Apostate prophet and sociology; is Islamic polygamy always bad?

In answer to the video "Islamic Polygamy"

4:3"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry from the women that seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".

Contrary to popular opinion, the verse is not addressing the issue of polygamy in a general sense, a pre-existing practice, but that of polygamy in a narrowed down context, that of safeguarding the orphans' rights. The reason the Quran only speaks of and limits polygamy in that context, is because these types of relationships hardly if ever run smoothly and therefore should be reserved for the achievement of higher objectives. It is clear from the opening statement, positing the situation of one with orphans under care, fearing for the just management of their rights

4:3"And IF you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, THEN marry..."

The verse is therefore silent on polygamy in a general sense, neither allowing nor forbidding it, but by only mentioning one case to which it applies, clearly hints to the preferred way to apply the practice, moralizing it, laying down the basis for the intricate perspective that must be considered if a man wishes to marry more than one woman.  However it is to be noted, this doesnt mean that polygamy outside the context of caring for orphans, which is the subject of the verse, is useless.

Outside caring for orphans, polygamy can potentially be an answer to many problems one can think of, so to outright ban it would deprive the believers from a solution to potential social difficulties.

Women around the world, not necessarily in Muslim societies are confronted to situations where they are left to fend for themselves and their children without the help of the family or the support of a father. But because polygamy is regulated and moralized in the Quran, by mentioning only one case to which it applies, along with its conditions, the Quran is explaining to the God-conscious that this familial configuration is not to be abused for selfish motives, the gratification of sexual desires. There will always be people that will take advantage of the system, just as there are Muslims that will disregard that limitation to make it subservient to their own whims.

Polygamy is thus not the norm but the exception in Islamic societies. It is a license granted to men to alleviate problems that have existed and will keep on existing in human societies.

From a modernist perspective, feminists often denounce the practice as legalized cheating. 2 things dont become the same because of superficial similarities. Is a regular marriage legalized prostitution because a man gains sexual access conditionally to spending from his resources? In a marriage, there are many more implications, rights and obligations beyond sex which is just one of the rights of both parties on another. A feminist may now be tempted to say that a wife is just a long term prostitute with more rights and duties. But then is any unmarried woman that has sex with a man prostituting herself because, besides money, there always exists an exchange without which the man would not have sexual access, including emotional, physical, intellectual etc. attractiveness? This extends to lesbianism and on a deeper level, even to self-sex where a woman is essentially a prostitute to her desire. 

Feminists see genders as conflicting opposites rather than completing one another. This is why they loath systems that bind genders together whether monogamous or polygamous. They will prefer situations that paradoxically oppress them, like prostitution and adultery, because of the limited rights the opposite gender has on them in these cases.

Yateem, (plur. yatama) is derived from Y-T-M meaning alone. It is used for a child who lost one or both parents, or for a widow.

The verse answers the guardian's fear with a solution; marrying up to four women, not any, but specific ones preceded by the definite article

"..marry from THE women...".

Which specific women are best suited to share that burden of responsibility? The mother of the orphan first and foremost. By taking them in his household, the husband is bound to provide for them as he would do with a regular wife and children, as well as giving them increased advantages, which includes, possible inheritence in case the adoptive father dies and leaves a will for them, in addition to what must be given to the orphan even if there is no will 4:8. The mother of the orphan could also use her dower for the orphan's wellbeing, if she wishes. Marrying the mother of an orphan taken under care, may also fill the emotional gap of a child with no father. Marrying these widows, or taking another woman or maiden (whose job included raising the children of a household) in case the orphan's mother is dead with the purpose of caring for one's orphan, solves the conditional clause of fear not to

"act equitably towards orphans".

The difficult responsibility of sustaining the orphan physically and emotionally, protecting his/her rights, wealth and property is this way shared by both parents. Something to keep in mind is that Muslims are urged and obligated, per the divine law, to help the weak in society, including widows and orphans. Marriage isnt and never was a precondition to get the needed help. The verse is addressing a group among those that already have orphans under their wing, those who fear for the slightest inadvertent injustice towards them. These highly pious guardians are given a solution, in the form of a recommendation to help solve that fear. One can always involve himself further in a charitable endeavor and this can be argued to be amongst the most advanced manners of doing so.

Another thing to keep in mind while trying to understand the verse, simply is the context. 4:3 is speaking of orphans in general, not gender specific, and is a continuation of

4:2"And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime".

Therefore the next verse must be at least talking about the same orphans, whom one fears not to act fairly towards and the solution to that problem is given in the same verse

"marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four".

