Page 4 of 4

Re: African American proclaims Somali Heritage

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:09 am
by Aliyyi Oromada
bareento wrote:
Aliyyi Oromada wrote:
abdisamad3 wrote:bareento who sold the oromos as slaves?
and why didnt they fight againste the slavetraders?


Assalamu aleykum,

It wasn't a matter of fighting against slave traders. That's not how it worked. The institution existed for many reasons but predominantly because of war. If you were a nation which had wars prior to 'modern days' then there would have been captives taken from you & sold into slavery. That's how it worked in those days. So for example if the invasion of Somalia happened in 1806, rather than 2006, there would have been a market afterwards like any other war. And when you take a captive, you grab them by the ear and sell them in the market to merchants who specialize in the trade. Any region there is war, the markets nearby have slaves. Men, women and children. Christian or Muslim, white or brown, king or peasant. No exceptions.


Wat depresses me is that there were/are no anti slavery mouvement in the Muslim world;
That the only two "Islamic" countries in Africa openly practice slavery (sudan and mauritania) :cry:

I think we Muslims need a kind of CULTURAL REVOLUTION...

B.


Freeing slaves was always considered an act of worship in Islam, so all that would be required is an Islamic revolution. First I should say there is a difference between an Islamic country and a Muslim country. Sudan and Mauritania are not Islamic countries because they don't rule by Islamic laws. They are both muslim countries living under military dictators.

Anyways, every movement is born out of certain imposed conditions. Although Islam repeatedly encourages Muslims to free slaves (in Quran and Sunnah), the reason there was no strong movement to abolish it completely was predominantly because a slave in the Muslim world had different conditions than in other parts of the world. For example they had access to legal rights, if he or she had a complaint against the owner or anybody, he or she can go to the Qaadi and prosecute them. They also lived in the same conditions as their owner as far as food, clothing and shelter were concerned (and many times they wouldn't have that security living freely on their own). In those societies it was difficult to tell the difference between the slave and the owner. Also a slave can more easily free oneself and live as a free person in the society. It's not usual to hear people go through generations and generations of slavery. The legal and social practices not only allowed that to happen more easily, but throughout history it's common to see slaves rise to a high status in the muslim world. Many of the most prominent names in islamic history come from slave backgrounds ie. the senior sahabi and 1st mu'adhin Bilal ra. One of the greatest Islamic scholars, Hassan al Basri, was the son of a persian slave. Tariq Ibn Ziyad, the conqueror of Spain was a berber slave. Sayf ad-Din Qutuz, the most powerful man in Islam at one time, was a Turkish slave. In Egypt there was a dynasty of slaves which ruled for centuries (mamluuk), and I can go on. There were exceptions, but I'm speaking of the norm.

On the other hand, the abolition of slavery movement grew in the west predominantly because all the conditions there were contrary to what I listed above. Slaves had no rights to speak of. And in those societies, once you were a slave you and your descendants would remain that way indefinitely, and there was virtually no way out. Slavery was entirely based on race. In the European colonies in the carribean for example all the indigenous people were enslaved and placed in conditions that led to their extinction. When the indigenous people were extinct they started bringing in the black slaves. These slaves eventually rebelled and defeated the european armies. The army of Napoleon was defeated in Haiti long before it was defeated in Europe. In America, slave masters were getting killed on a regular. It wasn't necessarily that simple, but I can sum it up in one sentence. Slavery ended not through any cultural revolution but rather when it became more costly, than profitable.

But again, freeing the slave was always considered an act of Ibaada in Islam and was usually encouraged, such as this example which occurred 1300 years ago:

http://islamicpoint.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... basri.html

Re: African American proclaims Somali Heritage

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:28 am
by bareento
Aliyyi Oromada wrote:
bareento wrote:Wat depresses me is that there were/are no anti slavery mouvement in the Muslim world;
That the only two "Islamic" countries in Africa openly practice slavery (sudan and mauritania) :cry:

I think we Muslims need a kind of CULTURAL REVOLUTION...

B.


Freeing slaves was always considered an act of worship in Islam, so all that would be required is an Islamic revolution. First I should say there is a difference between an Islamic country and a Muslim country. Sudan and Mauritania are not Islamic countries because they don't rule by Islamic laws. They are both muslim countries living under military dictators.

Anyways, every movement is born out of certain imposed conditions. Although Islam repeatedly encourages Muslims to free slaves (in Quran and Sunnah), the reason there was no strong movement to abolish it completely was predominantly because a slave in the Muslim world had different conditions than in other parts of the world. For example they had access to legal rights, if he or she had a complaint against the owner or anybody, he or she can go to the Qaadi and prosecute them. They also lived in the same conditions as their owner as far as food, clothing and shelter were concerned (and many times they wouldn't have that security living freely on their own). In those societies it was difficult to tell the difference between the slave and the owner. Also a slave can more easily free oneself and live as a free person in the society. It's not usual to hear people go through generations and generations of slavery. The legal and social practices not only allowed that to happen more easily, but throughout history it's common to see slaves rise to a high status in the muslim world. Many of the most prominent names in islamic history come from slave backgrounds ie. the senior sahabi and 1st mu'adhin Bilal ra. One of the greatest Islamic scholars, Hassan al Basri, was the son of a persian slave. Tariq Ibn Ziyad, the conqueror of Spain was a berber slave. Sayf ad-Din Qutuz, the most powerful man in Islam at one time, was a Turkish slave. In Egypt there was a dynasty of slaves which ruled for centuries (mamluuk), and I can go on. There were exceptions, but I'm speaking of the norm.

