Sex with slaves in Islam

[TheRationalizer]

My attention was recently drawn to another thread about sex slaves in the Quran. The explanation given raised more questions for me than it answered but the thread is closed, so am I allowed to post the questions here?

If so then when I see my post has been approved I will quote the text and detail my questions.

Thanks.

[TheRationalizer]

The original quote is massive, so instead of quoting it I shall just point out the one thing in particular.

The explanation for not releasing slaves immediately is that a lot of the economy relied on slavery. It also says that if all these people were immediately released then they would be a drain on the economy as they would be unskilled and would have to beg.

Let me highlight some of the 99 names of Allah:
The giver of all
The nourisher
The all powerful
The source of peace
The all compassionate

This entity created the entire universe, but cannot free slaves because it would be bad for the economy? Economies are man made systems of governing one's contribution to society, an imperfect one which is exploited (but that's another issue.) Without the material goods money buys your money is worthless. Where do these goods come from? Surely they come from "The giver of all"?

There is a lot of desert around Mecca. Surely "the nourisher" (seeing as it is also "the all powerful") could have made this land fertile? People could have moved into these areas, built houses, and lived off the land. Who needs to beg when the most powerful being in the universe wants you to be free?

Surely "the source of peace" would want these people to be at peace, rather than having to experience slavery and on top of that sexual slavery (Sura 70:29-30).

Why did "the all compassionate" have more concern for the stability of a man made financial system than it did for the welfare of the humans it created (many of which would have been "people of the book")?

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/a...s-433#post7103

[Woodrow]

slavery in the past was far different from the slavery of the 1800s. A slave was usually treated as a member of the household and was not considered disposable property.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[TheRationalizer]

:salamext: http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/a...s-433#post7103

I think I got too distracted by the original post and forgot to add my own point :-)

My main point was not about why the slaves couldn't be released, but rather why on top of being slaves must they have also be sex slaves?

[siam]

"This entity created the entire universe, but cannot free slaves because it would be bad for the economy?"----an interesting point......

If God is Omnipotent, and Omnicient, why are there wars?, why is there sufferring and evil? Why can't God simply make a perfect world?----is he inadequate?

The Quran says something like God does not change a people unless they first change themselves. What this means is that God who is Compassionate and Merciful, as well as Omipotent and Omnicient, has in his wisdom, given us (limited) free-will/self-determiniation.
With this blessing comes the responsibility to use it for the benefit of all of God's creations. If God took away our free-will--which he could---we would automatically submit to God's will and it would be a perfect world---Yet, with free-will/self determination, WE human beings have the unique capacity to have an amount of limited control of our own destiny----We decide what kind of society/world we want to live in.....and strive with our intellectual abilities to achieve it. Therefore, it is upto us, our responsibility, to implement the Guidance(Quran) God has given us to the best of our abilities. The CHOICE is OURS. Thus, a Compassionate and Merciful God Guides us to the right path (the way of right/goodness)while at the same time preserving our (limited) free-will.

[Woodrow]

I think I got too distracted by the original post and forgot to add my own point :-)

My main point was not about why the slaves couldn't be released, but rather why on top of being slaves must they have also be sex slaves?

Where did you get they were sex slaves? A Muslim was permitted to marry them if they were Muslim or in the case of Female slaves or person of the Book

[siam]

further to the post by Woodrow---In Islam, everyone is equal under the Law---therefore if an injustice was done, any person would have recourse to justice.

[Lynx]

:salamext:

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/a...s-433#post7103

I am pretty sure releasing slaves in a gradual way would create the same effect. I am sure God could think of a mathematically sound way to do this without making it halal to cheat on one's wife. Those rulers and commanders had it good I bet lol

[aamirsaab]

I am pretty sure releasing slaves in a gradual way would create the same effect. I am sure God could think of a mathematically sound way to do this without making it halal to cheat on one's wife. Those rulers and commanders had it good I bet lol

How exactly do you release slaves in a gradual way? Especially considering someone else could just enslave them back then. Shoot, an economy was built upon the trading of slaves...

God's method was to emphasise the importance of emancipation - instead of merely passing on the buck ( i.e "it's out of my hands now"). The act of truly freeing a slave should not be looked down upon.

[siam]

In the kind of society that existed at that time, there were many considerations that had to be taken into account. Emancipation of male slaves was a relatively easy matter---this was not the case of women slaves---who were often in this position as a result of war and thus had no families and/or protection. Therefore, emancipation of women slaves often took the form of marriage--as marriage is a contract and provides protection and security for women and their children......
It was a good social solution that took into account the nature of men and women as well as the circumstances of the time and the social/economic/political ramifications.....

[TheRationalizer]

@Woodrow - to answer your question about why I think they were sex slaves...

70:29-30 Says that men should guard their (private parts) except from their wives and slaves.

Here are as many tafsirs as I can find for verse 30:

Al Jalalayn: and those who guard their private parts, except from their wives and those whom their right hands own, in the way of slavegirls, for in that case they are not blameworthy;

Ibn Kathir: they keep their private parts away from that which is forbidden and they prevent their private parts from being put into other than what Allah has allowed them to be in. Except from their wives or their right hand possessions, meaning, from their female slaves.


23:5-6 Also tells men to guard their private parts again with the exception of their wives and slaves

Al Jalalayn : and who guard their private parts, against what is unlawful, except from their spouses, that is, to their spouses, and what [slaves] their right hands possess, that is, concubines, for then they are not blameworthy, in having sexual intercourse with them.

