Slavery in Islam

All the ancient as well as the contemporary scholars acknowledge the fact of slavery in Islam and clarify the status of slaves. I have chosen the opinions of the most famous scholars to shed light on their position.

The Scholars of al-Azhar in Egypt

In his book, “You Ask and Islam Answers”, Dr. ‘Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, the general supervisor and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University, says (pp. 51,52),

“Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The first reason is war (whether it is a civil war or a foreign war in which the captive is either killed or enslaved) provided that the war is not between Muslims against each other – it is not acceptable to enslave the violators, or the offenders, if they are Muslims. Only non-Muslim captives may be enslaved or killed. The second reason is the sexual propagation of slaves which would generate more slaves for their owner.”

The text is plain that all prisoners of war must either be killed or become slaves. The ancient scholars are in full agreement over this issue, such as Ibn Timiyya, Ibn Hisham, Malik etc. Ibn Timiyya says (Vol. 32, p. 89),

“The root of the beginning of slavery is prisoners of war; the bounties have become lawful to the nation of Muhammad.”

Then (Vol. 31, p. 380), he indicates clearly and without shame,

“Slavery is justified because of the war itself; however, it is not permissible to enslave a free Muslim. It is lawful to kill the infidel or to enslave him, and it also makes it lawful to take his offspring into captivity.

In Part 4, p. 177 of the “Prophet Biography” (Al-Road Al-Anf’), Ibn Hisham says,

“According to Islamic law concerning prisoners of war, the decision is left to the Muslim Imam. He has the choice either to kill them or to exchange them for Muslim captives, or to enslave them. This is in regard to men, but women and children are not permitted to be killed, but must be exchanged (to redeem Muslim captives) or enslaved – take them as slaves and maids.”

This is the statement of Ibn Hisham, on whom all Muslims and students of Muhammad’s biography rely. Of course, these matters which Ibn Hisham recorded used to take place continuously in all of Muhammad’s wars and invasions. All of Muhammad’s people (his wives, and Muhammad himself) owned many slaves – males and females. In his campaign against the children of Qurayza (the Jewish tribe), Muhammad killed all the males (700-900) in one day. Then, he divided the women and the children among his people.

The Caliphs across the ages followed Muhammad’s footsteps and enslaved (by hundreds and thousands) men and women who were captured in wars. Many of them were Persians and Byzantines. All the Islamic Chroniclers without exception have recorded these facts. The way Arab Muslims invaded Africa and killed and enslaved Africans is a well-known, historical fact.

In Vol. 2, Part 3, p. 13, Malik Ibn Anas repeated the same text as did Ibn Hisham who is also quoted by Ibn Timiyya, and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in his book, “Zad al-Ma’ad” (part 3, p. 486). All of them taught the same principle and said the same words.

This question was delivered to Ibn Timiyya who was Mufti of Islam (Vol. 31, pp. 376, 377),

“A man married a maid-slave who bore him a child. Would that child be free or would he be an owned slave?”

Ibn Timiyya says emphatically,

“Her child whom she bore from him would be the property of her master according to all the Imams (heads of the four Islamic schools of law) because the child follows the (status) of his mother in freedom or slavery. If the child is not of the race of Arabs, then he is definitely an owned slave according to the scholars, but the scholars disputed (his status) among themselves if he was from the Arabs – whether he must be enslaved or not because when A’isha (Muhammad’s wife) had a maid-slave who was an Arab, Muhammad said to A’isha, `Set this maid free because she is from the children of Ishmael.'”

Then Ibn Timiyya states (Vol. 31, p. 380) that the legist Abu Hanifa says, “Muhammad is an Arab; thus it is not admissible to enslave Arabs because of the nobility of this race since Muhammad is from them.” Yet other scholars disagree with him, emphasizing that Muhammad (in one of his campaigns) enslaved Arabs, too. However, it is evident from Muhammad’s traditions that he regarded Arabs to be the most noble race, especially the Quraysh, his tribe. His famous saying (that the caliphs must be elected from the Quraysh tribe) is acknowledged by all translators of the tradition without exception.

He should have told A’isha, “Set her free because she is a human being like you. It is not important whether she is a descendant of Ishmael or of Isaac!”

Islam Encourages Muslims to Keep Slaves – No Liberation

All Muslim scholars acknowledge that Islam has retained the principle of slavery, though some of them claim that Islam encourages the liberation of slaves. Maybe some of Muhammad’s sayings and a few Qur’anic verses indicate so, yet from a practical point of view, we realize that the liberation of slaves was a rare occurrence. The reason is well known. Neither Muhammad nor his wives or companions were a good example in this regard. Sometimes, Muhammad used to talk about the merits of liberating a slave, yet he himself owned dozens of slaves and maid-slaves. However, we encounter a strange opinion spelled out by Muhammad’s wives and his friends in which he encourages them to retain their slaves. In Vol. 33, p. 61 Ibn Timiyya says,

“Anyone who says, `If I do so (such a thing), every slave I own will become free’ is not obligated by his oath and he can redeem his oath by any means and retain his slaves. (He can do that) by fasting a few days or by feeding some hungry people.”

On the same page Ibn Timiyya stresses that this is what all Muhammad’s friends said (such as Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn ‘Umar) as well as his wives (such as Zaynab, A’isha, and Um Salama).

Is the liberation of slaves a bad thing so that it is possible for a man who swears he will liberate his slaves to renounce his oath and retain them? It should be said that whoever takes an oath to free his slaves if so and so happens, is obliged to fulfill his oath and liberate his slaves, but we see that Muhammad’s wives, his great companions and his relatives say something different according to the testimony of Ibn Timiyya.

