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

Shii Perspective Of Isis' Female Slaves

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html?referrer=

For all the members who believe that slavery is allowed in Islam, as is non-consensual sex with female slaves, is what ISIS is doing to the Yazidi women really wrong? Other than the fact that Shias don't consider them Muslims, of course... But if they were actual, practising Muslims, wouldnt their actions be justifiable? They've actually issued a manifesto about treatment of slavewomen, and from some bits i got to read online, it sounded horribly similar to what I've seen here on SC.

This is not random sarcasm leveled at some folks, but an attempt to understand the whole slavery issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The girl must consent if she wants to have sex in Islamic Slavery.

She should also be treated the same as her master.

She cannot be bound/gagged.

She has the right to be free if she demands it.

She days shes hurt and they continue.

I see every law of Slavery here being violated.

This is for EVERYONE to what i know,not just muslims, every human.

i promise you i dont know what youve read if you can post that would be great but the teachings say if you can free slaves thats better and there is a great reward, if not you can keep them under strict guidelines, so they can protect chastity if they wish, they have the right to get married, you cannot tie them up, they dress like you do, eat from what you do, live under the same shelter as you ,etc. So to be honest ive never heard of this non-consensual sex slave thing and i believe that is classified not only as Zina but worse since its forced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Quote

The girl must consent if she wants to have sex in Islamic Slavery.

She should also be treated the same as her master.

She cannot be bound/gagged.

She has the right to be free if she demands it.

She days shes hurt and they continue.

I see every law of Slavery here being violated.

This is for EVERYONE to what i know,not just muslims, every human.

i promise you i dont know what youve read if you can post that would be great but the teachings say if you can free slaves thats better and there is a great reward, if not you can keep them under strict guidelines, so they can protect chastity if they wish, they have the right to get married, you cannot tie them up, they dress like you do, eat from what you do, live under the same shelter as you ,etc. So to be honest ive never heard of this non-consensual sex slave thing and i believe that is classified not only as Zina but worse since its forced.

Not sure what you are saying here.

Her rights are not the same as the master's - she has much more limited Islamic rights and definitely does not have the right to freedom on demand. She is totally owned by her master (he has the right to sell her) who will make personal choices for her within Islamic guidelines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

ISIS view:

Islamic State (ISIS) Releases Pamphlet On Female Slaves

Shia view:

http://www.al-islam.org/slavery-from-islamic-and-christian-perspective-sayyid-akhtar-rizvi/islam-attacks-slavery

Please read the shia view completely. Are there mentions of slavery in our books? Yes, since they were part of the time that WAS then. I don't think the concept of slavery is applicable to the current age and time due to the conditions in which the slaves can be taken. When was the last time you heard of the shia taking slaves?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2015 at 2:30 PM, Rashida said:

Not sure what you are saying here.

Her rights are not the same as the master's - she has much more limited Islamic rights and definitely does not have the right to freedom on demand. She is totally owned by her master (he has the right to sell her) who will make personal choices for her within Islamic guidelines.

Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى says:

وَٱلَّذِينَ يَبۡتَغُونَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُكُمۡ فَكَاتِبُوهُمۡ إِنۡ عَلِمۡتُمۡ فِيہِمۡ خَيۡرً۬ا‌ۖ وَءَاتُوهُم مِّن مَّالِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّذِىٓ ءَاتَٮٰكُمۡ‌ۚ

“If any of your slaves wish to pay for their freedom, make a contract with them accordingly, if you know they have good in them, and give them some of the wealth Allah has given you.”[TMQ 24:33]

I think that should solve what im talking about, not only do you let them free but you need to give them money so they can support themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì says:

وَٱلَّذِينَ يَبۡتَغُونَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَـٰنُكُمۡ فَكَاتِبُوهُمۡ إِنۡ عَلِمۡتُمۡ فِيہِمۡ خَيۡرً۬ا‌ۖ وَءَاتُوهُم مِّن مَّالِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّذِىٓ ءَاتَٮٰكُمۡ‌ۚ

“If any of your slaves wish to pay for their freedom, make a contract with them accordingly, if you know they have good in them, and give them some of the wealth Allah has given you.”[TMQ 24:33]

I think that should solve what im talking about, not only do you let them free but you need to give them money so they can support themselves.

 They cannot demand their freedom. They can buy themselves out if they have money.  Not sure where the money would come from as everything they have belongs to the master.  Kind of a Catch-22.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

They cannot demand their freedom. They can buy themselves out if they have money.  Not sure where the money would come from as everything they have belongs to the master.  Kind of a Catch-22.

They could agree to be set free for a certain price and then pay it off through work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

How about let's not have slaves period?  Especially a sex slave.  Slavery is a severe form of oppression...why not just abolish it?  Some Muslims might say the Quran allows for slaves, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to have one.  Besides, you come over to America, there's so many loose women around you won't need sex slaves.  They do more than any sex slave...and they might even make you dinner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 8/20/2015 at 10:07 AM, The Batman said:

Who told you this?

