Slave Girls

[Truth_Seeker]

I have come accross an issue i have had great difficulty in understanding, even when speaking to bothers who are students of knowledge. The particular issue is the treatment of slaves, in this case specifically the female slaves. This is a topic i simply can't understand
From what i understand, a man at that time of the Prophet SAW was able to have sexual intercourse with a female slave at any time. I do not understand this as, since a slave has no choice but to obey the commands of their master, they are basically being forced to have sex. Isn't this in violation of women and human rights? I mean surely a man already has wives, so why is it that a slave can also be used for sex, and then that's it, after having sex with her no other rights are observed. It seems to me that it's like free sex with no strings attached, like a one night stand. The thing is, this is what happens in the west, men go clubbing, find a girl and have sex with her, and next day act as if nothing happened. I thought with islam it's different as we can't simply use a women for their beauty and have sex with her and that's it, since she is due rights and respect? Why is this the way it is? Have i completely misunderstood this concept? If so can you please clarify this, and forgive me for anything incorrect i have said.

Jazkallah Khair for taking the time to read this

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Please read the following where your question has been answered:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...AskAboutIslamE

Also, see here:

Does Islam allow Slavery?


Question: I am a Captain in the Pakistan army and would like to know if can we have sexual relations with the women we are able to capture in wars? I have heard that in one of the wars during the time of the Prophet (sws), the whole Muslim army raped slave women offered to them provided that they practiced ‘Azal (coitus interruptus).
Answer: Well I am afraid you cannot do so. Since the question you have raised is an important one. I’ll give you a detailed answer:
In my opinion, among many other misconceptions about Islam is the notion that it gives sanction to slavery and permits its followers to enslave prisoners of war, particularly women and establish extra-marital relations with them. Islam, I must strongly affirm, has not the slightest link with slavery and concubinage. On the contrary, it completely forbids these practices. It is quite outrageous to associate such barbarities with a religion revealed to upgrade humanity.
The point which needs to be appreciated and which, perhaps, is the real cause of the misconception is that Islam had adopted a gradual process to abolish the institution of slavery because of the social conditions prevalent in Arabia at that time. It must be kept in mind that slavery was an integral part of the pre-Islamic Arab society. There were scores of slave men and women in almost every house. This was largely due to two reasons: First, during those times, the standard practice of dispensing with prisoners of war was to distribute them among the army who captured them. Second, there were extensive slave markets in Arabia in that period where free as well as men and women of all ages were sold like animals.
In these circumstances, in which slavery had become an essential constituent of the Arab society, Islam adopted a gradual way to eliminate it. An immediate order of prohibition would have created immense social and economic problems. It would have become impossible for the society to cater for the needs of a large army of slaves, who were, otherwise, dependent on various families. Also, the national treasury was in no position to provide them all on a permanent basis. A large number among them were old and incapable of supporting themselves. The only alternative left for them, if they were instantly freed, would have been to turn to beggary and become an economic burden for the society. The question of slave girls and women was even more critical, keeping in view their own low moral standards. Freeing them, all of a sudden, would have only resulted in a tremendous increase in brothels.
Perhaps, the reason behind this gradual eradication can be understood better if one considers the position which interest occupies in the economy of Pakistan today. No one can refute Pakistan’s national economic structure is interest oriented. How the parasite of interest has crippled the national economy is apparent to every keen eye. However, there is no denying the fact that without it our present economic system cannot sustain itself. Every reasonable person will acknowledge that today if a government wishes to rid the economy from this menace then, in spite of its utter prohibition in Islam, it will have to adopt a gradual methodology. During this interim period interest oriented deals will have to be tolerated and temporary laws will have to be enacted to handle them, just as the Qur’an had given certain provisional directives about slaves during the interim period of their gradual eradication. An alternative economic framework will have to be steadily incorporated in place of the existing one. A sudden abolition, without another parallel base, will only hasten the total collapse of the economic system, which, of course, will be disastrous for the country.
To avert a similar disaster and to ward off a similar catastrophe, Islam had adopted a progressive and a gradual scheme, fourteen hundred years ago, to do away with the inhuman institution of slavery. Following are some of the measures it took in this regard:
1. In the early Makkan period, it pronounced that slave emancipation was a great deed of piety. The very initial Makkan surahs appealed to the Muslims to liberate as many slaves as they could.
2. The Prophet (sws), unequivocally, directed the Muslims to raise the standard of living of the slaves and bring it equal to their own standard. This, of course, was meant to discourage people from persisting with them.
3. For the atonement of many sins manumission of slaves was divinely ordained.
4. All slave men and women who could support themselves in the society were directed to marry one another, in order to raise their moral and social status.
5. A permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women.
6. Prostitution, which was largely carried out through slave women, who were mostly forced by their masters do so, was totally prohibited.
7. The affronting names of ‘abd (slave-man) and amah (slave-woman) by which slave men and women were called, were abrogated so that people should stop regarding them as slaves. In their place, the words fata (boy) and fatat (girl) were introduced.
8. Finally, the law of mukatibat provided very easy access for the slaves to the gateway to freedom. Every slave who was capable of supporting himself was allowed by law to free himself, provided that he either gave a certain monetary amount to his master or carried out certain errands for him. After this, he could live as a free man. A special head in the treasury was fixed for this purpose; also, wealthy people were urged to help the slaves in this regard. The net result of this law was that only handicapped and old slaves were left to be provided for by their masters, which not only went in their own favour but also prevented them from becoming an economic burden on the society.
As far as the war you have referred to, let me correct you on your information.
In the battle of Bani Mustaliq, the prisoners captured were either freed in the battlefield as a favour while some others were freed on ransom. The Prophet (sws) brought the remaining prisoners to Madinah and while waiting for their families to procure them, gave them into the temporary custody of his Companions (rta). Since at that time, the prohibition of slavery was passing through the interim period when it was still intact for reasons stated earlier, the Prophet (sws) accepted the right of masters to have sexual intercourse with the slave women as was the international law at that time but set about taking steps that could prevent this from actually happening. Let me explain the most important measure he adopted:
Among the prisoners of this battle was Sayyidah Jawayriyyah as well. Her father arrived with some camels as ransom. The Prophet (sws) inquired about the two well-bred camels he had hid behind. This astounded him so much – for he knew that there could be no way that the Prophet (sws) could have had knowledge of them – that he accepted faith. At this, Sayyidah Jawayriyyah also accepted faith. The Prophet (sws) proposed for her to which her father consented. Upon this, the marriage was solemnized. The result of this marriage was that all the remaining prisoners of war were set free by the Muslim soldiers, since they thought that it was not appropriate to keep the Prophet’s in-laws in captivity.
So actually no such instance of sexual intercourse with the slave women took place. It is totally wrong that they were raped. Also today as far as prisoners of was are concerned, they cannot be taken to be slaves and sexually benefited from. After the abolition of slavery that took place in the time of the Prophet (sws) as described above, no one dare maltreat a p.o.w. let alone sexually harass them. (SOURCE)

I hope this helps.

