Slavery in Islam

[Abdullah]

Q. How is it that Islam, a religion inspired by God for the good of humanity, allows slavery?


A. There are historical, social and psychological dimensions to this question, which we must work through patiently, if we are to arrive at a satisfactory answer

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

Nearer modern times there is the practice of slavery on an enormous scale by the Western European nations; the barbarity and bestiality of this trade beggars all description. The trade was principally in Africans who were transported across the oceans, packed in specially designed ships, thought of and treated exactly like livestock. These slaves were forced to change their names and abandon their religion and their language, were never entitled to hope for freedom, and were kept, again like livestock, for hard labouring or for breeding purposes-a birth among them was celebrated as if it were a death. It is difficult to understand how human beings could conceive of fellow human beings in such a light, still less treat them thus. But it certainly happened: there is much documentary evidence that shows, for example, how ship-masters would throw their human cargo overboard in order to claim compensation for their loss. Slaves had no rights in law, only obligations; their owners had absolute rights over them to dispose of them as they wished-brothers and sisters, parents and children, would be separated or allowed to stay together according to the owner’s mood or his economic convenience

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. More important, let us also note, when the Europeans abolished slavery, it was the slave-owners who were compensated, not the slaves-in other words, the attitude to fellow human beings which allowed such treatment of them had not changed. 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. Further, because the attitude to non-Europeans has changed little, if at all, in modern times, their social and political condition remains, even where they live amid the Europeans and their descendants as fellow-citizens, that of despised inferiors. It is barely a couple of decades since the anthropological museums in the great capitals of the Western countries ceased to display, for public entertainment, the bones and stuffed bodies of their fellow human beings. And such displays were not organized by the worst among them, but by the best-the scientists, doctors, learned men, humanitarians

In short, it is not only the institution of slavery that causes revulsion in the human heart, it is the attitudes of inhumanity which sustain it. And the truth is, if the institution no longer formally exists but the attitudes persist, then humanity has not gained much, if at all. That is why colonial exploitation replaced slavery, and why the chains of unbearable, unrepayable international debt have replaced colonial exploitation: only slavery has gone, its structures of inhumanity and barbarism are still securely in place. Before we turn to the Islamic perspective on slavery, let us recall a name famous even among Western Europeans, that of Harun al-Rashid, and let us recall that this man who enjoyed such authority and power over all Muslims was the son of a slave. Nor is he the only such example; slaves and their children enjoyed enormous prestige, authority, respect and (shall we say it) freedom, within the Islamic system, in all areas of life, cultural as well as political. How could this have come about?

Islam amended and educated the institution of slavery and the attitudes of masters to slaves. The Qur’an taught in many verses that all human beings are descended from a single ancestor, that none has an intrinsic right of superiority over another, whatever his race or his nation or his social standing. And from the Prophet’s teaching, upon him be peace, the Muslims learnt these principles, which they applied both as laws and as social norms:

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 are sons of Adam and Adam was created from clay. (Tirmidhi, Tafsir, 49; Manaqib, 73; Abu Dawud, Adab, 111)

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)

Because of this compassionate attitude, those who had lived their whole lives as slaves and who are described in ahadith as poor and lowly received respect from those who enjoyed high social status (Muslim, Birr, 138; Jannat, 48; Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 54, 65). ‘Umar was expressing his respect in this sense when he said: ‘Master Bilal whom Master Abu Bakr set free’ (Bukhari, Fada’il al-Sahaba, 23). Islam (unlike other civilizations) requires that slaves are thought of and treated as within the framework of universal human brotherhood, and not as outside it. The Prophet, upon him be peace, said:

Your servants and your slaves are your brothers. Anyone who has slaves should give them from what he eats and wears. He should not charge them with work beyond their capabilities. If you must set them to hard work, in any case I advise you to help them. (Bukhari, Iman, 22; Adab, 44; Muslim, Iman, 38–40; Abu Dawud, Adab, 124)

Not one of you should [when introducing someone] say ‘This is my slave’, ‘This is my concubine’. He should call them ‘my daughter’ or ‘my son’ or ‘my brother’. (Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 2, 4)

For this reason ‘Umar and his servant took it in turns to ride on the camel from Madina to Jerusalem on their journey to take control of Masjid al-Aqsa. While he was the head of the state, ‘Uthman had his servant pull his own ears in front of the people since he had pulled his. Abu Dharr, applying the hadith literally, made his servant wear one half of his suit while he himself wore the other half. From these instances, it was being demonstrated to succeeding generations of Muslims, and a pattern of conduct established, that a slave is fully a human being, not different from other people in his need for respect and dignity and justice.

This constructive and positive treatment necessarily had a consequence on the attitudes of slaves to their masters. The slave as slave still retained his humanity and moral dignity and a place beside other members of his master’s family. When (we shall explain how below) he obtained his freedom, he did not necessarily want to leave his former master. Starting with Zaid bin Harith, this practice became quite common. Although our Prophet, upon him be peace, had given Zayd his freedom and left him a free choice, Zayd preferred to stay with him. Masters and slaves were able to regard each other as brothers because their faith enabled them to understand that the worldly differences between people are a transient situation-a situation justifying neither haughtiness on the part of some, nor rancour on the part of others. There were, in addition, strict principles enforced as law:

Whosoever kills his slave, he shall be killed, whosoever imprisons his slave and starves him, he shall be imprisoned and starved himself. (Tirmidhi, al-Ayman wa l-Nudhur, 13)

Beside such sanctions which made the master behave with care, the slave also enjoyed the legal right to earn money and hold property independently of his master, the right to keep his religion and to have a family and family life with the attendant rights and obligations. As well as personal dignity and a degree of material security, the Islamic laws and norms allowed the slave a still more precious opening-the hope and means of freedom

