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

Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

 

:salam:

 

https://www.academia.edu/7599989/Compassionate_Islam_and_Ma_malakat_aymanukum_Right_hand_holds_

Quote

"Ma malakat aymanukum" means the “women under contract in temporary marriages but not equal to wife of traditional marriage.” such marriages were very common during Jahilliah (pre-Islamic time) and also most of Prophet’s (s) lifetime. The temporarymarriage was forbidden by Prophet (s) during the Khyber war or by Ummer ibn Kathab(رضي الله عنه) as stated in this Hadiths... 

 

And this

Sheikh Imran Hosein, a sunni, implies they are not only slaves, but women which are bound to you as wives but with a different status and rights, meaning you do not have to provide for them as much as you should for a wife. He does not give shari`i instructions in order for it to be halal because he admits not having the knowledge. 

It reminds me of mut`a though. 

Edited by realizm
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I’m fed up with mutah contracts as a non arab with Arab women. They still have to ‘hide’ from other Muslims in public. A man just wants to get some sushi and ramen but a chick has to trip if there’s a hijabi there. Idc what those fools say. I’m about to boycott arab women.  But enough venting lol. I am curious about this. It was my understanding that in mutah you still need to provide. Am I mistaken? If I am alhamdulilah LOL. Mo money for me. I do want to buy a truck this summer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

:salam:

@MexicanVato brother I kindly suggest you avoid using such phrases even for joking. 

The point of this thread is to show how some Sunni muslims consider milk al yamin the same way Shias view mut`a i.e. when you have the right to same intimacy as a wife, but not being bound to providing on a same level. 

The reason Sheikh Imran Hosein gives is the Qur'anic obligation to treat all wives equally. Since all men cannot provide equal standards to several women (house, expenditure, etc...), they still can resort to having a concubine with whom they have a halal relationship. That's where arises the question of how to enter in such a relationship. First article refers to mut`a as being such contracts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I mean I do want a truck tho and spending less on a woman would help. This is interesting concept are there madhahib in the sunni school that still uphold this? I know mufti abu layth points to the permissibility of mutah in sunni traditions but how many of their schools actually accept it? Is it a taboo minority position? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 5/17/2021 at 12:13 AM, realizm said:

He does not give shari`i instructions in order for it to be halal because he admits not having the knowledge. 

Wassalām,

Might also refer to other types of non-conventional marriages allowed in the Sunni fiqh, like misyār or ürfī nikāh.

Edited by AbdusSibtayn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
50 minutes ago, realizm said:

Should have written MUTAH in capitals in the title :dry:

SUNNI SCHOLAR ADMITS MUTAH ALLOWED would be a better choice, if you are looking for clickbait titles.:hahaha:

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

Wassalām,

Might also refer to other types of non-conventional marriages allowed in the Sunni fiqh, like misyār or ürfī nikāh.

:salam:

Not in the aforementioned view, since he differentiates between nikah and milk al yamin. To my knowledge both urfi and misyar undergo the very same procedure of nikah. 

40 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

SUNNI SCHOLAR ADMITS MUTAH ALLOWED would be a better choice, if you are looking for clickbait titles.:hahaha:

I will definitely keep that in mind ! thanks bro :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
48 minutes ago, MexicanVato said:

I mean I do want a truck tho and spending less on a woman would help. This is interesting concept are there madhahib in the sunni school that still uphold this? I know mufti abu layth points to the permissibility of mutah in sunni traditions but how many of their schools actually accept it? Is it a taboo minority position? 

I never listened to mufti layth, he seems to be liked by shias, now I understand why lol. 

As for Sunni traditions, I think we shias know that there is a very gray area in their fiqh on that topic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 5/16/2021 at 11:13 PM, realizm said:

"Ma malakat aymanukum" means the “women under contract in temporary marriages but not equal to wife of traditional marriage.” such marriages were very common during Jahilliah (pre-Islamic time) and also most of Prophet’s (s) lifetime. The temporarymarriage was forbidden by Prophet (s) during the Khyber war or by Ummer ibn Kathab(رضي الله عنه) as stated in this Hadiths... 

Salam both of them are wrong which "Ma malakat aymanukum" has no relation to temporary marriage but It's about slave women like prisoners which has taken as slaves in battles of prophet Muhammad (pbu) with unbleivers .

