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

Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, E.L King said:

Yes, this is a known ruling. In fact, he can also lend her to someone else for intercourse like brother @ibn al-hussain says, this is called "tahleel". 

You can read more here: http://www.al-khoei.us/books/?id=6767

If you know Arabic brother, there are some Fiqh books you can read regarding this topic. I recommended "Al-Lum'a" by Al-Shahid Al-Thani.

NOTE: I would personally like to refrain from this discussion personally because I believe it may be distressing to some users as this is a senstive topic, brother please discuss with brother @Ibn al-Hussain for further notice and discussion, as he is an extremely knowledgable brother, especially in Fiqh, and a talib ilm. Also brother @Qa'im.

First of all, it's not in English.  Since there are many interpretations given to word halal which is most of the time wrongly interprrted because Quran says to establish evidence for every act and do it as by law of God. And what anybody would translate here would be dubious to me for I don't know who is sadiq and who is kaazab here.

Distressing is out of Islam. And, I am sure that whatever distressing anyone of us hear is lie. I do not want to discuss with both of brothers for I am sure of my belief now and seen brother ibn al-Hussain and have knowledge about Qa'im so thanks for suggestion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sayyid Ammar is an immensely popular speaker (and no doubt a very good one) and has done a lot of good as well, but majority of his audience are mere sheep - although this isn't limited to just Sayyid

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم السلام علیکم   We're all slaves, with no intrinsic rights, but only a set range of freedoms given to us by our sovereign master the full range of which can never

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنْكُمْ طَوْلًا أَنْ يَنْكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِنْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ مِنْ فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُمْ مِن

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

السلام علیکم

@Ibn al-Hussain

خسته نباشی!

کسیرا که خوابست میتوان بیدار کرد ولی کسیکه خودش را بخواب می زند...

خود دانایی که از که میگویم

حیف، زیرا بسیار دوست میدارم در این باره با هم گفتگوی دانشمندانه داشته باشیم. حیف که فضای مجازی با این همه گستردگی برای چنین گفتگوهایی تنگ است.

موفق باشی برادر عزیز

و علیکم السلام

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Abbas. said:

Forget about what other scholars have contributed, or have not, in the last fourteen centuries.

Here's the basic question. Did the Prophet of Islam accept slavery as a right of an elite class of human beings or did he attempt to prohibit slavery due to the immorality that it represented?  

The fallacy in this question is that it already presumes slavery is immoral (in absolute terms apparently). I would question this presumption - what are you defining as slavery and what makes it immoral? If we press on this question too far, it will result in a philosophy of ethics discussion, and you will then face an array of opinions and schools of thought (both within Islam and outside of Islam) on what exactly makes something moral or immoral, whether it is objective or subjective etc.

2 hours ago, Abbas. said:

1) One of the eight instances in which zakat can be expended in Islam is purchasing slaves and setting them free. In this manner, a perpetual and continuous budget from the Public Treasury has been allocated for this purpose and which shall continue until complete freedom of all slaves is achieved.

2) In pursuance of the objective, provisions exist in Islam which permit the slaves to enter into an agreement with their masters and purchase their freedom by paying them from the wages which they earn (in Islamic jurisprudence, an entire chapter titled Mukatabah, has been devoted to this issue).

3) In Islam, expiation of many of the sins has been stipulated by freeing slaves (expiation for unintentional murder, intentional abandonment of fasts, and for (breaking an) oath are some examples of this).

4) Some exceptionally harsh punishments have been singled out (by Islam) whereby if a master were to subject his slave to any of these (damage to eyes & ears), the slave would automatically become free.

Ayatullah Makarem and Ayatullah Ja'far Subhani are known for writing very polemically in their works intended for laymen. Their works may be good for an Iranian audience (although I would even question that at this point in time), or a general Eastern audience, but upon scrutiny you will see that the answers are not that convincing. For example, look at Ayatullah Makarem's book where he tries to explain what Imam 'Ali meant in his sermon where he said women are deficient in intellect (he says it was only about 'Ayesha - this is wrong on so many levels). By the way, I say this with utmost respect to these scholars, but we must learn to differentiate between their verdicts as jurisconsults which laymen can or have to follow, and their opinions on matters outside of that.

Let us look at what Ayt, Makarem is doing here. He says Islam had an elaborate program for the freedom of all slaves, and he uses these 4 things (in your quote):

1) This Zakat money can only be used on Shi'i slaves and is just one of the options for using your Zakat.

2) Yes, there is indeed a whole book dedicated to this called Kitab al-Mukatabah with extensive laws, explaining how a slave can purchase their freedom in installments or through a one-time payment. But what is not being mentioned here is that first of all, this is a deal initiated by the master, and he sets the terms of payment. So if the master doesn't want to free the slave, or sets the terms so high that the slave can't afford it, then it is pretty irrelevant and useless. Furthermore, this is restricted to just Muslim slaves, and does not include non-Muslim slaves (the evidence used for this is فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا from Surah Nur, verse 33).

