sex with the captives?
-
Peace
so, you say she is a slave, the master doesn't permit her to marry someone else, he is allowed by the quran/God to have her for himself, the quran/God gives her the right to agree or disagreeYes ..
there's little congruity between the words 'slave, master' and 'right'
It's that "congruity" that made it different from the general rules of slavery elsewhere.
-
Paz,
Peace
so, you say she is a slave, the master doesn't permit her to marry someone else, he is allowed by the quran/God to have her for himself, the quran/God gives her the right to agree or disagreeYes ..
there's little congruity between the words 'slave, master' and 'right'
It's that "congruity" that made it different from the general rules of slavery elsewhere.
I see. The difference is that Islam/God introduced an item regarding sex.
The rest , the same, though the master was offered some rewards if he treated her fine or freed her, but just encouragement, not compulsion, the slavery continued, to not create disturbance in that delicate society.
And this looks enough for you, even you being sure it was God who decided those things.
-
peace all,
Another fatwa
Details of Fatwa
Title of Fatwa STATUS OF SLAVE WOMEN IN ISLAM
Date of Fatwa 19/ November/ 2001
Date of Reply 19/ November/ 2001
Topic Of Fatwa SLAVERY
Question of Fatwa Is it true that Islam permits Muslim men to own slave women, and permits them to have sex with them without marrying them? And that this was carried out by the Sahaba with Muhammed's approval? Surely this is in contradiction of the Quran's condemnation of Zina. Please clarify this issue...
Name of Mufti Islam Online Fatwa Committee
Content of Reply In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear brother in Islam, thank you very much for having confidence in us and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah's Sake, meet your expectations.
Given the fact of being a religion that caters for rights of every creature, Islam urges a Muslim to show good and kind treatment to anyone under his/her control; he should neither maltreat him or her nor should he subject him/her to any form of exploitation.
As regards having slave women, it happens to be a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or Milk Al-yameen are referred to in the Qur'an as 'Those whom your right hand possess' or 'Ma Malakat Aymanukum' they are THOSE TAKEN AS CAPTIVES DURING CONQUESTS and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves.
Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.
But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. SO IT ALLOWED MUSLIMS TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH SLAVE WOMEN TAKEN AS CAPTIVES OF JUST AND LEGITIMATE WARS. IN SO DOING, THE WOMAN WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BECOME FREE IF SHE GOT PREGNANT. WHAT'S MORE, HER CHILD WOULD ALSO BECOME FREE.
NOT ONLY THAT, ISLAM ALSO ORDERED A MUSLIM TO TREAT THE SLAVE WOMAN IN EVERY RESPECT AS IF SHE WERE HIS WIFE. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom, for she could be ransomed.
In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people, it's clear that some people misunderstand THE WISDOM BEHIND THE PERMISSIBILITY OF HAVING FEMALE SLAVES and think that it is meant to unleash men's desires and give them more enjoyment. Never!That is not the point! IT IS, RATHER, MEANS OF FREEING SLAVES; AND THIS IS CLARIFIED ABOVE IN THE FACT THAT IF A MASTER GOT A FEMALE SLAVE PREGNANT, then he could neither sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be considered part of his property. She'd receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.
But we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or maid, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.
Slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and goes in line with aims and objectives of Islam, as it has called for centuries ago.
As for marrying slaves, it is something permissible under two conditions first, if one is unable to pay the dowry of a free woman. Second, if there is fear of committing adultery if one doesn't get married. This is clarified by the following verse 'And whose is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess'. This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you'(An-Nisa 25).
This verse shows that MUSLIM MEN SHOULD abstain from illicit relations and SEEK ENJOYMENT through marriage to free women OR THROUGH THEIR FEMALE SLAVES.
In conclusion, Allah has forbidden certain types of behavior and permitted other kinds of behavior as a safeguard to the individual and to the society. ALLAH, THE BEST KNOWER, HAS FORBIDDEN FORNICATION AND ADULTERY. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF CAPTIVES WHOM YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSES, IT'S SOMETHING NECESSITATED by the special circumstances which were created when the Muslims were at war.
Allah Almighty knows best.
peace.
-
SO IT ALLOWED MUSLIMS TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH SLAVE WOMEN TAKEN AS CAPTIVES OF JUST AND LEGITIMATE WARS...
