Channel: Abdullah al Andalusi
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
Assalamualaikum warahmatullah wabarakatuh?
everyone hear me? Okay.
Well, so firstly, I'd like to thank. So as the so as to sanitize it and shooting for inviting me for this rather fiery topic. It's been quite in the news. It's also been some controversy over various academics who discuss this topic, certainly when they discuss the historical aspects of slavery, there's always a question of morality, and whether people who discuss slavery from a purely academic perspective, are they justifying it or not? Or are they just trying to explain a time that was in any historical context. So hopefully, we're going to delve into this. And I'd like to kind of present a lecture which does not intend to be revisionist, in any way, shape, or form. But I think
that we have to be sensitive to the texts. But at the same time, we also have to evaluate what we mean by these historical phenomena, and whether Islam actually did abolish slavery. So let's look at this martyrs question. Now. I spoke with this very interesting Hadith, which conveys the Islamic theological perspective, which is that all men go out in the morning, or go early in the morning and sell themselves there by setting themselves free or destroying themselves. And this was referring to people who sell themselves to bad desires to bad inclinations, and those who free themselves from bad design bad inclinations from the bondage of sin, and free themselves, to the worship of God. So
this was viewed in Islam as true freedom is to escape oppression and persecution that veered away from the worship of the one God and liberate ourselves to submitting to one God and submitted to the peace, which is within us, which God prescribed that we would enjoy when we submit to a central purpose in nature.
So that out of the way, let's discuss why this topic is so important.
Now, generally, it's an Islamic belief, it's a creed or belief that Muslims hold that the Prophet Mohammed scenario for them to be a universal example of morality and ethics. However, what usually occurs when people do historical research on Islam and Muslim do historical research and Islam, they see that apparently, it appears that the Prophet Mohammed slaughter them didn't abolish slavery, by decree in his lifetime. So the question is usually asked, well, slavery is now viewed as morally wrong wrong in the West. So why did the Prophet Mohammed slaughter them not simply abolish it by decree? During his time, surely he could make a decree and it would be prohibited. So why didn't he
do this? or Why did he apparently do this?
Now, this question is raised. And it's especially important because we currently live in the context of 200 years, give or take after the world just under 200 years after the formal abolition of slavery by the British Empire, and 150 years of the formal abolition of slavery by the United States of America, countries which are viewed to be at the four most western countries at least representing Western civilization, or least Anglo Saxon Western civilization. And of course, we also live in a era of post modernist individualism, where there is a concern or hyper concern to the individual to the point which has which individual cannot consent to enslave themselves, or put
themselves under a contract, they couldn't lead to revoke if they so chose, this was always the case in England in our in the morning and wells. That used to be a tad way, if you commit yourself to a contract, you'd be bound by it, you wouldn't be compelled to enter that contract. But you'd be bound by the terms of that contract. And if you try to default on the contract, not honor your work commitment to an employer, for example, you could go to jail, and in essence, you would be coerced to fulfill the terms of your contract, whereas in post mandalas individualistic constructs, you're not allowed to oppress yourself in the future, or is or any any point in time, even if it's by your
consent. So it's become now a much more sensitive topic in this current context that we see ourselves today.
Now, here are some approaches that's been argued from the Muslim apologetical perspective.
tend to explain this using the following arguments. One argument is well Greek Roman Jewish Christian or Buddhist culture didn't outlaw it so Why blame Islam is called a to quote way fallacy which took okay Latin beans and you as well. Basically what are you guys didn't Polish as well. And that is true. Judaism didn't create a formal abolition of slavery certainly Christianity, I get no of abolition Buddhist culture and philosophy didn't abolish slavery, although apparently the Buddha disapproved of slave traders or trading slaves but didn't abolish slavery either and of course, Greek Roman culture and then add post enlightenment European culture in abolish it until much later.
Now, of course, usually usual arguments are well, maybe it was a pragmatic reason. So if the Prophet Mohammed Hassan released slaves on mass, they would create mass economic problems, problems and issues some people, the only property was invested into a slave. And so if that was tables released, then there would be that would be probably penniless would have no property, no investment, no assets. So that's usually one argument. Another argument is that the Prophet Mohammed talked to them, representing the state of Medina didn't have enough money to emancipate or buy the freedom or compensate owners for all the slaves that were in Medina. And so it had to be based on a voluntary
approach. Now of anyone who knows about this a car knows that one of the expenditures of this account is the wealth tax which Muslims pay once per year above, so if they have some wealth of a certain amount, must go towards freeing slaves, so they didn't have so the argument is that the Prophet Mohammed some didn't have enough money to emancipate all the slaves by paying compensation to the slave owners. And then the other the last argument is that, but the Prophet Mohammed in created or Institute humane regulation combined with phasing out policy, whereby expiation for all kinds of sins in Islam can be can be done by simply releasing a slave. So if you break an oath, if
you break your fasting during Ramadan, in certain circumstances, you need to equate that with releasing a stable seeking the freedom of a slave. And if you don't own any, you have to buy a slave and then release that slave in order to free them. So that's usually the argument that they bring. But I will be coming from a different perspective in this lecture without revising history or denying any Islamic texts and I will be trying to demonstrate to a Westerner that the Prophet Mohammed saddam actually abolished slavery.
Now some important disclaimers, some of you might notice that some academics around the world have fallen foul when they discuss this topic from purely academic perspective, their words have been taken out of context. So I want to make this extremely clear. Today's lecture is not about the morality of slavery past or present, it should be taken as a given that Greco Roman slavery or post enlightenment, European slavery or any form of slavery we see practice today, whether they show or de facto is morally wrong, according to the standards of Islam, which is the only criteria Muslim should be concerned with. Today's lecture is not about reviving slavery, re implementing slavery, or
whether it should continue. Today's lecture is solely about a topic that is of academic consequence, historical significance, and only important to Muslim apologetics, which deal with explaining in a non anachronistic manner. The wisdom of God is revelation and the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu sallam. Therefore, I condemn slavery and will not be condoning it at all whatsoever. If there is any conclusion is that you will come to it is that we are only slaves to God and no one and nothing else.
Now that today's lecture was based on a presentation I initially gave in Sydney On September, the 17th 2015, at the Kimber LMA function Center, where I discussed seven game changers in Muslim apologetics and it was number one, which people were interested in was slavery. So this was this lecture is going to be a reiteration with it with extra evidences, because I'd have more time now to focus on it exclusively. However, I'd like to draw your attention to people who have discussed this subsequent to my lecture. So for example, on the fifth of October 2015, she had almost a month presented a very popular electrical slavery, a passing president tragedy, the summary and again is
this this is horrific. He just summarizing into one sentence, which was, he argued that the Prophet Mohammed and redefined slavery into a more humane institution, on the seventh of February 2017, unfortunately, caused some controversy, which I don't think was merited. Dr. Jonathan brown presented a lecture at Georgetown University. And again, just to summarize that very long lecture, he said that slavery is a hard to define concept philosophy, since we're all slaves to something in some way, shape or form. So the concern really should be humane treatment or people's that was basically his discussion, but we will be going in maybe a little bit more different direction.
Let's provide a definition of slavery, a definition of slavery, or I would say is defined in law as a person possessing the right of ownership over another person, that putting it very simple. Under this legal definition of slavery, what's happened in the past.
Under such definitions, which were in English law, as well as laws in ancient Rome, and Greece, was that slaves were considered only property by people. They were not protected from coerced labor, they weren't considered people as they will consider to be objects. And generally, they were not protected from abuse, up to certain limits by the state.
Now, I kind of did a historical survey of
slavery, and what happened in slavery during our history, what particular legal systems gave rights and punishments to people who are masters and slave, depending what you did, and you get a lot of variation, you can't really pin down Roman slavery, because it changes over time, certainly with the Roman Empire became more christianized. And there were certain changes, which happened, for example, in pagan Rome, people could prostitute their slaves, and it wasn't against the law of Rome. But when Rome became more christianized, they prohibited prostitution, because prostitution was immoral against God, of course, and so that was not allowed anymore. So there was some changes. So just to
go, just to kind of go through it. In most of these systems, a marriage was not permitted to a slave or a slave, declared that they are married to someone else, the master could break it, and disregard it and could sleep with the slave woman, or the slave man, without any care whether that person is married or not, because they wouldn't recognize it under Roman law.
