This post begins with some refutations of what Robert Spencer had said in a debate. The rest will deal with the issues of slavery, apostasy, and the position of women, female captives, etc.
Prophet Muhammad – Proofs regards clothing and bathing
“Narrated Zaid bin Thabit [RA]: The Prophet [SAWS] stripped to put on his Ihram and bathed.”
(Reported by At-Tirmidhi reported and graded it Hasan.)
One asks, how did Zaid know that the Prophet had stripped? Well, because he had taken a bath, one assumes he would have stripped; but also, we read in other hadiths, that the Prophet, would have water poured by a water carrier from behind a screen, therefore the other person, who would pour the water would not see him, but pour water from above for him. This was sometimes the manner in which he would take a bath, as might happen when he travelled during wars. Other times he would take handfuls of water from a bathtub, when at home, which is what some hadiths describe, as his wife Aisha or others of his wives had told, and which sayings were narrated by Aisha or others of the companions, from her or other of Muhammad’s wives. E.g. Um Salama.
“Narrated ‘Aisha [RA]: I used to perfume Allah’s Messenger {SAWS] for his Ihram before he put on the Ihram, and when he put off the ihram, before he circumambulated the Sacred House (Ka’aba).”
(Agreed upon)
“Narrated ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan [RA]: Allah’s Messenger [SAWS] said: ‘One who is in the state of Ihram should not marry, or give someone in marriage or make a proposal.’”
(Reported by Muslim)
About the two preceding hadiths one can mention, regarding the Hajj or Umrah, that marriage contract is not permissible in the state of holy pilgrimage, but is okay after that, once its rights have been fulfilled. Also, Aisha or any wife of the Prophet would be the only ones permitted to perfume the body of the Messenger of Allah, besides himself perfuming his own body. In the above hadith, he required himself and others, according to the rules of pilgrimage, to use perfume before putting on the ihram (cloth for men, or clean clothing for women). Women should not wear perfume however they may bathe whenever they like but with non-perfume soap. Always the intention to perform the pilgrimage is made after wearing one’s ihram cloth or clothing, and not before that. Similarly, the final circumambulation of the Ka’aba called (the farewell) Tawaf (al-ifidhah), is done before leaving Mecca, and should be the final act before leaving the holy city, therefore perfuming one’s body again(for men only) is done before making the farewell Tawaf, and is one of the Sunnah of the Prophet, SAWS, after Hajj/Umrah is complete.
“Narrated Ibn ‘Umar [RA]: He (ibn ‘Umar [RA]) never used to come to Makka without spending the night at Dhi-Tuwa till morning after which he would bathe. He used to say that the Prophet [SAWS] was accustomed to do that.”
(Agreed upon)
This shows that Ibn Umar and others knew about the custom of the Prophet to take a bath after spending the night at Dhi-Tuwa. They knew he would ask for water for a bath to be drawn or for water and so on and that he would use something as a screen, so that he would be in private during his bath. It wasn’t necessary for any of them to actually see the bath.
The prophet, SAWS would explain how he would perform ghusl (post sex bath) and others would see him make the wudhu, the purification for prayers or reading Qur’an done when not requiring a full bath. In other words, no one ever saw him without clothing or covering, except his wives.
Proofs of Muhammad’s good character:
Quote the hadiths, e.g. specifically, the building of the Ka’aba, (thereafter) the prophet was never seen without clothing or a cover, and he was 35 yrs. old at the time, and later after five years received his commission as a holy Prophet of Allah.
Allah’s messenger said, “He who imitates any people is one of them.”
(Abu Da’ud reported it; Ibn Hibban graded it Sahih (sound)).
This means, that the Prophet didn’t imitate non-believers, either in their religion or their customs which they were used to, such as eating with both hands at meals, or not seeking the blessing of Allah, ta’ala, by “Bismillah” before eating, or not eating with the right hand only and drinking with the right hand only, or other examples of practices sanctioned in Islam.
