Where did Monirul Islam (pictured here) get the idea that he could treat someone this way? Perhaps from the Qur’an and Sunnah: Muhammad owned slaves, and the Qur’an takes the existence of slavery for granted, even as it enjoins the freeing of slaves under certain circumstances, such as the breaking of an oath: “Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom” (5:89).
While the freeing of a few slaves here and there is encouraged, however, the institution itself is never questioned. Slavery was taken for granted throughout Islamic history, as it was, of course, in the West up until relatively recent times. Yet the impetus to end slavery moved from Christendom into Islam, not the other way around. Because the Qur’anic word cannot be questioned, and the book does not contain the Biblical principles that led to the abolition of slavery in the West, there has never been a Muslim abolitionist movement. Slavery ended in Islamic lands under pressure from the West.
In fact, when the British government began pressuring other regimes to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century, the Sultan of Morocco was incredulous. “The traffic in slaves,” he noted, “is a matter on which all sects and nations have agreed from the time of the sons of Adam…up to this day.” He said that he was “not aware of its being prohibited by the laws of any sect” and that the very idea that anyone would question its morality was absurd: “No one need ask this question, the same being manifest to both high and low and requires no more demonstration than the light of day.”
Sadiq al-Mahdi, former prime minister of Sudan, would agree. On March 24, 1999, he wrote to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, that “the traditional concept of JIHAD does allow slavery as a by-product.” And so slavery persists in some areas of the Islamic world. The BBC reported in December 2008 that “strong evidence has emerged of children and adults being used as slaves in Sudan”s Darfur region.”
Mauritanian human rights crusader Boubakar Messaoud asserted that in that country, people are born and bred as slaves: “A Mauritanian slave, whose parents and grandparents before him were slaves, doesn”t need chains. He has been brought up as a domesticated animal.” Three years later, nothing had changed. Messaoud explained in March 2007: “It”s like having sheep or goats. If a woman is a slave, her descendants are slaves.” Likewise in Niger, which formally abolished slavery only in 2003, slavery is a long-standing practice. Journalist and anti-slavery activist Souleymane Cisse explained that even Western colonial governments did nothing to halt the practice: “The colonial rulers preferred to ignore it because they wanted to co-operate with the aristocracy who kept these slaves.”
Islamic slavery has not been unknown even in the United States. When the Saudi national Homaidan Al-Turki was imprisoned for holding a woman as a slave in Colorado, he complained that “the state has criminalized these basic Muslim behaviors. Attacking traditional Muslim behaviors was the focal point of the prosecution.” Where did he get the idea that slavery was a “traditional Muslim behavior”? From the Qur’an.
“Bangladeshi man says he worked in slave-like conditions for consul general in W. 57th St. apartment: suit,” by Dareh Gregorian for the New York Daily News, March 21 (thanks to Maxwell):
A Bangladeshi man says he was lured to the U.S. with the promise of a “good” $3,000 a month job working for his country’s counsel general — and wound up spending 18 months in their luxury Manhattan apartments in “slavery-like conditions.”
In papers filed in Manhattan Federal Court, Mashud Parves Rana says consul general Monirul Islam and his wife, Fahima Tahsina Prova, forced him to work from 6:30 am to 11 pm, seven days a week for 18 months — and never paid him a dime.
They kept the man “in forced labor in slavery-like conditions” in their sprawling, $8,000-a-month W. 57th St. apartment, the suit says, barring him “from leaving their residence under his own volition, threatening to beat him or kill him, threatening that the police will arrest him or kill him if he left their residence, physically assaulting him on at least two occasions, (and) maintaining possession over Mr. Rana’s passport and visa,” says the suit.
Among his tasks, the suit says, was cooking the family’s food from scratch, washing their clothes by hand, supervising their 11-year-old son and cleaning the apartment daily.
“Mr. Rana would complete his daily tasks by approximately 11:00 pm each night. However, if defendants were attending an event outside of the house, Mr. Rana was required to wait for them to return to let them in and prepare a late meal for them. On these occasions, Mr. Rana did not finish work until approximately 1 am.
“Several times per month, defendants hosted parties and gatherings in their home, for which Mr. Rana was required to cook for all of the guests, and to clean up after the guests left. On these occasions, Mr. Rana did not finish his work until at least 3 a.m.,” the suit says — and he was also required to cook for events at the Bangladesh Consulate on E. 43rd St.
He wasn’t allowed to cook for himself, however – the suit says he was only allowed to eat expired or leftover food….
