-
Classification For "Right Hand Possesses"
The verse in Surah Nur in the Quran that states that men ” cannot show their privates except to their wives, and right hand posess ”
I have a question to pose for this.
Look at the drastic jump in maritial status. From wives, that have to literally avoid you until you give them a proper marriage agreement, jumping all the way to simple ” right hand posess “, which literally provides no context for it’s status!
Keep in mind, ” right hand posess ” refers to the REGULAR female servants that did labour for freedom.
” Right hand possess ” were women whom you had no marital tie to, whom’s only purpose was to earn their freedom, right?
Then why do we use this term to describe whom men could have sex with?
” right hand posess ” literally implies that men just took a random slave women, and had sex with her, without marriage.
Zina in the context of female slaves was excused?
Not only that, this literally makes it seem like men saw these women as nothing but labouring prostitutes. No marriage, no nothing. Sees her as someone whos only job it is to provide labour and have sex with. No honour of marriage. Just like we see nowadays!
Not to mention how much this degrades this poor slave women. First, she’s seen as nothing but a labouring slave to everyone. Next second, she’s being used for pleasures just to be forgotten about again!
How is it that, we went from stressing marriage before having sex , to letting men get away with literal promiscuity of having sex without commitment, with slave women?
Does marriage even serve value or divinity in islam at all?
-
21 Replies
-
Classification For "Right Hand Possesses"
updated 2 years, 8 months ago
4 Members
·
21
Replies
-
And while we are on the subject, could we not find any appropriate titles to call the women men had sex with, instead of ” right hand possess ” or ” slave girls “( she is a WOMAN, not a GIRL! )?
Imagine what backlash we would get, if we just called wives ” women “. We’d get comments like ” is that all her relation is to you? ” ” do you even care to show respect?”
But for slave women? ” right hand possess is just fine! We don’t care about this lowly women whom we still will use for our benefit!”
Why is there not a title for slave women you had these intimate relations with?
-
Please see:
-
I’m a little confused sir.
How does one having the status of a captive make any of the actions made towards these women excusable?
It’s not a maritial status, not a mehram status. It’s just someone who has lost their home.
Just because someone lost their homes, people could do with them what was deemed haraam before?
-
السلام علیکم
No action was made towards captive women unless it was their own wish. The Quran made this quite clear in Surah Muhammad, verse 4, when it said, “فإما منا بعد وإما فداء,” that after the war, captives were either to be set free as an act of grace or by asking for ransom. There was no other choice: no killing and no enslavement. Islam did not allow for any new slaves to be made. But it also didn’t just ask the Arabs to free the ones it inherited immediately either. Instead, it followed a more gradual and wiser approach: to attack the problem’s root, that man can be higher than his fellow man due to differences in skin colour, race, wealth, class, sex etc. So, it threw out the names عبد and أمة and رب, the Arabic words for slave boy and slave girl and lord respectively and replaced them with فتى and فتاة and سيد/مولى, Arabic for lad and lass and chief respectively to root out this slave and master mentality.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2552
The Prophet continuously ordered the believers to clothe these people with what they clothed themselves and to feed them what they themselves ate. They were supposed to test these people and grant them their freedom if they proved that they were able to provide for themselves by earning an amount for the “owner” which they mutually decided upon. Believers were encouraged again and again to spend on them to grant them their freedom to earn Allah’s favour and to wash away their sins. See for example Surah al-Baqarh, verse 177 and Surah al-Tauba, verse 60.
So, in reality, the captives were quite impressed with the Muslims’ behaviours towards them and this in fact resulted in many of them embracing the message of God.
-
-
Also I’m sorry for not making myself clear again.
I would just like to know, weather the ” right hand possess ” that the Quran states permissible intimacy with, were married to the man or not.
Because there are so many sources that make it seem like the two parties did not have to be married, and it was a-ok.
