Should Slavery/Indentured Servitude be brought back?

[Diopolis]

Did you read what I ssid?

Yep.

No, you can't. Voluntarily choosing to labor for another without compensation is not servitude in the context of slavery discussions. Doing so without the ability to revoke the initial arrangement is servitude. One is a gratuitous performance revocable at any time. The other is not.

In Islamic slavery you can revoke servitude.

Then it isn't slavery. Its a gratuitous performance.

Slavery is a harm, regardless of the circumstances.[/quote]
We've had this conversation with Amin over and over again. Basically Islamic slavery allows slaves to sign a contract with their master setting a price to buy their freedom, and Shariah courts are required to honor it. Somehow this makes islamic slavery fundamentally different from every other form of ancient slavery and also not exploitative.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

This sounds like semantics

I see absolutely no reason not to have well-defined terms in a discussion. Vague concepts are good for nothing except the justification of absurdities.

I agree with you but the saying that slaves having the power to not be a slave anymore and making the whole process not slavery sounds like a minuscule difference to me.

We've had this conversation with Amin over and over again. Basically Islamic slavery allows slaves to sign a contract with their master setting a price to buy their freedom, and Shariah courts are required to honor it. Somehow this makes islamic slavery fundamentally different from every other form of ancient slavery and also not exploitative.

Among other things yes. Idk of any other type of slavery that has what Islamic slavery has.

[Celritannia]

I see absolutely no reason not to have well-defined terms in a discussion. Vague concepts are good for nothing except the justification of absurdities.

I agree with you but the saying that slaves having the power to not be a slave anymore and making the whole process not slavery sounds like a minuscule difference to me.

We've had this conversation with Amin over and over again. Basically Islamic slavery allows slaves to sign a contract with their master setting a price to buy their freedom, and Shariah courts are required to honor it. Somehow this makes islamic slavery fundamentally different from every other form of ancient slavery and also not exploitative.

Among other things yes. Idk of any other type of slavery that has what Islamic slavery has.

Does Islam have a specific "slavery" aspect, or are we refering to the Arab Slave Trade?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I agree with you but the saying that slaves having the power to not be a slave anymore and making the whole process not slavery sounds like a minuscule difference to me.

Among other things yes. Idk of any other type of slavery that has what Islamic slavery has.

Does Islam have a specific "slavery" aspect, or are we refering to the Arab Slave Trade?

I'm talking about Islamic slavery, as in slavery according to the teachings of Al-Islam.

[Kernen]

Yep.

Then what's the problem?

Then it isn't slavery. Its a gratuitous performance.

This sounds like semantics

It is semantics, insofar as it clarifies the nature of the relationship.

If you volunteer to perform gratuitously, you bear the power to unilaterally revoke at any time.

If you are subject to servitude, you lack the power to unilaterally revoke and not perform. That is what is harmful.

To the extent that islamic slavery places obligations on the servitor that cannot be unilaterally revoked without penalty, it is harmful. Otherwise, it isn't slavery, and you're misrepresenting the nature of the relationship.

[Diopolis]

I see absolutely no reason not to have well-defined terms in a discussion. Vague concepts are good for nothing except the justification of absurdities.

I agree with you but the saying that slaves having the power to not be a slave anymore and making the whole process not slavery sounds like a minuscule difference to me.

We've had this conversation with Amin over and over again. Basically Islamic slavery allows slaves to sign a contract with their master setting a price to buy their freedom, and Shariah courts are required to honor it. Somehow this makes islamic slavery fundamentally different from every other form of ancient slavery and also not exploitative.

Among other things yes. Idk of any other type of slavery that has what Islamic slavery has.

Under the law in antebellum Louisianna, similar contracts were protected legally and slave's funds had added protection from embezzlement by their masters. That's just one example.

[Celritannia]

Does Islam have a specific "slavery" aspect, or are we refering to the Arab Slave Trade?