Slaves mostly couldn't complain about injustice to a magistrate or though that generally changed under Justinian reforms that Iran, people could be castrated under Greek law, as well as some Roman laws that generally lead to what changed to a penalty on the master who constrain their slaves in the Roman late Roman Empire. Yeah, prostitution is really no, the master was always permitted in Greek law, as by Athenian law, should we say early and late Roman law to sleep with their slave women, as well as a consent to a third party sleeping with their slave women to
and if someone, if someone slept with a third party step of statement, without the Masters consent, it would, because of the be sold on the property of that master. And if it was done by rape, they wouldn't consider it to be rape, they just be again, just assault on the property of the master who didn't give consent. And so that's how the Romans will usually perceive that, generally, in all these systems are Greek, Roman, and even in Jewish law, as well as enlightenment quote, unquote, European law laws, the P, the masters were doing not punished by the state for beating or whipping their slaves up to a limit. So they could be, click the ear of the slave or slap them around,
without fear of any punishment from the law, that at the time, of course, if you were to compare this to Islam, and it will come to this is Tom didn't commit, beating, hitting at whim or will even light beating or hitting was not permitted, at whim, or will. So but but every other system allowed it just as a point of caveat, Jewish law, which you might find in Leviticus, it did say that if a slave has been to the point where for example, the eye is destroyed, or the tooth is lost, then slave has to be released. But up to that point, generally, there was no punishment. But if you obviously destroy the eye of the slave, or you destroy the tooth of the slave or lost the tooth, you
have to release that slave. So that was generally the more you could find them Leviticus. And killing a slave varies generally in both Ancient Greece, as well as early Roman, late Roman, and, and European and might enlightenment laws, most cases, slaves being killed by their masters, there was no punishment at all whatsoever, or no penalty at all whatsoever. They did Institute it in, in in the Roman Empire because they're worried about slave revolts, you know, people masters who were too tyrannical, and it was basically the states were feeling very oppressed by this and they would leave lead to slave revolts. And certainly that also was a situation that occurred in both the
United States of America as well as in British colonies. They were worried about slave revolts. And so they tried to what they didn't view it as the slave had rights. They view it as the master was going to access on his property rights. So he was basically discharging his property rights to access that was how it was viewed by Romans Greeks, as well as in Miami Europeans. However, in the in the case of, of Athenian law, as well as let's ignore the United States of America, generally, it wasn't the slave that brought the case.
Not kidding plastic but injury wasn't bought the case to a magistrate It was another citizen would have to bring the case to a magistrate because the magistrate wouldn't recognize the slave
as a as a person. Again, I make these broad brushstroke generalizations. It wasn't always the case. There are always exceptions. us the United States of America has different state laws in different states, various Romans, Roman law varied again, numerous reforms by different Emperor Constantine Justinian. So I'm generalizing. And there are many exceptions. So just bear that in mind. In almost all cases, for all these law systems, families could be broken up. So slave families, if they were owned by the same owner, they could be broken up and redistributed. Not in Islamic law, you couldn't do that. Any child born born of a sane mother in law in most infosystems, except Islam, was
generally considered to be also unfree, even if it was the master his own child. So his own children would also be considered to be unfree, and a slave in both Greek Roman as well as
Jewish law. In Jewish law, only if you're if only it was pagan, not if you were Jewish, of course. That's there's a distinction between treatment of pagans and Canaanites entry and treatment of Jews and Jewish law concerning slavery. There's also time limited in Jewish law, so about six, seven years, or until the Jubilee of any Jewish slave had that duration of time and they have to be automatically released by that point in time, but pagans they would know that no time limit, any slave that tried to run away, was flogged, executed, had foot amputation by most law systems, Roman, Greek,
enlightenment, European, and so on, so forth, again, not with Islamic law. Branding was also commonplace in all these law systems, again, not Islamic law, you couldn't brand the slave or even the altar to them. And you couldn't sell yourself into slavery in Islam. In
in Rome, it varies. Early Rome, yes, late Rome. No, not exactly. But if you try to, if you try to basically sell yourself into slavery to get the money, and then claiming the court that you were a free Roman citizen, then the court might punish you by saying, No, no, you'll be a slave. You have to be a slave. So there's no way out of that, in that case. And of course, slavery was used as a punishment for many things. So let's go on to a discussion of the British abolition of slavery. So generally, after the Haitian slave revolution, there was also a massive same revolt in Jamaica called the Baptist war in 1832. Cost cost Britain 1 million pounds in in that currency back then,
about 50 million today, which kind of create a call for the abolition of slavery. There was a court beforehand, but the momentum became unstoppable. As a result of this uprising, this result in the slave slavery abolition act of 1833, which is marked by that date in mind, which is marked as the formal and legal abolition of slavery in, in the British colonies, although it took some time to get to all the British colonies for reasons which are well outside the scope of this lecture. So what happened to replace that were current slaves were to become apprentices, to their former owners for six years, not the six years, they would be given full emancipation, they were still required to
work for their former owners, they couldn't stop working for them.
But they were no longer slaves. They were called in apprentices or indentured servants, generally, that so after the abolition of slavery, they will still coerced labor, by these by these same slaves. But this time, they're not considered to be slaves, they will be apprentices. After duration of time, they will receive full emancipation, the British government raised 20 million pounds of that currency, but as a result, or in the immediate aftermath of slavery being abolished, Britain, you could say revived something called indentured servitude, which lasted until 1917. As the 21st century, were in essence, although technically it was a voluntary contract where someone was subject
to a contract to work in a plantation, usually they will shift many people from India will shift throughout the British colonists and so on, which is why we have many people Indian descent, in many of the current British Commonwealth countries. They were once they signed up to the contract, they had to stick to the time or duration that they were given, sometimes five years, four years, and so on and so forth. So they were bound to it and they could not leave that that contract so they were bound and they were in essence, if they change their mind, it would be too bad you'd have to be coerced to fill your contract. Frequently, the contract allow the contractors to punish the
indentured servant with imprisonment with hard labor and reduction in food rations if they refused any order work.
What absent over quote unquote insolent to the contractors, workers unions were prohibited by British colonial law. One example this is ordinance 16 article 16 of the of 1835. in Mauritius, further punishments included more time that was added, and fees designed to lengthen the time of the indentured servant that was required to work. Employees often withheld part of the wages until the digit servant agreed to another term of service. From 1834. To the end of World War One, Britain had transported about 2 million Indian indentured workers to 19 corners in the British in the British Empire. Functionally, indentured servitude was not much different from the ancient Greek and Roman
idea of debt slavery. So you sell yourself into slavery, or you if you had a debt, you have to pay off that debt. And you could only be released after you paid off that debts are functionally you have no different to a more ancient concept of slavery yet this was what we call the post abolition period.
Most people forget that British labor laws which I hinted earlier one up until 1875 required that any person any employee must fulfill the terms of their contract and could not decide not to stop working, or to change their mind, they have to know the terms of their contract on pain of being being sent to jail on the criminal law. So once you commit to a contract, you have to stick to it for the duration of time. Otherwise, you'd be accused of in essence stealing from your employer, if you didn't give them the terms that were agreed.
Most of the people didn't realize that within
British English, the Government of Wales there was a cause of a penal servitude in hard labor, which lasted until 1948. Whereby criminals were punished with enforced labor, in jails, and many, much of this labor was ones where they had to build roads and build economically significant industry of machines like corn Mills, and so on. So paternal kranken are working dogs. Failure to comply, if you are a prisoner failure to comply, the word that you were given could mean that your food and water was cut, you were flogged, or you could be faked, you could face solitary confinement, and this was only abolished by the Criminal Justice Act of 1948. Again, post abolition, you can
reasons for the abolition of slavery in the United States of America. Many people argue that
the Civil War wasn't really about slavery, but it was more about keeping the United States of America except for creating a centralized America, rather than a confederate, or more decentralized United States of America. Abraham Lincoln, kind of famously wrote that if slavery is saving the union required not freeing any slave, he would do that. And if saving the union required freed all the slaves, he would do that. So what he cares most is saving the union and not emancipation, or maintaining slavery.
This led to the 1865 13th Amendment, which is deemed by Americans to be the abolition of slavery in the United States of America, or waters. As you can read neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, where of the party shall have been duly convicted shall exist within United States of America or any place subject to that to their jurisdiction.
What we see is that United States, till now has penal labor, whereby prisoners can be coerced to work for under the direction of their jailers. So you see prisoners repairing roads, working in public utilities, or even working on plantations. There's also quite curiously a disproportionate amount of African Americans in prison at the same time, which is a acquaintance, I'm sure, and who are used unemployed for labor, we see that this has caused many people, many prisoners to strike or attempt to strike goal to do so are punished with solitary confinement.
And you see that in many media outlets they've discussed, they discussed it as slave labor. So prisoners are basically existing in a state of slave labor. And this is post abolitionists, or post abolition you might take America. So as you can see, before abolition, African American slaves working in the in the plantations, then about 4 million slaves were working.
Now we see 2.3 million US prisoners. Some of these pictures very strangely seem to be also working in those same cotton fields in the same plantations with an overt with a disproportionate amount of African Americans as well. Again, this is post abolition United States of America.
