One of the most (intentionally?) misunderstood recent topics about Islam is its position on slavery. Some people on this board, who are not at all interested in learning or studying ANYTHING about Islam, proceed to copy and paste stuff from hate sites onto this board, and into their minds, and refuse to entertain any other thought, no matter how much evidence is provided against their view. The irony of it being of course is that they accuse Muslims of holding onto a wrong and tired old ideology while they continue to do it themselves. Let’s start off with looking at what the Holy Quran says about mankind:
O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female; and we have made you into tribes and subtribes that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable among you, in the sight of Allah, is he who is the most righteous among you. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware (49:14)
From the subject of Islamic Brotherhood to which reference has been made in the preceeding two verses, this Surah proceeds to lay down the basis of an all-comprehensive, all pervading brotherhood of man. The verse, in fact, upon closer examination constitutes the Magna Carta of human fraternity and equality. This verse firkmly lays the axe at the false and foolish notions of superiority, born of racial arrogance or national conceit. Equality is the keyword when explaining this verse.
Let’s look at another verse:
...And as such desire a deed of manumission in writing from among those whom your right hands possess, write it for them...(24:34)
Michael keeps asking me why I think Islam is the greatest religion. My post in that other topic gave him some concepts I found novel and enlightening in Islam. Ofcourse I disagree with this point of view that for something to be perfect it has to be novel and enlightening. But this verse is another thing which proves that the Holy Prophets message was not one of captivity and selling people like chattel, or “selling flesh” as the ignorant Michael put it after a post from the equally ignorant Q. This verse alone should be enough to prove that slavery as seen by some people on here is not the slavery mentioned in the Quran. Why? Would a slave be able to ask his freedom just like that and be given it in the image of slaves, created by the history of the Western world, that some people on here have?
No
From a commentary of this verse:
"The law of slavery in the legal sense of the term is now obsolete. While it had any meaning, Islam made the slave's lot as easy as possible. A slave, male or female, could ask for conditional manumission by a written deed fixing the amount required for manumission and allowing the slave meanwhile to earn money by lawful means and perhaps marry and bring up a family. Such a deed was not to be refused if the request was genuine and the slave had character. Not only that, but the master is directed to help with money out of his own resources in order to enable the slave to earn his or her own liberty."
Let’s look at a couple of sayings of the Holy Prophet:
. . . yield obedience to my successor, although he may be an Abyssinian slave.
He will not enter paradise who behaveth ill to his slaves. The companions said, "O Apostle of God! Have you not told us, that there will be a great many slaves and orphans amongst your disciples?" He said, "Yes; then be kind to them as your own children, and give them to eat of what you eat yourselves. The slaves that say their prayers are your brothers."
An interesting fact is that the first call to prayer, a major honour, was given in 622 by Bilal -- a black slave freed by the Holy Prophet. About 1235 years later, in 1857, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that Dred Scott:
could not sue for his freedom because he was not a person, but property.
This, in a nutshell, illustrates the difference between the slavery in Islam and the ones the people on this board grew up with in their history lessons. Pot, kettle, black etc..
Annemarie Schimmel in Islam: An Introduction says:
Slavery was not abolished by the Koran, but believers are constantly admonished to treat their slaves well. In case of illness a slave has to be looked after and well cared for. To manumit [free] a slave is higly meritorious; the slave can ransom himself by paying some of the money he has earned while conducting his own business. Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam. The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from among the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (the Mamluks). Eunuchs too served in important capacities, not only as the guardians of the women's quarters, but also in high administrative and military positions. -- p. 67
Roger Du Pasquier in Unveiling Islam says:
To answer this question, it should first be remarked that Islam has tolerated slavery but has never approved of it, and that all its teachings and prescriptions in this regard lead to its alleviation as far as possible in the short term, and, in the longer term, conduce to its progressive suppression. To abolish it would have been impossible in a world in which it was generally practiced by all the states which bordered on the new Muslim empire, and in which the idea of challenging the principle itself had not occurred to anyone. It was the custom to enslave prisoners of war -- when these were not simply massacred -- and the Islamic state would have put itself at a grave disadvantage vis-a-vis its enemies had it not reciprocated to some extent. By guaranteeing them humane treatment, and various possibilities of subsequently releasing themselves, it ensured that a good number of combatants in the opposing armies preferred captivity at the hands of Muslims to death on the field of battle.
