Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

A Problem With Islam

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Banned

salam, ya ali madad and lanat on the enemies of the ahlebeyt (as)

ive been reading those sex slave threads recently, you know, the bondswoman ones.

in islam, according to the quran and sahih - SHIA - hadiths, a slave master is allowed to take a female slave whenever he wants, without her consent, or even her husbands consent if shes married, and sleep with her, then give her back when hes finished with her. i think this is totally barbaric, inhumane and absolute zulm. is the slave not a human? doesnt she have feelings? wont she love her husband? or what of the husband? what will his feelings be, watching his wife taken in such a way and there is absolutely no law on earth which can protect him?

as such, its inconcievable that our imams would allow it, however it seems that they (i.e. imam jafar sadiq (as)) not only allow it, but provide instructions as to how to do it properly!

can anyone explain this, how exactly it is either logical, just or decent in any way, shape or form?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impossible.

Calm down, no imam would authorize marrying (temp) with a married women. No way.

Even temporary marriage has its strict rules which include but not limited to:

This list from memory so don't depend on this list but must consult your proper marja3. I am angry at such STUPID hadiths calimed to be said by our Imam (a3oothu biAllah).

1) the woman must be an adult.

2) believer in the oness of God.

3) believe and the hereafter.

4) if she is virgine then permission from her gurdian must be granted.

5) she must not have slept with another man for the last 45 days.

6) she is not in her period.

7) she must understand it is temporary marriage

8) start and end time must be agreed upon verbally

9) she must give her concent by saying "zawajtuka nafsi" or "I give you myself to you as a wife".

10) she must be told not to sleep any other man for 45 days after the end of this marriage

11) no contreception method can replace the 45 days (it is emotional not just pregnancy).

12) ...

Istaghfur Allah for those munafeeqeen who attach hadith to shia that doen't even agree with the Quran!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Banned

Impossible.

Calm down, no imam would authorize marrying (temp) with a married women. No way.

Istaghfur Allah for those munafeeqeen who attach hadith to shia that doen't even agree with the Quran!!!

brother this is exactly my reaction, however there ARE hadith which say it is allowed and how to do it! shall i show you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

salam, ya ali madad and lanat on the enemies of the ahlebeyt (as)

ive been reading those sex slave threads recently, you know, the bondswoman ones.

in islam, according to the quran and sahih - SHIA - hadiths, a slave master is allowed to take a female slave whenever he wants, without her consent, or even her husbands consent if shes married, and sleep with her, then give her back when hes finished with her. i think this is totally barbaric, inhumane and absolute zulm. is the slave not a human? doesnt she have feelings? wont she love her husband? or what of the husband? what will his feelings be, watching his wife taken in such a way and there is absolutely no law on earth which can protect him?

as such, its inconcievable that our imams would allow it, however it seems that they (i.e. imam jafar sadiq (as)) not only allow it, but provide instructions as to how to do it properly!

can anyone explain this, how exactly it is either logical, just or decent in any way, shape or form?

Can you share precisely the Quran verses talking about this issue.

brother this is exactly my reaction, however there ARE hadith which say it is allowed and how to do it! shall i show you?

So it is hadith which make this principle?

Edited by Zufa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Banned

Can you share precisely the Quran verses talking about this issue.

of course brother, its the ayat of muta, specifically the term "right hand possesses"

from tafsir al mizan

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.

.

.

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.

.

.

The preceding exceptional clause: and lawful for you is (all) besides that, if left at that, could be applied to three things: Marriage, possession by slavery and for­nication. This clause, "that you seek...", forbids fornication and restricts permission to the remaining two: marriage and possession by slavery.

.

.

We have already described (while explaining the phrase, taking [them] with chastity, not committing fornication) that al-ihsan in this context means chastity, not marriage, because the phrase covers union with one's slave girls as well.

seems pretty straighforward to me?

and here are the hadith:

Muhammad ibn Muslim said: "I asked Abu Ja'far (a.s.) about the word of Allah: and all married women except those whom your right hands possess. He said: 'It is [like] this, that a man orders his slave (whom is married to his slave girl), and tells him, "Put aside your wife and do not go near her". Then he keeps her confined until she sees her blood; after that he touches her. Thereafter when she again sees blood after his touching her, he returns her to him [i.e., to her slave husband] without [any need of a new] marriage.'" (al-Kafi; at-Tafsir, al-'Ayyashi)

Ibn Muskan has narrated through Abu Basir, from one of the two Imams (a.s.), about the word of Allah: And all married women except those whom your right hands possess, that he said: "They are the women having husbands except those whom your right hands possess. If you have give a your slave girl in marriage to your slave boy, you may remove her from him if you so wish." "I said: 'Do you see, if he has given her in marriage to other than his own slave boy?' He said: '(Then) he has no right to remove (her from him) until she is sold away; then if he sells her, her affair is transferred to other than him (i.e, to the buyer); then the buyer may separate (her from her husband) if he so desires, and may reconfirm (the marriage) if he so wishes." (at-Tafsir, al-'Ayyashi)

*edit* heres the thread, ive plagiarised brother fysts post

Edited by maula dha mallang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there is the prescribed period. You didn't say so in the first email brother MDM :)

Remeber a slave in Islam doesn't mean servant as the case in the Gulf states.

