> Female Slaves

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


Why the number of concubines weren't restricted to a certain number?

Islam encouraged cohabitation with slaves as another avenue to liberation for them and their children. this may be particularly significant if it is realized that the slave's offspring were often the children of wealthy owners who kept slaves for domestic purposes. It is further suggested that, to enhance the cause of liberation, Islam did not limit the number of slaves with whom a master may cohabit because the greater the number - the closer to freedom they become.

So the more slaves kept, the greater the freedom of slaves (because he has alot) at his death, so alot of these slaves are then free at his death.


Some people might say that anyone could buy slaves so sexuality was rampant, but this isn't true - since slaves were expensive.

[Aayah]

jazakum Allah khair brothers Salman and Qatada......and please forgive my ignorance about that issue. I really did not know much about it
I thought that in prophet's era...they were marrying their slaves in wartime.


But I still wanted to know what is the reason behind not ordering men to marry the slaves they capture, because after the slave gives birth to his master's child so the biological father is the master. So, who will have to take care of the child in addition to his mother? isn't it the father?


Brother Salman, I quoted this from your response in the thread "Female Slaves":

Now, the female slaves are properties of their master; hence, it is not allowed for the master to harm them by any mean, whether it is hitting them lightly, without any legitimate shari'ah reason, or forcing them to answer their call to bed. As far as I know, just like a wife, a slave woman will be sinning if she doesn't answer her master's call to bed without any legitimate shari'ah excuse: menstruating, sick, or she will be harmed physically or physiologically. However, it doesn't mean that her master can force her to answer his call to bed.

she will be sinned if she does not answet her master call to bed, but she is not a muslim and she will not bother whether she will be sinned by islamic view or not. So, to conclude that, Can the master force her if she dont have any excuse?


I went through all the links you brothers "Salman and Qatada" provided me. I got a pretty good idea about it

Finally, how can this rule be applied nowadays? I mean if Muslims were in war? wars nowadays are not like the old time wars.



and one more thing, what about the male slaves if their masters where women? what are the rules in this case if its allowed for women to have male slaves?


Jazakum Allah khair for your help

[salman]

:

Originally Posted by Ayah

jazakum Allah khair brothers

barakAllahu feekee

Originally Posted by Ayah

But I still wanted to know what is the reason behind not ordering men to marry the slaves they capture, because after the slave gives birth to his master's child so the biological father is the master. So, who will have to take care of the child in addition to his mother? isn't it the father?

It is not that they can't marry but they don't have to. They could if they want to and female salves' dowry can be the price of their freedom or the master can pay more if he wishes. The master is obliged to take care of his son from a slave woman as he would take care of his son from a free woman. There's not shari'i difference here. In addition, the slave woman is automatically become free once the master dies and treated as a wife, meaning she'll have the same rights as rights of a wife. I think in one of the links above, Shaykh Salih al-Munajjid clarified this.

Originally Posted by Ayah

Brother Salman, I quoted this from your response in the thread "Female Slaves":

she will be sinned if she does not answet her master call to bed, but she is not a muslim and she will not bother whether she will be sinned by islamic view or not. So, to conclude that, Can the master force her if she dont have any excuse?

She is now under covenant of Sharee'ah and protected by it. Hence, she is obliged to follow the shari'i rulings; therefore, if she doesn't answer her master's call to bed without any legitimate shari'i excuse, she will be sinning and her master can apply the shari'i rulings on her (hitting her lightly etc). It doesn't matter whether she is a Muslim or not, non-Muslim can sin too. However, this doesn't mean that she can be forced into it as it is derived from the general meaning of the hadeeth "there is no harm in reciprocal of harm" (quoted from my memory).

Originally Posted by Ayah

Finally, how can this rule be applied nowadays? I mean if Muslims were in war? wars nowadays are not like the old time wars.

just like it was done in the past and wars in today's time can still result in prisoners of war. Hence, the khalifa has the choice to decide what to do with them: 1) exchange them for captured Muslims 2) free them by taking ransom 3) free them without taking any ransom so that this may invite them to Islam or open door to da'wah 4) distribute them among the Muslims

Originally Posted by Ayah

and one more thing, what about the male slaves if their masters where women? what are the rules in this case if its allowed for women to have male slaves?

yes, a woman can have male salves but her relationship with him isn't the same as men's with their female slaves. Imam ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) mentiones in the tafsir of ayah 31 of Suran An-Noor that some say that the female master doesn't have to observe hijab from her male slaves and as for proof he cited two ahadeeth (Sunan Abou Dawoud & Musand Ahmad). How much hijab cannot be observed, I don't know.

Wallahu A'lam

PS: good to see you back akhi Qatada

[Aayah]

Originally Posted by salman

:
just like it was done in the past and wars in today's time can still result in prisoners of war. Hence, the khalifa has the choice to decide what to do with them: 1) exchange them for captured Muslims 2) free them by taking ransom 3) free them without taking any ransom so that this may invite them to Islam or open door to da'wah 4) distribute them among the Muslims

:

but looking at these days war, who are the captives? the one in their homes but on the occupied land? or?
because you know wars now are not like wars in the past

[salman]

^Wa'alaykum As-Salam

a rough answer: obviously the soldiers, it doesn't include the innocent citizens. Wallahu A'lam

I'll do some research or check with some brothers and post the certain answer later, insha'allah

[Aayah]

^ inshaAllah....... will be waiting the answer brother

jazak Allah khair for your effort

[Assad]

If in today's world, after a war we get female captives, so should we also treat them the same way? If yes, than how about If someone say that this is not ethical and even after war as per human right they should be returned to their lands?
People can say that If today in US war in Afghan, they get Muslim women as captive and then do the same than we will call them unethical... are you getting what I am trying to put?

[salman]

:

bro, I've already answered this but let me repeat myself again:

1) By whose standards we're determining whether something is ethical or not ethical? What human rights, the human rights which are not consistent from a country to country, let alone from period to period!?

2) Rights of females slaves upon their master is more than just physically enjoying them

3) what do you think we should do with prisoners of war? dump them in jails?

4) why should enemies be returned back? So that they can wage war again and kill your people!?

5) If enemies of Islam capture Muslim women then it is fard kafiyyah upon Muslim ummah to wage war against them and whatever dhulm (oppression) happens to Muslims sisters, they'll receieve the Justice.

[Qatada]

asalam alaikum


useful;

question about marrying slave girls - Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth

[Aayah]

Originally Posted by Qatada

asalam alaikum


useful;

question about marrying slave girls - Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth

jazak Allah khair brother....but the first post there confused me actually, it said that man have to marry the slave and pay them the dowry.....while in this thread it said some where that marriage in encouraged not a must...
I dunno ...

Tafseer al-jalalayn says:

So marry them, with the permission of their folk, their guardians, and give them their wages, their dowries, honourably, without procrastination or diminution, as women in wedlock (muhsanāt, a circumstantial qualifier), in decency, not illicitly, openly fornicating, or taking lovers, companions fornicating in secret. But when they are given in wedlock, [when] they are married off (a variant reading [for the passive uhsinna, ‘they are given in wedlock’] has the active ahsanna, ‘they enter into wedlock’), if they commit lewdness, such as adultery, they shall be liable to half the chastisement, the legal punishment, of married, free, virgin, women, who commit adultery, and are thus given fifty lashes and banished for half a year;

but from I understood from the link you posted that man need to marry the concubine if he cant marry a free one !!
now the question that arises on my mind now is that if the man is already married with a free woman.......he dont have to "marry" the concubine, right?
and I meant the "contracted" marriage in this case