The incident involving the kidnapping of three hundred school girls by Boko Haram and reportedly threatening to sell them into slavery has prompted one of those "here we go again" situations. Islamophobes 'working' as mercenary-propagandists are rolling up their sleeves and making hay by using the transgression of a rogue organization that represents none except its own despicable self.
Not an unfamiliar scenario. It's long been the stance and 'style of coordination' between various teams of mischief-mongers to publicly slander the Quran, each team heading out for its respective goal and fulfillment of surreptitious motives. This time the bozo outburst comes from the notorious Islamophobe, Tarek Fateh, in his article "Muslims must be honest about Qur'an." In addition to turning Islamic History upside down with prejudice, bizarre accusations and fabricated assertions, this man aims at portraying Boko Haram's loathsome act of kidnapping as a Quranic tenet by manipulating Verse 33:50 of the Quran for the purpose of massive indoctrination, conveying to the masses that reprobates like Boko Haram and other similar outlaws are taking their lessons from the Quran.
Apparently in this 'assignment' the mercenary's task includes the perversion of truth by playing the "Christian / Hindu" card, that all well-known personalities throughout the annals of Islamic History starting from Mohammed bin Qasim were obsessed into taking Christians and Hindus as "sex slaves" and were no different from Boko Haram.
Such lowlife theatrics can no longer pass off as just frolicking and teasing. In a bid to take desperate steps for successful brainwashing, it boils down to being outright pig-headed.
Not that responding to this sort of biased and hate-filled campaign is worth the time of any civilized or decent person. But exposing the truth is certainly meaningful as well as constructive for every honorable individual not hankering after materialism, hostility and sowing seeds of discord within a community.
The hackneyed gimmick of Islamophobic bigots is to pick Quranic Verses out of context, misinterpret them at face value and intentionally slip their contextual information under the carpet. Otherwise the sermonized hype won't sell. Fateh's stance with Verse 33:50 has been precisely the same, connecting the disinformation with the actions of Boko Haram.
Ignoring his bloody-minded and preposterous contortions of Islamic History, I will only elucidate some essential points pertaining to Verse 33:50 on the aspect of slavery which trouble-makers like him purposely misstate or overlook.
Quoting the portion of Verse 33:50 which is being twisted and falsified:
"O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war" (33:50).
Based on the handouts and inculcation of these agent provocateurs, the above Verse that reads "those whom thy right hand possesseth" is supposed to be in conformity with practices such as kidnapping and selling non-Muslim females.
It's a common and purposeful misconception particularly in this part of the world, cashed in by the mercenary propagandists, that slavery is a Quranic dictate, that the Quran introduced slavery and was complacent about it.
The truth is that freeing a slave (or slaves) is viewed in the Noble Quran as one of the ways of atonement for a person's sins.
Slavery is embedded in culture and society not in religion. It's time related, not race related.
The Noble Quran disapproves of idol worship and it disapproves of slavery too. Both idolatry and slavery had to be abolished but with different approaches.
The Quran strongly encouraged educating slaves. Whenever a master or mistress were confident that their slave or slaves were ready to lead independent lives, they were to set them free by giving them a sum of money and a written note of emancipation to start their new and free lives.
The Prophet (pbuh) never had a single slave in his household. Though several of his companions were former slaves in Mecca, they were all freed in Medinah. He freed Zaid immediately after adopting him and later arranged his marriage with his own first cousin, Zainab. He also provided Zaid with a big dowry (according to Quranic rules dowry is the responsibility of the man, not the woman) so that he would not feel discriminated or inferior in the presence of Zainab, who was a free lady of substantial wealth. Unfortunately this marriage didn't last more than a few years because of the couple's incompatibility.
Marya, one of the wives of the Prophet, who was a slave before her marriage was freed soon after she arrived in Medinah from Egypt. When Marya was married, her credential was that of a free woman and she was given the same social status as the other wives of the Prophet who were all free women.
Up to the 1800s, rape of black slaves in America wouldn't even be recognized as "rape" as they were barely considered humans. The Noble Quran mentioned in the 7th century that masters are not entitled to force their female slaves into sexual intercourse against their wishes.
"Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful." (24:33).
The culture of slavery has now been officially eradicated from the world which was one of the goals of the Noble Quran more than 1,400 years ago. Hence physical relationship with a female labelled a "slave" would no longer be valid in the light of the Quranic Law itself. That relationship would be called zina or fornication if consensual or 'rape' if otherwise. Both are forbidden in the Glorious Quran.