Ibn Kathir: means, those who protect their private parts from unlawful actions and do not do that which Allah has forbidden; fornication and homosexuality, and do not approach anyone except the wives whom Allah has made permissible for them or their right hand possessions from the captives. One who seeks what Allah has made permissible for him is not to be blamed and there is no sin on
him.

My first impression when reading these verses was that the Quran is not talking about marriage because X is forbidden except from your wives and slaves. X could not be marriage because the idea of saying "you are free to marry your wives" makes no sense. Whatever X was it was permissible

A: With your wives
B: With your slaves (and then only for men with female slaves, I cannot find the same permission for women.)


I am a fair and objective person and will at this point concede a point :-)

The point I will concede is that releasing all of the slaves in one go may have been disastrous as many were men who had fought against the Muslims in war. Releasing an army to go back to their home ground where they could make more weapons could have been a very bad choice (putting aside of course the claim that the Muslims say they had the most powerful entity in existence fighting on their side.)

The points I have yet to concede are
1: Many men were ransomed back to their families, so what's the difference? Receiving some money from their families does not change the slaves intended actions when he gets home.

2: Some slaves were women and children who had not fought in battles against them, these could have been released without risk.

3: If Allah wished for those female + child slaves to be released then Allah "the nourisher" could have provided for these people. Who needs a human man to provide for them when it is the creator of the universe which wants you to be free and provided for?

So the most important point I am yet to concede is
4: Why would Allah give permission for men to have sex with them?

[aamirsaab]

@Woodrow - to answer your question about why I think they were sex slaves...

70:29-30 Says that men should guard their (private parts) except from their wives and slaves.

Here are as many tafsirs as I can find for verse 30:

Al Jalalayn: and those who guard their private parts, except from their wives and those whom their right hands own, in the way of slavegirls, for in that case they are not blameworthy;

Ibn Kathir: they keep their private parts away from that which is forbidden and they prevent their private parts from being put into other than what Allah has allowed them to be in. Except from their wives or their right hand possessions, meaning, from their female slaves.


23:5-6 Also tells men to guard their private parts again with the exception of their wives and slaves

Al Jalalayn : and who guard their private parts, against what is unlawful, except from their spouses, that is, to their spouses, and what [slaves] their right hands possess, that is, concubines, for then they are not blameworthy, in having sexual intercourse with them.

Ibn Kathir: means, those who protect their private parts from unlawful actions and do not do that which Allah has forbidden; fornication and homosexuality, and do not approach anyone except the wives whom Allah has made permissible for them or their right hand possessions from the captives. One who seeks what Allah has made permissible for him is not to be blamed and there is no sin on
him.

My first impression when reading these verses was that the Quran is not talking about marriage because X is forbidden except from your wives and slaves. X could not be marriage because the idea of saying "you are free to marry your wives" makes no sense. Whatever X was it was permissible

A: With your wives
B: With your slaves (and then only for men with female slaves, I cannot find the same permission for women.)

What those ayahs are saying in plain english is qualifiying who is eligible for sexual relations. I.e. any female slaves (that you have married) and obviously your wives. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

The points I have yet to concede are
1: Many men were ransomed back to their families, so what's the difference? Receiving some money from their families does not change the slaves intended actions when he gets home.

Not sure what you are saying here.

2: Some slaves were women and children who had not fought in battles against them, these could have been released without risk.

Women and children are at the most risk in any society. Especially if in a climate where slavery is a viable economy. It was better in those cases for them to be looked after, and in certain cases to become part of the family (through marriage). Generally speaking, society is male dominated (don't bother arguing this is a fact of life) so males weren't and in most cases never are under the same threat or risk as say women and children.

3: If Allah wished for those female + child slaves to be released then Allah "the nourisher" could have provided for these people. Who needs a human man to provide for them when it is the creator of the universe which wants you to be free and provided for?

Quit trolling.

So the most important point I am yet to concede is
4: Why would Allah give permission for men to have sex with them?

As said before, the verses were qualifying who was eligible for sexual relations (provided they were marriage).

Any more misconceptions you need clearing up?

[TheRationalizer]

What those ayahs are saying in plain english is qualifiying who is eligible for sexual relations. I.e. any female slaves (that you have married) and obviously your wives.

I think Maududi puts it quite well

"Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one's possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relations with one's slave-girl as with one's wife. the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately"

[aamirsaab]

I think Maududi puts it quite well

"Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one's possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relations with one's slave-girl as with one's wife. the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately"

Source please.

[TheRationalizer]

Source please.

I'll do my best :-)

1: The domain name is "searchtruth" and it is a "dot com" domain.
2: then there is the following /tafsir/tafsir.php

Click on 23 Al Muminoon and then search for "slave".

[Zafran]

I'll do my best :-)

1: The domain name is "searchtruth" and it is a "dot com" domain.
2: then there is the following /tafsir/tafsir.php

Click on 23 Al Muminoon and then search for "slave".

I dont believe you have even read the Quran. You seem to get information from Google mania.

There is a concensus against slavery - so its meaningless argument.

[TheRationalizer]

I dont believe you have even read the Quran.

