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

روي: أن الإمام علياً (عليه السلام)، قد قال للرجل اليوناني بعدما أسلم: «وآمرك أن تصون دينك، وعلمنا الذي أودعناك، وأسرارنا الذي حملناك، فلا تبد علومنا لمن يقابلها بالعناد، ويقابلك من أجلها بالشتم واللعن، والتناول من العرض والبدن.

ولا تفش سرنا إلى من يشنع علينا عند الجاهلين بأحوالنا، ويعرّض أولياءنا لبوادر الجهال..».

إلى أن قال: «فإنك إن خالفت وصيتي كان ضررك على نفسك، وإخوانك، أشد من ضرر الناصب لنا، الكافر بنا..».

راجع: البحار ج35 ص10 و12 

Further references:

روضة الواعظين ص68 ـ 71 

 فضائل ابن شاذان ص57 

جامع الأخبار ص17

It's narrated that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said to a Greek man after accepting Islam: 

 ‘I order you to safeguard your Deen and our knowledge which we have passed onto you and our secrets that we have entrusted in you; do not expose our knowledge to whoever faces it with obstinacy, and faces you (because of our knowledge) with insults and cursing and -abuses- your family and your body.

And do not spread our secret to whoever may slander us to the ones ignorant of us as it puts our followers under the duress of the ignorant'

Until he (عليه السلام) said: 

‘And If you disobey my direction, the harm on yourself and your brethren will be more severe than the harm of our Nasib, our rejector’ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I don't know what this guy is complaining about but this thread is mandatory, not necessarily because of the topic but because of how we should be reading history and understanding things. Thank you, Ibn Al-Hussain and others who have contributed, This is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Moalfas

These legalistic narrations are in no way "secrets" of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). Your argument and attempt to censor our religion is ridiculous. 

I am not ashamed of these teachings of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). If you are, then that's something you need to deal with. 

Anyways, as I said earlier, if these narrations upset you, you are more than welcome to not read them. 

Consider this post, my last response to your attempts. 

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 5:09 PM, SoRoUsH said:

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. 

I am not of the opinion that these ahadith should actually be censored at an academic level. They should not. However there should be a lot more cogent material in defense of Islam, in light of these ahadith and other difficult issues (which may involve giving a variety of opinions that differ from the traditional ones). I also think that these ahadith should not be told to people who are not capable of handling them. E.g. I am not going to tell an old Shi'I man who is close to his death about them. 

You might not feel uncomfortable with the idea of a Shia 'slave' owner telling a woman to separate from her husband so he can sleep with her, and then telling her to go back to him after the 2 month period. But many people would be horrified with the idea that there are ahadith which say that. 

You must acknowledge that not everyone has the moral outlook that you have. And it's not simply a result of Western liberal values. Even people in many traditionally Eastern cultures would find that act outright immoral. Even free thinkers who are able to think beyond their cultural norms would find that act repulsive on objective grounds. There are some Muslims who are more compassionate than other Muslims. If you don't feel even a little uncomfortable with the idea of sexually forcing a married slave girl (who was captured outside of war), then there is something wrong with you.

Since you mentioned censorship, here is a fatwa in an English book (on the most famous Shia website) about taking slaves:

Quote

 

Q.58: Is the buying and selling of slaves lawful in this age also? ls it allowed to apprehend people from Africa etc. and sell them in other places?

Freeing of slaves as expiation for lapsed fasts is ordered in the Holy Qur'an. If this order is permanent, it has become impracticable today.

A: Yes, it is permissible for a Muslim to apprehend an original disbeliever in any way and from anywhere and enslave him provided he is not under treaty or responsibility of any Muslim (Zimmi). After that his buying and selling is allowed.

 

https://www.al-Islam.org/82-questions-ayatullah-Sayyid-abdul-husayn-dastghaib-shirazi/jurisprudence-fiqh#question-58

Later he justifies it by stating that the slave may become familiar with Islam. I am sure you teach Islam without capturing people.

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Muhammed Ali

If these narrations were not censored and hidden away, and if they were known to the public, like all other narrations, then through time and through debates, by now we'd have plenty of cogent material on them. The fact that most people feel uncomfortable and wouldn't know how to react is a symptom of the problem that has lasted for a long time. 

We are hoping to be accepted within a framework that we didn't construct ourselves. We need to have these narrations in the open, study and understand them, and with them in mind construct a moral and ethical framework that is coherent with everything else in our faith. 

We can't build a religion, a faith, an ethical framework, by ignoring some narrations and only focusing on some others. And then later hope that the ones we hid under the rug to not show up. 

These narrations need to coherently fit with the rest of the narrations from Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). We need to find a way to do so. Until we do, we won't have a complete understanding of Islam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2019 at 7:43 PM, SoRoUsH said:

@Muhammed Ali

We are hoping to be accepted within a framework that we didn't construct ourselves. We need to have these narrations in the open, study and understand them, and with them in mind construct a moral and ethical framework that is coherent with everything else in our faith. 

This right here is the core issue. From the starting point, before even truly studying a topic, we are already on the defensive because too many Muslims are sadly only searching for replies to external criticism. 

If the foundation is weak and full of holes then you can't build anything solid on it.

Our objective should be first and foremost to learn for the sake of gaining knowledge qurbatan ilallah

Of course non Muslims and Muslims alike have questions which we can address but the objective should be to transmit what Islam says rather than to defend or justify. It is entirely possible that many will disagree and object - so be it. We don't need to reconstruct the deen just to make the critics happy. They won't be truly satisfied until we throw the Qur'an away altogether. 

Rather let's learn the deen as it was taught by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) through the Qur'an and the ma'soomeen (عليه السلام). Without this there is no salvation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 7:52 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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.

My fault for not being clear. Let me rephrase.

The Prophet came at a time when burying the infant female was normal. But Islam abolished such a thing because it's injustice despite it being socially acceptable at the time.

However, from what we read of the literature, sexual slavery along with all its perks of non-consensual sex, selling to friends, etc was not abolished. To say that it wasn't abolished because it was "socially acceptable" then is what I don't understand. The practise is abhorrent and surely the religious stance shouldn't be based on social norms but on ethics.

