history_lover pointed out this post: “Does anyone read this stuff” by sonia, and wondered if I would like to comment.
I’ll comment briefly (I hope).
What the post basically complains about are a few hadith which they are unable to rationalize under the moral compass they have today. If those are the only two hadith which they have a problem with they have a lot yet to encounter in my opinion. The Quran itself which also mentions women displaced as a result of war (which is what all this is really about), how they can be treated, what relationships can be had.
I guess the main problem here is the fact that most people buy into the idea of the western paradigm of empire and war. This is a paradigm based in distancing oneself from the ugliness of realities of carpet bombing, sanctions resulting in dying children, and radicalization of entire generations. In today’s world, the prostitution of Iraqi refugees is subtly ignored. The rise of legalized prostitution within Iraq itself is hidden. Of course, this is all so removed from the common people that they scratch their heads and then say, “why do these people hate us?”
It is a prerequisite to this discussion that we don’t acknowledge that the modern system of warfare, economy, and welfare leads us to child and adult prostitution, human trafficking, debt-slavery and other opportunistic evils. Of course, how can we really think about these things when discussing our moral superiority to the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam)?
No.. Let us clean our white sheets, don our saintly robes, and point the finger squarely at our ‘patriarchal’ past. Its a bit like the Bush governments statements, when asked about what differentiates them from the terrorists, “well we don’t WANT to kill civilians, they just happen to get killed”. So in this case, we don’t WANT rape and prostitution, it just happens to rise whenever we go to war with a country.
Most of these same people have no problem with moral compromises such as, say, legalizing marijuana, but they have a problem with the Islamic concept of maintaining order and societal structure during wartime with a conquered people. It is all or nothing and holier than thou (when convenient and without real holy guidance) in today’s modern world.
The ‘thing’ just becomes ‘illegal’, and even if it just keeps happening then its ‘bad enforcement’ or an ‘unfortunate result’. Women just happen to be completely taken advantage of in every situation in war time, with dramatic rises in rape and prostitution. Some would rather forget that fact and assert their ‘equality’ rather than admit there was a wisdom for what the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewaassalam) allowed and applied.
The truth is, complainers of the Islamic paradigm have not spent even two minutes to step away from a theoretical viewpoint of source texts (which they have no qualifications for in the first place) and examining practical realities of building a state and dealing with consequences of war, displaced families, unprotected women and children.
How did these verses and Quranic ayats manifest themselves in the rights and realities of women living in Islamic states?
(check out the Kad?nlar Saltanat?)
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 
Asalaamu alaikum.
I read the post that history_lover pointed out earlier this morning but didn’t have time to comment, and was considering posting on it myself tonight.
I felt like, reading that post, that they were taking the hadiths completely outside of their original context to begin with, and attempting to apply un-educated logic to something that really requires scholarly commentary. I don’t always “get” a hadith when I first read it. I know that there are complexities to what is being stated that go deeper than my first few, or even several, readings. And I recognize that I don’t have the “whole story” in that one hadith. Honestly, one of the hadiths that they were criticizing, I just had a completely different idea about what the Prophet (salalahi alahi wa salaam) was saying there at all than what they had gotten from it. Of course, I know nothing, so my reading of it may very well have been completely wrong too, but my point is that I didn’t even read it at all the way they had read it to begin with.
And yes, we read these things based on our own cultural and societal norms (or our ideals of those norms) and outside the context of the time period and culture in which they were stated. That is obviously not going to give us an accurate understanding of what was being presented. Never mind that we shouldn’t think for one minute that we are more just or moral than the Prophet (salalahi alahi wa salaam) and know something more than he did!
as-salamu’alaikum Aaminah,
Basically these women have no idea how harsh reality is for women as a result of war, even now in our modernized sanitized new millennium.
It is not so easy to complain about ‘sex slavery’ when you realize that is exactly what prostitution is, minus the boundaries and rights granted by Islam to those women.
What practical model do ‘they’ have to offer women of conquered nations?
Poverty and entrapment within endless prostitution?
The Islamic model offered a means out of concubinage or the choice of powerful and prestigious roles with a family.
I mean… “them’s the facts”!
Salaam,
I’m having some trouble understanding your rebuttal to the post in question. Are you saying that concubinage is better than having these women prostitute themselves for money? If so, that seems to be the same thing.
In addition, by bringing up the Iraqi refugee example, are you advocating that these Iraqi women become captives to American soldiers, then ? Is that what you consider to be a better solution?
I think you also missed part of the poster’s point in that strict Muslims will often boast of morally superior approaches within Islam to sexual relations, when it is clear that allowing the possession of female slaves for sexual use contradicts such claims.
I don’t think anyone is stating they have a superior grasp of understanding and knowledge when it comes to the effects of war and the best method of dealing with the after effects/debris.
It was a simple question re captured women in the context of some hadith which most of us have at one time or another come across – but don’t really understand or misunderstand to be more precise.
And of course hadith have to be read and understood in the historical context of that time and with the social norms, customs, traditions of that era. At to a certain extent, that is what is trying to done over at Sonia’s blog, but you have to appreciate you will get some who can’t see the wood for the tree’s so to speak.
Yursil, I wasn’t aware concubines were able to amass their own personal wealth. Thats interesting.
Additional information such as the above and your own understanding of the Islamic model of post war circumstances which you mentioned would be appreciated in the discussion! And you too Aaminah
JazakAllahu Khayrun.
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
as-salamu’alaikum,
Of course it is better, the social boundaries that Islam established around war were indeed small steps in a broader approach towards prisoners of war. Islam is about progressing society, accepting the roles, responsibilities, and even weaknesses within the way the world works and bringing to it holy wisdom.
Islamic concubinage provided association and protection within a family, a very easy means out through manumission, and was an opportunity to come out of a disasterous war by establishing rules and procedures and boundaries for protection.
Prostitution on the other hand is a cyclical trap for the woman and even their children and remains degrading until this day. On the other hand, within the Ottoman Empire, concubines were Queens.
Not at all. Are American soliders Muslims? Do they buy into the entire lifestyle and all the aspects of the Islamic Law? No. Will they know what the manners are towards concubinage within Islam? No.
Do they have a Zakat system geared towards seperation from concubinage and independance of those who desire it?
Do they have a system of fasting that requires that if you miss one day, you also provide for the independance of concubines who desire it?
Do they have a legal system which states that if they break an oath that they must also provide for the independance of concubines who desire it?
Do they have a concept of Mukataba, which offers each individual the opportunity to get out on her own when they are financially secure and ready?
As there is no real place which has the fundamental understandings and the societal makeup that is required to support concubinage (as in the Prophet’s (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalams) time, it is largely impossible to apply in todays world. However, when we are examining moral superiority and proclaiming moral deficiencies in Prophets, its clear that we need to look at the whole picture and see whether we came up with anything better. And we have not.
So while they continue to rape Iraqi’s and their own female officers (source 1, source 2) and turn the rest into prostitutes, that is their way, and they cannot adopt the Prophet’s (Sallalhu’alaiheewassalam) way.
I think you missed the point that the poster emphasized that they are morally superior because they don’t support female concubinage in war. Of course, they don’t state what they do support, and the only real alternative is the sad state of affairs we have today.
And if you ask me which one is morally superior, with regards to sex, the vast amount of Islamic legislation around the rights of the concubine are quite clearly morally superior in matters of sexual relations and beyond.
as-salamu’alaikum Sumera,
Absolutely, this is why Islam gives authority to the Awliya (Friends of Allah, Saints such as Rumi (R)) in bringing proper interpretation for our own lifestyles of all these concepts.