I don't remember precisely where I first read this, but here is a quick reference:

Quote

Firstly, Islam placed restrictions on acquisition of slaves. Prior to Islam, slavery was practised with abandon. Debtors were made slaves, war captives were either killed or made slaves. In weaker nations, people were hunted like animals, killed or captured and reduced to slavery. Islam, in unambiguous terms, forbade its followers to enslave people on any pretext. The only exception was an idolatrous enemy captured in a war which was fought either in self-defence or with the permission of the Prophet or his rightful successors. This exception was, in words of Ameer Ali, “in order to serve as guarantee for the preservation of the lives of the captives.”2

http://www.al-islam.org/slavery-from-islamic-and-christian-perspective-sayyid-akhtar-rizvi/islam-attacks-slavery

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Nothing much in that article in terms of hadith and scholarly opinions, when discussing how slaves become slaves. In fact, a threas was starting recently (I'm sure you know) on an opinion of one of our scholars on slavery, and how jihad isn't the only way to enslave people.

 

But anyways, I don't want to discuss this anymore in public. If you can Hayder, we can pm.

Edited by The Batman
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about let's not have slaves period?  Especially a sex slave.  Slavery is a severe form of oppression...why not just abolish it?  Some Muslims might say the Quran allows for slaves, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to have one.  Besides, you come over to America, there's so many loose women around you won't need sex slaves.  They do more than any sex slave...and they might even make you dinner.

i want to clear something up on this, you dont 'force' them into it and you dont use them just for sex. They can allow themselves to you and deny whenever they wish, the only reason for this is so IF a man has a slave for example, so they dont fall into zina, Allah has allowed it to make it easier on us since you basically live together. This dosent mean they have become your personal pleasure source you abuse as ISIS does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

Alhamdulilah the shia of ahlul bayt have nothing in common with the ISIS!!!

Let us review the beautiful story of Shahr banu, the persian princess who was taken into captive, and the difference of how she was treated by Umar and our beloved prince of the believers.

This comparison can help everyone differentiate As fal assafeleen / lowest of the low -ISIS Style from the purest of human beings code of conduct and charachter:

According to a commonly-told story, the spirit of Fatima Zahra, the daughter of Muhammad, mother of Husayn, appeared to Shahrbanu before the Islamic conquest of Persia and told her to be of good heart, because she was destined for a truly glorious marriage. Shahrbanu was shown an image of Husayn, her future husband.

After the defeat of her father Yazdigerd III, Shahrbanu and other members of the Persian royal house were taken captive by the victorious Arab armies in al-Mada'in, and sent to Medina. People flocked to see the captured daughter of the fallen King of Persia.

The caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab, demanded that the daughter of the King of Persia to be shown to him. The soldiers brought her to Umar, who reached out to lift her veil. The princess pulled away and cried out in Persian, "The face of Hormoz darkens from indignity!" ("Vay! Rooye Hormoz siyaah shod!")

Umar believed that he had been insulted, and ordered that the princess be killed. Ali ibn Abu Talib, the father of Husayn, protested. "You do not know her language. She called on her ancestor, and did not insult you."

Umar then announced his intention of auctioning her as a slave; the bidding would surely be spirited and much money would be raised. Ali again protested. Ali then asked the princess, "Do you wish me to find you a husband?" The princess did not reply. Trying to prevent the auction from taking place, Ali said, "Her silence is a sign of approval." Facing Umar, Ali continued, "Why don't we let her choose a person from amongst this crowd as a husband, and we will pay for her dowry from the public treasury?" Grudgingly, Umar agreed.

The beleaguered princess desperately scanned the crowd for a kind face. She saw Husayn, Ali's son, and was amazed. "I have seen this man in a dream!" she said. The crowd turned to gaze at Husayn; Ali went up to his son and said, "Husayn! From this girl, the most noble of humans shall be born."

When Ali asked the princess her name, she replied, "The daughter of Jahan Shah (the King of the World)". Ali said, "So you shall be called Shahr Banoy, (the Lady of the Land)."

Consequently, Shahrbanu was married to Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of Muhammad, and the third Shia Imam. Her sister was married to Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr.

Shahrbanu died shortly after giving birth to her son Ali ibn Hussayn, the fourth Shia Imam.

Below is a brief Audio file about Ransom and slavery in Islam:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rs73tern7mhe6kb/ransom-slavery%20in%20islam.mp3?dl=0

* this question answered is according to the questioner and capacity of understanding

Edited by tendersoul
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 8/17/2015 at 1:27 PM, Koshaan said:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html?referrer=

For all the members who believe that slavery is allowed in Islam, as is non-consensual sex with female slaves,

Not only do i not believe that non-consensual sex is allowed with 'slaves', but i dont believe that sexual relations are allowed with slaves unless youre married. I say this  because, as far as i can see, the Quran does not support this view. The Quran only talks about marrying slaves. There isnt one verse that says you can have sexual relations with a woman you are not married too. People sometimes site verse 23:5-6 as justification, but like i said on another thread here, the word being translated in this verse as ‘chastity’ (fa-ra-jim root) is better understood in terms of 'modesty' rather than sexual interaction if you cross reference it (24:30-31). The other word translated as ‘chastity’ in the Quran has the ha-sad-nun root and pertains to the verses on lawful sexual intercourse (4:24-25, 5:5, 24:4, 24:23, 24:33). With regards to the relaxing of modesty with ‘those your right hands possess’ we also have this verse to refer to:

24:58: O you who have believe! let those whom your right hands possess and those who have not [yet] reached puberty among you ask permission of you [before entering] at three times: before the dawn prayer and when you put aside your clothing [for rest] at noon and after the night prayer. [These are] three times of privacy for you. There is no blame upon you nor upon them beyond these [periods], for they continually circulate among you – some of you, among others. Thus does Allah make clear to you the verses; and Allah is Knowing and Wise.’

