My confusion in slavery in islam

[Al Sultan]

Assalamo Alikum brothers/sisters

I wanna understand something which I recently just knew about,which is slavery,i admire the way how in islam you don't call them slave,you call them either daughter,brother,son,sister,and treat them very well and give them clothes,food,shelter,and don't hit them,and don put a lot of pressure on them,and if they find pressure in their work,YOU help them too which is basically erasing the image of "slave" and its amazing,although I have questions which I might not understand,and I hope you can help me understand.


I heard that you can have SEX with the slave,which kind of confused me but of course it was reminded NOT to force them to do which I respect,but I wanna ask a couple of questions...

if that SLAVE is married,and has a child,and her child is held as a slave,can you still have sex with her? and if so,isnt that like,cheating?

and also,if prophet mohammed (PBUH) had sex with one of his slaves,which he had 4 slaves I believe (women) why didn't he set them free?

if you are already married,can you still have sex with that slave? if so,isnt it cheating again?

why is sex not prohibited with slaves,they're kafir,and you cant have sex with a kafir?...only if you marry her then okay


know that I am trying to understand this,and I am by asking you brothers to help me,and to end this terrible wiswas that I'm having now,so PLEASE help me understand these questions that I don't understand at all,and if you can explain it all in detail and specifically so I don't have any confusion anymore,and jazakom allah'o wa kol kahir

Wa assalamo alikum wa rahtimullahi wa barakato <3

[Kiro]

Since no one has answered this, I will give it a try.

wswrb

I don't know where you get that you don't call them slaves (I guess you could if you wished so) but yes you must respect your slaves and not overburden them with work.

Is far as I know, I don't think you can have a married slave, your own slave is permissible for you to marry though. If a person has intercourse with someones slave than this is zina.

Also the 'image' of slavery primarily belongs to how Americans used slave quite some time ago.

I think if a slave has bore you a child than the slave has freed themselves. Like she has a higher status (?)

As far as I know, Prophet :saws: only had one concubine who was the mother of his child, Ibraheem: Maria.

There is a verse in the Qu'ran that says that protect your private parts and go to your wives and what your right hand possess (slaves/concubine) so they are permissible for you. I will try to get the verse.

So in short, it is not cheating because your slave is halal for you but cannot force them upon you.

I think you can only have a Muslim slave or people of the Book slave unless it is a time of war because there is a hadith that says, some companions courted captives in war or something like that.

[Kiro]

Since no one has answered this, I will give it a try.

wswrb

I don't know where you get that you don't call them slaves (I guess you could if you wished so) but yes you must respect your slaves and not overburden them with work.

Is far as I know, I don't think you can have a married slave, your own slave is permissible for you to marry though. If a person has intercourse with someones slave than this is zina.

Also the 'image' of slavery primarily belongs to how Americans used slave quite some time ago.

I think if a slave has bore you a child than the slave has freed themselves. Like she has a higher status (?)

As far as I know, Prophet :saws: only had one concubine who was the mother of his child, Ibraheem: Maria.

There is a verse in the Qu'ran that says that protect your private parts and go to your wives and what your right hand possess (slaves/concubine) so they are permissible for you. I will try to get the verse.

So in short, it is not cheating because your slave is halal for you but cannot force them upon you.

I think you can only have a Muslim slave or people of the Book slave unless it is a time of war because there is a hadith that says, some companions courted captives in war or something like that.

I hope this is the correct reference

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)6. Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame”[al-Mu’minoon 23:6; al-Ma’aarij 70:30]

[Kiro]

This video might help probably somewhat

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

[Regrets1]

I hope this is the correct reference

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)6. Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame”[al-Mu’minoon 23:6; al-Ma’aarij 70:30]

So is it permissible for a man to have intercourse with a slave without marrying her?

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

So is it permissible for a man to have intercourse with a slave without marrying her?

Yes, it is permissible. Provided she is okay with it. He cannot force his concubine to have intercourse with him.

[Al Sultan]

Wait so if you are not married to that slave,you can have sex with her and still it wont be zina? and also does the slave have to be muslim or ahlul kitab? because majority of the people who attacked the prophet's message (PBUH) were the kufar,so basically it's permissible to have sex with the slaves even if she's a hindu,polythiest,christian,muslim is this right? but also why didn't prophet mohammed (PBUH) free those slaves?

[Regrets1]

Yes, it is permissible. Provided she is okay with it. He cannot force his concubine to have intercourse with him.

JazakAllah for replying brother.

1) isn't it considered zina as they aren't married?
2) what happens if she gets pregnant without them getting married?
3) What if the man wants to marry her but he's already got 4 wives? Can he still have intercourse with her even though he's got 4 wives?
4) what if he never wants to marry her but wants to keep her as a slave forever and have intercourse
(with her permission)

[Al Sultan]

But what if that slave was a kafr? (Polythiest,athiest,hindu) and also in islam we're not meant to marry or have sex with a hindu,or polytheists,only muslims and People Of The Book (Ahlul Kitab)

[Serinity]

Since no one has answered this, I will give it a try.

wswrb

I don't know where you get that you don't call them slaves (I guess you could if you wished so) but yes you must respect your slaves and not overburden them with work.

Is far as I know, I don't think you can have a married slave, your own slave is permissible for you to marry though. If a person has intercourse with someones slave than this is zina.

Also the 'image' of slavery primarily belongs to how Americans used slave quite some time ago.

I think if a slave has bore you a child than the slave has freed themselves. Like she has a higher status (?)

As far as I know, Prophet :saws: only had one concubine who was the mother of his child, Ibraheem: Maria.

There is a verse in the Qu'ran that says that protect your private parts and go to your wives and what your right hand possess (slaves/concubine) so they are permissible for you. I will try to get the verse.

So in short, it is not cheating because your slave is halal for you but cannot force them upon you.

I think you can only have a Muslim slave or people of the Book slave unless it is a time of war because there is a hadith that says, some companions courted captives in war or something like that.

:salam:

I am not sure whether you can have a Muslim as a slave. I read somewhere, that if a slave submits to Islam, you are obligated to release him/her.

Can any scholar confirm this?

And Allah :swt: knows best.

[Al Sultan]

And also why didn't prophet mohammed let go of them rather than having them as slaves? jazal allah kol khair

[Born_Believer]

Yes, it is permissible. Provided she is okay with it. He cannot force his concubine to have intercourse with him.

This is just not true. Where are you getting this information from?

I hope no one reads this and takes it as correct.

Islamically, one is allowed to marry someone who is in their employ, back then a slave/servant who would work in the household (also live in the household, eat the same food etc, they were not abused in any way). However, sexual intercourse outside of marriage is haram in any circumstance, with any individual.

Also, the beloved Rasool of Allah, Muhammad PBUH never had any "concubines", what kind of madness is that? A prophet of Allah would have a concubine? Astaghfurullah for such blasphemous remarks.

The Prophet PBUH married a girl who was formerly a coptic Christian slave, or so the story goes. There is some discussion on how the marriage occurs but every legitimate source has her as a wife and she would bear Prophet Muhammad PBUH his last child. A son who sadly died in infancy.

[Serinity]

This is just not true. Where are you getting this information from?

I hope no one reads this and takes it as correct.

Islamically, one is allowed to marry someone who is in their employ, back then a slave/servant who would work in the household (also live in the household, eat the same food etc, they were not abused in any way). However, sexual intercourse outside of marriage is haram in any circumstance, with any individual.

Also, the beloved Rasool of Allah, Muhammad PBUH never had any "concubines", what kind of madness is that? A prophet of Allah would have a concubine? Astaghfurullah for such blasphemous remarks.

The Prophet PBUH married a girl who was formerly a coptic Christian slave, or so the story goes. There is some discussion on how the marriage occurs but every legitimate source has her as a wife and she would bear Prophet Muhammad PBUH his last child. A son who sadly died in infancy.

The son dying could be seen as a blessing. Imo.

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

This is just not true. Where are you getting this information from?

I hope no one reads this and takes it as correct.

Islamically, one is allowed to marry someone who is in their employ, back then a slave/servant who would work in the household (also live in the household, eat the same food etc, they were not abused in any way). However, sexual intercourse outside of marriage is haram in any circumstance, with any individual.

Also, the beloved Rasool of Allah, Muhammad PBUH never had any "concubines", what kind of madness is that? A prophet of Allah would have a concubine? Astaghfurullah for such blasphemous remarks.

The Prophet PBUH married a girl who was formerly a coptic Christian slave, or so the story goes. There is some discussion on how the marriage occurs but every legitimate source has her as a wife and she would bear Prophet Muhammad PBUH his last child. A son who sadly died in infancy.

1) The Qur'aan itself mentions the permissibility of having intercourse with slaves. Read the very first page of the 18th Juz'/Paara of the Qur'aan. Denying it is Kufr.

2) Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم had concubines. That Hadhrat Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah was a concubine of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم has been mentioned by the following `Ulamaa:

According to `Allaamah al-Aloosi in Rooh-ul-Ma`aani - and he quotes from Hadhrat `Abdullaah ibn `Abbaas that the opening Aayah of Soorah at-Tahreem was revealed concerning Hadhrat Maariyah, and that she was a slave-girl belonging to Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم – and this is also according to Imaam ibn Katheer in his Tafseer (see Soorah at-Tahreem, 66:1-5), Imaam as-Suyooti in Jalaalayn (Ibid), Imaam ibn Hazm in Jawaami`-us-Seerah, Shaykh Ismaa`eel Haqqi in Rooh-ul-Bayaan, Imaam Nizhaam-ud-Deen an-Naysaaboori in his Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam Abu Hayyaan al-Andalusi in Al-Bahr Al-Muheet (Ibid), Imaam al-Qurtubi in his Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam ibn al-Jawzi in Zaad-ul-Maseer fee `Ilm-it-Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam ath-Tha`labi in his Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam Abul Layth as-Samarqandi in Bahr-ul-`Uloom (Ibid), Imaam at-Tabari in his Tafseer (Ibid), and Imaam Muhammad al-Ameen ibn Mukhtaar ash-Shinqeeti in Adhwaa-ul-Bayaan (Ibid). [Soorah al-Mu’minoon, 23:5, 6.]

The `Ulamaa of Islaam for the past 1,437 years have Ijmaa` (consensus) on it. That you have not heard about something does not negate it.

Yes, it is permissible, according to the Qur'aan itself, for a man to have intercourse with slave-girls belonging to him. No Mufassir (commentator of the Qur'aan) who has ever lived disagreed with this view, because the Qur'aan itself - in clear terms - permits it.

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

واَلَّذين هُم لِفروجهم حَافظون، إلا عَلى أزواجهم أو مَا مَلکت أيمانهم فَانَّهم غَير مَلومين


“And those who guard their private parts, except from their wives or (the slaves and captives) that their right hands possess; for then, they are free from blame.” [Soorah al-Mu'minoon, 23:5, 6]

[Al Sultan]

Wait really?

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Explaining Aayats five and six of Soorah al-Mu'minoon, Imaam ibn Katheer says:

وَالَّذِينَ قَدْ حَفِظُوا فُرُوجَهُمْ مِنَ الْحَرَامِ، فَلَا يَقَعُونَ فِيمَا نَهَاهُمُ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ زِنًا أَوْ لِوَاطٍ، وَلَا يَقْرَبُونَ سِوَى أَزْوَاجَهُمُ الَّتِي أَحَلَّهَا اللَّهُ لَهُمْ، وَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ مِنَ السَّرَارِيِّ، وَمَنْ تَعَاطَى مَا أَحَلَّهُ اللَّهُ لَهُ فَلَا لَوْمَ عَلَيْهِ وَلَا حَرَجَ

"And they are those who protect their private parts from Haraam, so they do not fall into Zinaa (fornication or adultery) or Liwaat (sodomy). They do not approach (for sexual intercourse) except their wives that Allaah has made Halaal (permissible) for them, and those that their right-hands possess from slave-girls. Whosoever goes to that which Allaah has made permissible for him, then there is no blame upon him." [Tafseer ibn Katheer.]

[greenhill]

I might add something as a layman. Correct me if I am wrong. (Layman as in terms of informed study) ;D

The Quran came down at a zalim period. So many things were eliminated and practices gradually phased out. Slavery perhaps took a generation or two to cease, hence the 'law' for those still with slaves at that time. So, in this day and age, we do not have and would not have thus, a not really relevant for us. No?


:peace:

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Nothing of Islaam can ever become "irrelevant". The Qur'aan was revealed for all time. Tell me: What is the use behind having an Aayah in the Qur'aan that is "irrelevant" or "no longer applies to our time"?

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Allaah Ta`aalaa Himself is the Lawgiver. When Allaah Ta`aalaa has made something permissible, no person can make it Haraam, and when He made made something Haraam, no person can make it permissible. No one can repeal a law of the Qur'aan. No person can abrogate an Aayah of the Qur'aan.

Our duty is to submit wholeheartedly to Islaam. Submit to what Allaah Ta`aalaa and Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم have told us, whether we understand it or not. Our intellects are deficient. In everything which Allaah Ta`aalaa and His Rasool صلى الله عليه وسلم have legislated, there is absolute wisdom. We may not understand the wisdom behind it yet. But we will, In Shaa Allaah. It is our duty to accept whether we understand it or not.

إِنَّمَا كَانَ قَوْلَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِذَا دُعُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ لِيَحْكُمَ بَيْنَهُمْ أَنْ يَقُولُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

"The saying of the Mu'mineen when they are called to Allaah and His Rasool (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to judge between them is only that they say, "We hear and we obey." And such are the successful." [Soorah an-Noor, 24:51]

[Aaqib]

This is just not true. Where are you getting this information from?

I hope no one reads this and takes it as correct.

Islamically, one is allowed to marry someone who is in their employ, back then a slave/servant who would work in the household (also live in the household, eat the same food etc, they were not abused in any way). However, sexual intercourse outside of marriage is haram in any circumstance, with any individual.

"And they who guard their private parts" - "Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed -" 23:5 - 23:6

[Al Sultan]

But what if the slaves were non-muslim and non Christian? is sex still permissible? what if the slave was a kafir or a hindu?


and also isn't it said that that you cannot have sex unless you marry? I'm confused now.