Concubinage couldn’t be established today anywhere, and there are numerous societal prerequisites for such a system. But at the same time, when we are looking back at the Prophet’s (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) words, we need to do it carefully and with them held far above our own heads. Only when we treat them with that level of respect will Allah open for us the proper understanding of their meaning, and how we can apply it today.
For example, those hadith, the secret within them may be to contemplate on the nature of conception and that each birth that happens is decreed and not really up to our control. The secret reality within that could keep us dizzy for a lifetime if we looked at with a holy and spiritual light.
But those who cannot understand or get past the ‘moral’ issue of concubinage lose out on that spiritual discussion. We need to first respect the Prophet’s (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) decision in that regard, regardless of the fact that today it is inapplicable due to prerequisites. If we fail to examine such hadith with a spiritual eye it is like being brought to the water hole and not drinking.
Maybe it is not applicable today, but then again, Muslims should then be the first to find something equivilant offering protection and rights to women affected in war, this has to be done with the spiritual guidance of those saintly people that exist within Islam, the Awliya.
We can then take from the concubinage system the lessons that the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) wanted to enforce, which was against prostitution, against rape, promoting safety and security and creating bonds between two nations, and try to demonstrate similar care and concern for women affected by war in today’s modern world.
They were and they did amass great personal wealth, power and influence within powerful families within the various Islamic dynasties.
The topic you asked about would fill volumes.. but again, just to fill in the blanks so that you may begin to understand things with that spiritual light I mentioned earlier, I have mentioned a few things here and in the post and the comments.
The basic understanding is that the goal of the Islamic model of post-war was to create unity and cohesion between the people who were conquered. Everything that came out of Islam and post-war situations was about respecting the people and their traditions and their culture. If you look at Britian, it turned India instantly into English speaking, suit and tie wearing, tea drinking copies of them within only a few years, and their rule lasted less than a century.
If you look at the Ottomans, when they conquered and ruled areas such as Greece for 500 years, and allowed their own language, culture and society to develop, its clear the approach towards war and defeated nations was very different.
Concubinage was only a small, small, part of creating those bonds of family and kinship which is required to create respect and strong ties between enemies.
Concubinage wasn’t about day to day survival like prostitution, it was a legal contract, different from marriage but still with the protections and boundaries that come from any law. With it comes responsibility and accountability, but with rape and prostitution comes degradation and seperation and subjugation.
Post-war issues within Islam are all about building the bridges required to eliminate degradation and promote respect, tolerance and maintaining their own identity. If you view certain hadith with that light, you may be able to get past any issues of moral judgement and find the deeper spiritual secrets within them.
Asalaamu alaikum.
“For example, those hadith, the secret within them may be to contemplate on the nature of conception and that each birth that happens is decreed and not really up to our control. The secret reality within that could keep us dizzy for a lifetime if we looked at with a holy and spiritual light.”
Good, I wasn’t completely off base, because that was how I read the hadith and what I thought its essential point was.
Another HUGE difference between Islamic concubines and prostitution is the rights granted to the children of such unions. The children of prostitutes are considered bastards, and they live in perpetual degredation because of the circumstances of their birth and no knowledge of their paternity. They are mistreated by society forever for this, even though they did not choose to be born this way. The children of concubines however have full rights to “legitimacy” through both parents, the right to be acknowledged and accepted by their fathers, the right to inheritance etc. And their fathers are required to maintain them the same as they do their other children, so they are not forced to live in abject poverty and be disregarded as a prostitute’s children generally are.
as-salamu’alaikum Aaminah,
Indeed, the reason why you saw that meaning was because you were not clouded by the things above (which is why I was concentrating on the ‘cloud’ rather than the other meanings and lessons within the hadith).
As far as the legitimacy of children, you are absolute correct and it is another aspect of the responsibility I mentioned. And for a practical example we need to look no further than the Ottoman Sultan’s many of whom were children of highly revered and respected concubines.
-Yursil
“And of course hadith have to be read and understood in the historical context of that time and with the social norms, customs, traditions of that era.”
Because social norms, customs, traditions of that era have drastically changed (or not?) , what’s the importance of hadith today?
Didn’t have the Prophet divine guidance?
See: http://www.yourdictionary.com Prophet:
1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
Weren’t his words meant to be for eternity? Especially as he is the last prophet.
So either his words are God’s words, God’s intentions, or not. If not, then he is not the (last) Prophet.
http://radicalmuslim.blogsome.com/2007/05/30/the-mega-mosque/
49,981 signatures have now been received on a terrible petition against the London ‘Mega mosque’ based on incorrect and inciteful information. This shows the existence of the intolerance and Islamophobia in Britain.
The mosque would provide a place of worship and show Britains tolerance and multiculturalism. It is now the duty of Muslims and evey citizen to sign the counter-petition to BUILD the ‘Mega Mosque’. Please sign at the link below, email it to your friends, post it in forums you visit and promote this on your site/blog.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/buildmosque/
Yursil,
I appreciate your response. My point in bringing up the Iraqi refugee example is to ask how you would feel about another group applying the same kind of strategy to OUR women, Muslim women who may be married, have families, children, etc. It stings a lot more when you think about it being done to your own people. Of course the prostitution hurts as well, but the alternative does not appear to be much more appealing, quite honestly.
In addition, everything you highlighted about the rights of concubines, is that the ideal Islamic legislation on the topic or is that how it was actually practiced? I know to distinguish between the two because while the former is said to be perfect, Islamic history repeatedly demonstrates that the latter practices are often counter to Islam, especially considering the Abbasid era.
I’d be interested in seeing what the pre-requisites for concubinage are; do you have a site that details such requirements? If not, do you at least know if the women are given a chance to convert to Islam or if they’re freed from concubinage as soon as they convert ?
Nafeesa,
I understand your point, but the truth is we have countless practical examples of society adapting to the way the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaihewassalam) set things in order and the benefits of rights of women being protected under that. I would rather our daughters be dealt with in this just righteous approach than be victims of rape or prostitution.
As far as how it was practiced, within the Ottoman empire it was practiced in this way, with concubines being the mothers of the Sultans, and wielding great power within noble classes.
As far as pre-requisites there are many, including a true Islamic state and a society geared towards helping those in this situation who want to get out of it (though many don’t).
Freedom could be organized between the concubine and ‘owner’ through Mukataba but the contracts status did not really change as a result of religion.
Assalamu alaykum,
Shaykh GF Haddad has a good article on this topic: Sex with slaves and women’s rights.
Note he says that men do not have the right to have sex with married slaves.
Yursil,
Just because there were these rules doesn’t make concubinage okay. A prostitute could claim the same if her pimp was really a really fair and just man and gave her financial independence and freedom from the trade, if she desired it.
And just because you may be freed if your master breaks a rule or doesn’t fast, doesn’t mean you aren’t getting RAPED. And it doesn’t matter if it can’t happen today, how can we not sympathise with those women that were taken away from their families, as captives, taken to strange men who had sex with them, albeit, within strict guidelines.
And i just can not wrap my head around how conveniently this wasn’t considered adultery. WHY? The wives of those soldiers not only have to contend with other wives, they also had to put up with the pain of their husband having sex with numerous attractive slaves?
Yes, it all makes sense if you see it spiritual glasses on but try seeing it as a woman. Try seeing it from the point of view of the women who had lived through all that.
And honestly, i think it is disgusting that you could say something like you’d rather see your daughters treated in this just way because believe me, there is NOTHING just about being forced to have sex with a stranger who is your ‘master’ .
A recent article from Spiegel Online: Iraq’s Lost Daughters: Desperate Refugees Turn to Sex Trade in Syria
sarah,
Thanks for your comments.
