Slave-girl raping in islam

[Kuffs]

First, muslims are saying that we cannot harm innocent people in jihad. That is really good, I agree with it.

But why did the prophet muhammed took children and women as a booty. If he had taken the enemy soldiers as slaves, it will be 100% ok. But why innocent children and women????

I am not looking at this through the poisoned prism of western ideal. I do no like western 'morality' as you say.

Brother let's get down to basics first, the bare bones. Let's leave Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, history everything on the back burner for a second, i want to start with the bare bones.

I don't know if you have studied philosophy, but what is morality? What is right and wrong? Before we discuss anything you have to tell me what is right and wrong.

IF taking women and children as captives is wrong, how is it wrong? PURELY BASED ON MORALITY, WHO SAID? The point is you are troubled by what the Muslims did 1400 years ago, but do you even know what is right and wrong? Who judges what is right and wrong?

For the Aztec's "sacrificing" human beings (with feelings and who felt pain, had families) for their gods was perfectly morally right .

For the Mongols ransacking and committing genocide on Baghdad and the Muslims was morally right .

For the European Imperialists invading and taking over the lands of the Americas was morally right

For Hitler and Nazi Germany killing the Jews and other minorities and believing in Aryan race supremacy was morally right

For Winston Churchill calling Palestinian dogs and the indigenous Australian people as an inferior race to the Imperialists was morally right .

For the Israelis killing Palestinans and "defending" against Hamas is morally right.

For NATO destroying and killing the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Libyans and the Pakistanis is morally right .


I don't need to go on with examples, what is morality right and wrong?

In the West walking around in a bikini top and a skirt is morally right and fine to do, in places like India walking around in a T-shirt and jeans is morally right and fine to do, in Muslim countries walking around with hijab is morally right and the other two are not.

Are you going to tell me what is "morality right"?

Brother garet122, trust me it is a big old world out there and morals are subjective to that place and culture. If you live in the west your morality is based on the current culture of where you live, while people living in tribes base their morality on their tribal culture. Can you go there and judge them on who is right and wrong based on your very narrow western morality? Let's use logic first, the bare bones.


Can you go to the tribes in Africa who practice "becoming a man" rituals by getting a young boy to get bitten by many bullet ants (extremely painful bite, research it) to become a full man? Are they "wrong"? Based on what? Your idea of morality?

Can you go to Niger and tell the people there that female circumcision is "wrong", they cut the whole genital of the poor women leaving just holes for the man. They have done this for many many years, you want to go there and take a crack at telling them it is "wrong"? Based on your morality?

This could go on for hours, first ground your morality, tell me what si right and wrong.


Now coming on to the issue of Muslims and captives.

If he had taken the enemy soldiers as slaves, it will be 100% ok. But why innocent children and women????

Some people think taken enemy soldiers is "wrong", but you're ok with it! Wow, how horrible are you? See how easy it is, to get in to the trap? You are sitting in your comfortable chair behind a computer screen, everything is OK with you (as far as I know), how can you imply anything wrong based on your morality?

You cannot say anything is wrong with a subjective paradigm of morality. You need an objective paradigm of morality to do that.


To conclude, you seem like an intelligent person and I am glad you discuss this, at least you do except ignorantly insulting, so well done for that. Once you have understood morality then we can go on and talk about the Islamic stance of all this.

I hope I have helped.

[garet122]

Brother let's get down to basics first, the bare bones. Let's leave Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, history everything on the back burner for a second, i want to start with the bare bones.

I don't know if you have studied philosophy, but what is morality? What is right and wrong? Before we discuss anything you have to tell me what is right and wrong.

IF taking women and children as captives is wrong, how is it wrong? PURELY BASED ON MORALITY, WHO SAID? The point is you are troubled by what the Muslims did 1400 years ago, but do you even know what is right and wrong? Who judges what is right and wrong?

For the Aztec's "sacrificing" human beings (with feelings and who felt pain, had families) for their gods was perfectly morally right .