[Al Sultan]

And also why didn't the prophet Mohamed (pbuh) set those slaves free rather than having them?

[Aaqib]

and also isn't it said that that you cannot have sex unless you marry? I'm confused now.

I don't think that the prophet would be taking muslim slaves, let alone fighting muslims, right? Well, don't count on me for that, I dont know.

And the aiyah literally says guard your private parts, unless it is to your wives, which you've married, or what your right hand possess (slaves). See?

[Born_Believer]

1) The Qur'aan itself mentions the permissibility of having intercourse with slaves. Read the very first page of the 18th Juz'/Paara of the Qur'aan. Denying it is Kufr.

2) Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم had concubines. That Hadhrat Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah was a concubine of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم has been mentioned by the following `Ulamaa:

According to `Allaamah al-Aloosi in Rooh-ul-Ma`aani - and he quotes from Hadhrat `Abdullaah ibn `Abbaas that the opening Aayah of Soorah at-Tahreem was revealed concerning Hadhrat Maariyah, and that she was a slave-girl belonging to Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم – and this is also according to Imaam ibn Katheer in his Tafseer (see Soorah at-Tahreem, 66:1-5), Imaam as-Suyooti in Jalaalayn (Ibid), Imaam ibn Hazm in Jawaami`-us-Seerah, Shaykh Ismaa`eel Haqqi in Rooh-ul-Bayaan, Imaam Nizhaam-ud-Deen an-Naysaaboori in his Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam Abu Hayyaan al-Andalusi in Al-Bahr Al-Muheet (Ibid), Imaam al-Qurtubi in his Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam ibn al-Jawzi in Zaad-ul-Maseer fee `Ilm-it-Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam ath-Tha`labi in his Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam Abul Layth as-Samarqandi in Bahr-ul-`Uloom (Ibid), Imaam at-Tabari in his Tafseer (Ibid), and Imaam Muhammad al-Ameen ibn Mukhtaar ash-Shinqeeti in Adhwaa-ul-Bayaan (Ibid). [Soorah al-Mu’minoon, 23:5, 6.]

The `Ulamaa of Islaam for the past 1,437 years have Ijmaa` (consensus) on it. That you have not heard about something does not negate it.

Yes, it is permissible, according to the Qur'aan itself, for a man to have intercourse with slave-girls belonging to him. No Mufassir (commentator of the Qur'aan) who has ever lived disagreed with this view, because the Qur'aan itself - in clear terms - permits it.

I don't know if you are ignorant on this or purely lying, I hope it is the former.

Let me define the word concubine to you, as is in the English dictionary: "a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives" The word is closely related to "mistress", hopefully you understand what that is also. I have highlighted the important aspect.

At no point did Maariyah RA, who was given the same status as all of the Prophet PBUHs wives (that of the mother of believers) was ever treated as less than the other wives. She was in noway a mistress or a concubine.

As you have mentioned, Maariya RA was indeed once a slave but coming under the protection of the Prophet, she was never a slave, in fact she bore his child, in fact she was gifted as a wife. This also resulted in her conversion. The only difference is that a nikka did not take place because the nikka is a contract of the transferance of a woman from one wali to another. Sadly, slaves do not have the traditional wali (father, brother etc). So her being gifted to the Prophet PBUH opened him up for what was a marriage without the required contract.

Now, the verse you quoted, if you read any legitimate tafsir of the Quran, you will come to the approrpiate understanding. Once again, it involves the nikkah contract but this verse speaks not just have slave women bought or sold in the market but those captured in battel. Just a brief understanding of history at the time and since (or before) you will understand how poorly such women were treated. Islam came along and said, if a man has intercourse with a woman who he has captured, then she must be given the exact same rights and quality of life as his wife or wives. However, a nikkah contract in this regard would not be available so the term wife is not used by Allah in the Quran but the treatment of the woman is as such.

Now look back the the word concubine, is such a woman a concubine or a mistress? No, she is a wife who had no wali so a contract wasn ot required. Plus this was never forced on her as it must be a concensual discussion.

there is a great explanation of this, by Nouman Ali Khan, using various sources of tafsir.

So the use of the word concubine or mistress isn't just wrong, it could be sinful if done so knowing the truth. And to label such an accusation on the Prophet is a grace mistake.

Hopefully you understand now and I have done my best to explain this to you. I hope Allah helps you understand.

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Brother, don't try to apologise for Islaam by bringing in semantics of English. The Aayaat are in Arabic, not in English. So the definition of "concubine" counts for nothing at all. The Qur'aan is in Arabic and the Tafaaseer are in Arabic. Words in Arabic referring to slave-girls are "Amah", "Jaariyah", etc. And all of those words refer to slave-girls who have been captured through Jihaad (because that is the one and only form through which slavery occurs; the prisoners of war being made into slaves).

What you have said regarding the treatment is correct and is a separate issue. The way Islaam views and encourages a Muslim to treat a Jaariyah/Amah (slave-girl) in his possession is many times greater than people today even treat their wives. In fact, she is treated like a queen. No oppression is done to her. A person who doesn't know better would think that she is the wife of this man, not a slave-girl. That is all in its place. No one is disputing that.

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

The fact remains:

It is permissible for a man to have sexual intercourse with a Jaariyah/Amah (slave-girl) belonging to him. This is permissible according to the Qur'aan itself.

The treatment of said Jaariyah/Amah is a separate issue entirely.

[Zafran]

The fact remains:

It is permissible for a man to have sexual intercourse with a Jaariyah/Amah (slave-girl) belonging to him. This is permissible according to the Qur'aan itself.

The treatment of said Jaariyah/Amah is a separate issue entirely.

So if Isis captures Yazidi women and Justifies there action with what your saying its OK? seriously? what about all the outlawing of slavery in most Muslim countries? does that count?

[Karl]

What is all the argument about slavery? In times of war, slavery of the conquered is merciful isn't it? Or would they prefer death? Slave girls are just part of the booty.

[Karl]

So if Isis captures Yazidi women and Justifies there action with what your saying its OK? seriously? what about all the outlawing of slavery in most Muslim countries? does that count?

There are countries with Muslims in them but no real Muslim countries as they are all under the blade of the kufaar and THEIR rules and regulations.

[Zafran]

There are countries with Muslims in them but no real Muslim countries as they are all under the blade of the kufaar and THEIR rules and regulations.

what? so banning slavery is a "Kuffar" rule??

[greenhill]

Nothing of Islaam can ever become "irrelevant". The Qur'aan was revealed for all time. Tell me: What is the use behind having an Aayah in the Qur'aan that is "irrelevant" or "no longer applies to our time"?

Perhaps the word irrelevant is not an appropriate one.

My point is... during the times of the introduction of the deen many traditions were outlawed, burying baby girls, intoxicants etc. Some I am sure came in stages. Aspects on slavery is something that would come in stages as it involves human dynamics.

So, (without fully studying as you would have) it appears entirely logical to have guides given to cater even for the brief moment in time. But after the moment has passed, the eligibilty no longer exists as the situation, is no longer the same. A person should be "paid before his sweat dries on his skin", hence there is no more slaves class.

To further add, (again purely from my simple understanding) the Quran's verses has many different functions, as guides, warnings, reminders, dua, historical accounts, simple description of Allah through His Virtues and other truths for us to ponder and reflect.

So on this verse it may not be as I put it 'irrelevant', but categorises the situation that was being phased out..

Again, this is an area that has remained untackled in my mind (but it really matters not for me because I don't have slaves or in a position to hold concubines) but this thread has given me opportunity to clarify some matters.

JK.


:peace:

[Little_Lion]

I think the very blunt question everyone is trying to get at here is, does Islam TODAY allow slavery? Are the actions of groups like ISIS, who are taking slaves from the areas that they conquer, abiding by the rules set out in the Qur'an when they take females without their permission? Could I, according to Islam, hypothetically go to Syria and buy myself a slave tomorrow?

Or would modern day slavery fall under the category of oppression according to Qur'anic teachings?

[talibilm]

Assalamo Alikum brothers/sisters

I wanna understand something which I recently just knew about,which is slavery,i admire the way how in islam you don't call them slave,you call them either daughter,brother,son,sister,and treat them very well and give them clothes,food,shelter,and don't hit them,and don put a lot of pressure on them,and if they find pressure in their work,YOU help them too which is basically erasing the image of "slave" and its amazing,although I have questions which I might not understand,and I hope you can help me understand.


I heard that you can have SEX with the slave,which kind of confused me but of course it was reminded NOT to force them to do which I respect,but I wanna ask a couple of questions...

if that SLAVE is married,and has a child,and her child is held as a slave,can you still have sex with her? and if so,isnt that like,cheating?

and also,if prophet mohammed (PBUH) had sex with one of his slaves,which he had 4 slaves I believe (women) why didn't he set them free?

if you are already married,can you still have sex with that slave? if so,isnt it cheating again?

why is sex not prohibited with slaves,they're kafir,and you cant have sex with a kafir?...only if you marry her then okay


know that I am trying to understand this,and I am by asking you brothers to help me,and to end this terrible wiswas that I'm having now,so PLEASE help me understand these questions that I don't understand at all,and if you can explain it all in detail and specifically so I don't have any confusion anymore,and jazakom allah'o wa kol kahir

Wa assalamo alikum wa rahtimullahi wa barakato <3

:sl:

There are difference of opinions in this issue which most ulama say you cant except you get married (no need of wali, announcement etc) with them with atleast some least mahr even just a shirt ( you must take all Noble Quran verses into account ) like Prophet :saws: married with saffiya the Jew and Juveria (razd anha) who were once slaves in battle but both realised islam was true and embraced islam were granted freedom as Mahr and Prophet :saws: married with them . Unlike Maria Jibitiya (razd anha) who came as a Gift from the ruler of Egypt and she was also married (as per Mufti Menk ) after freedom though SOME SAY she got freedom after the birth of Prophet:saws: son Ibrahim (R.A). Even if the case is former WE MUST NOT FORGET to Prophet :saws: Allah had given special previleges that ordinary muslims do not who had the 30's mens strength and as ruler to do anything what he thought was right (his marriage did wonders of reverts to Islam) . Muslims cant marry NON MUSLIMS except if they are people of the book.



Bashir ibn Ka’ab recited the verse: “Walk in its (the earth’s) manaakib” {Surah Mulk:15** Then he asked his slave-girl: ‘If you know what is ‘its manaakib’ then you are free for the sake of Allah.’ She answered: ‘Its manaakib is its mountains.’ It was as though his face changed colour due to anger. He desired (to keep her and have intercourse with) her, so he asked the scholars (concerning the ruling of permissibility of intercourse with her). Some permitted it while others prohibited it. So he asked Abu Dardaa () and he replied: ‘Good is contentment and sin is doubt. Leave that which puts you in doubt for that which does not.’ So he (Bashir) left her.

[Ibn Abi Shaibah in ‘Musannaf’ Vol.9 Pg.84-85 #16414 Shaikh Awwamah’s Edition, Tabri in his ‘Tafsir’ Vol.23 Pg.128 Turki’s Edition]


This ENDORSMENT of Umar R.A will enlighten the issue

In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685 we read the following story:

Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: 'Allah didn't want to disgrace Dharar'


Also kindly refer to my thread in ummah '' Muslims cant force sex on Slaves ''

[greenhill]

I think the very blunt question everyone is trying to get at here is, does Islam TODAY allow slavery? Are the actions of groups like ISIS, who are taking slaves from the areas that they conquer, abiding by the rules set out in the Qur'an when they take females without their permission? Could I, according to Islam, hypothetically go to Syria and buy myself a slave tomorrow?

Or would modern day slavery fall under the category of oppression according to Qur'anic teachings?

I am of the opinion that slaves as we know it to mean today is not compatible with the spirit of islam. We are to help the unfortunate, not take advantage of their situation for our pleasures(?). .

Hence, my point of view is perhaps personal as I still don't 'see' how it works in context of today's world.


:peace:

[kritikvernunft]

why is sex not prohibited with slaves,they're kafir,and you cant have sex with a kafir?...only if you marry her then okay

A man will generally seek to have sex with any female suitable for this, as long as there is no credible opposition from other men. If the man defeats them in battle, the woman is a slave. If he bribes them or otherwise convinces them, she is a wife. Regardless of whether she is a slave or a wife, in the interest of the offspring, it is preferable that the man does not set her free to seek her own resources, or to attempt to find another man to obtain resources from him, to raise the children that she already has. Manumitting a woman is pretty much always a bad thing in biological terms. Religion just confirms this.

if you are already married,can you still have sex with that slave? if so,isnt it cheating again?

According to laws of nature, a female who could have children, should have children. That is not just the case for mankind. That is the case for all forms of life. Refusing to reproduce is not really a viable option for females. Who will make these children with her if she is a slave? There are of course other candidates besides her owner. A male slave would be an option, but you will find that the female slave may not necessarily be in favour of that option. If she reproduces with the owner, her offspring will inherit from him on an equal basis, while any children with another slave would be born pretty much empty handed. The status of the female herself is usually deemed less important than the status of her children. Furthermore, if the woman would not make children if she were free, because of her kafir outlook on life, then in accordance with the laws of nature, it would be preferably for her to be a slave.

[sister herb]

So if Isis captures Yazidi women and Justifies there action with what your saying its OK? seriously? what about all the outlawing of slavery in most Muslim countries? does that count?

Can we really call it as Jihaad what Daesh is doing? Do they fight for Islam when they are killing innocent civilians, including women and children? What Islam says about kind of actions? Are they lawful acts or not?

[kritikvernunft]

Do they fight for Islam when they are killing ... women and children?