I read about 50% in paper form but it was one of those really dodgy ones where the translator inserts their own comments in brackets, so I dumped that one. I then got a Kindle for xmas last year and bought a book for it named "Three translations of the Quran" - each verse is written out 3 times, one by each translator.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
Marmaduke Pickthal:
Mohammad Habib Shakir:

I read all three translations of every verse. Where all 3 differed I would look at websites such as corpus'quran'com or openislam'com.

So effectively I have read it 3.5 times.

I found that Islam is the most lied about subject I have ever encountered. "Kill the infidels" for example is often quoted, but they are quote miners who miss out the part which says you must try to have peace first and must not initiate hostilities etc. I also found that many Muslim proselytisers (Yusuf Estes, Zakir Naik) lie about Islam too, especially when trying to convince people of scientific miracles in the Quran.

Why you would think I haven't read it I am not sure. If you want to discuss it then please feel free to start a new thread and send me the link.

[TheRationalizer]

But anyway. This thread isn't about whether or not I have read the Quran but about why the Quran gives permission to men to have sex with their slaves.

[Perseveranze]

I read about 50% in paper form but it was one of those really dodgy ones where the translator inserts their own comments in brackets, so I dumped that one. I then got a Kindle for xmas last year and bought a book for it named "Three translations of the Quran" - each verse is written out 3 times, one by each translator.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
Marmaduke Pickthal:
Mohammad Habib Shakir:

I read all three translations of every verse. Where all 3 differed I would look at websites such as corpus'quran'com or openislam'com.

So effectively I have read it 3.5 times.

I found that Islam is the most lied about subject I have ever encountered. "Kill the infidels" for example is often quoted, but they are quote miners who miss out the part which says you must try to have peace first and must not initiate hostilities etc. I also found that many Muslim proselytisers (Yusuf Estes, Zakir Naik) lie about Islam too, especially when trying to convince people of scientific miracles in the Quran.

Why you would think I haven't read it I am not sure. If you want to discuss it then please feel free to start a new thread and send me the link.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

What about the Non-Muslim Scientists, and there are many of them, many top one's for that matter; are they all lying too? You need to stop making up excuses and calling everyone liars, you completly ignored this point when I made it in your other thread. Can't you just say "my opinion is different" instead of saying "oh he's dishonest", or "oh he's lying", everytime they say favouribly to Islam?

Oh and "Kill the infidels" misconception can be explained to a 10 year old.

[TheRationalizer]

are they all lying too?

I didn't say everyone was lying. I said it was the most lied about subject I have encountered, and that it is people on both sides of the argument who are lying.

But still, this doesn't explain why the Quran says men can have sex with their slaves.

[Zafran]

I read about 50% in paper form but it was one of those really dodgy ones where the translator inserts their own comments in brackets, so I dumped that one. I then got a Kindle for xmas last year and bought a book for it named "Three translations of the Quran" - each verse is written out 3 times, one by each translator.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
Marmaduke Pickthal:
Mohammad Habib Shakir:

I read all three translations of every verse. Where all 3 differed I would look at websites such as corpus'quran'com or openislam'com.

So effectively I have read it 3.5 times.

I found that Islam is the most lied about subject I have ever encountered. "Kill the infidels" for example is often quoted, but they are quote miners who miss out the part which says you must try to have peace first and must not initiate hostilities etc. I also found that many Muslim proselytisers (Yusuf Estes, Zakir Naik) lie about Islam too, especially when trying to convince people of scientific miracles in the Quran.

Why you would think I haven't read it I am not sure. If you want to discuss it then please feel free to start a new thread and send me the link.

Reading 3 translations means very little - reading and actually trying to get rulings out of the Quran are 2 very different things.

Zakir Naik and Yusuf Estes dont lie they ACTUALLY believe what they preach.

Back to slavery as I said there is concensus of the issue of slavery in Islam - trying to over ride a muslim concensus means very little.

[Perseveranze]

@TheRationalizer

Your getting your info from Answering-Islam?

Anyways, this might enlighten you if you wish for it to -

Now here’s a good to ask ourselves, Why does the Quran Allow Slavery? Here is the answer. In Islam if a master has sex with his slave, then when the slave girl is pregnant, she and her child is automatically freed after the masters death. But that’s not the only way a slave can get freedom, infact if a slave request his/her freedom, she or he can get it!

Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"

As we can clearly see, Islam says that if a slave request freedom, he/she can get it, including some money, in order for the slave to get a good jump start in life.
Beside this, the Prophet (S) also ordered for slaves to not be forced into having sexual intercourse:

"Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)" (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)"

Also read how the Prophet (S) used to free slaves:

Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America and Director of the Islamic Society of Orange County, Garden Grove, California. He states the following:

"The author claims that “the Bible condemns slavery” and “one who practices slavery contradicts right teachings.” In order to prove his point he even adds “the slave traders” in 1Timothy 1:10. There is no such word there in the Revised Standard Version.

Actually in the whole Bible this word does not exist. The author also makes false allegation against Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) by saying that he used to buy, sell, hire, and rent slaves.