For the Mongols ransacking and committing genocide on Baghdad and the Muslims was morally right .

For the European Imperialists invading and taking over the lands of the Americas was morally right

For Hitler and Nazi Germany killing the Jews and other minorities and believing in Aryan race supremacy was morally right

For Winston Churchill calling Palestinian dogs and the indigenous Australian people as an inferior race to the Imperialists was morally right .

For the Israelis killing Palestinans and "defending" against Hamas is morally right.

For NATO destroying and killing the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Libyans and the Pakistanis is morally right .


I don't need to go on with examples, what is morality right and wrong?

In the West walking around in a bikini top and a skirt is morally right and fine to do, in places like India walking around in a T-shirt and jeans is morally right and fine to do, in Muslim countries walking around with hijab is morally right and the other two are not.

Are you going to tell me what is "morality right"?

Brother garet122, trust me it is a big old world out there and morals are subjective to that place and culture. If you live in the west your morality is based on the current culture of where you live, while people living in tribes base their morality on their tribal culture. Can you go there and judge them on who is right and wrong based on your very narrow western morality? Let's use logic first, the bare bones.


Can you go to the tribes in Africa who practice "becoming a man" rituals by getting a young boy to get bitten by many bullet ants (extremely painful bite, research it) to become a full man? Are they "wrong"? Based on what? Your idea of morality?

Can you go to Niger and tell the people there that female circumcision is "wrong", they cut the whole genital of the poor women leaving just holes for the man. They have done this for many many years, you want to go there and take a crack at telling them it is "wrong"? Based on your morality?

This could go on for hours, first ground your morality, tell me what si right and wrong.


Now coming on to the issue of Muslims and captives.



Some people think taken enemy soldiers is "wrong", but you're ok with it! Wow, how horrible are you? See how easy it is, to get in to the trap? You are sitting in your comfortable chair behind a computer screen, everything is OK with you (as far as I know), how can you imply anything wrong based on your morality?

You cannot say anything is wrong with a subjective paradigm of morality. You need an objective paradigm of morality to do that.


To conclude, you seem like an intelligent person and I am glad you discuss this, at least you do except ignorantly insulting, so well done for that. Once you have understood morality then we can go on and talk about the Islamic stance of all this.

I hope I have helped.

I am talking to you with an islamic point of view. In several sahih hadiths of the prophe, he says to avoid harming innocent people (non-combatant, old people, women and children). So taking women and children as
captives is contradicting some hadiths of the prophet.

Also, I do not like the zionist state and its slaves (usa, canada, uk, france).

[amr123]

http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.p...1692455dcdb228

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatoh


Please view our standard answer on the issue.

Wassalam

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In'aamiyyah



QUESTION: What is the Islamic law with regard to slave-women? Was It permissible to have relations with these slave-women without a formal marriage ceremony?

ANSWER: Firstly, it should be borne in mind that slavery was not something that was introduced by Islam; on the contrary, it was something that had its roots planted long before the advent of Islam. It would not be an exaggeration to state that slavery is probably as old as war itself, because it is one of the consequences of war. Thus, slavery apparently first reared its head with the first wars that took place an the face of earth. War is a factor that makes soft men stern, kind men harsh and delicate men rugged. A man who cannot bear to see the sight of blood under normal circumstances becomes capable of shedding the blood of hundreds under the pressure of war. Those who were not killed in warfare, used to be taken as prisoners of war. The pages of history will show that many alternative, expedient methods were used through the ages to deal with prisoners of war. Some used to be executed while others would be set free, with or without a ransom. Then, there were others who were neither executed nor set free. These were enslaved.