A salve (man or woman) belongs to you and you can buy and sell or set free.

A servant is an employee.

So I accept that hadith this way.

Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Banned

So there is the prescribed period. You didn't say so in the first email brother MDM :)

Remeber a slave in Islam doesn't mean servant as the case in the Gulf states.

A salve (man or woman) belongs to you and you can buy and sell or set free.

A servant is an employee.

So I accept that hadith this way.

Ali

bro what difference does a prescribed period make? if you were a slave, would you be happy to accept your master taking your wife to his bed whenever he felt like it, and you not even having the power to fight it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

salam, ya ali madad and lanat on the enemies of the ahlebeyt as.gif

ive been reading those sex slave threads recently, you know, the bondswoman ones.

in islam, according to the quran and sahih - SHIA - hadiths, a slave master is allowed to take a female slave whenever he wants, without her consent, or even her husbands consent if shes married, and sleep with her, then give her back when hes finished with her. i think this is totally barbaric, inhumane and absolute zulm. is the slave not a human? doesnt she have feelings? wont she love her husband? or what of the husband? what will his feelings be, watching his wife taken in such a way and there is absolutely no law on earth which can protect him?

as such, its inconcievable that our imams would allow it, however it seems that they (i.e. imam jafar sadiq as.gif) not only allow it, but provide instructions as to how to do it properly!

can anyone explain this, how exactly it is either logical, just or decent in any way, shape or form?

salam.gif Brother mdm,I guess you're way too smart to believe such things could happen under the name of Islam.The unjustice(Zulm) is really the accusations of some Nawasib,not only to come with some fake Ahadith to support their claim but also to claim that Quran the word of the JUST(swt) allows unjustice towords women.The days of Aljahiliyya are way over and the reason was Islam. As a woman I find such accusations degrading to all women.How could Allah THE JUSTÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáìchose "Sayyidat Nissa' Alalam"women if HE(swt) allows women as sex slaves(I take refuge in Allah).Islam came to save women from beeing burried alive,not to make them slaves.The biggest protection for a woman is her Islamic Hijab that always gave her respect and still does(I'm talking from experience).When I became Mustabssira(New Shiite) the first thing I started applying to my way of thinking about religion was to reject anything that contradicts Quran & Ahadith,anything that goes against logic is just pure cheap talk.I challange anyone to provide us Women with proof that WE are created only to be Sex slaves,proofs from the Holy Quran.wasalam.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bro what difference does a prescribed period make? if you were a slave, would you be happy to accept your master taking your wife to his bed whenever he felt like it, and you not even having the power to fight it?

If I am a slave husband I have no choice but to obey my master.

The question then becomes:

Does my master have the right to ask me to divorce my wife?

I think he has, and this is what true slavery is and this is why we don't have now but it may return :)

Islam never does anything for no reason.

Think about it: Is it better for society if a woman sells herself to earn living without rules (no time elapsed periods) or be a slave or a wife of a slave and still survive?

In both case she (and her husband) lose dignity but the latter is a better option.

And Allah knows best.

Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Banned

guys you do realise that the prophet did NOT abolish slavery dont you? its a myth. i believe imam ali Raza (as) mother was a black slave?

bro proud shiite: can you find me any other tafsir of the words "right hand possesses"? cos even allama tabatabei agrees that this is jaiz, check it out for yourself man :(

it seems up til *VERY* recently this was the accepted norm. im having trouble dealing with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you were a slave, would you be happy to accept your master taking your wife to his bed whenever he felt like it, and you not even having the power to fight it?

if you were a thief would you be happy to have your hands cut off?

silly question

guys you do realise that the prophet did NOT abolish slavery dont you? its a myth. i believe imam ali Raza (as) mother was a black slave?

that means theres nothing wrong with it.

it seems up til *VERY* recently this was the accepted norm. im having trouble dealing with that.

