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

Sistani's Office Response to His Thighing Fatwa

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

:bismillah:

 

Brothers @Zainuu and @Abu Hadi,

Assalamu alaikum, yā ikhwāni!

First of all, let me thank you both very much for your kind words, support and encouragement! I shall remain ever thankful to you for teaching me this important lesson in sabr! I also agree with everything that both of you have said!

Muslims today have forgotten that empires, and the ideologies they sponsor, rise and fall like lines drawn on sand. In the early days of Islam, there were people in thrall of Hellenistic philosophy, and they wanted to subdue the revelation to philosophy, and to mold and distort Islam in conformity with the various schools of Greek philosophy. Yet, with the advent of the enlightenment and the rise of Continental and Analytical schools in Western philosophy which totally displaced these schools from Europe's intellectual scene, where are the votaries of ancient Greek philosophy today? As brother Abu Hadi pointed out, in the era of colonial expansion, there were Muslim intellectuals who wanted to truncate Islam in conformity with colonial modernity and enlightenment values. With the advent of post-modernism, where are those self-evident, unquestionable tenets of modernist thought today? Yet other Muslims, in the years when Communism was ascendent, tried to synthesize Marxism with Islam (although in my understanding, these two world outlooks are like oil and water- they don't mix at all) and reinterpret Islam in conformity with Communism. But with the global collapse of communism, what relevance remains of this attempt? Man made philosophies and ideologies will come and go, but the dīn al-Qayyim will remain till the Day of Judgment.

The lower clergy today needs urgent reforms. Consumerism and theatrics have hollowed the majālis from within- whatever 'sells', whatever is in line with the popular 'demand' has come to dominate the Muslim discourse outside the hawzawī circles. Islam today is facing an existential threat no less serious than the one it faced at Ühüd and Khandaq. There are scholars at the lower echelons of the clerical hierarchy who are battling the tide of time, and trying to better things. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) grant them success.

"And from the Evil of the Darkness as it Spreads. (113:3)"

Edited by AbdusSibtayn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Salam brother,  You have hit alot of good points in your post. I have thought many times about leaving the site because I think 'What's the point ? '. I do one post, which gets quickly spammed ov

Many people have responded to this thread saying it is haram due to x or due to y. If you are convinced that it is haram, then you already have your answer. For matters which are not clear t

Hello everyone. So I just got off the phone talking to Sistani's office about the Thighing fatwa. Just so we are on the same track I asked a few days ago about Sistani's fatwa on thighting (more

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

Brother @313_Waiter, here's a study disputing the findings of the one that you have linked above:

https://theconversation.com/children-arent-starting-puberty-younger-medieval-skeletons-reveal-91095

Of course, the sample size, and the segment of the population being studied etc will have an impact on the conclusions that these studies draw. But my contention is generally assembled from anecdotal evidence and conversations with archaeologists that the general trend in the ancient and medieval times was to reach puberty, marry and have children considerably earlier that now.

Edited by AbdusSibtayn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
7 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Brother @313_Waiter, here's a study disputing the findings of the one that you have linked above:

https://theconversation.com/children-arent-starting-puberty-younger-medieval-skeletons-reveal-91095

Of course, the sample size, and the segment of the population being studied etc will have an impact on the conclusions that these studies draw. But my contention is generally assembled from anecdotal evidence and conversations with archaeologists that the general trend in the ancient and medieval times was to reach puberty, marry and have children considerably earlier that now.

JazakAllah khyr

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Many people have responded to this thread saying it is haram due to x or due to y.

If you are convinced that it is haram, then you already have your answer.

For matters which are not clear to you in the Qur'an and in hadith, the fuqaha are available to guide you.

At the end of the day it seems like topics like these are generally used to rant and complain. 

If you think it is wrong, refrain from it. However, the fuqaha cannot customize rules just to satisfy public opinion. There is a methodology that they have to follow in a consistent manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

Quote

If you think it is wrong, refrain from it. However, the fuqaha cannot customize rules just to satisfy public opinion. There is a methodology that they have to follow in a consistent manner.

My friend used to say this to me all the time. But I find it quite misguided, if for example rape was allowed in Islam, just refraining from it would be quite disastrous, after all female infanticide was practised in Arabia but why the prophet made such a fuss about it, he could've just refrained from it and kept quiet.

When I buy a laptop for example I look at the specs and I ask around extensively until I see whether or not I'm satisfied with it. I believe people do the same with their cars, houses, and spouses. But when it comes to religion then it becomes dangerous, especially since I believe people are more concerned in protecting the image of Marjaa (like Sistani or Khomeini) more than they do for Islam's own image.

As a revert I will be questioning Islam again and again, after all I did that when studying Christianity or Philosophy, and this is important because I'm not only picking a religion but a way of life for the next 50 years or so and the fact that I have to redo a lot of prayers and Ramadans that I missed. So my mind must be at peace and I must be able to defend and justify Islam for myself and others who question it

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
6 hours ago, pisceswolf96 said:

So my mind must be at peace and I must be able to defend and justify Islam for myself and others who question it

This is your right brother, so by all means go ahead and investigate.

In general I will say though that if one beliefs in the Unity (Tawheed) of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and the prophethood of Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) then essentially they have believed in Islam.

