Right Hand Possess

[asma0401]

When in the Quran it says men have permission to marry what their right hand possess. Did the men need the woman's permission to marry her?

[Patient Warrior]

Assalam oe alakum!

Back before the Prophets Time, Women had no rights whatsoever i mean ever. They could even choose their mate

When the prophet came, He gave equal rights to women and men. You need a womans permission to marry :P If she disagrees to the taruuf or wedding invitiation, then its denied both partners have a say in the matter :D

Ahh i ment They couldnt*

[Haydar Husayn]

Qur'an 4:23 Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters and your paternal aunts and your maternal aunts and brothers' daughters and sisters' daughters and your mothers that have suckled you and your foster-sisters and mothers of your wives and your step-daughters who are in your guardianship, (born) of your wives to whom you have gone in, but if you have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them), and the wives of your sons who are of your own loins and that you should have two sisters together, except what has already passed; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [shakir]

Qur'an 4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and

God is All-knowing, All-wise. [shakir]

The Qur'an doesn't say you can marry those who your right hand posesses (ie slaves). In fact, you are not allowed to marry your slave. You would first have to free her, and then marry her. What the Qur'an is saying is that you are forbidden from having sex with married women, except if they are slave girls (who are married to kafirs).

[asma0401]

does the man need the slave girl's permission to have sex with her?

they must, that wouldn't be fair

[Haydar Husayn]

I can't say for sure. My view is that in all probability he doesn't, but I think some scholars have said that he does. I assume that ruling (if it actually exists) is for these times, because I just don't think it is historically plausible that the slaves had any say in this in the old days (how may married slaves would want to have sex with another man and then go back to their husband?). Also, as a slave (ie someone's 'property') it would be kind of odd if you could refuse to have sex, when even a wife can't really refuse except in very specific situations. Most likely is that in former times it wouldn't even have occured to a slave to refuse so the issue didn't arise, whereas hypothetically it would be a much more plausible scenario in these times. Maybe that is why some scholars say it would be required to ask permission if this situation did ever arise.

Like I said I'm not 100% sure on this point however.

By the way, I just point out that when I say married slaves, I mean slaves who are married to other slaves, neither of the two being Muslim.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Haider Husayn

[asma0401]

My view is that Islam is a fair religion and to be fair to everyone the man would need the slave girl's permission. I read on another thread that it would be a mutah so that would mean permission is needed.

It makes sense that it is a mutah. Because I've heard mutah is allowed in two situtations. One is jihad and the other is if the man is away from his wife on business for more than six months.

duh, the verse you posted in the same sentence as allowing right hand possess it states seek them in marriage.

[Haydar Husayn]

My view is that Islam is a fair religion and to be fair to everyone the man would need the slave girl's permission. I read on another thread that it would be a mutah so that would mean permission is needed.

It makes sense that it is a mutah. Because I've heard mutah is allowed in two situtations. One is jihad and the other is if the man is away from his wife on business for more than six months.

duh, the verse you posted in the same sentence as allowing right hand possess it states seek them in marriage.

Unfortunately, a lot of people post things in these threads based on their own desires, not based on any real knowledge. The part about muta comes later in the verse than the section we are discussing. Basically, verse 4:24 should be translated as follows:

And all married women except those whom your right hands possess; (this is) Allah's ordinance to you; and lawful for you is (all) besides that - that you seek (them) by means of your wealth taking (them) with chastity, not committing fornication. Then as such of them with whom you have mut'ah, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

Like I said, marriage to a slave is forbidden, so it can't be a muta. How could you have a muta with an already married woman anyway? As long as you think about this is a cold and detached way, you will see that it is perfectly logical that a female slave should be available to her master. We are not talking about employee here, like a servant, but of a slave. Being a slave means you are considered property (what your right hand possesses), and as such you can be sold. It simply wouldn't make much sense for a slave not to be available to her master. If you want a source for this information, then look up the tafsir of 4:24 at http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/. I'll quote some of the relevant parts here:

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.

