Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Samudera Darussalam]

If Islam tends toward liberation of slaves, it has been gravely misunderstood by many majority Muslim nations.

Islam may have permitted slavery, albeit in a restricted form, but it supports its followers in freeing them, as the act is one of good deeds and is used to atone oneself in these cases: the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce that is forbidden), breaking vows, and having intercourse during the day in Ramadan.

"Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous." (Quran 2:177)

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

If Islam tends toward liberation of slaves, it has been gravely misunderstood by many majority Muslim nations.

Islam may have permitted slavery, albeit in a restricted form, but it supports its followers in freeing them, as the act is one of good deeds and is used to atone oneself in these cases: the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce that is forbidden), breaking vows, and having intercourse during the day in Ramadan.

Perhaps, but in practice, Islamic countries have been some of the most notorious slavers in history. Even today, most of the remaining countries in which slavery is still endemic are majority Muslim.

[North German Realm]

If Islam tends toward liberation of slaves, it has been gravely misunderstood by many majority Muslim nations.

Islam may have permitted slavery, albeit in a restricted form, but it supports its followers in freeing them, as the act is one of good deeds and is used to atone oneself in these cases: the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce that is forbidden), breaking vows, and having intercourse during the day in Ramadan./quote]
And yet, for the entirety of its history from the day Muhammad proclaimed a Caliphate to the modern age, Islam and countries ruled under its flag have had one of the, if not the, most terrible organized slave trade(s) in the world.

[Diarcesia]

Islam may have permitted slavery, albeit in a restricted form, but it supports its followers in freeing them, as the act is one of good deeds and is used to atone oneself in these cases: the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce that is forbidden), breaking vows, and having intercourse during the day in Ramadan./quote]
And yet, for the entirety of its history from the day Muhammad proclaimed a Caliphate to the modern age, Islam and countries ruled under its flag have had one of the, if not the, most terrible organized slave trade(s) in the world.

People can interpret the scriptures the way it suits them.

[North German Realm]

Islam may have permitted slavery, albeit in a restricted form, but it supports its followers in freeing them, as the act is one of good deeds and is used to atone oneself in these cases: the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce that is forbidden), breaking vows, and having intercourse during the day in Ramadan./quote]
And yet, for the entirety of its history from the day Muhammad proclaimed a Caliphate to the modern age, Islam and countries ruled under its flag have had one of the, if not the, most terrible organized slave trade(s) in the world.

People can interpret the scriptures the way it suits them.

When your prophet fucking creates the Muslim-Arab slave trade and your "original Caliphate" (which all of you try to emulate) propels it by throwing the Mediterranean Sea into a nightmare of coastal piracy and kidnapping that doesn't stop until the fucking 19th century, it's less "different people interpret the scriptures differently" and more "the problem is from the origin".

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Evidence based on the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of course. Also, khutbahs aren't articles of clothing, they're religious talks held by an imaam.

A) Shows why I should be more vigilant whilst googling when trying to work out Iman fashion trends.
B) If imams are supposed to be "leaders" when it comes to spiritual guidance (how much of a role I understand varies upon which particular flavour of Islam you subscribe to), then that implies they should be experts/informed in their field, and thus generally equally capable of drawing upon the various texts to justify view A or view B.

In that regard, your response doesn't really say anything at all. Both Spider-imans (that pun made me chuckle and I don't want to admit how long I've had that in the back of my head) can use evidence from the Quran etc etc to justify their positions. It doesn't demonstrate which one is right.

Just to be clear though - this vagueness isn't something I'd say is unique to Islam. I believe religion in general operates on the principle of obfuscation to keep people in the dark.

Imams really - basically - the men who lead the salah. And they some Islamic knowledge too. Idk if there's ranks or something in Al-Islam, but the real knowledgeable Muslims would be the muftis, shuyookh, etc. Here's a list Muslim scholarly titles:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhoond
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allamah
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhdoom
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marabout
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marja%27
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawlawi_(Islamic_title)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawl%C4%81n%C4%81
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mufti
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhaddith
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murshid
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pir_(Sufism)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pir_(Sufism)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_ul-Islam
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulema
There's probs more but I can't find them.