In this verse we see that modesty can be relaxed at certain times of the day in your home in front of people who you would normally have to keep standards of clothing in front of and this is because ‘they continually circulate amongst you’.

People also quote verse 33:50. Whats interesting about this verse is that it says 'We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their bridal due and those whom you rightfully possess from those Allah has given to you'. At first glance, the phrase 'to whom you have given the bridal due' seems superfluous. If wives by definition mean free believing women and slaves are those who you have sex with outside of marriage, why the need for this phrase at all after 'wives'? this statement also seems to contradict the verse in the Quran that talk of marrying slaves. So what is this verse actually saying? is it making a point about marriage or is it making a point about mahr? if you take a look at the verses that talk about approaching free believing women only (not referenceing slaves) for marriage, they say this:

5:5 'This day are made lawful for you the good things*, and food of those who were given the book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them, And the chaste women from the believers and the chaste women from those who were given the book before you, when you have given them their bridal due, being chaste, not lewd and not ones who are taking secret lovers...' 

60:10 'O you who believe, when come to you the believing emigrants, then examine them, Allah is most knowing of their faith, and if you know them to be believers, then do not return them to the disbelievers, they are not lawful for them and they are not lawful for them, but give them what they have spent, and there is no blame upon you if you marry them when you have given them their bridal dues...'  

The verse that talks exclusively about marriage to a slave says this:

4:25 'and whoever is not able among you to afford to marry the (free), chaste believing women, then from what your right hand possesses of your believing slave girls. And Allah knows best about your faith. You are from one another, so marry them with the permission of their family and give them their bridal due in fairness - chaste, not unchaste and not those who take secret lovers. Then when they are married, if they commit immorality then half is what is on them of the (free), chaste women of the punishment. That is for whoever fears committing sin amongst you and that you be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.'

Notice that in the verses that talk exclusively about marrying free women mahr is explicitely indicated as being before marriage, the indication being that the mahr must be secured before marriage. In the verse about marrying a slave the mahr is spoken about afterwards, with the implication that although mahr has to be given at some point, it may not have to be secured before marriage. With this in mind, the start to verse 33:50 takes on a different connotation: 'We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their bridal due and those whom you rightfully possess from those Allah has given to you'. Rather than inferring that it means you dont have to marry slaves to have sexual relations with them (which is not supported by the rest of the Quran, but rather contradicted by it) it seems more reasonable (at least to me) that it is sayng that the free believing women are lawful for you because you have given or specified for them a dowery and the women who you rightly possess who youre married to is lawful to you, despite that you may not have given/specified for them a dowery.

Some people may say that verse 4:24 suggests you dont have to give or secure mahr before marriage:

4:24 'And [also prohibited to you are] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not lustfulness. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their bridal due as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.'

This verse is talking about free women and non-free women, so the link with the way mahr is phrased is not as clear. If youre Shia then you probably think this verse is talking about a different kind of marriage which may not have the same rules anyway (mutah),if you dont believe that then this possible apparent contradiction can also be explained by the fact that some in the community that the Quran first came to would have been married before the verses on marriage and mehr were revealed, so they may have not been specifiying or giving mahr before marriage. As mahr is indicated in the Quran as a resource that can give a woman leverage in the case of divorce (2:237) it would still be important that it is still present in a Muslim marriage.

Further support is given to the mahr understanding of verse 33:50 when we look at the latter part:

'And a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet wishes marry her, (this is) only for you, excluding the believers. Certainly we know what we have specified for them concerning their wives and those who their right hand possess,'

Here we see that a believing woman can 'give' herself to the Prophet(saw), which presumably means 'without mahr'.This is excluded from the rest of the believers who have different specifications regarding their wives and who their right hands possess.

When i look at all the Quranic verses on slaves, marriage and mahr, i see no support for this notion that you can have sex with slaves outside of marriage, quite the reverse. It seems like a notion entirely based on hadith and culture that is anti-Quranic and therefore anti-Islamic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 8/20/2015 at 10:40 PM, Ruq said:

Not only do i not believe that non-consensual sex is allowed with 'slaves', but i dont believe that sexual relations are allowed with slaves unless youre married.

What sense does it make to say that someone is married to a slave? If someone wanted their slave to be their wife, then they would free them (and hence they are no different from any other free Muslim woman), and then marry them. Why would you need to marry someone you already 'own'?

Quote

I say this  because, as far as i can see, the Quran does not support this view.

Ok, but unless you are willing to accept that the opposite might be true, this is kind of meaningless.

Quote

The Quran only talks about marrying slaves. There isnt one verse that says you can have sexual relations with a woman you are not married too. People sometimes site verse 23:5-6 as justification, but like i said on another thread here, the word being translated in this verse as ‘chastity’ (fa-ra-jim root) is better understood in terms of 'modesty' rather than sexual interaction if you cross reference it (24:30-31). The other word translated as ‘chastity’ in the Quran has the ha-sad-nun root and pertains to the verses on lawful sexual intercourse (4:24-25, 5:5, 24:4, 24:23, 24:33).

