Let us start with a suggestion: Abrogate the bold parts in the Quranic verses below.
- Quran 23:1-6: Successful indeed are the believers who are humble in their prayers, and who shun vain conversation, and who are payers of the poor-due; And who guard their modesty – save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy.
- Quran 33:50-52: O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father’s side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father’s side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother’s side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother’s side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage – a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers – We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess – that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. Thou canst defer whom thou wilt of them and receive unto thee whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou desirest of those whom thou hast set aside (temporarily), it is no sin for thee (to receive her again); that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieve, and may all be pleased with what thou givest them. Allah knoweth what is in your hearts (O men), and Allah is ever Forgiving, Clement. It is not allowed thee to take (other) women henceforth, nor that thou shouldst change them for other wives even though their beauty pleased thee, save those whom thy right hand possesseth. And Allah is ever Watcher over all things.
- Quran 70:29-31: And those who preserve their chastity save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy; But whoso seeketh more than that, those are they who are transgressors;
Now I don’t mean that they should be edited out of the Quran. That would open a Pandora’s box. I am thinking more on the lines of annotation and commentary saying these are no longer valid and do not apply now because they condone great crimes and sins. These clauses are from an era when humanity hadn’t progressed much and people didn’t have many rights that we take for granted nowadays.
I consider slavery to be a crime against humanity. Another common act associated with slavery was the abominable rape of female slaves. Yes, I classify sex between master and slave to be rape because a slave does not have the right to refuse. This is one of the worst crimes in my opinion.
Unfortunately, it seems from the verses above that the Quran itself allows sexual relations between masters and their female slaves. That is the interpretation of most scholars. A few modernist scholars disagree, however. Let’s take a look at our usual duo of conservative neorevivalist Sheikh Munajjid and modernist Moiz Amjad.
Sheikh Munajjid tries to argue that Islam limited an existing practice and gave more rights to slaves.
Islam limited the sources of slaves which existed before the mission of the Prophet […] to just one source, namely slavery resulting from capturing prisoners from among the kuffaar.
Islam treated female slaves more kindly in their enslavement than other cultures did. Their honour was not considered to be permissible to anyone by way of prostitution, which was the fate of female prisoners of war in most cases. Rather Islam made them the property of their masters alone, and forbade anyone else to also have intercourse with them, even if that was his son. Islam made it their right to become free through a contract of manumission; it encouraged setting them free and promised reward for that. Islam made setting slaves free an obligation in the case of some kinds of expiation (kafaarah), such as the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce in which a man said to his wife, “You are to me as my mother’s back”), and breaking oaths. They received the best treatment from their masters, as was enjoined by the pure sharee’ah.
Secondly: A mujaahid does not have to be married in order to gain possession of a “slave whom one’s right hand possesses.” None of the scholars expressed such a view.
Here, he tries to distinguish between sex with a slave and prostitution. I guess nobody told him that the correct comparison would be with rape.
Slavery in Islam was originally prescribed because of Kufr. If there is jihaad between the Muslims and the kuffaar, and a number of kuffaar are taken prisoner, the commander is given the choice of sharing them out, doing them a favour (by releasing them) or paying their ransom. If they are shared out as part of the booty, they become slaves, subject to the laws governing products which may be sold. But at the same time, Islam urges the freeing of slaves and makes doing so an act of expiation for numerous sins. In principle, slavery is not something that is desirable; what is encouraged in Islam is the freeing of slaves. If a woman is enslaved according to sharee’ah, it is permissible for her master to have intercourse with her. This is unlike prostitution or zinaa, which Islam has forbidden as a precaution against mixing lineages and other reasons for which it is forbidden. There is no comparison between the two, because if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies, because she has become the mother of the master’s child (umm walad), and is subject to the same rulings as a wife. And Allaah knows best.
And finally here is a case when the master is not allowed to have sexual relations with his slave.
It is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with his slave woman who is married; whoever does that has committed a haraam (forbidden) action and is to be punished.
