sex outside of marriage

[MF]

http://www.understanding-islam.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1612&whichpage=7&ARCHIVE=

nobody was able to answer me so I thought I start a thread on its own for it and hope I have better luck now

"And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts) Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed, But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers"

why are they excepted when it comes to guarding from illegal sexual acts? why isnt only your partner excepted?

[hamid_al-murid]

ok, i'll try my hand....

this is part of why it is so difficult to learn about Islam from the Qur'an only, esp. in translation.

if you go back to 7th century arabia, there were a lot of customs that didn't begin with Islam that Islam slowly did away with: slavery for instance. it was too much to expect the many cultures throughout the early Islamic world to give it up all at once, so it was let go of gradually.

another example is polygamy. if you read the Qur'an carefully, it's really not ok. it limits a man to four wives IF he can treat them all equally...then later it says you can never treat them all equally. but in those days it was customary for men to have many wives. people didn't see anything wrong with it, so they had to be weaned from it slowly.

it's more of what i was saying about pictures before. it makes it a lot more easy to walk through the pictures that come up if we cultivate a spirit of patience and generosity within ourselves in how we approach these things. some people call that "thinking the best of Allah". it's like anything else, you get back what you bring to the table. God will relate you to with the same generosity that you relate to Him with...and the religion will fling wide it's doors to your heart and reveal its secrets if you think the best of it also, and always make the most generous interpretation of it that you can. if we start with trust in God, that the world and all our experience is governed by a principle of infinite goodness that has more mercy for us than any mother is capable of having for her child, then He is able to help us and reach us all the more soon.

this is what we all know to be true in our hearts...but the hearts get veiled.

may He clean yours and mine.

peace....
--hamid



"control your attention; you get what you concetrate upon, there is no other main rule."

[mirrage]

Peace all,

I have no choice but to repost my slavery bit! It explains the absurdity (imho) of a gradual social reform document issued by an omnipotent omniscient being. And since when was God so concerned about not causing too much of a stir with His commandments? The people that drowned in the Flood didn’t get a progressive reform programme! Why didn’t any of the many previous Prophets do something about it either?

Apologies for harping on about this, but slavery is an issue where I have fairly strong views and these also apply to the Qur’an, so my tone is fairly negative. I hope I do not offend anyone too much and I stand open to correction.

Islam was not the first religion to address slavery. Vajradhara can correct me on this but I believe the Buddha Gautama was the first Founder to specifically condemn trading in slaves, about a millennium earlier. Buddhism treats all humans as being of equal status, or at least depending on their behaviour, and was/is a major force against the caste system in India. Slavery as it was known in the West and the Middle East did not occur on any great scale in India although the practice of all Buddhist influenced countries has of course been far from perfect.

We just have to take abolition of slavery as implicit, an interpretation that would not be made and was not made until after slavery was no longer considered acceptable by the world.

It is well acknowledged by legislators and human rights lawyers that you can never rely on people in power to use power with restraint or to offer rights to those in their power voluntarily. Police powers must be tightly restricted to protect individual rights for example. The Qur’an is promoted as dealing with the realities of human nature and seeking practical change in society.

Now, impressive as the reforms introduced were for humans in the 7th century, the fact is that slavery was first outlawed completely in Britain 1200 years after the Prophet’s death, later in the USA (although the 13th amendment makes an exception, so it has never been completely abolished for “those convicted of a crime”) and even later by U.N. convention. Is there any evidence whatsoever that the Qur’an has provided inspiration for any anti-slavery movement?

You can blame this on wilful evil humans, or you can accept that all administrations abuse power and wonder what could have been achieved if the Qur’an had been more ambitious.

Rights of slaves are mentioned a lot on Muslim sites, but having recently read the Qur’an, I don’t remember many. There is the possibility to purchase freedom by agreement with your owner, one could hope for release as an act of compassion, if you are made pregnant you cannot be sold or inherited, your child is free, you should not be mistreated (I think, I can’t remember a verse).
On the other hand:

1. No intention to abolish stated no matter what timescale. Not even a single Hadith saying something like "one day, God willing, no man will be owned by another." In fact, ownership of many slaves would be encouraged, because that gives you more to set free!
2. Ongoing acquisition of slaves is limited but condoned
3. Sex with slave girls. In practice, how much choice would a slave girl have, bearing in mind the power relationship between a slave and owner. This fear is exaggerated when Rape is not even a concept mentioned in the Qur’an, only adultery and fornication, and sex with slave girls is specifically excluded. Where is the protection of the powerless? How much would it have “disrupted the economy” to outlaw slave sex?
4. Did the Prophet set an example and refuse to own slaves? I don’t know.