Some people have also said that
a case in 1916 held that the United States of America can hold mandatory duties upon its citizens that the citizens are not allowed to reject or refuse, such as with conscription to the army, militia or jury. Some people have argued that alimony consists of forcing former spouses to pay money to their former spouse and so on so forth. Some people argue that is a type of slavery, I wouldn't go that far. But I'm not going to point out and people have argued that so coerced payment.
I like to bring you to not not not a reality, post abolition geneva conventions.
The third Geneva Convention, Section three, Article 49, the attaining power may utilize the labor of prisoners of war article 50, explicitly
mentioned that they may be compelled to do work. So a person or sorry, a state, which captures prisoners of war may compel their prisoners of war to do work. This is post abolition, Geneva Convention post abolition in Europe, we see both in 1914 to 1918 and 1939 to 1948. You can see they're prisoners of war being compelled to do labor. So people, on plantations on fields, the picture at the bottom is German soldiers being made to clear minds in France, apparently, that's that's against Geneva Convention, you're not allowed to make soldiers do dangerous work, but it still happened. And they reckon that there was 402,000 German prisoners of war, working in camps in
the British Isles, supplementing the industry of the Native American, United Kingdom. And it was described that this was a form of attaining reparations from these German soldiers to feel that they would have to work in in UK
as a reparation for the war itself.
So I have a simple question. If forms of mandatory or compelled or coerced labor remained after the so called abolition of slavery by the UK and the US, then the principle of mandatory labor by itself would not constitute slavery by definitions used in these for most western countries, so just coerced labor doesn't seem to be sufficient. For it to be legally defined as slavery, there has to be something else. What we're seeing anyway.
So let's return back to definitions I mentioned before that slavery would be defined as possessing the right of ownership over someone.
So let's look at Islam changes to pre Islamic institution of slavery.
We see that on principle, a song abolish the concept of ownership of people God is the only one who owns people. We see in one verse the Quran is to go that belongs where it was in heavens in the earth, I get a lot of us to God belongs dominion of the heavens and the earth, a lot the weather to use this milk or milk, which means possession, it also means King as well. So people try and some translation today's King can also mean possession. And it does mean possession generally, because the king is the final and absolute ruler who possesses his own state and therefore has absolute power in that state, which is which is why as Muslims we believe that only God could be king, not
petrochemical funded Dysport. So we also see that Jesus in the Quran is is speaking is speaking in a conversation to God talking about if God wants to forgive his slaves, if they are his slave, and he wants to punish the slaves, they are his slaves to God has absolute power over his slaves and his slaves are all human beings and everything in creation.
We also see again, another verse, the Quran, where it's instructs the Prophet Mohammed Salaam, that is not right for any human or any prophets to say, that they that people should be servants to them rather than God, but rather people should be worshipers of God.
But more fascinatingly, we see this more explicitly mentioned more specifically mentioned by the prophet Mohammed solonius, and himself, such as none of you should say, my slave Abdi, or my slave girl Amity, all of you are slaves of God and all of your women are slaves of God. Rather you should say, my boy will army or my slave girl or now I would much prefer not to translate the slave girl because you just contradicting what has been said the English translation. And the English translation is a big problem with a lot of the heavy hitter translated English but I am going to just print it to you as I literally took it from the current English translations, but we're going
to get to what these are the problems behind the English translation and second, my boy will army which is William
means God RT, which has been trusted to save gold which should be actually servant, a certain girl, my lad, which is a young boy potato, or my young girl photography, so you're not to the Prophet Mohammed sauce. I'm told Muslims come on and Muslims, you're no longer allowed to say, my slave, my slave man will save woman because we are all slaves of God. You can't say that anymore. You can't say that anymore. Instead, you have to use alternative wording. Again, this is reiterated in another verse.
None of you should say, supply drink to your Lord, feed your Lord on some time translates master help your Lord in performing evolution and none of you should say, My Lord, Master rugby, which is the Arabic where you can't say rugby my master instead say, say your D which is better translate as chief or sir or my or my Malaya, patron or boss, you can be not allowed to say Master, so a slave or what you will, what we would call it what we thought we would be calling a slave is not allowed to say what we would think was the master to call the master.
So, we see in this narration by the prophet Mohammed saw salon, that he prohibits people from calling what they used to call masters masters and what they used to call slaves slaves. So this is a prohibition by the prophet Mohammed masala.
Again, advocating that it is we are only slaves to God. Now the word slave in the Quran app generally is referring only to people who are slaves to God in the Quran. However, there are four instances out of 275 instances there are four instances where it has been referred to human beings who are in a what a what you might call customary slave relationship with a master. But we'll get to that in a second, the word for female servant, Mr. Amati. And it's also it's also usually mentioned only for women who are slaves to God, like amatola. It means slaves of gold or female slave of God. But we do find it occasionally in one or two verses where it talks about a female slave to a master,
or at least what was conventionally up into this point viewed as a female slave to a master. I have noted in many translations that Amity ama has been translated as concubine. That is not what the Arabic says. And we'll get to that in a second, whether the word concubine even exists in in the topic of the Hadith, or in the Quran, so people didn't also okay well, generally when the word and Amity or ama is used in the Quran, it generally refers to people who are worshipers of God, female worship with God, male worshipers of God. However, there are four instances where it refers to it in the conventional sense. And I would argue that this is actually a figure of speech. And if you look
at the tech the the actual versus where you see being discussed, it's always when it concerns marriage. So a free person should not esteem themselves to be beyond marrying someone who was previously viewed to be a slave. Right, encouraged marriage, marriage between people also in the verse discussing costs or equality, in retribution, or legal punishment, it talks about the free for the free, the slave, the slave, the woman for the woman, so it talks about equality of punishment. So when it comes to discussing social circumstances, the crown is using these words, however, I would argue is using this as a figure of speech, as demonstrated by it being confused and
discussion. So for example,
we see that a verse in the Quran that says most despicable name to God is a person so it's a hadebe. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, the money into God is a person who calls himself the King of kings, whereas there are no kings or owners except, except Allah, Allah. And However, he mentioned that there is mentioned in the Quran when Sol or telouet was mentioned as a king. And he had been convinced says that this is not God contradicting himself or God, recognizing that humans can be kings, but rather it's a figure of speech based on the customary use that humans recognize
the actual terms for what we call what has been translated as slaves or are now say of servants, or actually you get to Bhutan or Fatah, Russia, or Malika Imran Khan, which is generally These are the words used for humans who are under the authority of other human beings, and not up
all the verbs we see other times we see using the Hadith is Daria, and Milan. So in these discussions, usually translated as handmade or youth or servant, but these are these terms are generally referring to a servant or a handmade, not actually as
slave, as was previously translated Amati or a bit.
Again, I find heavy translations which Miss translate jovia as concubine, even though it literally comes from the root to flow to stream to hurry to rush. It also forms the derived form that refer to ships and sailing has nothing to do with sexual intercourse of any kind whatsoever.
So firstly, the sonic changes the sex the second assignment change to pre summon traditional slavery was indentured servants, I'm not going to call them indentured servants are limited to unreleased prisoners of war. Previously, to Islam, people could sell themselves into slavery, there was people who were put into slavery because of debts, people who were kidnapped into slavery, people who were breaking the law who were punished by being put into slavery, child abandonment, or abandoned children were put into slavery, and of course, enslavement of prisoners of war. Islam certainly prohibited the first five of those means and limited any discussion of this matter to only prisoners
of war. Thereafter, the consideration this topic will be only what the prophet Mohammed ordered with regard to on ransomed captive prisoners of war. We see in that narration by the prophet Mohammed Solon that he condemns people who sells free people into slavery is condemned. And there's many more narrations like this.
We also see that the what the third change that Stein instituted was people were treated as persons and not object, which is very important, because in all systems of slavery, up until the point of Islam, and afterwards, they treated slaves as objects, whereas Islam treated them as persons, such to the point whereby slaves were equal indentured servants, I think would be the better word in and I'm going to try to advance that as as a term, indentured servants were given food equal to what the the seed receives the patronal boss, equal to what the clothing equal to what the boss receives, and not given work beyond their capacity to do that work. And if they are the patron, or the boss has to
help the indentured servant. With that work, we also see that there's mandatory aspects to it. So for example, if the state asks the indentured servant to make food, the indentured servant has a right to eat that food, along with the patron, we also see that the patient isn't allowed to even insult or make false accusation against a indentured servant, which is exactly the same rights as a free person receives. But we also see in this in the verse the Quran, which I think is very fascinating, it says, and God has faded, some of you over others in provision, and those who were favored would not hand over their provision to those whom their right hands possess. So they would
be equal to them there in then is it the favor of God, they reject, it condemns people who do not provide for those indentured servants under their authority. But here's the fascinating thing, it says as to render themselves equal, so that the the patron who has the resources by supplying those resources to the servant, the indentured servant is made equal to the patron. That's a very fascinating verse of the Quran that I think people should actually ponder and reflect upon that. So the equality, respect and treatment. We also say that Islam allows an indentured servant to initiate emancipation by requiring asking for a contract, whereby they would buy their use of structure
rewrites bang, I'll get back to you the property rights in a second or they use your property interests. We see the problem is that I'm not encouraged people to free the captive, and also that the cron instituted a wealth tax with one of its expenditures is to free people who are captive or free people from indentured servitude.
