Slave Girls

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

And of course you put up a never-realised idealistic version of Islam and claim it is the measure of all things. Of course I am interested in the reality.

This is the reality. You keep missing the point. We are discussing ISLAM and ISLAMIC LAW, not the misconduct of some Muslims.

When you talk about how Islam paved the way for abolition we are clearly not talking about your idealised version of Islamic law, but the conduct of some Muslims. When you talk about which Caliph had a slave mother, again, we are talking about the reality, not the Islamic theory.

You move between the two and so it is hard to keep up. I would ask for more patience.

I have firmly established that a freed men has fewer and lesser rights than a free man.

Where have you established that? You mentioned the case of walaa, which means that the former master will inherit from the freed slave if there are no heirs or if there is a portion of wealth left after the heirs have taken theirs. This is in no way 'fewer rights'. Can an individual who has been born to a large family complain that he has fewer rights because he has more heirs?! If the only example you can bring is walaa, then clearly you have been soundly debunked on your claim of fewer rights.

No he is unlikely to complain about heirs because that does not affect him. Now a son born into a large family might complain. But he has the same rights everyone else in his family, or at least all the boys, does. What a freed slave has is fewer rights over how to dispose of his estate - Islamic law lays down another condition he must follow - and lesser rights in that he is also a malwa by law and not a free man. This has not been debunked. You deny it means what it means, but it still means what I said.

And as a bonus I pointed out Islamic law also considers the descendents of the Prophet - therefore some forms of descent are important in Islam.

Which in no way contradicts my point that they are not superior.

I think it does. If you do not I am happy to leave it there.

Of course not. Islam does nothing political - it is not a motive force. I agree that in some Muslim societies (bad, non-Islamic one usually as it happens) some slaves were able to seize power.

First of all, these were not 'bad' 'non-islamic' societies. This was in the time period immediately following the companions when the Muslims were the most righteous and the scholars of Islam were the leaders. The fact that by this time the slaves had become leaders in the society shows how Islam worked as a dynamic force to elevate the status of the slaves.

Except the slaves did not seize power then. Some of them and more of their descendents just rose because of their abilities. The Mamluks seized power. The Army of the late Abbasids did in all but name.

This too seems to have little relevance and I am happy to let it go unless you have some point you still wish to make?

But did not have any noticeable influence on Britain, which did abolish slavery and forced the Muslim world too as well, and did not actually lead to the Muslims abolishing slavery either.

Had it not been for Islam, slavery would have become deeper and the oppression of slaves would have continued without restriction. Twice I have quoted to you a statement from Edward Blyden, which you have twice ignored:

The first sentence is a guess on your part. There is no way of knowing. And the historical record suggests otherwise - Muslim societies were the last to abolish slavery, not the first.

I am ignoring Blyden yet again because he is of course utterly irrelevant. He does not make the claim you are making. He is not an Islamic scholar. I am doubtful that you have read the book even.

I was already familiar with these articles on Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan. Mistranslated? No, misquoted actually. There is a distinct difference between 'advocating' slavery and saying that it is permissible in Islam. It is quite obvious that he has been misquoted if the article attributes to him views that most Muslims are polytheists and similar kharaji views when Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan is known to be a staunch opponent of such views!

Actually I fail to see a distinction between the two. If slavery is permissible in Islam then all good Muslims must want to see it come back. How can any Muslim make illegal what God has made licit? Isn't that innovation?

I am not interested in his takfir-ing. I do not have expertise in this area.

Now the issue of Safiyyah, the wife of the Prophet Muhammad saws. First of all, I am amazed at how you seem to miss simple english phrases, such as in this hadith you quoted:

Quote:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 524:

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet stayed for three rights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. I invited the Muslim to his marriage banquet and there was neither meat nor bread in that banquet but the Prophet ordered Bilal to spread the leather mats on which dates, dried yogurt and butter were put. The Muslims said amongst themselves, "Will she (i.e. Safiya) be one of the mothers of the believers, (i.e. one of the wives of the Prophet ) or just (a lady captive) of what his right-hand possesses" Some of them said, "IF the Prophet makes her observe the veil, THEN she will be one of the mothers of the believers (i.e. one of the Prophet's wives), and IF he does NOT make her observe the veil, THEN she will be his lady slave."

