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
Sign in to follow this  
لبيك يا صاحب الزمان

difference between a slave and a concubines ?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I recently started reading about Ottoman history and I found out that most of the Ottoman sultans mothers were concubines that they captured from their conquests into Europe, since Ottoman sultans can’t marry other high class Turkish women due to political reasons and they didn’t want powerful enemies to challenge the house of Osmanoğlu, so my questions are, are the Ottoman sultans whose mother was a concubine makes him a [Edited Out] ? What’s the difference between a slave and a concubine? And what is the shia view on this ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, لبيك يا صاحب الزمان said:

are the Ottoman sultans whose mother was a concubine makes him a [Edited Out] ? What’s the difference between a slave and a concubine? And what is the shia view on this ?

No. It doesn't make him an [Edited Out], since in Islam, a child born to a master of a slave woman is fully legitimate, and has all the rights and privileges which his half-siblings enjoy, including the right to inherit from both the parents. Islam allows a male to cohabit with his female slaves; call them female slaves, concubines, or what you will, I am not aware of any fiqhi difference between the two. 
Ismail [as] was born to Hazrat Ibrahim [as] of Bibi Hajra, who was his slave-girl. The wife of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq [as], bibi Hameedah[sa] was also a slave-girl when he married her. Our Prince and master, Sahib al-Asr [aj] is the son of Imam Askari [as] from Bibi Narjis [sa], a slave girl of African origin.

In a nutshell, Islam believes in Abrahamic, and not Victorian, notions of piety and sexual propriety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, لبيك يا صاحب الزمان said:

so my questions are, are the Ottoman sultans whose mother was a concubine makes him a [Edited Out] ? What’s the difference between a slave and a concubine? And what is the shia view on this ?

Salam borning from a slave or concubine has no problem but Ottomans were following Sunni School of thaught thus their kings didn't practice mutah & they just annonce one of them as his wife when she borned a successor son for him that based on Shia fiqh  is Haram.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Ismail [as] was born to Hazrat Ibrahim [as] of Bibi Hajra, who was his slave-girl.

Do we believe this too? I thought it was judeo-christian belief???

Quran doesn't specify, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

Do we believe this too? I thought it was judeo-christian belief???

Quran doesn't specify, does it?

I don't know whether the Holy Qur'an specifies it or not, but it is very much our belief, brother.

Read this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

No. It doesn't make him an [Edited Out], since in Islam, a child born to a master of a slave woman is fully legitimate, and has all the rights and privileges which his half-siblings enjoy, including the right to inherit from both the parents. Islam allows a male to cohabit with his female slaves; call them female slaves, concubines, or what you will, I am not aware of any fiqhi difference between the two. 
Ismail [as] was born to Hazrat Ibrahim [as] of Bibi Hajra, who was his slave-girl. The wife of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq [as], bibi Hameedah[sa] was also a slave-girl when he married her. Our Prince and master, Sahib al-Asr [aj] is the son of Imam Askari [as] from Bibi Narjis [sa], a slave girl of African origin.

In a nutshell, Islam believes in Abrahamic, and not Victorian, notions of piety and sexual propriety.

So the child is legitimate even if the master doesn’t marry that slave girl ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

I don't know whether the Holy Qur'an specifies it or not, but it is very much our belief, brother.

Read this.

Salaam.

Not questioning the slave / concubine status. Just not sure about Hz Hajra - but doesn't matter I suppose.

Edited by shiaman14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, لبيك يا صاحب الزمان said:

So the child is legitimate even if the master doesn’t marry that slave girl ?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Salaam.

Not questioning the slave / concubine status. Just not sure about Hz Hajra - but doesn't matter I suppose.

Sure bro. Of course it does not matter.
If you search though Islamic history, you'll many great men and women have been the children of slave-mothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Yes.

The relation of Ottoman kings with their slave & concubines were based on any Islamic school of taught was a Haram act ,it is also shows in Turkey Soap Operas & Grear turkey serial “majesty” nowadays they are promoting White marriage between young generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2018 at 12:18 AM, AbdusSibtayn said:

No. It doesn't make him an [Edited Out], since in Islam, a child born to a master of a slave woman is fully legitimate, and has all the rights and privileges which his half-siblings enjoy, including the right to inherit from both the parents. Islam allows a male to cohabit with his female slaves; call them female slaves, concubines, or what you will, I am not aware of any fiqhi difference between the two. 
Ismail [as] was born to Hazrat Ibrahim [as] of Bibi Hajra, who was his slave-girl. The wife of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq [as], bibi Hameedah[sa] was also a slave-girl when he married her. Our Prince and master, Sahib al-Asr [aj] is the son of Imam Askari [as] from Bibi Narjis [sa], a slave girl of African origin.