Except that we know prostitution doesn’t work that way, and furthermore the trade itself is deemed irreligious and abusive as it really does entrap the individual. As I quoted, on the other hand, Islamic ‘slavery’ often led to manumission, and actual documented political power and wealth, which changes the landscape drastically.
Using highly emotive words like rape doesn’t really describe the experience between the concubine and the man. The reality is social perceptions of sex are extremely fluid and have been throughout history, and are intimately and intrinsically related to how the society views sex, marriage, war, and loss.
Because adultery is sex without sanction by the religion or state, leading to numerous problems and infringed rights. Similar to why polygamy is not considered adultery within any polygamous society.
You would rather have your daughters treated like Iraqi women? Its not a choice between freedom and concubinage, but abusiveness vs a society built around care for the weak.
i don’t think you really answered any of the points.
i’m not talking about social perceptions. i am talking about the slave’s perception. do you really think ALL the captive women were willing? and of course rape is a highly emotive word, but it’s use within this context is not unjustified.
and it is still adultery, the moment the man has sex outside of marriage. i’d never forgive my husband for taking a concubine (were we to experience the same situation and all your ‘conditions’ for it were satisfied)…i don’t care if the state or religion say it’s okay, if he sleeps with someone else, it IS adultery from the wife’s perspective.
at least we’re not being hypocrites about the Iraqi situation. we’re admitting they’re getting raped or turning to prostitution. instead of establishing a welfare state or some system of giving zakat (without taking their bodies in return), Islam decided to continue to the practice of concubinage and legitimized it. adding on a few rules here and there does not mean that it’s still not a despicable practice.
sarah,
Oh, I thought I did.. point by point.
Again, rape is an inaccurate word for concubinage. Concubinage was a willing arrangement between prisoners of war and their captors. They could certainly remain prisoners of war and await ransom, or they could enter the contract of concubinage with all the protections and rights given therein.
By the way the original hadith which sparked this discussion further supports this view. The men assumed that they could somehow again ransom a slave which they have had entered the concubinage relationship with, but the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) is telling them that the child will come regardless of the withdrawal or not. In other words, once you have entered the relationship of concubinage you cannot ransom her (commitment).
Today’s understanding of concubinage is even more interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage
For example:
“In France, Concubinage is the official term for cohabitation of heterosexual and, since 1998, homosexual couples. Some benefits of married couples or those bound by PACS (civil union) may then apply. In jurisdictions with common-law marriage, cohabiting partners may become common-law spouses after a certain length of time.”
Social perceptions around sex are extremely relevant to this conversation, as is any conversation that is discussing other cultures and how they manage sexual and gender roles.
According to your definition of adultery, maybe. But then again, if you are asking why it wasn’t considered adultery, your should probably look to see what Muslims consider and what was biblically considered ‘adultery’.
Adultery was defined as sex with another mans wife (a breach of the marriage contract), or sex which occurred outside of the recognized institutions of marriage and concubinage.
Hence, it was not adultery.
I think its a bit puritanical (and has a large hint of a cultural superiority complex) to believe the only valid relationship that can exist in the world is a monogamous marriage. It doesn’t acknowledge the same situations which exist until this day, especially of men in high-stress wars for years apart from their families (and the economy of prostitution and environment of rape which it creates).
As far as not being hypocrites… I think its pretty hypocritical to be condemning the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) who was protecting women while you are doing nothing but admitting a rape & prostitution problem.
Yursil,
Excellent commentary on this most thorny of issues (especially in the interfaith circuit)! I particularly like how you have contextualized the entire discussion in its proper historical position. However, one thing that still gnaws at me is how come slavery (especially of the weaker sex) was not simply outlawed??
If you reply that it was a social institution that was simply too integrated into the fabric of society, then how come riba, khamr, and unlimited # of marriages were outlawed before the Prophet’s death?
Finally, if slavery had to remain, why not build on the rights and freedoms given to them by Islam (such as giving them good food and clothing, freeing them as means of kaffarah, allowing them to marry, etc.) by adding a small rule such as no sex with your female slaves? After all, men had the option to get upto four wives, so if they were at war and they already had 3 wives back home, they could easily marry a fourth from amongst the POW’s.
Looking to reconcile this minor confusion.
WA-
Naeem
as-salamu’alaikum Br Naeem,
There is one important background perspective to this:
We need to remember that we cannot truly understand the ‘reason’ behind prohibitions from God, who is well beyond dealing with time & space much less having to give us worldly justifications for what He forbids or encourages. There are spiritual aspects to this which could fill volumes but let us stick with the worldly.
So while we cannot enter the subject of ‘reasons’, there are some apparant consequences and realities to prohibitions and recommendations, and we can and will discuss those.
Of course, part of the consequences of removing slavery would have to be considered in light of its ingraining in society (as you mentioned). The issue is then whether the state was able to support the eradication of an entire class of people. The abolition of America was not at all smooth, and even today we are dealing with now ‘unstated’ and hidden inequalities which are the shrapnel of that explosion.
What differentiates slavery with the other items listed above is that it involved a great deal more people, and was not a ‘vice’ that simply involved self-control, but involved the defined status and lifestyle of the ‘underclass’. Indeed, there were no homeless and there was no ‘unemployment’ in the times of the Prophet (Salallahu’alaihewassalam), so slaves defined the underclass.
Those taking advantage of unlimited wives were the few extremely wealthy looking to consolidate power.
What the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) did is to promote the concept of freedom and abolitionism in the way it would be most effective and leave the least amount of victims. By putting rights and controls around the institution and then further supporting all different means to securing freedom, we find that slaves were actually a social instituion to help the lowest class achieve something very much greater.
The best thing to resolve the confusion in one’s mind is to understand Islamic slavery in its historical context. For about 300 years the Mamluk slaves ruled the Muslims, and for 100+ years women of the harem (largely concubines) exerted so much political influence in the Ottoman times that it was a period called the ‘Sultanate of Women‘. So that in itself should put into context that the type of slavery that existed in America was not at all like what was commonly understood as Islamic slavery.
Islamic slavery was an understanding that a lifetime of low-wage employment or actual unemployment was not necessarily better than a one time contractual understanding which involved numerous rights. These, as you mentioned , included rights to vocational training, education, the same clothes and food of the ‘owner’, etc.
In certain cases, when looking at what society has done with the poor and the weak it seems what the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaieheewassalam) did was very wise. We see in today’s time adoptions occuring often, and what are our children in terms of our rights over them except for ‘Islamic slaves’? In fact the relationship between Hazrat Zaid (R) and the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) demonstrates the basic interchangability of adoption and slavery.
I think what you are saying here is why couldn’t they be full fledged wives rather than concubines?
Let us examine the condition of the female slave in the economy of the time:
They were apparantly without a Wali who could secure any ransom
They were without wealth to secure their own ransom.
They were obviously therefore unmarried and without comittments to a husband
They were, as you said, the ‘weaker sex’, so their employment as laborers in a society without widespread seated ‘factory jobs’ was questionable when compared to the stout men next to them and wives already managing their individual households. This individual household was the responsibility of the man to provide for each wife should she request it.
Their people were recently losers of a war.
They were, hence effectively part of a lower class.
Islam is not without recognizing hierarchies, either in taqwa, knowledge, nobility, or even money. Islam also uses the most intelligent means to support lifting societies and those in lower situations to higher ones.
The status of wives is very high in Islam. In fact, outside of creating a family, the concept of marriage was used to create deep and long lasting tribal and familial alliances and relationships between strong parties.
It was also very clear from the above that women POW’s were coming from a different class of people.
The best way to keep them protected, without having them deal with the stigma of their weakened situation for the rest of their lives was to acknowledge position of weakness they were in and move from there.