because now billions of ignorant people believe in a man-made document called the "human rights".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here's your challenge then. It's easy to say how much you love them, how you'd die for them, so forth and so on. But can you accept what they teach when it goes against your personal like? There's nothing inherently immoral about this, you have the right of the master to consider here, and it is being discussed through a legal fashion. But still, it goes against what you've had banged into your head since birth about slavery being evil and so on. So, will you choose your personal dislike, or will you live up to your words about following them no matter what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I think you're taking the issue of "Islam and slavery" way out of context. The holy Prophet (pbuh) has repeatedly given strict warnings about all sorts of dealings with the people who are affected by our decisions and commands and to fear God in that regard, specifically wives, slaves and children. He (pbuh) has told us to choose for our fellow Muslims (that includes slaves) what we choose for ourselves. Things like what we eat and what we wear, etc. Slavery, as known in the english language, is actually not the right word when concerning Islam and that happens when you view it all on a large enough scale. If someone disregards the Islamic instructions then it is their fault and their fault alone, not the fault of the comprehensive doctrine and the way of life. Please consider it so when the "anti woman beater" / slave beater inside of you starts twitching badly.

There are indeed harsh enough punishments prescribed, but you forget who is prescribing them and for what people. If you feed your wife, fulfill all her needs, keep her happy, give her honor and a warm, close and loving position in your heart and beside yourself, when you consider her your inseperable part and life partner, and then out of the blue she crosses the limit for no apparent reason at all, how would you feel, and what would you do, MDM? Would you not want to not see her face for a while? If she says or does something extraordinarily insolent, despite everything and all the kindness and equality, what would you do then? So Islam prescribes punishments according to scenarios. Is the concept of punishment that bad a thing regarding humankind or is it just Islam which alone must take the brunt of such ignorant thoughts? And why so? Surely, if punishment is a bad thing, then rewards are also an illogical thing.

As for slavery, as it is known in the english language, you yourself are a slave and so am I. We're slaves to a vicious blood leeching system made by the ancient elites and for the benefit of those elites. Our jobs are nothing but slavery. Our bosses order us like we're slaves, don't they, although usually gently enough for you to have never considered this thing. We wear invisible chains yet we are slaves by the actual sense of the word.

Throughout history, homeless and unemployed people were enslaved and given tasks and food and some form of shelter and a life, good or bad, depending on their masters. The barbaric people treated them barbarically. The civilized people treated them in civilized ways. However, Islam clearly declares equality among all men in the eyes of God. It is the only religion which has gone to such unusual lengths and given them such unusual rights and described everything clearly. The problem occurs when you consider something out of context. Your idea of a slave is someone living in agony, wearing chains and holding a hammer to crush stones, with tears in their eyes, and thats the only picture of it in your mind. How do you think the Imams (as) would have treated their own slaves?

Would you rather that the homeless, extremely poor and nomadic sort should have died to winter, hunger and the street dogs should have eaten their corpses instead? Even when there are merciful and kind masters who would feed them, cloth them, give them shelter and keep them warm and think of them as family? What should have been better?

Edited by Ibrahim Nakhaee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

As for slavery, as it is known in the english language, you yourself are a slave and so am I. We're slaves to a vicious blood leeching system made by the ancient elites and for the benefit of those elites. Our jobs are nothing but slavery. Our bosses order us like we're slaves, don't they, although usually gently enough for you to have never considered this thing. We wear invisible chains yet we are slaves by the actual sense of the word.

I think MDM prefers to call it the greasy ladder of corporate success :P

You are right, of course, Bro. As I have said many times on SC, the Net, translations, discussions amongst ourselves can often give people a false sense of knowledge and empowerment. People read about *slavery* in Islam, connect that with Arthur Haley's "Roots" or some other visualisation of slavery that they have and then make various conclusions.

Before people have the chance to do any real research, however, the latest thread on masturbation comes up and draws away their attention. So all people are left with are snapshots of information, which are even more dangerous than the ignorance of pre-internet days, because people think they know, when they don't.

I see the same happening on financial discussion boards. You'd have thought that with all the information available a lot of people would be making a lot of money, but it's actually still very difficult. People have more data available, but actually making sense of it and using it meaningfully remains as elusive as ever.

Roots is a 1977 American television miniseries based on Alex Haley's work Roots: The Saga of an American Family. Roots received 36 Emmy Award nominations, winning nine; it also won a Golden Globe and a Peabody Award.[1] It received unprecedented Nielsen ratings with the finale still standing as the third-highest rated U.S. television program ever.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots_(TV_miniseries)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
As for slavery, as it is known in the english language, you yourself are a slave and so am I. We're slaves to a vicious blood leeching system made by the ancient elites and for the benefit of those elites. Our jobs are nothing but slavery. Our bosses order us like we're slaves, don't they, although usually gently enough for you to have never considered this thing. We wear invisible chains yet we are slaves by the actual sense of the word.

