Runaway slave in Islam

[Nikka]

Taking women and kids (السبي) of an army you had a fight with and then making them slaves for business (سوق النخاسة) and pleasure (ملك اليمين) is ok in your believe?

Do you seriously proofread and understand what you type before you post?

When Muslims invaded the Iberian peninsula, Tariq ibn Ziyad motivated his army with his infamous speech in which he said:

"وقد بلغكم ما أنشأت هذه الجزيرة من الحور الحسان، من بنات اليونان، الرافلات بالدر والمرجان، والحلل المنسوجة بالعقيان، المقصورات في قصور الملوك ذوي التيجان"

basically go ahead; get your share of white beautiful girls as slaves for pleasure. What war (justification) are you talking about? Are you saying Muslims are forced to take slaves just because they fought someone else?

Oh go on. I expect examples of speeches from the sahaba or prophet Muhammad otherwise your point is moot.

 

[Thebluesomali]

yes before Islam their was no punishment for killing your slaves.

Nowadays many ignorant fools just blabber without knowing anything.

 

[Liban89]

yes before Islam their was no punishment for killing your slaves.

Why not ban it all together? eating meat of animal which fell from a height was banned on the Quran . I mean come on... which one is a higher case value; dignity and freedom of a walking talking human being or a cup of wine?

 

[Liban89]

Oh go on. I expect examples of speeches from the sahaba or prophet Muhammad otherwise your point is moot.

Hahaha don't be shy.... entertain me. A single coherent logical response would suffice.

 

[Nikka]

Why not ban it all together? eating meat of animal which fell from a height was banned on the Quran . I mean come on... which one is a higher case value; dignity and freedom of a walking talking human being or a cup of wine

As stated earlier Islam reformed slavery and limited it to prisoners of war. Concubinage was also made halal as it was in the previous scriptures. Prisoners of war in the past were either killed or enslaved. I think enslavement is a better option.

 

[Liban89]

Nowadays many ignorant fools just blabber without knowing anything.

Why do you and @Nikka lie? to this day the majority of fuqaha made the ijmaac that a master is not be killed if he kills his slave. Or are you just ignorant of fiqh?

Read the following:

ذهب جمهور الفقهاء ، ان لا يقتل الحر بالعبد ، ولا يقتل السيد بعبده .
قال ابن قدامة رحمه الله في "المغني" (8/ 221) : " فصل : ( ولا حر بعبد ) وروي هذا عن أبي بكر ، وعمر ، وعلي ، وزيد ، وابن الزبير ، رضي الله عنهم . وبه قال الحسن ، وعطاء ، وعمر بن عبد العزيز ، وعكرمة ، وعمرو بن دينار ، ومالك ، والشافعي ، وإسحاق ، وأبو ثور .
ويروى عن سعيد بن المسيب ، و الإمام أحمد ، بإسناده عن علي ، رضي الله عنه أنه قال : ( من السنة أن لا يقتل حر بعبد ) . وعن ابن عباس أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : ( لا يقتل حر بعبد ) . رواه الدارقطني . ولأنه لا يقطع طرفه بطرفه مع التساوي في السلامة ، فلا يقتل به ، كالأب مع ابنه ، ولأن العبد منقوص بالرق ، فلم يقتل به الحر " انتهى .
ثانيا :
إذا قتل السيد عبده ، فإنه لا يقتل به عند جمهور الفقهاء ، لكن يضرب ويعزر ، وقيل : يجلد ، وينفى ، ويمحى اسمه من الديوان والعطاء .
وذهب الحنفية إلى أن أن الحر يقتل بالعبد - إلا عبد نفسه فلا يقتل به ، وكذا عبد ولده- . وينظر : الموسوعة الفقهية (23/ 71) .

 

[Nikka]

Why do you and @Nikka lie? to this day the majority of fuqaha made the ijmaac that a master is not be killed if he kills his slave. Or are you just ignorant of fiqh?

Read the following:

ذهب جمهور الفقهاء ، ان لا يقتل الحر بالعبد ، ولا يقتل السيد بعبده .
قال ابن قدامة رحمه الله في "المغني" (8/ 221) : " فصل : ( ولا حر بعبد ) وروي هذا عن أبي بكر ، وعمر ، وعلي ، وزيد ، وابن الزبير ، رضي الله عنهم . وبه قال الحسن ، وعطاء ، وعمر بن عبد العزيز ، وعكرمة ، وعمرو بن دينار ، ومالك ، والشافعي ، وإسحاق ، وأبو ثور .
ويروى عن سعيد بن المسيب ، و الإمام أحمد ، بإسناده عن علي ، رضي الله عنه أنه قال : ( من السنة أن لا يقتل حر بعبد ) . وعن ابن عباس أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : ( لا يقتل حر بعبد ) . رواه الدارقطني . ولأنه لا يقطع طرفه بطرفه مع التساوي في السلامة ، فلا يقتل به ، كالأب مع ابنه ، ولأن العبد منقوص بالرق ، فلم يقتل به الحر " انتهى .
ثانيا :
إذا قتل السيد عبده ، فإنه لا يقتل به عند جمهور الفقهاء ، لكن يضرب ويعزر ، وقيل : يجلد ، وينفى ، ويمحى اسمه من الديوان والعطاء .
وذهب الحنفية إلى أن أن الحر يقتل بالعبد - إلا عبد نفسه فلا يقتل به ، وكذا عبد ولده- . وينظر : الموسوعة الفقهية (23/ 71) .