The Qur’an itself (in several places) approves of slavery and assures the Muslim the right to own dozens of male and female slaves either by purchasing them or as bounty of war. The Qur’an talks about the possession of slaves as “the possession of their necks” (Chapter 58:3, Surah Al-Mujadilah).

Slaves of Muhammad – Prophet of Freedom and Equality!

Muhammad himself owned numerous slaves after he proclaimed himself to be a prophet. I would like here to quote Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya who is one of the greatest scholars and chroniclers of Islam. In his book, “Zad al-Ma’ad” (Part I, p. 160), he says,

“Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased (more slaves) than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He (once) sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more (than he sold). He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out.

This trading used to take place in the slave market in the Arab Peninsula and in Mecca. Muhammad was accustomed to sell, purchase, hire, rent, and to exchange one slave for two. Thus, he had an increasing number of slaves, especially after he claimed to be a prophet, and after his immigration from Mecca to escape death at the hand of his tribe Quraysh. Also, the slaves of Muhammad and his followers were constantly increasing as the result of those who were captured in wars and not only by purchase. This should alert those who have accepted Islam – the Muslims of New York, Chicago, Georgia, Detroit, Los Angeles as well as all the Africans and all Muslims of the world. Even among the Arabs are Muslims who are not aware of these facts concerning Muhammad. Sadly, this is only a small part of the facts of which they are unaware concerning Muhammad.

The Names of Muhammad’s Slaves

A) Male Slaves:

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya relies always on the prophet’s biographies written by great ancient scholars. Therefore, he is regarded by Muslims as an authority, a primary source and a leader among the students of the Islamic religion. This scholar tells us in his book, “Zad al-Ma’ad” (part 1, pp. 114, 115, and 116), the following,

“These are the names of Muhammad’s male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, ‘Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad’am, Karkara, Abu Rafi’, Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu ‘Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (`ship’).

He himself relates his own story; he says:

“The apostle of God and his companions went on a trip. (When) their belongings became too heavy for them to carry, Muhammad told me, `Spread your garment.’ They filled it with their belongings, then they put it on me. The apostle of God told me, `Carry (it), for you are a ship.’ Even if I was carrying the load of six or seven donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load. The prophet told me, `You are a ship”‘ (refer to Ibn Qayyim, pp. 115-116; al-Hulya, Vol. 1, p. 369, quoted from Ahmad 5:222).

The story shows their ruthlessness and does not need explanation or clarification. The ill treatment Muhammad and his companions made of Mahran is very repulsive. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya is not the only one who recorded this episode and the list of names of Muhammad’s slaves. The Tabari also (in his Chronicles, Volume 2 p. 216, 217, 218) presents us with these accounts. No one among the contemporary Muslim leaders denies these matters, especially if he is faced with the Tabari’s and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s records.

Still, in regard to Muhammad’s slave Zayd Ibn Haritha, Muhammad set him free and adopted him, then he married him to his (Muhammad’s) cousin Zaynab. Later Zayd divorced her after he realized that Muhammad was captivated by her. The scandalous story is documented by verses in the Qur’an, and Muslim scholars admit it.

B) Maid Slaves:

In this same Section (One, p. 116), Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya as well as other Muslim authors of chronicles recorded the list of names of Muhammad’s maid-slaves. They are Salma Um Rafi’, Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa’d, Khadra, Radwa, Razina, Um Damira, Rayhana, Mary the Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war.

The Status of the Slave Under Islam’s Unjust Laws

Let us survey together some strange things embraced by Muhammad and Islam pertaining to slaves. Then let us shed some light on the attitude of Christianity towards this issue.

The Freeman Should Not Be Killed For A Slave

The Qur’an as well as Muslim scholars are explicit in this regard The Qur’an (the Chapter of the Cow:178) shamelessly says,

“O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered – the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.”

The reader does not need the interpretations of the scholars to understand these explicit words which indicate that the freeman should be killed only for another freeman, a slave for a slave, and a female for a female. Still, I promised to stick to the interpretations of the great expositors of these Qur’anic verses from among the Muslim scholars because they are more knowledgeable of their Book and its verses. We rely on their interpretations and not on our own. In the commentary of the Jalalan (p. 24), we read the following regarding the above mentioned verse,

“The same punishment was imposed on believers and what is similar to the act of the crime in the case of a homicide, by virtue of description or actuality. A freeman should be killed for another freeman but not for a slave, a female for a female, but a Muslim (even if he is a slave) must not be killed for an infidel, even if that infidel is a freeman.”

What kind of equality is this between human beings!

To explain the aforementioned verse (2:178), the Baydawi relates what really happened with the prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. This is recorded in his book entitled, “The Commentary of al-Baydawi”. On p. 36, we read,

“The Shafi’i and Malik prohibit the killing of a freeman if he slays his slave or other men’s slaves. This is because ‘Ali Ibn Abi-Talib mentioned that a man had killed his slave and Muhammad scourged him only; he did not kill him. It was related on the authority of Muhammad that he said a Muslim should not be killed for a non-Muslim, nor a freeman for a slave; also because Abu Bakr and ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab did not kill a freeman for a slave. (This was said) in the presence of all Muhammad’s companions, and no one disapproved or objected to it.”

These are the verses of the Qur’an and this is the attitude of Muhammad himself as well as Abu Bakr and ‘Umar after him.

The Muslim legists

The Shafi’i, Malik and Ibn Timiyya, pronounce the same principle as in the Qur’an (2:187).

