Talk:Islamic views on slavery

Chronological Archives
1 2

Potential references

Potential references

• Bok, Francis (2003). Escape from Slavery: The True Story of My Ten Years in Captivity and My Journey to Freedom in America. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0312306236. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Fisher, Humphrey J. (2001). Slavery in the History of Muslim Black Africa. New York University Press. ISBN 0814727166.
• Antislavery Campaigner Wins Mauritanian Presidency, Published 2007-03-27 11:30 (KST)
• Slavery 'still exists' in Mauritania, Published Date: March 22, 2007
• Words of caution, Cameron Duodu, March 27, 2007 8:00 PM
• Slavery Lives on in Mauritania, Aug. 28, 2001
• Segal, Ronald (2006). Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0374527976.
• Gordon, Murray (1990). Slavery in the Arab World. New Amsterdam Books. ISBN 978-1561310234.
• {{cite book

|last = Davis
|first = Robert C.
|year = 2004
|title = Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800  
|publisher = Palgrave Macmillan
|id = ISBN 978-1403945518

The lead

I usually write for an imagined audience of bright high school students, or college freshmen. Such a reader searching for information on Islam and slavery will reasonably wonder if Islam forbids slavery, or allows it, or allows it in theory but forbids it in practice. I think we need to present up front that:

• Slavery in Islamic lands was different from slavery in the American south (because most of our readers are likely more familiar with American history than Turkish or Persian history)
• Muhammad thought a lot about slavery, and made some fundamental changes in the institution
• The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade, but the subjects are related
• Islam today does not prohibit slavery (unless it does, then we need citations), and
• Slavery is illegal in every Muslim country (though tolerated in one or two places)

Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think these are excellent and balanced points. Yes, good to see that you are anticipating people's questions with some logic. Actually, many of these exact questions/issues are addressed in the BBC link in the section above.

As for your recent re-instatement of the 19th century change of opinions, while i do think that recent attempts to exclude it simply because it hasn't got it's own section is mischievous POV pushing and fact hiding, your recent points here are much better in a lead.Merbabu 13:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i concur with Merbabu, these points are all very good. ITAQALLAH 15:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade." What do you mean, Tom? Arrow740 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as the Atlantic slave trade was not a 'Christian' operation, even though the slavers were Christians. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the people doing the enslaving were Muslim. Arrow740 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Note too that I said the subjects are related. It needs to be mentioned, but we have to be careful not to ascribe any evil act by a Muslim to the religion of Islam. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This slavery was authorized and regulated by Islamic law all the way back to Muhammad. Your analogy with Christians fails. Arrow740 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Atlantic slave trade, started by the Portuguese, but soon dominated by the English, was the sale and exploitation of African slaves by Europeans that occurred in and around the Atlantic ocean from the 15th century to the 19th century." Of course that's just an online encyclopedia, but it seems to be born out by the American history references I have on hand. "My analogy fails?" Try again, and see if you can choose language more conducive to constructive collaboration. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is called Islam and slavery. The slaves taken out of Africa to any destination were enslaved by Muslims. Islam recognizes slavery as part of the divine order and gives specific instances where enslavement is lawful, indeed "sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief." There is no such parallel with Christianity. So when Muslims enslaved people, they were engaging in a practice that is part of their religion. When Christians engaged in slavery, they were not engaging in a practice that is part of their religion. Arrow740 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

""[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America". Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66.

