Slavery intrinsic to Arab Culture?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

ok from now on well take all commentaries as fact. lol

it's not a commentary though; you haven't proven that it is. once you prove that, then you can claim in it is.

[faye]

i don't know about the pashtuns and slaves but slaves are mentioned a lot to do with early islam, when i was reading al ghazali.
there are all those different tags and supposedly niceties concerning people who are forced, one way or another to work for others. vassal, servant, concubine, sex slave. they are all situations where people are indentured or overlorded by others. to my mind.

[khushal]

there is an annotation on pg 39 " a coin of of bokhars= 4d or 1/2 rupee"
why would he write that, noone writes that in an autobiography, people can look that up themselves, it makes more sense that the publisher would add it.

on pg 1 there is an annotation that says "abdur rahman was probably born in 1844"
so what is that he himself is saying to himself that abdur rahman was probably born in 1844--- that too does not make sense, is he talking about another abdur rahman. it makes more sense that those are written by someone else who was an idiot.

there you go, there is the proof.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Ok Fair enough, I'll concede on that......as long s your claim is rooted instead of "well I believe pashtuns do this or that ..so its fact" But ...Then it was written by Sultan Mohamed Munshi; who was Amiir Abdur Rahman's Secretary of State and also a Pashtun all you asked for a Pashtun source right? He still counts, as he was apart of the Government Administration of Afghanistan and a Pashtun.

It is nonsense. show me sources.

Direct confirmation is not commentary so that's one evidence and the RoyalArk's Geneologies of Afghan families has references to possession of concubines. Amanullah Khan's ban on slavery verifies the existence of slavery amongst Pashtuns

Thus I have sufficed in all conditions; the claim has been verified'

QED

[khushal]

no you have not. we dont know who added the annotations. your just assuming that it was the secratary of state. there were many people involved in his autobiography including englishmen who had very little knowledge about afghanistan.

I dont know what this royal arck thing your talking about but I never denied that the royal family had servants. You said it was intrinsic to pashtuns as much as to arabs. One family does not qualify.
Amanalah khan banned forced labor not slavery as the arabs and europeans practiced because slavery in that fashion never existed in afghansitan.

I have already explained it culturally, socially, econmically and anthropoligically for it to be inconceivable in pashtun society.
I rest my case.

QED

[RevolutionThroughReason]

well prove it wasn't Sultana Mohamad Munshi who added the annotation. You proved it wasn't Amir Abdur Rahman Khan. Now you have to prove this one too. Don't think you're off the hook just because I conceded on that point. Evidence must always be provided.

The royals didn't have "servants" but concubines. which in the Islamic sense is a slave girl primarily for sexual purposes.

Your explanations are hypotheses, not evidence, so you can explain it and even reexplain it; it falls into "I believe this .so it's a fact" type of fallacy; this is merely an opinion not a description of observed events.In fact your argument would be what characterizes a commentary.

Where is your evidence that Amanullah Khan banned forced labor only and not slavery?

The evidence still stands.....Khushal you need to start learning that just because you say something, doesn't make it counter evidence; your statement alone carries NO weight. So yes you rest your case.....it was rested awhile back when it was falsified.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Afghan Constitution of 1923 (by Amanullah)

http://www.afghangovernment.com/Constitution1923.htm

ARTICLE 10

PERSONAL FREEDOM IS IMMUNE FROM AL FORMS OF VIOLATION OR ENCROACHMENT. NO PERSON MAY BE ARRESTED OR PUNISHED OTHER THAN PURSUANT TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SHARIA COURT OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF APPROPRIATE LAWS. THE PRINCIPLE OF SLAVERY IS COMPLETELY ABOLISHED. NO MAN OR WOMAN CAN EMPLOY OTHERS AS SLAVES

.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

so all Khushal's claims and contentions have been debunked

[badmash_khel]

Afghan Constitution of 1923 (by Amanullah)

http://www.afghangovernment.com/Constitution1923.htm

ARTICLE 10

.

lol, since when do pashtuns follow government constitution. Governments have no influence outisde a few major cities. Most pashtuns would have never even heard of so called constitution.