The whole passage until v6 is speaking of orphaned children and how the trustee is to manage their lives and property the best possible way. Should these instructions not be enough to satisfy a believer's fear of not being fair towards orphans under his care, then as proposed in 4:3 one may marry women who would share the burden of responsibility, these women being first and foremost the widowed mothers of these orphans.

Islam critiqued delves into the irrational; The illusive Trinity doctrine?

In answer to the video "Islam Hinders the Intellect- Comments"

Jesus nowhere made any claim to be God, neither does the bible say anywhere to confess Jesus is God. He isnt called YHWH anywhere and neither did Abraham or Isaac worship a trinity, a god called Jesus or holy spirit. Nobody ever misunderstood God's unique, indivisible essence, nor misapplied divinity to terms such as messiah or "son of God". 

Ambiguities arose when the Graeco-Roman world merged with the Abrahamic, Semitic religion of the HB. Gentile Greeks and Romans, the main targets for conversion by post-Jesus missionary activity, found a fertile ground for continuity of their ancient religions in those various terminologies and events describing the functioning of the God of the HB. Those passages however never hinted at a possible multiplicity of godhead in Semitic thought. 

There is a well established pattern of God, repeatedly identifying Himself whether in the Hebrew scriptures or the Quran with phrases such as "I am the Lord". The literal terminologies "tawhid" or "Jewish monotheism" arent found in the Quran or the HB, but just as tawhid/divine transcendance is a concept stamped on every page of the Quran, Jewish monotheism is unambiguous. The God of the HB makes clear that worship is His prerogative only, and no entity besides Him is seen making the same claim. So much so that the HB uses sometimes crude imageries to refer to Israel's spiritual "adultery" whenever it worshiped something else than its "jealous" God. It is then legitimate for those opposing the Trinitarian doctrine to demand from Trinitarians an explicit, unambiguous statement from Jesus, or any of the other members of their godhead like the holy ghost, independently claiming divinity, or asking to be worshiped. No such statements exist, leaving Trinitarians with a doctrine built from assumptions, suppositions and by piecing ambiguous verses together. Its called "proof texting." 

This method violates two of the paramount points of scriptural understanding: 1) Use clear verses to explain the unclear ones, and 2) gather all of the pertinent verses and study them completely before reaching a conclusion on a doctrine. And even if one were to grant Trinitarian apologist's interpretations of these scattered and isolated verses as correct, still these verses together only provide fractional support for the doctrine. The same can be said of other foundational Christian themes like inherited sin and forgiveness through blood atonement exclusively, which are all based on incomplete references. 

None of the verses where God is identified, either by Himself or others, state that a multiplicity of beings is meant, nor whether these separate divine entities are co-equal or subservient to God, nor whether one is to worship each of those entities separately. The vague verses and passages used as a basis for the potential multiplicity of beings can perfectly be understood without references to Trinity or the incarnation, as was always the case in Semitic thought. Again, there are clear and unambiguous verses denying that God can be seen Ex33:20,Jn1:17 that He has a form Isa40:17,25, or that any representation of Him is to be worshiped Deut4:15. 

Although God's unlimited attributes are by essence beyond human comprehension, God's identity however is not. Beyond understanding doesnt entail inherently contradictory. For example to notion of God being eternal is humanly unfathomable, but not inherently contradictory. But a single one and same entity, Jesus, who is at the same time omniscient and ignorant is contradictory. God is thus certainly beyond comprehension but not illogical and absurd as a square circle or a trinity would be. 

It is obvious that the primary reason for revelation is to identify the Entity requiring exclusive worship. Only one and the same being is found identifying itself and by others as God. As there are no cases of a multiplicity of beings identified, by themselves or others as God then it follows that only One and the same being is always meant whenever the Bible speaks of God. This is the logical premise of the Bible. If Trinitarians on the other hand want to identify a seperate set of beings as one and the same God, they are then forced to accept the Biblical premise that no 2, 3 or 4 DIFFERENT beings are identified as God in their Bible, only One and the same being everytime. It follows that these separate beings must be identical to one another if they are identified with God. In a nutshell, if D has the value 1 and that A, B, C are all equal to D then it must mean that A, B, C have the value of 1, making them all identical to one another. Trinitarians however need to keep the 3 components of the godhead distinct from one another. To do so, they have no choice but to conjecture outside Biblical patterns to formulate their beliefs. They begin with the unbiblical notion that a separate set of beings can identify as God all the while remaining distinct and different from one another. This however results in the problem of non transferability of attributes within 2 identical entities. If for instance father and son have all the attributes of God but that Father and son have different attributes then it must mean that they each possess attributes God does not have. 