-
Scholars dispute this. So, for example, Maulana Abdul Karim Athari would argue that they had to get married based on Surah Nisa, verse 25. Leena El-Ali, for example, also puts forward Surah al-Noor, verse 33, arguing that مكاتبت should be taken to mean the contract of marriage due to the context. Others would argue that society recognized slave-girls as being married to their owners and therefore, no marriage ritual was performed. I am still thinking over it. I would request the moderators to tell us which view Ghamidi Sahab agrees with and the reasons for siding with that view.
-
It makes no sense for a slave woman to be ” automatically married ” to her ” master ” upon ” ownership “.
No engagement. No lowering if gaze before hand. No official marriage. Just run through her like she’s some sort of animal, does that even make sense?
Otherwise it makes no sense for men to lower their gaze and ask free women for hand in marriage. They could just approach free women they same way they did slave women.
If slave women were ” automatically ” married to their masters upon ownership, what on earth is the concept of zina there for?
Otherwise we would allow boyfriend and girlfriend relationships.
Being married upon ownership just sounds nonsensical to me.
I hope moderators provide ghamdi saahib’s POW soon.
-
seriously on one hand we have stories of prophet PBUH stoning adulterers.
On the other hand we have people sanely saying ” since Maria RA was a slave, prophet PBUH didn’t have to marry her before impreganting her ” Astaghfitrulah!
-
How does being a servant equal sex without commitment?
Isn’t that what we forbid?
How does just being a slave allow a master to pursue her without a marriage? Didn’t we call that zina?
-
السلام عليكم
Someone else also thought about it on a similar line as you here, but I’m sorry, I don’t understand this argument. How was it sex without commitment when the “owner” provided for the woman and any potential child? To be clear, I am not siding with one view or the other. I am just saying that we have to think about this with honesty and without the emotional biases attached with labels.
And yes, some scholars like the Maulana I mentioned before, said that this was indeed zina. Leena El-Ali also argues that البغاء in Surah al-Noor, verse 33, was referring to zina with their masters and not prostitution. So, you can read different views and agree with the one you think holds the most weight and makes the most sense.
-
I’m sorry I have an argument to make against a point you bring up.
How was it sex without commitment when the “owner” provided for the woman and any potential child?
Answer: there was no marriage. He ” owned ” his way to right to her fertility. There was no marital agreement.
Also, so do some modern day boyfriends. They impregnate their girlfriend, and the also provide for the baby and the girlfriend. But somehow THATS forbidden and haraam, and the equivalent that is between Slave woman and Master is allowed?
-
Stoning is not a Quranic punishment for adulterers. The reports of stoning, if they are true, must be referring to rape and not just adultery.
Some scholars did say that the Prophet married her. I heard Mufti Abu Layth mention, if I remember correctly, that one of the earliest accounts of the Prophet’s life mentions Maria as a wife of the Prophet and not her slave.
However, I am still not clear as to what it is that causes relations with a slave to be so wrong. Is it the title “slave?” That is, even if a slavegirl lived exactly the same life as a wife but was called “slave” by society, you would think relations wrong? Or do you think that the core issue is of consent? Or is it a different issue. I am sorry, but can you highlight the principle which leads to this being outright wrong?
-
Thank you for correcting me on the stoning info
Sorry I didn’t make my misconception clear.
I’m both bothered by her title in society and by her ” spouse “, and the way she is able to be pursued.
It makes no sense, that the permission to have sex with a servant is by PAYING for her, and just mere OWNERSHIP Paying your way to permissibility? Owning your way to permissibility? Who’s ever heard of such a thing?
What happened to something called marriage, something that people are sinned for if they have sex without it?
Being called a ” slave ” whilst engaging in sexual relations is the equivalent of a man sleeping with a woman, yet to society he says he has never met her before.
Yes, the title of slave even whilst ” married ” to her master bothers me.
I have nothing wrong with slaves having relations with masters. As a matter of fact, I’m appalled by the way they are shunned, even whilst an intimate partner of her master.
