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

  • Advanced Member

According to a recent lecture by Ammar Nakshawani, the Twelver school of thought outright prohibits relations with a captive "ma malakat aymanakum" (what your right hands posses) out of marriage. Is Nakhsawani right about this? If so, how do the Shia interpret the following ayat:

Quote

And those who guard their private parts

Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed (Quran 70:29-20)

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

  • Moderators

He confused me on that part too since I've always known that you don't need nikah to do things with your slave. He should provide references for his claims. However overall it was an impressive lecture by him and he explained slavery from a rational point of view.

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

He confused me on that part too since I've always known that you don't need nikah to do things with your slave. He should provide references for his claims. However overall it was an impressive lecture by him and he explained slavery from a rational point of view.

2 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Contact him and ask for references if you're interested, I've done so before.

I've heard from multiple people he answers Facebook messages much faster than emails but don't quote me on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

قال محمد بن صدقة البصري سألته عن المتعة أليس هذا بمنزلة الاماء؟ قال : نعم أما تقرأ قول الله «ومن لم يستطع منكم طولا أن ينكح المحصنات المؤمنات» إلى «ولا متخذات أخذان» فكما لا يسع الرجل أن يتزوج بالامة وهو يستطيع أن يتزوج بالحرة ، فكذلك [لا] يسع الرجل أن يتمتع بالامة وهو يستطيع أن يتزوج بالحرة

 

According to the narration above, a man cant marry a slave-permanently or temporarily-as long as he can marry a free woman.

عن عباد بن صهيب ، عن أبي عبدالله عليه‌السلام قال : لا ينبغي للرجل المسلم أن يتزوج من الاماء إلا من خشي العنت ولا يحل له من الاماء إلا واحدة

And according to this one a muslim should prevent marrying a slave unless he fears sins. And in such cases it isnt permissible for him to marry more than 1 slave.

علي عن أخيه عليه‌السلام قال : سألته عن رجل قال لامته وأراد أن يعتقها ويتزوجها : أعتقتك وجعلت صداقك عتقك قال : عتقت وهي بالخيار إن شاءت تزوجته وإن شاءت فلا ، وإن تزوجته فليعطها شيئا ، وإن قال : تزوجتك وجعلت مهرك عتقك كان النكاح (*) شيئا واجبا إلى أن يعطيها شيئا

A man was going to free his slave(as her mehr) and then marry her. Imam-a- said:

Free her and then she has the choice to marry him or not. And if she marries him, he must give her something (i.e, her mehr).

Edited by shadow_of_light
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
3 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

 

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. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

According to the verse above:

1. You can marry a "ma malakat..." if you cannot marry a free believing woman.

2. "Ma malakat...."s are a subgroup of "fatiyat". Fatiyat literally means "young girls". Quran also uses the word "fata" with the meaning of "young boy/man" in different verses.

3. The word "yameen" has more than one meaning: right (direction), vow, promise, oath, ...

If in the phrase ما ملکت ایمانکم the word yameen means oath or vow, then the phrase means "what you possessed through your vows". So maybe it means a kind of marriage contract.

4. Quran says "marry them with the permission of their families (ahl)".

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: 

 

6 hours ago, Inner Peace said:

I've heard from multiple people he answers Facebook messages much faster than emails but don't quote me on that.

 

8 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Contact him and ask for references if you're interested, I've done so before.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In this day and age most people are free so therefore this 'right hand possession thing' is very limited, maybe in some Muslim countries this may still be a thing, but now that Most Muslim countries are pretty much secular I don't know how this will be practised, and just because you can do something doesn't mean it's necessary or obligatory, it's just one of those things that's just there if the situation arises, islam is simple and elegant and Allah has made this religion fulfilling for the believers

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pro-Alid said:

According to a recent lecture by Ammar Nakshawani, the Twelver school of thought outright prohibits relations with a captive "ma malakat aymanakum" (what your right hands posses) out of marriage. Is Nakhsawani right about this? If so, how do the Shia interpret the following ayat:

Alhamdolilah I am right. I have long been believing that right hand possesses means having Nikah with slave girl and there is divorce as well. Alhamdolilah I was right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Alhamdolilah I am right. I have long been believing that right hand possesses means having Nikah with slave girl and there is divorce as well. Alhamdolilah I was right. 

You are right because nakshawani said so? Go read what are scholars say.

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

You are right because nakshawani said so? Go read what are scholars say.

Bro, no not because of it. But because there are two talaqs for slave wife in fiqh. Tell me if there is no segha where from talaq comes?  

@E.L King though I am not fan of Ammar Nakshawani but he said something which I told you before and you said there is no segha for it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Bro, no not because of it. But because there are two talaqs for slave wife in fiqh. Tell me if there is no segha where from talaq comes? 

