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

Sex Is Allowed With Captives?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Salaam,

In Surat Al-Muminoon:

23:5 and 23:6

It states: Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,

Two questions here:

1. You are allowed sex with slaves?

2. what is meant by whom their right hands possess?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I find this all extremely disturbing.

There is this really annoying tendency with muslim's to play apologetics instead of just calling out things for the way they are. What is the point in trying to sugar coat things? How slaves were or

Up until the early 1900's "muslims" used to raid the east coast of Africa, the Ottomans used to raid Europe, the Ottoman pirates or Corsairs raided European and North African coasts. Most of these cap

Posted Images

  • Banned

Without nikah? how?... I'm confussssed?...

والمحصنات من النساء إلا ما ملكت أيمانكم كتاب الله عليكم وأحل لكم ما وراء ذلكم أن تبتغوا بأموالكم محصنين غير مسافحين فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة ولا جناح عليكم فيما تراضيتم به من بعد الفريضة إن الله كان عليما حكيما

And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise. [4:24]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Banned

Wow Haider and Zulfiqar. i definately learnt something new today. JazakaAllahh :)

Wa iyyakum :)

For the record, I simply posted the relevant ayat. I do not agree with it. If I owned a slave girl, and for economic reasons could not free her, I would not have sex with her. I would simply have her do chores and whatnot as needed, and try to make sure she's comfortable. I would free her as soon as I possibly could, when the economic situation improved and I could afford to hire labour instead of slavery. Sex with slaves, to me, is disturbing. I wouldn't do it, even though it's halal.

What if the slave is married to someone else?

I don't know. Check the Arabic. According to Pickthal's translation, it is fine to have sex with them, still.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Wa iyyakum :)

For the record, I simply posted the relevant ayat. I do not agree with it. If I owned a slave girl, and for economic reasons could not free her, I would not have sex with her. I would simply have her do chores and whatnot as needed, and try to make sure she's comfortable. I would free her as soon as I possibly could, when the economic situation improved and I could afford to hire labour instead of slavery. Sex with slaves, to me, is disturbing. I wouldn't do it, even though it's halal.

I don't know. Check the Arabic. According to Pickthal's translation, it is fine to have sex with them, still.

Fair enough. Just because something is allowed doesn't mean you have to do it. so it's a free will matter too eh,

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the slave is married to someone else?

As far as I know, there is no situation where Islam would allow women to have multiple sex partners. I think that if there was a situation where a man (master) had a woman-slave who was married to another man, the master of the woman-slave could have the power to divorce her from the man, and then he could have sex with her (after the iddah period of the woman-slave). There are hadiths on this,

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I think these things were used in a means of a time back then, so while they still apply, i think it was a means to deal with the situation they were in back then. Allahu a3lam.The quran was slowly changing process for the people. The Quran pushes the person to free slaves anyway as there are many good deeds in releasing them. Forgiveness of sins, they can be used to make up for the fasting days you intentionally broke for no medical etc reason.

Edited by AlphaMale_ASAD
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I think these things were used in a means of a time back then, so while they still apply, i think it was a means to deal with the situation they were in back then. Allahu a3lam.The quran was slowly changing process for the people. The Quran pushes the person to free slaves anyway as there are many good deeds in releasing them. Forgiveness of sins, they can be used to make up for the fasting days you intentionally broke for no medical etc reason.

I don't buy that argument at all, many things were banned outright despite being widely practised, banning slavery would not have been impossible to do if it is wrong in principle, not banning it suggests it is not. Imagine being on the other side, forced into slavery and having to have sex with your 'master' at his whim. All condoned by that persons religion...what would your view be then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I don't buy that argument at all, many things were banned outright despite being widely practised, banning slavery would not have been impossible to do if it is wrong in principle, not banning it suggests it is not. Imagine being on the other side, forced into slavery and having to have sex with your 'master' at his whim. All condoned by that persons religion...what would your view be then?

Being a slave in Islam is not the same as being a slave in today's world or even a slave in the 1700s. Slaves in Islam were more like

Servants, they were treated with respect, you can read stories of how the Imam's treated them. Plus a true Muslim back then respected people in generally and would not abusive his slaves, so I highly doubt slaves were forced to have sex..