By rejecting the biblical premise above, Trinitarians begin piling up more problems until the greatest of their scholars end up admitting their ignorance of the concept, it being an impenetrable mystery. Some will even hail that mystery as evidence of their God's superiority since He is above any human concept, although in reality it is the Bible's own premises that conflict with this notion. Again, the problem stems from Christian terms and proposed solutions that do not add up. The external observer merely shows the inconsistencies of those attempts, so the comparison between the "Christian God" with the One others worship isnt appropriate. Further, if the superiority of the triune concept of a god resides in its incompatibility with human understanding, then no Trinitarian has grounds to criticize other beliefs if they are found to be illogical and contrary to empirical data. In fact with that line of reasoning, the more absurd a belief system is, the superior it becomes. Sure, a supreme and transcendental God is a simple concept in comparison. "God is One" was never meant to be a complicated statement. Christian thinkers know this, and have been wrestling with the logical inconsistencies of their creed for 2000 years, yet no progress has been made in resolving the contradictions of the notion of incarnation.

Even at a most basic level of the doctrine, Trinitarians have been struggling, since the first councils of the church fathers down to our times and the Phd thesis of Christian apologists and philosophers, to get around the charge of tri-theism; how does 3 distinct "persons", each fully divine, not result in 3 distinct gods? To add to the problem, these 3 distinct persons have 3 distinct wills/consciences. Although traditionally, trinitarians have held that the trinity has one mind/conscience, this position in unsubstantiated scripturally and logically. In the Bible, each person of the godhead speaks in terms of "I" which cannot be mutually shared. For example when the Father states "you are my son with whom i am well pleased" this proposition cannot be shared in the mind of the son or the holyspirit. This results in 3 minds and 3 wills with each being separately divine. Those among Christendom that argued against Social trinitarians precisely did so on the basis that it would result in tritheism.

The concept of Monarchia, where only the Father is uncaused, while the Spirit and Son are "eternally" caused is an unhelpful ad hoc. This unconventional way of speaking doesnt solve tritheism as there still ultimately are three divine persons. As they have three distinct personalities they must be counted as distinct gods. Due to the unavoidable fact that counting is done based on identity, Catholic and orthodox scholars admit that in a sense, monotheism can include multiple deities. Others will try avoiding that conclusion by going to the extent of trying to redefine how to count. Counting could be done based on unity of nature. 3 distinct human persons could be considered as one man just as 3 distinct divine persons are one God. Besides the fallacy of giving a material example to explain the immaterial, how does one count the 3 appart from oneanother? If their distinct identity doesnt make them countable, as would be the case conventionally, this means we only have one divine entity, thus negating trinitarianism and resulting in basic monotheism. If we were to say that conventional counting is inapplicable to the ineffable divine being, can we then count the incarnate, material person of Jesus which contains the fullness of the divine being? If yes then we can in fact count the divine being, if not then we cannot count Jesus appart from other things like a tree or a rock. Ultimately, if the divine being is uncountable, can we even say that He is one? Trinitarians will very often put arbitrary limits, unfounded in their texts, when it comes to what applies or not to God, what is similar to Him or not, whenever an aspect of their doctrine reaches a dead end. For example the bible notoriously uses anthropomorphisms, meaning there are similitudes between God and the material world, as well as worldly concepts. We understand many things about God, otherwise we wouldnt know what we are worshiping. Why is the idea of counting God something unfathomable?

At this point trinitarians pile up more unconventional terminologies and hypothesis to salvage their doctrine, pushing the whole idea further into the realm of mystery. 

The Quran gives them a simple warning out of this labyrinth of confusion 

4:171"People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs"

Jesus' creed:

Mk12:29-30"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment".

Jesus, coming from a long line of messengers and prophets sent to mankind was thus confirming what Moses uttered approximately 1500 years earlier in

Deut6:4"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"

and 600 years later came the seal of the prophets with the final reminder to mankind, the Quran repeating once more this ultimate truth

2:163"And your God is one God, there is no god but He; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful".

