Muhammad had many slaves. He was a slave owner.
He also had sex with his slaves. He owned the women, and had sex with them.
Muhammad was also a polygynist.
Today, many islamic scholars claim that slavery is not allowed any more. They claim that slavery was only allowed in the historical context, but not any more. They “prove” this by referring to the quran and hadiths saying e.g. that a way to atone for a sin is to free a slave. And since freeing a slave is said to be a good thing, slavery has been abolished, and that is islamically correct. They also say that since slavery was heavily restricted, that goes to show that it was disliked, and hence it is correct to abolish slavery. There are some muslim scholars who claim that slavery is still allowed, as is having sex with your slaves, since Muhammad did this and everything that he did is perfect. These scholars seem to be exceptions though, not the rule.
Then how about polygyny?
Polygyny is only explicitly allowed in one single verse in the quran, and in An Nisa there are clearly stated restrictions, the man must be custodian of orphans and fearing not to be able to live up to that responsibility, he must not only be absolutely fair to his wives – he must harbour no fear whatsoever that he’d ever risk being unfair to them!
So Muhammad was a slave-owner and a polygynist. He didn’t free all his slaves. Today however, islamic laws have abandoned slavery while maintaining polygyny. Why?
The quran restricts slavery as well as polygyny. Today however, islamic laws have abandoned slavery while maintaining polygyny. Why?
The quran allows a man to fuck his slaves, to keep him from zina. Islam allows polygyny to keep men from zina. Today however, islamic laws have abandoned slavery while maintaining polygyny. Why?
Islamic scholars today say that slavery in the quran and hadiths must be interpreted within the limitations of historical context. What about polygyny? Today islamic laws have abandoned slavery while maintaining polygyny. Why?
Muslims in favour of polygyny often argue that we can not make haram what Allah has made halal. Slavery is not haram in the quran, nor in the hadiths. Today however, islamic laws have abandoned slavery while maintaining polygyny. Why?
I’d like to quote a text about slavery in Georgia:
Over the antebellum era whites continued to employ violence against the slave population, but increasingly they justified their mastery in moral terms. As early as 1790, Georgia congressmanJames Jackson claimed that slavery benefited both whites and African Americans. The expanding presence of evangelical Christian churches in the early nineteenth century provided Georgia slaveholders with religious justifications for human bondage. White efforts to Christianize the slave quarters enabled masters to frame their power in moral terms. They viewed the Christian slave mission as evidence of their own good intentions. The religious instruction offered by whites, moreover, reinforced slaveholders’ authority by reminding slaves of scriptural admonishments that slaves should “give single-minded obedience” to their “earthly masters with fear and trembling, as if to Christ.”This melding of religion and slavery did not protect slaves from exploitation and cruelty at the hands of their owners, but it magnified the role played by slavery in the identity of the planter elite. In 1785, just before the genesis of the cotton plantation system, a Georgia merchant had claimed that slavery was “to the Trade of the Country, as the Soul [is] to the Body.” Seventy-five years later Georgia politicianAlexander Stephens noted that slavery had become a moral as well as an economic foundation for white plantation culture. The “corner-stone” of the South, Stephens claimed in 1861, just after the Lower South had seceded, consisted of the “great physical, philosophical, and moral truth,” which is “that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.”