3) If we want to talk in such vague flowery terms, then we can also make the claim that Islam's mandate is to eradicate global poverty (since one of the penalties is to feed those in poverty), eliminate immodesty and lewd acts from society (by placing deterrents such as death punishment and lashes), to make the whole world Muslim or make the Muslims financially stronger than non-Muslims (by permitting offensive Jihad where the opponents must either become Muslim and if they are Ahl al-Kitab they can choose to just pay land-tax), eradicate all people on the side of Kufr - people who are not Ahl al-Kitab - (because once their lands are taken over, they do not have an option to pay land-tax, rather they must either convert to Islam or are to be killed), and I can keep expanding this list. All these things on the surface sound good: No poverty, everyone is a Muslim, no Kufr in the world, a modest society, and of course no slavery. If you speak in colloquial terms, then you can get away by saying Islam's long term plan was to achieve all these things by considering these laws as precedents. However, when I say that the Prophet (s) did not come with any such mandate for abolishing slavery, I mean there was really no intent on it being abolished because it was not seen as something wrong or immoral to begin with. It was part and parcel of the world they lived in and that is how society functioned (literally). You should also realize, that mainstream Fiqh has not 'abolished' slavery (find me a verdict by mainstream scholars that says slavery is impermissible if it was done under similar circumstances as in the past). What has happened rather, is that the subject-matter of it no longer exists, therefore the laws are merely suspended and irrelevant.

At one point, people say that the gradual abolishment of slavery was required because it would not only disrupt society, but would also make life hard for the slave themselves. I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that abolishing slavery would have had these consequences, but how can one say that these penalties in place for freeing slaves were part of some mandate in achieving the eventual freedom of all slaves? If had to pay a penalty for breaking a fast during the time of the Prophet, or soon after him, where I now had to free a slave, what good did it do for the slave if he was now a 'free man', but is left stranded with no home, money or work?

4) This doesn't really prove that there was some master-plan by Islam (that pretty much everyone missed out on for 14 centuries) to abolish slavery. There are other things within Islamic law where if you do something, there are immediate/automatic consequences of it, but we don't need to make such far-fetched conclusions from them (like certain types of divorces).

You will also notice that many of these things were optional (for example, freeing a slave as a penalty was just one of the three options people had, or giving Zakat to free a slave was just one out of 8 options). I don't see how optional laws like these can be deemed part of an elaborate plan in eliminating slavery (we also know that slavery in the Muslim world only ever grew - into the millions - and it never decreased or diminished until it was 'immediately abolished' in the mid-20th century). The biggest evidence is that slavery in the Muslim world existed until the mid-20th century, and it was never abolished in the Muslim world due to some jurist citing an Islamic Fiqhi principle. Rather it was eventually outlawed by the different states under Western pressure. How on earth can we come and say Islam already had this on its to-do list, when it took the Muslim 14 centuries and pressure from the modern West to eventually pass (secular) laws banning it?

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Jebreil said:

موفق باشی برادر عزیز

و علیکم السلام

Thank You.

I would also advise the readers to not be judgmental towards me or the Muslims jurists of the past after reading my posts (although it will probably be difficult for some as this is a sensitive issue). Many of these laws need to be understood in a context that is completely alien to us in the 21st century. I have also not expressed my personal opinion on what I think of slavery, rather I am simply pointing out the flaws in the arguments and justifications put forth by Muslim scholars or speakers on the topic of slavery - which I believe are weak and do not make the case for their claims.

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hassan- said:

Saying bismillah before eating is not wajib.

Second reason of for which saying bismillah is not wajib is that even if you say it in heart Allah AWJ hears it and knows it and this contract that you are eating from Allah's boons by the condition of saying his name is known to him. But for any other contract which you do, a declaration is necessary to inform other people. This is the law by which people are governed by Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Ayatullah Makarem and Ayatullah Ja'far Subhani are known for writing very polemically in their works intended for laymen. Their works may be good for an Iranian audience (although I would even question that at this point in time), or a general Eastern audience, but upon scrutiny you will see that the answers are not that convincing. For example, look at Ayatullah Makarem's book where he tries to explain what Imam 'Ali meant in his sermon where he said women are deficient in intellect (he says it was only about 'Ayesha - this is wrong on so many levels). By the way, I say this with utmost respect to these scholars, but I differentiate between their verdicts as jurisconsults which laymen can or have to follow, and their opinions on matters outside of that.

Let us look at what Ayt, Makarem is doing here. He says Islam had an elaborate program for the freedom of all slaves, and he uses these 4 things (in your quote):

1) This Zakat money can only be used on Shi'i slaves and is just one of the options for using your Zakat.

2) Yes, there is indeed a whole book dedicated to this called Kitab al-Mukatabah with extensive laws, explaining how a slave can purchase their freedom in installments or through a one-time payment. But what is not being mentioned here is that first of all, this is a deal initiated by the master, and he sets the terms of payment. So if the master doesn't want to free the slave, or sets the terms so high that the slave can't afford it, then it is pretty irrelevant and useless. Furthermore, this is restricted to just Muslim slaves, and does not include non-Muslim slaves (the evidence used for this is فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا from Surah Nur, verse 33).

