Re: Sex with slaves
Sara, all this is an arguement based in history.
If it was a hundred years ago, no, you had no rights, you are property only.
Now, you would never be slave, just unable to live.
Re: Sex with slaves
Yeah but this is all hypothetical anyway.... and if this whole sex iwth slaves thing was really irrelevant, then why r we discussing it? :-|
Re: Sex with slaves
Not irrevelant, it is historically based in fact, but since some Muslims literally take the Quuran without historical perspective, things like this arise and are debated forever with no one coming to any definite conclusion.
We have people who do this in Christianity also, this is not a slam.
Re: Sex with slaves
Yea ur rite i guess...
Re: Sex with slaves
Its really convenient to make things irrelevant just so that one can avoid defending the position. Ofcourse, no one is going to make the historical fact of "men only leading" as irrelevant because society has now changed.
Minah-pa : you are right about historical perspective. But, it doesn't mean that living in a less technological or civilized world makes it perfectlly moral to have relations with a married woman whose husband isn't in the "zone" and the other finer details. One issue I am trying to understand is exactly how historical perspective should be understood along with cultural reinterpetation. Another issue is how to comprehend a 'flaw' within Islam if Islam is 30 chapter long assertion onto itself? Basically it becomes a bigger analogy of this: Anything contained within this sentence is absolute truth because a higher power has dictated so.
Is life reduced to not understanding and simply accepting a set of assertions of grand magnitudes?
Re: Sex with slaves
828: Brother/Sister ISlam is never stated as a Culture of all times. Not one Ayat states that! All muslims dont have to be an ARAB!!! There is a difference between religion and culture, they are not synonymous. Perhaps Islam allows a people from different countries to enjoin their cultural freedom. (Now defining culture can be another post to discuss on, but lets not put that here). I request you to meet and discuss with an Alim before forming any conclusions on your mind. Inshallah Allah will guide us all.
Sara516: Sister, the female prisoners of war are those who come to the battle to fight. If suppose your husband is caught at war and you are at home then you are not a prisoner of war. Only if you also go into the battle as a helper/fighter, then you will be liable as female prisoner of war. Please I request you to read history of different world eras and also if you have doubts then please refer to an Alim before coming to a conclusion. Inshallah Allah will guide us all.
Allah Knows the Best!
Re: Sex with slaves
[QUOTE]
Minah-pa : you are right about historical perspective. But, it doesn't mean that living in a less technological or civilized world makes it perfectlly moral to have relations with a married woman whose husband isn't in the "zone" and the other finer details. One issue I am trying to understand is exactly how historical perspective should be understood along with cultural reinterpetation. Another issue is how to comprehend a 'flaw' within Islam if Islam is 30 chapter long assertion onto itself? Basically it becomes a bigger analogy of this: Anything contained within this sentence is absolute truth because a higher power has dictated so. Is life reduced to not understanding and simply accepting a set of assertions of grand magnitudes?
[/QUOTE]
828 - simply put -> Now, slavery is not acceptable, then slavery was, so first you have to think that it is acceptable to own slaves and next that they are not people but property that lives, like horses or dogs only smarter. Slaves were property and bought and sold as such. It is harder for people now to understand this, but they were not seen as being totally human, they were property only during the times when Torah, Bible, Quuran, etc.. were being written.
It was also justified by people believing a person became a slave from God's will (meaning defeat in war, poverty, bad character, etc) and therefore deserved their fate.
That is why historical perspective should be included when trying to understand somethings that are included in these different books. Ethical treatment of slaves was an issue that all three books addressed as well as they could during that time, but they stopped short of saying Don't do something because slaves were total property of the owners. Instead, they added conditions to improve a slave's lot, that is it. Property was not married nor did it belong to anyone other than an owner because it was not truly considered human culturally.
It has nothing to do with technology but with cultural norms and the evolving process of civilization.
As far as cultural reinterpetation I am not a scholar but if something does not apply to the times (even if divinely spoken and written) meaning that mankind has taken care of a problem addressed in the Quuran/Bible/Torah, then those passages should be seen as fullfilled, not stressed over because they don't apply to modern times.
