Sex with slaves in Islam

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheRationalizer

Account Disabled
Messages
150
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Religion
Atheism
My attention was recently drawn to another thread about sex slaves in the Quran. The explanation given raised more questions for me than it answered but the thread is closed, so am I allowed to post the questions here?

If so then when I see my post has been approved I will quote the text and detail my questions.

Thanks.
 
The original quote is massive, so instead of quoting it I shall just point out the one thing in particular.

The explanation for not releasing slaves immediately is that a lot of the economy relied on slavery. It also says that if all these people were immediately released then they would be a drain on the economy as they would be unskilled and would have to beg.

Let me highlight some of the 99 names of Allah:
The giver of all
The nourisher
The all powerful
The source of peace
The all compassionate

This entity created the entire universe, but cannot free slaves because it would be bad for the economy? Economies are man made systems of governing one's contribution to society, an imperfect one which is exploited (but that's another issue.) Without the material goods money buys your money is worthless. Where do these goods come from? Surely they come from "The giver of all"?

There is a lot of desert around Mecca. Surely "the nourisher" (seeing as it is also "the all powerful") could have made this land fertile? People could have moved into these areas, built houses, and lived off the land. Who needs to beg when the most powerful being in the universe wants you to be free?

Surely "the source of peace" would want these people to be at peace, rather than having to experience slavery and on top of that sexual slavery (Sura 70:29-30).

Why did "the all compassionate" have more concern for the stability of a man made financial system than it did for the welfare of the humans it created (many of which would have been "people of the book")?
 
slavery in the past was far different from the slavery of the 1800s. A slave was usually treated as a member of the household and was not considered disposable property.
 
"This entity created the entire universe, but cannot free slaves because it would be bad for the economy?"----an interesting point......

If God is Omnipotent, and Omnicient, why are there wars?, why is there sufferring and evil? Why can't God simply make a perfect world?----is he inadequate?

The Quran says something like God does not change a people unless they first change themselves. What this means is that God who is Compassionate and Merciful, as well as Omipotent and Omnicient, has in his wisdom, given us (limited) free-will/self-determiniation.
With this blessing comes the responsibility to use it for the benefit of all of God's creations. If God took away our free-will--which he could---we would automatically submit to God's will and it would be a perfect world---Yet, with free-will/self determination, WE human beings have the unique capacity to have an amount of limited control of our own destiny----We decide what kind of society/world we want to live in.....and strive with our intellectual abilities to achieve it. Therefore, it is upto us, our responsibility, to implement the Guidance(Quran) God has given us to the best of our abilities. The CHOICE is OURS. Thus, a Compassionate and Merciful God Guides us to the right path (the way of right/goodness)while at the same time preserving our (limited) free-will.
 
TheRationalizer said:
I think I got too distracted by the original post and forgot to add my own point :-)

My main point was not about why the slaves couldn't be released, but rather why on top of being slaves must they have also be sex slaves?
Click to expand...

Where did you get they were sex slaves? A Muslim was permitted to marry them if they were Muslim or in the case of Female slaves or person of the Book
 
further to the post by Woodrow---In Islam, everyone is equal under the Law---therefore if an injustice was done, any person would have recourse to justice.
 
Lynx said:
I am pretty sure releasing slaves in a gradual way would create the same effect. I am sure God could think of a mathematically sound way to do this without making it halal to cheat on one's wife. Those rulers and commanders had it good I bet lol
Click to expand...

How exactly do you release slaves in a gradual way? Especially considering someone else could just enslave them back then. Shoot, an economy was built upon the trading of slaves...

God's method was to emphasise the importance of emancipation - instead of merely passing on the buck ( i.e "it's out of my hands now"). The act of truly freeing a slave should not be looked down upon.
 
In the kind of society that existed at that time, there were many considerations that had to be taken into account. Emancipation of male slaves was a relatively easy matter---this was not the case of women slaves---who were often in this position as a result of war and thus had no families and/or protection. Therefore, emancipation of women slaves often took the form of marriage--as marriage is a contract and provides protection and security for women and their children......
It was a good social solution that took into account the nature of men and women as well as the circumstances of the time and the social/economic/political ramifications.....
 
@Woodrow - to answer your question about why I think they were sex slaves...

70:29-30 Says that men should guard their (private parts) except from their wives and slaves.

Here are as many tafsirs as I can find for verse 30:

Al Jalalayn: and those who guard their private parts, except from their wives and those whom their right hands own, in the way of slavegirls, for in that case they are not blameworthy;

Ibn Kathir: they keep their private parts away from that which is forbidden and they prevent their private parts from being put into other than what Allah has allowed them to be in. Except from their wives or their right hand possessions, meaning, from their female slaves.


23:5-6 Also tells men to guard their private parts again with the exception of their wives and slaves

Al Jalalayn : and who guard their private parts, against what is unlawful, except from their spouses, that is, to their spouses, and what [slaves] their right hands possess, that is, concubines, for then they are not blameworthy, in having sexual intercourse with them.

Ibn Kathir: means, those who protect their private parts from unlawful actions and do not do that which Allah has forbidden; fornication and homosexuality, and do not approach anyone except the wives whom Allah has made permissible for them or their right hand possessions from the captives. One who seeks what Allah has made permissible for him is not to be blamed and there is no sin on
him.

My first impression when reading these verses was that the Quran is not talking about marriage because X is forbidden except from your wives and slaves. X could not be marriage because the idea of saying "you are free to marry your wives" makes no sense. Whatever X was it was permissible

A: With your wives
B: With your slaves (and then only for men with female slaves, I cannot find the same permission for women.)


I am a fair and objective person and will at this point concede a point :-)

The point I will concede is that releasing all of the slaves in one go may have been disastrous as many were men who had fought against the Muslims in war. Releasing an army to go back to their home ground where they could make more weapons could have been a very bad choice (putting aside of course the claim that the Muslims say they had the most powerful entity in existence fighting on their side.)

The points I have yet to concede are
1: Many men were ransomed back to their families, so what's the difference? Receiving some money from their families does not change the slaves intended actions when he gets home.

2: Some slaves were women and children who had not fought in battles against them, these could have been released without risk.

3: If Allah wished for those female + child slaves to be released then Allah "the nourisher" could have provided for these people. Who needs a human man to provide for them when it is the creator of the universe which wants you to be free and provided for?

So the most important point I am yet to concede is
4: Why would Allah give permission for men to have sex with them?
 
TheRationalizer said:
@Woodrow - to answer your question about why I think they were sex slaves...

70:29-30 Says that men should guard their (private parts) except from their wives and slaves.

Here are as many tafsirs as I can find for verse 30:

Al Jalalayn: and those who guard their private parts, except from their wives and those whom their right hands own, in the way of slavegirls, for in that case they are not blameworthy;

Ibn Kathir: they keep their private parts away from that which is forbidden and they prevent their private parts from being put into other than what Allah has allowed them to be in. Except from their wives or their right hand possessions, meaning, from their female slaves.


23:5-6 Also tells men to guard their private parts again with the exception of their wives and slaves

Al Jalalayn : and who guard their private parts, against what is unlawful, except from their spouses, that is, to their spouses, and what [slaves] their right hands possess, that is, concubines, for then they are not blameworthy, in having sexual intercourse with them.

Ibn Kathir: means, those who protect their private parts from unlawful actions and do not do that which Allah has forbidden; fornication and homosexuality, and do not approach anyone except the wives whom Allah has made permissible for them or their right hand possessions from the captives. One who seeks what Allah has made permissible for him is not to be blamed and there is no sin on
him.

My first impression when reading these verses was that the Quran is not talking about marriage because X is forbidden except from your wives and slaves. X could not be marriage because the idea of saying "you are free to marry your wives" makes no sense. Whatever X was it was permissible

A: With your wives
B: With your slaves (and then only for men with female slaves, I cannot find the same permission for women.)
Click to expand...
What those ayahs are saying in plain english is qualifiying who is eligible for sexual relations. I.e. any female slaves (that you have married) and obviously your wives. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

The points I have yet to concede are
1: Many men were ransomed back to their families, so what's the difference? Receiving some money from their families does not change the slaves intended actions when he gets home.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are saying here.