The second conclusion about forbidding temporary marriage has refuted countless times sofar & about video of Sheikh Imran Hosein , his idea is completely a far fetch idea just to have something like Mut'a but with wahabists mentality which they have assumed that all of their women prisoners from Izadis & Shias are booties of war & their slaves .

Quote

A slave girl is one who has been captured by Muslims in the war between Muslims and infidels. In the Holy Quran, sexual intercourse with wives and concubines (slaveS) is permissible only.

http://wikifeqh.ir/ازدواج_با_کنیز_(قرآن)

Quote

 In Arabic literature, this term has been used about slave men and slave girls and property and domination over them, and in the Holy Quran, wherever this term is used, it means slave men and slave girls.

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa78250

http://lib.eshia.ir/50081/4/427

Quote

It is very important to understand the meaning of verse 24 of Nisa: this verse is in connection with verse 23. Verse 23 begins with the verb "sanctity" and forbidden marriages are counted as examples of marriages with sons' wives and marriages with two sisters, here God stops counting examples of forbidden marriages Have been committed to it, because before revelation of Quran , people have not considered such marriages as Haram which sometimes they have done it ,conceptually says; This does not lead to "turning to us" because not only is the divorce of such spouses no longer useful, but it is also harmful. It ends

https://neeloofar.org/1396/06/03/020696/

Quote

 From some narrations, the document of which reaches the famous Abu Saeed Khedri Sahabi, it is stated that the above verse was revealed about the captives of the battle of Otas, and the Prophet, after making sure that the captive women were not pregnant, allowed them to marry Muslims. To marry or be given to them as a handmaid.

 

Quote

Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) said;

"A slave girl who has a husband and wife is forbidden to her owner."

وسائل الشیعه ج ۲۱ ص ۱۴۸

wasail al shia v 21 p148

He said;

"When a man marries his maid, he no longer has the right to look at her private parts and between her navel and her knee."

قرب الاسنان ص 49

Qurb al Asnan p 49

نقل It is stated in another quote;

"The man who had intercourse with his maid was brought to Ali (عليه السلام) after he had married his maid, Ali (عليه السلام) beat the owner of the maid and imposed a hadd punishment on him."

مستدرک الوسائل ج 18 ص 61

Mustadrak al wasil v 18 p61

http://ipasookh.ir/question/ازدواج-با-کنیز-شوهردار/

Temporary Marriage in Sunni and Shiite Islam
Ali Teymoori

http://ijtihadnet.com/temporary-marriage-in-sunni-and-shiite-islam/

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia/temporary-marriage-islam-part-8-some-frequently-asked-questions-muta

Quote

In “Sahih Muslim” it has been mentioned that the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) three times gave the “‘Am Oṭas” a temporary marriage permission … [11]

Did _al-ayaz-billah _ the Prophet issued permission to prostitute?!

Jabbir Ibn Abdullah also said in the hadith in Sahih Muslim:

“We, at the time of the Prophet, Omar and Abubakr executed the rule of Mut‘a marriage (provisional).” [12]

Also in Sahih Muslim, quoted by Jabir: “At the time of the Prophet and Abu Bakr, we were carrying out the marriage ceremony, until Omar, in the case of Amr ibn Harith, forbade the execution of this rule. .. “. [13]

Did Jabir ibn Abdullah and other Companions commit prostitution?

 

Quote

Here, we quote “Abdullah bin Umar” about the Hajj Mut‘a as it is mentioned in the “Sunnah al-Tarmḍī”:

“… Ibn Shah’ab quotes from Salem bin Abdullah and he quotes a Shami man saying that: I heard a Shami man from Abdullah bin Omar asking for a hajj Mut‘a, Abdullah replied,” Halal, “the man said,” your father forbade it. Abdullah replied: “If my father has forbidden it and the Prophet of God (peace be upon him and his family) has set it up, do you think that you have to execute my father’s command or the command of the Prophet of Allah?” The man replied: “The commandment of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and Abdullah said:” This rule has been made by God’s Messenger. “

Allahbani [Al Albani] “considers the source of this hadith authentic.

We also follow the instructions of the Prophet of God (peace be upon him and his family) in the marriage of the women, and we will leave Omar’s order as his son Abdullah!

