Jump to content
Pro-Alid

Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/pope-francis-and-other-re_n_6256640.html 

Pope Francis And Other Religious Leaders Sign Declaration Against Modern Slavery

here is the text of the Declaration, followed by a list of signatories:

We, the undersigned, are gathered here today for a historic initiative to inspire spiritual and practical action by all global faiths and people of good will everywhere to eradicate modern slavery across the world by 2020 and for all time.I n the eyes of God*, each human being is a free person, whether girl, boy, woman or man, and is destined to exist for the good of all in equality and fraternity. Modern slavery, in terms of human trafficking, forced labour and prostitution, organ trafficking, and any relationship that fails to respect the fundamental conviction that all people are equal and have the same freedom and dignity, is a crime against humanity. We pledge ourselves here today to do all in our power, within our faith communities and beyond, to work together for the freedom of all those who are enslaved and trafficked so that their future may be restored. Today we have the opportunity, awareness, wisdom, innovation and technology to achieve this human and moral imperative.

*The Grand Imam of Al Azhar uses the word “religions”.

Pope Francis

Her Holiness Mata Amritanandamayi (Amma)

Venerable Bhikkhuni Thich Nu Chan Khong (representing Zen Master Thích Nhất Hạnh)

The Most Ven. Datuk K Sri Dhammaratana, Chief High Priest of Malaysia

Rabbi Dr. Abraham Skorka

Rabbi Dr. David Rosen

Dr. Abbas Abdalla Abbas Soliman, Undersecretary of State of Al Azhar Alsharif (representing Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar)

Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi al-Modarresi

Sheikh Naziyah Razzaq Jaafar, Special advisor of Grand Ayatollah (representing Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Basheer Hussain al Najafi

Sheikh Omar Abboud

Most Revd and Right Hon Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury

His Eminence Metropolitan Emmanuel of France (representing His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew)

Edited by Hameedeh
Excessively large fonts (size 16-72) may be reduced to a standard size (12-14) by a Moderator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Shakir 24:33] And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

A certain man Abdullah ibn Obay just to buy slave girls and use it for prostitutes after this verse Allah AWJ made it haram. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hassan- said:

Allama Tabatabai says:

Nevertheless, it seems a bit difficult to say that it is 'marriage' which is implied by the word, 'forbidden', because of the exceptional clause coming later: except those whom your right hands possess. Sexual intercourse with one's slave women is lawful without marriage. Therefore, it would seem more appropriate if prohibition is taken to refer to sexual intercourse, and not to marriage alone, as will be explained later. The same is the implication of the words: that you seek (them) by means of your wealth ..., as will be described afterwards. Thus the fact emerges that the implied word after 'forbidden' is cohabitation, or another similar word, not marriage. Allah has avoided mentioning it explicitly, because the divine speech refrains from such words and maintains a high moral decorum.

http://m.almizan.org/tafsir/4-23-28/

Read this topic here for more info: 

I can't be bothered really, I already know he is wrong based on what are scholars say.

I was really confused about what he was saying too because it went against what I had previously researched. But what about his point regarding iddha (e.g., if the slave was previously married)? Does a slave need to maintain iddha prior to relationships with the master?

Honestly, this is such a sensitive topic that I have a hard time coming to terms with. It's so hard for me to accept this is Islamically allowed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL @ Ammar's lecture, what do people expect??

Lets face it, slavery is a topic that is highly uncomfortable for muslims and it is virtually impossible to reconcile with elementary moral reasoning.  This is precisely why you find so many apologists. 

I have yet to read anything sensible that tackles the topic sufficiently. Professor Brown has tried to tackle some of these topics in essays and he also comes off as an apologist and rambles off on random tangents.

At the end of the day this topic will remain controversial and difficult for scholars to tackle as I just do not foresee human slavery ever being considered acceptable from here on end.

Edited by King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Inner Peace said:

I was really confused about what he was saying too because it went against what I had previously researched. But what about his point regarding iddha (e.g., if the slave was previously married)? Does a slave need to maintain iddha prior to relationships with the master?

