This is Part 4 of the chapter "Islamic Slavery" from M. A. Khan's book, "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery". This part discusses the horror saga of little-known Islamic enslavement in India during the Sultanate period -- from Sultan Iltutmish to Lodi Dynasty (Part 1, Part 3, Part 5).
After Muhammad Ghauri was killed by Hindu Khokar's in his war-camp in 1206, Kutbuddin Aibak settled in Delhi to inaugurate the Sultanate of Delhi. Enslavement under the joint Jihad enterprise of Ghauri-Aibak has been discussed already. Next comes the rule of Sultan Iltutmish.
During Sultan Iltutmish to Balban (1210–1285): Next, Sultan Iltutmish (r. 1210–36) spent his early years in suppressing the Turkish opponents. He was also in fear of invasion by Genghis Khan. In 1226, he attacked Ranthambhor. Minhaj Siraj records that ‘much plunder fell into the hands of his followers;’[1] the plunder obviously included slaves. In the 1234–35 attack of Ujjain, he made captives of the ‘women and children of the recalcitrant,’ according to Shiraj and Ferishtah.[2]
After the death of Iltutmish, there was a brief lull in enslavement because of the weakened power of the sultans. In 1244, Sultan Nasiruddin Mahmud, commanded by Ulugh Khan Balban, attacked the Gukkar rebels of the Jud Mountain in Multan and carried away ‘several thousand Gukkars of all ages and of each sex,’ records Ferishtah.[3] Ulugh Khan Balban attacked Karra in 1248; there, records Siraj, his ‘taking of captives and his capture of the dependents of the great Ranas (Hindu princes) cannot be counted.’ In attacking the Rana Dalaki wa Malaki, ‘He took prisoners the wives, sons, and dependents of that accursed one, and secured great booty.’[4] In 1252, Balban attacked and defeated the great Rana, Jahir Deo, of Malwa; ‘many captives fell into the hands of the victors,’ records Siraj.[5]
In the attack of Ranthambhor in 1253, Balban captured many slaves, while in the attack of Haryana in 1259, many women and children were enslaved. Balban led expeditions twice against Kampil, Patiali and Bhojpur enslaving large numbers of women and children each time. In Katehar, he captured the women and children after a general massacre of the men above eight years in age, notes Ferishtah. In 1260, Balban attacked Ranthambhor, Mewat and Siwalik—proclaiming that those who brought a live captive would receive two silver tankahs and one tankah for the head of a slain infidel. Soon three to four hundred living persons and heads of the slain were brought to his presence, records Ferishtah. While serving under Sultan Nasiruddin (d. 1266), Balban made many attacks against the infidels, but the number of the captives taken by him are not mentioned. However, a guess can be made from the fact that, slaves were so abundant that Sultan Nasiruddin had presented author Minhaj Siraj with forty of them for sending to his sister in Khurasan.[6]
Balban became the sultan in 1265 assuming the title of Ghiyasuddin Balban. As the commander of the previous sultan, Balban showed great military prowess, leading numerous expeditions against the infidels. After assuming power, his first job was, as noted already, to exterminate hundreds of thousands of recalcitrant Hindu rebels, the Muwattis etc. He ordered to ‘destroy the villages of the marauders, to slay the men, to make prisoners of the women and children.’[7]
During Khilji dynasty: Under the Khilji (1290–1320) and Tughlaq (1320–1413) dynasties, the hold of the Muslim rule in India had been firmly established with the expanded army and territory. The sultan’s power was so overwhelming that ‘no one dared to make an outcry,’ noted Afif. Apart from campaigns to suppress many Hindu rebellions, many expeditions against infidel-held territories were undertaken with an ever-increasing zeal to bring them under the Muslim control. Rich booty was plundered, which obviously contained slaves, but their recording is sketchy, probably because, it had become too common. However, a few available testimonies left by contemporary chroniclers give a general idea of the extent of enslavement. Jalaluddin Khilji (r. 1290–96), the founder of Khilji dynasty, undertook ruthless campaigns to suppress Hindu revolts and to extend the boundary of the sultanate. He led expeditions to Katehar, Ranthambhor, Jhain, Malwa, and Gwalior. In the campaigns to Ranthambhor and Jhain, he sacked temples, plundered, and took captives making "a hell of paradise", writes Amir Khasrau. From the Malwa campaign, large quantities of booty (which always included slaves) was brought to Delhi, adds Khasrau.[8]
