Muhammed was a slave owner. Just sayin’

Loading

 

Ensconced on the wall of the Supreme Court is a freize of the supposed “great lawgivers” of the Middle Ages.

 

Under the prevailing left wing mores, one of the images simply must be removed- the image of Muhammed.

Muhammed was a slave owner.

The paradox

A poignant paradox of Islamic slavery is that the humanity of the various rules and customs that led to the freeing of slaves created a demand for new slaves that could only be supplied by war, forcing people into slavery or trading slaves.

Muslim slavery continued for centuries

The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries). The impetus for the abolition of slavery came largely from colonial powers, although some Muslim thinkers argued strongly for abolition.

Slaves came from many places

Unlike the Atlantic slave traders, Muslims enslaved people from many cultures as well as Africa. Other sources included the Balkans, Central Asia and Mediterranean Europe.

Slaves could be assimilated into Muslim society

Muhammad’s teaching that slaves were to be regarded as human beings with dignity and rights and not just as property, and that freeing slaves was a virtuous thing to do, may have helped to create a culture in which slaves became much more assimilated into the community than they were in the West.

Muslim slaves could achieve status

Slaves in the Islamic world were not always at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Slaves in Muslim societies had a greater range of work, and took on a wider range of responsibilities, than those enslaved in the Atlantic trade.

Some slaves earned respectable incomes and achieved considerable power, although even such elite slaves still remained in the power of their owners.

Bernard Lewis:

The Qur’an, like the Old and the New Testaments, assumes the existence of slavery. It regulates the practice of the institution and thus implicitly accepts it. The Prophet Muhammad and those of his Companions who could afford it themselves owned slaves; some of them acquired more by conquest. But Qur’anic legislation, subsequently confirmed and elaborated in the Holy Law, brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects. One of these was the presumption of freedom; the other, the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances .

Muhammed is also said to have owned sex slaves.

Andrew Bostom:

Muhammad, using the Koranic “revelation” as justification, insisted that he was entitled to not only his own wives, but those captured in battle (and cousins as well), per Allah’s allowance in Koran 33:50 (4 additional translations here)

O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses – whom Allah has given to you, and the daughters of your ‘Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your ‘Ammah (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khalah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (captives or slaves) whom their right hands possess, – in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allah is Ever Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The “privilege” of having sexual intercourse with captured slave women is extended to all Muslim men in Koran 4:24 “those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you.”

Slavery is still practiced in Africa by Muslims

This from Salon:

Although slavery seems like an institution from a barbaric and uncivilized past, it survives today in both Sudan and Mauritania. The horrific details of the Atlantic slave trade — the ruthless slave traders who pillaged Africa, the millions of Africans who died on treacherous sea journeys to America, the resulting “peculiar institution” of cheap, brutalized labor that spawned the Civil War — weigh heavily on the American conscience. Another slave trade, however, the Islamic one, remains a mysterious aspect in the history of the black diaspora. Fourteen centuries old, this version of slavery spread throughout Africa, the Middle East, Europe, India and China. It is the legacy of this trade that continues to ravage Sudan and Mauritania today.

If we are logically extend the righteousness of this anti-slavery movement, then all images and statuary of Muhammed should be removed because they are offensive. We are then left with the decision of what to do with a religion that still practices and regulates slavery as an institution.

Perhaps Keith Ellison can offer us some direction- after he answers a few questions.

Where are the social justice warriors now?

UPDATE

The Washington Post say there are nearly 30 million slaves in the world today. Here’s a handy map for you to enjoy:

 

Do note where there is no slavery at all

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Will there be anyone courageous enough to step up and make this symbolic demand? Or is another petition created for signatures supporting the removal of ALL symbols of slavery?

This is the symbol of the INTRODUCTION of slavery… the genesis of slavery and, before any other symbols or monuments that are tangentially associated with slavery are removed, THIS should go first.

If, of course, the point is merely to remove remembrances of slavery.

Let’s hear what Greg, Rich and AJ have to say about it.

I wonder how many “Globalists” knew about this prior to negotiating trade agreements? You would think this is something voters (and shareholders) would like to see.

Imagine an Apple meeting with Tim Cook discussing building a plant in India with that map in the background…..they wouldn’t be building in India after that shareholder’s meeting.

Muslim slavers were the primary suppliers of African slaves that wound up in the American South. The middlemen in the trade were Christian; most Southern slave owners were Christian. Biblical arguments were commonly put forward in the Antebellum South as justifications of the institution.

@Bill… Deplorable Me, #1:

If, of course, the point is merely to remove remembrances of slavery.

I don’t think it’s public monuments as reminders of that slavery people object to; it’s the fact that they symbolize a detested and destructive racist ideology that’s unfortunately still very much with us. Extremist who display Nazi symbols and Confederate battle flags in the same context provide us with a clue.

It’s a misappropriation, and it’s a shame. The swastika was a powerful and peaceful mystical symbol for thousands of years, honored and displayed by everyone from Buddhists to Navajos. The Nazis stole it and tainted it to such a degree that its true history has been lost and its symbolism poisoned. It doesn’t matter now in what spirit you display a swastika in the West. What people will see is the Nazi message, and the victims of Nazism and their descendants will be offended on a deep and personal level that most of us have trouble really understanding.

In the case of our nation’s public statues, there are disingenuous people on both sides who are politically exploiting this, of course. We seem to live in a dishonest age.

@DrJohn:

May we respond with violence in kind to those who brandish a flag with a hammer and sickle?

And may Native Americans respond with violence in kind to those who brandish the American Stars and Bars?