It should be very clearly underlined that the slavery once practiced in the Muslim world cannot be compared to the form it had assumed -- for instance -- in the Roman Empire. Islamic legislation subjected slaveowners to a set of precise obligations, first among which was the slave's right to life, for, according to a hadith, 'Whoever kills his slave shall be killed by us'. In consequence, the murder of a slave was punished like that of a free man.
There are many other hadiths which define Islam's true attitude in this regard. The Prophet said: 'Your slaves are your brethren; therefore whoever has a brother who depends upon him must feed and clothe him in the way he feeds and clothes himself; and should not impose upon him tasks which exceed his capacity; should you ask them to do such things, then you are obliged to help them.' The Sharia takes this injunction, among many others, into account when defining the responsibilities and duties of slaveholders.
There is another teaching which enjoins respect for the human dignity of slaves: 'Let none of you say, "This man, or this woman, is my slave". He must rather say: "This is my man, and this my woman."' Putting into relief the provisional character of social ties and the authority exercised by slaveowners over their slaves, the Prophet said: 'It is true that God has made you their masters, but, had He so wished, He could equally well have made you their slaves.'
To manumit a slave has always been regarded as one of the most meritorious of all acts, and many passages of the Qur'an recommend or even require it, particularly as a means of expiation for serious faults. Traditional legislation lays down the methods of voluntary liberation of slaves by their masters (itq), and there were very many Muslims who observed these, especially at the end of their lives, so as not to die and appear before God without having given full freedom to the human beings placed in their power during their earthly lives.
Additionally, slaves had the ability to enfranchise themselves at their own initiative, without waiting passively for the goodwill of their masters: the procedure known as mukataba allowed them to buy their own freedom with sums which they saved from their work, and which the state frequently augmented with advances -- a measure which the slaveowner had no right to oppose. In contrast to the situation under Roman law, slaves were not deprived of the legal ability to exercise their rights and to appeal to a judge against their masters in all cases of illegal treatment.
Besides domestic slavery, which was generally imbued with a patriarchal character, there also existed a form of military slavery, which was frequently employed by princes in need of recruits, especially for their personal guards. This situation had the effect of conferring an often considerable influence and power on men of servile condition or origin, and some of these became the founders of great and illustrious dynasties such as the Tulunids and Mamlukes of Egypt.
The object of a prosperous commercial sector, which under the Abbasid Empire was often the speciality of non-Muslims, particularly Byzantine and Venetian Christians, and Jews, slavery gradually declined in importance until, at the beginning of the present century, it was confined to a few survivals which have now disappeared entirely. Thanks to the strict traditional controls which have always regulated the practice, it would be difficult to deny that social conditions were remarkably humane during the great periods of Muslim civilization, and that these, moreover, were in conformity with the 'egalitarian' spirit of Islam, which, in a hadith, teaches that 'the blackest of Abyssinians' is superior to most noble of Quraishites, if he has more faith. -- p. 104 – 107
Islam completely forbids free and innocent people and in the cases of female to have extramarital relations with them. We see that from the following verse:
...But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity...(24:34)
The idea that slaves were used for any extra-marital affairs by Muslims is a lie and stems from the practice of the pre-Islamic Arabic society and especially by the Christians and Jews:
Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."
