Jump to content
Pro-Alid

Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ron_Burgundy said:

I am sure Ahl-e-bayt never used slaves and sex objects. I think you need to study how Imams treated their slaves.

I hope you can see the contradiction in your post. To help you I put the relevant items in bold.

Now if you come back and say that you intended the 'and' to be 'as'. that's fine. Because I never said that they did.

Share this post


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

I hope you can see the contradiction in your post. To help you I put the relevant items in bold.

Now if you come back and say that you intended the 'and' to be 'as'. that's fine. Because I never said that they did.

Typo you know what i mean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ron_Burgundy said:

So you are saying if i bu a girl ( yes you could a buy a girl from under developed countries) i could have sexual intercourse with her and can even invite all of my friends to have sex with her? Wow! 

Yes, that's against human dignity as said by Qur'an. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2017 at 10:14 AM, Ron_Burgundy said:

Are we forgetting Sehar Bano? Mother of our 4th Imam.. 

Shahr banu (or Shahr banoo), was the eldest daughter of Yazdegerd III, the last Emperor of Sassanid Persia.

After the defeat of her father Yazdegerd III, she was taken captive by the invading Arab armies and sent to Medina where she was married to Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of Muhammad, and Shia's third saint. She would give birth to one son with Husayn, Ali Zayn al Abidin, and would die shortly after his birth.

The following is a recount of how this happened. However it must be emphasized that the tone and language is from a Shia perspective:

When returning to Madinah from their decisive victorious battle against Persia, Omar's army brought with them many prisoners. Many of them were women. Among the prisoners captured at Mada'en were members of the Persian royal family, including the princess. People flocked in masses to see the captured daughter of the fallen mythical King of Persia.

Omar the caliph soon arrived and demanded the daughter of the King of Persia to be shown to him. The soldiers brought her to Omar. Omar then approached her and reached out to lift her veil to see the woman. The princess pulled herself back and cried out in Persian : "The face of Hormoz darkens from indignity!" ("Vay! Rooye Hormoz siyaah shod!")

Omar, thinking that the princess had offended him, angrily shouted: "This woman insults me!" and decided to kill her. Ali suddenly interrupted him and said: "You do not know her language. She called on her ancestor, and did not insult you."

Omar then announced that he who paid the most will have her as a slave. But Ali again interrupted and said: "You do not have that right!" The crowd fell silent under Ali's aura. Ali then asked the princess: "Do you wish me to find you a husband?" The princess did not reply. Trying to prevent the auction from taking place, Ali said: "Her silence is a sign of approval." Facing Omar, Ali continued: "Why don't we let HER choose a person from amongst this crowd as a husband, and we will pay for her dowry from the public treasury?" Omar agreed.

Scanning through the crowd around her, the princess suddenly stopped and froze as her eyes fell on a man amongst the crowd. "I have seen this man in a dream before" she said. Tracing her look, the entire crowd turned around and looked at Husayn, son of Ali. Ali went up to Husayn and said: "Hosayn! From this girl, the most noble of humans shall be born."

Ali, then came up to the princess and asked: "What is your name?" The princess replied: "The daughter of Jahan-shah". Ali said: "and so Shahr-banuyeh you will be called" ("the bride of the land").

The sources used for writing the passage are:

"Aldarajat ol Rafi'" p215.

"Mo'jem ol Baladan" Vol 2 p196.

"Nahj ol Balagheh" letter 45.

"Nahj ol Balagheh" Sobhi Saleh sermon 209.

"Nafs Al-Rahman" p139.

"Managhib ebne shahr ashub" Vol 4, p48.

"Iranian dar Qoran va revayat." Seyed Noureddin Abtahi. Chapter 3.

From this marriage, Ali Zayn al Abidin, Shia's fourth Imam was born in 658. She died shortly after, and has a shrine in Rey, south of Tehran, Iran.

Not only this but Mother of Hazrat Ibrahim a.s ibn Rasolallah was given a separate house and treated as wife. 

