it up

Re: Romans 13:1-7 Before jumping into conclusion and taking things out of context, you should have figured out who Paul was writing this letter to and most importantly why? (hint: to save their hides).

Note, I didn't look up Romans 13 - I just quoted that bit from the article. Your beef is with the author on this point and not me!

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:It is interesting that it took the reformation for the Biblical interpretation to move from not being able to rebel against authority to allowing it.

I donot know how Catholics look at this. Still, within different reformist/Prostestant movements this is still a point of discussion. Mind you though, that Maarten Luther later on also allowed some form of rebellion in certain cirumstances (which is not very well known).

I have to admit, I'm not familiar with the details of the reformation etc - another piece of history I need to read up on.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:My view is that there is a world of difference between slaves as a result of a war vs going to war for slaves.

oh! what about buying slaves? didn't Mohammad and his followers trade in slavery? it's considered ok to you? didn't he have s.ex with slaves, without marrying them?

shafique wrote:What is striking, for me, is that the Quran does make the freeing of slaves a recurring theme. This appears to be something not mentioned in the Bible, which rather emphasises (going by what the article says) the submission and acceptance of one's fate.

I think you're confusing faiths! It's Islam who is into predestination, not Christianity Jesus led by example, and his example was that of peace and change, radical change actually, but if he had submitted to the Roman Empire, he wouldn't have preached what he did. Paul told early Christians stay submissive in order to stay alive! It was something that applied to a particular situation. I think you understand this.

shafique wrote:The similarities in teachings vis-a-vis treatment of slaves/servants is striking, however for me it appears Islam's teachings take the next step and emphasise the freeing of slaves.

I don't see how buying and collecting slaves from Islamic wars and then saying: be nice to slaves, is taking a step forward. It sounds like hypocrisy, plain and simple. A step forward for Mohammad would have been no wars, no war booty, and declaring that slavery goes against Allah. Now that would have been admirable..

however

apparently Mohammad said that God had granted slaves to him (sura 33:50) if that isn't incomprehensible...God said it's ok for Mohammad to have slaves, specifically from war spoils...it kinda makes go: whaaaat???

freza wrote:I think you're confusing faiths! It's Islam who is into predestination, not Christianity

Freza, predestination is the core of Prostestants believes.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:My view is that there is a world of difference between slaves as a result of a war vs going to war for slaves.

oh! what about buying slaves? didn't Mohammad and his followers trade in slavery? it's considered ok to you? didn't he have s.ex with slaves, without marrying them?

I know of buying slaves to set them free, but am not aware of Muhammad, pbuh, trading slaves. I may have missed references to this - but if you can point me to some sources (I think Bernard Lewis may make this point - but I'm interested in hearing your source).

And no, s.ex slaves are not allowed.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:What is striking, for me, is that the Quran does make the freeing of slaves a recurring theme. This appears to be something not mentioned in the Bible, which rather emphasises (going by what the article says) the submission and acceptance of one's fate.

I think you're confusing faiths! It's Islam who is into predestination, not Christianity Jesus led by example, and his example was that of peace and change, radical change actually, but if he had submitted to the Roman Empire, he wouldn't have preached what he did.

Jesus, to my knowledge, did not free any slaves - so backing up the point I was making about Islam introducing the concept of freeing slaves. FD has made a good point about predestination being part of Christian faith.

freza wrote:Paul told early Christians stay submissive in order to stay alive! It was something that applied to a particular situation. I think you understand this.

I usually am the one who states their belief that Christian teachings have been superseded and don't claim to be eternal

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:The similarities in teachings vis-a-vis treatment of slaves/servants is striking, however for me it appears Islam's teachings take the next step and emphasise the freeing of slaves.

I don't see how buying and collecting slaves from Islamic wars and then saying: be nice to slaves, is taking a step forward. It sounds like hypocrisy, plain and simple. A step forward for Mohammad would have been no wars, no war booty, and declaring that slavery goes against Allah. Now that would have been admirable..