I don't think jurisprudential disagreements should be the basis to reject Islam.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/15/2021 at 9:41 PM, skinee said:

all just normal and well within Islamic sharia, and practiced during the time of Prophet and Imams

Salam there was laws but there is no evidence  of practicing  it during  time of prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) also It didn't  practice time of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) but it  happened  during time of three caliph which Imam Ali (عليه السلام) stood  against  it & freed  whole of Iranian slave due to war with Iran which later in time of Imam Hasan  (عليه السلام) & Imam Hussain  (عليه السلام) & rest of Imams , it is  continued by Imams which Imam  Sajad (عليه السلام) was wellknown  for freeing slaves in great numbers but their influence  on community  has reduced each Imam after Imam which Ummayids  & Abbasids  were practicing  slavery & other Immoral  actions not by Imams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Recently I have watched a one hour long anonymous interview with a human trafficker who specializes in sex trafficking as well as organ trafficking, that are two directly linked industries nowadays. It was so heart breaking and disturbing to hear that I won't share it here. 

There is a very rich and active industry for people who have baby sexual fetishes, and especially very rich people can act it out. Many times of course they penetrate, which will cause the baby to be used for organs after the customer is done. They have medical practitioners and operating theaters ready in the same high profile houses where they expect the criminal to play out his sexual attractions. Of course there is an even bigger, and even more affordable industry for older kids that eventually also ends up with total exploitation once the child is used over years, with perhaps some videos on the dark web followed by killing for organs. I heard that in America for instance hundreds of thousands of children are disappearing, while this human trafficker said that many mothers willingly sell their babies, by registering the trafficker as the father, so many numbers are not even reported. They can earn 50,000 euros just for being pregnant for 9 months, that is more than many mothers can dream of getting in any other way! And men are willing to pay ridiculous amounts for a baby, so many get groomed for their future sexual exploitation. 

In any case, this thriving business that works much like the "marriage" made halal here apparently, is growing and thriving in pretty much all of the world. 

This is one of the main pillars why we MUST fight for a new true and just world order, run under the principles of God and His prophet, in Sha Allah. For the sake of these poor kids and babies and women who are held captive this very moment, or tortured to death right now. Of course those sick people also are mostly homosexual, so you can imagine the extent of the destruction of kids psychologies. 

There is also a growing industry for adrenochrome, which is the most addictive drug on earth. And also people drinking infant blood with the belief that it brings them youth. Some openly even make blood transfusions, while the more sinister stuff going on is very satanic in nature, looking very much like human sacrifice, for selfish ends. Satanism and paganism is growing every day, which is visible on the net very clearly. We need to save these women, children and toddlers please! This Ramadan let us not forget the most oppressed among us that are hidden from us, but still exist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
Posted (edited)
On 4/15/2021 at 4:13 PM, Hameedeh said:

Do you know any Muslim father or grandfather that would marry his baby, toddler or young girl to a man? 

Which raises the question: Why are there these fatwas on thighing, when they contradict the fatwas on bulugh and nikah, as well as the Qur'an? Especially since rape is a form of zina and punishable by lashing or stoning, if I'm not mistaken. That is more than enough to prevent and discourage infanticide.

I really wonder where these rulings on thighing come from, because it is truly horrendous to think about.

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 4/16/2021 at 5:52 AM, Zainuu said:

Here I agree with you and I have already given a thought by stepping out of it. But as you said, "Owning a human being is an issue." 

Can you please bring me a solution to that?

In Islam, there are completely unusual methods of freeing the slaves. For example, there are many sins, if committed, then one or more slaves should be freed as a reparation.

And the basic and core Islamic fundamentals actually cause a shift in this (master-slave) perspective also. For example, the Islamic doctrine states that all of us are slaves of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Now, if a woman is in obedience to her husband or parents then she is obeying Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) command because she is a slave of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and not those people. Similarly, a slave itself is in obedience to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) finally and not his master. He is obeying his master just in respect and obedience of the command of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

So, there is not only an empowerment through increased rights etc but there is an effort to shift the perspective. In this manner, a slave will never be treated or presented. Rather, it will be just left as a mere relationship.

It is known for Imam al Sajjad (عليه السلام) and narrated by public speakers that he kept a lot of slaves and maids but the purpose was not to take works feom them (it was secondary). The primary purpose was to educate them and make them more firm in belief. Because Banu Umayya kept a strict eye on the Imam (عليه السلام) and never gave ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) any room to spread the truth. 

Now I would definitely like to hear from you a solution to abolish slavery completely.

My question is very simple, is the concept of owning another human being, the abilityto buy/sell them etc is this a morally acceptable concept or morally unacceptable? In my opinion it is morally unacceptable. 

As to how it should be abolished, this is entirely a different question. Many acts are considered a crime, but can never be truly abolished (rape, alcohol, drugs, murder, racism) etc. We accept that all of these are morally unacceptable. My question isn't how laws should be implemented, but whether the idea of human ownership is morally acceptable or not.

 

Edited by skinee
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fulan
15 minutes ago, skinee said:

My question is very simple, is the concept of owning another human being, the abilityto buy/sell them etc is this a morally acceptable concept or morally unacceptable. In my opinion it is morally unacceptable. 

As to how it should be abolished, this is entirely a different question. Many acts are considered a crime, but can never be truly abolished (rape, alcohol, drugs, murder, racism) etc. We accept that all of these are morally unacceptable. My question isn't how laws should be implemented, but whether it the idea of human ownership is morally acceptable or not.

