Would prophet muhammad SAWS approve the arab slave trade?

[Som]

As we know we need to separate islam and muslims who are humans who make mistakes. Islam allows slavery under certain conditions, slaves can be taken only through war and should be treated in a humane way, freeing slaves is also highly encouraged. The arab slave trade deviated from these principles in during the ottoman era and after that.
After this introduction I still have a doubt, the first khilafa al rashidun engaged in slave trade against innocent people who never attacked the muslims. For example in the 7th century under the caliphate of Umar al khattab the arabs conquered egypt and attacked nubia, the nubians resisted against the invasion but they were forced to sign a treaty known as baqt that forced them to send 360 slaves every year to the muslims. How can Umar Al khattab allow such a thing? arab attacked first, it wasn't a defensive war. The rashidun caliphs were sahabas so they are supposed to be the best people after the prophet. In the following centuries arabs engaged in slave raids against innocent people like the zanj of east africa(swahili coast) who never attacked the muslims.

 

[486th President]

The Arab Slave Trade was cruel or rather had cruel history and events

 

[QueenofKings]

I have to strongly side eye the people ( Arabs) that came after the prophet. It did not take them long to turn on each other, so it doesn’t surprise me at all they transgressed other peoples rights.

Forget the past, there is a slavery today in Mauritania, they target blacks from Mauritania and surrounding countries - these people are also predominantly Muslims.

 

[486th President]

I have to strongly side eye the people ( Arabs) that came after the prophet. It did not take them long to turn on each other, so it doesn’t surprise me at all they transgressed other peoples rights.

Forget the past, there is a slavery today in Mauritania, they target blacks from Mauritania and surrounding countries - these people are also predominantly Muslims.

We’re talking about the Prophet’s time though

 

[QueenofKings]

We’re talking about the Prophet’s time though

yes the first paragraph expressed my thoughts on that.

 

[Royalflush]

As we know we need to separate islam and muslims who are humans who make mistakes. Islam allows slavery under certain conditions, slaves can be taken only through war and should be treated in a humane way, freeing slaves is also highly encouraged. The arab slave trade deviated from these principles in during the ottoman era and after that.
After this introduction I still have a doubt, the first khilafa al rashidun engaged in slave trade against innocent people who never attacked the muslims. For example in the 7th century under the caliphate of Umar al khattab the arabs conquered egypt and attacked nubia, the nubians resisted against the invasion but they were forced to sign a treaty known as baqt that forced them to send 360 slaves every year to the muslims. How can Umar Al khattab allow such a thing? arab attacked first, it wasn't a defensive war. The rashidun caliphs were sahabas so they are supposed to be the best people after the prophet. In the following centuries arabs engaged in slave raids against innocent people like the zanj of east africa(swahili coast) who never attacked the muslims.

if they dont become muslim, or pay the jizyah tax their blood and property is ours

 

[Som]

if they dont become muslim, or pay the jizyah tax their blood and property is ours

Throughout history slaves remained enslaved even if they converted especially black people. Even today some black mauritanians who have been muslim for centuries are still enslaved

 

[Lord]

Its not forbiden

 

[Hotchick12]

Didn’t they kill Prophet Muhammad SAWS grandsons and family and let the family who killed them to prosper and rule them for decades, that’s not very pious of them

 

[Deleted L]

No he wouldn’t because the Arab slave trade enslaved innocent free people which is prohibited. Slavery in Islam is halal only through prisoners of war; if my country is being attacked and we capture the combatant enemies, we can make them slaves, treating them with good care under our guardianship. We clothe them with the same clothes that we wear, we feed them with the same foods we feed ourselves, we don’t overburden them or mistreat them.

 

[Deleted L]

For example in the 7th century under the caliphate of Umar al khattab the arabs conquered egypt and attacked nubia, the nubians resisted against the invasion but they were forced to sign a treaty known as baqt that forced them to send 360 slaves every year to the muslims. How can Umar Al khattab allow such a thing? arab attacked first, it wasn't a defensive war. The rashidun caliphs were sahabas so they are supposed to be the best people after the prophet.

Jihad Al-Talab (Offensive Jihad) is apart of Islam. Conquests were a big part of the world back then, there was no such thing as the “International community” or “respecting sovereignty”, the only thing they respected was power and your ability to conquer. Back then it was you either conquer land or get conquered! It was a dog eat dog world.

When the Muslims were a superpower under a Caliph back then, they were allowed to conquer other lands to establish the dominion of Islam and spread Allah’s religion. The Kuffar were given 3 choices, they were invited to Islam, if they refused to come to Islam, they would have to pay the Jizya (only sane men who work can pay) and become Dhimmis, if they refused to come to Islam or pay the Jizya, the Caliphs of the past would have to fight and defeat them.