@Haji 2003 you might have read about above lady. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ron_Burgundy said:

So you are saying that girls 1400 years ago had no issues with random people having sex with them? What about guys? What about a woman master? what if they want to have good times with a male slave? 

That reminds me an event you have pointed to a good point. Hazrat Yusuf a.s was forced by Hazrat Zulekha to have intimacy with her but Hazrat Yusuf a.s refused?  Why he refused while he was gifted to her by her husband?  This shows Allah has forbidden such type of relations despite being in possession unless there is aqd between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

That reminds me an event you have pointed to a good point. Hazrat Yusuf a.s was forced by Hazrat Zulekha to have intimacy with her but Hazrat Yusuf a.s refused?  Why he refused while he was gifted to her by her husband?  This shows Allah has forbidden such type of relations despite being in possession unless there is aqd between them.

Yes, I was going to quote that but i know they gonna say oh he was her husbands slave and she was a woman. 

Share this post


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

Yes, I was going to quote that but i know they gonna say oh he was her husbands slave and she was a woman. 

Lolz, yeah, but I have read in a book of "Ali k faislay" that a woman married her slave. So, that's quite clear, otherwise, she could engage in sexual relationship without marriage why did she had nikah with him so it seems that that was law back then. Otherwise, women could have agitated that male are given preferences but women are exploited.  However, there is no such example in history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ron_Burgundy said:

Yes, I was going to quote that but i know they gonna say oh he was her husbands slave and she was a woman. 

First of all, @Ibn al-Hussain wrongly interpreted what Tusi said.  Sheikh Tusi means that you cannot "loan" a human being but if you want to give it to someone then it has to be by an acknowledged ties such as by "Muta" or by "marriage". Saying the terms does not make it halal unless either by "temporary" or "permanent" marriage as Ayotullah Tabataba'i said: "one can take away his slave girl from her husband". So, even that shows that in order to take away from her "husband" there has to be an "stipulation" in "marriage contract" otherwise, the husband his not under an obligation to "return her". 

Secondly, In a hadith, it is written that if two persons bought a slave girl both of them cannot cohabit with her for there will arise problem of parentage of child and it's haram and this kind of things happend in the era of ignorance.

I am just confused about the term whether "possession" exempts one from "nikah" or not. I believe that it does not because our imams life doesn't give such example.

Furthermore,  @Hassan- I would like to add that Hazrat Hajra or Hagar was slave of Hazrat Sarah but given in marriage to Hazrat Ibrahim a.s which is known among both shias and sunnis. That suffices as I think to have a proper marriage.

Edited by Sindbad05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sindbad05 said:

First of all, @Ibn al-Hussain wrongly interpreted what Tusi said. 

Bro, you give me jokes lol...

Anyways, it seems like another SC thread - that had the potential to turn into a good quality discussion - has been laid to rest :accident:.

Wasalam

Share this post


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

Bro, you give me jokes lol...

Anyways, it seems like another SC thread - that had the potential to turn into a good quality discussion - has been laid to rest :accident:.

Wasalam

Well, my brother if you are trying to bring back your false argument to life through the ventilator of taunting then I am sorry, it's no more. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2017 at 11:29 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

No one can deny that the Prophets of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى and the Imams participated in slavery, they owned slaves, purchased slaves, and some had even become slaves (like Prophet Yusuf). So we would really need to question our understanding of what it means to be a "beacon of hope and light" here. But on a side note, do you believe child-marriages are an ill today? If yes, then how do you judge the vast majority of human history when this was considered a norm?

Wassalam

The references of their engagement in those transactions cannot be used as a sole reason to justify slavery. If the references are authentic, to begin with, they need to be read in their entirety. Questions need answering. Such as, in what circumstances and why they purchased the slaves? how they treated them?, did they also free the slaves often?, why?, did they encourage others to free the slaves and treat them kindly?, did they introduce rights?, did the social standing of their slaves improve or did they attempt to improve it?, did they ever say no to a slave who sought freedom? Why? Why not? My personal study of the teachings and Sunnah of our Messenger has led me to believe that He would never endorse or allow His followers to endorse the kind of slavery that should be the concern of free and reasonable men. Even Prophet's Yusuf's story of slavery should be an eye-opener for us. His Father continued to suffer for a very long time due to his enslavement. 