Concubinage therefore allowed relationships other than marriage with a status socially viewed as a notch lower than marriage, and this in itself was a means to eliminate abuse. And the worst kind of abuse would be to have continued to be looked over for protection & marriage due to circumstance.
So when it gnaws at you the best thing to do is understand:
1) What would have become of those POW’s as an alternative? Was marriage a real option given the society?
2) What historically was their position? Indeed often it was a position of great power.
3) That it was often a temporary state, and the children who came as a result the social status of the father, and hence many Sultans came from concubine mothers. This in turn raised the status of the concubines.
4) The Prophet (Salalahu’alaiheewassalam) applied numerous wisdoms into the supporting of freedom, in it’s best and most proper manner.
Of couse, as the Prophet (sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) encouraged freedom as a matter of continual process and progress, and as different types of jobs have been created, new opportunities have come, societies views over marriage have changed, such an institution is not necessarily applicable today. But we can continue to look towards the Prophet (sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) for strong guidance on how to treat matters of class, wealth and power, with heart and care.
Just a few thoughts, I hope they help.
yursil,
you’ve described concubinage as a willing arrangement. i have to admit that i have never heard of this before and if that WAS the case, then i’ll have to take back what i’ve said, because obviously it’s not rape if sex is happening between two consenting adults.
i would really appreciate it if you could point me to the source because i’ve already tried to look it up and haven’t come up with anything.
however, from what i know so far, a lot of the female captive WERE married, so i think it does take us back to adultery (if they were willing participants).
as for your comment regarding monogamous relationships, frankly, i haven’t ever been able to buy into monogamy personally. marriage was a huge leap of faith for me and i’d prefer for mine to be a monogamous one. however, open relationships, pre-marital ones, homosexual ones and anything else is all good as long as both partners are getting equal rights and every body is being honest. the issue i have with Islam comes down to how the men gets the concubines and the option of additional wives as that completely disregards my rights and needs as a woman. and i’m not just talking about having to deal with sharing my man, i’m talking about the times when i am dissatisfied and might want some other options as well. Islam just does not recognize a woman’s sexual desires (at least outside the confines of the ONE man you are married to).
you mentioned men in high-stress situations in war etc…well their wives must have been pretty lonely back home too. why wasn’t there any provision for them?
and again, i know you’re standing up for your beliefs and i understand where you’re coming from but i think you need to open your mind a little bit and look at things from a woman’s point of view. even practiced in the best of ways possible, these women were CAPTIVES. i just try and imagine the idea of a young mother being taken captive, away from her family and given food and clothes and her only choice is to wait to be rescued or have her family give the ransom (which, given the status of women back then, probably wasn’t likely) and forced to have sex with men/or a man, in exchange for the ‘kindness’ she received.
why couldn’t Islam have taken the high road and either freed the female POW’s (or not taken them in the first place?) or given them employment? or given them the choice to marry other slaves, who were presumably from their own clan? i mean, not only were these women taking the men away from the wives, they were possibly not entirely happy with the situation themselves. if a man is distributed between 4 wives and an unlimited number of concubines, what sort of a husband would he be at all? this practice did not end in the times of the Prophet, you know…it went on till well after, where the Muslim Moghuls and Sultans had upto 12,000 concubines at a time (and i think that was perfectly legal, because there doesn’t seem to be a limit on the number of concubines). now even if these 12000 women were all willing, how is ANY wife supposed to be put with that????
sorry for getting worked up all over again…i’m going to shut up now!
sarah,
Of course, there were benefits for both sides in this arrangement. As far as source, it can be inferred from numerous other sources (and one of the sources of Islamic law is inference). The fact that concubinage occurred with voluntary women is a well known fact, especially in the detailed historical recordings of the Ottoman court.
While some came through it through other means of entering (volunteered) others were actually raised and encouraged for it by their loving parents. Again, this fact is only part of a larger picture to help you understand how very *different* concubinage was viewed from ‘forced sex & rape of captives’ and the terrible effigy created in our minds about it by islamophobes and those with other problems with Islam.
(ignore the pictures made by Europeans who never visited the harem)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odalisque
“Odalisques were usually slaves given as gifts to the sultan, although some Georgian and Caucasian families urged their daughters to enter a harem as an odalisque, hoping that they might become a palace concubine, favored slave, or wife of the sultan.”
Further, the fact that men cannot have sex with married slaves is a well known fact that Ryan provided an article towards. Furthermore its logical to assume that since it was illegal to have sex with married slaves, a slave only had to claim her marriage to a distant man to ‘escape’ any type of forced sex. Since there is no case of this happening in 1400 years it only goes to further show that the concubines were desiring these relationships in the first place.
If anything like the above happened it was contrary to Islamic Law. It certainly was not promoted by the Prophet (sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) whom we are discussing.
It does recognize women’s desires, commanding men to take care of their wives sexual needs in the way that is most pleasing to her.
Hadith:
“Not one of you should fall upon his wife like an animal; but let there first be a messenger between you.” “And what is that messenger?” they asked, and he replied: “Kisses and words.” (Daylami)
However it also views certain things as aspects of unhealthy sexual confusion (homosexuality, beastiality and also a females desire for multiple men, etc). Islam also recognizes what it considers the most virituous of feminine attributes to be a deep feminine connection with the husband. At the same time it also encourages the husband to be monogamous, as the Prophet (salallahu’alaiheewassalam) had one wife for over 20 years until she passed away. It does recognize the nature of man though and rather than creating a society with fatherless homes and children, it supports giving allowances for the different inherent natures of man and woman.
Obviously, one needs to only look at American societies incidents of cheating (and the real perpetrators) to realize that men continue to function, in a biological and social sense, to be drawn to multiple women while women are rarely more than victims of their manipulation.
And while today’s society continues to push women towards more masculine sexual roles and of course, this does cause women to feel that they may want more than one man, this is new social development from the perspective of Islamic society. This desire in itself rarely existed outside of the usual miniority of sexual perversions in Islamic history.
While history has recorded the repeated example of rape and prostitution taken advantage of by men abroad, it has also recorded the general faithfulness of women ‘back home’ who have innate differences as to how they approach sexuality within a normalized society.
Freed them into what? Its the same problem: they would have either been victims of even more rape, or largely inclined towards prostitution. This was not the ‘land of opportunity’ of today, with at least the ‘Associated Press’ and international courts keeping a watchful eye on human rights (and yet we still have large violations), but rather a time of struggle for all involved. The nightmare which would have been created is far beyond any that you could fathom.
As far as giving them the choice to marry, Islam did give them that choice. But we are not discussing those that chose not to become concubines, we are discussing the ones that did become concubines.
Asalaamu alaikum.
Sarah, I really find it offensive that in two of your comments you have referred to brother Yursil being a man as the reason that he doesn’t get your point of view. You say you are speaking from the woman’s point of view, but you are in fact only speaking from your own point of view as a woman. I am a woman too, and as I stated in my previous comments, I am in complete agreement with brother Yursil on this matter. Please do not twist the conversation into a demonization of men, nor act as if you are speaking for all women.
aaminah, i never claimed to speak for ALL women, i said this should be looked at from A woman’s point’s of view or perhaps the view of the female captives/slaves. i was not speaking for all the women today, certainly not the Muslim women.
yursil, again, as far as i am aware these were female SLAVES or POWs that were used as concubines, which makes it very different from being raised to be a concubine. secondly, your point about women developing a ‘masculine’ sexual desire is invalid and there is nothing unhealthy or sexually confusing about desiring more than one man. it is a well documented biological fact that women have sex drives too, ranging from a high one to a low one, similar to men. and the ‘nature of man’ is again a rather convenient way to put it because a lot of men rise above their nature and stick to just their partners, while in a monogamous relationship.
lets just agree to disagree because i don’t think we can do anything else.