I do not think that anybody is claiming that they are seeking to kill women or children. The controversy is rather about Yazidi female captives, which is a controversy that is not about killing but about enslaving these Yazidi girls. Since the men who would have been able to prevent them from doing that, were defeated in battle, who else could prevent them from doing that? Seriously, that the ones who do not like it, engage them in battle. Still, the prize will not be that they would get these girls instead of them, because the idea would then be to "free" them. So, where are the men who are going to risk their lives and die for ... nothing? Obama is clearly also not sending anybody over there, which is understandable, because what would be in it for them? Who is going to risk his life and die to free these Yazidi females from their new "husbands"? Me? You? Anybody? Everybody'ś got better to do than risking their lives and dying for that kind of lost causes. Furthermore, the laws of nature do not care which men make children with these enslaved Yazidi females, as long as someone does.

Most women and children who get killed in Syria, were hit by American or Russian bombings raids; with some also killed by stray bullets from other parties. Still, I do not believe that anybody on any of the sides involved in this war deliberately targets women or children.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

Please, I implore all of you who have participated in this thread to please read herein the words that would gain you InshaAllah (God-willing) all due clarity on the subject, and all success is with Allah in whom we place our trust.

I have to oppose those persons's understanding on the thread who are using the term “concubines.”

What are “right hand possessions”?

“Right hand possessions” are not “sexual slaves” or even “concubines.” Right hand possessions were usually earned in a war as prisoners. This is not to be confused with the linguistic term “sexual slave” and is in fact an erroneous presumption leveled by the present-day Orientalist non-Muslims against Islam and many Muslims even have fallen short of the English term’s comprehension. The Arabic term "ma malakat aymanikum" can literally also be translated as "whom your oaths possess" and was a term used for the poor human beings whom an oath has been pledged of which to take care. They are considered to fall under the umbrella of people meriting special care (under oath) in a Muslim household and Muslim community.

What is the distinction between “right hand possessions” and why can they not be likened to “sexual slaves”? To understand why, let's understand sexual slavery.

Today, in many wars fought historically and in our contemporary times globally, violence against women occur by way of rape and/or forcing them into sexual slavery under the power of the victorious men. This means that these women are powerless, helpless, and treated worse than animals as their feelings and their bodies are not considered their own but under the ownership of men. Also, sexual slavery cases across the globe as recorded on the Amnesty International site have a distinct pattern: the women are forced into servicing many men and are the recipient of dominance and debased subjugation that commits them without any rights to accomplish pornographic fantasies of men under physical harm and threats and even at times corruption of mind. Sexual slavery is a form of psychological and physical torture inflicted upon women that in no way, shape, or form comparable or resembles to what Islam taught about the humane treatment that “right hand possessions” merit. Moreover, sexual slaves are necessarily the extreme givers of sexual pleasure, not the recipients, and any pleasure ever derived is evoked not out of their own will or power which means they are further psychologically damaged because to them (should that ever occur) this mistakenly means that they do deserve the dehumanizing outlook and behavior of the men under whose control they only function perfunctorily.

Right hand possessions were in many aspects similar to that of marriage, which is how it's been understood within academic study of Islam by Islamic scholars and historically in religions previously and bear the same former status as, for example, “pilegesh.”

“Pilegesh” is the Hebrew term for a slave woman or maid with similar social and legal standing to a recognized wife, often for the purpose of producing offspring.

A pilegesh was recognized among the ancient Hebrews and enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife. Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, while the greatest curse was childlessness, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, for their own barrenness. The slave woman commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife, and it was regarded as the deepest dishonor for the man to whom she belonged if hands were laid upon her.

Several biblical figures had concubines when they were not able to create natural children with their wives. The most famous example of this was with Abraham and Sarah. Sarah, feeling guilty about her inability to give Abraham children, gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. Their union created Ishmael.

So, similarly, the right hand possessions gained under the Shariah when jihad occurred meant that they merited their unique rights under Islam. They were not ever to be “used” and “abused” as the term sexual slavery connotes. But rather, when captured without their husbands or any protector, they were given protection of Muslim men and given dignity in the households. Since Islam is a religion based in practicality, reality means recognizing probabilities and then giving rules and regulations and rights based on them. Thus, Islam recognizes that men under whom these women are given as slaves might be inclined sexually towards them and thus Islam laid out the rules, regulations and rights regarding these women. This was not given so the female slave could be forced or abused as they were not to be compelled to copulate neither marry their Muslim protectors nor be forcibly converted to Islam.

Muslims of our time must be careful in understanding that what has been made permissible under Islam (i.e. allowing for sex with a slave acquired in jihad as "right hand possession") does not mean that which is also advanced by Islam.

When Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) began receiving Revelation, slavery already existed as a vestige of jahilliyah (ignorance) in the paganistic Arabia's social structure, and this hierarchy could not have been eradicated without also creating an economic collapse or people turning away from the Message of Islam.

I also wanted to clarify that even while the any slaves widespread in paganistic Arabia or gained through jihad were not forced under Islam to be freed overnight, the practice was highly encouraged which is why the practice as per the correct understanding of the rightly guided Caliph led eventually history to witness eradication of slavery under Islamic rule peacefully. More specifically, slavery was abolished under the rule of Caliph Umar :ra: (may God be pleased with him) more specifically long before the movement to abolish slavery began in other parts of the world. Also, the notable accomplishment of Islam is the peaceful way in which slavery was abolished, because for example a civil war had ensued on the issue of slavery in the United States, and, furthermore, the sudden eradication of slavery in America led to an economic collapse in the South (within America). Yet the wisdom of Islam did not let that happen to early Muslims. However, due to the Persian Empire falling under Caliph Umar's :ra: (may God be pleased with him) reign, the paradox was that eradication of slavery could not be sustained in the Caliphate.

Prophet :saws: said that if there was any prophet after him, it would have been Umar :ra:. That is because Umar :ra: was a great legislator of Islam in his own right. Also, Islam has greatly emphasized the status of Umar :ra:. If abolition of slavery had not been right in Arabia, Umar :ra: wouldn't have followed that understanding when he became Caliph.

Prophet :saws: said, "If there were to be a prophet after me, indeed he would be Umar, son of Khattab."

Prophet :saws: said, "Allah has placed truth upon Umar's tongue and heart."

Prophet :saws: said, "I dreamt that I was at a well drawing water with a young camel's bucket, Abu Bakr came and drew one or two buckets, but there was some weakness in his drawing. May Allah forgive him. Then 'Umar ibn al-Khattab came and it turned into a large bucket in his hand. I have not seen a leader among the people work so well as he did until the people watered their camels."

Prophet :saws: said, "While I was asleep, I dreamt that I drank (milk) until I could feel moisture coming out of my nails and then I gave it to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab." They asked, "How do you interpret it, Messenger of Allah?" He :saws: replied, "It means knowledge."

The above is evidence on what Allah intended, as the knowledge of the deen in terms of shariah was very correct with Umar :ra: and therefore it would be incorrect to say that slavery cannot be abolished in Islam, because it had once been abolished within Islam.

The question may arise as to why were these captive slave women were acquired as “right hand possessions” and not released on their own cognizance. That is because Islam is a pragmatic religion. Historically, what has happened after wars is that the women on the losing side became prey to starvation, poverty, prostitution, rape by lawless men on the streets, and their children bore the stigma of illegitimacy should they become pregnant in a time either due to rape or prostitution. In fact, they would have definitely found it hard to find suitors even from among their free male counterparts, had they been released, who’d suspect them of being ravished by their captors. Islam, however, envisioned a protective umbrella under which the responsibility of the women would specifically fall on the shoulders of the winning side of the warmongers so that these women's safety and chastity could be safeguarded and vouchsafed. Though glimmer it may be in the beginning, the hope of Islam is ultimately to secure for these women a marital home as free persons whereby their rights and dignity would be permanently secured.

Historically, also, there were many wives of enemy combatants in jihad who were persecuted because they acknowledged the message of Islam and many also voluntarily sought asylum in the Muslim community out for economic and social reasons alone since Muslim women were granted rights (e.g. property ownership, community support, etc.) that were unprecedented at that time. Since these women did not go through a normal divorce process, an exceptional contract allows them to “marry” Muslims as free woman, not as slaves, and to have the protection and maintenance of the Muslim community since they also many times themselves so desired.

Slavery, let's remember, was not initiated by Islam.

Slavery is not and never has been an Islamic invention. Slave trade was an accepted way of life and fully established in all historical societies. The word “slave” comes probably from the people of Eastern Europe, the Slavs, and in historical societies many slaves were whites. Without exception, the ancient world accepted slavery as normal and desirable. The great civilizations of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, were built upon slave labor. The Greeks, from whom we derive so many humanistic ideas, were dependent on slavery. Three quarters of the population of Athens were slaves. Even Plato's Republic was based on slave labor. This was also the case of Rome. Under the Roman law, if or when a slave owner murdered, all his slaves were put to death also. In fact, half of the population of the Roman Empire were slaves.

However, Islam is unique concerning slavery in terms of as what religiously and legally made permissible in shariah and also what it endorsed.

Even then Western pseudo-intellectuals and Orientalists would have us erroneously believe that Islam jeopardized the rights of women with the concept of “right hand possessions.” But we have to ask specific questions then to understand if that is indeed the case: Was it Islam that considered woman as being responsible for the banishing of man from Paradise? Was it Islam that took women as being the cause of all evils or regarded her as serpents? Was it in Islam that a meeting was held to debate whether woman could be regarded as a human being or not? No! This took place in France in 587 C.E. Actually all this was the norm of the past days of Western civilizations.

When Islam started, it tried to put an end to all such inhumane practices. It left no stone unturned in its quest to let women have their rights and dignity restored. This is clearly manifest in the way Islam handled the issue of slavery. Right from the start, Islam set a goal to eradicate this barbaric system. Yet, it needed to be done gradually, as the case with all bad habit and institutionalized practices that have stronghold in a society. People never give up easily!

As we know, after the end of hostilities, it’s the norm that prisoners of war be freed and exchanged through mutual agreement between the parties. Islam has made this clear in its divine texts that the captives must be freed through ransom or without ransom. Also, it’s socially understood that marrying freed female captives, would normally secure their rights, more than would be the case if they were set free without any guarantee for survival or for preserving their dignity.

We have to investigate further into this custom before we pass judgment.

There is an Islamic significance attached to the term “right hand possessions.” What is the immediate significance of this expression? The word “right hands” here refers to women taken as prisoners of war. It is by no means an implication of concubinage, for this is totally prohibited in Islam. Nor does it refer to purchasing female slaves from market to be used to satisfy sexual urge. It’s only during warfare that the right hand actually takes possession of captives, and this is what the Quran means. Another more important significance of the term “right hands possessions” is the clear reflection of the great concern Islam has for preserving the rights of those captives because linguistically the right hand has its special merit and privileged function in Islam.

Imam Qurtubi, in his commentary on this verse, says: “Allah Almighty uses the word ‘right hand’ here for it denotes great honor and respect. It suffices that it’s the one used when referring to spending, as mentioned in the hadith ‘… he who provides charity (seeking only Allah’s reward) in a way that his left hand does not know what his right hand spends …’ And it is the very hand used in making pledge of allegiance … etc.”

The term this indicates that the word “what your right hand possess” has a special and glorified meaning in Islamic usage. In fact, it signifies the great care and good treatment that captives or prisoners of wars should be accorded. This is how Islam dealt with the issue from the earliest stages. All this did not materialize all of a sudden, for slavery was a social ailment that needed to be addressed. So it was a gradual strategy laid down by Islam, not only to eradicate slavery, but also to give the freed slaves a complete social rehabilitation. First of all, Islam stipulated that all masters should take care of their captives; they should not be overburdened with tasks, nor should they be deprived of their human rights. The Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) made this clear in his hadith (prophetic tradition) that masters should treat their slaves as their brothers and female captives as their sisters, if not in faith, at least in humanity. He :saws: said: “Your servants are thy brethren. Allah has put them under your control. He could, if He willed, make you under their control. Thus, whoever has his brother under his control, let him feed him of his same food and dress him of his same dress. Never saddle them with work that goes beyond their capability. If the work happens to be somehow difficult, lend them a helping hand.”

As for female captives, Imam Bukhari quotes the Prophet :saws: as saying: “If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward.”

You see, that’s how Islam set the course of emancipating slaves. That they should be well treated has never been in doubt. Also, educating female captives and marrying them, after emancipation is considered an act of charity, which would earn one great reward. Not only that. Islam further put an end to the habit of using derogatory or pejorative names to address slaves. For in Islam, man or woman must not show servitude to anyone besides Allah the Almighty. So it was stipulated that the captives should be addressed in honored terms. Besides all that, the act of emancipating slaves used to be a competitive work among the Prophet’s :saws: Companions :ra:, for it was highly recommended by Islam and was considered an act of worship.

While Islam has also made use of what was an international custom during that era in enabling the custom of having intercourse with female captives, Islam placed specific limitations also. Here, Islam stipulated that if through sexual intercourse, the female slave got pregnant from her master, she would automatically gain her freedom. So would her child for he’d be born free then. What a wise approach to eliminate the bad habit and institutionalized practice of preternatural slavery in Arabia! So, allowing intercourse with a willing captive was not a means of unleashing sexual desires for men because she had to be treated the same as a wife even though her legal status was not that of a wife. Also, if Islam had envisioned slavery as something permanent, being pregnant would have availed the slave woman nothing, for she’d remain the property of her master no matter what and yet Islam decreed an automatic manumission of a woman who gave birth. No, Islam did not allow the practice for a sensual and voluptuous goal but to dignify women on the losing side of war and also the slave women who previously had no rights in pagan Arabia.

Let's remember also that Islam encourages Muslims to treat any slaves (man or woman) the same that they would treat themselves in terms of clothing, food, and shelter. The humane treatment and particular rights given to them as well as voluntary manumission is also primarily why many, even can be said to umpteen, non-Muslim slaves accepted Islam from their own volition as they recognized that such was unprecedented up to that time and that if they as slaves could merit such recognition of their humanity then that Scripture must be honored.

Verily, Allah honored mankind by enjoining upon them Islam.