Next, Sultan Alauddin Khilji (r. 1296–1316) beat all earlier sultans in the capture of slaves. He sent a large expedition to Gujarat in 1299 sacking all major cities and towns: Naharwala, Asaval, Vanmanthali, Surat, Cambay and Somnath. According to the records of Muslim chroniclers Isami and Barani, he acquired great plunders and a large number of captives of both sexes. In the sack and plunder of Somnath alone, testifies Wassaf, the Muslim army ‘took captive a great number of handsome and elegant maidens, amounting to 20,000’, as well as ‘the children of both sexes.’ Ranthambhor was attacked in 1301 and Chittor in 1303. In the Chittor invasion, 30,000 people were massacred; and as a standard practice, their women and children were enslaved although some of the Rajput women had committed Jauhar. Large numbers of slaves were captured in the expeditions to Malwa, Sevana and Jalor between 1305 and 1311. Sultan Alauddin also captured slaves in his expedition to Rajasthan. During his reign, capturing slaves became like a child’s play as Amir Khasrau puts it, ‘the Turks whenever they please, can seize, buy or sell any Hindu.’ So stupendous was his slave-taking that he had ‘50,000 slave boys in his personal service’ and ‘70,000 slaves worked on his buildings,’ record Afif and Barani, respectively. Barani testifies that ‘fresh batches of captives were constantly arriving’ in the slave-markets of Delhi during Alauddin’s reign.’[9]
During Tughlaq dynasty: In 1320, the Tughlaqs captured power. Muhammad Shah Tughlaq (r. 1325–51), the most learned amongst Muslim rulers of India, was the most powerful rulers of the Sultanate period (1206–1526). His notorious zeal for capturing slaves had even outstripped the feats of Alauddin Khilji. Shihabuddin Ahmad Abbas wrote of his capture of slaves that ‘The Sultan never ceases to show the greatest zeal in making war upon the infidels… Everyday thousand of slaves are sold at a very low price, so great is the number of prisoners.’ During his notorious reign, he undertook numerous expeditions to put down revolts and to bring far-off regions of India under his sway, reaching deep into South India and Bengal. He also brutally put down sixteen major rebellions. Many of these expeditions brought great booty, which invariably included slaves in large numbers. Slaves were so abundant that the sultan had sent ten female slaves to traveler Ibn Battutah on his arrival in Delhi.[10] The sultan sent a diplomatic mission to the Chinese emperor, led by Battutah, with a caravan of gifts, which included ‘a hundred white slaves, a hundred Hindu dancing- and singing-girls…’[11] Sending slaves as gifts to the caliphs and rulers overseas was also a common practice during Sultan Iltutmish and Feroz Tughlaq (d. 1388). Ibn Battutah testifies that the sultan used to accumulate slaves round the year and marry them off during the celebration of two major Islamic festivals, the Eid.[12] This was obviously aimed at swelling the Muslim population in India.
Next, Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq (r. 1351–88) was a kind-hearted toward the infidels, for he first allowed drafting some non-Muslims into his army, defying Muslim opposition. Even under his rule, enslaving the infidels went on with great vigor. He had acquired a mind-blowing 180,000 young slave boys in his court, testifies Afif.[13] He, like his predecessor, used to capture thousands of male and female slaves round the year and marry them off on the days of Eid celebration. According to Afif, ‘slaves became too numerous’ under Firoz Tughlaq and ‘the institution (of slavery) took root in every centre of the land.’ Soon afterwards, the sultanate broke into several independent kingdoms, but the enslavement of the infidels continued as usual in every "centre of the land", writes Afif.[14]
In Amir Timur’s invasion: Amir Timur from Central Asia, waged Jihad against India (1398–99) to become a ghazi or a martyr, had accumulated over 100,000 captives when he reached Delhi. On the eve of his attack on Delhi, he killed them all. From his assault on Delhi onward to his return to his capital, he has left a tragic trail of barbaric slaughter, destruction, pillage and enslavement, which he recorded in his memoir, Malfuzat-I-Timuri.[15]
Of his assault on Delhi on 16 December 1398, records Timur, ‘15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering and destroying… The spoil was so great that each man secured fifty to a hundred prisoners—men, women and children. There was no man who took less than twenty.’ If each soldier, on an average, had taken 60 captives, the total yield of slaves was about 1000,000 (1.0 million)[16].
On the way back to his capital in Central Asia, narrates Timur, he instructed his commanders ‘to take every fort and town and village’ they came across, and ‘to put all the infidels of the country to the sword… My brave fellows pursued and killed many of them, made their wives and children prisoners.’ After reaching Kutila, he attacked the infidels; ‘After a slight resistance, the enemy took flight, but many of them fell under the swords of my soldiers. All the wives and children of the infidels were made prisoners.’