The Imam Shafi’i tells us plainly and decisively in Part I of his book, “Ahkam al-Qur’an” (“The Ordinances of the Qur’an”, p. 275),

“A man is not to be killed for his slave nor the freeman for a slave.”

On the same page he adds,

“A believer is not to be killed for a non-believer, nor a man for his son, or a man for his slave or for a woman.”

What justice! What equality! Then he adds,

“The freeman is not to be killed for a slave according to the scholars.”

Malik Ibn Anas was asked: “What is the punishment of a master who beats his slave to death?” He answered: “Nothing!” (Vol. 6, Part 15, p 164).

In Vol. 28, p. 378, Ibn Timiyya also says:

“What we mentioned in regard to the believers whose blood is treated equally is restricted to the free Muslim against another free Muslim.”

I do not have better witnesses in this regard than these scholars: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Ali and Muhammad’s deeds, and all great, popular Muslim scholars.

A Slave Is Not Entitled To Property Or Money

Ibn Hazm says in Vol. 6, Part 9,

“The slave is not permitted to write a will when he dies, nor can he bequeath (anything) because his entire possessions belong to his master.”

In part I, p. 180 of his book, “The Ordinances of the Qur’an”, the Shafi’i also says,

“The Qur’anic verse; `Marry of the women who seem good to you, two or three or four are meant for the freeman only and not for the slaves because he says in it that the one who acts fairly is the person who owns money and slaves do not own money.”‘

He also indicates in Part II, p. 21, “The owned one does not have money.” Besides, according to the Islamic law, all Muslims receive portions of war bounty except slaves and women. Malik Ibn Anas says (Vol. 2, Part 3, pp. 33,34),

“Slaves and women do not have any portion in the bounty.”

This is true even if they have been fighting with the rest of the Muslims. In Part III of the “Prophetic Biography” (p. 386), Ibn Kathir says,

“The slave does not get anything from the bounty whether the bounty is money or women.”

The Testimony Of The Slave Is Not Admissible

In Vol. 35, p. 409 Ibn Timiyya remarks,

“The Shafi’i, Malik, and Abu Hanifa, who are the legists of Islam, assert that the testimony of the slave is not acceptable.”

If we also turn the pages of the “Ordinances of the Qur’an” by the Shafi’i (part II, p. 142), he determines,

“The witnesses must be from among our freeman, not from our slaves, but from freeman who belong to our religion! “

The testimony of a Jew or a Christian is not acceptable, as we have mentioned before, even if justice would be hindered for lack of their witness. This is not important. In his “Sahih” (Part III, p. 223), Al-Bukhari remarks,

“The testimony of a slave is not acceptable in marriages.”

What is the meaning of the Shafi’i’s statement,

“A witness should not be from our possessed slaves.”

Does not Mr. Shafi’i know that God only is the One who owns people? How dare he utter the phrase, “our possessed slaves.”

There Is No Punishment For One Who Makes False Accusation Against Slaves

It is well known that if a Muslim falsely accuses another free Muslim and slanders his honor, he will be punished by being flogged with eighty lashes. This is what happened when some of Muhammad’s companions and relatives accused A’isha, his wife, of adultery with one of the young men because they stayed behind after the departure of the caravan, then later in the morning they arrived together. Muhammad ordered each one of them flogged with eighty lashes. But if a Muslim calumniates a slave, he would not be punished.

This is the opinion of all the scholars.

For instance (Vol. 8, Part II, p. 27 1), Ibn Hazm asserts that this is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, Malik, and Sufyan al-Thawri and not only his own opinion. This is what the Sharawi shamelessly remarks,

“Female slaves are deprived of dignity and subject to abuse because they are not `an honor’ to anyone (that is, they are not free, respectable women who belong to a free man). These are the same words reiterated by the Shafi’i (Part I, p. 307) in his book, `Ahkam of the Qur’an’; thus a female slave must not be veiled. When- ever Muhammad took a woman as a captive, if he imposed the veil on her, Muslims would say he took her as a wife, but if he left her unveiled they would say, `He owned her as a slave’; that is, she became a property of his right hand.”

A good example is the incident of Safiyya, daughter of Hay, who was taken as a bounty in the war of Khaybar. All the chronicles (as well as the biographies without exception) have recorded, “We wonder why it is said about women and girls that they are of `shed dignity’.” The Shafi’i and the Sharawi state this word for word. Is it necessary for us to repeat that Islam sheds the dignity of man under the pretense that he is a slave, that she is a woman, or that he is a non-Muslim?

On Matters Of Sex And Marriage – and About Black Slaves

1. The Slave cannot choose for himself.

This was confirmed by all the Muslim scholars on the authority of Muhammad. In Vol. 6, Part 9, p. 467, Ibn Hazm said,

“If a slave gets married without the permission of his master, his marriage will be invalid and he must be whipped because he has committed adultery. He must be separated from his wife. She is also regarded as an adulteress because Muhammad said, `Any slave who gets married without the approval of his master is a prostitute.'”

The same text is quoted by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (Part 5, p. 117 of “Zad al-Maad”), as well as Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 32, p. 201). Malik Ibn Anas relates (Vol. 2, Part 4) more than that. He says (pp. 199, 201, 206),

“The slave does not get married without the approval of his master. If he is a slave to two masters, he has to obtain the approval of both men.”

2. The male slave and the female slave are forced to get married.

Malik Ibn Anas says explicitly,

“The master has the right to force his male or female slave to marry without obtaining their approval” (Vol. 2, p. 155).

Ibn Hazm says that Sufyan al-Thawri, too, has said that the master has the right to force his male or female slave to marry without securing their approval (Vol. 6, Part 9, p. 469). Ibn Timiyya is of the same opinion.

