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
SoRoUsH

Issues of Slaves and Slave-girls

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam, 

I have been reading the English translation of the fifth volume of Al-Kafi. I've come to a part, where the translator, unwisely and unethically, chooses not to translate numerous chapters, since apparently he sees no practical benefit in these narrations. I find this choice, by a translator, absolutely unethical and abbhorent. However, I do not want to focus on this point. I've come to ask for your assistance to translate a series of narrations related to slaves and slave-girls. I'll only post the narrations thatr I find authentic or acceptable. In my opinion, unlikek that of the translator, all of the narrations from our Imams are valuable, then and now. 

Here are the narrations: 

(1

  مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ وَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ جَمِيعاً عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ جَمِيلِ بْنِ صَالِحٍ عَنِ الْفُضَيْلِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ قَالَ قُلْتُ لِأَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ إِنَّ بَعْضَ أَصْحَابِنَا قَدْ رَوَى عَنْكَ أَنَّكَ قُلْتَ إِذَا أَحَلَّ الرَّجُلُ لِأَخِيهِ جَارِيَتَهُ فَهِيَ لَهُ حَلَالٌ فَقَالَ نَعَمْ يَا فُضَيْلُ قُلْتُ لَهُ فَمَا تَقُولُ فِي رَجُلٍ عِنْدَهُ جَارِيَةٌ لَهُ نَفِيسَةٌ وَ هِيَ بِكْرٌ أَحَلَّ لِأَخِيهِ مَا دُونَ فَرْجِهَا أَ لَهُ أَنْ يَفْتَضَّهَا قَالَ لَا لَيْسَ لَهُ إِلَّا مَا أَحَلَّ لَهُ مِنْهَا وَ لَوْ أَحَلَّ لَهُ قُبْلَةً مِنْهَا لَمْ يَحِلَّ لَهُ مَا سِوَى ذَلِكَ قُلْتُ أَ رَأَيْتَ إِنْ أَحَلَّ لَهُ مَا دُونَ الْفَرْجِ فَغَلَبَتْهُ الشَّهْوَةُ فَافْتَضَّهَا قَالَ لَا يَنْبَغِي لَهُ ذَلِكَ قُلْتُ فَإِنْ فَعَلَ أَ يَكُونُ زَانِياً قَالَ لَا وَ لَكِنْ يَكُونُ خَائِناً وَ يَغْرَمُ لِصَاحِبِهَا عُشْرَ قِيمَتِهَا إِنْ كَانَتْ بِكْراً وَ إِنْ لَمْ تَكُنْ بِكْراً فَنِصْفَ عُشْرِ قِيمَتِهَا 
 قَالَ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ مَحْبُوبٍ وَ حَدَّثَنِي رِفَاعَةُ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع مِثْلَهُ إِلَّا أَنَّ رِفَاعَةَ قَالَ الْجَارِيَةُ النَّفِيسَةُ تَكُونُ عِنْدِي 

(2

 عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ وَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ وَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ جَمِيعاً عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنِ ابْنِ رِئَابٍ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع عَنِ امْرَأَةٍ أَحَلَّتْ لِابْنِهَا فَرْجَ جَارِيَتِهَا قَالَ هُوَ لَهُ حَلَالٌ قُلْتُ أَ فَيَحِلُّ لَهُ ثَمَنُهَا قَالَ لَا إِنَّمَا يَحِلُّ لَهُ مَا أَحَلَّتْهُ لَهُ 

(3

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ عَنْ حَمَّادِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ الْمُخْتَارِ عَنْ أَبِي بَكْرٍ الْحَضْرَمِيِّ قَالَ قُلْتُ لِأَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع إِنَّ امْرَأَتِي أَحَلَّتْ لِي جَارِيَتَهَا فَقَالَ انْكِحْهَا إِنْ أَرَدْتَ قُلْتُ أَبِيعُهَا قَالَ لَا إِنَّمَا أُحِلَّ لَكَ مِنْهَا مَا أَحَلَّتْ 

