Let’s look at the verses in question shall we:
And give the orphans their property and exchange not the bad for the good, and devour not their property with your own. Surely, it is a great sin.
And if you fear that you will not be fair in dealing with the orphans, then marry of women as may be agreeable to you, two, or three, or four; and if you fear you will not deal justly, then marry only one or what your right hands possess. That is the nearest way for you to avoid injustice.(4:3-4)
Verse 4:3 tells us to treat orphans fairly. That is clear. Verse 4:4 tells us that if its not possible for a man to be able to take care of the orphans on his own he should marry. Here one of the special circumstances where polygamy is allowed is mentioned but in the same verse not encouraged. I suppose you are talking about where it says “your right hands possess”. In Arabic lexicon, the words translated to “your right hands possess” are also known as “wards” or “people in protected status”. It does not mean slaves or bondman or woman. But if you want to go down that route and orget the lexicon, this could apply to slaves because they are in a protected state, with everything provided for them and they are able to have their own house with their own family. Another thing this verse does is support the argument forwarded earlier about gradual abolition of slavery because it suggests marrying one of protected status which may apply to a slave and thereby freeing them from it.
The next verse you gave:
And forbidden to you are married women, except such as your right hands possess. This has Allah enjoined on you. And allowed to you are those beyond that, that you seek them by means of your property, marrying them properly and not committing fornication. And for the benefit you receive from them, give them their dowries, as fixed, and there shall be no sin for you in anything you mutually agree upon, after the fixing of the dowry.
The expression of “such as your right hands possess” has also been in used the Quran with regard to those men and women who took part in aggressive wars against Islam and fell prisoners into the hands of the Muslims. The context, however, shows that the expression used in the present verse means female prisoners of war. Islam does not allow women taken prisoner in ordinary wars to be taken as wives. For those prisoners there is the teaching which says free them either by favour or mutual exchange. This exceptional injunction becomes operative only when a hostile nation wages a religious war against Islam with a view to extirpating it and compelling Muslim to abandon their religion, at the point of the sword and treats their prisoners as slaves, as was done in the days of the Holy Prophet when the enemies took away Muslim women as prisoners and treated them as slaves. The Islamic injunction was only a retaliatory measure and also served the additional purpose of protecting the morals of captive women. Another reason being that when female prisoners were taken after war, their own nations and tribes did not accept them back resulting in a lot of homeless women who had nothing and no one to protect them and nowhere to go. That is why the Muslims were allowed to marry them. Ofcourse the verse says “marry properly” which means that the other rules regarding marriage i.e. consent applied.
The next verse you gave:
And whoso of you cannot afford to marry free, believing women, let him marry what your right hands possess, namely, your believing handmaids. And Allah knows your faith best; you are all one from another; so marry them with the leave of their masters and give them their dowries according to what is fair, they being chaste, not committing fornication, nor taking secret paramours.
The verse one again supports the aforementioned argument of gradually abolishing slavery but mostly says that Muslims should restrict try and marry believing women.
...so?
Why is the race important? Spell it out for me.
Its not important to me. I was talking about black
slaves. You, im assuming, have a problem with “black”, not me.
The copts and the ottoman empire and yadayada have nothing to do with what I said. Islam presents a threat to Christianity because it takes the rational approach and destroys the faulty doctrines Christianity is based on. That is why it’s a threat to Christianity. That is why the Church had forbidden its priests from engaging in public debates with Ahmadis in india and Pakistan among other things
The US and Europe, eh?
Does it have legal protection there, too? I note Pakistan, Sudan and UAE all made the list.
Aye they did make the list. As did Brazil. And others. And enslaving free men and women in Islam is not allowed. I thought id made that much clear...
You can, then, define a point between now and 700 AD when slavery was not part of islamic civilization?
Can you define a period between when Christianity and Judaism came to Arabia and 1800 when slavery was not a part of Jewish and or Christian civilization? Or can you tell me who else freed as many slaves in the period of the Prophet and the Rashideen as they did? Or any other people in that time who had a whole system in place to gradually abolish this from their society? A system so successful that at the end of the Rashideen all the original slaves had been freed in Arabia.
Not really. Their ambassador made no reference to the Crusades, but only to the Quran. You may not call them muslims if you wish, of course: would you then turn over such people to justice, or defend their actions as "defense"? So far you're suggesting the latter.
Well you can research that for yourself. Many Barbary pirates were also former Christians who converted to Islam. Sounds to me like a bunch of moneyhungry people who would sell out their values for pieces of gold. Saying that they belonged to and operated because of a certain religion is pretty ridiculous. Pirates don’t have any such values.
And, I'm sure, by many people worldwide. You have a narrow conception of the legal status of a slave. I recommend 13-14th century England as an example; or indeed of any medieval period.
Haha, thats rich! Pray tell, what is the legal status of a slave? Also, about the medieval period, have you read the Decretum Gratiani? Also, how many people worldwide? There are lots of records of Muslims setting slaves free. Give me other records from that period.
Well, as a non-muslim myself, I'm more interested in his vile actions towards us than your perception of him as a hero. Umar is widely known as an invader and occupier; there is really no doubt of this whatsoever. I think Umar would be surprised (and amused) to hear you opine he was some kind of peaceful Caliph.
HAHA! Widely known! I lolled
We are talking about the same Umar here right? The Umar who inherited an empire beset on both sides by the Romans and the Persians? The Umar who was hailed after freeing the Christians and Jews in Egypt by both of them? The Umar who non-Muslim kings and leaders wanted to impress with their fine clothing and found him sleeping among the beggars in the street? The Umar who divided up the empire into different administrations and put people from the areas in charge and gave them a form of selfdetermination? The Umar whose armies included Jews, Christians, Romans and Persians, who all fought for him because they were grateful to him and wanted what he did for them for other people? That Umar? I doubt it. Your probably talking about that mythical Umar created by the anti-Islamists who fail to recognize that the Islam state was indeed the target of its enemies and they wanted to destroy it by all means.
Ugh. The belaboured humiliate. Every nation has good and bad: I merely ask you recognize that your good does not translate into everyone's good, much as others insist for our civilization, and which I readily accept.
But ive always accepted that in the periods after the Rashideen the Muslims lost their way. Most of the Caliphates after that had nothing to do with religion and were more interested in money and worldly matters and did horrible things.
Then it appears they took the central message of the Golden Rule and tried to apply it more liberally, rather than being weighted down with the ghost of literalist blindness. Would that everyone could be more humanitarian, and less legalistic.
What is the Golden Rule?