You don't do exegesis of a text written in another language by discussing translations into English, especially when there isn't even some 'standard' translation to refer to. The expression لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ literally means to guard one's private parts (furooj means private parts), which clearly means abstain from sexual conduct, and this is how the majority of translations render it. The fact that some translators renders this as 'guarding their modesty' in another verse is meaningless, because it doesn't change what the Qur'an says, and modesty is clearly being used as a euphemism. As you can see here, other translators have used the word 'chastity' (Muhammad Asad) for verses 24:30-31 as well, while many others have used 'private parts' (the literal meaning), or variants thereof. Incidentally, this includes Aisha Bewley.

So on what authority to you claim what the best understanding of the term is, when it very clearly has a connection to sexual organs?

With regards to the verses that contain the words محصنات and تحصنا, these refer specifically to female chastity, which you can see yourself from the context of the verses, even if you leave aside the linguistic meaning (which I can prove to you through dictionaries if you would like).

Generally speaking, I think it's best to leave the linguistic interpretations of the Qur'an to the experts in the matter.

In any case, your analysis of this verse is completely faulty, and it absolutely supports the idea that slave women are sexually available to their masters (the default position in all of human history), as do other verses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 8/21/2015 at 12:39 PM, Haydar Husayn said:

What sense does it make to say that someone is married to a slave? If someone wanted their slave to be their wife, then they would free them (and hence they are no different from any other free Muslim woman), and then marry them. Why would you need to marry someone you already 'own'?

What sense? in the sense that it’s what the Quran explicitly says:

4:3 'and if you fear that you will be unjust with the orphans, then marry what seems suitable to you from the woman two, three, four. But if you fear you cannot do justice, then marry one, or what your right hand possesses, that is more appropriate so that you do not oppress. And give the women their dowry graciously, but if the remit to you of any of it (on their own), then consume it in satisfaction and ease.'

4:25 'and whoever is not able among you to afford to marry the (free), chaste believing women, then from what your right hand possesses of your believing slave girls. And Allah knows best about your faith. You are from one another, so marry them with the permission of their people and give them their bridal due in fairness - chaste, not unchaste and not those who take secret lovers. Then when they are married, if they commit immorality then half is what is on them of the (free), chaste women of the punishment. That is for whoever fears committing sin amongst you and that you be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.'

24:32 And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

24:33 'and let be chaste those who do not find (means for) marriage until Allah enriches them from his bounty. And those who seek the writing, from those whom you possess rightly, then give them the writing if you know in them any good and give them from the wealth of which Allah has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to ‘prostitution’ if they desire chastity that you may seek temporary gain of the world. And whosoever compels them, indeed Allah, after their (female) compulsion is oft forgiving, most merciful...'

Im not sure why you assume that somone would automatically free someone they intend to marry, but there are distinctions between free women and non free women when it comes to marriage. Verse 4:25 talks of marrying slaves, but it indicates that this 'marriage' is not exactly the same as a marriage to a free woman (like half the punishment for adultery), but it is marriage and requires mahr (at some point at least). It also seems that marriage to a slave is makruh, as this verse says to be patient is better and 2:221 puts it in the context of being 'better than marrying a polytheist', which isnt exactly a recommendation is it.

On 8/21/2015 at 12:39 PM, Haydar Husayn said:

Ok, but unless you are willing to accept that the opposite might be true, this is kind of meaningless.

You don't do exegesis of a text written in another language by discussing translations into English, especially when there isn't even some 'standard' translation to refer to. The expression لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ literally means to guard one's private parts (furooj means private parts), which clearly means abstain from sexual conduct, and this is how the majority of translations render it. The fact that some translators renders this as 'guarding their modesty' in another verse is meaningless, because it doesn't change what the Qur'an says, and modesty is clearly being used as a euphemism. As you can see here, other translators have used the word 'chastity' (Muhammad Asad) for verses 24:30-31 as well, while many others have used 'private parts' (the literal meaning), or variants thereof. Incidentally, this includes Aisha Bewley.

So on what authority to you claim what the best understanding of the term is, when it very clearly has a connection to sexual organs?

With regards to the verses that contain the words محصنات and تحصنا, these refer specifically to female chastity, which you can see yourself from the context of the verses, even if you leave aside the linguistic meaning (which I can prove to you through dictionaries if you would like).

Generally speaking, I think it's best to leave the linguistic interpretations of the Qur'an to the experts in the matter.

In any case, your analysis of this verse is completely faulty, and it absolutely supports the idea that slave women are sexually available to their masters (the default position in all of human history), as do other verses.

I thought the opposite might be true until I looked at the Quran verses on the issue.

How does it clearly mean to abstain from sexual conduct? It isn’t used in verses that are clearly talking about sexual conduct, in those instances another word is used. Verse 24:30 is clearly in the context of the physical/social hijab. It may be referring to the body, but there is no indication at all that it is referring to sexual interaction. You think these words are being used arbitrarily? That it is of no consequence at all that one word is being used in a clear context of sexual chastity and another word is being used in the context of modesty of clothing/coverings?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Thank you everyone who took the time to respond.