Jay Boo says
‘Islamic DUTY’ plus Sexual Repression equals Islamic rationalization.
as per Muhammad
desidude2 says
Are we to expect the same level of outrage over this as the Indian maid who lived and worked in better conditions and was paid? Probably not, this one has to do with Muslims owning a slave and exposing this would be islamophobia. don’t you know Islam and slavery goes hand in hand.
eib says
13th Amendment– obey it or get the hell out.
Your slave will be confiscated and asked if he wishes to be free.
sheik yermami says
There is more to it than meets the eye. It is more than likely, that Monirul Islam has been ‘given’ his slave by his parents, who have chosen the slave for him. This practice is customary for generations of bonded serfs, who are seen not only as domesticated animals, but as ones obligation in as far as feeding, clothing and meeting their health care goes. Its not only a Muslim thing; it is also widely practiced among privileged Hindus, who receive their slave boys very young and keep them occupied as cleaners and cooks, or whatever.
As a westerner it is hard to get your head around this. The irony is that these people don’t seem to bear a grudge against their slavemasters; they just don’t know any better, which is not a judgement on whether they like their dependency or not.
eib says
Well, I suppose it’s hard for “them” to get their heads around the fact that 620,000 Americans died to free 4 million slaves between 1860 and 1865.
That is something I remind Muslims of frequently.
Because no Muslim ever gave his life to free anyone enslaved by the Ummah.
The character of the religion is amply reflected in the uncharitable character of its people.
duh_swami says
The Civil War was not fought to end slavery, but that was one of its results.
My gg grand father, and his three brothers all fought in the Civil War on the side of the south. Two of them were captured and hung by the enemy for violating military law and resisting with arms. My ancestors were farmers in Southern Mississippi from the 1840’s forward, they lived an farmed in the infamous Sullivan’s Hollow in Smith county. They owned no slaves and did not support slavery, but they did not participate to end, or support slavery, they had other reasons, as did the majority of those who fought and died.
The Civil War came to them, not them to it.
eib says
Yes, but if the Civil War was not about slavery, then why did antislavery societies burgeon in the North post 1831, and why was there so much momentum toward the fight there?
I have some advanced study in American history, and I know that the pro-slavery rhetoric of the south, antebellum, was obvious, proud, unapologetic and AGGRESSIVE. It was only after Redemption that the case was made that the Civil War was not about slavery at all.
While it’s true that 2/3 of Southerners did not own slaves by the 1830s, it is also true that vast numbers of that 2/3 were fighting for the interests of the minority that did. They fought for slavery, they did not mind doing so at all.
The North fought against slavery, and they knew it.
It took years for zeal to turn from silence to arms, but the clock started ticking in 1819, slavery was doomed as the North become more populated, the majority.
Since ancient times, the slave trade was carried on in the Black Sea Region, it was shut down only in the mid to late nineteenth-century there. Now there is tension in the region again. Would you favor a re-institution of the Turkish and Muslim slave trade there? And how about the trans-Saharan slave trade? The Indian Ocean slave trade?
All these pre-dated the Atlantic slave trade and, wonder of wonders, they have well muted racist elements.
As I see it, the American experience with slavery demonstrated how people can cease to deceive themselves.
The other slave trades in world history demonstrate how well people are at deceiving themselves for much longer periods of time.
john spielman says
then we must educate them that both Islam and hinduism are doctrines of DEMONS which take captive any who hold to such evil thoelogy.
eib says
While there as been some tension between Christians and Hindus, it is nothing compared to the history of war and destruction between Muslims and the rest of the world.
I would tolerate Hinduism because it is a faith favoring peace.
I will fight Islam happily because the Ummah favors destruction.
desidude2 says
Slavery was never practiced in Hindu India and is prohibited by the religion. following is from the Hindu scriptures the,
” O Devi of the Kulas! the human body is the receptacle of piety, wealth, desires, and final liberation. It should therefore never be the subject of purchase; and such a purchase is by reason of my commands invalid.[107]vedas, ”
However the muslims who invaded India did practice it and imposed it on the Hindu Indians.
Isabella says
I would like to know what will happen to the slave man? If he returns to Bangladesh, his life may be threatened. Disgusting story and nobody is surprised. Slavery and Islam are compatible of course the media would never associate the fact (not a product of the imagination) that Islam permits people to take slaves.
Mr. Squat says
I would like to know what will happen to the slave man? If he returns to Bangladesh, his life may be threatened.
========================
Mind your own effing business do-gooder!! They have their customs, we have ours. For sure we don’t need more “refugees” from Islamo-land.