In a nutshell, Islam believes in Abrahamic, and not Victorian, notions of piety and sexual propriety.

Great job ! Thanks brother 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/02/2018 at 1:26 PM, لبيك يا صاحب الزمان said:

So the child is legitimate even if the master doesn’t marry that slave girl ?

From what I understood à Muslim don't need to marry for have sexual relations with a slave. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2018 at 6:31 PM, Panzerwaffe said:

Great job ! Thanks brother 

You are always welcome, brother! Thanks for the appreciation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2018 at 5:09 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

The relation of Ottoman kings with their slave & concubines were based on any Islamic school of taught was a Haram act ,it is also shows in Turkey Soap Operas & Grear turkey serial “majesty” nowadays they are promoting White marriage between young generations.

Brother, I won't say much, but do look up the verdicts of Shaikh al-Mufid [rh] in his 'Al-Muqana'. 
In Ja'fari fiqh, as in all other madahib, it is perfectly licit for a male master to cohabit with his female slaves,even without performing an aqd, and the children begotten of such a union are 100% legitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Brother, I won't say much, but do look up the verdicts of Shaikh al-Mufid [rh] in his 'Al-Muqana'. 
In Ja'fari fiqh, as in all other madahib, it is perfectly licit for a male master to cohabit with his female slaves,even without performing an aqd, and the children begotten of such a union are 100% legitimate.

This is rape though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Brother, I won't say much, but do look up the verdicts of Shaikh al-Mufid [rh] in his 'Al-Muqana'. 
In Ja'fari fiqh, as in all other madahib, it is perfectly licit for a male master to cohabit with his female slaves,even without performing an aqd, and the children begotten of such a union are 100% legitimate.

It's just about Kafir (unbleiver ) slaves not servants & all of them from people of the book because their main wars were against christians & Shia Iranians   

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

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, lola20 said:

This is rape though. 

A master cannot rape his female slave. Cruelty to slaves is a punishable act in the Shariah. What I meant to say was that if a master wants to cohabit with his female slave, and she agrees, it is halal for him to cohabit with her, just as it is halal for him to cohabit with his wife/wives.

And I wonder why all that liberal hot air about 'free sex' and 'free love' disappears at the most opportune moments.

I don't think I am interested in discussing sexual ethics with people who think that a husband is liable to be persecuted as a rapist just because his wife happens to change her mind about having sex with him in the middle of the intercourse, moments before the climax.The child born of this union is perfectly legitimate, enjoys the same perks and privileges as his other half-siblings do, his mother is freed after his birth and entitled to the same rights as the other wives of his father, the child inherits from both parents, and somehow this union still carries a stigma and is termed 'rape'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

A master cannot rape his female slave. Cruelty to slaves is a punishable act in the Shariah. What I meant to say was that if a master wants to cohabit with his female slave, and she agrees, it is halal for him to cohabit with her, just as it is halal for him to cohabit with his wife/wives.

And I wonder why all that liberal hot air about 'free sex' and 'free love' disappears at the most opportune moments.

I don't think I am interested in discussing sexual ethics with people who think that a husband is liable to be persecuted as a rapist just because his wife happens to change her mind about having sex with him in the middle of the intercourse, moments before the climax.The child born of this union is perfectly legitimate, enjoys the same perks and privileges as his other half-siblings do, his mother is freed after his birth and entitled to the same rights as the other wives of his father, the child inherits from both parents, and somehow this union still carries a stigma and is termed 'rape'.

A slave does not have the systemic power to consent to anything. Their body does not belong to them, it belongs to their master. That's the definition of being a slave.

No one mentioned anything about marital rape, but thanks for making it clear where you stand on the subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason why modern Muslims find the position of Islam on slavery and sleeping with female slaves so problematic is because they have accepted modern western ethics hook line and sinker. Brother @AbdusSibtayn is completely correct when he said that Islamic notions of piety and sexual propriety are Abrahamic not victorian which is something many Muslims fail to recognize, I feel this is a big reason why sunnis have such a big problem with the shi'a belief in the permissibility of mut'a marriage. In both sunni, shia and even the Old Testament you have very forthright discussions of sex being pleasurable and a good thing, it was not considered something evil or shameful. 