According to Saleem, and I agree, this argument that Islam allows this heinous form of slavery stems from the teachings of Islam which were introduced to gradually abolish the institution of slavery. Instead of researching why these teachings were given in regards to slavery and acknowledging that adherence to these teachings would have gotten rid of of slavery once and for all, some people, once again, show their true face when it comes to Islam. Somehow, no matter how, they will always attack its teachings regarding everything. They get a kick from it. Centuries of indoctrination against this “threat” to Christianity has done its work. Anyway, let’s move on. It was a gradual process because of abolition of this practice because of the society in which it was revealed. In pre-Islamic Arabia, and therefore in times of the Christian and Jewish and Pagan religions in Arabia, slavery was the norm and widely practiced and seen as ok. Slaves were in every household and treated like animals, beaten to death over the smallest of things. This was the time of Christianity, Judaism and Paganism in Arabia before Islam. Not coincidentally just as they were treated by their Western (Christian?) masters.
The only possible way to get rid of this institution of slavery was to adopt a gradual process of eliminating it. Immediate release of all slaves would have meant that a very large number of people who were dependent on various families would be thrown out into the streets to fend for themselves. It would create problems which the society was not ready for. How could that society cater for such a large population of recently freed people who had nothing? No institution was in place to help them, no welfare system or the like. Not to mention the old people that would be suddenly “freed” and thrown out into the street. How would they cope? What would they do? Did you guys ever think about that or does your thinking only go as far as “Badcancel it and don’t care about consequences”? They would become beggars and the like.
Shehzad Saleem presents an interesting idea and one which deserves some kind of recognition by all the haters here. He says:
Perhaps, the reason behind this gradual eradication can be understood better if one considers the position which interest occupies in our economy today. No one can refute that our national economic structure is interest oriented. How the parasite of interest has crippled the national economy is apparent to every keen eye. However, there is no denying the fact that without it our present economic system cannot sustain itself. Every reasonable person will acknowledge that today if a government wishes to rid the economy from this menace then, in spite of its utter prohibition in Islam, it will have to adopt a gradual methodology. During this interim period interest oriented deals will have to be tolerated and temporary laws will have to be enacted to handle them, just as the Qur’an had given certain provisional directives about slaves during the interim period of their gradual eradication. An alternative economic framework will have to be steadily incorporated in place of the existing one. A sudden abolition, without another parallel base, will only hasten the total collapse of the economic system, which, of course, will be disastrous for the country.
Wise words you should think about. He goes on to list some of the measures Islam took in regards to eradicating this institution in a gradual scheme:
1. In the early Makkan period, it pronounced that slave emancipation was a great deed of piety. The very initial Makkan surahs appealed to the Muslims to liberate as many slaves as they could.
2. The Prophet, unequivocally, directed the Muslims to raise the standard of living of the slaves and bring it equal to their own standard. This, of course, was meant to discourage people from persisting with them.
3. For the atonement of many sins manumission of slaves was divinely ordained.
4. All slave men and women who could support themselves in the society were directed to marry one another, in order to raise their moral and social status.
5. A permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women.
Wow, a “permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women”. How many other nations had that in that time? How many nations had this even a couple hundred years ago? Anyway, let’s move on:
6. Prostitution, which was largely carried out through slave women, who were mostly forced by their masters do so, was totally prohibited.
7. The affronting names of `abd and amah by which slave men and women were called, were abrogated so that people should stop regarding them as slaves. In their place, the words fata (boy) and fatat (girl) were introduced.
8. Finally, the law of mukatibat provided very easy access for the slaves to the gateway to freedom. Every slave who was capable of supporting himself was allowed by law to free himself, provided that he either gave a certain monetary amount to his master or carried out certain errands for him. After this, he could live as a free man. A special head in the treasury was fixed for this purpose; also, wealthy people were urged to help the slaves in this regard. The net result of this law was that only handicapped and old slaves were left to be provided for by their masters, which not only went in their own favour but also prevented them from becoming an economic burden on the society.