When Islam came and prospered, its power was challenged by the enemies of Islam and the need to go to war arose. By that time, slavery had virtually become an international custom. It was also rife among the Arabs from the days of darkness and ignorance. Thus, abolishing it instantateously would have caused chaos and pandemonium among the Arab people. Hence, a process of gradual extirpation had to be implemented. Moreover, if the Muslims would set all their enemy-prisoners free and tolerate their fellow Muslims being captured and enslaved by the enemies, it would have lead to a sharp decrease in the Muslim military force and given a great advantage to the enemy forces which was something that the Muslims could not afford. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that warfare tactics used by one side are often countered by the opposing side in order to maintain a balance of power. Hence, wartime diplomacy necessitated the enslaving of prisoners.

In the "Jihaads" (Islamic wars) that took place, women were also, at times, taken as prisoners of war by the Muslim warriors. These women captives used to be distributed as part of the booty among the soldiers, after their return to Islamic territory. Each soldier was then entitled to have relations ONLY with the slave girl over which he was given the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP and NOT with those slave girls that were not in his possession. This RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP was given to him by the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (Head of the Islamic state.) Due to this right of ownership, It became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her.

It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man's legal wife, but once Shariat makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not. It is necessary for a Muslim to be acquainted with the laws of Shariat, but it is not necessary for him to delve into each law in order to find the underlying wisdom of these laws because knowledge of the wisdom of some of the laws may be beyond his puny comprehension. Allah Ta'ala has said in the Holy Quran: "Wa maa ooteetum min al-ilm illaa qaleelan" which means, more or less, that, "You have been given a very small portion of knowledge". Hence, if a person fails to comprehend the underlying wisdom of any law of Shariat, he cannot regard it as a fault of Shariat (Allah forbid), on the contrary, it is the fault of his own perception and lack of understanding, because no law of Shariat is contradictory to wisdom.

Nevertheless, the wisdom underlying the permission granted by Shariat to copulate with a slave woman is as follows: The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be 'possessed', bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariat instituted a 'marriage ceremony' in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. A similar example can be found in the slaughtering of animals; that after a formal slaughtering process, in which the words, "Bismillahi Allahu Akbar" are recited, goats, cows, etc.; become "Halaal" and lawful for consumption, whereas fish becomes "Halaal" merely through 'possession' which substitutes for the slaughtering.

In other words, just as legal possession of a fish that has been fished out of the water, makes it Halaal for human consumption without the initiation of a formal slaughtering process; similarly legal possession of a slave woman made her Halaal for the purpose of coition with her owner without the initiation of a formal marriage ceremony.

In short, permission to have intercourse with a slave woman was not something barbaric or uncivilised; on the contrary, it was almost as good as a marriage ceremony. In fact, possession of a slave woman resembles a marriage ceremony in many ways and both have a lot in common with each other. One similarity is this that just as a free woman cannot have two husbands simultaneously, a slave woman cannot be used for intercourse by two owners. Another similarity is that a free woman whose marriage is on the rocks, cannot marry another man until her previous marriage is nullified through divorce, etc. Due to the discrepancies between husband and wife, the marriage sometimes reaches a stage where it becomes virtually impossible for the couple to live as man and wife with the result that divorce is brought into force to nullify marriage ties. Similarly, if a slave woman was married previously in enemy territory to a non-Muslim, and is then captured alone, i.e. without her husband, it is not permissible for any Muslim to have relations with her until her previous marriage is nullified, and that is done by bringing her to an Islamic country and making her the legal possession of a Muslim. Bringing her into Islamic territory necessitates the rendering of her previous marriage as null and void by Islamic law because with her husband in enemy territory and she in Islamic territory, it becomes virtually impossible for them to meet and live as man and wife. That is why it is not permissible to have intercourse with a woman whose husband is also taken into captivity and put into slavery with her. Another resemblance between the two is that, just as a divorcee has to spend a period called "Iddat" before another man is allowed to marry her, similarly, a slave woman has to spend a period called "Istibraa" before her owner can have coition with her.

