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

Imam Ali (a): By Allah even if I am given all the domains of the seven (stars) with all that exists under the skies in order that I may disobey Allah to the extent of snatching one grain of barley from an ant I would not do it.

Now, compare snatching a grain from an ant to forcing someone to have intercourse...which is more brutal?!

 

Qur'an, 24/33:

And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 9:10 AM, Muslimthought97 said:

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. 

But here it is a discussion we could have about slavery in general. Because after all like I said above slavery in general suppose that the slave must obey his master. So are there some orders a Muslim is not suppose to give to his slave? I personally don't know. 

Share this post


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

 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?

The difference between adultery and the issue with slaves is much more than consent. Consent is not the only factor involved.

Share this post


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

they will have a serious identity crisis and feel like 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.

And the traditionalists are similarly being duped into thinking that their interpretation of God's religion has nothing to do with ancient cultural beliefs.

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


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

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. 

Rape is prohibited in Islam and is punishable by death, but why should I care about your definition of rape and about your judgement of the traditional framework and definition of things?Even in the West the definition of rape has changed multiple times over the last century, let alone since the time of the Greeks where it had no sexual connotation, and will probably continue to change. To answer your question: yes, in a scenario where consent has no meaning such an act is justified and it is not defined as rape. Rape only has meaning in a place where consent has relevance. You are presuming relevance of consent in a slave-master relationship, so you have to prove why this needs to be the case for a world where slavery exists. This is also besides the point that today rape is often associated with physical harm and injury, or even death (even though the definition of rape do not include this).

41 minutes ago, Muslimthought97 said:

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.

If adultery isn't a good example, since it "harms another party" (even though there are large segments in the West who do not see it as justified and neither is it illegal in many Western countries), then how about fornication and premarital consensual sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Muhammed Ali said:

And the traditionalists are similarly being duped into thinking that their interpretation of God's religion has nothing to do ancient cultural beliefs.

Fair enough, I am not going to defend the actual ruling since there are many theological presumptions being made to arrive at these rulings, but my point is that so far the responses on against the traditionalist position are weak and based on a very subjective moral compass - there is no reason to take Western normative definitions as the criteria especially when the premises of these norms are very problematic.

Share this post


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

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.

I can understand when one says that these type of laws found in the religious literature are things which were practised back in the day - (probably by the Prophet and Imams themselves?) - and that for us in the modern era to understand these practises, we need to look through the lens of old to ascertain the societal norms of those days. But what I don't understand is that Muhammad (s) was sent with the message in order to dispel ignorance, injustice, wrongdoing, etc and so for these practises to remain in the religious literature means that in the eyes of God they are justified and permissible? And are we now saying that we must move along with the times and take it upon ourselves to prohibit practises the non-Muslims and new age Muslims now find problematic despite their original permissibility?

Finally, are all these rulings only found in hadith? Is there any Quranic backing for [say] non-consensual sex being permissible?

Share this post


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

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 

I don't blame these teachers of religion for doing that. Most people including the scholars are not even able to prove the existence of God or the authenticity of Islam. Do you think the people are able to handle such difficult ahadith if their own teachers are lacking in authenticating their own religion? You would be bringing unnecessary hardship onto the people. You have to balance this hardship with huge amounts of support. Don't give people problems without solutions.

The only people qualified to expose some difficult matters to the public are the ones that are able to increase the belief of the people with sound reasoning, and lots of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

You would be bringing unnecessary hardship onto the people

It shouldn't be hardship. Learning and contemplating over the narrations of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) shouldn't be seen as "unnecessary hardship." 

If it seems difficult to understand such matters, it's only because our scholars and our cultures have chosen to conveniently teach whatever's easy to teach. It's difficult now, because we have not been taught how to think about or approach these topics. 

The fact that we hide the statements of our Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) from the public is shameful. Are we ashamed of the teachings of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)? Are we ashamed of our religion as it is? Why project a false, fake, and chopped off image of our religion to the public and not all of it? 

Sooner or later, in the age of technology, everyone would find out all of it anyways. Instead of being ashamed, hiding and censoring our religion, we ought to be proud and learn how to properly address such issues. 

Edited by SoRoUsH

Share this post


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

But what I don't understand is that Muhammad (s) was sent with the message in order to dispel ignorance, injustice, wrongdoing, etc and so for these practises to remain in the religious literature means that in the eyes of God they are justified and permissible?

There is no necessary relationship between these two sentences, since something simply being in religious literature and being justified in the past does not always mean it has to be justified today.

Quote

And are we now saying that we must move along with the times and take it upon ourselves to prohibit practises the non-Muslims and new age Muslims now find problematic despite their original permissibility?

The laws are always revolving around specific subject-matters and if those subject matters do not exist then the law is not applicable. Slavery laws are a good example of that since their subject-matter (I.e. slaves in the legal sense) do not exist anymore. This also does not necessarily mean there is no possibility of the world returning back to an era in the near future where slaves could again become a necessary part of society - who in their right mind could rationally nullify such a possibility? What will you do then? The abolishment of slavery is not ancient history, it is only very recently that it was abolished (there are many economic and technological reasons for that as well). Otherwise its the existence of slavery that has long been an integral part of human history (across different ethnicities, religions, geographical locations etc.).