I am glad my original thoughts have since stimulated such discussion and these questions.
I find many questions on this thread interesting -what indeed would we think if US soldiers were to convert to Islam and were to take upto 4 Iraqi women as wives – after all there must indeed be many bereft women seeing as the war has killed so many of their husbands. Yes very interesting indeed.
I also think Sarah’s point on whether concubinage is actually a mutually consensual relationship between two adults – is the key issue really. I don’t feel highlighting that there are ‘benefits to both sides’ is any indication of whether it was actually consensual. After all – benefits to both sides is an argument we commonly hear from – for example – colonial rulers – e.g. the British in India – that the Indians benefited through British rule – e.g. railways. That may indeed be true – there were benefits of course! But did that fact mean ‘consent’ was given? That is of course the issue.
I find it interesting that when Yursil’s defends volunteering for concubinage through parental encouragement – he somehow suggests that it is only people who are not familiar with ‘Islam’ / or Islamophobes who suggest that there might be a problem with this or anything ['forced']. The interesting thing is of course for us Muslims brought up in South Asia we are harldy ignorant of these matters. It is one thing to try and decide what was ‘forced’ and what wasn’t – it is a very difficult matter, highly subjective, highly contextual, yes it is probably very hard to tell – unless you know the family in question – to ascertain what degree of coercion may or may not be employed. But we do know that it is a fine line – and we know this because we come from countries like India Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. There is much discussion about forced marriages – even today – amongst Indian immigrants in Britain. There isn’t much point pretending that there are no issues and this is all straightforward. I don’t know where Yursil actually comes from so I cannot make any further comments. It is one thing to address ‘Westerners’ who do not actually know the ‘practices’ in e.g. Asian countries – but another altogether when addressing those of us from Majority Muslim countries. Yes it is possible to argue that religious principles have been ‘twisted’ leading to corrupt social practices in these countries, but it is not something that can be ‘hidden’ away from the very people it affects – usually young women.
These are all very serious questions for all of us young Muslims today – and as I said, particularly women.
But Sarah, you ARE claiming to be the voice of “a woman’s point of view”. And you so clearly have issues with and ignorance of Islam in general that it is ridiculous for you to try to argue a case based on something you know nothing about. Why do you think that you know more about what those female captives/slaves must have thought and felt than anyone else does? Historical facts have been listed here, with the voices of those very women presented. My modern female, and Muslim, voice has been added. But somehow you think you know something we don’t, and those women who were directly affected and spoke about it just don’t count because they aren’t meeting your criticism. It’s not only “agree to disagree” but how about “don’t speak about what you do not know” and even more, don’t trash a Prophet (salalahi alahi wa salaam) and claim to be more knowledgeable than him on the blog of someone who you know believes that Prophet to be our guidance.
how can i not speak from a woman’s point of view’ given that i am one? and the fact that these captives or ‘what the right hand possesses’ were free to the men (or could be again, if we were to experience a war) is a disturbing fact for me. i don’t claim to know more than anyone does but all the literature i’ve read up till now supports the apparent rape of these women and i’m sure that wasn’t exactly fun.
and i haven’t seen the voices of those very women presented here.
and now to your most interesting point regarding me speaking about what i don’t know, trashing a Prophet and ignorance of Islam.
i’m almost 30…born and raised as a Muslim in a Muslim country and STILL living in one. I’ve been to Saudi, done umrah, prayed at the Kabba, prayed in Medina, prayed 5 times a day for a long time in my life, fasted and read the Quran, been reading various different translations for the last decade to get a better insight, etc..
it is defensive muslims like you that i dislike the most. the moment someone from within the community or outside of it tries to UNDERSTAND something they find disturbing in the religion, they’re told similar nonsense like ‘you’re trashing the Prophet’ (even though i did nothing of the sort, i don’t think i even mentioned him once), nor did i claim to be more knowledgeable than Him or even the blog owner (i admitted my lack of knowledge about the willing concubines, even), and finally, you throw the most pathetic ‘don’t speak about what you do not know’. even if i wasn’t a born Muslim etc, why should one be able to speak about what they don’t know, if all they’re trying to do is learn in the process?? just because i don’t find yursil’s answers satisfactory does not mean i am trying to insult anyone. i haven’t called anyone names here, i’ve spoken fairly politely and i’ve admitted my ignorance when i felt i lacked the knowledge in an area. so what is that you find so threatening or annoying about me? that i can’t come to terms with concubinage as easily as you can? perhaps we’re just different.
it is people with an attitude like yours which drive more and more muslims away from Islam (and take that VERY seriously aaminah, because i am not joking or being melodramatic). yursil has been more than polite and addressed my concerns, and even if i haven’t been okay with the answers, we’ve had a very civil discussion. where do you get off, coming in and calling my views offensive? how can ‘views’ even be offensive, if my tone and language wasn’t offensive? when i didn’t intend to offend at all? people like you come in on their ‘i’m a modern female and don’t feel like you, and you have no idea what you’re talking about’ high horse and alienate those that have a slightly different mindset. and when those questioning are struggling with their faith, you people just drive them further and further away because you don’t allow any discussions because my god! that’s blasphemy.
you are not the saviour of the Prophet or Allah, both are perfectly capable of dealing with me either in this life or the one after. so don’t get so touchy about someone merely asking questions about Islam, it is my way of trying to understand and come to terms with the issues i find troubling.
as-salamu’alaikum,
Let’s not make this a flame war, and hopefully keep it to the points.
I think Aaminah was simply stating that comments such as these:
Imply that I am not looking at things from the woman’s point of view, and hence are a bit dismissive to any argument I can make to you about the true nature of concubines in the 7th century.
Sonia,
I think I gave a lot more than simply benefits to both sides as an example. The fact that families were encouraging their daughters towards being a concubine demonstrates the hugely different mentality that existed towards concubinage than rape.
You then seemed to compare the encouragement towards concubinage to that of forced marriages which exist in south asia. I don’t believe that they are at all equivilant as those same south asian families you mentioned do not encourage their children to become victims of abuse at the hands of their husband. In fact I know quite a few women, who although they entered ‘forced’ marriages, started quite a few violent family feuds due to their claiming of abuse from the husband.
I also mentioned the fact that legal recourse existed for allowing the woman to simply claim she was married and escape any sex at all, period. The fact that we have literally no one claiming this is a clear sign that the people who were entering these relationships were willing participants.
I also mentioned the fact that the Prophet (sallalahu’alaihewassalam) in the same hadith that spawned this thread over at sonia’s, is commanding committment to the woman in question.
I also mentioned that the Sultanate of Women, the Mamluk and Delhi sultanates should all also demonstrate that what is techinically translated to ‘slave’, should be viewed much differently than say, then say the slavehood of the time of Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson.
I also mentioned that the treasury and numerous provisions existed within Islamic Law to provide freedom to those who desired it, but I will back that up with the view from a hadith.
Hadith:
Yet, we don’t have many cases at all of concubines seeking freedom and using these means which were at their disposal.
I think in light of all this we still really haven’t gotten to the fundamental point which is what the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) permitted and put boundaries around was far superior than anything else that could have occurred with this entire class of people in the 7th century.
You misread me. I said that those who are Islamophobic are indeed ones who attempt to paint a picture of coercion and force, when I don’t really beleive that was the case at all.