And it must be said that the position of Abdullah bin Omar against his father’s vote has a clear and obvious cause, because he insists that the decision to ban these two Mut‘a was a decision made by Omar personally and does not express the view of the Prophet of God . Just as Omar himself had already emphasized this point. Contrary to what Fakhr Razi and his likes claim in this regard. As a result, the efforts of Fakhr and his fellow practitioners, have failed to justify what Omar had done! [10]

It is worth noting that, Abdullah bin Umar has been clarifying this issue with these statements, and has uncovered an extremely important issue. It is argued that this group in the issue of two Mut‘a being forbidden(haram), with the excuse of the abrogation of Quranic verses and narratives attributed to the Prophet, as well as the claim of consensus on this ruling, tried to justify Omar’s position on this issue. In fact, they gave more importance to the person and gave a marginal and trivial role to the legacy and tradition of Islam. They even used this legacy to defend the caliph “Omar”.

 This method seems to have been a permanent approach to the literature of this group. An approach that unfortunately is very dangerous!

http://ijtihadnet.com/ayatollah-makarim-issues-open-letter-al-azhars-imam-temporary-marriage/

https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1396/04/27/1467860/پاسخ-مستند-آیت-الله-مکارم-به-شیخ-الأزهر-درباره-ازدواج-موقت

https://brill.com/view/journals/ils/26/1-2/article-p149_1.xml?language=en

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
On 5/16/2021 at 2:43 PM, realizm said:

 

:salam:

 

https://www.academia.edu/7599989/Compassionate_Islam_and_Ma_malakat_aymanukum_Right_hand_holds_

 

And this

Sheikh Imran Hosein, a sunni, implies they are not only slaves, but women which are bound to you as wives but with a different status and rights, meaning you do not have to provide for them as much as you should for a wife. He does not give shari`i instructions in order for it to be halal because he admits not having the knowledge. 

It reminds me of mut`a though. 

Salam. It might remind you of that, but it's not that. Mutah is marriage, Mulk Al Yamin is something entirely different, according to traditions of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). Mutah is permissible to practice at this time in history, Mulk Al Yamin isn't, because in order for someone to be classified as 'Mulk Al Yamin', they must be a war captive captured in a war that was declared by a Masoom. Since the only Masoom that is still living on the earth (i.e. Imam Zaman(a.f.s)) is in Ghaiba, this concepts does not apply to anyone at this point in time. We need to be very careful about trying to link these two concepts in any way, even casually, as this could be misunderstood by some here. 

The fiqh of our Sunni brothers on this is different than our fiqh, and there are even many differences amoung the Sunnis on this. We don't take our lead from them, we take our lead from our marjaa'. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

:salam:

@Abu Hadi

2 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Salam. It might remind you of that, but it's not that. Mutah is marriage, Mulk Al Yamin is something entirely different, according to traditions of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). Mutah is permissible to practice at this time in history, Mulk Al Yamin isn't, because in order for someone to be classified as 'Mulk Al Yamin', they must be a war captive captured in a war that was declared by a Masoom. Since the only Masoom that is still living on the earth (i.e. Imam Zaman(a.f.s)) is in Ghaiba, this concepts does not apply to anyone at this point in time. We need to be very careful about trying to link these two concepts in any way, even casually, as this could be misunderstood by some here. 

The fiqh of our Sunni brothers on this is different than our fiqh, and there are even many differences amoung the Sunnis on this. We don't take our lead from them, we take our lead from our marjaa'. 

I think we all should resort to Qur'anic wisdom before using the sectarian approach of 'their fiqh vs our fiqh'

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلًا أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُم ۚ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ ۚ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلَا مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ ۚ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنكُمْ ۚ وَأَن تَصْبِرُوا خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ ‎﴿٢٥﴾‏

Qur'an 4:25 

It is referred as Nikah (which anyway implies allowed sexual activity) 

- Will of their ahl is required

- Ajr is also a condition (mahr?) 

- word used is Fatayatikum 

I fail to see how these can relate to captives of war. 

 

Please bear in mind Sunni and Shia fiqh all stipulate that when ahadith are against Quran then they cannot be used. 

 

Anyway, what my point was, is that there might be a convergence in ideas regarding the idea of the couple in Islam, with different contracts and different status. 

2 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam both of them are wrong which "Ma malakat aymanukum" has no relation to temporary marriage but It's about slave women like prisoners which has taken as slaves in battles of prophet Muhammad (pbu) with unbleivers .

 

Again, isn't it intriguing that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) makes the distinction between 'Zawjatikum' (=Nikah, 4 maximum) and 'ma malakat aimanukum' (something else), and at the same time saying that those milk al yameen must be married in a correct way ? 