3) If we want to talk in such vague flowery terms, then we can also make the claim that Islam's mandate is to eradicate global poverty (since one of the penalties is to feed those in poverty), eliminate immodesty and lewd acts from society (by placing deterrents such as death punishment and lashes), to make the whole world Muslim or make the Muslims financially stronger than non-Muslims (by permitting offensive Jihad where the opponents must either become Muslim and if they are Ahl al-Kitab they can choose to just pay land-tax), eradicate all people on the side of Kufr - people who are not Ahl al-Kitab - (because once their lands are taken over, they do not have an option to pay land-tax, rather they must either convert to Islam or are to be killed), and I can keep expanding this list. All these things on the surface sound good: No poverty, everyone is a Muslim, no Kufr in the world, a modest society, and of course no slavery. If you speak in colloquial terms, then you can get away by saying Islam's long term plan was to achieve all these things by considering these laws as precedents. However, when I say that the Prophet (s) did not come with any such mandate for abolishing slavery, I mean there was really no intent on it being abolished because it was not seen as something wrong or immoral to begin with. It was part and parcel of the world they lived in and that is how society functioned (literally). You should also realize, that mainstream Fiqh has not 'abolished' slavery (find me a verdict by mainstream scholars that says slavery is impermissible if it was done under similar circumstances as in the past). What has happened rather, is that the subject-matter of it no longer exists, therefore the laws are merely suspended and irrelevant.

At one point, people say that the gradual abolishment of slavery was required because it would not only disrupt society, but would also make life hard for the slave themselves. I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that abolishing slavery would have had these consequences, but how can one say that these penalties in place for freeing slaves were part of some mandate in achieving the eventual freedom of all slaves? If had to pay a penalty for breaking a fast during the time of the Prophet, or soon after him, where I now had to free a slave, what good did it do for the slave if he was now a 'free man', but is left stranded with no home, money or work?

4) This doesn't really prove that there was some master-plan by Islam (that pretty much everyone missed out on for 14 centuries) to abolish slavery. There are other things within Islamic law where if you do something, there are immediate/automatic consequences of it, but we don't need to make such far-fetched conclusions from them (like certain types of divorces).

You will also notice that many of these things were optional (for example, freeing a slave as a penalty was just one of the three options people had, or giving Zakat to free a slave was just one out of 8 options). I don't see how optional laws like these can be deemed part of an elaborate plan in eliminating slavery (we also know that slavery in the Muslim world only ever grew - into the millions - and it never decreased or diminished until it was 'immediately abolished' in the mid-20th century). The biggest evidence is that slavery in the Muslim world existed until the mid-20th century, and it was never abolished in the Muslim world due to some jurist citing an Islamic Fiqhi principle. Rather it was eventually outlawed by the different states under Western pressure. How on earth can we come and say Islam already had this on its to-do list, when it took the Muslim 14 centuries and pressure from the modern West to eventually pass (secular) laws banning it?

Wasalam

What Imam Ali a.s said is true in regards to rulership. Please note that women are more emotional and emotion affects judgement. A student of science knows that excess of something would diminish some other thing for example if a person gets angry often his patience is less and vice versa. 

The point to which you have referred as to why aren't non-Muslims allowed such right of freedom to earn. I would mention that because this may become a source of espionage for the enemy from whom captives were held as slaves as this would allow him to roam freely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"In Shiite jurisprudence it is unlawful for a master of a female slave to grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations. The Shiite scholar Shaykh al-Tusi stated:ولا يجوز إعارتها للاستمتاع بها لأن البضع لا يستباح بالإعارة "It is not permissible to loan (the slave girl) for enjoyment purpose, because sexual intercourse cannot be legitimate through loaning"[65] and the Shiite scholars al-Muhaqiq al-Kurki, Allamah al-Hilli and Ali Asghar Merwarid made the following ruling: ولا تجوز استعارة الجواري للاستمتاع "It is not permissible to loan the slave girl for the purpose of sexual intercourse"[66]

  1.  Shaykh al-Tusi stated in Al-Mabsut, Volume 3 page 57
  2. Jump up^ al-Muhaqiq al-Kurki in Jame'a al-Maqasid, Volume 6 page 62, Allamah al-Hilli in Al-Tadkira, Volume 2 page 210 and Ali Asghar Merwarid in Al-Yanabi al-Fiqhya, Volume 17 page 187

Source: Wikipedia

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/pope-francis-and-other-re_n_6256640.html

 

Pope Francis And Other Religious Leaders Sign Declaration Against Modern Slavery

 

 

ere is the text of the Declaration, followed by a list of signatories:

We, the undersigned, are gathered here today for a historic initiative to inspire spiritual and practical action by all global faiths and people of good will everywhere to eradicate modern slavery across the world by 2020 and for all time.I n the eyes of God*, each human being is a free person, whether girl, boy, woman or man, and is destined to exist for the good of all in equality and fraternity. Modern slavery, in terms of human trafficking, forced labour and prostitution, organ trafficking, and any relationship that fails to respect the fundamental conviction that all people are equal and have the same freedom and dignity, is a crime against humanity. We pledge ourselves here today to do all in our power, within our faith communities and beyond, to work together for the freedom of all those who are enslaved and trafficked so that their future may be restored. Today we have the opportunity, awareness, wisdom, innovation and technology to achieve this human and moral imperative.