Disgusting and absolutely in contradiction with the Quar'anic truth that
(1)you have to set free of your war captives as soon as the war is over (474); keeping war captives as slaves is definitely against God's religion.
(2)you can not marry married women (654); for those so-called slave women are already married, they ore other men's wives.
Would those people who issued the fatwa agree that their enemies are entitled to have sexual intercourse with the fatwa-givers' wives, who are made into slaves after they happen to become war captives?
Peace,
Hasan Ak?ay -
Paz,
I see. The difference is that Islam/God introduced an item regarding sex.
No .. this 'item' regarding sex wasn't introduced by Islam. it was introduced much earlier by the romans, persians, anglo saxons etc. and also quite recently in the 18th century onward for 250 years or more by the colonisers in North America when they'd kidnap men and women from the western coasts of Africa, put then in chains, forcibly convert their religion, make them slog on the plantations in chains under scorching heat and then rape their women in the evenings. Any slave who tried to escape would first be whipped unconscious and then have their foot cut off. The goal of Islam was to end this culture. How? Enough has already been stated in this entire thread.
-
peace hasan
you wrote
SO IT ALLOWED MUSLIMS TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH SLAVE WOMEN TAKEN AS CAPTIVES OF JUST AND LEGITIMATE WARS...
Disgusting and absolutely in contradiction with the Quar'anic truth that
(1)you have to set free of your war captives as soon as the war is over (474); keeping war captives as slaves is definitely against God's religion.
(2)you can not marry married women (654); for those so-called slave women are already married, they ore other men's wives.
Here are excerpts from the discussion regarding this fatwa
http//pub126.ezboard.com/fyoungmuslimsfrm8.showMessage?topicID=87.topic(Lamka)
Great Fatwa. So Islam allows men to have slave girls and also allows them to have sex with them but does NOT allow them to enjoy it.(Omer)
did you even read the fatwa?(Lamka)
Brother, I have read the (what you call) FATWA. They have added (or tried to add) a lot of sugar to this bitter medicine to make it taste sweet. However, the plain and simple facts are that Islam allows men to 1) Have slave girls; 2) Create more slaves through JIHAD (!) 3) Have sex with slave women.(Daffy)
u r right omer, i think lamka havent even read the whole topic b4 he became to conclusions.
cant u read islam is just for betterment of human beings. what did non muslims did with the muslims slaves. didnt they had sex with them (althought it was not allowed in there religion) or didnt they sell them or presented them as a gift.
read it more carefully as i am putting the conclusions here- it gave security to the slaves once the became pregnant. they were SET FREE and couldnt be sold or gifted.
- the kids borned from those slaves not only freed there mothers but they were bron free.
- once involved in a sexual relationship men normally dont give there mistresses away or they care more about them (therefore though humanbeings cant see this point allah can and therefore he allowed a sexual relationship so that these women can go to as less hands as possible)
- i know no other religion who orders this Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. doesnt that give enough protection, security and respect to a slave woman. forheaven sake a slave woman is one from ur enemies a prisoner of war.and she is a slave not a master. what do u want to make her a queen ??
huh!!!!
- In the following hadiths Mo's companions tried hard to NOT get the poor girls pregnant, so they wouldn't have to set them 'free' and in stead they could keep on enjoying this islamically approved rape-game
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."
Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Number 2166
Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri
A man said Apostle of Allah, I have a slave-girl and I withdraw the penis from her (while having intercourse), and I dislike that she becomes pregnant. I intend (by intercourse) what the men intend by it. The Jews say that withdrawing the penis (azl) is burying the living girls on a small scale. He (the Prophet) said The Jews told a lie. If Allah intends to create it, you cannot turn it away.(Lamka)
Double standards? ..... naaahhhh...
Disgusting? .... naaaaahhhh...
Perverted? ..... naaaahhh....
Hypocrisy? ..... naaaahhhh...
Wisdom from Allah? ..... yepyou wrote
Would those people who issued the fatwa agree that their enemies are entitled to have sexual intercourse with the fatwa-givers' wives, who are made into slaves after they happen to become war captives?
in such a scenario the victorious enemy wouldnt have to seek the approval of the fatwa givers, it would be entirely upto their own discretion.
I think realistically the fatwa givers should expect the same treatment which they support, preach and practice.peace,
nadeem. -
Hi Zainab,
The 'item' I was referring to was to give the girl the right to agree or disagree with the sex requirements of her master.
I was summarising your interpretation islam improved the status of the slaves but didn't abolished slavery to not create disturbance in that society.