Another similarity between marriage and possession of a slave woman is that just as the wife becomes a dependant of the husband and he has to provide a home, food and clothing for her, a slave woman also becomes a dependant of her owner and he has to provide a home, food and clothing for her. Yet another similarity is this that just as marriage makes the close relatives of the wife Haraam upon the husband; i.e. he cannot get married to his wife's mother, grandmother, sister, etc., similarly if a man has copulated with a slave woman the slave woman's close relatives also become Haraam upon the owner. With all these similarities it does not make sense to regard copulation with a slave woman distasteful whilst copulation with one's wife is not regarded as distasteful.

A question that may still arise is that why does the owner of a slave woman not marry her before having relations with her? Well, this is impracticable because of a few intricate technicalities. Firstly, we know that a man has to give "Mahr" (dower-money) to his bride. The Holy Quran says:-

[ A r a b i c ]

Trans: "And allowed unto you is whatsoever is beyond that, so that ye may seek them with your substance (i.e. with your dower-money). " - (4:24).

Thus, "Mahr" is a conditional prerequisite of Nikah. If a man has to marry his slave woman, it would not be possible for him to abide by this condition of 'Mahr' because by Islamic law, a slave does not have rights over any property, i.e. she cannot own anything. In fact, whatever she has with her too, i.e. her clothing, etc., is all regarded as the property of her owner. Therefore, If he gets married to his slave girl and gives her the 'Mahr' she cannot become the owner of it because she has no right of ownership. The 'Mahr' would bounce back to the owner of the slave girl and it would tantamount to giving the 'mahr' to himself. Hence, the owner would become the payer as well as the PAYEE of the 'mahr' which would only result in the mockery of the whole system of 'mahr'. It would be absolutely superflous to have such a marriage ceremony performed that makes a mockery of the 'mahr' system. Hence, the owner cannot get married to her while she remains a slave girl. However, if he sets her free, then he can get married to her on the basis of her having become a liberated woman.

Although the owner himself cannot get married to his slave woman, without giving her freedom, he can get her married to someone else. If he gets her married to someone else, then only her husband can now have intercourse with her and the owner's right of having intercourse with her comes to an end. All these facts prove that the slave girl does not become an instrument of sex; on the contrary, her honour is upheld, in that only one man is allowed to have intercourse with her JUST AS only one man (the husband) is allowed to have intercourse with his lawfully wedded wife.

Islam ensured that the slave girl's duties were not restricted merely to domestic chores but also gave her master permission to copulate with her. This concession created an atmosphere of love and harmony between the slave girl and her master. Islam thereby raised the status of the war captive-maidens close to that of wives. It was a psychological cure to her grief-stricken heart, being deprived of her family and thrown into the hands of a strange society.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) enjoined his followers to treat the slaves kindly, gently, and, above all, to regard them as members of the family. In this way, they were made to feel wanted; which was far better than treating them as outcasts and leaving them to wander the streets of a strange society in a peniless, destitute condition. Such treatment would have ultimately forced them to take up evil occupations such as prostitution in the case of slave woman in order to fill their hungry stomachs. The First World War in 1914 was a clear reflection of the evils involved in setting captive women free to roars about in a strange society with strange surroundings. During that war, German and English women prisoners on either side were set free to roam the streets with no-one to feed them. The result was obvious that they resorted to other unrefined and uncivilised methods of income on the streets. Thus, it is evident that the Islamic treatment of women prisoners of war was conducive towards better social relations and led to the refinement of their overall social lives.

Over and above all this, History will show that Islam did not encourage slavery but rather encouraged moves towards the extirpation of slavery. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has said something to this effect in a Hadith, that: "Whosoever freed a Muslim slave, the Lord would redeem all his limbs - in compensation for each limb of the slave, so much so that the private parts for the private parts - from the Fire of Hell.

"If a slave woman becomes pregnant from her owner, and delivers his child, she automatically gets her freedom after the death of her master whose child she gave birth to.