Re: Sex with slaves
so Allah says that gambling is haraam..but our armchair muftis come and say..oh no..at that time it was because people would loose everything in gambling and even gamble their family away..but now..humans are more advanced, we dont need Allah any more..and besides the laws here do not allow for us to gamble our families or any essential things…so it is taken care of by humans and thus God can take his words back we dont need it. subhanallah, even munafiqeen of the times of prophet SAW were not that daring..they even prayed and participated in jihad..
you should look in your heart and see if you have any iman, because from your words it seems that you worship your ownself and not Allah. because just because you think something is bad then all the words of Allah and actions of the prophet are down the toilet for you…why dont you burn those ayahs out of quran? and also about polygamy too..burn those “useless” ayahs …and what is the deal with anti semitism in quran? we cant invite ppl if we have such harsh words…tehy gotta go too…and warning the homosexuals? oh my god..are they not humans too? they should have a right to live as they please…take that out too. i can go on…but it is just so sickening to watch ppl ignore quran and sunnah when it is against their whims and desires…and then to watch them lecture others and claim to be muslims…subhanallah. what a disgrace to islam.
Re: Sex with slaves
Thandy - I was dealing with one subject - slavery - period.
I never, ever at any time claimed to be a Muslim, quite the opposite. I also never claimed to lead either nor did I claim to be a scholar.
But thank you for trying anyway.
Re: Sex with slaves
I think u r disgrace to the whole human race.
Re: Sex with slaves
If mankind lasts long enough and progresses spritually, as surely God intends, there will one day be life without wars. Will there be a group of Muslims who at that point advocate war because it is permitted in Quran? Just as advocates are saying about slavery now?
A big fault I find with Islam is that I believe His FINAL word will not contain references about slaves, wars, killings etc that reflect the worst in humans. Those type of references to the barbaric 7th century will not have a place in a future, spiritual world. If we don't have a chance to get there then God has damned us and created us to be a warring race without hope for reaching the spiritual plateau that is worthy of Him.
Re: Sex with slaves
I want a blonde norewegian slave that can only knows lovemaking.
Re: Sex with slaves
Yeah…You ignorant Muslim, you should shut the heck up and let us destroy you in peace…
Shame on you Thandymazaq for having an opinion that you believe in…If you speak those beliefs, and it doesn’t doesn’t agree with us, that automatically makes you an ignoramus of the world…
You can’t ‘sympathize’, if you do, we ostracise…(Nice little verse here…)
They should hang you…
Re: Sex with slaves
Even american founding father Peer Jefferson nay bhi iss revayat mein bhar poor indulgance ki thi.......
Re: Sex with slaves
comon man, you think human kind is changing towards better? i think not. people have always been greedy for same things since man was created..and if you want secular talk since recorded history. we have seen egyptians rise to power only to enslave other races and regions for their benefit. we have seen kings in egypt hoard enormous wealth and work their ppl to death for their desires. we have seen conspiracies and intrugue by men who were after power and money. we have seen manipulation of women as sex items. and even after 5000 years or so of recorded history, i see same thing. you said that one day mankind will evolve to have no wars…hmm…i thought that after 5000 years of evolution, we got world wars…the most destructive wars ever took place…i think they killed more ppl than all previous wars combined. we still didnt learn our lesson. stalin killed 20 million ppl…so man will always be destructive. you cant assume war to ever end. as long as there are men who are willing to send others’ sons and daughters to die for their sick goals, wars will happen. as long as there are people who do not mind to steal the resources of a nation there will be wars. as long as there are people who worship themselves and erect statues of their own selves, there will be wars. and that i believe will never end. men will always use women as sex items.. look at the sexual subliminal messages in advertisements. the tactics change and thats it. power money and women will always incite ppl to act in ways that will be deemed unethecial by ANY one regardless of their religious beliefs. so there you go…my thoughts on the possibility of man ever evolving in a “better” creature over time with out any work instead of each individual working on his /her heart to becoming more pious.