I must not fail in this regard to mention that Malik Ibn Ons, who (after agreeing with the other scholars that the master has the right to force his male or female slave to get married) added,

“The master does not have the right to force the female slave to wed to an ugly black slave if she is beautiful and agile unless in case of utmost necessity” (refer to Ibn Hazm, Vol. 6, Part 9, p. 469).

We wonder here, what did Malik Ibn Anas mean when he said, “An ugly black slave“? Is a man valued on the basis of the color of his skin? Do you say that, O Malik Ibn Anas, and you are one of the great four legists? Or is a man valued on the basis of his personality, reasoning, and heart? We also have the right to wonder why Mihran, the black slave, suffered the humiliation afflicted on him by Muhammad and his companions when they made him carry their belongings in the burning desert while Muhammad was saying to him, “Carry them, for you are a ship.” Thus he became known by that surname. Did they not have dozens of other slaves?

Muhammad even discriminated (in Islam) between a black dog and a white dog! Yet, what concerns us here is what I pointed out about slaves in general, their masters treat them as if they are not human beings who have feelings, desires and self-will.

Let us continue our discussion in order to have a more complete picture about how the Islamic religion abuses the dignity of men and women under the pretense that they are slaves and not free human beings.

3. The Arab freeman does not marry a slave unless it is inevitable:

In Vol. 31, p. 383, Ibn Timiyya says,

“It is not permissible for the Arab freeman to marry an owned slave unless it is inevitable, such as being unable to get married to a free woman. If it happened and he were wed to a slave, her children would be slaves, too, because they follow (the status) of the mother in slavery.”

Malik Ibn Anas notes,

“It is not allowable for a man to wed a slave besides his freewoman wife. In this case, his wife has the right to divorce him. Likewise, if he marries a freewoman while he is already married to a slave and he fails to tell her so, the freewoman has the right to leave him” (Malik, Vol. 2, p. 204).

I do not have any comment on these strange principles, yet I wonder why an Arab freeman cannot marry a slave. Is not he a man and she a woman? And why (if it is inevitable that he should marry her) should all her descendants be slaves? These are iniquitous and ruthless ordinances. It is obvious that Muhammad failed to change the traditions of the tribal society of the pre-Islamic period. Most Arab Muslims had slaves. His companions, wives and he himself owned and retained dozens of them. He bought more after he claimed his prophethood and declared his message – the message or equality, and freedom, and human rights!

What Would Happen If A Freewoman Married Her Slave?

She might be an open-minded woman who did not discriminate between one man and another. Thus she might have fallen in love with her slave who also loved her and they intended, officially, to get married. What is the attitude of Islam in this case? If something like that took place in Islamic society, it would be a disaster! Let us see the reaction of Umar Ibn Khattab in these situations. In Vol. 8, Part 11, pp. 248, 249, Ibn Hazm remarks,

“A woman was wed to her male slave. Umar intended to stone her, but instead he made them separate and sent the slave to exile. He told the woman, `It is unlawful for you to get married to your owned slave!’ Another woman got married to her slave. Umar scourged her with a whip and forbade any man to marry her. Another time, a freewoman came to Umar and told him, `I am not a pretty woman and I have a slave to whom I would like to get married.’ Umar refused to do so. He whipped the slave and ordered him to be sold in a foreign country. He told the woman, `It is unlawful for you to get married to what your right hand owns. Only men have the right to get wed to what their right hand owns. Even if you set him free in order to marry him and he becomes a freeman, the manumission will be invalid and the marriage is not valid.”‘

Is there any comment on the ruthlessness of this second caliph who was Muhammad’s father-in-law and one of the ten to whom Muhammad promised paradise? He is one of the two whom Muhammad requested the people to follow as a model when he declared, “Emulate Abu Bakr and Umar.” Yet Umar was a tyrant, a ruthless man without a heart who attempted to stone a woman for no reason except she married a man who was her slave. He also scourged another woman, forbidding any other man to marry her, and beat and exiled a slave. And when a third woman wanted to free her slave in order to marry him and live happily together, especially after she lost hope in getting married to a freeman, Islam and Umar intervened and said, “No, this is not permissible.” He scourged the slave and sold him into a foreign country. By that, he became an example of relentlessness, a hard heart, and detestable oppression.

In matters of sex and marriage, Ibn Timiyya states:

“The one who owns the mother also owns her children. Being the master of the mother makes him the owner of her children whether they were born to a husband or they were illegitimate children. Therefore, the master has the right to have sexual intercourse with the daughters of his maid-slave because they are his property, provided he does not sleep with the mother at the same time” (Vol. 35, p. 54).

The Value Of The Slave – What Is His Price In Dinars?

“If an owned slave assaults somebody and damages his property, his crime will be tied to his neck. It will be said to his master, `If you wish, you can pay the fine for the damages done by your slave or deliver him to be sentenced to death.’ His master has to choose one of the two options – either the value of the slave and his price or the damage the slave has caused” (Vol. 32, p. 202, Ibn Timiyya).

Is this how the value of a man is calculated? If the loss amounted, for example, to 600 dinars and the value of the slave in the estimation of the master did not exceed more than 400 dinars because he was sick or weak, his master would, in this case, deliver him to be killed!

We have looked at six points concerning the status of slaves in the Islamic religion. Actually, any one point, if we ponder it, is sufficient to clarify the truth. It reveals to us how human dignity is crushed in the practice of slavery. From the very beginning, we referred to the principle of slavery as it is manifested in this religion, and we have listed the names of Muhammad’s slaves, the master and the “apostle of God!”