Moreover, there are many wrongs and sins for which the liberation of a slave serves as a compensation and atonement. This was a further incentive for the extirpation of slavery. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam also taught that whosoever teaches good manners to his slave girl, adorns her with politeness and good education, then frees her and gets married to her, for him there is double recompense and reward. These encouraging teachings served as incentives towards the emancipation of slaves and slaves were liberated by the thousands. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam himself freed 63 slaves, Hazrat Abu Bakr Radhiallahu Anhu freed 63, Hazrat Abdur-Rahman bin Auf Radhiallahu Anhu 30,000; Hazrat Hakim bin Huzam Radhiallahu Anhu 100; Hazrat Abbas Radhiallahu Anhu 70; Hazrat Ayesha Radhiallahu Anha 69; Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar Radhiallahu Anhu 100; Hazrat Uthman Radhiallahu Anhu used to free one slave every Friday and he would say that he would tree any slave who performed his prayers with humility. Hazrat Zul-Kilah Radhiallahu Anhu freed 8,000 slaves in a single day.

Hazrat Umar Radhiallahu Anhu passed certain laws during his Khilafat which led to the emancipation of thousands of slaves, and to the prevention of certain specific forms of slavery. Some of the edicts that he issued:

1. All the apostate tribes that were enslaved during the Khilaafat of Hazrat Abu Bakr Radhiallahu Anhu were to be freed.

2. A Zimmi (protected non-Muslim subject of an Islamic state) should not be enslaved.

3. Arabs will not be enslaved.

4. Those who had been enslaved during the days of ignorance (prior to the advent of Islam) and had lived to witness the Islamic era, should redeem themselves from slavery by paying their costs (their value) to their owners whether they were willing or not.

As a result of all these laws, there came a time when slavery was totally extirpated. But of course, this extirpation came about after a gradual process because that was the only safe and expedient way of tackling the problem.

Because of the prevalence of slavery in the initial stages of Islam the necessity of educating the people about the treatment of slaves also arose. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam taught his followers how the slaves should be treated with kindness, etc. In fact, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam himself possessed slave girls. In this way, he was able to demonstrate practically how kindly and politely the slave should be treated. Because it is relevant to the topic, it would be appropriate to mention here that Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam also had four slave girls. One was Hazrat Maria Qibtiyya Radhiallahu Anha who was the mother of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam's son, Ibrahim Alayhis Salaam who passed away in infanthood. The others were, Hazrat Rayhaan binte Samoon; Hazrat Nafisa and a fourth, whose name has not been recorded in History.

One question that still remains is whether slavery still legally prevails anywhere in the Islamic world and whether it can be successfully implemented in this age. Well, there is no prevalence of lawful slavery in the Islamic world today and it would be difficult to implement it because of the stringent conditions attached to it. Firstly, the prisoners have to be captured in 'Jihaad' in the true sense of the word. Then again, If true 'Jihaad' did break out somewhere, there are still a number of other laws and conditions to abide by which are far too stringent for any Islamic country in the world to abide by in this time and age when people's personal gains and whims and desire are being given preference to over Islamic Law. According to Islamic Law, captive female prisoners are also part and parcel of the booty. One fifth of the booty has to be first distributed to the needy, orphans, etc. The remaining four-fifths should then be distributed among the soldiers who participated in the war. The distribution can only take effect after the booty is brought into Islamic territory. The Ameerul-Mu'mineen (Head of the Islamic State) remains the guardian of the female prisoners until he allocates them to the soldiers. Only after a soldier has been allotted a slave girl, and made the owner of her, will she become his lawful possession. After she spends a period called 'Istibraa', which is the elapse of one menstrual period, It becomes permissible for her owner to have relations with her. After possession of the slave too there are a number of other laws that affect the master and slave. There is hardly any Islamic country today that can abide to all these conditions, with the result that it is quite difficult to implement slavery in this time and age.