Now, the final answer to the question of whether slavery is permissible in shariah is on a mere technicality yes because Islam did once upon a time acknowledge slavery as a practice even though the same Islam also witnessed the complete eradication of slavery twice, once during the time of reign of Caliph Umar :ra: as per understanding of Islam's purpose in encouragement of manumission of slaves as desiring complete eradication and the other time in 19th century that included Muslim abolitionists strongly arguing for eradication of slavery due to understanding it as oppression. For us laypersons, I think it is best that we leave the question of slavery to Islamic scholars because we do not have a Caliphate under which any type of slavery could ever be considered valid. And we can never include or use the example Daesh as it is a terrorist organization that is neither Islamic nor accepted as a Caliphate and is both a manifest evil and danger to and enemy of Muslims. And therefore, we are not in a position to discuss slavery except in a very remote and hypothetical context that is a wastage of our combined time, intellect, and energies.

InshaAllah (God-willing), this post has sufficiently answered all queries and concerns.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[Born_Believer]

Brother, don't try to apologise for Islaam by bringing in semantics of English. The Aayaat are in Arabic, not in English. So the definition of "concubine" counts for nothing at all. The Qur'aan is in Arabic and the Tafaaseer are in Arabic. Words in Arabic referring to slave-girls are "Amah", "Jaariyah", etc. And all of those words refer to slave-girls who have been captured through Jihaad (because that is the one and only form through which slavery occurs; the prisoners of war being made into slaves).

What you have said regarding the treatment is correct and is a separate issue. The way Islaam views and encourages a Muslim to treat a Jaariyah/Amah (slave-girl) in his possession is many times greater than people today even treat their wives. In fact, she is treated like a queen. No oppression is done to her. A person who doesn't know better would think that she is the wife of this man, not a slave-girl. That is all in its place. No one is disputing that.

Are you purposefully trying to mislead people?

I've just given you the explanation of the verses. There is no such thing as a concubine or simply taking a slave girl for sex, which is what you are alluding to. If the sahabah of Rasoolallah regarded Maariyah RA as one of the mothers of the believers, a title only reserved for his wives, who are you to contradict that? Who are you to say the Prophet PBUH would break Islamic law for extramarital relations?

May Allah guide you and help you, for if you are doing this on purpose to spread deceit among the Muslims then you are in serious trouble.

That is all I can say on the matter.

[Serinity]

I am also confused about slavery in Islam.

What if someone finds it degrading to become a slave of a human?

Cuz we are all slaves of Allah, none else. :/

[sister herb]

I think that the matter what causes here more confusion is the term what we are using. Is there any other possible translation to explain this matter than slave/slavery? Maybe "a prisoner of war"? We might have some sort of image about being slave from other areas like from the old USA and in our minds we compare it to this matter (even we shouldn´t).

[greenhill]

@Search :jk:

I guess in my head I now see the transition from the times of slaves and "right hand possess", very much like the spinning arrow head replaced with istikarah, the wife and slave morphed into polygamy laws. 4 maximum.

Just a thought.


:peace:

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

I've just given you the explanation of the verses. There is no such thing as a concubine or simply taking a slave girl for sex, which is what you are alluding to. If the sahabah of Rasoolallah regarded Maariyah RA as one of the mothers of the believers, a title only reserved for his wives, who are you to contradict that? Who are you to say the Prophet PBUH would break Islamic law for extramarital relations?

Where did you get this from? Who told you this? You have "given me the explanation of the verses"? You are a Mufassir of the Qur'aan?

I've told you what 14 from the pre-eminent `Ulamaa of Islaam, the giants in the galaxy of Mufassiroon, have said regarding her, that she was not a wife of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

In case you deliberately overlooked it, I will post it over again:

The view that Hadhrat Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah was not a wife of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم has been mentioned by the following `Ulamaa:

According to `Allaamah al-Aloosi in Rooh-ul-Ma`aani - and he quotes from Hadhrat `Abdullaah ibn `Abbaas that the opening Aayah of Soorah at-Tahreem was revealed concerning Hadhrat Maariyah, and that she was a slave-girl belonging to Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم – and this is also according to Imaam ibn Katheer in his Tafseer (see Soorah at-Tahreem, 66:1-5), Imaam as-Suyooti in Jalaalayn (Ibid), Imaam ibn Hazm in Jawaami`-us-Seerah, Shaykh Ismaa`eel Haqqi in Rooh-ul-Bayaan, Imaam Nizhaam-ud-Deen an-Naysaaboori in his Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam Abu Hayyaan al-Andalusi in Al-Bahr Al-Muheet (Ibid), Imaam al-Qurtubi in his Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam ibn al-Jawzi in Zaad-ul-Maseer fee `Ilm-it-Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam ath-Tha`labi in his Tafseer (Ibid), Imaam Abul Layth as-Samarqandi in Bahr-ul-`Uloom (Ibid), Imaam at-Tabari in his Tafseer (Ibid), and Imaam Muhammad al-Ameen ibn Mukhtaar ash-Shinqeeti in Adhwaa-ul-Bayaan (Ibid). [Soorah al-Mu’minoon, 23:5, 6.]

The `Ulamaa of Islaam for the past 1,437 years have Ijmaa` (consensus) on it. That you have not heard about something does not negate it."

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

what about all the outlawing of slavery in most Muslim countries? does that count?

No amount of Muslim countries can repeal a law of the Qur'aan.

If, hypothetically, all the Muslim countries in the world come together and ban Salaah, does that mean Muslims must stop performing Salaah? According to your logic, they should, because "What about all the Muslim countries who have banned it? Don't they count?"

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

The reason behind why a lot of people have a problem and are confused regarding this issue of slavery is that they are confusing the Kaafir concept of slavery with the Islaamic concept of it. In their minds, they are thinking of a poor person, ill-treated, famished, not given proper food to eat, made to work all day, beaten and insulted, abused, etc. All of this is Haraam in Islaam. A person who treats someone like that is cursed. In Islaam, a male slave is like your brother; he eats what you eat, he wears the same quality of clothes you wear, he lives in your house partaking of all the luxuries you partake of; he does not get overworked; if there is a difficult job for him to do, you yourself must help him with it; he is able to purchase his freedom from you, from the very money you yourself give him. We could go on and on about how well slaves are treated in Islaam. And if it is a female slave, then she is treated like how you would treat your very own wife. She is treated like a queen. She is respected and cared for. You provide her with the best of food and clothes you can afford, just as you would for your wife. You may only have intercourse with her if she herself allows it. If she refuses, you cannot. (There is no "rape" in Islaam. It is only the Kuffaar who rape innocent women and yet they are the ones who accuse the Muslims of doing so.) She too can purchase her freedom from you, with the very money you provide for her.

Like we mentioned, an onlooker would think that she is the wife and not a slave.

So again, remove from your mind all vestiges of the Kuffaar concept of slavery and how they had abused and ill-treated people; that is not the way of Islaam.

[Serinity]

But aren't we all exclusive slaves to Allah? I am confused in that aspect.

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

All people are slaves of Allaah Ta`aalaa. We are the `Ibaad (plural of "`Abd") of Allaah Ta`aalaa. That is why this word is not used when referring to those whom your right-hand possesses. In fact, it is not permissible to refer to them as `Abd or Amah. Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

لَا يَقُولَنَّ أَحَدُكُمْ عَبْدِي وَأَمَتِي كُلُّكُمْ عَبِيدُ اللهِ، وَكُلُّ نِسَائِكُمْ إِمَاءُ اللهِ، وَلَكِنْ لِيَقُلْ غُلَامِي وَجَارِيَتِي وَفَتَايَ وَفَتَاتِي

"None of you should say "my `Abd" or "my Amah"; all of you (men) are the `Abeed (slaves) of Allaah and all of you (women) are the Imaa' (female slaves) of Allaah. Rather, he should say, "my Ghulaam (boy; lad)", "my Jaariyah (girl)", "my Fataa (young man)", "my Fataat (young lass)". [Narrated in Saheeh Muslim.]

So the very words `Abd and Amah themselves are not to be used.

[greenhill]

The reason behind why a lot of people have a problem and are confused regarding this issue of slavery is that they are confusing the Kaafir concept of slavery with the Islaamic concept of it. In their minds, they are thinking of a poor person, ill-treated, famished, not given proper food to eat, made to work all day, beaten and insulted, abused, etc. All of this is Haraam in Islaam. A person who treats someone like that is cursed. In Islaam, a male slave is like your brother; he eats what you eat, he wears the same quality of clothes you wear, he lives in your house partaking of all the luxuries you partake of; he does not get overworked; if there is a difficult job for him to do, you yourself must help him with it; he is able to purchase his freedom from you, from the very money you yourself give him. We could go on and on about how well slaves are treated in Islaam. And if it is a female slave, then she is treated like how you would treat your very own wife. She is treated like a queen. She is respected and cared for. You provide her with the best of food and clothes you can afford, just as you would for your wife. You may only have intercourse with her if she herself allows it. If she refuses, you cannot. (There is no "rape" in Islaam. It is only the Kuffaar who rape innocent women and yet they are the ones who accuse the Muslims of doing so.) She too can purchase her freedom from you, with the very money you provide for her.

Like we mentioned, an onlooker would think that she is the wife and not a slave.

So again, remove from your mind all vestiges of the Kuffaar concept of slavery and how they had abused and ill-treated people; that is not the way of Islaam.

Ok. That is totally understandable.

I accept your point in that there are differences in the meaning of slaves and is demonstrated by the treatment given.

Now, in this day and age, if the terminology is somewhat 'strayed' from what was originally intended, perhaps the word "slave", for this purpose should be substituted to a word that would be better understood.

Servant? Helper? Assistant? Worker?

The fact that this person is given the option to buy his freedom begs a another question. Do we have people who are property of others in this way? Officially, we are mostly just slaves of the financial intitutions. We buy back our freedom when we settle our dues with them .

Then again, after 1400 years of islamic civilsation surely the slaves of the tribes of Quraysh would have assimilated (is that the right word- like mix in,) into the society and would have become a thing of the past.

For example, people given their freedom, bought their freedom, or bore children, and the children are no longer slaves, ending a generation of slaves, eventually dying out.

Allhu alem.

Still, in place of concubines, Allah granted the umah of prophet Muhammad s.a.w., 4 wives, which was never given to any other nation. So do we really need the slaves? Just propose and get married!


:peace:

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

A person doesn't have to use the word "slave" if they don't want to. If, like you say, they want to choose a different word instead so as to avoid confusion between slavery as the Kuffaar perceive it to be (on account of how they used to treat people) VS the Islaamic concept of slavery (which is more along the lines of brotherhood). Like we mentioned earlier, Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said not to use the word `Abd but to use the word "Ghulaam" instead. Now, "Ghulaam" literally means a "youngster". So the word itself shows you how very differently people are treated in Islaam as compared to all other religions and societies.

[noraina]

The reason behind why a lot of people have a problem and are confused regarding this issue of slavery is that they are confusing the Kaafir concept of slavery with the Islaamic concept of it. In their minds, they are thinking of a poor person, ill-treated, famished, not given proper food to eat, made to work all day, beaten and insulted, abused, etc. All of this is Haraam in Islaam. A person who treats someone like that is cursed. In Islaam, a male slave is like your brother; he eats what you eat, he wears the same quality of clothes you wear, he lives in your house partaking of all the luxuries you partake of; he does not get overworked; if there is a difficult job for him to do, you yourself must help him with it; he is able to purchase his freedom from you, from the very money you yourself give him. We could go on and on about how well slaves are treated in Islaam. And if it is a female slave, then she is treated like how you would treat your very own wife. She is treated like a queen. She is respected and cared for. You provide her with the best of food and clothes you can afford, just as you would for your wife. You may only have intercourse with her if she herself allows it. If she refuses, you cannot. (There is no "rape" in Islaam. It is only the Kuffaar who rape innocent women and yet they are the ones who accuse the Muslims of doing so.) She too can purchase her freedom from you, with the very money you provide for her.

Like we mentioned, an onlooker would think that she is the wife and not a slave.

So again, remove from your mind all vestiges of the Kuffaar concept of slavery and how they had abused and ill-treated people; that is not the way of Islaam.

This makes a lot of sense, ma'sha'Allah.

When I was younger, I even found the concept of slavehood to Allah swt somewhat 'unattractive' sounding, and that lies in the fact that the western concept of slavery is extremely negative. Via the media, books, or films, we're taught that slavery, as in bondage to a master, is the least dignified, most awful way of living.

When looking at it from that perspective, it seems very 'wrong' so to speak.

JazkaAllah khayr for that answer, akhi :).

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

آمين يا رب العالمين

بارك الله فيك

[talibilm]

I think the very blunt question everyone is trying to get at here is, does Islam TODAY allow slavery? Are the actions of groups like ISIS, who are taking slaves from the areas that they conquer, abiding by the rules set out in the Qur'an when they take females without their permission? Could I, according to Islam, hypothetically go to Syria and buy myself a slave tomorrow?

Or would modern day slavery fall under the category of oppression according to Qur'anic teachings?

:sl: Sister

There are many hadith telling not to touch women and children even during war and how can a hadith CONTRADICT itself by saying take those women as slaves ??

So ONLY those women who fought the muslims in the battle or present on the battle field are allowed to be taken as prisoners of war ie as Slaves. Not like Isis does going and picking up from the Market place those women they like from a war torn state. For such cases they will come under this hadith qudsi

“Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227).

By Marriage with a slave girl the slave girl gets half rights of a married free women and similarly in hadd punishments gets only half as well, Such women are so called concubines ( ie a wife but with lesser rights) , but they cant be forced to sex and has to be married but with lesser conditions as well of a free women's marriage like Wali is not needed. But if they gave birth to a child she becomes a free women and no more a slave.


