Aaqib
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
"And they who guard their private parts" - "Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed -" 23:5 - 23:6
My confusion in slavery in islam
- Thread starter Al Sultan
- Start date
- Replies 114
- Views 19K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
- Status
Aaqib
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
I don't think that the prophet would be taking muslim slaves, let alone fighting muslims, right? Well, don't count on me for that, I dont know.
And the aiyah literally says guard your private parts, unless it is to your wives, which you've married, or what your right hand possess (slaves). See?
Born_Believer
Elite Member
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 19
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
I don't know if you are ignorant on this or purely lying, I hope it is the former.
Let me define the word concubine to you, as is in the English dictionary: "a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives" The word is closely related to "mistress", hopefully you understand what that is also. I have highlighted the important aspect.
At no point did Maariyah RA, who was given the same status as all of the Prophet PBUHs wives (that of the mother of believers) was ever treated as less than the other wives. She was in noway a mistress or a concubine.
As you have mentioned, Maariya RA was indeed once a slave but coming under the protection of the Prophet, she was never a slave, in fact she bore his child, in fact she was gifted as a wife. This also resulted in her conversion. The only difference is that a nikka did not take place because the nikka is a contract of the transferance of a woman from one wali to another. Sadly, slaves do not have the traditional wali (father, brother etc). So her being gifted to the Prophet PBUH opened him up for what was a marriage without the required contract.
Now, the verse you quoted, if you read any legitimate tafsir of the Quran, you will come to the approrpiate understanding. Once again, it involves the nikkah contract but this verse speaks not just have slave women bought or sold in the market but those captured in battel. Just a brief understanding of history at the time and since (or before) you will understand how poorly such women were treated. Islam came along and said, if a man has intercourse with a woman who he has captured, then she must be given the exact same rights and quality of life as his wife or wives. However, a nikkah contract in this regard would not be available so the term wife is not used by Allah in the Quran but the treatment of the woman is as such.
Now look back the the word concubine, is such a woman a concubine or a mistress? No, she is a wife who had no wali so a contract wasn ot required. Plus this was never forced on her as it must be a concensual discussion.
there is a great explanation of this, by Nouman Ali Khan, using various sources of tafsir.
So the use of the word concubine or mistress isn't just wrong, it could be sinful if done so knowing the truth. And to label such an accusation on the Prophet is a grace mistake.
Hopefully you understand now and I have done my best to explain this to you. I hope Allah helps you understand.
Huzaifah ibn Adam
IB Expert
- Messages
- 2,252
- Reaction score
- 170
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Brother, don't try to apologise for Islaam by bringing in semantics of English. The Aayaat are in Arabic, not in English. So the definition of "concubine" counts for nothing at all. The Qur'aan is in Arabic and the Tafaaseer are in Arabic. Words in Arabic referring to slave-girls are "Amah", "Jaariyah", etc. And all of those words refer to slave-girls who have been captured through Jihaad (because that is the one and only form through which slavery occurs; the prisoners of war being made into slaves).
What you have said regarding the treatment is correct and is a separate issue. The way Islaam views and encourages a Muslim to treat a Jaariyah/Amah (slave-girl) in his possession is many times greater than people today even treat their wives. In fact, she is treated like a queen. No oppression is done to her. A person who doesn't know better would think that she is the wife of this man, not a slave-girl. That is all in its place. No one is disputing that.
What you have said regarding the treatment is correct and is a separate issue. The way Islaam views and encourages a Muslim to treat a Jaariyah/Amah (slave-girl) in his possession is many times greater than people today even treat their wives. In fact, she is treated like a queen. No oppression is done to her. A person who doesn't know better would think that she is the wife of this man, not a slave-girl. That is all in its place. No one is disputing that.
Last edited:
Huzaifah ibn Adam
IB Expert
- Messages
- 2,252
- Reaction score
- 170
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
The fact remains:
It is permissible for a man to have sexual intercourse with a Jaariyah/Amah (slave-girl) belonging to him. This is permissible according to the Qur'aan itself.
The treatment of said Jaariyah/Amah is a separate issue entirely.
It is permissible for a man to have sexual intercourse with a Jaariyah/Amah (slave-girl) belonging to him. This is permissible according to the Qur'aan itself.
The treatment of said Jaariyah/Amah is a separate issue entirely.
Zafran
IB Expert
- Messages
- 2,737
- Reaction score
- 276
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
So if Isis captures Yazidi women and Justifies there action with what your saying its OK? seriously? what about all the outlawing of slavery in most Muslim countries? does that count?
There are countries with Muslims in them but no real Muslim countries as they are all under the blade of the kufaar and THEIR rules and regulations.
Zafran
IB Expert
- Messages
- 2,737
- Reaction score
- 276
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
what? so banning slavery is a "Kuffar" rule??
Perhaps the word irrelevant is not an appropriate one.
My point is... during the times of the introduction of the deen many traditions were outlawed, burying baby girls, intoxicants etc. Some I am sure came in stages. Aspects on slavery is something that would come in stages as it involves human dynamics.