Human freedom is by God, that is, it is the natural and proper condition which must be regarded as the norm. Thus, to restore a human life, wholly or partly, to this condition is one of the highest virtues. To set free half of a slave’s body has been considered equal to saving half of one’s own from wrath in the next world. In the same way to set free a slave’s whole body is considered equal to assurance of one’s whole body. Seeking freedom for enslaved people is one of the causes for which the banner of war may be raised in Islam. Muslims were encouraged by their faith to enter into agreements and contracts which enabled slaves to earn or be granted their freedom at the expiry of a certain term or, most typically, on the death of the owner. Unconditional emancipation was, naturally, regarded as the most meritorious kind, and worthiest of recognition in the life hereafter. There were occasions when whole groups of people, acting together, would buy and set free large numbers of slaves in order to obtain thereby the favour of God.

continued below

 

[Abdullah]

Emancipation of a slave was also the legally required expiation for certain sins or failures in religious duties, for example, the breaking of an oath or the breaking of a fast: a good deed to balance or wipe out a lapse. The Qur’an commands that he who has killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave and pay the blood-money to the family of the slain (al-Nisa’, 4.92). A killing has repercussions for both society and the victim’s family. The blood-money is a partial compensation to the family of the victim. Similarly, the emancipation of a slave is a bill paid to the community-from the point of view of gaining a free person for that community. To set free a living person in return for a death was considered like bringing someone back to life. Both personal and public wealth were expended to obtain the freedom of slaves: the examples of the Prophet, upon him be peace, and of Abu Bakr are well known; later, especially during the rule of ‘Umar bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz, public zakat funds were used for this purpose.

Alas, there are, even among Muslims themselves, people who feel the need to somehow ‘disprove’ the worth of Islam, especially on socio-political issues. In reality they feel this need because they have been more or less seduced by Western values, even though these values are only formal, theoretical utterances of law and principle and not, not by any means, lived realities. Such people do not go among the wretched and poor of the so-called ‘third world’ and ask them about the merits of Western values as they are practised. Rather, they listen to an account such as we have given of the practised reality of Islamic values and claim, on purely theoretical grounds, that Islam is lacking in the best principles. This is what they say:

‘It is true that Islam has commended humanity in the treatment of slaves, and encouraged most forcefully their emancipation. We can see from the history of many different peoples in the Islamic world that slaves quickly integrated into the main society and achieved positions of great prestige and power, some even before they gained their freedom. And yet, if Islam regards slavery as a social evil, why did the Qur’an or the Prophet not ban it outright? There are, after all, other social evils which pre-existed Islam, and which Islam sought to abolish altogether-for example, the consumption of alcohol, or gambling, or usury, or prostitution. Why does Islam, by not abolishing slavery, appear to condone it?’

Until the evil of the European trade in black slaves, 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.

The slave in every Muslim house had the opportunity to see at close quarters the truth of Islam in practice. His heart would be won over by kind treatment and the humanity of Islam in general, especially by the access the slave had to many of the legal rights enjoyed by Muslims, and, ultimately, by getting his freedom. In this way, many thousands of the very best people have swelled the numbers of the great and famous in Islam, whose own example has then become a sunna, a norm, for the Muslims who succeeded them-imams such as Nafi’, Imam Malik’s sheikh, and Tawus bin Qaisan, to name only two.

The reality is that in Islam it is overwhelmingly the case that being a slave was a temporary condition. Unlike Western civilisation, whose values are so much in fashion, slavery was not passed down, generation after generation in a deepening spiral of degradation and despair, with no hope for the slaves to escape their condition or their status. On the contrary, regarded as fundamentally equal, the slaves in Muslim society could and did live in secure possession of their dignity as creatures of the same Creator, and had steady access to the mainstream of Islamic culture and civilisation-to which, as we have noted, they contributed greatly. In the Western societies where slavery was widespread, particularly in North and South America, the children of the slaves, generations after their formal emancipation, remain for the most part on the fringes of society, as a sub-culture or anti-culture-which is only sometimes tolerated, and mostly despised, by the still dominant community.

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.

By contrast, every good Muslim who embraced his slave as a brother, encouraged him to work for his freedom, observed all his rights, helped him to support a family, to find a place in the society before emancipating him, might well be pleased with an institution that opened to him a means of pleasing God. The example that comes first to mind: Zayd bin Harith who was brought up in the Prophet’s own household and set free, who married a noblewoman, who was appointed as the commander of a Muslim army which included many of noble birth. But one might swell the list of examples to many thousands if one had the space.

Ah yes, our critics will say, it may be so, but now there are exchanges of prisoners if there are wars, now the institution of slavery does not exist, so are not the Islamic injunctions, however good, an irrelevance? No, indeed. There is nothing in Islam whose origin is in the commands and guidance of the Qur’an which can ever become irrelevant. Rather, we would say to these critics: open your eyes, study by what subtle means wars are now conducted, by what cunning devices whole nations are now conquered; how they are reduced to a state of absolute slavery (which is yet not called slavery) and made to devote their whole energies, indeed to dedicate the lives of their children for generations to come, to sustain their masters (who are yet not called masters) in a lifestyle of unbelievable affluence. We say, study how national currencies are bought and sold, how impossible sums of money are lent on terms of extraordinary brutality, not in order to help the poor nations, but in order to permanently entrap them in a state of dependence. To those who say, now there is no slavery, we say look into the faces of the earth’s poor peasants, striving to grow (in an increasingly barren soil) commodities which are not food for themselves but luxuries for the rich, and only if they have grown enough of these, have they some hope of buying something to eat-but there are still millions of others too poor to be poor peasants, who live upon mountains of urban rubbish, earn from it, eat from it. If you study the expressions of such people, locked in endless, fruitless toil, you will understand that slavery is not an evil that Western civilisation has eradicated, rather one which Western civilization has ably disguised and distanced from itself.