In our day and age it appears to be morally unacceptable / blameworthy to buy or own another person.  

but apparently it was not blameworthy before!   Truly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Which raises the question: Why are there these fatwas on thighing, when they contradict the fatwas on bulugh and nikah, as well as the Qur'an? Especially since rape is a form of zina and punishable by lashing or stoning, if I'm not mistaken. That is more than enough to prevent and discourage infanticide.

I really wonder where these rulings on thighing come from, because it is truly horrendous to think about.

back to OP's topic. This fatwa doesn't contradict Islamic fiqh. Islamic fiqh allows the father to marry of a minor that hasn't reached puberty IF it is in the "interest" of the child and doesn't harm them. However what defines as "interest" has not been clarified. Sometime people cite poverty as a reason. Let's assume poverty justifies such a marriage... now imagine you are living in arabia where girls as young as 6 to 10 are getting married because that was the culture and girls matured much faster. Now some poor father who has barely any money to feed himself, feels it will be better to marry of his 4 year old to someone. the result you get is the ability to "thigh" a girl. 

How anyone finds the above justifications reasonable or morally acceptable is beyond my understanding.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam there was laws but there is no evidence  of practicing  it during  time of prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) also It didn't  practice time of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) but it  happened  during time of three caliph which Imam Ali (عليه السلام) stood  against  it & freed  whole of Iranian slave due to war with Iran which later in time of Imam Hasan  (عليه السلام) & Imam Hussain  (عليه السلام) & rest of Imams , it is  continued by Imams which Imam  Sajad (عليه السلام) was wellknown  for freeing slaves in great numbers but their influence  on community  has reduced each Imam after Imam which Ummayids  & Abbasids  were practicing  slavery & other Immoral  actions not by Imams.

There is plenty of evidence in history that the Imams had slaves and had kids with them as well, regardless of how many they freed. Imam Ali had some children with concubines as per our historical records.

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

As to how it should be abolished, this is entirely a different question. Many acts are considered a crime, but can never be truly abolished (rape, alcohol, drugs, murder, racism) etc. We accept that all of these are morally unacceptable. My question isn't how laws should be implemented, but whether the idea of human ownership is morally acceptable or not.

You said that keeping slaves is morally incorrect. So, provide a solution to that. Bring me one society from history which has completely prohibited slavery in every shape and format.

I don't see such a thing happening.

So, I have established the opinion that if the rights and duties of slaves are properly observed and they are protected from all sorts of calamity and exploitation and it doesn't impact there honor in any way then I don't have any problem with slavery. Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) had slaves like Bibi Fizza (رضي الله عنه) who was an elite before becoming a slave of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). This shows that the conduct of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) was such that even the elites among believers never hesitated to accept the slavery of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). And it was like that because Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) never made them realize that they are slaves. 

In fact, Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) used to teach Islamic sciences to his slaves. 

If this is slavery, then I don't have a problem.

My only problem is with those who exploit slaves and treat them like rag. If a person works for me, it doesn't make me his owner and I don't have any right to treat him in a bad way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
30 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

You said that keeping slaves is morally incorrect. So, provide a solution to that. Bring me one society from history which has completely prohibited slavery in every shape and format.

I don't see such a thing happening.

So, I have established the opinion that if the rights and duties of slaves are properly observed and they are protected from all sorts of calamity and exploitation and it doesn't impact there honor in any way then I don't have any problem with slavery. Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) had slaves like Bibi Fizza (رضي الله عنه) who was an elite before becoming a slave of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). This shows that the conduct of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) was such that even the elites among believers never hesitated to accept the slavery of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). And it was like that because Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) never made them realize that they are slaves. 

In fact, Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) used to teach Islamic sciences to his slaves. 

If this is slavery, then I don't have a problem.

My only problem is with those who exploit slaves and treat them like rag. If a person works for me, it doesn't make me his owner and I don't have any right to treat him in a bad way.

That's fine my dear brother/sister, we can agree to disagree, we can have differing views :)

As for your first paragraph, i have already addressed that in my previous reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Guest Fulan said:

In our day and age it appears to be morally unacceptable / blameworthy to buy or own another person.  

but apparently it was not blameworthy before!   Truly.

When people give examples of freeing slaves as a "good" thing, than it logically follows that keeping slaves is the opposite of freeing them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Zainuu said:

You said that keeping slaves is morally incorrect. So, provide a solution to that. Bring me one society from history which has completely prohibited slavery in every shape and format.

I don't see such a thing happening.

Can you please elaborate why the complete prohibition of ANY act has anything to do with the act's morality? And why it differs for "slavery"?

 

1 hour ago, Zainuu said:

So, I have established the opinion that if the rights and duties of slaves are properly observed and they are protected from all sorts of calamity and exploitation and it doesn't impact there honor in any way then I don't have any problem with slavery. Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) had slaves like Bibi Fizza (رضي الله عنه) who was an elite before becoming a slave of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). This shows that the conduct of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) was such that even the elites among believers never hesitated to accept the slavery of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). And it was like that because Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) never made them realize that they are slaves. 

In fact, Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) used to teach Islamic sciences to his slaves. 

If this is slavery, then I don't have a problem.

Couldn't all of this been done without owning these people? I mean the Imam taught to non-slaves as well.

Consider the following scenario and please explain to me how this is morally acceptable:

Suppose there is a honest and pious fruit seller in the markets of Mecca. He see's a girl that is a slave. He talks to this girl and tells her he wants to marry her. She says she is willing to marry him as well, but must get permission from her master. You might say that if the master was a better or good person, as per Islamic teachings he should allow his slave girl to get married. The master isn't a bad person, and he likes this slave girl very much, so he doesn't give her permission to marry the fruit seller - and the master has this right over her, he wouldn't be doing anything wrong as per Islamic law.

