539
edits
Slavery in Islamic Law: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→In Islamic law: Added in a quote on slavery and rape in Islamic law form a scholar
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m (→In Islamic law: Added in a quote on slavery and rape in Islamic law form a scholar) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
The contradiction inherent in this passage is evident: despite the unspecified coercive measures, some of the women in question refused conversion and, consequently, the masters could not take full advantage of their services. If the only way to embrace Islam is pronouncing the declaration of faith, the conversion of a defiant woman may not be possible: it is not always feasible to force someone to utter the shahāda. '''According to a tradition transmitted on the authority of Hasan al-Basri, the Muslims used various devices to attain their objective: they turned the Zorastrian slave-girl toward the Ka‘ba, ordered her to pronounce the shahāda and to perform ablution. Her master then engaged in sexual relations''' after she had one menstruating period while in his house. Others hold that the master must teach the slave-girl to pray, to purify herself and to shave her private parts before any intercourse. The participation of the girl in this procedure is minimal, and this wording may be interpreted us a considerable lowering of the conversion requirements so that the girl becomes eligible for sexual intercourse as expeditiously as possible. Among the early traditionists, only '''a few were willing to go beyond this and allow sexual relations with a Zoroastrian slave-girl without insisting on at least a semblance of conversion'''. | The contradiction inherent in this passage is evident: despite the unspecified coercive measures, some of the women in question refused conversion and, consequently, the masters could not take full advantage of their services. If the only way to embrace Islam is pronouncing the declaration of faith, the conversion of a defiant woman may not be possible: it is not always feasible to force someone to utter the shahāda. '''According to a tradition transmitted on the authority of Hasan al-Basri, the Muslims used various devices to attain their objective: they turned the Zorastrian slave-girl toward the Ka‘ba, ordered her to pronounce the shahāda and to perform ablution. Her master then engaged in sexual relations''' after she had one menstruating period while in his house. Others hold that the master must teach the slave-girl to pray, to purify herself and to shave her private parts before any intercourse. The participation of the girl in this procedure is minimal, and this wording may be interpreted us a considerable lowering of the conversion requirements so that the girl becomes eligible for sexual intercourse as expeditiously as possible. Among the early traditionists, only '''a few were willing to go beyond this and allow sexual relations with a Zoroastrian slave-girl without insisting on at least a semblance of conversion'''. | ||
Shafi‘i's treatment of the issue is slightly different. Speaking of grown-up Zoroastrian or polytheist women taken into captivity, he maintains that no sexual relations with them are allowed before they embrace Islam without bringing up the question of converting them forcibly. If the female captives are minor but were taken captive with at least one of their parents, the ruling is the same. '''If, however, the girl was captured without her parents, or one of her parents embraced Islam, she is considered a Muslim and is coerced into embracing it''' (''nahkumu lahā bihukm al-Islām wa nujbiruhā ‘alayhi''). '''Once this happens, sexual relations with her are lawful.'''}} | Shafi‘i's treatment of the issue is slightly different. Speaking of grown-up Zoroastrian or polytheist women taken into captivity, he maintains that no sexual relations with them are allowed before they embrace Islam without bringing up the question of converting them forcibly. If the female captives are minor but were taken captive with at least one of their parents, the ruling is the same. '''If, however, the girl was captured without her parents, or one of her parents embraced Islam, she is considered a Muslim and is coerced into embracing it''' (''nahkumu lahā bihukm al-Islām wa nujbiruhā ‘alayhi''). '''Once this happens, sexual relations with her are lawful.'''}}Dr Jonathan A.C. Brown also admits: | ||
{{Quote|Brown, Jonathan A.C.. Slavery and Islam. Oneworld Publications. 8 Aug. 2019 (Kindle Locations 2207-2209).|The Shariah offered protection to both wives and slave-concubines, but it came not under the rubric of consent but that of harm. By definition, the crime of rape (i.e., forced zina) could not occur within a licit relationship.}} | |||