(4
 ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ وَ حَفْصِ بْنِ الْبَخْتَرِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع فِي الرَّجُلِ يَقُولُ لِامْرَأَتِهِ أَحِلِّي لِي جَارِيَتَكِ فَإِنِّي أَكْرَهُ أَنْ تَرَانِي مُنْكَشِفاً فَتُحِلُّهَا لَهُ قَالَ لَا يَحِلُّ لَهُ مِنْهَا إِلَّا ذَاكَ وَ لَيْسَ لَهُ أَنْ يَمَسَّهَا وَ لَا يَطَأَهَا وَ زَادَ فِيهِ هِشَامٌ أَ لَهُ أَنْ يَأْتِيَهَا قَالَ لَا يَحِلُّ لَهُ إِلَّا الَّذِي قَالَتْ 

(5

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ بَزِيعٍ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ ع عَنِ امْرَأَةٍ أَحَلَّتْ لِي جَارِيَتَهَا فَقَالَ ذَاكَ لَكَ قُلْتُ فَإِنْ كَانَتْ تَمْزَحُ قَالَ وَ كَيْفَ لَكَ بِمَا فِي قَلْبِهَا فَإِنْ عَلِمْتَ أَنَّهَا تَمْزَحُ فَلَا 

(6

 عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ وَ جَمِيلِ بْنِ دَرَّاجٍ وَ سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي خَلَفٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع فِي امْرَأَةِ الرَّجُلِ يَكُونُ لَهَا الْخَادِمُ قَدْ فَجَرَتْ فَيَحْتَاجُ إِلَى لَبَنِهَا قَالَ مُرْهَا فَتُحَلِّلُهَا يَطِيبُ اللَّبَن 

(7

 مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ النُّعْمَانِ عَنْ أَبِي الصَّبَّاحِ الْكَنَانِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع فِي الرَّجُلِ تَكُونُ لِبَعْضِ وُلْدِهِ جَارِيَةٌ وَ وُلْدُهُ صِغَارٌ هَلْ يَصْلُحُ لَهُ أَنْ يَطَأَهَا فَقَالَ يُقَوِّمُهَا قِيمَةَ عَدْلٍ ثُمَّ يَأْخُذُهَا وَ يَكُونُ لِوَلَدِهِ عَلَيْهِ ثَمَنُهَا 

(8

 عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْحَجَّاجِ عَنْ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ مُوسَى ع قَالَ قُلْتُ لَهُ الرَّجُلُ تَكُونُ لِابْنِهِ جَارِيَةٌ أَ لَهُ أَنْ يَطَأَهَا فَقَالَ يُقَوِّمُهَا عَلَى نَفْسِهِ قِيمَةً وَ يُشْهِدُ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ بِثَمَنِهَا أَحَبُّ إِلَيَّ 

(9

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ قَالَ كَتَبْتُ إِلَى أَبِي الْحَسَنِ ع فِي جَارِيَةٍ لِابْنٍ لِي صَغِيرٍ أَ يَجُوزُ لِي أَنْ أَطَأَهَا فَكَتَبَ لَا حَتَّى تُخَلِّصَهَا 

(10

] مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ الرِّضَا ع إِنِّي كُنْتُ وَهَبْتُ لِابْنَتِي جَارِيَةً حَيْثُ زَوَّجْتُهَا فَلَمْ تَزَلْ عِنْدَهَا فِي بَيْتِ زَوْجِهَا حَتَّى مَاتَ زَوْجُهَا فَرَجَعَتْ إِلَيَّ هِيَ وَ الْجَارِيَةُ أَ فَيَحِلُّ لِيَ الْجَارِيَةُ أَنْ أَطَأَهَا فَقَالَ قَوِّمْهَا بِقِيمَةٍ عَادِلَةٍ وَ أَشْهِدْ عَلَى ذَلِكَ ثُمَّ إِنْ شِئْتَ فَطَأْهَا 

 

I'll keep posting more narrations here within the next few days. 

Thank you for your help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:salam:

Not just in volume 5, but also in volume 6 Muhammad Sarwar does the same thing. It seems more so than practical benefit, the reasoning was probably the fact that if an average Shi'a were to read these traditions they would genuinely begin to question their religion (we have examples of Sunnis apostatizing who often leave once they come across the ahadith on slaves in their translated works). The narrations you quoted above are mostly about Tahlil (read #7 here under Most Important Slave Laws). For example the first narration talks about how if an owner only allows their friend to kiss the slave-girl, but due to lust, this friend ends up engaging in intercourse as well, what is the penalty (he is not a zani, but he has to pay damages to the owner).