BUT THERE WAS ALWAYS A MARRIAGE FOR SLAVES ALSO seen here

The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah)
Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3328
Anas (Allah be pleased with him) reported: I was sitting behind Abu Talha on the Day of Khaibar and my feet touched the foot of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and we came (to the people of Khaibar) when the sun had risen and they had driven out their cattle, and had themselves come out with their axes, large baskets and hatchets, and they said: (Here come) Muhammad and the army.Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Khaibar is ruined. Verily when we get down in the valley of a people, evil is the
morning of the warned ones (al-Qur'an, xxxvii. 177). Allah, the Majestic and the Glorious, defeated them (the inhabitants of Khaibar), and there fell to the lot of Dihya a beautiful girl, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) got her in exchange of seven heads, and then entrusted her to Umm Sulaim so that she might embellish her and prepare her (for marriage) with him. He (the narrator) said: He had been under the impression that he had said that so that she might spend her period of 'Iddah in her(Umm Sulaim's) house. (The woman) was Safiyya daughter of Huyayy. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) arranged the wedding feast consisting of dates, cheese, and refined butter, and pits were dug and tiers were set in them dining cloths, and there was brought cheese and refined butter, and these were placed there. And the people ate to their fill, and they said: We do not know whether he (the Holy Prophet) had married her (as a free woman), or as a slave woman. They said: If he (the Holy Prophet) would make her wear the veil, then she would be a (free married) woman, and if he would not make her wear the veil, then she should be a slave woman. When he intended to ride, he made her wear the veil and she sat on the hind part of the camel; so they came to know that he had married her.

[Serinity]

Most people when they think of slavery, they think of the way how the Kuffar, and the West did, and how Firawn and other Firawns treated slaves.

A slave is depicted as someone imprisoned and enslaved to the desires of the owner.

[kritikvernunft]

Via the media, books, or films, we're taught that slavery, as in bondage to a master, is the least dignified, most awful way of living.

If slavery is evil, that does still not mean that it would always be the worst evil. It could be preferable to an otherwise worse alternative.

Imagine someone who is the slave of his drug addiction. He goes out stealing or begging to get money for his drugs. In his case, slavery to another person could possibly be better than slavery to his drugs. If his master manages to keep him away from drugs -- by using sticks and carrots -- then this addict could possibly lead a more dignified way of life. Same for a run-down street prostitute. She could possibly lead a better life by being enslaved to just one owner. It would also spare everybody else the risk of seeing dangerous diseases run loose.

The entire field of medicine is based on that principle. All medication are dangerous poisons -- otherwise they would not even work -- that are lesser evils in particular circumstances, in order to combat an even worse evil. When you take medicine you are usually counting on the fact that these substances are even more poisonous to the bugs than to you.

It is not productive to ban a practice just because it would be evil. If it is a valid substitute for an even worse evil, it would still be useful as a lesser evil. You would be surprised in how many otherwise quite common circumstances, slavery would be the lesser evil.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

But slavery was indeed repealed by Caliph Umar :ra: (may God be pleased with him). Though the repeal wasn't able to be sustained when the Persian Empire fell, Caliph Umar :ra: did understand the repeal to be the goal of Islam which is why he'd issued the original edict during his reign. And we know from Prophet :saws: that the understanding of shariah (Islamic law) was extremely correct with Umar :ra: due to numerous ahadith (prophetic traditions) pointing the same and that also that he was a rightly guided and a divinely inspired, truthful legislator.

Also, Muslim abolitionists in the 19th century also did argue for eradication of slavery based on their understanding of the institution as not endorsed by Islam but one that due to being a remnant of jahilliyah in pagan Arabia was an institutionalized practice which Islam sought to gradually eradicate from societies with the encouragement in the Sunnah, which is a big part of how we emulate Prophet :saws:.

So, the analogy of salah (prayer) is not apt in this case, because salah is fardh (required) and one of the five essential pillars of Islam. However, slavery is not fardh (required) nor wajib (obligatory) nor recommended as per the Sunnah (prophetic footsteps) which is extremely clear that freeing the slave is the spirit of Islam.

For the record, there is nothing in Islam for which we should apologize or about which anyone need think badly; that said, we should also be careful when we talk about slavery or any other aspect of Islam as Islam is holistic and based on human rights and concern for humanity more so than any other religion and to not be able to understand that is to not be able to understand Islam.

No amount of Muslim countries can repeal a law of the Qur'aan.

If, hypothetically, all the Muslim countries in the world come together and ban Salaah, does that mean Muslims must stop performing Salaah? According to your logic, they should, because "What about all the Muslim countries who have banned it? Don't they count?"

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

That which you mentioned, sister, about Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه abolishing slavery: It's something we've always heard, but for some time now I've been trying to find the source of that narration in any of our reliable Kitaabs of Islaamic history, and have not as yet come across it. I know that certain `Ulamaa from the Indo-Pak subcontinent like Maulana Shibli Nu`mani has mentioned it, but we need the find the actual source of this claim, which of the Mu'arrikheen (historians of Islaam) have narrated it, etc.

[kritikvernunft]

You could spend your whole life using various kinds of sharp and dangerous knives to make deep and painful cuts in other people's bodies, and to make them bleed profusely from their gaping wounds, and extract pieces of red flesh from them, and then make them swallow the one poison after the other, and irradiate them with all kinds of strange chemicals, while many of these people would die an excruciating death, while you torture them with your knives, poisons, and irradiation, and still nobody would think wrong of you. On the contrary, they would praise you, and pay you lots of money, because your surgeries were simply the lesser evil in those cases. So, what could be so fundamentally wrong with slavery? It just needs to be the lesser evil, and then this evil would also be a good thing. Strange but true, there is nothing wrong with doing lots of evil, as long as your evils are the lesser ones! ;-)

[ardianto]

Are we allowed to attack a village and capture its people to be enslaved?.

[talibilm]

Are we allowed to attack a village and capture its people to be enslaved?.

No, unless untill they chase Muslims from their homes or we know surely they are preparing to attack Muslims or colluding to attack muslims with the enemy of Muslims. Only on the last two conditions Preemptive strikes are allowed in islam but still this hadith is to be followed.

RULES OF WAR


Before engaging in battle, the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) instructed his soldiers:


1. “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)


2. “Do not practice treachery or mutilation.(Al-Muwatta)


3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.(Al-Muwatta)


4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)


5. “If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)


6. “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)


7. “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)


8. “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them,
exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)


9. “No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud).


10. “Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)

[Zafran]

No amount of Muslim countries can repeal a law of the Qur'aan.

If, hypothetically, all the Muslim countries in the world come together and ban Salaah, does that mean Muslims must stop performing Salaah? According to your logic, they should, because "What about all the Muslim countries who have banned it? Don't they count?"

what? are you saying the salah (a pillar of Islam/shariah) is as important as slavery (a non pillar of Islam/shariah) ? - Frankly The verses of Quran about "right hand possess" seem to be giving some sort of order about how to treat women slaves in a society that didnt value women (pre pagan Arabs) - especially after war - as Search said a practical solution. The countless avenues of freeing slaves in Islam which are highly encouraged/ slow abolition of slavery.

Lets not forget the countless scholars of Islam that have supported the ban on slavery. From Al Azher, to the deoband to the salafis etc etc -

[Karl]

what? so banning slavery is a "Kuffar" rule??

Of course, the British Empire banned slavery and that power and influence was immense as they ruled most of the world and now their spawn the US empire exerts its immense power and influence.

[Zafran]

Of course, the British Empire banned slavery and that power and influence was immense as they ruled most of the world and now their spawn the US empire exerts its immense power and influence.

So slavery was a good thing and we should have kept it? most of the Muslim institutions in the world from different parts of the world with different schools of thought agree that slavery should be banned - are they being controlled by the US?

[islamirama]

I sure do miss the old crew. Members were more informed on Islam back then and were also willing to do a little research before posting willy nilly without understanding the seriousness of their actions. Whatever you say is written down and you will be held accountable for on J-day.

with that said. Here are the answers you were looking for OP




What is the ruling on intimacy with slave women?

Allaah has permitted it. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)

6. Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame”

[al-Mu’minoon 23:6; al-Ma’aarij 70:30]

If a slave becomes a Muslim after , his right to be freed from slavery because of his Islam is superceded by the right of the mujaahid whose right to enslave him took effect before he was a Muslim.

More on all this at: https://islamqa.info/en/13737

-----------------

What is a “right hand servant”? Does the owner of a “right hand servant” have to be married?


If Allaah enables the Muslim mujahideen to defeat kaafir enemies in war, then the men may be killed, ransomed, set free without ransom or enslaved. The choice between these four options is to be made by the ruler, according to what he thinks is the best course.

With regard to the women, they become slaves and “those whom one's right hand possesses” (described as a “right hand servant” in the question). Male children also become slaves. The ruler shares out these slaves among the mujaahideen.

Islam limited the sources of slaves which existed before the mission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to just one source, namely slavery resulting from capturing prisoners from among the kuffaar.

Islam treated female slaves more kindly in their enslavement than other cultures did. Their honour was not considered to be permissible to anyone by way of prostitution, which was the fate of female prisoners of war in most cases. Rather Islam made them the property of their masters alone, and forbade anyone else to also have intercourse with them, even if that was his son. Islam made it their right to become free through a contract of manumission; it encouraged setting them free and promised reward for that. Islam made setting slaves free an obligation in the case of some kinds of expiation (kafaarah), such as the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce in which a man said to his wife, “You are to me as my mother’s back”), and breaking oaths. They received the best treatment from their masters, as was enjoined by the pure sharee’ah.

Secondly:

A mujaahid does not have to be married in order to gain possession of a “slave whom one’s right hand possesses.” None of the scholars expressed such a view.

Thirdly:

If a mujaahid takes possession of a female slave or male slave, it is permissible for him to sell them. In either case – whether one acquires a slave through battle or through purchase – it is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with a female slave until she has had a period from which it may be ascertained that she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant then he must wait until she gives birth.


For many reasons, including the fact that the Muslims have long since given up jihad, slavery is now very rare. This means that the Muslims must be extra cautious by examining any case in which it is claimed that someone is a slave, whether male or female.


Full answer at : https://islamqa.info/en/12562


------------------------------------------

Intercourse with a slave woman is not regarded as zina (adultery)


Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her. This is not regarded as adultery as suggested in the question. Allaah says, describing the believers (interpretation of the meaning):

“those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)

Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess,__ for then, they are free from blame”

[al-Mu’minoon 23:5]


source: https://islamqa.info/en/20802

------------------

Does a slave woman become free if her master marries her?.

The scholars are unanimously agreed that it is not permissible for the master to marry his slave woman, because the contract of ownership is stronger than the contract of marriage, and it contains all the same conditions as the marriage contract and more. It is permissible for him to marry the slave woman of another man if the conditions of that are fulfilled

more at https://islamqa.info/en/128160

-------------------------------------------


Islam and slavery


Slaves in Islam were better treated then free people in kuffar lands. Y

Read more about it here: https://islamqa.info/en/94840

[Zafran]

I sure do miss the old crew. Members were more informed on Islam back then and were also willing to do a little research before posting willy nilly without understanding the seriousness of their actions. Whatever you say is written down and you will be held accountable for on J-day.

with that said. Here are the answers you were looking for OP




What is the ruling on intimacy with slave women?

Allaah has permitted it. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)

6. Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame”

[al-Mu’minoon 23:6; al-Ma’aarij 70:30]

If a slave becomes a Muslim after , his right to be freed from slavery because of his Islam is superceded by the right of the mujaahid whose right to enslave him took effect before he was a Muslim.

More on all this at: https://islamqa.info/en/13737

-----------------

What is a “right hand servant”? Does the owner of a “right hand servant” have to be married?


If Allaah enables the Muslim mujahideen to defeat kaafir enemies in war, then the men may be killed, ransomed, set free without ransom or enslaved. The choice between these four options is to be made by the ruler, according to what he thinks is the best course.

With regard to the women, they become slaves and “those whom one's right hand possesses” (described as a “right hand servant” in the question). Male children also become slaves. The ruler shares out these slaves among the mujaahideen.

Islam limited the sources of slaves which existed before the mission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to just one source, namely slavery resulting from capturing prisoners from among the kuffaar.

Islam treated female slaves more kindly in their enslavement than other cultures did. Their honour was not considered to be permissible to anyone by way of prostitution, which was the fate of female prisoners of war in most cases. Rather Islam made them the property of their masters alone, and forbade anyone else to also have intercourse with them, even if that was his son. Islam made it their right to become free through a contract of manumission; it encouraged setting them free and promised reward for that. Islam made setting slaves free an obligation in the case of some kinds of expiation (kafaarah), such as the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce in which a man said to his wife, “You are to me as my mother’s back”), and breaking oaths. They received the best treatment from their masters, as was enjoined by the pure sharee’ah.

Secondly:

A mujaahid does not have to be married in order to gain possession of a “slave whom one’s right hand possesses.” None of the scholars expressed such a view.

Thirdly:

If a mujaahid takes possession of a female slave or male slave, it is permissible for him to sell them. In either case – whether one acquires a slave through battle or through purchase – it is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with a female slave until she has had a period from which it may be ascertained that she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant then he must wait until she gives birth.


For many reasons, including the fact that the Muslims have long since given up jihad, slavery is now very rare. This means that the Muslims must be extra cautious by examining any case in which it is claimed that someone is a slave, whether male or female.


Full answer at : https://islamqa.info/en/12562


------------------------------------------

Intercourse with a slave woman is not regarded as zina (adultery)


Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her. This is not regarded as adultery as suggested in the question. Allaah says, describing the believers (interpretation of the meaning):

“those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)

Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess,__ for then, they are free from blame”

[al-Mu’minoon 23:5]


source: https://islamqa.info/en/20802

------------------

Does a slave woman become free if her master marries her?.

The scholars are unanimously agreed that it is not permissible for the master to marry his slave woman, because the contract of ownership is stronger than the contract of marriage, and it contains all the same conditions as the marriage contract and more. It is permissible for him to marry the slave woman of another man if the conditions of that are fulfilled

more at https://islamqa.info/en/128160

-------------------------------------------


Islam and slavery


Slaves in Islam were better treated then free people in kuffar lands. Y

Read more about it here: https://islamqa.info/en/94840

Googling IslamQA isnt research.

[islamirama]

Googling IslamQA isnt research.

providing answers with dhaleel is research.

And yes it is, here's a definition for you:

- careful and organized study or gathering of information about a specific topic.

[Zafran]

providing answers with dhaleel is research.

And yes it is, here's a definition for you:

- careful and organized study or gathering of information about a specific topic.

you did non - you just posted Islam Q and A answers - You could have just told people to ask sheikh google, which of course leaves out many unanswered questions - you know the hard ones that Islam Qand A cant answer or will not answer.