2: Some slaves were women and children who had not fought in battles against them, these could have been released without risk.
Click to expand...
Women and children are at the most risk in any society. Especially if in a climate where slavery is a viable economy. It was better in those cases for them to be looked after, and in certain cases to become part of the family (through marriage). Generally speaking, society is male dominated (don't bother arguing this is a fact of life) so males weren't and in most cases never are under the same threat or risk as say women and children.

3: If Allah wished for those female + child slaves to be released then Allah "the nourisher" could have provided for these people. Who needs a human man to provide for them when it is the creator of the universe which wants you to be free and provided for?
Click to expand...
Quit trolling.

So the most important point I am yet to concede is
4: Why would Allah give permission for men to have sex with them?
Click to expand...
As said before, the verses were qualifying who was eligible for sexual relations (provided they were marriage).

Any more misconceptions you need clearing up?
 
Last edited:
aamirsaab said:
What those ayahs are saying in plain english is qualifiying who is eligible for sexual relations. I.e. any female slaves (that you have married) and obviously your wives.
Click to expand...

I think Maududi puts it quite well

"Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one's possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relations with one's slave-girl as with one's wife. the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately"
 
TheRationalizer said:
I think Maududi puts it quite well

"Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one's possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relations with one's slave-girl as with one's wife. the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately"
Click to expand...

Source please.
 
TheRationalizer said:
I'll do my best :-)

1: The domain name is "searchtruth" and it is a "dot com" domain.
2: then there is the following /tafsir/tafsir.php

Click on 23 Al Muminoon and then search for "slave".
Click to expand...

I dont believe you have even read the Quran. You seem to get information from Google mania.

There is a concensus against slavery - so its meaningless argument.
 
Last edited:
Zafran said:
I dont believe you have even read the Quran.
Click to expand...

I read about 50% in paper form but it was one of those really dodgy ones where the translator inserts their own comments in brackets, so I dumped that one. I then got a Kindle for xmas last year and bought a book for it named "Three translations of the Quran" - each verse is written out 3 times, one by each translator.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
Marmaduke Pickthal:
Mohammad Habib Shakir:

I read all three translations of every verse. Where all 3 differed I would look at websites such as corpus'quran'com or openislam'com.

So effectively I have read it 3.5 times.

I found that Islam is the most lied about subject I have ever encountered. "Kill the infidels" for example is often quoted, but they are quote miners who miss out the part which says you must try to have peace first and must not initiate hostilities etc. I also found that many Muslim proselytisers (Yusuf Estes, Zakir Naik) lie about Islam too, especially when trying to convince people of scientific miracles in the Quran.

Why you would think I haven't read it I am not sure. If you want to discuss it then please feel free to start a new thread and send me the link.
 
But anyway. This thread isn't about whether or not I have read the Quran but about why the Quran gives permission to men to have sex with their slaves.
 
TheRationalizer said:
I read about 50% in paper form but it was one of those really dodgy ones where the translator inserts their own comments in brackets, so I dumped that one. I then got a Kindle for xmas last year and bought a book for it named "Three translations of the Quran" - each verse is written out 3 times, one by each translator.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
Marmaduke Pickthal:
Mohammad Habib Shakir:

I read all three translations of every verse. Where all 3 differed I would look at websites such as corpus'quran'com or openislam'com.

So effectively I have read it 3.5 times.

I found that Islam is the most lied about subject I have ever encountered. "Kill the infidels" for example is often quoted, but they are quote miners who miss out the part which says you must try to have peace first and must not initiate hostilities etc. I also found that many Muslim proselytisers (Yusuf Estes, Zakir Naik) lie about Islam too, especially when trying to convince people of scientific miracles in the Quran.

Why you would think I haven't read it I am not sure. If you want to discuss it then please feel free to start a new thread and send me the link.
Click to expand...

Asalaamu Alaikum,

What about the Non-Muslim Scientists, and there are many of them, many top one's for that matter; are they all lying too? You need to stop making up excuses and calling everyone liars, you completly ignored this point when I made it in your other thread. Can't you just say "my opinion is different" instead of saying "oh he's dishonest", or "oh he's lying", everytime they say favouribly to Islam?

Oh and "Kill the infidels" misconception can be explained to a 10 year old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top