Quote

Finally, are all these rulings only found in hadith? Is there any Quranic backing for [say] non-consensual sex being permissible?

Most people have an issue with slavery altogether, not just non-consenual sex which for them is simply making things worse than they already are. Slavery and some of its related laws are very clearly mentioned in the Qur'an - the Qur'an recognized it as an existing phenomenon. 

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can a 'Muslim' be a 'slave' to another 'Muslim'?

Original Islam wise, or is the reference for non Muslims?

Share this post


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

Most people have an issue with slavery altogether, not just non-consenual sex which for them is simply making things worse than they already are. Slavery and some of its related laws are very clearly mentioned in the Qur'an - the Qur'an recognized it as an existing phenomenon. 

I am not so much against the concept of slavery as per Islam, because one could make a balanced argument surrounding it.

However, claiming that a woman whose family had just been killed is allowed to be taken captive, and forced to have sex against her consent, in addition to allowing friends of the captor to touch her sexually (kiss as per the hadith) against her consent which is molestation, followed by permitting for her to be sold so that other men can have forced sex with her against her will is entirely different.

While most people would rather not have slaves, they can tolerate it it somewhat if it is humanely done and contextualised to the right era. Raping and selling women to be further raped is entirely different.

There is absolutely no justification for this post to not be approved. Allah is will be our witness. 

Share this post


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

 This also does not necessarily mean there is no possibility of the world returning back to an era in the near future where slaves could again become a necessary part of society - who in their right mind could rationally nullify such a possibility? What will you do then?

Are being agreeable to being a slave if the conditions change?. Or because you are of the above average class, hopefully that results would be in your favor?.

Perhaps the abolishments of slavery was due to human intellect?.  Via observation or the so called fitrah ingrained in the human will, was awakened to fight for their right to exist on equal grounds?. You seem to follow Aristole on his notion of the existence of slavery being acceptable on the grounds that some are born to be slaves. Thus you have your own influential bias. Ofcourse it is not as simple as we all like to pertain it  to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_slavery

I'd say you are admitting that the scripture is not as divine as we make it out be, considering that the scriptures were following customs of the time period.

Share this post


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

  You would need to break down the premises for your universal claim that sex without consent is injustice

Well, brother, you have the advantage of having spent some time in Iran, so I am not going to argue endlessly.

But from my own sense of ethics, I just cannot accept the premise that compulsion is acceptable.

To me, any sexual activity where consent of either party was missing, is just not right.

And as far as slaves are concerned, in my thinking, the permit to free sex amounts to exploitation of the disadvantage of others.

I will leave it there now.

(I will listen to the video you have kindly given later).

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

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. 

 

16 hours ago, 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 (

Seriously guys?

SLAVE GIRLS?

Did you ever care to think why we don't openly curse the enemies of Ahlul Bayt? When we have Many 100 percent authentic narrations of cursing the enemies of Allah and the ones who hijacked Islam? Why didn't you post and discuss those narrations? 

Why on Earth would you bring such a topic out in public? Slave girls? In this day and age?

To who's benefit? 

And don't use the Yazidi excuse. ISIS is not Islamic. Nor were their actions. 

What is the benefit of such topics to the general Shia/Sunni and non Muslim online browsing public??

If you want to worry about narrations being omitted in translation, worry about SIX WHOLE VOLUMES of Bihaar Al Anwar being banned from reprinting, and excluded from new prints; only because they contain narrations detaling the injustices committed against Fatima Al Zahra!! That's something to worry and complain about in public. Not 'slave girls'!

If you're such well versed researchers in Hadith, you would know that Ahlul Bayt have warned against talking too much. Against openly discussing things at the wrong time and to the wrong audience.

Open a specialist Hadith group and discuss all you want. Because to the average browser, SALVE GIRLS is nothing more than overt sexual perversion. 

And if you don't want to be 'apologetic' about your faith then curse All the enemies of Ahlul Bayt By Name. Now and Openly. Only then open this topic in public. 

Otherwise, think before you post in public. 

Edited by Moalfas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Moalfas said:

Otherwise, think before you post in public. 

I've thought about it, and I'll be posting around 30+ more narrations on the topics of slaves and slave girls soon. 

Thank you for voicing your concern.

You are very welcome to not read them.

Wassalam

Edited by SoRoUsH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Guest yeahornayMonad! said:

Are being agreeable to being a slave if the conditions change?. Or because you are of the above average class, hopefully that results would be in your favor?.

There is enough documentation to show Muslims were also being taken as slaves, especially by Europeans, and that it isn't just that Muslims were the ones capturing slaves. In fact during the Safavid period there were even Shi'as being taken as slaves in the Bukhara regions by the Sunnis. So it's not about agreeing with it since one hopes the results will be in their favour, rather the whole point is that if you can acknowledge that it is a phenomenon that simply exists in all societies and the functionality of society is heavily dependent on it, you will not argue "against" slavery even if you are unhappy that some of your own people have been taken into slavery. As I even earlier mentioned, if you look at the slave rebellions in the Muslim world, even they were not fighting for abolishment of slavery, something like abolishment was not perceivable in those times.

Quote

Perhaps the abolishments of slavery was due to human intellect?. 