[talibilm]

That which you mentioned, sister, about Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه abolishing slavery: It's something we've always heard, but for some time now I've been trying to find the source of that narration in any of our reliable Kitaabs of Islaamic history, and have not as yet come across it. I know that certain `Ulamaa from the Indo-Pak subcontinent like Maulana Shibli Nu`mani has mentioned it, but we need the find the actual source of this claim, which of the Mu'arrikheen (historians of Islaam) have narrated it, etc.

:sl: Bro

May be it was this

Umar on Freedom: When you did you enslave people although they are born free?

Abu Amina Elias • July 18, 2012
Ibn Abd Al-Hakim reported: Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, said that a man from the people of Egypt came to Umar ibn Al-Khattab and said, “O leader of the believers, I seek refuge in you from injustice!” Umar replied, “You have sought someone willing.” The man said, “I competed with the son of Amr ibn Al-‘As and I won, but he started striking me with a whip and saying: I am the son of the dignified!” Upon this, Umar wrote to Amr ordering him to travel to him with his son. He came with his son and Umar said, “Where is the Egyptian?” He gave him the whip and told him to strike the son of Amr. The man started striking him while Umar was saying, “Strike the son of the illiterates!” Anas said, “By Allah, the man struck him and we loved his striking, and he did not stop until we wished he stopped.” Then Umar said to the Egyptian, “Direct it to Amr.” The Egyptian said, “O leader of the believers, it was only his son who struck me and I have settled the score.” Umar said to Amr, “Since when did you enslave the people though they were born from their mothers in freedom?” Amr said, “O leader of the believers, I did not know about this and he did not tell me.”

Source: Futuh Masr 290

وأخرج ابن عبد الحكم عن أنس رضي الله عنه أن رجلاً من أهل مصر أتى عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه فقال يا أمير المؤمنين عائذ بك من الظلم قال عذتَ معَاذاً قال سابقت ابن عمرو بن العاص فسبقته فحعل يضربني بالسوط ويقول أنا ابن الأكرمين فكتب عمر إلى عمرو رضي الله عنهما يأمره بالقدوم ويقدَم بابنه معه فقدم فقال عمر أين المصري؟ خذ السوط ضرب فجعل يضربه بالسوط ويقول عمر إضرب ابن الألأمَينْ قال أنس فضرب والله لقد ضربه ونحن نحب ضربه؛ فلما أقلع عنه حتى تمنينا أنه يرفع عنه ثم قال للمصري ضَعْ على صلعة عمرو فقال يا أمير المؤمنين إِنّما ابنه الذي ضربني وقد استَقَدْت منه فقال عمر لعمرو مذ كم تعبدتم الناس وقد ولدتهم أمهاتهم أحراراً؟ قال يا أمير المؤمنين لم أعلم ولم يأتني. كذا في منتخب كنز العمال

290 ابن عبدالحكم في فتوح مصر

Its Said the United Nations charter had borrowed this statement of Umar R.A. and its still being used while mentioning slavery

[Love_Sahabah]

Remember that prophet Muhammad PBUH came at a time of widespread slavery.
Quran also mentions freeing slaves as good deeds. How come we never talk about that?




Did we not show him the two paths? He should choose the difficult path. Which one is the difficult path? The freeing of slaves. Feeding, during the time of hardship... [90:10-14]



Freeing slaves is called righteousness.

Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west. Righteous are those who believe in God, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; and they give the money, cheerfully, to the relatives, the orphans, the needy, the traveller, the beggars, and to free the slaves... [2:177]

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Umar on Freedom: When you did you enslave people although they are born free?

Abu Amina Elias • July 18, 2012
Ibn Abd Al-Hakim reported: Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, said that a man from the people of Egypt came to Umar ibn Al-Khattab and said, “O leader of the believers, I seek refuge in you from injustice!” Umar replied, “You have sought someone willing.” The man said, “I competed with the son of Amr ibn Al-‘As and I won, but he started striking me with a whip and saying: I am the son of the dignified!” Upon this, Umar wrote to Amr ordering him to travel to him with his son. He came with his son and Umar said, “Where is the Egyptian?” He gave him the whip and told him to strike the son of Amr. The man started striking him while Umar was saying, “Strike the son of the illiterates!” Anas said, “By Allah, the man struck him and we loved his striking, and he did not stop until we wished he stopped.” Then Umar said to the Egyptian, “Direct it to Amr.” The Egyptian said, “O leader of the believers, it was only his son who struck me and I have settled the score.” Umar said to Amr, “Since when did you enslave the people though they were born from their mothers in freedom?” Amr said, “O leader of the believers, I did not know about this and he did not tell me.”

No, in that narration, Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه is speaking about children born from a woman who is a slave; that according to him, those children are born free and are not slaves. That is what the narration is speaking about. It is not speaking about abolishing slavery.

In fact, it's funny people should mention that he abolished slavery. Why do I say so? Very simple:

Who killed Hadhrat `Umar ibn al-Khattaab رضي الله عنه?

Abu Lu'lu al-Majoosi.

What was Abu Lu'lu? A Persian slave.

If Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه had abolished slavery, how did he get killed by a slave? There should have been no slaves left, isn't it? And Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه knew this particular slave very well.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

Yes, that is true. And to find out why, I suggest you read my original lengthy post on this thread itself.

Caliph Umar :ra: was killed by a Persian slave. That is because he'd abolished slavery before the Persian Empire fell, but when the Persian Empire fell, this repeal of slavery could not be sustained.

Btw, I'm not sure why you haven't found any narrations of Umar :ra: repealing slavery in Arabia, because this is a well-known historical fact that I've read in almost all history books.

No, in that narration, Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه is speaking about children born from a woman who is a slave; that according to him, those children are born free and are not slaves. That is what the narration is speaking about. It is not speaking about abolishing slavery.

In fact, it's funny people should mention that he abolished slavery. Why do I say so? Very simple:

Who killed Hadhrat `Umar ibn al-Khattaab رضي الله عنه?

Abu Lu'lu al-Majoosi.

What was Abu Lu'lu? A Persian slave.

If Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه had abolished slavery, how did he get killed by a slave? There should have been no slaves left, isn't it? And Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه knew this particular slave very well.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

What I mean by our Kitaabs of Taareekh (history) are books such as Tabaqaat al-Kubraa of Imaam ibn Sa`d, al-Kaamil fit-Taareekh of Imaam ibn al-Atheer, al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah of Imaam ibn Katheer, Siyar A`laam an-Nubalaa of Imaam adh-Dhahabi, Taareekh-ul-Khulafaa of Imaam as-Suyooti, Asd-ul-Ghaabah fee Ma`rifat-is-Sahaabah, al-Isaabah fee Tamyeez-is-Sahaabah, Futooh-ush-Shaam, Futooh-ul-Misr, Futooh-ul-`Iraaq, etc. I have not as yet found it in any of the Kitaabs mentioned here, which are the canonical works of Islaamic history. If someone can show me the narration from any of these canonical Kitaabs of ours (the original books of Islaamic history), that will be very appreciated, In Shaa Allaah.

[Serinity]

:salam:

I have a question:

if Islam came to abolish slavery, why didn't Allah do so? (from what I understand)

There was also one time where I read that the Prophet :saw: bought a slave and released/freed the slave immediately. So what is it?
And Allah :swt: knows best.

[Al Sultan]

Okay thanks for explaining but I do have some questions...

1) what happens if she gets pregnant without them getting married?
2) What if the man wants to marry her but he's already got 4 wives? Can he still have intercourse with her even though he's got 4 wives?
3) what if he never wants to marry her but wants to keep her as a slave forever and have intercourse
(with her permission)

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

Please both of you read post #39, as InshaAllah (God-willing) it should answer some basic questions. Jazkamullahu khair.

Okay thanks for explaining but I do have some questions...

1) what happens if she gets pregnant without them getting married?
2) What if the man wants to marry her but he's already got 4 wives? Can he still have intercourse with her even though he's got 4 wives?
3) what if he never wants to marry her but wants to keep her as a slave forever and have intercourse
(with her permission)

:salam:

I have a question:

if Islam came to abolish slavery, why didn't Allah do so? (from what I understand)

There was also one time where I read that the Prophet :saw: bought a slave and released/freed the slave immediately. So what is it?
And Allah :swt: knows best.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Okay thanks for explaining but I do have some questions...

1) what happens if she gets pregnant without them getting married?
2) What if the man wants to marry her but he's already got 4 wives? Can he still have intercourse with her even though he's got 4 wives?
3) what if he never wants to marry her but wants to keep her as a slave forever and have intercourse
(with her permission)

1) The moment she gives birth, she becomes what is known as an "Umm Walad", and gets her freedom the moment he (the one whom she is the Jaariyah of) dies. She can also get her freedom before then by purchasing it from him.

2) If he has four wives, he can't marry her. He can still have intercourse with her, though.

3) He can do so.

والله تعالى أعلم

[Al Sultan]

Do you have any evidences,or hadiths? to prove this?

[talibilm]

:salam:

I have a question:

if Islam came to abolish slavery, why didn't Allah do so? (from what I understand)

There was also one time where I read that the Prophet :saw: bought a slave and released/freed the slave immediately. So what is it?
And Allah :swt: knows best.

This question is better answered by Bilaal radhiyallahu anhu, one of the earliest Muslims and Slave but was HONOURED to be the first and chief Mu'azzin of the Holy Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam presents the issue of slavery thus:


Bilaal radhiyallahu anhu was once asked why was slavery not banned in Islaam? Bilaal radhiyallahu anhu answered: 'The world is now based on the labour of the slaves. Should Islaam or any other system have sought to stop the institute of slavery all at once it would lead to universal anarchy and disturbance in which both masters and slaves would suffer. The masters' loss is clear, and as for the slaves they would find themselves without anyone to take care of their needs, unaccustomed to independence and self reliance ( my Opinion: like tamed animals all of a sudden left in a wild forest, it said they die easily there ) they would in most cases seek to satisfy their needs through criminal assaults and extortions. Crimes of all sorts would spread widely, society would suffer incurably and there would be no more peace or security.'


'To help the slaves' Bilaal radhiyallahu anhu continued, 'Islaam has done what no other system or religion has done or could do. The Tawraat enjoined slavery and Christianity was silent about it. But Islaam has left no choice except that it urged the emancipation of slaves. It promises great rewards for emancipating a slave, and makes this emancipation one of the foremost duties incumbent upon a believer as a manifestation of his gratitude for the blessing of Allah'.


Bilaal radhiyallahu anhu added: 'Islaam does not deny a freed slave any high responsible position'. He quoted Zayd Ibne Haarithah who was installed by the Holy Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam commander of an army. His son Usaamah was granted the same distinction. Again the Holy Prophet's own female cousin was married to Zayd who was a freed man. Islaam broke the tribal pride and has fostered true human equality.


Freeing of slaves was almost mandatory. A Hadeeth shows:


Zazaan reported that Ibne 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 Ibne 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 this. I heard Allah's Messenger sallallahu alayhi wasallam saying, He who beats a slave without recognizable offence of his or slaps him then expiation for it is that he should set him free.


The manumission of slaves was our Prophet's sallalahu alaihi wasallam final goal and he chose many a wise ways to achieve this as we have already read. The Prophet's sallallahu alayhi wasallam final sermon was a great charter of liberty...... 'As to your slaves, male and female feed them with what you eat yourself and clothe them with what you wear. If you cannot keep them or they commit any fault, discharge them. They are Allah's people like the rest of you and be kind to them'.


Surely the Holy Qur'aan and Ahaadeeth are a glow and radiant in its wise ways for the understanding man.


Riyaadhul Jannah
Volume: 2/Issue: 5

[aaj]

Do you have any evidences,or hadiths? to prove this?

You questions have been answered and evidence provided by several members. Whats with the obsession? There are no conditions that exist today that would allow you to have slaves. What ISIS is preaching is all unislamic and incorrect.

[Al Sultan]

no I am not listening to ISIS ---- are you talking about? I was just making sure

[زهراء]

no I am not listening to ISIS ---- are you talking about? I was just making sure

Kindly watch your language.

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Munajjid wrote a good article on the issue. You can read it here:

https://islamqa.info/en/94840

[czgibson]

Greetings,

No wonder there is so much confusion about this topic; nobody seems to be able to explain it clearly.

From the article linked above:

No human being has the right to restrict this freedom or take away that choice unlawfully; whoever dares to do that is a wrongdoer and oppressor.

So why does Islam permit slavery, which involves precisely this?

we should examine the matter with fairness and with the aim of seeking the truth, and we should examine the details of the rulings on slavery in Islam, with regard to the sources and reasons for it, and how to deal with the slave and how his rights and duties are equal to those of the free man, and the ways in which he may earn his freedom,

If the slave's rights and duties are equal to those of a free man, then why would he need to earn his freedom at all?

Out of interest, is a female slave-owner allowed to have sex with one of her male slaves without it counting as zina?

Peace

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

A woman can't have intercourse with her male slave.

[MearazAhmed]

It cannot be considered cheating because men had multiple wives at this time. It was a part of the culture in the area to behind with.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Out of interest, is a female slave-owner allowed to have sex with one of her male slaves without it counting as zina?

Peace

An incident like that happened happened during the reign of Caliph 'Umar :ra: (may God be pleased with him), and the woman's action had not counted as definite zina (fornication) as per its definition and she was not punished for having intercourse with the male slave:

In the article "Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam" Ziba Mir-Hosseini discusses this incident: "A few years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him), a free Muslim woman chose one of her younger male slaves as a sexual partner. To stop her, her kinsmen took her to the caliph 'Umar [:ra:] and demanded that she be punished for illicit sex (zina). The woman saw nothing wrong in what she had done and justified her action by invoking the Qur'anic verse that permits sexual relations between a master and his female slaves. 'I thought,' she said, 'that ownership by the right hand [i.e., slavery] made lawful to me what it makes lawful to men.' Baffled and disarmed by her implicit claim to have God's permission, 'Umar turned for advice to the Companions of the Prophet, who said: 'She has [given] the book of Exalted God an interpretation that is not its interpretation.' 'Umar did not punish the woman for illicit sex, but forbade her from marrying any free man, and ordered the male slave not to approach her. The case was settled [...]."