Moving forward, upon arriving at the bank of the Ganges during the bathing festival, his soldiers ‘slaughtered many of the infidels and pursued those who fled to the mountains.’ The spoil, adds Timur, ‘which exceeds all computations… fell into the hands of my victorious soldiers.’ Spoils of course included slaves.
When he reached Siwalik, notes Timur, ‘the infidel gabrs were dismayed at the slight and took flight. The Holy warriors pursued them, and made heaps of slain… Immense spoil beyond all compute’ was obtained; ‘All the Hindu women and children in the valley were made prisoners.’
On the other side of the river, Raja Ratan Sen, hearing of Timur’s approach, had drawn his force at the fortress of Trisarta (Kangra). When attacked the fortress, records Timur, ‘the Hindus broke and fled, and my victorious soldiers pursued’ them with only a few escaping; ‘...they secured great plunders,’ exceeding all calculations and each with ‘ten to twenty slaves.’ This means that the assault yielded 200,000 to 300,000 slaves.
On the other side of the Siwalik Valley was the large and important town of Hindustan, called Nagarkot. In the attack, ‘The Holy warriors… made heaps of corpses,’ and ‘a vast booty,’ including ‘prisoners… fell into the hands of the victors, who returned triumphant and loaded with spoil,’ concluded Timur.
On his way back from Delhi, Timur had made five major assaults on the Hindu fortresses, towns and villages, besides other smaller incursions and captured slaves in each. The rough number of captives—some 200,000 to 300,000—is available only for the assault in Kangra. If similar number of slaves were captured in the other assaults, he must have acquired 1.0 to 1.5 million slaves in the course of his return. Combined with the captives taken at Delhi, he had driven away some 2.0 to 2.5 milion slaves from India. At Delhi, he also had selected thousands of artisans and craftsmen, whom he brought to his capital.[17]
During the Sayyid and Lodi dynasties (1400–1525): In the period, subsequent to Timur’s invasion, the numbers of slaves taken in wars are not properly recorded; only abstract references are found in various documents.[18] Following Timur’s departure after devastating the power in Delhi, the Tughlaqs, followed by the Sayyids, while consolidating their authority, made many expeditions. Many of these campaign yielded slaves in large numbers. As recorded by Ferishtah, in the reign of Sultan Sayyid Mubarak (r. 1431–35), the Muslim army plundered Katehar and enslaved many of the Rahtore Rajputs (1422), enslaved many in Malwa in 1423, carried away the surrendered Muwatti rebels in Alwar in 1425 and the subjects of Raja of Hulkant (in Gwalior, in 1430) were carried away as prisoners and slaves.[19]
In 1430, Amir Shaikh Ali from Kabul attacked Sirhind and Lahore in Punjab. In Lahore, records Ferishtah, ‘40,000 Hindus were computed to have been massacred, besides a great number carried away prisoners’; in Toolumba (Multan), his army ‘plundered the place, and put to death all the men able to bear arms… and carried the wives and children of the inhabitants into captivity.’[20]
Following the Sayyids, the Lodi dynasty (1451–1526) re-established the authority of the sultanate and continued the practice of enslavement as usual. Sultan Bahlul, founder of the dynasty, ‘turned a free-booter and with his gains from plunder built up a strong force.’ In his assault against Nimsar (in Hardoi district), he ‘depopulated it by killing and enslaving its people.’ His successor Sikandar Lodi produced the same spectacle in Rewa and Gwalior regions.[21]
[1]. Ibid, p. 325
[2]. Lal (1994), p. 44–45
[3]. Ferishtah, Vol. I, p. 130
[4]. Elliot & Dawson, Vol. II, p. 348; also Ferishtah, Vol. I, p. 131
[5]. Elliot & Dawson, Vol. II, p. 351
[6]. Lal (1994), p. 46–48
[7]. Elliot & Dawson, Vol. III, p. 105
[8]. Lal (1994), p. 48
[9]. Ibid, p. 49–51
[10]. Ibid, p. 51
[11]. Gibb HAR (2004) Ibn Battutah: Travels in Asia and Africa, D K Publishers, New Delhi, p. 214
[12]. Lal (1994), p. 51–52
[13]. Elliot & Dawson, III, p. 297
[14]. Ibid, p. 53
[15]. Elliot & Dawson, Vol. III, p. 436–71; Bostom AG (2005) The Legacy of Jihad, Prometheus Books, New York, p. 648-50
[16]. By mistake, the number of prisoners captured by Timur was cited to be 10 times less in previous editions.