Despite the fact that Sheikh Munajjid was a bit apologetic about the slavery issue, he considers any arguments about it being not allowed as wrong. For once, I agree with him that this has been the majority opinion of traditionalist and neorevivalist scholars. But I do think that not only should we declare it haraam [disallowed] (which is the position of some modernists), we should write in our translations and commentaries of the Quran that it is one of the biggest crimes/sins and a legacy of the barbaric past of Islam and humanity in general.
Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.
This is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and this was done by the Prophets. Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) took Haajar as a concubine and she bore him Ismaa’eel (may peace be upon them all).
Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah, the righteous and the scholars. The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.
[…]The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.
The modernist scholar Moiz Amjad claims that Islam did not abolish slavery because it would have caused a lot of social upheaval as it was too entrenched in society at the time. I have read similar arguments from other scholars as well. But I think the same can be said for a lot of other things that Islam proscribed as well.
[T]he reason why Islam did not give any macro-level directives for the eradication of slavery was precisely the socio-cultural, economic and technological development state of the human collectivity, in general. It was only at a very later stage that mankind reached a stage where the collectivity could plan and implement programs for the macro-level eradication of the vice. Till such time, no collective administrative action could have been taken against the vice, individuals could only prompted against it, and this, in my opinion, is precisely what Islam did.
In more detail:
Islam did not completely abolish and uproot the institution of slavery because of the simple reason that it was not possible to do so. The institution of slavery had such deep roots in the world societies of old that it was quite difficult to even imagine a civilized society without a large percentage of slave population. It was in this historical background that the revival of Islam, at the hands of Mohammed (pbuh), started in the 6th century AD.
[… T]he major hindrances in the complete abolition and prohibition of the institute of slavery were:
- The existing internationally accepted social status given to the slaves and their prevalent moral training and position;
- The social acceptability of interacting with slaves;
- The macro economic situation in the societies (including the lack of employment opportunities for the unproductive slave population);
- The serious socio-moral and political implications that were likely to follow a hasty action in this regard; and
- The international situation
The basic directives of Islam in this regard were aimed at:
- Promoting freeing of capable slaves through various directives;
- Improving the social status and the moral standards of the slaves;
- Abolishing any future chances of converting any free men into slaves; and finally
- Awarding the legal right to each and every capable slave, who wanted to live his/her life as a free person, to earn his freedom.
These directives, in my honest opinion, amounted to the best possible solution to the problem with the least potential of any negative repercussions on the society as well as the individuals.
Moiz Amjad seems to think that the Islamic rules regarding treatment of slaves played a role in the eradication of slavery from society, an unproven assertion at best. According to my knowledge, slavery was finally abolished because of the West and especially the British.
[E]ven though Islam accepted the existence of slavery in the society, yet this acceptance was not as a permanent approval of the existence of this institution, but as a social vice, which could not be avoided under the prevalent domestic as well as international social conditions. The mere fact that Islam took a series of steps for the initiation of a social reform, which ultimately resulted in the complete abolition of the institution of slavery, is evidence of the fact that, given a choice, Islam would never have approved the existence of the institution, in the first place.
He does the right thing in saying that now that slavery is no more, it is against Islamic principles to revive it.
Keeping the foregoing explanation in perspective, it should be easy to derive that Islam would never approve any steps that may, in any way, contribute toward the reestablishment of the institution. Thus, as I understand it, once the institution of slavery has been completely abolished, Islam would not allow its reestablishment.
Another aspect, which clearly goes against making slaves of prisoners are the prevalent international laws and treaties, which are agreed upon by all Muslim as well as non-Muslims nations of the contemporary world. These laws and treaties have considerably changed the status of the prisoners of wars as well as any territory that is conquered during such aggression. No Muslim country remaining faithful to its international contracts and agreements can make slaves of its prisoners of wars, just as other nations cannot make slaves of the citizens of an Islamic state.
His defence of concubines is pretty weak.
Islam does not advocate Kanizes (Slave girls).