As for the ambiguity, no, you can't just use the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah to justify anything and be correct. You have to be of sound mind and be educated in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah to make sound judgement on it. But just because some Muslim Islamic scholar says terrorism is ok, or that people who masturbate will have pregnant hands in the aakhirah (next life) doesn't mean they are correct if they are not using the evidence correctly.

And not allowing it is shirk.

Yes, but we can just take the middle ground. Though 'slavery' is not outrightly banned, Islam tends toward the liberation of slaves, so why would one bother in keeping them, currently?

Because we're allowed to do so.

Yes, but we can just take the middle ground. Though 'slavery' is not outrightly banned, Islam tends toward the liberation of slaves, so why would one bother in keeping them, currently?


Watch your language. If I start seeing spiderman in some Muslim attire, it's your fault

If Islam tends toward liberation of slaves, it has been gravely misunderstood by many majority Muslim nations.

Of course

Islam may have permitted slavery, albeit in a restricted form, but it supports its followers in freeing them, as the act is one of good deeds and is used to atone oneself in these cases: the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce that is forbidden), breaking vows, and having intercourse during the day in Ramadan./quote]
And yet, for the entirety of its history from the day Muhammad proclaimed a Caliphate to the modern age, Islam and countries ruled under its flag have had one of the, if not the, most terrible organized slave trade(s) in the world.

People can interpret the scriptures the way it suits them.

No they can't, that's not how scripture works.

[North German Realm]

People can interpret the scriptures the way it suits them.

No they can't, that's not how scripture works.

It is though. That's why Tafsir as a concept exists.

[Jolthig]

Islam may have permitted slavery, albeit in a restricted form, but it supports its followers in freeing them, as the act is one of good deeds and is used to atone oneself in these cases: the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce that is forbidden), breaking vows, and having intercourse during the day in Ramadan./quote]
And yet, for the entirety of its history from the day Muhammad proclaimed a Caliphate to the modern age, Islam and countries ruled under its flag have had one of the, if not the, most terrible organized slave trade(s) in the world.

People can interpret the scriptures the way it suits them.

Not really. One's tafsir should be in line with the Holy Quran and Sunnah as well as the books of history regarding Muhammad. Although, people may differ from time to time, if anyone deviates from this basic concept, then the tafsir loses its scholarly validity.

[Diarcesia]

People can interpret the scriptures the way it suits them.

Not really. One's tafsir should be in line with the Holy Quran and Sunnah as well as the books of history regarding Muhammad. Although, people may differ from time to time, if anyone deviates from this basic concept, then the tafsir loses its scholarly validity.

*looks at the Wahhabis*

People can interpret the scriptures the way it suits them.

When your prophet fucking creates the Muslim-Arab slave trade and your "original Caliphate" (which all of you try to emulate) propels it by throwing the Mediterranean Sea into a nightmare of coastal piracy and kidnapping that doesn't stop until the fucking 19th century, it's less "different people interpret the scriptures differently" and more "the problem is from the origin".

I agree on it being a problem if they try to bring these back in today's society. On the other hand, it's funny that the Vikings are romanticized for doing the same during their heathen phase. Ditto with the privateers in the Spanish Main.

Edit: And heck slavery didn't stop in the USA, a vanguard of Western civilization until in the 1860s. The problem is from the origins indeed. Human caprice and power lust.

[Jolthig]

Not really. One's tafsir should be in line with the Holy Quran and Sunnah as well as the books of history regarding Muhammad. Although, people may differ from time to time, if anyone deviates from this basic concept, then the tafsir loses its scholarly validity.

*looks at the Wahhabis*

When your prophet fucking creates the Muslim-Arab slave trade and your "original Caliphate" (which all of you try to emulate) propels it by throwing the Mediterranean Sea into a nightmare of coastal piracy and kidnapping that doesn't stop until the fucking 19th century, it's less "different people interpret the scriptures differently" and more "the problem is from the origin".