[17]. Lal (1994), p. 86
[18]. Ibid, p. 70–71
[19]. Freishtah, Vol. I, p. 299–303
[20]. Ibid, p. 303,306
[21]. Lal (1994), p. 86
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Reed Wilson. , September 19, 2011
Do you mean Ghiyasuddin Balban was a title and the name? If I am not wrong, Balban was a slave himself and was founder of Slave Dynasty in India.
written by M. A. Khan, editor , September 19, 2011
About the title, Balban added Ghiyasuddin to his name after capturing power and becoming the Sultan. That's all it means and I wanted to mean.
written by aki , September 20, 2011
written by Reed Wilson. , September 20, 2011
I observe that the citations are broken and dont lead serious reader to the source. It is however commendable that you cared for quoting sources which makes your book of high standard and research like.
I am often uneasy about decorations and titles. Who gave him title of Ghyasuddin? Similarly we come across titles like Shaikhul Islam, Imam, Ayatullah, Allama and like. Who made Abu Abdullah Bukhari as Imam Bukhari? I think the publisher, who wants to push sales of Book or in cases of kings, the flatterers. It may be my suspicion. You are a learned man. Please help me.
written by Reed Wilson. , September 20, 2011
written by Reed Wilson. , September 20, 2011
It is better to close our eyes to the system and remain ignorant. It is our choice.
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ قَدْ جَاءَكُمُ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ ۖ فَمَنِ اهْتَدَىٰ فَإِنَّمَا يَهْتَدِي لِنَفْسِهِ ۖ وَمَن ضَلَّ فَإِنَّمَا يَضِلُّ عَلَيْهَا ۖ وَمَا أَنَا عَلَيْكُم بِوَكِيلٍ
Say: "O men, the truth has come to you from your Lord, so one who follows the right path does so for self, and who goes astray, does so for own detriment, and I am not a guardian over you". (10:108)
We can not lament even.
written by Aki , September 20, 2011
"imagine a system where a slave becomes a sultan"
there are so many gaping holes in this series of slavery articles it's untrue!
written by duh_swami , September 20, 2011
The same thing happened to Spartacus...Of course he was not a Muslim so he was not a Sultan, but he was a slave who rose to a leader and a roll model, I saw the movie...It's amazing how much Spartucus looked like Kirk Douglas...Those Spartans were really tough...300 of them held off the entire Muslim army, until they finally got over run...I saw that movie too, but Kirk wasn't in it...
written by Mozlem , September 20, 2011
Why dont you refute the entire bibliography for your name will go down in history?
Why just touch at the edges. Lets have the truth.
Lets see your DNA test results to see if you dont have slave heritage somewhere.
written by duh_swami , September 20, 2011
They don't do that anymore in Yorkshire....Kuffar used to write lots of articles in Yorkshire until the Muslim invader crusaders ran them out...Now no one writes papers in Yorkshire...
written by Reed Wilson. , September 20, 2011
Yes. I could understand. Mine was also caustic.
written by Reed Wilson. , September 20, 2011
What is correct duh? A roll model or a role model or roller model?
written by duh_swami , September 20, 2011
written by Dwito , September 20, 2011
So think who are you talking to and they are at your side!! Need any more?
written by Reed Wilson. , September 20, 2011
We are becoming bad since we stepped in IW:)
written by Dwito , September 20, 2011
We are becoming bad since we stepped in IW:)
Yes!! I'm afraid so.
written by Scrutator , September 20, 2011
written by Chanakya , September 20, 2011
1) DOB of Hamza and Mohammed (ages);
2) Othmans conversion to Islam and later Abu Sufyan's so called conversion;
3) Killing of Moahmmeds family by the Abu Sufyans children (Othmans nephews);
4) Insertion of rabbinical story's into the quran (verse 5:32);
5) Insertion of Byzantium theory of conception (galen's hypothesis);
and offcourse many more. How anybody can take the rubbish like Quran seriously is beyond me.
written by M. A. Khan, editor , September 20, 2011
And "Islamic Slavery" is not the only chapter in my book, where discussion of the Islamic rulers of India have come up. And who those rulers were, their origin, has been sufficiently discussed in the book.
written by Dwito , September 20, 2011
So pl. ignore all those, and stay only in this slave culture. Otherwise our Qur'an-wise slavery friend will render helpless!!
written by Non believer , September 21, 2011
written by Mozlem , September 21, 2011
When Allah knows he is best why is he in doubt about his creation. Why throw a challenge unless Allah is unsure of himself. Is Allah more like AKI, RW and Malman. Only a manufacturer who is unsure will throw such a challenge. If Allah knew it is best creation and still asks for challenge he needs to be admitted to some mental asylum.