Islam has always been against the very existence of the institution of slavery. Nevertheless, like most of the other social phenomena, slavery too, because of its deep roots in the society, could not have been abolished by a single stroke of the ruler’s pen. It needed not only the provision of settlement opportunities for these slaves but also altering the social attitudes towards them. Islam, from the very beginning aimed at altering the social attitudes of the people towards slaves and slave girls. However, we see that the roots of this institution were so deep that even after twenty-three years of education, it was still not possible to completely abolish the institution. The maximum that could have been done was to give the slaves the choice of freedom, and that is exactly what Islam did.
During this process, it was necessary not only to better the social status of the slaves in the society but also to recognize the relationship between the slaves and their masters. It is in this context, that Islam has recognized the existing sexual relationship between a master and his slave girls. It must, however, be remembered that Islam has not promoted a new relationship but has accepted and recognized an existing one. In other words, Islam did not, for the first time allow sexual relations with slave girls but only recognized an already existing relationship between a slave girl and her master to be legal, for as long as the institution of slavery existed.
Although Sheikh Munajjid does not advocate reviving slavery, he does think it wrong to declare it “haram” [forbidden by Islamic law]. Moiz Amjad on the other hand does think of Islam as a somewhat evolving religion. Though I am disappointed in the Quran in allowing the rape of slave girls, I also think of Islam as not a rigid religion but something that evolves and progresses as we become better human beings. I also recognize the progress humanity has made in the last millenium or two. Hence, my interpretation of the following Quranic verse (5:3) is different than some others.
This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam.
I don’t believe “perfected” above means perfectly and completely defined, especially not at all a rigid definition that a lot of the neorevivalists care for. In my opinion, a lot of the human rights standards of 7th century Arabia were atrocious and we have come a long way but still have a lot to do. This progress and evolution of religion and morality is a good thing. Most people agree that slavery was wrong and we should not practice or revive slavery today just because the Quran and Sunnah seem to provide a cover. However, we need to go further and forcefully reject some of these old barbaric ideas.
If you are interested about some history of slavery in the Muslim world, here is an interview with Ronald Segal discussing this topic. Ronald Segal also wrote a couple of books on slavery, one on the Atlantic slave trade and the other on the African slaves in the Middle East.
UPDATE: If you are wondering why I am talking about slavery when it is no longer a modern issue (there are exceptions, for example, Sudan and Mauritania) and no one, either scholar or layman, is defending slavery or trying to bring it back, well here is the reason: Look at Moiz Amjad; he says slavery is wrong today but gives lots of reasons/excuses defending the Quranic sanction. All well and good but all he had to do to get me on his side was to say that whatever the reasons, slavery was still wrong then just like it is wrong now. He is typical of the attitude of quite a few Muslims who hesitate to condemn slavery in the time of the Prophet Muhammad. If it’s so difficult for a dead issue, how can we expect something on a live curent-day issue?
RE: modern slavery. You can get estimates between 2-200 million for the number of slaves in the world today (this article quotes Colin Powell saying 50,000 people are brought into the US annually as sex slaves.) Here’s a Scientific American article on the worldwide problem, which is good, although the formatting is hosed.
I took a seminar on slavery in the pre-modern Middle East, and we actually read Segal’s book, though no one seemed to like it much. (I forget the reasons.) Bernard Lewis’s Race ad Slavery in the Middle East is actually really good on this issue, as well.
Slavery & Islam
Zack Ajmal has a post that deals with the Islamic attitude toward slavery. He asserts: Though I am disappointed in the Quran in allowing the rape of slave girls, I also think of Islam as not a rigid religion but…
Zack
Zack of Procrastination has been excellent as always, and I’m remiss in not recommending the series he’s posted on life in Kashmir, for which Zack has created a handy index here. He also has a post well worth reading on…
Been meaning to mention…
Zack of Procrastination has been excellent as always, and I’m remiss in not recommending the series he’s posted on life in Kashmir, for which Zack has created a handy index here. He also has a post well worth reading on…
slavery and exploitation are still with us
Zack Ajmal has posted about slavery and Islam. First, a disclaimer. My blog entry contains only some very preliminary thoughts…
hey Zack, I’m not sure if you have knowledge of arabic, but look at the verses a bit more carefully. Those verses seem to be gender neutral, mu’minun. In addition, the word translated as wives is also gender neutral, from what I saw. (I could be mistaken) I would argue both men and women were allowed to have sex with “what one’s right hand possesses” 🙂 What do you think?