Honestly, this is such a sensitive topic that I have a hard time coming to terms with. It's so hard for me to accept this is Islamically allowed. 

When a master buys a slave women, the women must go through iddah before the master can have intercourse with her. If the slave women is married to another man, it is still permissible for the master to have intercourse with her then return her back to her husband. 

Yes this is a sensitive topic and some people will not be able to accept such things, so it's better to avoid talking about it in public. @Ibn al-Hussain in this topic explained it properly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hassan- said:

When a master buys a slave women, the women must go through iddah before the master can have intercourse with her. If the slave women is married to another man, it is still permissible for the master to have intercourse with her then return her back to her husband. 

Yes this is a sensitive topic and some people will not be able to accept such things, so it's better to avoid talking about it in public. @Ibn al-Hussain in this topic explained it properly.

 

Is this permissible without her consent or against her will? 

Also, in terms of a female master with a male slave, relationships aren't permissible right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Inner Peace said:

Is this permissible without her consent or against her will? 

Also, in terms of a female master with a male slave, relationships aren't permissible right?

I don't know too much details about it to be honest. All these rules regarding slavery do not apply anymore in today's time, because slavery is almost non-existent. Slavery is history, in Islam it's haram now and all these issues and rules for it are irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Inner Peace said:

I was really confused about what he was saying too because it went against what I had previously researched. But what about his point regarding iddha (e.g., if the slave was previously married)? Does a slave need to maintain iddha prior to relationships with the master?

Honestly, this is such a sensitive topic that I have a hard time coming to terms with. It's so hard for me to accept this is Islamically allowed. 

If a slave is married, then yes there is an 'iddah (although it is half of a free-woman's). In other cases (like in Tahleel) the term used in Fiqh is not 'Iddah. It is called Istibra' and it is much shorter (only one menstrual cycle).

One thing you have to realize is that, terms such as "with her consent", "against her will", "marital rape", "slave's choice" are 19th/20th/21st century language and way of thinking. These terms and concepts did not exist for the vast majority of human history where slavery existed, and people simply considered these things as part and parcel of life. People had a different attitude to these events occurring around them. It is us who grew up in an era where these things do not exist anymore (at least not in the form we are discussing) and therefore we have a hard time understanding it. Are we really going to call thousands of years of humans as "immoral" and "wrong", especially when you see the greatest religious figures, ethicists, scholars all participating in such phenomena? 

I agree with @King - this is a topic most Muslims today will not be able to fathom and digest. All I can say is, this was not a "Muslim" phenomenon, rather it was a global world-wide phenomenon. It was something that was considered part of life under pretty much every civilization. As I previously mentioned, you are better off trying to understand the place of slavery in the world historically speaking, then trying to come up with weak apologetic reasons of how Islam was always trying to abolish slavery and what Islam has to say about it today (when it doesn't exist and is something out-lawed).

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

:salam:

Sayyid Ammar is an immensely popular speaker (and no doubt a very good one) and has done a lot of good as well, but majority of his audience are mere sheep - although this isn't limited to just Sayyid Ammar - since majority of the Western Shi'i audience have no ability to research, read or critically think. I blame this largely on the Western scholars/preachers who have presented and taught a very self-contradicting, wishy washy understanding of Islamic history, Islamic law and even Islamic ethics in the last 2-3 decades.

I don't usually go around pointing out mistakes from people's lectures (since most lecturers make minor blunders all the time), but this lecture was too much. Anyone who has studied basic Shi'i Fiqh will tell you how flawed this whole speech was and how much of a joke it was. I had a good laugh as the lecture was filled with flawed analogies, blatant mistakes, was highly misleading, but the poor audience of course has no ability to verify anything.

Wasalam

I agree with you except on the verifying part, you actually can double check what he says even in English. The sad part is that when you do that, you actually figure out how wrong, much of the stuff he says actually is. And we can have  sex slaves common (in certain cases). 

Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

If a slave is married, then yes there is an 'iddah (although it is half of a free-woman's). In other cases (like in Tahleel) the term used in Fiqh is not 'Iddah. It is called Istibra' and it is much shorter (only one menstrual cycle).

One thing you have to realize is that, terms such as "with her consent", "against her will", "marital rape", "slave's choice" are 19th/20th/21st century language and way of thinking. These terms and concepts did not exist for the vast majority of human history where slavery existed, and people simply considered these things as part and parcel of life. People had a different attitude to these events occurring around them. It is us who grew up in an era where these things do not exist anymore (at least not in the form we are discussing) and therefore we have a hard time understanding it. Are we really going to call thousands of years of humans as "immoral" and "wrong", especially when you see the greatest religious figures, ethicists, scholars all participating in such phenomena? 

I agree with @King - this is a topic most Muslims today will not be able to fathom and digest. All I can say is, this was not a "Muslim" phenomenon, rather it was a global world-wide phenomenon. It was something that was considered part of life under pretty much every civilization. As I previously mentioned, you are better off trying to understand the place of slavery in the world historically speaking, then trying to come up with weak apologetic reasons of how Islam was always trying to abolish slavery and what Islam has to say about it today.

Wasalam

Thank you so much for your explanation. I really appreciate it. It did clarify some stuff. I have a couple more questions if you don't mind.

Do you know why the particular reason for the shorter iddha period is? Would this not interrupt the wife's duty to her husband then if she has to maintain iddha from prior relationships? In addition, considering her husband, doesn't this go against the nature of men as explained from an Islamic perspective, if a married slave was shared?

Does the concept of relationships with a slave being halal without marriage apply to a female master and her slave?

I realize this is more 21st century thinking but consent is an issue discussed in Islam. For example, a female must give consent to a marriage, she can't be forced into a marriage. So without the slave's permission it was allowed? I understand slavery but this concept is difficult to understand because it seems like borderline zulm to me to treat someone like that if they don't want to. There's a difference between slavery and sexual slavery I'd say.

Yes, it was a global phenomena but many things that were practiced were banned by Islamic. I understand slavery couldn't be banned but sexual slavery forcefully just seems like zulm. 

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Inner Peace said:

Do you know why the particular reason for the shorter iddha period is? Would this not interrupt the wife's duty to her husband then if she has to maintain iddha from prior relationships?

So you have to now factor into the fact that most people did not just have one wife, and in fact polygamy was normal. So the husband always had access to multiple wives and slaves. This would hardly have been an issue, and if it were the case that the husband only has access to this one wife, then he would simply have to wait for intercourse, but still be able to derive other forms of pleasure.

As for why the 'Iddah is shorter, I don't know - other than the fact that we have narrations saying this is how it is supposed to be. The presumption here is if an infallible has said such a thing, then we simply follow it whether we know the wisdom and reason behind it or not. This is how all Islamic law works.

21 minutes ago, Inner Peace said:

In addition, considering her husband, doesn't this go against the nature of men as explained from an Islamic perspective, if a married slave was shared?

When a slave is "married" off, she is never shared with another man in a sexual relationship.

21 minutes ago, Inner Peace said:

Does the concept of relationships with a slave being halal without marriage apply to a female master and her slave?

No. It was only between the male master and female slaves. As far as I understand (from my reading of history), most male slaves that belonged to female owners were generally castrated.

21 minutes ago, Inner Peace said:

I realize this is more 21st century thinking but consent is an issue discussed in Islam.

You are right that consent is an important concept in Islam, but there are certain individuals, or certain scenarios where people do not have the right to consent. For example, a child has no right to consent to something his or her parents may wish for them. Slaves in this scenario also do not have the right to consent. Oppression (Dhulm) is considered wrong and evil by all sane humans - that isn't what the dispute is over. The more complicated issues in discussions of morality is who determines what instances are that of oppression and what aren't and in fact, how do we determine in the first place that something is oppression and another act isn't.