I want to move around the unbelievers to Muslims and Muslims to unbelievers in all verses where there are unbelievers and Muslims.
This means Muslims will not get pearly boys, will not get houris, burn in hell, will get beaten about all over, get cursed by Allah and Quran will still remain the word or Allah for all I did was move around a few words.
MA Khan take note as we have ready made divine book for your religion and Angel Gabriel’s (great -to many greats- great) granddaughter gave me this revelation.
I think Mo is rolling in his grave at this moment.
written by Archpagan , September 21, 2011
written by Reed Wilson. , September 21, 2011
Why I am focusing?
written by M. A. Khan, Editor , September 21, 2011
written by duh_swami , September 21, 2011
written by Reed Wilson. , September 21, 2011
Everything done by a traditional Muslim is not essentially Islamic if it is not according to Quran.
While reading your article and Balban, it was in back of my mind that he was a slave himself. I needed a scholarly verification of my memory from you which you kindly did.
I feel flattered to know that my asking had deeper meanings, not known to me.
Enjoy Mr. Khan.
written by Dwito , September 21, 2011
Yes, you are lucky to be flooded with responses. Mine left unanswered, i mean "The Majestic Allah - pt. 8."
Alas!
written by vikash mishra , September 21, 2011
times International community decided to ban this demonic practice forever, but some muslims, like Abdurahim green, a champion of islam from U.K. still support slavery and are hopeful that golden days of slavery will come back. In fact in countries like Sudan and Saudi arabia slavery is very much in practice.
written by Tim Halley , September 21, 2011
written by Archpagan , September 21, 2011
Everything done by traditional Muslims is essentially Islamic. For, they show the standard of righteousness and civil behaviour practiced and adored by Muslims. Only Allah knows, if you have a teenage Bibi in your closet (no fun intended).
written by M. A. Khan, editor , September 21, 2011
Everything done by a traditional Muslim is not essentially Islamic if it is not according to Quran.Reed, you probably missed the first part of this series, where I discussed Quranic Commands and Prophetic Model of slavery. Islamic slavery in later history, such as in India, was probably a bit milder in barbarism than it was under Muhammad.
written by asdf , September 21, 2011
http://americatopten.blogspot....-and.html
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm
written by Archpagan , September 22, 2011
written by Reed Wilson. , September 22, 2011
Alas!
Answering Dwito is always pleasant. I think my reply detained and informed you. What is your question? Sometimes I dont know also. I dont grudge saying sorry.
written by Reed Wilson. , September 22, 2011
I did read all al the parts. The Quranic Command you give as:
…do ye have partners among those whom your right hands possess to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you? Do ye fear them as ye fear each other? [Quran 30:28]
It is assumed that the messenger must have shown the same benevolence. There is no other 'prophetic model of slavery' is available.
In part 3 you wrote:
"The total number of captives taken in Debal is not recorded; but among them were 700 beautiful women, who had taken refuse in temples, records Chachnama."
I observed on above:
It is interesting that 'the total number of captives are not recorded' and what is recorded is the exact number of women and that they were beautiful.
Seemingly it is not understandable. How the women could be beautiful when they were refused in temples?
I also pointed out discrepancies in citations. You generously thanked.
Thank you.
In part 2, I recorded Islam on slavery which you had agreed except Yibel who had some reservations.
Islamic slavery in later history, such as in India, was probably a bit milder in barbarism than it was under Muhammad.
written by Reed Wilson. , September 23, 2011
Quran proclaimed the equality of all humans in the sight of God. It struck at the root of slavery by recognizing the moral worth of a human being as a human being. However there were at the time of the Quranic revelation numerous slaves that pre existed in that society as well as other parts of the world.
The Quran in every conceivable way discouraged slavery and improved the lot of slaves. The Believers were urged to be kind and considerate to slaves, they were told that to emancipate a slave was a meritorious act. They could atone for some of their offences by setting a slave free. Thus the number of slaves was gradually reduced and the society was made less dependent on slave labor.
The Arabic words "Maa malakat aimanukum" as occurred in the Quran which mean "Those whom your right hands possessed" are in the past tense and refer to those who had already been enslaved. It does not mean war captives and women.