He (SAWS) also didn’t imitate them in their use of talismans for protection, or imitate their superstitious customs. He didn’t fear except Allah, SWT.
He also didn’t used to wear Saffron colored clothing like other people used to, because it is forbidden for Muslim men. Also, he used not to uncover his body in front of other men, as is sometimes done when one takes a bath in a public shower, such as places used by non-believers as public bathing areas, or during sporting activities or at the beaches, where normally, non-believer men do not cover the area required by Islamic dress code (navel to the knees, for men)
Therefore, it is not believable that the Prophet SAWS was seen without proper clothing while riding an animal, as some people said. Allah knows best. Muslim men like all others in Arabia, were accustomed to riding on horseback and on camels, or donkeys, and didn’t have this problem which Morey claims happened, when he says, the Prophet became ‘uncovered’ or ‘exposed’.
The decisive statement which shows that no one saw the Prophet without clothing or a covering (specifically his sexual organ) - which follows; as per some events during reconstruction of the holy Ka’aba.
The Shrouding of Allah’s Messenger
‘Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Jabir bin ‘Abdullah [RA], that he said: “While the people were rebuilding Al-Ka’aba, the Prophet Muhammad, SAWS, went with ‘Abbas to carry some stones. ‘Abbas said: “Put your loincloth round your neck to protect you from the stones.” (As he did that) the Prophet, [SAWS], fell to the ground and his eyes turned skyward. Later on, he woke up and shouted: “My loincloth…my loincloth.” He wrapped himself in his loincloth.’ In another report: “His loins were never seen afterwards.”’ (Page 82, al-Mubarakpuri)
This event in which the Prophet lay prostrate and the reclamation of the Ka’aba after it had been partly destroyed due to heavy flooding coincided; the age of Muhammad was 35 years, and it occurred five years prior to his receiving the mantle of Prophethood. He was so distressed that he never uncovered his private area thereafter, even though it was considered nothing in those days, in the Pagan-dominated city of Mecca. (Ibid)
An example of the respect with which people held the Prophet and how they regarded his modesty as sacrosanct, was when the Muslims closest to him prepared the burial shroud of the Messenger of Allah, and had wondered what to do regarding the washing and shrouding of the Prophet, and they decided not to remove the Prophet’s clothes but to wash and bury him while his clothes were on him.
There is another hadith which is relevant to the above discussion:
“Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr (RA): Allah’s Messenger [SAWS] used to say: ‘O Allah, I seek refuge in You from being heavily in debt, from being overpowered by enemies, and the gloating of enemies (at an evil I am afflicted with).’”
It is true that there were occasions when the Prophet was afflicted by harm and the enemies of the Muslims, of the Prophet and of God, gloated. This happened when his sons all died, and on other occasions, such as when his call was rejected by the people early in his dawa mission.
“Reviling a Muslim is disobedience to Allah and fighting him is kufr”.
Thus, even when (the hypocrite) a blind man, reviled the Prophet and flung clods of dirt or flung earth at the holy Prophet and his companions, or threw dust above their heads, the Prophet did not do anything to him. He told the followers to leave that man alone, for he was old and blind, and he was helpless. It is not required to kill apostates who do not fight or injure the Muslims (e.g. physically hurt or torture, or kill the Muslims). Even the hadith explains that to fight a Muslim or oppose the Muslims is disbelief (kufr), but doesn’t specify a punishment, in this case. E.g. there is a punishment for apostates, but it doesn’t have to be carried out unless the apostate is fighting the Muslims. If he is not fighting them, it is better not to take revenge on him for less than fighting (joining a battle against them or killing of Muslims).
Spencer alleges wrongly:
The verse which states the purpose of jihad (or fighting non-believers) follows,
“Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of your religion…”
(Sura 60, ayah, 9, the Quran)
That the Muslims should make allies or have peace with certain of them (because of their fighting the Muslims e.g. in a war or in an ambush, and so forth) is thus forbidden.