Hayder M, I think Rashida has pretty much said what I would have in answer.

Nocturne, depends on what you mean by 'taking slaves' in your last line. If it is owning them, the fact that the Masoomeen did is enough for me to believe that it is allowed even today.

Tendersoul, that's a sweet story. Please share any sources about its authenticity; I'm really hoping there are some valid ones.

Ruq, I love the interpretation that you've shared, and want to believe it. But what of the numerous accounts from traditional jurisprudence that indicate otherwise? This thread http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234972802-sex-with-slaves/page-1has quite a few, especially in the exchange between Brothers Hannibal and fyst. Honesly speaking, there's quite a bit there, that had I come across in my weaker times, would've made me want to apostate, audhubillah.

Haydar Husayn, are you sure that the only permissible way of taking slaves is in a just war waged by a masoom? If so, how did the later imams procure theirs? Unless you consider purchasing them a separate clause, and were referring only to slavery via war (and not all possible avenues) in your statement. Out of interest, do you also then think that punishments of Hudood may also be carried out only under an infallible's rule? Excuse me if I'm merging unrelated topics btw.

Also, despite trying to get over my horror at the idea of the ownership of one human by another, and especially at the lack of necessity of a female bondswoman's consent if her master desires sex, I can't help asking one more question. Suppose the ISIS decide to go on a rampage in a Shia area, and start enslaving the women, even those victims who agree with the traditional/ popular understanding of slavery in Islam would rebel, not just because of their modern mindsets, but also because they would not believe their captors to have any rights over them. How then can we expect any non-Muslim POWs in a just (by our standards, ie led by the Imam himself; that's the only possible scenario, isn't it?) to submit in today's age? Of course, I'm assuming here that he would allow the practice in the war that will come at the end; perhaps he wouldn't after all, what with keeping in consideration modern sensibilities and all? I do realise I'm imagining what he would or would not do without any basis...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 8/23/2015 at 1:10 AM, Koshaan said:

Haydar Husayn, are you sure that the only permissible way of taking slaves is in a just war waged by a masoom? If so, how did the later imams procure theirs? Unless you consider purchasing them a separate clause, and were referring only to slavery via war (and not all possible avenues) in your statement.

What I meant was the only permissible way of enslaving someone would be under such conditions (so what ISIS has done to the Yazidis could never be allowed). However, if someone was already a slave (irrespective of how they were captured), then it was allowed to buy them, or receive them as a gift.

Another possibility would be in the event of a defensive jihad, then it would be possible to capture slaves I suppose. However, if memory serves me correctly when Hezbullah captured some Israeli soldiers back in the 80's when under Israeli occupation, they asked the scholars if they could be taken as slaves, and the answer was no.

Quote

Out of interest, do you also then think that punishments of Hudood may also be carried out only under an infallible's rule? Excuse me if I'm merging unrelated topics btw.

I'm less sure about this, although it does seem to be a possibility. I think the main problem with the hudood laws is that the conditions that make the punishments so hard to apply don't seem to be properly implemented these days.

Quote

Also, despite trying to get over my horror at the idea of the ownership of one human by another, and especially at the lack of necessity of a female bondswoman's consent if her master desires sex, I can't help asking one more question. Suppose the ISIS decide to go on a rampage in a Shia area, and start enslaving the women, even those victims who agree with the traditional/ popular understanding of slavery in Islam would rebel, not just because of their modern mindsets, but also because they would not believe their captors to have any rights over them. How then can we expect any non-Muslim POWs in a just (by our standards, ie led by the Imam himself; that's the only possible scenario, isn't it?) to submit in today's age? Of course, I'm assuming here that he would allow the practice in the war that will come at the end; perhaps he wouldn't after all, what with keeping in consideration modern sensibilities and all? I do realise I'm imagining what he would or would not do without any basis...

As I've argued above, I don't believe it would be in line with Islamic teachings to take slaves in this age, where people have completely different concept of freedom and consent. In the past, these weren't really issues, because slavery was just a fact of life. And when we consider Islamic jurisprudence on the matter, that is what we have to remember. In fact, Islam's teachings on slavery were incredibly revolutionary if you think about it in terms of putting so much emphasis on freeing slaves, not allowing them to be mistreated, allowing them to take their master to court if they are mistreated, allowing them to buy their freedom, giving them rights to the same food, clothing, and shelter as the master's family, giving them extra rights if they give birth to a child, etc. Being the slave of a good Muslim would have been far preferable to the way millions of people live today all around the world, let alone back then. It's ironic that the issue we (and especially women) find so difficult to get our heads around (sex with slaves), was almost certainly a non-issue at that time, due to the different mindset. The fact that this mindset has changed has to be taken into consideration.

As for the Imam, it's hard to say what he will do. I don't see why he would bring back slavery if it has been abolished, but then again by the time he comes back, slavery might be commonplace again. It's not something that has been abolished for very long in the context of human history, so I think it's a bit premature to say it's gone for good. If global wars break out, anything can happen. Just look at Japan's behaviour in WWII.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

What sense? in the sense that it’s what the Quran explicitly says:

4:3 'and if you fear that you will be unjust with the orphans, then marry what seems suitable to you from the woman two, three, four. But if you fear you cannot do justice, then marry one, or what your right hand possesses, that is more appropriate so that you do not oppress. And give the women their dowry graciously, but if the remit to you of any of it (on their own), then consume it in satisfaction and ease.'