Whatever. If you're so distressed about your work environment, find another job or work on your skills and knowledge to the point you can find another one or start out on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here's your challenge then. It's easy to say how much you love them, how you'd die for them, so forth and so on. But can you accept what they teach when it goes against your personal like? There's nothing inherently immoral about this, you have the right of the master to consider here, and it is being discussed through a legal fashion. But still, it goes against what you've had banged into your head since birth about slavery being evil and so on. So, will you choose your personal dislike, or will you live up to your words about following them no matter what?

While perception is often influenced by the times we live in (for example age of marriage etc), this seems like another issue altogether. I mean imagine if it was you in the place of the slave, how would that make you feel. Personally if I was a slave and my wife was forcefully taken away from me to be made someones sexual play thing for a night, I would have very bitter feelings about islam (instead of being attracted to it). And if I was a muslim slave that would just make me turn away from it altogether, knowing that this is something sanctioned. A slave in the end is also human just like the rest of us. Of course there is no problem with having sex with your slave with their consent, but Islam cannot possibly justify rape of either a married or unmarried woman. Even the Prophet (pbuh) and Imams (as) would treat their slaves as their equals.

And besides, seeing this in a modern context this would provide justification for some involved in the sex trafficking industry because those women are also regarded as slaves and are often raped by the pimps their sold to. This can't be jaiz can it?

Now I know we can't pick and choose what we like or don't like about religion, but there must be another explanation right?

I was looking through Agha Puya's tafseer:

4:24

æóÇáúãõÍúÕóäóÇÊõ ãöäó ÇáäøöÓóÇÁ ÅöáÇøó ãóÇ ãóáóßóÊú ÃóíúãóÇäõßõãú ßöÊóÇÈó Çááøåö Úóáóíúßõãú æóÃõÍöáøó áóßõã ãøóÇ æóÑóÇÁ Ðóáößõãú Ãóä ÊóÈúÊóÛõæÇú ÈöÃóãúæóÇáößõã ãøõÍúÕöäöíäó ÛóíúÑó ãõÓóÇÝöÍöíäó ÝóãóÇ ÇÓúÊóãúÊóÚúÊõã Èöåö ãöäúåõäøó ÝóÂÊõæåõäøó ÃõÌõæÑóåõäøó ÝóÑöíÖóÉð æóáÇó ÌõäóÇÍó Úóáóíúßõãú ÝöíãóÇ ÊóÑóÇÖóíúÊõã Èöåö ãöä ÈóÚúÏö ÇáúÝóÑöíÖóÉö Åöäøó Çááøåó ßóÇäó ÚóáöíãðÇ ÍóßöíãðÇ {24}

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 4:24] Muhsanat means well-guarded or protected. They are married women (free and slave), minors and insane females.

"Save those whom your right hands own" signifies "such married women as shall come in your possession as prisoners of war". Such women, when not taken back on payment of ransom or through negotiation, are lawful as wives, even though their previous marriage has not been formally dissolved, provided the infidel woman becomes a Muslim.

Now if this is the case where the slave woman captured in warfare accepts Islam on her own free will (which from my understanding dissolve her marriage to her non-muslim husband), it is totally understandable since she has accepted Islam and her position as a wife to her owner as said in the Hadith from Imam Baqir (as) (from fysts post):

"The waiting period of a divorced (free) woman is three months, ...

and what is required of a wife by Mut'a is the same as what is

required of a slave." (Wasa'il al-Shia, v14, p484)

And

"To divorce a slave, one must pronounce the formula of divorce twice;

her waiting period is two menstrual periods." (Wasa'il al-Shia, v15,p469).

Since she must be "divorced" it can be said that she is a married to her master. Plus it is with her consent since she has become muslim out of her own free will.

Could this be another explanation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Whatever. If you're so distressed about your work environment, find another job or work on your skills and knowledge to the point you can find another one or start out on your own.

I don't think he's necessarily distressed. My understanding was that he was referring to a work/reward/consumption system that leaves individuals with little in the way of choice. Even though people may have the illusion of choice.

As I've mentioned on SC in the past, it is possible to *breakout* of the *system*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Whatever. If you're so distressed about your work environment, find another job or work on your skills and knowledge to the point you can find another one or start out on your own.

LOL sounds like I've hit a nerve. Sadly, the internet is incapable of letting me do it physically. Couldn't think of a more constructive reply for your typical hogwash criticism and cynical potshots meant for derailing the thread into confusion. No use wasting time with you. Perhaps I should simply add you to my ignore list, kadhim. Ali Huzaifa is sitting in it all alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well, here's your challenge then. It's easy to say how much you love them, how you'd die for them, so forth and so on. But can you accept what they teach when it goes against your personal like? There's nothing inherently immoral about this, you have the right of the master to consider here, and it is being discussed through a legal fashion. But still, it goes against what you've had banged into your head since birth about slavery being evil and so on. So, will you choose your personal dislike, or will you live up to your words about following them no matter what?