QUR'AN: And all married women except those whom your right hands possess,: al-Muhsanat is the nomen patientis (passive participle) of al-ihsan (to make inaccessible); they say: al-hisn al-hasin (invulnerable fortress). When this verb is ascribed to woman as, for example, ahsanati 'l-mar'ah, it gives one of the following three connotations: i) The woman, being chaste, protected herself and abstained from illicit sexual relations, as Allah says: ... who guarded her chastity (66:12); ii) The woman married, so her husband, or her marriage, protected her from others; in this sense, the verb may be used in passive voice; also iii) She is a free woman and it keeps her away from illicit sexual relations- because fornication was common among slave women.

Obviously, the word, al-muhsanat, in this verse, has the second connotation, i.e., married women. It cannot have the first or the third meaning, because apart from the fourteen groups (men­tioned in the preceding" two verses), the only thing prohibited is marriage with a married woman; there is no snag at all in marrying other women, whether they be chaste or unchaste, free or slave. There is, therefore, no reason for interpreting the word, al-muhsanat here as chaste women because the prohibition is not confined to the chaste women) and then attaching to the verse a condition that they should not be in other's marriage. Nor is there any justification for explaining the said word as free women (because the rules about slave women are the same as those for free ones) and then attaching to the verse a condition of their being unmarried. Such interpretations are not agreeable to good literary taste.

al-Muhsanat, 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 all married 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.

Some exegetes have opined: The exception, "except those whom your right hands possess", means, except those chaste women whom you possess by marriage or as slave. Possession thus implies the right of having sexual pleasure.

But this opinion is not correct, because:

First: It interprets the word, al-muhsanat (married women) as chaste women, and you have already seen how wrong that interpretation is.

Second: The Qur'an always uses the phrase, "those whom your right hands possess", for slaves; not for any other right of benefitting from something.

Likewise, someone has said: The phrase refers to unbeliever married women imprisoned in jihad. A tradition from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri is offered in support, in which he says: "This verse was revealed about the captives of Awtas, where the Muslims had captured some women of the polytheists, whose husbands were in (their) non-Muslim region. When this verse was revealed, an announcer announced, on behalf of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) 'Be careful! The pregnant ones should not be approached for sexual intercourse until they deliver, nor the non-pregnant ones until they complete (their) waiting period"

But apart from weakness of this tradition, it amounts to particularization of the verse without a particularizer.

Therefore, only the meaning given by us is to the point.

QUR'AN: and lawful for you is (all) besides that: [The construction, ma wara'a dhalikum (what is besides that) requires careful consideration.] It uses, ma (what) which is obviously used for 'un-rational' things; the demonstrative pronoun, dhalikum, is used for masculine singular object. Also the phrase is followed by the words: that you seek by means of your wealth. All these factors together make it clear that the relative and demonstrative pronouns refer to the same thing which was implied by the beginning word, "Forbidden", i.e., sexual intercourse, or words like that. Meaning: It is lawful for you to have it with other than what has been described above, that is, to have sexual inter­course after marriage with other than the fifteen prohibited groups - or after obtaining in slavery some other women. In this way the appositional substantive (that you seek them by means of your wealth...) will perfectly enmesh with the rest of the sentence.

Many exegetes have explained this exceptional clause in very amusing ways. One says that the clause, "and lawful for you is (all) besides that", means that all other relatives are lawful to you.

According to another, it means that it is lawful for you to have less than five - i.e., four or less - women that you seek them for marriage by means of your wealth. A third one opines that, it is lawful for you to have slave women outside the mentioned fifteen groups. Still another says that it means: Lawful for you is all be­sides the prohibited relatives - provided the number does not ex­ceed four - that you seek by means of your wealth to marry them or purchase them in slavery.

All these interpretations are simple absurd, because none is supported by the wordings of the verse. Moreover, all of them apply the relative pronoun, 'what', to rational beings, without any justification, as you have seen above. Apart from that, the verse aims only at explaining as with whom conjugal relations cannot be established. In this context, it anumerates the prohibited groups of women - without looking at their number. There is no reason why the exceptional clause should be explained in term of numbers. The fact is that the verse aims at describing permission for the acquisition of women - other than those mentioned in the pre­ceding two verses - by marriage or by possession.