No I do not care about Aristotle's division of hierarchy here, my whole point is that the ethical perceptions you are feeling today about slavery have nothing to do with some pure or higher human intellect - rather they are totally subjective and a result of the world you grew up in. How can you honestly say that if you were living 500 years ago in Turkey or Iran or even Europe, you would have had these same problems with slavery?

Quote

Via observation or the so called fitrah ingrained in the human will, was awakened to fight for their right to exist on equal grounds?

Though I do not believe this claim through the Fitrah has any real defense, but for argument's sake, I would rather say that a millennia of humans engaging in this activity is more evidence of it being in line with the Fitrah than to look at the actions of a society in an era where one could argue the Fitrah hasn't been seen as more corrupt than it in human history before.

Quote

I'd say you are admitting that the scripture is not as divine as we make it out be, considering that the scriptures were following customs of the time period.

By me admitting that the scripture is divine, it does not mean some parts of it can't become practically irrelevant in certain times and places. See below:

6 hours ago, baqar said:

But from my own sense of ethics, I just cannot accept the premise that compulsion is acceptable.

Muslims (and humans in general) are often brought up with these universal ideas, such as "compulsion is unacceptable", "Prophet is a role model", "Qur'an is for eternity", "Religion has an answer for everything" etc. which are generally true ideas, but without a scholarly treatment of these principles one does not know their limits. For example, we say Prophet is a role model, but a role model in what? If he decorates his house a certain way or lives in a mud-house, does that really mean it is ideal for us today to live in mud-houses and decorate our house the same way he did? Or if Fatima (s) is a role model for us, then does it really mean we should also get our daughters married at 10? Or when we say Qur'an is for eternity - what about the Qur'an is for eternity? Does that really mean every single verse of it has to be practically applicable in all times and ages (even if there is no context left for them) or that the general theological and ethical precepts in it are meant to be for eternity? These ideas need to be expounded on and conveyed to the general Muslim population because too often they have some ideas in their mind which are absolute and they expect it to be applicable in every instance, yet when they see its not, they begin questioning the integrity of things - whereas the problem is often that the principle itself was not as absolute as they had thought.

3 hours ago, Moalfas said:

Did you ever care to think why we don't openly curse the enemies of Ahlul Bayt? When we have Many 100 percent authentic narrations of cursing the enemies of Allah and the ones who hijacked Islam? Why didn't you post and discuss those narrations? 

Actually many of them have been posted and there is more than enough discussion on those traditions on this website and elsewhere in the Shi'a world.

Quote

Why on Earth would you bring such a topic out in public? Slave girls? In this day and age? To who's benefit? What is the benefit of such topics to the general Shia/Sunni and non Muslim online browsing public??

Open a specialist Hadith group and discuss all you want. Because to the average browser, SALVE GIRLS is nothing more than overt sexual perversion. 

You are making it sound like people are pushing for slavery today or something - this is a historical discussion. We are talking about something that exists in scripture and was a valid and legitimate system that existed in the world. Slavery and Islam is a very well known phenomenon and is a matter that many have already attacked Islam for, since many decades and if the only cop-out an average Shi'a growing in the West is going to have is to describe it as a "Sunni phenomenon" then that is highly problematic. Firstly because this has created nothing but a whole generation of ignorant Shi'as of their own history, law, heritage; and secondly which is more disturbing is that they are willing to judge all of human history and paint them as immoral and unethical based purely on the acceptance of modern ethics - not realizing the subjectivity of their own ethics today. This second is highly problematic since it does not just begin and end at slavery, rather it leads to the questioning of many other things that exist in religious scripture such as apostasy laws, blasphemy laws, temporary marriages (I.e. compared to prostitution), the hijab, "child" marriages, Prophet being a "pedophile", the "patriarchal structures" of law and so on. 

Quote

If you want to worry about narrations being omitted in translation, worry about SIX WHOLE VOLUMES of Bihaar Al Anwar being banned from reprinting, and excluded from new prints; only because they contain narrations detaling the injustices committed against Fatima Al Zahra!! That's something to worry and complain about in public. Not 'slave girls'!

They were banned for a short period of time when there were some unity efforts being made during the time of Ayatullah Borujerdi, but have long been in print since even before the Islamic revolution. These volumes are very easily accessible so I don't know what you are talking about.

Quote

And if you don't want to be 'apologetic' about your faith then curse All the enemies of Ahlul Bayt By Name.

There is no precedent in the practice of the Imams with regards to the open cursing of their enemies, so there is enough grounds to argue against it being ideal - not just because of some "time and place" matter today.

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


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

I just cannot accept it.

Sorry.