Re: Sex with slaves
I have to believe there is hope for man. How likely I cannot say. If I were to believe otherwise than God would be cruel, impotent and petty. To believe righteousness cannot be achieved on earth and to die is the only way to live a righteous life doesn't make sense. Does God have nothing else to do but create humans to suffer and annilihate each other until their destruction? I believe the reason Jesus was sent was to show that perfection can be achieved on earth.
Re: Sex with slaves
What I meant was that Islam, as Ive been told, is a religion that is beyond all time and space i.e. culture or location. It could be applied to anyone in all of human history. However, anything could be ‘applied’ , that is forced on to any culture. But you are stating that it is not a culture that is being asserted: however the sex with slaves, slavery, limitations of females…are ALL Arab culture issues that the Qu’ran was dealing with in 7th century AD. The Qu’ran tries to speak to all mankind by using the word “mankind”, but at the same time it has certain teachings (not all) that are very specific to the cultural practices of 7th century Arabs. Are all these irrelevant to us? If the Qu’ran was revealed to a different culture, the contents would not be the same and even some additional rules, laws would be required to maintain the morality of that culture..and some rules not required because those people might not be breaking those religious norms.
I actually don’t understand the concept of a “last messenger” coming THOUSANDS of years before the day of judgement. Why is God cutting himself off? Religion always needs to be readdressed, reaffirmed. Is it fair that we do not have a prophet? The Qu’ran cannot be enough because it cannot speak; we have THOUSANDS of people speaking for it..and all in different voices. That is very different from a single prophet speaking words of wisdom. Has all divine revelation ended..or just scriptural revelations? Can God communicate with the common person or is He silent till the end of the universe?
Re: Sex with slaves
woah woah. Who said slavery is acceptable and how does that claim make it “true”? If your stating that THEN it was acceptable and it was NOT overruled (like alcohol was disallowed in steps); then that means that slavery is still Islamically approved and valid (along with the ‘lower’ outlook on slaves)?
secondly, I don’t actually understand your statements: are you supporting the idea that religion has thought of slaves as ‘lesser’ beings..property even? What implications should that have on women who also seem to be treated as property?
I thought morality should be beyond ‘historical perspectives’. It doesnt mean that scripture should be without historical context; but a slave 1400 years ago should be as human and worthy of a better life then a slave today. Why would the time/culture difference make a difference to God? this is different that giving a law for a certain culture for a period of time..it is an intellectual position on the intrinsic value of a BEING. I may have misread your comments so please do clarify what you are stating up there.
Basically, people here are justifying that the Prophet and Caliphs could keep concubines for themselves; but that it is a ridiculous action to commit in these days because the culture has changed..and we must view the past actions in light of the historic circumstances. This seems to be a copout; in order to not have to answer the implications of these actions being commited today. The Qu’ran gives the impression that in matters of survival; religious dogmatism can go out the window: save your life first. However, the above historic circumstances do not warrant a survival exception excuse. It was a normal occurance the Qu’ran CASUALLY talks about concubines as part of a man’s list of possessions (those that your right hand’s possess). It was never abolished or abrogated. This is a standing clause of Islamic perspective on a man’s lawful possessions. The argument that this is old history; don’t talk about it, will not stand for the reason that we are evaluating what God has dictated to man (whether all the statements are consistent or not); not what apologists consider filtering out to us as ‘valid’ in our time.
The irony of orthodox Muslims lashing out on female-led prayers that were historically not performed is not escaping me.
Re: Sex with slaves
[QUOTE]
woah woah. Who said slavery is acceptable and how does that claim make it "true"? If your stating that THEN it was acceptable and it was NOT overruled (like alcohol was disallowed in steps); then that means that slavery is still Islamically approved and valid (along with the 'lower' outlook on slaves)?
secondly, I don't actually understand your statements: are you supporting the idea that religion has thought of slaves as 'lesser' beings..property even? What implications should that have on women who also seem to be treated as property?