So, (without fully studying as you would have) it appears entirely logical to have guides given to cater even for the brief moment in time. But after the moment has passed, the eligibilty no longer exists as the situation, is no longer the same. A person should be "paid before his sweat dries on his skin", hence there is no more slaves class.
To further add, (again purely from my simple understanding) the Quran's verses has many different functions, as guides, warnings, reminders, dua, historical accounts, simple description of Allah through His Virtues and other truths for us to ponder and reflect.
So on this verse it may not be as I put it 'irrelevant', but categorises the situation that was being phased out..
Again, this is an area that has remained untackled in my mind (but it really matters not for me because I don't have slaves or in a position to hold concubines) but this thread has given me opportunity to clarify some matters.
JK.
eace:
Little_Lion
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 97
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
I think the very blunt question everyone is trying to get at here is, does Islam TODAY allow slavery? Are the actions of groups like ISIS, who are taking slaves from the areas that they conquer, abiding by the rules set out in the Qur'an when they take females without their permission? Could I, according to Islam, hypothetically go to Syria and buy myself a slave tomorrow?
Or would modern day slavery fall under the category of oppression according to Qur'anic teachings?
Or would modern day slavery fall under the category of oppression according to Qur'anic teachings?
There are difference of opinions in this issue which most ulama say you cant except you get married (no need of wali, announcement etc) with them with atleast some least mahr even just a shirt ( you must take all Noble Quran verses into account ) like Prophet :saws: married with saffiya the Jew and Juveria (razd anha) who were once slaves in battle but both realised islam was true and embraced islam were granted freedom as Mahr and Prophet :saws: married with them . Unlike Maria Jibitiya (razd anha) who came as a Gift from the ruler of Egypt and she was also married (as per Mufti Menk ) after freedom though SOME SAY she got freedom after the birth of Prophet:saws: son Ibrahim (R.A). Even if the case is former WE MUST NOT FORGET to Prophet :saws: Allah had given special previleges that ordinary muslims do not who had the 30's mens strength and as ruler to do anything what he thought was right (his marriage did wonders of reverts to Islam) . Muslims cant marry NON MUSLIMS except if they are people of the book.
Bashir ibn Ka’ab recited the verse: “Walk in its (the earth’s) manaakib” {Surah Mulk:15** Then he asked his slave-girl: ‘If you know what is ‘its manaakib’ then you are free for the sake of Allah.’ She answered: ‘Its manaakib is its mountains.’ It was as though his face changed colour due to anger. He desired (to keep her and have intercourse with) her, so he asked the scholars (concerning the ruling of permissibility of intercourse with her). Some permitted it while others prohibited it. So he asked Abu Dardaa () and he replied: ‘Good is contentment and sin is doubt. Leave that which puts you in doubt for that which does not.’ So he (Bashir) left her.
[Ibn Abi Shaibah in ‘Musannaf’ Vol.9 Pg.84-85 #16414 Shaikh Awwamah’s Edition, Tabri in his ‘Tafsir’ Vol.23 Pg.128 Turki’s Edition]
This ENDORSMENT of Umar R.A will enlighten the issue
In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685 we read the following story:
Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: 'Allah didn't want to disgrace Dharar'
Also kindly refer to my thread in ummah '' Muslims cant force sex on Slaves ''
Last edited:
I am of the opinion that slaves as we know it to mean today is not compatible with the spirit of islam. We are to help the unfortunate, not take advantage of their situation for our pleasures(?). .
Hence, my point of view is perhaps personal as I still don't 'see' how it works in context of today's world.
eace:kritikvernunft
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 590
- Reaction score
- 29
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Other
A man will generally seek to have sex with any female suitable for this, as long as there is no credible opposition from other men. If the man defeats them in battle, the woman is a slave. If he bribes them or otherwise convinces them, she is a wife. Regardless of whether she is a slave or a wife, in the interest of the offspring, it is preferable that the man does not set her free to seek her own resources, or to attempt to find another man to obtain resources from him, to raise the children that she already has. Manumitting a woman is pretty much always a bad thing in biological terms. Religion just confirms this.
According to laws of nature, a female who could have children, should have children. That is not just the case for mankind. That is the case for all forms of life. Refusing to reproduce is not really a viable option for females. Who will make these children with her if she is a slave? There are of course other candidates besides her owner. A male slave would be an option, but you will find that the female slave may not necessarily be in favour of that option. If she reproduces with the owner, her offspring will inherit from him on an equal basis, while any children with another slave would be born pretty much empty handed. The status of the female herself is usually deemed less important than the status of her children. Furthermore, if the woman would not make children if she were free, because of her kafir outlook on life, then in accordance with the laws of nature, it would be preferably for her to be a slave.
sister herb
IB Legend
- Messages
- 9,198
- Reaction score
- 1,026
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Can we really call it as Jihaad what Daesh is doing? Do they fight for Islam when they are killing innocent civilians, including women and children? What Islam says about kind of actions? Are they lawful acts or not?
kritikvernunft
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 590
- Reaction score
- 29
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Other
I do not think that anybody is claiming that they are seeking to kill women or children. The controversy is rather about Yazidi female captives, which is a controversy that is not about killing but about enslaving these Yazidi girls. Since the men who would have been able to prevent them from doing that, were defeated in battle, who else could prevent them from doing that? Seriously, that the ones who do not like it, engage them in battle. Still, the prize will not be that they would get these girls instead of them, because the idea would then be to "free" them. So, where are the men who are going to risk their lives and die for ... nothing? Obama is clearly also not sending anybody over there, which is understandable, because what would be in it for them? Who is going to risk his life and die to free these Yazidi females from their new "husbands"? Me? You? Anybody? Everybody'ś got better to do than risking their lives and dying for that kind of lost causes. Furthermore, the laws of nature do not care which men make children with these enslaved Yazidi females, as long as someone does.