And Sonia, I am south asian.
assalaam alekum Yursil,
First, thank you so much for taking out the time to respond to this issue. I thank you because this issue is indeed one reason some Muslims have left Islam like Sarah points out. My best friend who has a Masters degree in Islamic Studies and who had done her dissertation research on slavery in Islam left Islam just because she couldn’t reconcile with the fact that Muslim men were allowed to sleep with their captives without marriage. While I understand that we will have to end by agreeing to disagree and that there is no end to this discussion, I think this discussion is not a futile activity.
I have a few queries and would really appreciate if you could clarify those for me:
You said, “Concubinage was a willing arrangement between prisoners of war and their captors” – could you elaborate on this please or I’d be happier if you could refer me to the source. This is a huge thing which has never come up in discussions and I’m sure it would completely change the perpectives which many people have today about concubinage in early Islam because this would mean while Christians and Jews forced captive women to convert and marry them, Muslims gave them a choice. This means giving power to women. However, I never of this before and as I pointed on Sonia’s blog there are ahadith that show that captive women didn’t have this choice.
Then you said, “the fact that men cannot have sex with married slaves is a well known fact… it only goes to further show that the concubines were desiring these relationships in the first place.” I totally agree with the fact that men could not have sex with married slaves, however it was Muslim men who decided that as soon as a woman was taken captive her non-Islamic marriage was nullified because it wasn’t Islamic marriage to begin with. So, while these women were not married in the eyes of the Muslim men, they were technically married under their faith. Yes, it is true that Muslim men were not allowed to have sex with a Muslim captive woman who was married to a Muslim captive man. That is another story. Am I correct in understanding this?
Finally, “As far as giving them the choice to marry, Islam did give them that choice.” Am I correct in thinking that Islam gave the choice to men to marry these women and it was eventaully upto them to decide whether or not they wanted to marry them and it was not the captive women who had this choice? I mean which woman would not have liked freedom upon marraige, but it didn’t always happen that way. Some scholars believe that Maria (pbuh) was never married to the Prophet (pbuh) and she never became his wife. I don’t think she would have refused to marry him had he asked. Men decided if they wanted to free and marry these women (like the Prophet (pbuh) married Saffiya (pbuh) ) or keep them as captive slaves.
Please note that the queries I have refer to captive women during the time of the Prophet (pbuh). Also, can I pick your brain if I have more questions? Thank you once again for explaining this issue and also thank you for being one of the most polite bloggers
Aaminah I do not think Sarah’s comments are any more presumptuous about what those captives may have been thinking than anyone else here. The point is that enough information has not been given about whether or not it was consensual. Some may feel that was implied, and therefore not stated, and some may feel that it was not stated because it was not of any importance. Yes they are different points of view and both are ‘presumptuous’ in as much as obviously we do not actually ‘know’.
And as a woman who has been through a war – in the Middle East – at the tender age of 12 – I can say yes I do know the conditions of war. I cannot presume to speak for all other women, but I certainly have a good idea – first-hand experience – of living in an ‘invaded’ territory with ‘enemy’ soldiers. {And the fact that they were also Muslims made not one jot of difference, sadly}
This is not a theoretical matter for all of us therefore – it is easy to be an armchair theorist of course, for all of us, but for some the reality of war means that such moral questions – are alas – not just in the abstract.
as-salamu’alaikum Achelois,
I think one needs to seperate the things which may or may not have occurred after the Prophet’s (salalalhu’alaiheewassalams) life and the situation which existed within his life.
Leaving Islam for this reason is unfortunate, but inshaAllah, if they are practicing some other faith today it is better than being without it completely.
The matter of choice is determined through a few means, primarily through legal inference. Meaning that when we look at the provisions available to them to leave concubinage, we find that slaves in these types of relationships with the men did not take those avenues. Also understanding that “not being forced” is equivilant to choice.
Quran al-Karim,
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
Notice the “force not” part.
Further notice what even a Saudi trained scholar said about the condition of female ‘slaves’:
The reading of this verse combined with this understanding of dual roles also demonstrates that the slave had numerous means with which to desire chastity and secure freedom and could not be forced into a sexual relationship.
Every examined instance also shows that the concubines within sexual relationships took advantage of the better situation they were placed in to their own political and economic benefit.
The hadith you mention which are discussing choice, are only discussing the matter of sleeping with a woman with whom one is in a sexual arrangement with in the first place. In this case, whether wife or concubine, Islam does give precedent to the man to initiate and have a right to sexual intercourse. This does not discuss how to enter into the relationship of marriage or of concubinage, nor how one can remove oneself from marriage or concubinage.
So those hadith must be understood with a number of assumptions regarding the relationship and the act itself.
Those hadith you mention for example, do not indicate (within the same hadith) that it was forbidden to sleep with them in their menses, forbidden to approach the woman as ‘an animal’, that the bride has a right to choose her husband, that it is forbidden to sleep with married captives, that anal intercourse was forbidden, etc etc. These are assumptions that are already taken into account.
Like most things when dealing with hadith, we need to take the whole picture together to realize that choice was implied within the instituion that the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) was speaking of. Numerous legitimate legal means including Mukataba and being sponsored through Zakat or other means existed and were available for those who wanted to put aside or escape any sexual relationship. Furthermore the system included quite a few legal loopholes like declaring an existing marriage, declaring abuse, etc.
None of these means were really taken advantage of by people such as Mary the Copt (R).
Let us again then keep in mind that when we have a society today, like Iraq, where women are being turned to for prostitution and rape in larger and larger numbers, it only makes sense that women would have continued to resort to an association and relationship with someone who would provide for them in all ways and maintain their rights.
The only case where something similar to this existed was later on in Islamic history.
This was where some declared that the Islamic state could declare that a womans marriage was nullified due to her husband being in enemy territory, this was not a Prophetic injunction however so we should remember that when discussing the morality of what the Prophet (Salalalhu’alaihewassalam) allowed. Even in this case of latter-day-Muslims, if a husband was captured along with the wife, it was still completely forbidden to nullify their marraige.
There was no right to nullify a marriage simply due to the different faiths. That is my understanding of the traditional position.
Being approached for marriage would come from a man himself. A sum for freedom would have to be negotiated through Mukataba.. and given to her through her dowry. Again though, it is also clear in Islam that any bride has a right to decide whether they accept the suitor. Hence, there was choice involved.
Seeking freedom was also a means of securing, what is in effect, a divorce from the man as he was therefore not responsible for her provision. Those who were secure in their relationship with the man of the household usually did not seek any sort of freedom.
Thanks for your comments
Thanks Yursil! Jazak Allah!
thanks for the discussion yursil, i’m glad we had it even if did end up agreeing to disagree. and i’m sorry for losing my temper with the other commenter on your blog, i have never done that before. i know that it’s pretty rude but i took her comments very personally because i’d rather have open, civil discussions about even the most controversial topics than have every question shrugged off as one that shouldn’t have been asked in the first place. as achelois said earlier, you’ve been exceptionally polite and it’s much appreciated.
sarah,
That is quite alright, it is understandable as we are touching a sensitive subject that both sides will feel strong emotions. Of course, I think what is clear is that we are all on the side of being good people to each other and learning from our past.
For us Muslims that comes from trying to find the best example of manners from our Prophet’s (sallalalhu’alaiehewassalam) example and looking to apply the principles of goodness, compassion and spirituality within our lives.
We don’t disagree on what is bad is bad, and that choice is better than no choice, and that happiness is what we want for all. But we disagree on how to handle times of hardship and the fallout of even greater violence, and maybe when we examine that deep down we may find we don’t disagree at all.