We also say that Islam, prohibited beatings and physical coercion act when and will against indentured servants. So we see that in many particular narrations, which I can bring, I'll just bring up one. So the Prophet Mohammed Salaam said the expiation for beating or slapping a slaves is what the the, the translation says, not me. The expression of for beating or slapping a slave on the face or something he has not done is to set him free in other verses is if you beat the slave or slap them, they have to be set set free. A lot of us a lot of discussion which I'm awesome about mama says in gratitude is terrified by someone who beats their slave again, I'm just quoting the
translation I disagree the term slave here.
Now this is very important, because in all systems of slavery, the master was allowed to beat the servant at when we'll clip brown the Baptist
This pleases them slap beats would have you up to a limit. It depends which system it was up to live in many cases, they will have to even kill that seven slave without any repercussions in these laws in the past. But what we see that the Prophet Mohammed Salim instituted a system of restriction that any slave or to say capital indentured servant, rather, if any indentured servant is hit slap on the face instant manumission from their contracts instant manumission unheard of in any other system. In fact, if a prison warden in United America today slaps a prisoner or beats a prisoner, unfairly, the prisoner is not released.
More than the prison don't even get don't even get that privilege. Monday prisoners in post abolition United States of America also indentured servants in the British Empire again, if they were beaten by them by their the person who's their employer, they wouldn't be mandated from their contract at all whatsoever. I've been humbled, argued that corporal punishment against Russia, so Russia is the chronic and the term and the term by the prophet Mohammed Salam was only four major sins. So if the person committed a major sin that would be punished by the state, if he was a free person, then the parents would have been punished by the state. The seeds had the power to do so
this is what I mean humble argued, but it but what that implies is that certainly Barack Obama could not be punished for simply displeasing the, their their boss, and then the Prophet Mohammed has lost a limb. The Prophet Mohammed Hassan said that if you're, if your servants this pleases you, this is please you sell them and do not torment or punish the creatures of God.
So what the prophet Mohammed Hassan said, so that if they serve if a boss doesn't like their servant has any issues their servants, they should have to sell them and not punish them or torture them or to met them. This has also prompted a bit of discussion whereby a indentured servant can go to the magistrate, personally to the magistrate be seen in a court and asked to be released from their see it have to be released from their boss or their patron. If they are being treated unfairly. There is some discussions as to whether physical coercion was used at all or could be used at Tolkien's Raka, there are some seemingly indications that rock apart seemingly seemingly worked because they
anticipate being emancipated and not because they were actually being coerced to do any work in the first place.
We also see that a indentured servant could even disobey their say it in to do good deeds. So for example, one particular case, a person who was Raka, basically gave some meat away to a poor person, the sad heard of this was very upset about this beat the person, he went to the Prophet Mohammed, the, the replica went to the mammoth in southern winter, the prophet Mohammed, to seek redress. And the person who said came and said, Look, I hit him, because he's gave away my property, you gave away some food. And even the person said, the person who did it and I will not, I'm not going to stop doing it, I'm not going to stop doing it because a poor person, I'm going to give that I'm
gonna give it away to that to the poor. And the problem is that both of you will be rewarded for that person giving away the property to a poor person who needs it. So it's not just a slave who gets reward from God, for doing good act of charity, but the sacred will get reward from God for his property being given to charity, even though it wasn't his will was it was against his will. So in essence, a rabbi is not punished for giving property away have their say it for a good deed. Whereas if that person was indentured servant under the British Empire, they would be sent to prison or punished for stealing from their employer and giving it to someone else that would be classified as
and it's that make changes to the pre summer tradition of sort of abolishing ownership of people to possessing usufructuary rights over POW as I'll come to that what I mean by that.
So this is the conclusion really, of what I've discussed. In order to own something, you must have three things, three things. It comes from the Latin all sorts, which means use the thing, fructose, which is not a fruit drink, it just means benefit from the produce of something. So if you have a horse, you can ride the horse and you can also attach a tilling the device to the host until the fields and on and third abuse loss or alienation, the right of disposal altering or destruction of the thing or trading of that thing.
You You have to have all three of those rights in order to be claimed that you own something. If you don't have it, then you don't own it.
So use a proprietary which is an English word usufructuary rights are things whereby you don't, you don't have all those rights, you only have part of those rights. So for example, if you've been given the right to benefit from something, the right to use something, but not to sell it or to store it, you have usufructuary rights, you don't have ownership. If you have the right to if the owner gives you consent to sell it to whom you want. That's still consistent with being able to fracture your abs you're not allowed to destroy it.
What we see is that Islam took the pre existing institution of slavery and translated and transformed it into a contract with binding terms on both the rubber and the sea. It were the only thing that the state possessed was the use of fracturing interest in the recovered meaning that the state only possessed the economic output of the person who was a record
of the lockups. So in return for providing food, clothing, shelter of equal quality today, enjoyed by the see it, the Rockabye was required to fulfill all reasonable requests. As such at a time the Prophet Mohammed assaults on an indentured servant. The Robber was entitled to respect good treatment, freedom from arbitrary disciplining, and in some opinions from any kind of corporal punishment except the HUD laws which were upon all citizens and any injury or unjust violence, even if not causing bruising, that was inflicted on the indentured servant was punished by the instant release from their contract
about cannot be separated from their family members by assayed through selling or otherwise in all other systems of all systems of slavery that we know of the master had the right and ability to do so and they did so whereas in the Islamic Islamic paradigm of hola Mia, as I'm gonna go, I'm gonna call it a rubber could not be separate from their family members by assayed for selling or otherwise, or aka whose usufructuary right becomes into possession of a relative automatically has the right returned back to themselves as in if the erotica enters in is suddenly ends up being their use of interests both by a relative, they're automatically manumitted. From that contract, a jorja.
If a Giardia if after consensual relations with a say it becomes pregnant, cannot be sold and regains her own usufructuary rights after the seeds death, her child is born free from any usufructuary obligation.
And let's compare Islam to the criteria of ownership. And let's let's have a look. Is it ownership? Or is it use of property rights? Let's have a look. So I say it has a limited right to engage the rocket powered work up to the reasonable capacity of the rocket bar. So the right to sauce is limited or rocket but cannot be coerced or punished for doing good deeds even against the wishes of the say it fructose, a state cannot employ joy area or the plural of Giardia for prostitution could not employ them for that and certainly couldn't take their earnings because they wouldn't they wouldn't they wouldn't be allowed to even engage in that industry in the first place. And abuse DOS,
a state cannot even lightly hit let alone destroy, injure or otherwise change or aka at whim. I say it cannot sell or trade the usufructuary interests in erotica or Giardia, if they say it has engaged in consensual sexual relations, that which led to the God as pregnancy. So if a god is pregnant, after consensual sexual relations, consensual sexual relations, then that then the state cannot sell or trade that person and that person becomes automatically manumitted on the death of the said, if not before, I say it can sell the use of factory interest in America. It cannot sell the use of structure interest in rocket but it means splitting them from their family. All these restrictions
and even denials of these three criteria of ownership that we see in the Islamic world our mere concept construct. A lot of us presence in law goes beyond their contracted usufructuary rights unlike things that can be possessed and owned Islamic law recognizes record as persons, the court can attend court and demand legal address record can get married and divorced at their own discretion
and have the right for a respectful treatment for their reputation. So if someone's Giardia is married, the CFO cannot do anything about that cannot break that marriage off and certainly
cannot engage in consensual sexual relations and will be punished for Zina if they do so, in a fornication basically, if they do though, Rothenburg have equal rights according to most demographically popular schools of thought in Islam Hanafi school where their heads can claim right of retaliation or compensation as free as free person enjoy. Now there's a Hadith of the Prophet Mohammed sorafenib, which states that those who kill their slave we kill him and those who castrate their slave we can strike them. Now generally speaking, the Hanafi is tend to believe that there is equal absolute right of a retaliation against those who kill the robot or the the master or the
cigarette rather than that kills the rubber hand if you tend to tend to argue this, the other schools of thought tend to argue there's there's other types of penalties shorter than shorter than Cathars or retaliation, but generally speaking, the the cop had the rights and were protected from being killed by by at whim or at the whim and pleasure of their say it. So there's some big institutional wool on me and I use that in quote marks technically all I mean, it just means youthfulness. But will Amir consist of the following points in venturing only prisoners of war, which is permitted by the post abolition Geneva Convention. But Islam does not allow the indenting
of criminals unlike United States of America, it's not the Islam or the whole Amir construct abolishes ownership of people by people, ownership is only to God. Islam legally recognizes record and the area as persons not objects, as long abolished absolute authority over the record limiting authority of the sale over the the cop to only economic interests. Islam allowed the emancipation of the Dakar by themselves or the state. And Islam protected the hub from beatings and allowed retaliation as free people enjoy a pub. I also included in that Julia females as well. So they both they both come on these protections. So here's the important points. This does not conform to any
known practice or institution of slavery that has ever existed before after. Second, this is actually similar to post slavery abolition institutions that were practiced in the West.