This whole "Islam says it so it's good," or "the imam said it, so it's good," or "the Quran says it, so it's good."

The question from an objective observer, with no a priori attachment to either of these three things, would be, "Well, why should I consider Islam, these imams, or the Qu'ran as authorities" if they are telling me disturbing things. A person has to have a mental model of what these authorities stand for, what is the system of values taught by them. And then somewhere this system has to be evaluated in the light of reason and some internal voice of conscience, and the person then decides to assent or not to the vision of that system. Ultimately the choice to assent to a religion is based on reason and conscience. We choose a faith because it's teachings and practice somehow resonate with our inner nature. Similarly, once within a religion, it is legitimate to continue to weigh what is claimed to be part of the religion under the light of the same tools, to continue to ask the question "Is this teaching consistent with a vision of a God worthy of worship?" If what appear to be conflicts appear, one must try to resolve the conflict. Saying "Islam says so, so It's all good" does nothing to resolve the mental conflict. The very question such issues raise is "Is Islam something good and worthy of being listened to?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole "Islam says it so it's good," or "the imam said it, so it's good," or "the Quran says it, so it's good."

The question from an objective observer, with no a priori attachment to either of these three things, would be, "Well, why should I consider Islam, these imams, or the Qu'ran as authorities" if they are telling me disturbing things. A person has to have a mental model of what these authorities stand for, what is the system of values taught by them. And then somewhere this system has to be evaluated in the light of reason and some internal voice of conscience, and the person then decides to assent or not to the vision of that system. Ultimately the choice to assent to a religion is based on reason and conscience. We choose a faith because it's teachings and practice somehow resonate with our inner nature. Similarly, once within a religion, it is legitimate to continue to weigh what is claimed to be part of the religion under the light of the same tools, to continue to ask the question "Is this teaching consistent with a vision of a God worthy of worship?" If what appear to be conflicts appear, one must try to resolve the conflict. Saying "Islam says so, so It's all good" does nothing to resolve the mental conflict. The very question such issues raise is "Is Islam something good and worthy of being listened to?"

So when Allah commanded Ibrahim (as) to sacrifice his son, do you think he should first have sat down and reasoned out whether killing his son would be the right thing to do, whether doing so would "somehow resonate with our inner nature", and determined whether such a commandment was "consistent with a vision of a God worthy of worship?"

In terms of saying "with no a priori attachment to either of these three things", that might be a question to pose for someone who isn't a Muslim, and is considering whether to convert or not, but for a Muslim that question shouldn't even arise. Once you have accepted the basic facts of la ilaha illAllah and Muhammad (pbuh) rasulAllah, and as a Shi`a you have accepted that the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) are in fact Imams, then this type of thing loses its place and you "a priori" do accept whatever they command you. As He says:

æóãóÇ ßóÇäó áöãõÄúãöäò æóáóÇ ãõÄúãöäóÉò ÅöÐóÇ ÞóÖóì Çááøóåõ æóÑóÓõæáõåõ ÃóãúÑðÇ Ãóä íóßõæäó áóåõãõ ÇáúÎöíóÑóÉõ ãöäú ÃóãúÑöåöãú æóãóä íóÚúÕö Çááøóåó æóÑóÓõæáóåõ ÝóÞóÏú Öóáøó ÖóáóÇáðÇ ãøõÈöíäðÇ {36

"It is not for a believing man or for a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided an affair, to have the choice in that affair; and whoso rebels against Allah and His Messenger has erred with an obvious error." (33:36)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

So when Allah commanded Ibrahim (as) to sacrifice his son, do you think he should first have sat down and reasoned out whether killing his son would be the right thing to do, whether doing so would "somehow resonate with our inner nature", and determined whether such a commandment was "consistent with a vision of a God worthy of worship?"

Abraham obviously was fully convinced that it was indeed God that was speaking to him. The issue is that one must be personally convinced that an authority is legitimate and worthy of being listened to.

In terms of saying "with no a priori attachment to either of these three things", that might be a question to pose for someone who isn't a Muslim, and is considering whether to convert or not, but for a Muslim that question shouldn't even arise. Once you have accepted the basic facts of la ilaha illAllah and Muhammad (pbuh) rasulAllah, and as a Shi`a you have accepted that the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) are in fact Imams, then this type of thing loses its place and you "a priori" do accept whatever they command you.