This (and other reasons which I'm not writing here )in my view makes slavery immoral, it gives rights to the master which are unfair as demonstrated above. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
22 minutes ago, skinee said:

Couldn't all of this been done without owning these people? I mean the Imam taught to non-slaves as well.

No. 

Reason: Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) and every other Imam, lived in the time when the tyrants used to keep eye on the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). Those were the periods of extreme oppression. So, it was not easy for Imams to open up an academy and invite all the non-slave people to the classes because that would not be allowed by those tyrants.

So, Imam (عليه السلام) gave his teachings to slaves and when times became better these slaves acted as confidents of Imams and were used to transmit the messages of Imam from one place to another.

23 minutes ago, skinee said:

Suppose there is a honest and pious fruit seller in the markets of Mecca. He see's a girl that is a slave. He talks to this girl and tells her he wants to marry her. She says she is willing to marry him as well, but must get permission from her master. You might say that if the master was a better or good person, as per Islamic teachings he should allow his slave girl to get married. The master isn't a bad person, and he likes this slave girl very much, so he doesn't give her permission to marry the fruit seller - and the master has this right over her, he wouldn't be doing anything wrong as per Islamic law.

This is not reasonable brother with all due respect.

What do you think about a slave?

Are they healthy wealthy people like me and you?

The people who are extremely poor, alone left in there family, destitutes etc get into this system. 

Now, let me address your scenario. The fruit seller loves the girl and wants to marry her. But is she an independent woman? No, she has a guardian and in this case it is her master. If she would have been a non-slave woman and her father would have rejected the proposal, what then? That would be normal, right? Because her father is her guardian.

But in this case, her guardian is her master because probably she has no family or probably her father was too poor to take complete care of her. So, he sold her out to a wealthy person and things settled on all sides. Now, her master has a right to reject or accept marriage proposals for her and I don't see anything wrong in this. He is taking care of her, respecting her rights, protecting her and has saved her from poverty. If Islamically, he has a right to choose a guy for her then what is wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
32 minutes ago, skinee said:

Can you please elaborate why the complete prohibition of ANY act has anything to do with the act's morality? And why it differs for "slavery"?

You are saying that slavery is immoral. I said okay. Bring me a stable solution to remove it. Something which is immoral should be prohibited. 

I didn't get the second question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

No. 

Reason: Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) and every other Imam, lived in the time when the tyrants used to keep eye on the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). Those were the periods of extreme oppression. So, it was not easy for Imams to open up an academy and invite all the non-slave people to the classes because that would not be allowed by those tyrants.

So, Imam (عليه السلام) gave his teachings to slaves and when times became better these slaves acted as confidents of Imams and were used to transmit the messages of Imam from one place to another.

There were many things that the Imams had to do to adjust to the times, eg. followers to practice taqiyya. However the above argument doesn't hold as well when we speak about the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), or we speak about slavery as a general argument. I'm happy to move on from this point.

 

15 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

This is not reasonable brother with all due respect.

What do you think about a slave?

Are they healthy wealthy people like me and you?

The people who are extremely poor, alone left in there family, destitutes etc get into this system. 

Now, let me address your scenario. The fruit seller loves the girl and wants to marry her. But is she an independent woman? No, she has a guardian and in this case it is her master. If she would have been a non-slave woman and her father would have rejected the proposal, what then? That would be normal, right? Because her father is her guardian.

But in this case, her guardian is her master because probably she has no family or probably her father was too poor to take complete care of her. So, he sold her out to a wealthy person and things settled on all sides. Now, her master has a right to reject or accept marriage proposals for her and I don't see anything wrong in this. He is taking care of her, respecting her rights, protecting her and has saved her from poverty. If Islamically, he has a right to choose a guy for her then what is wrong?

A master can't always be compared to a father. A good father has the best interests of his child, whereas a master has his own interests as well... it is the self interest of the master which makes the relationship of a master and slave in the above scenario unfair. Either way please tell me your thoughts/justifications for the following explanations from Tafsir AlMizan (for Sura 4, verses 23 to 28), please read all of it if you wish, I'm only posting part of it here:

"Prohibition of mothers and the others described in the verse, means prohibition of marriage with them, as is understood from the subject and the order.... such metaphorical expressions are very common in every language...

Nevertheless, it seems a bit difficult to say that it is ‘marriage’ which is implied by the word, ‘forbidden’, because of the exceptional clause coming later: except those whom your right hands possess. Sexual intercourse with one’s slave women is lawful without marriage.

Consequently, the exceptional clause, ‘‘except those whom your right hands possess’’; will exclude one’s married slave girl from this prohibition. It has been narrated in traditions that the master of a married slave woman may take away that woman from her husband, keep her untouched for the prescribed term, then have sexual relation with her, and thereafter return her to her husband."

 

 

 

Edited by skinee
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

You are saying that slavery is immoral. I said okay. Bring me a stable solution to remove it. Something which is immoral should be prohibited. 

I didn't get the second question.

I'm trying to explain to you that logically this is not a sound argument. An act is immoral regardless of there being a solution for it or not. 