I'm talking about Islamic slavery, as in slavery according to the teachings of Al-Islam.

Well, many cultures did similar things to this. Al-Islam slavery was no different to other nations winning slaves from captured soldiers.
Not to mention, it is still slavery, no matter how well treated the individual is.

[Kernen]

We've had this conversation with Amin over and over again. Basically Islamic slavery allows slaves to sign a contract with their master setting a price to buy their freedom, and Shariah courts are required to honor it. Somehow this makes islamic slavery fundamentally different from every other form of ancient slavery and also not exploitative.

If you've incurred an obligation and secured it with labor and perform with that labor, thats all well and good. If you've secured an obligation and secured it with labor and then choose to not perform, you can be liable for damages (subject to equity), but nobody can, or should, force you to perform. Its the difference between contract power and actual slavery. Holding that out as slavery is inconsistent with the core concept of slavery. I'm struggling to see how anybody could end up confused by that. Have you really gone on and on about it?

[Andsed]

Ah I love it when people try to justify selling people like property and forcing them to do back breaking labor without pay and punishing them if they don´t is okay because of some minor difference like how the slaves(despite making no money) can apparently pay for their freedom.

[Diopolis]

We've had this conversation with Amin over and over again. Basically Islamic slavery allows slaves to sign a contract with their master setting a price to buy their freedom, and Shariah courts are required to honor it. Somehow this makes islamic slavery fundamentally different from every other form of ancient slavery and also not exploitative.

If you've incurred an obligation and secured it with labor and perform with that labor, thats all well and good. If you've secured an obligation and secured it with labor and then choose to not perform, you can be liable for damages (subject to equity), but nobody can, or should, force you to perform. Its the difference between contract power and actual slavery. Holding that out as slavery is inconsistent with the core concept of slavery. I'm struggling to see how anybody could end up confused by that. Have you really gone on and on about it?

Amin and I have gone over multiple aspects of Islamic slavery at length with no change of views.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Then what's the problem?

This sounds like semantics

It is semantics, insofar as it clarifies the nature of the relationship.

If you volunteer to perform gratuitously, you bear the power to unilaterally revoke at any time.

If you are subject to servitude, you lack the power to unilaterally revoke and not perform. That is what is harmful.

To the extent that islamic slavery places obligations on the servitor that cannot be unilaterally revoked without penalty, it is harmful. Otherwise, it isn't slavery, and you're misrepresenting the nature of the relationship.

Well, said slave can get it revoked. There's a difference of opinion on the revocation but the 2 rulings are that either the slave's request for freedom must be upheld, or that slave must prove himself/herself worthy of freedom.

I agree with you but the saying that slaves having the power to not be a slave anymore and making the whole process not slavery sounds like a minuscule difference to me.

Among other things yes. Idk of any other type of slavery that has what Islamic slavery has.

Under the law in antebellum Louisianna, similar contracts were protected legally and slave's funds had added protection from embezzlement by their masters. That's just one example.

What about the other things I mentioned?:

Islamic slaves had rights, as did chinese and persian ones, to an extent. It was still a brutally inhumane system

No it wasn't and isn't. Slaves can't be mistreated in any way, shape or form and if they are, the punishment on the master is manumission. If the slave is hit, they have the right to hit the master in the same way the master hit them. They should be given mukaatabah if they request their freedom as well. On top that, the master should help the slave if said slave needs it. Also the master and the slave should live on equal standing.