Most women and children who get killed in Syria, were hit by American or Russian bombings raids; with some also killed by stray bullets from other parties. Still, I do not believe that anybody on any of the sides involved in this war deliberately targets women or children.
Last edited:
:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
(Peace be upon you)
Please, I implore all of you who have participated in this thread to please read herein the words that would gain you InshaAllah (God-willing) all due clarity on the subject, and all success is with Allah in whom we place our trust.
I have to oppose those persons's understanding on the thread who are using the term “concubines.”
What are “right hand possessions”?
“Right hand possessions” are not “sexual slaves” or even “concubines.” Right hand possessions were usually earned in a war as prisoners. This is not to be confused with the linguistic term “sexual slave” and is in fact an erroneous presumption leveled by the present-day Orientalist non-Muslims against Islam and many Muslims even have fallen short of the English term’s comprehension. The Arabic term "ma malakat aymanikum" can literally also be translated as "whom your oaths possess" and was a term used for the poor human beings whom an oath has been pledged of which to take care. They are considered to fall under the umbrella of people meriting special care (under oath) in a Muslim household and Muslim community.
What is the distinction between “right hand possessions” and why can they not be likened to “sexual slaves”? To understand why, let's understand sexual slavery.
Today, in many wars fought historically and in our contemporary times globally, violence against women occur by way of rape and/or forcing them into sexual slavery under the power of the victorious men. This means that these women are powerless, helpless, and treated worse than animals as their feelings and their bodies are not considered their own but under the ownership of men. Also, sexual slavery cases across the globe as recorded on the Amnesty International site have a distinct pattern: the women are forced into servicing many men and are the recipient of dominance and debased subjugation that commits them without any rights to accomplish pornographic fantasies of men under physical harm and threats and even at times corruption of mind. Sexual slavery is a form of psychological and physical torture inflicted upon women that in no way, shape, or form comparable or resembles to what Islam taught about the humane treatment that “right hand possessions” merit. Moreover, sexual slaves are necessarily the extreme givers of sexual pleasure, not the recipients, and any pleasure ever derived is evoked not out of their own will or power which means they are further psychologically damaged because to them (should that ever occur) this mistakenly means that they do deserve the dehumanizing outlook and behavior of the men under whose control they only function perfunctorily.
Right hand possessions were in many aspects similar to that of marriage, which is how it's been understood within academic study of Islam by Islamic scholars and historically in religions previously and bear the same former status as, for example, “pilegesh.”
“Pilegesh” is the Hebrew term for a slave woman or maid with similar social and legal standing to a recognized wife, often for the purpose of producing offspring.
A pilegesh was recognized among the ancient Hebrews and enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife. Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, while the greatest curse was childlessness, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, for their own barrenness. The slave woman commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife, and it was regarded as the deepest dishonor for the man to whom she belonged if hands were laid upon her.
Several biblical figures had concubines when they were not able to create natural children with their wives. The most famous example of this was with Abraham and Sarah. Sarah, feeling guilty about her inability to give Abraham children, gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. Their union created Ishmael.
So, similarly, the right hand possessions gained under the Shariah when jihad occurred meant that they merited their unique rights under Islam. They were not ever to be “used” and “abused” as the term sexual slavery connotes. But rather, when captured without their husbands or any protector, they were given protection of Muslim men and given dignity in the households. Since Islam is a religion based in practicality, reality means recognizing probabilities and then giving rules and regulations and rights based on them. Thus, Islam recognizes that men under whom these women are given as slaves might be inclined sexually towards them and thus Islam laid out the rules, regulations and rights regarding these women. This was not given so the female slave could be forced or abused as they were not to be compelled to copulate neither marry their Muslim protectors nor be forcibly converted to Islam.
Muslims of our time must be careful in understanding that what has been made permissible under Islam (i.e. allowing for sex with a slave acquired in jihad as "right hand possession") does not mean that which is also advanced by Islam.
When Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) began receiving Revelation, slavery already existed as a vestige of jahilliyah (ignorance) in the paganistic Arabia's social structure, and this hierarchy could not have been eradicated without also creating an economic collapse or people turning away from the Message of Islam.