When they were emancipated through a gradual process, slavery died a natural death.
written by Reed Wilson. , September 23, 2011
Islam, set in motion a gradual process of improvement in the status of those in bondage and culminating in the abolition of this institution. The process started with:
1."…ye…may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands posses….wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dower…"[4:25]
This conferred upon the slave girls all the rights and privileges of a wife. Verse 36 of Sura 4 brought another big change in the status of slaves by enforcing the obligation to do good to one’s parents and in the same breath, also to the slaves:
2."…do ‘Ihsan’ (goodness) to parents …and (to) what your right hands posses."[4:36]
verse 60 of Sura 9 exhorts Believers to give monetary help to those in bondage in order to alleviate their economic status:
3."Alms are for…those in Bondage.."[9:60]
Verses 2:177,4:29,5:89 etc make another quantum change in this matter by urging the believers to free those in the shackles of slavery:
4."…But it is righteousness…to spend of your substance out of love for Him…for theransom of slaves.."[2:177]
5."And whoever kills a believer by mistake, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave.."[4:92]
6."He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation…give a slave his freedom.."[5:89]
Contd.
written by Reed Wilson. , September 23, 2011
The Qur'an unambiguously states that no one no matter how high a status he may occupy, be that status of a direct recipient of Divine messages even an apostle, no human being has the right to enslave any other human or group of humans, says the Qur’an:
"It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and 'Nabuwah' apostlehood, then he should say to men: Be my slaves rather than Allah's; but rather he would say: Be sustenance providers (Rabaniyoon) because of your teaching the Book and your studying it yourselves."[3:79]
The above clarifies the basic teaching of the Qur'an in stating that obedience is not due to any human or group of humans’ man made laws but according to the Quran, obedience and subservience is due to Allah alone, which is implemented in human affairs by following his Book (see 6:114) and instances where man subjects man, are described in the Quran as a great injustice. (Ref: Narration of enslavement of Children of Israel by Pharoah and his forces.)
From above and many other verses it is very clear that the Qur'an has abolished slavery, and not upheld it.
Certain verses where slaves are mentioned, they are those which were already existing in society from days of ignorance and about whom the Qur’an enjoined a gradual elevation in status leading to their freedom and abolishment of any future enslavement.
Furthermore it is the Quran which is the final authority for all matter of Islam and its verdict is final and absolute. No other Book carries more weight or reliability than the Quran in matters of Islam.
written by duh_swami , September 23, 2011
written by pugo , September 23, 2011
written by fineliving56 , September 23, 2011
Muslim families, still own girls,they STILL sell and buy girls …if Quran abolished Slavery, we wont see IT IN 2011 in most islamic hell holes.
My muslim family and all other of all relatives who can BUY A GIRL, had one or two …some times sister. Usually the father brings his daughter and drop her off some times for life or until she is married off. The father gets big lump some of money and leave to live off of it.
If,Quran/Allah/Muhammad[all one and the same] wanted and repelled by slavery and it injustices to humans , IT/IT/HE, WOULD HAVE cut it from the bud, killed it,outlawed it clearly in the first pages with BIG,BLOLD.LETTERS in its words.
Conveniently…Quran worshipers, do not adress that problem.
As long as 4/3…4/24 …4/25….24/31…24/58…33/50
Still in *circulation* and 1.5 billion Muslim STILL read the same words of Quern now About slavery …they going to COPY exactly …and that what has been happening.
They are not going to think of *evolution of slavery, and the proof is in the HISTORY of Islam
The above article is proof of Quran's ---failure ---To do away with it …IT DID NOT change lives of Muslim for better, it only made it worse.
How you are going to reconcile THAT... Mr Reed!!!????
Gentleman of the Islamic kind …please tell us the answer to this Islamic riddle :
If Quran is Allah's revelations and you say Allah was weeding away with slavery by giving some rights to slaves…..so why we have this:
Q/ 33/50 says-----OH MUHAMMAD WE GIVE YOU THE RIGHT [ ahlalna, Halal ] TO HAVE ALL OF THESE KINDS OF WOMEN : INCLUDES------WIVES-----WOMEN WHO YOU GAVE THIER PAYMENTS[ PROSTITUTES]-----AND[now pay attention] WOMEN------ WHO MUHAMMAD *OWNED*----
WOMEN WHO *GIVE THEM SELVES TO YOU----*FREELY*-----no payment required or marriage ----.
Are you paying attention?
Now if Allah was weeding away with slavery ----why, in Gods name, would Allah give halal women[ slaves] to him to have for sex and service with no limitation or marriage?…ISN'T HE THE FINE EXAMPLE FOR ALL MUSLIMS.
Logic say ….evaluation from slavery should *start with the PROPHET MUHAMMAD* FIRST * to set a good example for the rest of Muslim BRUTES…
Isn't right Mr Reed?! …the fairest of them all??
Reed you are trying to justify the inhuman injustice of slavery In Islam ---------shame on you.
Go read Surah 33/50 again and see if that is reconcile with your conscious…..