4:25 'and whoever is not able among you to afford to marry the (free), chaste believing women, then from what your right hand possesses of your believing slave girls. And Allah knows best about your faith. You are from one another, so marry them with the permission of their people and give them their bridal due in fairness - chaste, not unchaste and not those who take secret lovers. Then when they are married, if they commit immorality then half is what is on them of the (free), chaste women of the punishment. That is for whoever fears committing sin amongst you and that you be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.'

24:32 And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

24:33 'and let be chaste those who do not find (means for) marriage until Allah enriches them from his bounty. And those who seek the writing, from those whom you possess rightly, then give them the writing if you know in them any good and give them from the wealth of which Allah has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to ‘prostitution’ if they desire chastity that you may seek temporary gain of the world. And whosoever compels them, indeed Allah, after their (female) compulsion is oft forgiving, most merciful...'

Im not sure why you assume that somone would automatically free someone they intend to marry, but there are distinctions between free women and non free women when it comes to marriage. Verse 4:25 talks of marrying slaves, but it indicates that this 'marriage' is not exactly the same as a marriage to a free woman (like half the punishment for adultery), but it is marriage and requires mahr (at some point at least). It also seems that marriage to a slave is makruh, as this verse says to be patient is better and 2:221 puts it in the context of being 'better than marrying a polytheist', which isnt exactly a recommendation is it.

Have you considered the possibility that his is referring to marrying the slave of someone else? After all, if someone has slaves then they are hardly too poor to get married, since not only were slaves assets that could be sold to raise money to get married, they were expensive to keep since they had to be fed, clothed, and sheltered.

When 4:25 talks about marrying them with the permission of 'their people', who do you think that refers to if not their owners? Unless you think it means asking the slave's family?

How does it clearly mean to abstain from sexual conduct? It isn’t used in verses that are clearly talking about sexual conduct, in those instances another word is used. Verse 24:30 is clearly in the context of the physical/social hijab. It may be referring to the body, but there is no indication at all that it is referring to sexual interaction. You think these words are being used arbitrarily? That it is of no consequence at all that one word is being used in a clear context of sexual chastity and another word is being used in the context of modesty of clothing/coverings?

You think Arabs needed to be told to not uncover their private parts in public so many times? As I've explained the other word you point to specifically means female chastity, and as such couldn't be applied to a male. When the Qur'an wants to take about male and female chastity it uses he expression 'guard their private parts'. The meaning of abstaining from sexual conduct is clear, which is why so many translators, whether Muslim or not, conservative or not, explicitly translated it that way. Words have meanings, and you can't make them mean something else just because you think the context is something different.

To take your example of 24:30-31, it's clear that the Qur'an is saying that men and women should keep chaste, and ten it goes on to give further instructions to women to enable that. Do you seriously think people were walking around Madina with their private parts uncovered and had to be told by divine revelation to cover them?

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

Allah, or God, if this being existed, i cant imagine it would want us to destroy ourselves. Why create something, only to have it destroy itself?

Why create life in a way which adapts and evolves and learns and becomes stronger etc.  if only to destroy itself?

What ISIS has done is, even though some people within ISIS likely have good intentions (i know it sounds nuts but realistically that is the case), theyre trying to use violence and force and fear to bring about a better change.  The destruction and harm of people of other sects and religions is not justified (The Islamic minds of ISIS clearly arent well educated in Islam).  Their actions exacerbate an already existant Islamaphobia (its unfortunate, but this is true).  Theyre destroying shrines and architecture which help us understand the history of Islam and cultural history of the countries theyre present within.  History is very important to everyone of the world.  It helps us understand our past, which allows us to better shape our future.

They almost have a "greedy" world view.  An our way or the highway world view where they dont care what anyone else thinks, it is their way, or you die. But the rest of the world is too advanced to be extorted. So, theyre ultimately just wasting their time, and their lives.

Their attempt at bringing justice to their land, just isnt well planned or thought out.  It is only really leading to destruction of Allahs creation, which includes themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this all relates to the female slaves topic as well.  The taking of Yazidi female slaves, is ultimately just...i guess its an attempt to strengthen themselves, but in reality, its just counter productive and a waste of time.

They just arent particularly smart people is what it comes down to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered the possibility that his is referring to marrying the slave of someone else? After all, if someone has slaves then they are hardly too poor to get married, since not only were slaves assets that could be sold to raise money to get married, they were expensive to keep since they had to be fed, clothed, and sheltered.

When 4:25 talks about marrying them with the permission of 'their people', who do you think that refers to if not their owners? Unless you think it means asking the slave's family?

You think Arabs needed to be told to not uncover their private parts in public so many times? As I've explained the other word you point to specifically means female chastity, and as such couldn't be applied to a male. When the Qur'an wants to take about male and female chastity it uses he expression 'guard their private parts'. The meaning of abstaining from sexual conduct is clear, which is why so many translators, whether Muslim or not, conservative or not, explicitly translated it that way. Words have meanings, and you can't make them mean something else just because you think the context is something different.