So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him (on his and MADE HER OBSERVE THE VEIL
If one understands english they will realize very quickly that this hadith proves that she WAS NOT a slave girl because the Prophet Muhammad pbuh made her wear the veil, indicating he had married her as his wife.

I have tried to edit this to make it easier to follow. Let me know if I have not done you justice.

Actually I disagree with that totally. As you have pointed out many many times, Muhammed cursed anyone who made a free person a slave. There was only one way that Safiyyah could have become a slave and that was if she was captured. So she was a slave - when she belonged to someone else - she came to Muhammed as a slave, but she agreed to convert and he then married her. That is the only interpretation consistent with the quotation I have provided and your claims about Islamic law. How could she have been a slave if she was free? Why would they even think of it? And yet they clearly considered the option of her being a slave.

The same thing is true for all the other hadith you have quoted - they all show that she was among the captives i.e. she could have been taken as a slave girl but SHE WAS NOT taken as a slave girl, INSTEAD the Prophet Muhammad pbuh manumitted her and MARRIED HER. So to bring her up in the discussion on slave girls is irrelevant because she was the wife of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, not his slave.

I think they all show that she was a slave, but she converted and then Muhammed married her. In fact they explicitly and clearly say so. Tell me how you can interpret that in any other way?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz:

Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."

Are you saying that Bukhari is wrong here to say this in this order?

And incidentally, how does she get a name like Safiya if she was not a slave?

So she does not have to pass the entire menstrual period, just until her [menstrual] period has passed?

The two things are identical. Safiyyah did not pass her entire menstrual period in three days. That was when her period ended so the Prophet pbuh married her. He did not keep her as a slave. If a non-muslim woman converts to Islam, as is the case with Safiyyah, one may marry her at the end of her period.

Well originally the claim was they had to wait a month - the menstrual period. Of course this may not equal one whole menstrual cycle. Safiya did not pass her entire cycle or an entire month, but just three days when, I assume, her period was over. So the two are not identical. I have just not been clear.

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

When you talk about how Islam paved the way for abolition we are clearly not talking about your idealised version of Islamic law, but the conduct of some Muslims. When you talk about which Caliph had a slave mother, again, we are talking about the reality, not the Islamic theory.

When the practices contradict Islamic teachings, that they are not relevant. When they are the application of Islamic teachings then they are.

Now a son born into a large family might complain.

Such a notion is ridiculous; having a large family does not mean one has less rights. Likewise, having an additional heir who gets a portion of inheritance after all other heirs have taken their share, is not a lesser right.

What a freed slave has is fewer rights over how to dispose of his estate

No he does not, because the former master takes his share only from what remains after other heirs have taken their share. If someone has a lot of heirs, does that mean that they have less rights because Islamic law lays down more conditions for them to follow? No, of course not.

Except the slaves did not seize power then. Some of them and more of their descendents just rose because of their abilities.

As I said before, this was the period when the Islamic state was at its peak in implementing Islamic law and we find slaves had taken leadership positions everywhere - something that was only brought about by Islam.

I am ignoring Blyden yet again because he is of course utterly irrelevant.

No, it was a direct response to your request for evidence.

Actually I fail to see a distinction between the two. If slavery is permissible in Islam then all good Muslims must want to see it come back.

Living in a cave without electricity is permissible - does that mean all good Muslims want a return to that era?

I have tried to edit this to make it easier to follow. Let me know if I have not done you justice.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

There was only one way that Safiyyah could have become a slave and that was if she was captured.

I agree. She was a war captive, and the narrations point out that she could have been taken as a slave girl by some, but INSTEAD Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her and did NOT maker her his slave girl.

So she was a slave - when she belonged to someone else - she came to Muhammed as a slave, but she agreed to convert and he then married her.

No she was not a slave - they were going to take her as a slave, but INSTEAD the Prophet pbuh married her i.e. she became his wife. This was also explicitly mentioned in the narration I highlighted for you in the previous post, but you ignored my comments.

And yet they clearly considered the option of her being a slave.

