No, your post referred to verse 24:33 to suggest that one must sign a contract with a female servant before having physical relations with her. This is not true and there is nothing to suggest from that verse. Simple. Accept it as it is, brother. Please bring some other proof about signing contracts, otherwise it stands as your imagination. Thanks. The only thing I have heard of is that one´s physical relations with a slave shouldn´t be kept in secret, and should be known to others.
As for the rest of your post, I have already presented it myself in a post that slaves are to be treated well, and even freeing them seems to be an encouraged act.
I further researched on this topic and Yes I did make a mistake the contract here is for women seeking freedom, But I don't accept the view that you can rape your sex slave and neither is there any proof of the prophet allowing anyone the permission to do so. There is one hadith in bukhari but it is ambiguous as we don't know if the consent of the female slaves was there or not.
Sorry, I don´t have time for the video. Please provide the transcript so that we can discuss.
I don´t have time to respond to your whole post, mainly the parts directed at what I am or what I am not, but I will stick to the argument that you have provided, and read this:
May God´s curse be upon him whosoever does human trafficking and has anything to do with it. Happy? I can´t go beyond it.
You seem to suggest that slavery is only permitted through wars. Erm,... really? Please help me out, because from what I know, slavery is allowed otherwise as will, which is the mainstream view anyway.
First of all, I think it will be interesting to share that it has been around or more than a year now that I read from five to 15 verses on daily basis with the commentary of Muhammad Asad. He is an excellent scholar, and I have referred to his point of view already in a post in this thread. However, his interpretations (and NOT reference, which he of course can´t fabricate on his own) are poles apart to the mainstream views due to which his books are banned in Saudi Arabia, as far as I know, as irrelevant as it may be.
Regardless, let us move on to the main issue......
Firstly, if I can read the term alright, the practice that seems to have been abrogated by the verse, or at least by the interpretation given, is that of
Muta, known as "Temporary marriage", which is a totally different concept and has been banned according to the Sunni Islam.
Secondly, there´s an online
Tafseer available which is based on the
Tafseer ibn Abbas, and it nowhere mentions anything such in its commentary of verse 24:33......
"(And let those who cannot find a match) those who are unable to marry (keep chaste till
Allah give them independence by His grace) until
Allah gives them sufficiency from His provision. This was revealed about Huwaytib
Ibn 'Abd al-'Uzza who refused to agree to give one of his slaves a chance to buy out his freedom. (And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation)) to buy out their freedom, (write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them) if you know they are righteous and keep their promise, (and bestow upon them) upon all people (of the wealth of
Allah which He hath bestowed upon you) so that they can make an agreement for their emancipation; it is also said that here the master is encouraged to forgive a third of what has been agreed upon with his slave who wants to buy out his freedom. Then the following was revealed about 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy and his host because they used to force their female slaves to commit adultery in order to earn money from them and have more slaves as result of the children they bore as a consequence, and so
Allah forbade them from doing this and made such an act forbidden: (Force not your slave girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world) from what they earn from working as prostitutes and also from the children they give birth to, (if they would preserve their chastity) if they want to remain chaste. (And if one force them) and if one force these slave girl to commit adultery, (then (unto them), after their compulsion) and repentance, (Lo!
Allah will be Forgiving) He forgives them, (Merciful) and He will show mercy towards them after they die."
Link:
http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.as...No=33&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2
Regardless of that, you can choose to overlook this and move on to the next chapter......
It´s very difficult to conclude anything from it for me, or even debate, because of the fact that the text clearly seems to be incomplete. The start of what you have provided goes like, "...save what your right hands own... " What does it mean? Could it again be, in its whole context, that all women are forbidden except the wives and the female servants - the ones that your right hand possess? Could it be that
al-Qushayri too seems to be hinting at the prohibition of
Muta?
A lot stronger reference, I must admit. The words are clearer and understandable. Good find. But what is Maududi implying by "For the time being"? Anyway, I have found his commentary of the Book online and the commentary on chapter 24 nowhere mentions these words.....
http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/24/index.html
.... Or are they?
In fact, I have found something that sounds your whole argument packing! Here´s Maududi´s commentary of verse 23:5 to 23:7......
"Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in ode's possession, i.e. slave-girls.
Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relations with one's slave-girl as with one's wife. the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately. Some modern commentators, who dispute the permissibility of having sexual relations with the slave-girl, argue from
An-Nisa' (IV) : 25 to prove that one can have sexual relations with a slave-girl only after entering wedlock with her, because that verse enjoins that if a person cannot afford to marry a free Muslim woman, he may marry a Muslim slave-girl. But these commentators have a strange characteristic: they accept a part of a verse if it suits them, but conveniently ignore another part of the same verse if it goes against their wish and whim. The law about marrying the slave-girls as enunciated in IV :25 reads: "....you may marry them with the permission of their guardians and give them their fair dowries." Obviously the person under reference here is not the master of the slave girl himself but the person who cannot afford to marry a free Muslim woman, and therefore , wants to marry a slave-girl, who is in the possession of another person. For if the question had been of marrying one's own slave-girl, who would then be the "guardian" whose permission would have to be sought? Then, the interpretation they give of this verse contradicts other verses dealing with the same subject in the
Qur'an."
Link:
http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/23/index.html#sdfootnote7sym
And here was me wondering how on earth Maududi on earth could have believed in lighter, liberalistic interpretations..... Sigh! Perish the thought!
Wait, wait, wait,.... the great scholar says the following commenting on verse 4:24.....
"That is, those women who become prisoners of war, while their unbelieving husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties are broken by the fact that they have come from the War Zone into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to whether such a woman is lawful, if her husband is also taken a prisoner along with her. Imam Abu Hanifah and those of his way of thinking are of the opinion that the marriage tie of such a pair would remain intact but Imam Malik and Shafi 'i, are of the opinion that it would also break.
As there exist many misunderstandings in the minds of the people concerning the slave-girls taken as prisoners of war, the following should be carefully studied:
(1) It is not lawful for a soldier to have conjugal relations with a prisoner of war as soon as she falls into his hands. The Islamic Law requires that all such women should be handed over to the government, which has the right to set them free or to ransom them, or to exchange them with the Muslim prisoners in the hands of the enemy, or distribute them among the soldiers. A soldier can cohabit only with that woman who has been formally given to him by the government.
(2) Even then, he shall have to wait for one monthly course before he can cohabit with her in order to ensure whether she is pregnant or not; otherwise it shall be unlawful to cohabit with her before delivery.
(3) It does not matter whether the female prisoner of war belongs to the people of the Book or not. Whatever her religion, she becomes lawful for the man to whom she is formally given.
(4) None but the one to own the slave-girl is given has the right to "touch her." The offspring of such a woman from his seed shall be his lawful children and shall have the same legal rights as are given by the Divine Law to the children from one's loins. After the birth of a child she cannot be sold as a slave-girl and shall automatically become free after her master's death.
(5) If the master marries his slave-girl with another man, he forfeits his conjugal rights over her, but retains other rights such as service from her.
(6) The maximum limit of four has not been prescribed for slave-girls as in the case of wives for the simple reason that the number of female prisoners of war is unpredictable. The lack of limit does by no means provide a license for the well-to-do people to buy any number of slave-girls for licentious purposes.
(7) The proprietary rights over a slave, male or female, as given to a person by the government are transferable like all other legal proprietary rights.
(8) The handing over of the proprietary rights over a slave-girl to a man formally by the government makes her as much lawful for him as the giving of the baud of a free woman to a man by her parents or guardian through
nikah (marriage ceremony). Therefore, there is no reason why a man who does not hold marriage in detestation should hold sexual intercourse with a slave-girl in detestation.
(9) When once the government hands over the female prisoner of war to someone, it has no right whatever to take her back from him, just as the parent or guardian has no right to take back a woman after she is handed over to a man through
nikah."
Link:
http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/4/index.html#sdfootnote45sym
So then, the whole theory is now killed! Maududi now explains the proper way to do "it". Very helpful explanation. I have taken note of it. So the reference you have provided is right, but that is about those who don´t do "it" properly. The above tells you how to do "it". I hope that it´s now clarified.
As far as this whole issue is concerned, that reference of
Ibn Kathir doesn´t one bit relate to our topic of having physical relations with them!
In his commentary of verse 4:24,
Ibn Kathir writes.....
"(except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this
Ayah was revealed. (Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess).
Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.'' This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his
Sahih."
Link:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=684&Itemid=59
Lastly, here follows the most importantly point: okay, I might be a liar, fabricator etc. for having made up all of the above, whereas the reality is that it was allowed "Only for those times" (a phrase so famous!) and is forbidden now, but I still object to it, even if it was allowed for a period of 30 minutes in the history of mankind. Having sex with the captives of war, especially with married women, is just plain disgusting! Thanks.
Well put, but another thing I might add is that not telling the absolute truth about your religion is also a transgression on two accounts: 1. You mislead the people not belonging to your religion into thinking that "These are all misunderstandings", 2. You hide the true message of your religion. Thirdly, it leaves people like me to spends hours to dig out the original truth that people want not to hear and reveal. It´s headache man! Have mercy on me. I think cream rolls with tea will do for me now....
Have a blessed evening, you all
.
2