That one is your interpretation of the verses that talk about slavery, isn't it?
Your explanation seems to me the same as the other explanations other people present, hard tries to justify the unjustifiable because it is, or you think it is, in the quran.
Paz,
I see. The difference is that Islam/God introduced an item regarding sex.
No .. this 'item' regarding sex wasn't introduced by Islam. it was introduced much earlier by the romans, persians, ...
-
Hi Zainab,
I was summarising your interpretation islam improved the status of the slaves but didn't abolished slavery to not create disturbance in that society.
I've said whatever I understand and accept myself. If you still feel confused .. either check the thread again or ask someone else who might know more than me.
Peace ..
-
Peace Zainab,
I am not confused )
I know that slavery is wrong now and before.I find perplexing and sad that some people think it was ok in the past because it is, or they think it is in a book/revelation.
I've said whatever I understand and accept myself. If you still feel confused .. either check the thread again or ask someone else who might know more than me.
Peace ..
-
Peace Zainab,
I find perplexing and sad that some people think it was ok in the past because it is, or they think it is in a book/revelation.
I've explained more than a dozen times that it existed much before the revelations and it wasn't considered good.
I've explained everything I knew and I'm able to answer all my quesitons to my own satisfaction. That's all what matters to me. But I'm sorry if u r still perplexed. That's why I mentioned that to resolve your perplexity ask someone who knows more than me. I have nothing more to say. Constantly sending messages to me repeating the same stuff over and over again might not help your perplexity. Sorry again ..
-
Peace,
to Zainab
what are you saying? I didn't ask for resolving anything.Would those people who issued the fatwa agree that their enemies are entitled to have sexual intercourse with the fatwa-givers' wives, who are made into slaves after they happen to become war captives?
But, do those fatwa givers and others really believe they have a handbook on slavery given to them by God, or do they are just making persist the traditional view to continuing having power over other muslims?
The three translations I have in Spanish also clearly say sex is allowed with female slaves, but one online translation in Spanish, at webislam.com. say differently
Muhammad Asad, translator6...except with their spouses, who are legally theirs (by marriage)
this translator has interpreted 'right hand possess' for legally yours (by marriage), nothing about slaves.
the link http//www.webislam.com/?idt=331I've just cehcked Ahmed Ali translation as his translation on another controversial verses 434 is extremely different from the rest (instead of beating them, go to bed with them) to see if it was differnt too but in this case it concides with the majority (5. Who guard their sex
6. Except from their wives and women slaves of old are free of blame)What do you think about the Spanish one where there is no mention of slaves?
-
i don't know
-
Peace,
ok, thanks,
I was addressing Brook and all, in case you think I was asking just ZainabI'll check too with the owner of webislam.com
-
Peace,
The explanation was already on the page.
Muhammad Asad, the translator writes
The literal translation is "what their right hand possesses" (au ma malakat aimanuhum). The majority takes for granted without hesitation that this refers to female slaves and that the particle "au" denotes a permisibble alternative, but that this interpretation is inadmissible in my opinion since it it based on the supposition that the sexual relationship between master and slave is permissible without previous marriage, a supposition that the Quran contradicts (43, 24, 25, 2632).
This one is not the unique objection to that interpretation, since the Quran gives the term "believers" to both men and women and that the term "aswach" (spouses) denotes also to both members of the matrimony, there is n o reason to ascribe to the phrase "ma malakat aimanuhum" the "their slaves" meaning, and, as on the other hand, it is inconceivable that this could refer to male and female slaves. It is evident that this phrase doesn't allude to slaves at all, but that it has the same meaning than in 424 --"those who are legally yours by marriage"-- with the significant difference that in this context this expression refers both to husbands and wives who "own each other legally" becasue of the marriage.
According to this interpretation, the particle "au" that precedes to this phrase doesn't lead to an alternative but to a further explanation similar to the expresion "in other words" or "that is" what gives to the whole phrase the sense "except their spouses , that is, those who are leagally yours (by marriage)..."
There is a similar pattern in 2562 --"for that one who is willing to think over--that is (lit "au") who is willing to be grateful")
http//www.webislam.com/?sec=bei&d=vc&v=840&KW=#_ftn3
After reading all the inimaginable explanations, reasons and justifications to support islam giving sex permission with slaves, this one appears quite different. Why these other reasons are ignored.