Killing of a slave is haram. Their blood is sacred like any other muslim or dhimmi and can not be shed without a legal right.

If one kills his own slave, then there will not be any Qisas. That is because the owner is both the murderer and the guardian\heir. Being the latter he has the responsibility and right to take Qisas yet he can not take revenge from himself nor can he forgive himself.

Instead, the state will administer a ta'zir, and there are different madhabs on its nature:

• He will be killed.
  

  من قتل عبده قتلناه
  Whoever kills his slave, we will kill him
  — Sunan ibn Majah

• He will not be killed but punished.
  

  قتل رجل عبده عمدا متعمدا فجلده رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مائة ونفاه سنة ومحا سهمه من المسلمين
  A man killed his slave deliberately, so the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) gave him one hundred lashes, banished him for one year, and cancelled his share from among the Muslims.
  — Sunan ibn Majah

He may also be liable to pay Kaffara for murder as in 4:92 and this is stated in a version of the above hadith:

أن رجلا قتل عبده متعمدا... وأمره أن يعتق رقبة
A man killed his slave deliberately, so the Messenger of Allah ... commanded him to free a slave.
— Sunan al-Kubra al-Bayhaqi

 

[Thebluesomali]

Why do you and @Nikka lie? to this day the majority of fuqaha made the ijmaac that a master is not be killed if he kills his slave. Or are you just ignorant of fiqh?

Read the following:

ذهب جمهور الفقهاء ، ان لا يقتل الحر بالعبد ، ولا يقتل السيد بعبده .
قال ابن قدامة رحمه الله في "المغني" (8/ 221) : " فصل : ( ولا حر بعبد ) وروي هذا عن أبي بكر ، وعمر ، وعلي ، وزيد ، وابن الزبير ، رضي الله عنهم . وبه قال الحسن ، وعطاء ، وعمر بن عبد العزيز ، وعكرمة ، وعمرو بن دينار ، ومالك ، والشافعي ، وإسحاق ، وأبو ثور .
ويروى عن سعيد بن المسيب ، و الإمام أحمد ، بإسناده عن علي ، رضي الله عنه أنه قال : ( من السنة أن لا يقتل حر بعبد ) . وعن ابن عباس أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : ( لا يقتل حر بعبد ) . رواه الدارقطني . ولأنه لا يقطع طرفه بطرفه مع التساوي في السلامة ، فلا يقتل به ، كالأب مع ابنه ، ولأن العبد منقوص بالرق ، فلم يقتل به الحر " انتهى .
ثانيا :
إذا قتل السيد عبده ، فإنه لا يقتل به عند جمهور الفقهاء ، لكن يضرب ويعزر ، وقيل : يجلد ، وينفى ، ويمحى اسمه من الديوان والعطاء .
وذهب الحنفية إلى أن أن الحر يقتل بالعبد - إلا عبد نفسه فلا يقتل به ، وكذا عبد ولده- . وينظر : الموسوعة الفقهية (23/ 71) .

Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 181 - Being a master - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

'Ammar ibn Yasir said, "None of you beats his slave unjustly without the slave receiving retaliation from him on the Day of Rising."

sunnah.com

Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 177 - Being a master - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Ibn 'Umar said, "I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'The expiation for someone who slaps his slave or beats him more than he deserves is to set him free.'"

sunnah.com

 

[Liban89]

As stated earlier Islam reformed slavery and limited it to prisoners of war. Concubinage was also made halal as it was in the previous scriptures. Prisoners of war in the past were either killed or enslaved. I think enslavement is a better option.

What about when I go to the market of slaves (سوق النخاسة) and buy slaves for business and pleasure just like abdullahi ibn Omar the son of the caliphate did back in the day. I mean how can you justify slavery? reform or not?

عن ابن عمر أنه كان إذا اشترى جارية كشف عن ساقها ووضع يده بين ثدييها وعلى عجزها وكأنه كان يضعها عليها من وراء الثياب الراوي: نافع مولى ابن عمر المحدث: الألباني - المصدر: إرواء الغليل - الصفحة أو الرقم: 6/ 201

خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صحيح

 

[Thebluesomali]

What about when I go to the market of slaves (سوق النخاسة) and buy slaves for business and pleasure just like abdullahi ibn Omar the son of the caliphate did back in the day. I mean how can you justify slavery? reform or not?