Two related examples I can think of are child marriages and cousin marriages. Child marriages were a global phenomena and part of every civilization. It was a part and parcel of life, and Islam also had laws permitting it. Today we may consider it immoral, wrong, oppression (due to all the factors and variables that have changed and how at least certain elements of maturity are attained at a later age), and many jurists today have even come out and given rulings that have raised the minimum age of marriage, but would we really say all of humanity was wrong and immoral to conduct child-marriages for the vast majority of human history? Of course not - that would be extremely egoistic and dogmatic (especially since it is likely that future generations will judge us as harshly as we decide to judge those before us). The world was different, and that is how humans lived and it was a part and parcel of life. These things didn't cross people's minds, because they were not an issue to begin with.

Another example (perhaps not so shocking as child marriages - but still gives a good indication of how our conceptions can alter) is that of cousin marriages. Cousin marriages were a norm for all of human history, but today in some societies it is pretty much considered incest and immoral. This has even influenced many Muslims who consider it wrong, or they feel detested when it is mentioned - even though Islamic law perfectly allows it and does not consider it incest in any sense.

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

الْفِعْلِ فَأَمَرَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى بِالِاقْتِصَارِ عَلَى الْوَاحِدَةِ إذَا خَافَ إظْهَارَ الْمَيْلِ وَالْجَوْرِ وَمُجَانَبَةَ الْعَدْلِ وَقَوْلُهُ عَطْفًا عَلَى مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ إبَاحَةِ الْعَدَدِ الْمَذْكُورِ بِعَقْدِ النِّكَاحِ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ يَقْتَضِي حَقِيقَتَهُ وَظَاهِرُهُ إيجَابُ التَّخْيِيرِ بَيْنَ أَرْبَعِ حَرَائِرَ وَأَرْبَعِ إمَاءَ بِعَقْدِ النِّكَاحِ فَيُوجِبُ ذَلِكَ تَخْيِيرَهُ بَيْنَ تَزْوِيجِ الْحُرَّةِ وَالْأَمَةِ وَذَلِكَ لِأَنَّ قوله تعالى أَوْ ما مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ كلام مُسْتَقِلٍّ بِنَفْسِهِ بَلْ هُوَ مُضَمَّنٌ بِمَا قَبْلَهُ وَفِيهِ ضَمِيرٌ لَا يُسْتَغْنَى عَنْهُ وَضَمِيرُهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ ذِكْرُهُ مُظْهَرًا فِي الْخِطَابِ وَغَيْرُ جَائِزٍ لَنَا إضْمَارُ مَعْنًى لَمْ يَتَقَدَّمْ لَهُ ذِكْرٌ إلَّا بِدَلَالَةٍ مِنْ غَيْرِهِ فَلَمْ يَجُزْ لَنَا أَنْ نَجْعَلَ الضَّمِيرَ فِي قَوْله تَعَالَى أَوْ ما مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ الْوَطْءَ فَيَكُونُ تَقْدِيرُهُ قَدْ أَبَحْت لَكُمْ وَطْءَ مِلْكِ الْيَمِينِ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ فِي الْآيَةِ ذِكْرُ الْوَطْءِ وَإِنَّمَا الَّذِي فِي أَوَّلِ الْآيَةِ ذِكْرُ الْعَقْدِ لِأَنَّ قَوْله تَعَالَى فَانْكِحُوا مَا طابَ لَكُمْ لَا خِلَافَ أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِهِ الْعَقْدُ فَوَجَبَ أَنْ يَكُونَ قَوْله تَعَالَى أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ ضَمِيرَهُ أَوْ فَانْكِحُوا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ وَذَلِكَ النِّكَاحُ هُوَ الْعَقْدُ فَالضَّمِيرُ الرَّاجِعُ إلَيْهِ أَيْضًا هُوَ الْعَقْدُ

 

http://lib.eshia.ir/41796/2/348/ما_ملکت_أیمانکم

As far as I can understand the above text, the authour says that by the word Inkihu, Quran means Aqd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

The world was different, and that is how humans lived and it was a part and parcel of life. These things didn't cross people's minds, because they were not an issue to begin with.