Let no person, at least let no Muslim, claim that mankind has nothing now to learn from Islamic values about how to deal with the problem of slavery. On the contrary, we have everything to learn. How urgent, then, is our need to pray for guidance of God lest we persist in error, for His forbearance lest we persist in arrogance, for His help in finding a sure way to end the domination of those who do not know compassion except as a fine-sounding word.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...D=712&CATE=115

 

[cyberpi]

Abdullah,

In your words, what would you say is the difference between slave and servant? Between servitude and service? Between oppression and freedom?

 

[Abdullah]

Abdullah,

In your words, what would you say is the difference between slave and servant?

Hi cypberpi,

My definition of a servant, serivce and servitude will be the same as that of the english dictionary, but the slave definition would differ from the western concept of slave. Although the slave is owned by his master and not free, yet we believe the slave has rights to be fed and clothed, to be given shelter, not to be overworked, to be treated humanely and not be abused or beaten, etc, as the slave is a human being. There are more rights of the slave, and the Islamic ettiquette of how a slave should be treated, mentioned in the above article

Between oppression and freedom?

From a subjective point of view, I'd say that freedom is to be free to live according to the [Islamic] culture that God Allmighty wants mankind to live by, and opression is to supress this way of life.

From a litteral point of view, true freedom [free to do whatever one likes, as long as it dont encrouch on other peoples rights] is not a good thing, and nor are we meant to be free in the world in that sense.

This world is meant to be like a 'boot camp' [without the harshness involved in day to day living and chores in the boot camp] for the Muslims as we are here to live according to the teachings of Islam [pray five times a day, dont drink, dont smoke, no sex before marriage, etc, etc,] and not live according to our desires, so to be totally free to live according to one's desires is antithetical to the way God wants humans to live their lives on earth

Peace

 

[cyberpi]

My definition of a servant, serivce and servitude will be the same as that of the english dictionary, but the slave definition would differ from the western concept of slave.

It is the definition from the Qur'an and Bible that I find important, because there is a difference etched out by each. I find it pathetic that Marmaduke Pickthal translates all as 'slave' or 'bondmen' only to be outdone by alleged Christians who translate the NIV version with 162 occurances of 'slave' in place of 'servant' over the KJV. Which am I to read as true?

Although the slave is owned by his master and not free, yet we believe the slave has rights to be fed and clothed, to be given shelter, not to be overworked, to be treated humanely and not be abused or beaten, etc, as the slave is a human being. There are more rights of the slave, and the Islamic ettiquette of how a slave should be treated, mentioned in the above article

It is the definition of 'slave' versus 'servant' that I seek. Realizing the polar difference between the two, I see clearly that Shariah is an instituition for oppressive slavery which is counter to the teaching and the will of Allah (swt), as denoted in both the Qur'an and in the Bible.

Where did Allah (swt) ever say that he desires slaves of his law and slaves to work for him... I do not find it. So what alleged scholar or man desires people to be slaves of derived laws, and slaves to work for him? I find many people in power who teach it and many without power who think it, but the Qur'an teaches that no man is between him and Allah (swt)... not even a prophet.

From a subjective point of view, I'd say that freedom is to be free to live according to the [Islamic] culture that God Allmighty wants mankind to live by, and opression is to supress this way of life.

I agree, chosen on an individual basis; except there is much evil attached to Allah (swt) and the Qur'an with the word 'culture'. Perhaps that is why the word 'culture' is NOT in the Qur'an or the Bible.

From a litteral point of view, true freedom [free to do whatever one likes, as long as it dont encrouch on other peoples rights] is not a good thing, and nor are we meant to be free in the world in that sense.

Am I to believe it is no longer the Truth that the soul is free of this world? If a soul shackles another by the world without reason then he is an oppressor who lacks both Love and Faith. If it were Allah's (swt) will that a person should have shackles on their mind, their hands or their feet, then they would have them. Who was born wearing shackles?

This world is meant to be like a 'boot camp' [without the harshness involved in day to day living and chores in the boot camp] for the Muslims as we are here to live according to the teachings of Islam [pray five times a day, dont drink, dont smoke, no sex before marriage, etc, etc,] and not live according to our desires, so to be totally free to live according to one's desires is antithetical to the way God wants humans to live their lives on earth

I fully disagree. Allah (swt) does NOT will that a person be a slave to their own desires, and neither to be a slave to the person who desires otherwise, whether it be drink, smoke, sex, etc, etc... The person who takes a bottle from an alcoholic is a thief and an oppressor. The person who asks an alcoholic if they trust them to help them, and then takes the bottle, is a free servant of Allah (swt) and a promoter of freedom. I drink as I will, for that is Allah's (swt) will. Freedom is a requirement for Faith and Faithfulness.

 

[Muslimwoman]

It is the definition of 'slave' versus 'servant' that I seek.

A servant chooses to serve whereas a slave has no choice but to serve.

Perhaps that is why the word 'culture' is NOT in the Qur'an or the Bible.

The Oxford dictionary gives the meaning of the word culture as: the customs, institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or group. It is a much overused word these days. The Quran has 33 verses pertaining to 'nation' which if you read them corelates exactly to our word 'culture' (they do not refer to someones nationality).

Who was born wearing shackles?

I was. Allah gave me inbuilt morals and therefore moral obligation. These morals stop me from simply following my own desires, yes it is my choice to follow my morals but because I do follow them I was born shackled and for that I thank Allah.