==Slave markets, harems, and eunuchs== | ==Slave markets, harems, and eunuchs== | ||
| Line 131: | Line 132: | ||
A number of hadiths relate anecdotes about Umar (the second caliph) and his son Ibn Umar, who was likewise a companion of the prophet, in relation to slave women and slave markets. Umar reportedly struck a slave woman for wearing a jilbab over her head because this was only to be worn by free believing women. Ibn Umar is reported to have routinely touched the breasts and buttocks of slave girls in the market when he wished to buy them. Imam Malik (d. 795 CE) reportedly complained of the slave-women of Medina going about with uncovered breasts. See [[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Slavery]] for the relevant hadith reports which have been graded sahih by various scholars. | A number of hadiths relate anecdotes about Umar (the second caliph) and his son Ibn Umar, who was likewise a companion of the prophet, in relation to slave women and slave markets. Umar reportedly struck a slave woman for wearing a jilbab over her head because this was only to be worn by free believing women. Ibn Umar is reported to have routinely touched the breasts and buttocks of slave girls in the market when he wished to buy them. Imam Malik (d. 795 CE) reportedly complained of the slave-women of Medina going about with uncovered breasts. See [[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Slavery]] for the relevant hadith reports which have been graded sahih by various scholars. | ||
In his book ''Slavery & Islam'', Jonathan Brown writes, "Despite the objection of some Muslim scholars like Shayrazi (d. 1193-4), it seems to have been routine in Islamic civilization for buyers at slave markets to press on the buttocks and breasts of potential ''jariyas'' [slave girls]. Sometimes buyers even examined the genitals of male or | In his book ''Slavery & Islam'', Jonathan Brown writes, "Despite the objection of some Muslim scholars like Shayrazi (d. 1193-4), it seems to have been routine in Islamic civilization for buyers at slave markets to press on the buttocks and breasts of potential ''jariyas'' [slave girls]. Sometimes buyers even examined the genitals of male or female slaves, though papyri of sale contracts from the 800s to 900s frequently include boiler-plate language suggesting they were not. Ultimately, slave women were sexually vulnerable and at the mercy of their masters."<ref>Jonathan Brown, ''Slavery & Islam'', Oneworld publications, 2019, p. 132</ref> | ||
In Islamic law, the 'awrah of a woman are the areas of her body which must be covered in the presence of non-mahrams (men other than close relatives). Jurists did not require slave-women to be covered like free Muslim women based on their interpretation of {{Quran|33|59}}, allowing a slave's hair, arms and part of her legs to be uncovered. Many even considered a slave woman's 'awrah to be only from her navel to her knees. Khaled Abou El Fadl covers the detailed opinions in his book, ''Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women''.<ref>Khaled Abou el Fadl, ''Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women'', 2001, pp. 525-526 and endnotes 123-129</ref> Oliver Leaman and Kecia Ali summarise the situation: "Khaled Abou El Fadl points out that jurists disagreed as to whether enslaved women's breasts constituted ''awrah'' and had to be covered in public."<ref>Oliver Leaman and Kecia Ali, ''Islam: The Key Concepts", 2010, London: Routledge, p. 14</ref> | In Islamic law, the 'awrah of a woman are the areas of her body which must be covered in the presence of non-mahrams (men other than close relatives). Jurists did not require slave-women to be covered like free Muslim women based on their interpretation of {{Quran|33|59}}, allowing a slave's hair, arms and part of her legs to be uncovered. Many even considered a slave woman's 'awrah to be only from her navel to her knees. Khaled Abou El Fadl covers the detailed opinions in his book, ''Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women''.<ref>Khaled Abou el Fadl, ''Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women'', 2001, pp. 525-526 and endnotes 123-129</ref> Oliver Leaman and Kecia Ali summarise the situation: "Khaled Abou El Fadl points out that jurists disagreed as to whether enslaved women's breasts constituted ''awrah'' and had to be covered in public."<ref>Oliver Leaman and Kecia Ali, ''Islam: The Key Concepts", 2010, London: Routledge, p. 14</ref> | ||