Also, neither slavery nor sex is condoned in Islam, you just have to do them both the right way (ie respect ur slaves and have sex in a halal way)

Edited by Ruffles
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya slave is bad translation. It really should be captives in my opinion. Because other verses of Quran are teaching against slavery and promoting freeing slaves but here is talking about having sex with them? Nope it def. can not be slaves.

Edited by faithfuls.org
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Being a slave in Islam is not the same as being a slave in today's world or even a slave in the 1700s. Slaves in Islam were more like

Servants, they were treated with respect, you can read stories of how the Imam's treated them. Plus a true Muslim back then respected people in generally and would not abusive his slaves, so I highly doubt slaves were forced to have sex..

Also, neither slavery nor sex is condoned in Islam, you just have to do them both the right way (ie respect ur slaves and have sex in a halal way)

I'm not arguing about how well you treat your slave, the concept of owning another human being as a possession like any other object that you can buy and sell in itself is repulsive to me, and I'm genuinely surprised if it not repulsive to anyone else unless they are not being completely honest with themselves. You can't compare them with servants who do a job for reimbursement of their own free will. Who wants to be a well treated slave?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I'm not arguing about how well you treat your slave, the concept of owning another human being as a possession like any other object that you can buy and sell in itself is repulsive to me, and I'm genuinely surprised if it not repulsive to anyone else unless they are not being completely honest with themselves. You can't compare them with servants who do a job for reimbursement of their own free will. Who wants to be a well treated slave?

You clothe, feed, and shelter your slaves as well. You also pay mehr to your wife, but that's okay to you?

A slave is not an object, otherwise they wouldn't be respected by Muslims, and it's not like

Muslims didn't free they're slaves... Plus many pious people came to be because they were slaves in the house of an Imam(as) where they were taught by the best. Imams (as) had slaves so what do you think of that? I think you're picture of slavery is skewed because of what you were taught in school, how white farmers abusived their slaves and treated them like garbage and gave them no rights... Thats not slavery, that's just oppression...

Think about marriage, let's say u marry a momina who only asks $500 for mehr, you marry her for 30 years before both of you pass away. She got 500$ for 30 years of having to obey you and have sex with you whenever you ask. Seems pretty [Edited Out]py IF you ignore that a husband also provides for her, loves/respects her, and helps improve her deen iA and other things too probably that I can't think of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Lets not go around in circles, your comparison with the wife would be fair if she was forced to marry only, what a silly thing to say. I think slavery is wrong, simple as, do you think forcing another human being to be your captive is ok regardless of how you treat them? You think my picture of slavery is skewed?? Slavery has a bad press? Ok then would you like to be my slave? I promise I'll feed you and clothe you and give you shelter, and if I ever feel like it I might free you, or not.

PS And if you wouldn't like to it doesnt matter either because remember you wouldn't have a choice in the matter. That's fair right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Lets not go around in circles, your comparison with the wife would be fair if she was forced to marry only, what a silly thing to say. I think slavery is wrong, simple as, do you think forcing another human being to be your captive is ok regardless of how you treat them? You think my picture of slavery is skewed?? Slavery has a bad press? Ok then would you like to be my slave? I promise I'll feed you and clothe you and give you shelter, and if I ever feel like it I might free you, or not.

PS And if you wouldn't like to it doesnt matter either because remember you wouldn't have a choice in the matter. That's fair right?

Be you're person slave? Um no, for reasons I shall a not list as not to be rude :P

But really, if slavery is so bad, Islam would have made it straight up haraam instead of giving us examples on how to deal with it instead. What would u do with war prisoners? Kill them all? Free them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Be you're person slave? Um no, for reasons I shall a not list as not to be rude :P

But really, if slavery is so bad, Islam would have made it straight up haraam instead of giving us examples on how to deal with it instead. What would u do with war prisoners? Kill them all? Free them?