[Imam786]

interesting i always wondered about that....i kinda thought it to be adultry ......but now i guess i have 2nd thoughts..

[Truth_Seeker]

Ok, i've heard this kind of answer before
But you do agree there are differences of opinions here between scholars
It says if the women becomes pregnant through intercourse, marry her. In the article you gave me it makes islam sound amazing, but why in the first place should someone be having intercourse with a woman if he's already married or even not married. I've asked a qualified student of islam if slavery will be allowed maybe in the futre, and he said it might come back again as a custom permitted by islam. So why is there more than one opinion? It sounds as if the article you have chosen is the one that makes most sense to you and the one you want to sound right, you're picking and choosing answers

For example go to http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...&QR=5707&dgn=4
If you read it says here "because if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies" This is contrary to the link you provided me saying a new son is not the slave of the master

Read this link http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=10382&dgn=4
It says here the Prophet SAW also had slaves as did companions including ppl Like Umer and Ali RA
Also if it was allowed then then surely it is allowed now, you can't say it was only meant for that time period, because the Qur'an is also meant for all times. Now you might argue that it was a progressive plan to gradually eradicate slavery,like the forbidding of alcohol which was gradual. But the difference is Allah never forbid slavery and nor did the Prophet, wheras after a certain period alcohol was gradually not allowed. Now, if true jihad started again, and female captives were taken, would their masters be allowed to have sex with them, even if they already have wives. because according to some schoalrs it is perfectly permissable if you read my links. Also go to http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...e&CR=362&dgn=4 and read all the questions, and you will see the problem i am having difficult to understand about women slavery

[Tasneem]

I have come accross an issue i have had great difficulty in understanding, even when speaking to bothers who are students of knowledge. The particular issue is the treatment of slaves, in this case specifically the female slaves. This is a topic i simply can't understand
From what i understand, a man at that time of the Prophet SAW was able to have sexual intercourse with a female slave at any time. I do not understand this as, since a slave has no choice but to obey the commands of their master, they are basically being forced to have sex. Isn't this in violation of women and human rights? I mean surely a man already has wives, so why is it that a slave can also be used for sex, and then that's it, after having sex with her no other rights are observed. It seems to me that it's like free sex with no strings attached, like a one night stand. The thing is, this is what happens in the west, men go clubbing, find a girl and have sex with her, and next day act as if nothing happened. I thought with islam it's different as we can't simply use a women for their beauty and have sex with her and that's it, since she is due rights and respect? Why is this the way it is? Have i completely misunderstood this concept? If so can you please clarify this, and forgive me for anything incorrect i have said.

Jazkallah Khair for taking the time to read this

I used to have a BIG problem with this.
My mom told me because the master takes care of them such as clothing and feeding them.
The slave still has rights such as the slave cannot smack nor hit her in the face.
It was alittle confusing to me too.
Especially because i am a girl and i always thought that rape was....well,illegal but not if the slave owner takes care of her,etc.

SaLaMz

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Truth Seeker,
For someone who is supposedly seeking the truth, it is very strange that you would reject the answer I've given solely on the basis that other sources say otherwise. If you were sincerely seeking the truth you would take whatever answer was the best and didn't contradict the Qur'an or Sunnah.

Ok, i've heard this kind of answer before
But you do agree there are differences of opinions here between scholars

Difference of opinion on what exactly?

It says if the women becomes pregnant through intercourse, marry her. In the article you gave me it makes islam sound amazing, but why in the first place should someone be having intercourse with a woman if he's already married or even not married.

If you read the article properly you would see quite clearly that Islam was never recommending or commanding men to have intercourse with their female slaves! This was already a widely spread practice that went hand-in-hand with slavery, as was the custom of the time. Islam put steps in place to remove the institution of slavery.

I've asked a qualified student of islam if slavery will be allowed maybe in the futre, and he said it might come back again as a custom permitted by islam.

What does your 'qualified-student-of-islam's' mere opinion have to do with this? Slavery will most ikely not come back once it is in decline because Islam has forbidden the enslavement of free people and has encourged the freeing of slaves.

So why is there more than one opinion? It sounds as if the article you have chosen is the one that makes most sense to you and the one you want to sound right, you're picking and choosing answers

If the article sounds good, what's stopping you from accepting it? :confused:

For example go to http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...&QR=5707&dgn=4
If you read it says here "because if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies" This is contrary to the link you provided me saying a new son is not the slave of the master

Did you understand the quote you read? It is saying that not only is the son free, but the mother becomes free as well.

Read this link http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=10382&dgn=4
It says here the Prophet SAW also had slaves as did companions including ppl Like Umer and Ali RA

It was the custom of that time, but did you read how many slaves they freed?

I'll get to the remainder of your comments soon inshaa'Allah.

[Truth_Seeker]

For someone who is supposedly seeking the truth, it is very strange that you would reject the answer I've given solely on the basis that other sources say otherwise. If you were sincerely seeking the truth you would take whatever answer was the best and didn't contradict the Qur'an or Sunnah.

I am sincerely seeking the truth and want the best most honest answer. I have heard different verdicts on slavery, without being provided with any wisdom behind it. I've heard a scholar say that slavery could return one day if jihad was to happen again, and if it left a lot of female captives, they could be taken as slaves for themselves as booty again.

Difference of opinion on what exactly?