Slavery existed throughout the Biblical period including the time of Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him). Most of the Biblical prophets had slaves, both males and females. Perhaps the author of this flyer did not read his own New Testament. Otherwise he would have found there the following advice to slaves: “Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed.” (1 Timothy 6:1) and “Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory…” (Titus 2:9)

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) did not own slaves. He had many slaves purchased and freed. The author quotes Muslim scholar Ibn Al-Qayyim who said about the Prophet, “His purchases of slaves were more then he sold.” This is correct because he used to purchase slaves in order to free them, not to sell them. However, the author of the pamphlet mistranslates Ibn Al-Qayyim when he says, “The Prophet used to rent out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves then he rented out.” The author has mischievously added the words “many slaves” and “more slaves” in the text. Ibn Al-Qayyim is not talking here about the sale, purchase, renting, and hiring of slaves, but about general business practices of the Prophet before he received the Prophethood. Actually, he is saying that “the Prophet himself was hired before he became the Prophet to take care of some sheep and he was hired by Khadijah to do business for her.” (see Zad Al-Ma’ad, vol. 1, p. 154)

The Qur’an teaches that freeing the salves is a great virtue (See Surah 90:13). One of the expenditures of zakah (obligatory charity) is to spend the money for the freedom of the slaves (surah 9:60). It is forbidden in Islam to enslave a free person. If Muslims had consistently followed the Islamic teachings in this regard, slavery would have become extinct a long time ago. It is unfortunate that some Muslims did not follow these teachings of Islam and slavery continued in Muslim lands for centuries. We are ashamed that some Muslims practiced slavery against the teachings of Islam. However, it is also a historical fact that for centuries the worst type of slavery in its most extensive and horrible form was practiced by those who claimed themselves to be the followers of Christ. They enslaved millions of free men, women, and children and shipped them like animals from one continent to another. They made millions in profit by this most shameful trade of human beings.

I wish to remind the author of this flyer what Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)"
(Source: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503547546)

So let’s see the points made:
1) Slaves can NOT be forced into having sexual intercourse with
2) Slaves ARE automatically free after the masters death if they bare a child from the master
3) Slaves CAN ask to be freed, and become free , including they will get an amount of money to jump start in life.
So Islam destroyed the social illness called slavery, if you look at the proof open-mindedly.





More on the subject - http://www.answering-christianity.co...lave_girls.htm

[TheRationalizer]

there is concensus of the issue of slavery in Islam - trying to over ride a muslim concensus means very little.

Not on slavery itself but specifically the subject of being permitted to have sex with your slaves, what is the consensus on that?

[Perseveranze]

Not on slavery itself but specifically the subject of being permitted to have sex with your slaves, what is the consensus on that?

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Please read my other reply in this thread at the bottom, regarding the Slavery.

[CosmicPathos]

I am pretty sure releasing slaves in a gradual way would create the same effect. I am sure God could think of a mathematically sound way to do this without making it halal to cheat on one's wife. Those rulers and commanders had it good I bet lol

first define that what do you mean when you say "to cheat on one's wife." are you using the modern framework that a man cannot have sexual relations with anyone except his wife? How did this conception arise? Do humans in a relationship always explicitly state this assumption? why is it always assumed that now once we are in relationship, sexual relations outside are forbidden? even if yes then why so? There are many flaws with this mdoern conception and hence I do not agree with it. I am not saying that in Islam a man must then start committing zina with other women. All I am saying is that having a wife does not forbid him from having sexual relations with those other permitted women and in islam female slaves or what one's right hand possess are one of those. if the wife gets pissed off, so be it. Man has the freedom to exercise his god-given right.

[purple]

:sl:

Also the Muslim woman has the right to divorce a man like that. Just wanted to add this before anyone comes back claiming Islam oppresses women.

:wa:

[aamirsaab]

I'll do my best :-)

1: The domain name is "searchtruth" and it is a "dot com" domain.
2: then there is the following /tafsir/tafsir.php

Click on 23 Al Muminoon and then search for "slave".

There seems to be a discrepancy amongst translator footnotes. The link you gave suggests anyone who says other than he is incorrect (or selective), but the translation I have at home, by Yusuf Ali, says slave girls referred to those married.

[LauraS]

All I am saying is that having a wife does not forbid him from having sexual relations with those other permitted women and in islam female slaves or what one's right hand possess are one of those. if the wife gets pissed off, so be it. Man has the freedom to exercise his god-given right.

And doesn't the wife have a right to voice her opinion about the matter? Why don't you put yourself in the shoes of a woman rather than the men who create all these laws. I presume you think the female slave should give her consent too?


"And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them:"

Doesn't (my writing's red now but I can't be bothered to change it lol) this suggest that the slaves had to buy their freedom, not just be automatically freed with money given to them. If that was that case then surely no one would stay a slave?

Muslims were also heavily involved in the slave trade in more recent times, profiting from selling people across continents. It wasn't just Christians. But I don't see how any God could approve of slavery at all and none of these people are truly Muslims or Christians at all, just concerned with greed and profit. Both groups were as bad as each other. Slavery is something that makes me angry, it makes you want to jump back in time and slap someone in the face. I'm writing an essay partly about it at the moment and the attitudes of some people, I just don't understand it. We musn't forget slavery's still going on though. :heated:

[TheRationalizer]

Just wanted to add this before anyone comes back claiming Islam oppresses women

That covers the wives certainly, but not the sex slaves. I'd say they are more oppressed than the male slaves wouldn't you?

[TheRationalizer]

Laura, this thread is about sex with slaves, not emancipation. If it's okay I'd prefer to stay on topic, cheers.

[TheRationalizer]

There seems to be a discrepancy amongst translator footnotes. The link you gave suggests anyone who says other than he is incorrect (or selective), but the translation I have at home, by Yusuf Ali, says slave girls referred to those married.