See, Sura 3, Verses 193 – 194,
“Lord, those whom you condemn to the Fire You have surely brought to disgrace. Wrongdoers will have no supporters.”
“Lord, we have heard a caller calling to the true faith saying, “Believe in your Lord and we believed. Lord forgive us our sins and remove from us our bad deeds and make us die with the virtuous.”
Success mentioned about the events at Tabuk (see p. 503, al-Mubarakpuri) often called the final battle of the Prophet, SAWS.
Other examples of apostates:
- ‘Ubaidullah bin Jahsh was a famous person who apostatized and became a Christian. His wife stood fast to her religion and refused to convert with him. When ‘Ubaidullah died in Abyssinia, Allah’s Messenger asked ‘Amr bin Umaiyah to go with a letter to the Negus, the King of Ethiopia, and asked him for Umm Habibah’s hand, as he was the ruler of that land and was permitted to give her away. The Negus agreed and sent her to the Prophet in the company of another person (probably a group of people with them, as she would not have been permitted to travel alone with a non-Mahram man). Allah knows best. This is from page 564 of the book The Sealed Nectar by al-Mubarakpuri, from which I have extensively quoted. We see that a well-known and recognized person was not killed merely for apostasy, and while he lived amongst the community of Muslims in Abyssinia; if the Muslims had been treacherous they would not have hesitated to kill the apostate, but instead they let him be. There was no reason to kill a person merely for apostasy, and in the land of the peaceful Christian King who had given the Muslims asylum. Therefore, we see that peace was possible and that one apostate was of no consequence or concern, in fact, they did not force anyone to keep to Islam, the attitude being that even if the hypocrites ran away to the non-Muslims the Muslims would not have gone after them, as evidenced by the treaty between Muhammad, and the other Arab tribes, at al-Hudaibiya; the Muslims would return any runaway slaves to the non-Muslims, but would not ask for the return of their own slaves, because if they were Muslims, also , and had run away, that would prove their hypocrisy and such people’s faith was not required; they would essentially have been more a threat to the Muslims (in terms of morale and security) than if they were permitted to leave. I haven’t found how many or if any of the Muslims’ slaves (if Muslim) ever ran away (from the Muslims) to their people or to the pagans e.g. the non-Muslims with whom the Muslims had the aforementioned treaty.
Examples of Treachery:
As Nadir Ahmed eloquently pointed out, the non-believers (the Quraish and other Pagan Arabs, or Jews) were used to plotting against the Muslims, hiding their hypocrisy and breaking their oaths or covenants they had made with the Prophet, SAWS.
1) 700 Jews in Medina who were adept at fighting (they were warriors and bragged about their fighting skills and mocked the Muslims’ fighting skills) who broke their covenant with the Muslims. (revise – add direct quote)
2) The man who was sought (who took refuge in the Ka’aba) and was killed due to his stealing the zakat money, killing a Muslim and because he had apostatized and then fled to Mecca after the aforementioned crimes. The Prophet ordered him killed though he hung onto the curtain of the Ka’aba and tried to seek refuge there. He was a known criminal and murderer as well as an apostate. (revise - reference)
3) The men (a group of about 7) who went to the shepherd and killed him and crucified him with nails, and gouged out his eyes, were killed in the same way they had killed the shepherd and they were crucified. (revise – reference)
4) The treachery and assassination attempt of the Prophet by the 12 hypocrites; after the win at Tabuk, as he returned to Medina with only ‘Ammar and Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman, who was driving the camel. About this event, Allah revealed, “And they resolved that (plot to murder Prophet Muhammad, SAWS) which they were unable to carry out.” (Ch:9, V:74)
(Page 505, al-Mubarakpuri)
Some of the above examples already are elsewhere in my blog, so I’ll try to soon find the direct quotes or add links at the bottom of the page.