CIRA International inadvertendly reveal Islamic higher viewpoint; human opposites or complementarity?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 07 - Islamic Slavery Introduction, Part 1"

This system, previously detailed of having diversity in all aspects of nature, creates a web of interdependence, crucial for the divine testing scheme; our dealings with eachother. Many fail to perceive this ultimate reality and they are referred to in

36:47"And when it is said to them: Spend out of what Allah has given you, those who disbelieve say to those who believe: Shall we feed him whom, if Allah please, He could feed? You are in naught but clear error".

God does indeed will for the deprived and weak to be helped, but according to the laws He has established and that benefit both the one who freely offers his help (emotional, material, physical, spiritual, intellectual), as well as the receiver of that help. Others raise an outcry and question divine justice in light of the fact that people are born with varying degrees of socio-economical as well as psycho-physical conditions. That questioning is answered through the divine scheme explained above, as well as the Quranic concept that

2:156"Indeed, we belong to Allah and indeed we towards Him will return".

Our whole self belongs to Him and He in reality doesnt owe us a single thing, whatever we receive from Him, since birth and throughout life, little or big, is a favor from Him and serves a higher purpose which can only be beneficial if one accepts God's supreme ownership

11:9"If We make man taste mercy from Ourselves, (and) then take it off from him, verily he is despairing ungrateful".

Neither self-conceit nor despair are appropriate if one admits that all things belong to God and return to Him when He decides.

The unbelievers of the time of the prophet disregarded lower social classes, disrespected and discriminated them. They mocked the assemblies of poor people and ex-slaves listening to the prophet, just like prophets were reproached before, the likes of Nuh 11:27-30, assuming that if Allah had truly sent revelation then why didnt He address the elite and rulers of whom Muhammad was not 43:31? In their limited, materialistic mindframe they considered themselves more deserving of divine favors

6:53"And thus do We try some of them by others so that they say: Are these they upon whom Allah has conferred benefit from among us? Does not Allah best know the grateful?".

Verses speaking of things created in 43:12,36:36,51:49"azwaj" means "in pairs". This refers to the complementarity prevalent in every single thing. This may include but is not exclusive to, sexual complementarity as in 30:21,16:72. There the Quran addresses the human specie, saying the availability of azwaj (maleor female) from among ourselves is meant as a source of security, love and compassion. "azwaj" may be used interchangibly between male and female spouses 2:232,234.
In the context of creation, some verses 53:45,92:3 mention the creation of the sexual pairs by specifying both genders created; male/dhakar and female/untha. But such verses do not make an absolute assertion that all things have been created that way -in opposite genders- or that all living things reproduce sexually. All languages inherently accept exceptions unless the statement is clearly absolute (see for eg. 7:25 vs 55:33 or 100:6 vs 2:152,14:7,54:35 or 6:59 vs 2:255,72:26-27 or 39:44 vs 20:109,34:23,21:28). The Original Creator may create whatever He wills then modify His original creation as He pleases and deems fit 24:45,35:1. 

He may even create without the mating of sexual pairs as with Jesus' case.

The primary meaning of zawj (plur.azwaaj) in the Quran, is alien to the sexual pairs, as seen in many instances where it is used 13:3,15:88,20:53,131,26:7,38:58,56:7-10. It denotes the kinds or types -some of them unkown to us 36:36- having common points, linked in a way or the other when used in the plural form. This is just as in any language that speaks of pairs without specifying if the pairing is gender based.

The root is Z-W-J and it means when two or more things or people form a unit. The use of azwaj in those verses is one of the devices used by the Quran to emphasize the concept of interconnection and complimentarity between all kinds created, even when these thing seem to be opposites. The context of pairing in 43:12 for example has God saying how He made the earth a "resting place" for us, water coming down from the sky to allow life, ships, that man ingenuisly builds using the material put at his disposal by Allah, and cattle for mobility among other uses. In 15:88 and others, the Quran tells the believers not to grieve or pay much attention to some kind (azwaj) of people -having in common their unbelief and hatred for Islam-. In 13:3-4 Allah says He made from all that the earth produces (thamaraat), 2 types. Just as day and night are 2 opposites but remain complimentary, the earthly products come in 2 opposites but complementary types. Those better than others, remain, from a higher viewpoint complementary although apparently opposites. The better one is apreciated thanks to its lesser counterpart it can be compared to, which in turn is the result of a process the plant goes through so as to reduce competition and bring the crop to fruition. 

Even among opposites there is interconnection on all levels, physical or spiritual, and that is the pervasive notion in all the verses speaking of pairing in nature.

The more profound message of the verses speaking of the "azwaj" in creation is understood by their context, which is always that of divine justice and providing proof for the resurrection of the dead and judgement in the next life. 