Except that God in Deut 18.18 talks about raising a Prophet like Moses - Moses brought a new law, new book and fought wars. I suspect that if Muhammad, pbuh, had not fought wars this fact would have been held against him.

I note that whilst I say the teachings are similar, you disagree. Fair enough.

However, you may not realise that you are putting down the Bible. For if it is a valid criticism of the Quran to not condemn wars, war booty, war prisoners etc and only talk about being kind to slaves and setting them free - then surely it is valid to criticise the Bible more for not going the limited way of the Quran (for it too has the same 'faults' and doesn't have the 'limited virtue' of advocating the freeing of slaves). I hope you won't just go into denial

freza wrote:apparently Mohammad said that God had granted slaves to him (sura 33:50) if that isn't incomprehensible...God said it's ok for Mohammad to have slaves, specifically from war spoils...it kinda makes go: whaaaat???

Sorry, I don't see what your point is. Prisoners of War are the only way slavery is condoned, as an alternative to the then usual custom of killing them or forcing women into 'relationships'/prostitution. God says in that verse who the Prophet is allowed to Marry - and it is an injunction that he put into practice when he set free Safiyyah (a Jewish lady) and Mariam (a Coptic Christian) before marrying them. They are considered 'mothers of the faithful' and wives of the Prophet (although some commentators consider Mariam a concubine who had the same rights as a wife).

Does God not grant Prophets victory in wars and as a result prisoners of war? The Bible says yes, common sense says yes - so what is the issue? That God says it is ok to marry someone who is captured in war? Is marriage a punishment in your eyes?

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:

freza wrote:I think you're confusing faiths! It's Islam who is into predestination, not Christianity

Freza, predestination is the core of Prostestants believes.

are you talking about unconditional election? if so, I would have to disagree, I don't think all Protestant groups are into unconditional election! But yes some Christian groups are into predestination, not many if you look at the numbers, but do Christian beliefs in predestination are as clear cut as Islam's? that was what I was aiming at.

what I was specifically contrasting was these two faiths, Shafique is saying that Christians are taught to submit their wills and fate - by this one example that Paul gave to this particular situation, which is not correct (not what Jesus taught anyway). Islam says to choose goodness, but also teaches that God has control over everything, including ones fate.

I was referring to the core belief of Christianity (not a particular Chrisitan group) which is that salvation is for everyone that chooses it, not just for those that are predetermined to obtain it.

shafique wrote:I know of buying slaves to set them free, but am not aware of Muhammad, pbuh, trading slaves. I may have missed references to this - but if you can point me to some sources (I think Bernard Lewis may make this point - but I'm interested in hearing your source).
And no, s.ex slaves are not allowed.

you sometimes seem more "familiar" with the Bible than with the Hadiths...Why don't you tell us about these claims that Mohammad has se.x with slaves which he didn't marry. Give us your reliable sources. take the leap!

shafique wrote:Jesus, to my knowledge, did not free any slaves - so backing up the point I was making about Islam introducing the concept of freeing slaves. FD has made a good point about predestination being part of Christian faith.

I'm not sure you caught on to the type of slavery there was during Jesus' time. Servants and bondsmen that's what most of them were. Your question is a bit nonsensical if I dare say. How could a laborer preacher have "freed" servants? Mohammad led armies, their war booty were slaves or "other" but those war booty were on the losing end. Jesus did not lead any armies, he was poor, he was one of them, he was under threat. I mean, c'mon.
The bigger picture of freedom though, was there. Christianity eventually stopped being persecuted. Then there's the issue of Spiritual slavery, and freedom, another of those themes in the Bible.

shafique wrote:Except that God in Deut 18.18 talks about raising a Prophet like Moses - Moses brought a new law, new book and fought wars. I suspect that if Muhammad, pbuh, had not fought wars this fact would have been held against him.