To take your example of 24:30-31, it's clear that the Qur'an is saying that men and women should keep chaste, and ten it goes on to give further instructions to women to enable that. Do you seriously think people were walking around Madina with their private parts uncovered and had to be told by divine revelation to cover them?

Salam ,

It supposed to asked from the slaves family . The term اهل has been used in the aya . Meaning Kin/family. Because it is possible that the slave girl was threated into marriage by force hence the family has to consent to protect her.

Brother Haydar ,Also you are right about the part , how differently Islam treated slaves . The word of slave was the same as the days of ignorance but definition after islam of it is of modern day maid.

What I learnt is that Allah uses the same term people commonly use amongst themselves for certain matters, but changes the definitions of the word.

Like if during the days of jahilya a slave was mistreated in inhumane ways , the same word was used by Allah but changed the definition of how the slave should be treated . Basically Allah did not replace the word slave with maid , but gave slave the definition of what we see in as house maids .

It was basically like treating them as maid in modern day society .

And I guess many maids nowadays would be more than happy that the head of the household marry them !

Edited by tendersoul
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Salam ,

It supposed to asked from the slaves family . The term اهل has been used in the aya . Meaning Kin/family. Because it is possible that the slave girl was threated into marriage by force hence the family has to consent to protect her.

How on earth would you ask the permission of the slave's family when most of the time they were taken as captives of war, and some of their family were probably killed? A more rational explanation is that it is referring to their masters, which could also be seen as their 'ahl'. From Tafsir al-Mizan:

The clause, "so marry them with the permission of their people", advises them to marry slave women provided it is done with permission of their masters; because the rein of their affairs is held by none other then their masters. The masters have been called their 'people' in accordance with the preceding clause: you are (sprung) the one from the other; thus the slave girl is a member of the family of her master, and the master is her guardian, her people.

One has to give them their dowries in a proper way. In other words, the suitor should fix her dowry according to prevalent standard; paying it to her actually means paying it to her master. The clause guides the people to appoint and pay their dowries without reduction, without delay and without hurting the feelings.

Brother Haydar ,Also you are right about the part , how differently Islam treated slaves . The word of slave was the same as the days of ignorance but definition after islam of it is of modern day maid.

What I learnt is that Allah uses the same term people commonly use amongst themselves for certain matters, but changes the definitions of the word.

Like if during the days of jahilya a slave was mistreated in inhumane ways , the same word was used by Allah but changed the definition of how the slave should be treated . Basically Allah did not replace the word slave with maid , but gave slave the definition of what we see in as house maids .

It was basically like treating them as maid in modern day society .

And I guess many maids nowadays would be more than happy that the head of the household marry them !

I think that's going a bit far. Maids are always free to leave, and are paid. Slaves aren't. However, it is true that Islam commands better treatment of slaves than many maids receive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam ,

The word اهل is a long discussion .Will skip for now.

As per Your last statement is , exactly my point "better treatment than most maids "

Specially how maids are still treated in subcontinent and GCC countries. Worse than slaves with passports being hidden and not being paid plus being bashed up also . Like the time of jahilya

Thank you everyone who took the time to respond.

Hayder M, I think Rashida has pretty much said what I would have in answer.

Nocturne, depends on what you mean by 'taking slaves' in your last line. If it is owning them, the fact that the Masoomeen did is enough for me to believe that it is allowed even today.

Tendersoul, that's a sweet story. Please share any sources about its authenticity; I'm really hoping there are some valid ones.

Ruq, I love the interpretation that you've shared, and want to believe it. But what of the numerous accounts from traditional jurisprudence that indicate otherwise? This thread http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234972802-sex-with-slaves/page-1has quite a few, especially in the exchange between Brothers Hannibal and fyst. Honesly speaking, there's quite a bit there, that had I come across in my weaker times, would've made me want to apostate, audhubillah.

Haydar Husayn, are you sure that the only permissible way of taking slaves is in a just war waged by a masoom? If so, how did the later imams procure theirs? Unless you consider purchasing them a separate clause, and were referring only to slavery via war (and not all possible avenues) in your statement. Out of interest, do you also then think that punishments of Hudood may also be carried out only under an infallible's rule? Excuse me if I'm merging unrelated topics btw.

Also, despite trying to get over my horror at the idea of the ownership of one human by another, and especially at the lack of necessity of a female bondswoman's consent if her master desires sex, I can't help asking one more question. Suppose the ISIS decide to go on a rampage in a Shia area, and start enslaving the women, even those victims who agree with the traditional/ popular understanding of slavery in Islam would rebel, not just because of their modern mindsets, but also because they would not believe their captors to have any rights over them. How then can we expect any non-Muslim POWs in a just (by our standards, ie led by the Imam himself; that's the only possible scenario, isn't it?) to submit in today's age? Of course, I'm assuming here that he would allow the practice in the war that will come at the end; perhaps he wouldn't after all, what with keeping in consideration modern sensibilities and all? I do realise I'm imagining what he would or would not do without any basis...

Salam ,

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/80235-bibi-shahr-banu-imam-zainul-abideen-as-mother/

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sahrbanu

Edited by tendersoul
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Have you considered the possibility that his is referring to marrying the slave of someone else? After all, if someone has slaves then they are hardly too poor to get married, since not only were slaves assets that could be sold to raise money to get married, they were expensive to keep since they had to be fed, clothed, and sheltered.