Sorry, wasn't very clear here. I meant difference of opinion between scholars regarding slavery. some say it is a practice that is allowed in islam because we are by nature sexual, while others say that islam forbids it. surely there should only be one answer, and both can't be right. Now, scholars who suggest slavery is allowed and having sex with them is allowed, now why would they lie. I'm more inclined to believing people who say the contrary and say islam forbids it, i feel they are trying to cover it up, because they themselves don't accept it or understand it. From what i see, slavery is allowed in islam, as is stated in this article http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=13737&dgn=4 and in this one http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=10382&dgn=4. What i want to know is why it is allowed, since it is inhumane.

If you read the article properly you would see quite clearly that Islam was never recommending or commanding men to have intercourse with their female slaves!

yes but it does say keep yourself chaste apart from people such as your wives or slaves, thus allowing it

What does your 'qualified-student-of-islam's' mere opinion have to do with this? Slavery will most ikely not come back once it is in decline because Islam has forbidden the enslavement of free people and has encourged the freeing of slaves.

If jihad returned, and there were loads of female captives of war, what would be done? Wouldn't they be distributed among the army as this is what was done during the prophet's SAW time, and his life is an example to us so we can't rteally think we know better and do something contrary to it. If female slaves were distributed then surely it would be allowed to have sex with them. i am not denying that islam encourages freeing of alves, but Allah SWT or the Porphet SAW never forbid it, they allowed it

Did you understand the quote you read? It is saying that not only is the son free, but the mother becomes free as well.

Read it again, it says "if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies". Now here is what i understand from this quote. A slave becomes preganat by her master, has a child, then when the master dies she is then free. It does not say that when a woman becomes pregnant by their master they then become automatically free

It was the custom of that time, but did you read how many slaves they freed?

Precisely what i don't understand. Ok even if it was the custom at the time, why couldn't the noble pious companions refrain from having extra marital relationships with them, even through an "interim period". if today in this society filled with invitation to zinna, why couldn't in that society people stop

I'll get to the remainder of your comments soon inshaa'Allah

I'll be waiting inshallah

[Halima]

After reading this thread, it has occured to me how much we have to read how the Prophet Muhammed (saw) viewed slaves. Not based on your opinons, no based on anyone elses, but most importantly based on the Prophet Muhammed's view.


The Prophet (peace be upon him) was particularly kind to slaves. He used to say, "They are your brothers; give them to eat what you eat; give them to wear what you wear." Whenever he received any slaves, he always gave them freedom but they could never free themselves from his kindness and generosity. They left their parents, relatives and family and regarded it as an honour to live in bondage to him. Zaid bin Hartha was a slave. Muhammed (peace be upon him) freed him and gave him the choice to go with his father, who had come to take him, but he refused to go with his father and preferred to stay. Muhammed (peace be upon him) loved Usama, the son of Zaid, so much that he used to say that if he had been a girl, he would have put jewellery on her.

Slaves felt humiliated at being called slaves. He advised his companions not to say "my slave" or "my slave-girl" but to say, "my son" or "my daughter". He also told the slaves not to call their masters "lord" for God alone was the Lord. He was so kind to slaves that his last bequest before he died was, "Fear God in the matter of slaves."

Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him) was one of the converts and Muhammed (peace be upon him) praised him for his honesty. Once he abused a non-Arab slave, who complained to the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) about this. He reprimanded Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him) and said, "You are still ignorant; these slaves are your brothers. God has given you power over them; if they are not suited to your temperament, sell them. Don't harm God's creatures. Give them to eat what you eat; give them to wear what you wear. Don't give them so much work that they cannot do it all. If you give them a lot of work, then give them a hand to finish that work."

Once Abu Masud Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him) was beating his slave when he heard a voice behind him say, "Abu Masud! God has more power and control over you than you have over this slave." Abu Masud turned and saw it was God's Messenger (peace be upon him). He said, "O God's Messenger (peace be upon him)! I free this slave for the pleasure of God."

Muhammed (peace be upon him) replied, "If you had not done so, the fire of Hell would have touched you."

People arranged the marriages of slaves but forcibly separated them whenever they wished. One man arranged the marriage of his slave to his slave-girl and then wanted to separate them. The slave complained to God's Messenger (peace be upon him), who stood up in the Mosque and addressed the people, "Why do people marry slaves and then separate them? The right of marriage and divorce belongs only to the husband and wife." The effect of this kindness was that many slaves of the polytheists used to run away and come to him. He used to grant them freedom. When the spoils of war were distributed, slaves were given their due share. The newly freed slaves received their shares first for they did not have any capital.

[Daoud]

Truth Seeker,
For someone who is supposedly seeking the truth, it is very strange that you would reject the answer I've given solely on the basis that other sources say otherwise. If you were sincerely seeking the truth you would take whatever answer was the best and didn't contradict the Qur'an or Sunnah.

leaving aside your repugnant and insulting arrogance and patronising attitude towards a genuine search for understanding to me this begs the question: we are constantly told that the Qu'ran is literally true word for word and applies to all times and all places yet here it is being acknowledged that some aspects are culture and time specific and have no relevance to the situation as it currently is in the modern world.

It makes no sense to claim that the Qu'ran, the Holy word and law of Allah, was a) a response to the cultural and legal situation of the time and b) is universally applicable in all its aspects in all times and places.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Truth Seeker,

I am sincerely seeking the truth and want the best most honest answer. I have heard different verdicts on slavery, without being provided with any wisdom behind it. I've heard a scholar say that slavery could return one day if jihad was to happen again, and if it left a lot of female captives, they could be taken as slaves for themselves as booty again.

Discussing slavery is best described by Shaykh Salman Al-'Awdah in his book, Drowning in minor details, as follows:

How many people talk about the issue of slavery and the legal rulings that are associated with it, like the minimum dress a slave girl must wear? Sometimes these discussions can get very drawn out. Where are the slave girls and where is slavery in the world today? These things are nonexistent today. If slavery does exist somewhere in the world then it is an extremely rare thing. So then, why busy ourselves with such a topic?

Inshaa'Allah, I intend to demonstrate that Islam was not instituting an oppresive system with regard to slavery, but was rapidly eradicating an oppresive system that was already in place. Moiz Amjad writes:

Firstly, the fact that Islam considered the institution of slavery a social vice is the obvious corollary of the various directives of Islam regarding freeing of slaves. Had Islam not considered slavery to be a social vice, there was no reason to promote freeing of slaves as a great virtue.