Javed: I don’t really know Arabic, but I have studied it (I am bad at learning languages). My meagre knowledge seems to agree with you on the gender neutrality. My wife will thank you.
Interesting, never noticed that. I guess you know Arabic well? If not, I should ask my mom for her expert native speaker opinion.
I know enough to get around 🙂
A Semitic model
A few days ago I commented on slavery and Islam in response to Zack Ajmal’s manifesto on the same topic. I was mildly hopeful that progressive & heterodox Muslims could change the outlook of the faith in The United States….
Look to the Yehudi
A few days ago I commented on slavery and Islam in response to Zack Ajmal’s manifesto on the same topic. I was mildly hopeful that progressive & heterodox Muslims could change the outlook of the faith in The United States….
Andrew: Interesting article. Thanks.
Brian: Thanks for the book recommendation. The reviews I have read of Segal’s book mostly don’t like the book much either. His Atlantic slave trade book is rated higher.
Salaam,
I hope you don’t mind me posting this late in the day.
I think you’re right to criticise the attitude of the Qur’an towards slavery (as well other issues like, perhaps, women’s rights).
However, there are two issues here:
1. Apologetics; I do dislike apologetics by ‘modern’ Muslims, mainly because instead of rationalising our history it tends to distort it and paint rosy images of our past. That doesn’t help anyone. A prime example is on the issue of Jihad; claims like “Muhammad fought only defensive war” are patently false.
2. This brings us to the question of interpretation. Are Muslims allowed to interpret their religion in light of history? If the effort is done properly, why not? However, the danger product of this interpretation might look like apologia.
The point regarding Muhammad (p) and the Qur’an is an intersting one: The Prophet was afterall only a human. Are we allowed to engage in a more humanistic interpretation of faith, if we admit to his human mistakes or shortcomings? FR tried that… but look what happened to him.
Thebit: Interesting thoughts. I agree. Looking back at the early caliphs, we see some practises from Prophet Muhammad’s time discarded or changed, some for the better and others for the worse.
I need to read FR’s works one of these days.
considering the fact that slavery does still exist in the world, in different forms than before adn cheaper than before….is it wrong for us as muslims to forbid adn to work towards ending it? I know that Islam encouraged freeing your own slaves, but what about freeing other people’s slaves?
lena: is it wrong for us as muslims to forbid adn to work towards ending it? I know that Islam encouraged freeing your own slaves, but what about freeing other people’s slaves?
It is important in my opinion to work against the practice of slavery anywhere.
yeah to fuck all those that touch any women in any of those contry or me and odessa willa track u down add kill you because we believe in fighting for the women in our country you herd
odessa: huh?
DEAR SIR,
MY NAME IS NASIR AND I AM FROM PAKISTAN,
MY QUESTION ABOUT SEX,
SIR CAN HUSBAND TOUCH AND SUCH BREAST OF WIFE,
MY SECOND QUESTION TO YOU IS;
CAN MUSLIM HUSBAND FUCK THEIR WIFE BY THE BACK BOTTOM AREA.
PLZ REPLY ME ISLAM ALLOWS OR NOT,
YOURS SINCIERLY,
NASIR
Nasir: I am not into giving religious rulings. If you want, you can look up one of the following sites:
There are other sources as well, but these are the ones I could recall right now.