Yes, they did consider the option of taking her as a slave girl, but INSTEAD the Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her, i.e. she became his wife.

I think they all show that she was a slave, but she converted and then Muhammed married her.

No, they show that she was a captive who could have been taken as a slave girl but INSTEAD the Prophet Muhammad pbuh married her.

So the hadith from Bukhari is correct. And Safiyyah's case is irrelevant here because the Prophet pbuh did not keep her as a slave girl, so the rulings of slave girls do not apply to her.

Regards

Hi Nimrod,
Regarding corporal punishment - Islam does not allow anyone to be abused. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh said there is to be no harming nor reciprocating of harm. So beating or abusing anyone is totally forbidden in Islam. As for raising children, sometimes it is useful to discipline them physically but never with beating or causing them harm. Islam places emphasis on teaching like the Prophet did - with mercy, gentleness and good communication.

From your other post:

format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod

One of your replies cited this:

Two hundred families of Al-Mustalaq faced slavery as a result of their ill-considered plan to attack the Muslims. It should be emphasized here that such a prospect was not as terrible as one may think today. Slaves in the Muslim state enjoyed all their human rights as fellow human being to their masters. This was true only in the land of Islam. Islam treats every individual as a human being who is susceptible to be a good servant of God. Hence no one is despised or looked down upon simply because he lacks in fortune or bad circumstances.

Why was there a need to end such practices? What harm was that type of slavery doing that it needed to be ended?

Before Islam came, slaves were treated very poorly and abused. Islam changed all that and elevated the status of slaves so that no harm was done to anyone. As you have correctly observed, there was no injustices carried out under Islamic law; Islamic law encouraged the freeing of slaves, often mandating it in many cases which brought about an end to all injustices. Whenever Islamic law was followed, there was no injustice and abuse, and the practice of slavery gradually dissolved.

This was cited; "because if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies".

When it say’s the child “belongs” to the slave master, I get the impression that the child “belongs” to the master as a possession just the same as the slave woman “belongs” to the slave master.

Your answer to the cite shows that my impression would be wrong:

“It is saying that not only is the son free, but the mother becomes free as well”.

Can you help me understand this, a little better please?

The child 'belongs' to the master in the sense that it is their child, not their slave.

Another thing that has left me confused is the argument that if all the slaves had been freed there would have been no jobs or work for them.

Would have the work they were doing as slaves still have been needed to be done?
If you have fields that require 15 men to work, don’t those fields still require 15 men to work them?

Free the slaves today and then you have 15 jobs ready for the 15 freed slaves tomorrow don’t you?

I don't know how much of the thread you have read, and I can appreciate that it is very long but you migth want to take a look at some of the previous posts which answer these questions. Basically, when you examine the situation you realize that if the slaves were freed they would need economic autonomy. Would they live on the streets until they were able to set up their own business? Ultimately you realize that the best solution for them was to stay with the jobs they had (as you suggested) and the homes they had - but to simply have their rights realized and to be free of injustice and abuse. This is what Islam did.

Regards

Hi Nimrod,

format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod

I knew that just wouldn’t make any sense. Islam allows for punishment for a free man to consist of 40 lashes

For criminal offences!!

I can see what you are saying about not beating or abusing anyone though.
I would assume that giving lashes as punishment when the slave had done nothing wrong would be abusive, but if they had committed some offense then it isn’t abuse, it is punishment.

No one has the authority to give out punishments in the name of the government. If the slave has committed a crime then it will be dealt with under a proper investigation by the courts. Whipping is a serious issue and far more severe than most beatings, hence it is definitely unacceptable.

If I understood the reasoning correctly, Islam ended slavery because of the abuses some people suffered under lesser slave systems.
Yet the system of slavery as you describe it under Islam seems about as just and fair as any slave system could get.

I was under the impression that one of the reasons you had given for slavery’s gradual ending was that the command to end it quickly would have been strongly resisted by slave owners.

What has left me confused is that with a slave system in place like the one you describe, then why the need for ending it and not just issuing commands to reform the lesser slave systems where necessary?

It seems to me that a simple command to reform the bad slavery practices would have been readily accepted; especially when there was the perfect model that you showed that could have been shown to anyone who might resist the calls to reform.