Anyone who seriously looks at history can find that the Civil war was not a war over slavery, that idea was ginned up by revisionists. It was about States rights, federal over-reach. In order to justify the unconstitutional over reach, power grab, they picked up the Slavery issue to give their cause a justification.
The South became very wealthy with 80 % of US exports coming from cotton, the jealousy of this caused a tarriff tax on imports traded for cotton.
Newspapers on both sides fanning the flames of division. (sound familiar?)

Causes Of The Civil War

Only the winners version taught in schools, morons truly believe 258K men, not many of whom own slaves , died for that cause only.
An evil done by the north was using poor immigrants as cannon fodder. http://time.com/3940428/civil-war-immigrant-soldiers/
Both sides equal blame.

@Greg:

Muslim slavers were the primary suppliers of African slaves that wound up in the American South.

So, they facilitated slavery, right? As the vast majority of Confederate soldiers and officers are accused. Do I have that right so far?

I don’t think it’s public monuments as reminders of that slavery people object to; it’s the fact that they symbolize a detested and destructive racist ideology that’s unfortunately still very much with us.

So, exactly how does the racism of Confederate slavery differ from the racism of Muslim slavery? The slaves were slaves; they were property and their race just happened to be Negro because they came from Africa… where the Muslims got them. They weren’t made slaves because they were black. So, what is the difference between those who maintained slavery as a part of an economy and those who captured people, enslaved them, sold them and initiated the entire system of slavery? Aside from the fact that the Muslims were far more guilty and STILL perpetuate slavery, that is.

n the case of our nation’s public statues, there are disingenuous people on both sides who are politically exploiting this, of course.

Uh, no… wrong. YOU are exploiting the statues, turning a great, big nothing into something YOUR side commits violence over. WE are pointing out how stupid YOUR side is being and trying to preserve history and freedom of speech. No, only one side exploits this issue (which was not an issue two years ago), as they do in every other case. “Never let a crisis go to waste” I believe is the rule.

I think I follow your argument. Either Mohammed was made of wood, or he was a duck.

@Greg: And if I follow YOUR argument, liberals get to define what is bad and what can be used politically. Rationality and facts have no meaning or place in the equation. That just about it?

It’s interesting that most Muslim slaves were sold to their owners by their own parents!
In Islam borrowing money to get out of debt, to start a business, to buy a bride, to educate a child is forbidden.
If a Muslim falls into debt he has to come up with something of value to make good his debt.
It is usually a child sold into slavery.
Pakistan is filled with very poor people who have sold one child after another into slavery.

The Saudis look good on the map because they know how to play the system.
Saudis don’t buy slaves. They hire them, wink, wink.
The Saudi then takes the Passport of the slave and holds him/her hostage to long workdays, horrible conditions and mere scraps of food.
One woman who was rescued had to spend nights handcuffed to the plumbing under a basement bathroom sink.
She was raped repeatedly by the adult males in the family.
Her baby, born of these rapes, was considered a citizen of Pakistan even though it’s father was Saudi and it was born in Saudi Arabia!
The woman of the household (wife of owner) forced this slave to eat hot chiles and even her own vomit.

One male slave was strangled to death by his Saudi prince-owner in an elevator in a hotel in Paris.

In both cases the owners hands were barely slapped.
And that was only because both cases had publicity making the Saudis look bad.

Stateless Muslims are as good as slaves.
There are approximately 12million male Muslims who are stateless. They can be manipulated into doing almost anything (like for to the death for a caliphate) by holding out a promise of citizenship or Paradise.

Islam, itself, is the holdover where slavery is concerned.
Mohammad is their so-called “Perfect Model.” Unless that changes, slavery will be common in Islamic areas.

Thanks for the picture of Muhammad, I had been searching for that.
Now, since he was a slave owner, do the Leftists demand that that also be removed?

The difference was that prophet Muhammad said to treat your slaves nicely. Americans also owned slaves and violated their human rights.

@Shaheer: Oh. So slaves had human rights under Muhammad? You DO know what “slavery” is, right?

@Deplorable Me: Seems Shaheer has a history problem. There were 2 types of slaves in the United States history, indentured and purchased. I have no idea where Shaheer is from, nor educational level.
To say there is no slavery today in the USA is beyond ignorant, Our President is building a wall to stop the trafficking of humans. It isnt legal is the best we can say.

@kitt: I guess he is also a bit confused as to who captured and SOLD most of the slaves that were shipped to America.

@kitt: bro I’m from the USA. I’m 14 and ur right I don’t know some history. A lot actually. Probably because I haven’t learned it yet

@Deplorable Me: besides how old are you guys???

@Shaheer: 14, ok it isnt fair to have a battle of wits with someone who is not at all armed.
Good luck with your education. You may not be exposed to John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Baron de Montesquieu, Immanuel Kant as often as Marx, and Alyinski ideology.

@Shaheer: I suggest you learn some history and NOT in a madrassa.

@kitt: I know the first 3. The thing I said about Prophet treating his slaves well I learned from Sheikhs in their lectures before Jummah. They cite their sources. I don’t know the sources because it was a few years ago. Oh and I really do believe he treated slaves nicely. Like Bilal. I also heard that he freed many of these slaves and converted them to Muslims. I know this is true. He went through so much hatred and was given an opportunity to kill those who threw rocks at him when he preached, he refused the offer and chose to continue preaching. His uncles were horrible to him. Surah al Masad talks about Abu Lahab and tells the Prophet what Lahab will get. Thanks for the good luck in my education.

@Deplorable Me: First of all I do actually learn History all the Muslim history I learn is the good about Prophet Muhammad. I was never taught the bad of other Religions in history. (What I mean is the religion during the time of their prophet) (excluding events that happened centuries after their deaths).