Share this post


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

surely the religious stance shouldn't be based on social norms but on ethics.

Ironic. In the history of the shaping of our religious history we see a huge influence exerted by the respect for the wishes of the people and their social norms. If its alcohol it gets forbidden in steps and over time, if its the will of the people to not fight Muawiya the Imams back off and let go, and the sheikhein are allowed to rule so that people do not doubt that Islam was not only for establishing a Hashimite dynasty. And now people of the modern time face completely different social norms so they complain again the tailored garment of Islam does not fit them perfectly. Even though slavery was your business not Islam's which only showed an Islamic way of how to conduct some of it. Now folks are unhappy why it did that while making suggestions to God the Designer and Creator on how to deal with social norms of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

Ironic. In the history of the shaping of our religious history we see a huge influence exerted by the respect for the wishes of the people and their social norms. If its alcohol it gets forbidden in steps and over time, if its the will of the people to not fight Muawiya the Imams back off and let go, and the sheikhein are allowed to rule so that people do not doubt that Islam was not only for establishing a Hashimite dynasty. And now people of the modern time face completely different social norms so they complain again the tailored garment of Islam does not fit them perfectly. Even though slavery was your business not Islam's which only showed an Islamic way of how to conduct some of it. Now folks are unhappy why it did that while making suggestions to God the Designer and Creator on how to deal with social norms of the people.

You’re saying it as if Islam was helpless in stopping animalistic behaviour. If Islam could stop people from drinking alcohol, I’m sure it could’ve stopped rape and molestation of war captives, etc. From what I understand, Islamic countries didn’t even actively try to phase slavery out and were the last to finally outlaw it due to pressure from the West. All this about so n so being allowed because of “social norms of that time” is a cop-out. People need to stop using that as an excuse and admit their religious stance [derived from filthy hadith] allowed such practise on the basis of it being justified. I don’t believe any of those things. The Qur'an is clear on the matter of how to deal with what "your right hands possess" [4:25], and that is to marry them and through permission. Nowhere in the Qur'an will you find one being allowed to have sex with anyone outside of wedlock, let alone forcing yourself upon one and then also loaning her to your mates. What disgusting beliefs.

Please read this for a detailed view of sexual slavery from the Qur'an: http://quransmessage.com/articles/sex%20with%20slave%20girls%20FM3.htm

Fi Amanillah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jaane Rabb said:

You’re saying it as if Islam was helpless in stopping animalistic behaviour. If Islam could stop people from drinking alcohol, I’m sure it could’ve stopped rape and molestation of war captives, etc. From what I understand, Islamic countries didn’t even actively try to phase slavery out and were the last to finally outlaw it due to pressure from the West. All this about so n so being allowed because of “social norms of that time” is a cop-out. People need to stop using that as an excuse and admit their religious stance [derived from filthy hadith] allowed such practise on the basis of it being justified. I don’t believe any of those things. The Qur'an is clear on the matter of how to deal with what "your right hands possess" [4:25], and that is to marry them and through permission. Nowhere in the Qur'an will you find one being allowed to have sex with anyone outside of wedlock, let alone forcing yourself upon one and then also loaning her to your mates. What disgusting beliefs.

Please read this for a detailed view of sexual slavery from the Qur'an: http://quransmessage.com/articles/sex%20with%20slave%20girls%20FM3.htm

Fi Amanillah

Now you are obviously spewing your hatred for hadith clutching at incorrect information. Without hadith good luck explaining "wife beating" from Qur'an and qiyas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2019 at 7:02 PM, Guest Serf!Monad said:

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.

This is because people have an absurd understanding of what divine individuals were about - this is primarily an issue for Shi'as who are brought up with a very delusional and imbalanced image of the Prophets and the Imams. If they were actually familiar and well-read with the primary texts of the hadith literature, they would not have such an absurd understanding and would realize that the Prophets and Imams also engaged in very human and relatable activities on a daily basis. This included participating in most social norms and customs of the time, be it in physical behaviour or in speech. Not every activity of theirs is to become the measure of all things for eternity - there are technical sciences that deal with the various criteria in being able to differentiate these matters. The problem is that the average Shi'a is getting their theology from the pulpits, not from the actual sources. The material on the pulpits is already very skewed to fit certain contemporary popular narratives. The balance between their human and divine position is often hard to strike, we see Sunnis attaching and exaggerating in their human dimension, and the Shi'as exaggerating in their divine aspect.

Quote

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.

What criterion are you using to determine the progression or regression of human thought to then make the claim that human thought in the past was slow in determining the immorality of such behaviour? Can you identify this criterion without begging-the-question? As a matter of fact, many philosophers (Muslims and otherwise) will argue to death that modernity and post-modernity has brought on the demise of the human intellect - so quite the opposite of what you are claiming. Secondly, Stockholm syndrome is itself a rare syndrome - most captives do not develop it - so for you to presume that the "majority" of slaves through out human history were simply affected by it, and hence were fine with it, is a far-stretch even based on current studies.

Thirdly, even if we say humans have progressed to such an extent and it is only due to this progression that they have decided to abandon slavery and discovered its inherent evil, this would mean previous generations were not at this level. This means we ought to judge them as per their own level of maturity and understanding, similar to how you would not label a child or insane person as immoral if they were to engage in something due to their lack of maturity and sanity.

Fourthly, while it is true that the validity of something cannot be inherently judged by how many people agree to it, this principle is true for matters that have external ontological realities (for example if the majority or all scientists believed the sun revolved around the Earth in the past). This is not always the case in the realm of social-conventions and contracts which translate into behavioral social norms, since most of these are mere mental existents which we have created for the purpose of organizing our lives and majority (or all) agree to be bound by it. In fact, human behaviour is deemed correct when one behaves in line with such conventions and going against them is deemed "incorrect", even immoral at times. Religion has interfered in some of these social conventions, has temporarily or absolutely abrogated and prohibited some of them (for example certain types of divorces), made positive alterations to some and offered some absolute red lines for us to avoid. Even in the specific case of slavery there were changes made to the conventions people upheld at the time, for example enslavement could only occur through very specific means (predominantly as a result of war) rather than certain other means that were prevalent in other societies (like the failure to pay a debt or just selling yourself into slavery).