Once the injustices and abuses were removed and rights were guaranteed for slaves, the important steps had been taken towards the gradual removal of slavery, but it did not end there. Islam encouraged the freeing of slaves and mandated it in many cases. Once slaves are seen as equals with their masters then the practice of slavery naturally weakens and dissolves.

I assume that, in the original language, the words that are used for a slave “belonging” to a slave owner are different from the words used in the cite saying that the child “belongs” to the slave owner. Would that be a correct assumption?

No, it is a matter of looking at the context of the sentence.

The reason I ask is that in many, if not most, slave systems the off-spring are considered property of the slave owner, much as a calf is owned by the owner of the cow. As such the calf is property that can be willed to others or sold or given to others, in the owner’s lifetime.

But in Islamic law this is not the case.

The slaves held jobs and those jobs would have still been in need of being done.
The only difference would have been that now the jobs would be done by free men.

There was housing in already place for the slaves. The owners of this housing wouldn’t have suffered any loss because the now freed slaves would be needing housing and would have paid rent just like any other free man renting housing.

This is like I said in my last post - ultimately you acknowledge that the best position is for them to stay with the same jobs, same shelter and the same family but with rights, good treatment and wages. Where were these slaves going to get the money to pay rent? From the work they were doing? So basically the ex-master is just paying himself. It is no different from what was described earlier.

I don’t understand with a system in place like the one you describe why there would be a need to end it and not do the better thing of leaving it in place just to show the unbelievers just how nice a slave system modeled after Islam could be.

Because Islam sought the gradual removal of slavery.

I don’t understand how simply converting the jobs from a slave job to a paying job would have been so hard on anyone.

What you are proposing is that the ex-master pays himself, which essentially is the same as a non-paying job.

Regards

[QUOTE] Concerning the master-slave relationship, I think it is but natural to assume that it was very close. It seems obvious enough that the master and slave would be around each other a lot of the time. Therefore, it would probably have been difficult to expect them not to have a sexual relationship, especially if the slave happened to be very attractive. However, depicting it as the master “raping” and “abusing” his slave is far from the truth. The slave was fully aware that this was a part of the relationship much like the husband and wife knows that sexual relations are a part of the couple’s relationship. Such was not a hidden relationship; it was known and was also legally and morally accepted, both in the society and the world at large. So, it was not fornication. Quite to the contrary, the exceptions to the impermissibility of having sexual relationships are those under marriage and those with one’s slave. Therefore, it is also incorrect to term it “fornication” (do note that of course, the only permanent exception to the impermissibility of having sexual relations was that under marriage). [QUOTE]

I KNOW ITS KNDA LAST MINUTE BUT WHY DIDNT THEY JUST MARRY THE SLAVES IN STEAD OF HAVING SEX WITH THEM and that being the only thing???

i

format_quote Originally Posted by DAWUD_adnan

I KNOW ITS KNDA LAST MINUTE BUT WHY DIDNT THEY JUST MARRY THE SLAVES IN STEAD OF HAVING SEX WITH THEM and that being the only thing???

Could you use lower case please? It looks like you're shouting. I do not know and I doubt that anyone could say for sure because you would have to go on a case-by-case basis asking each and every person who did it. One thing that strikes me though is presumably a slave would not be counted towards the four legal wives. Is that right?

dunno, at least don thinks so.....
p.s sorry for the capitals im crap at typing...whahhahaha

subhanAllah

[quote=DAWUD_adnan;366247][quote] Concerning the master-slave relationship, I think it is but natural to assume that it was very close. It seems obvious enough that the master and slave would be around each other a lot of the time. Therefore, it would probably have been difficult to expect them not to have a sexual relationship, especially if the slave happened to be very attractive. However, depicting it as the master “raping” and “abusing” his slave is far from the truth. The slave was fully aware that this was a part of the relationship much like the husband and wife knows that sexual relations are a part of the couple’s relationship. Such was not a hidden relationship; it was known and was also legally and morally accepted, both in the society and the world at large. So, it was not fornication. Quite to the contrary, the exceptions to the impermissibility of having sexual relationships are those under marriage and those with one’s slave. Therefore, it is also incorrect to term it “fornication” (do note that of course, the only permanent exception to the impermissibility of having sexual relations was that under marriage).

i

I have a question I have been wondering.