Sorry for the off-article fork here but just some comments on Christianity being viewed as sanctioning slavery. It was a fact of life as such for centuries operating through instituationalized governments and the abolotionists were the odd men out in their interpretations of the bible during their day. African slave trade is based on the Curse of Ham through Canaan, Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. " Canaanites were reported as Africans and the entire race and descendants were cursed into slavery. Slavery is sanctioned and regulated in the Pentateuch and the old testament. Exodus 21:20-21 "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." Mentioned in the new testament as well a fact of life without criticism. Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." Note: a lot of the times that servants & maids is used in the translations it is actually referring to slaves. Also the council of Gangra, Pope Gregory among others issuing canon laws affirming or regulating slavery, Thomas Aquinas himself advising slaves on proper behavior. Neither Christ nor Peter in his epistles said anything against slavery either and it was quite a mainstream way of life. Granted there were dissenters but slavery was the norm and they were the exeptions. The holy roman empire was a slave based economy, a model that was socially inherited by the Arabs.--Tigeroo 17:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Canaanites were African? I've never heard that one before. Lewis says that "Ham's descendents" were a particular tribe near ancient Israel. Arrow740 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not even fringe, I am sure you can easily look it up in greater detail; a quick google netted this as a college course material. While it may no longer be current the beleif was quite mainstream and a historical reality that shaped centuries of colonial slavery and racist attitude. The theological position underwent quite a transformation over time to lose slavery.--Tigeroo 05:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No doubt the slavers were doing something their religious leaders said was permitted, but that was the case of Christian slavers as well as Muslim. I imagine I could dig up a few quotes from ante bellum Christian preachers about God ordaining the status of the black slaves on the plantation. That does not mean growing sugar cane was a Christian activity. But maybe we are drifting off point. I would include in the lead a mention of and link to the Arab slave trade, mostly as it is now. Do you want to do something different? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bravo Tom Harrison! All of your points here are very much keeping in line with non-villification as well as non-de-villification (I'm sure there's a word for that... escapes me right now... I think it should be understood). (→Netscott) 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Whitewash? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the word may be "exculpation". → As in false exculpation. (→Netscott) 19:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, if you think that slavery was anything near as integral to Christianity as it (was) to Islam, I'd like to see some evidence. Arrow740 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to add that to Christianity and slavery I would provide it. What change do you want to make to this article's treatment of the Arab slave trade? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I said, "The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade." What do you mean, Tom?" You responded with your reasoning, "Just as the Atlantic slave trade was not a 'Christian' operation, even though the slavers were Christians." I have shown that your analogy is incorrect, so your reasoning for your initial statement "The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade." is wrong. I strongly object to any such statement in the article, because it is at best misleading. In a nutshell, certain kinds of slavery are Islamic, though slavery is neither explicitly Christian nor explicitly un-Christian. Arrow740 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Granted that arguments by analogy are never the best, I think mine is accurate. I may be wrong, but until I am convinced otherwise, I maintain that the Arab slave trade was not something intrinsically 'Islamic.' You are right that the institutions of slavery in Muslim and Christin lands were distinctly different - male field workers vs. female concubines and eunuchs, for example. But, if neither of us is proposing a change to the page, I do not see the need to persue it. I will read what you have to say about it, but probably will not reply further in this thread. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer "The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade.": Because Islam never organize such slave trade. At the time Islam no longer belong to Arab people only, therefore it was their choice (the Arab) to organize such slavery trade and it did not related with Islam as religion. To make it clear, they did it not because Islamic obligation to do slavery, but simply because it (slavery trade) was their own act. Just because Islam has law about slavery, it doesn't mean that Islam encourage or give order to build such trade organization. They did it because it was their Arab Culture, majority people who did that put their identity as Arab first and latter, coincidentally, their believe as Muslim. C'mon, you read the article, capturing free man and sold them as the slave is against Islamic Law. There for in the term of sharia, they broke the law. They know that, that's why they conducted their operative in secretive organization (sometime their receive unlawful status depend on the ruler of the region) and produce justification for customer in the market. In a nutshell, certain kinds of slavery are not Islamic, it just happen in Islamic Civilization. In a nutshell again, that kind of slavery is Arabic, because it full with Arabic characteristic. I write only to persuade your point of view. But if you can not be open minded, than I also will not pursue this conversation. --210.48.222.7 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer "So when Muslims enslaved people, they were engaging in a practice that is part of their religion". Once again, there is no obligation for Muslim to do slavery. There no such thing as an "authorized and regulated" slavery in Islamic teaching (except for war, but that's another topic) because there is no order to form Institutionalize slavery thing in Islamic teaching . The Islamic court do not initiate nor gave order for a Institutional body to engage in slavery, but the court observe the slavery practice and punish the unlawful act. "So when Muslims enslaved people, they were engaging in a practice that is part of their religion." seems like an absurd comment. For example, when Muslim eat, Muslim are not engaging in a practice that is part of Islamic teaching just because Muslim eat with Islamic rule. The practice is not the part of Islam Religion. We, human being, engage in that practice. Islam only demand Muslim to engage in that activity only and if only following certain law, but Islam never demand Muslim to do that practice in the first place. --210.48.222.7 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Subject Evaluation