The divorce comes from the fact that the slave can marry someone (other than the master/owner) IF the master allows her to get married to begin with. The discussion here is whether there is such a thing as an 'aqd/nikah between the master and the slave herself, and the response to that is a big-fat-NO

Wasalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
4 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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.

Do you want to elaborate? Even just a little bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ibn al-Hussain said:

The divorce comes from the fact that the slave can marry someone (other than the master/owner) IF the master allows her to get married to begin with. The discussion here is whether there is such a thing as an 'aqd/nikah between the master and the slave herself, and the response to that is a big-fat-NO

Wasalam

Is every Maraja agreed on this issue?  I don't think so because I have read that mother of our 12th Imam was a slave girl and she was married to Imam by Nikah.

I believe some Maraja may differ in this view.

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

The divorce comes from the fact that the slave can marry someone (other than the master/owner) IF the master allows her to get married to begin with. The discussion here is whether there is such a thing as an 'aqd/nikah between the master and the slave herself, and the response to that is a big-fat-NO

Wasalam

So, you mean that if a Master had relations with her and then disassociate from her and ask her to marry someone else, there are no words for disassociation and the master could fraudulently lie later on saying that I didn't disassociate and she left without permission. I don't believe my Islam leaves a gap for others to exploit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

@E.L King could you cite from Taudith of Ayotullah Khoi regarding marriage with slave girl? 

I went back to the older threads and this is what I posted last time:

( مسألة 1334 ) : يحرم لمن زوج أمته وطؤها ولمسها والنظر إليها بشهوة ما دامت في حبال الزوج وكذلك إذا كانت في العدة .

Rough translation:

Issue 1334: it is forbidden upon the one who married his slave-girl [to someone else] to mount her (to have intercourse with her), to touch her, to look at her with lust as long as she remains tied to her husband, likewise if she was in idda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
29 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

Do you want to elaborate? Even just a little bit.

I can elaborate, but I fear people do not have the correct historical understanding regarding slavery (as Nakshwani mentions, we evaluate these things with our 21st century lens) and if they get exposed to the actual rulings in our Fiqh works, they would not be able to tolerate and handle it. People are better off reading this article by Jonathan Brown: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/jonathan-brown/the-problem-of-slavery/ who I believe did a pretty decent job tackling the issue.

Just as an example, besides the complementary discussions on slaves found in Kitab al-Nikah, Kitab al-Talaq, and Kitab al-'Itq, when it comes to Kitab al-Bay'/Tijarah (selling and purchasing), slaves are discussed under animal transactions (literally under بیع الحیوان) because they are considered property (just like one's land or house). Or look up the concept of Tahleel in Kitab al-Nikah, where the slave is merely used for sex by someone else that the master permits (the master recites a formula such as I make it permissible for you to have intercourse with her - احللت لک وطأها). Anyone who knows Arabic can search up these rulings in works of Fiqh themselves - they are pretty extensive and lengthy (which also makes the whole "Islam always wanted to abolish slavery'' theory a joke).

As far as the mother of Imam Mahdi being married to Imam 'Askari (I don't know how reliable this is - we barely know anything about the mother of Imam Mahdi), the only way this is possible is if she was "freed" first. Otherwise, many of the slaves of the Imams through which they had children remained slaves, but one of the categories of slaves is Umm Walad - a slave who has a child through her master (like the mother of Qasim ibn al-Hasan, who was a slave of Imam Hasan).

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators
13 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

The discussion here is whether there is such a thing as an 'aqd/nikah between the master and the slave herself, and the response to that is a big-fat-NO

Wasalam

The relevant Quranic verses may justify the acts in the era in which they were revealed. But what about their position today? Could it be that the gradual institutional eradication of slavery, rather than outright prohibition, was the reason that certain matters such as continuing to treat other fellow humans as a 'Personal property' was temporarily allowed (but not encouraged) to a certain extent until both the freemen and the slaves entirely embraced the idea of freedom in that part of the world?   

p.s I haven't listened to Ammar's lecture. Therefore, sorry if I have misunderstood the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
8 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

People are better off reading this article by Jonathan Brown: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/jonathan-brown/the-problem-of-slavery/ who I believe did a pretty decent job tackling the issue.

Thanks, that is really really helpful. I've had a quick read of the Brown paper and it's so reassuring. I have been making similar points here over the years, with little impact.

It did occur to me at the time that there were some accounts on this site which used topics such as this one for dog-whistle attacks on Islam. This specific topic was designed to raise female antipathy towards the religion.

Edited by Haji 2003
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hassan- said:

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.

I want to ask a question. If we earn something as legal such as money and buy food from it, could we eat it without saying bismillah. Prophet PBUHHP says one of the things that Allah dislikes is not saying his name before starting food and not saying Alhamdolilah on a boon. I think a slave girl could only become halal for master after she is in wedlock by the word of God. 