عن ابن عمر أنه كان إذا اشترى جارية كشف عن ساقها ووضع يده بين ثدييها وعلى عجزها وكأنه كان يضعها عليها من وراء الثياب الراوي: نافع مولى ابن عمر المحدث: الألباني - المصدر: إرواء الغليل - الصفحة أو الرقم: 6/ 201

خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صحيح

Justification? Allah said so.

 

[Liban89]

Killing of a slave is haram. Their blood is sacred like any other muslim or dhimmi and can not be shed without a legal right.

If one kills his own slave, then there will not be any Qisas. That is because the owner is both the murderer and the guardian\heir. Being the latter he has the responsibility and right to take Qisas yet he can not take revenge from himself nor can he forgive himself.

Instead, the state will administer a ta'zir, and there are different madhabs on its nature:

• He will be killed.
• He will not be killed but punished.

He may also be liable to pay Kaffara for murder as in 4:92 and this is stated in a version of the above hadith:

As I said the majority of Muslims support the ruling of no master should be killed because of his slave, it is the ruling of the shafi'iyyah, Malikiyyah and Hanbaliyya only the Hanafiyya said they are equals in murder. Please do not lie.you ignore all the sanads I listed, you don't address that three of the four major schools of law in Islam ruled on the issue.

 

[Liban89]

Justification? Allah said so.

View attachment 246767

Thank you, I hate mental gymnastics.... If a Muslim says I have no logical response or analysis to a certain issue then I have no problem with them. What irks me the most is the faqiih and philosophical wanna be who goes in circles instead of admitting the Islamic rule of
(النقل قبل العقل)

 

[tyrannicalmanager]

As I said the majority of Muslims support the ruling of no master should be killed because of his slave, it is the ruling of the shafi'iyyah, Malikiyyah and Hanbaliyya only the Hanafiyya said they are equals in murder. Please do not lie.you ignore all the sanads I listed, you don't address that three of the four major schools of law in Islam ruled on the issue.

are you for capital punishment?

 

[Thebluesomali]

Thank you, I hate mental gymnastics.... If a Muslim says I have no logical response or analysis to a certain issue then I have no problem with them. What irks me the most is the faqiih and philosophical wanna be who goes in circles instead of admitting the Islamic rule of
(النقل قبل العقل)

If you have serious questions on matters related to fiqh, then go and ask a sheikh. Why would anyone who wants a good answer ask it on a forum? Don't be ridiculous, you're not asking the question in good faith, you don't care about the answer otherwise you wouldn't be here.

 

[Nikka]

Thank you, I hate mental gymnastics.... If a Muslim says I have no logical response or analysis to a certain issue then I have no problem with them. What irks me the most is the faqiih and philosophical wanna be who goes in circles instead of admitting the Islamic rule of
(النقل قبل العقل)

Libaan I've seen your previous post. Your issue is not just with slavery but the fundamental tenants of Islam as well. We follow these rulings because were were commended to follow the Ijmac. Just like when people come up with justifications as to why dofar is haram ultimately all that matters is that Allah said so.

 

[Liban89]

If you have serious questions on matters related to fiqh, then go and ask a sheikh. Why would anyone who wants a good answer ask it on a forum? Don't be ridiculous, you're not asking the question in good faith, you don't care about the answer otherwise you wouldn't be here.

Do not get me wrong, I disagree with Islam on the issue of slavery, I don't need a sheikh to tell me slavery is despicable.

What I am saying is; every Muslim should lead with your response (because Allah said so), then it is a matter of FAITH. I have no say in changing your faith but I'll voice my disagreement with it. I however will not accept half assed mental gymnastics to justify slavery from a logical/philosophical/socio-economic point of view, whether in the past or present.

 

[Liban89]

Libaan I've seen your previous post. Your issue is not just with slavery but the fundamental tenants of Islam as well. We follow these rulings because were were commended to follow the Ijmac. Just like when people come up with justifications as to why dofar is haram ultimately all that matters is that Allah said so.

Thank you for being honest.

 

[Nikka]

Thank you for being honest.

We have proof of Islam in general that allows us to have imaan but that is a separate issue. I know you can't justify your disbelief as seen in previous threads so no matter what explanation we give you wouldn't except it.

 

[Nikka]

You sound a lot like this murtad @Liban

 

[NFD]

Enslaving, selling, buying or gifting other human beings is immoral and unacceptable. Period.

War is immoral. Period.

The killing of another human being is immoral. Period.

Taking women and kids (السبي) of an army you had a fight with and then making them slaves for business (سوق النخاسة) and pleasure (ملك اليمين) is ok in your believe?

Do you seriously proofread and understand what you type before you post?

This is historical context. Slavery at least in the open isn't a thing today. Women and kids are being bombed indiscriminately in 2022.

Were the Somalis who enslaved Oromos immoral vs the oromos who did not really practice Slavery but instead practiced forceful assimilation and cutting off breasts and the penis's better?

There is a lack of critical thinking and nuance with many of you.