All this is deeply unimpressive coming from God. What is more, Allah must have known that slavery would continue legally for over a millennium after the Qur’an. Therefore He willed it to continue. Perhaps that is why He took such a “softly softly” approach?

"Weaned off"! It's not breastfeeding! It's an absolute evil (if you believe in absolute morals).

Regards,



Edited by - mirrage on 08/07/2004 00:54:58

[hamid_al-murid]

to mirrage:

'Umdat as-salik, p458-9
k32.0 MANUMISSION (`ITQ)
(n: This section, which begins, "To free a slave is an act of worship," deals with a system of ownership that Islam did not invent but found fully established and not possible to instantly abolish, so it rather encouraged its elimination in steps, with incentives. It closed all avenues for obtaining new slaves except the capture of war prisoners, the soldiers of whom the caliph had the option to enslave or not; it encouraged the freeing of slaves by the tremendous reward from Allah Most High; and it materially helped slaves to purchase their freedom by providing them the money to do so from zakat funds....Like previous references to slaves, the following four sections have been left untranslated because the issue is no longer current, unlike the times of our author Ibn Naqib, WHOSE RULERS, THE MAMELUKES OF EGYPT, WERE THEMSELVES SLAVES WHO LEGALLY BELONGED TO THE ISLAMIC STATE, A FACT SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE FALLACY OF UNDERSTANDING SLAVERY IN THE ISLAMIC MILIEU IN TERMS OF THE INSTITUTION THAT EXISTED IN NINETEENTH CENTURY AMERICA AND ELSEWHERE IN THE WEST.)"

[sorry about the caps, i can't figure out how to do italics on this thing]

mirrage, alas!
if you would stop worshipping concepts and turn your heart to the Real, i think you would find more peace and trust in this admittedly crazy world we're inheriting the stewardship of....being body-slammed by concepts is what Allah is trying to protect us from, and warn us about.

i would respectfully suggest to you that you didn't read the Qur'an recently. you tried...but instead you found yourself reading your pictures (projections) about an english interpretation/translation of it, and agreed with your pictures, and now you're stuck. that's like giving really good weapons to the shaytan before you fight him...on his home ground. which is fine, but there are less punishing ways to go about it, insha'llah....

you have to be aware of your mind and what it's doing. there are parts of us that are not to be believed. if you believe them anyway, you will be kept stuck in a nightmare from which there is no other escape. this is the warning of the Book. if you want to suffer less, the solution is inside, not outside.

please re-read the second half of my earlier post.

peace
hamid


"control your attention; you get what you concetrate upon, there is no other main rule."

Edited by - hamid_al-murid on 08/07/2004 01:57:26

[nr]

Philo of Alexandria records a Jewish sect that did not have slaves before Christ, and gives a considerable warning. But slavery as was practiced by different cultures was typically better than slavery in the South.

[IronEagle]

The following link helps?
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=54710

mirrage, we can discuss slavery on the old thread.

[IronEagle]

Question: I am a Captain in the Pakistan army and would like to know if can we have sexual relations with the women we are able to capture in wars? I have heard that in one of the wars during the time of the Prophet (sws), the whole Muslim army raped slave women offered to them provided that they practiced ‘Azal (coitus interruptus).