Condition of slave women of the Prophet:
It is interesting to note, that in addition to eleven wives, the Prophet had two slave women and at least a male slave, Allah knows best. At his death he owned one slave, only. Some traditions mention that he had a male slave who was released before his death. Other traditions tell about other slaves he had released, most noteably his freed slave Zaid ibn Haritha, one of the Sahabah and one who was among the ten informed of his guarantee of Paradise.
One might think that this was common, however, it was Allah’s instructions to the Prophet that he marry all eleven of these wives, and two only died before his death; they were his first wife of twenty-five years (to whom he had been monogamous) and his wife Zainab umm ul masakeen.
We know in the Bible, Solaiman, AS, was said to have many concubines, or Muslims would say ‘slave women’; it is questionable however, and the Prophets of Allah in any case were the best of people. We know that Solaiman, in the Qur’an asked Allah for an earthly Kingdom which would never have any rival, therefore when the Prophet Muhammad was given the choice between an earthly Kingdom, or the position and title of a Prophet and Messenger, he remembered the dua (supplication) of Solaiman (for a Kingdom which would be unrivaled by other people) so he chose to remain the Prophet and Messenger of Allah ( not to become a "Prophet King" like Solaiman, AS).
Two wives who Muhammad, pbuh, did not consummate marriage with and divorced were Al-Jauniyah, from Kindah and one from Bani Kilab tribe. (P. 564, al-Mubarakpuri)
It would have been distressing to any woman in those days to be divorced, but especially from the foremost man amongst the men of Arabia.
The Prophet offered all of his wives gifts, and in case he divorced any of them, they were compensated. He only ever divorced the two women, one who had said, “I seek Allah’s protection from you”; some women advised the bride to say it; she then did, believing that would make her more desirable to him when in fact the opposite effect (e.g. divorce) resulted. The other woman had a skin disease like vertigo. (Both accounts appear in the hadiths).
The Prophet also would not refuse a gift; two women were bondwomen given to him as gifts.
In the Qur’an, Sarah gives her slave girl, a gift from the Pharaoh who admired her good character, to the Prophet Abraham, AS, (her husband). This was Hajar who became the mother of his son Ishmael, which caused Sarah to become jealous of Hajar.
One slave woman was a gift from his wife Zaynab bint Jahsh (his cousin) and the other was a gift from the king of Egypt, Al-Muqawqis (that was Maria the Copt, who gave birth to his son Ibrahim, who died as a child. If he had refused these women, that would have been disrespectful, in the custom and opinion of the people then, and also, there was nothing to prevent him according to the correct Islamic law, which permitted relations with slave women. (P. 564, 565, Ibid)
The number of his slave women were two – the other two women who were captives, one being “Rehanah bint Zaid bin ‘Amr bin Khanafah bin Sham’un (An Nadriyah or Quraiziyah) and the other was named Jamilah. (P. 565, Ibid) According to custom, he must have released them and then married them, because “war prisoners” are not “slaves” (someone born into slavery, or someone whom other people, usually before Islam, had captured and made a slave). A specific hadith definitely disliked or discouraged, if not completely forbidding slavery, which says that the man (person) who trades in slavery is a bad person (revising – for exact wording of the Prophet, pbuh. It is one of the Sahih traditions.)
At his death, these two were free - Mariyah al Copt, because she was Umm Walid (a woman becomes free after her husband’s death because she had a child for him), and no other men were permitted to marry the wives of the Prophet of Allah, and it is not mentioned if this also meant a slave woman who had not born him offspring. It is also possible that he had freed them before his death. It’s possible he had one slave at the time of his death according to some hadiths; probably not a slave woman, but a male slave. (Revising; checking).
