Jump to content
Pro-Alid

Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Just now, Haji 2003 said:

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?

 

Please elaborate. I don't see a context in which that has any need to happen. So far, as free men we are free to serve what we believe in. Why in the world, servitude as a slave is any better?

Share this post


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

Please elaborate. I don't see a context in which that has any need to happen. So far, as free men we are free to serve what we believe in. Why in the world, servitude as a slave is any better?

You made the categorical statement that slavery is not something that we'd wish for ourselves or those we love.

I was asking the hypothetical question that if the opportunity arose for people who are contributing to this thread to offer themselves or their children to the Ahlulbayt (a.s.) as slaves would they do so?

Simple enough question. Just needs a yes or no answer.

Share this post


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

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

Allamah al tabataba’i says the master can take the wife from her husband, have intercourse with her and return her back to her husband.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to Islam's approach to slavery, here are some possibilities (but these arent exhaustive)

1.  Islam actively tried to stop slavery (through various religious injunctions) because Islam viewed slavery as intrinsically immoral

2.  Islam encouraged the abolition of slavery (through encouraging emancipation, various injunctions etc) because Islam viewed slavery as generally immoral

3.  Islam encouraged the abolition of slavery because Islam viewed emancipation to be  better than slavery (although the latter was not necessarily immoral given the context of 7th century Arabia)

4.  Islam was indifferent vis a vis slavery and emancipation

5.  Islam was pro-slavery as slavery was good given the context of 7th century Arabia

Notice that option 1 to 3 are all on the side of anti-slavery / pro-emancipation, but to different extents.  Personally I believe a good case can be made that Islam was pro-emancipation, as freeing slaves is something encouraged in Islam.  It doesnt follow from this that something like (1) is true however.

Edited by .InshAllah.

Share this post


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

Allamah al tabataba’i says the master can take the wife from her husband, have intercourse with her and return her back to her husband.

First of all, it's tradition that 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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ @.InshAllah. the position I have held over the past several years is that any contract can be fair or unfair, it has to depend on the terms.

To write off an entire class of exchange relationships as being intrinsically immoral, just seems to fly in the face of all other aspects of human behaviour.

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ibn al-Hussain did you say male slaves were castrated?  Yeah by evil kings and not in Islam. It is evident from history that Hazrat Bilal a.s was married and as well Hazrat Zaid both slaves of Prophet pbuhhp. You could also check about other male slaves as you won't find any of them unmarried who were slaves of Ahlebayt a.s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

You made the categorical statement that slavery is not something that we'd wish for ourselves or those we love.

I was asking the hypothetical question that if the opportunity arose for people who are contributing to this thread to offer themselves or their children to the Ahlulbayt (a.s.) as slaves would they do so?

Simple enough question. Just needs a yes or no answer.

That's not slavery that's freedom :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

That's not slavery that's freedom :clap:

There are Shias who might think that associating with Imam Mahdi (atjf) were he to come in our lifetimes, would cramp their lifestyles. But there may well be others who'd happily become his slaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

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?

Having a benevolent slave owner has nothing to do with the morality of slavery.  An immoral institution is an immoral institution, it does not matter how well you are treated.  Slave owners of the western slave trade used to argue that they treated their slaves better than their own family, and in some cases they did.  Slavery had to end because the idea of being owned by another human being (involuntarily) was morally reprehensible.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Haji 2003 said:

There are Shias who might think that associating with Imam Mahdi (atjf) were he to come in our lifetimes, would cramp their lifestyles. But there may well be others who'd happily become his slaves.

Bro, many of our important books were lost due to Mongols invasion and many were lost in Arabia that's why some issues are still unclear. The reason for Imam e Zamana's occultation is no less than the time before Prophet Pbuhhp. Why did ahlebait said that Islam would be a strange name for many. So,  don't grieve help is near.

Share this post


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

Having a benevolent slave owner has nothing to do with the morality of slavery.  An immoral institution is an immoral institution, it does not matter how well you are treated.  Slave owners of the western slave trade used to argue that they treated their slaves better than their own family, and in some cases they did.  Slavery had to end because the idea of being owned by another human being (involuntarily) was morally reprehensible.   

Agree to that slavery had to end and even islam didn't hold it as obligatory but as punishment upon those who believed in it. Like when someone fights you islam ask you to fight, similarly those who believe in captivating slaves from Muslims were also repayed with same. Albeit, Islam has rules for it that allowed them many rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

You made the categorical statement that slavery is not something that we'd wish for ourselves or those we love.