Try looking it up on other tafsir. The verse says to guard your private parts except from your wives AND slaves.

[purple]

That covers the wives certainly, but not the sex slaves. I'd say they are more oppressed than the male slaves wouldn't you?

Hello!

1. Are you not at all reading this thread? Islam covers the salve too. She has freedom to consent marriage and she can ask to be free. Check Perseveranze reply to YOU. He made life easier for skim readers like you by actually summarizing his points at the end. Goodbye

So let’s see the points made:
1) Slaves can NOT be forced into having sexual intercourse with
2) Slaves ARE automatically free after the masters death if they bare a child from the master
3) Slaves CAN ask to be freed, and become free , including they will get an amount of money to jump start in life.
So Islam destroyed the social illness called slavery, if you look at the proof open-mindedly.

[TheRationalizer]

perseverance

I think the explanation for 24:33 is wrong. It is not forbidding the slave master sex with his slaves but forbidding him from prostituting them for the gain of worldly goods (read the rest of the verse.). As for the emancipation that is saying that if a slave appears worthy to be set free AND pays you their ransom then when you set them free give them some provisions from what you have.

It certainly doesn't say "don't have sex with slaves, release them free of charge + give them money if they don't like being a slave!"

[جوري]

That covers the wives certainly, but not the sex slaves. I'd say they are more oppressed than the male slaves wouldn't you?

you know this how?

[جوري]

I think the explanation for 24:33 is wrong.

you know that the explanation is wrong because you have your doctorate in Islamic tawhid, fiqh and tafsir? I had no idea we had a scholar on board masha'Allah.. I was asking for the mods to bring one of late.. Thank God for your presence here to point out those wrong explanations!

[GuestFellow]

you know this how?

:sl:

He doesn't. He is making assumptions from thin air!

[جوري]

He doesn't. He is making assumptions from thin air!

Really.. I thought they came straight of out of his crypts of morgagni which would explain their stench!

:w:

[TheRationalizer]

I looked it up, ibn kathir says it means exactly how I interpreted it. It says the master must free the slave IF they have the money to pay for their freedom, and it says you cannot sell sex with your slave girls to others.

Al Jalalayn says exactly the same too. Look them up for yourself.

[جوري]

I looked it up, ibn kathir says it means exactly how I interpreted it. It says the master must free the slave IF they have the money to pay for their freedom, and it says you cannot sell sex with your slave girls to others. Al Jalalayn says exactly the same too. Look them up for yourself.

It says that you can use clark's level for staging melanoma and also Breslow's depth is used.. which is accurate? both are written of extensively in esteemed journals and practiced by licensed physicians! I am pretty sure you can insta google and be an insta scholar even now that you know both methods exist? Will you then be able to go out telling people they've three months to live from 17 when you can't distinguish a benign Lentigo from an ant? Perhaps one needs more than what is written to interpret, diagnose and manage disease, the same way one needs more than what is written to interpret, dispense with and manage jurisprudence? There would be no need for any sort of schooling if every idiot from the street were to pass laws or medical prescriptions or architectural measurements!

Something to ponder before you pat yourself on the back for being able to google!

all the best

[- Qatada -]

The Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There are three who will be given a double reward: a man from among the people of the Book who believed in his Prophet, then lived to see the Prophet (S) and followed him and believed in him– he will have a double reward; and a slave who fulfils his duty towards Allaah and towards his master – he will have a double reward; and a man who had a slave woman whom he fed and fed her well, and taught her and taught her well, then he set her free and married her – he will have a double reward”

narrated by al-Bukhaari (97) and Muslim (154).

[aamirsaab]

Try looking it up on other tafsir. The verse says to guard your private parts except from your wives AND slaves.

As I said before, there seems to be a discrepancy with individual translator footnotes regarding that verse (some say xyz, others say abc). Thus, it is clearly a complex matter that requires scholarly level knowledge of Qur'an, which none of us on this board possess.

[Perseveranze]

if a slave appears worthy to be set free AND pays you their ransom then when you set them free give them some provisions from what you have.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

I'm in a hurry, but I just had to reply to this.

It's in the verse -

And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you.

Islam (from my understanding) is the only Religion to do this, freeing a Slave is one thing (but it's pointless if their going to be on the streets left to die or end up being captured by someone else), thus the Master has to pay them and give them a good opportunity to live their own life.

Maybe this may explain what is meant by random -

"The law of slavery in the legal sense of the term is now obsolete. While it had any meaning, Islam made the slave's lot as easy as possible. A slave, male or female, could ask for conditional manumission by a written deed fixing the amount required for manumission and allowing the slave meanwhile to earn money by lawful means and perhaps marry and bring up a family. Such a deed was not to be refused if the request was genuine and the slave had character. Not only that, but the master is directed to help with money out of his own resources in order to enable the slave to earn his or her own liberty."

Now you might say "the slave may be overworked" into winning their freedom back? -

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) - (another narrator) Dawud said:" i. e. a morsel or two". 4097. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)"


Narrated Al-Ma'rur: "At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)"


Narrated Anas: "The Prophet said, 'None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother [this includes slaves, since a slave is considered a brother as shown above] what he likes for himself.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 12)"

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"

"Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him, then expiation for it is that he should set him free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4079)"


Interesting how even the smallest of things warrents a slave to be set free, this was 1400 years ago when people (as the Bible suggest) would beat their slaves to an inch of their life.