The Position of Christianity – the Teaching of the Gospel

Christianity is very decisive in this matter. The words and the spirit of the Gospel are very clear. From the very beginning, we have used a fundamental principle in this study and research; namely, the comparison must always be between the Gospel and the Qur’an – Christianity as religion and teachings and Islam as religion, in order to see which one of the two reveals the thoughts of the true, living God. Also, the comparison should be between Muhammad, his life and his sayings on the one hand, and Christ, His life and teachings on the other.

If we were to find (for example) some Europeans or Americans who allowed themselves to acquire slaves, we should not blame Christianity for that because we must realize that the Gospel teaches something different. We see that Jesus and His disciples did not possess slaves.

We do blame Islam in this regard because Muhammad himself acquired male and female slaves by dozens. All his friends, his wives and most Muslims of his time and after owned slaves. The Qur’an encourages that and the scholars do not negate it. We blame Islamic thought and the behavior of Muhammad in regard to this matter and other issues recorded in the most authentic Islamic sources.

We should not, in any subject, dwell on the behavior of some Christians or some Muslims but rather try to examine the attitude of Islamic thought (or Christian thought) toward the issues under discussion. Some people, for instance, believe that a man like Khomeini is an extremist because of Islam, the religion of tolerance, love, and reason. We, for our part, feel surprised to hear that, because who says that this statement is true? Islam is not the religion of tolerance, love, or reason. Not at all! Islam is the exact opposite of this claim.

Did we not see that this religion humiliates and persecutes women and non-Muslims as well as waging offensive wars and encouraging Muslims to kill apostates? Is Muhammad, who ordered the killing of a woman who insulted him, the prophet of tolerance? Why should we blame Khomeini when he issued an order to kill Rushdie? Does not Rushdie (according to the law of Islam and Muhammad, not the law of the United Nations) deserve death for attacking the Qur’an, Muhammad and his wives? Khomeini was never radical; he was always a true student of Muhammad. He intended to enforce the Islamic laws and to fight nations which do not comply with them – such as Iraq (even though Islam is its official religion).

When Muslims kill one another, it is because Muhammad’s friends and disciples did so immediately after his death, each one of them trying to force his friend to go in the right way. Khomeini is a true Muslim who follows Muhammad and his friends. Thus, we hear about “exporting the Islamic revolution” to other countries. All these things are compatible with the views of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs who succeeded him such as Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali. When Khomeini slaughtered his opponents, he was following the footsteps of Ali who killed the dissenters, like Talha, Al Zubair and Al Khwareg, even though they were faithful Muslims.

Now, what does the New Testament say about slaves? If we turn in the pages of the New Testament we read these verses:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

Christ was always warning his disciples and all believers from calling themselves masters. He said to them:

“But you, do not be called `Rabbi’ [master]; for One is your Teacher [master], the Christ, and you are all brethren” (Matt. 23:8).

“But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be abased (humbled); and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Matt. 23:12).

By these last words Christ has turned over all the feeble human standards – The “… greatest among you shall be your servant.” How profound and deep are these wonderful words!

This truth is clearly taught in the New Testament by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It happened that there was a slave called Onesimus who ran away from his master, Philemon. Onesimus met the apostle Paul in Rome and was converted to Christianity. Paul sent him back to Philemon with a very impressive letter which is included in the New Testament and in which we read these shining words,

“I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart. Receive him … no longer as a slave but … as a beloved brother, …, both in the flesh and in the Lord” (Chapter 1).

Paul, Peter and the rest of the disciples did not have the authority to abolish slavery within the Roman Empire. Paul was not one of the Roman governors, but a fugitive and a persecuted man. Later he and most of the disciples were killed at the hands of the Romans along with thousands of their Christian brothers. Muhammad and his successors were rulers and could have outlawed slavery. Instead, they retained it and kept their slaves.

In another letter, Paul urged the Christians to “give your servants what is just and fair” (Col. 4:1). The text emphasizes these two words – brotherhood and justice – because there is neither slave nor freeman, but all are one in Christ.

Egyptian history relates a story about a courageous man who stood in front of his tyrannical rulers who mistreated people and wondered in agony, “Why have you enslaved people whose mothers gave birth to them as free persons?” This brave man did not know that he was addressing multitudes of people across the ages, whether ruthless Westerners in Europe and America or the prophet of Islam himself who failed to liberate the slaves because he himself had acquired dozens of them.

Christian religious leaders such as John Wesley boldly condemned slavery in Europe and sent strong messages to the rulers of Europe and America. They led the movement of slaves’ liberation during the day of Abraham Lincoln. Now there are multiplied black men who hold various positions of honor and respect in America. They teach in colleges and universities. They sit on the bench of the courts of the land-even the Supreme Court. They are freely elected to local, county, state and federal positions. They hold high military offices. They build their own fortunes with which they do as they wish. They freely marry and raise their families without fear.

This is what Jesus taught – “There is no difference ….”

Source:http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv5.html

Fitna and The Left

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam. He was a contributor to the book Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam. His e-mail address is nirribilli@gmail.com.
FP: Abul Kasem, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

Kasem: Thank you Jamie.
FP: I would like to talk to you today about your thoughts on the film Fitna and the Left’s response to it – especially in the context of how Geert Wilders is being denounced for being truthful about the connection between Islamic theology and Islamic terror.

First, tell us what you think of the new film.

Kasem: I think Fitna is done very cleverly. It lays the full blame of Islamic atrocities to the fount of Islam, the Koran. Anyone viewing this short movie will have no doubt that the Islamist terrorism is the result of the Koran in action. Geert Wilders has demonstrated very precisely what has plagued the world for many years and why the Jihadists are doing what they are doing.
FP: Analyze for us the format that Wilders uses.