I fail to envision a world where having sex with a slave and not seeking consent was normal! There was definite oppression at the time and people recognised it as such, the manner in which the enemies of Ahlulbayt treated the family of the prophet was outrageous and oppressive, why then was the concept of having sex with a slave not seen as oppressive? I can't envision a time when not seeking consent for having sex no matter who it was with, whether a slave or a free human was acceptable. People obviously had a sense of morality to know what happened at Kerbala or what happened to Imam al Kadhim in Harun Rashid's prisons was wrong. A slave didn't choose their path, so what was it that made having sex with them without consent not oppressive? 

It seems to me that sometimes, we just have to accept that certain things do not make sense to us, and we have to pretty much turn off our brains when thinking about this. But I would be lying if I said this issue does not deeply concern me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنْكُمْ طَوْلًا أَنْ يَنْكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِنْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ مِنْ فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُمْ مِنْ بَعْضٍ فَانْكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلَا مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَنْ تَصْبِرُوا خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ

And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing "fatiyat". And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable.

According to the verse above, a muslim cannot marry a mushrik slave woman and since all captives were mushrik, so it means that if a female captive converts to Islam, a muslim man can marry her, providing that he cannot marry a free believing woman, with the permission of their families and he has to pay something to her.

Therefore, if the female captive doesnt convert to Islam, he cannot marry her.

Now, an important question arises:

If marrying a slave woman could occur without her consent, (considering the above conclusion) wouldnt it motivate slave women not to convert to Islam for not being forced to marry??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

وَاعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَلَا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا وَبِذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَالْجَارِ ذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْجَارِ الْجُنُبِ وَالصَّاحِبِ بِالْجَنْبِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ وَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ مَنْ كَانَ مُخْتَالًا فَخُورًا

Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful.

Isnt forcing a slave woman to marry you without her consent, against what Quran orders (be good to them)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, King said:

LOL @ Ammar's lecture, what do people expect??

Lets face it, slavery is a topic that is highly uncomfortable for muslims and it is virtually impossible to reconcile with elementary moral reasoning.  This is precisely why you find so many apologists. 

I have yet to read anything sensible that tackles the topic sufficiently. Professor Brown has tried to tackle some of these topics in essays and he also comes off as an apologist and rambles off on random tangents.

At the end of the day this topic will remain controversial and difficult for scholars to tackle as I just do not foresee human slavery ever being considered acceptable from here on end.

I am sorry to say brother but all shia scholars believe to treat slave wife as "Zawjah" and there are two talaqs for her for separation. But in wahabbi school as according to Maulana Mudoodi, nikah is not necessary for he believes that it will grant her equal rights as that of wife. But, one may ask that whether islam differentiates between slave wife and wife except that one is not free citizen and other is free. 

I think you have newly been converted to Islam otherwise you would not have doubted fairness of Islam. Words of ahlebait a.s were always twisted as for this subject which is taken from Salafist article who twisted word Imam sadiq a.s of "halal" by "offer". I guarantee them that for such thing you would get your hands and tongues amputated on the day of judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

وَاعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَلَا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا وَبِذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَالْجَارِ ذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْجَارِ الْجُنُبِ وَالصَّاحِبِ بِالْجَنْبِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ وَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ مَنْ كَانَ مُخْتَالًا فَخُورًا

Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful.

Isnt forcing a slave woman to marry you without her consent, against what Quran orders (be good to them)?

Agree sister.  I once read that Prophet PBUHHP asked a woman's hand and she said that I take refuge in Allah (because Bibi Ayesha and Hafza were bit uneasy with her beauty and they advised her to show such behavior to give a influential impression) so prophet said you are under the protection of God and did not ask again and she remorsed later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 2:20 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

The fallacy in this question is that it already presumes slavery is immoral (in absolute terms apparently). I would question this presumption - what are you defining as slavery and what makes it immoral? If we press on this question too far, it will result in a philosophy of ethics discussion, and you will then face an array of opinions and schools of thought (both within Islam and outside of Islam) on what exactly makes something moral or immoral, whether it is objective or subjective etc.