Answer: Well I am afraid you cannot do so. Since the question you have raised is an important one. I’ll give you a detailed answer:
In my opinion, among many other misconceptions about Islam is the notion that it gives sanction to slavery and permits its followers to enslave prisoners of war, particularly women and establish extra-marital relations with them. Islam, I must strongly affirm, has not the slightest link with slavery and concubinage. On the contrary, it completely forbids these practices. It is quite outrageous to associate such barbarities with a religion revealed to upgrade humanity.
The point which needs to be appreciated and which, perhaps, is the real cause of the misconception is that Islam had adopted a gradual process to abolish the institution of slavery because of the social conditions prevalent in Arabia at that time. It must be kept in mind that slavery was an integral part of the pre-Islamic Arab society. There were scores of slave men and women in almost every house. This was largely due to two reasons: First, during those times, the standard practice of dispensing with prisoners of war was to distribute them among the army who captured them. Second, there were extensive slave markets in Arabia in that period where free as well as men and women of all ages were sold like animals.
In these circumstances, in which slavery had become an essential constituent of the Arab society, Islam adopted a gradual way to eliminate it. An immediate order of prohibition would have created immense social and economic problems. It would have become impossible for the society to cater for the needs of a large army of slaves, who were, otherwise, dependent on various families. Also, the national treasury was in no position to provide them all on a permanent basis. A large number among them were old and incapable of supporting themselves. The only alternative left for them, if they were instantly freed, would have been to turn to beggary and become an economic burden for the society. The question of slave girls and women was even more critical, keeping in view their own low moral standards. Freeing them, all of a sudden, would have only resulted in a tremendous increase in brothels.
Perhaps, the reason behind this gradual eradication can be understood better if one considers the position which interest occupies in the economy of Pakistan today. No one can refute Pakistan’s national economic structure is interest oriented. How the parasite of interest has crippled the national economy is apparent to every keen eye. However, there is no denying the fact that without it our present economic system cannot sustain itself. Every reasonable person will acknowledge that today if a government wishes to rid the economy from this menace then, in spite of its utter prohibition in Islam, it will have to adopt a gradual methodology. During this interim period interest oriented deals will have to be tolerated and temporary laws will have to be enacted to handle them, just as the Qur’an had given certain provisional directives about slaves during the interim period of their gradual eradication. An alternative economic framework will have to be steadily incorporated in place of the existing one. A sudden abolition, without another parallel base, will only hasten the total collapse of the economic system, which, of course, will be disastrous for the country.
To avert a similar disaster and to ward off a similar catastrophe, Islam had adopted a progressive and a gradual scheme, fourteen hundred years ago, to do away with the inhuman institution of slavery. Following are some of the measures it took in this regard:
1. In the early Makkan period, it pronounced that slave emancipation was a great deed of piety. The very initial Makkan surahs appealed to the Muslims to liberate as many slaves as they could.
2. The Prophet (sws), unequivocally, directed the Muslims to raise the standard of living of the slaves and bring it equal to their own standard. This, of course, was meant to discourage people from persisting with them.
3. For the atonement of many sins manumission of slaves was divinely ordained.
4. All slave men and women who could support themselves in the society were directed to marry one another, in order to raise their moral and social status.
5. A permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women.
6. Prostitution, which was largely carried out through slave women, who were mostly forced by their masters do so, was totally prohibited.
7. The affronting names of ‘abd (slave-man) and amah (slave-woman) by which slave men and women were called, were abrogated so that people should stop regarding them as slaves. In their place, the words fata (boy) and fatat (girl) were introduced.
8. Finally, the law of mukatibat provided very easy access for the slaves to the gateway to freedom. Every slave who was capable of supporting himself was allowed by law to free himself, provided that he either gave a certain monetary amount to his master or carried out certain errands for him. After this, he could live as a free man. A special head in the treasury was fixed for this purpose; also, wealthy people were urged to help the slaves in this regard. The net result of this law was that only handicapped and old slaves were left to be provided for by their masters, which not only went in their own favour but also prevented them from becoming an economic burden on the society.
As far as the war you have referred to, let me correct you on your information.
In the battle of Bani Mustaliq, the prisoners captured were either freed in the battlefield as a favour while some others were freed on ransom. The Prophet (sws) brought the remaining prisoners to Madinah and while waiting for their families to procure them, gave them into the temporary custody of his Companions (rta). Since at that time, the prohibition of slavery was passing through the interim period when it was still intact for reasons stated earlier, the Prophet (sws) accepted the right of masters to have sexual intercourse with the slave women as was the international law at that time but set about taking steps that could prevent this from actually happening. Let me explain the most important measure he adopted:
Among the prisoners of this battle was Sayyidah Jawayriyyah as well. Her father arrived with some camels as ransom. The Prophet (sws) inquired about the two well-bred camels he had hid behind. This astounded him so much – for he knew that there could be no way that the Prophet (sws) could have had knowledge of them – that he accepted faith. At this, Sayyidah Jawayriyyah also accepted faith. The Prophet (sws) proposed for her to which her father consented. Upon this, the marriage was solemnized. The result of this marriage was that all the remaining prisoners of war were set free by the Muslim soldiers, since they thought that it was not appropriate to keep the Prophet’s in-laws in captivity.
So actually no such instance of sexual intercourse with the slave women took place. It is totally wrong that they were raped. Also today as far as prisoners of was are concerned, they cannot be taken to be slaves and sexually benefited from. After the abolition of slavery that took place in the time of the Prophet (sws) as described above, no one dare maltreat a p.o.w. let alone sexually harass them.

source: http://www.renaissance.com.pk/aprq12y2.html

I hope that answers your question.

[mirrage]

Salaam all,

I seem to have missed this thread recently.