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

That's fair that you think it's gross and completely immoral. But then we have to consider how it is narrated from the Imams in such a high number of mu'tabar reports and the early Shia scholars and their successors all acted on these reports and gave fatawa accordingly. Considering such a wide number of reports it seems more likely these are from the Imam than such a mass conspiracy was engaged. And to what end did it work? To delineate what was already an unquestionable fact of life (using slaves for sexual pleasure and the institution of slavery as a whole) but something the Imams would have apparently found wrong even though we have nothing to the contrary? We are sort of forced to accept there's a good chance that these might be from the Imams or just arbitrarily say these can't possibly be at all. But if we arbitrarily reject these hadith as not from the Imams even though they have wide circulation, seem to be what the early Shia were acting on, and are reliable in chain, then we can be justified in arbitrarily accepting or rejecting anything. Alternatively we can accept that at least in this instance this is from the Imams rather than choosing to arbitrarily reject these ahadith as truly from the Imams. But then in that case since you began with the assumption they're immoral then you'd be forced to accept the Imams legislated something qabeeh -- though that is a matter for you to reconcile with yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 9:56 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

For example, we say Prophet is a role model, but a role model in what? If he decorates his house a certain way or lives in a mud-house, does that really mean it is ideal for us today to live in mud-houses and decorate our house the same way he did? Or if Fatima (s) is a role model for us, then does it really mean we should also get our daughters married at 10?

They are role models in Amr bil Maroof and Nahi anil Munkar. That is all.

If they married their daughter at a certain age, it does not qualify as an integral part of their being a role model.

As for living in a mud house, I think they have already told us that we cannot do everything that they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

But then we have to consider how it is narrated from the Imams in such a high number of mu'tabar reports and the early Shia scholars and their successors all acted on these reports and gave fatawa accordingly.

Yes brother, I understand your point. 

It doesn't worry me too much because there are no slaves in the present day.

But if I did have a slave girl, I like to think that I would never have sex with her.

That is what I would like to think anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rationalisation

I don't think the issue here is against Allah the Almighty allowing a slave woman to be mahram to the man, with the option of sexual relations, like he does for his own wife. What is difficult for most people is this idea that you can force her to have sex against her will, those traditions quoted that you can allow your friends to touch and kiss her (is it against her weill?) which amounts to inhumane molestation. Furthermore, the idea that if she is then allegedly forced into sex after being molested, damages are apparently only paid to the owner, who is free to sell her to his friends to have sex with - even against her will.

The physical pain this would place on the woman, and most importantly , the psychological pain can not be understated. Rape (the general worldwide consensus understanding and not the shariah technical view) is inhumane and cruel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Guest Ibrahim said:

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. 

You are talking about instances where the woman is not aroused and so on, have you seen absolutely any religious source legitimizing this or even bringing such a scenario up? I have yet to see anything encouraging or permitting this - on the contrary there are traditions saying make sure the woman is aroused and so on. You seem to be conflating your understanding of war-rape with what these narrations are talking about. You cannot harm a slave, or even your wife, but what does that have to do with consent? You are tying consent with harm because this is what has been understood to be the case in the last century (in fact marital rape only became a thing very recently even in the West - because marriage itself is a contract of "implied consent", hence marital "rape" had no meaning). The two things (consent and harm) are not mutually inclusive. As for psychological harms, to say that these harms were universal in all contexts, times and places is not proven - yes today due to one's upbringing and how the world functions and what is expected from humans, such a phenomenon may cause psychological harm, but in a world where this is a norm and expected, one has to prove these individuals were suffering from psychological harm. A good example is child-marriage. There is no doubt that child-marriage (in our definition today) was a thing in the past (even though what we call child today were not considered children then) - yet to claim these "children" (in the past) were suffering psychological damages is laughable. I am sure we have members on this forum whose grandmothers were married off by the age of 13-16, ask them if they are willing to say their grandmothers were psychologically damaged and harmed.

14 hours ago, Guest Rationalisation said:

However, claiming that a woman whose family had just been killed is allowed to be taken captive, and forced to have sex against her consent, in addition to allowing friends of the captor to touch her sexually (kiss as per the hadith) against her consent which is molestation, followed by permitting for her to be sold so that other men can have forced sex with her against her will is entirely different.

While most people would rather not have slaves, they can tolerate it it somewhat if it is humanely done and contextualised to the right era. Raping and selling women to be further raped is entirely different.

There is absolutely no justification for this post to not be approved. Allah is will be our witness. 

Without exhaustive contextualizing you can make anything sound evil or good in the past. Each of those variables you added have connotations today that may not have existed in the past as a part and parcel of life - once again you mentioned consent, when consent actually had no perceivable meaning in this social phenomenon. Someone can come 200 years from now where the world, education system, and work force are so different that they could possibly say, "Kids would be forced by the state to go to schools till the age of 18, being indoctrinated by state course material, with their only goal being to prepare them for the work force in order to serve the wealthy establishments. They would make them so dependent upon these individuals and establishments - without their consent - that individuals had no choice but to spend lots of money out of their pockets and go into debt just to pursue even further studies to get a piece of paper so they could get a job and to live pay cheque to pay cheque which would put food on their tables, only then to be at the mercy of their boss who could fire them over the most trivial mistake. Such a thing causes psychological harm and serious stress and is against the will and autonomous nature of man and against basic human rights."

Can you nullify the possibility of the above moral judgement in the near future? We cannot nullify it. If such a moral judgement about our norms today is possible in the near future due to significant changes in the world, we say it makes no sense for those in the future to judge us as unethical and immoral humans for what we are doing today and is considered acceptable. We do not find such a life immoral currently (in fact, on the contrary some are claiming this is the most ethical we have ever been in human history).

48 minutes ago, baqar said:

They are role models in Amr bil Maroof and Nahi anil Munkar. That is all.