ImAmerican says
Say what you will Sir. It is apparent that you have not studied the texts of islam. It is an infectious disease that destroys its hosts when invaded. I apply that notion to non infidels and infidels alike. The fact is that invasion and conquest are their main vehicles of propagation. It is their DUTY to do these things. Were you exposed to their customs I would think that you would become a dhimmi just to “keep the peace” with them. What you would really be is a slave obligated in their minds to submit to their will and obey, not to mention support financially. I suggest you do some studying in order to get up to speed on islam.
mortimer says
MOREOVER…Islamic theology justifies slavery FOR ALL ETERNITY.
The least number of slaves per Muslim in paradise is 70,000!!!! Jihadist get MORE slaves than that.
The FULFILLMENT of Islam…the goal of Islam…the purpose of Islam…is to own SLAVES for eternity!
Mr. Squat says
IT’S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS how they treat their slaves, their women, etc. What happens in Islamic countries is not our concern, as long as they stay there, and we stay here, and they dont come here, and we dont go there.
Take your do-gooder, nation-building, disease-curing, civilizing instincts and put them to good use at home. Just let Islam be.
citycat says
Impossible
Islam will not let anyone be
That’s the problem and it cannot be solved by letting Islam be
Mr. Squat says
I strongly disagree. Did Muslims force their way into our countries? Nope. WE INVITED THEM TO SETTLE HERE. Who’s fault is it?
You bring a rattler into your house. Do you expect it to behave?
citycat says
Not force at first, drama and trickery and stealth by Ignorance or treachery or cowardice of the letting iners.
The force is coming soon.
Even if they were not let in then it would need the whole world not to let them in.
If Islam takes the world except for the country you are in, then your country is taken as a matter of course, unless heavy war is.
Islam has not yet let be anyone.
The current situation demands for the survival of Infidels to get the non Infidels off the case of the Infidels, the non Infidels will not get off the Infidels’ case.
So the non Infidels cannot be let be, because the non Infidels will kill the infidels otherwise.
But also, i guess it depends whose side one is on.
That must be Q.E.D. by now, surely.
How long does bullshit take to crisp up?
Fray Bientos
duh_swami says
It would be fine with me if they kept their BS over there and not bring it over here, but that’s not what happens. Islam is an export, and they are bound as a duty to Allah to export it. That some kuffar are stupid enough to help them is basically irrelevant since Islam is going to be exported anyway. The only way the whole world can be for Allah, is by export.
Bill C. says
Mr. Squat:
a) apparently, you are a Rand/Ron Paul troll. Begone.
b) your surname says all I need to know about you. Begone.
Huck Folder says
Nice analogy Diddly, are you suggesting obuMBoy is inviting islamosnakes in by the million?
SaturnV says
I would tend to agree with you if we weren’t pouring money into the muslim world for oil. We are financing our own destruction. We have to become 100% free of any dependence on foreign oil to be able to say with impunity “you stay in your space and I’ll stay in mine and if you cross into my space or threaten to, I will use all the power at my disposal to prevent it.”
SaturnV says
By “foreign oil” I mean OPEC or OIC, or whatever flavor they want to call themselves these days. Muslim oil is the jizya of the modern infidel world.
Defcon 4 says
BUt how can one be a good muslime and free a slave, if he doesn’t already own a few slaves? After all, a good muslime slave owner can’t afford to free all his slaves now can he?
Raymond Cameron says
Please note that freeing a slave is a punishment in islam; there are two other ways of avoiding it. When muslims talk about freeing slaves being mandated in the quran, they are telling lies.
Defcon 4 says
‘The BBC reported in December 2008 that “strong evidence has emerged of children and adults being used as slaves in Sudan”s Darfur region.”’
Maybe the Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation can explain to Simon Deng that he wasn’t really enslaved by muslimes at all.
eib says
As I said, the presence of slavery in the present and in history demonstrates the capacity of human beings to deceive themselves.
The West is execrable in its hypocrisy on this issue.
gravenimage says
eib wrote:
As I said, the presence of slavery in the present and in history demonstrates the capacity of human beings to deceive themselves.
The West is execrable in its hypocrisy on this issue.
………………………………..
I’m sorry, eib—the West fought long and hard to end slavery.
Standing against slavery today is supremely moral—*not* hypocrisy.
Ayatrollah says
With the evil kafir laws of the USA, not coming from Allah but man, should provide him with enough money from his pious captures that he should not want for anything for life. Surely these types of laws are what the jihadis fight against, because they do not follow sharia law. Silly kafir laws rewarding what Allah did not make lawful.