Point Blank - 31st may 2010 - Alama Ibtasam Ilahi Zaheer, Kia Londi Rekhna Jaaiz hai ?????
- Thread starter capre786
- Start date
Dear Brothers,
Thanks to Allah that still there are some who counter argue to these Mullahs whose faces' excitement becomes visible when they mention the word of "loondi". I have given you in the previous post clear cut verse wherein it is commandament to make nikah either with a free woman or with a slave girl. Therefore there is absolutely no question of any permission to have "relations without Nikah". These Mullahs are nothing else but pick n choose the verses which suit them. Quran is very clear on this topic. I hope you will not feel disappointment at all. When the situation of war will come, i bet you these mullahs will try to find a tunnel to go into and are talking about loondi. Pathetic characters they are?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bret Hawk
Senator (1k+ posts)
Overall a nice program in which the experts expressed their opinion in an unambiguous manner that though legally it’s permissible to form relationships with slave women and in this regard I would like to thank brs Taul & Knowledge Seeker for pasting an excellent explanatory articles and video clips on this matter. It’s highly disappointing to view the opinions of majority of other respondents on this issue which seems to be again jumping on the bandwagon of Mullah bashing and accuse them for their shallow line of thought. Well with due respect to those participants you can’t argue with those learned experts with your half baked theories and knowledge. In our daily lives we do accept any other deceptive line of thought from the so called experts of other academic disciplines but would gather our courage only to refute the experts of Fiqh E Islami on regular basis.
Time and gain I’ve asked such respondents to prove their rationale and arguments on the basis of Usul ul Fiqh, logical empiricism, expertise in the semantics and exegesis of the Holy Nass (Quran and Authentic corpus of Hadith), Ilm ul Rijaal, philosophy and rationale of Islamic injunctions, understanding the historical background and needs for such injunctions, needs of substantive law and contributions of Islamic jurists on frequent systematic basis by following a specific methodology of line of argument and understanding the advanced form of theological and dogmatic debates of the experts of the past and present. There are many more requirements for the Faqih to master such sciences before they formulate their religious-legal decrees on such socially complex and intricate topics. Alas but majority of us would like to poke our nose on such highly complex issue without having the necessary expertise and competence in order to satisfy our own trivial vanity and negative ego.
P.S: Let the experts do their job according to their own methods and provide us with their line of arguments and thoughts. And if we need to have further more explanation then we have to consult the relevant authorities on such subject matters before issuing our own verdicts on the permissibility and non permissibility of certain matters and issues. If we still not satisfied with those explications then we have to embark on the journey of extensive learning which is required for a Muslim jurist before he can formalise any of his views which should stand on the stern dictates of peer reviews and standardizations of the experts of such varied fields of Islamic sciences.
mehwish_ali
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
بھائی صاحب،
آپ کیوں قرآنی آیات سے کھیل رہے ہیں؟ یہ بہت غلط بات ہے کہ آپ قرآنی آیات کو اپنی خواہشات کے مطابق توڑنے مڑوڑنے کی کوشش کریں۔ آپ سے پھر درخواست ہے کہ آپ اس جذباتیت سے باہر آئیں اور قرآن کو رسول اللہ ص کی بیان کردہ تفسیر (حدیث) کے مطابق سمجھنے کی کوشش کریں۔
آپ نے جو قرآنی آیت پیش کی تھی، اسکا جواب اوپر پیش کیا جا چکا ہے کہ اس آیت مبارکہ میں ایک آزاد مرد کی غربت کی وجہ سے آزاد عورت نہ ملنے کی صورت میں کسی تیسری شخص کی کنیز باندی سے "نکاح" کرنے کی اجازت کا ذکر ہے۔
اس آیت پر پھر غور فرمائیے:
25. وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَن تَصْبِرُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
ترجمہ:
اور تم میں سے جو کوئی (اتنی) استطاعت نہ رکھتا ہو کہ آزاد مسلمان عورتوں سے نکاح کر سکے تو ان مسلمان کنیزوں سے نکاح کرلے جو (شرعاً) تمہاری ملکیت میں ہیں، اور اللہ تمہارے ایمان (کی کیفیت) کو خوب جانتا ہے، تم (سب) ایک دوسرے کی جنس میں سے ہی ہو، پس ان (کنیزوں) سے ان کے مالکوں کی اجازت کے ساتھ نکاح کرو اور انہیں ان کے مَہر حسبِ دستور ادا کرو درآنحالیکہ وہ (عفت قائم رکھتے ہوئے) قیدِ نکاح میں آنے والی ہوں نہ بدکاری کرنے والی ہوں اور نہ درپردہ آشنائی کرنے والی ہوں، پس جب وہ نکاح کے حصار میں آجائیں پھر اگر بدکاری کی مرتکب ہوں تو ان پر اس سزا کی آدھی سزا لازم ہے جو آزاد (کنواری) عورتوں کے لئے (مقرر) ہے، یہ اجازت اس شخص کے لئے ہے جسے تم میں سے گناہ (کے ارتکاب) کا اندیشہ ہو، اور اگر تم صبر کرو تو (یعنی ان سے نکاح نہ کرو، تو یہ) تمہارے حق میں بہتر ہے، اور اللہ بخشنے والا مہر بان ہے
سوال: اس آیت میں پھر اللہ نے دوسروں کی کنیز سے نکاح کرنے کی عام اجازت کیوں نہیں دی بلکہ حوصلہ شکنی کی؟
آیت کے اس حصے پر غور کریں:
یہ اجازت اس شخص کے لئے ہے جسے تم میں سے گناہ (کے ارتکاب) کا اندیشہ ہو، اور اگر تم صبر کرو تو (یعنی ان سے نکاح نہ کرو، تو یہ) تمہارے حق میں بہتر ہے، اور اللہ بخشنے والا مہر بان ہے
اس آیت میں:
۔۱۔ یہ اجازت (یعنی دوسروں کی کنیز سے نکاح کرنا) سب کے سب مسلمانوں کے لیے نہیں ہے۔
۔۲۔ بلکہ یہ اجازت صرف اور صرف ایسے آزاد شخص کے لیے ہے جو کہ آزاد عورت سے نکاح کرنے کی استطاعت نہیں رکھتا۔
۔۳۔ اور پھر اللہ اس چیز کی خود حوصلہ شکنی بھی کر رہا ہے یہ کہہ کر اگر تم صبر کر سکو تو یہ تمہارے لیے بہتر ہے۔ ورنہ صرف اور صرف گناہ میں مبتلا ہونے کی صورت میں تمہیں یہ اجازت ہے۔
اب آپ سے درخواست ہے کہ آپ غور کریں اس سوال پر کہ اللہ نے پھر کیوں دوسروں کی کنیزوں سے عام شادی کرنے کی اجازت نہیں دی بلکہ صرف انتہائی صورتوں میں یہ اجازت رکھی ہے؟
اس چیز کا اپنا ایک اشارہ اس طرف ہے کہ کنیز باندی پر اسکے مالک کا حق ہے (یعنی باندی اسکے حصار نکاح میں ہے) اور صرف استثنائی صورتوں میں مالک اسکا نکاح کسی تیسرے شخص سے کر سکتا ہے۔
آپ صرف آج کے علماء کو بُرا بھلا کیوں کہہ رہے ہیں؟
اب دوسرا سوال یہ ہے کہ یہ ڈبل سٹینڈرڈز کیوں ہیں کہ آپ آج کے علماء کو صرف بُرا بھلا کہہ رہے ہیں۔
اگر آپ کو واقعی حق پر ہونے کا دعوی ہے تو آپ کو سب سے پہلے "جمیعین" علمأئے سلف سے برات کرنا ہو گی۔ جیسے چاروں ائمہ، امام بخاری، امام مسلم اور تمام کے تمام جمعین محدثین، اور پچھلے چودہ سو سال میں گذرے تمام کے تمام علماء۔
اور ان میں بہت سے علماء تو بذات خود تابعین کو دیکھ چکے ہیں مثلا امام مالک۔
اور یہ تمام کے تمام علماء آپکی طرح "تفسیر بالرائے" نہیں کر رہے ہیں۔ بھائی صاحب یہ تفسیر بالرائے بہت بڑا فتنہ ہے۔ خارجی فتنہ وہ پہلا گروہ تھا جو کہ قرآن کی آیت "لا حکم الا اللہ" کی تفسیر بالرائے کرتے ہوئے قتل و فساد کرنے لگا تھا۔
کیا اس سوال کو اٹھانا گناہ عظیم ہے؟
ڈاکٹر طاہر القادری صاحب نے اپنی ویڈیو میں اس مسئلے کو اطمنان بخش طریقے سے واضح کر دیا ہے، اور یہ واحد طریقہ ہے اس مسئلے سے نپٹنے کا کہ بجائے اس چیز کو چھپانے کے، آگے بڑھ کر اس حقیقت کو قبول کرتے ہوئے اُس وقت کے حالات کو واضح کریں۔
مگر ادھر حالت یہ ہے کہ یہ سوال آتا ہے تو مسلمان اپنا منہ اپنی بغل میں چھپانا شروع کر دیتے ہیں یا پھر اُس شخص پر برس پڑتے ہیں جو یہ سوال اٹھاتا ہے۔ مثلا یہاں پر لوگ مبشر لقمان صاحب پر جیسے الٹا برس پڑے ہیں۔ حالانکہ میں تو مبشر صاحب کو شاباش پیش کروں گی کہ انہوں نے بڑا جگر دکھاتے ہوئے ایسے سوال کو اٹھایا کہ جس پر ہزاروں لاکھوں اذہان شک و شبہات میں مبتلا ہیں، اور انکا واحد علاج یہ ہے کہ اس مسئلے پر دل کھول کر بحث ہو، وگرنہ اسے صرف جھٹلانے یا چھپانے سے مسائل کبھی حل نہ ہوں گے۔
چودہ سو سال پہلے کے حالات
ڈاکٹر طاہر القادری صاحب کی ویڈیو دوبارہ دیکھئے اور سمجھنے کی کوشش کیجئے کہ:
۔۱۔ اُس وقت کے حالات کے مطابق یہ ناممکن تھا کہ غلامی کو مکمل طور پر ختم کیا جا سکے کیونکہ بقیہ اقوام عالم اس فلسفے کو ماننے کے لیے تیار نہ تھیں اور یہ ایک عالمی مسئلہ تھا جو کو صرف اور صرف اُس وقت ختم ہو سکتا تھا کہ جبکہ تمام اقوام عالم اس پر راضی ہو جاتیں۔
۔۲۔ یہ بات پکی تھی کہ جنگیں ہونی تھیں، اس میں مردوں نے مارے جانا تھا، پیچھے ہزاروں لاکھوں بیوہ عورتوں اور لڑکیوں نے ہی بچنا تھا ۔
اگر یہ ہزاروں لاکھوں کی تعداد میں لڑکیاں اور عورتیں معاشرے میں یوں ہی رہ جاتیں اور کوئی انکی ذمہ داری نہ اٹھاتا تو پھر اسکا نتیجہ کیا نکلنا تھا؟
عملی طور پر اسکا فقط اور فقط ایک ہی نتیجہ نکلنا تھا کہ معاشرے میں زناکاری نے اتنا عام ہونا تھا کہ جس کی کوئی حد نہ ہوتی۔
جو لوگ اُس وقت کے حالات سمجھے بغیر اس پر اعتراضات کر رہے ہیں، اس سے مطالبہ ہے کہ وہ اُس وقت کے حالات کے تحت اس مسئلے کا حل بیان کریں کہ اگر ان عورتوں کو کنیز باندیوں کے روپ میں انکے مالکوں کی ذمہ داری نہ بنایا جاتا تو پھر اور اسکا کیا حل ہو سکتا تھا؟
waleedhussain
Councller (250+ posts)
BABA DEENA JEE .... THEN U SHALL HAVE THE COURAGE TO DEFY QURAN ...............................ITS CLEARLY WRITTEN OVER THERE IF YOU HAVE SO-CALLED EYES OPEN ............. as explained earlier its not for WHIMS AND DESIRES .....it was necessary in those era and period when women were killed and just raped after the war and nothing else. ..it was to bring a reform into it......... AND U KNOW NOTHING MY FRIEND ABOUT THESE BOTH ULEMA'S ..THESE BOTH HAVE CONTROLLED THEIR DESIRES N WHIMS "MORE THAN YOU
" AND I KNOW THEM PERSONALLY .......