Kasem: Wilders uses only five verses of the Koran to demonstrate the potential danger of Islam to a civilised world. These verses are (note the comments by eminent Koran scholars):

8:60 The Muslims should muster all their power and might, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles…) to strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers (by killing them—ibn Abbas).

47:4 When the believers meet the unbelievers they should smite at unbelievers’ necks (when you fight against them, cut them down totally with your swords—ibn Kathir).

8:39 Fight until there are no more unbelievers (non-Muslims) and tumult (this verse overrides all other verses on fighting the infidels, including the Jews and the Christians); if they accept Islam then leave them alone.

4:56 Unbelievers will be cast in fire, their skins roasted often, skins changed often for more roasting (the skin will be roasted seventy thousand time every day; the new skin will be as white as paper—ibn Kathir).

4:89 Seize and slay the renegades (i.e., apostates of Islam) wherever you find them. (Maududi 4/118: This is the verdict on those hypocritical confessors of faith who belong to a belligerent, non-Muslim nation and actually participate in acts of hostility against the Islamic state).

It is clear Greet Wilders did not present anything original. He merely re-stated the contents of the Koran, forcefully depicting, with true pictures, those verses in action.
FP: So if this is what the Qur’an says, then why would Muslims or anyone else be upset about the movie’s message?

Kasem: The Islamic Ummah is now furious why an infidel would portray the true color of Islam. In this chorus of peaceful Islam, Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations, has also joined in. Predictably, the peaceful Islam promptly issued the threat of murder of Geert Wilders and the employees of Live Leak, the website that hosted the premiere. It temporarily off-loaded Fitna to protect the lives of its employees. These are just mundane jobs of Islam—the standard practices, the world is now so used to these peaceful acts of Islam that they [these threats] do not at all surprise anyone.

Despite the threats, this short movie by Geert Wilders is spreading like wild-fire. I knew this truth when my wife was so eager to watch this film. She watched it at Google and was stunned at what she read and saw. When an ordinary house-wife becomes so enthusiastic about the ‘true’, ‘peaceful’ Islam then it must be an unusual event.

So, why the world’s political leaders (including Ban Ki-moon) could not find what a simple-minded, average, unsophisticated, uninformed (in Islam) housewife could so easily trace?

Amazingly, when every word, every picture in Fitna was corroborated with verses from the Koran, these world-leaders never mention the word Koran, instead, they blame the producer of the movie for inciting hate. How strange: the Koran preaches the hate, murder, genocide, but when the un-Islamic world quotes those verses, it is not the Koran that preaches the annihilation of the non-Islamic world; it is the fault of the un-Islamic world—why must they quote those verses?

This defies logic. These same world-leaders will keep their mouths shut when jihadists use many similar verses to justify the complete annihilation of the un-Islamic world.
FP: What are some other teachings that inspire jihadis to wage terror?

Kasem: There are many verses which bin Ladin and his ilk use to perpetrate terror and slaughter on infidels and on not-so-good Muslims. Here are a few:

2:156 Everything belongs to Allah, and everyone will return to Him.

3:75 Some people of the Book can be trusted with money; some cannot be trusted.

We might wonder why bin Ladin uses this verse. Let us read the context:

A man asked Ibn ‘Abbas, “During battle, we capture some property belonging to Ahl Adh-Dhimmah, such as chickens and sheep.” Ibn ‘Abbas said, “What do you do in this case” The man said, “We say that there is no sin if we confiscate them in this case.” He said, “That is what the People of the Book said, that is, there is no blame on us to betray and take the properties of the illiterates (Arabs)—ibn Kathir.

3:103 Islam will draw together former enemies; do not practice sectarianism (Osama b. Ladin uses this verse and 61:4 to unite the Islamist jihadists).

4:52 None can help whom Allah has cursed.

9:14 Allah fights the pagans in the hand of Muhammad (i.e., God kills the unbelievers by the hands of the Muslims. It is more humiliating for the disbelievers and more comforting for the hearts of the believers that the believers kill the unbelievers with their own hands—ibn Kathir, ibn Abbas, Jalalyn). Fight them and cover them with shame (this verse applies to all Muslims, they must kill non-Muslims with their own hands—ibn Kathir).

61:4 Allah loves those who fight, like a brick wall, His cause. (Osama bin Ladin uses this verse to unite the Islamist jihadists).

JMB [Jamiatul Mujahidin Bangladesh], used the following verses to justify their Islamic bombing and killing of Bangladesh’s not-so-good Muslims:

4:76 Believers fight for Allah; unbelievers fight for evil, so fight against the friends of Satan.

We might think this (JMB) outfit misinterprets the Koran. Let us read what a modern Islamist, Maulana Maududi has to say:

This lays down a clear verdict of God. To fight in the cause of God in order that His religion is established on earth is the task of men of faith, and whoever truly believes can never shirk this duty. To fight in the cause of taghut (authority in defiance of God) in order that the world may be governed by rebels against God is the task of unbelievers in which no believer can engage himself (Tafheem ul Qur’an, commentary number 4/105).

4:71 Go forth to fight alone or in parties all together. (This means one raiding party followed by the next; or move forward all together, in one assembly—Jalalyn).

Note that these two jihdi organisations are using quite different verses. What this means is that there are many hateful, savage, barbaric and blood-curdling verses in the Koran; anyone can pick at random to legitimise his slaughter operation.

Here are a few more verses from the Koran and their exegeses by eminent Islamic scholars. These verses entice the Islamist jihadists that they must kill non-Muslim with their own hands; they must not wait for Allah’s punishment.