A man who has a female slave and has a sexual relationship with her.
This man also has a wife. So if this wife has a male slave, can she too be allowed to have a sexual relationship with him?

I have a question I have been wondering.

A man who has a female slave and has a sexual relationship with her.
This man also has a wife. So if this wife has a male slave, can she too be allowed to have a sexual relationship with him?

i think there are different opinions, but if she has a husband then she can't. If she doesn't have a husband then i think scholars differ. maybe someone more knowledgable can answer

format_quote Originally Posted by Mohsin

i think there are different opinions, but if she has a husband then she can't. If she doesn't have a husband then i think scholars differ.

But wouldn't it be kind of unfair towards the wife...?
Her husband can fulfilll his sexual needs from other women and she just has to get satisfied by this one man, when he has many others?... :X
And maybe she doesn't even get her needs fulfilled... And yet she is not allowed to have relationships just like her husband, who let's face it, lives life the fullest?...

It's just that it seems a bit unfair... Not like women, when in love, want any other man, but who wouldn't feel kind of used when the man seeks satisfaction from other women, maybe more beautiful and just his slaves, while she, the wife, stays true to him and yet the man seeks other?...
The woman would feel "half" (I know I would!) and not good enough for her husband, whos wife should be everything he'd want and desire...

I don't want to sound angry or anything, I am just wondering...
Though I'm sure the husband would say it's just physical and he is not "in love" with the other women (his slaves)...

Wow, I'm just talking... Hopefully I didn't confuse anything, I just would like clear answers, Inshallah.

maybe someone more knowledgable can answer

Yes, Inshallah.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aafreen

But wouldn't it be kind of unfair towards the wife...?
Her husband can fulfilll his sexual needs from other women and she just has to get satisfied by this one man, when he has many others?... :X
And maybe she doesn't even get her needs fulfilled... And yet she is not allowed to have relationships just like her husband, who let's face it, lives life the fullest?...

It's just that it seems a bit unfair... Not like women, when in love, want any other man, but who wouldn't feel kind of used when the man seeks satisfaction from other women, maybe more beautiful and just his slaves, while she, the wife, stays true to him and yet the man seeks other?...
The woman would feel "half" (I know I would!) and not good enough for her husband, whos wife should be everything he'd want and desire...

I don't want to sound angry or anything, I am just wondering...
Though I'm sure the husband would say it's just physical and he is not "in love" with the other women (his slaves)...

Wow, I'm just talking... Hopefully I didn't confuse anything, I just would like clear answers, Inshallah.



Yes, Inshallah.

chk this out

Question


Hi, as-salaamu alaikum,

I am confused about the following statement that is often a part of verses you quote from the Qur'an:

"(a captive) that your right hands possess"

What exactly is "a captive that your right hands possess"? It was always my understanding that Islam forbade slavery as slavery and equality contradicted one another.

I would appreciate if you could explain.

Regards, wa'salaam


Answer

Wa `alaykum salaam waramatullah wabarakatuh!

Dear sister Julia, thanks for your question.

You are right. Islam forbade slavery for it is the religion that gives rights of individuals, males or females. It made this as clear as daylight, many centuries ago, before the slogan of “human rights” came to be known to the Westerners.

Slavery was not initiated by Islam, it had been in practice long before the advent of Islam. As we know, it’s the custom of war to have captives and those captives or prisoners used to be turned into slaves and concubines by their masters. This was not the case only in the pre-Islamic Arab regions, but it was there every other place. It was even worse in some societies, especially with women. She was subject to all kinds of injustice, oppression and barbarian treatment. This went as far as that Greeks used to consider her a mere commodity, to be bought and sold. As for Romans, she was a slave already by nature, even without being captured at war!

In short, Islam is not the religion that jeopardizes the rights of woman, as Western scholars would have us believe, concocting any ideas to distort the image of Islam. 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 day in the past Western civilizations. Yes, it was also the habit in the pre-Islamic Arab, when female babies used to be buried alive.