I also wanted to clarify that even while the any slaves widespread in paganistic Arabia or gained through jihad were not forced under Islam to be freed overnight, the practice was highly encouraged which is why the practice as per the correct understanding of the rightly guided Caliph led eventually history to witness eradication of slavery under Islamic rule peacefully. More specifically, slavery was abolished under the rule of Caliph Umar :ra: (may God be pleased with him) more specifically long before the movement to abolish slavery began in other parts of the world. Also, the notable accomplishment of Islam is the peaceful way in which slavery was abolished, because for example a civil war had ensued on the issue of slavery in the United States, and, furthermore, the sudden eradication of slavery in America led to an economic collapse in the South (within America). Yet the wisdom of Islam did not let that happen to early Muslims. However, due to the Persian Empire falling under Caliph Umar's :ra: (may God be pleased with him) reign, the paradox was that eradication of slavery could not be sustained in the Caliphate.
Prophet :saws: said that if there was any prophet after him, it would have been Umar :ra:. That is because Umar :ra: was a great legislator of Islam in his own right. Also, Islam has greatly emphasized the status of Umar :ra:. If abolition of slavery had not been right in Arabia, Umar :ra: wouldn't have followed that understanding when he became Caliph.
Prophet :saws: said, "If there were to be a prophet after me, indeed he would be Umar, son of Khattab."
Prophet :saws: said, "Allah has placed truth upon Umar's tongue and heart."
Prophet :saws: said, "I dreamt that I was at a well drawing water with a young camel's bucket, Abu Bakr came and drew one or two buckets, but there was some weakness in his drawing. May Allah forgive him. Then 'Umar ibn al-Khattab came and it turned into a large bucket in his hand. I have not seen a leader among the people work so well as he did until the people watered their camels."
Prophet :saws: said, "While I was asleep, I dreamt that I drank (milk) until I could feel moisture coming out of my nails and then I gave it to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab." They asked, "How do you interpret it, Messenger of Allah?" He :saws: replied, "It means knowledge."
The above is evidence on what Allah intended, as the knowledge of the deen in terms of shariah was very correct with Umar :ra: and therefore it would be incorrect to say that slavery cannot be abolished in Islam, because it had once been abolished within Islam.
The question may arise as to why were these captive slave women were acquired as “right hand possessions” and not released on their own cognizance. That is because Islam is a pragmatic religion. Historically, what has happened after wars is that the women on the losing side became prey to starvation, poverty, prostitution, rape by lawless men on the streets, and their children bore the stigma of illegitimacy should they become pregnant in a time either due to rape or prostitution. In fact, they would have definitely found it hard to find suitors even from among their free male counterparts, had they been released, who’d suspect them of being ravished by their captors. Islam, however, envisioned a protective umbrella under which the responsibility of the women would specifically fall on the shoulders of the winning side of the warmongers so that these women's safety and chastity could be safeguarded and vouchsafed. Though glimmer it may be in the beginning, the hope of Islam is ultimately to secure for these women a marital home as free persons whereby their rights and dignity would be permanently secured.
Historically, also, there were many wives of enemy combatants in jihad who were persecuted because they acknowledged the message of Islam and many also voluntarily sought asylum in the Muslim community out for economic and social reasons alone since Muslim women were granted rights (e.g. property ownership, community support, etc.) that were unprecedented at that time. Since these women did not go through a normal divorce process, an exceptional contract allows them to “marry” Muslims as free woman, not as slaves, and to have the protection and maintenance of the Muslim community since they also many times themselves so desired.
Slavery, let's remember, was not initiated by Islam.
Slavery is not and never has been an Islamic invention. Slave trade was an accepted way of life and fully established in all historical societies. The word “slave” comes probably from the people of Eastern Europe, the Slavs, and in historical societies many slaves were whites. Without exception, the ancient world accepted slavery as normal and desirable. The great civilizations of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, were built upon slave labor. The Greeks, from whom we derive so many humanistic ideas, were dependent on slavery. Three quarters of the population of Athens were slaves. Even Plato's Republic was based on slave labor. This was also the case of Rome. Under the Roman law, if or when a slave owner murdered, all his slaves were put to death also. In fact, half of the population of the Roman Empire were slaves.
However, Islam is unique concerning slavery in terms of as what religiously and legally made permissible in shariah and also what it endorsed.
Even then Western pseudo-intellectuals and Orientalists would have us erroneously believe that Islam jeopardized the rights of women with the concept of “right hand possessions.” But we have to ask specific questions then to understand if that is indeed the case: Was it Islam that considered woman as being responsible for the banishing of man from Paradise? Was it Islam that took women as being the cause of all evils or regarded her as serpents? Was it in Islam that a meeting was held to debate whether woman could be regarded as a human being or not? No! This took place in France in 587 C.E. Actually all this was the norm of the past days of Western civilizations.
When Islam started, it tried to put an end to all such inhumane practices. It left no stone unturned in its quest to let women have their rights and dignity restored. This is clearly manifest in the way Islam handled the issue of slavery. Right from the start, Islam set a goal to eradicate this barbaric system. Yet, it needed to be done gradually, as the case with all bad habit and institutionalized practices that have stronghold in a society. People never give up easily!