QUR'AN: that you seek (them) by means of your wealth, taking (them) with chastity, not committing fornication: The clause is neither an appositional substantive standing for the preceding clauses, (all) besides that; or is in explicative apposition with that. In any case, it explains the lawful way of approaching women and having sexual intercourse with them. 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. Then it attaches importance to seeking them by means of one's wealth: In marriage, it is dowry, which is one of its chief elements; in possession, it is price, which is the main procedure of acquiring slaves. The meaning now will be as follows: Apart from the above-mentioned prohibited categories, you are allowed to seek other women by spending your wealth on dowry of those whom you marry, or on price of slave girls - in all this you have to remain chaste and avoid illicit sexual relations.

It is now clear that the word, muhsinin in this clause denotes chastity; it cannot imply being married or free. The phrase "seek (them) by means of your wealth" covers marriage and pos­session both; there is no reason to restrict it to marriage: therefore, the word, muhsinin, should not be restricted here to married ones. Also chastity does not mean celibacy; otherwise, the word would be irrelevant here. The word, chastity, as used here is opposite of illicit sexual relations of all types. It tells men to restrain themselves from unlawful sexual activities and restrict themselves to what Allah has allowed of the sexual enjoyment - to which man is attracted by natural instinct.

QUR'AN: And whoever among you has not within his power ample-ness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believ­ing maidens; at-Tawl (riches; ampleness of ability); either meaning fits in the context. al-Muhsanat in this verse means free women, because it has been used in contrast to slave women; this also shows that it has not been used in the meaning of chaste; otherwise it would have been contrasted with unchaste. Obviously, it does not refer to married women either, because they cannot be married again [as long as their present marriage continues]; nor does it mean Muslim women; otherwise there was no need to qualify it with the adjective, 'believing'.

The words, "those whom your right hands possess", actually means slaves of other believers than him who intends to marry, be­cause a man is not allowed to 'marry' his own slave-girl - such a marriage is void. Possession has been ascribed to all the believers - not excepting the suitor - because Islam counts all believers as one body, not separate from one another, inasmuch as their religion is one and their benefits are one; it is as though they were one person.

He also gives the following hadiths:

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 anew] 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)

Also, muta is not restricted in the way you think, and can be used in almost any circumstance, but that is a whole seperate topic.

[Ruq]

24. "And all married women (are forbidden unto you to marry) except those whom your right hands possess (by Allah's decree in the battle against infidels). It is a written legislation of Allah unto you; and lawful for you are (all women) besides those that you may seek (them) by means of your wealth (as dower) taking them into marriage and not committing fornication. Then as to those of whom you seek content (by temporary marriage), give them their dowries as a duty; and there is no blame on you in whatever you mutually agree after the duty. Verily Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise."

Commentary:

For non-Muslims, captivity is counted as divorce. It is like the Faith of a woman that when her husband continues his infidelity and the woman has embraced Islam; the very belief separates her from her husband.

To take in marriage a woman who has husband is unlawful from the point of Islam. The woman may be from any nation and with any religion. But captivity is like divorce, and a captive woman should observe a waiting term for one month (one menstruation) from the time she is captured, and if she is in pregnancy period, she must wait until she is delivered of her child. Thus, during this period, no conjugal connection is admissible with her.

This matrimonial device, as a permanent or contemporary spouse, is better than the device of returning her to the infidels or leaving her alone with no guardian.

"And all married women (are forbidden unto you to marry) except those whom your right hands possess (by Allah's decree in the battle against infidels). It is a written legislation of Allah unto you; and lawful for you are (all women) besides those that you may seek (them) by means of your wealth (as dower) taking them into marriage and not committing fornication. ..." ,

According to several traditions narrated from the holy Imams of Ahlul-Bayt عليه السلام, and also according to many commentary books recorded by the scholars of the Sunnis, this phrase of the verse refers to temporary marriage where the above-mentioned holy verse says:

"...Then as to those of Whom you seek content (by marriage), give them their dowries as a duty. And there is no blame on you in whatever you mutually agree after the duty. Verily Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise."

