My request is to Mr. Barni to read the fiq / jurisprudence in Islamic theology. He can understand that many sharia rules have been changed from time to time according to the situation and period.
Slavery is not part of Islamic Shariah. As I think it was just for maintaining balance with the disbelievers, who were make slaves of the war prisoners.
Islam is the only religion which started to free the slaves. The Quran and hadiths are full of this kind of command, in that Muslims were ordered to free salve in case of they committed sins.
Regards, Masood Alam Falahi
Barani says, "we are not talking about slavery of centuries ago, but of slavery here and now." There are 48 Muslim majority countries in the world. In how many of them slavery exists now?
He says, " no Muslim will ever denounce Sharia", asserting, "People of every other religion can denounce slavery even if approved in their ancient texts." Can he post some denunciations of slavery in ancient Hindu texts? Isn't ending slavery more important than denouncing ancient religious texts?
People of every other religion can denounce slavery even if approved in their ancient texts.
But we are not talking about slavery of centuries ago, but of slavery here and now.
Islamic Sharia laws allow for slavery and no Muslim will ever denounce Sharia. The Catholic Church did allow for slavery until 1888 and the Orthodox Church until 1863, but they modified their texts and banned slavery.
In Islam, unlike every other religion, one cannot modify their texts due to new times and changed times, and is still stuck with slavery and many other ills.
Like a ‘Kukurmuta’ you have again resurfaced, Mr. Barani, with your absolute lies of "made in India ‘history’ ".
In response to Mr. barani
It is very unfortunate that Mr. barni said: "Ashraf, Ajlaf and Razil are all arabic caste words and exist in islamic vocabulary well before islam came to India. "
These are Arabic words not Islamic terms.This term used by non-Muslims even the non-belivers of prophet Nooh (PBUH). Islam discouraged this kind of concept. Arazal word was used for poor by non-belivers in onness of God.
My request to mr. Barni, please read before write. I am explainig the words "Ashraf, Ajlaf and Arzal.
The word ‘ashraf’ (????????) is plural form of ‘shareef’ (???????) and it is an Arabic word which root is: Sheen. Ra. Fa. (?. ?. ?.). It means: to be high born, high bred, noble, illustrious, eminent, distinguished, and high-ranking etc. The word ‘shareef’ (???????) means: noble.
Incidently, the meaning of ‘Aryia’ is also same.
The word Ajlaf(????????) is plural form of Jif ?????)) which means: boorish, rude, uncivil, ill-mannered, rough, fool. Its root is Jeem.lam.fa. (?.?.?.).
Arzal (????????) is plural form of razeel (???????). Its root is ra.zal.lam. (?.?.?.). Its meaning is: to be low, to be base and noun form’s meaning are: low, base, mean, vile etc.
This word ‘razeel’ is used in the Holy Qur’an also. The disbelievers of the prophet Nooh’s people refused to believe in him, because of the low class, poor, and low job doer people were with him. The Holy Qur’an quotes their argument as following:
“The chiefs of the disbelievers among his people said: "We see you but a man like ourselves, nor do we see any follow you but the meanest among us and they (too) followed you without thinking. And we do not see in you any merit above us, in fact we think you are liars."
 Cowan ,J.M.: Arabic-English Dictionary ( The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, edited by: J.M.Cowan), Spoken Language Services, Inc.New York, ed. 3rd, pp.466-467.
Balbakki, Rohi: Al-Mawrid –A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary, Darul Ilm Lil-Malyeen, Bairoot,ed.7th Jan.1995,p.667, 699.
 Umar, Mohammad: Hindustani tahzeeb Ka Musalmanon Per Asar (The Influence of Indian Culture on Muslims), Directot publication division, Wazarat-e-Ittela’at Wa Nashriyat, Hokoomat-e-Hind, ed. 2nd 1975.
 Cowan ,J.M, op.cit., p.131, Balbakki , Rohi,p. 428. Al-Mu’jamul Waseet, pub. By Majma’ Al-Lughah Al-Arabia, Al-Idarat Al-a’mmah li Al-Mu’jamat W Ihya At-Turas, ed.4th 2004 AD, Maktab Ash-Shorooq Ad-Dawliyah, p.130.