A very through, rich & acurate research...Thanks for effort

Nasser

Source 56

Ok, this talk page is terrible, but relating to the topic itself: Source 56 is not a source... it's just not... look at it. The statement it is backing up is an important one: "As slaves are regarded as inferior in Islamic law, death at the hands of a free man does not require that the latter be killed in retaliation", and source 56 just says "Except according to Hanafis, who make a free man liable to retaliation in cases of murder". That, I'm fairly sure, is not the name of a book, person, film, documentary, etc. It's the second half of a sentence... 213.132.45.37 (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that text should be in brackets with Hanafi linked to the appropriate article. I wouldn't know what to replace the citation with though. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Almost this entire article is referenced to Bernard Lewis

This article relies almost exclusively on the works Bernard Lewis, one of few Islamic historians to have sought evidence of Arab denigration of Africans. None of the more prominent names in Muslim history are cited, nor are the anthropologists who are experts on these cultures. The truth is many of Islam's great political leaders, artists, writers and poets were clearly identified as African. Al-Mustansir is probably the most well-known Fatimid Caliph. The Fatimids reached the zenith of their power during his reign in Egypt. He was the son of the Caliph al-Zahir and a Nubian concubine. His father and grandfather had been notorious for their human rights violations. His grandfather al-Hakim made laws forbidding women to leave their homes, killing women who resisted or even objected. His father al-Zahir shut 2,660 young women in a mosque, where they died of hunger.

Scholars describe the Moor as originating in the Senegal River valley in Southern Mauritania as Almoravides, and gathering followers from many ethic groups before overwhelming the Iberian Peninsula. The Almoravides were a group of devout Muslims also responsible for the destabilization and eventual demise of the Kingdom of Ghana, in and around the same timeframe as the Iberian siege. Of the three Moorish kings killed in the battle of Alcazar in 1578, two were mulattoes and one, an unmixed "Negro", Mulai Mohammed “the Negro.” (Chenier L. Recherches Hist. sur les Maures, V 3, p. 328. 1787. Muley Moharnet qui fut surnomme’ le Negre parce qu’il ‘etait fils d’une Negresse).

A passage from the thirteenth century “Primera cronica general” (Wolf, 1990: Chapter 559 General Chronicles of Spain) describes the events of 711, what is understood to be the fall of Spain in that year: “...Their faces were black as pitch, the handsomest among them was black as a cooking pot, and their eyes blazed like...”

I am removing the Bernard Lewis passages until there is more emphasis on reliable historical accounts. Bernard Lewis is not a prominent historian nor is he an Anthropologist, and thus, he is not a reliable source.... I also note that Bernard Lewis references are strategically place in attempts to make Islam appear particularly hostile toward Africans; indeed, THERE ARE NO OTHER RERERENCES PROVIDED!

References:

Chenier L. Recherches Hist. sur les Maures, V 3, p. 328. 1787

Wolf, Kenneth Baxter 1990. Conquerors and Chronicles of Early Medieval Spain. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

The Bible Leviticus 25:44-46,NOT the Qur'an [9:60] that accepts the institution of slavery

Islam does Not only forbid taking or keeping slaves,but also by NOT freeing them is a SIN that defy Allah’s commandment

[9:60] {In fact, the A sadaqat /alms is meant for the needy and the poor, as well as for those appointed to collect and distribute it,to win hearts over (to Islam), to free slaves and those in debt, (to wage a struggle) for the sake of Allah, and to help the wayfarer. It is an obligation imposed by Allah(Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ); and Allah is well aware, the Wisest}.

Thus freeing Slaves as well as removing poverty and debts from the Alms is not a matter of Choice or an option it is an Obligation imposed by Allah himself (Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ) as i it is strongly been stated in verse 9:60 , just like any other obligation duty imposed by Allah ( Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ) be it, establishing prayer, fasting Ramadan , and making Hajj.The state Has the obligation to take Muslims Sadaqat/Alms to free slaves.

Quran [9:60] The State must Collect the "Zakat alms" to free the slaves Muslims and non Muslims,eradicate poverty,and free those who are in deb

If this was true, why was Muhammad himself a slave-owner? Didn't he understand the quran himself?

while the Quran 9:60 prescribe to free slaves as a Command duty ordained by Allah (Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله). The bible itself prescribed to take slave Leviticus 25:44-46 and accepts the institution of slavery

"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 will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." Leviticus 25:44-46

