While most of the Surahs of the Quran promote the notion that it is permissible to have slaves, surah 2: 177 absolutely does not. Let us look at a Surah in "The Cow" in which Muhammad sees justice existing in using one's wealth to set the slaves free.

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the Prophets; and giveth his wealth, for love of Him to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free. 2: 177
 

The Methodology of the Revisers of Scripture
Surah 178 was inserted in order to contradict
the liberating influence of Surah 177.

O ye who believe: Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave... 2: 178.

  In keeping with the egalitarianism that also existed among the earliest Jews and the earliest Christians, so too were the original followers of Muhammad against the horrendously evil institution of slavery.
 

    In the history of India it is known that the Aryans enslaved the aboriginal Dravidians, who were Shauvites, or Sabeans.  One of the noteworthy and significant attributes of Shiva was his refusal to assent to the caste system.  Shiva congregated with sudras and women both.  Moreover, he lived in the wilderness, not in the cities, nor on ranches and farms, where wealth was amassed, and where the caste system dominated in order to assure the fact that the upper castes had sufficient sudras to do their work.  One of the noteworthy attributes of Shiva to many Hindus is this very fact, Shiva's egalitarianism, his refusal to see women as inferior, and to see sudras or those described as being in the lower class as "untouchable" or not to be congregated with. The institution of slavery, like the caste system was presented as divinely sanctioned in order to justify the subjugation of aboriginal cultures to the Aryan invaders, or other groups wishing literally to harness, that is enslave, the population of indigenous people.

   We have already seen that the sacred stone of the Muslims is a Shiva Lingam, that the Lord of Worlds is Shiva, and that the praise of Sabeans in the Koran is a eulogy to those who revere Shiva, or Saba, that Surah 6: 38 sees creation as a family, and therefore forwards the notion of Allah or Shiva being the Lord of Creatures and Protector of Cattle.
 

    So too the original Jews we are told in the Tanakh itself lived as tribes before they clamored for a king, for institutionalizing their own subjection to another human.  Now, some have affirmed that in some tribal societies the chief or leader was appointed so precisely because of wisdom or strength, an ability to maintain an egalitarian order, or a system of justice, in case problems should arise within the tribal society.  The clamoring for a king in ancient Judaism, however, strikes the egalitarian as a profound moral defect.  The desire to be ruled is the sign of inner confusion; it is the sign of a carnivorous culture, with its brain cells clotted with animal flesh, unable to see moral choices clearly, and wanting, on a basic level, to have one's decisions made by another.  Contrary to this is the archetypal feeling manifested in Jesus' statement that you cannot serve both God and Mammon or Money.  Muhammad carried on this egalitarian tradition.

    I would ask my readers to underscore the fact that there is enough evidence in the scriptures as they exist that Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and the prophets in general were all against slavery.  It is unthinkable that Moses, servant and channel of the Almighty in releasing the Israelites from the slavery of Egypt, should therefore, according to the Old Testament, none the less have desired other people to be under the yoke of the Israelites, or that he was the channel for such evil teachings. However, making what is unthinkable out to be supposedly sanctioned by God is the very motive of those who revise the scriptures. Therefore, the rich invented lies in order to justify numerous atrocities that were profitable.  One such lie was the institution of animal sacrifices, which was obviously invented to profit those who would be the killers and butchers of God's creatures, namely, the Jewish meat industry, centered in the very temple of Jerusalem. Another was the institution of slavery.  All those who say that God wishes some humans to lord it over other humans, or other animals, are absolutely devoid of understanding what it means to be equitable, egalitarian, or compassionate.  The fact that orthodox Judaism has existed for over four thousand years, orthodox Christianity for two, and Sunni Islam for over 1300 years, and that these sects have continued to believe that an all-compassionate God desires that humans cause suffering to other humans or other creatures, is proof enough, to the objective reader, that these creeds are mentally defective, and also, proof enough, that those who adhere to them are mentally limited, no doubt because of the consumption of animal flesh which clogs the arteries of the brain as much as it clogs the arteries of the heart.
 

   And the earliest followers of Jesus called themselves the Ebionites, after the Hebrew word ebionim, meaning the poor, to show that they were unalterably opposed to the rich, to Mammon, to Money.   And it was for this reason that the Ebionite Gospel was immediately burned by the Roman emperors; it was a threat to Roman supremacy and to the Roman institution of slavery.  For in that Gospel Jesus' teaching that "you cannot serve both God and Mammon" was not subverted by the letters of Paul or Pauline teachings stating that the emperor and the state were institutions sanctioned by God.  And this is why the zealots, or Canaaneans were attracted to Jesus' teachings, for Jesus refused to submit to any authority but God.  The zealots, we know from Josephus, burned down the Temple of Records in Jerusalem, wherein were recorded the debts owed by the poor to the rich; they attacked Roman arsenals and stole their weapons; and they killed slave holders, whether Jewish or Roman.  The Canaaneans still followed Kannan, a name for Krishna or Vishnu.  This is not taught by orthodox scholars because either they are ignorant of the Hindu origins of Judaism, or they have suppressed this knowledge because it conflicts with the existing religious orthodoxy.