I didn't want to offer my opinions or speculations on how slavery could have been prohibited, so the following is not something that I would use as an argument. I see this is a separate topic. Nonetheless, one could imagine that the Prophet could have said there is no such thing as human ownership, no human can own, buy, or sell another human being. That if there are extremely poor people in society, they should be helped, they should be taken care of, and they may be employed etc. That every human is "free" and can not be the property of another. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, skinee said:

There were many things that the Imams had to do to adjust to the times, eg. followers to practice taqiyya. However the above argument doesn't hold as well when we speak about the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), or we speak about slavery as a general argument. I'm happy to move on from this point.

 

A master can't always be compared to a father. A good father has the best interests of his child, whereas a master has his own interests as well... it is the self interest of the master which makes the relationship of a master and slave in the above scenario unfair. Either way please tell me your thoughts/justifications for the following explanations from Tafsir AlMizan (for Sura 4, verses 23 to 28), please read all of it if you wish, I'm only posting part of it here:

"Prohibition of mothers and the others described in the verse, means prohibition of marriage with them, as is understood from the subject and the order.... such metaphorical expressions are very common in every language...

Nevertheless, it seems a bit difficult to say that it is ‘marriage’ which is implied by the word, ‘forbidden’, because of the exceptional clause coming later: except those whom your right hands possess. Sexual intercourse with one’s slave women is lawful without marriage.

Consequently, the exceptional clause, ‘‘except those whom your right hands possess’’; will exclude one’s married slave girl from this prohibition. It has been narrated in traditions that the master of a married slave woman may take away that woman from her husband, keep her untouched for the prescribed term, then have sexual relation with her, andthereafter return her to her husband."

 

 

 

Below extract comes from Risalat al Huquq. Right of the slave where Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) says:

Quote

 

The right of your slave (mamluk) is that you should know that he is the creature of your Lord, the son of your father and mother, and your flesh and blood. You own him, but you did- not make him; God made him. You did not create any one of his limbs, nor do you provide him with his sustenance; on the contrary, God gives you the sufficiency for that.

Then He subjugated him to you, entrusted him to you, and deposited him with you so that you may be safeguarded by the good you give to him. So act well toward him, just as God has acted well toward you. If you dislike him, replace him, but do not torment a creature of God. And there is no strength save in God.

 

Now, any of the acts possible including those which seem immoral to you. If the slave doesn't consents to those acts then it would be zulm or oppression. So, basically, the Quranic verse interpretation only holds if the consensus is there from slave's side as well.

So, definitely, I can understand your sentiments but I see a balance in all this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, skinee said:

My question is very simple, is the concept of owning another human being, the abilityto buy/sell them etc is this a morally acceptable concept or morally unacceptable? In my opinion it is morally unacceptable. 

As to how it should be abolished, this is entirely a different question. Many acts are considered a crime, but can never be truly abolished (rape, alcohol, drugs, murder, racism) etc. We accept that all of these are morally unacceptable. My question isn't how laws should be implemented, but whether the idea of human ownership is morally acceptable or not.

 

It is a very good question and I don't think there is a strict black and white answer to this. Sorry if I'm butting in to your conversation with the other brother here, but I'd like to share my view on this murky business of human capital and human resource. 

Today the issue of slavery can be interpreted in so many ways, and we can even see 99.9% of humanity as slaves. Even Mark Zuckerberg has a price tag on his Wikipedia page where his "worth" is listed as a number in dollars. Then soccer players get bought and sold like a commodity. Is that immoral? Probably. 

Then there is the theory that all of us are slaves, because slavery is simply a financial product of the world economic system. And the current system can easily be interpreted today as having enslaved us all from cradle to grave already. The most used Arabic term for it in the Quran is maliket aymanihum. The Malik denotes ownership, and Ayman is linked to the word for right. This term can be quite flexible, and on a practical level you might find more people suiting this description than one might think. Even without an official contract of ownership, there might be a situation where certain individuals are bound to a family or person, carrying with it certain obligations. There are people who are almost 100% dependent like a slave in the old days. When people used to need a housekeeper for instance in the past the economic system of the past made it that you buy the person directly. But nowadays there are similar jobs and positions where the person lives with the family and 100% depends on them in the (almost) exact same way. The difference is minimal on a practical level, due to different financial systems of today and back then. 

The goal of Islam is not to abolish natural outcomes of systems we may be living in, but to revolutionize the actual system to the extent that there is no financial need to look for employment, or to be forced to work for anybody in any circumstance. The word slave has received a very negative stigma due to recent slavery cruelty in America, but they often have better lives than we do today. There are plenty of examples in history where slaves were treated well, like the family of Sayidna Yusuf who raised him in a great way, and gave him all the tools to become grand vizier of the most powerful country on earth at the time. The same country Egypt had an Islamic dynasty of rulers called Mamluks (meaning 'Owned', who were slaves that were so much empowered and educated by their owners that they eventually were able to take over rulership of the country. They were given the best lives, unlike our black brothers in America who still struggle today being behind in education and position in society. 

Slavery is a natural product of society's system. The only way that it can stop existing, is if there is plenty and abundance for everyone, which will lead to all work being done vulentarily. Things can not be forced. And finally I would like to say that it is probably a better life to be a slave for someone like ahlulbayt than being a king of a country - what concerns personal development and quality of life, as well as happiness and peace. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, skinee said:

I'm trying to explain to you that logically this is not a sound argument. An act is immoral regardless of there being a solution for it or not. 