The subject of slavery in Islam is quite comprehensive and there are many laws that pertain to slaves which the Jurisprudents of Islam have outlined. It is, however, hoped that the above mentioned facts will be adequate enough to answer your question.

[Kuffs]

I am talking to you with an islamic point of view. In several sahih hadiths of the prophe, he says to avoid harming innocent people (non-combatant, old people, women and children). So taking women and children as
captives is contradicting some hadiths of the prophet.

Also, I do not like the zionist state and its slaves (usa, canada, uk, france).

You didn't answer the question. I ask you because I'm assuming you are not a Muslim even though you have your school of thought as "Hanafi", don't know if that is to confuse people or what, but that is a different point. For now I assume you are not a Muslim. So that is why I asked, what is right and wrong to you? You can't base your idea of right and wrong on others because it is subjective and it's senseless. .

The Islamic point of view can only be discussed after you have understood your own morality, you cannot judge what is right and wrong if you do not know yourself what I right and wrong. I hope I am making it clear.

But I will say one thing, no the Prophet (pbuh) did not contradict His own sayings and actions. You are assuming He allowed for the harming of the women and children that were taken as captives.

I'll ask you, What would you like to be done to the women and children after the men have died in battle? Should the Muslims have left them in the desert alone? Is that better?

Now on to the issue of how they were kept as captives?

1. Prophet Muhammad said "Observe Salaah (the prayers), Observe Salaah And fear Allah with regards to your slaves and servants."

2. Prophet Muhammad said "Food and dress are the right of the slave and he should not be assigned to task which may be beyond his capacity."

3. Prophet Muhammad said "The slaves and servants are your brothers. Allah has placed them under your authority. So he who has a brother under him should feed him and clothe him as he himself does, and should not take from him any work that is beyond his power. If he does tell him to do such work then he should help him in it

4. Prophet Muhammad said "When your slave or servant prepares food for you and lays it for you - while he has suffered the inconvenience of heat and smoke when cooking - you should ask him to sit down and share the meal. If the food is in a small quantity at least give him a little"

5. Prophet Muhammad said "Forgive your slave or servant 70 times a day"

6. Prophet Muhammad said "Whoever beats the slave or Servant unjustly, revenge will be taken from him on the Day of Judgment."

7. Abu Mas'ood (R.A.) narrates that "Once I was beating my slave when I heard a voice behind -(saying)" Oh Abu Mas'ood! Remember that Allah has a greater power and authority over you than you have over the poor slave."

I turned around and saw that it was the Prophet of Allah (PBUH) whereupon I said "Oh Prophet of Allah - he is now free for the sake of Allah" The Prophet (PBUH) observed that "Be informed that had you not set him free you would be consumed in the fire of Hell!"


So 1400 years ago ,, this man came and he wanted the people to treat the captives as their own brothers (and sisters). Is it not better than leaving them alone in the desert to die? When the whole world treat their slaves as do what you like to them, here we have a man who slowly but surely is eradicating slavery.

On top of this, there are so many reasons that you had to free a slave, that this rapidly decreased slavery to nil, if you can class the "slaves" of the Muslims as "slaves".


Salam.

[garet122]

You didn't answer the question. I ask you because I'm assuming you are not a Muslim even though you have your school of thought as "Hanafi", don't know if that is to confuse people or what, but that is a different point. For now I assume you are not a Muslim. So that is why I asked, what is right and wrong to you? You can't base your idea of right and wrong on others because it is subjective and it's senseless. .

The Islamic point of view can only be discussed after you have understood your own morality, you cannot judge what is right and wrong if you do not know yourself what I right and wrong. I hope I am making it clear.

But I will say one thing, no the Prophet (pbuh) did not contradict His own sayings and actions. You are assuming He allowed for the harming of the women and children that were taken as captives.

I'll ask you, What would you like to be done to the women and children after the men have died in battle? Should the Muslims have left them in the desert alone? Is that better?

Now on to the issue of how they were kept as captives?