No, I don't buy it, and you, based on your life experience, should not either. One consciously chooses and assents to follow a faith, whether a faith one has only learned about as an adult, or one he is raised in by his parents, based on the evidence and information one has available at the time. Rarely is that information complete. As one gets new information, one may rethink this earlier decision, as can happen with any decision.

This should be familiar to you; presumably you were raised in an at least nominally Christian home, as an at least nominal Christian. Presumably there was at least some period during your adult life, during which, based on what you knew, you actually believed in it. Later, based on new information that came to you, you came to "know better," and reconsidered your allegiance to Christianity. Before that, you went through a period probably of uncertainty where, based on new information about Christianity and about Islam, you found yourself in a position of unstable equilibrium where your draw toward Christianity was weakened and you felt a draw in another direction. There was an instability based on this new information to be either resolved or sublimated. In your case, it was resolved through apostasizing from Christianity and converting to Islam.

So it doesn't make sense to say that doubts upon learning new things are illegitimate because one was without doubt before he knew these things.

You can't just magically shut off these psychological dynamics at some point, to say, "I have made a decision, and no longer have to worry about coming to terms with anything new I learn."

It's not a stable way of dealing with doubt. You have to find a stable way to reconcile the new information.

"It is not for a believing man or for a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided an affair, to have the choice in that affair; and whoso rebels against Allah and His Messenger has erred with an obvious error." (33:36)

When one has the Prophet in front of him so that it is evident that he is indeed a Prophet and indeed speaks truth from God as evidenced by his character and the spirituality radiating from him, this is natural. For us, the situation is a bit different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

salam, ya ali madad and lanat on the enemies of the ahlebeyt (as)

ive been reading those sex slave threads recently, you know, the bondswoman ones.

in islam, according to the quran and sahih - SHIA - hadiths, a slave master is allowed to take a female slave whenever he wants, without her consent, or even her husbands consent if shes married, and sleep with her, then give her back when hes finished with her. i think this is totally barbaric, inhumane and absolute zulm. is the slave not a human? doesnt she have feelings? wont she love her husband? or what of the husband? what will his feelings be, watching his wife taken in such a way and there is absolutely no law on earth which can protect him?

as such, its inconcievable that our imams would allow it, however it seems that they (i.e. imam jafar sadiq (as)) not only allow it, but provide instructions as to how to do it properly!

can anyone explain this, how exactly it is either logical, just or decent in any way, shape or form?

I don't think any thinking person, whether believer or not, can possibly interpret and thus defend the scenario you have described as just, moral, humane or with any other good word in the dictionary. It can’t be rationalised by any stretch of imagination. But this has come down to us from hadith.

You can, like Br. Abu Hadi, declare it against the ‘essence of Islam’ and dispute its authenticity. Or you can, like many Muslims, accept it as Islamic regardless of your personal like or dislike of it. Islam is Islam not your opinion of it, the saying goes.

I will, however, take it a step further and address the issue in general.

To be honest, we have a problem with the whole institution of slavery in the religion. The idea - and its acceptance in Islam - that some are born 'free' whereas others are not legitimises the whole practice of slave keeping with its intricate jurisprudential rules and regulations. It therefore puts human beings into two categories [caste system in practice] in which some are ‘free’ and the others are ‘unfree’ or slaves of the free.

It is argued that Islam regulated slavery and institutionalised it to protect slaves. This is true. [it is also argued that the ultimate aim of Islam was to rid the society of slavery but I have found no evidence of that.] The slaves of Islam, during those days, were in a better position than slaves elsewhere in the world. But why did things stop here? Why Muslims didn’t take a step further, first, to discourage and then eradicate this practice from the very fabric of the society? What happened instead that Muslims – Sunni, Shia, others – preserved and practiced Islamic idea of slavery as if things were supposed to stay like this forever, as if this was the maximum Islam could do for slaves, and as if there was no need to demolish the religiously sanctioned yet obviously immoral categorisation of humans into ‘free’ and ‘unfree’ and that, often, by virtue of birth?

It took the 'dirty kuffars' from the West to think [and act!] towards its total abolition. Guess which two pressure groups resisted the abolition. 1) Whose businesses depended on slave trade and 2) religious Christians who argued against the abolition from the Bible. We received the same response from like groups in the lands of Islam. Not only this, you have people on this forum who think that it would be Islamically fine to "buy" a child and convert him/her into a slave whose kaffir parents sell him/her to a Muslim buyer. The Islamic rules of the bought slaves would apply. Don't ask me who said that.

But I apologise for going off on a tangent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

When one has the Prophet in front of him so that it is evident that he is indeed a Prophet and indeed speaks truth from God as evidenced by his character and the spirituality radiating from him, this is natural. For us, the situation is a bit different.