I didn't want to offer my opinions or speculations on how slavery could have been prohibited, so the following is not something that I would use as an argument. I see this is a separate topic. Nonetheless, one could imagine that the Prophet could have said there is no such thing as human ownership, no human can own, buy, or sell another human being. That if there are extremely poor people in society, they should be helped, they should be taken care of, and they may be employed etc. That every human is "free" and can not be the property of another. 

That's it. This is my point. 

I am not expecting from you to provide me the alternative. But what I am trying to say is that slavery though seems to be immoral from your and my point of view, is actually not immoral.

And even if for the sake of the argument, I concede that 'it is immoral'. There has been no way to end it. So, if you cannot end something completely then it is better that you change the way of adopting that practice. It is better to introduce reforms.

 

Talking about Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) immediate prohibition of slavery. I think I have given enough reasons. But adding to all of that, none of the practices introduced by Islam and none of the prohibitions introduced by Islam have ever been in a dictatorial sense if they were just opposite to the status quo. 

Edited by Zainuu
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/15/2021 at 8:48 AM, Allah Seeker said:

I want to add one personal thing. I'm not perfect and I have shameful sides to me, but I thankfully don't have, and never had the desire to rub my privates against babies, and I think it's OK to have weird thoughts and shameful desires, as long as one didn't act on them, and even if one did, and repented for them, then it's OK if course. 

But to make a fatwa as a scholar and spiritual leader is something else. Once people claim to speak on behalf of Allah and the prophet, one has to be extra careful, and this is just the worst fatwa that can be done. Why? Jurists are defenders and protectors (Wali) of the weak and helpless. This fatwa is the most hurtful and undignified and shameful normalization of serious oppression against the weakest of the weakest of society. The voiceless, the unwitting, the helpless children, toddlers and babies. So that is why I personally do not accept it, and reject it in the strongest terms. And by this I mean the actual scholars who says this and dies without having defended the kids from this nonsense sex slave practice. 

I wish to see the day I see more Muslims like you. Zero tolerance with the filth and those who remain silent against it.

The harm such jurists do is unconceivable. It reaches levels where I would just put then in jail instead of even expecting them to change their opinion. Their opinion is immediately useless at all levels when they defend the permissibility of such acts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
On 4/15/2021 at 9:48 AM, Allah Seeker said:

But to make a fatwa as a scholar and spiritual leader is something else. Once people claim to speak on behalf of Allah and the prophet, one has to be extra careful, and this is just the worst fatwa that can be done. Why? 

And you really think they did not pay extra carefulness from deriving such a fatwah? They are following a methodology where they derive laws. The methodology is of course not perfect and it have it's own problem. There are scholars who criticizes it and trying to reform it. Fatwas comes, stay, change or removed for good reason.

This law for sure will vanish sooner or later, because physiologically it is very harmful and will destroy the child life.

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Abu Nur said:

And you really think they did not pay extra carefulness from deriving such a fatwah? They are following a methodology where they derive laws. The methodology is of course not perfect and it have it's own problem. There are scholars who criticizes it and trying to reform it. Fatwas comes, stay, change or removed for good reason.

This law for sure will vanish sooner or later, because physiologically it is very harmful and will destroy the child life.

Yes I think that there is no care here for the kids as it normalizes the act. This needs to be condemned directly. There is a post where someone showed a website where it is condemned by a recent Sistani text, but it is confusing, because he didn't condemn his own fatwa, and there is a contraction there. 

Personally I believe that the fatwa system is wrong. It should be linked directly and plainly to proofs from Quran and ahadeeth. Otherwise the methodology is opinion of the scholar which we all know is not valid. Or?

So a scholar makes a fatwa:

Fatwa: it is right or wrong to do something 

Then there must be immediately the reason:

Reasoning:

1- Quran

2 - Ahadeeth

 

.. 

That's the only way to be truly safe when talking on an Islamic plane. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
  • 3. Marriage of the young - of a male who has not reached puberty to a female who has not reached puberty - was until recently very common in many Eastern societies, and hence the book of religious rulings included some of its rules in its previous versions, but it was observed that it had receded at current times, and that was removed in the latest versions. What we wish to emphasise is that the parent of a girl cannot give permission for her marriage unless it is in her interest, and most often there is no interest in her marriage until she reaches physical maturity and mental preparedness for sexual activity, as it is also not in her interest to marry in contravention to law which would make her liable for unnecessary repercussions and problems. (https://www.sistani.org/english/archive/26348/)
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, pisceswolf96 said:

because in Islam the rule of (جلب المصالح ودرء المفاسد) bringing the good and warding off the bad is in play, since Arabs used to practise female infanticide because females were seen as very undesirable for many reasons including economical reasons. They continued to explain that it is then better to marry off those girls to men who can spend money on them as their wives instead of burying them alive but since disallowing coitus without allowing other sexual acts would discourage men from marrying those girls, thighing was allowed alongside other non-penetrative sexual acts.

On 4/14/2021 at 8:00 AM, guest 2025 said:

That's interesting, I didn't realize it was to combat infanticide.

On 4/14/2021 at 4:24 PM, Muhammed Ali said:

Read this fatwa: 

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/63911-the-fatwa-of-ayatullah-khamenei/

It's a case of allowing a thing because there is no evidence to disallow it (a bit like the tatbir rulings). Someone one the forum quoted Ayatullah Khoei who said that. However I do think these unconditional rulings caused harm. They should have been conditional (like tatbir some scholars give conditional rulings).