I was only asking those questions for purpose of thinking and contemplation - otherwise the scholarly discussions on it are far too complicated and technical to discuss on this forum.

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rationalisation
On 12/8/2019 at 4:41 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

You are talking about instances where the woman is not aroused and so on, have you seen absolutely any religious source legitimizing this or even bringing such a scenario up? I have yet to see anything encouraging or permitting this - on the contrary there are traditions saying make sure the woman is aroused and so on. You seem to be conflating your understanding of war-rape with what these narrations are talking about. You cannot harm a slave, or even your wife, but what does that have to do with consent? You are tying consent with harm because this is what has been understood to be the case in the last century (in fact marital rape only became a thing very recently even in the West - because marriage itself is a contract of "implied consent", hence marital "rape" had no meaning). The two things (consent and harm) are not mutually inclusive. As for psychological harms, to say that these harms were universal in all contexts, times and places is not proven - yes today due to one's upbringing and how the world functions and what is expected from humans, such a phenomenon may cause psychological harm, but in a world where this is a norm and expected, one has to prove these individuals were suffering from psychological harm. A good example is child-marriage. There is no doubt that child-marriage (in our definition today) was a thing in the past (even though what we call child today were not considered children then) - yet to claim these "children" (in the past) were suffering psychological damages is laughable. I am sure we have members on this forum whose grandmothers were married off by the age of 13-16, ask them if they are willing to say their grandmothers were psychologically damaged and harmed.

Without exhaustive contextualizing you can make anything sound evil or good in the past. Each of those variables you added have connotations today that may not have existed in the past as a part and parcel of life - once again you mentioned consent, when consent actually had no perceivable meaning in this social phenomenon. Someone can come 200 years from now where the world, education system, and work force are so different that they could possibly say, "Kids would be forced by the state to go to schools till the age of 18, being indoctrinated by state course material, with their only goal being to prepare them for the work force in order to serve the wealthy establishments. They would make them so dependent upon these individuals and establishments - without their consent - that individuals had no choice but to spend lots of money out of their pockets and go into debt just to pursue even further studies to get a piece of paper so they could get a job and to live pay cheque to pay cheque which would put food on their tables, only then to be at the mercy of their boss who could fire them over the most trivial mistake. Such a thing causes psychological harm and serious stress and is against the will and autonomous nature of man and against basic human rights."

Can you nullify the possibility of the above moral judgement in the near future? We cannot nullify it. If such a moral judgement about our norms today is possible in the near future due to significant changes in the world, we say it makes no sense for those in the future to judge us as unethical and immoral humans for what we are doing today and is considered acceptable. We do not find such a life immoral currently (in fact, on the contrary some are claiming this is the most ethical we have ever been in human history).

I was only asking those questions for purpose of thinking and contemplation - otherwise the scholarly discussions on it are far too complicated and technical to discuss on this forum.

Wasalam

Thank you for your reply, you are one of the few people who could pull of being an academic position of this, though I do have some points I wish to raise:

1. Given this topic is highly sensitive in nature, although Islam does denote the term "marital rape" or consider it rape if it is done between two parties that are halal for each other, you have mentioned that harm must not be caused. This is perhaps the confusion with all of this, given rape in the overwhelming majority of cases does cause psychological and physical harm. Is the notion that consent is not required more of an onus to the woman to not refuse without just excuse to a man that is halal for her, than it is for the man to force himself upon her?

2. Why is rape outside of a marriage punishable by death? Is it more due to the spiritual and the social I.e. taking away the honour of a woman? Or is the ruling also taking into account on a very common observation in that sexual molestation and abuse causes far greater psychological and at times, physical effects than even physical violence does, leaving victims often traumatised. 

3. The question of psychological harm is an interesting one. We are all compelled to do things. We have to pay taxes if we can, we have to pray, we have to abide by laws. In fact, if someone was a slave, they would generally have to obey their master. However, can all forms of subjugation be considered equal? Are there certain kinds which have a profoundly more negative psychological impact? If a woman who had lost her husband was taken in by a Muslim man, who forced himself on her but did not leave a mark, would women of that era suffer similar physiological effects to women today? Let us say it was established this was the case, can we compare the great physiological trauma, that studies have demonstrated is significantly correlated with PTSD, depression, anxiety, to forcing children to attend school? 

Consent may have not bee used as a term when it came to marital relations, but does this mean there was no concept on a wife being able to refuse, or against a man forcing himself on his wife against her will? 

Finally, why does the Hadith talk about a man who owns a slave woman allowing a friend or associate of his to sexually molest his slave girl? If you can imagine, this woman is having sexual relations with the owner. His associate comes in and initiates sexual contact with her - now does he do this against her will, and is this not molesting her? Furthermore, if this man then engages in sexual intercourse with her, having not been halal for her at all, without her consent and forcing himself on her, while she may have been frightened to physically fight back, is that considered acceptable? This is an even bigger issue is it not? What precedent does it set on human rights and values? 