**********************

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَن تَصْبِرُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ {25}

25. "And whoever among you is not able to financially afford to marry free believing women, then (let him marry) of those (slaves or captives) whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah better knows your faith; you are (sprung) one from the other, so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries in fairness, they being chaste, not committing lewdness, nor taking paramours. And if when they are married they commit lewdness, their punishment is half that for free women. This (kind of marriage) is for those among you who fear falling into evil. But to have patience would be better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Commentary:

Following the statements about marriage, this verse expresses the conditions of marrying she slaves whose dowries and expenses are usually lighter and easier. At first it says:

"And whoever among you is not able to financially afford to marry free believing women, then (let him marry) of those (slaves or captives) whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens....."

Then it adds that for recognizing their Faith, you are commissioned to hear their apparent expressions, and as for their innate thoughts and hidden secrets, it is so that Allah knows well of your faith.

"...and Allah better knows your faith.... "

And, in view of the fact that some men were not so willing to marry the slave maidens, in this verse the Qur'an remarks that all of you have come into being from only one couple, therefore, you must not dislike marrying them. It says:

"...you are (sprung) one from the other...."

Then, the Qur'an points to one of the conditions of this marriage. It is the permission of the concerning master, while without that permission the marriage is invalid. It says:

"...so marry them with the permission of their masters...."

Next to this statement, it says:

"…and give them their dowries in fairness...."

It is understood from this sentence that an appropriate and worthy dowry should be assigned for them, and it must be given to them. It is also understood that their slaves can possess some wealth when they have lawfully obtained it.

One of the other conditions that this marriage has is that these maidens should be taken from among those who are chaste, not from among those who commit manifest lewdness.

".., they being chaste, not committing lewdness, not taking paramours….."

In agreement with the ordinances stated upon marriage with slave maidens and supporting their rights, the holy verse continues the words about their punishment when they divert from the path of piety and chastity. It says:

"...And if when they are married they commit lewdness, their punishment is half that for free women....."

This part of the holy verse means that they must be beaten only fifty stripes.

Then, it adds that this kind of marriage with such slave maidens is for those who are severely involved in the pressure of the sexual instinct and are not capable to marry free women.

Therefore, it is not admissible for men other than them.

"...This (kind of marriage) is for those among you who fear falling into evil...."

But, next to that, it says that being patient and avoiding such sort of marriage, from the point of some ethical and social interests, is of your gain as far as you are able to restrain yourself and you do not fall into committing sin.

"...But to have patience would be better for you...."

At the end of the verse, it remarks that upon what you have done before this, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. It says:

"...and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

source:

http://www.al-islam....ning-vol4/2.htm

Edited September 15, 2011 by ~Ruqaya's Amal~

[Ruq]

It simply wouldn't make much sense for a slave not to be available to her master

conjecture?

when even a wife can't really refuse except in very specific situations

'cant really'? what are you basing that on?

[Haydar Husayn]

Ruqaya, I really have no desire to go into a long discussion on this when I know from experience there is absolutely nothing that can change your view since you are ready to dismiss any kind of evidence. I have posted detailed commentary from perhaps the most famous tafsir in Shia Islam (and there is more I left out), which deals with the opinions of other exegetes, and unlike them provides hadiths to back up his views. I don't think any unbiased person can look at the two commentaries we have provided and think they are of equal vaue in terms of detail, analysis, or references.

In the end people can believe what they want. If they can't deal with a version of Islam where these types of slavery laws are allowed, then perhaps it is better to let them keep their heads in the sand if the alternative is unbelief. For those that seek the truth, I have provided enough evidence. Those who want to read more can serach for old threads, such as

Regarding the wife, it is well known that her only real duty as a wife is to be sexually available at all times, unless she is menstruating or ill. There are a number of ahadith (no doubt you would think them fabricated) on things like angels cursing the wife that refuses her husband without justifiable reason. So a wife can't refuse unless she wants to be committing a serious sin. She most likely would also be falling into the category of 'nushuz', and as such verse 4:34 would apply.