Slavery in Al-Islam:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wic1CdJKufY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4sVo_-j2THE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pn1ubtoL95c
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h9d6sZJRNYQ
https://islamqa.info/en/94840
http://islam-wa-sunnah.com/fatwa/index. ... definition
https://www.al-islam.org/slavery-from-i ... ks-slavery
http://www.islamweb.net/en/article/1174 ... of-slavery
http://islam-wa-sunnah.com/fatwa/index. ... definition
https://abuaminaelias.com/sexual-consen ... -in-islam/
https://abuaminaelias.com/what-does-isl ... oncubines/
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/13737/w ... lave-women
https://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-a ... oncubines/
https://sunnah.com/urn/414630
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/89/10

[Rojava Free State]

The actual amount of able bodied American adults without work is more like 19%. Unemployment as per the government's statistics is simply who is not working but looking for a job. 4% of Americans being unemployed doesn't mean the other 96% are working. It simply can mean a large amount of people gave up, and the government was more than eager to chalk up the statistics in a way to make things look less hopeless

As for slavery, I think this is a downright horrible idea that would lead inevitably to either a civil war or at least terrorism. You can't force people to work and expect them to go along with the program or their families or friends to. Someone is inevitably gonna decide to go rogue and once again we will have a John Brown incident at best and civil war at worst. Human beings should not be forced by the government to work. That is literally pol pot Cambodia in a nutshell. It's draconian, authoritarian and oppressive to many of our citizens

[Volnaya Territoriya]

Unfortunately, indentured servitude is still legal in most if not all countries. "Internships", are one example, not to mention the fact that almost all jobs look at how many years you've worked in the field, as opposed to your actual skills, and therefore give people laughably low pay rates for a long period of time.

[Kernen]

It is semantics, insofar as it clarifies the nature of the relationship.

If you volunteer to perform gratuitously, you bear the power to unilaterally revoke at any time.

If you are subject to servitude, you lack the power to unilaterally revoke and not perform. That is what is harmful.

To the extent that islamic slavery places obligations on the servitor that cannot be unilaterally revoked without penalty, it is harmful. Otherwise, it isn't slavery, and you're misrepresenting the nature of the relationship.

Well, said slave can get it revoked. There's a difference of opinion on the revocation but the 2 rulings are that either the slave's request for freedom must be upheld, or that slave must prove himself/herself worthy of freedom.

That suggests that unilateral revocation is not acceptable in either case. If the slave requests freedom, that implies the request may be denied. A unilateral power to revoke is not subject to request, it is asserted.

As with proving oneself worthy, that is a subjective standard analyzed by the slaveowner and not at the unilateral demand of the slave.

Now you're back into slaverytown. Either the power of the performer to terminate the relationship is unilateral and immediate or it isn't.

[Rojava Free State]

People saying no to Indentured Servitude fail to realize the benefits. Now I wholeheartedly disagree with it when put against those in debt, however what I do agree is using those in jail or those who committed a crime. Murderers, rapists, and things such as that should not receive that option, however lighter crimes but still long in length, should. Capitalism would likely abuse the system, however, so a well monitored and regulated one is needed for it to work, but nothing in life turns out the way it should, therefore perhaps it is not wise until a true, honest to God government that truly works for the people is in place.

...Which never has, nor will it ever, exist.

Government for the people and by the people can only exist in a small society. Large nations like America almost always end up with the elites becoming detached from the populace

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I'm talking about Islamic slavery, as in slavery according to the teachings of Al-Islam.

Well, many cultures did similar things to this. Al-Islam slavery was no different to other nations winning slaves from captured soldiers.
Not to mention, it is still slavery, no matter how well treated the individual is.

Yes, I know it's still slavery. But to Kernen it isn't.

[Rojava Free State]

Oh you want slavery back? Okay Sai hop into the wheatfields your my slave, do what master says now boy, and if you slip up ill beat you within an inch of your life and whip you, oh its soo beneficial to have slavery back right?


Fucking christ, also lol:

One controversial opinion some people have about slavery historically speaking is: "What are Blacks complaining about? They got free room and board in exchange for some free labor." And this is a sentiment I can partially understand, even though it is brash and insensitive.

The fucking Nazi finds the sentiment of "Shut up blacks what were you complaining about, you had no rights and were treated like fucking dogshit and even killed but you had a roof" to be understandable.