1. Prophet Muhammad said "Observe Salaah (the prayers), Observe Salaah And fear Allah with regards to your slaves and servants."

2. Prophet Muhammad said "Food and dress are the right of the slave and he should not be assigned to task which may be beyond his capacity."

3. Prophet Muhammad said "The slaves and servants are your brothers. Allah has placed them under your authority. So he who has a brother under him should feed him and clothe him as he himself does, and should not take from him any work that is beyond his power. If he does tell him to do such work then he should help him in it

4. Prophet Muhammad said "When your slave or servant prepares food for you and lays it for you - while he has suffered the inconvenience of heat and smoke when cooking - you should ask him to sit down and share the meal. If the food is in a small quantity at least give him a little"

5. Prophet Muhammad said "Forgive your slave or servant 70 times a day"

6. Prophet Muhammad said "Whoever beats the slave or Servant unjustly, revenge will be taken from him on the Day of Judgment."

7. Abu Mas'ood (R.A.) narrates that "Once I was beating my slave when I heard a voice behind -(saying)" Oh Abu Mas'ood! Remember that Allah has a greater power and authority over you than you have over the poor slave."

I turned around and saw that it was the Prophet of Allah (PBUH) whereupon I said "Oh Prophet of Allah - he is now free for the sake of Allah" The Prophet (PBUH) observed that "Be informed that had you not set him free you would be consumed in the fire of Hell!"


So 1400 years ago ,, this man came and he wanted the people to treat the captives as their own brothers (and sisters). Is it not better than leaving them alone in the desert to die? When the whole world treat their slaves as do what you like to them, here we have a man who slowly but surely is eradicating slavery.

On top of this, there are so many reasons that you had to free a slave, that this rapidly decreased slavery to nil, if you can class the "slaves" of the Muslims as "slaves".


Salam.

The women whose husband is alive cannot be taken as slaves???

4:24
And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

In this verses, it says that you can have sex with your slaves even if they were married.

Look at this hadith also:
"The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Qur'an 4:24) 'And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.'" (Abu Dawud 2150)

That is pure rape, there is know women that wants to have sex with the same people that destroyed their tribes (or city). On top of that, their husband is not dead, he is alive.

[faizol]

The women whose husband is alive cannot be taken as slaves???

4:24
And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

In this verses, it says that you can have sex with your slaves even if they were married.

Look at this hadith also:
"The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Qur'an 4:24) 'And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.'" (Abu Dawud 2150)

That is pure rape, there is know women that wants to have sex with the same people that destroyed their tribes (or city). On top of that, their husband is not dead, he is alive.

garet122,

you should reread the verse you quoted yourself.

Quran 4:24 : "And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

You should know by now that any hukm in Islam is not for a layman that just read a verse or two to make the intepretation and actual application of it. You should spend some time to study the hukm in depth first before jumping and making any assumptions on it. There are various do's and dont's regarding the question you've asked, and you need to know all of them in details. If you don't want to do that, then at the very east, read what have been posted here by other brothers.

Basically almost all your questions regarding slavery and rape have been answered here. Among them;
- Women captured alive in a war. Brother abdulwahhab has clarified that only those in the battlefield can be taken as captives. Also a few brothers have clarified that the captive will receive the same cloth and food, and other protections as the wife of her owner.

- regarding captured married women; you should read the link provided by brother Shkapar_Dorwaza (link to his post: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post758035)
I'm quoting from the link he provided (http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.p...92455dcdb228):

Actually, the whole article has been copied and pasted here by brother amr123 just one post above yours.

"Similarly, if a slave woman was married previously in enemy territory to a non-Muslim, and is then captured alone, i.e. without her husband, it is not permissible for any Muslim to have relations with her until her previous marriage is nullified, and that is done by bringing her to an Islamic country and making her the legal possession of a Muslim. Bringing her into Islamic territory necessitates the rendering of her previous marriage as null and void by Islamic law because with her husband in enemy territory and she in Islamic territory, it becomes virtually impossible for them to meet and live as man and wife. That is why it is not permissible to have intercourse with a woman whose husband is also taken into captivity and put into slavery with her. Another resemblance between the two is that, just as a divorcee has to spend a period called "Iddat" before another man is allowed to marry her, similarly, a slave woman has to spend a period called "Istibraa" before her owner can have coition with her."