Hamid, thanks but I don’t “worship” concepts. I see myself as concerned with the “Real” rather than pursuing a search for meaning, which is what you seem to be concerned with. I’m not getting buffeted by concepts, just discussing slavery.

I do not pretend that conditions in early Arabia were similar to African slaves in the West, but an owned and traded human being is a slave, regardless of conditions.

IronEagle thanks for the link, I had already seen it. I think I addressed my post to the arguments in it, with the exception of the defence of slave sex based on ensuing pregnancy, which is ingenious but unconvincing in my book.

The subsequently posted passage puts a rather positive gloss on early Muslim tradition. The first point is that the Ahadith seem to be essentially unreliable and are also accounts entirely from the victor’s perspective (they do tend to write history). There is some conflict between the accounts of the Bani Mustaliq episode and the marriage of Sayyidah Jawayriyyah. She was offered the choice of marriage to the Prophet or continued slavery to whoever “got” her after the battle, as she couldn’t summon the ransom. She was also said to be 20 and extremely beautiful. From this we deduce that the marriage was purely an altruistic act to free her and induce everyone else to free their captives. This is the most generous of a range of possible explanations.

There are other stories where such a generous spirit seems lacking to say the least, and sex with captured slaves does occur.

The quote even goes on to state that slavery was abolished in the time of the Prophet. This is an extra-ordinary claim for which no evidence is given.

All the criticisms in my post remain pertinent. If an economy can feed people as slaves, it can feed them as free men. The economy of the British empire relied on slave labour in sugar plantations. Fear of economic upheaval is an unconvincing cop-out. If a clear timescale or even intention to abolish was in the Qur'an, then subsequent Muslim governments would not have been so well able to defend it's continued practice for over a millenium. Not bad for 7th century man but short-sighted for an omnipotent Being.

Regards,

[Guest]

Peace and greetings be to u mirrage,

I wonder what it is that u hope to achieve through this slavery and the "bad" prophet scenario that u are putting in front of us. Obviously, slavery was not a good thing, and why is it so hard to believe that it was abolished? The prophet was not in favour of slavery, if he had been, why did he set free his adopted son, Zaid, and adopt him as a son? This hadith is found in the Sahih Bukhari, somewhere, im certan i came across it somewhere in there. It was something akin to: "Zaid ibn Harith narrated that, "when i was with the prophet before he adopted me, there was not one day that went past when i felt like a slave. His treatment of me was so good, that i refused to go with my own father so that i could stay with the Prophet".

God forgive my errors. Someone correct me if u find any mistakes. But as i was saying mirrage, the prophet was, u might say, the emperor of the empire, the king of the kingdom, the top of the hierarchy, except for God Himself, of course. If he had wanted, he could have had slaves to do every, single thing for him. Even his own companions were more than willing to sacrifice their own lives for him, yet can u tell me how many slaves he had? If there was a reason why it wasnt specifically said that "Slavery must be abolished", then God knows best what that reason was, but i would think it was something akin to the fact, im sure it was u who said this, that the more slaves u have, the more u can free! Our prophets noble companions, would buy slaves just so that they could free them and make them free men again. Was that such a wrong thing?

As u may be well aware of the fact that Sayyidina Uthman (r.a.) freed at least one slave a week! Now slaves were fairly expensive things at that time to own, (i know i make them sound like objects, but the treatment of them at the time was nothing less).

Not bad for 7th century man but short-sighted for an omnipotent Being.

Im sure the omnipotent being, knows whats best and had a reason for not stating the abolishment of slavery in blatant words. If u were to read my post in the topic of "Why pig is haraam", i mentioned something about the people at that time not knowing that there was anything wrong with a pig's flesh. It was only later that we discovered that it contained so many bad things, who knows what research will prove in years to come? In a similar light, there may well have been a good reason for not officially stating that slavery is wrong, and God knows best.

Everything on Earth shall surely perish, indeed our death will come. Prepare today and reap the reward tomorrow.

[mirrage]

Thankyou Sheikh,

I do admire your ability to give a polite and measured response despite what must be at times insulting views expressed about what you hold so dear.

I have no wish to attack the reputation of the Prophet in particular, though clearly I don't believe he was divinely inspired.

What usually underlies my attacks is a perception of inconsistency or intellectual dishonesty.

Your statement that Allah must have had a reason which we cannot know and that we must trust Him implicitly, is entirely consistent.

What I object to are more "apologetic" statements that make a claim for some perfect reform programme in the Qur'an which simply hasn't been correctly followed. As I said, we may presume that Allah knew that slavery would continue to be legal for over 1200 years despite the Qur'an. He may have His reasons as He does for many other atrocites and natural disasters, and we may not be able to fully comprehend them, but let's not pretend that He couldn't have ended slavery earlier, if He willed it, and He could possibly have achieved this merely by way of a different Qur'an.