This may interest you aswell -



First, it is important to know that thousands of years ago life was different than today. Today, people wouldn't accept slavery for any reason. The reason for this is because people are a lot more independent both financially, education wise, mentally, etc... But people back then were different. When a tribe or a group of people lose a major battle and their money is mostly, if not all, is taken as war booty by the other side, then people could and would accept being slaves for the following reasons:
1- Both financial and social security. When their country or tribe lost the war, they also lost most or all of their money as war booty. Being out of money and food, it becomes necessary for an individual to find the means for basic survival in life. Living as a slave would provide this.
2- Protection from hostile individuals. Even under the Islamic rule, you can still find hostile individuals who violate the Law and take matters into their own hands. An enemy family can be sometime in danger if they don't have a "protector".
3- Widows, Orphans, and the extremely poor of the enemy side need the financial and social protection from a Master. Back then, there were no governments with good social system that protects everyone. Slavery back then was that social system in special cases.

What was notably different from the slavery of the western world, however, was the degree to which they [slaves] were protected by Muslim law. When the law was observed, their treatment was good. They might expect to marry and have families of their own, and they had a good chance of being freed. There were also built in avenues of escape.
Gwyn Campbell; Frank Cass, The Structure of Slavery in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia, 2004

Really doubt you can argue against the fact that Islam did discourage Slavery, never in the Quran was it mentioned in positive light to have slaves, yet everywhere theres mentions of freeing slaves and treating them well.

[LauraS]

I don't see why everything has to be compared to Christianity and the Bible to show how much better Islam is. No one one this thread is trying to say the Bible spoke against slavery or Christian slaves were treated better.

Interesting quotes though. Why did people bother owning the slaves to start with? Like the man in the quote by Qatada, he still bought the slave woman regardless of how he treated her, he's still assuming he has the right to control another person's life and apparenlty sleep with her if she's willing. Isn't the Qu'ran condoning slavery by saying a slave who fulfils his duty to his master will get a double reward in heaven?

[Sigma]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

I'm in a hurry, but I just had to reply to this.

It's in the verse -

And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you.

Islam (from my understanding) is the only Religion to do this, freeing a Slave is one thing (but it's pointless if their going to be on the streets left to die or end up being captured by someone else), thus the Master has to pay them and give them a good opportunity to live their own life.

Maybe this may explain what is meant by random -

"The law of slavery in the legal sense of the term is now obsolete. While it had any meaning, Islam made the slave's lot as easy as possible. A slave, male or female, could ask for conditional manumission by a written deed fixing the amount required for manumission and allowing the slave meanwhile to earn money by lawful means and perhaps marry and bring up a family. Such a deed was not to be refused if the request was genuine and the slave had character. Not only that, but the master is directed to help with money out of his own resources in order to enable the slave to earn his or her own liberty."

Now you might say "the slave may be overworked" into winning their freedom back? -

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) - (another narrator) Dawud said:" i. e. a morsel or two". 4097. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)"


Narrated Al-Ma'rur: "At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)"


Narrated Anas: "The Prophet said, 'None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother [this includes slaves, since a slave is considered a brother as shown above] what he likes for himself.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 12)"

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"

"Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him, then expiation for it is that he should set him free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4079)"


Interesting how even the smallest of things warrents a slave to be set free, this was 1400 years ago when people (as the Bible suggest) would beat their slaves to an inch of their life.


This may interest you aswell -



First, it is important to know that thousands of years ago life was different than today. Today, people wouldn't accept slavery for any reason. The reason for this is because people are a lot more independent both financially, education wise, mentally, etc... But people back then were different. When a tribe or a group of people lose a major battle and their money is mostly, if not all, is taken as war booty by the other side, then people could and would accept being slaves for the following reasons:
1- Both financial and social security. When their country or tribe lost the war, they also lost most or all of their money as war booty. Being out of money and food, it becomes necessary for an individual to find the means for basic survival in life. Living as a slave would provide this.
2- Protection from hostile individuals. Even under the Islamic rule, you can still find hostile individuals who violate the Law and take matters into their own hands. An enemy family can be sometime in danger if they don't have a "protector".
3- Widows, Orphans, and the extremely poor of the enemy side need the financial and social protection from a Master. Back then, there were no governments with good social system that protects everyone. Slavery back then was that social system in special cases.

What was notably different from the slavery of the western world, however, was the degree to which they [slaves] were protected by Muslim law. When the law was observed, their treatment was good. They might expect to marry and have families of their own, and they had a good chance of being freed. There were also built in avenues of escape.
Gwyn Campbell; Frank Cass, The Structure of Slavery in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia, 2004

Really doubt you can argue against the fact that Islam did discourage Slavery, never in the Quran was it mentioned in positive light to have slaves, yet everywhere theres mentions of freeing slaves and treating them well.

Sorry brother, but TheRationalizer isn't trying to debate about emancipation, his only aim in this thread is to find out why Islam allowed sex between a man and a female slave (without actually marrying her first)

[Perseveranze]

And doesn't the wife have a right to voice her opinion about the matter? Why don't you put yourself in the shoes of a woman rather than the men who create all these laws. I presume you think the female slave should give her consent too?


"And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them:"

Doesn't (my writing's red now but I can't be bothered to change it lol) this suggest that the slaves had to buy their freedom, not just be automatically freed with money given to them. If that was that case then surely no one would stay a slave?

