Prophet Muhammad & Slaves

[Khandro]

With the current craze for the historical discrediting of many people of the past, many of whom had only a rather tenuous connection to slavery, why is the name of Muhammad never mentioned, his connection to slavery was far from tenuous, personally owning them in large numbers.

[naomi24]

'Cos it's only the wicked, white west that must be held responsible.

[dannyk13]

Because he was not British.The historical discrediting is a fad of certain factions in the UK.

[ToraToraTora]

because Islam is exempt from all criticism.

[Mozz71]

Not something I have much knowledge about, but from the BBC Religions page:

"The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries). The impetus for the abolition of slavery came largely from colonial powers, although some Muslim thinkers argued strongly for abolition."

And later: "Muhammad's teaching that slaves were to be regarded as human beings with dignity and rights and not just as property, and that freeing slaves was a virtuous thing to do, may have helped to create a culture in which slaves became much more assimilated into the community than they were in the West."

all in all, it seems that ol' Mo was quite the liberal for those days. Obviously a slave owner, which is never a good thing, but could be worse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

[douglas9401]

Some say he should be given more credit for inventing the zero-hours contract.

[Spicerack]

Some liberal.

[Mozz71]

Spicerack- for the 6th Century or whenever ot was Muhammad was alive.

[webbo3]

https://newafricanmagazine.com/16616/

[naomi24]

Mozz, I saw your question. It's there.

Mohammed was no liberal.

[brainiac]

He also had a very young wife - Aisha - but perhaps we'd better not go there....

[Mozz71]

No worries Naomi, I couldn't find the thread. Got it now.

I know, but by the standards of those times, he doesn't appear to have been a monster either.

[Mozz71]

//He also had a very young wife - Aisha - but perhaps we'd better not go there....//

*Goes to research*

Ewwww.

Now that's harder to defend.

[naomi24]

//by the standards of those times, he doesn't appear to have been a monster either. //

He was, among other things, a warmonger - and crafty too.

[pixie374]

Mozz, from Google, so, willing to be corrected. It seems the bible gave no particular age either... but usually "from puberty". And suggests Mary and Joseph were young teenagers. Romeo and Julie were supposed to be 12 and 13.
Not my personal views... but it does seem ages of consent came in far later for everyone.

[david small]

He was an opportunistic warmongering child loving person of his time. Nowadays. He’d be either a dictator or a prisoner.

[Mozz71]

Well, according to Wiki (I know, not the most reliable source) Aisha was single digits when she married Muhammad, and barely out of nursery when betrothed. I know it's 1500 years ago (give or take) and things were different, but there was criticism even then. It's all kinds of nasty.

[Khandro]

Mozz, I've seldom read such a load of whitwashing tripe as that BBC article. Absolutely typical of the Beeb.

[pixie374]

It is, mozz. I'm trying to understand, not to defend.

[pixie374]

I got, 6 at marriage, and consummated at 9. In this day and age, there's not a lot we can say, that isn't already blindingly obvious. But I know a few girls who could have got married at 8. Education and laws... and life expectancy, have thankfully made a huge difference. Usually.