 Cowan ,J.M, op.cit., p.336, Balbakki , Rohi,p. 583. Al-Mu’jamul Waseet, p.340
 The Holy Qur’an, 11:27 (Hud:27)
SLAVERY-- Bible and Christianity
Slavery... There are those who say the church and Christianity is against slavery and was against slavery. However, that is totally wrong.
"The Bible supports slavery and regulates it instead of condemning it. The Church supported it fully until 1500s with the exception of the Manichean Christians who were heretics to the Church. In the 18th century some smaller Christian sects started to realize the evil of slavery but it was in 1888 that the catholic church, the long standing, strong supporter of slavery, finally condemned it. Today the Catholic Church is trying to hide its past by lying that it had always been anti-slavery."
If you are interested in reading about this please go to this page: http://www.geocities.com/raqta24/sla.htm
Slaves in Arthasashtra
RULES REGARDING SLAVES AND LABOURERS.
THE selling or mortgaging by kinsmen of the life of a Súdra who is not a born slave, and has not attained majority, but is an Arya in birth shall be punished with a fine of 12 panas; of a Vaisya, 24 panas; of a Kshatriya, 36 panas; and of a Bráhman, 48 panas. If persons other than kinsmen do the same, they shall be liable to the three amercements and capital punishment respectively: purchasers and abettors shall likewise be punished. It is no crime for Mlechchhas to sell or mortgage the life of their own offspring. But never shall an Arya be subjected to slavery.
But if in order to tide over family troubles, to find money for fines or court decrees, or to recover the (confiscated) household implements, the life of an Arya is mortgaged, they (his kinsmen) shall as soon as possible redeem him (from bondage); and more so if he is a youth or an adult capable of giving help.
Any person who has once voluntarily enslaved himself shall, if guilty of an offence (nishpatitah), be a slave for life. Similarly, any person whose life has been twice mortgaged by others shall, if guilty of an offence, be a slave for life. Both of these two sorts of men shall, if they are once found desirous to run away to foreign countries, be slaves for life.
Deceiving a slave of his money or depriving him of the privileges he can exercise as an Arya (Aryabhava), shall be punished with half the fine (levied for enslaving the life of an Arya).
A man who happens to have taken in mortgage the life of a convict, or of a dead or an afflicted man shall be entitled to receive back (from the mortgager) the value he paid for the slave.
Employing a slave to carry the dead or to sweep ordure, urine, or the leavings of food; keeping a slave naked; or hurting or abusing him; or violating (the chastity of) a female slave shall cause the forfeiture of the value paid for him or her. Violation (of the chastity) of nurses, female cooks, or female servants of the class of joint cultivators or of any other description shall at once earn their liberty for them. Violence towards an attendant of high birth shall entitle him to run away. When a master has connection with a nurse or pledged female slave against her will, he shall be punished with the first amercement; a stranger doing the same shall be punished with the middlemost amercement. When a man commits or helps another to commit rape with a girl or a female slave pledged to him, he shall not only forfeit the purchase value, but also pay a certain amount of money (sulka) to her and a fine of twice the amount (of sulka to the Government).
The offspring of a man who has sold off himself as a slave shall be an Arya. A slave shall be entitled to enjoy not only whatever he has earned without prejudice to his master’s work, but also the inheritance he has received from his father.
On paying the value (for which one is enslaved), a slave shall regain his Aryahood. The same rule shall apply either to born or pledged slaves.
The ransom necessary for a slave to regain his freedom is equal to what he has been sold for. Any person who has been enslaved for fines or court decrees (dandapranítah) shall earn the amount by work. An Arya, made captive in war shall for his freedom pay a certain amount proportional to the dangerous work done at the time of his capture, or half the amount.
If a slave who is less than eight years old and has no relatives, no matter whether he is born a slave in his master's house, or fell to his master's share of inheritance, or has been purchased or obtained by his master in any other way, is employed in mean avocations against his will or is sold or mortgaged in a foreign land; or if a pregnant female slave is sold or pledged without any provision for her confinement, his or her master shall be punished with the first amercement. The purchaser and abettors shall likewise be punished.