Edited by Shi3i_jadeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

The main reason why modern Muslims find the position of Islam on slavery and sleeping with female slaves so problematic is because they have accepted modern western ethics hook line and sinker. Brother @AbdusSibtayn is completely correct when he said that Islamic notions of piety and sexual propriety are Abrahamic not victorian which is something many Muslims fail to recognize, I feel this is a big reason why sunnis have such a big problem with the shi'a belief in the permissibility of mut'a marriage. In both sunni, shia and even the Old Testament you have very forthright discussions of sex being pleasurable and a good thing, it was not considered something evil or shameful. 

As opposed to 7th century Arab ethics when it was acceptable to kill non-Muslims, conquer them, enslave (almost exclusively) their women and then rape them. Yeah, clearly modern Muslims are the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also nobody said anything about sex being a negative thing. We are talking about rape and the inherent systemic power a master has over his slave. Your comments about Victorian ideas of sex is a non sequitur. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 10:10 AM, lola20 said:

A slave does not have the systemic power to consent to anything. Their body does not belong to them, it belongs to their master. That's the definition of being a slave.

Sir/madam,

I do not know your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, but please do not confuse Islamic slavery with the chattel slavery of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Islamic slavery is more like indentured labor, except without any fixed time limit, but with legally enforceable penal provisions and rights to protect the slave against his master's high-handed or cruel conduct. So a master cannot force his slave to do something.

Edited by AbdusSibtayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 8:49 PM, lola20 said:

As opposed to 7th century Arab ethics when it was acceptable to kill non-Muslims, conquer them, enslave (almost exclusively) their women and then rape them. Yeah, clearly modern Muslims are the problem. 

I do not know what your intent behind these calumnious accusations is. The fact that Islam was NOT spread by the sword is now almost a consensus even in Western academia. If you want to put on holier-than-thou airs and take the moral high ground, then know that the acquisition and treatment of slaves by 'enlightened' Early-Modern Europeans carrying out the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade in the 15th-16th centuries was far more inhuman than what was meted out to the slaves by those imbued with the so-called 'seventh-century Arab ethics'; when African and Native American women were enslaved and raped like lifeless entities, and their communities butchered to extinction or near-extinction by the European Conquistadors, those harbingers of 'civilization' to the New World and the 'Dark Continent', having the full legitimization and backing of the Churches behind them.

If your claim that Muslim conquests invariably resulted in the annihilation of the natives and molestation and enslavement of their women is to be accepted, it remains something of a paradox that predominantly Muslim countries have continued to retain organically formed minority communities well into the 20th and 21st centuries whereas Muslims were ethnically cleansed from Iberia back in the 15th century, and more recently in Bosnia, in 'enlightened' and 'civilized' Europe, the very antithesis of the 'barbarous', marauding Arabs. It also doesn't explain why the bulk of the Muslim population even to this day happens to be non-Arab (Indonesia and India accounting for the largest and the second largest Muslim populations respectively), when 'it was acceptable to kill non-Muslims, conquer them, enslave (almost exclusively) their women and then rape them'.

Two World Wars, Nuclear Warfare whose threat still continues to loom, centuries of colonialism, racial apartheid and open looting of resources, proxy wars of imperialism, invasions of countries to topple unfavorable governments, engineering of coups and hatching plots and land-grabs by the descendants of the 'enlightened philosophes'  bearing the 'White Man's Burden' so religiously for centuries, and still somehow 'clearly modern Muslims are the problem.'

These cheap shots of defamatory rhetoric  may well find traction among xenophobic conservative/neo-conservative rabble. Not so here. Those who live in glass houses must not throw stones at others.

On 2/27/2018 at 8:51 PM, lola20 said:

Also nobody said anything about sex being a negative thing. We are talking about rape and the inherent systemic power a master has over his slave. Your comments about Victorian ideas of sex is a non sequitur.

If a boss has sex with his female employee, a president with his female secretary,a professor with his female student/PhD scholar, or a university/high school senior student with his junior (things unproblematic by liberal standards ), the presumption that the former must invariably have wielded his 'systemic power' over the latter (by virtue of his advantageous position in the power-equation between the two, as in the case of the master-slave relationship) in order to gain sexual gratification rests on very slender evidence at best, and wishful thinking at worst.
If there is a non sequitur here, it is this talk of 'systemic power' when it has already been made clear that a master seeking sexual gratification would approach his slave girl no differently from how he would approach his wife. 

Edited by AbdusSibtayn

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...