[czgibson]

Greetings,

'Umar did not punish the woman for illicit sex, but forbade her from marrying any free man, and ordered the male slave not to approach her. The case was settled [...]."

I like the story, but surely forbidding her from marrying any free man is a punishment?

Peace

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Greetings,

I like the story, but surely forbidding her from marrying any free man is a punishment?

Peace

Yes, I agree with you that it is a type of punishment. Yet her action did not seem to count as definite zina, which was your original question. :)

Edited: Oh, wait, I just had a radical thought. Maybe it's really freedom, freedom to do as she wants without a male as mate. Sort of like "women going their own way." :p

Survival and mating are the success model for animals in the wild. That's the best they will ever do. But marriage and children are not the highest pinnacle of success for women if they're given the opportunity, perforce, to be able to be and do something else. Many great women who lived on Earth never married, and so the question is what did they dedicate their lives to? Women accomplished and contributed far greater miracles in fields like literature when they were not married like Jane Austen and Louisa May Alcott and Emily Dickinson, spirituality like Rabia Basri and Mary peace be upon her (mother of Jesus, peace be upon him) and Mother Teresa, discovery, human endeavor, or entrepreneurship like Florence Nightingale, Susan B. Anthony, Helen Keller, Coco Chanel, and Oprah, and thanks to women like Queen Elizabeth the First, a woman knows to know a woman's sovereignty is desirable above all else.

[kritikvernunft]

1) what happens if she gets pregnant without them getting married?

A pregnant slave does not need to get married. The father is simply assumed to be her owner. There is nothing to fix there.

2) What if the man wants to marry her but he's already got 4 wives? Can he still have intercourse with her even though he's got 4 wives?

Slave girls do not count towards that tally. That is why the Ottoman Sultan had hundreds of slave girls in his harem. There is no limit on the number of slave girls a man can possess. Furthermore, the Sultan would never marry a wife. He would only have slave girls. A marriage creates an alliance with the bride's family. This was not a desirable outcome for the Ottoman Sultan, because that would make his bride's family unequal to and above the other subjects in his empire. Therefore, marriage was considered haraam for the Sultan. He was supposed to buy ample supplies of slave girls and make do with those. And indeed, this also means that the Ottoman Sultan was always the son of a slave girl.

3) what if he never wants to marry her but wants to keep her as a slave forever and have intercourse (with her permission)

Sex with slave girls is halal. So, what would be the problem? Again, there is nothing to fix here.

The slavery arrangement pretty much guarantees that both parents will be available to raise their offspring, if only, because the mother is a slave girl and is not allowed nor in a position to put an end to that arrangement. Hence, in biological terms, it is an absolutely suitable situation to raise children. If they would be wives, they would have to voluntarily behave like that. This is only suitable for women who are firm believers. You should not marry the other ones, because in that context, they are only suitable as slave girls.

[Serinity]

thanks to women like Queen Elizabeth the First, a woman knows to know a woman's sovereignty is desirable above all else.

I read a hadith were the Prophet :saw: said a nation that makes a woman its leader, will never succeed.

Any scholar??

[Kiro]

I am also confused about slavery in Islam.

What if someone finds it degrading to become a slave of a human?

Cuz we are all slaves of Allah, none else. :/

not necessarily but maybe today but that's today

people back then were use to it, they were use to be being slaves because that was the time

[Kiro]

So why does Islam permit slavery, which involves precisely this?



If the slave's rights and duties are equal to those of a free man, then why would he need to earn his freedom at all?


Peace

because you still need to obey the master similarly like a employer to the employee

[ardianto]

because you still need to obey the master similarly like a employer to the employee

Employee obey the employer by his own will, and he get salary as compensation forv it. While in slavery the slave is being forced to obey the master without his own consent.

Rights and duties of slave is not equal as free man.

[ardianto]

My question to those who support slavery: Are you willing to be slave?

[kritikvernunft]

My question to those who support slavery: Are you willing to be slave?

For a woman, the difference is very subtle. If she is a free woman, but she is likely to use her freedom to leave, nobody right in his mind will be interested in marrying her. If she is a slave, she cannot leave. So, that would make her more suitable to raise children with than a free woman who is likely to leave. Free women are only suitable as wives if they are unlikely to use their freedom.

For men, slavery was used in different ways. All the ministers of the Sultan were slaves. Many of his governors too. Most of his generals too. In that context, slavery is just a way to run the State. The Ottoman State did not hire civil servants. The Ottoman State bought them or confiscated them (often through "Devşirme"), preferably from far away, and with no family in the empire itself. Is it a disaster to be a slave of the State? For many, it wasn't. The Ottoman Viziers, Grand Viziers, (prime minister), Beys (governor), and army generals have never been mentioned to complain that they were the slaves of the Sultan.

In fact, all the best jobs in the Ottoman empire were done by slaves. For those jobs, you could not be born as a Muslim, and certainly not as a Turk or an Arab, because as you know, Muslims are supposed to be born free. They could not be enslaved by the Sultan. So, they could also impossibly become prime minister either, because that job was always for one of his slaves.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

I'm quoting the relevant part of a larger fatwa (ruling) I found:

"It is permissible for a woman to be an authority and leader in a position for which she is qualified, although some positions are specific only to men such as the position of prayer leader and supreme commander of the armed forces. Some classical scholars prohibited women from taking positions of authority and leadership based upon the statement of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him: لَنْ يُفْلِحَ قَوْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمْ امْرَأَةً 'A people will not succeed who are commanded by a woman.'"

These scholars understood this statement to be general in meaning and therefore they did not allow women to take any public position of authority. However, other scholars understood this statement to be specific to commanding the armed forces and therefore allowed women to hold the position of judge. Ibn Hajar writes: وَخَالَفَ ابْنُ جَرِيرٍ الطَّبَرِيُّ فَقَالَ يَجُوزُ أَنْ تَقْضِيَ فِيمَا تُقْبَلُ شَهَادَتُهَا فِيهِ وَأَطْلَقَ بَعْضُ الْمَالِكِيَّةِ الْجَوَازَ Ibn Jareer At-Tabari disagreed with those who did not allow women to be judges and he said it is permissible for her to judge in matters in which her testimony is acceptable and some of the Maliki scholars gave them unrestricted permission to do so."

I also found another fatwa (ruling) that said the following in its entirety:

"Woman can lead other women in prayers while standing among them in the same row. Allah (swt) has given Muslim women the right to vote and voice their opinions and participate in politics. Qur’an (60:12) has told Muhammad (saws) when believing women come to him and swear their allegiance to Islam to accept their oath. Qur’an and Muhammad (saws) do not order nor forbid a woman from holding important positions in government."

Finally, I, not being any type of scholar, cannot answer your question and merely note that Queen of Sheba known to us as Bilqis is mentioned in the Quran as a ruler of a nation as a woman in honored terms, even though she and her nation subscribed to sun worship. King Solomon (peace be upon him) sent her a letter asking her to submit to Allah with the words, “In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful: Be you not exalted against me, but come to me as Muslims” (Quran 27:30-31). Bilqis consulted her advisers after receiving the letter and her advisers advise, but they also express full confidence in her wisdom and ability to make an independent judgment in the best interests of the nation: “They said: We have great strength, and great ability for war, but it is for you to command: so think over what you will command” (Quran 27:33). Bilqis decides to seek a peaceful resolution to the possible conflict realizing that a war would entail bloodshed and devastation of her nation, and so she decides to bribe King Solomon (peace be upon him) with a gift into him giving up his quest: “She said: ‘Lo! Kings, when they enter a township, ruin it and make the honor of its people shame. Thus will they do! But lo! I am going to send a present to them, and see with what (answer) my messengers return’” (Quran 27:33-35). He sees through her ploy and rejects her gift. After having her gift rejected, she makes the decision to herself go to King Solomon (peace be upon him) as part of foreign diplomacy to see if there is something else that can be worked out still.

King Solomon (peace be upon him) prepares two tests for her to gauge her mettle and to see if she recognizes the singularity of the Truth. While Bilqis is on her way to him, King Solomon (peace be upon him) asks for someone to volunteer to bring her throne to him. Solomon orders the throne, the unique symbol of the queen’s power and glory, to be disguised, in his palace to test whether she has the wisdom to recognize it: “Disguise her throne for her that we may see whether she will be guided (to recognize her throne) or she will be one of those not guided” (Quran 27:41). She recognizes the throne and proves herself to be among the guided.

When Bilqis then mistakes an area of glass covering water as a pool lifting the hem of her gown so as to not be wet and recognizes her error, she simultaneously realizes she has been fooled by the material world and has attached excessive importance to created objects in the seen world like the sun and accepts Allah as the Lord of the seen and unseen world: “My Lord! Verily, I have wronged myself and I submit, with Solomon, to God, Lord of the Universe” (Quran 27:44). By accepting Islam, Bilqis shows evidence of her wisdom and ability to exercise great independent judgment and receive divine guidance. Bilqis knew, after all, to recognize she was not only before a ruler of a great kingdom but a messenger of God as well. She repented, gave up sun worship, accepted submission to God, and her nation followed suit.

I read a hadith were the Prophet :saw: said a nation that makes a woman its leader, will never succeed.

Any scholar??

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[Al Sultan]

Okay thanks for answering,pretty much I understand everything in slavery in islam now,thanks to brilliant intelligent people! but I have ONE more question left..what if that slave is a kafir? or hindu,is it okay to have sex with her and marry her or not.

[Al Sultan]

I'm sorry,i just got --- off because he thought I was a muslim listening to ISIS,so I told him I wasn't,again I'm sorry,i just cant control my anger when someone tells me I follow ISIS or something..

[aaj]

Okay thanks for answering,pretty much I understand everything in slavery in islam now,thanks to brilliant intelligent people! but I have ONE more question left..what if that slave is a kafir? or hindu,is it okay to have sex with her and marry her or not.

This too has been answered in the previous questions. Islam allows only one source of slavery, that is the kuffar army who wages war with Muslims and is defeated. You cannot marry a slave and if freed, you (male only) cannot marry anyone other than people of scriptures (muslims, christians, jews).

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

My question to those who support slavery: Are you willing to be slave?

I do believe Islam's original intended purpose was eradication of slavery through the blanket encouragement in the Sunnah (prophetic footsteps) to free slaves even though Quran tackled the reality of slavery as a preexisting institution within pagan Arabia since the days of jahilliya (ignorance).

That said, to answer your question (even if the question is not precisely directed at me but one which can clarify the matter for others who feel similarly), I see Islam's position on slavery specific to women as protective of their personhood and do not believe I would have minded been the life of a slave if practiced as actually envisioned in early days of Islam. The reasons for this is many, but let's go through some of them:
(1) Because typically invading armies or genocidal military forces historically and to present day in many countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina or Rwanda rape women as an instrument of war. Muslims engaged in jihad, however, are forbidden from perpetrating on any person under any circumstance rape as an instrument of war. A woman's honor is considered sacred regardless of her religion, and her dignity and honor are taken as inviolable.
(2) Women historically and to present day have been captured without in society having any clear ideas of their status except as subjugated pleasure-givers and prostitutes easily discarded like the Japanese Imperial Army did before and during WWII to 200,000 women to girls as young as 12 and are made out to be "invisible." However, in Islam, any women from the losing side are given the benefit and rock-solid protection of a status as a maid servant or slave whose existence is acknowledged and recognized in society. They cannot be forced to copulate as their consent is considered vital to any physical relationship. And if the persons do engage in a physical relationship, her Islamic status is akin to "pilegesh," status that Hajar in the Bible had without the accompanying status of an actual wife.
(3) Typically, some women have been even killed when they outlive their usefulness as a sexual assault victim in rage in wars, something that happened when an American soldier raped a 14-year old Iraqi girl and killed the family and there is no way for any remaining relatives to be given justice. However, even the slightest of abuse of any slave (male or female) is disallowed in Islam and typically resulted in manumission as per the encouragement in the Sunnah (prophetic footsteps). And under Islam, since their personhood and status is recognized in society, slaves are allowed to present their grievances directly to Muslim authorities for any purpose including one's own or treatment of other relatives. Prophet :saws: said: “Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, his expiation is to manumit him.”
(4) Women have prostituted themselves after warfare or been prey to starvation or poverty in previous times because women were dependent then on menfolk for their livelihood. However, Muslim households are forced to take in women as maid servants. They are given a status as also a de facto member of the household, one who merits consideration of food, clothing, and shelter as the hadith states, avoiding the evil situation of prostitution and destitution and starvation. And they were also to be treated as brethren and not otherized. Prophet:saws: said: “Your servants are thy brethren. Allah has put them under your control. He could, if He willed, make you under their control. Thus, whoever has his brother under his control, let him feed him of his same food and dress him of his same dress. Never saddle them with work that goes beyond their capability. If the work happens to be somehow difficult, lend them a helping hand.”
(5) in America, masters were forbidden to engage in any type of education of their slaves and slaves in turn were also forbidden to read or write as the predominant idea was that such literacy would result in them not being easily controllable or subjugated as knowledge is power. However, the Sunnah (prophetic footsteps) encouraged education of slaves.
(6) In America, any child born to a slave retained the slave status of the mother and the mother too remained a slave. In Islam, a slave giving birth to any person that that woman and the baby now were automatically freed from their status as slaves.
(7) In America, the male owner did not marry the slave because the slave. However, in Islam, the male owner was encouraged to marry the female slave. Prophet :saws: said: “If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward.”
(8) In America, the tasks given to the slave did not merit any help from the owner and any menial tasks were considered the singular domain of the lesser being. However, in Islam, the owner was to help the slaves and not overburden the slave with any tasks and no task is considered menial for an able-bodied person.
(9) In America, slaves were bought and sold on the market like merchandise. However, that is forbidden in Islam and slaves were instead distributed to Muslim households.
(10) In America, there were few to no opportunities for a slave to buy his/her emancipation. However, Islam enjoined allowing slaves to buy their freedom and on top of them to give them money to start their new life as a free person. The Quran (24:33) says, “And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you.”