8:10 By sending angels (in Badr), Allah put Muhammad’s heart at rest. (It is more humiliating for the disbelievers and more comforting for the hearts of the believers that the believers kill the unbelievers with their own hands—ibn Kathir).

8:12 Strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers. (Allah will cast fear, disgrace and humiliation over those who defied his command and denied Muhammad—ibn Kathir); smite the unbelievers at their necks (i.e., behead the unbelievers—ibn Kathir) and cut off their fingers (cut off their heads, limbs, hands and feet—ibn Kathir. Terror means fear of Muhammad and his companions—ibn Abbas).

Why is it that the Ummah , the Islamic scholars, the Dhimmi world (including the UN) remain silent when the Islamist killers use those verses to defend their mayhem?

Whose fault is it—the jihadists’ or the Koran?

Even when an ordinary house-wife had no doubt what is the root cause of all these Islamist terrorism, why must the world leaders pretend not to face the reality? Why must they act so cowardly? Why must they gratify Islam, when Islam wants to burn the entire world?

The world might want peace, but Islam does not. It wants to completely destroy the un-Islam, and declare the victory of Islam. So why must we not face the truth? Why must we please Islam? Does the world owe Islam a living?

FP: So what is your answer here?

Kasem: My answer is very simple: the Islamist terrorism emanates straight from the founts of Islam: the Koran, ahadith sira and sharia. The Jihadists are just acting according what these sources have commanded them to do. It is just unfair and straight cowardly to blame Geert Wilders and other critics of Islam who point out this truth. The UN must denounce these sources of Islam. If the UN is hesitant or not willing to do this, we do not need such a spineless organization.
FP: Wait, what I was trying to get at is the psychology of the Left here. I am asking about those in the West who blame Geert Wilders and other critics of Islam who point out the truth about Islam. Why does the UN, for instance, not denounce these sources of Islam? What sense, for instance, does it make to get upset about the exposé of female genital mutilation in the Islamic world and the Islamic theology that upholds it? One would think a humanitarian person would be more upset about the reality of female genital mutilation and try to defend its future potential victims, rather than get upset about its exposé? What is the mindset here?

Kasem: The westerners trying to defend Islamic barbarism are simply ignorant about the true nature of Islam. For too long they have been fed with the idea that Islam is a religion, just like any other religion, such as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Their logic is this: the Old Testament, the Vedas also has murderous verses and barbaric provisions, so why blame Islam only? These westerners simply forget that, except for Islam, all other religions’ potency has expired. There is no country ruled by the biblical laws. Ditto for Hinduism. But Islam is forever. There are 57 Islamic countries who form the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conference), and who dearly believe and strive to subject the entire world to Islamic rule.

Thus the western politicians are caught in a quagmire. They dare not criticise Islam, lest they offend these 57 Islamic countries (OIC), and because the un-Islamic world, the western world, does not denounce Islam, the Islamic world feels encouraged to propagate Islam vigorously. The UN has fallen into this trap and it therefore not only has just a lackadaisical attitude towards Islam, but a loving relationship with Islam.
FP: What role does oil play?

Kasem: Oil money is definitely another important element in this game of hide-and-seek with Islam. Many western countries sell modern arms to the Arabic/Islamic world in exchange for oil money. Thus, it will be inappropriate to criticise Islam if these western countries want to secure the lucrative arms deals. To these political leaders trade/money is more important to the western world than the damaging effect Islam.
FP: I mentioned FGM earlier. Your thoughts?

Kasem: On the FGM issue, it is simply astonishing that the UN, the Women’s Rights organisation, the Human rights Organisation just do lip service to eradicate this savage procedure. These organisations often consider FGM as a cultural issue rather than religious. But they are wrong. We have irrefutable proof that Islamic law, Sharia supports male and female circumcision. Why is it so difficult to admit this truth and blame Islam? Further, even if it is culture, why must the civilised world tolerate such inhuman, barbaric cultural practice? In many cultures there was/is also the practice of human sacrifice. Should a civilised world accept such a custom, just because it is cultural? I only wished the UN and the Women’s rights organisation provide good answers for their silence on FGM.
FP: At the moment, aside from some demonstrations in Pakistan, the reaction to Fitna in the Muslim world appears to be pretty muted. Right? How come?

Kasem: The Islamists are very clever. They know rather well that denouncing Fitna is tantamount to denouncing the Koran. That is why Geert Wilder was quite smart to directly link the Koran with the global violence of Islam.

How could the Islamists denounce Fitna when every picture in the movie is solidly backed up from the Koranic verse? How could they simply dismiss those verses as fabrication and half-truth or no truth?

We should also consider the current situation as the calm before the storm. This has happened during the first saga of Muhammad’s cartoon. It took a quite a long time before we saw the wave of violent protests around the Islamic world. Ditto for the second cartoon saga. Give a few more weeks/months, we might see the fury of Islam, as it rages across the globe. This is ‘peaceful’ Islam, in theory and in action. Geert Wilder’s transgression of Islam will not go unpunished. Islam will not let him live in peace.

FP: Abul Kasem, thank you for joining us.

Kasem: Thank you for joining us.

Source:http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/Left-and-Wilders-Fitna.htm

Terrorist Father’s at Their Best (UK)

A man accused of plotting bomb attacks on passenger jets wanted to obtain a passport for his baby son, a court has been told.

A signed passport application for Abdulla Ahmed Ali’s son was found at his home in Walthamstow, east London, a jury at Woolwich Crown Court heard.

They also heard that a police bug allegedly recorded Mr Ali, 27, saying: “Should I take my lot on?”

