My confusion in slavery in islam

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al Sultan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 114
  • Views Views 19K
Status
Not open for further replies.
In Islam, a slave giving birth to any person that that woman and the baby now were automatically freed from their status as slaves.
A man making children with a female slave would not want to destroy or debase his own offspring. He would rather transmit his own status to them. This biological urge will always overrule any social conventions. A true religion will recognize this, because a true religion is the incarnation of the fundamental rules in the blueprint of humanity.
However, in Islam, the male owner was encouraged to marry the female slave. Prophet :saws: said: “If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since it's been brought up and at least exists on the periphery of our minds when we discuss this topic, I'd like to openly address the topic of Daesh. First and most important to note is that Daesh is a terrorist organization that is twisted and evil that undoubtedly is cultish and has sociopathic tendencies as well as a desire to prostitute themselves as murderers for fame on the Internet as a means of instilling further terror and disgust in International community. Daesh have captured non-Muslim women, specifically Yazidi women, and enslaved them; media articles have covered and captioned stories of them being sold on markets like chattel akin to the model of the slave market in the United States hundreds of years ago. I'd also read a self-confessed Daesh member writing that he thinks these infidels are unclean due to their beliefs and saying derogatory things about these women like they smell and need to take baths. This type of dehumanizing outlook is not what Islam envisions or wants when persons obtained in warfare are afforded protection as slaves because they are a trust from God to man, not rubbish of man for man. Amnesty International has reported that many Yazidi women were forcibly converted to Islam, which is a haram (forbidden) action and also many raped, which is also haram (forbiddden), and as reported by some news outlets some were passed around to fighters, which is also haram (forbidden), and many were so distraught at the brutality they'd witnessed or experienced that they committed suicide at the earliest available opportunity, all of which are onus on these so-called "men" because their abuse and neglect in parts led to this horrifying impasse. That is NOT Islam. Islam came to honor and elevate human beings, not humiliate them nor turn them away from the message of Islam with pernicious villainy and sadism. These women will require justice and if not available here then in the hereafter; and their witness and advocate will be God acting also as Judge (in the hereafter).
 
Last edited:
In human nature, and I'm speaking generally, for a man, to distribute his love among different women concurrently is not hard; however, it is nearly impossible for a woman to do the same as she desires only one man to truly love her and to whom she can give all her love.
Well, when people go to the shop to buy vegetables, they will chit-chat with the shop assistant, because indeed, they try to get along with each other. However, the essence is still the transaction at hand. Getting along is just a way to facilitate this transaction: vegetables for money. We can say "love" instead of "getting along" but that does not change anything to the essence: Without vegetables, no money. Without money, no vegetables. It would be weird to turn things upside down and claim that it is all about "getting along" instead of the transaction that they are trying to facilitate by getting along.

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

In that sense, within the context of reproductive transactions, a man does not distribute "his love" among different women". A man distributes "his resources" among different women. It actually be quite hard to do that, because he will need enough resources in the first place.
 
Is sexual slavery haram? Surely what people understand or think of as sexual slavery, is haram?

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

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

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

I don't like what Daesh is doing, and may Allah deal with them. Ameen.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is permissible. Provided she is okay with it. He cannot force his concubine to have intercourse with him.
Citation please? In what specific examples of Sharia law is the requirement of consent mentioned, if ever?
 
Citation please? In what specific examples of Sharia law is the requirement of consent mentioned, if ever?

"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm).
 
"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm).
In this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum, you can verify that the Imam Al Shaafii quote is about sex with a slave that you do not own: Limitations on forced sex. Malik, the founder of the Maliki madhhab, states in Al-Muwatta, that if a man rapes a slave girl, he must pay to the slave-owner an amount, and he will be subjected to a hadd punishment.[37]

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

Sharia authorized the institution of slavery, and under Islamic law, Muslim men could have sexual relations with female captives and slaves without her consent.[SUP][24][/SUP][SUP][25]
[/SUP]
In accordance with the NOR (No Original Research) policy of Wikipedia, and in accordance with the requirements of the historical method, they provide the following sources for this claim:

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

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

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

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

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

Still, if you want to reject the claim that there is no requirement for the owner of female captives or slave girls to obtain their consent for sexual intercourse, please, provide credible evidence that Mazrui's and Ali's investigations in historical fiqh/jurisprudence would be invalid.
 
Last edited:
"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm).
Can you tell me which country this applies to and what period of time? I'd like to try and see if I can look at the relevant section of their actual Sharia law.
 
Can you tell me which country this applies to and what period of time? I'd like to try and see if I can look at the relevant section of their actual Sharia law.

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

1 - dont learn Islam from Wikipedia or sheikh google
2 - Cootherian asked for a classical sharia opinion - which I gave of course there is Maliks Muwatta as well.
3 - Fiqh is an ongoing process and not static in time and place - One can see the contemporary rulings from deoband/salafi/Azhari/Indonesian/Malaysian scholars - or your local scholar in the country you live in where its pretty unanimous that slavery is outlawed.
 
Last edited:
1 - dont learn Islam from Wikipedia or sheikh google
The opinions in Wikipedia are not backed by Wikipedia. According to the NOR (No Original Research) rules, Wikipedia does not back one single opinion. Wikipedia is not meant to be an original source. It is only meant to point to original sources. Wikipedia is effectively an index. The same holds true for Google (or duckduckgo.com which I use much more often than Google). Google is also just an index that attaches search results to keywords. Google does not claim anything at all about such search results, nor about the keywords given. Google only claims a nondescript association between tuples of keywords and search results. In this case, the opinion in Wikipedia is backed by the work of Mazrui, A. A. (1997) and Ali, K. (2010). I have personally not made any determination as to whether Mazrui's or Ali's work is valid. That is really another matter.
 
Here's a link pertaining to Sharia law on the Indian subcontinent from Aurangzeb through the late nineteenth, early 20th century.
https://books.google.com/books?id=N...epage&q="with female slaves a master"&f=false

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

From chapter 2, On the General Condition of Slaves, directly quoting the English translation of Sharia law in India under the Mughal Empire.
 
Here's a link pertaining to Sharia law on the Indian subcontinent from Aurangzeb through the late nineteenth, early 20th century.
https://books.google.com/books?id=N...epage&q="with female slaves a master"&f=false

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

From chapter 2, On the General Condition of Slaves, directly quoting the English translation of Sharia law in India under the Mughal Empire.
What we are here sitting on, is just a word game, in which all sorts of artificial distinctions confuse away the essence of things.

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

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

Similar Threads

Back
Top