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

I can elaborate, but I fear people do not have the correct historical understanding regarding slavery (as Nakshwani mentions, we evaluate these things with our 21st century lens) and if they get exposed to the actual rulings in our Fiqh works, they would not be able to tolerate and handle it. People are better off reading this article by Jonathan Brown: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/jonathan-brown/the-problem-of-slavery/ who I believe did a pretty decent job tackling the issue.

Just as an example, besides the complementary discussions on slaves found in Kitab al-Nikah, Kitab al-Talaq, and Kitab al-'Itq, when it comes to Kitab al-Bay'/Tijarah (selling and purchasing), slaves are discussed under animal transactions (literally under بیع الحیوان) because they are considered property (just like one's land or house). Or look up the concept of Tahleel in Kitab al-Nikah, where the slave is merely used for sex by someone else that the master permits (the master recites a formula such as I make it permissible for you to have intercourse with her - احللت لک وطأها). Anyone who knows Arabic can search up these rulings in works of Fiqh themselves - they are pretty extensive and lengthy (which also makes the whole "Islam always wanted to abolish slavery'' theory a joke).

As far as the mother of Imam Mahdi being married to Imam 'Askari (I don't know how reliable this is - we barely know anything about the mother of Imam Mahdi), the only way this is possible is if she was "freed" first. Otherwise, many of the slaves of the Imams through which they had children remained slaves, but one of the categories of slaves is Umm Walad - a slave who has a child through her master (like the mother of Qasim ibn al-Hasan, who was a slave of Imam Hasan).

Wasalam

Saying that I make you this girl halal for you is allowing her permission for nikah. I do not agree with you that something saying halal would make her halal out of wedlock for it's fornication. In Quran, there is verse which you must read.  In which,  Allah says that those who are dragged to fornication by force, Allah is aware of you and He will forgive you as long as you have faith in Him. 

The above verse was revealed for a slave girl who complaint that her master forces her for fornication and prophet stopped him for doing that. Brother, I on this account disagree with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, E.L King said:

I went back to the older threads and this is what I posted last time:

( مسألة 1334 ) : يحرم لمن زوج أمته وطؤها ولمسها والنظر إليها بشهوة ما دامت في حبال الزوج وكذلك إذا كانت في العدة .

Rough translation:

Issue 1334: it is forbidden upon the one who married his slave-girl [to someone else] to mount her (to have intercourse with her), to touch her, to look at her with lust as long as she remains tied to her husband, likewise if she was in idda.

Yeah but once you said that ulemas say that one could have intercourse without any Nikah with a slave girl. If I am not wrong, you said it and also said that you have reference from Ayotullah Khoi? 

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

The relevant Quranic verses may justify the acts in the era in which they were revealed. But what about their position today? Could it be that the gradual institutional eradication of slavery, rather than outright prohibition, was the reason that certain matters such as continuing to treat other fellow humans as a 'Personal property' was temporarily allowed (but not encouraged) to a certain extent until both the freemen and the slaves entirely embraced the idea of freedom in that part of the world?   

p.s I haven't listened to Ammar's lecture. Therefore, sorry if I have misunderstood the topic.

I don't believe the Prophet (p) came with any mandate which sought the gradual abolishment of slavery. This theory is close to impossible to prove (the best one can use are the penalties that exist where one is required to free slaves, but I don't believe this is sufficient). No where in 14 centuries of Islamic discourse do you find such a theory, or ever find any scholars discussing such a notion. These are modern desperate responses to questions raised by the West - you will find these sort of desperate answers being given elsewhere too, like desperately trying to prove that 'Ayesha was older than 9, or there was absolutely no war that was initiated by the Prophet and that all of them were defensive, denying complete incidents such as the execution of the Banu Qurayzah, and many more. I believe these weak responses are not needed (in fact they are a fabrication of our history), and what is needed is proper education of how the world worked 14 centuries ago till even up until a century ago (before the phenomenon of modernity started taking over the West), and how we should not judge these people with our understanding of morality today. Another thing that is required is to understand what slavery actually was - I feel when we say slavery, for most people horrific images from the Atlantic slave trade come to mind or even the much later Arab slave trade, therefore none of these discussions are bearable for people. 

The analogy Nakshwani makes with ruling of alcohol is highly flawed, because all gradual rulings were still changed and brought to an end or initiated within the lifetime of the Prophet (s). Also there were many other customs that were widespread in the society which were brought to an immediate end and were not abolished gradually. In any case, slavery didn't get abolished in the Muslim world until very recently and it had much to do with how the dynamics of the world altered. 