[Ruq]

Regarding the wife, it is well known that her only real duty as a wife is to be sexually available at all times, unless she is menstruating or ill. There are a number of ahadith (no doubt you would think them fabricated) on things like angels cursing the wife that refuses her husband without justifiable reason. So a wife can't refuse unless she wants to be committing a serious sin. She most likely would also be falling into the category of 'nushuz', and as such verse 4:34 would apply.

Your source does not cancel out mine.

'it is well known' - conjecture, and in reality, if you genuinly believe that you are in a very sad, tiny minority.

I feel genuinly sorry for you that you are so comfortable living in such a narrow minded and morally stark and debasing existence. I can only thank God, that in my experience, the majority of Muslims do not join you and experience a more wholistic, positive, dignified and honourable expression of Islam that promotes conditions that nourish people and give them dignity and honour and value; Muslims that hold the examples of the Ahlulbayt as a model for their behaviour and do not indulge or idolise theories of baseness, subjugation and other misery promoting abuse. Your are welcome to your OPINION, i do not envy you one bit.

[ImAli]

This is off topic......but I assume it is bad for a woman to refuse her husband without good reason (illness, obligatory fasting, menstruation) is because it is thought that this will cause some men (not all men) to fornicate or masturbate.

[Ruq]

'good reason', is highly subjective.

and no person is responsible for anothers sinning.

[ImAli]

True a woman could feel horrible (maybe a migraine) but others will think she is feeling fine.

'good reason', is highly subjective.

and no person is responsible for anothers sinning.

Notice I say it is thought.....as this is what I was told when I asked (didn't ask on ShiaChat) this same question before.

[Ruq]

I think this thread deserves its own sound track:

;)

No hard feelings.

[Praetorius]

I think this thread deserves its own sound track:

;)

No hard feelings.

Would you like me to quote the SC rule about posting links to music not being allowed?

Edited September 15, 2011 by Legio Invicta

[Ruq]

Would you like me to quote the SC rule about posting links to music not being allowed?

Well, ive seen people post links to music plenty of times with no censure. I can always replace it with this:

If ppl find the link too unbearable.

[Haydar Husayn]

Your source does not cancel out mine.

That is your opinion. Those who are fair-minded will known which one to give more weight.

'it is well known' - conjecture, and in reality, if you genuinly believe that you are in a very sad, tiny minority.

Conjecture? Wow. I think you need to spend less time listening to lectures and more time reading books. I'm not going to even bother giving any hadiths about this, because I know you will just dismiss them, as you always do when you don't like something. However, rest assured that even those 'nice' Muslims speakers that you admire so much such as Moderassi, Nakshawani, and Rajabali, would not in a million years dispute the fact that a wife should not refuse her husband without valid reasons (and no, this does not include the proverbial 'headache'). This is such common knowledge, it astounds me that you could not know this.

You know what, why don't you just email your favourite marjas and ask them about the wife's duties to her husband, and the consequences of not performing them, and see what they say.

I feel genuinly sorry for you that you are so comfortable living in such a narrow minded and morally stark and debasing existence. I can only thank God, that in my experience, the majority of Muslims do not join you and experience a more wholistic, positive, dignified and honourable expression of Islam that promotes conditions that nourish people and give them dignity and honour and value; Muslims that hold the examples of the Ahlulbayt as a model for their behaviour and do not indulge or idolise theories of baseness, subjugation and other misery promoting abuse.

Completely baseless accusations.

Your are welcome to your OPINION, i do not envy you one bit.

And you are welcome ot your cafeteria approach to Islam. I pray that you are soon guided onto the right path.

[asma0401]

I think it is not that men are not allowed to marry slave girls. I think it is that if they decide to marry a slave girl then it sets her free as well.