*The Grand Imam of Al Azhar uses the word “religions”.

Pope Francis

Her Holiness Mata Amritanandamayi (Amma)

Venerable Bhikkhuni Thich Nu Chan Khong (representing Zen Master Thích Nhất Hạnh)

The Most Ven. Datuk K Sri Dhammaratana, Chief High Priest of Malaysia

Rabbi Dr. Abraham Skorka

Rabbi Dr. David Rosen

Dr. Abbas Abdalla Abbas Soliman, Undersecretary of State of Al Azhar Alsharif (representing Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar)

Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi al-Modarresi

Sheikh Naziyah Razzaq Jaafar, Special advisor of Grand Ayatollah (representing Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Basheer Hussain al Najafi

Sheikh Omar Abboud

Most Revd and Right Hon Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury

His Eminence Metropolitan Emmanuel of France (representing His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ayatollah al-Sistani prohibits the enslavement and rape of women during a military campaign, and forbids sex with non-Muslim concubines:

Fatwa, posted 4.22.2010, from Iraq, in: 
Religious Authority: 
 Ali al-Sistanti
Website URL: 
 http://www.sistani.org/
Fatwa Question or Essay Title: 
 Ayatollah al-Sistani prohibits the enslavement and rape of women during a military campaign, and forbids sex with non-Muslim concubines:

Is it permissible to enslave women belonging to infidels who make war [against us] without the permission of the legitimate ruler? Is it permissible to have sex with them before they surrender? And if someone bought or came to own a non-Muslim concubine, may he have sex with her?

Answer: No, it is not allowed.

 

http://www.islamopediaonline.org/fatwa/ayatollah-al-sistani-prohibits-enslavement-and-rape-women-during-military-campaign-and-forbids

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
43 minutes ago, salman1 said:

"In Shiite jurisprudence it is unlawful for a master of a female slave to grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations. The Shiite scholar Shaykh al-Tusi stated:ولا يجوز إعارتها للاستمتاع بها لأن البضع لا يستباح بالإعارة "It is not permissible to loan (the slave girl) for enjoyment purpose, because sexual intercourse cannot be legitimate through loaning"

They should have read the rest of the statement of Shaykh al-Tusi:

 و لا يجوز إعارتها للاستمتاع بها لأن البضع لا يستباح بالإعارة، و حكي عن مالك جواز ذلك، و عندنا يجوز ذلك بلفظ الإباحة، و لا يجوز بلفظ العارية

The ruling is just pointing out a technicality, saying you can't make her halal for sexual relations with a third-party by using the Arabic term for 'loaning'. However, you can make her halal for sexual relations by using the verb that relays Ibaha (similar to Tahleel as I mentioned earlier) - because you can't loan out sexual intercourse, but you can still make it permissible for a third-party through other means. It is like saying, you cannot get married permanently to a man by using the term Mat'atoka (though there is a difference of opinion on this), but you can if you use the word Zawwajtoka (because the first formula implies temporary marriage, while the second implies permanent).

Wasalam

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

They should have read the rest of the statement of Shaykh al-Tusi:

 و لا يجوز إعارتها للاستمتاع بها لأن البضع لا يستباح بالإعارة، و حكي عن مالك جواز ذلك، و عندنا يجوز ذلك بلفظ الإباحة، و لا يجوز بلفظ العارية

The ruling is just pointing out a technicality, saying you can't make her halal for sexual relations with a third-party by using the Arabic term for 'loaning'. However, you can make her halal for sexual relations by using the verb that relays Ibaha (similar to Tahleel as I mentioned earlier) - because you can't loan out sexual intercourse, but you can still make it permissible for a third-party through other means. It is like saying, you cannot get married permanently to a man by using the term Mat'atoka (though there is a difference of opinion on this), but you can if you use the word Zawwajtoka (because the first formula implies temporary marriage, while the second implies permanent).

Wasalam

Brother, this arabic is understood by you only while Quran has already said very clearly that by any means other than marriage giving a slave girl to other person is fornication and you can search for verse that tells such thing. Even the word here "Zawajah" means taking by Nikah. 

But what can we do if people who can twist words and do not delve into it's full meaning  as what rights arises by "terms" such as "Zawajah" is after "nikah" and "Thief" is applied after "proof"otherwise a person is "suspect". 