Quote

The second conclusion about forbidding temporary marriage has refuted countless times sofar & about video of Sheikh Imran Hosein , his idea is completely a far fetch idea just to have something like Mut'a but with wahabists mentality which they have assumed that all of their women prisoners from Izadis & Shias are booties of war & their slaves .

I don't know where you got the idea Imran Hosein has a wahabi mentality, and I think you did not understand his point. Wahabis are still taking women as captives to this day anyway so they have their justification. 

He said : Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) made a difference between regular nikah and milk al yameen, milk al yameen bearing less responsibility for the man and allowing single women to have contact with men and not being deprived of their physical needs.

The same argument many Shias use to justify mut`ah. And that's what I wanted to underline here. 

Edited by realizm
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 hour ago, realizm said:

:salam:

@Abu Hadi

I think we all should resort to Qur'anic wisdom before using the sectarian approach of 'their fiqh vs our fiqh'

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلًا أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُم ۚ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ ۚ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلَا مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ ۚ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنكُمْ ۚ وَأَن تَصْبِرُوا خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ ‎﴿٢٥﴾‏

Qur'an 4:25 

It is referred as Nikah (which anyway implies allowed sexual activity) 

- Will of their ahl is required

- Ajr is also a condition (mahr?) 

- word used is Fatayatikum 

I fail to see how these can relate to captives of war. 

 

Please bear in mind Sunni and Shia fiqh all stipulate that when ahadith are against Quran then they cannot be used. 

 

Anyway, what my point was, is that there might be a convergence in ideas regarding the idea of the couple in Islam, with different contracts and different status. 

Again, isn't it intriguing that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) makes the distinction between 'Zawjatikum' (=Nikah, 4 maximum) and 'ma malakat aimanukum' (something else), and at the same time saying that those milk al yameen must be married in a correct way ? 

I don't know where you got the idea Imran Hosein has a wahabi mentality, and I think you did not understand his point. Wahabis are still taking women as captives to this day anyway so they have their justification. 

He said : Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) made a difference between regular nikah and milk al yameen, milk al yameen bearing less responsibility for the man and allowing single women to have contact with men and not being deprived of their physical needs.

The same argument many Shias use to justify mut`ah. And that's what I wanted to underline here. 

If following the fiqh of my marjaa' is the 'sectarian approach' then yes, I am using the sectarian approach. The fiqh of our marjaa' is based on First, Quran, and second Authentic hadith of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). I'm pretty sure they are more knowledgeable in this area than you or me are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
55 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

If following the fiqh of my marjaa' is the 'sectarian approach' then yes, I am using the sectarian approach. The fiqh of our marjaa' is based on First, Quran, and second Authentic hadith of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). I'm pretty sure they are more knowledgeable in this area than you or me are. 

No brother, the moment you took the sectarian approach is when you rejected an opinion of a Sunni based on the fact 'their fiqh' is different, even when that Sunni used the most basic rule i.e. ahadith that go against Qur'an should be put aside, that is also to be applied in our fiqh. Fiqh which is based on Qur'an, sunnah, consensus and intellect. When we hide behind the marja`iah issue to discredit reasoning from another school, I think that's sectarianism. 

Ironically enough the opinion of that scholar goes very often against the Sunni consensus. 

 

Now going back to the topic, I honestly there is a legit question : what nikah contract was pronounced when taking a slave as wife ? In what did it differ from regular Nikah ?

And therefore :

on what basis were wives (regular) discriminated from concubines ? 

- What criterion allowed man to have up to 4 on one side, and as much he wanted on the other ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, realizm said:

Imran Hosein has a wahabi mentality, and I think you did not understand his point.

Salam as @Abu Hadi has mentioned for having Mulk Al Yamin as It not applicable this on muslims & people  of book you must have war with infidels or non belivers to Abrahamic religions to take slave women from them which currently is Wahabi doctrine for doing Dawah at east of Asia & indigenous people which according their doctrine thy must accept Islam or become their slaves .

15 hours ago, realizm said:

He said : Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) made a difference between regular nikah and milk al yameen, milk al yameen bearing less responsibility for the man and allowing single women to have contact with men and not being deprived of their physical needs.

The same argument many Shias use to justify mut`ah. And that's what I wanted to underline here. 

