| Author | Topic |
raushan
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
 Posted - Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 1:35 PM 
quote:
...Is the argument of evolutionary inducement justification enough for us, for him to have kept relations with her in order to demonstrate how slaves ought to be treated? ....]
plz come straight .
Will you brief us about the condition of a slave (slave girl ok) during that period.
or what was the difference between an animal and a slave?
who can have a son(legal and socially accepted) a wife or a Concubine?
text |
|
raushan
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
Posted - Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:15 AM
Mustadrak records:
Musab bin Abdullah Zubairi says that the Holy Prophet married Maria Bint Sham’oon. And this is the Maria which the ruler of Alexandria gave to the Holy Prophet, as a gift. Her sister, Sereen, also came along with her as a gift to the Holy Prophet. Both these ladies were escorted by a castrated slave named Maboor. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) gave Sereen to Hassan (rta). Al-Maqooqas was of the tribe Qibti, who were Christians. (Mustadrak, 4:41 No.6819)
From the words, as a gift to the Holy Prophet (pbuh), one gets the impression that Maria was a slave. However, the fact that he married her negates the notion of her being a slave, in my humble opinion. Furthermore, she was escorted by a castrated slave – a precautious act that could only be undertaken to protect the honor of free and modest ladies. A king could not have been so sensitive in case of slave women. Another fact which needs due consideration is that Maqooqas has been told as Qibti as Maria herself was. In the first report also, as quoted above, Maria has been described in words ‘from among the royal family’. This conclusively shows that she was not a slave girl; indeed, the Holy Prophet (pbuh) married her [1].
mawrid |
|
waseem
UNITED KINGDOM
|
Posted - Saturday, December 2, 2006 - 6:01 AM
brother Raushan
I have spoken to Javaid Ahmad Ghamidhi personally about this issue. His opinion is that Maria was a slave and prophet Pbuh never married her.I appreciate that Al-Mawrid web site has answered this question in a manner which differs from his opinion.
I personally find it difficult to accept that, when so much is known about all the other ummahaat ul momeneen, for the prophet Pbuh , to have married Maria, it would be a well known fact. It would not be a contentious issue. We have no conflict about the rest of the wives of the prophet PBUH. |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 2:22 AM
"The English dictionary uses the word Gospel truth mainly for Christ but also meaning absolute truth. Thus in the Qur'an we have the absolute truth. The rasools of Allah like prophet Mohammad pbuh conveyed Truth in its entirety. Today no one scholar can claim that he /she knows the entire truth. Maybe one person understood one matter better and the other another one."
So here are verities and degrees of the truth. So you believe that story of four blind men seeing an elephant. They described it differently likening it to the particular part they touched. It is all moderating or modernizing Islam by apologetic and weird reasoning about slavery in Islam. I would advise all to read 'Ehyaulaloom' by Imam Ghazali and Hidaya, a renowned book on 'Fiqah' to know the 'original' truth about Islam and slavery.
I am of the view that Islam did not abolish any pre-Islamic institution but only tried to reform it. In my view the slaves of the slave-owning Muslim societies were in a better position than the slave-workers of today, especially those working in foreign countries. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Friday, December 8, 2006 - 3:21 AM
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Saturday, December 9, 2006 - 2:22 AM
quote:
read the section on slavery and family on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
Thank you dear Oosman. I read it but found nothing new. I may clarify that I am an ethnic Arab but an Ajmi one and am proud of being Arab as The prophet himself was. It is an accepted fact that the pre-Islamic Arab society was a slave-owning one and it continued to be so even after the advent of Islam. But I see that Ajmi writers, in their enthusiasm to extol Islam, generally paint pre-Islamic Arab society more blackish than it really was. Just see for example this extract from the Wikipedia:
“This led to a deterioration in the rights of women. At the time Islam began, the conditions of women were terrible - they had no right to own property, were supposed to be the property of the man, and if the man died everything went to his sons." Muhammad, however, by "instituting rights of property ownership, inheritance, education and divorce, gave women certain basic safeguards." [92]
Do you think it is correct? I beg to disagree. Hazrat Khadijah, first wife of the prophet, was a rich woman owning property and doing the business of import/export at the time of advent of Islam. How can you explain this?
Then they accuse Arabs of female infanticide. If it were so prevalent how could the Arabs indulge in unbridled polygamy by marrying more than four wives? And so on ad infinitum.
I would suggest you to read 'History of Saracens' by Syed Amir Ali. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Saturday, December 9, 2006 - 2:31 AM
1- how do you know the wiki page is by an Ajmi?
2- even in the quran, it mentions the arabs used to kill the girls as infants
3- Khadija may have been an exception - but I admit I do not have enough knowledge on this matter |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Saturday, December 9, 2006 - 2:32 AM
quote:
I am an ethnic Arab but an Ajmi one
if you cannot speak arabic, then you are not arab.
Edited by: oosman on Saturday, December 09, 2006 2:32 AM |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 11:51 PM
Oosman
You say:
"if you cannot speak arabic, then you are not arab."
Excuse me dear Oosman you have side-tracked the issue with a very faulty and irrelevant argument. Do you think language is more important than one's ethnicity. Ok, I withdraw my 'claim' to be treated as an Arab.
As for the female infanticide it is still being widely practiced. In fact with the advent of ultra-sound it has taken the shape of female feticide now at least in the Indian sub-continent at an alarming rate, disturbing seriously the male-female ratio in some of the Indian states. In Pakistan they are killing women in 'Karo-Kari'. My point is that these practices are all condemnable, but why treat them as a speciality of Arabs as Allah has described that in the Quran. At least it was not so prevalent there to disturb the male-female ratio. This proves only that the Quranic Allah was concerned with the social reformation only of the Arab society and so pointed out their ills. But did it make any difference? In my view the Arabs and the Muslims at large are worse to day in every respect than the pre-Islamic 'Jahilia' Arabs. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Monday, December 11, 2006 - 7:36 PM
| why do you get the impression that these problems are treated as specialty of arabs? |
|
tilawat
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Monday, December 11, 2006 - 11:32 PM
quote:
why do you get the impression that these problems are treated as specialty of arabs?
Excuse me dear Oosman it was you who had singled out Arabs for killing their daughters. I am proud of the Arab society, which, notwithstanding, being a slave-owning one, could produce men like the great Abu Taalib and a woman like Hazrat Khadeejah, and, if you don't mind, even
Mohammad,the prophet (PBUH). |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 2:44 AM
| i dont think i said it like that, but i am sorry if i did |
|
hkhan
UNITED KINGDOM
|
 Posted - Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:57 PM
| and alhamdulillah we all also realize that the beloved Muhammad sws/pbuh did not give any precedense to an arab on an ajam or vice versa--except on the basis of taqwa/god-conciousness |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|