JOHN Locke, who is the founder of secular liberalism, I'm not going to read all this, but he argued that the what was called slavery amongst in Jewish law was not actually slavery, because Jews were not allowed to execute their slaves, they could kill their slaves wantonly or willingly they were limited from doing so. And so he argued, that's the definition of slavery is absolute control and absolute power over another person in Jewish law, they were not granted that and so according to john Locke, Jewish law does not permit slavery, he calls it only drudgery.
Just working and servitude, but not slavery. This is john Locke saying this.
So then I have a very simple question. If the founder of secular liberalism does not consider the Jewish system, which is very similar to the Islamic concept of what I mean, by the way, although I'd say some because it is even more actually humane, and there's much more restrictions. But anyway, if john Locke considers the Jewish system of indentured labor as not being slavery, and as an if we see that there is still coerced labor that has occurred in the West, after the abolition of slavery, after the abolition of slavery, coerced labor still exists, but they say because we're not we're not to say that these people are owned by the state or owned by any individual, they're not slaves. So
meaning that only cost labor itself doesn't necessitate beings that could be called slavery. What necessitate being called slavery is ownership, actual ownership of that person, that person and so on, then I argue that Islam changed the Islamic into the pre Islamic institution of obaldia. So much to hold on here, that effectively abolished slavery by the western definitions of slavery, by Western definitions of slavery, then the Prophet Mohammed abolished, it doesn't exist because you couldn't own people anymore. You couldn't kill them at whim, when you couldn't beat them at whim. None of this. They are bound by by by law, and even initiated
debt repayment schemes, and even state funded compensation schemes for release much like indentured servitude was.
And this brings me to the point literal translation versus translation of equivalence. There's two ways to translate in any language, you either do a literal translation of the word, or you do a translation that translate the concept to its equivalent in the old language. So my point here is that the term Raka Willem
Giardia should not be conceptually translated as slave anymore, but actually should be more accurately translated as an indentured servant, as evidenced by the prophet Mohammed sons own own commands not to call Abdi or Amity, he said no to call people, your slave anymore, we are only slaves to God.
So I'm just gonna save that to the end, actually. But so that's really my point. And I'm concluding this, that I'm not arguing for a revisionist understanding of Islamic history. I'm arguing this to a Western audience, in light of Western history, in light of all the things that are allowed, post abolition of slavery.
Islam, as no different is the treatment of people who were in that kind of labor situation, then post abolition Europe was, in fact, the argument we made that Islam was even more humane than post abolition Europe, and America was now that's the case, then we should be proud to say the Prophet Mohammed is awesome, instituted the post abolitionist Islamic civilization and abolish slavery in his time. Thank you for listening.
Okay, so we're gonna open for any questions, and
we have approximately 30 minutes. And if anyone has any questions, then please raise your hand.
I kind of put kind of loaded a question up on the on the screen there. And maybe I should do this. But five years ago, I did a debate against this second liberal guy from Turkey could not the backyard. And in this debate, it was very, very colorful to be, I must say, very interesting events happening all packed into one room that was actually not meant to be the room we were initially booked for. And, and there's all kinds of hilarious events which you can find that you can take yourself when you watch the video. But from in the q&a section, there was one Muslim sister and she asked with with great, she was the agitation about this. What about concubines? You know, the topic
was reformation Islam and so she asked what about concubines she was angry about this concept of concubines which she believed to be in Islam. So I thought that because this was Austin. So as five years ago, I should address it now because it's probably gonna come up again. So very quickly
this is a this is a heady if I found translate into English
sort of.com No offense to whoever's behind the.com but they translated as joy via they translate joy via which does not have anything to do with sexual intercourse that the root What does it mean, as I mentioned before, or Giardia, which comes from Giardia, but they translate as concubines in English with the Arabic word is not doesn't mean copy by no contact by the Arabic word.
Does it make any sense because it says Ayesha had a Salam. And the Giardia was so Ayesha Ayesha had a concubine. is using he's using the same Arabic word. The same Arabic was used, but I should have a concubine. That's ridiculous. And yet the word is whoever translates our Hadith, we need a major overhaul of the translation major overhaul the English translation. Another one. So I'm at ama, again, in the Hadith translated as concubine. I could just refute that simply by pointing out that there's a name for Muslim woman amatola mean slave of God,
for female sake of God, but if I'm if I'm at, means concubine, What does amatola mean concubine of God? Ridiculous. Of course, I can refute that simply by pointing to
it says that it refers to people who are servants who themselves have servants and the servants. A female servant has a female seven hammer as it's used, which I think is just idiomatic use of the term and so can a female servants have a concubine? Doesn't make sense. It's absurd.
But yet it's translated into English translations as concubine. I don't know why.
Some people say
of the sutra is is also has been trying to notice that had been translated Hadith or third, to say concubine or to take to take a concubine. But it doesn't mean that at all, because the disorder is not a noun, it's a verb. And what it actually describes is having a discrete, consensual relationship with a word or actually just means a consequence, it just means something
discrete and to confide secret and conceal. That's all it means. It doesn't mean concubine at all. But it's used if somebody was using this particular heading for someone who wanted to have a consensual relationship outside of marriage, so a discreet relationship with someone who was not his wife, but was his was a servant and consented to it.
But again, at the Federer does not mean concubine. It's not a noun, it's a verb it means to basically take something secretly or in discreetly to have some extra disability.
This is very important. Again, I just repeated it there. What I said, there is no word in the Quran or the Hadith. For concubine, doesn't exist. As a concept, to have a female servant for just intercourse is not an Islamic concept. It was not understood by classical Islamic jurists, and so on. It was a much later idea, which was notice from Romans, from obviously, a Chinese civilization the idea of a court as an or a person who was a servant, bot was used only specifically for intercourse. That's not an Islamic concept at all whatsoever.
We see that the Prophet Mohammed Al Salam actually encouraged people to marry consensually again, female servants, not take them as in discreet relationships and so on and so forth, but to marry them or would encourage them to marry than a person who has okay that again, the English translation slave God, but I would doesn't say it as a person who has a Giardia and educates her and treats her nicely and then freeze her marries her will get a double reward. So it's encouraging people to marry women who whether they are free or whether they are indentured servants.
Again, in the Quran, it says, marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male servants and female servants. It's encouraging marriage consenting marriage, not people to take
a relationship outside of marriage. Even if the other state again, a lot of us saying the same thing to marry encouraging people to marry those women and men amongst them, and including women who are
which are Giardia, which are people who are indentured servants. Now the word concubine I'll make this very clear concubine comes in the Latin word campina, which means a woman who dwells of a man will have sexual intercourse with men outside of marriage, or a woman of lower social status, who dwells a man who has sexual intercourse with men of highest status. There is no such concept of concubinage, but I was quite maybe hilarious. The the Roman definition of concubine is would actually apply to anyone who has a boyfriend or girlfriend because you can also be a
computer genius and the male version, anyone who has who has a girlfriend and boyfriend, and you're in a situation with them, you are a concubine or a penis, according to the Romans.
According to the Romans, not me, not me at all, to the Romans. So if you don't like concubines, then I suppose the Romans would expect you to get married to avoid that. So if you like concubines, and we want to avoid the Roman definition of it, then get married, and not have extra marriage equipment and marital therapy, or pre marriage warfare. So they're at that state really, and I know that we're going to be the first question out of someone's lips, about what about concubines, so dealt with that? Now, I can take your questions, comments, and I also respect and encourage contention. So if you disagree with anything I've said, Please challenge it, because everyone will benefit from it.
Like, how would you define it?
I think you explained very well about how Islamic perspective, slavery is encouraged and does it does encourage its punishment. But how can you then explain the fact that throughout Western civilizations, they really did flourish? Was it just due to due to this application by
slavery in this way, encouraged it almost, even if perhaps it wasn't specifically
when they went and when it spread to other lands, specifically Africa.