Muslims were also heavily involved in the slave trade in more recent times, profiting from selling people across continents. It wasn't just Christians. But I don't see how any God could approve of slavery at all and none of these people are truly Muslims or Christians at all, just concerned with greed and profit. Both groups were as bad as each other. Slavery is something that makes me angry, it makes you want to jump back in time and slap someone in the face. I'm writing an essay partly about it at the moment and the attitudes of some people, I just don't understand it. We musn't forget slavery's still going on though. :heated:

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Actually, the reason why people compare Islamic Slavery to others (including Christians) is because a person who has no home, no family and is likely to get captured (after a war) would much rather be the Slave of a Muslim, where they are treated as family and actually have a enormous chance of being free, than a Christians where they are likely to get beaten to an inch of their life.

I'm refering to the Bible/Christian teaching, and Islamic teaching, one discourages Slavery the other doesn't. Muslims (after the Prophet) had they continue'd down the path of following Islam in regards of Slavery, it would've and shoul've been abolished long before then it did, which in my admittance is a shame.

It's estimated that the Prophet(pbuh) and his companions free'd over 300,000 slaves in their time.

[Perseveranze]

That covers the wives certainly, but not the sex slaves. I'd say they are more oppressed than the male slaves wouldn't you?

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Why do you keep saying "sex slaves", are you implying they could be raped?

[Zafran]

Not on slavery itself but specifically the subject of being permitted to have sex with your slaves, what is the consensus on that?

If salvery is outlawed by Islamic concensus how can you have sex slaves??

[Lynx]

first define that what do you mean when you say "to cheat on one's wife." are you using the modern framework that a man cannot have sexual relations with anyone except his wife? How did this conception arise? Do humans in a relationship always explicitly state this assumption? why is it always assumed that now once we are in relationship, sexual relations outside are forbidden? even if yes then why so? There are many flaws with this mdoern conception and hence I do not agree with it. I am not saying that in Islam a man must then start committing zina with other women. All I am saying is that having a wife does not forbid him from having sexual relations with those other permitted women and in islam female slaves or what one's right hand possess are one of those. if the wife gets pissed off, so be it. Man has the freedom to exercise his god-given right.

hey if that's your cup of tea then by all means drink it.
just sort of adds credibility to the theory that a bunch of men (or man) from 1400 years ago wrote the quran from their perspective ;)

hopefully no future Islamic state will think to exercise their right to enslave & have sex with the 'spoils of war' from warring countries.

x) x)

[TheRationalizer]

I'd like to pull this thread back onto topic. This thread is not about emancipation but what you are permitted to do with your slaves whilst they are still your slaves.

23:5 to 6 and 70:29 to 30 *both* say that there is NO sin in having sex with your slaves.

@Perserveranz
These women and their children were utterly dependant on their slave masters for everything, at the very least there would be pressure to have sex with their master so that they don't upset him - if he is happy then he is more likely to be kind when giving provisions to her and her children. It's the kind of prostitution that desolate women have been forced into for many many years all over the world. It is far more likely that a slave woman will have sex with her owner through the needs of herself and her children than it is that she is sexually attracted to him and doesn't mind having sex with one of the men who killed her husband in battle.

Then of course there is the man's right over his wives. If you read Ibn Kathir on 4:34 it says that his wife must obey him, and if she doesn't the angels will curse her until morning, if she continues to disobey him he is allowed to beat her as long as it is not too severe and not in the face. I doubt that slaves girls had more rights than their master's wives did they?

[aadil77]

does slavery still exist? is it even possible to take slaves?

[Ramadhan]

hopefully no future Islamic state will think to exercise their right to enslave & have sex with the 'spoils of war' from warring countries.

no muslim state enslave & have sex with "spoils of war" from warring countries.

Instead, you get USA killed, tortured, abuse, and sexually molested "spoils of war" from the countries they invaded.

Want evidence?

So much for your theory, eh?

You always make theories based on absurd claims about Islam, and while it has been presented to you all facts about slaves, their rights, the rewards for freeing slaves, etc, you choose to ignore all of them, and go on some imbecilic remark like the one above.

[TheRationalizer]

does slavery still exist? is it even possible to take slaves?

The question is, when slavery existed why was it okay to ALSO treat them as concubines?

[Perseveranze]

Sorry brother, but TheRationalizer isn't trying to debate about emancipation, his only aim in this thread is to find out why Islam allowed sex between a man and a female slave (without actually marrying her first)

Asalaamu Alaikum,

I'm sure he's already got his answer to that.

[sherz_umr]

hi..im new hre.
To rationalizr :the thng is,you want d muslims hre2 tel tht islam does alow men to hav sex with slave girls against their wish..i cal tht rape. Thts dfntly nt alowd..wotevr ur belief..ITS NT OK TO RAPE.
Y is evrybdy tryn so hard to mke hm undrstnd when he clearly doesnt want to?
To muslims: wont it be a gud idea to nt kp cmparin wit christians,especialy wn the topic isnt abt cmparin sme rule law etc wit theirs? If i wer a christian id realy b offended if,out of d blue, u kp accusing my religion. :hmm:

[TheRationalizer]

@Perserveranze: If I have my answer as to why it is okay then I am not aware of what it is.