-
Also to add to the Maria RA issue, what if she was not a wife, but was a ” right hand possess? “
Would out prophet PBUH, whom had stressed for us to keep our gazes low before marriage, to avoid zina, who had literally avoided that for all his other marriages, pursue Maria RA, with the petty excuse that upon ownership he had the ability to?
-
السلام عليكم
I think we need to first define “marriage.” What constitutes a marriage according to you? So that we can see whether a slave-“owner” fulfilled the conditions or not.
-
Marriage, to me, and the entirety of the ummah, is the commitment made between the man and woman.
The man and the woman both come to an agreement that they will serve the other spouse their rights in this relationship, as husband and wife.
If I sound confusing, it is the agreement of ” kubul hain ” three times, which ties man and woman together as a married couple.
But in the slave woman and master scenario? It seems like the ” ownership ” is all it takes for this man to pursue the slave woman!
what about the ” kubul hain”‘s? What about the separate commitment that the master must make, so that he can separate this woman from ordinary slave girls?
By saying that they are married just through ownership, makes the woman look like a happy meal! All-in one!
In the married state, does she still need to work for her freedom?
-
السلام عليكم
Which rights does a slave-“owner” not fulfill with regards to a woman he established marital ties with? Keep in mind that these terms: slave-“owner,” slave-girl, I am using to make myself clear. The Prophet explicitly forbade these like I have previously mentioned. Look, please do not think that I am trying to defend one argument over the other. I want answers as much as you do but above that I want to employ the right method. I, I’m pretty sure like you, don’t want to jump to conclusions due to any labels.
The iterations of “kabul hain”s three times is symbolic gesture. I don’t think three times is necessary because, if I remember correctly, Ghamidi Sahab once performed the ايجاب و قبول ceremony by asking the bride and the groom just once. The moderators can correct me on this.
Why do you think only the “owner” will pursue the woman? Why not the other way around? Due to their immoral upbringing by society, these weren’t all chaste women. Also, what if these relations went back way before the reestablishment of Islam by the Prophet? We have the West as an example. There, neither the woman nor the man owes anything to his “partner.” If, for example, the message of Islam was embraced there, would it be possible or advisable to start whipping people a 100 strikes immediately? Would it be possible to end these types of relationships immediately? Or would a gradual process be adopted?
Look, this wasn’t an ideal condition. It may have been an extremely poor condition. The men probably did think of these women as you have described. But it wasn’t possible to fix it with a snap of the fingers either. What was needed was probably a psychological change which the Quran did push for by continuously repeating, “بعضكم من بعض.” That is, all you women and men are from each other.
Lastly, I don’t know whether the woman needed to work for her freedom or not. The freedom of those in bondage probably depended on the piety of their “owners” and that is why God focused primarily on the piety of the Muslims. It was and is the cure of most societal problems.
-
-
Honestly this issue is infuriating.
People treat it as ” la dee da nothing’s wrong with it “, but there’s so much that’s immoral, I’m amused by people defending it.
-
Hania
May I ask you what do u know about slaves and slavery in human history?
Reason I am asking because u r comparing very different concepts of free vs slaves. Marriage with a woman and owning a slave woman r poles apart concepts.
Brother Sadiq,
surah Muhammad 47:4 doesn’t explicitly deny taking slaves neither it abolished slavery. Historically, can not be proven. Slaves existed till fall of Mughal empire in South Asia and much later in African Muslim states. To say no one understood 47:4 till 21st century is not academically sound or morally appropriate.
It’s, however, also true that muslims acquired slaves from slave markets more than capturing during wars.
-
السلام عليكم
Faraz Bhai, I fear discussing Surah Muhammad, verse 4, here with you will sidetrack this thread. Allow me to respond with direct messages.
-
Ok, sure
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
The discussion "Classification For "Right Hand Possesses"" is closed to new replies.