Assalaam alekum
I won’t hog your comment space, Yursil, just one general last comment for record – Your post was in response to Sonia’s so you already knew all types of people will comment on your blog – those who will nod at your words and those who will shake their heads. I have known Sarah via the blogosphere for a few months now and she has never been rude to anyone. She comments on my blog too and often there are disagreements but she has never humiliated anyone. Therefore, when she says “i have never done that before”, she is right (as you probably already know). I can understand her agitation because whenever I have asked questions regarding religion, one set of people have shrugged them off as being “too controversial”, while the other set accuses me of “doublethink” and for not denouncing God. I think both ways are convenient and cowardly that end discussions prematurely. Therefore, I honestly appreciated your response which is brave, mature and civil and I also applaud Sarah for her most recent comment. I think we are all trying to understand God in our own ways and a little help on the way is always appreciated.
Wasalaam
Yursil, I had always took the following verse
referred to instances of where the master treated his slave as a prostitute and so would pimp her to other men and swap slaves (for sexual relations only), not about preserving her chastity in the sense of her having the choice of refusing or accepting intimate relations with her owner per se.
Is the verse not referring to pimping activities?
Sumera,
It may be directly referring to prostitution but as I mentioned, legal inference demands that if they desire chastity that they be given it.
Further, the part which was bolded earlier (giving a contract to be freed upon desire of it) also supported the fact that no concubine stayed a concubine unless she wanted to.
What would happen to the children of these concubines? Those children from her previous marriage – who was responsible for them? (if the woman became widowed following battles/war) the master? her tribe/clan?
The children from previous marriages were treated as orphans in terms of fatherly protection and cared for by either tribe or the man of the household. Numerous verses discuss the benefit of caring for the orphan, and the Prophet (sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) himself was an orphan.
Yursil, there is ample evidence that children from slaves’ previous marriages became slaves and were not taken in as orphans. I have read it in many places but am too lazy at the moment to search for reference. Anyone else?
Yes, ideally as has been put in verses all fatherless children should be cared for through ‘fatherly protection’ but fatherly protection was for Muslim orphans, although non-Muslim orphans were also cared for humanely as slaves.
Also, I always thought like Sumera that chastity is protected as long as you are not having sex with someone who is not your spouse/slave, therefore the verse that warns men to “keep chaste” except in front of their wives and whom their right hands possess. So, asking men “But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity” would mean not to pimp them which would be unchaste, but having sex with them was already not an issue of chastity as the previous verse explains.
Slaves were allowed to ask for freedom IF they had the required sum but what if they didn’t? I mean I doubt if a woman had the money for her ransome and still wanted to live her life as a man’s concubine. There may have been isloated cases, we don’t know, but by and large I think women would have liked freedom.
as-salamu’alaikum,
There is no doubt that such children were also occasionally considered slaves, when we have the example of Zaid (R) its clear that even children with parents could became slaves. The question (and what I was speaking to was) whether the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) practiced it in the exact same manner, and the answer is clearly no. His treatment of the slave Zaid (R) and eventual adoption demonstrates that.
Further then, it brings the question as to what was the distinction then between a child, orphan and a slave? Was it in treatment? Does one not have to perform the duties given to him or her by authorized adult?
Other questions include whether only orphans who happen to have mothers become slaves? It’s also important to keep in mind that parentage was determined by the father, and the mother was often simply viewed as a wet-nurse at the time.
As far all preferring freedom, this is also clearly not the case. Slaves were allowed to negotiate freedom for whatever sum they could come to an arrangement with and then they were allowed to seek that sum through the BaitulMal. The process did not require them having any sum of money at the beginning.
I think if slaves had some kind of of a social support system (such as slave women/men supporting one another (other slave women and slave men), communal living or even being able to marry a man who was also a slave) then seeking freedom would probably have been given a serious and realistic consideration.
If becoming free meant that the “perks” they received whilst being under the care of their owner (in terms of wealth, shelter, security) would have been removed (as they would be – since the owner would not be obliged to provide any of these anymore) and they could not acquire those perks on their own or as part of an arrangement with other slaves; women or men – (not marriage, since then the husband would’ve been obligated to provide shelter, security etc) then remaining a concubine would probably have seemed more “appealing”. After all, if you were already in a bad position (bad in comparison to your situation pre-war and finding yourself now as concubine), you wouldnt want to jeapordise what you had (perks, some income etc) and land yourself into something worse.
Yursil – I didnt quite understand what you meant by taking the verse in a legal context. The verse clearly states requesting and stipulating freedom from the owner – but the second bit clearly refers to prostituting the slaves, not being able to or having the right to request freedom from initimate relations with your owner.
So, legally, how does the first bit referring to freedom per se automatically be taken to also be applied to freedom from engaging in sexual relations with the master when they are referring to two separate situations?
“After all, if you were already in a bad position (bad in comparison to your situation pre-war and finding yourself now as concubine), you wouldnt want to jeapordise what you had (perks, some income etc) and land yourself into something worse.”
Yep! That makes sense.
Exactly.
We can use legal inference to understand the spirit of the law within the verse, since if we dealt with only the strictest literal interperation one may say that if the concubine *desires* prostitution, it would be allowed.
However, all classical scholars disagree with that conclusion, so legal inference, analogy and reasoning are all tools used to come to conclusions on how this verse applies to real-life situations.
In fact, legal inference, analogy and reason is a common tool used by classical scholars to determine the best course of action in cases which are not explicitly legislated within Quran and Hadith.
So the verse at first stating that the owner must allow a reasonable contract for freedom upon demand.
The second part is speaking to the sexual use of slaves, in terms of the *concubines* desire for chastity.
And from that the spirit of the law is clear in making the legal inference that the concubines desire for chastity translates to her sexual availability, and her control over her sexuality has superiority over the desires of the man.
Of course, as you stated there would be benefits to being in a sexual relationship for the concubine, and history records them as taking full advantage of that for their own motives.
Other cases show that the concubine could simply refuse that type of relationship, and hence we are establishing the dual roles that Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi wrote about (quoted again)
So these dual roles were established by what type of relationship the concubine would allow to be established.
Through the legal tools of inference, analogy and reason by classical scholars.
If thats the case – then why isn’t this pointed out when people speak of taking concubines and having relations with them as though thats the norm and theres no two ways about it?
Actually why is everything reduced down to sex? Surely power, position, status and wealth if achievable via concubinage and was a real possibility, then the concubines would have sought to make the most of their situation and acquire these, even if it meant never asking to be freed and so were always provided for. Sure, you can’t ignore the sex part of it – but if its a mutual agreement then that removes some of the issues surrounding the whole concubine topic
Sumera,
Most people have prejudiced views over concubinage and Islamic concepts of slavery. Often coming from stereotypical situations involving American and European style slavery.
Though the term is ‘legally’ accurate, the reality is very different than the concepts of slavery that people believe today.
The fact that Muslims experienced Sultanate of Women, the Mamluks, etc, etc all show that the understanding of concubinage, slavery, etc is very different than the prejudices that people have in their mind.
There were motives on both sides for being in this type of relationship.
Actually I get VERY upset when non-Muslims make a huge fuss about “slavery under Islam.” All religious books discuss slavery, all religions discussed and also supported slavery. Why is it always Islam that is picked?! Islam didn’t invent slavery and slaves under Islam made adopted sons, and muezzins! It really gets my goat when people pick on Islam as if slavery was institutionalised by Islam.
There is an incredible disproportionate focus on slavery in Islam I agree Achelois – but thats purely because it is nit picked for the very reason other concepts, rulings etc in Islam or concerning Muslims are bored holes into.
But its the fact that slavery sits uncomfortably amongst Muslims is the reason why, Muslims anyway, wish to understand itand the concept, mechanisms etc. Thats the reason why I delve into it as opposed to trying to ignore it. But yes, the attention it gets is lopsided and heavily weighted in the interests of those who perhaps wish to seek something else out of raising these discussions.