Peace,

[Guest]

Hey Mirrage, thanks for your reply!

What I object to are more "apologetic" statements that make a claim for some perfect reform programme in the Qur'an which simply hasn't been correctly followed.

If i ever sound like im apologising for something in Islam, or the Quran, or trying to make an excuse up for something which may be dodgy, then stop me. God's word is perfect, and just because me or you cannot understand it, doesnt mean we need to find lame excuses to cover it up as if to say that God said a naughty word, but he said it in the right circumstances, and there really was nothing else that could have been said except for that word... u know?

U know, i think that belief cannot be explained, either u do or u dont. What we try to explain, is why our own minds, think in that perspective, why something seems as bright as the sun and why something else seems a load of rubbish. U see, the thing is, that i can keep coming out with things for something and u against, but at the end, we are both filing excuses into the already clustered cabinets of thought, and are failing to see the actual point of... the point, basically. U will prove unabolished slavery bad, i will prove it good, the simple fact of the matter is, that its there, its not going away, end of story.

He may have His reasons as He does for many other atrocites and natural disasters, and we may not be able to fully comprehend them, but let's not pretend that He couldn't have ended slavery earlier, if He willed it, and He could possibly have achieved this merely by way of a different Qur'an.

If he had wanted to end slavery, He would have and could have in the Quran, no doubt about that. But think then, that if Muhammad (s.a.w) did fabricate the Quran, and he thought that slaves were a good thing, then why didnt he have them himself? And whatever he banned, he banned because God told him to ban it, and whatever he allowed, it was because God told him to allow it.

U know mirrage, i always enjoy ur posts and thoughts, they are very well thought out and constructed with elegance, but i must say that had u wanted u could bring at as many comments FOR the existence of God as against!:)

Everything on Earth shall surely perish, indeed our death will come. Prepare today and reap the reward tomorrow.

[mirrage]

Wow, that's pretty close to agreement, and on such a divisive topic. Cause for celebration!

i must say that had u wanted u could bring at as many comments FOR the existence of God as against!

Let's swap for a week! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

[MF]

Thanks, I think I see the logic, they stimulated sex with female slaves to get them free, and the lust of the man was allowed for the good purpose.

[Guest]

Hey Mirrage,

Thats a great idea! But u must admit though, that u could come up with some killer points for the existence of God?!

[mirrage]

Not killer enough to convince myself, unfortunatly!

[Guest]

May Allah help u and show u the light. Im sure u will "kill" ur thoughts one day!:) Again, May Allah be with u.

[Ronnie]

Hello MF,

Thanks, I think I see the logic, they stimulated sex with female slaves to get them free, and the lust of the man was allowed for the good purpose.

Maybe you overlooked my previous posts but I did mention jurists that say "right hand posesses" is being married to the slave. In other words in order for a relationship of that sorts to occur one has to be married to them. Other jurists think it differently.

Regards

[mirrage]

Hi Ronnie,

Would these jurists happen to be modern ones? If no-one made this interpretation in the first millenium, and they were wrong not to do so, it doesn't say much for Qur'anic clarity on another important issue.

If "those whom your right hands possess" means "wives" then the meaning is "except with their wives and their wives" doesn't it? Is there a way around this in Arabic?

All the commonly available English translations take the "slave" interpretation.

Even if we except the "slaves you have married" meaning, we can wonder exactly how much consent a slave girl or war captive would have in the marriage.

Regards,

Edited by - mirrage on 08/11/2004 15:59:16

[Ronnie]

Hello Mirrage,

Thanks for your reply.

Would these jurists happen to be modern ones? If no-one made this interpretation in the first millenium, and they were wrong not to do so, it doesn't say much for Qur'anic clarity on another important issue.

I'll look into Zamakhshari he may have expressed it something like this but I'm not sure, I'll look into it. The clarity deals with understanding. People understand different things regardless of clarity. We've had this discussion as you seem to blame the Qur'an for what people interpret it as.

If "those whom your right hands possess" means "wives" then the meaning is "except with their wives and their wives" doesn't it? Is there a way around this in Arabic?

The suggested rendering would be "except with their spouses - that is, whom they rightfully possess (through wedlock)."

Even if we except the "slaves you have married" meaning, we can wonder exactly how much consent a slave girl or war captive would have in the marriage.

Islam was dealing with a social construct, not one it created.

Regards