I drink as I will, for that is Allah's (swt) will. Freedom is a requirement for Faith and Faithfulness.

I can't really agree with either of you on this final point. Did Allah direct us to spend life in a 'boot camp' - no of course not and if you feel that is the case you should perhaps stop listening to other people and re-read the Quran. It should make us feel happy to serve Allah not feel like a burden. But also to suggest that freedom is the key to serving Allah seems to be the flip side to some scholars oppressive interpretations of the Quran.

It makes me crazy when I hear some of the scholars interpretations, I can read and clearly they are reading something different to me because what I am reading bears no resemblence to what they are saying is the interpretation. However to say that Allah wills you to drink seems to be taking it to the other extreme and interpreting the Quran to suit your desires. Al Ma'idah 5:90-91 clearly prohibits intoxicants and alcohol is in anybodys language an intoxicant.

 

[Abdullah]

Asslamualikum sister muslimwoman

Maybe my using of the terms 'boot camp' was misleading sister, but I did not mean by it that Islam was rigid or harsh at all, just was merely pointing to the fact that Islam requires mankind to follow the commands of Allah [swt] and Sunnah of the prophet Muhammad [saw] and not our desires...

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Asslamualikum sister muslimwoman

Maybe my using of the terms 'boot camp' was misleading sister, but I did not mean by it that Islam was rigid or harsh at all, just was merely pointing to the fact that Islam requires mankind to follow the commands of Allah [swt] and Sunnah of the prophet Muhammad [saw] and not our desires...

Salaam

wa aleykum salaam Brother Abdullah

I hope you don't think I was being rude, I was just concerned that you used 'boot camp' and was worried about the way others may view Islam based on this comment.

I do agree with you completely Brother, Muslims do not have the easiest road to travel through this life but Allah has given us the Quran to guide us on a straight path and I believe it is dangerous for us to follow any path but that set down by Allah. I see so many Muslims who 'interpret' the Quran in such harsh ways as to make life as a Muslim more difficult than Allah has commanded for us and the other side of the coin are those who 'interpret' the Quran in order to 'fit in' with their desires. I hope you will agree the Quran is very easy to read and understand, our hearts and minds know what Allah requires from us by simply reading the Quran.

salaam

 

[cyberpi]

A servant chooses to serve whereas a slave has no choice but to serve.

I agree! Perfectly stated. I am curious now which part of the world you were born and raised in.

I find a number of verses in the Qur'an and the Gospels are only clear with that understanding. Freedom is a requirement for Faith and Faithfulness... the word 'submit' is a choice by definition.

The Oxford dictionary gives the meaning of the word culture as: the customs, institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or group. It is a much overused word these days. The Quran has 33 verses pertaining to 'nation' which if you read them corelates exactly to our word 'culture' (they do not refer to someones nationality).

I find that a people, community, or nation are NOT synonymous with customs, (or genes, beliefs, gender, language, etc). But very well, then NEVER in the Qur'an is an Islamic Nation ever prescribed. Nowhere in the Qur'an is there the phrase: Islamic ommatin. (Not 3:110). Per the Qur'an, submission to Allah (swt) is the only religion in Allah's eyes, and it is NOT a nation, NOT a people as seen by men, and it is definitely NOT their customs other than as what Allah (swt) describes. My point is: Allah (swt) is the judge of what submission to Allah means and NOT men. Realize that a person does NOT even have to read the Qur'an to submit to Allah (swt). As noted in the Qur'an (and Bible), Ibrahim (pbuh) believed and submitted to Allah (swt), and the disciples of Isa (pbuh) believed and submitted to Allah (swt). As the Qur'an says, Allah (swt) is sufficient. If anyone disagrees with me, then they will one day have every prophet or messenger from Ibrahim (pbuh) to Jesus (pbuh) to contend with... and then some.

Don't misunderstand me: a person has to read the Qur'an to contend with anyone who believes and follows it, or they risk being a hypocrite. The Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, whereas the Tuarat and Injeel clearly were NOT revealed in Arabic. The Qur'an verifies the Taurat and Injeel in the year the Qur'an was revealed, so I find that a careful review of the meaning of the word 'hypocrite' is important.

I was. Allah gave me inbuilt morals and therefore moral obligation. These morals stop me from simply following my own desires, yes it is my choice to follow my morals but because I do follow them I was born shackled and for that I thank Allah.

I suggest that morals free a person. The flesh, physical laws, ignorance, intoxicants, sins, etc... can be viewed as a shackle; however, if that is true then cut the shackle off and dispense with it. It is worth noting that the word 'shackle' is in the Qur'an.

However to say that Allah wills you to drink seems to be taking it to the other extreme and interpreting the Quran to suit your desires. Al Ma'idah 5:90-91 clearly prohibits intoxicants and alcohol is in anybodys language an intoxicant.

By 'drink' I was referring to a more Gospel meaning of service. However, I find that Allah (swt) did NOT prohibit intoxicants. Do you see the word 'will' in 5:91 in a question? Note that it is placed as a question. Consider verse 4:43 which tells a person not to be intoxicated in prayer... so are intoxicants prohibited entirely? I am not recommending intoxication but neither am I recommending the sin of oppressing those who get intoxicated... because Allah (swt) doesn't.

76:5
Yusufali: As to the Righteous, they shall drink of a Cup (of Wine) mixed with Kafur,-
Pickthal: Lo! the righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of Kafur,
Shakir: Surely the righteous shall drink of a cup the admixture of which is camphor
Khalifa: As for the virtuous, they will drink from cups spiced with nectar.

76:6
Yusufali: A Fountain where the Devotees of Allah do drink, making it flow in unstinted abundance.
Pickthal: A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allah drink, making it gush forth abundantly,
Shakir: A fountain from which the servants of Allah shall drink; they make it to flow a (goodly) flowing forth.
Khalifa: A spring that is reserved for GOD's servants; it will gush out as they will.