Okay, well, first and foremost, as I said before,
If we explain in English, in English language, in a Western context to Westerners, we shouldn't be afraid to say that by the conceptual understanding the Prophet Hamid abolish slavery was botched, right? You can't own people, God owns you, full stop, can do whatever you want lots of laws, you treat people as personal objects that doesn't that goes against almost all definitions of slavery prior to and john Locke himself a fan of secular liberalism itself considered that the Jewish understanding of slavery quote unquote, wasn't slavery, because you didn't have absolute power so I'm going to stick to that. And instead of call them indentured servants to match the British
concept was which was introduced after so called abolition of course apprenticeships was still cost labor to their old slave masters for six years. And, and they compensate people who work to have them, you know, slaves liberate. So I'm saying, Well, if that's the case, then surely in the Prophet Mohammed sauce on transformed all slaves into apprentices or adoptees of their, of their family, as well. Surely, anyway, But to your point, the Unfortunately, the sonic history is bespeckled and besmirched by the actions of cruel and callous Muslims who didn't fulfill their religion. There's a number of case for this, for example, the Unfortunately, the Ottomans had a passion for Unix, and
Unix, also in high demand and all the
other memories. But here's the thing, the shirtless lambs of the time, of course, their time condemned castration, they condemned acts against Islam, they condemned it. So roundabout, I believe that the 1700s, the ultimate, were forced to try to export not to import constricted individuals from outside Islamic lands. So for example, in Sudan, the Christian doctors would perform it because they will be outside of Islamic law. And so they would then become known as the experts in performing illustrations, and then the ultimate would import these but it's against Islam. The loophole, unfortunately, is that you have these scrupulous slavers that would go outside the Islamic
lands, and they would capture, kidnap or buy or what have you, slaves from outside is unplanned, then bring the slaves into the simutrans and say, well, we're selling them. So you're allowed to buy them right so that you go, Oh, well, that way we get them from, let's not ask too many questions about where we got them from. They're just here, take them as it is. Whereas what a just an upright leader should have done is if you can prove that these people have always been slaves, then these people should be released and you should be punished, that what should have happened if they applied Islamic law, if they get sucked up, which is to solve these problems to solve the problem. So that
that was also that was an issue.
Unfortunately, the ultimate state to allow because there was balls with European nations, European nations would do raids that would capture Muslim captives. So the Ottomans would do res to capture European captives. And that would continue, also the dirt machine system, whereby
Christians would either be required or could sell their children into the ultimate military, which, while it was viewed as a lucrative career option for many for many families, because in essence, their childhood it would have money, wealth and respect. However, it goes against the Prophet Mohammed prohibitions, the those who are non Muslim under contract, you can't say that you have any one's children, that Muslim non Muslim can't do that. You can't sell people into slavery, you can't say right, you're free, let's put into the can't do that, under any system that Mohammed Salim prevented that from happening only pow, pow, he was in battle, not raiding operations, or slave
raids or kidnapping operations, none of that. So Muslims start to bend a little bit, what you find for history is you see that Muslim scholars start having pushed back against them. It's like a battle between the authorities who don't want to want to get around the law and the scholars who start condemning it and say it's against Islam, what you're doing and in many cases causes the upper hand in other cases that the leaders could could ignore the scholars and just kind of get around it or import slaves from outside of the Islamic lands, and therefore they will not under Islamic law and no one would ask question as to the origin or at least
the slavers would really explain their origins or would lie about the origin so that's why it continued as it as it probably would have. It would have completely ended within the lifetime of at least our back on on
the success of the Prophet Mohammed Salaam Salaam it would have ended, had not Muslims unfortunately breached
The conditions of Islam and out went outside the restriction of Islam.
Or the Christian points will contentions.
You, sir, you look familiar.
I just wanted to ask if this model came in let's cover this
idea of macatawa
which is the way I deal with this.
Because if you look at for example, you know, you mentioned chapter 24, verse 33, which is right after,
like, classical infrastructure when they say like, for example, if someone comes is
a slave indentured servant. Yes.
We speak English, right. So we should translate the meaning.
Yes. Well, I read them, and it
seems to be the case is that
one of them is that if, for example, a person says, Let me run some muscle 400 dinar? Yeah.
One opinion says that that person, let's say it has to run. And if he doesn't do it, then he goes to the hobby. Yeah. And the hobby frees him. So yeah, the point being is that, therefore this angle, it would not be any forced indentured, servitude. So yeah, you're right. There are two opinions. In my Malik discussed it. And he said that it was usually unusually uncommon, or even unheard of, for a car to turn down an offer of ketubah. From a contract of manumission. From a safer safer, I'll let me buy back my usufructuary rights from from you. Here's a contract. Usually, he never heard of people turning it down.
But he said it wasn't necessary. It wasn't necessarily mandatory. That was his opinion, in my opinion. However, the indentured servant has a few options, they could run away. And if they get captured, they wouldn't be executed or flogged, or what have you learned blackistone or situations they usually be, what would happen is they would be captured, captured. And they could either be put into a situation where they wouldn't be returning it back to their to their seats, but would be kept apart and the the person compensated, so they say compensated for the loss status. And then the person could say, Look, let me buy back my use proxy, right from the state, for example, or
alternatively, what will also happen if they will go to the judge and say, I don't, I just, I find find my say to be unjust, unfair, I find them I don't dislike a ball, I don't want their sexual advances or a whole number of complaints they can make. And then the judge could say, Okay, I will transfer your rights, your usufructuary interest to suppose select someone else, you can basically be resold, or the state would mandate you themselves, depending on what the money was available. So in essence, what it ended up being is that no one was actually fully compelled to work for their employer, there, their boss will see it, technically, any indentured servant could leave the employ
of their patron by making complaint about it, running away a whole number of things one way or the other, they're going to change their patron their people will be changed. There is an argument based on the prohibition of beating because the Prophet Mohammed should also learn when he would come up behind someone one particular innovation and this person was being a slave. Or being an indentured servant, the proper habit will never ask why this person was being beaten, never asked, Why just told this person that, you know, to be aware that God has more right upon him than this person does on this on this servant. And so the person said, I've never beaten my servant anymore after that. I
never beat him anymore after that. And he released had to release that person had to release that servant and then the Prophet Mohammed Salaam was reported to have said, had you not released that person, the fire would have touched you, as in the Hellfire would have touched you for that. So in essence, technically, no one was actually forced to work for any boss or any sales at all. You could you could change your say, you might not be able to choose which stage next get, but you can certainly turn down and he said by number of of reasons. And so yeah, that was in practice.
That that's, that's when it concerns seeking a contract. I'm talking about a person who doesn't want to seek a contract with him or manumission but just doesn't want to doesn't like I said, I want to change there see it. So there is a number of options available and the option of manumission. If that person offers or contracts in
Give me a contract, then you pay off the cross if you see any goodness or honesty in them. And if the person says no, then technically the person could then the indentured servant could take that car to a court and say, Look, I'm a good person, I don't do bad things. Why can't I be mandated? And then I say it would have to either prove or disprove Why you didn't do it. And if you can't prove it, the court might award the servant to be have the right to a contract and become more capital. So that could be the case. So yeah, you know, actually, so I debated is it even cost labor even, is even costly. But if that's the case, if it's more than cost labor, then the entire then there is
that literally destroys the last possible area of that, that Islam abolished slavery and said that's not abolished it without doubt now,
but because there's difference of opinion on small issues there. But generally speaking, yeah, there was no, you want to work for your patron, you could change your patron.
Anyone have any other questions or comments?
in context, yes. existed, because there was no prison
system. So the best thing
that gives them the rights instead of the box, can you say that? And that may be one reason why there was
an interesting point. And
what it seems to be was that the purpose of, of call it one amiah, right? The purpose of what amiya seem to be to rehabilitate people in the society, who were previously fighting, if they weren't ransomed, and they weren't returned back or released, mercifully, then they would be basically they have to, you might call reparations as the British did during World War Two, with German prisoners of war. I don't know. I mean, technically, the British could have hold them to a prisoner of war, meaning they held on to them for at least three years after world war two ended, right and released them only because the state decided to release them. So in essence, they were slaves, if you want to
be really, if you want to be absolute about it, you could say slaves of the state of Britain, but we wouldn't say slaves anymore, we can say because we because no one would say that the British state owned the German soldiers, they just had the right to make these soldiers work. Right? Which is why I say that then, according to their criteria, according to what you're allowed by the Geneva Convention. The manual for slavery is not slavery. So that's why I say to the west, to the west, so yeah, of course, slavery, Islam, but the the was retained the world was retained because it was either use an idiom, or either used because people understood that that institution, but it got
changed. You know, it was a chain for tuition, but it was still a frame of reference. They they recognize come back a pre Islamic days, but everything else was changed within it. So your point about
can we say that it was it was because there was no prisons is one possible argument. Yes. Another possible argument is that we'll look at the intent, the person is part becomes part of the family, right? Same food, same clothing, respectful treatment, and if they're released, and they don't have any lineage, they claim the name of the of the of the family, they become they take the family name, which I will be objective about is similar to the later Roman on Sunday, that the late Roman concept, but it was always geared towards it seemed to be rehabilitation of this person into society when they were ready to enter society, when they had the financial means they've learned skills,
useful skills, then they could go back in so it always can be a way of rehabilitation, rather than mass labor. Because we didn't, we don't really see in the early Caliphate, as well as in the town of Prophet Mohammed Hassan slaves put on masks on plantations and just working on plantations. Even since the 90s. If you overburden the slave, you have to work with the servant. Right? That's why I say it's not slave, work with the servant to help the servant do the work. The patron has to work alongside servant. That's not slavery doesn't sound like any idea of slavery I've ever heard of.