On the other hand, the abolition of slavery movement grew in the west predominantly because all the conditions there were contrary to what I listed above. Slaves had no rights to speak of. And in those societies, once you were a slave you and your descendants would remain that way indefinitely, and there was virtually no way out. Slavery was entirely based on race. In the European colonies in the carribean for example all the indigenous people were enslaved and placed in conditions that led to their extinction. When the indigenous people were extinct they started bringing in the black slaves. These slaves eventually rebelled and defeated the european armies. The army of Napoleon was defeated in Haiti long before it was defeated in Europe. In America, slave masters were getting killed on a regular. It wasn't necessarily that simple, but I can sum it up in one sentence. [b]Slavery ended not through any cultural revolution but rather when it became more costly, than profitable. [/b]But again, freeing the slave was always considered an act of Ibaada in Islam and was usually encouraged, such as this example which occurred 1300 years ago:

http://islamicpoint.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... basri.html


:up:
Wise words

Aliyyi u seem knowledgable in Islamic science :up: can oulawing slavery be Unislamic?
I recall someone once argued to me that outlawing wat God permitted is Haram!

I am very much interested in the history of slavery in general and slavery in islamic world in particular.
If u have books or sites to advise u r welcome!

Re: African American proclaims Somali Heritage

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:48 pm
by Aliyyi Oromada
I try to study the religion as much as I can, but I'm far from an aalim.

Taking war captives as slaves was a practice that existed before Islam, and remained after Islam. It is a matter which revolves around warfare and how Muslims dealt with people who were at war with them. This practice went both ways and had it been haram, Muslims would have been at a disadvantage. Now today most of the world powers have abolished the practice. Does this mean that they would never go back on their word. Or that there will never come an enemy who will continue the practice. For example in Bosnia in the 1990's Serbs were taking muslim men to labour camps as slaves, and muslim women as sex slaves. The UN responded to this by putting an arms embargo on the muslims. Muslims do not mimic them, and have their own laws governing war captives, but it just shows you that just because the practice is banned on paper, it doesn't mean it can no longer happen.

Torturing captives is also prohibited according to international law. But it is openly practiced against the weak by the world powers. They simply twist the law, make up the term "unlawful combatant" which they give to whom ever they want and continue the practice. People are capable of going back on their "values" when ever it suits them.

So the issue of taking captives as slave is an issue of warfare. I am not an expert, but I don't believ the world has changed as much as people say it has.

Re: African American proclaims Somali Heritage

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:36 pm
by bareento
Thnk U Mr Aliyyi for sharing your knowledge.

I often put such questions to Oromo sheikhs, they often tend to do not answer and rather accuse of bringing fitna in Islam.
Your logic is applicable in a war between two neighbourly people/states etc...

By slavery, I was in fact speaking of the slave trade: that means Arabs sail from Arabia to Africa to purposely capture slaves and sell them.
These africans didnt declare war to these arabs or did any harm to them!
How can outlawing this trade could be Haram?

I feel some kind of unease as you seem to say as far as it suits my community its ok.

B.

Re: African American proclaims Somali Heritage

Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:29 am
by Aliyyi Oromada
bareento, atilleen galatoomi. You have to realize, addressing these topics require some research, even for a Sheikh. They would have to understand not just the Islamic texts, but also the history and reality on the ground. Not many Shuyookh have that comprehensive knowledge these days. With that said, I will try my best.

By slavery, I was in fact speaking of the slave trade: that means Arabs sail from Arabia to Africa to purposely capture slaves and sell them.
These africans didnt declare war to these arabs or did any harm to them!
How can outlawing this trade could be Haram?


A muslim ruler of that land (if one exists) has rights and responsibilities in this matter. For example they have the right to sign a treaty with non-muslim counterparts and place restrictions like "such and such tribes or communities can not be harmed, because they are at peace with us" etc. This is a hudna, and is not haram at all. As long as those people were friendly towards Islam and Muslims and do not hinder da'wah in their territory. Another possibility, depending on the conditions, is that they can live under the protection of a Muslim ruler in which case if they are harmed, the muslims are directly responsible for their well-being.

There is no logic nor basis in Islam for attacking/raiding defenseless people simply for economic gain. From my understanding, the problem is when there is no state, and decisions were made by bands of raiders employed by slave traders roaming freely in the country. These kind of people have no interest in serving Islam, and certainly if there is a muslim ruler in that area, the ruler can control and place restrictions on them. Because not only does it have no benefit, but it makes their victims hostile to Muslims. The responsibility of a Muslim ruler is to do what benefits Islam, not himself, and not his treasury. And unfortunately that was not always the case, but this was due to the absence of a sincere governor.

The result as we know is, all these lands were eventually inherited by the british, french and so on. Christian missionaries swept through Kenya, Uganda, south Sudan etc. where Christianity never existed. Things which muslims failed to do for centuries while they were busy with commerce.