 

[Muslimwoman]

I agree! Perfectly stated. I am curious now which part of the world you were born and raised in.

I find a number of verses in the Qur'an and the Gospels are only clear with that understanding. Freedom is a requirement for Faith and Faithfulness... the word 'submit' is a choice by definition.

Yes you are absolutely right there, hence the reason that people must be 'invited' to Islam and it is forbidden to force someone to convert - they must submit willingly. Before anyone jumps in, yes I have read the articles about people forced to become Muslim in the east but Allah sees and knows everything and we know that they are not Muslim, they are simply afraid. The punishment for the oppressors will be for Allah to decide.

But we must be careful to accept the word of Allah as it is given to us (by Allah not the interpretations of scholars) and not to twist it to fit with our ideas of freedom.

My point is: Allah (swt) is the judge of what submission to Allah means and NOT men.

Well you get a round of applause and extra brownie points for that comment.

010.047YUSUFALI: To every people (was sent) a messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.
PICKTHAL: And for every nation there is a messenger. And when their messenger cometh (on the Day of Judgment) it will be judged between them fairly, and they will not be wronged.
SHAKIR: And every nation had a messenger; so when their messenger came, the matter was decided between them with justice and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.

May Allah forgive me if I am wrong but it seems that Allah is aware and content with our differences, so who are we (people) to go against His word. My reading of this means that on the day of judgement Allah will bring each religions Prophet (pbut) before their people and Allah will judge us as we are (ie as a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian etc). So nothing there about you must be this or that.

Don't misunderstand me: a person has to read the Qur'an to contend with anyone who believes and follows it, or they risk being a hypocrite.

As Muslims should study the other Books, it is wrong to make comment on something you have never seen. Not sure if I like the word 'contend' sounds a bit combatative.

I suggest that morals free a person. The flesh, physical laws, ignorance, intoxicants, sins, etc... can be viewed as a shackle; however, if that is true then cut the shackle off and dispense with it. It is worth noting that the word 'shackle' is in the Qur'an.

Not a statement I would ever have made so will have to give that idea some thought before I comment.

By 'drink' I was referring to a more Gospel meaning of service. However, I find that Allah (swt) did NOT prohibit intoxicants. Do you see the word 'will' in 5:91 in a question? Note that it is placed as a question. Consider verse 4:43 which tells a person not to be intoxicated in prayer... so are intoxicants prohibited entirely? I am not recommending intoxication but neither am I recommending the sin of oppressing those who get intoxicated... because Allah (swt) doesn't.

76:5
Yusufali: As to the Righteous, they shall drink of a Cup (of Wine) mixed with Kafur,-
Pickthal: Lo! the righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of Kafur,
Shakir: Surely the righteous shall drink of a cup the admixture of which is camphor
Khalifa: As for the virtuous, they will drink from cups spiced with nectar.

76:6
Yusufali: A Fountain where the Devotees of Allah do drink, making it flow in unstinted abundance.
Pickthal: A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allah drink, making it gush forth abundantly,
Shakir: A fountain from which the servants of Allah shall drink; they make it to flow a (goodly) flowing forth.
Khalifa: A spring that is reserved for GOD's servants; it will gush out as they will.

You were racking up loads of brownie points, now I have to deduct a couple

Oppression, where did that one come from? It is Muslims that are forbidden alcohol, if you are of another religion where Allah does not prohibit alcohol then so be it. Allah knows best in all things. If you are talking about oppressing Muslims that drink, then of course I would encourage (well actually nag like crazy) and point them to the verses in the Quran and the punishments they may face for such sin.

A number of verses, revealed at different times over a number of years, refer to intoxicants. The first to be revealed was 4:43 which indeed tells Muslims not to attend prayer while intoxicated. Then came 2:219

They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit. And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say: What you can spare. Thus does Allah make clear to you the communications, that you may ponder.

So the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) has taken a group of drinkers and forbidden them to come to prayer drunk. He then later follows this with 2:219, which is designed to encourage people away from alcohol.

As the followers grow in strength he then reveals verse 5:90

O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handywork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.

and 5:91

Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?

So we have intoxicants as an abomination from Satan and then the question will ye not abstain?

Are you seriously suggesting that, having been told repeatedly by Allah to abstain from sin, that I could drink alcohol and on the day of judgement say in my defence "but it had a question mark"? Forgive me but if Allah tells me that something is a sin and asks me whether I will abstain, I see it very clearly as a rhetorical question.

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also instructed his followers, at the time, to avoid any intoxicating substances -- (paraphrased) "if it intoxicates in a large amount, it is forbidden even in a small amount."

Please remember that when the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) began his prophethood he was faced with a people for whom debauchery was the norm. It would have been, at the very least, difficult to say on day 1 that's it the fun is over, so some things were phased in. But on this I simply cannot agree with you, intoxicants are a sin and are completely prohibited for Muslims - even with a ?

Deduct 2 brownie points.

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

I agree! Perfectly stated. I am curious now which part of the world you were born and raised in.

I find a number of verses in the Qur'an and the Gospels are only clear with that understanding. Freedom is a requirement for Faith and Faithfulness... the word 'submit' is a choice by definition.

Yes you are absolutely right there, hence the reason that people must be 'invited' to Islam and it is forbidden to force someone to convert - they must submit willingly. Before anyone jumps in, yes I have read the articles about people forced to become Muslim in the east but Allah sees and knows everything and we know that they are not Muslim, they are simply afraid. The punishment for the oppressors will be for Allah to decide.