Quote

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.

These type of critiques may be valid against those who believe in the comprehensiveness of religious law and are forced to explain away the rulings and verses on slavery since they believe Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has legislated laws for all aspects of life and that these laws are absolutely eternal. In other words, someone who does not believe religion revolves around the presence or absence of slavery as an institution, they do not believe slavery actually has anything to do with religion, it is not a sacred and divine institution. It was something institutionalized by people, it was not an absolute evil, it was always better to free them, and neither did people perceive it as a great evil (as opposed to murder for example). Religions came and offered some laws and regulations for it, it did not offer any commands saying it must remain eternally or that an alternative to it is problematic (which it has done for certain other social conventions like homosexual marriage which it explicitly does not recognize), while on the contrary there are many injunctions related to freeing them. If today humans have collectively decided to get rid of it then that is the end of it. It does not bother me if verses pertaining slavery still exist in the Qur'an or Hadith, this does not harm the divine status of the books nor the messengers. The religion continues to remain very relevant today because matters like slavery were hardly ever the essence of religion, you don't become a disbeliever by abolishing the institution, and if someone is bogged down by its historical presence and extensive legal system then as per my opinion they completely missed the point.

Quote

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".

I do not know what your definition of divinity is - you have used this term multiple times and it seems to be the basis of your concern; that to argue against slavery jeopardizes their "divinity". My understanding of their divinity is restricted to very specific matters which I do not need to expand on here as that is a theological matter and requires a separate discussion on its own. Divinity for me does not equal absolute eternal application of all laws that simply appear in the Qur'an or Hadith.

9 hours ago, Jaane Rabb said:

The Prophet came at a time when burying the infant female was normal. But Islam abolished such a thing because it's injustice despite it being socially acceptable at the time.

If you read up the academic scholarship on this subject you will see that this norm is historically very difficult to prove - the source material on this is very scarce so we cannot really say with full confidence that female infanticide was actually normal. Perhaps it was restricted to specific situations like in the case of severe poverty, but not that it was a cultural norm amongst all tribes and that such a thing was celebrated. That being the case, there is no way to demonstrate that even those who committed infanticide - at least in Arabia - were doing so thinking it is moral and that they are not guilty of anything wrong.

On a side note, you should know that now that the Western ethical framework has aggressively moved towards accepting abortion as a moral right (because of giving over-exaggerated relevance to similar criteria many are buying into on this thread as well - I.e. choice, unrestricted autonomy), the next step seems to be to slowly push discussions justifying the morality of infanticide as well.

8 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:

Now you are obviously spewing your hatred for hadith clutching at incorrect information. Without hadith good luck explaining "wife beating" from Qur'an and qiyas.

Not to mention the verses telling you to kill off disbelievers where ever you find them (2:191) and (9:1-18).

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Green Knight said:

Now you are obviously spewing your hatred for hadith clutching at incorrect information. Without hadith good luck explaining "wife beating" from Qur'an and qiyas.

Good luck getting those 629 Pakistani sex slaves back from beloved China.

1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Not to mention the verses telling you to kill off disbelievers where ever you find them (2:191) and (9:1-18).

Yes, open enemies of Islam and aggressors only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jaane Rabb said:

Yes, open enemies of Islam and aggressors only.

So you are fine with the killing of current Islamophobes such as Tommy Robinson, Ayaan Hirsi, various Hindu Nationalists and others who have made it their career as being open enemies of Islam?

Wasalam

Share this post


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

So you are fine with the killing of current Islamophobes such as Tommy Robinson, Ayaan Hirsi, various Hindu Nationalists and others who have made it their career as being open enemies of Islam?

Wasalam

If they come to my doorstep looking for war then inshaAllah they shall receive in equal measure. But until then, 25:63.

Anyway, we're derailing much now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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 ( عليه السلام ) 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 
Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad, and Ali Bin Ibrahim, from his father, altogether, from Ibn Mahboub, from Jameel Bin Salih, from Al Fuzayl Bin Yasaar who said, 
‘I said to Abu Abdullahasws, ‘May I be sacrificed for youasws! One of our companions has reported from youasws that youasws said: ‘When the man permits his slave girl to his brother, so she is Permissible unto him’. So heasws said: ‘Yes, O Fuzayl!’ I said, ‘So what are youasws saying regarding a man with whom there is a slave girl for himself, and she is a virgin. Is it Permissible for his brother what is besides the private part? Is it for him that he deflowers her?’ Heasws said: ‘No, except what is Permissible for him from it, and had it been Permissible for him, kissing from her, it would not be Permissible for him what is besides that’.

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 . I said, ‘What is your asws  view if it is Permissible for him what is besides the private part, so the lust overcomes him, and he deflowers her?’ He asws  said: ‘That is not befitting for him’. I said, ‘Supposing he does so, would he become an adulterer?’ He asws  said: ‘No, but he would become a betrayer, and he would be fined to her owner, a tenth of her price, if she was a virgin, and if she did not happen to be a virgin, so it would be half of a tenth of her price’.

قَالَ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ مَحْبُوبٍ وَ حَدَّثَنِي رِفَاعَةُ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) مِثْلَهُ إِلَّا أَنَّ رِفَاعَةَ قَالَ الْجَارِيَةُ النَّفِيسَةُ تَكُونُ عِنْدِي .

Al-Hassan Bin Mahboub said, ‘And Rafa’at narrated to me, from Abu Abdullah asws  similar to it, except that Rafa’at said, ‘The slave girl, the precious, happens to be with me’. [1773]

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 ( عليه السلام ) عَنِ امْرَأَةٍ أَحَلَّتْ لِابْنِهَا فَرْجَ جَارِيَتِهَا قَالَ هُوَ لَهُ حَلَالٌ قُلْتُ أَ فَيَحِلُّ لَهُ ثَمَنُهَا قَالَ لَا إِنَّمَا يَحِلُّ لَهُ مَا أَحَلَّتْهُ لَهُ .