Plus, the assignment of a slave to any Muslim man can only be done by ameerul-mukminin. You can't just go and pick anyone you like to have sex with.

[garet122]

garet122,

you should reread the verse you quoted yourself.

Quran 4:24 : "And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

You should know by now that any hukm in Islam is not for a layman that just read a verse or two to make the intepretation and actual application of it. You should spend some time to study the hukm in depth first before jumping and making any assumptions on it. There are various do's and dont's regarding the question you've asked, and you need to know all of them in details. If you don't want to do that, then at the very east, read what have been posted here by other brothers.

Basically almost all your questions regarding slavery and rape have been answered here. Among them;
- Women captured alive in a war. Brother abdulwahhab has clarified that only those in the battlefield can be taken as captives. Also a few brothers have clarified that the captive will receive the same cloth and food, and other protections as the wife of her owner.

- regarding captured married women; you should read the link provided by brother Shkapar_Dorwaza (link to his post: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post758035)
I'm quoting from the link he provided (http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.p...92455dcdb228):

Actually, the whole article has been copied and pasted here by brother amr123 just one post above yours.

"Similarly, if a slave woman was married previously in enemy territory to a non-Muslim, and is then captured alone, i.e. without her husband, it is not permissible for any Muslim to have relations with her until her previous marriage is nullified, and that is done by bringing her to an Islamic country and making her the legal possession of a Muslim. Bringing her into Islamic territory necessitates the rendering of her previous marriage as null and void by Islamic law because with her husband in enemy territory and she in Islamic territory, it becomes virtually impossible for them to meet and live as man and wife. That is why it is not permissible to have intercourse with a woman whose husband is also taken into captivity and put into slavery with her. Another resemblance between the two is that, just as a divorcee has to spend a period called "Iddat" before another man is allowed to marry her, similarly, a slave woman has to spend a period called "Istibraa" before her owner can have coition with her."

Plus, the assignment of a slave to any Muslim man can only be done by ameerul-mukminin. You can't just go and pick anyone you like to have sex with.

That's unfair to capture innocent women in the battlefield.

But if the captured women doesn't want to have sex?

[Abu Zakir]

Yes from the point of view or modern secular ethics this was rape, in many western countries the husband can be convicted of rape of his wife...if she goes into court and says he forced himself upon her. No witnesses are necessary.

But in the pre-modern world the women and children were taken as booty by Muslims because they could not be left on their own, and, this was seen as a chance for these people to become Muslims themselves.

However this does make me question the extreme sexual purity of modern day Muslims. Keep your gaze lowered and do not fornicate, marry only one woman etc. Pre-modern Muslims seem to have had plenty of opportunities to full fill their sexual desires in halal ways where as we are told to abstain from it, fast and to keep our gazes lowered, which seems to me to be impossible.

[Saqqib_Ali]

There are a few problems that are rising out of the answers being given, firstly it equates slaves in ones possession equal to the owner's wives.

Secondly you end up describing the wife as a possession and nikah becomes something there to transfer the ownership from the father to the husband.

Is Islam is a wife your possession or an equal partner in marriage?

In trying to justify this thing why are we happy to compromise the position of women as wifes?

Salam

Saqqib

[garet122]

But in the pre-modern world the women and children were taken as booty by Muslims because they could not be left on their own, and, this was seen as a chance for these people to become Muslims themselves.

But the women whose husbands weren't dead? According to hadiths, it was permissible to take them in booty, it annuls their marriage.

And I want to know, if the captive women had the right to refuse following the muslims?