But we must be careful to accept the word of Allah as it is given to us (by Allah not the interpretations of scholars) and not to twist it to fit with our ideas of freedom.

My point is: Allah (swt) is the judge of what submission to Allah means and NOT men.

Well you get a round of applause and extra brownie points for that comment.

010.047YUSUFALI: To every people (was sent) a messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.
PICKTHAL: And for every nation there is a messenger. And when their messenger cometh (on the Day of Judgment) it will be judged between them fairly, and they will not be wronged.
SHAKIR: And every nation had a messenger; so when their messenger came, the matter was decided between them with justice and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.

May Allah forgive me if I am wrong but it seems that Allah is aware and content with our differences, so who are we (people) to go against His word. My reading of this means that on the day of judgement Allah will bring each religions Prophet (pbut) before their people and Allah will judge us as we are (ie as a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian etc). So nothing there about you must be this or that.

Don't misunderstand me: a person has to read the Qur'an to contend with anyone who believes and follows it, or they risk being a hypocrite.

As Muslims should study the other Books, it is wrong to make comment on something you have never seen. Not sure if I like the word 'contend' sounds a bit combatative.

I suggest that morals free a person. The flesh, physical laws, ignorance, intoxicants, sins, etc... can be viewed as a shackle; however, if that is true then cut the shackle off and dispense with it. It is worth noting that the word 'shackle' is in the Qur'an.

Not a statement I would ever have made so will have to give that idea some thought before I comment.

By 'drink' I was referring to a more Gospel meaning of service. However, I find that Allah (swt) did NOT prohibit intoxicants. Do you see the word 'will' in 5:91 in a question? Note that it is placed as a question. Consider verse 4:43 which tells a person not to be intoxicated in prayer... so are intoxicants prohibited entirely? I am not recommending intoxication but neither am I recommending the sin of oppressing those who get intoxicated... because Allah (swt) doesn't.

76:5
Yusufali: As to the Righteous, they shall drink of a Cup (of Wine) mixed with Kafur,-
Pickthal: Lo! the righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of Kafur,
Shakir: Surely the righteous shall drink of a cup the admixture of which is camphor
Khalifa: As for the virtuous, they will drink from cups spiced with nectar.

76:6
Yusufali: A Fountain where the Devotees of Allah do drink, making it flow in unstinted abundance.
Pickthal: A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allah drink, making it gush forth abundantly,
Shakir: A fountain from which the servants of Allah shall drink; they make it to flow a (goodly) flowing forth.
Khalifa: A spring that is reserved for GOD's servants; it will gush out as they will.

You were racking up loads of brownie points, now I have to deduct a couple

Oppression, where did that one come from? It is Muslims that are forbidden alcohol, if you are of another religion where Allah does not prohibit alcohol then so be it. Allah knows best in all things. If you are talking about oppressing Muslims that drink, then of course I would encourage (well actually nag like crazy) and point them to the verses in the Quran and the punishments they may face for such sin.

A number of verses, revealed at different times over a number of years, refer to intoxicants. The first to be revealed was 4:43 which indeed tells Muslims not to attend prayer while intoxicated. Then came 2:219

They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit. And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say: What you can spare. Thus does Allah make clear to you the communications, that you may ponder.

So the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) has taken a group of drinkers and forbidden them to come to prayer drunk. He then later follows this with 2:219, which is designed to encourage people away from alcohol.

As the followers grow in strength he then reveals verse 5:90

O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handywork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.

and 5:91

Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?

So we have intoxicants as an abomination from Satan and then the question will ye not abstain?

Are you seriously suggesting that, having been told repeatedly by Allah to abstain from sin, that I could drink alcohol and on the day of judgement say in my defence "but it had a question mark"? Forgive me but if Allah tells me that something is a sin and asks me whether I will abstain, I see it very clearly as a rhetorical question.

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also instructed his followers, at the time, to avoid any intoxicating substances -- (paraphrased) "if it intoxicates in a large amount, it is forbidden even in a small amount."

Please remember that when the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) began his prophethood he was faced with a people for whom debauchery was the norm. It would have been, at the very least, difficult to say on day 1 that's it the fun is over, so some things were phased in.

But on this I simply cannot agree with you, intoxicants are a sin and are completely prohibited for Muslims - even with a ? To say otherwise is to do that awful 'interpreting' to suit your desires thing.

Deduct 2 brownie points.

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

oops sorry posted that twice - can a mod remove one please

 

[Abdullah]

I hope you will agree the Quran is very easy to read and understand, our hearts and minds know what Allah requires from us by simply reading the Quran.

It is indeed easy to read the Quran sister..., but as far as understanding it is concerned, there are two different types of understandings that is associated with the Quran; one relates to the general statements of the simple realities, such as, events relating to former Prophets and their nations, the statements of Allah's bounties on mankind, the creation of the heavens and the earth, the cosmological signs of divine power and wisdom, the pleasures of Paradise and tortures of hell, etc, and the other relates to the injunctions, rules and regulations of shariah, the provisions of Islamic law, doctrinal issues and other academic subjects.

What is easy for the laymen to understand of the Quran, just by reading it, is only the former, but in order to understand the latter, one has to learn the indepth and contextual interpretation of the Quran from those who are qualified to interpret it, i.e, the Faqih's who are qualified to perform ijtihad and Mufasireens who are qualifed to perform tafsir.

Salaam

 

[cyberpi]

You were racking up loads of brownie points, now I have to deduct a couple

I don't post for praise or brownies.

Oppression, where did that one come from? It is Muslims that are forbidden alcohol, if you are of another religion where Allah does not prohibit alcohol then so be it. Allah knows best in all things. If you are talking about oppressing Muslims that drink, then of course I would encourage (well actually nag like crazy) and point them to the verses in the Quran and the punishments they may face for such sin.

