sex with the captives?
-
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.
-
peace Elena,
thanks querida for the correction ) .
MA = THOSE / WHOME
MIN = FROM
MALAKAT = OWN
AIMANU = AN OATH / RIGHT HAND
HUM = THEIR
KUM = YOURMA_ MALAKAT AIMA_NUKUM translated as THOSE WHO ARE LEGALLY your (BY MARRIAGE)
424
Wal muhsana_tu minan nisa_'i illa_ MA_ MALAKAT AIMA_NUKUM,And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.
And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those WHO ARE LEGALLY your (BY MARRIAGE
It looks ok in 424 but again this translation doesn?t make sense in 425.425
Wa mal lam yastati' minkum taulan ay yankihal muhsana_til mu'mina_ti famimma_ MALAKAT AIMA_NUKUM.And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess.
And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids those WHO ARE LEGALLY YOUR (BY MARRIAGE)??
In 2458 the MALAKAT AIMANUKUM are prohibited to come to you WHEN YOU HAVE TAKEN OFF YOUR CLOTH because of the heat of the noon and AFTER THE NIGHT PRAYER TILL THE DAWN PRAYER , they are being treated here like those who haven?t come to puberty, now that makes me wonder why? If they are legally yours and not something else
Ya_ ay yuhal lazina a_manu_ liyasta zinkumul lazina MALAKAT AIMA_NUKUM wal lazina lam yablugul huluma minkum sala_sa mar ra_tin min qabli sala_til fajri wa hina tadau_na siya_bakum minaz zahirati wa mim badi sala_til isa_i sala_su aura_til lakum laisa alaikum wa la_ alaihim juna_hun badahun na tawa_fu_na alaikum badukum ala_ badin kaza_lika yubay yinul la_hu lakumul a_yat wal la_hu alimun hakim
O ye who believe! LET YOUR SLAVES, and those of you who have not come to puberty, ask leave of you at three times (before they come into your presence) Before the prayer of dawn, and when ye lay aside your raiment for the heat of noon, and after the prayer of night. Three times of privacy for you. It is no sin for them or for you at other times, when some of you go round attendant upon others (if they come into your presence without leave). Thus Allah maketh clear the revelations for you. Allah is Knower, Wise.
O ye who believe! LET THOSE WHO ARE LEGALLY YOUR (BY MARRIAGE) , and those of you who have not come to puberty, ask leave of you at three times (before they come into your presence) Before the prayer of dawn, and WHEN YE LAY ASIDE YOUR RAIMENT FOR THE HEAT OF NOON, and after the prayer of night. Three times of privacy for you. It is no sin for them or for you at other times, when some of you go round attendant upon others (if they come into your presence without leave). Thus Allah maketh clear the revelations for you. Allah is Knower, Wise.
peace.
-
peace elena,
you wrote
Maybe it shouldn't be expected that the same words have the same meaning in every verse
sis honestly i am not sure about it since arabic is not my native tongue, this is the reason i keep on looking into every article and every translation I can find.
now if some words have different meanings in different verses it should have been translated like that by all the scholars.
what i have started to understand is that it is a matter of ones own preferences and desires when it comes to the translation of the words/verses of quran and may be in some of the cases the real meanings have been intentionally ignored to make it look logical and acceptable according to the changing enviroment/moral values.peace.
-
peace all,
Ma malakat aymanukum
The term "what your right hands possess" (ma malakat aymanukum) occurs 14 times in the Qur'an, in the following Arabic forms
?
?
?
?
?
It is most often used with reference to women, but is applied to both sexes. The term itself is normally considered to refer to prisoners of war, or more broadly to slaves in general, according to the usual tafsirs (eg Ibn Kathir); however, some (eg Muhammad Asad) have proposed alternative explanations, whereby it would mean "one's rightful spouse"http//www.zawaj.com/articles/right_hands.html. Be that as it may, the main points about "those whom one's right hands possess" in the Qur'an areA believer may have sex with them (as may the Prophet)
al-Mu'minun 6 and al-Maarij 30 both, in identical wording, draw a distinction between spouses and "those whom one's right hands possess", saying " " (literally, "their spouses or what their right hands possess"), while clarifying that sex with either is permissible. Muhammad Asad explains this as a distinction between husband and wife, rather than between two categories of woman.
an-Nisa 24 can be interpreted either as explaining that "those whom one's right hands possess" are the only category of women with whom one may have sex even if they are already married, or as using the term to refer to one's own wife as opposed to others' wives. The phrasing in the rest of that verse could be read in isolation either as excepting or as including "those whom one's right hands possess" among those to whom one must give a dowry "for the enjoyment you have of them." The following verse adds that a believer, if he cannot afford to marry a chaste believer and cannot restrain his desires, may marry a believing girl who is chaste (not a fornicator or an adulteress) from among "those whom your right hands possess", giving due dowry to her household (literally "household", but translated by some as "owner" or "master"); if the woman so married commits indecency, the punishment is half that for chaste women. (To keep this verse from contradicting itself, the translators understand "chaste" - muhsanat - as meaning "free" in the general case, but "chaste" when referring to the slave.) an-Nisa 3 also confirms that a believer may marry "that which your right hands possess", particularly if he fears that he will deal unjustly otherwise. al-Ahzab 50 confirms that, literally, "what your hand has taken from what God has assigned you" (understood by most translators as "from among the prisoners of war") are also permissible for the Prophet just as are his wives, and female cousins who emigrated with him, and believing women who wish to marry him, a point emphasised by al-Ahzab 52, which says that no other women than those mentioned are allowed him, even if their beauty pleases him, except those "whom his right hand possesses".
Critics claim these verses sanctions the rape of prisoners of war. In fact, while the traditional interpretations unquestionably take the term to refer to prisoners of war, these verses, in themselves, neither allow nor forbid such a practice, as they say nothing about the issue of consent. However, such critics regard it as implausible that permitting sex with prisoners of war could lead to anything but rape.A believing woman need not cover herself before them
An-Nur 30-33, in the course of laying down the familiar dress code of Islam, explains that women "should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty" except to various familiar people, including those "whom their right hands possess". Al-Ahzab 55 makes it explicit that the same liberty is given to the Prophet's wives.They should ask permission to see one if one is likely to be undressed
an-Nur 58 says that "those whom your right hands possess" and underage children should ask a believer's permission (before they come to their presence) at the three times of day when one is likely to be undressed.The behavior of the fortunate towards them is a metaphor for God's towards man
an-Nahl 71 and ar-Rum 28 both use the same metaphor just as the fortunate among people do not share their wealth with "those whom their right hands possess" to the point of making them equals, nor fear them as they fear each other, so does God with people, bestowing more on some than others, but never making them equals, let alone fearing them.A believer should be good to them
An-Nisa 36 reminds us that a believer should do good to a variety of people, including "what your right hands possess", for the love of God.They should be freed and given something if they are good
an-Nur 33 states literally that "those who want a writing among those whom your right hands possess, if you know good in them, also give them of the property of God that He gave you". "Writing" is understood by most translators to refer to a deed of emancipation. This is followed by a verse forbidding the prostitution of slaves who desire chastity.peace.