On 10/8/2017 at 11:29 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

But on a side note, do you believe child-marriages are an ill today? If yes, then how do you judge the vast majority of human history when this was considered a norm?

Wassalam

I am not here to judge persons throughout history. I'd rather learn from history and stick to opposing the relevant practice. As to whether I see child-marriage as an ill, the basic principles remain the same. For example, shielding a human being from oppression. In this particular scenario, I will also check whether the test of someone being a responsible individual in my religion is based on age or if it is based on the subjective ability of the individual minor to understand and appreciate the implications of a specific decision. Relating these basic principles to the example of child marriage, we should question whether the minor in question understands what it means to be married, whether the minor is physically and mentally capable, whether the minor's consent is sought and is happy with the choice of partner (rather than being forced), whether the minor’s guardian is marrying her to a Momin of good mannerism, faith and character rather than giving her away to a pervert seeking children for sex (as is quite the custom among rich Arabs travelling to India and Pakistan). Not to mention, whether it is suitable to marry minors in the circumstances where seeking education and skills is increasingly becoming a matter of survival and which is ignored most often after the minor is married off in countries where such practices are common. I think that Islam’s Messenger covered all these areas of concern in His teachings. And if there are any exceptions to these rules and teachings, they are called exceptions for a reason and which also need to be justified to appeal to human reasoning. 

On 10/8/2017 at 11:29 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

As for: forcefully takes away one's freedom and basic human rights, which are probably your two main elements, then these are extremely vague terms with a lot of presumptions you are making (consciously or subconsciously), that others don't have to agree with and are open to debate. Slavery was not found in one form all over the world. In some parts of the world (like in some parts and periods of Egyptian history) many people would sell themselves as slaves (i.e. they would use their freedom, to sell their freedom and become slaves) since the life of a slave was much better than the life of an average free-man. Would you still consider this morally wrong?

Wassalam

Examples such as some parts of Egypt where people voluntarily submitted themselves to others (perhaps ‘noblemen’) do not really lend support to the institution of slavery. They are rather examples of how people learn to survive in harsh environments or find shelter with the lesser of the two evils or sell themselves because they have nothing else left to give as currency except themselves to a society which accepts them as a form of payment in the form of slavery. Voluntary submission can appeal to human reasoning as an acceptable means of survival in times when becoming a slave of a brutal person against one’s will might have been an alternative for an average man who may have been buried in debts, threats, facing hunger and a hungry family or other desperate social situations. I can also relate to examples of how any Momin would want to voluntary submit and serve the Messenger or the Imams for the rest of their lives. But to use these examples as a means to justify slavery as an institution is farfetched. I speak of the kind of slavery that has clearly shown its negative effects to the modern world through examples that exist to this very day. 

On 10/8/2017 at 11:29 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

- removes the ability to think: I disagree with this element - unless you can clarify what you meant? I don't see how becoming a slave removes one's ability to think

- removes the ability to make willful and conscious decisions: I disagree with this as well. They were very much allowed to make willful conscious decisions, within the limitations that were upon them (all humans live in a similar scenario, just the type of limitations differ)

- it clouds human intellect: Need more clarification on what you mean by this

It will take me a lot of time trying to explain these points in detail. If time permits you (during holidays), I will only encourage you to explore how the Aborigines of Australia are still struggling to this very day and how many Sindhis in Pakistan are still being abused by landlords. The latter are not officially known to be serving as slaves but seeing their conditions, one can hardly differentiate and one also understands the points that I was trying to make above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2017 at 2:25 PM, von Lohengramm said:

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.