“It is important in my opinion to work against the practice of slavery anywhere”
i know it is important, i definitely believe in fighting against , im’ just wondering how Islam views it….i guess if you believe that islam is intended to be a progressive religion than you can be for ending slavery but if you are one of the people who believes in sticking ot everything that’s inteh QUran and the way society was at that time, then you woulnd’t believe that- it bothers me that the Quran doens’t outright condemn the institution of slavery,
lena: That is exactly the problem I have encountered with some Muslims who are unwilling to say even today that slavery is wrong.
Zack, you said that you do not believe that Allah completely perfected the religion as in ‘PERFECT WITHOUT A FLAW’. How can you believe that? When Allah has perfected something, it is ‘PERFECT’ in EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD.
Someone: I think you didn’t get my point. Even if Islam is perfect, its implementation in say 7th century Arabia or 10th century Andulusia wasn’t perfect. It never will be. We human beings try to make things better over time and doctrine and theology changes as well. To take the example of slavery, God didn’t end slavery with the advent of Islam. I guess we can all agree that slavery is (and was) bad. If the religion as specified in 11AH (632AD) was final and perfect, then why allow slavery? A ban on slavery is part of the progress we have made.
Been meaning to mention…
Zack of Procrastination has been excellent as always, and I’m remiss in not recommending the series he’s posted on life in Kashmir, for which Zack has created a handy index here. He also has a post well worth reading on…
I’m a muslim,.. and i do think slavery is wrong in this time but it couldn’t be changed at that time
and slaves in the islam point of view is like a brother.. since you have to buy clothes for your slaves and give them food when they don’t have enough food you have to give them half of yours
in a way slaves are like butlers since they can buy themselfs out and they can also get freedom and the master has to give money for them If they deserv it , to start a new life
Maxamed: slaves in the islam point of view is like a brother
And what about the female slaves who were raped by their masters? They obviously weren’t like sisters.
please can anyone tell me of some books or websites where i can learn more about female prisoners of war in islam. thank you
seeker: I don’t have any suggestions off the top of my head.
The Brass Crescent awards
Aziz Poonawalla has opened nominations for the alt.muslim Brass Crescent awards, for the best Muslim blogs and blogs about Islam. I’ve put in my nominations (and no, I’m not expecting nominations in return!). I’ve got a few comments of my…
Brass Crescent Awards Voting
The nomination stage is over and it’s voting time. And it seems you like me, really like me since I have been nominated in so many categories: Best Writing Best Single Post: Two nominations for Do They Look Like Me?…
Award Season
The holiday season has brought the weblog award season upon us as well. First came the 2004 Weblog Awards by Wizbang. I somehow got nominated for the Best Asian Blog contest there and ended up with 0.9% of the vote….
Salam Alaykom.
The word slave is not meant harshly…like I beleive it is more meant to be a servant, as in cook, clean around the house, and most likely help in general around the house and fulfilling the sexual needs, and these “slaves” or i would say “servants” are offered a place to stay in, clothes, and food. No one said anything about a slave being raped, bcz the Quran said it is unlawful for a man to have intercourse with a woman that is unwilling to have sex !! so don’t go talking about how innocent are women, why don’t these women do the same thing with a legal contract and live with a bit of respect in a man’s house, where they get full security and a house and clothing and food and alot of rights.
if those “slave” women at the time of capture were offered the choice of freedom or being a slave, then isn’t it their own choice that they chose to be a spoiled slave? to apply to today, those prositutes out there, they dont have to be captured, but just simply offered a contract of serving around the house and have sex here and there. and no one has forced anyone it is their full choice to accept it or not, just like it is their full choice to go around doing prostitution….I am assuming some women would not mind to serve “respectfully” in their “master“‘s house, as long as they’re happy getting the security they always wanted! women’s nature in loving a man is diffrent, whereas a man can love and appreciate many women because they are beautiful, but a woman can fall in love with one man and can understand his love for women ( if we get down deep to it – ask any man in other words I think they just can’t get this sexual satisfaction which push them to do those nasty practices. Allah knows best in men’s desires. But to change the things said by Allah is wrong, and the end of times are made to come soon after the prophet’s dead…
Main point is that no one should be raped, it all comes down to the contract between the woman in need for security and the man (the slave and the master as you see it). and no one said anything about disrespect. Allah also promises beautiful women (houris) to good men (no worry there -women will be rewarded equally) so that means people of this life has to accept that women are of life’s decorations beside money, Gold, and other provisions . also BEWARE THE GREED…
May Allah forgive me for anything that I wrongly said.