I am shaking my head in disappointment.
written by fineliving56 , September 23, 2011
That is non sense…. because Muhammad kept the slaves . which means he used them in his own present all his life time …which means he CONDONED SLAVERY and practiced it …which means Muhammad did not listen and obey his Allah[oh please] …and Allah failed to convoy ITS message of evaluation of slavery to him [oh please]…which means Allah is the idiot Allah of all Allahs out their.
written by Mozlem , September 23, 2011
written by Reed Wilson. , September 23, 2011
Where did you find female slaves? Do you think they were females all over?
written by fineliving56 , September 23, 2011
please remember these Ayes when revolution of Islam comes up
Q33/52 ...tells of women slaves ...when Allah says for Muhammad to reserve the right to have limited halal wives but excluding women slaves ...they are fair game.
wa ma malakat aydekom in 33l 52 was talking about WOMEN SLAVES ...please check...unless Muhammad was a man's man
written by Reed Wilson. , September 25, 2011
"wa ma malakat aydekom in 33l 52 was talking about WOMEN SLAVES ...please check...unless Muhammad was a man's man"
No ma'am.
written by fineliving56 , September 25, 2011
or
Muhammad was man's man?….
Mashai allah …you are an expert in obfuscation
written by Yibel , September 26, 2011
:Certain verses (in the Qur'an) where slaves are mentioned, they are those which were already existing in society from days of ignorance and about whom the Qur’an enjoined a gradual elevation in status leading to their freedom and abolishment of any future enslavement."
Question for you:
Why have there been so many misunderstanders of Islam over the past 1400 years?
The slave markets of Baghdad and Damacus were full of slaves; India lost hundreds of millions of her citizens to the Arab slave markets; it has been recorded by Muslim historians that even the poorest Muslim owned several slaves to do his work for him; the sultans had harams with thousands of slaves, both women and little boys, for their sexual perversions; the Turks sold 30,000 captured men, women and children from Constantinole alone after they captured the city; the US fought a war with the Barbary pirates to stop them from taking US ships and enslaving the crews; Saudi Arabia only outlawed slavery in 1962 (however, it still goes on); in Colorado, a Saudi couple was recently convicted of keeping a slave, their defense was their religion, Islam, said it was okay; the list goes on and on. Why so many misunderstanders of Islam?
written by Machmoed , September 26, 2011
no misunderstanding. Muslims know Allah didn't forbade slaves. It is Allah who gave those slaves in hand of the posessor. No muslim ever thought about it because it was and sometimes is a common practice. It is this time that people are awaking to misguidence in some aspects. The concious of people chaged a bit and it is going to change more. Many muslims do not believe anymore in the rigid form of the orthodoxy. Aspects as slaves and many other doctrines are laughed at, because the understanding of the lie. Others just deny these aspects and try to give an other meaning to the concept of slaves. They were just households and not for sex, is an excuse many muslims make. Then when you7 tell them about Maryam alqubtia given by the governour of Alexandrie to Muhammad so he would stop sending letters and would shut up. Geuss what...after this Muhammad indeed shut up and took Maryam and she gave him at least one son Ibraheem. He too died or was written away like they (arabs) did with the rest of Muhammads decendents.
I don't and never will believe in a deity who suppots slavery, that's for sure. I can stand for this. Can a muslim?
written by Dwito , September 26, 2011
Reed already answered this question. He declared that most Muslims(you may take it as all Muslims) don't understand Quran. Probably he ment only he does. But never explained why he just doesn't convey this truth to the misunderstood mass of Muslims, however you may ask.
I really wonder why does he loose this opportunity to gain Allah's blessings and sticks here only.
written by Mozlem , September 26, 2011
Every single muslim I met said so...........
Nothing new !
Any muslim caught pants down I mean not able to answer just passes the buck.
written by Dwito , September 26, 2011
Another common match. No, I don't tell about muzzies. I mean Marxists. There are also one thousand one fractions(Sirks), and all are/were unanimously agreed upon one point. This one. What a brotherhood!!
written by Reed Wilson. , September 26, 2011
No…. for 33/52 talking about female slaves ?
written by important , September 26, 2011
Can you please insight us and tell us the exact translation for Q,33/52
either Muhammad likes the beauty of women slave and Allah tell him, do not change your wives except the women,your right hand owned or *men your right hand owned …
I mean Allah was not talking about male slaves …if that is true, then you know what THAT makes Muhammd ….a man who like to sleep with men ?