I think this is the, "I would have fought on the right side at Karbala" fallacy that subsequent generations have deluded themselves with.

You have to put yourself in the position of the people of that time, their worldview, the knowledge that they had grown up with and their overall ignorance etc. Some of what strikes us today as inspired, prophetic and indicative of good character may have seemed then as crazy, counter-intuitive, irrational and so on.

There is a human tendency to view as correct whoever is materially better off and certainly by that measure the Ahlulbayt (a.s.) and their ideology would not have seemed very attractive. And even where people felt they had to adopt it, there would have been a strong inclination to water it down, adapt it and change it to suit one's preferences.

Pretty much as some people try and do today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Well, here's your challenge then. It's easy to say how much you love them, how you'd die for them, so forth and so on. But can you accept what they teach when it goes against your personal like? There's nothing inherently immoral about this, you have the right of the master to consider here, and it is being discussed through a legal fashion. But still, it goes against what you've had banged into your head since birth about slavery being evil and so on. So, will you choose your personal dislike, or will you live up to your words about following them no matter what?

The problem with this approach is that it is unstable.

If you coerce yourself into accepting something based only on the fact that it is a part of your religion, your faith will likely collapse somewhere down the road.

In order for your faith to be stable, you need to appreciate religion from a number of different angles. If it is based only on the principle that these are divine commandments and we must abide by them, what happens when one feels doubt as to whether the commandments are truly divine? (And don't tell me you've never experienced doubt, because you certainly experienced it with relation to your previous religion.)

One must have a robust defence against doubt. When one experiences doubt, he must be able to answer that doubt from a variety of different angles (including reason). If he just coerces himself into accepting certain things, then he ceases to have genuine faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I think this is the, "I would have fought on the right side at Karbala" fallacy that subsequent generations have deluded themselves with.

You have to put yourself in the position of the people of that time, their worldview, the knowledge that they had grown up with and their overall ignorance etc. Some of what strikes us today as inspired, prophetic and indicative of good character may have seemed then as crazy, counter-intuitive, irrational and so on.

There is a human tendency to view as correct whoever is materially better off and certainly by that measure the Ahlulbayt (a.s.) and their ideology would not have seemed very attractive. And even where people felt they had to adopt it, there would have been a strong inclination to water it down, adapt it and change it to suit one's preferences.

Pretty much as some people try and do today.

Obviously not everyone was convinced at the time. But the verse in question was directed at the believers, people who were convinced. And while I'm sure many of the believers felt doubts at certain times about decisions the Prophet was making, they would have the proof of the matter when the Prophet's line of action was ultimately successful. A plan that was seen beforehand to be irrational was revealed after the fact to actually have reflected a rationality and intuition they had simply failed to understand in advance. Ideas that are ultimately right reveal themselves as such over the long term through their utility.

The question with something like the issue raised in this thread is, what possible utility it would have? What good would it serve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It took the 'dirty kuffars' from the West to think [and act!] towards its total abolition. Guess which two pressure groups resisted the abolition. 1) Whose businesses depended on slave trade and 2) religious Christians who argued against the abolition from the Bible.

Bhai I really dislike it when you always take the side of the albinos.

Remember that the form of slavery practiced in North America by the European settlers is unprecedented in history. Never before have slaves been so systematically dehumanized as the African slaves of North America were. That slavery belongs in its own category.

And no, they get no "gold star" from me for abolishing a practice which they invented and implemented for 400 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Bhai I really dislike it when you always take the side of the albinos.

Remember that the form of slavery practiced in North America by the European settlers is unprecedented in history. Never before have slaves been so systematically dehumanized as the African slaves of North America were. That slavery belongs in its own category.

And no, they get no "gold star" from me for abolishing a practice which they invented and implemented for 400 years.

The division of humans into free and unfree with the former category being the owners of the latter, and everything that it entailed, was not invented by Europeans or European settlers in North America. Agreed, the advancement in technology enabled the powerful of the time to exploit the slaves in worst of ways yet it does not negate the fact that the institution of slavery existed and was practiced everywhere in the world. The Abolishers, amidst great criticism, took the first step and got the ball rolling. During the process of it, sadly for some Muslims, slavery as practiced in the lands of Islam also came under the fire. It did not conform with the notion of all are equal and free regardless of whether the Islamic slavery was humane or not.

But let's not worry about what the European settlers of North America did. Let's see what steps did Muslims and their scholars took against slavery? Please share with us if you know anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The division of humans into free and unfree with the former category being the owners of the latter, and everything that it entailed, was not invented by Europeans or European settlers in North America. Agreed, the advancement in technology enabled the powerful of the time to exploit the slaves in worst of ways yet it does not negate the fact that the institution of slavery existed and was practiced everywhere in the world. The Abolishers, amidst great criticism, took the first step and got the ball rolling. During the process of it, sadly for some Muslims, slavery as practiced in the lands of Islam also came under the fire. It did not conform with the notion of all are equal and free regardless of whether the Islamic slavery was humane or not.