Wasalam

Share this post


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

if an owner only allows their friend to kiss the slave-girl

A couple of questions here, brother:

  • Is a slave owner permitted to do anything he likes with his female slave, if she is not willing?
  • Is a slave owner permitted to allow someone else to engage in a physical activity, such as kissing, fondling or even intercourse, if she is not willing?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, baqar said:

A couple of questions here, brother:

  • Is a slave owner permitted to do anything he likes with his female slave, if she is not willing?
  • Is a slave owner permitted to allow someone else to engage in a physical activity, such as kissing, fondling or even intercourse, if she is not willing?   

If by 'anything' you mean having intercourse without consent, then yes. From the article on IqraOnline:

Quote

An owner has the right to sexual relations with his slave girl regardless of whether she provides consent or not. The owner can provide his slave girl for sexual relations to someone else.

One way I have seen people such as Imam Omar Suleiman and Dr.. Jonathan Brown justify this and argue how this doesn't allow rape is by appealing to harm and how Islam prohibits one from harming other people. They say how forcing yourself on to a slave would harm the slave, so it is not allowed. 

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reeha
1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

:salam:

Not just in volume 5, but also in volume 6 Muhammad Sarwar does the same thing. It seems more so than practical benefit, the reasoning was probably the fact that if an average Shi'a were to read these traditions they would genuinely begin to question their religion (we have examples of Sunnis apostatizing who often leave once they come across the ahadith on slaves in their translated works). The narrations you quoted above are mostly about Tahlil (read #7 here under Most Important Slave Laws). For example the first narration talks about how if an owner only allows their friend to kiss the slave-girl, but due to lust, this friend ends up engaging in intercourse as well, what is the penalty (he is not a zani, but he has to pay damages to the owner).

Wasalam

Doesn't this lead us to questioning everything about hijab, sexual ethics, and human rights?

I think brother, we need to make it clear that a slave girl had to be able to consent. Islam certainly does not teach that a slave girl would be allowed to be forced upon. I mean just think of this scenario you paint. The master allows his friend to kiss her? Isn't this molestation? When you say this friend ends up engaging in intercourse, is it with her consent or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

If by 'anything' you mean having intercourse without consent, then yes. From the article on IqraOnline:wed. 

I refuse to believe that Islam can permit such a gross injustice.

I am sorry.

40 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

One way I have seen people such as Imam Omar Suleiman and Dr... Jonathan Brown justify this and argue how this doesn't allow rape is by appealing to harm and how Islam prohibits one from harming other people. They say how forcing yourself on to a slave would harm the slave, so it is not allowed. 

Harm or no harm is irrelevant.

Sex without consent is gross injustice.

Simple as that. 

I think scholars have got it all wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, baqar said:

I refuse to believe that Islam can permit such a gross injustice.

I am sorry.

Harm or no harm is irrelevant.

Sex without consent is gross injustice.

Simple as that. 

I think scholars have got it all wrong.

I am not at all an expert about this but by definition a "slave" isnt supposed to be someone who obey everyting you ask from him ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Near
25 minutes ago, baqar said:

I refuse to believe that Islam can permit such a gross injustice.

I am sorry.

Harm or no harm is irrelevant.

Sex without consent is gross injustice.

Simple as that. 

I think scholars have got it all wrong.

Islam does not and will never promote the idea that it was/is permissible to buy human beings for the purpose of raping them, only to then sell them to be raped again. I mean do we need to even discuss this?

It would completely make any point on sexual ethics in Islam or discussion of human rights, social hijab, hijab, modesty a joke. 

Share this post


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

A couple of questions here, brother:

  • Is a slave owner permitted to do anything he likes with his female slave, if she is not willing?
  • Is a slave owner permitted to allow someone else to engage in a physical activity, such as kissing, fondling or even intercourse, if she is not willing?   

According to an old discussion I had with @Ibn al-Hussain it is permitted. Now this is his opinion and I am not someone who will say this is false or not because like I said I am not at all an expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

If by 'anything' you mean having intercourse without consent, then yes.

Welcome to promoting rape

1 hour ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

I am not at all an expert about this but by definition a "slave" isnt supposed to be someone who obey everyting you ask from him?

 Scholars seem to try justify the use of female slaves for sex, whether consensual or not, it is abhorrent to hold such views. If Muslim women were taken and others did this to them I'm not sure people would be so quick to say, 'Well they are just a slave so you can do whatever you want'. And some wonder where did ISIS get their justifications from? And people wonder why those who use a rational mind and logic reject such a faith.