By all accounts, the Prophet, SAWS, was not interested extending his right to more and more women to satisfy human (“carnal”) desires, but rather his objectives were purely motivated by higher goals e.g. in forging good relations with the people who he had dealings with, whether kings or tribal leaders and those with whom he shared a special relationship due to marriage (in-laws). Most of his wives were past child-bearing age. His second wife was an older woman equal in age to the Prophet, or in her 50s. As earlier stated, he had only two slave women, both gifted to him, whom were later freed as per the Islamic custom. Some say he married another of his slave women, but this isn't a strong opinion.
In one case, his marriage to Juwairiyah resulted in the freedom from captivity (a condition not equal to slavery, but which would usually result in some kind of negotiations to free them; such as ransom) of 100 of her tribes-people, by the Muslims in celebration of the Prophet’s marriage to her, and to honor them. Due to this spontaneous act of generosity, they all later accepted Islam. (P. 566, Ibid) (Similarly, Safiyah was married to the Prophet; the same woman who the evangelical Robert Spencer accuses the Prophet of raping after the battle). By all accounts she (May Allah be pleased with her) was one of the most honored and respected of women in Arabia at that time, and was more than willing to become the wife of Muhammad, SAWS. There is no evidence to the contrary, as she willingly went with the Prophet, as Nadir Ahmed clearly shows in one of the debates with Robert Spencer. Wherefore people are too blind to accept this argument doesn’t change the facts. (If you quote hadiths, then be thorough about it, or don’t do it at all). Spencer obviously lies to further an agenda, which is why he rarely ‘leaves the script’. He does admit in one debate that Muslims are not permitted to rape their wives. (Provide a video link – revise later)
As I’ve stated many times, if the Muslims or the Prophet had ever mistreated women, then they would in no way have inclined towards Islam, nor would have the Arab nations or tribes have been inclined in any way. Therefore, it is obvious that such crimes never took place (as rape), and as noted by the scholars - Islam didn’t permit the Muslim warriors to marry women or to have intercourse with them upon capture - as per the rules of war (practiced by Muslims only) the divorce of these women befell and after one menstrual period had passed (and when they had purified themselves) as only then a marriage could take place - whereas these women would otherwise have been kept in limbo, neither able to satisfy their own desires lawfully, nor being able to marry by the permission of the Muslim ruler, if they would not have been legally permitted as per the Islamic ruling regarding captives (also a ruling for slaves existed, as a separate issue, they were able to marry, or to enjoy monogamous sex with one man, permitting no harm was done to them, or they didn’t engage in affairs).
Alternatively, I am told that the period of time required to pass before the Muslims to marry the captives would be three months, perhaps this is closer to the truth, I honestly don’t know. It might be, so that the families of these captives would have more time to negotiate a release for them, and to return them to their family or husbands (if they desired), otherwise they could choose to remain with the Muslims. It happened that some women who declared their Islam came alone to Medina, and the Qur’an speaks about this event, saying to question the women e.g. make sure that they really want to be Muslims, not just saying that for some other reason (one never knows if someone is just escaping other problems and believes Muslims will only help them if they accept Islam.)It is very important that the pagan women who accept Islam should be truthful (as men also) because it is forbidden for Muslims to marry non-believers, specifically those who are not from the category of “People of the Book” whom Muslims are permitted to marry.
Treatment and release of Captives
At one time, after a battle and the capture of some men, the Muslims tied them to the pillars of the masjid (house of worship); later they began to release them after they had promised to release anyone who had taught three illiterate Muslims to read. I mentioned that Fadel Solaiman has researched and made some CDs on the subject of Islam, e.g. Jihad on Terrorism, and others before and since. He also is a well-known speaker on the international (Islamic) circuit and gives workshops on how to preach Islam. I recommend anyone to buy his CDs online, as they are well worth the money. He has researched and compiled evidence which appear in his work (CDs, videos).Some of these materials are available free online, specifically he has his own online channel, or YT (I will provide the link(s), as well as where to purchase the CDs because I believe they are very beneficial to truth-seekers).