Slavery is not an ideal situation by any means for any person; and I don't want anyone to take my words as meaning otherwise. That said, slavery is the better alternative than nothing else or even worse evils, and thereby Islam affords people the benefit of slave status in the face of reality of warfare.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

[kritikvernunft]

In Islam, a slave giving birth to any person that that woman and the baby now were automatically freed from their status as slaves.

A man making children with a female slave would not want to destroy or debase his own offspring. He would rather transmit his own status to them. This biological urge will always overrule any social conventions. A true religion will recognize this, because a true religion is the incarnation of the fundamental rules in the blueprint of humanity.

However, in Islam, the male owner was encouraged to marry the female slave. Prophet :saws: said: “If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward.”

"Emancipating" does not mean "freeing" in this context. "Being free" is not what female slaves are necessarily looking for. To be freed from the man with whom they have children, will quite often not be well-received. But then again, since a wife is not more supposed to abandon her functions than a slave girl is, in practical terms, marrying a female slave does not change particularly much. So, yes, for purposes of social decorum, certainly, marry the slave girl ...

Slavery is not an ideal situation by any means for any person ...

Not all slavery are ideal situations. Conceded. Still, slave girls were competing for getting enslaved into the Ottoman Sultan's harem. Families would bribe the slave traders to take their girl instead. Furthermore, I really like the idea of a State governed exclusively by slaves. Both the Ottoman and Mamluk empires were like that. The Sultan was always the son of a slave girl. Further, you could not have any position in the Sultan's administration unless you were a slave. The Grand Vizier had to be a foreign slave. To me, rule by slaves looks like a perfectly-acceptable way of organizing the State, that is much better than the alternative. For example, only a slave can be a police officer. I really like the idea.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I'd also like to point out one important thing that makes Islam quite different if I haven't implicitly stressed that or made clear that distinction because it is an important one within the context of our discourse:

In human nature, and I'm speaking generally, for a man, to distribute his love among different women concurrently is not hard; however, it is nearly impossible for a woman to do the same as she desires only one man to truly love her and to whom she can give all her love. Generally, women are susceptible to words and actions of a man whereas men are seduced at first glance with a woman's figure, outward appearance, and mannerisms. Generally, men give love to get sex, but women give sex to get love. This means that if true noble Islamic character really did manifest in Muslim men, then, yes, women's emotions would be swayed favorably towards the men under whose protection they are afforded basic necessities and a status akin to a family member in the household even if the original reason for their status quo is war; and it should not be hard for us to imagine that both men and women in this situation can find themselves falling for another despite the adverse circumstances. Intercourse typically also has been an avenue in war or any near death experience of affirming life in face of the unfortunate other not so surviving. And forbidden romance contexts made Romeo and Juliet lovers instead of enemies, let's remember.

In Islam, let's also remember the woman, apart from having the right to accept or reject copulation, if she accepts to have a physical relationship, has a similar position to the wife like Biblical Hajar without the status of a wife. Therefore, the woman cannot be shared with others as she is regarded a trust given to man from God to look after just as one would any other family members. The woman's welfare and life are to be afforded protection from any internal or external harm or threat even at the cost to the man's own life because the real "man" in Islam is envisioned as one whose life in action is about keeping promises and honoring the trusts of God as per the Sunnah (prophetic footsteps). Islam emphasizes taking care of even animals to the eminent degree that we're 100% completely responsible for any creation of God under our protection and not taking care of even a cat as one's pet dooms one to Hell-fire.

Conversely, what you'll find on Amnesty International site in terms of articles whether in context of Japan or in Africa is that women typically who were caught in the warfare and made to be slaves were indeed as the term implies "sexual slaves," passed by different officers between themselves, servicing many men sexually as generally there was neither nor is any protection afforded to them nor any security or glimmer of hope for happiness or freedom. This is what being a "sexual slave" means and has meant; it is a dehumanizing experience because only the body is treated as a commodity to be used and abused for men not even paying for the privilege but instead the woman paying the price of having an inner compulsion to stay alive, though many have also committed suicide as a way to seek release from the sexual torture and debasement.

Since it's been brought up and at least exists on the periphery of our minds when we discuss this topic, I'd like to openly address the topic of Daesh. First and most important to note is that Daesh is a terrorist organization that is twisted and evil that undoubtedly is cultish and has sociopathic tendencies as well as a desire to prostitute themselves as murderers for fame on the Internet as a means of instilling further terror and disgust in International community. Daesh have captured non-Muslim women, specifically Yazidi women, and enslaved them; media articles have covered and captioned stories of them being sold on markets like chattel akin to the model of the slave market in the United States hundreds of years ago. I'd also read a self-confessed Daesh member writing that he thinks these infidels are unclean due to their beliefs and saying derogatory things about these women like they smell and need to take baths. This type of dehumanizing outlook is not what Islam envisions or wants when persons obtained in warfare are afforded protection as slaves because they are a trust from God to man, not rubbish of man for man. Amnesty International has reported that many Yazidi women were forcibly converted to Islam, which is a haram (forbidden) action and also many raped, which is also haram (forbiddden), and as reported by some news outlets some were passed around to fighters, which is also haram (forbidden), and many were so distraught at the brutality they'd witnessed or experienced that they committed suicide at the earliest available opportunity, all of which are onus on these so-called "men" because their abuse and neglect in parts led to this horrifying impasse. That is NOT Islam. Islam came to honor and elevate human beings, not humiliate them nor turn them away from the message of Islam with pernicious villainy and sadism. These women will require justice and if not available here then in the hereafter; and their witness and advocate will be God acting also as Judge (in the hereafter).

[kritikvernunft]

In human nature, and I'm speaking generally, for a man, to distribute his love among different women concurrently is not hard; however, it is nearly impossible for a woman to do the same as she desires only one man to truly love her and to whom she can give all her love.

Well, when people go to the shop to buy vegetables, they will chit-chat with the shop assistant, because indeed, they try to get along with each other. However, the essence is still the transaction at hand. Getting along is just a way to facilitate this transaction: vegetables for money. We can say "love" instead of "getting along" but that does not change anything to the essence: Without vegetables, no money. Without money, no vegetables. It would be weird to turn things upside down and claim that it is all about "getting along" instead of the transaction that they are trying to facilitate by getting along.

When it is about reproductive transactions, the real purpose is to reproduce successfully, and collaborate with the purpose of raising offspring. It is obvious that "getting along" will much facilitate this goal. Maybe we should not use the term "love" but just "getting along", because when we use the term "love", people will routinely turn things upside down. The most important thing then becomes "love" instead of the real, underlying transactions that should lead to successful reproduction. However, it is so obvious that if there were no real transaction underneath, nobody would be wasting their time with "love". Biological reality would simply not allow for that. In the struggle for survival, how could "love" be the important thing, and the reproductive transaction the unimportant one? In fact, man and woman do not even need to love each other to reproduce successfully. All these emotions are just a way to facilitate the process. These emotions will, however, never be what really matters.

In that sense, within the context of reproductive transactions, a man does not distribute "his love" among different women". A man distributes "his resources" among different women. It actually be quite hard to do that, because he will need enough resources in the first place.

[Serinity]

Is sexual slavery haram? Surely what people understand or think of as sexual slavery, is haram?

Surely forced sex is haraam? I don't like the term "sexual Slavery". Nonconsensual intercourse is haram, right?

And it is forbidden to enslave people except when there is war, and slavery is for what purpose in war??????

What Daesh is doing of slavery, is not Islamic. Slavery by abduction, is surely haram?

I don't like what Daesh is doing, and may Allah deal with them. Ameen.

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Non-consensual intercourse is never permissible.

[cooterhein]

Yes, it is permissible. Provided she is okay with it. He cannot force his concubine to have intercourse with him.

Citation please? In what specific examples of Sharia law is the requirement of consent mentioned, if ever?

[Zafran]

Citation please? In what specific examples of Sharia law is the requirement of consent mentioned, if ever?

"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm).

[kritikvernunft]

"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm).

In this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum, you can verify that the Imam Al Shaafii quote is about sex with a slave that you do not own: Limitations on forced sex. Malik, the founder of the Maliki madhhab, states in Al-Muwatta, that if a man rapes a slave girl, he must pay to the slave-owner an amount, and he will be subjected to a hadd punishment.[37]

In the very same page, you can find the following claim:

Sharia authorized the institution of slavery, and under Islamic law, Muslim men could have sexual relations with female captives and slaves without her consent.^[24][25]

In accordance with the NOR (No Original Research) policy of Wikipedia, and in accordance with the requirements of the historical method, they provide the following sources for this claim:

24. Mazrui, A. A. (1997). Islamic and Western values. Foreign Affairs, pp 118-132.
25. Ali, K. (2010). Marriage and slavery in early Islam. Harvard University Press.

By the way, no original research (NOR) means no self-invented point of view. Every claim must be attributed or at least attributable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...ginal_research. Concerning verifiability of this claim, the method says:

Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not demand that these published sources must be available online. They still allow paper-only sources. This is regrettable but probably inevitable, because not all possible sources are online already. In this case, it causes a problem, because the sources mentioned, Mazrui, A. A. (1997) and Ali, K. (2010), are themselves not original sources. They most likely refer to sources in historical fiqh/jurisprudence. The fact that their work is not online prevents us from drilling down into ijtihad/legal judgement and interpretation of the madhahib/law schools concerning this matter.

Still, if you want to reject the claim that there is no requirement for the owner of female captives or slave girls to obtain their consent for sexual intercourse, please, provide credible evidence that Mazrui's and Ali's investigations in historical fiqh/jurisprudence would be invalid.

[cooterhein]

"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm).

Can you tell me which country this applies to and what period of time? I'd like to try and see if I can look at the relevant section of their actual Sharia law.

[Zafran]

Can you tell me which country this applies to and what period of time? I'd like to try and see if I can look at the relevant section of their actual Sharia law.

classical shafi madhab, there is also the muwatta of imam malik which has the punishment for a rapist as a death penalty.

[Zafran]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not demand that these published sources must be available online. They still allow paper-only sources. This is regrettable but probably inevitable, because not all possible sources are online already. In this case, it causes a problem, because the sources mentioned, Mazrui, A. A. (1997) and Ali, K. (2010), are themselves not original sources. They most likely refer to sources in historical fiqh/jurisprudence. The fact that their work is not online prevents us from drilling down into ijtihad/legal judgement and interpretation of the madhahib/law schools concerning this matter.

1 - dont learn Islam from Wikipedia or sheikh google
2 - Cootherian asked for a classical sharia opinion - which I gave of course there is Maliks Muwatta as well.
3 - Fiqh is an ongoing process and not static in time and place - One can see the contemporary rulings from deoband/salafi/Azhari/Indonesian/Malaysian scholars - or your local scholar in the country you live in where its pretty unanimous that slavery is outlawed.

[kritikvernunft]

1 - dont learn Islam from Wikipedia or sheikh google

The opinions in Wikipedia are not backed by Wikipedia. According to the NOR (No Original Research) rules, Wikipedia does not back one single opinion. Wikipedia is not meant to be an original source. It is only meant to point to original sources. Wikipedia is effectively an index. The same holds true for Google (or duckduckgo.com which I use much more often than Google). Google is also just an index that attaches search results to keywords. Google does not claim anything at all about such search results, nor about the keywords given. Google only claims a nondescript association between tuples of keywords and search results. In this case, the opinion in Wikipedia is backed by the work of Mazrui, A. A. (1997) and Ali, K. (2010). I have personally not made any determination as to whether Mazrui's or Ali's work is valid. That is really another matter.

[cooterhein]

Here's a link pertaining to Sharia law on the Indian subcontinent from Aurangzeb through the late nineteenth, early 20th century.
https://books.google.com/books?id=No...ter%22&f=false

"A slave is the property of his master, and is therefore a fit subject for inheritance and all kinds of lawful contracts. He is also subject to his master's power, in so much that if a master should kill his slave he is not liable to retaliation. With female slaves a master has the milk-i mootut, or right of enjoyment, as already frequently observed, and his children by them have the same rights and privileges as the children by his wives."

From chapter 2, On the General Condition of Slaves, directly quoting the English translation of Sharia law in India under the Mughal Empire.

[kritikvernunft]

Here's a link pertaining to Sharia law on the Indian subcontinent from Aurangzeb through the late nineteenth, early 20th century.
https://books.google.com/books?id=No...ter%22&f=false

"A slave is the property of his master, and is therefore a fit subject for inheritance and all kinds of lawful contracts. He is also subject to his master's power, in so much that if a master should kill his slave he is not liable to retaliation. With female slaves a master has the milk-i mootut, or right of enjoyment, as already frequently observed, and his children by them have the same rights and privileges as the children by his wives."

From chapter 2, On the General Condition of Slaves, directly quoting the English translation of Sharia law in India under the Mughal Empire.

What we are here sitting on, is just a word game, in which all sorts of artificial distinctions confuse away the essence of things.

Let's look at a "wife" in the original Catholic religion. The man is the head of the family, and the "wife" must be obedient to him. She is supposed to do that for the rest of his/her life, because divorce is outlawed. The "wife" is subject to marital duty, which means that she is not supposed to invent all kinds of reasons to avoid intercourse, and hence, her husband also has the full milk-i mootut. So, what we've got here, is a deal in which the woman obediently provides milk-i mootut, with no option to terminate the arrangement.

Since the initial procedure in which this arrangement was created, i.e. capture/purchase versus marriage is clearly an irrelevant detail, where is the difference supposed to be? Furthermore, we cannot abolish this type of arrangements, because that amounts to putting a stop to reproduction from generation to generation, and hence going the way of the dinosaur.

[Little_Lion]

Sheykh Yusuf Estes just did a live talk on slavery. I can only link the GuideUs TV Facebook page to give a link to the video, but it is from 9/25 (and currently the first video shown)

https://www.facebook.com/GuideUsTV1/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED