-
A Child As Barter For Female Slave Freedom
Imagine being so petty, that you still declare a slave woman you have married as ENSLAVED. They are still considered a ” right hand posess ” and ” slave girl ” even though she is providing for The man like a wife.
Why is this? Why is she still enslaved, even though she married someone?
To make things worse, the only way she is ” guarenteed ” freedom, is if she gives birth!
Imagine counting on your fertility to gain your freedom. Does that not sound the least distrubing to anyone?
Does it even seem sane for this poor woman to barter a BABY for her freedom?
What if she’s barren? She will just be enslaven forever?
Was this supposed to be a marriage, or a means for business?
Shes married to him, for crying out loud! Should that not be enough for her to earn her freedom? Nope!
She has to barter a literal child for her freedom , because this wasnt a marriage, it was a BUSINESS TRADE!
Was this even a marriage? Or was this a unecessary way for her to ” earn her freedom “, even though that should not be necessary!
A man impregnating a slave woman to assure her freedom sounds ridiculous.
If he was so concerned about her obtaining her freedom, he would have given set her free right after he married her, not set up this absurd bartering requirement!
It’s absurd, that under the excuse of ” you didn’t have my baby, so you’re still enslaved “, he can basically use her for whatever he wants! Take full advantage of her! But if she dares asks for her inheritance or freedom, he goes, ” where’s my child? “!
If she won’t get inheritance or freedom for something she cannot control, then she shouldn’t even bother serving this man!
This is the pettiest concept I have ever heard!
Why are we so ok with this?
-
7 Replies
-
A Child As Barter For Female Slave Freedom
updated 3 years, 1 month ago
2 Members
·
7
Replies
-
السلام علیکم
I remember someone else asking the same thing here. Where did you get this information?
First of all, I think we need to clarify how deep the social stigma against slaves was at the time. Maybe the example of Zaid bin Haritha and Zainab bint Jahsh will do. Despite the fact that Zaid had been freed by the Prophet and that the Prophet himself had adopted him, him being called Zaid bin Muhammad, despite having married at the request of the Prophet himself, Zainab could not let go of the fact that he was a freed slave! Zaid then divorced her because he could not bear the insult he felt when she talked to him. Someone as pious as Zainab bint Jahsh whom the Prophet then married. This was the depth of the social stigma associated with freed slaves, you cannot imagine the stigma associated with those who were still enslaved. So, matters weren’t as simple as people assume nowadays due to lack of context. Also, the title “slave” was removed. The Prophet had ordered that the tile of lad, lass, or boy be used instead of slave and the title of chief be used instead of lord or master. These are the very titles one would use for any “free” person (lad, lass and boy) and for anyone higher in authority (chief). So, no one was supposed to call them slaves anymore.
I’m sorry I don’t know where you get the rest of your information from because I don’t remember anything like that in the Quran. Also, the Quranic way for a slave (male or female) to earn his or her freedom is believed to be مكاتبة, that is, that the enslaved (also, remember that these were not made slaves in the Islamic revival by the Prophet, but rather inherited by the Muslim community from their ancestors. No new slaves were supposed to be made!), the enslaved would earn an amount mutually decided upon by them and their “owners” and pay it and be free. The Muslims were supposed to help them in this and spend on them as a means of earning God’s favour. Also, they were supposed to free a slave when they had committed a grave sin.
In your post, you make it seem like he was the one who was going to be giving his inheritance. I can’t see how a man who has passed away could himself give inheritance to her. Whatever happens after him is not in his control. But then again, scholars like Abdul Karim Athari say that the bondwoman will get inheritance as a wife of the man, so there’s that.
Also, you write “if she dares ask for her… freedom…” Freedom to do what? Not even the title “slave” remained. She was almost “free” to do whatever she wants. You see the Prophet was present in those times. There are reports, I do not know whether they are sound or not, maybe the moderators can help us there, that the people were hesitant when dealing with women when the Prophet was in their midst because they thought that if they, the women, complained to the Prophet, God would immediately send down revelation for their support. There are reports, for example, that a slave-“owner” was beating up the lad and suddenly heard the Prophet say that God had more power over the man than the man had over the lad. Terrified, the man immediately set the lad free, upon which the Prophet told him that if he hadn’t set him free, he would have burnt in Hell! There are reports that any slave-girl in Medina could take the Prophet by his hand wherever she wished until the Prophet fulfilled her requests. In those circumstances, no one could dare wrong any slave, boy or girl. If they did, they would set them free as recompense for their iniquity.
However, this barter stuff, can you please tell me where you heard or read this stuff?
-
JazakAllah for the explanation.
believe that I have read the thread you might reference seeing before, and I have the similar questions to the individual.
For the bartering of children, it is supposedly a condition for her to guarantee her freedom.
According to scholars, slave women in a martial relationship with their master received all the rights of a wife ” except for inheritance “, why? Why is this?
Scholars also go on to saying that she is only a rightful to inheritance, ” only if she bears her master’s child “, or becomes an ummul waleed.
That is why I ask, why must she have to count in her fertility, to guarantee her freedom and right to inheritance?
I would like to point out the comment on
” I can’t see how a man who has passed away could himself give inheritance to her.”
There could be some sort of will, that the man could include the woman in.
-
Also, are you sure that the information about Zainab bint Jahsh is true?
Did she still keep this stigma against free slaves whilst married to our Prophet PBUH?
If so, it means that she married him for the status of Mothers of Believers, Instead of being a role model.
She got rid of this stigma right?
-
Regarding Zainab bint Jahsh, I wrote too much without sufficient knowledge. I am sorry. That was how I remembered the whole affair, having read it quite a while back. For a more accurate description, you can read how Ghamidi Sahab explains it in a footnote of Surah Ahzab, verse 37:
https://javedahmedghamidi.org/#!/quran?chapter=33¶graph=1&type=Ghamidi
If you have trouble reading Urdu, you can switch the language to English by clicking the “En/Ur” option right next to the Arabic toggle.
However, this still shows that despite the love and affection showed by the Prophet, Zaid still felt social stigma against himself probably due to him facing it for years by people around him.
-
“There are reports that any slave-girl in Medina could take the Prophet by his hand wherever she wished until the Prophet fulfilled her requests.”
What kind of requests were these?
-
The report I read didn’t mention any detail. It probably meant to convey the freedom with which they could approach the Prophet and how the Prophet was accessible to them. These requests could have included something they needed, a complaint against someone, advice etc.
-
-
السلام عليكم
Sorry for the late response, just had a surgery.
What you call “bartering of children,” who made this a criterion? I just wanted to know the source of this criterion. If, for example, scholars inform us of this criterion, what do they present as their evidence? And if, for example, they present very reasonable evidence, then why is it a cause of concern? This would just mean that God paved another way for a slave-girl’s freedom. If she wanted to be in a marital relationship with her “owner,” conceiving a child automatically ended her “owned” status. I think you are looking at it differently. I think, you are thinking that the “owner” would coerce the girl or woman to mother a child for her freedom. No one encouraged coercion. I think if this way of freedom was really there, it was looked at like this: if an “owner” establishes marital relations with the girl or woman and she mothers a child, she can no longer be considered “owned.” Of course, this wasn’t the only way of earning one’s freedom. The person could just use the primary way of مكاتبة.
I don’t know whether the slave-girl was entitled to inheritance or not. I talked to Maulana Abdul Mannan Athari and according to him she was entitled to inheritance. But I don’t know anything further.
She didn’t have to rely on her fertility. Like I said, she could just use مكاتبة. However, you talk of fertility as if it is something rare. I’m pretty sure it is the other way around.
Lastly, of course the man could include these women in his will.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