I really don’t think that the matter is too complicated as to merit a philosophical discussion. Every free, reasonable and sane person understands slavery in its basic form. It forcefully takes away one’s freedom, basic human rights, the ability to think, to make wilful and conscious decisions and if encouraged for centuries, it clouds human intellect on which Shia Islam stresses upon and it forces a human being to actually believe that he or she is less of a human and physically/mentally not as capable as others. Sure, we may argue, that this is mere modern day understanding of our freedom which did not exist back in the days when Islam introduced itself to the Arabian society. But if slavery as previously explained is an ill, should a reasonable person not expect Islam to eradicate it or at least make visible efforts? After all the religion is/was a beacon of hope and light.

I think that there is a need for a better and a clear explanation from scholars and students of fiqh who are of the opinion that Islam treated slavery as a normal and acceptable institution which required a few tweaks in the form of regulations, and which, therefore, was fine to exist for the remainder of humanity depending on the choice of the freemen/masters owning the slaves. Until then I personally prefer the view that if Islam represents a just God, its regulations regarding slavery and its idea of equality was meant to bring social justice and help all human beings gain their dignity and self-respect. 

On 10/7/2017 at 2:20 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

1) This Zakat money can only be used on Shi'i slaves and is just one of the options for using your Zakat.

I can understand if Zakat and Khums are spent on Shia community as a first preference. But to say that it is only reserved for Shias (even if the Shias do not need it anymore or even if there are other Muslims who are in more need of it) is unfortunately a position that goes against the basic teachings of Islam (with all due respect to our learned scholars who may hold a different view). I definitely need to seek more explanation from scholarly offices to gain clarity.

Thank you for a thought-provoking discussion. 

p.s Again, I jumped into this discussion without knowing what Ammar actually said (Not a subscriber to his lectures). So I was not defending his stance whatever it may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is narrated that the Prophet-s- said:

None of you should say "My male slave! My female slave". But say "my boy! My girl!"

لا یقولن احدکم عبدی و امتی و لکن فتای و فتاتی

Maybe it is why Quran says فتیاتکم (your young girls/women) instead of أمائکم (your female slaves).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the most difficult topic. I had this discussion before brothers and I was contending that: 

1. Nikah is necessary for a cohabitation between male and females and I was confused as about it. 

2. The second point was that if there is no nikah what is the procedure of declaration of secession from such relationship ? 

Although @E.L King helped me through Ayotullah Tabatabi's commentary which says that 

1. Possession itself gives right of cohabitation such as Nikah. 

2. Later on, it is also mentioned that before allowing the slave girl to be married to other male, the female has to go through Iddah (Natural Ablution). 

3. But if the master of the girl institutes the condition that he could get her back, then he can get her back after Iddah which becomes like (Hilalah). I think, it is pretty clear from page (94 of Tafsir al Mizan, Surah Nisah 23-28)

  Consequently, the exceptional clause, "Except those whom your right hand possess"; will exclude one's married slave girl from this prohibition. It has been narrated in traditions that the master of a married slave woman may take away that woman from her husband, keep her untouched for the prescribed term, then have sexual relation with her (Iddah followed as possession iteself serves as Nikah). 

However, this tradition has even to be assessed through Quran. It may happen that this narration may lack authenticity on the part of narrator. After all, those who transmitted it were humans. So, if we ask to Ayotullah that whether those who narrated are fallible or infallible ? The answer is fallible. Now, the decision would be through Quran that prohibits from ill-treatment with slaves. So, Quran should be given preference as this conduct is not appropriate for living being whom God says "We bestowed dignity upon mankind".

4. Lastly, i believe that as Islam says: "There is no compulsion in Islam", the slave girl can refuse anyone's claim over her. For Islam forbids from forcing someone. 

 

Edited by starlight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Are we really going to call thousands of years of humans as "immoral" and "wrong", especially when you see the greatest religious figures, ethicists, scholars all participating in such phenomena?