I agree on it being a problem if they try to bring these back in today's society. On the other hand, it's funny that the Vikings are romanticized for doing the same during their heathen phase. Ditto with the privateers in the Spanish Main.

Edit: And heck slavery didn't stop in the USA, a vanguard of Western civilization until in the 1860s. The problem is from the origins indeed. Human caprice and power lust.

Yeah, the wahhabis are quite ignorant on Islam despite professing to be muslims.

[Samudera Darussalam]

When your prophet fucking creates the Muslim-Arab slave trade and your "original Caliphate" (which all of you try to emulate) propels it by throwing the Mediterranean Sea into a nightmare of coastal piracy and kidnapping that doesn't stop until the fucking 19th century, it's less "different people interpret the scriptures differently" and more "the problem is from the origin".

There is always been slavery in the society of the Arabian peninsula. It's a phenomenon that has been existed before Islam was born. It was.....an essential part of the economy, somehow, and as the Muslim-Arab states grew, it can't be helped that they brought it towards the rest of the regions that they ruled. The prohibition of slavery, of course, would be more beneficial, however:

"Prohibiting slavery in the context of seventh-century Arabia apparently would have been as useful as prohibiting poverty; it would have reflected a noble ideal but would have been unworkable on an immediate basis without establishing an entirely new socioeconomic system."

Jacob Neusner, Tamara Sonn, Comparing Religions through Law: Judaism and Islam, 1999

"...The most that shari'a could do, and did in fact do, in that historical context was to modify and lighten the harsh consequences of slavery and discrimination on grounds of religion or gender...

Shari'a recognized slavery as an institution but sought to restrict the sources of acquisition of slaves, to improve their condition, and to encourage their emancipation through a variety of religious and civil methods."

'Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Shari'a and Basic Human Rights Concerns, in Liberal Islam, ed Charles Kurzman, 1998

In theory, under Islamic law, one could only enslave other during war (POWs), or if said slave is a descendant of an unbroken chain of people who had been lawfully enslaved. I'm not really sure, however, what kind of type would 'piracy and kidnapping' in that context would be grouped in. In my own understanding, piracy and kidnapping in that era would more often than not committed not by the state, but by individuals or individual groups, so it won't be cathegorized as 'war' per se.

However, the sharia limits were often either ignored or evaded, and many instances of slave trading by Muslims were in fact illegal, though tolerated by the society in that era. So, yes, I agree that it's a problem from the society itself. However, slavery bring more harms than benefits, and as today the institution is not needed anymore, the practice of slavery should be abandoned.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

In theory, under Islamic law, one could only enslave other during war (POWs), or if said slave is a descendant of an unbroken chain of people who had been lawfully enslaved. I'm not really sure, however, what kind of type would 'piracy and kidnapping' in that context would be grouped in. In my own understanding, piracy and kidnapping in that era would more often than not committed not by the state, but by individuals or individual groups, so it won't be cathegorized as 'war' per se.

I thought that successive generations of slave parents had to be enslaved themselves. From what I've learned, Al-Islam prohibits children of slaves being slaves.

However, the sharia limits were often either ignored or evaded, and many instances of slave trading by Muslims were in fact illegal, though tolerated by the society in that era. So, yes, I agree that it's a problem from the society itself. However, slavery bring more harms than benefits, and as today the institution is not needed anymore, the practice of slavery should be abandoned.

Yes, no one should be practicing slavery of any kind, but an Islamic government can't make it illegal.

[Cappuccina]

In theory, under Islamic law, one could only enslave other during war (POWs), or if said slave is a descendant of an unbroken chain of people who had been lawfully enslaved. I'm not really sure, however, what kind of type would 'piracy and kidnapping' in that context would be grouped in. In my own understanding, piracy and kidnapping in that era would more often than not committed not by the state, but by individuals or individual groups, so it won't be cathegorized as 'war' per se.

I thought that successive generations of slave parents had to be enslaved themselves. From what I've learned, Al-Islam prohibits children of slaves being slaves.