-
Much better the original English than my translation from Spanish to English P
(6) with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess ?, etc. (Cf. a similar construction 25 62 - ??for him who has the will to take thought -that is , has the will to be grateful?.)]
http//www.geocities.com/masad02/021 -
Peace Zainab,
So, if the master does not permit her to marry someone else, he can have her for himself, if she agrees. In all other societies, the consent of a slave girl was irrelevant. But the Qur'aan gave the female slave this right.
if you have provided the part of the Quran where that, the underlined is, could you give the reference, please? I don't find it in the thread (
if did you gave it in another thread, please copy the link? -
Peace elena,
You wrote
But, do those fatwa givers and others really believe they have a handbook on slavery given to them by God, or do they are just making persist the traditional view to continuing having power over other muslims?Wherever Quran mentions male and female slaves, it means the SLAVES, WHICH were generally found in Arab society at that time. it is a REALITY, WHICH cannot be denied because there are dozens of verses which talks about the slaves. things have changed NOW; today slavery is illegal atleast as far as the constitution of any country is concerned .
545..We ordained therein for them "Life for life eye for eye nose for nose ear for ear tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) wrong-doers.
This is what was allowed in the past i.e. life for life, eye for eye etc, but no individual can practice it today under the pretext that quran allows it. The reason? Now it?s the duty of the state to provide justice for the aggrieved and punish the culprit and the individuals have no right to take the law in their own hands.
In the past there were no jails where the war captives could be held, so the war captives were distributed amongst the participants of the war and once given to someone they were considered as that persons legal possession and hence he was entitled to practice sex with them .
Now to approve or disapprove this practice is another issue, but to deny that it didn?t happen in the past or that there is no mention in the quran regarding this practice is false as far as my study is concerned.you wrote
The three translations I have in Spanish also clearly say sex is allowed with female slaves, but one online translation in Spanish, at webislam.com. say differently
Muhammad Asad, translator6...except with their spouses, who are legally theirs (by marriage)
this translator has interpreted 'right hand possess' for legally yours (by marriage), nothing about slaves.
I don?t know how Muhammed Asad arrived to this conclusion because from ibn-a- khateer to the scholars around 1980s everyone has translated ma malakat aimanukum as slaves/war captives even though none of these scholars had any slaves in their own possession.
peace.
-
peace elena,
you wrote
Muhammad Asad, translator
6...EXCEPT WITH THEIR SPOUSES, WHO ARE LEGALLY THEIRS (BY MARRIAGE)
This one is not the unique objection to that interpretation, since the Quran gives the term "believers" to both men and women and that the term "aswach" (spouses) denotes also to both members of the matrimony, there is n o reason to ascribe to the phrase "MA MALAKAT AIMANUHUM" the "their slaves" meaning, and, as on the other hand, it is inconceivable that this could refer to male and female slaves. It is evident that this phrase doesn't allude to slaves at all, but that it has the same meaning than in 424 --"THOSE WHO ARE LEGALLY YOURS BY MARRIAGE"-- with the significant difference that in this context this expression refers both to husbands and wives who "own each other legally" because of the marriage.
According to this interpretation, the particle "au" that precedes to this phrase doesn't lead to an alternative but to a further explanation similar to the expresion "in other words" or "that is" what gives to the whole phrase the sense "EXCEPT THEIR SPOUSES , THAT IS, THOSE WHO ARE LEGALLY YOURS (BY MARRIAGE)..."
1671-Walla_hu faddala ba'dakum 'ala_ ba'din fir rizq(i), famal lazina fuddilu_ bi ra_ddi rizqihim 'ala_ MA_ MALAKAT AIMA_NUHUM fahum fihi sawa_'(un), fabini'matilla_hi yajhadu_n(a).
1671-And Allah hath favored some of you above others in provision. Now those who are more favored will by no means hand over their provision to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny?If we translate MA_ MALAKAT AIMA_NUHUM as THOSE WHO ARE LEGALLY YOURS (BY MARRIAGE)..." in the above verse it will read
1671-And Allah hath favored some of you above others in provision. Now those who are more favored will by no means hand over their provision to those WHO ARE LEGALLY YOURS (BY MARRIAGE)..." so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny?
It doesn?t make any sense??
What I understand from this verse is that two different class divisions are being discussed here
Who are favored in provisions
Who are not
THE HAVES AND HAVE NOTS.
The masters and the slaves.Peace.