The word oppression is in the Qur'an, but I was referring to my own original statement: "The person who takes a bottle from an alcoholic is a thief and an oppressor. The person who asks an alcoholic if they trust them to help them, and then takes the bottle, is a free servant of Allah (swt) and a promoter of freedom."

The word 'prohibit' is in the Qur'an, and so is the word 'unlawful', but neither of them are in the verses describing 'intoxicants'. I do not wish to wrongly interpret the Qur'an and remove any meaning, but then neither shall I add the words 'prohibit' or 'unlawful' where Allah (swt) or Muhammud (pbuh) did not place them.

A number of verses, revealed at different times over a number of years, refer to intoxicants. The first to be revealed was 4:43 which indeed tells Muslims not to attend prayer while intoxicated. Then came 2:219

Interesting approach, but I would beware of a verse like 15:91 with any approach that discredits or explains away part of the Qur'an.

They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit. And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say: What you can spare. Thus does Allah make clear to you the communications, that you may ponder.

I would like to point out that it is not sin to become intoxicated or play games of chance, but that doing so often leads to sin. Such as people valuing money over their brother, or drinking and then going to work and putting people's lives in danger. As the verse says, there is sin in them.

So we have intoxicants as an abomination from Satan and then the question will ye not abstain?

Are you seriously suggesting that, having been told repeatedly by Allah to abstain from sin, that I could drink alcohol and on the day of judgement say in my defence "but it had a question mark"? Forgive me but if Allah tells me that something is a sin and asks me whether I will abstain, I see it very clearly as a rhetorical question.

No, and this is really the heart of the matter. There is a tremendous belief in many that life is all about laws and what to do right and what not to do wrong. That belief has a serious flaw... I find that it is not Allah's will. A day of judgment is not to be feared, but to be embraced. I seek Allah's (swt) judgment daily. People must have the freedom to make errors, to disobey, and to follow Shaitan if they so desire. Without those who go the wrong direction, then there is nobody to help. Preventing the symptom of a disease does not cure the disease. If people do not have that freedom to choose then they become misguided slaves rather than guided servants. As you witness, Allah (swt) desires servants... not slaves.

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also instructed his followers, at the time, to avoid any intoxicating substances -- (paraphrased) "if it intoxicates in a large amount, it is forbidden even in a small amount."

That is not in the Qur'an. In a large amount, WATER is an intoxicant, and it will even kill a person. With due respect to the prophet Muhammud (pbuh), he was very wrong with that statement.

But on this I simply cannot agree with you, intoxicants are a sin and are completely prohibited for Muslims - even with a ? To say otherwise is to do that awful 'interpreting' to suit your desires thing.

I have no desire to get intoxicated or play games of chance, nor do I encourage anyone to. I would tend to judge or discourage people who embrace or are addicted to either. I simply recognize that the word 'prohibit' is not in the Qur'an next to intoxicant and so I am not going to falsely attribute any man made prohibition to Allah (swt).

 

[Abdullah]

Cyberpi,

You should learn the interpretation of the Quran from the traditional Scholars brother, for the Quran needs indepth and contextual interpretation for it to be understood correctly.

It is not correct to follow the apperant meaning of the Quran, or to interpret it according to one's desire.

Peace.

 

[Abdullah]

Cyberpi is a perfect example of what happens when a person thinks that his/her heart and mind can know what Allah requires from just reading the Quran.

May Allah guide us all

Ameen

 

[cyberpi]

Abdullah, Allah (swt) guideth:

9:31
Yusufali: They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
Pickthal: They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!
Shakir: They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).
Khalifa: They have set up their religious leaders and scholars as lords, instead of GOD. Others deified the Messiah, son of Mary. They were all commanded to worship only one god. There is no god except He. Be He glorified, high above having any partners.

3:64
Yusufali: Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).
Pickthal: Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him).
Shakir: Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.
Khalifa: Say, "O followers of the scripture, let us come to a logical agreement between us and you: that we shall not worship except GOD; that we never set up any idols besides Him, nor set up any human beings as lords beside GOD." If they turn away, say, "Bear witness that we are submitters."

5:16
Yusufali: Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light,- guideth them to a path that is straight.
Pickthal: Whereby Allah guideth him who seeketh His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He bringeth them out of darkness unto light by His decree, and guideth them unto a straight path.
Shakir: With it Allah guides him who will follow His pleasure into the ways of safety and brings them out of utter darkness into light by His will and guides them to the right path.
Khalifa: With it, GOD guides those who seek His approval. He guides them to the paths of peace, leads them out of darkness into the light by His leave, and guides them in a straight path.

Allah (swt) guides and I shall not take any man as Lord between myself and him. Agreed, Abdullah? Do you prefer that I were a slave?

 

[Abdullah]

Abdullah, Allah (swt) guideth:

9:31
Yusufali: They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
Pickthal: They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!
Shakir: They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).

The above verses talks about the Christians and jews who follow their Scholars in what they make haraam and halaal contrary to Allah's law.

The Islamic Jurists derive the Prophetic interpretation from the Quran and Sunnah, and thus they declare the haraam and halaal according to Allah's law and not in contrary to it.

Khalifa

: They have set up their religious leaders and scholars as lords, instead of GOD. Others deified the Messiah, son of Mary. They were all commanded to worship only one god. There is no god except He. Be He glorified, high above having any partners.

I dont know why you have included this imposters, who claimed to be a Prophet, corrupt interretation here, as this imposter is only but a kaafir and an enemy of Islam who's aim is to lead Muslims and others astray.

3:64

Yusufali: Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).
Pickthal: Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him).
Shakir: Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.