The Quran is essentially saying that everything in this varied nature has a complement, without which it is incomplete. If such a thing is the case and that all things have a complement, then how can one deny that this world has its complement in the next life?

CIRA International keep sinking; why Allah allows social inequalities?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 07 - Islamic Slavery Introduction, Part 1"

From a higher perspective, the Quran explains the reason for there being differences socio-economical, or even psycho-physical differences among humans. All human beings were created with the aim of being Allah's vicegerents on earth. We have been endowed with freewill -which asserts itself through tests and trials- and are compelled to use it to fulfill our role of vicegerency according to our degrees in this world

6:165"And He it is Who has made you successors in the land and raised some of you above others by (various) grades that He might try you by what He has given you".

This is according to the divine principles of the Greatest of Judges 11:45,95:8 that what is expected of a person is directly in correlation to that person's condition 65:7.

Just like some trees are made to excell others in fruits 13:4, we are raised in degrees and some of us made to excell others in certain aspects, whether physical or mental, social or economical etc, but it is all done according to an all encompassing wisdom and knowledge that takes into consideration every aspect of our being 6:83. However, if one disregards the materialistic mindframe that blurs the higher realities of existence, the level of difficulty in all cases can be said to be the same; the one with less worldly benefits (financially, in his health etc) has less avenues by which to be religiously and morally accountable but he is required to have a high level of inner discipline, patience and trust in God while the reverse is the case for the more advantaged in terms of worldly benefits; the burden on his inner discipline and steadfastness is less while the means given to him by which to be morally tested are manifold. He can be tested in his wealth, his health and other privileges.

A great part of Allah's scheme of testing the people through their choices in order to gradually purge the hearts, is to test us through our dealings with eachother

25:20"and We have made some of you a trial for others; will you bear patiently? And your Lord is ever Seeing".

One of the obvious proof for this is how most often individuals are endowed with benefits, material, physical or abstract, surpassing the basic and reasonable needs. All else will either vanish or be left behind after their passing away for others to benefit from. Through this scheme every human being becomes by virtue of his social existence, a means whereby the moral qualities of his fellow men are put to a test

"I saw Abu Dharr al-Ghifâri wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a cloak. We asked him about that (how both were wearing similar cloaks). He replied: Once I abused a man, and he complained of me to the Prophet. The Prophet asked me, Did you abuse him by slighting his mother? You are a man who has jahiliyah. He added: Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority. So if one has one’s brethren under one’s control, he should feed them with the like of what he eats and clothe them with the like of what he wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job)".

As the HB puts it in

Prov22:2"The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all".

God is not only the maker of every human, but also of their conditions, through the laws of the material and physical world He has created, in which almost every outcome is the result of a previous action. The people should therefore, regardless of their circumstances keep in view that ultimate reality in their dealings with oneanother instead. These wise words however are clearly bellied by other passages in the HB discriminating among the people solely on the basis of appearance and physical condition Lev21:16-24.

The Quran parallels the diversity in nature, as in the earlier metaphor of the fruit trees, with the system by which mankind is equally subjected to 6:165,11:118,30:22. 

As said many times in the Book, mankind could have been made a single nation, equal in all aspects, and spiritually upright 42:8. But Allah has decreed there will be diversity in creation whether physical, cultural, material or spiritual through the process of freechoice which was divinely established, sustained every step of the way and encompassed by Allah's power. God is thus ultimately the cause of these differences. To illustrate;

- Some people have been made by Allah to resist better to diseases, others are stronger, taller or more intelligent. This is due to the natural biological processes He established, that can either be triggered by internal reactions and mutations or/and influenced by external, environmental factors that are themselves subject to the divinely decreed law of causation which God dominates with His all encompassing wisdom and power at each instant.

- Some people have been made by Allah to believe, and others to err and this is due to the system of freewill He established and fully controls, according to which one's moral choices shape his spiritual condition and destiny, either darkening his inner spiritual receptivity or enlightening it and making it further receptive to external guidance.

- Some people have been made by Allah to enjoy more worldly, material benefits than others. This again, is the consequence of a chain of causality in God's grasp. 

This diversity however isnt viewed in the Quran as a stain purposefully put on the human race. Neither is it allowed by God in order to confuse and seperate people, or oppose them. Rather it is allowed, as an outcome of the established system of causality, because it is a driving force that creates interraction, interdependency, exchanges and positive understanding 4

9:13"We have created you of a male and a female and made you nations and tribes that you may know each other. Indeed, the most honourable among you in the sight of Allah is the most fearful (of Allah) among you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing, Aware".