Well, interesting. there's a there's a series of books, you might have heard of it called a song of Fire and Ice by RR Martin. Apparently, there's a PBS series I've heard that that's based upon it. In one particular in one particular part of that series, there was a discussion as to how this this Queen that had taken over some slave area of that world and she tried to abolish slavery, free up abolish slavery, but it caused problems because many of the the slaves, they love their families, they were respected. They were the teachers. They had sustenance they had a roof over their head.
And they didn't know what to do. They became instantly vagrants and penniless on the streets poor instantly and didn't have anywhere else to go. And they even asked this character, this Queen character if they could go back if they could voluntarily go back into slavery because they would like to rejoin their family, where they weren't, they weren't teacher, they will respect to the kids and so on. So if they want to go back to that career that they did, so
it was interesting, our Martin, you know, mentioning that, that point, that just because someone is part of a family, but might be under law, may meet, or have certain expectations of work from that person, doesn't mean that that person resents that. Or that person has an alternative choice, but like, I'm free now. I can go where I want to everyone now No, no, maybe not. Maybe Maybe you'll die payments on the street or, or die of lack of food or what have you, right. So it's a certain outsider Prophet, Mohammed Salim AK implemented a system, which was more humane than any other system at the time, and certainly was encouraging people to be free from any kind of, of
usufructuary responsibilities. But what actually juxtaposes something else, one could argue, and this is argued by Jonathan brown as well, that the Son, a son of a father, a son, a father is also under the same expectations to obey the father and do work and so on, so forth, except the son can either be freed from from the Father. And yet, it was it was kind of viewed as a mini stomach jurists viewed how a patron treats the indentured servant, much in the same way as how a father would treat a son and a new even called sons, you know, the saint would call him, you know, My son, right. So, so and so and my daughter's fatality and so on, so forth. So that when it's I would say
was, I would say, the performance of them, inflicted a much more humane system, avoided any other problems which occurred, just look at what happened in the in during the United States abolition of slavery in the south states, right? People say that when the abolition of slavery happened, then it should have been abolished. I would argue that what America should have done is never had slaves in the first place, basically. But if it was going to abolish slavery, then it should have ensured the rights of the people who are being freed and in managing risk properly. So my criticism is that the first edition of abortion sooner or should they never had it had it. And when they did, they didn't
care about what happened to the people who have been released from slavery. And that's my criticism, it should have been abolished should have been abolished, but the American government should have helped protect and integrate and provide for those ex slaves to to live and survive, and so on, so forth. So that's what I that's what I would have, I would have argued in that case, and the Prophet Muhammad SAW some create a system whereby you didn't see those kind of problems that arise, there was a way by which Firstly, savings, I would say is abolished. And then this new kind of transitory system of rehabilitating and bringing people into society was was set up in its place, which is no
different to the British abolition of slavery. What do they do? I post slavery and created six year apprenticeship.
Right six year apprenticeship and they said, Yep, that's abolition. That's abolition. Okay, this abolition of slavery. That's that was my that's my only point.
Okay, the man looks.
I'll make a general point, which is many, many Muslim rulers for the past sorted to be useful to have slave soldiers or indentured servants, soldiers. Many cases, they were visitors and advisors and admin, administrators, and so on so forth. And generals. The problem is, first, they thought they could trust them because they would be under their control. But what happened in any case is that if you rely on a military jointer, to support your state, that agenda could then take over your state and do what they want, right? It would cause a problem. But before we really even go there, you can't compel an indentured servant in Islam or rocket
to go into war. You can't do that. You can't compel an indentured servant to go to war, or to fight or beat up a soldier. You can't do that. So the man looks not the man knows because they're their employers. Initially, were wrong for for compelling them into being soldiers or recruiting soldiers or what have you. You can't do that. You can make indentured servants fight. Come to that is prohibited under all schools of thought. And Islam. There is some difference of opinion with regards to if the enemy are attacking you. And during extreme circumstances, then everyone must come up with the fence. Everyone can find the fence. Even women can go up and find the fence. But that's an
extreme circumstance but not to join an army and become regular force. Now you don't have to do that. As long
Anyone else on this side if you want to hear
no? Cat scratcher your
a large majority of slaves,
Western lands they will kind of force their back to Christianity as a religion. What? Islamic perspective on my
we mean indentured servants of different religions. Yes.
I inshallah I'm going to start slowly try to get Muslims to slowly change the English words they use of Hey, forget that the Prophet Mohammed told you to change the words not apt anymore at the end, so don't take for me to come from me. So the religion of indentured servants is at the full discretion of the indentured servants. If they're pagan, Jewish, Christian or Muslim, that status question, you can't compel anyone in Islam to become Muslim. And we saw that although many indentured servants became Muslim during the time of Prophet Mohammed slaughter them, they were not compelled to do so.
And you must you must also see the context of you know, maybe they were pagan servants, or pagans, and they saw that Mecca had been taken over the old temple that they had decorated with idols was, you know, that the idols was was all taken down. So they sort of vindication of Islam against these pagan idols that didn't defend themselves against Muslims. And so they saw that, you know, the game was up for pay for, you know, polytheist idolatry in the Arabian princess. I mean, there's a mass conversion to Islam, once Mecca was taken, and all the aisles were cleared out, because the idols if they had any power to them, they will defend themselves from Mecca being reclaimed, and the Kaaba
being reclaimed to the religion of Abraham. So
that was what happened, but there was never any false conversions. Yeah.
The first question
this damage rebellion,
the treatment of slaves of African slave nature cost,
effectively keep the division and the kidnapping of children, the Barbary pirates and their raids on Europe.
Muslim history does not necessarily follow the theoretical
concept of slavery. That was slavery of Africans that there was by Europeans, maybe not to the same degree. And that was the use of slaves in the Ottoman Empire. Not only, of course, perhaps different when it comes to a home being your slave weapons. So I wonder if you could perhaps, further enlighten
further educate us on that?
Yeah. When it comes to the Barbary pirates as well known for making slaves?
why there was this difference for the contraband was
quite soon after the first.
Yeah, yeah. Well, the rebellion, I mean, you have it at a time when again, there was political turmoil in the Muslim in the Muslim caliphate. Have you made
that the only time and they weren't necessarily they were Muslims being killed by the Muslims during this time? It was war. So it wasn't
Yeah. Yeah. And as I said, I mean, it should be condemned. I mean, like, We're not here to defend Muslims. We're here to defend Islam and the Prophet Mohammed Salah. So I don't really care about
defending anyone who goes outside the paradigm, the prophet Mohammed salam, and I'm here to defend that I'm not the lawyer and I'm not going to
condone those the nasty things which was really from a time of Jamia from the time of before Islam so of course, the Barbary pirate pirates to they started to set this like to twist Islamic law to say that a slave raid was like a Jihad isn't it isn't that you had a but they tried to twist it. And they will and they were finding us Europeans were doing the same to Muslims. So the Muslims were being kidnapped by Europeans, slavers as well. And, you know, maybe
To work and what have you, and even some cases forced converted to Christianity as well. So, so it was it was a bad time of people doing bad things to each other. All I would say is that the concept of
groups, and these political regimes never had a concept of racial slavery, at least that they would only target a particular a particular race, as opposed to, in essence, they would get slaves from any any direction. The slobs, obviously, you know, East Europeans, but the name say comes from as well but European. I mean, the Barbary pirate pirates were an African, a basically an African slaver enterprise, which was saving Europeans. You understand why they were based in Africa, he was sleeping Europeans, right. So
yeah, but you know what, I'd say that, but what they should have the the what they did, which was wrong, wasn't that they picked particular race or what have you, it was picking slaves in the first place, that what they did was wrong. Both Europeans or an African or whoever they took it from? How and it was wrong in the first place.
Just in the ultimate right, quite interesting case, they were the policy that
people who were indentured servants or what have you, slaves when they just said to us,
they could be released after six years.