@sherz_umr: When a women depends on a man for the food, clothing, and shelter of herself and her children and has no option of leaving him you can bet that she will be reluctantly willing to have sex with that man in order to keep him supplying those provisions out of love for her own children. The man doesn't have to rape her, but she is still being sexually exploited.

[Ramadhan]

Y is evrybdy tryn so hard to mke hm undrstnd when he clearly doesnt want to?

I find this very true.

[جوري]

@sherz_umr: When a women depends on a man for the food, clothing, and shelter of herself and her children and has no option of leaving him you can bet that she will be reluctantly willing to have sex with that man in order to keep him supplying those provisions out of love for her own children. The man doesn't have to rape her, but she is still being sexually exploited.

Can you have sex with a woman who has children? If you have children with a slave woman it is in fact a way for her and her off spring to be emancipated. do you read anything that is written or merely desire to conjecture without forethought? I think a good home and an honest living beats prostituting oneself on the streets, what say you? That is in fact what is currently happening to the women of Iraq after the Americans brought their brand of freedom over:

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-08-15/w...ed?_s=PM:WORLD

Talk about sexually exploited!... inevitable some would say indeed.. I think it would do you a world of good to study the situation from all angles, including all those dark ones you prefer not to acknowledge in your own society or as brought on by your own philosophies before criticizing some situation that hasn't nor likely to occur merely to satisfy your own personal delusions of what is 'idyllic' as per ONLY you!

all the best

[Ramadhan]

When a women depends on a man for the food, clothing, and shelter of herself and her children and has no option of leaving him you can bet that she will be reluctantly willing to have sex with that man in order to keep him supplying those provisions out of love for her own children. The man doesn't have to rape her, but she is still being sexually exploited.

again, you twist everything that the Qur'an and hadiths say. this is not the first time.

Please tell me where in the qur'an that allows muslims to withhold provisions for slaves in exchange for sex?

[Perseveranze]

@Perserveranze: If I have my answer as to why it is okay then I am not aware of what it is.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Your along the lines of "they get raped or are forced into having sex", which is completely off target. Even though I've told you this, your not willing to go off.

[TheRationalizer]

again, you twist everything that the Qur'an and hadiths say. this is not the first time.

Please tell me where in the qur'an that allows muslims to withhold provisions for slaves in exchange for sex?

I didn't say that a hadith said this. I was simply pointing to history, women without options DO use sex as a bargaining tool to get extra provisions for their children. In addition, if the wife must obey her husband (4:34) then surely the slave has no more rights than a wife?

All I see is the following
1: A slave women who cannot leave her slavery
2: A man who can have sex with her whom she must obey

[Ramadhan]

1: A slave women who cannot leave her slavery
2: A man who can have sex with her whom she must obey

sources from Qur'an or hadith please?

[TheRationalizer]

sources from Qur'an or hadith please?

I have already quoted both.
1: Slave who cannot leave - slavery wasn't immediately abolished, therefore some slaves were not free to leave immediately.
2: A women must obey - Quran 4:34

[Ramadhan]

1: Slave who cannot leave - slavery wasn't immediately abolished, therefore some slaves were not free to leave immediately.

and where's the hadith and quran verse about this?

or are you attributing your own opinion to quran?

2: A women must obey - Quran 4:34

a woman or a wife?

This is what you get when an atheist pretends he can understand and interpret the Qur'an.
Do you even speak arabic?
also, why don't you quote the whole context, telling us all the responsibilites of the husband towards his wife, and the responsibilities towards the slaves?
why focusing on cutting and shredding ONE verse, while surely understanding that in Islam and especially the Qur'an we cannot cherry picking, but accept the whole thing?

[TheRationalizer]

and where's the hadith and quran verse about this?

I think it is universally understood that slavery wasn't instantly eradicated by Islam. I don't think I need to prove that, do I?

a woman or a wife?

Are you suggesting a wife needs to obey her husband but a slave does not, giving the slave a right the wife does not have?

also, why don't you quote the whole context, telling us all the responsibilites of the husband towards his wife, and the responsibilities towards the slaves?

Because whether or not the slave master has to feed his slaves isn't relevant to whether or not women were caused to suffer due to a single verse which gives a man permission to have sex with them. There is a verse outright forbidden prostituting them out to other people, that's a good thing! But no verse saying that the slave master cannot have sex with them, in fact it outright gives permission for this. When a man can marry up to 4 wives why does he need permission to have sex with slaves? And how is it just to give permission to have sex with women who are clearly under duress?

[aamirsaab]

...Because whether or not the slave master has to feed his slaves isn't relevant to whether or not women were caused to suffer due to a single verse which gives a man permission to have sex with them. There is a verse outright forbidden prostituting them out to other people, that's a good thing! But no verse saying that the slave master cannot have sex with them, in fact it outright gives permission for this. When a man can marry up to 4 wives why does he need permission to have sex with slaves? And how is it just to give permission to have sex with women who are clearly under duress?

I have already explained to you there is a discrepancy in the translation of Surah 23, verse 6. It is better to seek information about this from a scholar or sheik, because this goes far beyond layman knowledge.

Anything else related to slavery has already been explained on this thread via a myriad of links (and we are in fact going around in circles right now), so I see absolutely no reason to keep this thread open any longer.

Edit: here are some more links (in addition to the ones already given) on the matter:
http://www.answering-christianity.or...st_freedom.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.or..._treatment.htm

http://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/askimam/...=3489&act=view[/QUOTE]