salamo alaykom wa rahmato ellah
Adam: Your comment is so full of nonsense, I don’t even know where to start my reply. Here are a few examples:
There is a definite difference between slaves and servants. Secondly, sex with servants?
Does a slave woman have any real choice in refusing sex with her master?
You talk like these women decided to become slaves by choice, rather than being forced into slavery.
If. How many were offered that choice? Not many. And those that were offered freedom, probably chose it.
If you think slaves are so spoiled, why don’t you become one?
Nice blog. Keep it up …
Hi there
Apologies for posting an off topic question here.
I am invitation your views on ABORTION in order to present a case to help those in the developing world.
I personally see abortion as a NECESSARY EVIL and that unwanted pregnancy is not only a personal problem and it is also a very real problem for the society at large.
Do you think it is right to burden say a 15 years old school-going girl with a new life when she is yet to have any economic mean to sustain herself and obviously, most girls of her age are not mentally ready for a family life. Furthermore, is it fair to rob her of her career, aspiration, dream etc., in the name of preserving a life that is yet to be fully developed?
If you have an opinion, please email it to me at divinetalk@gmail.com or if you wish, you may post your comment here: Your Onion Counts!
Also, what do you think of the recent “Pharmacists Refused Contraceptive Prescriptions”.
Do you think Pharmacists have the rights to Play God?
la bona: Thanks.
You have asked hard questions. I’ll see if I can come up with my thoughts in the comment section of your blog.
Islam by Fazlur Rahman
“Islam” by Fazlur Rahman gives an interpretive history of Islam. It is a slim volume and focuses on Fazlur Rahman’s opinions of the major theological developments. It is nevertheless very readable.
Slavery, Then and Now
Where are the descendents of black slaves in the Arab world, which imported far more of them than the Americas ever did? What trends and issues make that issue relevant today, and even more relevant in future? What is the…
“The word slave is not meant harshly…like I beleive it is more meant to be a servant, as in cook, clean around the house, and most likely help in general around the house and fulfilling the sexual needs”.
Is this a reference to women or men? 🙂
“The (slaves) that their right hands possess.”
The notion of gender neutrality raised by “Javed” in 3rd comment in the actual arabic text has given rise to anther question. Is it quran or the translation?
I believe it is the translation that causes confusion and uproar. I have stumbled upon not few but many instances where I have realized that translators have not done a good translation and they have ended up giving a wrong meaning to the origonal text. Whatever the translator is trying to translate as right hand would probably mean as something acquired lawfully (Remember that Right is parable of Lawful in Islam). So acquiring a slave lawfully for sex is by Nikah (a marrige contract).
So prbably “the (slaves) that their right hands possess” would be considered as the slaves who are rightfully eligible for sexual contact. Remember Quran allows men to have 4 wives under certain circumstances (when a man can deal justfully with all four and Allah says that he is witness that you may not be able to do justice. Which means that Allah suggests it as a remote possibility that you marry with more than one). In case of gender neutrality a woman would also be allowd to have sex with a slave if she marries with the slave man otherwise it will be totally pornographic version of Islam which is off course unthinkable.
Emullah:
That is not the majority opinion among Muslim scholars.
I know that majority opinion differs but by reading those verses and translating them literaly I have reached the following conclusions that if Muslims have some slaves and they want to have sex with them then it is better that they give them due respect and make a marrige contract. Otherwise that would not be a right hand thingy. It will be some underhand shady deal. Know the question is why majority has a different opinion? Well! …. you know what syeds do to hari girls in Sind and Aytollah in Iran (one night stand thingy). So why it would be in the best interest of mjority of the scholars to try to have a better reasoning?
emullah: More power to you then.