He has a wrong understanding from it because Mulk al Yamin is for muslim men which can't marry with a free muslim woman so Mulk is better option  than marrying with free non muslim women but responsibility of regular Nikah & Mulk is same as each other but like other sunnis he has used any solution other than Mut'a which is  only divine solution besides permanent marriage but sunnis have bypased it with wrong interpretation of Mulk al Yamin or using prohibited acts like Misyar or innovtion of Jihad of Nikah just for following innovation of second caliph & opposing Shias.

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

Mulk is better option  than marrying with free non muslim

correction: beliver slave women are better than free non believer women anyway beliver slave women are Mulk al Yamin.

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

:salam:

@Ashvazdanghe

Brother, why do you feel necessary to bring Misyar or Jihad al nikah in the debate? We do not focus on those innovations here. 

There are pending questions here.

What kind of contract was pronounced during that day for marrying Mulk al yameen? 

What rules apply to 'Zawjatikum' that differ from those of 'Fitayatikum' ? Other than rule of `idda etc... 

Again, I am NOT certain to prove Milk al yameen = Mut`a, or that it resembles it. I am willing to understand if concept of Mulk al yameen is only prescribed for holy war times. I still don't understand how such argument stand when our last 5 Imams were born from Milk al yameen when no war with infidels was declared by an infaillible Imam. 

That's when I tend to be convinced by the assertion that Milk al yameen is not just a concept valid in the past and no longer today.

But, again, I do not accept those wahabi concept to raid villages and take women as sex slaves. 

 

Edited by realizm
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Ali_Hussain said:

ok ok, now that you say that it rings a bell, I wish I hadn't spent all that time arguing with this Hindu nut jobs that it isn't a thing

Spent too much time on speaker's corner innit bruv ? :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Intoseen
On 5/17/2021 at 11:15 AM, MexicanVato said:

m fed up with mutah contracts as a non arab with Arab women. They still have to ‘hide’ from other Muslims in public. A man just wants to get some sushi and ramen but a chick has to trip if there’s a hijabi there. Idc what those fools say.

If you thought Lantinas were feisty, well, Arab women are on whole other level. And the whole hiding thing and being obsessive over the possibility of seeing someone they know is why my husband boycotted Arab women. I’m half joking, he can’t get along with them and finds them too aggressive and hard to be around. He says that when he tried to get to know Arab women, they play a lot of games and make you chase them. Btw you’re allowed to say what you think about different ethnicities based on your experiences. Maybe by reading this, they’ll stop being so paranoid. 

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

If you thought Lantinas were feisty, well, Arab women are on whole other level. And the whole hiding thing and being obsessive over the possibility of seeing someone they know is why my husband boycotted Arab women. I’m half joking, he can’t get along with them and finds them too aggressive and hard to be around. He says that when he tried to get to know Arab women, they play a lot of games and make you chase them. Btw you’re allowed to say what you think about different ethnicities based on your experiences. Maybe by reading this, they’ll stop being so paranoid. 

Yes, I hate the games. I can deal with feisty because I know how to stand my guard and put them in their place non abusively. However the paranoia of what other people are going to think drives me nuts. For some reason arab women I’ve been with seemed to have lied more than non Arab women I’ve been with. Interestingly every single one said they disliked arab men in term of having them as mates. I’m pretty close to cutting them from my potential proceedings lol. I suppose it’s their beauty that captures me, but the Sirens in Odysseus were also beautiful but deadly. 

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

It is nonsense to suggest mulk al-yameen is something which only exists in a situation where an Imam (عليه السلام) leads a war.

The Imams (عليه السلام) and their followers owned slaves in times where no Imam even had political power or led a war, and this practice continued even after the ghaybah, where Shi'as owned slaves for hundreds of years until the international community shut it down in the last two centuries.

Reliable hadiths have allowed - as has been affirmed by our scholars in their fatwas - that buying and selling slaves in slave markets is allowed, and even buying slaves from the kuffar in their slave markets is allowed. 

Also, there is no issue with enslaving an enemy disbeliever even in peace times through captivation according to many fuqaha, so that is another form of enslaving someone without resorting to war.

I would suggest any of you who is interested in this matter refer to this comprehensive article by one of the brothers, in which he goes through in detail the legal aspects of slavery in Imami fiqh.

https://www.iqraonline.net/the-issue-of-slavery-in-contemporary-islam/

Edited by Sumerian
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...