As we know, after the end of hostilities, it’s the norm that prisoners of war be freed and exchanged through mutual agreement between the parties. Islam has made this clear in its divine texts that the captives must be freed through ransom or without ransom. Also, it’s socially understood that marrying freed female captives, would normally secure their rights, more than would be the case if they were set free without any guarantee for survival or for preserving their dignity.
We have to investigate further into this custom before we pass judgment.
There is an Islamic significance attached to the term “right hand possessions.” What is the immediate significance of this expression? The word “right hands” here refers to women taken as prisoners of war. It is by no means an implication of concubinage, for this is totally prohibited in Islam. Nor does it refer to purchasing female slaves from market to be used to satisfy sexual urge. It’s only during warfare that the right hand actually takes possession of captives, and this is what the Quran means. Another more important significance of the term “right hands possessions” is the clear reflection of the great concern Islam has for preserving the rights of those captives because linguistically the right hand has its special merit and privileged function in Islam.
Imam Qurtubi, in his commentary on this verse, says: “Allah Almighty uses the word ‘right hand’ here for it denotes great honor and respect. It suffices that it’s the one used when referring to spending, as mentioned in the hadith ‘… he who provides charity (seeking only Allah’s reward) in a way that his left hand does not know what his right hand spends …’ And it is the very hand used in making pledge of allegiance … etc.”
The term this indicates that the word “what your right hand possess” has a special and glorified meaning in Islamic usage. In fact, it signifies the great care and good treatment that captives or prisoners of wars should be accorded. This is how Islam dealt with the issue from the earliest stages. All this did not materialize all of a sudden, for slavery was a social ailment that needed to be addressed. So it was a gradual strategy laid down by Islam, not only to eradicate slavery, but also to give the freed slaves a complete social rehabilitation. First of all, Islam stipulated that all masters should take care of their captives; they should not be overburdened with tasks, nor should they be deprived of their human rights. The Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) made this clear in his hadith (prophetic tradition) that masters should treat their slaves as their brothers and female captives as their sisters, if not in faith, at least in humanity. He :saws: said: “Your servants are thy brethren. Allah has put them under your control. He could, if He willed, make you under their control. Thus, whoever has his brother under his control, let him feed him of his same food and dress him of his same dress. Never saddle them with work that goes beyond their capability. If the work happens to be somehow difficult, lend them a helping hand.”
As for female captives, Imam Bukhari quotes the Prophet :saws: as saying: “If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward.”
You see, that’s how Islam set the course of emancipating slaves. That they should be well treated has never been in doubt. Also, educating female captives and marrying them, after emancipation is considered an act of charity, which would earn one great reward. Not only that. Islam further put an end to the habit of using derogatory or pejorative names to address slaves. For in Islam, man or woman must not show servitude to anyone besides Allah the Almighty. So it was stipulated that the captives should be addressed in honored terms. Besides all that, the act of emancipating slaves used to be a competitive work among the Prophet’s :saws: Companions :ra:, for it was highly recommended by Islam and was considered an act of worship.
While Islam has also made use of what was an international custom during that era in enabling the custom of having intercourse with female captives, Islam placed specific limitations also. Here, Islam stipulated that if through sexual intercourse, the female slave got pregnant from her master, she would automatically gain her freedom. So would her child for he’d be born free then. What a wise approach to eliminate the bad habit and institutionalized practice of preternatural slavery in Arabia! So, allowing intercourse with a willing captive was not a means of unleashing sexual desires for men because she had to be treated the same as a wife even though her legal status was not that of a wife. Also, if Islam had envisioned slavery as something permanent, being pregnant would have availed the slave woman nothing, for she’d remain the property of her master no matter what and yet Islam decreed an automatic manumission of a woman who gave birth. No, Islam did not allow the practice for a sensual and voluptuous goal but to dignify women on the losing side of war and also the slave women who previously had no rights in pagan Arabia.
Let's remember also that Islam encourages Muslims to treat any slaves (man or woman) the same that they would treat themselves in terms of clothing, food, and shelter. The humane treatment and particular rights given to them as well as voluntary manumission is also primarily why many, even can be said to umpteen, non-Muslim slaves accepted Islam from their own volition as they recognized that such was unprecedented up to that time and that if they as slaves could merit such recognition of their humanity then that Scripture must be honored.
Verily, Allah honored mankind by enjoining upon them Islam.
Now, the final answer to the question of whether slavery is permissible in shariah is on a mere technicality yes because Islam did once upon a time acknowledge slavery as a practice even though the same Islam also witnessed the complete eradication of slavery twice, once during the time of reign of Caliph Umar :ra: as per understanding of Islam's purpose in encouragement of manumission of slaves as desiring complete eradication and the other time in 19th century that included Muslim abolitionists strongly arguing for eradication of slavery due to understanding it as oppression. For us laypersons, I think it is best that we leave the question of slavery to Islamic scholars because we do not have a Caliphate under which any type of slavery could ever be considered valid. And we can never include or use the example Daesh as it is a terrorist organization that is neither Islamic nor accepted as a Caliphate and is both a manifest evil and danger to and enemy of Muslims. And therefore, we are not in a position to discuss slavery except in a very remote and hypothetical context that is a wastage of our combined time, intellect, and energies.