Secondly, the words 'Islam accepted slavery as a social vice' clearly imply that even though Islam considered slavery to be a vice against humanity, yet due to its deep roots in the world society, at the time, and due to the extra-ordinary social implications that could have followed any drastic measures of the complete and immediate abolition of the institution, Islam tolerated its existence till the time that the world was emotionally and psychologically prepared for its abolition. During this intermediary time, it was equally essential for the Prophet (pbuh) to promote the moral value of treating one's slaves with respect, honor, love and justice.

...It should be remembered that the correction of all such social vices that are as deeply rooted in a society as was slavery in the world of old, clearly need a two faceted approach in their correction. Firstly, the society should be psychologically, emotionally and physically prepared to relieve itself of such vices - which can sometimes translate into a long-term corrective process. Secondly, during this intermediary time, the society should also be taught to deal with the prevalent situation in the best possible manner.

Likewise, Hischam Khan writes:

We must remain conscious of the fact that the Qur'an was revealed in an environment in which slavery was accepted as a normal social custom. This custom was around for so long that everybody accepted it. Had you and I been living there at the time, we too would have seen nothing wrong with it. Therefore, it should be cleared up at the outset that the Qur'an neither created this practice nor encouraged it in any way, shape or form. It only accepted that this has been deeply rooted in that society and would not be eradicated easily. So, a simple demand to free all slaves was unrealistic. Besides, the slaves; many of which were elderly poor people, had nowhere to go and would therefore probably end up becoming beggars and only further the burden upon society. As such, a gradual approach had to be taken for the eradication of this vice. Please remember that the steps toward this taken by the Qur'an would have been seen as abnormal to the people of the time, as keeping slaves feels to you and I. It should be recognized that slavery was a social phenomenon of an international nature, Islam could not have completely abolished slavery, while the world culture remained the same.

...Considering all of this, I really cannot see how the Qur'an displays a "disturbing concept" in regards to slaves. Actually, I reckon that the Qur'an provided the best groundwork toward the actual abolition of slavery itself. Had the Qur'an decided to declare slavery forbidden immediately rather than gradually removing it while giving a set of rules for their better treatment in the mean time, then it would have caused various problems on different levels. In the world at the time, there were such a huge number of slaves that releasing them would have left them without food, money, jobs and care. Many of them were already very vulnerable and would therefore never have been able to cope with such a thing. The societies would never have been able to provide for them all and they may as a result have turned to illegal means to earn a living (e.g. brothels may have been opened etc). Thus, there was wisdom behind the decision to abolish slavery gradually rather than immediately.

You write:
"Secondly, where Quran mentions the prohibition of illegal sexual intercourse, the only exceptions are with a person's wife or SLAVES/ CAPTIVES that their right hand possesses."

Having explained what the social customs were at the time, it should be understood that sexual intercourse with one's slave was considered part of the norm. The slaves too saw nothing wrong in this. In fact, before the advent of Islam the slaves were considered no more than their master's possessions and therefore absolutely anything could be done with them. In other words, they could even take their slaves' lives when and as they pleased. Islam removed such vices and raised them to the position of fellow humans with similar rights. However, as long as slavery was not completely removed, having sexual relations remained part of the master-slave relationship.

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).

Had slavery been abolished on the spot it would have caused chaos in the society and the world at large. It just was not possible. However, the Prophet (p) changed their status and tried to get his people into treating them as fellow members of the family. For this reason, a “master-slave” relationship turned into more of a Father-son, or husband-wife relationship.

The “slaves” were to be fed with the same food as that of the master, clothed with the same clothes (yes, same clothes!), and not asked to do more than they could handle. Nay, the master was even told to assist the slave if the slave was found to be having any difficulties. They were not to refer to them as “slaves” anymore. These are your brothers and sisters, it was declared. Yet further, they were not allowed to hit their slaves. If these slaves objected to their position and desired to be freed, then if the potential and ability to live and cope independently was seen in them, they should be helped toward being freed. Accordingly, what Islam envisaged and wanted to produce, was a treatment of “slaves” that was absolutely free of cruelty and harm. Actually, keeping such things in mind probably renders this undeserving of the term “slavery”.

And in the link I gave you to IslamOnline, they wrote:

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.

As for your comments..

Sorry, wasn't very clear here. I meant difference of opinion between scholars regarding slavery. some say it is a practice that is allowed in islam because we are by nature sexual, while others say that islam forbids it. surely there should only be one answer, and both can't be right. Now, scholars who suggest slavery is allowed and having sex with them is allowed, now why would they lie. I'm more inclined to believing people who say the contrary and say islam forbids it, i feel they are trying to cover it up, because they themselves don't accept it or understand it. From what i see, slavery is allowed in islam, as is stated in this article http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=13737&dgn=4 and in this one http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...QR=10382&dgn=4. What i want to know is why it is allowed, since it is inhumane.

As mentioned before, slavery wasn't prohibited by Islam, but steps were put in place to see that the practice was eradicated. The scholars you have quoted like Shaykh Munajjid, etc. all agree with this, so what is the issue here? Sister Halima very kindly posted the ahadith on slavery for us, all of which make it clear that Islam has placed a massive amount of pressure in the direction of freeing slaves.

The only issue where slavery arises again is with regard to prisoners of war. One must remember that prisoners of war were NEVER distributed amongst the soldiers as slaves. When prisoners of war were taken in, they FIRST WENT TO THE ISLAMIC STATE. It was the Islamic government that took care of the prisoners of war and was responsible for ensuring their well-being. Naturally, back then, the Islamic government did not possess the resources or the necessary instituions to take care of so many prisoners of war. Hence, whomever could be exchanged for Muslim prisoners of war or ransom money was exchanged (Ibn Hisham). They were also set free for teaching others how to read or write. But if the Muslims simply set all the prisoners of war free, many of them would have no one to take care of them and would be unable to return safely to their homes. And it would be illogical to return them to the enemy forces again, where both men and women could contribute to battle preparations against the Muslims. The Islamic state needed to take of the prisoners of war somehow. The custom of that time was to have them all sold off into slavery. What the Islamic government did was it assigned them to different Muslim families to look after, and the only way to ensure that the relationship was secure, other than marriage, was to secure them as bondsmen/bondswomen. But this was not the typical master-slave relationship that you might envision. On the contrary, as demonstrated by some of the evidence quoted earlier, the 'slaves' were to be treated with kindness and compassion as mentioned in an authentic hadith in Sunan At-Tirmidhi. And in Sunan Ibn Majah it mentions that one who treats those under his/her authority badly will not enter paradise.