The Problem of Slavery
In one arbitration case to the Prophet, a man was told to sell his slave woman “even if for a hair rope”, because she was promiscuous, so it isn’t like many people believe, that the women in the early days of Islamic era were kept in complete bondage, in chains or that they didn’t experience some semblance of normality, as defined by the times (in which they lived). Slaves were not to be harshly treated in any case. It is true that today, this issue receives a lot of attention because Islam didn’t outright prohibit slavery. But if one studies the Islamic history with an open mind, one can easily see that Islam encouraged the freeing of slaves, and only permitted Muslims to keep slaves because the enemies also kept Muslims as slaves. It is widely believed by modern Muslims that slavery would be undesirable and not completely Islamic; this is the view supported by the saying of the Prophet, SAWS, “?” (Revising – find direct quote - anyway, this is 180 degrees from the sayings of the non-Muslims’ claim e.g. that Islam is the major reason that people practiced slavery or traded slaves.
This means that to return to the former practices of the ancient people with regards to slavery is greatly discouraged and would mean a step backwards, as per the saying and practice of the Prophet of peace, Muhammad, Allah’s peace and blessings be unto his Messenger, who encouraged and practiced emancipation, and there is no need for more discussion of the topic, in my humble opinion. (Except to revise, I’m done).
Marry free women, or slave women
The final point I want to make is that the Quran also taught that it would be better for men to marry slave women than to marry orphans, because one would like to marry orphans when they had an inheritance, but not if they didn’t have an inheritance. Therefore, to be just to the orphans, men were either to marry the mothers of these girls, or if no mother, then slave women of their choosing (might mean slave women or captives e.g. “those right hands possess”)
How do we know what slave women thought, or if they protested their condition?
Simply, it was the condition of women at the time, when wars were fought and a surplus of women without husbands or guardians emerged. This is not a condition which Islam forced on these women, but it was the natural consequence of the battles that took place almost constantly, between non-Muslims. It wasn’t Muslims and Islam which forced women into this position, it was the position they had always been forced into; how could the Muslims change such an ingrained and socially acceptable situation unilaterally?; these slaves, and their children, who automatically became slaves were there before Islam, and the non-believers used to continue to capture free men and women, sometimes through defeating their enemies or sometimes through attacks on (innocent or weak) people. Similarly, other problems which non-believers were responsible for were the attacks on caravans, highway robbery and slave trading which occurred separate from wars. It is easy to admit that logically, there would have been no slave trade later on (or the mass scale of it) if the Christians (e.g. Americans and Europeans) didn’t demand slaves (the law of “supply and demand”), providing the impetus to some unscrupulous men; Muslims or European colonizers in Africa, to begin a wave of kidnapping and enslaving mostly free African (black natives of Africa). A famous captured Muslim was the Prince Abdu Rahman, an African, who was captured and finally received his freedom much later, after spending many years as a slave in America. A great portion of his life, and all his family wealth and prestige had been stolen from him during the Africa to West slave trade, by the mere act of the wicked traders who had seen the prince alone, enjoying a peaceful walk on the beach. It is very cruel but a lesson to all, that such stories later have come to light, and the lessons we garner which might have been buried and lost forever, had someone with an earnest desire to learn the truth not done the proper research and publication. God bless such people and their efforts, and may they bear continuous fruit.
(Provide link for video about the former slave Prince Abdu rahman)
In Muslim countries, one would argue that slave men were worse off than slave women; this is because they needed the express permission of their owner(s) to marry. If none was given, they couldn’t marry; a state much more difficult for a man than a woman, even in those days.
But as is obvious, and the reason for the permissibility of Muslim men taking “slave women” as concubines, women also had the natural desire for men, which didn’t mean they were necessarily happy with their position, but they certainly full understood their position; it was the lot of women everywhere.