On 4/15/2021 at 1:19 PM, AbdusSibtayn said:

@pisceswolf96

I think this might be relevant to this thread. Ayatollah Sistani (ha) himself is discussing this ruling here, and why it was rescinded in the latest edition of Minhāj üs Sāliheen. Refer to the third point.

https://www.sistani.org/english/archive/26348/

From what I can glean from the response, the Sayyid (ha) means to say that the ruling was made keeping in mind the conditions of the old societies, and is not relevant to our times.

I appreciate the above posts. What I don't appreciate is all the people who're hurling emotionally charged, ill-mannered complaints and disrespectful comments towards the religious authorities, merely in response to the face value of the matter, without (as it seems from some of these comments) trying to develop at least a half-decent-layman-version of an understanding of the matter.

From doing some quick skimming through this thread and online a bit, to me, a simpleton, it seems the ruling lingered in the previous editions of the ruling-book in the first place in response to and even in somewhat combat against/to regularize, certain unhealthy circumstances/customs/situations of previous times/societies. However, there is a lot of background I probably do not know still. The OP brought up how it was initially to prevent female infanticide/burying females alive. Additionally, some people in the past did indeed get married at super early ages and even before puberty (in fact even till not long ago - as I racall some stuff from my old genetics class prof) and so just thinking about it, there would have been need for some sort of tehcnicality/theory/rulings to govern those marriages, and it seems the rulings/religious-theory/technicality naturally and understandably let those marriages be I suppose. Alhumdolillah though for our sect/people, there was/is a stipulated age for when the marriage can be consummated, and it would be haram to consummate it before that. More importantly, how are we ignoring the fact that the father needed to have consented to the marriage in the first place and no father in their right mind would abuse their right and consent to an abusive marraige for his daughter (but let's say he's some sicko who plans to - then after properly applying the ruling as will be explained in the vid below, he would be commiting haram - if the marriage would not be in interest for and entail abuse/harm to his daughter). And with all permissible things, just because they're not outright labelled haram or even outright harmful, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do (perhaps it just means that there hasn't been any discovered evidence to declare the act impermissible). Anyway, the fact of the matter is that the ruling has been removed by the marja (as it does not apply to our times - so those lamenting and arguing using modern psychology of its possibly harmful nature can save their efforts as the ruling no longer even applies in the first place and has been removed from the book, and nor did it allow for the delivery of harm to anyone to begin with). When the ruling was there, it was a strictly conditional ruling and the Sayyid below explains it really well (please watch):

To add, as some brothers pointed out, there's a certain academic methdology to follow when deriving law - but I don't think we need to even get into that discussion now. 

Edited by AStruggler
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
41 minutes ago, AStruggler said:
  • 3. Marriage of the young - of a male who has not reached puberty to a female who has not reached puberty - was until recently very common in many Eastern societies, and hence the book of religious rulings included some of its rules in its previous versions, but it was observed that it had receded at current times, and that was removed in the latest versions. What we wish to emphasise is that the parent of a girl cannot give permission for her marriage unless it is in her interest, and most often there is no interest in her marriage until she reaches physical maturity and mental preparedness for sexual activity, as it is also not in her interest to marry in contravention to law which would make her liable for unnecessary repercussions and problems. (https://www.sistani.org/english/archive/26348/)

I appreciate the above posts. What I don't appreciate is all the people who're hurling emotionally charged, ill-mannered complaints and disrespectful comments towards the religious authorities, merely in response to the face value of the matter, without (as it seems from some of these comments) trying to develop at least a half-decent-layman-version of an understanding of the matter.

From doing some quick skimming through this thread and online a bit, to me, a simpleton, it seems the ruling lingered in the previous editions of the ruling-book in the first place in response to and even in somewhat combat against/to regularize, certain unhealthy circumstances/customs/situations of previous times/societies. However, there is a lot of background I probably do not know still. The OP brought up how it was initially to prevent female infanticide/burying females alive. Additionally, some people in the past did indeed get married at super early ages and even before puberty (in fact even till not long ago - as I racall some stuff from my old genetics class prof) and so just thinking about it, there would have been need for some sort of tehcnicality/theory/rulings to govern those marriages, and it seems the rulings/religious-theory/technicality naturally and understandably let those marriages be I suppose. Alhumdolillah though for our sect/people, there was/is a stipulated age for when the marriage can be consummated, and it would be haram to consummate it before that. More importantly, how are we ignoring the fact that the father needed to have consented to the marriage in the first place and no father in their right mind would abuse their right and consent to an abusive marraige for his daughter (but let's say he's some sicko who plans to - then after properly applying the ruling as will be explained in the vid below, he would be commiting haram - if the marriage would not be in interest for and entail abuse/harm to his daughter). And with all permissible things, just because they're not outright labelled haram or even outright harmful, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do (perhaps it just means that there hasn't been any discovered evidence to declare the act impermissible). Anyway, the fact of the matter is that the ruling has been removed by the marja (as it does not apply to our times - so those lamenting and arguing using modern psychology of its possibly harmful nature can save their efforts as the ruling no longer even applies in the first place and has been removed from the book, and nor did it allow for the delivery of harm to anyone to begin with). When the ruling was there, it was a strictly conditional ruling and the Sayyid below explains it really well (please watch):

To add, as some brothers pointed out, there's a certain academic methdology to follow when deriving law - but I don't think we need to even get into that discussion now. 

