Re: Sex with slave women
This is a provision that all the great Muslim rulers availed themselves of. They often had harems fill with dozens, even hundreds of women, of whom they would have nikkah with 4 and the remainder would be their concubines - legally speaking, their slaves.
Re: Sex with slave women
I am not going to believe that my prophet had sex with some one without having her in his Nikkah - Period .... And if some one thinks - he had - well that is Actual blasphemy in my books ...
It wouldn't be blasphemy. I don't know the actual facts but considering Hazrat Maria was his slave, according to the Qur'an sex with her would have been perfectly legal.
Re: Sex with slave women
Nice points :k:
Re: Sex with slave women
In religion - There is no room for rational discussion.
Christanity: When Darwin, presented the Evolution theory to explain the link between all living creatures - it directly contradicted the bible's "truth" of Adam & Eve. Mother of Jesus: Virgin ? (virgin Mary) Jesus - son of God ?
Hinduism: Rationally, most of the stories asociated with Ram & Krishna must have been just that "stories". To set rules for the good of society. It has many Gods & Goddesses - yet says there is but one supreme God.
Islam: Sitting in a cave, talking to God...really? Rationally, the prophet could have been just a good man, trying to unite the Arab tribes by making some rules.
And so on - if we start to use logic, religions soon start falling short of being perfect or God's words.
Let's leave them as they are, pickup the good, and ignore the rest.
I believe that all the religions are product of their time and place. And if you follow the history and learn the politics of that time then you would know why each and every line in the religious texts was written. There can be something very noble , ingenious and wise written in holy books but by no stretch of imagination it is divine.
but i know it is not a easy discussion and a lot of people are not ready for it. people confuse this with atheist-believer argument.
I agree there cannot be a rational discussion on this matter and most of the people take a hide-in-a-shell and close-your-eyes approach. Especially it is not possible to have a good meaningful discussion on a bulletin board like this. so i will stop here before anyone's feelings get hurt as it is not my intention.
Re: Sex with slave women
As far as I understand, sex with slaves IS allowed.
Can someone please post some references? Much appreciated.
Re: Sex with slave women
While I agree slaves were common in that time and very well treated in Islam, why was sex allowed with them? Theoretically, you could buy a slave to fulfil your needs without even getting married
Nikah is nothing more than a public announcement (with minimum of 2 people present) to announce your intention to have a sex partner. Slavery can be considered the same way. The only difference in slavery based and nikah based sex is maybe the consent of the other party is not required in the former scenario. As non-human as it sounds, it was the cost-of-war in those days and both sides had this understating that once they get into the war with each other, it could result in their people becoming slave of the victorious party
Re: Sex with slave women
The only difference in slavery based and nikah based sex is maybe the consent of the other party is not required in the former scenario.
Actually it is, you can't have sex with a slave unless you have their consent.
Re: Sex with slave women
Actually it is, you can't have sex with a slave unless you have their consent.
phir slave tau na howi na!!!
Re: Sex with slave women
Yeah that's the thing, in Islam the treatment of slaves is completely different from what you would expect of slaves in the traditional sense of the word.
Re: Sex with slave women
Nikah is nothing more than a public announcement (with minimum of 2 people present) to announce your intention to have a sex partner. Slavery can be considered the same wy. The only difference in slavery based and nikah based sex is maybe the consent of the other party is not required in the former scenario. As non-human as it sounds, it was the cost-of-war in those days and both sides had this understating that once they get into the war with each other, it could result in their people becoming slave of the victorious party
TLK are you sure?
Re: Sex with slave women
Actually it is, you can't have sex with a slave unless you have their consent.
TLK are you sure?
So rizla said that consent is required even in the case of slave. Cause I dont know any better so lets go with what he said.
Re: Sex with slave women
Ok.
Does anyone know what the reasoning is behind why Islam limited polygamy at 4 wives? Why a limit?
Re: Sex with slave women
the slave women would need to consent, you are not allowed to be violent in anyway to a slave, rape is violent (one assumes you would need to hold down the victim, maybe beat them into submission).
There is a hadees, not sure which one about a slave owner that flicked the ear of one of his slaves, then he asked the slave to strike him so he would not suffer punishment on the day of judgment for flicking his ear.
Re: Sex with slave women
Every one is talking about references from Quran - Hadees ans Seerat -e- nabvi books and yet no one has posted a single reference
Re: Sex with slave women
Does anyone else not find this immoral? Regardless of whatever time period it took place. :\
Re: Sex with slave women
Does anyone else not find this immoral? Regardless of whatever time period it took place. :\
how do you know that what we consider normal today would not be considered immoral 1500 years from now.
Re: Sex with slave women
This article seems quite comprehensive to me: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Islam-947/slave-girls-1.htm
To quote:
It’s pretty clear here that Hazrat Maria was in fact a slave and not a wife of the Prophet saw.
Re: Sex with slave women
Does anyone else not find this immoral? Regardless of whatever time period it took place. :\
That is what I thought too Unos. But to quote from the article I just posted, as a Muslim this should be enough for me:
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
My common sense tells me slavery isn't right but I guess in terms of religion using common sense sometimes is not the best idea. If there is a provision for allowing slavery in Islam we have to accept that as Muslims.
Re: Sex with slave women
how do you know that what we consider normal today would not be considered immoral 1500 years from now.
I don't know, no one does but these were "divine" revelations. The point is that this verse is still in the Quran, and people recite it in their prayers. Every Ramadan it's recited in the Taraweeh. Why is it still in the Quran and what was the purpose of it for being in there anyway?
Re: Sex with slave women
I don't know, no one does but these were "divine" revelations. The point is that this verse is still in the Quran, and people recite it in their prayers. Every Ramadan it's recited in the Taraweeh. Why is it still in the Quran and what was the purpose of it for being in there anyway?
I dont know which verse you are referring to but there are Ayat in quran that are jaari (urdu word meaning on-going) in qirat but not valid in ehkaam (ruling) anymore. Every single part of quran is not a valid shariyat, there is a concept of Naasikh/mansookh that comes in play when Quran is used as the book of law and used to formulate rulings of shariyat.