The result of this policy was that by the time the period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs was reached, all the old slaves of Arabia were liberated. The Prophet alone liberated as many as 63 slaves. The number of slaves freed by 'Aishah was 67, 'Abbas liberated 70, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar liberated one thousand, and 'Abd al-Rahman purchased thirty thousand and set them free. Similarly other Companions of the Prophet liberated a large number of slaves, the details of which are given in the Traditions and books of history of that period. Thus the problem of the slaves of Arabia was solved in a short period of thirty or forty years.
A verse that is always cited by anti-Islamists is:
And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, bind fast the fetters—then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom—until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance....(47:5)
This verse, contrary to the popular belief among haters, lays down some important rules about the ethics of war during and after and deals a deathblow to slavery while doing so. First of all it says that when Muslims are engaged in regular battle, as cited in other verses in the defence of their faith, honour, lives or property, the Muslims are enjoined to fight bravely and relentlessly. Verses 8:13-17 shine more light on the behaviour of Muslims during fighting and they include no desertion. How different is this from a regular army? Does not a regular army, from any country, fight to the end when it is at war? And is desertion allowed? Unfortunately, many of the anti-Islamists don’t see this simple fact, but, just like the Medieval Church, are quick to misrepresent and or condemn things without studying them first. The irony...
Anyway lets continue to look at the verse in question. The part of the verse which is always cited by anti-Islamists to somehow validate their point is the 2nd part of the verse dealing with captives after the war. The verse says that prisoners are to be taken from the enemy, only after regular battle has been fought and the enemy has been decidedly beaten and thereby declares that regular war is the only reason for taking prisoners. How is this any different from the POWs taken by many armies nowadays as well? Ever think about that? But the verse goes on.
...slavery was largely a by-product of wars between nations, the conquered peoples becoming the slaves of their conquerors. In the formative years of Islam, no reliable system existed of exchanging prisoners of war. The available means of dealing with them were either (i) to put them all to the sword; or (ii) to hold them and attend to their care in prison; or (iii) to allow them to return to their own people; or (iv) to distribute them among the Muslims as part of the spoils of war.
The first option must be ruled out on the grounds of its barbarity. The second is practicable only for small numbers for a limited period of time if resources permit-and it was, of course, practised-prisoners being held in this way against ransom, many so content with their treatment that they became Muslims and changed sides in the fighting. The third option is imprudent in time of war. This leaves, as a rule for general practice, only the fourth option, whence followed the humane laws and norms instituted by Islam for what is, in effect, the rehabilitation of prisoners of war.
When the war has ended, the prisoners should be released, either as an act of favour, or on taking ransom or by mutual exchange. They should not be held permanently in captivity or as slaves. As pointed out by Muir, Zurqani and Hisham this verse effectively strikes at the roots of slavery, abolishing it completely and forever. The teachings in this verse were carried out by the Holy Prophet himself when he released the prisoners taken after the fighting had ended. Unfortunately, the haters don’t post any of those Hadith. I wonder why...
But they happily report the Hadith about the banu Quraizah. For those who don’t know about that event let me tell you. Or better yet, let me quote:
However, there is, perhaps, just one instance in the Prophet’s life which may become a source of misconception in this regard. This was the battle with the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraizah in which all the male prisoners were executed and the women and children were made slaves. An analysis of the whole matter shows that the Muslim army had surrounded their fortress for almost a month. At last, they requested to appoint Sa’ad bin Mu’aaz, the leader of the tribe of Aus, as an arbitrator and promised to willingly accept his decision. They reckoned that since they had remained the allies of the Aus, Sa’ad would be lenient to them in his decision. But Sa’ad bin Mu‘azz, much to their dismay, gave his decision in accordance with the Jewish Shariah. According to the Jewish Shariah, the male prisoners were to be executed while the women and children were to be enslaved. It is, therefore, clear that the Islamic Shariah could not have come to their rescue in this regard since they were dealt with according to their own law by a person they themselves had appointed as an arbitrator.
That is the story that the haters don’t post want you to see know when they post that Hadith.
But why did it take so long for slavery to end?