When 4:25 talks about marrying them with the permission of 'their people', who do you think that refers to if not their owners? Unless you think it means asking the slave's family?

 

 

4:25? Yes I assumed it was talking about either family or master. Slaves were also sometimes given to people and werethey not inherited? so there may have been situation where a poor person had a slave working for them. It would depend on the kind of mahr women in your community were asking for I guess. 4:3 doesn’t have the context of ‘other peoples slaves’. 24:33 can also be understood to be referring to your own slave as well. The Quran consistently instructs to set slaves free, not sell them. Its not obvious to me that a slave would have to be emancipated in order to marry. It seems to me that obligations between the 2 would only increase with marriage if anything. Also, all kinds of situations could come under the category of RHP. What about debt slavery and the like? There could be situations where, in the event of a divorce, someone would still want the person to fulfil contracts made before the marriage that the marriage wouldn’t cancel out.

 

 

You think Arabs needed to be told to not uncover their private parts in public so many times? As I've explained the other word you point to specifically means female chastity, and as such couldn't be applied to a male. When the Qur'an wants to take about male and female chastity it uses he expression 'guard their private parts'. The meaning of abstaining from sexual conduct is clear, which is why so many translators, whether Muslim or not, conservative or not, explicitly translated it that way. Words have meanings, and you can't make them mean something else just because you think the context is something different.

To take your example of 24:30-31, it's clear that the Qur'an is saying that men and women should keep chaste, and ten it goes on to give further instructions to women to enable that. Do you seriously think people were walking around Madina with their private parts uncovered and had to be told by divine revelation to cover them?

 

Its not about ‘public’ its about in front of na mahram. I don’t know what you mean by ‘means female chastity’.

 

4:24 'And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those you possess rightfully. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not to be lustful. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.'

 

5:5 This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not being lustful or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.

 

Both use it referring to men. Didn’t people go around the Kaaba naked in pre-Islamic Arabia? I thought this notion was generally acknowledged. Again, the context of modesty is one of behaviour and dress in front of na mahram, where ever that may be.

 

In any of the verses where the Quran condemns sexual activity outside of marriage does it say 'except in the case of what your right hands possess' in any of them? yet rhp is consistently mentioned in the context of marriage.

Edited by Ruq
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
  • Advanced Member

Salam aleykoum I would like to come back to this topic because I had a conversation with a brother on this website which I found I admit a little disturbing. According to him it is allow to have sexual relations with a female slave even if she doesn't want (wich for me is rape). Are you agree with this statement? Do scholars think that? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, alidu78 said:

According to him it is allow to have sexual relations with a female slave even if she doesn't want (wich for me is rape). Are you agree with this statement? Do scholars think that? 

it's afalse idea also scholars are against it 

from ahlulbayt thjey are like as muslim women that they become Mahram by buying them 

http://eporsesh.com/content/آیا-تجاورز-به-کنیز-در-اسلام-مجاز-است؟

http://porseman.org/q/show.aspx?id=97696

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

So forcing a slave to have sexual relations will be like marital rape, which is non-existent in Islam?

marital rape is not Islamic ,it polluted islam from Aaba tradition before Islam  that whole of Ahlulbayt (as) were against it ,also mother imams from Imam kadhim time mostly were slaves but non of them forced to do anything & they had right of free woman from beginning.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

marital rape is not Islamic ,it polluted islam from Aaba tradition before Islam  that whole of Ahlulbayt (as) were against it ,also mother imams from Imam kadhim time mostly were slaves but non of them forced to do anything & they had right of free woman from beginning.  

I know the imams treated their slaves well, but I'm talking generally about slaves. If for example, a man forced his slave to be intimate with him, it wouldn't count as rape, because the slaves count as mahram and there's no such thing as 'marital rape' in Islam because a woman can't refuse her husband anyway, her consent is irrelevant. This is my understanding, I don't know if it's correct or not.

Edited by 2Timeless
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

no such thing as 'marital rape' in Islam because a woman can't refuse her husband anyway, her consent is irrelevan

no ,it's not true even in Quran says if your wife refuse you in maximum point you just can hit her that matter of hitting need a new post but in a short conclusion hitting between sunni is just with a soft matter like as natural toothbruth plant & for shias is avoiding to be with her exceeding of it is a cultural & traditional matter  .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

it's afalse idea also scholars are against it 

from ahlulbayt thjey are like as muslim women that they become Mahram by buying them 

http://eporsesh.com/content/آیا-تجاورز-به-کنیز-در-اسلام-مجاز-است؟

http://porseman.org/q/show.aspx?id=97696

 

Thank you brother I will read that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, 2Timeless said:

I know the imams treated their slaves well, but I'm talking generally about slaves. If for example, a man forced his slave to be intimate with him, it wouldn't count as rape, because the slaves count as mahram and there's no such thing as 'marital rape' in Islam because a woman can't refuse her husband anyway, her consent is irrelevant. This is my understanding, I don't know if it's correct or not.

People could correct me if i am wrong but if i understood well if a woman refuse to have sex with his husbdand she is a sinner but now i dont think the husband could litteraly force her to have sex bit beating her or something like that so this is not really "marital rape".

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...