Re: Concubines
Peace All
I'm not sure that I understand the concept of slavery. I never have. This thread has been amusing to me. I do however, think that we view slavery to be like a punishment, or a stealing of human rights. I don't think Islam allows us to abuse human rights. Slavery has been given a bad name in a weird sort of way. By those hollywood images showing rag dressed malnourished sweaty shackled folk like prisoners made to do hard work at the end of a whip. This is not the 'slavery' that was permissble at the time of Muhammad (SAW). The American slave trade from Africa has had a big role in turning slavery into the problem it became.
Let me explain a bit. There was a house slave and a crop slave in America. They were of two different types. The house slave used to have suits to wear and would accompany his master in all affairs even to business meetings and would be allowed to contribute and give advice. If a fire would break out he would hurry to save his master, his family, his pets and the property. For sure he would run the house and like to be a 'slave'. He would be given the offer of freedom but would often refuse. On the other hand the crop slave would be given little. They would have shacks to live in and would be treated in a bad way.
A butler to today's standards is the sort of slave that would live in the time of Muhammad (SAW).
Now concubines ... all evidence suggests that these were women exclusive for the maidserving duties to only their own male masters. Again I think our own leaders from the Ottomon empire have given that practice a bad name and today we use the loosley interpretable verse in the Qur'an to justify having sexual relations with people who were are not married to. I'm not sure that is correct.
Women were beginning to be bred to be harem girls, that increased their number and increased the activity for that reason. I also believe initially the practice of having sex with women who were not married to the man in question but considered ones 'slave' may have been allowed. But I don't think it was a liked practice. I also believe later that such women were made to be married to men but had the duties of servants up until they engaged with full sex in which case they became wives. This number was limited to the four we read about.
Also 'what right hand possesses' is a term that refers to 'captive' which means Islam limited the female slaves to only 'captives of war' they were not allowed to be bought or sold after point in history.
Furthermore the idea was to free them ... then also if the captives were found to have husbands who were also captives they were brought together and the 'captors' could not touch them.
In Surah 23 verse 5-7 we read that chastity must be guarded before all except certain women. Two types wives and captive females who one has had nikkah with. They remain in captive status until they enter them sexually raising them to status of wife. Chastity does not interpret to sexual relations, it interprets to merely the revealing of the body parts that are commonly kept under clothing.
Here is another verse to provide evidence of this:
Surah 4 verse 25 ... Those men who were not rich enough to marry free women, could marry their 'captives' which means according to Qur'anic language engage in full sexual relations giving those women full rights as wives. So Islam has always limited the number of sexual relations of men to 4 women.
Our gutter interpretation through time has led to our demise and led to shamefully the Westerners calling an end to slavery when we should not have taken slaves at all and observed our duties better.
Moreover, it is basic concept that man ... Muslims must be slaves to none other than Allah (SWT).
Lastly, Now ... the mutah subject has nothing whatsoever to do with this matter at all.