Edited by Muslimthought97

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Muslimthought97 said:

Welcome to promoting rape

 Scholars seem to try justify the use of female slaves for sex, whether consensual or not, it is abhorrent to hold such views. If Muslim women were taken and others did this to them I'm not sure people would be so quick to say, 'Well they are just a slave so you can do whatever you want'. And some wonder where did ISIS get their justifications from? And people wonder why those who use a rational mind and logic reject such a faith.

I don’t disagree with you brother. I am really ignorant about the issue of slavery in Islam and I don’t know the point of view of scholars about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Muslimthought97 said:

Scholars seem to try justify the use of female slaves for sex, whether consensual or not, it is abhorrent to hold such views. If Muslim women were taken and others did this to them I'm not sure people would be so quick to say, 'Well they are just a slave so you can do whatever you want'. And some wonder where did ISIS get their justifications from? And people wonder why those who use a rational mind and logic reject such a faith.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if I am not mistaken the only situation where the taking of slaves is allowed is as prisoners of war. And war is only allowed against those who attack Muslims. This makes what Daesh did to the Yasidis a crime. The Yasidis had not attacked Muslims where as Daesh has actually attacked and killed a lot of Muslims.

Edited by Revert1963

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Revert1963 said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but if I am not mistaken the only situation where the taking of slaves is allowed is as prisoners of war. And war is only allowed against those who attack Muslims. This makes what Daesh did to the Yasidis a crime. The Yasidis had not attacked Muslims where as Daesh has actually attacked and killed a lot of Muslims.

That is how to acquire slaves yes, and many try to sweep it under the rug saying it wont happen again. If Israel attacks any country, and that victim country retaliates and wins the war, then suddenly all this sex slavery stuff will be 100% islamically justified. Now imagine women and children who havent got anything to do with such wars being victim so such ideas. Wars are waged all the time, all you have to do is point at who started it. When I referred to the ISIS, it is not the method they acquired them to be halal, but the other things they did and do to those poor women can be reasonably justified to some degree

14 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

I don't disagree with you brother. I am really ignorant about the issue of slavery in Islam and I don't know the point of view of scholars about this.

Also what makes things far more disturbing is, that it is generally accepted when a woman has had her period Ie 9 years old then they are a woman. Fighters would be allowed to actually take away children and according to many have non-consensual intercourse (Ie rape) with such children and adults alike, ofcourse all in the name of Allah. I do not bring in my own opinions on these rules, these are well 'justified' by scholars. I am merely exposing such 'loopholes' and reasons why people have serious issues with such rulings, and as Ibh Hussain said prevously, people leave the religion from such things.

Edited by Muslimthought97

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Do all scholars allowed this treatment of slaves?

Almost all allow but on different spectrums, I.e. some say it either has to be consensual and some say can be non consensual and can share them like property as mentioned previously. I don't have specifics as ive read so many I don’t keep track, though it is very easy to search up many scholars and their opinions I  guarantee the same results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muslimthought97 said:

Almost all allow but on different spectrums, I.e. some say it either has to be consensual and some say can be non consensual and can share them like property as mentioned previously. I don't have specifics as ive read so many I don’t keep track, though it is very easy to search up many scholars and their opinions I  guarantee the same results

So if I understood well. Some scholars allow sexual relations with slaves only if the slave is ok with that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

So if I understood well. Some scholars allow sexual relations with slaves only if the slave is ok with that?

Yes that is correct a small number to what I saw have said marriage is also required however theres not much justificationfor the latter. One major point that is raised against the Hadith claiming the slaves gave consent was that no woman would be seduced and want to have intercourse with a man who just killed her family and taken them as captives and made to work to regain their 'freedom'. This is used to say that the consent was made up when written down. I always like to present both sides of the story, and you can make judgement. 

18 minutes ago, baqar said:

You mean they allow rape?

Yes pretty much.

Edited by Muslimthought97

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 7:01 AM, Muslimthought97 said:

Yes that is correct a small number to what I saw have said marriage is also required however theres not much justificationfor the latter. One major point that is raised against the Hadith claiming the slaves gave consent was that no woman would be seduced and want to have intercourse with a man who just killed her family and taken them as captives and made to work to regain their 'freedom'. This is used to say that the consent was made up when written down. I always like to see both sides of the story and take that which is logical.