Hi,
Yeah i agree with u Zack, slavery was/is bad and forever will be. After all, aren’t we only slaves to ONE (Allah) & no one else. As for sex with female slaves, well i’m hoping that a muslim slave owner did have to get married before consumating the relationship or at least ask the permission of the woman. The fact that the guy could have sex with all his female slaves just like that does not make any sense to me, keeping in mind all the basics of Islam, as that would definitely be rape.
Peace!
Kinza.
“…Force not your slave girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity…” (24:33)
I understand the preceding verse of the Quran to forbid raping one’s slave. This means that one would need that slave’s permission in order to have sexual relations. It is true that some commentators tried to limit the meaning of this verse to forcing a slave into prostitution (sex for money), but that interpretation, if mis-used to allow raping one’s slave, goes clearly against all of the major themes of the whole religion, i.e. justice, kindness, mercy, etc…
Is anyone still reading this thread?
My previous comment is in regard to the situation of Muslims in 7th Century Arabia…
The other points on this thread, regarding whether slavery is still valid at all, are all relevant. Due to international conventions, treaties etc… it would be pretty stupid for (us) Muslims to try to re-introduce the slave trade.
I simply wanted to clarify, that even in a situation where slavery was permitted, the Quran never condoned rape…
Mike: That is one interpretation of that Quranic verse. Do note that it is a minority opinion among traditional scholars.
As for consent of the slave, my contention is that due to the relationship between master and slave being so lopsided there is no possibility of real consent or refusal on the part of the slave.
Valid points… However, there are a few things we must consider further when discussing this issue:
1. Traditional scholars are not the primary source of Islamic Law, the Quran is. As a result many more recent scolars have pointed out some of the failings of traditional schools of thought, in that they approach rulings an an atomistic way, disregarding the general principals laid out in the Quran. Any work on the Maqasid-al-Shariah, such as the book by Ibn-Ashur, and a more recent work by Jasser Auda (and many more) point out these principals, and suggest methodologies of using them in deriving religious rulings.
The idea that later people might understand the religion better than those who came earlier is actually introduced by the Prophet himself in Sahih Bukhari …
“…He said, “O Allah! Be witness. So it is incumbent upon those who are present to convey it to those who are absent because the informed one might comprehend it better than the present audience, who will convey it to him…” (excerpt)
2. Regarding this issue in particular, I’m aware that cases of abuse exist, however I’ve never heard or read of any scholar actually promoting the idea of raping slaves. If you are aware of such a statement made by a scholar, please inform me. I find it hard to believe any Muslim could even come to such a conclusion, when the Quran is filled with statements like …
“… Lo! Allah enjoineth justice and kindness, and giving to kinsfolk, and forbiddeth lewdness and abomination and wickedness. He exhorteth you in order that ye may take heed…”
Are they classifying forced sex as ‘kindness’ or ‘justice’, or perhaps ‘giving to kinsfolk’?
3. Finally from a practical standpoint, the reforming of Muslims needs to come from within the religion itself. Anyone trying to abrogate the Quran will quickly be rejected and labelled as an enemy. However, scholars who offer new, better interpretations, which are closer to the spirit of the Quran, while not contrary to it’s letters, will have a higher likelyhood of being tolerated, thereby giving the new interpretation time to take hold.
I realize this is an old thread, but I think it’s as relevant today as ever.
Mike: Thanks for your comments.
1. I mostly agree. However, Sunnah is also a source of Islamic law and we have to explain the actual practice of slavery and relations with slaves during the Prophet’s time.
2. While I haven’t read any scholar advocating rape of slaves, most do not even consider the consent (or otherwise) of slave women in their sexual relationship with their masters. That, in itself, is revealing.
3. I agree.
@Mike
yes i am reading this thread very informative and full of knowledgable people.
Cheers
salamalaikum