I was also confused until I read verse about fornication and until importance of terms was unclear to me but alhamdulillah this post came.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, salman1 said:

"In Shiite jurisprudence it is unlawful for a master of a female slave to grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations. The Shiite scholar Shaykh al-Tusi stated:ولا يجوز إعارتها للاستمتاع بها لأن البضع لا يستباح بالإعارة "It is not permissible to loan (the slave girl) for enjoyment purpose, because sexual intercourse cannot be legitimate through loaning"[65] and the Shiite scholars al-Muhaqiq al-Kurki, Allamah al-Hilli and Ali Asghar Merwarid made the following ruling: ولا تجوز استعارة الجواري للاستمتاع "It is not permissible to loan the slave girl for the purpose of sexual intercourse"[66]

  1.  Shaykh al-Tusi stated in Al-Mabsut, Volume 3 page 57
  2. Jump up^ al-Muhaqiq al-Kurki in Jame'a al-Maqasid, Volume 6 page 62, Allamah al-Hilli in Al-Tadkira, Volume 2 page 210 and Ali Asghar Merwarid in Al-Yanabi al-Fiqhya, Volume 17 page 187

Source: Wikipedia

Exactly, I myself and don't know how many people were confused about this question. @Ibn al-Hussain has probably read wahabbi propaganda that has provided wrong translation of a chapter from al_kafi which says that a person cannot take a slave girl for any relationship that is practiced between wife and husband until she is declared halal by her master to that person and this term is not like "wahabbis" who connotes having intercourse without wedlock because I have read in hadith that whoever slave girls our Imam married first they taught her islam then married her. So, this is "halal" way. Brother, @Ibn al-Hussain you are wrong that those laws are inappropriate for this era. You should say that these laws are translated as inappropriate to make people afraid of islam. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/pope-francis-and-other-re_n_6256640.html 

Pope Francis And Other Religious Leaders Sign Declaration Against Modern Slavery

here is the text of the Declaration, followed by a list of signatories:

We, the undersigned, are gathered here today for a historic initiative to inspire spiritual and practical action by all global faiths and people of good will everywhere to eradicate modern slavery across the world by 2020 and for all time.I n the eyes of God*, each human being is a free person, whether girl, boy, woman or man, and is destined to exist for the good of all in equality and fraternity. Modern slavery, in terms of human trafficking, forced labour and prostitution, organ trafficking, and any relationship that fails to respect the fundamental conviction that all people are equal and have the same freedom and dignity, is a crime against humanity. We pledge ourselves here today to do all in our power, within our faith communities and beyond, to work together for the freedom of all those who are enslaved and trafficked so that their future may be restored. Today we have the opportunity, awareness, wisdom, innovation and technology to achieve this human and moral imperative.

*The Grand Imam of Al Azhar uses the word “religions”.

Pope Francis

Her Holiness Mata Amritanandamayi (Amma)

Venerable Bhikkhuni Thich Nu Chan Khong (representing Zen Master Thích Nhất Hạnh)

The Most Ven. Datuk K Sri Dhammaratana, Chief High Priest of Malaysia

Rabbi Dr. Abraham Skorka

Rabbi Dr. David Rosen

Dr. Abbas Abdalla Abbas Soliman, Undersecretary of State of Al Azhar Alsharif (representing Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar)

Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi al-Modarresi

Sheikh Naziyah Razzaq Jaafar, Special advisor of Grand Ayatollah (representing Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Basheer Hussain al Najafi

Sheikh Omar Abboud

Most Revd and Right Hon Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury

His Eminence Metropolitan Emmanuel of France (representing His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew)

Edited by Hameedeh
Excessively large fonts (size 16-72) may be reduced to a standard size (12-14) by a Moderator.
Link to post
Share on other sites

[Shakir 24:33] And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

A certain man Abdullah ibn Obay just to buy slave girls and use it for prostitutes after this verse Allah AWJ made it haram. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hassan- said:

Allama Tabatabai says:

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.

http://m.almizan.org/tafsir/4-23-28/

Read this topic here for more info: 

I can't be bothered really, I already know he is wrong based on what are scholars say.

I was really confused about what he was saying too because it went against what I had previously researched. But what about his point regarding iddha (e.g., if the slave was previously married)? Does a slave need to maintain iddha prior to relationships with the master?

Honestly, this is such a sensitive topic that I have a hard time coming to terms with. It's so hard for me to accept this is Islamically allowed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

LOL @ Ammar's lecture, what do people expect??

Lets face it, slavery is a topic that is highly uncomfortable for muslims and it is virtually impossible to reconcile with elementary moral reasoning.  This is precisely why you find so many apologists. 

I have yet to read anything sensible that tackles the topic sufficiently. Professor Brown has tried to tackle some of these topics in essays and he also comes off as an apologist and rambles off on random tangents.

At the end of the day this topic will remain controversial and difficult for scholars to tackle as I just do not foresee human slavery ever being considered acceptable from here on end.

Edited by King
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
5 minutes ago, Inner Peace said:

I was really confused about what he was saying too because it went against what I had previously researched. But what about his point regarding iddha (e.g., if the slave was previously married)? Does a slave need to maintain iddha prior to relationships with the master?

Honestly, this is such a sensitive topic that I have a hard time coming to terms with. It's so hard for me to accept this is Islamically allowed. 

When a master buys a slave women, the women must go through iddah before the master can have intercourse with her. If the slave women is married to another man, it is still permissible for the master to have intercourse with her then return her back to her husband. 

Yes this is a sensitive topic and some people will not be able to accept such things, so it's better to avoid talking about it in public. @Ibn al-Hussain in this topic explained it properly.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hassan- said:

When a master buys a slave women, the women must go through iddah before the master can have intercourse with her. If the slave women is married to another man, it is still permissible for the master to have intercourse with her then return her back to her husband. 