Thank you very much Yursil for explaining things as clearly as you did. JazakAllahu Khayr.
And to you Achelois, for articulating superbly as usual
Slavery was a gross human rights violations that a very large range of empires and civilisations took part in – it should be condemned no matter who it was, thankfully it is already acknowledged by most people – that Western involvement in slavery was a terrible thing, and goes hand in glove with critiques of imperialism and colonialism. Certainly by the whole human rights crew ( of which I like to think myself within) It does not seem to be so readily acknowledged by many Muslims that we have the same sorts of crimes and notions of imperialism in our background as well. For us, possibly it is more complex as it is not just a matter of cultural practice, but the fact that it was religiously sanctioned – which creates the difficulty, as many see it as a criticism of the Islamic establishment. Which makes it all the more harder to be as self-reflexive as we would like others to be.
All imperialists have always said that the ‘conquered, the colonised’ were ‘better off for it’ – this is precisely the same rhetoric as that employed in colonial discourse – anyone can read Niall Ferguson’s books justifying ‘Empire as a Good thing’ because – they improved ‘conditions’ of the colonised, who otherwise would be starving. There is a discourse of superiority and having the upper hand morally. ( Civilisation vs. barbaric)
This is what worries me – the similarity of the ‘rationalising’ and the excuses given out. No doubt this sort of thing will happen if this is how people feel – it will merely depend on what justification is given. It hardly suprises me now that people in the rich countries in the Middle East think it might actually be OK to treat their housemaids like ‘slaves’ – after all, they’d be starving in the Philippines otherwise wouldn’t they?
“It hardly suprises me now that people in the rich countries in the Middle East think it might actually be OK to treat their housemaids like ’slaves’ – after all, they’d be starving in the Philippines otherwise wouldn’t they?”
Oh, that is really the struggle now, trying to reconcile that. I think alot of the people who do that know better, but that is how they rationalize it to themselves. Because just because the workers are making better money than they would at home does not mean that they can be treated subhuman otherwise, or that one should feel they are doing the worker a favor!
But it can be confusing too. I remember realizing that my young son’s Hanes underwear was made in Honduras and thinking I know those are probably sweatshops. But my SIL from Honduras said that those are some of the best jobs in Honduras. Not good jobs by our standards, and yes, they are what we would consider sweatshops. But then you do think “if we all stop buying, all those workers will be out of jobs”. So which way is better? Well, obviously complete reform is better, but what do common individuals do in the meantime? It’s hard to know.
But honestly, I think one of the reasons that Muslims don’t want to get into the whole slavery debate is that there is no way to “win” the argument. You either understand that it is the past, and a shared past with so many others, or you don’t. But a HUGE difference too that is usually glossed over by those criticizing historical slavery in the Muslim world is that it simply was not slavery in the same context as we think of it existing, in say the U.S., or Spanish dominated Latin America. Slavery under the early Islamic system was never “race-based”, it was never about dehumanizing a group of people, never about the religious claims of superiority. Think of U.S. slavery where the Bible was misquoted to claim that black people were not even human, that their blood was the blood of pigs, that they couldn’t be taught to be intelligent or moral, etc. and that enslaving them was part of the dominion over the earth that God had given Adam and all white men (even though I’m pretty sure that Adam was closer to the black side than the white, LOL). Essentially, this is the same way that Native Americans were treated, and the same way that the Spanish enslaved the Native Americans of what is now Latin America. Slavery in Islam did not make such claims at all – slaves were to be fed and clothed just the same as their masters’ families, they were to be allowed to marry freely, to purchase their own freedom or have it purchased on their behalf and that it was institutionalized to free slaves as an honorable and pious act. This isn’t saying that slavery is okay, it’s just saying that it was a completely different system than what we think of as slavery today.
sonia,
I think the argument that this is rationalizing ‘excuses’ similar to colonizers is a bit off-base.
1) Slavery *already* was in existence, an institution dealing with numerous people without wealth, and Islam did nothing to encourage the practice. Colonizers conquered and created the institution.
2) The idea the Islam did not completely eliminate slavery implied complete and utter acceptance is short sighted.
Religiously controlled ‘slavery’ does not imply its complete and utter acceptance. Islam which promoted freedom as an ideal, numerous means with which to acquire it upon will.
It implies choice and freedom, whereas colonizers didn’t allow choice over being colonized.
3) Islam gave rights to ‘slaves’ which never existed prior to Islam’s introduction. Colonizers only removed rights.
4) The Islamic institution of slavery led to actual and documented empowerment leading them to actually being Kings, Queens and ruling non-slave Muslims. Colonization was not at all about empowerment, and never was.
5) Islam outlined the path for abolition. Colonization assumed rule until rebellion.
Not acknowledging that these differences is really a sign of bias.
As far as rationalizing offensive treatment of Phillipino’s their justification does nothing in terms of Islamic Law or condemning the Prophet’s (Sallalhu’alaiheewassalam) sense of morality. Again, looking for similarities really doesn’t really compare. Is there a society built around providing them alternatives and empowering them? Frankly, no. Today’s society is all about abuse by those who have the most cash.
I’ll say this again that I’m not a wiki-person, but I honestly like this bit on wiki about Islam and Slavery – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Slavery
I think it explains very clearly what any Muslim would want to say. It explains what Quran has to say about slavery and how it was abused by some Muslim states but which is against the spirit of Islam.
I’m hardly the only one who is biased here – please can you explain if there was an Islamic path for abolition why it was not taken.
And comparisons are always subjective of course, it wouldn’t suprise me that for example, Samuel Huntington’s analysis would jar with my own with regards to ‘who is the big threat on the current world scene’. But perhaps you can expound further on why you think the fundamental similarity I pointed to (justification of what is seen to be a human rights abuse from the point of view of the victim, is posited as [progress] by the coloniser because of some Truth they feel they have access to which the victim does not) is not valid in this discussion.
There was hardly any ‘choice’ is there, when you have been colonised through force. Which = perhaps you do not feel the Muslim battles were – but I cannot see what else they were, from the point of view of the victims. Perhaps our underlying views are so divergent – which would explain how we see things so diametrically opposed.
you do not seem to effectively view the early Caliphate as an ‘empire’ in the traditional sense which won land through force.
It was taken. Hence we had institutions funding the freedom of slaves. What ended up happening was two things which didn’t occur in the Prophet’s (Salallahu’alaiheewassalam) time.
1) People volunteered to enter slavery
2) Slavers began employing illegal methods to acquire slaves.
Because I believe human rights and choice were perserved in the Prophet’s (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) time .
Quoting Roger Du Pasquier, author of Unveiling Islam :
Additionally, slaves had the ability to enfranchise themselves at their own initiative, without waiting passively for the goodwill of their masters: the procedure known as mukataba allowed them to buy their own freedom with sums which they saved from their work, and which the state frequently augmented with advances — a measure which the slaveowner had no right to oppose. In contrast to the situation under Roman law, slaves were not deprived of the legal ability to exercise their rights and to appeal to a judge against their masters in all cases of illegal treatment.
The very fact that these rights were preserved and could be brought up in actual courts against their masters eliminates any possible comparison to colonizers. Since there were no human rights abuses, and there was a matter of choice, and the ‘Truth’ was accessible by both parties (and judged by the third), the comparison fails.
Thanks for your comments Yursil – but I think perhaps I have such a totally different view of morality ( and understanding of history! {slaves as volunteers – that’s a good one- no really) that there appears to be little point in engaging any further. If a slave had the ability to free himself – surely – that means they are NOT really a slave! I find it incredibly worrying how you have justified all this and the fact that you really do appear to think no human rights abuses have occurred.
Lucky you.