So the important point to note here is that the soldiers were never allowed to simply capture prisoners of war and turn them into slaves. The prisoners of war were taken by the Islamic government and they assigned them to families that would be able to take care of them properly.

What about today? I think this is your main question. The answer is very clear. In the past, the only reason why the prisoners of war were assigned to families as slaves was because there was no other way to look after them. Today however, in the event of a military jihad (which is only lawful under an Islamic state) it is most likely that we would have the resources and institutions to take care of prisoners of war without having to give them as slaves. So the answer is that slavery is indeed a practice of the past (thanks to Islamic directives which aided in its abolishment). Today we have resources and instituions that would mean that we would not have to go down that route.

I find it strange that you call it 'inhumane' when the Islamic rulings were the most revolutionary in bringing humane treatment to slaves. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh 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. " (Bukhari).

These kind of statements were unheard of in that era.

If jihad returned, and there were loads of female captives of war, what would be done?

See above. They would become the responsibility of the Islamic state which would shelter, clothe and feed them, since today we have those resources and institutions.

Wouldn't they be distributed among the army as this is what was done during the prophet's SAW time

1. They were NOT distributed during the time of the Prophet saws. They were first taken by the Islamic state and then assigned to those capable of taking care of them.
2. This was only done because the Muslim state did not possess the resources or instutions to shelter and support hundreds to thousands of prisoners of war. Today, we do have these resources and institutions, hence we do not need to use slavery.

Please also read about the treatment of prisoners of war in Islam here:
http://www.islamtoday.net/english/sh...sub_cat_id=491

Read it again, it says "if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies". Now here is what i understand from this quote. A slave becomes preganat by her master, has a child, then when the master dies she is then free. It does not say that when a woman becomes pregnant by their master they then become automatically free

This is what you originally said:

This is contrary to the link you provided me saying a new son is not the slave of the master

Clearly you're changing your statement now. To clarify:
-If a slave-girl gives birth to her master's son, the son is NOT a slave, and when the master dies the girl is free as well.

Precisely what i don't understand. Ok even if it was the custom at the time, why couldn't the noble pious companions refrain from having extra marital relationships with them, even through an "interim period". if today in this society filled with invitation to zinna, why couldn't in that society people stop

I think the quotes I gave at the beginning demonstrate why it wasn't possible to remove slavery in a single step.



Daoud,

leaving aside your repugnant and insulting arrogance

Which part was repugnant and/or insulting?

and patronising attitude towards a genuine search for understanding

How do you know which search is genuine or not?

we are constantly told that the Qu'ran is literally true word for word and applies to all times and all places yet here it is being acknowledged that some aspects are culture and time specific and have no relevance to the situation as it currently is in the modern world.

It makes no sense to claim that the Qu'ran, the Holy word and law of Allah, was a) a response to the cultural and legal situation of the time and b) is universally applicable in all its aspects in all times and places.

Can you show me what is the conflict between saying that the Qur'an is universal and that it focused on removing degrading cultural practices at the same time? Is the abolishment of slavery not universal? And what about when the Qur'an forbids the burying of baby girls? What is your response to that? Clearly, that is only a Qur'anic directive which responds to an oppressive cultural practice, yet the wisdom behind it and the principles of justice which it carries is certainly timeless.




... one last thing. Lest anyone think that slavery is completely alien to Judaism and Christianity, let us examine what their sources say on the topic.

Leviticus 25:44-46 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. (RSV)

Famous 18th Century Bible Commentator, Reverend Matthew Henry, writes:

That he (i.e. Israelite) should not serve as a bond-servant (v. 39), nor be sold with the sale of a bondman (v. 42); that is, "it must not be looked upon that his master that bought him had as absolute a property in him as in a captive taken in war, that might be used, sold, and bequeathed, at pleasure, as much as a man’s cattle; no, he shall serve thee as a hired servant, whom the master has the use of only, but not a despotic power over.

...That they might purchase bondmen of the heathen nations that were round about them, or of those strangers that sojourned among them (except of those seven nations that were to be destroyed); and might claim a dominion over them, and entail them upon their families as an inheritance, for the year of jubilee should give no discharge to them, v. 44, 46. Thus in our English plantations the negroes only are used as slaves; how much to the credit of Christianity I shall not say… Let me only add here that, though they are not forbidden to rule their bondmen with rigour, yet the Jewish doctors say, "It is the property of mercy, and way of wisdom, that a man should be compassionate, and not make his yoke heavy upon any servant that he has. (SOURCE)

And another verse:
Exodus 21:20-21 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.

Reverend Henry:

Direction is given what should be done if a servant died by his master’s correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound; yet, if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances, v. 20. But, if he continued a day or two after the correction given, the master was supposed to suffer enough by losing his servant, v. 21. Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master’s reasonable beating of him, but chance-medley. Yet let all masters take heed of tyrannizing over their servants; the gospel teaches them even to forbear and moderate threatenings (Eph. 6:9), considering with holy Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13–15. (SOURCE)

This one is particularly disturbing:
Exodus 21:7-11 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (NLT)

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (NLT)

These quotes allow us to appreciate the revolution which Islam brought about with respect to removing slavery.

[Truth_Seeker]

Jazakallah Khair Br. Ansar, this is defintely the best article i have read so far regarding this topic, it's clarified a lot of things now alhumdulillah
I totally undestand and love the way islam gradually abolished slavery, nothin else could have been done, i see that, since it was a custom at the time and was so deep rooted, so thus it couldn't be ablosihed immediately. But i still don't understand the extra marital relations part, where they were still allowed to have sex with them. Why couldn't it have been that, while slaves were distributed by the goverment like you said, clothed and fed like you've said , but instead at the same time why wasn't there a ruling saying you can't have sex with slaves. Ok i see that they were together everyday, and slaves could have been pretty etc, but the masters could have done jihad and strived to avoid giving in to their lusts, it could have been a test from Allah. Alhumdulillah, may Allah reard you for the posts you've done, but i don't object to slavery the way islam had it, i think it was fanstastic that the were treated as Brothers and sisters, the only part i have not understood all this time is the part about being able to have sex, this is the part i was referring to as being inhumane, since a female captive has no choice but to oblige to the command of her master, and if he wanted sex she'd have to provide

Clearly you're changing your statement now. To clarify:
-If a slave-girl gives birth to her master's son, the son is NOT a slave, and when the master dies the girl is free as well.