Yes this is a sensitive topic and some people will not be able to accept such things, so it's better to avoid talking about it in public. @Ibn al-Hussain in this topic explained it properly.

 

Is this permissible without her consent or against her will? 

Also, in terms of a female master with a male slave, relationships aren't permissible right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Just now, Inner Peace said:

Is this permissible without her consent or against her will? 

Also, in terms of a female master with a male slave, relationships aren't permissible right?

I don't know too much details about it to be honest. All these rules regarding slavery do not apply anymore in today's time, because slavery is almost non-existent. Slavery is history, in Islam it's haram now and all these issues and rules for it are irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 hours ago, Inner Peace said:

I was really confused about what he was saying too because it went against what I had previously researched. But what about his point regarding iddha (e.g., if the slave was previously married)? Does a slave need to maintain iddha prior to relationships with the master?

Honestly, this is such a sensitive topic that I have a hard time coming to terms with. It's so hard for me to accept this is Islamically allowed. 

If a slave is married, then yes there is an 'iddah (although it is half of a free-woman's). In other cases (like in Tahleel) the term used in Fiqh is not 'Iddah. It is called Istibra' and it is much shorter (only one menstrual cycle).

One thing you have to realize is that, terms such as "with her consent", "against her will", "marital rape", "slave's choice" are 19th/20th/21st century language and way of thinking. These terms and concepts did not exist for the vast majority of human history where slavery existed, and people simply considered these things as part and parcel of life. People had a different attitude to these events occurring around them. It is us who grew up in an era where these things do not exist anymore (at least not in the form we are discussing) and therefore we have a hard time understanding it. Are we really going to call thousands of years of humans as "immoral" and "wrong", especially when you see the greatest religious figures, ethicists, scholars all participating in such phenomena? 

I agree with @King - this is a topic most Muslims today will not be able to fathom and digest. All I can say is, this was not a "Muslim" phenomenon, rather it was a global world-wide phenomenon. It was something that was considered part of life under pretty much every civilization. As I previously mentioned, you are better off trying to understand the place of slavery in the world historically speaking, then trying to come up with weak apologetic reasons of how Islam was always trying to abolish slavery and what Islam has to say about it today (when it doesn't exist and is something out-lawed).

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
18 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

:salam:

Sayyid Ammar is an immensely popular speaker (and no doubt a very good one) and has done a lot of good as well, but majority of his audience are mere sheep - although this isn't limited to just Sayyid Ammar - since majority of the Western Shi'i audience have no ability to research, read or critically think. I blame this largely on the Western scholars/preachers who have presented and taught a very self-contradicting, wishy washy understanding of Islamic history, Islamic law and even Islamic ethics in the last 2-3 decades.

I don't usually go around pointing out mistakes from people's lectures (since most lecturers make minor blunders all the time), but this lecture was too much. Anyone who has studied basic Shi'i Fiqh will tell you how flawed this whole speech was and how much of a joke it was. I had a good laugh as the lecture was filled with flawed analogies, blatant mistakes, was highly misleading, but the poor audience of course has no ability to verify anything.

Wasalam

I agree with you except on the verifying part, you actually can double check what he says even in English. The sad part is that when you do that, you actually figure out how wrong, much of the stuff he says actually is. And we can have  sex slaves common (in certain cases). 

Edited by Al Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

If a slave is married, then yes there is an 'iddah (although it is half of a free-woman's). In other cases (like in Tahleel) the term used in Fiqh is not 'Iddah. It is called Istibra' and it is much shorter (only one menstrual cycle).

One thing you have to realize is that, terms such as "with her consent", "against her will", "marital rape", "slave's choice" are 19th/20th/21st century language and way of thinking. These terms and concepts did not exist for the vast majority of human history where slavery existed, and people simply considered these things as part and parcel of life. People had a different attitude to these events occurring around them. It is us who grew up in an era where these things do not exist anymore (at least not in the form we are discussing) and therefore we have a hard time understanding it. Are we really going to call thousands of years of humans as "immoral" and "wrong", especially when you see the greatest religious figures, ethicists, scholars all participating in such phenomena? 

I agree with @King - this is a topic most Muslims today will not be able to fathom and digest. All I can say is, this was not a "Muslim" phenomenon, rather it was a global world-wide phenomenon. It was something that was considered part of life under pretty much every civilization. As I previously mentioned, you are better off trying to understand the place of slavery in the world historically speaking, then trying to come up with weak apologetic reasons of how Islam was always trying to abolish slavery and what Islam has to say about it today.

Wasalam

Thank you so much for your explanation. I really appreciate it. It did clarify some stuff. I have a couple more questions if you don't mind.

Do you know why the particular reason for the shorter iddha period is? Would this not interrupt the wife's duty to her husband then if she has to maintain iddha from prior relationships? In addition, considering her husband, doesn't this go against the nature of men as explained from an Islamic perspective, if a married slave was shared?

Does the concept of relationships with a slave being halal without marriage apply to a female master and her slave?

I realize this is more 21st century thinking but consent is an issue discussed in Islam. For example, a female must give consent to a marriage, she can't be forced into a marriage. So without the slave's permission it was allowed? I understand slavery but this concept is difficult to understand because it seems like borderline zulm to me to treat someone like that if they don't want to. There's a difference between slavery and sexual slavery I'd say.