Failure to set a slave at liberty on the receipt of a required amount of ransom shall be punished with a fine of 12 panas; putting a slave under confinement for no reason (samrodhaschákaranát) shall likewise be punished.
The property of a slave shall pass into the hands of his kinsmen; in the absence of any kinsmen, his master shall take it.
When a child is begotten on a female slave by her master, both the child and its mother shall at once be recognised as free. If for the sake of subsistence, the mother has to remain in her bondage, her brother and sister shall be liberated.
Selling or mortgaging the life of a male or a female slave once liberated shall be punished with a fine of 12 panas with the exception of those who enslave themselves. Thus the rules regarding slaves.
Slavery in Hinduism
By Avijit Roy
In response to : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/3993 (ALL THOSE SLAVES OF MUSLIMS)
I apologize for my late response to fatemolla's erudite article. Yes, definitely "SLAVERY IS MANKIND’S MOST CRUEL INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM THIS PLANET HAS EVER SAW". No doubt about it. I fully agree. But I do not agree with the following statement of fatemolla -
"Among religions it is only Islam that legalized slavery so loudly and clearly."
No. I do not agree. Hinduism is more specific and louder in legalizing slavery, IMO. Hinduism is the one and only religion in this world which has a documented concept of "Occhut" (Untouchables). It is the only religion in this world which spread racism directly by scripture, and by preachers. Those 'untouchable Dalits' who has been considered as 'slaves' by Aryans, are, no doubt, the most pitiable victims of Hindu religion.
In ancient Rig-Veda, we find clear mention of slaves. From Aryan scripture, we get three types of slaves [Ref. Pracheen Bharotey Dash-protha : Devraj Channa] -
1. Slaves because of incurring debts
2. Slaves because of losing in gamble
3. Slaves because of losing in war.
Since then the slaves are denoted as captivated purchasable product. It has been legalized to have intercourse with the women of defeated side after the war as the women were considered as the "spoil of war". There are numerous examples in ancient Hindu scriptures where royal sages made relationship with slave-girls. One example may be the birth of Kaksmibaan as depicted in Rig-Veda (1|116) who was born because of the relationship between Dirghotomaa and a slave-girl of Angamhishi. Kobosh-Oilush was also a child of a slave girl.
Hindu scriptures intentionally described slaves as "black", "black-vagina", "inactive" or even "inhuman" etc. Aryans were different for the slaves and it is said that Indra, the sovereign of the Hindu gods, did this separation (Rig-Veda 2|20|7, 10|22|3, 86|19, Atharva veda 5|13|8). A Slave was considered nothing but as a property, and (s)he was even allowed to be destroyed for just the benefit of Aryans (Rig-Veda 1|19|8, 5|34|6, 6|25|2, 8|40|6). It was also an ancient tradition to provide a slave girl with a new bride just after the marriage for her convenience in new house. In Vedic literature of later ages, we get an incident of a paramount ruler who made presentation about thousand slave-girls to his clergy [Oitoreyo Brahmmon 39|8]. Ramayana and Mahabharata also mentioned about slaves. In an incident of Ramayana, we once found Raja Ram meeting with slave community (Dhibor Das) who lived by the bay of Ganges. They used to live their life by fishing, hunting and collecting fruits in nearby jungles. It is quite interesting to note that there is a lot of evidence that slaves were being kept in the palace of Ram and Kaikeyi. (BUT SURPRISINGLY THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE EVIDENCE OF KEEPING SLAVES in the royal mansion of Ravana in Lanka.) We also find a very clear indication of a well-established slave-based Hindu society in Mahabharata.
SLAVERY-- Bible and Christianity
Re: SLAVERY IN HINDUISM
Islamic sharia allows slavery. Slavery was abolished in Saudi Arabia under American pressure only in 1962 In 100% islamic Mauretania, the black muslims are kept as slaves by Arab muslims In Darfur, black muslims are kept as slaves by Arab muslims. In Sudan, Christians are kept as slaves by muslims.
In 1940, the Bengali Dalit leader Jogendranath Mondal believed in Dalit-muslim unity and supported Jinnah. In 1950, his family members were raped, forcibly converted and murdered in East Bengal and Jogendranath had to flee the egalitarian muslims and run for his life to find safety with the Brahmin Bhadraloks of West Bengal.