A number of our companions, from Sahl Bin Ziyad, and Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad, and Ali Bin Ibrahim, from his father, altogether, from Ibn Mahboub, from Ibn Raib, from Abu Baseer who said, ‘I asked Abu Abdullah asws  about a woman who permitted the private part of her slave girl to her son. He asws  said: ‘It is Permissible for him’. I said, ‘So would her price be Permissible for him?’ He asws  said: ‘No, but rather, it is Permissible for him what she had permitted for him’. [1774]

 عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي نَصْرٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ الْكَرِيمِ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ قُلْتُ لَهُ الرَّجُلُ يُحِلُّ لِأَخِيهِ فَرْجَ جَارِيَتِهِ قَالَ نَعَمْ لَهُ مَا أَحَلَّ لَهُ مِنْهَا .

A number of our companions, from Sahl Bin Ziyad, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad Bin Abu Nasr, from Abdul Kareem, (It has been narrated) from Abu Ja’far asws , said, ‘I said to him asws , ‘The man permits to his brother, the private part of his slave girl’. He asws  said: ‘Yes, for him is what he permits for him from her’. [1775]

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 ( عليه السلام ) إِنَّ امْرَأَتِي أَحَلَّتْ لِي جَارِيَتَهَا فَقَالَ انْكِحْهَا إِنْ أَرَدْتَ قُلْتُ أَبِيعُهَا قَالَ لَا إِنَّمَا أُحِلَّ لَكَ مِنْهَا مَا أَحَلَّتْ .

A number of our companions, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad Bin Isa, from Al Husayn Bin Saeed, from Hammad Bin Isa, from Al Husayn Bin Al Mukhtar, from Abu Bakr Al Hazramy who said, ‘I said to Abu Abdullah asws , ‘My wife permitted her slave girl to me’. So he asws  said: ‘Marry her if you so want’. I said, ‘Can I sell her?’ He asws  said: ‘No, but rather it is Permitted to you from her whatever she has permitted’. [1776]

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ سُلَيْمٍ الْفَرَّاءِ عَنْ حَرِيزٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) فِي الرَّجُلِ يُحِلُّ فَرْجَ جَارِيَتِهِ لِأَخِيهِ فَقَالَ لَا بَأْسَ بِذَلِكَ قُلْتُ فَإِنَّهُ أَوْلَدَهَا قَالَ يَضُمُّ إِلَيْهِ وَلَدَهُ وَ يَرُدُّ الْجَارِيَةَ إِلَى صَاحِبِهَا قُلْتُ فَإِنَّهُ لَمْ يَأْذَنْ لَهُ فِي ذَلِكَ قَالَ إِنَّهُ قَدْ حَلَّلَهُ مِنْهَا فَهُوَ لَا يَأْمَنُ أَنْ يَكُونَ ذَلِكَ

Ali Bin Ibrahim, from his father from Ibn Abu Umeyr, from Suleym Al Far’a, from Hareyz,

(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullahasws regarding the man who permitted the private part of his slave girl for his brother. So heasws said: ‘There is no problem with that’. I said, ‘Supposing he makes her give birth?’ Heasws said: ‘His child would be entrusted to him and the slave girl would be returned to her owner’. I said, ‘Supposing he had not permitted for him with regards to that?’ Heasws said: ‘He had permitted that for him, so it was not safe for that to happen’.[1777]
عَلِيٌّ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ سُلَيْمٍ عَنْ حَرِيزٍ عَنْ زُرَارَةَ قَالَ قُلْتُ لِأَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) الرَّجُلُ يُحِلُّ جَارِيَتَهُ لِأَخِيهِ فَقَالَ لَا بَأْسَ قَالَ فَقُلْتُ إِنَّهَا جَاءَتْ بِوَلَدٍ قَالَ يَضُمُّ إِلَيْهِ وَلَدَهُ وَ يَرُدُّ الْجَارِيَةَ عَلَى صَاحِبِهَا قُلْتُ إِنَّهُ لَمْ يَأْذَنْ لَهُ فِي ذَلِكَ قَالَ إِنَّهُ قَدْ أَذِنَ لَهُ وَ هُوَ لَا يَأْمَنُ أَنْ يَكُونَ ذَلِكَ.
Ali, from his father, from Ibn Abu Umeyr, from Suleym, from Hareyz, from Zurara who said, 
‘I said to Abu Ja’farasws, ‘The man permits his slave girl to his brother. So heasws said: ‘There is no problem’. So I said, ‘(supposing) she were to come with a child?’ Heasws said: ‘His child would be entrusted to him and the slave girl returned to her owner’. I said, ‘Supposing he had not permitted to him regarding that?’ Heasws said: ‘He had permitted for him, and it was not safe for that to happen’.[1778]
عَلِيٌّ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ وَ حَفْصِ بْنِ الْبَخْتَرِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) 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 .

Ali, from his father, from Ibn Abu Umeyr, from Hisham Bin Salim, and Hafs Bin Al Bakhtary, 
(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullahasws regarding the man who is saying to his wife, ‘Will you permit your slave girl for me, for I dislike it that she should see me uncovered?’ So she permitted her to him’. Heasws said: ‘It is not Permissible for him, from her, except for that, and it is not for him that he touches her, nor sleeps with her’. And Hisham increased in it, ‘Is it for him that he sleeps with her?’ Heasws said: ‘It is not Permissible for him except for that which she said’.[1779] 
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ بَزِيعٍ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ ( عليه السلام ) عَنِ امْرَأَةٍ أَحَلَّتْ لِي جَارِيَتَهَا فَقَالَ ذَاكَ لَكَ قُلْتُ فَإِنْ كَانَتْ تَمْزَحُ قَالَ وَ كَيْفَ لَكَ بِمَا فِي قَلْبِهَا فَإِنْ عَلِمْتَ أَنَّهَا تَمْزَحُ فَلَا .
Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad, from Muhammad Bin Ismail Bin Yzaie who said, 
‘I asked Abu Al-Hassanasws about a woman who permitted her slave girl to me. So heasws said: ‘That is for you’. I said, ‘Supposing it was in jest (as a joke)?’ Heasws said: ‘And how could it be for you what is in her heart? So, if she were to let you know that rather it was in jest, so no’.[1780]

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ عَنْ صَالِحِ بْنِ عُقْبَةَ عَنْ أَبِي شِبْلٍ قَالَ قُلْتُ لِأَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) رَجُلٌ مُسْلِمٌ ابْتُلِيَ فَفَجَرَ بِجَارِيَةِ أَخِيهِ فَمَا تَوْبَتُهُ قَالَ يَأْتِيهِ فَيُخْبِرُهُ وَ يَسْأَلُهُ أَنْ يُجْعَلَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ فِي حِلٍّ وَ لَا يَعُودُ 

Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Muhammad Bin Al Husayn, from Muhammad Bin Ismail, from Salih Bin Uqba, from Abu Shibl who said, 
‘I said to Abu Abdullahasws, ‘A Muslim man was tried, so he was immoral with a slave girl of his brother. So what is his repentance?’ He asws  said: ‘He would go to him and inform him, and he would ask him if he could make from that a permissibility, and he would not repeat’.