This is one of the most compelling Quranic proof man is repeatedly told to ponder upon; the divine unity in the face of an interdependant diversity

43:32"it is We who distribute their means of livelihood among them in the life of this world, and raise some of them by degrees above others, to the end that they might avail themselves of one another's help".

This is based on the wisdom that no human being should become independent of others, but everyone should remain dependent on the other in various ways. The Creator is in this way in total contrast with His creation; He is the Self-Sufficient, Sustainer of the universe at each instant. He makes  difference among His creation, through the natural processes He established, and the system of freewill on which He has full control.

CIRA International uncover Islamic social system; caring for slaves?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 07 - Islamic Slavery Introduction, Part 1"

Islam controlled slavery in such a way that it made the maintaining of a slave a great responsibility for the master, who had to show them so much care that in many cases when the slaves were set free they did not like to leave their masters. That is why within the Islamic community, it was seen as shockingly ungrateful for a slave to suddenly desert his guardians. It is in such context that the prophet reportedly condemned as kafir/denier a slave that unexpectedly deserts his guardian who did not harm him, but instead gave him shelter when he needed it and sustenance.

In his famous sermon in 'Arafat, on 9th Dhul-hijjah 9 AH, during his last pilgrimage, the Prophet said,

"...and your slaves, see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress him with what you yourself dress. And if they commit a mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented..."

As a side note, the selling refered to here is certainly not in the context of trade. It is the best solution for both parties to seperate with lesser harm. The guardian is here confronted to a situation where the slave comits a grave offense. The prophet's compassionate words refer to the slave's misdeed as a mistake, although from the guardian's perspective it is unforgivable and deserving of a harsh treatment. This wording of the prophet is in line with the Quranic injuntions of being more lenient towards the weaker members of society in case of an offense 4:25.

The conditions for having a slave in Islam, as already shown, is costly. Parting with them could not be done immidiately because the guardian had to recover some of his investment somehow. He would thus be tempted to become harsh towards his slave until he could get back some of his costs and then free him. The prophet thus proposes a pragmatic solution that keeps in view justice, with the guardian recovering some of his investment, and compassion, with the slave avoiding punishment and being transferred to a new household where he could have a fresh start.

From Risalat al-Huqooq

"And the right of your subject through being your slave is that you should know that he is a creature of your Lord and is made of the same flesh and blood. And you only own him, but you are much too inferior to God and you have not created him. And you have not created his hearing and sight, nor do you provide his daily sustenance; rather it is God who gives you sufficiency for that. Then He subjugated him to you, entrusted him to you, and provisionally consigned him with you. So protect him there, and treat him well, just as He (God) has treated you well, and feed him with what you eat yourself, and clothe him with what you clothe yourself. And do not burden him with what he cannot withstand. And if you dislike him, you ought to let him go and replace him, but do not torment God's creature. And there is no power but in God".

Slaves are even covered by the law of equal retribution

"Samurah ibn Jundub narrated that the Prophet had said: “He who kills his slave shall be killed, he who amputates his slave shall be amputated and he who castrates his slave shall be castrated.”

Another repercussion of the Islamic system of "slavery", is that when captured during a battle against Muslims, those prejudiced individuals whose aim really was to annihilate Islam by all means, suddenly find themselves under the guardianship of those they believe represent evil. Instead of being mistreated or even killed as they would have done had they captured Muslims instead, they benefit from strict regulations that guarantee their well-being. These people who, like in our days, were brainswashed with a distorted image of Islam, were shocked at seeing and experiencing the truth behind the scenes, benefiting from it, and how just and fair a social system it was as compared to their own society and how they themselves treated their slaves and war prisonners. They experienced the reality of divine justice and many converted. So by restricting the acquisition of slaves to war prisonners, Islam was (and is still in case war is waged on Muslims because of their religion) actually giving them a chance of reform by introducing them to a better system on all levels

8:70"say to those of the captives who are in your hands: If Allah knows anything good in your hearts, He will give to you better than that which has been taken away from you and will forgive you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful". 

The voluntary assimilation and conversion of war prisonners because of having witnessed Islam from within, parallels with what happened during the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. It provided a relative peace era on the Meccan front which allowed Islam to spread faster than it ever did, because it allowed Muslims and non-Muslims to visit eachother and interract on account of their family relationships and trade connections. Many Meccans started visiting Medina, and stayed there for months. They got acquainted with the teachings of Islam and were deeply impressed by the righteous conduct and moral integrity of the Muslims, and how they treated the prisonners of war, integrating them into the fabric of society. Islam gained many converts in its ranks during that period.

