1) In other words, Islamic rules and laws were not absolutes, but were designed to address the issues of the times taking into account what was practically feasible in terms of the prevailing cirumstances? In which case, I agree.
2) So you agree that Islamic rules, Hadith et al should be looked at metaphorically and not be interpreted literally?
3) And yet we are constantly being told, in relation to other rules and laws within Islam, that Islam is for all time, one must not not under any circumstances question these rules and laws, and one will go to hell if one does not obey. If so, all that was needed was to say that God has decreed that slavery was a sin and was to be outlawed, slavery was haram, and thereby the Prophet, his companions and followers should start complying immediately and the rest can then follow if they wish to be called muslims.
In other words, Islam had the power to abolish slavery but chose to do it only on a selective basis?
4) Locking up prisoners of war is not making slaves of people. There is a legitimate reason for locking up prisoners of war, so that they will not continue fighting against you. And once the war is over, peace has prevailed, then they are freed and allowed to go back to their own people. But that's not the case here, and the slavery the OP is referring to is a totally different kind of enslavement - where human beings own other human beings in the same way they own dogs, camels, sheep and other animals.
5) But the whole purpose of any new messenger of God was to reset people on the right path. And therefore, surely, the whole purpose of the coming of Islam/ the Prophet (pbuh) was to eliminate these wrongs? But Islam did not ban slavery! At the very least it could have banned the Prophets companions and followers from keeping slaves, along with telling others that to be called muslims they must also refrain from having slaves. Since Islam/ the Prophet didn't do any of this, even though it could have been done by saying God had decreed it, it therefore means Islam/the Prophet condoned it. Ask any slave at the time whether he/she wishes to be treated 'a little bit better' or be totally freed from being a slave!
As for any childish arguments that "if freed they would have nowhere to go", then offer them to remain as servants, but not as slaves. a subtle but mega difference.
6) That is really scraping the barrel. Justifying the continuation of slavery on the basis that other religions had not banned it either.
7) Put whatever sugar coating on it, but the fact remains that Islam/the Prophet could have banned slavery - if not in the society as a whole then at the very least commanding the companions and followers to stop keeping slaves and to free them all, along with telling others that if they wished to be known as muslims then they too must stop owning other human beings.
1) Islamic rulings from the Quran itself are absolute and are meant for all times. Sharia laws that go beyond the Quran are not absolute.
However, take for example the punishment for cutting the hand off for stealing. We cant implement that law today because we do not have a system set up to eradicate poverty. During the height of the Islamic Empire (during the caliph Umar's time) poverty was exterminated in the muslim world. Every muslim paid their zakah, therefore every poor person had food to eat.
In today's world, due to corrupt governments of third world countries, poverty is abundant. We can not cut off someone's hand for stealing if we have not come up with a system to eradicate the need for stealing. If there was no poverty why would someone steal? Just for the fun of it?
Most Islamic punishments are supposed to be deterrents to prevent people from committing crimes. If someone has a starving child at home will he think about what might happen to his hand? No. He will do whatever is necessary to feed that child.
If one day the Islamic world establishes a system where there is no poverty, then cutting a hand off seems like a just punishment because it is a
deterrent for thieves that are stealing for fun.
So yes the Quran is absolute, however circumstances dictate the application of some of these laws.
2) What do you mean by metaphorically? A metaphor compares two things, I fail to see what you are trying to compare Quranic verses to?
The Quran is quite literal. It says things in a poetic way, but the versus are true.
What I meant by "interpretation" is that if I read something, I will understand it differently than if you read something. This is where the problem comes in. A lot of the mullahs and madrassas teach an interpretation of Islam that is quite different from what I believe in.
You can read into the violence that is in the Quran, if you are biased that is all you will see. But if you look further with an open mind, you will see that the Quran mentions numerous times that forgiveness and peace is much better than vengeance and hate.
3) Again I touched on the topic that to apply laws from the Quran, the muslim ummah must make it so the need for that crime does not exist anymore. Another example is that provide education, jobs, and healthcare for all citizens so that the ignorance that comes with poverty can be exterminated. This will get rid of, or atleast minimize murders, rapes, etc.. Then after that, strict laws can be established to
deter people from committing these types of crimes.
As for your other point. Granted that slavery was not banned outright. It was however seen as unfavorable, and the intention was to end slavery by the means of giving rewards to free slaves. That is all I will touch on the topic because my point is pretty straight forward.
Why it wasn't banned outright? I don't know only god and his prophet knows that. There must have been some prevalent social, cultural, economic reasons.
If you read into "Oh it wasn't banned" you will forever be stuck on one side of Islam. If you open your mind further and see that it was looked upon as unfavorable and muslims were indirectly told to free slaves by form of rewards than you will see the beauty of Islam.
Western society owned slaves up until 150 or so years ago. Even then, people were taken from Africa for the purpose of enslavement. They were not prisoners of war, just slaves. Unlike Islam teaches, these black slaves were treated horribly and had no rights. Black people were seen inferior to white people.
Islam has no concept of "superior" race or ethnicity. The color of your skin does not matter. If you are muslim you are seen as equal in the eyes of god. This religion was founded 1400+ years ago. Yet is more humane than most western laws even 150 years ago.
4) You are thinking of war of today's world. Back in those days when wars were fought it was to take land and expand empires. Prisoners of war were taken when an enemy land was occupied. I have read somewhere that alot of these prisoners were killed because the new occupiers could not feed or take care of all of these citizens. Islam changed all that.
If you read stories about salahudin he was very kind (comparatively to practices of that time) to jews when Jerusalem. When the christians captured Jerusalem they were not so kind to the jews.
Back to your point. Muslims could not "let prisoners of war go back to their people" because the muslims now occupied that land, the muslims occupied "their people".
Instead of slaughtering all of the citizens like all the rest of the world practiced at that time, they enslaved them. However, like I said they were encouraged to free them.
This is in contrast to slavery practiced by western countries, in which blacks from Africa would randomly be kidnapped and sold into slavery.
5) Yes it did not ban it, see my point number 3.
6) What are you justifying your views based on? Ethnocentrism is a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one’s own.
You sir are extremely ethnocentric.
I am saying that Islam was a revolutionary religion that gave many rights to people that never had any rights before.
7) Like I have said many times, the prophet freed many slaves, told his sahabah to free slaves. Allah gives rewards for freeing slaves.
man you need to go to some shrink or something.