قَالَ قُلْتُ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَجْعَلْهُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ فِي حِلٍّ قَالَ قَدْ لَقِيَ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ وَ هُوَ زَانٍ خَائِنٌ قَالَ قُلْتُ فَالنَّارُ مَصِيرُهُ قَالَ شَفَاعَةُ مُحَمَّدٍ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) وَ شَفَاعَتُنَا تَحْبَطُ بِذُنُوبِكُمْ يَا مَعْشَرَ الشِّيعَةِ فَلَا تَعُودُونَ وَ تَتَّكِلُونَ عَلَى شَفَاعَتِنَا فَوَ اللَّهِ مَا يَنَالُ شَفَاعَتَنَا إِذَا رَكِبَ هَذَا حَتَّى يُصِيبَهُ أَلَمُ الْعَذَابِ وَ يَرَى هَوْلَ جَهَنَّمَ . He (the narrator) said, ‘I said, ‘Supposing he does not make a permissibility for him from that?’ He asws  said: ‘He would meet Allah azwj  Mighty and Majestic and he would be an adulterer, a betrayer’. I said, ‘So the Fire would be (waiting for) his arrival’. He asws  said: ‘Intercession of Muhammad saww  and our asws  intercession would drop your sins, O group of the Shias! Therefore, do not go on repeating (your sins), and rely upon our asws  intercession, for by Allah azwj , he would not achieve our intercession when he indulges in this until he is hit by the pain of the Punishment and sees the horrors of Hell’. [1781]

وَ بِإِسْنَادِهِ عَنْ صَالِحِ بْنِ عُقْبَةَ عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ صَالِحٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ سُئِلَ عَنِ الرَّجُلِ يَنْكِحُ جَارِيَةَ امْرَأَتِهِ ثُمَّ يَسْأَلُهَا أَنْ تَجْعَلَهُ فِي حِلٍّ فَتَأْبَى فَيَقُولُ إِذاً لَأُطَلِّقَنَّكِ وَ يَجْتَنِبُ فِرَاشَهَا فَتَجْعَلُهُ فِي حِلٍّ فَقَالَ هَذَا غَاصِبٌ فَأَيْنَ هُوَ مِنَ اللُّطْفِ .

And by his chain, from Salih Bin Uqba, from Suleyman Bin Salih, (It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullah asws , said, ‘He asws  was asked about the man who marries a slave girl of his wife. Then he asks her if she (the wife) would make him to be in permissibility (with the slave girl), but she refuses. So he is saying, ‘Then I shall divorce you’, and he keeps aside from her bed. So she makes permissibility for him. So heasws said: ‘This is a usurper. So where is he from the kindness?’[1782]

Here are some of them. HubeAli has epub copies of translated Al Kafi, and I just copied them from in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
On 12/7/2019 at 3:27 AM, 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 (we have examples of Sunnis apostatizing who often leave once they come across the ahadith on slaves in their translated works). 

No Shia of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) will- question the "religion" 

As you know we Shia's of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) do not have a Sahih Book. Everything needs to be verified. Against the Holy Qur'an. 

If these Traditions were even true( I do not have the Knowledge to ascertain that), there may be something that we do not understand. 

I am leaving among you the Two Weighty Things: the Book of Allah and my `Itrat (Progeny), my Ahlul Bayt. So long as you (simultaneously) uphold both of them, you will never be misled after me; so, do not go ahead of them else you should perish, and do not lag behind them else you should perish; do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you.1

And

وَأَمَّا الْجِدَارُ فَكَانَ لِغُلَامَيْنِ يَتِيمَيْنِ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ وَكَانَ تَحْتَهُ كَنْزٌ لَهُمَا وَكَانَ أَبُوهُمَا صَالِحًا فَأَرَادَ رَبُّكَ أَنْ يَبْلُغَا أَشُدَّهُمَا وَيَسْتَخْرِجَا كَنْزَهُمَا رَحْمَةً مِنْ رَبِّكَ ۚ وَمَا فَعَلْتُهُ عَنْ أَمْرِي ۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَأْوِيلُ مَا لَمْ تَسْطِعْ عَلَيْهِ صَبْرًا {82}

[Pickthal 18:82] And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father had been righteous, and thy Lord intended that they should come to their full strength and should bring forth their treasure as a mercy from their Lord; and I did it not upon my own command. Such is the interpretation of that wherewith thou couldst not bear.

______

Killing a boy without any legal justification will violate the Sharia(law) of that time, even the Revealed Law. But as you are aware, things are not always according to our understanding. They are more Knowledgeable than us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological warfare
On 12/7/2019 at 8:14 AM, Muhammed Ali said:

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.

We have 14 divinely Appointed Teachers. They are the proof of God(عزّ وجلّ). We have an Imam Al- Mahdi (عليه السلام), "Imam of Our Time". We are not orphans.

The Jurists/ Mujhatid/Marja their job is limited to Fiqh( Jurisprudence) 

 It is necessary for a Muslim to believe in the fundamentals of faith on the basis of proof and he cannot follow anyone in this respect I.e. he cannot accept he word of another with regard to the fundamentals without demanding proof. However, in order to act on Islamic code (except in those matters which are considered by all to be indisputable e.g. the obligatory nature of the five daily prayers, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan etc.) a person must adopt one of the following methods:

https://www.al-Islam.org/Islamic-laws-ayatullah-abul-qasim-al-khui/taqlid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
On 12/9/2019 at 8:28 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

This is because people have an absurd understanding of what divine individuals were about - this is primarily an issue for Shi'as who are brought up with a very delusional and imbalanced image of the Prophets and the Imams.