I don't care if they dress me in the finest clothes and give me a nice pair of shades and a feast for dinner. Does anyone wanna live behind barbed wire and pick cotton forever and never be able to choose how they want to live or be able to read? Slavery is wrong because it denies someone their humanity and treats them As a beast of burden. Doesn't matter how nice the slave master was, it's still wrong. And they weren't all so kind either

[Andsed]

Well, many cultures did similar things to this. Al-Islam slavery was no different to other nations winning slaves from captured soldiers.
Not to mention, it is still slavery, no matter how well treated the individual is.

Yes, I know it's still slavery. But to Kernen it isn't.

Are you still trying to justify selling people like property and then forcing them to do back breaking labor without pay? Good lord.

[Celritannia]

Well, said slave can get it revoked. There's a difference of opinion on the revocation but the 2 rulings are that either the slave's request for freedom must be upheld, or that slave must prove himself/herself worthy of freedom.

That suggests that unilateral revocation is not acceptable in either case. If the slave requests freedom, that implies the request may be denied. A unilateral power to revoke is not subject to request, it is asserted.

As with proving oneself worthy, that is a subjective standard analyzed by the slaveowner and not at the unilateral demand of the slave.

Now you're back into slaverytown. Either the power of the performer to terminate the relationship is unilateral and immediate or it isn't.

Slavery was never voluntary, in any nation, at any time.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Well, said slave can get it revoked. There's a difference of opinion on the revocation but the 2 rulings are that either the slave's request for freedom must be upheld, or that slave must prove himself/herself worthy of freedom.

That suggests that unilateral revocation is not acceptable in either case. If the slave requests freedom, that implies the request may be denied. A unilateral power to revoke is not subject to request, it is asserted.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that part. It must be upheld upon the request.

As with proving oneself worthy, that is a subjective standard analyzed by the slaveowner and not at the unilateral demand of the slave.

I know, I haven't looked what the guidelines are

Now you're back into slaverytown. Either the power of the performer to terminate the relationship is unilateral and immediate or it isn't.

Either way it's still slavery imo

[Kernen]

Well, many cultures did similar things to this. Al-Islam slavery was no different to other nations winning slaves from captured soldiers.
Not to mention, it is still slavery, no matter how well treated the individual is.

Yes, I know it's still slavery. But to Kernen it isn't.

Its not hard. The hallmark of slavery is the complete inability of the slave to end the state of servitude at will. Everything else is just slavery with extra steps.

Its inherent in the competing rights. Just because you want to slap your god's label on it doesn't change the nature of the relationship.

[Rojava Free State]

That suggests that unilateral revocation is not acceptable in either case. If the slave requests freedom, that implies the request may be denied. A unilateral power to revoke is not subject to request, it is asserted.

As with proving oneself worthy, that is a subjective standard analyzed by the slaveowner and not at the unilateral demand of the slave.

Now you're back into slaverytown. Either the power of the performer to terminate the relationship is unilateral and immediate or it isn't.

Slavery was never voluntary, in any nation, at any time.

Those are called volunteers. Slavery is like being a volunteer against your will

[Kernen]

That suggests that unilateral revocation is not acceptable in either case. If the slave requests freedom, that implies the request may be denied. A unilateral power to revoke is not subject to request, it is asserted.

As with proving oneself worthy, that is a subjective standard analyzed by the slaveowner and not at the unilateral demand of the slave.

Now you're back into slaverytown. Either the power of the performer to terminate the relationship is unilateral and immediate or it isn't.

Slavery was never voluntary, in any nation, at any time.

Duh. Which is why the voluntary nature of ending the relationship defines whether it is slavery or not.

[Reru Tanda]

Just no. Everyone is a human being, not property.

[Holy Marsh]

No, and the arguments presented haphazardly and poorly throughout the topic do little else than convince me that anyone who supports slavery in the modern day is a moron of the highest order.