Are you say that ?
written by Reed Wilson. , September 26, 2011
Islam does not permit slavery. I have given enough evidence from Quran; Christianity either but we find permission for slavery in Bible.
written by Mozlem , September 26, 2011
written by fineliving56 , September 26, 2011
neither of the possible options is flattering to Muhammad
I bit, he going to say ..the term* your right hand owned*....means energy ...not a man or a women!
written by Reed Wilson. , September 26, 2011
The Qur’an uses a term maa malakat aimanukum : literally it means who your right hand owns: this phrase has been used to mean several things: for example:
1)to mean subordinates: who work according to someone’s plan: household servants etc are also included in this category. See 30:28, 24:58, 24:31, 16:71, 4:36.
2)to mean the women who have entered nikaah: 33:52 in surah Nisaa where it is said wal muhsinaatu minan nisaa-i illa ma malakat aimanukum: 4:24 if here “muhsinaatu” is taken to mean chaste women then the ayat would mean that chaste women are haraam or prohibited for you except those who enter your wedlock (i.e. except those you wed): if ‘muhsinaat’ means ‘women with husbands’ (see heading hah, saad, nuun) then the ayat would mean that all women with husbands are haraam or forbidden for you except the slave girls or women who are already in your slavery:
Please dont hesitate asking. Sarcasm is forbidden by .....
written by bundypig , September 26, 2011
double talk and bullshit, you know as well as us he means slaves...and Yibel needs sources, that's laughable,
the proofs n the pudding, every day, on and on and on...
written by fineliving56 , September 26, 2011
So, now, you say Q/33/52 is talking about women not men …and before, you denied that…why?
who is making fun of whom?.
I asked you what is the exact meaning of 33/52 …and you go off saying about meaning of other Ayes …..that is muffling and trying to deliberately confuse things ..it is not working!!!!
You are not Quran expert enough to be able to do that …especially …to me.
Now, the exact meaning in 33/52 is this:
**[oh prophet Muhammad] it is not lawful [HARAM] for you [to marry more] WOMEN after this ,or to change them for[other] WIVES,even though their BEAUTY, MAY ATRACT you,**EXCAPT[ [illa] **[referring to exchange or NOT HALAL] any [WOMEN] who your **right hand OWNS **
As you can see …owned women are NOT INCLUDED in the *Haram* rule ….they are fair game. Muhammad could have as many as he can according to 33/52 .…do you understand?
Not only that…. in 33/ 50
….and women who you[ Mohammed] travel with you in war and she *gives*her self to you [ Muhammad] if you wanted to marry her, YOU AND ONLY YOU [Muhammad] as privilege to you and not to [all] believes.
Now does that sound like a unselfish prophet like he should be …no ..no way?
that sound like Allah is catering to his prophet in all his whims ….it is so shameful ..it is little sickening ..
I am sorry,
Reed You are fallowing….
the IDEA of a good prophet Muhammad…
the idea of Good Quran …
the idea of good Islam…
But, non of them, are …you are living in this fantasy land of this good words from Allah …and I am sorry to tell you …you are delusional.
BTW …my sarcasm is always directed at ,Quran and Islam …not you personally …by defending the indefensible in Quran, you are putting your self in the line of fire …so to speak.
written by Reed Wilson. , September 27, 2011
1)to mean subordinates: who work according to someone’s plan: household servants etc are also included in this category. See 30:28, 24:58, 24:31, 16:71, 4:36.
In 33:52
لَّا يَحِلُّ لَكَ النِّسَاءُ مِن بَعْدُ وَلَا أَن تَبَدَّلَ بِهِنَّ مِنْ أَزْوَاجٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكَ حُسْنُهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُكَ ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّـهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ رَّقِيبًا
"Other women are not permitted for you after these, nor that you change them for other wives even if their beauty pleases you except the bondwomen whom you possess; and Allah is the Guardian over all things." (33:52)
There may not be any confusion there.
written by fineliving56 , September 27, 2011
Quran is very clear to me ….you are the one who is trying to confuse and obfuscate as always.
If You did not get or understand….
that the fact that, Muhammad was allowed by Allah to use his bondwomen[women slaves] any way he wants and as many that he wants [ that is not the conduct of real prophet if there is such a thing]
while Allah did not permitted Muhammad to exchange or add more wives, *is a shameful* for a prophet to do or His Allah to give him more then others, then I have nothing to say …
if you condone this kind of privilege given to a prophet who is supposed to be perfect and better then that ...than I have nothing to say to you about that.
subject is closed ….
stay delusional …no one care .
written by Eastern View , October 01, 2011
written by Reed Wilson , October 06, 2011
This will no more happen. This book of M.A.Khan has removed dust and has brought real history to fore.
[url=http://indiansawaal.com/insult...en-insult/