[Haydar Husayn]

I think it is not that men are not allowed to marry slave girls. I think it is that if they decide to marry a slave girl then it sets her free as well.

Kind of. If a man wants to marry his own slave girl, then he would have to free her first. However, he doesn't need to marry her in order to sleep with her. As I understand it, there is no problem with marrying someone else's slave girl, although her owner's permission would have to be sought. Her master would then lose the right to have sex with her.

[asma0401]

i think you are mistaken actually. because the Quran says the punishment for lewdness is half that of free women for married slave women. that would mean they're not free.

[Haydar Husayn]

i think you are mistaken actually. because the Quran says the punishment for lewdness is half that of free women for married slave women. that would mean they're not free.

I don't understand. Can you elaborate? Did you ead the extracts from the tafsir I quoted earlier? It backs up everything I said. What part do you think I am mistaken on?

[asma0401]

not all hadiths are authentic.

[Haydar Husayn]

not all hadiths are authentic.

Obviously, but the criteria for rejecting them isn't based on what 21st century Western secular culture tells us is right or wrong. I don't think Sayyid Tabatabaei was the kind of person who would just randomly include some dodgy hadiths to back up some unorthodox teachings. If anything, I have a feeling he was probably more on the liberal side compared to what the classical tafsirs from the times when slavery was still in existence would say.

Also, the hadiths were only a small part of the commentary. He gave much more reasoning and textual analysis.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Haider Husayn

[Lanatin]

Wtf? Haider Husayn there are plenty of hadiths from the Prophet and Imams which strongly commend us muslims to marry a religious woman. And it's all about sexual satisfaction to you in the end?!

[Haydar Husayn]

Wtf?

We are on an Islamic forum, so I think we should try to act accordingly.

Haider Husayn there are plenty of hadiths from the Prophet and Imams which strongly commend us muslims to marry a religious woman. And it's all about sexual satisfaction to you in the end?!

What gives you the impression that I don't agree with those hadiths?

There is no contradiction between it being recommended to marry believing Shia women (even more so than just Muslim women), and saying that it is permissible to have sex with one's slave. You can even be married and have slaves at the same time.

Anyway, having a slave girl is better than being celibate.

1 – Muhammad b. Ya`qub from a group of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Ibn Faddal from Ibn al-Qaddah. He said: Abu `Abdillah ( عليه السلام ) said: Two rak`at that the married prays are better than seventy rak`at that a bachelor prays.

6 – And from him from Ahmad from his father from `Abdullah b. al-Mughira from Abu 'l-Hasan ( عليه السلام ) its like. And he added in it: So Muhammad b. `Ubayd said: May I be your ransom, so I do not have a family. So he said: Do you not have slave girls (jawari) - or he said – ummahat awlad (mothers of children, meaning slave women who have born their masters children)? He said: Of course. He said: So then you are not a bachelor.

http://www.tashayyu....of-bachelorhood

By the way, the previous hadith wouldn't make much sense if you could marry you slaves, since then they would obviously count as family.

Look, if people don't have the emotional maturity to deal with this stuff, then they should just stay away from these topics.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Haider Husayn

[Lanatin]

I was talking about married women specifically, forget female slaves.

Lol it would've been more hilarious if you posted a trollface in your last post rather than a suicidal ostritch XD

[Haydar Husayn]

I don't know what you are talking about. The only married women I mentioned were married slaves, and I provided tafsir and hadiths to back up whatever I said. So if you have a problem, take it up with the Imams (as) and the scholars.

[Lanatin]

What happened to the famous narration where the Prophet ordered a female slave to be freed for she became a believer (guiding any human being is better than everything the Sun and moon shine upon according to one hadith), or the famous narration where a man slapped his female slave and the Prophet made it obligatory to free her? There's more to it than merely making a concubine an object for whatever desires spring in your mind. I'm not denying that relations are permitted with concubines, that's a known fact. But to say she is tossed around like a toy in comparison to your wife if inflammatory rhetoric, to say the least.