The prophet [saw] interpreted the Quran for us, so that that mean that we took him as a partner to Allah/lord besides Allah when we accepted his explanation of the Quran?

5:16

Yusufali: Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light,- guideth them to a path that is straight.

Pickthal: Whereby Allah guideth him who seeketh His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He bringeth them out of darkness unto light by His decree, and guideth them unto a straight path.
Shakir: With it Allah guides him who will follow His pleasure into the ways of safety and brings them out of utter darkness into light by His will and guides them to the right path.

But we cannot just know the 'straight path' just by reading the apperant meaning of the Quran, we have to seek out the Prophetic interpretation, and for that, we have to refer to the Scholars who have this Prophetic interpretation.

Allah (swt) guides and I shall not take any man as Lord between myself and him. Agreed, Abdullah? Do you prefer that I were a slave?

Dont take any man besides Allah, as lord, but do learn the Prophetic interpretation of the Scholars who are qualified to derive the Prophetic interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah.

Peace.

 

[Muslimwoman]

It is indeed easy to read the Quran sister..., but as far as understanding it is concerned, there are two different types of understandings that is associated with the Quran; one relates to the general statements of the simple realities, such as, events relating to former Prophets and their nations, the statements of Allah's bounties on mankind, the creation of the heavens and the earth, the cosmological signs of divine power and wisdom, the pleasures of Paradise and tortures of hell, etc, and the other relates to the injunctions, rules and regulations of shariah, the provisions of Islamic law, doctrinal issues and other academic subjects.

What is easy for the laymen to understand of the Quran, just by reading it, is only the former, but in order to understand the latter, one has to learn the indepth and contextual interpretation of the Quran from those who are qualified to interpret it, i.e, the Faqih's who are qualified to perform ijtihad and Mufasireens who are qualifed to perform tafsir.

Salaam

Ass salaam aleykum Brother Abdullah

Please forgive me if I have misunderstood your comments. You appear to be implying that laypeople have no moral judgement and are incapable of understanding what Allah requires of us.

I kept coming across this topic on various sites so decided to ask an Imam for the definitive answer, I have copied and pasted his whole reply as I feel it is not only pertinent but far sighted:


Bismillahir-RaHmanir-RaHeem. The Glorious Qur'an says: "And hold fast,All together, by the rope Which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves;" [Al-Qur'an 3:103] Which is the rope of Allah that is being referred to in this verse? It is the Glorious Qur'an. The Glorious Qur'an is the rope of Allah which all Muslims should hold fast together. There is double emphasis in this verse. Besides saying 'hold fast all together' it also says, 'be not divided'. Qur'an further says, "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger" [Al-Qur'an 4:59] All the Muslim should follow the Qur'an and authentic Ahadith and be not divided among themselves. If only all Muslims read the Qur'an with understanding and adhere to Sahih Hadith, Inshallah most of these differences would be solved and we could be one united Muslim Ummah . It is not obligatory for a Muslim to follow any particular madhhab among these four. People vary in their level of understanding and ability to derive rulings from the evidence. There are some for whom it is permissible to follow (taqleed), and indeed it may be obligatory in their case. There are others who can only follow the shar’i evidence. Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah are not to be regarded as opposition to the Maalikis, Shaafa’is, Hanbalis and the like, rather they are opposed to the followers of innovated and misguided beliefs and ways such as the Ash’aris, Mu’tazilis, Murji’is, Sufis and so on. The Hanafis, Maalikis, Shaafa’is and Hanbalis are schools of fiqh, whose imams are among Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, and indeed are among the leaders of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. But unfortunately the followers of most of those madhhabs and schools of fiqh have begun to follow the people of innovation and misguidance in their beliefs, so many of the Shaafa’is and Maalikis have become Ash’aris, and many of the Hanafis have become Maatireedis. But with regard to ‘aqeedah, the Hanbalis – apart from a very few – have been spared the change to something other than the ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. The basic principle concerning the Muslim is that he adheres to the Qur’aan and Sunnah according to the understanding of the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and those who followed them in guidance. As for following one of these four madhhabs or any other, that is not obligatory or recommended, and the Muslim does not have to adhere to any one of them in particular. Rather the one who adheres to a particular madhhab in every issue is being a partisan who is guilty of blind following. End quote. Hal al-Muslim mulzim bi Ittibaa’ Madhhab mu’ayyin min al-Madhhab al-Arba’ah? By al-Ma’soomi, p. 38. There is nothing wrong with following the four schools of fiqh if a Muslim does not have sufficient knowledge to enable him to derive rulings from the Qur’aan and Sunnah himself, but if it becomes clear to him that the correct view is other than that of his madhhab, then he must follow the correct view and not his madhhab. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: In the Qur’aan, Allaah condemns the one who turns away from following the Messengers and follows instead the religion invented by his forefathers. This is imitation (taqleed) which is forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger, i.e., following someone other than the Messenger in matters that go against the Messenger. This is haraam for everyone according to the consensus of the Muslims, for there is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience towards the Creator. Obedience to the Messenger is obligatory for every one, elite and common folk alike, at all times and in all places, both inwardly and outwardly, and in all situations… Allaah has enjoined obedience to the Messenger upon all people, in approximately forty places in the Qur’aan. It is permissible for one who is unable to derive rulings to follow a scholar, according to the majority of scholars… the kind of imitation or following that is forbidden by the texts and according to scholarly consensus is that which goes against the words of Allaah and His Messenger. end quote. [Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 19/260-266 ] May Allah guide us all to the straight path! Wassalam and Allah Almighty knows best.


I would be interested in your comments.

Salaam

 

[wil]

I've read, been baffled, been confused.

Short and sweet, does Islam today believe owning another and enslaving them is acceptable under any circumstances?