   

Quote

The problem is that the average Shi'a is getting their theology from the pulpits, not from the actual sources. 

Whatever we have is from the   https://Qur'an.al-Islam.org/

The Concept of "al-Qur'an an-Natiq"

On 12/9/2019 at 8:28 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

If they were actually familiar and well-read with the primary texts of the hadith literature,

https://www.al-Islam.org/shiism-imamate-and-wilayat-Sayyid-Muhammad-Rizvi/knowledge-ahlul-bayt#6-concept-al-Qur'an-natiq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ For those that didn't watch [paraphrasing]:

"Practises such as Tahleel are fiqi laws imported from Sunni (Hanafi) works by the likes of Tusi and have nothing to do with Shi'ism itself. Throw away the chapters of our books that have these hadiths. Hadiths were fabricated during the time of Imams even. Qur'an says to ransom or free the slave. Qur'an says marry those from you, the free ones and the slaves. How can hadiths such as one attributed to the likes as-Sadiq be believed when they allow sex with a slave outside nikah and allow one to pass her on to others. Our literature has areas that have nothing to do with the Ahlul Bayt. Our aql can tell us when something is immoral."

Edited by Jaane Rabb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 4:17 AM, 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.

Why not oppose slaves completely then?
If you don't then there has to be a reason for one to legally own a slave in certain circumstances

If we learn more about this, we then can take a better look at what is allowed and how it makes sense

Don't say I don't agree with the scholars so easily. You are making conclusions in regards to the most difficult scientifc field. We have the best scholars known to mankind. You have clearly not finished a good investigation yet. You are jumping to conclusions.

You claim sex withouth consent is gross injustice. Other claims this is allowed in a case. Have you checked the exact statements and position on this? Have you studies the reasoning of the scholars, how they concluded in that particulair case it would not be a injustice, but allowed? And the subject of slavery in general?
Make a good complete investigation, seek truth, and you will find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

l have a good question for all youz guys that have slave girls on the soft-brains of yours.

Do you have any idea what this will cost?

First, a factoid: in America the avgerage price for a slave was a then, pre-Civil War, $1500 and adjusted for inflation a now $150,000+.

Then there is the cost of food, clothing, medical bills, dental bills, shelter, usage additions to your water bills and electric bills, plus whatever property taxes there may be.

All that expense for a cook, housekeeper, lawnmower and part-time plaything?

lf you want a cook and housekeeper, have someone come in once-a-week and use your microwave to heat your food the other 6 days.

Or get marred and really learn the hard way.

lM0 =  :furious:"What does it take for youz to get smart?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 3:17 PM, baqar said:

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

(sarcasm)

I refuse to believe:

  • that I am also a slave to fate and time and limitations set for me.
  • that I am a slave to money, my boss, my teachers, my parents and the temporal laws too.
  • that other humans are also slaves to these things.
  • that so many humans are worse off than me.
  • that so many are better off than me and I am lesser to the feudals/elites.
  • that God tests His creatures as He pleases.
  • that God did not "save" the martyrs of Kerbala.
  • that God does not "save" girls/slave girls being forced by men.
  • that God will burn so many in hell forever.
  • that if God had willed there would have been no injustice by any people and all would have been believers.
  • that Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) will chop off the heads of my favorite kuffar I deem respectable.
  • that Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) might also make my favorite girls and friends his slaves if they oppose him (and if he does not chop their heads off first)? :accident:
  • that this world has always been and always will be a place of hardships, trials and tribulations. A prison.
  • that people are slaves to disabilities, diseases, their kids and family.
  • that there is no justice in this world and I have to wait till the hereafter to receive justice.

How can God permit such "gross injustices" to His creatures?!~

I REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND. II REFUSE TO BELIEVE THIS LIFE IS JUST A PLAY AND THE REAL LIFE IS AFTER DEATH.:gossip:

source.gif

Edited by The Green Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mood!Monad

 

On 12/9/2019 at 10:28 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

 

I might address your comments in the near future, when I am moody. although relatively simple to answer, they require some lenghty text or references, But it will end up as just two forms of opinions.

Also I think we all jumped to conclusions.

Considering that the translated narrations only prove the conditions or laws for it to be practiced within. So we can speculate if slavery could not be abolished, then one way was to improve the conditions or laws of the treatment of the slaves and eventually through some form of human bond or kindess the practice it self would be abolished. But it seems the experiment did not take a strong hold considering the timelines and lack of technology or thinking in relation to current times.

Thinking here means, the accessability of information as aposed to knowledge dependent entirely on social class in the past or perhaps the land it self.

It seems the Romans where taught from a young age. If we take that to be an example you could ask, well if the society was educated why did they not abolish it?.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_ancient_Rome

if I recall correctly Bernard shaw in this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty 

https://lvtfan.typepad.com/lvtfans_blog/2013/11/George-bernard-shaw-1885-speech-on-private-property-and-privilege.html

wrote that things do not change ( poverty ) because we like it just as it were. That is one possible reason for slavery to have existed, because it fitted the narrative of the class systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offensive or inappropriate posts were removed. If your post was not approved, please read the thread again. Someone else has probably made the point that you wanted to make. If not, you can post again and Mods will take another look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
On 12/9/2019 at 11:28 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

This is because people have an absurd understanding of what divine individuals were about - this is primarily an issue for Shi'as who are brought up with a very delusional and imbalanced image of the Prophets and the Imams. If they were actually familiar and well-read with the primary texts of the hadith literature, they would not have such an absurd understanding and would realize that the Prophets and Imams also engaged in very human and relatable activities on a daily basis. This included participating in most social norms and customs of the time, be it in physical behaviour or in speech. Not every activity of theirs is to become the measure of all things for eternity - 

You are implying that in general the lay people have an absurd, delusional  and imbalanced image of the Ma'someen(Infallibles) ( The 14 divinely appointed Guides/Teachers/Role models) I as a Layman, I conclude with your prior and current arguments that it is you who is not well versed in approaching a concept in a holistic way and understanding it in its proper context except in a literal way. 