Ok i might have been unclear again, i apologise. My argument was, and still is, that not all scholars agree on the issue of slavery. Some say it was allowed etc. My argument was that i didn't want to pick and choose answers that sound most attractive, i rather wanted the truth. To illustrate this i was referring to the article from islamonline, and a different answer i read on islam-qa
Here is what it says on islamonline "Here Islam stipulated that if through sexual intercourse, the female slave got pregnant from her master, she would automatically gain her freedom."
Now here is what it says on islam-qa "if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies".
As you can see, one says you become free when you become pregnant a woman would automatically gain her freedom, while the other one says when she becomes pregnant she would be free when the master dies
From this i think scholars are divided on this issue, some give answers that are pleasing to people like me, like the one on islamonline, while others seem more truthful and say have a concubine is perfectly allowed due to the law of Ibrahim AS as on http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&QR=10382
Surely in this kind of matter all scholars should have to come to the same opinion and conclusion, that slavery was for that time and it won't happen again. For example on islam-qa, when someone has asked is it permissable to have sex with slaves, they don't say "no, it was a matter for that time because slavery was around, and now it's finished". Rather they say it's allowed and they given references from Qur'an and hadith

I think the quotes I gave at the beginning demonstrate why it wasn't possible to remove slavery in a single step.

again, i'm not saying remove slavery, i'm saying remove practice of being allowed to have sex with them

Finally, i don't understand why at the end you've decided to say it's allowed in judaism and christianity, why the random attack? Ok, if a christian had come and cricticised slavery in islam and had said christianity on the other hand is better, then fair enough i would have fully expected you to have posted what you have. But i think the end of your post was quite unneccessary

Also, i like our reply to Br. Daoud, but i disgaree a bit.
Islam says burying girls alive is bad, this clearly stands for all times
But with slavery it never said it was bad, it never said in the futre after a certain time it will be disallowed. It doesn't say put slaves in your houses if there are no institutions that take care of slaves. The verse was meant for all times surely
Now you might say it's all about context, for example it says "Kill disbelievers wherever you see them", now this is in context to a war, as in other verses it says there is no compulsion in religion. But with regards to having sex with slaves, it never said don't do it. The message was universal

[MetSudaisTwice]

salam
so what is the difference between slaves and house maids? what if you treat a house maid as equally as if though they are your family or part of your family? is this allowed?
is having house maids allowed?
wasalam

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Truth Seeker,

But i still don't understand the extra marital relations part, where they were still allowed to have sex with them. Why couldn't it have been that, while slaves were distributed by the goverment like you said, clothed and fed like you've said , but instead at the same time why wasn't there a ruling saying you can't have sex with slaves. Ok i see that they were together everyday, and slaves could have been pretty etc, but the masters could have done jihad and strived to avoid giving in to their lusts, it could have been a test from Allah. Alhumdulillah, may Allah reard you for the posts you've done, but i don't object to slavery the way islam had it, i think it was fanstastic that the were treated as Brothers and sisters, the only part i have not understood all this time is the part about being able to have sex, this is the part i was referring to as being inhumane, since a female captive has no choice but to oblige to the command of her master, and if he wanted sex she'd have to provide

You must understand the strict rules Islam has placed with respect to relations between opposite genders. A female servant would be in the house all the time and in close proximity to the 'master'. Hence, it would not have been appropriate to leave this as it is, for undoubtedly there would have been problems that might arise. Just as Islam made relations within marriage permissable, it was necessary that these relations be made permissable as well in order to protect the society from corruption. These relations were considered no different from husband-wife relations, and just as Islam commands men to treat their women with kindness, likewise it says the same concerning treatment of female servants. So why are you asking about the female servant being forced to have relations and not the wife? Because most people understand that in a husband-wife relationship there is understanding and good treatment. Well, the same applies to a relationship with a female servant.

Ok i might have been unclear again, i apologise. My argument was, and still is, that not all scholars agree on the issue of slavery. Some say it was allowed etc.

Everyone says it was allowed.

My argument was that i didn't want to pick and choose answers that sound most attractive, i rather wanted the truth. To illustrate this i was referring to the article from islamonline, and a different answer i read on islam-qa
Here is what it says on islamonline "Here Islam stipulated that if through sexual intercourse, the female slave got pregnant from her master, she would automatically gain her freedom."
Now here is what it says on islam-qa "if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies".
As you can see, one says you become free when you become pregnant a woman would automatically gain her freedom, while the other one says when she becomes pregnant she would be free when the master dies

No, you misunderstood the Islamonline article. It is saying the same thing; that the woman becomes free after the master dies, but even during that period she cannot be given to anyone else as a slave.

This is what the IslamToday.com fatwa committe writes:

Slavery is a way for the Muslim state to deal with war captives. From the outset, it falls under the jurisdiction of the state to apply or abandon this policy at its sole discretion and in an official capacity in consideration of the general welfare.

A soldier cannot just take a slave for himself. He cannot take advantage of female captives. That would be rape. The government of the Muslim state must decide what to do with the war captives. The first priority of the Muslim state would usually be to trade those captives for Muslim prisoners of war held by the enemy. The state also has the option to free the captives. If the state deems that it is not in public interests to do so, it may entrust the captives to individuals.

A slave thereafter belongs to his master. He may not share her with others sexually. If he has a slave girl and she becomes pregnant and gives birth to his child, then the child is free and legitimate and she is promoted to the status of a child's mother. She cannot be sold and will be totally free when her master dies.

Again, this site agrees with both IslamOnline and Islamqa in this matter.

