Re: Concubines
subject slavery in Islam. Yes, Islam allows slavery but who are the slaves in Islam, they are the captives (prisoners) of war. So why did Islam not abolish such barbaric practise? This is because wars can't be abolished, and so slavery is inevitable. Instead of throwing the salves in jails and dungeons, Islam ordered Muslims to be kind to slaves and many other rights.
As far concerning concubines, they cannot be forced to do something without their consensus (i.e. sleep with their master, or commit zina to earn money for the master); however, they are not allowed to reject to sleep with their master without any legitimate shirah excuse (i.e sick etc).
Peace bro.
The conditions you have placed therefore on the status of the 'female slave' is the same as that of the wife. Which proves my point that slavery is a thing alien to Islam and sister Dushwari has done well to defend this position using her sense of ethical uprightness.
Das Reich bro. I don't know what point is it that he is trying to prove to assert the notion of concubinage in Islam? The fundamentals do not fit together there is so much in stark clarity to support the idea of protecting chastity and not transgressing the bounds. Then potentially with the loop hole of war captives - female to the men is a ticket to lustfulness???
Can we really assert that basis on Islam?
-) Employment - That is the term of use. In those days people were traders, they were not servicers and they did not have large corporate companies. However, the status of the then slave is what should be called the now employee. One does not engage with sex with their employees unless but to have a real relationship with one is allowed i.e. Islamically that means all the necessary courting and marrying needs to be observed. People used to do nikkah with their female employees and kept them at that status probably to prevent others trying to marrying them and also in case they should slip up. They would have to bestow on them rights equal to a wife if they did sleep with them.
-) It is true that wars led to possession - 'rights' over people and that can be construed as slavery, but Islam does not sanction bondsmanship of man to any other than Allah (SWT). Those rights were like a contract that an employee has that he will woprk and his earnings go to his employer. Then from that a portion is given to him. Slaves in those days were given money, they were given clothes, houses and all that ... They were really employees !!!
-) It is also true that today many people are rather more comfortable working as employees rather than becoming their own 'master' because that would mean no sick pay and paid holidays ... slaves in those days enjoyed homes they did not have to pay for and were cared for when sick.
Islam has never allowed the slavery where a persons choice is not their own. And if slavery was like it was then .... well look people here know the story of Umar (RA) and how he went to Jerusalem ... He would walk and swap at points with his servant (employee) to us and it was the turn of the employee to sit on the camel. So they entered Jerusalem in that state they were shocked when they later realised that the Caliph was the one walking.
That to todays standards is like Musharraf driving the car and his driver in the back when they entered the hotel in London.
Soooooo ... Those who say slavery is allowed need to understand that terminology is a dangerous thing and what was meant by a term in the past is not necessarily the same today.
:biggthumb I was waiting for someone to spot that pearl of wisdom. Well done PCG. Our hero wants other families to give up their women for his pleasure but what if some other guy wants to do the same to his family. What hypocrisy.