But let's not worry about what the European settlers of North America did. Let's see what steps did Muslims and their scholars took against slavery? Please share with us if you know anything.

I realize that slavery was practiced everywhere.

Slavery of this particular brand was very unique to the European colonizers.

In essence, the slaves were treated like animals. The slaves did not live amongst the masters (as was the case in other instances of slavery), but in their own separate quarters. There were special slaves with favorable physical traits who were strictly used to breed. Most importantly: the division between slave and master was drawn along racial lines (implying that this was biologically justified).

That is why I say this belongs in a separate category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

But let's not worry about what the European settlers of North America did. Let's see what steps did Muslims and their scholars took against slavery? Please share with us if you know anything.

Islam has often been represented by Christian writers as a religion which not only tolerated slavery but also encouraged it. This is a serious accusation levelled against Islam, and in this book I propose to show its falsity.

Firstly, Islam placed restrictions on acquisition of slaves.

Secondly, Islam commenced an active campaign to emancipate the slaves.

Thirdly, Islam restored dignity to slaves and enhanced their social status. It made no distinction between a slave or a free man, and all were treated with equality. It was this fact that always attracted slaves to Islam.http://www.al-islam.org/slavery/index.htm\

Each of the above is explained in significant detail in the linked text.

[al-islam makes it very difficult to link to specific pages. People could simply type slavery in their search function and the above text (Slavery - Islamic and Christian perspectives) is the first one that comes up. The specific chapter I have been looking at is called, 'Islam Attacks Slavery'.]

BTW: For those people who attach more credibility to material written by white people, the chapter I have referred to above ends with quotations about Islam and slavery from Toynbee and Napoleon.

Edited by Haji 2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic was extensively discussed in another thread 'sex with slaves' started by me. And I am leaning towards the opinion of br. Abu Hadi and Ayt. Sistani Fatawa, 1. Consent is required from slave-girl before sex, 2nd slavery laws at the moment are not applicable till the reappearance of 12th Imam.

Islam is as much dear to me as to those who still support and believe in slavery in the name of Islam. I never got any rational response to any of my posts. Instead all they could refer to me some hadith etc and asked me to believe in it blindly.

I further elaborated, the very essence of any religion including Islam is to make a society more ethical + worship/submission to God. Slavery laws back then were not considered unethical, and it was totally legitimate at that time.(like once sharia allowed to marry your own sister and it was not considered unethical at that time) However in today's era slavery is totally illegal and unethical practice therefore it contradicts the basic essence of any religion. I also argued further that slavery is a unique issue, based on below criteria.

1. Islam permits it

2. However no longer considered ethical both among Muslims and Non-Muslims

3. there is alternative too for slavery in today's world.

Therefore we should not relate slavery to any other social norms or islamic laws. As some members brought up the issue of homosexuality and polygamy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Banned

macisaac, hassan_sajjad and others with similar mindsets, can i ask you, if you were a married slave man, would you be ok with your master using your wife like nothing more than a prostitute when he felt like it, without even asking you or her? yes or no will do fine as answers.

the imams were never zaalims, this is a horrible act of zulm, which CAN NOT be justified in any way. cutting off hands - you stole something. draining blood of meat - blood is dirty and contains diseases etc etc. for every "strange" seeming act in islam which was instructed by the imams (as), there is always a logical and reasonable explanation.

so explain to me how taking a mans wife without his or her consent is something respectable and decent? doesnt islam teach us to control our nafs? the only reason a man would do this is if he "desired" a married slave woman, as though thats somehow an acceptable reason!

Thirdly, Islam restored dignity to slaves and enhanced their social status. It made no distinction between a slave or a free man, and all were treated with equality. It was this fact that always attracted slaves to Islam

then al-islam.org is obviously lying, according to allama tabatabei. a "free" man has the right to defend his wifes honour. a slave has no such right, and must watch helplessly as his wife is taken and disrespected whenever their master feels like it.

my view is, there must be a better tafsir of the words "right hand possesses", our imams could never partake in, or encourage, such acts of debauchery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MDM, this is currently being discussed in sex with slaves thread and brother Hannibal has reached out to several scholars on this particular issue regarding sex with married slave-girl and they are leaning towards that it's not allowed. You can have a look at that thread as well. at least what i see now the scholars opinion on this particular issue is split. so it's upto you and me to choose which interpretation seems more rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...