InshaAllah (God-willing), this post has sufficiently answered all queries and concerns.
:wa: (And peace be upon you)
(Peace be upon you)Please, I implore all of you who have participated in this thread to please read herein the words that would gain you InshaAllah (God-willing) all due clarity on the subject, and all success is with Allah in whom we place our trust.
I have to oppose those persons's understanding on the thread who are using the term “concubines.”
What are “right hand possessions”?
“Right hand possessions” are not “sexual slaves” or even “concubines.” Right hand possessions were usually earned in a war as prisoners. This is not to be confused with the linguistic term “sexual slave” and is in fact an erroneous presumption leveled by the present-day Orientalist non-Muslims against Islam and many Muslims even have fallen short of the English term’s comprehension. The Arabic term "ma malakat aymanikum" can literally also be translated as "whom your oaths possess" and was a term used for the poor human beings whom an oath has been pledged of which to take care. They are considered to fall under the umbrella of people meriting special care (under oath) in a Muslim household and Muslim community.
What is the distinction between “right hand possessions” and why can they not be likened to “sexual slaves”? To understand why, let's understand sexual slavery.
Today, in many wars fought historically and in our contemporary times globally, violence against women occur by way of rape and/or forcing them into sexual slavery under the power of the victorious men. This means that these women are powerless, helpless, and treated worse than animals as their feelings and their bodies are not considered their own but under the ownership of men. Also, sexual slavery cases across the globe as recorded on the Amnesty International site have a distinct pattern: the women are forced into servicing many men and are the recipient of dominance and debased subjugation that commits them without any rights to accomplish pornographic fantasies of men under physical harm and threats and even at times corruption of mind. Sexual slavery is a form of psychological and physical torture inflicted upon women that in no way, shape, or form comparable or resembles to what Islam taught about the humane treatment that “right hand possessions” merit. Moreover, sexual slaves are necessarily the extreme givers of sexual pleasure, not the recipients, and any pleasure ever derived is evoked not out of their own will or power which means they are further psychologically damaged because to them (should that ever occur) this mistakenly means that they do deserve the dehumanizing outlook and behavior of the men under whose control they only function perfunctorily.
Right hand possessions were in many aspects similar to that of marriage, which is how it's been understood within academic study of Islam by Islamic scholars and historically in religions previously and bear the same former status as, for example, “pilegesh.”
“Pilegesh” is the Hebrew term for a slave woman or maid with similar social and legal standing to a recognized wife, often for the purpose of producing offspring.
A pilegesh was recognized among the ancient Hebrews and enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife. Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, while the greatest curse was childlessness, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, for their own barrenness. The slave woman commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife, and it was regarded as the deepest dishonor for the man to whom she belonged if hands were laid upon her.
Several biblical figures had concubines when they were not able to create natural children with their wives. The most famous example of this was with Abraham and Sarah. Sarah, feeling guilty about her inability to give Abraham children, gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. Their union created Ishmael.
So, similarly, the right hand possessions gained under the Shariah when jihad occurred meant that they merited their unique rights under Islam. They were not ever to be “used” and “abused” as the term sexual slavery connotes. But rather, when captured without their husbands or any protector, they were given protection of Muslim men and given dignity in the households. Since Islam is a religion based in practicality, reality means recognizing probabilities and then giving rules and regulations and rights based on them. Thus, Islam recognizes that men under whom these women are given as slaves might be inclined sexually towards them and thus Islam laid out the rules, regulations and rights regarding these women. This was not given so the female slave could be forced or abused as they were not to be compelled to copulate neither marry their Muslim protectors nor be forcibly converted to Islam.
Muslims of our time must be careful in understanding that what has been made permissible under Islam (i.e. allowing for sex with a slave acquired in jihad as "right hand possession") does not mean that which is also advanced by Islam.
When Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) began receiving Revelation, slavery already existed as a vestige of jahilliyah (ignorance) in the paganistic Arabia's social structure, and this hierarchy could not have been eradicated without also creating an economic collapse or people turning away from the Message of Islam.
I also wanted to clarify that even while the any slaves widespread in paganistic Arabia or gained through jihad were not forced under Islam to be freed overnight, the practice was highly encouraged which is why the practice as per the correct understanding of the rightly guided Caliph led eventually history to witness eradication of slavery under Islamic rule peacefully. More specifically, slavery was abolished under the rule of Caliph Umar :ra: (may God be pleased with him) more specifically long before the movement to abolish slavery began in other parts of the world. Also, the notable accomplishment of Islam is the peaceful way in which slavery was abolished, because for example a civil war had ensued on the issue of slavery in the United States, and, furthermore, the sudden eradication of slavery in America led to an economic collapse in the South (within America). Yet the wisdom of Islam did not let that happen to early Muslims. However, due to the Persian Empire falling under Caliph Umar's :ra: (may God be pleased with him) reign, the paradox was that eradication of slavery could not be sustained in the Caliphate.