We believe the reason for this must be sought in the social complexities which exist in a community. It is extremely difficult to eradicate customs and traditions which are deeply rooted in a society. The society, as a whole did not accept the reformation started by Islam. A similar instance can be observed in the case of the political set up envisaged by Islam. It totally condemned the institution of dictatorship in which a despotic ruler and his few henchmen exercised absolute powers. It established a government which was democratic in the sense that it came into power by a majority mandate. Throughout the term of the Rightly Guided Caliphate this principle remained in force for the election of the ruler. However, after the end of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, the Arab society rejected this system and reverted to dictatorship.
Gulen also has interesting things to say on the subject of slavery in Islam. He starts his essay off by giving the reason Michael and others only have 1 image of slavery:
First of all, it is useful to recall why the institution of slavery is thought of or remembered with such revulsion. Images of the brutal treatment of slaves, especially in ancient Rome and Egypt, provokes sorrow and deep disgust. That is why even after so many centuries, our conception of slaves is of men and women carrying stones to the pyramids and being used up in the building process like mortar, or fighting wild animals in public arenas for the amusement of their owners. We picture slaves wearing shameful yokes and chains around their necks.
Quite true. He also talks about the cruel treatment dealt out to black slaves by the Western Nations and then gives an extremely sharp insight into why the rest of the world laughs when the Western world talks about abolishing slavery:
After centuries of this dreadful practice had made the West European nations rich from exploitation of such commodities as sugar, cotton, coffee, they abolished slavery-they abolished it, with much self-congratulation, first as a trade, then altogether. Yet the Muslim regions had also known considerable prosperity through the exploitation of sugar, cotton, coffee (these words in European languages are of Arabic origin), and achieved that prosperity without the use of slave labour.
He goes on to talk about slavery being abolished in these times but according to him the reason slavery is abhorred is not just because of the institution of slavery itself but because of the inhumanities which sustain it. You can abolish whatever you want but as he points out if you don’t abolish the attitudes that go with it then nothing is achieved. And history shows us that bragging about the abolition of slavery in the West is pretty futile seeing that:
It was not many years after the abolition of slavery that Africa was directly colonized by the Europeans with consequences for the Africans no less terrible than slavery itself.
The simple fact about slaves in Islam is that they were not treated as animals nor were they seen as inferior, as they were in the West. Many great people who were slaves or son of slaves rose to great offices and did great deeds. How many slaves in the West were treated like that?
Let’s look at another hadith which may clear up the reason why slaves were not seen as inferior to Muslims but were helped in every single way:
Whosoever kills his slave: he shall be killed. Whosoever imprisons his slave and starves him, he shall be imprisoned and starved himself, and whosoever castrates his slave shall himself be castrated. (Abu Dawud, Diyat, 70; Tirmidhi, Diyat, 17; Al-Nasa’i, Qasama, 10, 16)
You should know that no Arab is superior over a non-Arab and, no non-Arab is superior over any Arab, no white is superior over black and no black is superior over white. Superiority is by righteousness and God-fearing [alone]. (Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 411)
Would any Westerner have called a slave as Master like Umar, one of the greatest Muslims, did? Or let a slave pull his ear in public like Uthman did when he was the Khalifa? This is, and I cannot repeat this enough, the sole reason that slavery as viewed by Muslims and Islam is completely different and opposite to the slavery that the Westerners practiced and you read about in history lessons.
The reality is that in Islam it is overwhelmingly the case that being a slave was a temporary condition.
But why, our critics will ask, when the Muslims were secure in their conquests did they not grant emancipation wholesale to former captives or slaves? The answer has, again, to do with realities not theories. Those former captives or slaves would not have either the personal, psychological resources or the economic resources needed to establish a secure, dignified independence. Those who doubt this would do well to examine the consequences upon the slaves in the former European or American colonies of their sudden emancipation-many were abruptly reduced to destitution, rendered homeless and resourceless by owners who (themselves compensated for their loss of property) no longer accepted any kind of responsibility for their former slaves. We have already noted the failure of these ex-slaves to enter upon or make a mark in the wider society from which they had been so long excluded by law.