I don't see the point you're trying to make here. are you suggesting that people would be asking: "oh why did the prophet not fight in wars like manly men do?!" uh, no. you're comparing the wrong prophets here. the ultimate prophet in Christianity is Jesus, not Moses.

shafique wrote:However, you may not realise that you are putting down the Bible. For if it is a valid criticism of the Quran to not condemn wars, war booty, war prisoners etc and only talk about being kind to slaves and setting them free - then surely it is valid to criticise the Bible more for not going the limited way of the Quran (for it too has the same 'faults' and doesn't have the 'limited virtue' of advocating the freeing of slaves). I hope you won't just go into denial

No, not putting down the Bible. denial...(I'll hold my tongue on this one)
have I ever said the Bible is perfect? nope.
btw, 1 Timothy 1:10 does state that the slave trade is wrong.

shafique wrote:Sorry, I don't see what your point is. Prisoners of War are the only way slavery is condoned, as an alternative to the then usual custom of killing them or forcing women into 'relationships'/prostitution. God says in that verse who the Prophet is allowed to Marry - and it is an injunction that he put into practice when he set free Safiyyah (a Jewish lady) and Mariam (a Coptic Christian) before marrying them. They are considered 'mothers of the faithful' and wives of the Prophet (although some commentators consider Mariam a concubine who had the same rights as a wife).

so instead of killing them, take them as war booty. you know, I'm still not convinced... I'm almost convince, really, it's such a compelling argument, but...

shafique wrote:Does God not grant Prophets victory in wars and as a result prisoners of war? The Bible says yes, common sense says yes - so what is the issue? That God says it is ok to marry someone who is captured in war? Is marriage a punishment in your eyes?

why did Mohammad stage wars again? over taxes? over geographically desirable real estate? religious conversions? let's say you're the slave, you would be the result of a war capture. and I know you're a very handsome guy, so let's say a prophetess would be after you. would you be loving the idea of getting married to the woman who just had your brothers and wife killed?

freza wrote: are you talking about unconditional election? if so, I would have to disagree, I don't think all Protestant groups are into unconditional election! But yes some Christian groups are into predestination, not many if you look at the numbers, but do Christian beliefs in predestination are as clear cut as Islam's?

Right, what I know of Catholics they believe in personal freedom. Not so with Protestants (at least main stream). According to Prostestants, we are all born sinfull and people have no control over salvation, this is all predestined. Go to a hard-core Protestant sermon on a Sunday and this what you will hear all the time: "You are sinners, you will all go to hell and burn for eternity".

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:I know of buying slaves to set them free, but am not aware of Muhammad, pbuh, trading slaves. I may have missed references to this - but if you can point me to some sources (I think Bernard Lewis may make this point - but I'm interested in hearing your source).
And no, s.ex slaves are not allowed.

you sometimes seem more "familiar" with the Bible than with the Hadiths...Why don't you tell us about these claims that Mohammad has se.x with slaves which he didn't marry. Give us your reliable sources. take the leap!

I'll take that to mean 'I don't have a source'.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Except that God in Deut 18.18 talks about raising a Prophet like Moses - Moses brought a new law, new book and fought wars. I suspect that if Muhammad, pbuh, had not fought wars this fact would have been held against him.

I don't see the point you're trying to make here. are you suggesting that people would be asking: "oh why did the prophet not fight in wars like manly men do?!" uh, no. you're comparing the wrong prophets here. the ultimate prophet in Christianity is Jesus, not Moses.

The point is simple. God promised to send a Prophet like Moses, Moses fought wars, Jesus did not fight wars but Muhammad, pbuh, did.

Therefore, some Prophets of God fight wars and a Prophet after Moses was promised by God - and He said this prophet would be like Moses.

freza wrote:
btw, 1 Timothy 1:10 does state that the slave trade is wrong.

But you agree it does not advocate the freeing of slaves - in whatever form the slavery took.

freza wrote:so instead of killing them, take them as war booty.

Yes - I refer you to your argument above about what the practice of the time was. Look up what happened to prisoners of war - the women and children (and for this, you don't even have to refer to anything but the Bible!).