" AND I KNOW THEM PERSONALLY .......
waleedhussain
Councller (250+ posts)
I think u missed Part 2 9:00 and several other points where they told that it is "BEHTAR/EHSAAN" if you release them or MAKE NIKKAH WITH THEM...... pay special attention please befor criticizing for the sake of criticism
Miss Mewish Ali,
Do you really know what you are discussing or trying to discuss. The questions are as follows:
a) Is it allowed in Islam to have Loondi (Slave girl(s)? the Answer is Yes. So what are conditions, much said wars, bla bla bla, give me a verse from Quran to support this notion that Loondis are only those who captured during war, Come on Please. if so take the help of your Ulemas. Please you and everyone should remember that I am not questioning the yes or no because even still in the present circumstances and present era salvary in houses is there, although refined or given different names, one example can be given "Kamis women" in Landords, Jagirdars and even two acres owners so-called Choudharies. Correct yourself this is fact and I can discuss this with anyone to his/her heart content.
b) WHAT I AM QUESTIONING IS: To have extra-martial relations with Loondis without Nikha. Where that is permissible show me the relevant verse. You or your Ulemas. That is Zina. Look one Moulvi saying: suppose that a man has already four wives.......... the start is with the suppostion that a person has four wives. I say, a man does not wife at all but has loondi in his captivity is he allowed to have "relations" with her without Nikah. Please show me the verse. If it is an open licence given by Moulvi to all those who have Loondis even in the present era.
c) Is it that in Islam only Men have been given this privilege, or the ladies also have loondis and Loondays (men servant), If so, then what kind of "relations" Lady Masters will have with their "servants".
You wish to discuss, let us discuss to your heart content. One last question also from your post in Urdu from where you have inserted the words "others loondis" which is the arabic word in the verse for others. Be afraid of Allah, you seem to be only justifying some kind of "Mutah" type thing.
@Waleed,
In your second post, your tone and tune is different, what made you like that. I suppose you read my post with link. Very nice.
Do you really know what you are discussing or trying to discuss. The questions are as follows:
a) Is it allowed in Islam to have Loondi (Slave girl(s)? the Answer is Yes. So what are conditions, much said wars, bla bla bla, give me a verse from Quran to support this notion that Loondis are only those who captured during war, Come on Please. if so take the help of your Ulemas. Please you and everyone should remember that I am not questioning the yes or no because even still in the present circumstances and present era salvary in houses is there, although refined or given different names, one example can be given "Kamis women" in Landords, Jagirdars and even two acres owners so-called Choudharies. Correct yourself this is fact and I can discuss this with anyone to his/her heart content.
b) WHAT I AM QUESTIONING IS: To have extra-martial relations with Loondis without Nikha. Where that is permissible show me the relevant verse. You or your Ulemas. That is Zina. Look one Moulvi saying: suppose that a man has already four wives.......... the start is with the suppostion that a person has four wives. I say, a man does not wife at all but has loondi in his captivity is he allowed to have "relations" with her without Nikah. Please show me the verse. If it is an open licence given by Moulvi to all those who have Loondis even in the present era.
c) Is it that in Islam only Men have been given this privilege, or the ladies also have loondis and Loondays (men servant), If so, then what kind of "relations" Lady Masters will have with their "servants".
You wish to discuss, let us discuss to your heart content. One last question also from your post in Urdu from where you have inserted the words "others loondis" which is the arabic word in the verse for others. Be afraid of Allah, you seem to be only justifying some kind of "Mutah" type thing.
@Waleed,
In your second post, your tone and tune is different, what made you like that. I suppose you read my post with link. Very nice.
mehwish_ali
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
بابا دینا صاحب،
آپ نے میرے اٹھائے ہوئے کسی سوال کا جواب نہیں دیا ہے۔ یہ آیت آپ نے ہی پیش کی تھی اور اب قبل اسکے ہم کسی اور آیت پر جائیں، آپ پر لازم ہے کہ اس آیت پر اٹھائے گئے سوالات کا جواب دیجئے۔
آیت دوبارہ پیش خدمت ہے:۔
اور تم میں سے جو کوئی (اتنی) استطاعت نہ رکھتا ہو کہ آزاد مسلمان عورتوں سے نکاح کر سکے تو ان مسلمان کنیزوں سے نکاح کرلے جو (شرعاً) تمہاری ملکیت میں ہیں، اور اللہ تمہارے ایمان (کی کیفیت) کو خوب جانتا ہے، تم (سب) ایک دوسرے کی جنس میں سے ہی ہو، پس ان (کنیزوں) سے ان کے مالکوں کی اجازت کے ساتھ نکاح کرو اور انہیں ان کے مَہر حسبِ دستور ادا کرو درآنحالیکہ وہ (عفت قائم رکھتے ہوئے) قیدِ نکاح میں آنے والی ہوں نہ بدکاری کرنے والی ہوں اور نہ درپردہ آشنائی کرنے والی ہوں، پس جب وہ نکاح کے حصار میں آجائیں پھر اگر بدکاری کی مرتکب ہوں تو ان پر اس سزا کی آدھی سزا لازم ہے جو آزاد (کنواری) عورتوں کے لئے (مقرر) ہے،
کیا آپ کو اوپر آیت میں نظر نہیں آ رہا کہ یہاں اللہ "دوسروں کی لونڈی" سے نکاح کرنے کا حکم بیان کر رہا ہے؟ اگر نظر نہیں آ رہا تو بس آپ کا اللہ ہی حافظ ہے۔
میں نے اس آیت مبارکہ کے حوالے سے آپ کے اعتراض کا جواب دے دیا ہے۔ اور اب آپ کی باری ہے کہ آپ یہاں وہاں بھاگے اور فرار ہوئے بغیر اس آیت مبارکہ کے حوالے سے میرے سوالات کا بھی جواب دیجئے:۔
۔۱۔ یہ اجازت (یعنی دوسروں کی کنیز سے نکاح کرنا) سب کے سب مسلمانوں کے لیے نہیں ہے۔
۔۲۔ بلکہ یہ اجازت صرف اور صرف ایسے آزاد شخص کے لیے ہے جو کہ آزاد عورت سے نکاح کرنے کی استطاعت نہیں رکھتا۔
۔۳۔ اور پھر اللہ اس چیز کی خود حوصلہ شکنی بھی کر رہا ہے یہ کہہ کر اگر تم صبر کر سکو تو یہ تمہارے لیے بہتر ہے۔ ورنہ صرف اور صرف گناہ میں مبتلا ہونے کی صورت میں تمہیں یہ اجازت ہے۔
اب آپ سے درخواست ہے کہ آپ غور کریں اس سوال پر کہ اللہ نے پھر کیوں دوسروں کی کنیزوں سے عام شادی کرنے کی اجازت نہیں دی بلکہ صرف انتہائی صورتوں میں یہ اجازت رکھی ہے؟