Yes, it was a global phenomena but many things that were practiced were banned by Islamic. I understand slavery couldn't be banned but sexual slavery forcefully just seems like zulm. 

Wasalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
21 minutes ago, Inner Peace said:

Do you know why the particular reason for the shorter iddha period is? Would this not interrupt the wife's duty to her husband then if she has to maintain iddha from prior relationships?

So you have to now factor into the fact that most people did not just have one wife, and in fact polygamy was normal. So the husband always had access to multiple wives and slaves. This would hardly have been an issue, and if it were the case that the husband only has access to this one wife, then he would simply have to wait for intercourse, but still be able to derive other forms of pleasure.

As for why the 'Iddah is shorter, I don't know - other than the fact that we have narrations saying this is how it is supposed to be. The presumption here is if an infallible has said such a thing, then we simply follow it whether we know the wisdom and reason behind it or not. This is how all Islamic law works.

21 minutes ago, Inner Peace said:

In addition, considering her husband, doesn't this go against the nature of men as explained from an Islamic perspective, if a married slave was shared?

When a slave is "married" off, she is never shared with another man in a sexual relationship.

21 minutes ago, Inner Peace said:

Does the concept of relationships with a slave being halal without marriage apply to a female master and her slave?

No. It was only between the male master and female slaves. As far as I understand (from my reading of history), most male slaves that belonged to female owners were generally castrated.

21 minutes ago, Inner Peace said:

I realize this is more 21st century thinking but consent is an issue discussed in Islam.

You are right that consent is an important concept in Islam, but there are certain individuals, or certain scenarios where people do not have the right to consent. For example, a child has no right to consent to something his or her parents may wish for them. Slaves in this scenario also do not have the right to consent. Oppression (Dhulm) is considered wrong and evil by all sane humans - that isn't what the dispute is over. The more complicated issues in discussions of morality is who determines what instances are that of oppression and what aren't and in fact, how do we determine in the first place that something is oppression and another act isn't.

Two related examples I can think of are child marriages and cousin marriages. Child marriages were a global phenomena and part of every civilization. It was a part and parcel of life, and Islam also had laws permitting it. Today we may consider it immoral, wrong, oppression (due to all the factors and variables that have changed and how at least certain elements of maturity are attained at a later age), and many jurists today have even come out and given rulings that have raised the minimum age of marriage, but would we really say all of humanity was wrong and immoral to conduct child-marriages for the vast majority of human history? Of course not - that would be extremely egoistic and dogmatic (especially since it is likely that future generations will judge us as harshly as we decide to judge those before us). The world was different, and that is how humans lived and it was a part and parcel of life. These things didn't cross people's minds, because they were not an issue to begin with.

Another example (perhaps not so shocking as child marriages - but still gives a good indication of how our conceptions can alter) is that of cousin marriages. Cousin marriages were a norm for all of human history, but today in some societies it is pretty much considered incest and immoral. This has even influenced many Muslims who consider it wrong, or they feel detested when it is mentioned - even though Islamic law perfectly allows it and does not consider it incest in any sense.

Wasalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

الْفِعْلِ فَأَمَرَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى بِالِاقْتِصَارِ عَلَى الْوَاحِدَةِ إذَا خَافَ إظْهَارَ الْمَيْلِ وَالْجَوْرِ وَمُجَانَبَةَ الْعَدْلِ وَقَوْلُهُ عَطْفًا عَلَى مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ إبَاحَةِ الْعَدَدِ الْمَذْكُورِ بِعَقْدِ النِّكَاحِ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ يَقْتَضِي حَقِيقَتَهُ وَظَاهِرُهُ إيجَابُ التَّخْيِيرِ بَيْنَ أَرْبَعِ حَرَائِرَ وَأَرْبَعِ إمَاءَ بِعَقْدِ النِّكَاحِ فَيُوجِبُ ذَلِكَ تَخْيِيرَهُ بَيْنَ تَزْوِيجِ الْحُرَّةِ وَالْأَمَةِ وَذَلِكَ لِأَنَّ قوله تعالى أَوْ ما مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ كلام مُسْتَقِلٍّ بِنَفْسِهِ بَلْ هُوَ مُضَمَّنٌ بِمَا قَبْلَهُ وَفِيهِ ضَمِيرٌ لَا يُسْتَغْنَى عَنْهُ وَضَمِيرُهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ ذِكْرُهُ مُظْهَرًا فِي الْخِطَابِ وَغَيْرُ جَائِزٍ لَنَا إضْمَارُ مَعْنًى لَمْ يَتَقَدَّمْ لَهُ ذِكْرٌ إلَّا بِدَلَالَةٍ مِنْ غَيْرِهِ فَلَمْ يَجُزْ لَنَا أَنْ نَجْعَلَ الضَّمِيرَ فِي قَوْله تَعَالَى أَوْ ما مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ الْوَطْءَ فَيَكُونُ تَقْدِيرُهُ قَدْ أَبَحْت لَكُمْ وَطْءَ مِلْكِ الْيَمِينِ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ فِي الْآيَةِ ذِكْرُ الْوَطْءِ وَإِنَّمَا الَّذِي فِي أَوَّلِ الْآيَةِ ذِكْرُ الْعَقْدِ لِأَنَّ قَوْله تَعَالَى فَانْكِحُوا مَا طابَ لَكُمْ لَا خِلَافَ أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِهِ الْعَقْدُ فَوَجَبَ أَنْ يَكُونَ قَوْله تَعَالَى أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ ضَمِيرَهُ أَوْ فَانْكِحُوا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ وَذَلِكَ النِّكَاحُ هُوَ الْعَقْدُ فَالضَّمِيرُ الرَّاجِعُ إلَيْهِ أَيْضًا هُوَ الْعَقْدُ