Eight men deny conspiring to murder and endangering planes in August 2006.

Mr Ali and seven others are on trial accused of plotting to murder by smuggling home-made liquid bombs on aircraft.

Nine months old

The court was told that a police recording device allegedly captured Mr Ali discussing the possibility of taking wives and children on a suicide mission.

Speaking to co-defendant Umar Islam, he allegedly said: “Should I take my lot on? I know my wife wouldn’t agree to it, but…”

Earlier in the case, prosecutor Peter Wright QC said such an act might be beyond contemplation for victims of the attack, but it was not for those behind it.

Mr Ali’s son, Mohammed Said Ali, was nine months old when his father was arrested.

The jury also heard that several books advocating jihad and martyrdom were found in a child’s cot in Mr Ali’s bedroom.

Among them was The Lofty Mountain, which Mr Wright said had inspired Osama bin Laden.

Other items found by police included books about the experiences of mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan and an audio recording of a speech by MP George Galloway.

The defendants are Mr Ali, Arafat Waheed Khan, 26, of Walthamstow, east London, Assad Sarwar, 24, of High Wycombe, Bucks, Tanvir Hussain, 27, of Leyton, east London, and Waheed Zaman, 23, of Walthamstow.

Also charged are Mohammed Gulzar, 26, of Barking, east London, Ibrahim Savant, 27, of Stoke Newington, north London, and Umar Islam, 29, of Plaistow, east London.

The trial continues.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7363099.stm

I may not agree with this

But I respect their write to do it

Free Speech Once Again

Enough is enough when it comes to censorship. I have had enough of people being offended by the justified exercise of freedom of speech. Islamists have threatened me to remove content, they have launched attempted attacks to discredit myself, they have notified image shack, cafepress and wordpress of what they claim to be violations.

If it is so mortally offensive for my site to reproduce verses from authorised Quran’s take it up with Muhammad and Allah. If you find quotes from the Hadith worthy of threatening my life, take it up with the respective Hadith writers.

In light of these events I will exercise my freedom to criticise Muhammad, the ‘god’ of the Quran and Islam. I will exercise my freedom to critique gender inequality and the general apartheid promoted in the Quran and promoted in Islamic countries today.

This speech is not intolerant, it is not racially prejudice, it is not hate speech and it is not defamatory. It is the truth and whether or not it is inconvenient to your nice little sugar coated view of your religion I will not censor it.

While I’m at it…Let us watch Muhammad sing:

Continue reading

Saudi Arabia wishes you all a happy Passover!

Which is interesting considering Judaism (and every other non-Islamic religion) is banned there.

Also worth noting, the official government policy openly proclaimed that Jews were forbidden from entering the country.

I am very interested in a statement made by Dr Alyami of The Center for Democracy and Human Rights (in Saudi Arabia. He stated“the struggle against slavery may have started thousands of years ago [but] it never stops and must not until we are all free from fear, oppression, hate and looming ideological threats.” Such a statement coming from Saudi Arabia is indeed worthy of special mention. Saudi Arabia is renowned worldwide for its treatment of women – women cannot drive, they cannot leave the home unaccompanied by a man, they have to seek permission to travel out of the country by a man, they have to abide by strict dress codes etc. In short, Saudi Arabia is not the most liberal and free country. Maybe coming from the West I have simply taken the statement on pure face value. In applying freedom of oppression my background gives such a term a relative meaning.

Could it be that the inequality between men and women in their culture is so institutionally oppressed that they do not recognise it as such?

Distinct from the treatment of women,  Saudi Arabia is renowned for its religious apartheid. Testifying before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on June 4, 2002, in a briefing entitled “Human Rights in Saudi Arabia: The Role of Women”, Ali Al-Ahmed, Director of the Saudi Institute, stated:

Saudi Arabia is a glaring example of religious apartheid. The religious institutions from government clerics to judges, to religious curricula, and all religious instructions in media are restricted to the Wahhabi understanding of Islam, adhered to by less than 40% of the population. The Saudi government communized Islam, through its monopoly of both religious thoughts and practice. Wahhabi Islam is imposed and enforced on all Saudis regardless of their religious orientations. The Wahhabi sect does not tolerate other religious or ideological beliefs, Muslim or not. Religious symbols by Muslims, Christians, Jewish and other believers are all banned. The Saudi embassy in Washington is a living example of religious apartheid. In its 50 years, there has not been a single non-Sunni Muslim diplomat in the embassy. The branch of Imam Mohamed Bin Saud University in Fairfax, Virginia instructs its students that Shia Islam is a Jewish conspiracy.

According to Freedom House’s 2006 report,

The Saudi Ministry of Education Islamic studies textbooks … continue to promote an ideology of hatred that teaches bigotry and deplores tolerance. These texts continue to instruct students to hold a dualistic worldview in which there exist two incompatible realms – one consisting of true believers in Islam … and the other the unbelievers – realms that can never coexist in peace. Students are being taught that Christians and Jews and other Muslims are “enemies” of the true believer… The textbooks condemn and denigrate Shiite and Sufi Muslims’ beliefs and practices as heretical and call them “polytheists”, command Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other “unbelievers”, and teach that the Crusades never ended, and identify Western social service providers, media outlets, centers for academic studies, and campaigns for women’s rights as part of the modern phase of the Crusades.

For a country to make such grand statements with such a horrible track record is bewildering. I hope there is sincerity in their words which they begin to work towards.

Freedom of Speech?

Sounds a little threatening to me.
But who am I to judge? This site is apparently far worse.
Just ask your nearest oxymoron loving liberalist

Continue reading