اس چیز کا اپنا ایک اشارہ اس طرف ہے کہ کنیز باندی پر اسکے مالک کا حق ہے (یعنی باندی اسکے حصار نکاح میں ہے) اور صرف استثنائی صورتوں میں مالک اسکا نکاح کسی تیسرے شخص سے کر سکتا ہے۔
ویسے مجھے یقین ہے کہ آپ کا تعلق "منکر حدیث" گروہ سے ہے، ورنہ جب پچھلے 1400 سال سے آنے والے علما و فقہا و محدثین کے اجماع کے سامنے آپ قرآن کی تفسیر بالرائے نہ کر رہے ہوتے۔ قرآن کے سب سے بہترین مفسر رسول اللہ ص ہیں اور بہت آسان تھا کہ انہی احادیث کی روشنی میں قرآن کو سمجھا جاتا۔ مگر رسول اللہ ص کی قرآنی تفسیر کو چھوڑ کر آج آپ اپنی تفسیر بالرائے اپنی خواہشات کے مطابق کرنا چاہتے ہیں تو اس سے بس عظیم فتنہ ہی پیدا ہو گا۔
اور منکر حدیث قرآنسٹ حضرات کی اس تفسیر بالرائے کا یہ عظیم فتنہ ہم سب کی آنکھوں کے سامنے رہے جہاں انکا ایک گروہ پانچ وقت کی نماز کہتا ہے تو دوسرا گروہ قرآن سے تین وقت کی نماز نکال لیتا ہے جبکہ تیسرا گروہ آتا ہے اور وہ سرے سے ہی نماز کا منکر ہو جاتا ہے اور کہتا ہے کہ "صلوۃ" کا مطلب تو صرف دعا کرنا ہے، نہ کہ اللہ کے سامنے رکوع و سجدے کرنا۔
جس بُری طرح یہ منکر حدیث گروہ قرآن کی آیات سے کھلواڑ کرتا ہے، اس سے بس اللہ امت کو محفوظ ہی رکھے۔ امین۔
Last edited:
@Mewish Ali,
What you are discussing about. First of All, little bit courtesy to post in English, because here not everyone can read Urdu. Now let me tell you what you are saying:
a) Any one of you who does not have means(Istah) to marray a Mushina (Free Believing woman), it means that the desiring person is financially poor but
wish to marry, so he should marry a believing Loondi.
b) The proposed Loondi is in the capativity of another person (This is what you are emphasising, Am I right).
c) The desirous would-be husband needs permission of the OWNER of Loondi to get marray. (Note down the Arabic words are "Ahalayhuna", not
necessarily this means that Owner. But this is not the point of discussion.
This is what you wish to convey to me and It is very clear. I posted that verse, I know very well what it conveys:
What You are utterly failing to understand and is unable to answer:
i) Where it is written that the Owner of Loondi has blank permission to have "S**ual relations" with those Loondis without even getting them into
her own Nikkah.
ii) What the hell, any person in this world is going to marry a Loondi, knowing that Her Owner is having "relations" with her, if that is the case?
Now You have to give me answer to above and also what about those Loondis whose owners are/can be also ladies, or you say categorically that Ladies are not entitled to have Loondis. What is your position, now.
Please no accusation of "Mukar-e-Hadith" type things. Normally these type of accusations are made by "those people who have no standing from Quran and their faith/creed/sect is totally dependent upon Hadiths" I suppose you are not one of them also.
What you are discussing about. First of All, little bit courtesy to post in English, because here not everyone can read Urdu. Now let me tell you what you are saying:
a) Any one of you who does not have means(Istah) to marray a Mushina (Free Believing woman), it means that the desiring person is financially poor but
wish to marry, so he should marry a believing Loondi.
b) The proposed Loondi is in the capativity of another person (This is what you are emphasising, Am I right).
c) The desirous would-be husband needs permission of the OWNER of Loondi to get marray. (Note down the Arabic words are "Ahalayhuna", not
necessarily this means that Owner. But this is not the point of discussion.
This is what you wish to convey to me and It is very clear. I posted that verse, I know very well what it conveys:
What You are utterly failing to understand and is unable to answer:
i) Where it is written that the Owner of Loondi has blank permission to have "S**ual relations" with those Loondis without even getting them into
her own Nikkah.
ii) What the hell, any person in this world is going to marry a Loondi, knowing that Her Owner is having "relations" with her, if that is the case?
Now You have to give me answer to above and also what about those Loondis whose owners are/can be also ladies, or you say categorically that Ladies are not entitled to have Loondis. What is your position, now.
Please no accusation of "Mukar-e-Hadith" type things. Normally these type of accusations are made by "those people who have no standing from Quran and their faith/creed/sect is totally dependent upon Hadiths" I suppose you are not one of them also.
mehwish_ali
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
آپکی اس عجیب و غریب لاجک سے کوئی اتفاق نہیں ہو سکتا کہ آپ مستقل اور مسلسل طور پر رسول اللہ ص سے مروی قرآن کی تفسیر کا انکار کرتے ہوئے اپنی تفسیر بالرائے بھی کرتے رہیں اور پھر کہیں کہ آپ کو منکر حدیث بھی نہ کہا جائے۔ یہاں یہ ساری بحث اور فتنہ پھیل ہی اس انکار حدیث رسول کی وجہ سے رہا ہے کیونکہ اس کے بغیر ہر کسی کو کھلا اور بھرپور موقع مل جاتا ہے کہ وہ قرآنی آیات سے اپنی خواہشات کے مطابق کھلواڑ کر سکے اور قرآن کو اپنی پسند کے مطابق تبدیل کر لے۔
آپ نے اوپر میرے سوالات کا جواب تو نہیں دیا ہے بلکہ دو اور سوالات جڑ دیے ہیں۔
پہلی بات تو یہ کہ مالک کی مرضی ہے کہ وہ اپنی لونڈی کو اپنے حصار میں رکھے یا اپنے باپ یا بھائی کے لیے اُسے مختص کر دے، یا پھر کسی تیسرے شخص سے اسکا نکاح کر دے۔
اسی طرح ایک آزاد عورت اپنی لونڈی کو چاہے تو بغیر کسی کے نکاح کے رکھے، یا پھر چاہے تو اپنے شوہر پر اُسے حلال کر دے، یا پھر اسکا نکاح کسی اور تیسرے شخص سے کر دے جیسا کہ اس قرآنی آیت سے پتا چلتا ہے۔
ایک لونڈی کا نکاح اپنے کسی غلام سے بھی کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
یہ سب چیزیں ایسی احادیث سے صاف واضح ہیں کہ جن میں کوئی اختلاف نہیں ہے اور پوری امت پچھلے چودہ سو سالوں سے اس پر متفق ہے سوائے اس صدی میں آپ جیسے منکر حدیث حضرات کے وجود میں آنے سے قبل کے۔
چونکہ مجھ پر واضح ہو چکا ہے کہ آپ کسی صورت رسول اللہ ص کی تفسیر کو نہیں مانیں گے جو کہ حدیث کی صورت میں موجود ہے، لہذا آپ سے مزید بات نہیں کی جا سکتی۔
جو لوگ اس مسئلے پر مزید تحقیق کرنا چاہتے ہیں، وہ قرآن کی ان آیات کو پڑھیں، اور مختلف علماء نے جو انکی تفاسیر بیان کی ہیں، وہ بھی پڑھیں۔
Quran 23:5-6 "And who guard their modesty - Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess (i.e. Slave Women)."