Muslims couldn’t all afford to marry a free woman that is clear. Whereas the meaning of slavery is that the person is socially a lower-class citizen, even if accepting Islam during bondage; and the distribution of the slaves and other war booty followed and gave the poorer Muslims a share of the spoils. Since these non-Muslim people were in bondage, and were therefore not equally responsible for their crimes as free men and women, even their sexually promiscuous behavior would be to a degree less severely punished. (It would not been fitting for a Muslim slave to commit sexual crimes, but it probably wasn’t completely unknown). Thus the punishment for them (all slaves) would have been half e.g. 20 or 40 stripes. If they were weak they would receive less than others, as well.
Also, as mentioned, the female captives constituted a greater problem; where as many non-Muslim men would have died in battles or been injured or maimed, they would have predeceased the women and children (including girls old enough to marry e.g. orphans) or they would have not been able to defend them, thus the surplus of (free women) during wars (captives, which fell to the victors). The vast majority must have been women and children, or families without a head. It was even more distressing for them because of their former status, and if they were wealthy, their wealth became the property of the victors and left them penniless.
This seems to be the reason that Muslim men (who were poor, or desired marriage) would marry slave women as opposed to orphans, and especially if orphans were wealthy (speaking about the Muslim girls in particular) they wouldn’t have needed to marry young or out of desperation, and they had inheritance rights and maintenance rights (by any male relatives, if present).
Slaves were permitted to marry. Barira, RA, married and then later, Aisha, RA, freed her from bondage of ‘her people’, by buying her freedom for her, on the condition (in Islam) that she would inherit from Barira. (Barira then received a divorce from her husband, still a slave.) The people didn’t want to allow Aisha, RA, and claimed that they had more right to Barira’s inheritance, but the Prophet ruled that Allah, Subhanahu, stipulates that the one who ransoms the slave inherits. The adopted son of the Prophet had been a former slave, before he married Zaynab bin Jahsh, the Prophet’s cousin, whom he later divorced. She felt that he was not good enough for her, or that is what was always implied in the hadiths, God knows best.
Slavery is “unfair”
This highlights how slavery was indeed a position of a recognized unnatural, but common feature of ancient life, which was rejected by the human soul as “unfair” or “ill luck” or indeed a catastrophe. Eventually, the speed with which Islam began to put a dent in the practice, it also illuminated for the people the real position of humans in the earthy life as a temporary abode, which we want to leave, much like a prison, and that in our core we love to be free; we are all born free and bondage is one of the cruelest conditions which wars and unjust practices (of the period of ignorance) impose (d) on the weak or the beaten.
Does the world today recognize that imprisonment and torture of POWs is just as heinous and unfair as the past position of slaves? The right of many governments to “illegal search and seizure” as it’s called by the wide public, such as permitted under the Patriot Act, or by laws passed in the wake of the destruction of the WTC buildings early in September 2001. Prison, without trial, and other practices are just as inhumane and cruel as slavery ever was. It’s true that in the past, the ancient people at least understood that they were always at risk of becoming slaves or losing their families, and life was very harsh then; but today’s men (as most POWs are men, but a few women have also been imprisoned as POWs or detained as suspected terrorists around the globe) are largely in shock, as the majority of people are also shocked. The modern world cannot begin to understand (or also justify) treatment which is cruel and inhumane or torture.
Non-Muslim favorable opinion:
The former justice of the Hague, C G Weeramantry writes, “The fact that so many Islamic nations have of their own free will subscribed to the objective of the United Nations is also testimony to this desire for coexistence on a footing of equality rather than any desire for the imposition of its ideology upon others.” (P.163,Islamic Jurisprudence; An International Perspective, 1998).
(From the)Prophet’s farewell speech:
“You will go back to be resurrected after death to your Lord. There you will be accounted for your deeds. So, do not turn into people who go astray and kill one another.”
(And)
“Have I not delivered the Message of my Lord?” “Yes, you have.” They said. “O Allah! Bear witness! Let him that is present convey it to him who is absent. For, to whom the Message is conveyed may be having more understanding of it than the audience,” he said. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1/234)