 

http://lib.eshia.ir/41796/2/348/ما_ملکت_أیمانکم

As far as I can understand the above text, the authour says that by the word Inkihu, Quran means Aqd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
38 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

The world was different, and that is how humans lived and it was a part and parcel of life. These things didn't cross people's minds, because they were not an issue to begin with.

I fail to envision a world where having sex with a slave and not seeking consent was normal! There was definite oppression at the time and people recognised it as such, the manner in which the enemies of Ahlulbayt treated the family of the prophet was outrageous and oppressive, why then was the concept of having sex with a slave not seen as oppressive? I can't envision a time when not seeking consent for having sex no matter who it was with, whether a slave or a free human was acceptable. People obviously had a sense of morality to know what happened at Kerbala or what happened to Imam al Kadhim in Harun Rashid's prisons was wrong. A slave didn't choose their path, so what was it that made having sex with them without consent not oppressive? 

It seems to me that sometimes, we just have to accept that certain things do not make sense to us, and we have to pretty much turn off our brains when thinking about this. But I would be lying if I said this issue does not deeply concern me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

 

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنْكُمْ طَوْلًا أَنْ يَنْكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِنْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ مِنْ فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُمْ مِنْ بَعْضٍ فَانْكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلَا مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَنْ تَصْبِرُوا خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ

And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing "fatiyat". And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable.

According to the verse above, a muslim cannot marry a mushrik slave woman and since all captives were mushrik, so it means that if a female captive converts to Islam, a muslim man can marry her, providing that he cannot marry a free believing woman, with the permission of their families and he has to pay something to her.

Therefore, if the female captive doesnt convert to Islam, he cannot marry her.

Now, an important question arises:

If marrying a slave woman could occur without her consent, (considering the above conclusion) wouldnt it motivate slave women not to convert to Islam for not being forced to marry??

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

وَاعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَلَا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا وَبِذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَالْجَارِ ذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْجَارِ الْجُنُبِ وَالصَّاحِبِ بِالْجَنْبِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ وَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ مَنْ كَانَ مُخْتَالًا فَخُورًا

Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful.

Isnt forcing a slave woman to marry you without her consent, against what Quran orders (be good to them)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, King said:

LOL @ Ammar's lecture, what do people expect??

Lets face it, slavery is a topic that is highly uncomfortable for muslims and it is virtually impossible to reconcile with elementary moral reasoning.  This is precisely why you find so many apologists. 

I have yet to read anything sensible that tackles the topic sufficiently. Professor Brown has tried to tackle some of these topics in essays and he also comes off as an apologist and rambles off on random tangents.

At the end of the day this topic will remain controversial and difficult for scholars to tackle as I just do not foresee human slavery ever being considered acceptable from here on end.

I am sorry to say brother but all shia scholars believe to treat slave wife as "Zawjah" and there are two talaqs for her for separation. But in wahabbi school as according to Maulana Mudoodi, nikah is not necessary for he believes that it will grant her equal rights as that of wife. But, one may ask that whether islam differentiates between slave wife and wife except that one is not free citizen and other is free. 

I think you have newly been converted to Islam otherwise you would not have doubted fairness of Islam. Words of ahlebait a.s were always twisted as for this subject which is taken from Salafist article who twisted word Imam sadiq a.s of "halal" by "offer". I guarantee them that for such thing you would get your hands and tongues amputated on the day of judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

وَاعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَلَا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا وَبِذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَالْجَارِ ذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْجَارِ الْجُنُبِ وَالصَّاحِبِ بِالْجَنْبِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ وَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ مَنْ كَانَ مُخْتَالًا فَخُورًا

Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful.

Isnt forcing a slave woman to marry you without her consent, against what Quran orders (be good to them)?

Agree sister.  I once read that Prophet PBUHHP asked a woman's hand and she said that I take refuge in Allah (because Bibi Ayesha and Hafza were bit uneasy with her beauty and they advised her to show such behavior to give a influential impression) so prophet said you are under the protection of God and did not ask again and she remorsed later on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

السلام علیکم

6 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

As far as I understand (from my reading of history), most male slaves that belonged to female owners were generally castrated.

I can see how one might struggle to justify this in fiqhi terms, but did it gain any sanction among the prominent fuqaha of 'amma and khassa?

و علیکم السلام

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...