یہ آیت مبارکہ صاف صاف بیان کر رہی ہے کہ صرف اور صرف بیویاں اور کنیز باندیوں کو یہ حق حاصل ہے کہ وہ اپنے شوہروں یا مالکوں کے جسم کے مخصوص حصوں کو دیکھ سکتی ہیں، اور ان بیویوں اور کنیز باندیوں کے علاوہ باقی سب سے انسان کو اپنے جسم کو چھپانا ہوتا ہے۔
اگرچہ کہ یہ آیت مبارکہ بالکل صاف صاف بیان کر رہی ہے، مگر پھر بھی منکر حدیث حضرات کوئی نہ کوئی لولا لنگڑا بہانہ لے کر آ جائیں گے۔ تو دیکھئے ایسے لولے لنگڑے بہانے لے کر کون نہیں آ جاتا۔ کیا شیطان ابلیس یہ لولا لنگڑا بہانہ لے کر نہیں آ گیا تھا کہ وہ مٹی کو سجدہ کیوں کرے جبکہ وہ آگ سے بنا ہے؟
چنانچہ بابا دینا صاحب تو پتا نہیں اس آیت کو کیسے توڑیں مڑوڑیں، مگر آپ لوگوں سے درخواست ہے کہ آپ علمائے کرام کی تفاسیر اس ضمن میں ملاحظہ فرمائیں، حدیث کی کتب کا مطالعہ کریں، بلکہ سب سے بہتر ہو گا کہ غلامی کے مسئلے پر موجود کسی اچھی کتاب کا مطالعہ کریں۔
اور اب قرآن کی اس آیت کا مزید مطالعہ فرمائیں (بمع تفاسیر کے)۔
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ إِنَّا أَحْلَلْنَا لَكَ أَزْوَاجَكَ اللَّاتِي آتَيْتَ أُجُورَهُنَّ وَمَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُكَ مِمَّا أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ
Quran 33:50 "O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war."
(طاہر القادری ) اے نبی! بیشک ہم نے آپ کے لئے آپ کی وہ بیویاں حلال فرما دی ہیں جن کا مہَر آپ نے ادا فرما دیا ہے اور جو (احکامِ الٰہی کے مطابق) آپ کی مملوک ہیں، جو اللہ نے آپ کو مالِ غنیمت میں عطا فرمائی ہیں
اس آیت مبارکہ میں اللہ تعالی صاف صاف فرما رہا ہے کہ ایسی بیویاں حلال ہیں جنکے حق مہر ادا کیے جا چکے ہیں اور ساتھ میں وہ کنیزیں بھی جو کہ جنگ میں تمہارے قبضے میں بطور مال غنیمت کے آئیں ہیں۔
مجھے نہیں علم کہ بابا دینا صاحب قرآن کی ان واضح آیات کے بعد پھر بھی کیا بہانہ لیکر آئیں گے (یا پھر غائب ہو جائیں گے)، مگر آپ لوگوں کو پھر نصیحت ہے کہ آپ اسلام میں غلامی کے موضوع پر کسی اچھی کتاب کا مطالعہ فرمائیں۔
abduttawwab
MPA (400+ posts)
brother, I haven't listened to what this pro-qadiyani anchor Luqman is trying to convey through his prog; but I would like to comment on your remarks.
I guess you are misunderstanding the ayat of the holy Quran, you've quoted here. I am copy-pasting the quoted verse and it's translation here from the same link you've provided in your last post:
وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلًا أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُم بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلَا مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذٰلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنكُمْ وَأَن تَصْبِرُوا خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ *[4-25]
And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; and when they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil; and that you abstain is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
M.Pickthall
25. And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry
from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. Allah knoweth best (concerning)
your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk,
and give unto them their portions in kindness, they being honest, not debauched nor
of loose conduct. And if when they are honorably married they commit lewdness they
shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case).
This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be
better for you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Yusuf Ali
25. If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women they may
wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: and Allah hath
full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: wed them with the leave
of their owners and give them their dowers according to what is reasonable: they
should be chaste not lustful nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock
if they fall into shame their punishment is half that for free women. This
(permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye
practice self-restraint: and Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful.
So if you read this verse again with all these translations, you can easily understand that this verse is about those slave girls who are not in the ownership of the person (who intends for nikah)
Hope it clerifies.
And Allah Ta`ala knows the Best.
Brother! The matter of dispute is not on this. I had already written that. The question being asked and discussed is WHETHER A PERSON/LADY HAVING LOONDIS IS ENTITLED TO HAVE S**UAL RELATIONS WITH HER WITHOUT NIKKAH OR GETTING MARRIED. OR IT IT THE BLANK PERMISSION THAT SINCE SHE IS LOONDI AND BEING LOONDI THE OWNER CAN HAVE HER WITHOUT ANY NIKKAH.
@ Mewish, Please get it what I have written above instead of pasting and typing useless arguments and accusing others. You Say Yes or NO. I will, inshallah get you on the part of verse which you have pasted. But say it openly that Yes the owner is entitled to have relations without Nikah.
abduttawwab
MPA (400+ posts)
I think these verses are self-explanatory
وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ
إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ
فَمَنِ ابْتَغَىٰ وَرَاءَ ذٰلِكَ فَأُولٰئِكَ هُمُ الْعَادُونَ
(70: 29-31)
And those who guard their private parts, Except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed,
But he who seeks to go beyond this, these it is that go beyond the limits
وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ
إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ
فَمَنِ ابْتَغَىٰ وَرَاءَ ذٰلِكَ فَأُولٰئِكَ هُمُ الْعَادُونَ
(23: 5-7)
And who guard their private parts, Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable, But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they that exceed the limits;
Thanks for giving the reference. Do you any more verses or should we concentrate over these only. If only on these two, then now I am supposing that your are saying that "Yes" it is permissible to have "relations" with loondi without Nikah.
a) وْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ includes both men and women, but I take that you mean here it is referring only ladies; yes or no
b) What about if ladies do not wish to have relations with the owner? or according to you they have to(must): Yes or No.
