[waps]

"Evidence from slaves is rarely viable in a court of law. As slaves are regarded as inferior in Islamic law, death at the hands of a free man does not require that the latter be killed in retaliation.[81] The killer must pay the slave's master compensation equivalent to the slave's value, as opposed to blood-money. At the same time, slaves themselves possess a lessened responsibility for their actions, and receive half the penalty required upon a free man. For example: where a free man would be subject to a hundred lashes due to pre-marital relations, a slave would be subject to only fifty. Slaves are allowed to marry only with the owner's consent. Jurists differ over how many wives a slave may possess, with the Hanafi and Shafi'i schools allowing them two, and the Maliki school allowing four. Slaves are not permitted to possess or inherit property, or conduct independent business, and may conduct financial dealings only as a representative of the master. Offices of authority are generally not permitted for slaves, though a slave may act as the leader (Imam) in the congregational prayers, and he may also act as a subordinate officer in the governmental department of revenue.[10][82] Masters may sell, bequeath, give away, pledge, hire out or compel them to earn money.[47]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery (following the links you'll find the following quotes)

"The same punishment was imposed on believers and what is similar to the act of the crime in the case of a homicide, by virtue of description or actuality. A freeman should be killed for another freeman but not for a slave, a female for a female, but a Muslim (even if he is a slave) must not be killed for an infidel, even if that infidel is a freeman." Jalalan (p. 24)

"The Shafi'i and Malik prohibit the killing of a freeman if he slays his slave or other men's slaves. This is because 'Ali Ibn Abi-Talib mentioned that a man had killed his slave and Muhammad scourged him only; he did not kill him. It was related on the authority of Muhammad that he said a Muslim should not be killed for a non-Muslim, nor a freeman for a slave; also because Abu Bakr and 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab did not kill a freeman for a slave. (This was said) in the presence of all Muhammad's companions, and no one disapproved or objected to it." The Commentary of al-Baydawi (p. 36)

"A man is not to be killed for his slave nor the freeman for a slave." "A believer is not to be killed for a non-believer, nor a man for his son, or a man for his slave or for a woman." Ahkam al-Qur'an (p. 275)

Need I go on ?

As to how slavery is justified: 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.”

In other words, the point that complaining about forced slavery is racist against muslims is in fact on the legal record as a defense against getting convicted for practicing slavery in the US.

[azth]

You are citing an Orientalist, not a real Islamic source.

I don't know if you can read Arabic: ذهب أبو حنيفة وشيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية، وهو رواية عن أحمد، إلى أن الحر يقتل بالعبد؛ لعموم قوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: «المؤمنون تتكافأ دماؤهم، ويسعى بذمتهم أدناهم» وهذا القول هو الصواب.

And from another source:

: القول الراجح أنه يقتل به؛ لقوله تعالى: وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ [المائدة:45]، وقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: (لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم إلا بإحدى ثلاثة: النفس بالنفس) وقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: (المؤمنون تتكافأ دماؤهم ويسعى بذمتهم أدناهم) وقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: (لا فضل لعربي على عجمي إلا بالتقوى) وقول الله تعالى: إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ [الحجرات:13] فهذه العمومات تدل على أن الحر يقتل بالعبد كما أن العبد يقتل بالحر، وليس هناك نصوص صحيحة تدل على أن الحر لا يقتل بالعبد.

Both of which mention that a free man can be killed for a slave.

Furthermore, I don't know why you are raising the issue of slavery. It is not related to the thread topic. The workers in the Gulf countries are not slaves in the actual sense of the word - it has very particular connotations.

That being said, I agree that the way those countries treat the laborers is inhumane, disgusting, and anti-Islamic, and should be abolished.

[marrs]

Spoken like a true Islamic Extremist. Find the teachings that support your argument and then use them to brand everyone who disagrees with you as not being a true believer.

It's a peculiar mind that can ignore the fundamental values of morality and kindness, and go straight for the edge cases that justify your warped sense of righteousness.

[azth]

Indeed! Even according to Wikipedia which waps was citing: "The Qur'an and Hadith, the primary Islamic texts, make it a praiseworthy act for masters to set their slaves free." goes against his/her claims. Furthermore, most, if not all, of those claims for the status of slaves were cited from Orientalist Levy's book. The bias is very evident.

[waps]

No it doesn't. It has in fact nothing to do with that claim. If islam regulates slavery, it's obviously making it legal and pushing it.

Compare it with this, suppose some republican came to power and decided to legalize drilling through nature reserves but makes a big public statement discouraging it. What is that person doing ? Pushing it, or discouraging it ?

There is only one, and blatantly obvious answer : islam is pushing slavery. In theory, as you confirm yourself with your statement showing that islam regulates slavery. In practice, because of what is happening in Saharan Africa, Yemen, Kuwait, etc.

[waps]

> It's a peculiar mind that can ignore the fundamental values of morality and kindness, and go straight for the edge cases that justify your warped sense of righteousness.

Truly sorry, you see I've studied too much history to believe anything remotely like "fundamental values of morality and kindness" exists. There are no values independent from ideology. Besides, you should get out more. Find a way to talk to one of those niqab'ed women, ask them what their values on the equality between men and women and then tell me how fundamental those values are.

There is no such thing as an inbuilt human morality. You wouldn't believe what some societies did, or even what they considered kind. You know how they say a "Spartan" upbringing these days ? Here's what it used to mean : Spartans are famous for considering the following a kindness : when a (male) kid turns 7, lock up his mother, and leave the kid with a small spear in the woods, where wolves are sure to find him. If he came back without a dead wolf, do it again until the kid is dead, or a wolf is. They considered this a kindness, both to the kid and to his mother, and also to the state. Tell me, how does this fit with your fundamental values of morality and kindness ?

Or read a few Greek plays. Pay attention to who fucks who, and how many people end up poisoned/stabbed/otherwise dead as a result. I don't care how free you think sexuality should be, I guarantee you will not find that behaviour moral or acceptable. Yet the Greek heroes are as bad as the losers, and they are certainly depicted as extremely moral. That they (sometimes) raped their own mother, sisters or daughters does not affect the story's judgement on their morals at all. And let's just stay away from the morality of the Greek gods, because while they are depicted as the definition of moral, you will massively disagree with their petty, cruel and mass-killing squabbles. Moral, in ancient Greece, it seems to me, is whatever behaviour gives you military victory.

If fundamental values don't exist, your argument falls apart, since it means you can only judge behaviour from the perspective of a religion or (maybe) ideology. That means that you yourself judge from an ideology (and frankly, you judge from the perspective of Christian values), and that your definition of an extremist is also relative.

For example, one who doesn't believe in fundamental values, might take offence at you judging a person based on "fundamental" (ie. your own) values. Which is of course exactly what you accuse extremists of.