Membongkar Ideologi PAS

RahmanHatim01

Mujahidin Zulkiffli
7 August at 19:42 ·
Slavery is Not Haram in Islam


Can you Ustaz-Ustazah out there quote to me the exact dalil naqli (from Quran or hadiths) that made slavery haram? You can't give it because there is none! Boooyaahh!

Quran and Hadith did however encourage the act of freeing slaves. In fact Quran said that those who do will be among the Companions of the Right. But that my friends and foes, are not making it Haram. Therefore it is still permissible. This is why IS have slaves.

Also, Hadith about freeing slaves mentioned that the freeing of slaves of faith (Muslim slaves). Non-Muslims sorry lah k...

Anyway, for those who disagree and claims that slavery is haram in Islam, please explain why historically, Saudi and Yemen only abolished slavery in 1962 due to pressures from Britain, due to the pressures from Britain, due to the pressures from Britain. Did I say due to the pressures from Britain? Yes due to the pressures from Britain. Then Oman did it in 1970.

It is still sanctioned Islamically in predominantly Muslim countries like Chad, Niger, Mali and Sudan.

I must state here though that according to the jurisprudence of Islam, slaves in Islam are only limited to those captured in wars (strictly for wars to defend the country and defend Islam) and also their offsprings. There are no slave trading in Islam, although this was practiced but not an Islamic practice.

So for IS to capture and then enslave women, is not against Islam.

The Malays also practiced slavery not too long ago. Remember Resident JWW Birch? He was killed in Perak, for reasons reported as challenging Malay rights and Malay rulers yada yada.. what did he challenge? He wanted to abolish debt-slavery. Again, Britain trying abolish slavery in a Muslim majority land.

So... once PAS got their mandate by siding with UMNO, I'm gonna have slaves! Ho yeah!!

Did I mention Quran allows men to have sex with their slaves? Oh I didn't? Yes it's in the Quran and in hadiths.

Still want don't want to vote Harapan? OK, failing to vote for Harapan is a vote for PAS and a vote for hudud, and a vote for slavery. They didn't say they want to reintroduce slavery but once they have power...............


#hypocristan

RahmanHatim01

Mujahidin Zulkiffli
10 hrs ·
Continued... Slavery in Islam


I recently wrote about how slavery was never prohibited in Islam recently (freeing of the slaves were commanded later).

In Islam, only captives of war can be taken as slaves. (And their slave-to-slave offsprings) and since Islam is (or was) a peaceful religion, this is only allowed in defense. To defend Muslims from attacks etc. Therefore Muslims never attacked anyone unprovoked, right? WRONG!

Let's look at the attack on Banu Al Mutaliq.

The Expedition of al-Muraysi‘ was an early Muslim campaign against the tribe of Banu Mustaliq which took place in January 627AD.

It was masterminded by Muhammad, lead by Abu Bakr and Said Bin Ubadah. It was an attack on non-Muslims without warning. There are hadiths sahih (authentic) about this:
"I wrote a letter to Nāfi' and Nāfi' wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Banū al-Muṣṭaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwayrīyah on that day. Nāfi' said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army." - Sahih al-Bukhari

And,
"Ibn 'Awn reported: I wrote to Nāfi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before fighting them. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banū al-Muṣṭaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwayrīyah bint al-Ḥārith. Nāfi' said that this tradition was related to him by 'Abdullāh ibn 'Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops." - Sahih Muslim

There are many other hadiths explaining how it was a surprised attack.

So since we many Muslims believe in Hadith, we must accept that this was a surprised attack on the tribesmen, while they were unaware.

The tribesmen fought back and lost; 10 were killed and 200 families were taken captives along with their belongings.

It being a surprised attack and not being a defensive action, how can they take slaves?

And their leader, Haritha; Umar Khattab offered Muhammad that he kills Haritha. Muhammad turned it down:
According to the Sealed Nectar, Muḥammad did not punish Abdullāh ibn Ubayy in the public interest. 'Umar ibn Al-Khattāb asked Muḥammad why he did not accept his offer to kill him, to which he replied:
"Don’t you see ‘Umar if I had had him ('Abdullāh ibn Ubayy) killed, a large number of dignitaries would have furiously hastened to fight for him. Now, on the contrary, if I ask them to kill him, they will do so out of their own free will." ‘Umar replied "I swear by Allah that the Prophet’s judgement is much more sound than mine." - Ibn Hishām 2/293, referenced in The Sealed Nectar

Smart right? Great politician the prophet was.

Sorry to digress, back on slaves; how come this time slavery was allowed when Muslims are the attacker and not the defender? And it was in fact allowed by the Prophet himself:

Muhairiz said “I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa’id Al Khudri . I sat with him and asked about withdrawing the penis (while having intercourse). Abu Sa’id said We went out with the Apostle of Allah (Peace be upon him) on the expedition to Banu Al Mustaliq and took some Arab women captive and we desired the women for we were suffering from the absence of our wives and we wanted ransom, so we intended to withdraw the penis (while having intercourse with the slave women). But we asked ourselves “can we draw the penis when the Apostle of Allah (Peace be upon him) is among us before asking him about it? So we asked him about it. He said “it does not matter if you do not withdraw, for very soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.” - Sahih Abu Dawood

The Hadith came after the successful attack on the tribe, it was an attack. Not for defense so how can they take slaves? And they asked the prophet about it and he didn't prohibit it. He allowed them to fuck the slaves.

And it was The Prophet himself who divided the captured slaves among his people. You can read more about this if you read about Juwairiyyah bint Haritha (princess of the defending tribe) and how she herself became a slave and later on freed to become the Prophet's wife in exchange for the freedom of 100 people from her tribe. (There are differing opinions about this, the Muslim-friendly version says she offered to free herself but Muhammad offered to pay for it if she marries him and the freeing of 100 captives were the result of it, and a less friendlier version saying she negotiated the freedom of her people by offering herself as the prophet's bride.)

But anyhow, it's true that Quran later on encouraged Muslims to free slaves. But I stand firm in saying, Islam never prohibited slavery.
Some people argued on my previous post that Quran commanded the freeing of slaves, so that in itself is a command against slavery. WRONG!! This Hadith proves me right:

Narrated Kurib:
the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."
Sahih Bukhari Book 47 Hadith 765

Giving a slave girl to a man is better than freeing the slave girl.

Yum yum.. ah.. ah... aaaahhhhh!!!