Thanks once again. I hope your reply will be short and quick.
gazoomartian
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Qura'n and Islam are for ever. If 'laundi' system doesnt apply now, that doesnt men it never did apply or it never will. Quran has always made it 'flexible' for all eras.
There will be time that Muslim forces will capture kafir countries. Their mal-e-ghanimat and their widows, who became widow due to the war, and their children would have to be taken care of. At the same time, New masters of the 'laundi's are not allowed to use them for shahwat-rani
t hasn't been a banner spring for professional athletics in France. First, their football (soccer) team was caught visiting clubs where underage girls were forced into prostitution. And now, one of their professional rugby superstars has been arrested to keeping a Tunisian man in his home as a personal slave.
..... The Tunisian man claimed he was forced to serve Maka and his family against his will, and had been brought into France without any documents. Police also received reports that the man was kept in the home and not allowed to leave, treated with disrespect, and forced to perform numerous household tasks.
http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/category/slave_labor
Even in present day era, when the world is boosting itself of her civilization, this menace is still there.
..... The Tunisian man claimed he was forced to serve Maka and his family against his will, and had been brought into France without any documents. Police also received reports that the man was kept in the home and not allowed to leave, treated with disrespect, and forced to perform numerous household tasks.
http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/category/slave_labor
Even in present day era, when the world is boosting itself of her civilization, this menace is still there.
foqia khan
MPA (400+ posts)
Mubashar Luqman chose a very sensitive topic for discussion but I'm very disappointed that the topic was not handled properly. these scholars had failed to highlight the important points of this topic and created confussion in the minds of the viewers who either don't know about this topic or don't understand it.
There r few thing which r important to keep in mind regarding this topic that Slavery and taking men and women as war captives and then turn them into slaves was thousands of yrs old before Islam and was virtually an international custom. BUT
1).Islam is the religion which first recognized slavery as a social illness,
2).Islam is the religion which first introduced the Peace talks between the groups in wars for the settlement of the prisnor's issues and for the peace,
3).Islam is the religion which was first to introduced rights for prisnors of war and rights for the slaves.
otherwise there were no concepts of peace talks or rights for prisnors and slaves exsisted before Islam. This is what that can be checked in wiki pedia or in any other encyclopedia too.
When Islam came and prospered, its power was challenged by the enemies of Islam and the need to go to war arose.Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam followed the methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses.
Thus, abolishing it instantateously would have caused chaos and pandemonium among the Arab people. . Moreover, if the Muslims would set all their enemy-prisoners free and tolerate their fellow Muslims being captured and enslaved by the enemies, it would have lead to a sharp decrease in the Muslim military force and given a great advantage to the enemy forces which was something that the Muslims could not afford.Furthermore, it is a well known fact that warfare tactics used by one side are often countered by the opposing side in order to maintain a balance of power. Hence, wartime diplomacy necessitated the enslaving of prisoners.
Islam's first step towards the elimination of war slavery were the Peace talks in which exchange of prisnor for ransom or for the muslim prisnors ,type conditions were introduced and were settled,.Prisnors were also given choice, where a literate prisoner of war could secure his or her freedom by teaching ten Muslims to read and write.
Thus, there arose a issue of settlement of the women who were captured as Prisoners of War, and were not exchanged, nor ransomed, nor had any place to return to.As they were considered disgrace by theirown people after becoming captives in war, it became imperative that these people were inculcated within the society. Thus there were two choices left with the slave girls:
Option-1. Leave them alone in society with no family and no protection :
This would not have been a good option. There was obviously a fear that these women, who had absolutely no family and tribe to protect or feed them, would start immoral practices if left to fend for themselves. And because no one could determine their lineage, no honorable person at that time would marry them outright. And also it would not be right to just leave these women, who had absolutely no means, no family, and no protection in a foreign land.
Option-2. Give them under the guardianship of an existing family:
The state would determine which slave girl to which household. Neither the people who received the slave girl, nor the slave girl had a choice. Whatever was allotted by the state was received by them. This was considered the best and novel system to eradicate slavery and accept the slaves as members of society.
Each soldier who was given woman captive was then entitled to have relations ONLY with the slave girl over which he was given the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP and NOT with those slave girls that were not in his possession. This RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP was given to him by the ?Ameerul-Mu'mineen? (Head of the Islamic state.) Due to this right of ownership, It became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her.
Nevertheless, the wisdom underlying the permission granted by Shariat to copulate with a slave woman is as follows: The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the ?Ameerul-Mu'mineen? (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be 'possessed', bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariat instituted a 'marriage ceremony' in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her.
In short, permission to have intercourse with a slave woman was not something barbaric or uncivilised; on the contrary, it was almost as good as a marriage ceremony. In fact, possession of a slave woman resembles a marriage ceremony in many ways and both have a lot in common with each other. One similarity is this that just as a free woman cannot have two husbands simultaneously, a slave woman cannot be used for intercourse by two owners. Another similarity is that a free woman whose marriage is on the rocks, cannot marry another man until her previous marriage is nullified through divorce, etc. Due to the discrepancies between husband and wife, the marriage sometimes reaches a stage where it becomes virtually impossible for the couple to live as man and wife with the result that divorce is brought into force to nullify marriage ties. Similarly, if a slave woman was married previously in enemy territory to a non-Muslim, and is then captured alone, i.e. without her husband, it is not permissible for any Muslim to have relations with her until her previous marriage is nullified, and that is done by bringing her to an Islamic country and making her the legal possession of a Muslim. Bringing her into Islamic territory necessitates the rendering of her previous marriage as null and void by Islamic law because with her husband in enemy territory and she in Islamic territory, it becomes virtually impossible for them to meet and live as man and wife. That is why it is not permissible to have intercourse with a woman whose husband is also taken into captivity and put into slavery with her. Another resemblance between the two is that, just as a divorcee has to spend a period called "Iddat" before another man is allowed to marry her, similarly, a slave woman has to spend a period called "Istibraa" before her owner can have coition with her.