There are also traditions where one of our holy Imams sees a slave woman trying to put on the veil and perform Salah, and essentially takes off the head garment from her. Is this narration reliable, and if so, how can we justify crying for the women of Kerbala, whose veils are viciously removed from them, bemoan their loss of dignity but turn a blind eye towards a woman wanting to cover up in front of God in prayer not being allowed to do so? Personally speaking, I had always thought anyone marrying a non-Hijabi perhaps ought not to do so, because I viewed sexual immorality and showing off aura to be a big deal. However, if the Hijab is only a symbol of being a Muslimah, and not this scandalous sexual display which causes corruption, what exactly differentiates not wearing it compared to a brother who shaves his beard?

Share this post


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

A good example is child-marriage. There is no doubt that child-marriage (in our definition today) was a thing in the past (even though what we call child today were not considered children then) - yet to claim these "children" (in the past) were suffering psychological damages is laughable. I am sure we have members on this forum whose grandmothers were married off by the age of 13-16, ask them if they are willing to say their grandmothers were psychologically damaged and harmed.

My grandmother, who is very, very old from another country was married in her early teens to my long deceased grandfather in his 30s and loved him dearly. Obviously we would both agree that society has now changed, and we are not promoting this, and encourage people to follow the law and not condone this.  

Share this post


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

I was only speaking about 2 minutes of the video (between 1:05 to 1:07), not anything else.

Salam,

So what I understood was basically that we cannot lie about Islam.

But if a non-Muslim was to come up to us and ask us about our views on slavery, wouldn't it be beneficial to "lie" in this situation? I recall when we had a discussion on taqiyyah mudarati, and you posted a video where Mohammed Hijab was debating an atheist and from memory he was basically saying things like "Islam came to abolish slavery". Now, to be honest, I'm not sure what Mohammed Hijab's views are, but lets assume that he knows that Islam didn't come to abolish slavery. Wouldn't lying in this situation be better when trying to convince a non-Muslim to convert to Islam?

And what about if a Sunni asks us about our opinion about Abu Bakr and Umar? Isn't it allowed in this scenario to lie and say something like we admire them?  

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how people forget that the ones they point their fingers at are the ones who gave the slaves, women and lesser races and castes their basic human rights in a time where these used to be killed in the most cruel ways. I wish I was one of their slaves serving ahl al bayt (عليه السلام).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Serf!Monad

Not sure if this post will be censored, last few were and they were not any different to what MA wrote. :einstein:

On 12/7/2019 at 9:56 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

There is enough documentation to show Muslims were also being taken as slaves,

I'd like to make it clear that my posts are not something just related to Islam or the tribes within it, rather it is related to the whole. Also a very complex subject to discuss.

we all agree that it is had been a phenomenon just like how religion it self is part of it too. Yes, we do acknowledge that slavery through out the existence of mankind, was based on the strong dominating the weak and deciding their fate or rights. You seem to accept slavery on the grounds of economics and history. However using slavery as part of economics would stem under vice. Religion disagrees on vice or rather to the unintiated it pretends to disallow it. But to allow a particular type of thing it creates loopholes or conditions on certain grounds. be it for Economic purposes to the control of those betowed with low intelligence, difference of belief or captured goods.

I do understand it from all perspectives. I think what the many find contradictory is the claim of the scriptures and stories of the divines to be saintly in observing human rights, while clearly negating divinity to follow the customs and ideas of their own timlines. Thus proving that their status is nothing short of an exaggeration or a proposed tribal affiliation where the majority have been pited against one tribe to another. Or an old quote which states that War is nothing but sport of Kings or "War is the continuation of politics by other means.". That is the proletariat are nothing but tools for the upperclass.

Your defense seems to be that of the acceptability of the past due to conditioned behaviors which for you seems to be the precedence of it being righteous. What you failed to realise is that because a behavior was conditioned by the majority does not make correct. All it implies is that human thought for that particular aspect of reality was slow in development perhaps due to Stockholm syndrome. We also can accept the human vary in mind, they do not have the ability to follow the proposed laws on the treatment of slaves. If the mind is attached to a multitude of vice on the daily bases it cannot but negate law depending on the conditions imposed on its self. If I want to produce more, I will make my slaves work harder then say my neighbour. If I end up producing more, my neighbour in turn will follow. Eventually exhausting the resources, thus looking at new opportunities to find new stronger, slaves, breed more slaves, perhaps even improve their condition ( give them extra meals, a rest day ) just to produce more. This is how in the west we ended up with breaks and days off. Not to exhaust the resource.

On 12/7/2019 at 9:56 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

No I do not care about Aristotle's division of hierarchy here, my whole point is that the ethical perceptions you are feeling today about slavery have nothing to do with some pure or higher human intellect - rather they are totally subjective and a result of the world you grew up in. How can you honestly say that if you were living 500 years ago in Turkey or Iran or even Europe, you would have had these same problems with slavery?

That is true to some extent, see above regarding conditioned behavior and idea. But it would also have depended on which part of the ladder I was born in and the conditions imposed on me.  In fact we could question why we question, if what we are questioning it self is not part of the divine plan?. Or simply put, its human nature to follow what we think is good and bad depending on what benefits we reap from it and this is where law stems from. A form of balance but where the law maker derives the most advantage.

Were not the so called divines who went against the grain and the works of whom today we revere?. Maybe thats the reason why you/we follow them?. The claim of them taking our ancestors out of ignorance and into new modes of thinking and living?. We all choose different masters to follow too, eventually becoming masters overselves.