Prophet :saws: said that if there was any prophet after him, it would have been Umar :ra:. That is because Umar :ra: was a great legislator of Islam in his own right. Also, Islam has greatly emphasized the status of Umar :ra:. If abolition of slavery had not been right in Arabia, Umar :ra: wouldn't have followed that understanding when he became Caliph.
Prophet :saws: said, "If there were to be a prophet after me, indeed he would be Umar, son of Khattab."
Prophet :saws: said, "Allah has placed truth upon Umar's tongue and heart."
Prophet :saws: said, "I dreamt that I was at a well drawing water with a young camel's bucket, Abu Bakr came and drew one or two buckets, but there was some weakness in his drawing. May Allah forgive him. Then 'Umar ibn al-Khattab came and it turned into a large bucket in his hand. I have not seen a leader among the people work so well as he did until the people watered their camels."
Prophet :saws: said, "While I was asleep, I dreamt that I drank (milk) until I could feel moisture coming out of my nails and then I gave it to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab." They asked, "How do you interpret it, Messenger of Allah?" He :saws: replied, "It means knowledge."
The above is evidence on what Allah intended, as the knowledge of the deen in terms of shariah was very correct with Umar :ra: and therefore it would be incorrect to say that slavery cannot be abolished in Islam, because it had once been abolished within Islam.
The question may arise as to why were these captive slave women were acquired as “right hand possessions” and not released on their own cognizance. That is because Islam is a pragmatic religion. Historically, what has happened after wars is that the women on the losing side became prey to starvation, poverty, prostitution, rape by lawless men on the streets, and their children bore the stigma of illegitimacy should they become pregnant in a time either due to rape or prostitution. In fact, they would have definitely found it hard to find suitors even from among their free male counterparts, had they been released, who’d suspect them of being ravished by their captors. Islam, however, envisioned a protective umbrella under which the responsibility of the women would specifically fall on the shoulders of the winning side of the warmongers so that these women's safety and chastity could be safeguarded and vouchsafed. Though glimmer it may be in the beginning, the hope of Islam is ultimately to secure for these women a marital home as free persons whereby their rights and dignity would be permanently secured.
Historically, also, there were many wives of enemy combatants in jihad who were persecuted because they acknowledged the message of Islam and many also voluntarily sought asylum in the Muslim community out for economic and social reasons alone since Muslim women were granted rights (e.g. property ownership, community support, etc.) that were unprecedented at that time. Since these women did not go through a normal divorce process, an exceptional contract allows them to “marry” Muslims as free woman, not as slaves, and to have the protection and maintenance of the Muslim community since they also many times themselves so desired.
Slavery, let's remember, was not initiated by Islam.
Slavery is not and never has been an Islamic invention. Slave trade was an accepted way of life and fully established in all historical societies. The word “slave” comes probably from the people of Eastern Europe, the Slavs, and in historical societies many slaves were whites. Without exception, the ancient world accepted slavery as normal and desirable. The great civilizations of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, were built upon slave labor. The Greeks, from whom we derive so many humanistic ideas, were dependent on slavery. Three quarters of the population of Athens were slaves. Even Plato's Republic was based on slave labor. This was also the case of Rome. Under the Roman law, if or when a slave owner murdered, all his slaves were put to death also. In fact, half of the population of the Roman Empire were slaves.
However, Islam is unique concerning slavery in terms of as what religiously and legally made permissible in shariah and also what it endorsed.
Even then Western pseudo-intellectuals and Orientalists would have us erroneously believe that Islam jeopardized the rights of women with the concept of “right hand possessions.” But we have to ask specific questions then to understand if that is indeed the case: Was it Islam that considered woman as being responsible for the banishing of man from Paradise? Was it Islam that took women as being the cause of all evils or regarded her as serpents? Was it in Islam that a meeting was held to debate whether woman could be regarded as a human being or not? No! This took place in France in 587 C.E. Actually all this was the norm of the past days of Western civilizations.
When Islam started, it tried to put an end to all such inhumane practices. It left no stone unturned in its quest to let women have their rights and dignity restored. This is clearly manifest in the way Islam handled the issue of slavery. Right from the start, Islam set a goal to eradicate this barbaric system. Yet, it needed to be done gradually, as the case with all bad habit and institutionalized practices that have stronghold in a society. People never give up easily!
As we know, after the end of hostilities, it’s the norm that prisoners of war be freed and exchanged through mutual agreement between the parties. Islam has made this clear in its divine texts that the captives must be freed through ransom or without ransom. Also, it’s socially understood that marrying freed female captives, would normally secure their rights, more than would be the case if they were set free without any guarantee for survival or for preserving their dignity.
We have to investigate further into this custom before we pass judgment.
There is an Islamic significance attached to the term “right hand possessions.” What is the immediate significance of this expression? The word “right hands” here refers to women taken as prisoners of war. It is by no means an implication of concubinage, for this is totally prohibited in Islam. Nor does it refer to purchasing female slaves from market to be used to satisfy sexual urge. It’s only during warfare that the right hand actually takes possession of captives, and this is what the Quran means. Another more important significance of the term “right hands possessions” is the clear reflection of the great concern Islam has for preserving the rights of those captives because linguistically the right hand has its special merit and privileged function in Islam.