Another similarity between marriage and possession of a slave woman is that just as the wife becomes a dependant of the husband and he has to provide a home, food and clothing for her, a slave woman also becomes a dependant of her owner and he has to provide a home, food and clothing for her. Yet another similarity is this that just as marriage makes the close relatives of the wife Haraam upon the husband; i.e. he cannot get married to his wife's mother, grandmother, sister, etc., similarly if a man has copulated with a slave woman the slave woman's close relatives also become Haraam upon the owner. With all these similarities it does not make sense to regard copulation with a slave woman distasteful whilst copulation with one's wife is not regarded as distasteful.
A question that may still arise is that why does the owner of a slave woman not marry her before having relations with her?Well, this is impracticable because of a few intricate technicalities. Firstly, we know that a man has to give ?Mahr? (dower-money) to his bride. The Holy Quran says:-
Trans: "And allowed unto you is whatsoever is beyond that, so that ye may seek them with your substance (i.e. with your dower-money). " - (4:24).
Thus, ?Mahr? is a conditional prerequisite of Nikah. If a man has to marry his slave woman, it would not be possible for him to abide by this condition of 'Mahr' because by Islamic law, a slave does not have rights over any property, i.e. she cannot own anything. In fact, whatever she has with her too, i.e. her clothing, etc., is all regarded as the property of her owner. Therefore, If he gets married to his slave girl and gives her the 'Mahr' she cannot become the owner of it because she has no right of ownership. The 'Mahr' would bounce back to the owner of the slave girl and it would tantamount to giving the 'mahr' to himself. Hence, the owner would become the payer as well as the PAYEE of the 'mahr' which would only result in the mockery of the whole system of 'mahr'. It would be absolutely superflous to have such a marriage ceremony performed that makes a mockery of the 'mahr' system. Hence, the owner cannot get married to her while she remains a slave girl. However, if he sets her free, then he can get married to her on the basis of her having become a liberated woman.
Although the owner himself cannot get married to his slave woman, without giving her freedom, he can get her married to someone else. If he gets her married to someone else, then only her husband can now have intercourse with her and the owner's right of having intercourse with her comes to an end. All these facts prove that the slave girl does not become an instrument of sex; on the contrary, her honour is upheld, in that only one man is allowed to have intercourse with her JUST AS only one man (the husband) is allowed to have intercourse with his lawfully wedded wife.
Islam ensured that the slave girl's duties were not restricted merely to domestic chores but also gave her master permission to copulate with her. This concession created an atmosphere of love and harmony between the slave girl and her master. Islam thereby raised the status of the war captive-maidens close to that of wives. It was a psychological cure to her grief-stricken heart, being deprived of her family and thrown into the hands of a strange society.
"If a slave woman becomes pregnant from her owner, and delivers his child, she automatically gets her freedom after the death of her master whose child she gave birth to.
Moreover, there are many wrongs and sins for which the liberation of a slave serves as a compensation and atonement. This was a further incentive for the extirpation of slavery. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam also taught that whosoever teaches good manners to his slave girl, adorns her with politeness and good education, then frees her and gets married to her, for him there is double recompense and reward. These encouraging teachings served as incentives towards the emancipation of slaves and slaves were liberated by the thousands.
Lastly, the answer for the question which was being asked by the scholars about the prisnors as slaves in present times, was also not convincing to me, coz turning war captives as slaves in old times was the least choice for the settlement of the prisnors in the society ,that was left with the Ameer ul Mumineen of that time. But to practice this thing in present times , when open practice of slavery virtually doesn't exist in todays world, then how Islam, which was the first to eridicate this practice can introduce it again .Quran only guide us how to deal with slaves ,doesn't say to initiate for the social illness which is almost finished. The ruler or the Ameer ul Mumineen always has a right to find any best choice that can suit to the prisnors and the state according to the time in such issues.
There r few thing which r important to keep in mind regarding this topic that Slavery and taking men and women as war captives and then turn them into slaves was thousands of yrs old before Islam and was virtually an international custom. BUT
1).Islam is the religion which first recognized slavery as a social illness,
2).Islam is the religion which first introduced the Peace talks between the groups in wars for the settlement of the prisnor's issues and for the peace,
3).Islam is the religion which was first to introduced rights for prisnors of war and rights for the slaves.
otherwise there were no concepts of peace talks or rights for prisnors and slaves exsisted before Islam. This is what that can be checked in wiki pedia or in any other encyclopedia too.
When Islam came and prospered, its power was challenged by the enemies of Islam and the need to go to war arose.Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam followed the methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses.
Thus, abolishing it instantateously would have caused chaos and pandemonium among the Arab people. . Moreover, if the Muslims would set all their enemy-prisoners free and tolerate their fellow Muslims being captured and enslaved by the enemies, it would have lead to a sharp decrease in the Muslim military force and given a great advantage to the enemy forces which was something that the Muslims could not afford.Furthermore, it is a well known fact that warfare tactics used by one side are often countered by the opposing side in order to maintain a balance of power. Hence, wartime diplomacy necessitated the enslaving of prisoners.
Islam's first step towards the elimination of war slavery were the Peace talks in which exchange of prisnor for ransom or for the muslim prisnors ,type conditions were introduced and were settled,.Prisnors were also given choice, where a literate prisoner of war could secure his or her freedom by teaching ten Muslims to read and write.
Thus, there arose a issue of settlement of the women who were captured as Prisoners of War, and were not exchanged, nor ransomed, nor had any place to return to.As they were considered disgrace by theirown people after becoming captives in war, it became imperative that these people were inculcated within the society. Thus there were two choices left with the slave girls:
Option-1. Leave them alone in society with no family and no protection :
This would not have been a good option. There was obviously a fear that these women, who had absolutely no family and tribe to protect or feed them, would start immoral practices if left to fend for themselves. And because no one could determine their lineage, no honorable person at that time would marry them outright. And also it would not be right to just leave these women, who had absolutely no means, no family, and no protection in a foreign land.
Option-2. Give them under the guardianship of an existing family:
The state would determine which slave girl to which household. Neither the people who received the slave girl, nor the slave girl had a choice. Whatever was allotted by the state was received by them. This was considered the best and novel system to eradicate slavery and accept the slaves as members of society.
Each soldier who was given woman captive was then entitled to have relations ONLY with the slave girl over which he was given the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP and NOT with those slave girls that were not in his possession. This RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP was given to him by the ?Ameerul-Mu'mineen? (Head of the Islamic state.) Due to this right of ownership, It became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her.