Maybe we can follow socrates on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno's_slave  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno - or http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html

On 12/7/2019 at 9:56 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Though I do not believe this claim through the Fitrah has any real defense, but for argument's sake, I would rather say that a millennia of humans engaging in this activity is more evidence of it being in line with the Fitrah than to look at the actions of a society in an era where one could argue the Fitrah hasn't been seen as more corrupt than it in human history before.

See link above, and also the same is found in Islamic works.

Correct. So why do we argue about humans adopting different religions, giving opinion, or moving away from it and following what the status quo is?. If humans follow what is always current,or what they are taught by the powerful to be correct  then religion was only current during the time it was revealed or created. We can see that whatever we all follow has always been made by those on the top end of societies spectrum.

On 12/7/2019 at 9:56 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Muslims (and humans in general) are often brought up with these universal ideas, such as "compulsion is unacceptable", etc

I agree with you on this, but you will find only a minority who do. But there is also a major critique with this idea. A, you are now removing divinity of the divines. The Prophet is not actually a Prophet/s but men with ideas to push society in a direction according to their own will. For ideas to become the ideal, the innovater has to convince the multitude of its divinity or in todays era the conviction is based on the term "science".

On 12/8/2019 at 4:03 AM, baqar said:

It doesn't worry me too much because there are no slaves in the present day.

But if I did have a slave girl, I like to think that I would never have sex with her.

Actually it does. You can search engine - TED Talks Slavery. also  https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century - If you study economics you will find that we are being lead to it. One does not become or a billionaire or retain that status without exploitation.

terminologies change, but the behaviors remain. Infact you would actually have sex with her. It would all depend on her beauty, charm and the eventual claim of familiarity. In fact the point of sleeping with ones slave would come under a particular right. That is human touch, bonds, marriage or the right to procreate. Her right to sex. But it just comes under the condition where she has no choice to decide the design of the male.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a bunch more: 

(11

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ عَنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ سَمَاعَةَ قَالَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ رَجُلٍ اشْتَرَى جَارِيَةً وَ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهَا زَوْجٌ أَ يَسْتَبْرِئُ رَحِمَهَا قَالَ نَعَمْ قُلْتُ فَإِنْ كَانَتْ لَمْ تَحِضْ فَقَالَ أَمْرُهَا شَدِيدٌ فَإِنْ هُوَ أَتَاهَا فَلَا يُنْزِلِ الْمَاءَ حَتَّى يَسْتَبِينَ أَ حُبْلَى هِيَ أَمْ لَا قُلْتُ وَ فِي كَمْ تَسْتَبِينُ لَهُ قَالَ فِي خَمْسَةٍ وَ أَرْبَعِينَ يَوْماً 

(12

 عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ حَمَّادٍ عَنِ الْحَلَبِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ فِي رَجُلٍ اشْتَرَى جَارِيَةً لَمْ يَكُنْ صَاحِبُهَا يَطَؤُهَا أَ يَسْتَبْرِئُ رَحِمَهَا قَالَ نَعَمْ قُلْتُ جَارِيَةٌ لَمْ تَحِضْ كَيْفَ يُصْنَعُ بِهَا قَالَ أَمْرُهَا شَدِيدٌ غَيْرَ أَنَّهُ إِنْ أَتَاهَا فَلَا يُنْزِلْ عَلَيْهَا حَتَّى يَسْتَبِينَ لَهُ إِنْ كَانَ بِهَا حَبَلٌ قُلْتُ وَ فِي كَمْ يَسْتَبِينُ لَهُ قَالَ فِي خَمْسٍ وَ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً 

(13

 عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ حَفْصِ بْنِ الْبَخْتَرِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ فِي الرَّجُلِ يَشْتَرِي الْأَمَةَ مِنْ رَجُلٍ فَيَقُولُ إِنِّي لَمْ أَطَأْهَا فَقَالَ إِنْ وَثِقَ بِهِ فَلَا بَأْسَ بِأَنْ يَأْتِيَهَا وَ قَالَ فِي رَجُلٍ يَبِيعُ الْأَمَةَ مِنْ رَجُلٍ فَقَالَ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يَسْتَبْرِئَ 
مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ يَبِيعَ 

(14

 عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ حَمَّادٍ عَنِ الْحَلَبِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع أَنَّهُ قَالَ فِي رَجُلٍ ابْتَاعَ جَارِيَةً وَ لَمْ تَطْمَثْ قَالَ إِنْ كَانَتْ صَغِيرَةً وَ لَا يُتَخَوَّفُ عَلَيْهَا الْحَبَلُ فَلَيْسَ بِهِ عَلَيْهَا عِدَّةٌ وَ لْيَطَأْهَا إِنْ شَاءَ وَ إِنْ كَانَتْ قَدْ بَلَغَتْ وَ لَمْ تَطْمَثْ فَإِنَّ عَلَيْهَا الْعِدَّةَ قَالَ وَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ رَجُلٍ اشْتَرَى جَارِيَةً وَ هِيَ حَائِضٌ قَالَ إِذَا طَهُرَتْ فَلْيَمَسَّهَا إِنْ شَاءَ 