The Quran says if you cannot deal equitably with your wives, then content yourself with one wife or what your hand possesses. The narration you posted only confirms what i'm saying thus:

And from him from Ahmad from his father from `Abdullah b. al-Mughira from Abu 'l-Hasan ( عليه السلام ) its like. And he added in it: So Muhammad b. `Ubayd said: May I be your ransom, so I do not have a family. So he said: Do you not have slave girls (jawari) - or he said – ummahat awlad (mothers of children, meaning slave women who have born their masters children)? He said: Of course. He said: So then you are not a bachelor.

If you treat your concubine in a good manner, give her the same 'royal' clothing as you would for a wife, and prevent any chances of starvation, and cooperate with them when they are given a task that involves strenuous manual labour, then what is the harm in engaging in intimate acts with her? Remaining a bachelor is makruh and can lead to sinful acts, so this 'open pathway' should be accepted by all.However it doesn't seem you like putting it in that context.

Edited September 15, 2011 by La'nat Ma Man

[Haydar Husayn]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see where I ever said a slave shouldn't be treated well, shouldn't be clothed well, shouldn't be fed well, should be beaten, or should be 'tossed around like a toy'. Where are you getting this stuff from? There seems to be this idea among some people that just because you are talking about a certain aspect of Islam, then you are denying all the other aspects if you don't happen to mention them. Maybe I am guilty of expecting a certain degree of intelligence and good will from others so that when they read what I write they will not make ridiculous assumptions based on the fact that I don't recap the basic principles of Islam in every single thread.

Someone asked a question, and then some misconceptions were given in answer to that, so I corrected them. That is all. Is that a sin now? Or does everything need to be sugarcoated for those that are constantly on the verge of disbelief and doubt?

To be clear, for the one billionth time, I am not advocating anything in these discussions. I am simply stating what is permissible. If I say that divorce is permissible, is that denying the virtues of marriage, or advocating divorce? Of course not, so can some of you please grow up? I am not telling people to take slaves, to seperate them from their husbands, to have sex with them, to practice muta, to practice polygamy, or to do anything else. I am saying that they are permissible. Does everyone understand what that means?

In the end, it seems like you've agreed with the substance of what I wrote, so I don't even understand what your indignation was about. If you are so concerned that I was missing out on important information then nobody stops you from supplying it.

[Ruq]

I pray that you are soon guided onto the right path.

Why, because i dont read a tafseer where someone says that subjugating people and treating them as sub-human second class citizens and raping women is ok and say 'ok cool, next' ? Are you insane?

I dont think its me who has their head in the sand, the only reason you can sit on your little 'academic' (o.O) pedastool on subjects like this is because youve never had to sit through the testamony of a slave recounting thier experiences of repeated rape at the hands of their slave master, you couldnt even bring yourself to partake of my little challange on the other thread to speculate on such realities, so dont tell me im the one avoiding uncomfortable realities, look closer to home.

I hope you are guided too, really.

[Lanatin]

Why, because i dont read a tafseer where someone says that subjugating people and treating them as sub-human second class citizens and raping women is ok and say 'ok cool, next'

You're not a good reader.

[Ruq]

You're not a good reader.

You dont know what im refering to, this is an over spill from the other thread.

[alimohamad40]

its established islamic law that the permanent wife must be like a slave for her husband when it comes to the bed... she is not allowed to deny him and hence the case of rape is impossible except if she is sick or has a good reason in which it wouldn't be counted as rape but as physical harm or domestic violance.

If the wife rejects for bad reasons then god has adviced to " advice her then leave her then hit her" this is in the qraan

The slave is another story though

the slave by definition is some one who listens to everything as long as that thing is not harmful to anyone and involves no sin.

the whole idea of slavery only being legitimate as right hand possession which means what is rightfully acquired or whoever willfully becomes your slave.

once you choose to be some ones slave you are denying yourself the freedom of choice in many things and hence talking about consent is meaningless in such a relationship.

[Lanatin]

You dont know what im refering to, this is an over spill from the other thread.

I know, i've read it.