Non Shia approach has been to only look at the revealed content and ignore the other aspects of life as not according to the revelation. 

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ {107}

[Shakir 21:107] And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds.
[Pickthal 21:107] We sent thee not save as a mercy for the peoples.
[Yusufali 21:107] We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures.

 لِلْعَالَمِينَ

The word " لِلْعَالَمِينَ "

Means, as we discover other areas be it on this Earth or outside of it. The Haram( not allowed) and Halal ( Allowed) decreed by Muhammad Al- Mustafa (peace be upon him and his pure progeny) is still valid. Go travel in space and settle there, you can't escape it . Human interaction have been and will be the same here or out there. This is not "technical" development and the next iphone version need to be used and last one discarded- even here basic and fundamental technical concepts stay the same- need a power source- if it was a regular battery - you may develop different kinds from different material with larger capacity to carry a charge but the fact that it needs a power source is consistent. . The basic and fundamental architecture of the first computer which was probably the size of a room still valid here in the laptop we use today. There has been not new development in the Conceptual understanding of allowed/not allowed as they are part of our primordial Nature.  

We do have a clause that new situations( this is where the Jurists/ marja/Mujhtids play a role)  are to be looked from the same fundamental and basic concepts decreed by the Divine Laws and actions of the 14 Divinely Appointed Guides/Teacher. They teach us the basic and fundamental Truths. And fundamental Truths are everlasting they do not change. 

One of them is that Muhammad Al-Mustafa(peace be upon him and his pure progeny) sent as a "Mercy" to the Worlds/Mankind. Contemplate on this Concepts and understand technical stuff in light of the Concept, and you will not go astray in your understanding. 

وَإِنَّكَ لَعَلَىٰ خُلُقٍ عَظِيمٍ {4}

[Shakir 68:4] And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.
[Pickthal 68:4] And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature.
[Yusufali 68:4] And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character.

لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِمَنْ كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيرًا {21}

[Shakir 33:21] Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.
[Pickthal 33:21] Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.
[Yusufali 33:21] Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.

 

مَا ضَلَّ صَاحِبُكُمْ وَمَا غَوَىٰ {2}

[Shakir 53:2] Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray;
[Pickthal 53:2] Your comrade erreth not, nor is deceived;
[Yusufali 53:2] Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled.

وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ {3}

[Shakir 53:3] Nor does he speak out of desire.
[Pickthal 53:3] Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire.
[Yusufali 53:3] Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.

إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَىٰ {4}

[Shakir 53:4] It is naught but revelation that is revealed,
[Pickthal 53:4] It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired,
[Yusufali 53:4] It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:

عَلَّمَهُ شَدِيدُ الْقُوَىٰ {5}

[Shakir 53:5] The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him,
[Pickthal 53:5] Which one of mighty powers hath taught him,
[Yusufali 53:5] He was taught by one Mighty in Power,

There life as a whole ( their interaction with the people and reforming the social structure of that time through  legislation)  not only the revealed verses are and example for Shia Muslisms. 

What differentiate us from the other Muslims is that We take ALL that was taught and consider their entire life as a Role Model as mentioned in the Divine book. 

So, as a Layman, I see the Teaching behind All their activity is the measure for us. And the fundamental concepts incorporated are Valid for all times. Like the Alphabet (A to Z), we can make new words but there is no addition or deletion based on people's choices or whims or some image issue. Because what is valid today can be invalid tomorrow as the majority chances its concepts of rigth or wrong - as this variable is a function of time and apace- they are transient things and we can't look to satisfy the World and its transient like/dislike which are subject to change with time/space. We can't worry about the Image issue for this reason. We can't sell what the others have sold and lost it all in order to keep up with the false transient like/dislikes.

So, there is a difference in Literal understanding and Conceptual understanding. Literal may be or may not be (depends on the context)  valid for all times, however Conceptual is valid for all times. Fundamental Truths always stay the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
On 12/7/2019 at 12:09 PM, SoRoUsH said:

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. 

Regarding the Author and the Book you mention in OP.

"The author of al-Kafi was thiqat al-Islam, Abu Ja'far Muhammad b. Ya'qub b. Ishaq al-Kulaini al-Razi. He died in 328 A.H. or 329 A.H. (939 or 940 A.D.). "

https://www.al-Islam.org/al-serat/vol-2-1976/great-shii-works-al-kafi-al-kulayni/great-shii-works-al-kafi-al-kulayni#author

Book as been around for a long time in other language, So not sure why you say something is been hidden. 

Regarding the chopped off image been presented. There are many matters that are not necessary to be discussed in a public format as they is no current need to, nor is a requirement of the time that people should be educated in them - there are other matters and issues that are pressing and the focus in on them when people are speaking in public. 

If someone wants to make this issue a concern, which is not a priority for the general activities of Muslims. We need to look at what is the purpose and why this issue should require the time and energy. ? with the understanding that many pressing issues are to be dealt with which concern Muslim lives. 

If its an image issue, like the age of the wife, or how many wives , treatment of women etc We can be confident that providing a answer to all musical chair issues will not solve the problem, as they will keep us engaged in technical warfare. We need to be smart and not reactionary, to their propaganda. 

If we were to even discuss this issue of Salves, the modern term of this Concept is " Employees" hired help. We need to first understand that Anything related to Economic activity, if its part of the Economic ecosystem, it is not easy to eradicate and if the community of that time does not see this as evil, and its tied to the economic system you have many variables against you. So, it need to be managed, reform introduced and legislated and dealt with by leading by example. Which you will see if you read about the Slaves/employees/poor class people who need money were treated. There are provisions to set them free, marry them, etc.. this should give us Laypeople the conceptual understanding and we should look at legislation as something which is trying to manage the issue in broader public which may not be so keen to free them as employees were need for inhouse and outside work. 

However the trajectory is very obvious from the actions of the Ma'someen. 

This was and will always be an Economic and people class issue. Modern terms of employees and employer, haves and have not's. poor and rich. 

Read about these and read the quote and the what may have been the priority if they have employees. 