For the sake of all the "thighed" babies, I will tell you that your arguments are weak in my books. Why don't you want to talk about the 'methodology' used? Why isn't it simple and based directly on Quran and hadiths? Why act like the scholar is an authority, when he isn't? The scholar is not Allah nor the prophet! They have no right to come up with independent verdicts and then cover it up with the excuse of time. Marriage was haram with infants at all times. Just because some kufr tradition is practiced, it does not mean we must surrender and accept it! Where is there proof of this sick tradition ever being accepted by the prophet 1400 years ago, when all the sick practices existed? Does the Quran teach us that Lut (عليه السلام). said homosexuals can practice because it was an established tradition? Sorry, but I think your post is yet another attempt to tolerate something that should not be tolerated under any circumstance, even if it was a few years ago. Sistani talks as if he is so old. You want to tell me that the world in rural areas was so different in his life time? And as I mentioned, even if it does, we must order bil maaruf, and ninhi bil munkar. This is as shameful as can get and no excuses! Don't fall into the trap of justifying oppression. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
On 4/17/2021 at 9:27 AM, skinee said:

Sometime people cite poverty as a reason. Let's assume poverty justifies such a marriage... now imagine you are living in arabia where girls as young as 6 to 10 are getting married because that was the culture and girls matured much faster. Now some poor father who has barely any money to feed himself, feels it will be better to marry of his 4 year old to someone. the result you get is the ability to "thigh" a girl. 

Poverty is an excuse, not a reason unfortunately. It should never excuse a vile and strange practice like thighing, which is basically legalized zina. Islam may been revealed in Arabic and to the Arabs first but it is a universal religion for all, the fiqh should reflect that.

Even then, it may be impossible for the father to marry off his daughter because she is not baligh yet. Then again, I doubt the parties involved are remotely interested in morality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Allah Seeker said:

You want to tell me that the world in rural areas was so different in his life time?

Though I am not opposing your stance. But just to correct you over here. 

Yes. Such marriages were a trend in many eastern societies just a few decades back. They are still alive but mostly in extreme backward places.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

This is from Tahrir al-Wasilah/v. 2:

مسألة 2 - لو عقد على امرأة حرمت عليها أمها وإن علت نسبا أو رضاعا، سواء دخل بها أم لا، وسواء كان العقد دواما أو انقطاعا، وسواء كانت المعقودة صغيرة أو كبيرة نعم الأحوط في العقد على الصغيرة انقطاعا أن تكون بالغة إلى حد تقبل للاستمتاع والتلذذ بها ولو بغير الوطء بأن كانت بالغة ست سنين فما فوق مثلا، أو يدخل في المدة بلوغها إلى هذا الحد، فما تعارف من إيقاع عقد الانقطاع ساعة أو ساعتين على الصغيرة الرضعية أو من يقاربها مريدين بذلك محرمية أمها على المعقود له لا يخلو من إشكال من جهة الاشكال في صحة مثل هذا العقد حتى يترتب عليه حرمة أم المعقود عليها، وإن لا يخلو من قرب أيضا لكن لو عقد كذلك أي الساعة أو الساعتين عليها فلا ينبغي ترك الاحتياط بترتب آثار المصاهرة وعدم المحرمية لو قصد تحقق الزوجية ولو بداعي بعض الآثار كالمحرمية.

 

Bold part translated in brief: getting married temporarily to a baby often done for the purpose of becoming Mahram to his mother is not errorless because there is question over the accuracy of this marriage.

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

This is from Tahrir al-Wasilah/v. 2:

مسألة 2 - لو عقد على امرأة حرمت عليها أمها وإن علت نسبا أو رضاعا، سواء دخل بها أم لا، وسواء كان العقد دواما أو انقطاعا، وسواء كانت المعقودة صغيرة أو كبيرة نعم الأحوط في العقد على الصغيرة انقطاعا أن تكون بالغة إلى حد تقبل للاستمتاع والتلذذ بها ولو بغير الوطء بأن كانت بالغة ست سنين فما فوق مثلا، أو يدخل في المدة بلوغها إلى هذا الحد، فما تعارف من إيقاع عقد الانقطاع ساعة أو ساعتين على الصغيرة الرضعية أو من يقاربها مريدين بذلك محرمية أمها على المعقود له لا يخلو من إشكال من جهة الاشكال في صحة مثل هذا العقد حتى يترتب عليه حرمة أم المعقود عليها، وإن لا يخلو من قرب أيضا لكن لو عقد كذلك أي الساعة أو الساعتين عليها فلا ينبغي ترك الاحتياط بترتب آثار المصاهرة وعدم المحرمية لو قصد تحقق الزوجية ولو بداعي بعض الآثار كالمحرمية.

 

Bold part translated in brief: getting married temporarily to a baby often done for the purpose of becoming Mahram to his mother is not errorless because there is question over the accuracy of this marriage.

Reminds me of the aisha hadith that women should suckle men so they can hang out alone together. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Allah Seeker said:

Reminds me of the aisha hadith that women should suckle men so they can hang out alone together. 

But may I add that I think marrying a baby to supposedly be able to hang out alone with the mother is more sick than the (supposed) hadith by aisha bint Abu Bakr with suckling men to make them mahrem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Allah Seeker said:

But may I add that I think marrying a baby to supposedly be able to hang out alone with the mother is more sick than the (supposed) hadith by aisha bint Abu Bakr with suckling men to make them mahrem.

I think the post you replied to is saying : not errorless which means 'the opposite of permissible'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...