    Jesus was in tune with the absolutely peaceful stance towards creatures and creation that exists in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch.  Unlike Paul, Jesus did not have a job, he lived frequently in the wilderness, and he said not to be anxious about one's needs for tomorrow, for God would provide, as is seen in the sixth chapter of Matthew.  For those who make money generally do so by exploiting the creatures of creation as well as other humans, for example with the institution of slavery, or in the institution of elitist societies in which the rich rule the poor, which is simply just a less abject state of slavery, but slavery none the less.  It was this latter slave society that Paul supported: let him who does not work not eat.
 

   The quotations above show us a number of Jesus' teachings that are absolutely egalitarian.  It should be quite obvious to the objective reader that other scriptures in the New Testament which affirm that we should give to Caesar the things are are Caesars, are  revisions of the original scriptures.  "I have come to free the captive," "the meek shall inherit the earth," "love your neighbor as your self," and the golden rule to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," are all statements denouncing even the slightest inequality among people.  Slavery was to Jesus, as it was, or is, to any reasonable person, the most horrific of crimes against humanity or against other creatures.
 

    In fact, the statement "Render unto Caesar the things that are due Caesar," if indeed actually spoken by Jesus, would indicate a Jesus who was using sarcasm, much as Moses' God does when he tells the depraved Israelites craving flesh that he will give them so much flesh that it will come out of their noses.
 

   And the earliest followers of Jesus called themselves the Ebionites, after the Hebrew word ebionim, meaning the poor, to show that they were unalterably opposed to the rich, to Mammon, to Money.   And it was for this reason that the Ebionite Gospel was immediately burned by the roman emperors.  For in that Gospel Jesus' teaching that "you cannot serve both God and Mammon" was not subverted by the letters of Paul or Pauline teachings stating that the emperor and the state were institutions that were justified by God.  And this is why the zealots, or Canaaneans were attracted to Jesus' teachings, for Jesus refused to submit to any authority but God.  The zealots, we know from Josephus, burned down the Temple of Records in Jerusalem, wherein were recorded the debts owed by the poor to the rich; they attacked Roman arsenals and stole their weapons; and they killed slave holders, whether Jewish or Roman.  The Canaaneans still followed Kannan, a name for Krishna or Vishnu.  This is not taught by orthodox scholars because either they are ignorant of the Hindu origins of Judaism, or they have suppressed this knowledge because it conflicts with the existing religious orthodoxy.

    Jesus was in tune with the absolutely peaceful stance towards creatures and creation that exists in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch.  Unlike Paul, Jesus did not have a job, he lived frequently in the wilderness, and he said not to be anxious about one's needs for tomorrow, for God would provide, as is seen in the sixth chapter of Matthew.  For those who make money generally do so by exploiting the creatures of creation as well as other humans, for example with the institution of slavery, or in the institution of elitist societies in which the rich rule the poor, which is simply just a less abject state of slavery, but slavery none the less.  It was this latter slave society that Paul supported: let him who does not work not eat.
 

    The fact that huge populations on the face of the earth, namely the orthodoxies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, do not have the moral discernment to understand that an all-just Divinity does not play favorites among the species, or among the members of the same species, allowing some to cause others to suffer or even die, is, once again, proof enough that the brain cells of the orthodox are clogged and less inclined to discern what is morally reprehensible than are the unclogged brains of those who do not consume animals.
I am not retreating into the escapist notion that criminal acts are due to mental illness.
 

   In this regard the early Muslim writers were absolutely correct in stating that the message of Jesus was subverted by Paul.  Whereas women occupied a high place in Jesus' life--note his reverence towards not only his mother, but Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha, and the fact that a group of women come to his tomb--Paul regarded women as subordinate to men: "wives obey your husbands, slaves obey your masters." Whereas Jesus taught "I have come to free the captive," "love your neighbor as yourself," and the golden rule, all of which are totally incompatible with slavery, a fact that the cholesterol-filled brains of the orthodoxy are apparently unable to fathom, the orthodoxies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all teach the validity of slavery.

    Jesus was associated with the Canaaneans, or zealots, Simon Zelotes and Judas being thought by many scholars to have been zealots.  And we know from Josephus that the zealots burned down the Temple of Records in Jerusalem which contained the records of the debts owned by the poor to the rich. Zealots also invaded Roman arsenals and stole their weapons, and killed slave-owners, Jewish or Roman.  In context of these events, and in context of Jesus' egalitarian teachings, the teachings of Paul are easily recognized as false by anyone having even a residue of moral discernment.

   It may justly be said of all those who state that slavery is sanctioned by Divinity, that they have little or no moral or mental discernment, that they are not at all in tune with the universality of divine justice, because they see God's favor as being poured upon the elite, the rich, more than it is poured upon the poor.  In this respect, those Hindus still honoring the caste system, and Buddhists honoring its residue in their societies, are at fault as well; for though one may accept the common teaching of Hinduism is that those who are born into wealth deserve that wealth, what is not taught as a corollary to that principle is that these people have the responsibility to share that wealth with others as equals and alleviate suffering.
 

     And what is vegetarianism but egalitarianism towards animals, treating them as beings who like humans have the right to live as free beings on earth, instead of erroneously seeing them as creatures who were created to be exploited by humans.