Imam Qurtubi, in his commentary on this verse, says: “Allah Almighty uses the word ‘right hand’ here for it denotes great honor and respect. It suffices that it’s the one used when referring to spending, as mentioned in the hadith ‘… he who provides charity (seeking only Allah’s reward) in a way that his left hand does not know what his right hand spends …’ And it is the very hand used in making pledge of allegiance … etc.”
The term this indicates that the word “what your right hand possess” has a special and glorified meaning in Islamic usage. In fact, it signifies the great care and good treatment that captives or prisoners of wars should be accorded. This is how Islam dealt with the issue from the earliest stages. All this did not materialize all of a sudden, for slavery was a social ailment that needed to be addressed. So it was a gradual strategy laid down by Islam, not only to eradicate slavery, but also to give the freed slaves a complete social rehabilitation. First of all, Islam stipulated that all masters should take care of their captives; they should not be overburdened with tasks, nor should they be deprived of their human rights. The Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) made this clear in his hadith (prophetic tradition) that masters should treat their slaves as their brothers and female captives as their sisters, if not in faith, at least in humanity. He :saws: said: “Your servants are thy brethren. Allah has put them under your control. He could, if He willed, make you under their control. Thus, whoever has his brother under his control, let him feed him of his same food and dress him of his same dress. Never saddle them with work that goes beyond their capability. If the work happens to be somehow difficult, lend them a helping hand.”
As for female captives, Imam Bukhari quotes the Prophet :saws: as saying: “If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward.”
You see, that’s how Islam set the course of emancipating slaves. That they should be well treated has never been in doubt. Also, educating female captives and marrying them, after emancipation is considered an act of charity, which would earn one great reward. Not only that. Islam further put an end to the habit of using derogatory or pejorative names to address slaves. For in Islam, man or woman must not show servitude to anyone besides Allah the Almighty. So it was stipulated that the captives should be addressed in honored terms. Besides all that, the act of emancipating slaves used to be a competitive work among the Prophet’s :saws: Companions :ra:, for it was highly recommended by Islam and was considered an act of worship.
While Islam has also made use of what was an international custom during that era in enabling the custom of having intercourse with female captives, Islam placed specific limitations also. Here, Islam stipulated that if through sexual intercourse, the female slave got pregnant from her master, she would automatically gain her freedom. So would her child for he’d be born free then. What a wise approach to eliminate the bad habit and institutionalized practice of preternatural slavery in Arabia! So, allowing intercourse with a willing captive was not a means of unleashing sexual desires for men because she had to be treated the same as a wife even though her legal status was not that of a wife. Also, if Islam had envisioned slavery as something permanent, being pregnant would have availed the slave woman nothing, for she’d remain the property of her master no matter what and yet Islam decreed an automatic manumission of a woman who gave birth. No, Islam did not allow the practice for a sensual and voluptuous goal but to dignify women on the losing side of war and also the slave women who previously had no rights in pagan Arabia.
Let's remember also that Islam encourages Muslims to treat any slaves (man or woman) the same that they would treat themselves in terms of clothing, food, and shelter. The humane treatment and particular rights given to them as well as voluntary manumission is also primarily why many, even can be said to umpteen, non-Muslim slaves accepted Islam from their own volition as they recognized that such was unprecedented up to that time and that if they as slaves could merit such recognition of their humanity then that Scripture must be honored.
Verily, Allah honored mankind by enjoining upon them Islam.
Now, the final answer to the question of whether slavery is permissible in shariah is on a mere technicality yes because Islam did once upon a time acknowledge slavery as a practice even though the same Islam also witnessed the complete eradication of slavery twice, once during the time of reign of Caliph Umar :ra: as per understanding of Islam's purpose in encouragement of manumission of slaves as desiring complete eradication and the other time in 19th century that included Muslim abolitionists strongly arguing for eradication of slavery due to understanding it as oppression. For us laypersons, I think it is best that we leave the question of slavery to Islamic scholars because we do not have a Caliphate under which any type of slavery could ever be considered valid. And we can never include or use the example Daesh as it is a terrorist organization that is neither Islamic nor accepted as a Caliphate and is both a manifest evil and danger to and enemy of Muslims. And therefore, we are not in a position to discuss slavery except in a very remote and hypothetical context that is a wastage of our combined time, intellect, and energies.
InshaAllah (God-willing), this post has sufficiently answered all queries and concerns.
:wa: (And peace be upon you)
Last edited:
Born_Believer
Elite Member
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 19
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Are you purposefully trying to mislead people?
I've just given you the explanation of the verses. There is no such thing as a concubine or simply taking a slave girl for sex, which is what you are alluding to. If the sahabah of Rasoolallah regarded Maariyah RA as one of the mothers of the believers, a title only reserved for his wives, who are you to contradict that? Who are you to say the Prophet PBUH would break Islamic law for extramarital relations?
May Allah guide you and help you, for if you are doing this on purpose to spread deceit among the Muslims then you are in serious trouble.
That is all I can say on the matter.
- Status