You forgot the part where you don't have a choice, people's permission isn't generally sought before they are taken into captivity, so why should you be able to say no when you think its ok for others to be forced into it? If it's me you had a problem with then does that mean you wouldn't mind being someone else's slave?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I'm telling you... the modern world has a system of slavery that's far more disturbing that the slavery the Imams were talking about. Slavery in Islam solves so many social issues (if used correctly obviously), but that's a discussion for another thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is really about whether slavery, in and of itself, is immoral. Although, we know that oppression, in general, is clearly an immoral act (it's something in which there is a consensus about among all rational beings). What remains unanswered is whether there is a consensus that slavery, in and of itself, is an instance of oppression. That is to deprive a human being from choosing whether or not to be a slave. The argument in favor of slavery as a corrupt institution revolves around the notion that denial of freedom of choice is evil. So, regardless of all the other rights a slave may have, the problem here lies in the fact that one does not have the right to choose whether or not to be a slave in the first place. The traditional Islamic perspective, in which there is no doubt, is that slavery as an institution is not immoral. Although, Islam does strongly encourage the freeing of slaves, it does not object to the institution as long as it abides by the legal rights and responsibilites set forth by the Shari'a. Of course, one can traverse the law and, although, they remain within the limits still commit unethical acts. Here we should remind ourselves of a famous adage of Martin Luther King Jr. in which he said, "Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.” So, from the Islamic perspective, denial of choice in regards to being a slave is not, in and of itself, an instance of oppression. And, personally, I do not have complete certainty in regards to it (i.e. I have a reasonable level of doubt). Thus, I concede to the traditional Islamic view. Wa Allahu A'lam.

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

There is this really annoying tendency with muslim's to play apologetics instead of just calling out things for the way they are.

So going by what you say, Prophet Ibrahim has a problem, then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Salaam,

In Surat Al-Muminoon:

23:5 and 23:6

It states: Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,

Two questions here:

1. You are allowed sex with slaves?

2. what is meant by whom their right hands possess?

1. Definitely, forcing them to do it is very inhumane and hence, not Islamic. 2. We cant be sure that it means female slaves. "Yamin" has different meanings: right (direction), oath, contract, ...Maybe it means people with whom you have made a contract.

The original term is "molk/ melk-e yamin".

Melk/molk means ownership and if the word "yamin" means "contract", then maybe we can guess what is the true meaning of the above term (what you have owned through a contract).

Edited by shadow_of_light
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

There is this really annoying tendency with muslim's to play apologetics instead of just calling out things for the way they are. What is the point in trying to sugar coat things? How slaves were or are treated in the west or in contemporary times is totally irrelevant. The fact that you clothe or shelter your slaves, or are encouraged to free them is also irrelevant, it does not change the fundamental and inherent framework of the arrangement. Even in islam, a slave owner has authority over a slave, that is to say that a slave cannot marry, disobey (for the most part) or deny a slave owner sexual favours, it doesn't matter if you are a 15 year old girl at that. Let me know of the countless instances in which slave women were able to goto some sharia court and claim they denied their slave owner sex just because they were not interested in him, and if that was a valid justification islamically speaking. After all it is an established fact that long after the prophet passed away, slave women were used for sex for centuries to follow. Slaves also were generally born into slavery, it was not a choice. Lets just accept the fact that slavery is considered moral under islam and even encompassing arrangements that I can bet my life most of you would never accept for yourself.

Hear Hear!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy that argument at all, many things were banned outright despite being widely practised, banning slavery would not have been impossible to do if it is wrong in principle, not banning it suggests it is not. Imagine being on the other side, forced into slavery and having to have sex with your 'master' at his whim. All condoned by that persons religion...what would your view be then?

That is a problem with most people on this forum.....they can't taste for themselves what they are quick to wish it on others. I learned long ago to stop trying to make people see it from the perspective of the one being oppressed....for some reason it is impossible for these people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Slavery in this day and age is pure evil. Forcing oneself on one's slave is absolutely evil. And this is according to our today's level of thinking and awareness. And this is also where Islam ceases to be universal by dividing people in 2 and empowering one of them. Anyone who disagrees with me should also then agree that they have no problem with salafis having their way with captive shia women folk who could be our sisters, wives, mothers etc ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Just hypothetically speaking:

If America invaded Iran and took our Shia sisters as captives to sexually abuse - should we be angry about it, or should we accept it as (according to some) it is allowed by the Quran?

Oh, you mean just like how America raped and killed Iraqi girls after massacring them in front of their eyes?

Or how America has kidnapped numerous Muslims around the world, and are holding them in torture cells and sexually abusing them?

Link to post
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...