 

[Som]

Jihad Al-Talab (Offensive Jihad) is apart of Islam. Conquests were a big part of the world back then, there was no such thing as the “International community” or “respecting sovereignty”, the only thing they respected was power and your ability to conquer. Back then it was you either conquer land or get conquered! It was a dog eat dog world.

When the Muslims were a superpower under a Caliph back then, they were allowed to conquer other lands to establish the dominion of Islam and spread Allah’s religion. The Kuffar were given 3 choices, they were invited to Islam, if they refused to come to Islam, they would have to pay the Jizya (only sane men who work can pay) and become Dhimmis, if they refused to come to Islam or pay the Jizya, the Caliphs of the past would have to fight and defeat them.

So basically that means you can attack and enslave people who didn't do anything against you? How is that different from white people's colonialism?

 

[Som]

No he wouldn’t because the Arab slave trade enslaved innocent free people which is prohibited. Slavery in Islam is halal only through prisoners of war; if my country is being attacked and we capture the combatant enemies, we can make them slaves, treating them with good care under our guardianship. We clothe them with the same clothes that we wear, we feed them with the same foods we feed ourselves, we don’t overburden them or mistreat them.

Ok. But in many cases like conquest of christian Nubia it was the muslim who attacked first, if you say slavery is halal only in war and then declare war on countries that didn't attack the muslims ,you are effectively allowing slave raids which is similar to what arabs did in the middle ages. They would attack countries and nations to justify enslaving anyone who fought back against

 

[Som]

Didn’t they kill Prophet Muhammad SAWS grandsons and family and let the family who killed them to prosper and rule them for decades, that’s not very pious of them

That's another good point. The whole sahaba are the best people is a bit confusing. They litteraly fought and killed each other but somehow our sunni scholars say all sahabas were good. Some of then had to be wrong, there's now way they were all correct while fighting each other

 

[Ferrari]

no!
slavery had nothing to do with race in the past. You lose wars, you became captives, and the winners of that war took possessions of you. that kinda slavery, I think he'd approve, if they were gaalo, even though he said time and time again to treat salves with care. The slavery that targeted black africans, he absolutely wouldn't approve because many of them were muslims.

 

[HanWER]

Not the black slave trade but he would have approved those persian, syrian, and roman slaves as they kept fighting.

Blacks were attacked for no reason lol as usual throughout history

 

[Aurelian]

As we know we need to separate islam and muslims who are humans who make mistakes. Islam allows slavery under certain conditions, slaves can be taken only through war and should be treated in a humane way, freeing slaves is also highly encouraged. The arab slave trade deviated from these principles in during the ottoman era and after that.
After this introduction I still have a doubt, the first khilafa al rashidun engaged in slave trade against innocent people who never attacked the muslims. For example in the 7th century under the caliphate of Umar al khattab the arabs conquered egypt and attacked nubia, the nubians resisted against the invasion but they were forced to sign a treaty known as baqt that forced them to send 360 slaves every year to the muslims. How can Umar Al khattab allow such a thing? arab attacked first, it wasn't a defensive war. The rashidun caliphs were sahabas so they are supposed to be the best people after the prophet. In the following centuries arabs engaged in slave raids against innocent people like the zanj of east africa(swahili coast) who never attacked the muslims.

The prophet had slaves as I remember, but feel free to correct me.
And not in defence of Umar, but the treaty was beneficial, Nubians were known as good slave traders in exchange for goods that came to Nubia. Beside that how they viewed slaves in the past, is different to us, they were just goods to them.

 

[Deleted L]

So basically that means you can attack and enslave people who didn't do anything against you? How is that different from white people's colonialism?

Nobody is “enslaving” them, Dhimmis have rights and protection under Islamic law. The Prophet said; “If you oppress a Dhimmi you wouldn’t smell paradise” (paraphrasing). Non Muslims living under Islamic rule can judge by their own laws and continue following their customs.

As for Jihad Al-Talab (a militarized missionary campaign initiated by Muslims in non-Muslim territories in order to preach Islam and protect the Dawah of Islam), it can't be done in this century because we Muslims don't live in the days of empires anymore, plus Muslims are weak and not Islamic oriented. The purpose behind Jihad Al-Talab according to the Ahl al-Sunnah is in order to conquer new lands so that the people of those lands have a chance to become Muslim and save their Ākhirah.

Daniel Haqiqatjou has a brief video explaining it:



Sheikh Al Sharawi also explains it:



Sheikh Assim Al Hakeem: "Jihad Al Talab cannot take place unless the state of the Muslims is strong and Muslims are Islamic oriented, Muslim are weak so forget this"