(15

 مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سِنَانٍ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع عَنِ الرَّجُلِ يَشْتَرِي الْجَارِيَةَ وَ لَمْ تَحِضْ قَالَ يَعْتَزِلُهَا شَهْراً إِنْ كَانَتْ قَدْ مُسَّتْ قَالَ أَ فَرَأَيْتَ إِنِ ابْتَاعَهَا وَ هِيَ طَاهِرٌ وَ زَعَمَ صَاحِبُهَا أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَطَأْهَا مُنْذُ طَهُرَتْ قَالَ إِنْ كَانَ عِنْدَكَ أَمِيناً فَمَسَّهَا وَ قَالَ إِنَّ ذَا الْأَمْرَ شَدِيدٌ فَإِنْ كُنْتَ لَا بُدَّ فَاعِلًا فَتَحَفَّظْ لَا تُنْزِلْ عَلَيْهَا 

(16

 عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ عَنْ أَخِيهِ الْحَسَنِ عَنْ زُرْعَةَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ سَمَاعَةَ قَالَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ رَجُلٍ اشْتَرَى جَارِيَةً وَ هِيَ طَامِثٌ أَ يَسْتَبْرِئُ رَحِمَهَا بِحَيْضَةٍ أُخْرَى أَمْ تَكْفِيهِ هَذِهِ الْحَيْضَةُ فَقَالَ لَا بَلْ تَكْفِيهِ هَذِهِ الْحَيْضَةُ فَإِنِ اسْتَبْرَأَهَا بِأُخْرَى فَلَا بَأْسَ هِيَ بِمَنْزِلَةِ فَضْلٍ 

(17

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَحْمَدَ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ سَعِيدٍ عَنْ مُصَدِّقِ بْنِ صَدَقَةَ عَنْ عَمَّارِ بْنِ مُوسَى عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع فِي رَجُلٍ اشْتَرَى مِنْ رَجُلٍ جَارِيَةً بِثَمَنٍ مُسَمًّى ثُمَّ افْتَرَقَا قَالَ وَجَبَ الْبَيْعُ وَ لَيْسَ لَهُ أَنْ يَطَأَهَا وَ هِيَ عِنْدَ صَاحِبِهَا حَتَّى يَقْبِضَهَا وَ يُعْلِمَ صَاحِبَهَا وَ الثَّمَنُ إِذَا لَمْ يَكُونَا اشْتَرَطَا فَهُوَ نَقْدٌ 

(18

 عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ وَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ عَنِ الْفَضْلِ بْنِ شَاذَانَ جَمِيعاً عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ رِفَاعَةَ بْنِ مُوسَى عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ الْأَمَةِ الْحُبْلَى يَشْتَرِيهَا الرَّجُلُ فَقَالَ سُئِلَ عَنْ ذَلِكَ أَبِي ع فَقَالَ أَحَلَّتْهَا آيَةٌ وَ حَرَّمَتْهَا آيَةٌ أُخْرَى 
أَنَا نَاهٍ عَنْهَا نَفْسِي وَ وُلْدِي فَقَالَ الرَّجُلُ أَنَا أَرْجُو أَنْ أَنْتَهِيَ إِذَا نَهَيْتَ نَفْسَكَ وَ وَلَدَكَ 

(19

 مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ رِفَاعَةَ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ مُوسَى ع فَقُلْتُ أَشْتَرِي الْجَارِيَةَ فَتَمْكُثُ عِنْدِيَ الْأَشْهُرَ لَا تَطْمَثُ وَ لَيْسَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ كِبَرٍ فَأُرِيهَا النِّسَاءَ فَيَقُلْنَ لَيْسَ بِهَا حَبَلٌ أَ فَلِي أَنْ أَنْكِحَهَا فِي فَرْجِهَا فَقَالَ إِنَّ الطَّمْثَ قَدْ تَحْبِسُهُ الرِّيحُ مِنْ غَيْرِ حَبَلٍ فَلَا بَأْسَ أَنْ تَمَسَّهَا فِي الْفَرْجِ قُلْتُ فَإِنْ كَانَتْ حُبْلَى فَمَا لِي مِنْهَا إِنْ أَرَدْتُ قَالَ لَكَ مَا دُونَ الْفَرْجِ 

(20

 عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ وَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي نَجْرَانَ عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ حُمَيْدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ قَيْسٍ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع قَالَ فِي الْوَلِيدَةِ يَشْتَرِيهَا الرَّجُلُ وَ هِيَ حُبْلَى قَالَ لَا يَقْرَبْهَا حَتَّى تَضَعَ وَلَدَهَا 

(21

 مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ ابْنِ فَضَّالٍ عَنِ ابْنِ بُكَيْرٍ عَنْ زُرَارَةَ بْنِ أَعْيَنَ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ ع عَنِ الْجَارِيَةِ الْحُبْلَى يَشْتَرِيهَا الرَّجُلُ فَيُصِيبُ مِنْهَا دُونَ الْفَرْجِ قَالَ لَا بَأْسَ قُلْتُ فَيُصِيبُ مِنْهَا فِي ذَلِكَ قَالَ تُرِيدُ تَغِرَّةً 

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...