I. Salman, the Persian

ii. Zayd bin Harithah

iii. 'Ammar bin Yasir

iv. Miytham al-Tammar

v. Bilal al-Habashi

vi. Fizzah

vii. Qambar

viii. Sa'id

https://www.al-Islam.org/slavery-allamah-Sayyid-saeed-akhtar-Rizvi/slaves-history-Islam

"Qambar used to say, “It was only once that he got annoyed with me. It was at the time when I showed him the money that I have 'hoarded.' It was from my share of the income given to me by others and gifts I had received from the members of his family. I had collected about hundred dirhams. When I showed him the amount, he looked angry, and what pained me most, he looked sad.” Qambar inquired why he was so sad. He replied, “Qambar, if you had no use of the money, were there no people around you who needed the money? Some of them might have been starving; others might have been ill and infirm. Could you not have helped them? I never thought you could be so heartless, and could love wealth for the sake of wealth. Qambar, I am afraid you are not trying to acquire much from Islam; try more seriously and sincerely. Take the coins out of my house.” Qambar immediately distributed the money amongst the poor and the needy. It might be added that Qambar had long been freed by Imam 'Ali, but he remained with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam, 

Could you please translate the following three narrations? 

بَابُ الرَّجُلِ يُزَوِّجُ عَبْدَهُ أَمَتَهُ ثُمَّ يَشْتَهِيهَا 
 عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْمُغِيرَةِ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سِنَانٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ سَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ إِذَا زَوَّجَ الرَّجُلُ عَبْدَهُ أَمَتَهُ ثُمَّ اشْتَهَاهَا قَالَ لَهُ اعْتَزِلْهَا فَإِذَا طَمِثَتْ وَطِئَهَا ثُمَّ يَرُدُّهَا عَلَيْهِ إِذَا شَاءَ

 

 

  مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ أَبِي أَيُّوبَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ ع عَنْ قَوْلِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ وَ الْمُحْصَناتُ مِنَ النِّساءِ إِلَّا ما مَلَكَتْ أَيْمانُكُمْ (النساء -: 24 -) قَالَ هُوَ أَنْ يَأْمُرَ الرَّجُلُ عَبْدَهُ وَ تَحْتَهُ أَمَتُهُ فَيَقُولَ لَهُ اعْتَزِلِ امْرَأَتَكَ وَ لَا تَقْرَبْهَا ثُمَّ يَحْبِسَهَا عَنْهُ حَتَّى تَحِيضَ ثُمَّ يَمَسَّهَا فَإِذَا حَاضَتْ بَعْدَ مَسِّهِ إِيَّاهَا رَدَّهَا عَلَيْهِ بِغَيْرِ نِكَاحٍ

 


  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 قَالَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ الرَّجُلِ يُزَوِّجُ جَارِيَتَهُ مِنْ عَبْدِهِ فَيُرِيدُ أَنْ يُفَرِّقَ بَيْنَهُمَا فَيَفِرُّ الْعَبْدُ كَيْفَ يَصْنَعُ قَالَ يَقُولُ لَهَا اعْتَزِلِي فَقَدْ فَرَّقْتُ بَيْنَكُمَا فَاعْتَدِّي فَتَعْتَدُّ خَمْسَةً وَ أَرْبَعِينَ يَوْماً ثُمَّ يُجَامِعُهَا مَوْلَاهَا إِنْ شَاءَ وَ إِنْ لَمْ يَفِرَّ قَالَ لَهُ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ قُلْتُ فَإِنْ كَانَ الْمَمْلُوكُ لَمْ يُجَامِعْهَا قَالَ يَقُولُ لَهَا اعْتَزِلِي فَقَدْ فَرَّقْتُ بَيْنَكُمَا ثُمَّ يُجَامِعُهَا مَوْلَاهَا مِنْ سَاعَتِهِ إِنْ شَاءَ وَ لَا عِدَّةَ عَلَيْهَا 

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 10:53 PM, The Green Knight said:

How can God permit such "gross injustices" to His creatures?!~

So the problem of evil justifies humans harming other humans? 

Would you use this argument only for the treatment of slaves, or would you extend it to things you may find personally objectionable? E.g. if you were to find a religion that allows torturing little children or the consumption of Alcohol, would you claim that the religion is immoral because it allows immoral actions or because it allows actions that Islam disallows?

Quote

THIS LIFE IS JUST A PLAY AND THE REAL LIFE IS AFTER DEATH

Among the aims of this life is for us to become better creatures. That cannot happen by performing acts of gratuitous harm on other beings.

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 3:03 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

We are living in an era where the average religious Shia in the modern West is brought up believing Imam Husayn (a) stood up for "social justice" whose message is to be conveyed by giving out roses to the public, where Zaynab (a) was an "empowered independent woman", where Imam Sadiq (a) was a "scientist", where all "violent" or "unethical" laws like apostasy or blasphemy are attributed to the Sunni hadith corpus and law, and so on. So it isn't strange to see that when some people come across these type of traditions, 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. This is far from the truth and we do not need to be apologetic about it either. I always believed our young generation is completely detached from its own history and tradition, they also do not have a critical outlook of the paradigms they were brought up under and hence take the modern paradigms for granted and scrutinize the Islamic paradigms through the lens of the former. 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.

Why does the young generation seem to be so “detached from its own history and tradition” even in the Islamic Republic of Iran? Iranian mass society is quite Westernised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2019 at 5:52 PM, ShiaChat Mod said:

Offensive or inappropriate posts were removed. 

Slavery itself is offensive and inappropriate. Because slavery existed during the time of Prophet Muhammad SA and the Holy Ahlul Bayt AS, there is sometimes a mention of slavery in some narrations, however, we should not get the idea that there is some kind of relationship between slavery and Islam, because that is certainly not the case. Islam is always against oppression and injustice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is silly because even if there was slavery during the Imams' times, it's irrelevant to contemporary life, except in ISIS-held Al-Raqqa for a brief period. 

[Mod Note: This topic is temporarily locked. The OP should contact a member of the staff to discuss the reopening of the thread.]

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/search/?&type=core_members&joinedDate=any&group[14]=1

Edited by ShiaChat Mod
Mod Note and link to Staff.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...