Happy haytham (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad was a slave-owner and Jesus wasn't. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.44.119 (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So what? You guys are engaging in religion hatred war. Beside, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) "WAS" slave owner, he freed all of his slave in the end. Also, How do you know for sure? You have no historical evidence/source at all regarding Prophet Isa live (Jesus, if you may)--210.48.222.7 (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What the bible has to say on the subject of slavery has no relevance to the subject of this article. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparing Muhammad to Jesus is like comparing George Washington to Mickey Mouse, one is a real historical figure and the other is a figment of someone's immagination, a fiction. Having said that, history tells us that Muhammad did not own slaves but he recieved slaves as gifts or as prisoners of war and he then set them free. When he died he did not own any slaves, and was generally poor by any standard, having to pawn his armor in order provide for his household (even though he was the ruler of all of Arabia at the time). The writers of the story of Jesus, on the other hand, did not provide him with a full life and we have no idea of where he stands on anything other than some polemic about the kingdom of God being near. If anyone knows of what the authors had in mind for the Jesus character (like from a TV, radio or magazine interview with Paul, Mark, John, Luke or Matthew) regarding concrete issues, then please let us know.173.74.22.141 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not that I think it's relevant to this article but you should check out "historicity of Jesus" and "historicity of Muhammad" here on Wikipedia for more info. And, by the way, what does the Bible have to do with Islamic views on slavery? There's no reason why this talk section shouldn't be deleted.95.169.243.210 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Tariqsalam, 14 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Quran (47/4) says (People’s opposition has transgressed to the extent that a clash seems imminent.) Therefore when you face them in the battlefield, you too should kill them. And when their strength is broken and you have fully subdued them, the remaining should be taken into your custody as prisoners of war (8:67). Then (as the circumstances demand) set them free either as an act of grace* or after taking ransom (monetary reward or by exchange of your own prisoners ~ 38:39), till all possibilities of waging war are eliminated (and peace and order returns). (It is for this purpose that you are permitted to raise arms.)

• Arabs used to enslave the men prisoners of war and the women were made concubines. The Quran closed the doors to slavery forever by this command.

Tariqsalam (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Saladdin19, 1 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Original Article Text: "The Qur'an also recognizes concubinage. A master may make his female slave as his concubine and, if she is a Muslim, he can marry her. Abstinence however is said to be a better choice."

Replacement: Whereas a master may marry a female slave, concubinage is strictly prohibited in Islam. However, the practice of concubinage among the elite (most notably with Harems) is well-known but outside the allowed practices of Islam (adultery).

Reasoning: Regardless, Qur'an 6:3 is irrelevant to this topic, as the surah does not address ownership of slaves (following the original citation link is sufficient to prove this point). In terms of concubinage: the Qur'an, and Islam, accepts nothing of the sort. Ayat 23:6, 33:50-52, and 70:30 (used for the concubinage reference) are clear in describing marriage to slaves, not sex with slaves. In fact, those ayat are governed by the laws set in Surah Nisa (Chapter "Women"), specifically 4:25 which states: " 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. " {http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/004.qmt.html#004.025} That is, if you are unable to pay the dowry for a (free) Muslim wife, you are allowed to choose a woman "whom your right hands possess" and which fulfill the specific guidelines for choosing a wife set forth here. Moreover, sexual relations outside wedlock (adultery) are strictly prohibited in Islam. {http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/024.qmt.html#024.030} Saladdin19 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The new version is not supported by the citations, and is contradicted later in the article. 33:50 clearly states "We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses". The claim that this is talking about who it is lawful to marry makes no sense. 23:5-6 and 70:29-30 make a similar distinction between wives and slaves, stating that it is not necessary to "abstain from sex" or "guard their chastity" with either of those two groups. Again, the claim that this refers to marriage, rather than sex, is nonsensical, because you cannot marry somebody who is already your wife. I see no reason why 24:30, which is a less targeted exhortation to modesty, would override the three other verses. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have reverted the requested changes I made earlier as this is clearly contentious. Please discuss if needed As I'm not familiar with the subject, I won't get involved, but I am willing to insert whatever the results of the discussion are. Thank you.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 18:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a note to the effect that current Islamic thought does not condone concubinage (or slavery, for that matter) would be appropriate, though I can't provide a reference to support that view right off the bat. It may also be more appropriate elsewhere in the article, I think it would seem a bit tangential to this part of it. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is already a "Modern interpretations" section. It does not specifically address concubinage, but would seem to be the appropriate place for claims such as those that you were asked to insert (if they can be supported). 109.77.29.14 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I can't word them myself, heh, being a completely uninvolved editor. If you or anyone else can put something together about that view, I will insert it. You'd need to be very specific about the text to be inserted though.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 19:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will see if I can dig anything up on that over the next few days. I should point out that Saladdin19 did have one valid point: the reference to 6:3 from the original text doesn't have anything to do with slavery or concubinage. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is a little biased

This article is a little biased presenting the attitude of Islam toward slavery as being better than it actually was.