This sense of brotherhood which Islam gave the oppressed, helped gradually bring down social barriers. As a result, in the early periods of ISlam after the prophet, we see countless slaves with high political responsibilities, including the command of armies, governorship and judgeship. Not only in administration, we find theologians, commentators of the Quran, traditionists, jurists and authors who either were slaves or the children of the slaves or ex-slaves.

CIRA International are sinking: So what is Islamic slavery?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 07 - Islamic Slavery Introduction, Part 1"

In light of the previous 2 videos, clearly, the Quran dismisses the western and judeo-christian notion of slavery by giving a new meaning to the term. A slave in the Quran is nothing more than a former war prisonner captured during defensive warfare, and taken under care in a Muslim household because he couldnt be ransomed in benefits of any kind or freed unconditionally. 

Both Male and female war prisonners who became mulk yamin/right hand possession now fell under masters who treated them kindly to such an extent they had to be guaranteed a share of the inheritance if present along with other weak members of society taken under care 4:8. The prophetic traditions on the prophet's closest entourage and how they interacted with their slaves, all corroborate these facts. Critics often disregard the overall description that is made of the prophet in relation to slaves, that of his closest entourage, let alone the many Quranic injunctions on the matter, whenever they engage in their polemics. They begin isolating ahadith, which is the worst method of objectively approaching that vast corpus of fragmented, disconnected incidents, in the life of the the early Muslim community, and then draw their hasty conclusions. 

Clearly, Islam, the prophet and the Quran are completely in favor of freeing slaves, even without preconditions, simply as an act of benevolence 2:177. Yet we read a few instances where the prophet cancelled some people's desire to manumit their own slaves, either after their death or while still alive. He is described as freeing a part while selling another. 

If he was against setting slaves free altogether, as these 2 youtubers try and claim, then why allowing the manumission of some of them? He surely had the power and authority to keep them all into slavery. The reason he divided them this way is simple, once one objectively considers other similar instances, while of course, keeping in mind what was said about the noble prophet's core attitude in regards to slaves. These partial cancellations of arbitrary manumission came in specific contexts, that of Muslims that had no other assets that could be used to settle a debt than their slaves. It is very clear in the light of a narration in Bukhari where an indebted man pledges to free/manumit his only valuable possession which he could have used to settle his debt instead. The prophet used to personally settle the debts of those who had no assets. But it wasnt this indebted man's case, which is why the prophet cancelled that pledge and settled the debt by transfer of ownership of the slave. It would have been unfair for the prophet to use his limited assets to settle this particular debt when other indebted people were more entitled to his gracious and compassionate help.

Slaves were an integral part of the household to such an extent that, as with other members of the biological family, women were allowed to unveil in their presence 24:31. This of course was a ruling of conveniency, given the frequent interraction with the male servants going about their various assisting tasks within the household. But it further contributed to their thorough integration within the family sphere, solidifying the various rulings of consideration towards them.
They had to be fed and maintained without any psychological injury and for the sake of Allah, not seeking benefits of any kind from them in return

76:8-10"And they give food however great be their own want of it to the poor and the orphan and the captive: We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks: Surely we fear from our Lord a stern, distressful day. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness".

What is remarkable here is that the Quran places even the need of the captive, regardless of his religion, above the need of the Muslim guardian himself. This is just one of the many passages that further dwarfs the judeo-christian notion of the golden rule.

The people at that time accorded no dignity to slave‑girls and anyone marrying such a woman immediately became an object of scorn. Through 2:221 the believers are encouraged to marry their female-slaves instead of choosing a pleasing unbelieving woman, and the believing women are also told to choose their male-slaves above an idolater if they wish to marry. By qualifying the word "bondswoman" with the adjective "believing" and leaving the word "idolatress" without any condition, emphasizes the principle that a believing woman, even if she is a slave, is better than an idolatress even if she comes from a noble family, in adition posessing all desired outward physical qualities. It is to be kept in mind that to the Quran's primary addressees, as is even the case nowadays, establishing ties of various interests through marriages with a honorable family was a priority. The Quran turns that notion on its head, not with any example, but with that of slaves whom the ancients saw as the lowest human beings in society. 

24:32 further encourages the believers to marry from their pious male/female slaves so that if some of them are poor, then they will be freed and enjoy more sustenance

"And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing".