From this i think scholars are divided on this issue, some give answers that are pleasing to people like me, like the one on islamonline, while others seem more truthful and say have a concubine is perfectly allowed due to the law of Ibrahim AS as on http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&QR=10382

Both sites agree that Islam allowed it and both sites agree that steps were taken to remove it. Where is the disagreement?

For example on islam-qa, when someone has asked is it permissable to have sex with slaves, they don't say "no, it was a matter for that time because slavery was around, and now it's finished". Rather they say it's allowed and they given references from Qur'an and hadith

If someone already has a slave that is a different matter. They are encouraged to free the slaves, and in fact if they treat the slave poorly the expiation is to free them.

Finally, i don't understand why at the end you've decided to say it's allowed in judaism and christianity, why the random attack? Ok, if a christian had come and cricticised slavery in islam and had said christianity on the other hand is better, then fair enough i would have fully expected you to have posted what you have. But i think the end of your post was quite unneccessary

No, I don't think it was unnecessary. People often attack Islam on this issue and let Christianity and Judaism go free when in reality Islam was the one preaching freedom and kindness. Most of the attacks on Islam and slavery are distortions that come from Christian missionaries so it is only fair to expose their hypocrisy. Direct the criticism to where it belongs.

Also, i like our reply to Br. Daoud, but i disgaree a bit.
Islam says burying girls alive is bad, this clearly stands for all times
But with slavery it never said it was bad, it never said in the futre after a certain time it will be disallowed. It doesn't say put slaves in your houses if there are no institutions that take care of slaves. The verse was meant for all times surely

Please go back and read what I wrote in context. He complained that how can we say Islam's rulings on slavery were specific for a certain time period, while Islam is universal at the same time. The answer is that Islam's ruling on burying girls was also a response to an oppressive cultural practice that doesn't really occur today, but the condemnation is universal. So Islam's response to burying girls is universal and Islam's response to slavery is universal. The two responses don't have to be identical, for indeed they were not. Islam responded to burying baby girls by prohibiting it immediately, but since that wasn't possible with regard to slaves, it respoded by putting steps in place for its removal. Both responses were universal and timeless while responding to a specific oppressive practice at the same time.

Now you asked, "Why couldn't Islam prohibit relations with slave girls but still put steps in place to remove slavery". The two things could not coexist. If there were slave-girls in the service of their masters, it would not have been possible to prohibit relations between them when they were always in close proximity. Instead, Islam ensured that the treatment of slaves was improved and placed an immense amount of pressure to remove slavery altogether, which I have already demonstrated.

[Truth_Seeker]

Jazakallah Khair bro, mashallah a very good reply, may Allah always reward you
I'd give you rep points but i think it's already full!
i got other questions i'll be posting soon inshallah that i'm sure you can also help clarify in

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I'm glad you found my response useful. May Allah swt bless you in seeking truth.

[Daoud]

Is the abolishment of slavery not universal?[/b] And what about when the Qur'an forbids the burying of baby girls? What is your response to that? Clearly, that is only a Qur'anic directive which responds to an oppressive cultural practice, yet the wisdom behind it and the principles of justice which it carries is certainly timeless.

:

the point being that your explanation for the Qu'ran not abolishing slavery outright was that it was not possible to do it at that time and that place and that locates the revelation in a specific culture and shows it being adapted to suit a certain situation that obtained and that does not now.


I'm not in a position to judge your explanation (although to me it begs the question that given that the Prophet saws went on such a limb regarding so many other things why would he hold back with slavery?) but to me it smacks of rationalisation - if the Qu'ran allows slavery lets just say it allows slavery but that was time and culture specific and since those conditions no longer apply we don't have to be bound by it.

and likewise if you want to call not burying female babies alive 'timeless wisdom' well I don't think anyone could argue with that but I don't see the point of your argument: it was very clearly a culturally specific practice- I don't personally feel the need to be warned against it so the point is how do we distinguish what the application of this 'timeless wisdom' on this and other matters is to be in the present time?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

the point being that your explanation for the Qu'ran not abolishing slavery outright was that it was not possible to do it at that time and that place and that locates the revelation in a specific culture and shows it being adapted to suit a certain situation that obtained and that does not now.

I already answered this. The fact that the Qur'an responds to an oppressive cultural practice by setting steps for its removal does not contradict our saying that it is universal. I challenged you before to show me the contradiction between those two sayings.

I'm not in a position to judge your explanation

Then don't. Why speak on a topic you are ignorant of? That is the greatest problem with the Muslim ummah today: lack of education.

(although to me it begs the question that given that the Prophet saws went on such a limb regarding so many other things why would he hold back with slavery?)

This was already explained above. Read my previous post where I explained why it wouldn't have been practical to prohibit slavery instantly.

but to me it smacks of rationalisation - if the Qu'ran allows slavery lets just say it allows slavery but that was time and culture specific and since those conditions no longer apply we don't have to be bound by it.

I'm going to say what I've already said, which is adequate. And that is that the Qur'an took steps to eradicate slavery.

and likewise if you want to call not burying female babies alive 'timeless wisdom' well I don't think anyone could argue with that but I don't see the point of your argument

The point of my argument is that there are a number of specific cultural practices that the Qur'an responded to, slavery being only one of them.

it was very clearly a culturally specific practice- I don't personally feel the need to be warned against it so the point is how do we distinguish what the application of this 'timeless wisdom' on this and other matters is to be in the present time?

We don't. Islam has already been very clear on the limits and laws, please go back and read my posts so that you understand the issue being discussed.

[Chuck]

I'm not in a position to judge your explanation (although to me it begs the question that given that the Prophet saws went on such a limb regarding so many other things why would he hold back with slavery?) but to me it smacks of rationalisation - if the Qu'ran allows slavery lets just say it allows slavery but that was time and culture specific and since those conditions no longer apply we don't have to be bound by it.

Think what would have happened if Muslims have freed all the slaves? How these slaves would have earned a living if all of them were freed at once? In my opinion, the economy would have collapsed, which would have hurt all people including the freed slaves. The case for slavery is not like the case of alcohol. Slavery, depending on the socio-economic conditions of a society, is not a bad thing if it is done within the bounds of human rights. In another words, if paying for domestic work is not affordable by socio-economic situations of a society, then a person would work happily if you provide him/her food, shelter, clothing, and treat him/her with respect. It doesn't matter if you call this person slave, servant, or anything else – these are only the names for which people tend to confuse themselves – the important thing is the treatment of the person.