This only proves that slavery was banned by the government but it still doesn't prove that pashtuns owned slaves. Pashtuns are not the only citizens of Afghanistan. Slavery was banned because humans are capable of doing slavery which still doesn't mean pashtuns kept slaves.

[badmash_khel]

it proves slavery existed, you can't "ban" something that isn't there in the first place.

It doesn't prove Pashtuns kept slaves. A minority elite might have kept slaves which will be an exception to the rule. Maybe it was norm among other ethnicities, who knows.

As I said before humans are capable of slavery and have kept slaves but it still doesn't prove that a particular ethnicity has a culture of keeping slaves and its considered normal.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

It doesn't prove Pashtuns kept slaves. A minority elite might have kept slaves which will be an exception to the rule. Maybe it was norm among other ethnicities, who knows.

As I said before humans are capable of slavery and have kept slaves but it still doesn't prove that a particular ethnicity has a culture of keeping slaves and its considered normal.

Slavery is a construct of power; since Pashtuns were the central power in Afghanistan, it would be impossible that slavery existing in Afghanistan and Pashtuns not practicing it.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

lol, since when do pashtuns follow government constitution. Governments have no influence outisde a few major cities. Most pashtuns would have never even heard of so called constitution.

This only proves that slavery was banned by the government but it still doesn't prove that pashtuns owned slaves. Pashtuns are not the only citizens of Afghanistan. Slavery was banned because humans are capable of doing slavery which still doesn't mean pashtuns kept slaves.

Your reasoning is faulty and based on fallacious premises. Firstly Amanullah banned veiling, reduced dowries, and emancipated women as well. Veiling, high dowries and female subjugation was prominent in Afghanistan, He didn't ban veils because he thought humans were "capable" of veiling. So you're being presumptuous in saying that was the case with veiling. Secondly he didn't ban alcohol, alcohol consumption and availability wasn't significant in Afghanistan. for your claim to be true he would have banned all human vices that humans were capable of. Thus it was because it was prominent in Afghanisstan.

Another reason logic fails because Afghanistan's policies don't apply to all humans, only humans in afghanistan. Thus humans being capable of something isn't a reasoning .

Thus banning slavery can only be signficiant if it was practiced wide spread.

[randolph85]

slavery is allowed in islam, so i don't know why some people here are trying to make it seem like such a thing is below pashtuns.

though the means of obtaining and holding them might of been haram but the practice itself is not.

[khushal]

slavery is allowed in islam, so i don't know why some people here are trying to make it seem like such a thing is below pashtuns.

though the means of obtaining and holding them might of been haram but the practice itself is not.

We never said that it is below pashtuns, but that it is not in sync with pashtun society for such a trade to be practiced. The society is too conservative especially in regards to women and lawlessto a point that it recognizes no ones law. two variables that make it impossible for such a practice to introduce itself to such a society.

but as far as your comment is concerned. slavery is legal under Islamic law but only in theory. Theoretically Islamic law lays down that if a person was the descendent of an unbroken chain of people who had been lawfully enslaved, then it might be legal to enslave them. there are no living descendants of lawful slaves, which means that legal enslavement is unthinkable.

the Qur'an clearly presents universal freedom and human dignity as its ideal society. Its recommendation that slaves be freed is on the same plane as its recommendation that the poor be clothed and the hungry be fed.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

We never said that it is below pashtuns, but that it is not in sync with pashtun society for such a trade to be practiced. The society is too conservative especially in regards to women and lawlessto a point that it recognizes no ones law. two variables that make it impossible for such a practice to introduce itself to such a society.

but as far as your comment is concerned. slavery is legal under Islamic law but only in theory. Theoretically Islamic law lays down that if a person was the descendent of an unbroken chain of people who had been lawfully enslaved, then it might be legal to enslave them. there are no living descendants of lawful slaves, which means that legal enslavement is unthinkable.

the Qur'an clearly presents universal freedom and human dignity as its ideal society. Its recommendation that slaves be freed is on the same plane as its recommendation that the poor be clothed and the hungry be fed.

where do you get this from? references from Islamic Legal Canon please.