I was asking the hypothetical question that if the opportunity arose for people who are contributing to this thread to offer themselves or their children to the Ahlulbayt (a.s.) as slaves would they do so?

Simple enough question. Just needs a yes or no answer.

Imam Ali-a-himself said in Nahj-al Balaqa:

 و لا تکن عبد غيرک و قد جعلک الله حرا

Do not be the slave of others for God created you a free person.

But if you mean a servant, then it different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, King said:

Slavery had to end because the idea of being owned by another human being (involuntarily) was morally reprehensible.   

The word 'own', is another term which can have a variety of meanings, but is so emotionally laden that it is no better than a dog-whistle. 

The appropriate terms should be rights vs. obligations. Contracts that impose only obligations on someone, but no rights are immoral.

Indeed as the zero hours contracts issue in the UK shows, workers would actually like to have obligations in terms of the work that they have to do, because that would also incur obligations on the part of employers to pay them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shadow_of_light said:

Imam Ali-a-himself said in Nahj-al Balaqa:

 و لا تکن عبد غيرک و قد جعلک الله حرا

Do not be the slave of others for God created you a free person.

But if you mean a servant, then it different.

If a masoom Imam says do X, does a believing person exercise free-will in terms of choosing whether or not to obey? I thought that was the prerogative that Umar et al chose to employ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

If a masoom Imam says do X, does a believing person exercise free-will in terms of choosing whether or not to obey? I thought that was the prerogative that Umar et al chose to employ.

We obey him because we know his orders are God's orders so we are slaves of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shadow_of_light said:

We obey him because we know his orders are God's orders so we are slaves of God.

Er, yes. This is what I have been saying all along. It's impossible to say that the idea of being a slave is so horrible that we would not wish it upon anyone.  

Share this post


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

Allamah al tabataba’i says the master can take the wife from her husband, have intercourse with her and return her back to her husband.

Salams brother. Can you please provide the reference for this statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, salman1 said:

Salams brother. Can you please provide the reference for this statement.

Tafsir al Mizan by Allamah al Tabataba'i

http://www.hodaalquran.com/getdetails.php?sec=0&id=762

edit: english version: http://www.almizan.org/ surah an-nisa verses 23-28 page 94.

Quote

al-Muhsanāt,therefore, means married women, i.e., those who are presently married to a husband. The word is in conjunction with your mothers and your daughters ...The meaning: Forbidden to you are al lmarried women as long as their present marriage continues. Consequently, the exceptional clause, ‘‘except those whom your right hands 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, and thereafter return her to her husband.

 

Edited by Hassan-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Abbas. said:

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.  

As-salamu alaykum,

I think you may be underestimating the purview of this issue. Since, as Johnathan Brown in his article highlights, slavery is something that essentially transcends time and space and how we define this universal phenomenon is contingent upon our contemporary notions of freedom, the finer details can sometimes lead to discussions on legality as well as ethics and morality. For instance, if we are to regard slavery as inherently immoral for all times and places, how can we consider the Prophet (s) the manifestation of the Qur’an par excellence? Such a discussion would necessarily have to take place within the realm of philosophy.

As Sayed Ammar mentions in his lecture, slavery was an institution endorsed, not constitutionalised. It was a phenomenon so prevalent before the Prophet (s) that he saw no need to eradicate it, and any attempts to do so would have been futile anyway. It was more feasible to establish ethical guidelines to deal with slaves (see Tafsir Al-Mizan vol 12: 178-9 for examples). In any case, I think more interesting is the question that if abolition wasn’t Islam’s aim, why is slave manumission made the compensation for missing a fast, to take one example? And if abolition was never encouraged, is there ever an instance where taking in slaves was explicitly encouraged? If there wasn't it would seem as if emancipation was a practice without a long-term goal. Perhaps the Prophet (s), though it seems unlikely, thought that if emancipation occurred regularly, ‘slavery could continue to exist without being a trans-generational status, and would eventually die out’.

Similar to Jebreil's point is the one made briefly in this paper (@King you may find it useful as a critical response to Brown's paper), where slavery is looked at in relation to the cosmological divine-human relationship between us and Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى, that we are all slaves in relation to our Lord and so our status as a slave or freeman in this transient world is of little importance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jebreil said:

We're all slaves, with no intrinsic rights, but only a set range of freedoms given to us by our sovereign master the full range of which can never be exploited due to circumstances we find ourselves and the choices we make.

That is Islam. A religion that enslaves its followers to a discipline that strengthens the spirit.