W.S Von 

It's difficult for me to fathom how slavery transcends time and space. Sure, we are slaves of Allah. But we acknowledge our humility and bow and prostrate in God's court because we realise that we are nothing before Him. Giving this status to other fallible beings sounds like a recipe for allocating demi-Gods on Earth. Moreover, as I explained in my post above, if Divine authorities were involved in this practice, we shouldn't jump to the defense of slavery through philosophy. Our initial point of inquiry should be the manner in which the Divine Authorities were involved in such practices and if they made any difference to it in such a way that the oppression associated with this ill practice was being gradually encountered. 

I will InshaAllah take time to learn the philosophical side of the debate. Ibn al Hussain has also given be plenty of material to consider. 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
This is a question, I posted on the website and its answer is as follows 
I have a question regarding slavery. I read about a verse in Quran wherein it's said that if you can't marry a free woman then marry a slave girl. In a discussion, with my friends some said that Qur'an don't uses word marriage but what your right hand possesses. And my people opposing me said nikah is not necessary but I opined it is. What's view of Ayotullah and if there is consensus on that view or not? Secondly, I read in Tafsir of Ayotullah Tabataba'i that speaks about a tradition which says allows master of a slave female who is allowed to marry other person and then retrieves her back and then after her iddah cohabits with her and return her back. (Page 94 of Surah Nisa 23-28). I feel that such tradition is against Quranic verse that says: "We have bestowed dignity upon children of Adam". And, prophet pbuhhp has at many places reiterated to us that don't look down upon them for they are slaves of Allah. I am really desperate for guidance in this affai
 In the name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful
Tracking Code: en9607170123
:: Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah؛
Answer:  1. Marriage formula should be recited. 2. First, we should take into consideration that Islam is against slavery and all rulings about slaves, on first years of Islam, was to finish slavery based on a plan. And that is not being practiced anymore. Second, regarding taking back a made، who her master has agreed that she can get married with someone else, does not contradict human dignity. Because when the master asks the other one not to have sexual relationship with her would be considered a kind of reciting divorce formula; therefore, after finishing Iddah period he can have relationship with her because she has come back to his property. Exactly like when a man separates from his wife. In this case the woman can get married with another man and have Sexual relationship with each other. 
 
Wishing you all the success               
Ayatollah Makarim Shirazi’s Office / Istifta’at section
 
 
Send your new inquiry from here. Please do not reply this email.
 

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!

    • http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/11/19/542786/arab-league-saudi-arabia-iran-meeting True color, desperation will not change anything to human who have been mesmerized.
    • Yeah, I know a set of parents that we’re doing the same thing for their daughter. Kept rejecting guys because they didn’t feel he was up to par. The guys info wouldn’t even make it to get to accept/reject. Their daughter is now 40 and unmarried. They rejected so many guys that people just stopped approaching her. 
    • It absolutely leads to sin unless you are a fantastic mu'min. And yes, although they might not turn to haram in terms of having relationships with girls, but you can't tell me you didn't see these guys talk about some girls in lustful ways or look at them in such a way. Furthermore, and something we seem to forget, is that in these gender mixed schools there is gender mixing in everything. In sport, as an example. Boys turn to watching filthy films whether they are in segregated or gender mixed schools.
    • No brother. What I do is this: I pray 17 rakaat Qadha prays everyday plus 11 rakaats Salaat-ul-layl. Salaat-ul-layl is something that does NOT have any replacement. It gives you good feeling. It really gives human being feeling of being in heaven. If you do Salaat-ul-layl, keep going. It guarantees both Dunya and Akherah.
    • I can give my opinion on men, as I'm not sure about women. I might have a pretty biased view due to personal experience, but some guys can get pretty desperate if they are segregated.  Also how does co-ed lead to sin? Most guys who were my friend in high school turned to pornography to sin, rather than girls. We might as well provide them with home schooling in that case. Trust me, we need to teach guys to respect women in this day and age. Alienating women is not the best option.  To be fair, there is a disadvantage of co-ed. If parents don't monitor their children, then there is a risk of them getting into the boyfriend/girlfriend culture.
×