Well do you remember the history of Safiyah (عليه السلام) ? His family were tyrants and killers after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Muslimthought97 said:

Yes pretty much.

I refuse to believe that our Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) or our Imams (عليه السلام) allowed rape?

I just cannot accept it.

Sorry.

The error must be on the side of our narrators or compilers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, baqar said:

I refuse to believe that Islam can permit such a gross injustice.

I am sorry.

Harm or no harm is irrelevant.

Sex without consent is gross injustice.

Simple as that. 

I think scholars have got it all wrong.

I believe most people are way too simplistic in their approach to these discussions. Do you have a rational/philosophical argument for saying sexual morality necessarily or always revolves around consent? Do you believe only sex without consent is unjust or anything without consent (other than sex, for example force-feeding prisoners on hunger strikes) is an injustice? What are the parameters and conditions for this and what is the proof for your claim? For example does consensual adultery become moral just because two adults have consented? If no, then clearly there is something there which makes consent irrelevant in that scenario - what is that? You would need to break down the premises for your universal claim that sex without consent is injustice so we can actually see the demonstrative argument and analyze them. Surely you realize this change of paradigm from "harm" (darar) to "consent" is a very recent one and stems in modern Western discourse, particularly humanist and feminist ones - some of their premises fundamentally being flawed. In fact, something like "marital rape" only was made illegal just very recently - there are many discussions on this published, it is good to at least get familiar with how these concepts developed and how they got tied to sexual morality.

Its really funny to see that even early slave rebellions in the Muslim world were actually never trying to abolish slavery. I think for people interested in the topic, Jonathan Brown's recent book is definitely an important read and a good start at understanding the subject. I also believe this is a good watch: 

 

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


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

It seems more so than practical benefit, the reasoning was probably the fact that if an average Shi'a were to read these traditions they would genuinely begin to question their religion

In the book, he only gives the "practical benefit" excuse. 

If a Shi'a leaves Islam as a result of reading authentic narrations from the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), then they didn't have faith in their hearts to begin with. They weren't Shi'a of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) to begin with. 

If parts of a religion should be censored for people to believe in it, then the whole religion should be rejected. 

These narrations may provide legal judgements; however, sometimes they provide general statements beyond specific cases. Also, by reading many specific cases, we'll get a bigger picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Justice
1 minute ago, SoRoUsH said:

In the book, he only gives the "practical benefit" excuse. 

If a Shi'a leaves Islam as a result of reading authentic narrations from the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), then they didn't have faith in their hearts to begin with. They weren't Shi'a of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) to begin with. 

If parts of a religion should be censored for people to believe in it, then the whole religion should be rejected. 

These narrations may provide legal judgements; however, sometimes they provide general statements beyond specific cases. Also, by reading many specific cases, we'll get a bigger picture.

Isn't it an abuse of ale Muhammed to claim that they, God forbid, permitted forcefully having sex with a woman whose husband and family you've just killed and taken her captive? Or that it's okay for you to let your friends touch her inappropriately without her consent, or sell her to someone else who by any normal definition would rape her?

Share this post


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

My point here is not that Islamic law cannot change, but rather I am trying to say people need to have a better grasp of the discussions at hand so that at the very least they can understand why at times there is such serious contradictions in the two worldviews.

I completely agree with all of your points. However, I do believe that most of the problem, if not all, stems from our own modern scholars, who try to nicely fit Islam within the modern framework, and to make it happen, they chop off sections of the religion and massage some other parts of it to make it fit and pleasing to the modern, secular, Liberal framework. It's absolutely horrendous! And Sarwar is a clear example of the problem. He's keeping these topics, and therefore discussions, out of sight and out of mind. He's keeping the youth, and others, ignorant 

Share this post


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

they were being duped for all these years into thinking that Shi'ism (or its sources) simply conform with most most aspects of the modern secular world

Given forcing a woman you've just taken captive into sex without her consent has been proven to cause serious psychological, and or physical harm, and the act itself if a woman is not aroused can be incredibly painful, this has nothing to do with the modern secular world, but basic human empathy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Monad
On 12/7/2019 at 2:27 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Not just in volume 5, but also in volume 6 Muhammad Sarwar does the same thing. It seems more so than practical benefit, the reasoning was probably the fact that if an average Shi'a were to read these traditions they would genuinely begin to question their religion (we have examples of Sunnis apostatizing who often leave once they come across the ahadith on slaves in their translated works). The narrations you quoted above are mostly about Tahlil (read #7 here under Most Important Slave Laws). For example the first narration talks about how if an owner only allows their friend to kiss the slave-girl, but due to lust, this friend ends up engaging in intercourse as well, what is the penalty (he is not a zani, but he has to pay damages to the owner).