The Haris kept as slaves by Pakistani muslim landlords are all Dalits. Most of the Hindu women kidnapped in Pakistan are actually Dalit women Maulana Barani called Indian muslims as low born Ashraf, Ajlaf and Razil are all arabic caste words and exist in islamic vocabulary well before islam came to India.
Please read the book of famous historian " Dr. Ram Sharan Sharma" :
We should know about the famous book "Sudras in Ancient India".
Sudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order Down to Circa A D 600 (Motilal Banarsidass, Third Revised Edition, Delhi, 1990; Reprint, Delhi, 2002)
Prof. Sharma's preface(part) to the first edition- "I took up the study of this subject about ten years ago, but the pressing duties of an Indian university teacher and lack of proper library facilities prevented me from making any appreciable progress. The major part of the work was done in two academic sessions (1954-56) at the School of Oriental and African Studies, made possible by the generous grant of study leave by the Patna University. This book, therefore, substantially represents my thesis approved for the degree of Ph.D. at the University of London in 1956."
Extracts from Reviews "This is an outstanding piece of research and an authentic history of Sudras in ancient India. Professor Sharma has made use of all published sources, literary as well as archaeological, bearing on the social and economic position of Sudras. It gives a lucid and comprehensive account of all aspects of the anguished career of Sudra community. L.M.Joshi, Journal of Religious Studies, Vol 10, No. I & II, 1982.
Dear Anonymous and Barani.
How do you explain the existence of discrimination against and inhuman treatment of the Shudras and other low castes in India, witnessed even in its very recent history? By suggestively denying the truth, are you not insulting their intelligence too? Obviously you all belong to the higher castes of India whose penchant for injustice, nepotism, bahoobalism, corruption and untruth is unparalleled in the world.
Besides, you all are typically illogical too. The main argument of the writer is that there are caste based discriminatory practices even amongst Muslims of India despite their conversion to Islam, to which thesis you have shown no objection whereas the example per se clearly demonstrates the strong-hold of the caste-based discriminatory practices of the Hindu/Indian society. You should have objected to the entire article rather than the tail-end.
Dear Sultan Shain Sir, and the letter writer.
I also read the article and as I felt that this article is not against any one. Actually this is in support of humanity.
I congratulate you, the author and the translator for this kind of rare work. The letter writer wrote that: " That there was no invasion, in military terms, is a well accepted fact."
Please can the letter writer reffer to me any book written by noted histotian i.e. Irfan Habib, Romilla Thapar e.t.c which supports his claim.
Insted of his statement, please see Rigvedas, Chapt.4,6,and 7. It states that 2,66,000 Daravir were killed in result of Aryian invasion on Indian. (qouted in: Sagar, S.L.:Daravir Aur Darawir Asthan,Sagar parakashan,Dariba Mainpuri, ed.1993 AD,Top. Aryoon ka Darawiroon per Attiyachar,p.46)
Now the falshood has started to say that Aryians were of Indian origin. The most painfull thing is that this thing was included in school curriculum by some biased historians.
Deccan Chronicle - The pioneering research study, conducted jointly by the CCMB, Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, USA, is being claimed as the one “which will rewrite the Indian anthropological and genetics history”.
According to the study, nearly all Indians carry genomic contributions from two distinct ancestral populations. ANI and ASI and there is no Aryan invasion.
Even Dr.Ambedkar called the Aryan invasion theory as false
In the third part of caste and Muslims, it is said:
"It is widely believed that fair-skinned Aryans invaded India from the north-west and vanquished the Dravidians. They enslaved many of them, turning them into 'low' caste menials, forcing many others to flee down south. Some of these people who never submitted in the face of Aryan terror fled to the forests in the mountains of central and eastern India. These are today known as Adivasis, and include such communities as the Bhils, Santhals, Oraons, and so on. Their hatred for the Brahmins and other Aryans remains undiminished even today, after thousands of years."
That there was no invasion, in military terms, is a well accepted fact.
That you chose to give publicity to such falsehoods makes your website less credible.
And so also the statement about hatred for Brahmins.