[/QUOTE]
No, I'm not supporting that at all and I don't think it was right, however that was the norm of the time. We are talking centuries ago and history is not always picture perfect or the way we would like. I also believe that the reason it is easier to see women as property in this day and time because of thinking like this through the centuries.
As far as religion supporting it, it was legal at the time. All nations had slaves, everywhere, it was a fact. Religions dealt with this issue the best they could in the mindset of that day. Do you doubt that slaves were a part of everyday life? Then why wouldn't there be guidelines on owning, caring, and using slaves? As a civilization we evolved beyond the thinking that slaves were short of being human and realized that the institutuion of slavery is outdated and a violation of a person's basic rights. But if you read any historical account of those times right on up to early America, slaves were second class.
I know everyone likes to think that their book is perfect, etc, but the men who wrote these books existed in another time. As holy as they were, they were also human and no human was perfect or God himself. The same for the Bible. They dealt with what they knew in the mindset of that day. Even the Christian Saints, as holy as they are to me, were imperfect human beings just closer to God's ideal than I am.
Why is it that you should assume that it would be valid now simply because it was valid then? It is like saying that you should be without running water and electricity because the Qu'ran (insert your book here) doesn't mention them. Civilizations change and evolved beyond what man can concieve because man is limited.
[QUOTE]
I thought morality should be beyond 'historical perspectives'. It doesnt mean that scripture should be without historical context; but a slave 1400 years ago should be as human and worthy of a better life then a slave today. Why would the time/culture difference make a difference to God? this is different that giving a law for a certain culture for a period of time..it is an intellectual position on the intrinsic value of a BEING. I may have misread your comments so please do clarify what you are stating up there.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, but again, the reason slavery existed was that it wasn't considered immoral to own slaves, it was acceptable and gave status to a person who owned them. I agree with the statment that a slave 1400 years ago should be as human and worthy of a better life then a slave today, however do you really believe that was a fact? Remember that religion was a baby, if you will. It wasn't fully formed. I am sure there were a lot of moral people, but the cultural and societal norms were different. Again, you are making a mistake in assuming that respect was automatically given to slaves because they were human, it wasn't, they were property. Most were won in battle, some were bought at a price. In either of those situations, in the first there is a contempt for a people that would allow themselves to defeated (OR in later times God allowed it because they were destined to be that way) so they deserved the treatment they got or in the case of a bought slave contempt for a person who would allow that.
[QUOTE]
Basically, people here are justifying that the Prophet and Caliphs could keep concubines for themselves; but that it is a ridiculous action to commit in these days because the culture has changed..and we must view the past actions in light of the historic circumstances. This seems to be a copout; in order to not have to answer the implications of these actions being commited today. The Qu'ran gives the impression that in matters of survival; religious dogmatism can go out the window: save your life first. However, the above historic circumstances do not warrant a survival exception excuse. It was a normal occurance the Qu'ran CASUALLY talks about concubines as part of a man's list of possessions (those that your right hand's possess). It was never abolished or abrogated. This is a standing clause of Islamic perspective on a man's lawful possessions. The argument that this is old history; don't talk about it, will not stand for the reason that we are evaluating what God has dictated to man (whether all the statements are consistent or not); not what apologists consider filtering out to us as 'valid' in our time.
The irony of orthodox Muslims lashing out on female-led prayers that were historically not performed is not escaping me.
[/QUOTE]
828 - What are you going to do to change history? You can't, you accept that things happened - bad and good - and make a better world from that point on. You may see it as a cop-out but what kind of dealing with it do you mean considering how many centuries ago this happened?
I cannot comment on what the Qu'ran position is, my knowledge is limited to what my husband interprets for me. I am not saying don't talk about old history, what I am saying is to look into the reasons for it and move on. Some things will not be applicable today simply because civilization has moved to a point were it is a non-issue or because a moral shift in the people. Morally, we as a civilization do not condone slavery, it is not mainstream as it was centuries before.
Again, it is what God has dictated to man, an imperfect vessel. Some were closer to God than others, but no one can claim perfection. That alone is God. As much as people are going to hate this, man makes mistakes.
The irony is not lost on me either.