[Bittersteel]

“Ma Malakat Aimanukum” is one of the most misunderstood, misused and abused term of the Quran. It is usually taken as to mean “female slave”. Before we discuss the correct meaning of this term, it must be borne in mind that there is a specific word in Arabic language for female slaves and this word has been used at least twice in the Quran, once as a singular [“amatun” which is used in 2:221] and secondly as a plural [“imaaun”, which is used in 24:32].

“Ma Malakat Aimanukum” literally has the following meanings:

-What your right hands possess

-What you rightfully have

-What you [already] have

-What is rightfully yours

Now “what your right hands possess”, or “what you rightfully have” or “what is rightfully yours” or “what your [already] have” could be any of the following:

-Your wife

-Your spouse

-Your servant

-Your possession, or property

-Your slave [both male or female] because “Ma Malakat Aimanukum” refers to a neutral gender which is applicable to both male or female.

-Your prisoner of war

Now let us explore each key word in the term “Ma Malakat Aimanukum”, a little further.

The word “Malakat” has the root meem-laam-kaaf [M-L-K]. It primary signification is:

-To possess or own [something or someone], particularly with ability to have it to oneself exclusively

Other meanings include:

-To have power to command or exercise authority

-To acquire

-To take over

-To Marry

As can be seen that one of the meanings is “to marry”. This is according to one of the most authentic dictionaries of Arabic language [Lisan-ul-Arab by Ibn-Manzoor Vol. 13, page 184]. Another authentic dictionary of Modern Arabic also describes this meaning [The Hans Wehrs Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, page 1081].

According to Lisan-ul-Arab, al-milaak means

-Marriage

-The bond of holy matrimony

According to the same dictionary, milaakun also means

-Wife

The word “milkun” which has plural “amlaak” means:

-Possessions

-Lands

-Fortune

-Wealth

-Real estate

-Property

The word “mulkun” means:

-Sovereignty

-Kingship

-Possession

-Right of possession [what is rightfully yours]

In the term “Ma Malakat Aimanukum”, the word MALAKAT is in the PAST tense, which signifies “What you ALREADY have”, or “what you ALREADY possess” or “what CAME in your possession”. The word, grammatically, cannot be taken as to mean “what you WILL possess” or “what you WILL have”. The future or present tense form of this word is altogether different and has been used in various verses of Quran [5:17, 5:76, 10:31, 13:16, 16:76, 17:56, 19:87, 20:89, 25:3, 29:7, 34:22, 34:42, 35:13, 39:43, 43:86, 82:19]

Now let us see the word “Aimanukum”.

The word “Aimanun” is the plural of “Yaminun” and means “Right hands”. The root of this word is ya-meem-noon [Y-M-N].

The word “Yaminun” also means:

-A covenant

-An oath

The word “Yumnun”, has the same root Y-M-N and means:

-Prosperity

-Good luck

-Good fortune

-Good omen

-Auspiciousness

Now think of “Marriage” which is also a covenant [as described in Quran] and an event of auspiciousness, then see the suitability of the use of word “Aimanun” in context of marriage, as well.

From the above it can be seen that “Ma Malakat Aimanukum”, may not only refer to “slave” [which could be both male or female] but also to:

-Spouse

-Wife

-Servants

-Prisoners of war

-Subordinates

-What is rightfully yours

Before we move further, another important word [which is used as conjunction] must also be explained. The word is “AW”, used in the phrase “aw ma malakat aymanukum”. “AW” is usually translated as “OR”. There is no doubt that “OR” is one of the meanings of “AW” but as a matter of fact, this word is used in no less than 12 different ways [also explained in Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon]. One of the uses of this word is TAFSEEL, [i.e. elaborative or explanatory]. In other words, “aw” is also used to add some meaning to the previous word or to explain a previous word or to give some attribute or characteristics of the previous word.

Please refer to 17:110. In this verse, there is a phrase “odAAoo Allaha awi odAAoo alrrahmana”. Note carefully how “Allah” and “Rahman” are separated by the word “aw”. Now here “aw” does not imply that “Allah” and “Rahman” are two different Beings. Without doubt, “Allah” and “Rahman” is one and the same Being. “Rahman” is an attribute of “Allah”.

Now refer to verses 23:6 and 70:30.

23:6 Illa AAala azwajihim aw ma malakat aymanuhum fainnahum ghayru maloomeena

70:30 Illa AAala azwajihim aw ma malakat aymanuhum fainnahum ghayru maloomeena

In both the above verses, “azwajihim” and “ma malakat aymanuhum” are separated by “aw”. Here it does not mean that “azwajihim” and “ma malakat aymanuhum” are two different objects. Actually, they refer to one and the same object. “azwajihim” ARE “ma malakat aymanuhum” i.e. “their spouses” are “what they rightfully possess”.

In 4:24, the term “ma malakat aymanukum” refers to those married women which are wives of the disbelievers [as explained in 60:10]. The verse 4:24 makes unlawful to marry all married women except those married women that have come to the believers as prisoners of wars or emigrants but their husbands are non-believers. [After becoming of these women believers, Quran renders their previous marriage to the unbelievers, null]

In 4:3, the term “ma malakat aymanukum” means “what you rightfully possess” or “what you [already] have”.

In 33:52, the Prophet is forbidden to marry any more women in spite of their beauty except to MARRY only the slave girls or prisoners of war referred in 60:10, to make them part of the family and give them status.

Taken from here.

please feel free to contribute.

[Snowflake]

My apologies and with no disrespect to any of the posters, but due to not being well, I was unable to read all the posts as they were really long and I cannot focus long enough. But I am seriously confused about the topic going. I have been listening to Quran recitation all day and coincidentally this very topic was mentioned. The translation is in urdu and as far as I understood, it says in the Quran that a man may have an intimate relationship with his servant and his wife/wives? The word used was mubasharat. Is this correct?
Putting it bluntly so as to avoid confusion does it mean that he can have intercourse with her without being married to her, cuz she is owned by him? And I glimpsed in brother Ansars post ( I think, forgive if I'm mixed up) that this is to avoid corruption in society? Can you plz elaborate on this as it's really not making sense to me


P.S sorry to have given you extra work to do