However, the sharia limits were often either ignored or evaded, and many instances of slave trading by Muslims were in fact illegal, though tolerated by the society in that era. So, yes, I agree that it's a problem from the society itself. However, slavery bring more harms than benefits, and as today the institution is not needed anymore, the practice of slavery should be abandoned.

Yes, no one should be practicing slavery of any kind, but an Islamic government can't make it illegal.

I'd say can't is debateable.

[Samudera Darussalam]

I thought that successive generations of slave parents had to be enslaved themselves. From what I've learned, Al-Islam prohibits children of slaves being slaves.

I don't really understand the concept of that, so please forgive me if what I said is wrong. Umm, can you provide the link or explain more of it there tho? Maybe I could learn more.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I thought that successive generations of slave parents had to be enslaved themselves. From what I've learned, Al-Islam prohibits children of slaves being slaves.

Yes, no one should be practicing slavery of any kind, but an Islamic government can't make it illegal.

I'd say can't is debateable.

Well it isn't. No where in the Holy Qur'an does Allah SWT say slavery is Haraam. No where in the Sunnah does Prophet Muhammad SAWS say that slavery is Haraam. So we cannot make it Haraam.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I thought that successive generations of slave parents had to be enslaved themselves. From what I've learned, Al-Islam prohibits children of slaves being slaves.

I don't really understand the concept of that, so please forgive me if what I said is wrong. Umm, can you provide the link or explain more of it there tho? Maybe I could learn more.

What I mean is that if a slave gives birth to a child, said child is free and the master would have to buy the child. I thought that's how it worked in Al-Islam.

[Zizou]

I'd say can't is debateable.

Well it isn't. No where in the Holy Qur'an does Allah SWT say slavery is Haraam. No where in the Sunnah does Prophet Muhammad SAWS say that slavery is Haraam. So we cannot make it Haraam.

An Islamic government could still outlaw it though. There’s nothing wrong with the government restricting slavery.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Well it isn't. No where in the Holy Qur'an does Allah SWT say slavery is Haraam. No where in the Sunnah does Prophet Muhammad SAWS say that slavery is Haraam. So we cannot make it Haraam.

An Islamic government could still outlaw it though. There’s nothing wrong with the government restricting slavery.

Again, no where in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah is slavery made Haraam.

[Diarcesia]

An Islamic government could still outlaw it though. There’s nothing wrong with the government restricting slavery.

Again, no where in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah is slavery made Haraam.

And as has been implied, nowhere in the Quran is slavery made Halal.

[Kowani]

An Islamic government could still outlaw it though. There’s nothing wrong with the government restricting slavery.

Again, no where in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah is slavery made Haraam.

Clearly, Islamic governance is limited to pure textualism. Guess you can’t prevent people from having recreational nukes, ‘cause that’s not explicitly stated!

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Again, no where in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah is slavery made Haraam.

And as has been implied, nowhere in the Quran is slavery made Halal.

Halaal =/= "must do this". It just means it's ok to do.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Again, no where in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah is slavery made Haraam.

Clearly, Islamic governance is limited to pure textualism. Guess you can’t prevent people from having recreational nukes, ‘cause that’s not explicitly stated!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qiyas
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad

[Zizou]

And as has been implied, nowhere in the Quran is slavery made Halal.

Halaal =/= "must do this". It just means it's ok to do.

Exactly. Say the government outlaws the sale of mangoes. Just because mangoes are considered halal food does not mean that the government magically becomes un-Islamic when it decides to outlaw selling mangoes. In fact, outlawing slavery is better than outlawing mangoes because slavery is considered makruh, and is discouraged in the first place.

[Kowani]

Clearly, Islamic governance is limited to pure textualism. Guess you can’t prevent people from having recreational nukes, ‘cause that’s not explicitly stated!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qiyas
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad

None of those actually deal with what I said.

[Zizou]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qiyas
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad

None of those actually deal with what I said.

I think he’s trying to say that it’s not?