Is not slavery of God release from the slavery of ignorance ? Which one is better for us to be slave of Allah or to be slave of ignornace ? There is no third side. So, if we choose slavery of Allah AWJ, then indeed, He AWJ deserves it for experienced and knowledgeable persons should be respected and honored. But leaving slavery of Allah and being slave of ignorance is giving an undeserving entity, an entitlement which it does not deserve.

I think, I agree with you that Momineen are slaves of Allah AWJ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But above slavery is different from slavery among creations. Before me, it lasts until you enemy agrees to waive slavery. The reason of this is that certain Ahkam are conditionals such as Prophet PBUHHP said for coloring the hair, while Imam Ali a.s was asked as to why he a.s did not color his hair. Imam Ali a.s said because at that time we have less young soldiers so Prophet PBUHHP asked old among us to color and since there is no such need right now, so this does not apply. 

Slavery was always discouraged in Islam that is why our Imams freed many slaves and it is said that alone Imam Ali Zainul Abideen freed 1000 slaves. This thing remained in place till anti-Muslims believed in it, since now there is no such need so this issue is also closed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jebreil said:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

السلام علیکم

/\

I am questioning the notion that any Muslim is free to determine how they live, how to use their bodies and their possessions, whom to befriend and what transactions to enter into, how and when and how many to marry, and even what to believe in or what to respect and like and loathe. I am also saying that since the Muslim denies this of himself or herself as creature of the Lord Most High, he or she denies it of everybody else too.

In effect I am drying up the common roots that nourish every moral argument against slavery, namely that, as a rule, humans have a right to self-determination. Once the Koranic verse jettisoned that right, Muslims (submitters) became immune to that argument.

The only argument left is expedience, but there is no adequate expediency argument against slavery. There is an argument against 'slave economies' (though apparently counter-arguments defending its economic value), but the Muslim economy isn't a slave economy, and any remnants of it which we find are analogous to many exploitative contracts that spur the growth of many a world powerhouse today.

و علیکم السلام

Certain acts of haram are between you and your lord, for example, even acts punishable by an Islamic court if done in private cannot be punished, like adultery, sodomy etc. An apostate who doesn't publicise his apostasy, doesn't get punished. So, there is a significant amount of free will in Islam, the only punishment seems to be if you publicise your sin, because there's this issue of spreading immorality and confusing the masses. Note if you don't follow these rules, you will be answerable to God not to any other human being. Slavery is different. Humans have a right to self-determination, unless you're saying Islam doesn't believe in the concept of free will. Also, people don't choose to become slaves, so are you telling me that this notion of being a slave to another human is any way equivalent to the notion of being a slave to God? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jebreil said:

But I do question your conclusion that Islam grants the right to self-determination (a legal concept, which has nothing to do with freewill, a metaphysical concept). It doesn't. You cannot determine your life as you wish, but as He wishes. You have no right to determine the matrix of your belief-system, value-system, legal-system, approval-system, business-system, or your biological-system. You must act with matrices He has set, for goals He has set, at times and places He has set, with intentions He has set. You are a slave and have freedom only when He likes you to have freedom.

Sorry but this doesn't really make much sense, so say Yazid, didn't he have free will? Did he act within the parameters of what was set for him? If that's the case why would God punish you for doing wrong? He punishes you because you act in a way that violates Islamic principles, but that's still very different from a human having that kind of authority over you where he can rape you because you're a slave, that human himself is answerable to God and imperfect. 

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


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • The founding of America 
    • Salam. Please read this and ponder and think about it. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى wouldn't just make you wear a cloth over your head for no reason, he would obviously do it for you to benefit from it.
    • Stay at home and pray for her. You will really love the outcome of this, trust me.
    • “O Muhammad ask them about the town which stood by the sea; when they exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, when their fish came to them on the day of their Sabbath on the surface of the sea, and on the day on which they do not keep the Sabbath, they did not came to them We try them because they transgressed.” (7:163) “And when a party of them said, why do you admonish a people whom Allah would destroy and whom Allah would chastise with a severe chastisement? They said, to be free from blame before your Lord and that happily they may guard (against evil)” (7:164) “So when they neglected what they had been reminded of, we delivered those who forbade evil and we overtook those who were unjust with an evil chastisement.” “Therefore when they revoltingly persisted in what they had been forbidden, we said to them; Be (as) apes, despised and hated. (7:165)
    • Salam Alaikum, The knowledgeable scholar I asked (who has studied for over 45 years) has said that this dream means your nephew is receiving blessings and barakah. When the members of ahlulbayt (a.s) were born, their parents, or rasulullah (saww) would shave their head and donate silver to charity as the same weight as their hair.. This is a good sign from your nephew and means Allah will bless him. Salam  
×