Nevertheless, the wisdom underlying the permission granted by Shariat to copulate with a slave woman is as follows: The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the ?Ameerul-Mu'mineen? (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be 'possessed', bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariat instituted a 'marriage ceremony' in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her.
In short, permission to have intercourse with a slave woman was not something barbaric or uncivilised; on the contrary, it was almost as good as a marriage ceremony. In fact, possession of a slave woman resembles a marriage ceremony in many ways and both have a lot in common with each other. One similarity is this that just as a free woman cannot have two husbands simultaneously, a slave woman cannot be used for intercourse by two owners. Another similarity is that a free woman whose marriage is on the rocks, cannot marry another man until her previous marriage is nullified through divorce, etc. Due to the discrepancies between husband and wife, the marriage sometimes reaches a stage where it becomes virtually impossible for the couple to live as man and wife with the result that divorce is brought into force to nullify marriage ties. Similarly, if a slave woman was married previously in enemy territory to a non-Muslim, and is then captured alone, i.e. without her husband, it is not permissible for any Muslim to have relations with her until her previous marriage is nullified, and that is done by bringing her to an Islamic country and making her the legal possession of a Muslim. Bringing her into Islamic territory necessitates the rendering of her previous marriage as null and void by Islamic law because with her husband in enemy territory and she in Islamic territory, it becomes virtually impossible for them to meet and live as man and wife. That is why it is not permissible to have intercourse with a woman whose husband is also taken into captivity and put into slavery with her. Another resemblance between the two is that, just as a divorcee has to spend a period called "Iddat" before another man is allowed to marry her, similarly, a slave woman has to spend a period called "Istibraa" before her owner can have coition with her.
Another similarity between marriage and possession of a slave woman is that just as the wife becomes a dependant of the husband and he has to provide a home, food and clothing for her, a slave woman also becomes a dependant of her owner and he has to provide a home, food and clothing for her. Yet another similarity is this that just as marriage makes the close relatives of the wife Haraam upon the husband; i.e. he cannot get married to his wife's mother, grandmother, sister, etc., similarly if a man has copulated with a slave woman the slave woman's close relatives also become Haraam upon the owner. With all these similarities it does not make sense to regard copulation with a slave woman distasteful whilst copulation with one's wife is not regarded as distasteful.
A question that may still arise is that why does the owner of a slave woman not marry her before having relations with her?Well, this is impracticable because of a few intricate technicalities. Firstly, we know that a man has to give ?Mahr? (dower-money) to his bride. The Holy Quran says:-
Trans: "And allowed unto you is whatsoever is beyond that, so that ye may seek them with your substance (i.e. with your dower-money). " - (4:24).
Thus, ?Mahr? is a conditional prerequisite of Nikah. If a man has to marry his slave woman, it would not be possible for him to abide by this condition of 'Mahr' because by Islamic law, a slave does not have rights over any property, i.e. she cannot own anything. In fact, whatever she has with her too, i.e. her clothing, etc., is all regarded as the property of her owner. Therefore, If he gets married to his slave girl and gives her the 'Mahr' she cannot become the owner of it because she has no right of ownership. The 'Mahr' would bounce back to the owner of the slave girl and it would tantamount to giving the 'mahr' to himself. Hence, the owner would become the payer as well as the PAYEE of the 'mahr' which would only result in the mockery of the whole system of 'mahr'. It would be absolutely superflous to have such a marriage ceremony performed that makes a mockery of the 'mahr' system. Hence, the owner cannot get married to her while she remains a slave girl. However, if he sets her free, then he can get married to her on the basis of her having become a liberated woman.
Although the owner himself cannot get married to his slave woman, without giving her freedom, he can get her married to someone else. If he gets her married to someone else, then only her husband can now have intercourse with her and the owner's right of having intercourse with her comes to an end. All these facts prove that the slave girl does not become an instrument of sex; on the contrary, her honour is upheld, in that only one man is allowed to have intercourse with her JUST AS only one man (the husband) is allowed to have intercourse with his lawfully wedded wife.
Islam ensured that the slave girl's duties were not restricted merely to domestic chores but also gave her master permission to copulate with her. This concession created an atmosphere of love and harmony between the slave girl and her master. Islam thereby raised the status of the war captive-maidens close to that of wives. It was a psychological cure to her grief-stricken heart, being deprived of her family and thrown into the hands of a strange society.
- Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) enjoined his followers to treat the slaves kindly, gently, and, above all, to regard them as members of the family. In this way, they were made to feel wanted; which was far better than treating them as outcasts and leaving them to wander the streets of a strange society in a peniless, destitute condition. Such treatment would have ultimately forced them to take up evil occupations such as prostitution in the case of slave woman in order to fill their hungry stomachs. The First World War in 1914 was a clear reflection of the evils involved in setting captive women free to roars about in a strange society with strange surroundings. During that war, German and English women prisoners on either side were set free to roam the streets with no-one to feed them. The result was obvious that they resorted to other unrefined and uncivilised methods of income on the streets. Thus, it is evident that the Islamic treatment of women prisoners of war was conducive towards better social relations and led to the refinement of their overall social lives.
"If a slave woman becomes pregnant from her owner, and delivers his child, she automatically gets her freedom after the death of her master whose child she gave birth to.
Moreover, there are many wrongs and sins for which the liberation of a slave serves as a compensation and atonement. This was a further incentive for the extirpation of slavery. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam also taught that whosoever teaches good manners to his slave girl, adorns her with politeness and good education, then frees her and gets married to her, for him there is double recompense and reward. These encouraging teachings served as incentives towards the emancipation of slaves and slaves were liberated by the thousands.
Lastly, the answer for the question which was being asked by the scholars about the prisnors as slaves in present times, was also not convincing to me, coz turning war captives as slaves in old times was the least choice for the settlement of the prisnors in the society ,that was left with the Ameer ul Mumineen of that time. But to practice this thing in present times , when open practice of slavery virtually doesn't exist in todays world, then how Islam, which was the first to eridicate this practice can introduce it again .Quran only guide us how to deal with slaves ,doesn't say to initiate for the social illness which is almost finished. The ruler or the Ameer ul Mumineen always has a right to find any best choice that can suit to the prisnors and the state according to the time in such issues.
Last edited:
bons
Minister (2k+ posts)
Why do you see the doctor when you are ill or seek help from a lawyer for legal matters? Is your deen such a useless thing that you don't need any expert advice? You will go astray without any guidance. Pehle deen ke basic asool seekh lo phir khud Allah Taala rasta dikhaye ga.
abduttawwab
MPA (400+ posts)