First, there is too much of an emphasis on what the Qur'an says and the attitude Islam is supposed to have toward slavery IN THEORY. In practice, there was a lot more cruelty. Even if this cruelty was against the Qur'an, a truly objective article needs to be more revealing of what Muslims did in practice in regard to slaves.

Second, the choice of quotes and references tends to be quoting and referencing biased opinions. For example, "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."" This quote and reference is not objective and therefore should not be included in an objective article. Other cultures did treat their slaves kindly. They didn't exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly because they didn't have to exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly. There were cultures in which treating slaves kindly was the norm and therefore an exhortation to do so was unnecessary. It is biased for Brockopp to claim that the Qur'an is perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in it's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejjinks (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• What you are asking for here you will never get. Although I totally agree with you, this entire Wiki project has been infiltrated by Islamo facists such as Halaqah and others whose desire is to conceal the facts of history and to decapitate anything that paints Islam in a negative light irrespective of the brutal acts done in the name of Islam and encouraged by the Quran itself which details how to deal with slaves, encourages slavery and performed by the Arabs and their agents. To make matters worst, their are also couple of liberal do-gooders on Wiki who fear being painted as anti-Islam or fear Islam period and would never rock the boat even when they know the true facts of history. As far as I am concerned, they are worst than the Islamic facist that have infiltrated Wiki. When you speak the truth, they always quote you that old adage assume good faith. Yes, assume good faith but a spade is a spade.

Tamsier (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please edit the article not the editor. the time spent complaining about who is who is time not spent editing in a constructive manner. Think about it. the best way to fix a NPOV is to discuss the issue and fix it, not run conspiracy theories about Muslims on wiki. You were warned about this by other "liberal" editors. But redirecting Arab slave trade to Islamic views on slavery is an issue which scores no points and has no gains. If you have issues with Islam which conflict with the policy of wikipedia take it to a forum, not this talk page. You have policy at your disposal, so just work within the rules.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree with the OP that that sentence doesn't seem to be very objective or concrete, the rant by Tamsier is unwarranted. If you don't like interacting with editors from other cultures and religions, I suggest joining Conservapedia instead. Wikipedia is global.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that to this day no one has created an article calling Muslims hypocrites for not following their faith properly. Slavery being one of the many many examples. Additionally, the article is about the "Islamic View on Slavery", that is the guidelines set by Islam. If we were to write about the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom", we wouldn't mention whether or not it was upheld all the time. A different article would have to be created for that.BrYounus (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Slavery in the Quran

In the section slavery in the Quran.

This part: "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.[14] 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." It says that the Quran had a ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances. Actually this is not correct. The ban is on enslavement of free "muslims". The word persons should be changed to muslims. And then it can say something else about circumstances of enslavement of non muslims afterwards, if necessary.

it is deceptive to say the Quran banned slavery of free persons. That is not true. It only exempted free persons who are muslims, from being enslaved. The other non muslims who lived in muslim countries had to pay a freedom tax, to remain free, otherwise they too could be enslaved. Only muslims were exempt from slavery by muslims.

It presents slavery in Islam as happening less than it did. And that is not honest. It happened obviously a lot, and mostly to people defeated in battles. Which was many people. While the main populations of countries conquered, but who had not actually fought on the battle field were just forced to pay the freedom tax to remain free, or otherwise could also be enslaved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.231.247 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously that is your personal opinion and I am sure you are not an authority because your presumptions are full of factual errors. If you have reliable sources that support your claims then enlighten us with their wisdom.173.74.22.141 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You conveniently leave out that only those who could afford the Jizya had to pay it. If you're poor and broke, you were not expected to pay it.BrYounus (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A Master killing his slave

This matter was debated between scholars, and they did not settle on an opinion. But now they agree that if a master kills a slave he should be killed. Anyway you should present all the views. Abu Hanifa, Ibn Taymia, and Ibn Othiemeen agreed that a master should be killed for a slave. I have the topic in Arabic, but I can't find one in English. Here is the Arabic original.--BelalSaid (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)