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Does God not grant Prophets victory in wars and as a result prisoners of war? The Bible says yes, common sense says yes - so what is the issue? That God says it is ok to marry someone who is captured in war? Is marriage a punishment in your eyes?

why did Mohammad stage wars again? over taxes? over geographically desirable real estate? religious conversions? let's say you're the slave, you would be the result of a war capture. and I know you're a very handsome guy, so let's say a prophetess would be after you. would you be loving the idea of getting married to the woman who just had your brothers and wife killed?

Why did Moses fight wars? The prophet like Moses should also fight wars for similar reasons.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I'll take that to mean 'I don't have a source'.

well...actually I do. I can look up some info from the expert scholar historian al-Tabari. But a friend sent me the following quotes which I will share with you:

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya, a great Islamic scholar and historian says (part 1, p160):

"Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased more slaves then he sold. He once sold one black slave for two. His purchases of slaves were more than he sold." "Muhammad had a number of black slaves. One of them was named 'Mahran'. Muhammad forced him to do more labor than the average man. Whenever Muhammad went on a trip and he, or his people, got tired of carrying their stuff, he made Mahran carry it. Mahran said "Even if I were already carrying the load of 6 or 7 donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load".

apparently Tabari also wrote about this. any feedback?

Here's what I found: (Malik's Muwatta 29.32.95):

Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Habban that Ibn Muhayriz said, "I went into the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri and so I sat by him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said al-Khudri said, 'We went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on the expedition to the Banu al-Mustaliq. We took some Arabs prisoner, and we desired the women as celibacy was hard for us. We wanted the ransom, so we wanted to practise coitus interruptus. We said, 'Shall we practise coitus interruptus while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is among us before we ask him?' We asked him about that and he said, 'You don't have to not do it. There is no self which is to come into existence up to the Day of Rising but that it will come into existence.'

so apparently Mohammad said it's Ok to have se.x with slaves. not sure what he thought of coitus interruptus though.

also apparently it's not ok to have s.ex with married women, except if the slave women are married, then it's ok.
too many surahs and Hadiths to mention here.

shafique wrote:The point is simple. God promised to send a Prophet like Moses, Moses fought wars, Jesus did not fight wars but Muhammad, pbuh, did.

the prophet like Moses was Jesus. Hebrew lineage = Jesus. Very clear.

shafique wrote:Therefore, some Prophets of God fight wars and a Prophet after Moses was promised by God - and He said this prophet would be like Moses.

Except that Moses' army fought when they were attacked, he didn't fight for tax money or to convert people. And the great irony in you bringing up Moses is that he was leading his slave people to freedom.

shafique wrote:But you agree it does not advocate the freeing of slaves - in whatever form the slavery took.

servant you are free! is that what you expect to read in the Bible?

This is from the good ol OT, one of your favs, Deuteronomy and is talking about debt slave (more like bondsman)15:12-16

If your fellow Hebrew – whether male or female – is sold to you and serves you for six years, then in the seventh year you must let that servant go free. If you set them free, you must not send them away empty-handed. You must supply them generously from your flock, your threshing floor, and your winepress – as the Lord your God has blessed you, you must give to them. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore, I am commanding you to do this thing today.

Interesting!

to be continued...

freza wrote:..apparently Tabari also wrote about this. any feedback?

Thanks - I'll look up the references in the biographies of the Prophet that I have and compare. Tabari I have heard of, but not Jawziya (but then again, my sources are from tertiary English books which refer to these older accounts). My quick look at Wikipedia yesterday gave the numbers of slaves freed by Muhammad, pbuh, and it did not seem to agree with the first quote you gave that he bought more than he set free - so if this fundamental point is questionable, it raises questions as to the veracity of the rest or the 'spin' of the facts.

Muhammad, pbuh, did have servants and slaves - these are the ones he set free. I was not aware that he had traded them - hence I asked for the references so I could look into this.

freza wrote:Here's what I found: (Malik's Muwatta 29.32.95):
...' so apparently Mohammad said it's Ok to have se.x with slaves. not sure what he thought of coitus interruptus though.