This reinforces the fact that the ultimate criteria for judging an individual is his piety, the verse clearly tells the believers to choose from any member of society while at the same time emphasizing the good gesture in Allah's eyes to marry a male/female slave and freeing him/her. The verse also point to the fact that not all slaves are poor "if they are needy".

CIRA International seek specific examples; the prisonners of Badr?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 07 - Islamic Slavery Introduction, Part 1"

The divine grant of mastery over their enemies doesnt give Muslims sanction to treat them as they wish. As shown earlier whether in the Quran or through the practice of the prophet, Muslims must treat them with care, almost as full members of a household. The reason being that through an exemplary conduct those former enemies might open their eyes to the real, unfiltered truth of Islam, free from the distortions of those that only seek to disparage it, and possibly reform themselves. The prophet once commented 

"you bring them tied in chains on their necks (capture them in war) and they later embrace Islam". 

This comment was utterd in relation to the verse qualifying Muslims as the best of nations, conditionally on their rightful conduct and forbidding evil. It is precisely this uprightness that turned enemy combatants, captured in war, into Muslims.

However, because the Quran repeatedly speaks of freeing slave as an act of great virtue, it warns against creating situations that could lead to the captivity then ransoming of slaves, through the example of the Jews of Medina. They entered into alliances with warring pagan tribes and fought, killed, enslaved then freed their own brethren while considering it a "pious act" 2:83-85. Such a behavior would not only be against the letter of the law but also its spirit 

"Malik related to me that he had heard that Abdullah ibn Umar was asked whether a slave could be bought on the specific condition that it was to be used to fulfil the obligation of freeing a slave, and he said, "No"...Malik added, "There is no harm, however, in someone buying a person expressly to set him free". 

Malik continues that in his opinion, the best course of action in this case is to exclude non-Muslim slaves. Choice must be made among those who neither were in the process of being freed, nor burdens to the owner due to physical impairement or bearing his child. A Muslim slave belonging to any of those categories is therefore not a valid kaffara/atonement. Even if he wasnt of those categories, Malik describes the slave as mu'min, meaning sincere and pious believer, which has more merit than simply being labelled Muslim. This way the intrinsic worth of the slave is enhanced to the maximum 

"Malik said...There is no harm in freeing a christian, jew, or magian voluntarily, because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'either as a favour then or by ransom,' (Sura 47 ayat 4) The favour is setting free".

The very fact of calling the manumission of slaves one of the greatest acts of charity, piety and benevolence towards men 2:177,9:60,90:11-18 shows that having them in one's possession is not the preferred way ultimately even though a short term captivity in the specific context of wars is sometimes necessary. 

The captives of the very first Islamic battle of Badr, were freed on ransom (in form of money depending on each prisoner's financial capacities or work like teaching ten Muslim children how to read and write), while those of the tribe of Tay were freed without any ransom. Some would reform themselves and cease their hostilities towards the Muslims, but others would go back headlong into battle whenever the chance to fight and kill Muslims presented itself. 

For example Abu Izza was among the anti-Muslim coaltion at Uhud. He had been taken as a prisoner of war at Badr and then released by the prophet without a ransom because he was poor and had a large family. The condition for his release was that he would not take part in further anti-Islamic activities, especially verbal provocations, as he was known for his eloquence. If relatives were captured they could not be separated. It is then that the Quran progressively introduced the notion of freeing slave benevolently as a great virtue. 

As already noted, slaves were a source of livelihood and labor, even to Muslims who had to treat them with care. That is why it is considered a great act of generosity if done unconditionally. Even if the person wasnt prepared to go to such charitable extent, the Quran still encouraged freeing them through other avenues such as atoning for certain sins like missing a fast, breeching a vow made hastily concerning a lawful thing, accidental homicide, and many other small acts common in this society 4:92,5:89,58:3. As an act of virtue, Ali emancipated 1000 slaves, purchasing them from his own money. The Prophet emphatically stated on many occasions that, in the sight of God, the unconditional freeing of a human being from bondage is among the most praiseworthy acts which a Muslim could perform.  

No religion other than Islam promoted the liberation of fellow humans in bondage as an act of humanity and virtue, beautifully reflected in Sura 90. That is a fact the Judeo-Christian critics of Islam, who try misrepresenting Islamic slavery with their twisted biblical paradigm in mind, will have to deal with. The overarching approach of Islam towards slavery, as already seen and as will be further developed, is thus to reduce the access to servitude and expand the way towards freedom.