Wise words indeed. The fact is that Islam has forbidden capturing and imprisoning a free man. The following hadith supports this view:
"There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah).
But once again, you wont see any of the anti-Islamists posting this Hadith. Why? Because it is not available on the hate sites.
To finish off this part of my post, I would like to quote Kly the article "The African-American Muslim Minority: 1776-1900":
One of the causes of the continuing conversion of African-Americans to Islam is the contrast between their brutal and racist enslavement at the hands of Anglo-Americans in the United States, on the one hand, and the relative absence of racism in Islam, on the other. Although one dimension of the current anti-Islamic polemic in the West is the highlighting of the occurence of slavery both in Islamic history and today in Sudan and Mauritania, this has failed to turn away many African-Americans from Islam.
There are a number of reasons for this:
• the Qur'an repeatedly condemns oppressors;
• the Qur'an exhorts people to free their slaves;
• while slavery has occured in the Muslim world, it has not been racist;
• slavery in the Muslim world was largely a way of dealing with prisoners of war who were then ransomed back to their own people.
Given the clear opposition of Islam to injustice, the Islamic virtue of not practicing slavery, and the relatively recent horrors of African-American slavery, why have Muslims not put an end to slavery in the Muslim world?
I suspect that the answer to this lies in the fact that in most areas of the Muslim world, Muslims are themselves not free to act politically, that they are preoccupied with other local struggles against injustice, or are constrained by poverty. If my suspicion is correct, in the future as Muslims gradually emerge from the bondage of neocolonial dictatorships and/or poverty, we should see Muslims at the forefront of those activists who are striving to end all forms of slavery.
Let’s look at some more quotes you wont see the anti-Islamists posting:
"A man came to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and said: 'Guide me to a deed that makes me close to Heaven and far from Hell.' The Prophet replied: 'Free a person and redeem a slave.'
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) - (another narrator) Dawud said:" i. e. a morsel or two". 4097. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)"
If a Muslim beats his slave or slaps him on the face, then he must set him free:
"Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him, then expiation for it is that he should set him free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4079)"
"Abu Mas'ud reported that he had been beating his slave and he had been saying: "I seek refuge with Allah, but he continued beating him, whereupon he said: I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger, and he spared him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: By Allah, God has more dominance over you than you have over him (the slave). He said that he set him free. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters, but made no mention of (these words) of his: I seek refuge with Allah, I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4089)"
Now let’s look at the treatment of slaves in the Bibl because some people think that it was Christianity that abolished slavery and that it does not support slavery. Apart from the fact that in pre-Islamic Arabia it was abundant among every religious group there, especially Christianity and Judaism, there are some verses from the Bible which are “interesting”:
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. (From the NIV Bible, Exodus 21:20-21)"
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Salves in the Bible are not to be liberated but are to be passed down from generation to generation. Where is the idea about freeing slaves as we see in Islam? Interesting isn’t it?
Timothy 6:1 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect"
Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
The enslaved Africans were also Muslims. Which is one of the reasons that they were enslaved. The other reaons being that Africa contained great Muslim scholars and universities and ofcourse those were also plundered.
We must acknowledge the complicity of many of our churches in slavery, a system in which most African Americans were prohibited from practicing Islam or African traditional religions." Interfaith Relations and the Churches Policy Statement of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
Rabbi M.J. Raphall (circa 1861) justified human slavery on the basis of the 10th commandment. It places slaves:
"... under the same protection as any other species of lawful property...That the Ten Commandments are the word of G-d, and as such, of the very highest authority, is acknowledged by Christians as well as by Jews...How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments--how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job--the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of 'perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil' (Job 1:8)--that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?"
Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife
Deuteronomy 20:14" "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"
Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"
In the end, you might want to read this:
http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa112598.htm?once=true&