The Quran says it is ok to marry captives of war and forbidden to force them into marriage. (And the quote actually has the Prophet ruling on Coitus Interuptus - but I could not see where he said it was ok to have s.ex slaves or even a hint of your repeated assertions that he took s.ex slaves).

freza wrote:The Quran mentions Mohammad purchasing slaves, rather matter of factly. Should I point out the surahs or are you familiar with them?

Yes, please let us examine these references.

freza wrote:The great Islamic historians mention Mohammad mistreating some of his slaves...some were treated nicely, some became victims of his battles (no matter who nicely they were treated, they were victims first), some were treated not very nicely.

Again, can we see some references and examples. Many captives of war were executed for crimes they had committed, many also became captives who were later set free. The ones that became slaves were handed over to 'owners' who were instructed to give them the same food and clothes that the owners would eat and wear.

freza wrote:also apparently it's not ok to have s.ex with married women, except if the slave women are married, then it's ok.

Yes - but s.ex within marriage.

You seem incapable or unwilling to answer the question whether you consider marriage a punishment or not.

The only s.ex that is permissable in Islam is within Marriage - so everytime you mention the word 's.ex' in relation to Muslims, this is synonymous with 'marriage' or 'marital relations'. Hence I am confused why you see marriage as a punishment.

freza wrote:too many surahs and Hadiths to mention here, but you get the point...

No, sorry I don't get the point.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:The point is simple. God promised to send a Prophet like Moses, Moses fought wars, Jesus did not fight wars but Muhammad, pbuh, did.

the prophet like Moses was Jesus. Hebrew lineage = Jesus. Very clear.

Hold on, I thought Jesus was God and now you tell me God is Jewish! (falls down in amazement)

So, apart from not fighting wars, Jesus was like Moses because he was Jewish. Muhammad, pbuh, despite fulfilling literally the prophecies of Deut 18.18 should be rejected because he is a cousin of the Israelites and not a descendant of Isaac (and hence not from 'amongst' the Israelites' 'brethren').

Well, you have one interpretation of the Bible, the Jews have another interpretation (they don't believe Jesus is 'that Prophet') and Muslims have another. We can't all be right, but we all think we are!

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Therefore, some Prophets of God fight wars and a Prophet after Moses was promised by God - and He said this prophet would be like Moses.

Except that Moses' army fought when they were attacked, he didn't fight for tax money or to convert people. And the great irony in you bringing up Moses is that he was leading his slave people to freedom.

I'm sorry - Moses only fought when the Israelites were attacked. Ok - you must have a different Bible to me.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:But you agree it does not advocate the freeing of slaves - in whatever form the slavery took.

servant you are free! is that what you expect to read in the Bible?

Yes - but with the word slave not servant (Hebrew has different words you know) - the Quran clearly gives instructions about freeing slaves, that is the point I was making.

freza wrote:This is from the good ol OT, one of your favs, Deuteronomy and is talking about debt slave (more like bondsman)15:12-16

If your fellow Hebrew – whether male or female – is sold to you and serves you for six years, then in the seventh year you must let that servant go free.

Yes - the Jews are instructed to be kind to Jewish debtors. Is this one of the Old laws that you believe should still be followed?

Interesting that you have to go to the OT to find a reference to freeing slaves - which brings me back to the point the article made that Jesus and the disciples did not condemn slavery. In fact, the Bible records a slave transaction by a disciple - something that I wasn't aware of until I read the article.

Cheers,
Shafique

Wikipedia has a good entry for Islam and Slavery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery

I think it sums up both views quite well - and does state that Muhammad, pbuh, bought and sold slaves (reference is to Bernard Lewis on this point, and I have a number of his books and can look this up).