Yeah, ultimate, and committed. And strangely, they implanted a policy whereby slaves that were obtained from Africa, which were working in Ottoman lands were released after six years, and saved obtained from Europe, released after seven years, because they said that the the African servants or slaves will have you are not so used to the climate in Anatolia, whereas European will probably be more used to it. So you should not subject them to longer in such a climate, those who are not used to it. So African indentured servants or slaves, whatever word you want to use, actually spent less time as a slave by Ottoman policy than European slaves and their descendants purely because our firm
a consideration for
the climate and what have you. So a time limit? Generally, I don't find any mention of a dominant in earliest form, apart from a narration by I believe it was attributed to other I think it was
Mohammed barkot, a teacher of mamma hanifa, which said, after seven years, you should release the slave. But jurists who accept that veneration from different branches usually argue that that's an a recommendation as opposed to a command. But, but not everyone follows that those particular innovations as well as they're just different opinion, but I don't find any other mentions of time limit, but they'll certainly ultimately implemented one.
everyone for coming.
intellectually, enlightening evening. The speaker has any time anyone has any remainder questions, then maybe you can harangue me afterwards.
Did the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam abolish slavery a summary of key points from the lecture the first key point in the lecture, Islamic laws do not match pre Islamic or post enlightenment European laws and slavery.
The practice of slavery in ancient and post enlightenment Europe, considered slaves to be fully owned by their masters as property. An example of this was that slave owners, a masters were allowed to beat slaves at whim and put them to work on whatever task they were caught on to perform, no matter how dangerous or burdensome as the slaves were considered property, and like property, their legal systems allowed them the right to dispose of their property as they desired.
These treatments that the laws in such systems permitted, arose because these rules generally considered slaves to be objects and not people. This meant that slaves could generally be treated with no regard to their dignity or humanity, certainly not a regard equal to their owners. Slaves could be acquired by a number of means and citizenship was no protection from slavery. Islam, however, transformed the institution of slavery, such that it abolished the ownership of people by other people, as the summit concept of tawheed monotheism declared that everyone is the property of God, and so no one can be owned except by God. Consequently, Islam transformed former slave owners
or masters into responsible bosses or patrons in Arabic see it, and former slaves into indentured servants or workers with a legal obligation to provide economic activity for their bosses in
for food, board, housing and clothing equivalent to what their bosses would wear, bosses or patrons were prohibited from hitting or striking an indentured servant to work out when the cost of doing so would be to release the servant or worker from their bond of indenture to their patrons.
indentured servants had the right to a hearing in court, seek legal redress for injustice is done to themselves, and demand respectful treatment and equal provision of clothing and respect to their patrons or bosses. indentured servants or workers had workers rights and could not be overburdened or made to do dangerous tasks or be forced to be a soldier. These features demonstrate that unlike previous and subsequent legal systems that permitted slavery, Islam considered all humans, including indentured servants to be people and not objects. Islam prohibited putting any free person into indentured servitude, even if they were criminals. Only those who were captured while they were
actively engaged in battle or waging war, were deemed eligible for indentured servitude if no other option was available, like released on parole, prisoner exchange or random.
Islam instituted a number of legal and spiritual inducements to release people who were indentured servants or workers, either by the state paying a part of wealth tax as a card to patrons as compensation to release workers or servants, or by encouraging Muslims to release them as an act of personal expiation for sins. What becomes clear from all this is that the Islamic treatment of indentured servants was completely unlike a system of slavery that had existed before and after. Islamic laws do not fit any models have laws on slavery from any other civilization. Therefore, the summit call to tauheed, as well as the treating of indentured servants as humans and persons not
objects, recognized as such under the law, showed that Islam effectively abolished slavery of man to man.
Key Point to Western countries, and the founders of the political philosophy of secular liberalism do and did not consider compelled labor by itself to be slavery, the founder of secular liberalism, the dominant ideology in the West today, john Locke, considered the practice of indentured servitude in Jewish law, previously called slavery to not be slavery, since he argued that patron could not arbitrarily kill his servants at whim. This meant that the patron was not the true owner of the servants body, and therefore the servant was only doing what he called drudgery, forced or compelled labor, and was not a slave.
JOHN Locke considered Jewish laws on servitude, not to be slavery. Therefore, he would have also considered similar Islamic laws, also not to be slavery either.
In 1833, the British Empire transformed slaves into quote unquote apprentices who had legal rights, or were considered to be free and emancipated individuals. However, they were still obligated to work for their former masters for six years before they could choose another employment and go elsewhere. their masters were now called their bosses.
The British Empire compensated all these bosses or former slave owners for this process, so that no one lost out in money. The British Empire saw no contradiction between indentured servitude, and the abolition of slavery. After the abolition of slavery, the British Empire continued to use indentured servants. Mandatory apprenticeships, coerced labor for workers, and prisoners being made to do hard labor until 1948. Britain saw no contradiction between indentured servitude apprenticeships or coerced labor and the abolition of slavery.
In 1863, the USA enacted the 13th Amendment, which abolished enslavement of all people, except prisoners. However, today, prisoners in the USA can still be made to do coerced labor, or face punishments such as solitary confinement for refusing to do so. The US calls this the abolition of slavery.
The 1949 third Geneva Convention, section three permits states to compel captured prisoners of war pow, to do work for their captors.
This International Convention was signed by post slavery abolition states like the USA and UK, and it's
Considered by all western states, not to contradict the abolition of slavery. Despite the fact that the word compelled is used in the convention to refer to making prisoners of war do work for their captors. The Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam limited taking people into quote unquote compelled labor only to prisoners of war, like the third Geneva Convention allows Western countries and the founders of the political philosophy of secular liberalism do and did not consider compelled labor by itself to be slavery.
Key Point three,
the thermic law over the curb and Jerry art resembles permitted modern treatment of prisoners of war and the British system of indentured servants, not slavery. indentured servants were considered as persons not objects in English law, and therefore had rights. indentured servants were obliged to fulfill their indenture until their boss or patron released them from it, or they paid it off. indentured servants were the responsibility of their patrons or bosses, ie in providing food, clothing and shelter. The third Geneva Convention allows prisoners of war to be quote unquote compelled to work for their captors, and Juliet were originally prisoners of war, and are given
rights as persons and indentured to work until release or payment of their indenture. Therefore, the Islamic law on this matter is more similar to the treatment of prisoners of war, and the British imperial indenture system and not slavery.
Key Point for Islam expressly prohibited anyone from calling their rehab or God at their slaves or being called master by them.
Conclusion if Islamic law teaches that people are only owned by God, not each other, and recognizes that people are only slaves to God, not humans, does not resemble any known system of slavery resembles more post abolition Western legal systems that were are not considered slavery by the West and the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam expressly prohibited servants from calling their patrons or bosses, their masters and patrons from calling their servants their slaves. Then according to all these criteria, including modern day Western practices after slavery was abolished. The Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu wasallam his changes to the pre Islamic practice of slavery
effectively abolished slavery by the western definition.
In fact, the prophet muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam created a different institution altogether. Therefore, in the West, Muslims should explain how the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam actually abolished slavery. Islam prohibited people to refer to their indentured servants as, quote unquote, their slaves, nor for indentured servants to refer to their bosses as their masters or owners, because all humans are only slaves to God. This final Islamic directive clearly demonstrates that Islam abolish slavery of man to man and call for mankind only to be slaves to the one God.
I'd like to finish by making a key recommendation after this lecture. Namely, that translation into Western languages needs to be changed to fit the meaning of the Islamic concept of raba and geria. translations are about translating the conceptual meaning of a word or phrase, the word slave in English language does not represent even a literal translation of the Arabic words or aka or Giardia. As the lecture demonstrated, the translation of Raka and jharia in Islamic law does not conceptually translate as slave by Western understanding of that concept. So why use it? The words Raka and geria should be translated into Western languages as indentured servant or indentured
worker and it does not mean slave for which the Arabic word is.
The Arabic word say it should be translated as patron or boss and does not mean master or owner. indentured means the legal obligation and servant means anyone who serves like for example, a civil servant. An indentured servant means that the law obliges them to render the terms of service that is all.
When it comes to current day translations. The words usually translate in English as slaves from the Arabic text should be changed to reflect the more accurate meaning indentured servants or workers which are more accurate translation that avoids
being confused with practices and institutions from the West's own dark past. I'd like to emphasize once again, that throughout the lecture and this summary, the words Raka and giardia refer only to indentured servants or workers and not slaves at the end and one have the Islamic laws on indentured servitude been abrogated by time. Islamic laws on indentured servitude were originally derived from specific Islamic texts. Only revelation can abrogate Islamic texts. It's therefore more accurate to say that Islamic laws or indentured servitude are obsolete in a society where there are no longer any indentured servants, ie the circumstances they deal with no longer exists. For example, if
Mauritius had a law banning the hunting of dodos, the law would be inoperative due to dodos being extinct, despite the fact that the law may still exist. In the Mauritian legal statute books, the absence of dodos would render the law obsolete regardless