When Islam came, 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 habits that have gained ground. People never give up easily!

So, first of all it confined the issue of taking captives to the period of warfare. This is just as a situation necessitated by hostility between warring states. Then it allowed the female captives to be married by their captors. But why? Does this mean giving men a golden chance to unleash their sexual desires or to sexually brutalize those captives? No, not at all!

Here lies certain wisdom that completely escapes the mind of those Western scholars, who take this issue to launch attacks against Islam.

As we know, after the end of hostility, 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.

Thus, Islam gave them hope of survival, trying to prevent their becoming prostitutes. In fact, they would have definitely found it hard to find suitors, even from among their free male counterparts, who’d suspect them of being ravished by their captors. Though glimmer it may be in the beginning, this hope soon turned glittering by securing them a marital home, whereby their rights and dignity would be secured.

Here comes the issue of “ma malakat aimanukum” (what your right hands possess). This is mentioned in many verses in the Qur’an, like the following:

If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: ...

Surah 4 Verse 25

This verse confirms what I have just said; opening the door for female slaves or captives to be married by destitute Muslims who cannot afford the dowry of free women. Notice here that the Qur’an uses the expression “what your right hands.” What is the 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 during warfare that the right hand actually takes possession of captives, and this is what the Qur’an means. That’s point number one.

Point number two is that, the word “right hands possess” also has another significance that clearly reflects the great concern Islam has for preserving the rights of those captives. As we know, the right hand has its special merit and privileged functions that man instinctively reserve for it. Imam Kurtubi, 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.”

All 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 (pbuh) made this clear in his hadith that masters should treat their slaves as their brothers and female captives as their sisters, if not in faith, at least in humanity. He 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, 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. They should definitely be well treated. 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 derogative names of “slaves” or “servants”. For in Islam, man must not show servitude to anyone besides Allah the Almighty. So it was stipulated that the captives should be addressed by “fatah” (boy) or “fatat” (girl). Besides, the act of emancipating slaves used to be a competitive work among the Prophet’s Companions, for it was highly recommended by Islam and was considered an act of worship.

What’s more, Islam has also made use of what was an international custom during that era; i.e. the custom of having intercourse with female captives. 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 a bad habit! So it was not a means of unleashing sexual desires. Otherwise, it would have been something permanent, being pregnant would have availed the slave woman nothing, for she’d remain the property of her master no matter how. No, Islam was not after such a sensual and voluptuous goal.

Sister Julia, to cover all the aspects of humane treatment of slave women in Islam, it’d take volumes of books. So I think this brief remark will do for now.

For more information, you can check this link:

Does Islam allow Slavery?

If you have any further inquiry don’t hesitate to contact us. Thanks.

Mr. Lamaan Ball editor of Ask About Islam adds:

Islam effectively prohibited slavery by prohibiting making people slaves in any way except temporarily during wars. Once the war is over, such people must either be freed by negotiation and ransom (e.g. exchanges of prisoners of war) or set free without any ransom.

There were many ways that existing slaves could become freed including those mentioned by Kamal but also to gain God’s forgiveness for doing a sin, setting a slave free was commanded in the Qur’an. Freeing slaves was also one of the clear priorities for government spending of Zakat(obliged charity spending administered by the state).

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...AskAboutIslamE

JazakAllah khair for the article, brother sonz!!!
That article really clarified some things I was wondering about, about that female slaves being used as "sexual satisfaction tools" for men, how they can be freed etc...
Thank you. :thankyou:

format_quote Originally Posted by Les_Nubian

OK, I saw this on the other topic:

Yes, but the only exception is the slave-girls. If one is at war, far away from his wives for an extended period of time, and he captures slave-women, he can legally have intercourse with them.

I think that's completely disgusting.

Is this religion really for men? It seems that way sometimes. Just take the women and use them for your own sexual pleasure because they are slaves and you have "captured" them, and yet you have wives and children at home.

Then should the man not be stoned or something? If he wants to rape or have sex with a slave woman when he has a wife, I think he should.

How sick is this? Uggh, I feel like throwing up.

Men can't control their desires as well as women.