It does also highlight the new view that the Quran brought to the subject:
There are many common features between the institution of slavery in the Qur'an and that of neighboring cultures. However, the Qur'anic institution had some unique new features.[3] Bernard Lewis states that the Qur'anic legislation brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects: presumption of freedom, and the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances.[16] According to Brockopp, the idea of using alms for the manumission of slaves appears to be unique to the Qur'an, assuming the traditional interpretation of verses [Qur'an 2:177] and [Qur'an 9:60]. Similarly, the practice of freeing slaves in atonment for certain sins appears to be introduced by the Qur'an (but compare Exod 21:26-7).[3] The forced prostitution of female slaves, a Near Eastern custom of great antiquity, is condemned in the Qur'an.[14][28]Murray Gordon notes that this ban is "of no small significance."[29] Brockopp writes: "Other cultures limit a master's right to harm a slave but few exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly, and the placement of slaves in the same category as other weak members of society who deserve protection is unknown outside the Qur'an. The unique contribution of the Qur'an, then, is to be found in its emphasis on the place of slaves in society and society's responsibility toward the slave, perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in its time."[3]

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique, I'm so surprised that you don't know nearly enough of this slavery issue and Mohammad, I'm shocked actually.

so once you confirmed that al-Tobari states that Mohammad treated some of his slaves badly, what excuse for him do you think we should discuss? maybe there's something in a Hadith excusing him, per Allah...we should go find it.

wiki also has this:

"Islam permits sexual relations between a male master and his female slave outside of marriage. This is referred to in the Qur'an as ma malakat aymanukum or "what your right hands possess".[60][61]"

outside of marriage?

this sounds very desperate:

shafique wrote:Hold on, I thought Jesus was God and now you tell me God is Jewish! (falls down in amazement)

you mean all this time you didn't know that Jesus was Jewish? or were you trying to be funny?

I'm amazed that apparently you're suggesting that the entire Quran's worthiness is based on that one Deuteronomy passage. The one that says "brother".

yet there are several Deu passages that CONTRADICT entirely what is in the Quran. how do you explain this?

we discussed the brethren issue before. I'm sure you remember. answer this: who is more of a brother: a Hebrew to a Hebrew or a Hebrew to an Arab?

freza wrote:Shafique, I'm so surprised that you don't know nearly enough of this slavery issue and Mohammad, I'm shocked actually.

Always good to improve one's knowledge.

freza wrote:so once you confirmed that al-Tobari states that Mohammad treated some of his slaves badly, what excuse for him do you think we should discuss? maybe there's something in a Hadith excusing him, per Allah...we should go find it.

Well, let's see the evidence first before discussing the punishment

freza wrote:wiki also has this:

"Islam permits sexual relations between a male master and his female slave outside of marriage. This is referred to in the Qur'an as ma malakat aymanukum or "what your right hands possess".[60][61]"

Wiki is wrong on this point - the Quran is categoric about s.ex is only allowed within marriage, and this is also common knowledge.

freza wrote:outside of marriage?

..s.ex is not allowed.

freza wrote:this sounds very desperate:

shafique wrote:Hold on, I thought Jesus was God and now you tell me God is Jewish! (falls down in amazement)

you mean all this time you didn't know that Jesus was Jewish? or were you trying to be funny?

The clue was the " "

freza wrote:I'm amazed that apparently you're suggesting that the entire Quran's worthiness is based on that one Deuteronomy passage. The one that says "brother".

Hmm - you seem to be suffering from the selective amnesia you are fond of accusing me of. Did you already forget that there is a whole thread about Biblical prophecies fulfilled by Muhammad?

freza wrote:yet there are several Deu passages that CONTRADICT entirely what is in the Quran. how do you explain this?

They are passages from (to use your words) an imperfect book - they are the ones I choose to ignore. You choose different verses to ignore.

freza wrote:we discussed the brethren issue before. I'm sure you remember. answer this: who is more of a brother: a Hebrew to a Hebrew or a Hebrew to an Arab?

Strewth - I acknowledge you interpret the verse one way and Jews and Muslims interpret it another.

You say 'that prophet' is Jesus, Jews disagree with you, Muslims disagree with you.

Muhammad, pbuh, resembles Moses more than Jesus does - that is my considered view. Jews say Jesus doesn't resemble Moses enough and reject him as that prophet (and also reject him as the Messiah - who is distinct from 'that prophet').

Cheers,
Shafique