Sorush - it seems your post is going to get derailed slightly

Define Average?, Do you and sorush fall in this category?. Why do you both think and believe that you have come across rational subordination to an idea of someone else who have claimed divinity?.

How does a person become average?. Yes, I understand the texts regarding how intelligencia is derived, which is also found in the work of the greeks, text of duban, confucious or tao.

If I horde knowlegde have I created average humans?.

If I share knowledge will I create conflict?

If by sharing I fear conflict and by hoarding I create repose, then has not the knowledgable

Do only average people question or do intellectuals question too?.

Is one only an intellectual if they follow the same creed as one party or another?

Humans in the past were treated openly as property and many places in the present world. Can that which is defined as a property have any rights?. Who determines the rights of others?. If you take my rights, is it fair because one claims to be divine?. What if another then takes the rights of the divine and claims to be divine too?

All Ideologies and systems are unjust. Reason being is that we live in a gradient or rather say a scale of 0 - 10. Where 0 being the lowest and 10 being the highest. This is how the Earth or the game on any planet where humans exist works. The 10,s decide the fate of all the ones below them and they will rationalise it because they can. How, by some form of logical truths that justify a particular play or by coercion. However when you have 10,s on both sides of the fence, that is where conflict arises.

I see there are more comments....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Monad
31 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

If a Shi'a leaves Islam as a result of reading authentic narrations from the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), then they didn't have faith in their hearts to begin with. They weren't Shi'a of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) to begin with. 

So if someone decides to use their reason and decide to take a better course of action, then they had no faith?. I suggest stop using coercive language, although I do believe this clearly stems from the scriptures, which use the same methodoly to keep the slaves in line. I forgot... the average folk. Okay master, I will get back to cleaning while you play kingship.

Regarding clergyman of all religions trying to fit a system inline with the current modern framework do so, because they fear the money train will diminish. This can be seen via history.

They also acknowledge that there is perhaps a flaw in their system just like all system considering that the systems just like that of today, followed the current frameworks of their own timelimes, but became ingrained as law with time.

To the rest, do not feel left out,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I believe most people are way too simplistic in their approach to these discussions. Do you have a rational / philosophical argument for saying sexual morality necessarily or always revolves around consent? Do you believe only sex without consent is unjust or anything without consent (other than sex, for example force-feeding prisoners on hunger strikes) is an injustice? What are the parameters and conditions for this and what is the proof for your claim? For example does consensual adultery become moral just because two adults have consented? If no, then clearly there is something there which makes consent irrelevant in that scenario - what is that? You would need to break down the premises for your universal claim that sex without consent is injustice so we can actually see the demonstrative argument and analyze them. Surely you realize this change of paradigm from "harm" (darar) to "consent" is a very recent one and stems in modern Western discourse, particularly humanist and feminist ones - some of their premises fundamentally being flawed. In fact, something like "marital rape" only was made illegal just very recently - there are many discussions on this published, it is good to at least get familiar with how these concepts developed and how they got tied to sexual morality.

Its really funny to see that even early slave rebellions in the Muslim world were actually never trying to abolish slavery. I think for people interested in the topic, Jonathan Brown's recent book is definitely an important read and a good start at understanding the subject. I also believe this is a good watch: 

 

So you essentially saying in some sort of scenario, if a woman does not want to sleep with a man it is morally justifiable for him to impose himself? If you can give me an example ill work with you otherwise that's alot of words to essentially say rape is ok sometimes. 

For your example to force feeding, again controversial but if given consent you are letting them do as they please, if you force feed you are saving their lives, not the same as getting your own sexual pleasure fulfilled against someone else's will. Adultery is not moral as it harms another party, and again consent is required from both parties to commit such an act but you cannot equate the two the same way because we never said adultery is justified due to consent, as what is does with 'sex slaves'. 

I will stop commenting as I think I've gone on long enough, I hope people reflect on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...