Not only on this topic but on many others there are actually people in the world and surprisingly and sadly on this forum who believe that we have arrived at some sort of an evolutionary high point of moral and ethical existence that is superior to everything that has passed before us.

It's quite laughable really.

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

الْفِعْلِ فَأَمَرَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى بِالِاقْتِصَارِ عَلَى الْوَاحِدَةِ إذَا خَافَ إظْهَارَ الْمَيْلِ وَالْجَوْرِ وَمُجَانَبَةَ الْعَدْلِ وَقَوْلُهُ عَطْفًا عَلَى مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ إبَاحَةِ الْعَدَدِ الْمَذْكُورِ بِعَقْدِ النِّكَاحِ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ يَقْتَضِي حَقِيقَتَهُ وَظَاهِرُهُ إيجَابُ التَّخْيِيرِ بَيْنَ أَرْبَعِ حَرَائِرَ وَأَرْبَعِ إمَاءَ بِعَقْدِ النِّكَاحِ فَيُوجِبُ ذَلِكَ تَخْيِيرَهُ بَيْنَ تَزْوِيجِ الْحُرَّةِ وَالْأَمَةِ وَذَلِكَ لِأَنَّ قوله تعالى أَوْ ما مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ كلام مُسْتَقِلٍّ بِنَفْسِهِ بَلْ هُوَ مُضَمَّنٌ بِمَا قَبْلَهُ وَفِيهِ ضَمِيرٌ لَا يُسْتَغْنَى عَنْهُ وَضَمِيرُهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ ذِكْرُهُ مُظْهَرًا فِي الْخِطَابِ وَغَيْرُ جَائِزٍ لَنَا إضْمَارُ مَعْنًى لَمْ يَتَقَدَّمْ لَهُ ذِكْرٌ إلَّا بِدَلَالَةٍ مِنْ غَيْرِهِ فَلَمْ يَجُزْ لَنَا أَنْ نَجْعَلَ الضَّمِيرَ فِي قَوْله تَعَالَى أَوْ ما مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ الْوَطْءَ فَيَكُونُ تَقْدِيرُهُ قَدْ أَبَحْت لَكُمْ وَطْءَ مِلْكِ الْيَمِينِ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ فِي الْآيَةِ ذِكْرُ الْوَطْءِ وَإِنَّمَا الَّذِي فِي أَوَّلِ الْآيَةِ ذِكْرُ الْعَقْدِ لِأَنَّ قَوْله تَعَالَى فَانْكِحُوا مَا طابَ لَكُمْ لَا خِلَافَ أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِهِ الْعَقْدُ فَوَجَبَ أَنْ يَكُونَ قَوْله تَعَالَى أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ ضَمِيرَهُ أَوْ فَانْكِحُوا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ وَذَلِكَ النِّكَاحُ هُوَ الْعَقْدُ فَالضَّمِيرُ الرَّاجِعُ إلَيْهِ أَيْضًا هُوَ الْعَقْدُ

 

http://lib.eshia.ir/41796/2/348/ما_ملکت_أیمانکم

As far as I can understand the above text, the authour says that by the word Inkihu, Quran means Aqd.

I see this way practiced by Ahlebait a.s. It is narrated that Hazrat Nargis Khatoon a.s was a slave girl bought either by Imam Ali Naqi a.s or Mother of Imam Hasan Askari a.s. She was given Islamic education, taught in domestic affairs and when she was educated, she was married to Imam Hasan al Askari a.s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly believe I have committed an error by reading this topic.

It is pretty much common sense to condemn slavery, regardless of its apparent permissibility. Its existence may have had its grounds in a world in which such social structure was deeply ingrained within societies, but that doesn't mean it can't change. It is something we don't wish for ourselves nor for the people we love. It is something we would fight against, given the opportunity. Black, point, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bakir said:

It is something we don't wish for ourselves nor for the people we love.

Are you really saying that if you had the chance to offer the Ahlulbayt (a.s.) yourself or your children as slaves you would not take it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×