Quote

Saying that I make you this girl halal for you is allowing her permission for nikah

From your replies it is blatantly obvious to me that you have not read a work in Fiqh from our Fuqaha, otherwise you would not say such silly things. The fatwa right after this discussion (from Kitab al-Nikah of Sharh al-Lum'a) makes it clear that this is not an 'aqd of Nikah, rather this is allowed because the slave is considered property, and therefore there is no dowry required for such intercourse and neither a divorce

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators
4 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I don't believe the Prophet (p) came with any mandate which sought the gradual abolishment of slavery. This theory is is close to impossible to prove. No where in 14 centuries of Islamic discourse do you find such a theory, or ever find any scholars discussing such a notion. These are modern desperate responses to questions raised by the West - you will find these sort of desperate answers being given elsewhere too, like desperately trying to prove that 'Ayesha was older than 9, or there was absolutely no war that was initiated by the Prophet and that all of them were defensive, denying complete incidents such as the execution of the Banu Qurayzah, and many more. I believe these weak responses are not needed (in fact they are a fabrication of our history), and what is needed is proper education of how the world worked 14 centuries ago and how we should not judge these people with our understanding of morality today. Another thing that is required is to understand what slavery actually was - I feel when we say slavery, for most people horrific images from the Atlantic slave trade come to mind or even the much later Arab slave trade, therefore none of these discussions are bearable for people. 

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?  

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

I don't believe the Prophet (p) came with any mandate which sought the gradual abolishment of slavery. This theory is is close to impossible to prove. No where in 14 centuries of Islamic discourse do you find such a theory, or ever find any scholars discussing such a notion. These are modern desperate responses to questions raised by the West - you will find these sort of desperate answers being given elsewhere too, like desperately trying to prove that 'Ayesha was older than 9, or there was absolutely no war that was initiated by the Prophet and that all of them were defensive, denying complete incidents such as the execution of the Banu Qurayzah, and many more. I believe these weak responses are not needed (in fact they are a fabrication of our history), and what is needed is proper education of how the world worked 14 centuries ago and how we should not judge these people with our understanding of morality today. Another thing that is required is to understand what slavery actually was - I feel when we say slavery, for most people horrific images from the Atlantic slave trade come to mind or even the much later Arab slave trade, therefore none of these discussions are bearable for people. 

The analogy Nakshwani makes with ruling of alcohol is highly flawed, because all gradual rulings were still changed and brought to an end or initiated within the lifetime of the Prophet (s). Also there were many other customs that were widespread in the society which were brought to an immediate end and were not abolished gradually. In any case, slavery didn't get abolished in the Muslim world until very recently and it had much to do with how the dynamics of the world altered. 

From your replies it is blatantly obvious to me that you have not read a work in Fiqh from our Fuqaha, otherwise you would not say such silly things. The fatwa right after this discussion (from Kitab al-Nikah of Sharh al-Lum'a) makes it clear that this is not an 'aqd of Nikah, rather this is allowed because the slave is considered property, and therefore there is no dowry required for such intercourse and neither a divorce

Wasalam

Since you are in opposition to Prophet that's why you doubt his wisdom to make differing rules for him such as getting married to Ayesha before puberty and allowing his daughter to marry after puberty. But since there was no such allegation upon prophet in his life by his enemies, you must consider it a lie.  

As for mandate. The prophet pbuhhp has clear mandate to put off shackles of ignorance from world that's why even in slavery, there were many opportunities for freeing slaves and no other system was that humble. 

If you ask why was slavery and usury halal to be taken from unbelievers is because they were keeping such system intact and it's in nature that to every action there is an opposite and equal reaction and Islam held it until it's enemies abolish such system against them. Now, world abolished slavery, Islam also abolished. 

Slavery was Stone that infidels and non-Muslims throwed at us and we throwed at them. 

Edited by Sindbad05
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
23 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Yeah but once you said that ulemas say that one could have intercourse without any Nikah with a slave girl. If I am not wrong, you said it and also said that you have reference from Ayotullah Khoi? 

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.

Edited by E.L King
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

Brother,  lending is not allowed making her halal is allowed and everything which you obtain legally is not halal until you say word of Allah upon it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators
4 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I don't believe the Prophet (p) came with any mandate which sought the gradual abolishment of slavery. This theory is close to impossible to prove (the best one can use are the penalties that exist where one is required to free slaves, but I don't believe this is sufficient). 

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.

 180 Questions - Enquiries about Islam - Volume One: The Practical Laws by Ayatullah Makram Shirazi

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
49 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

I want to ask a question. If we earn something as legal such as money and buy food from it, could we eat it without saying bismillah. Prophet PBUHHP says one of the things that Allah dislikes is not saying his name before starting food and not saying Alhamdolilah on a boon. I think a slave girl could only become halal for master after she is in wedlock by the word of God. 

Saying bismillah before eating is not wajib.

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...