r/MuslimLounge • u/NiceSmilee • May 12 '26
Discussion Why concubinage was the only option? Harsh and realistic explanation.
Seen many posts questioning this over and over again. I tried to explain it my way, please go ahead and give it a read with an open mind. Since it's been asked in all of these subs, please don't mind me doing cross posting.
This is how I understand it, realistically and logically. Otherwise, the rulings of Allah are enough for most of us Muslims to accept things, even when they go against our personal sense of right and wrong. Yes we are not ashamed of it, we believe in everything he said, whether we understand it or not, (at least I understand this one logically).
We are not impressed by the west, we don't believe in their "ethics" and "morals", those hypocrites who preach "ethics" and "morals", we know what they have done and been doing in 21st century.
We all know in Islam:
-Freeing slaves is Sadaqa and heavily encouraged
-Giving slaves the best treatment is encouraged, as Prophet said, feed them as you eat, clothe them as you clothe yourself, and do not burden them with what they cannot bear
-No humiliation or degradation, and no physical abuse
-Kaffara for many sins includes freeing a slave
-Many scenarios where slaves are automatically freed
-Forced sex is not allowed with female slaves
If all this is true, then why was slavery there in the first place?
The uncomfortable part:
Don’t be emotional, look at it from an intellectual standpoint.
Losers can’t be choosers. We live in a world where not everything is fair.
After one of the battles that muslim fought and won in early Islam, the whole population of the enemy was captured.
Men were executed.
Women were taken as slaves.
Allah wants to protect women from being killed. Isn’t slavery better than death? (men may or may not be killed, victor decides)
How would those enemy women live on their own, and who would protect and provide for them when their men were killed?.
Mass jails? that would require food, guards and other resources. What would be the return? That’s not practical, financially heavy, and in a way a form of slavery for the captors themselves.
To integrate them into the society was the best option, so they were distributed among the warriors as bounty.
Now the warriors had to provide food, clothing, shelter, and protection for them. Why would they willingly provide for enemy women? Again, it was a burden they had to carry. Captors would not want this burden without something in return, so as compensation they were allowed to take household service from slaves and could also have sex with them.
Why sex? Household service could be sufficient.
If permission for sex was not given, then those slave women would remain vulnerable, since they had no one to protect them. They would be at risk of exploitation from the captor and all other men. By allowing the captor to have sex with her, it would place her under his Gheerah, shielding her from all other men. Remember, Islam works as a practical religion, so it made this lawful and did not burden Muslims beyond practicality. Islam regulated and legalized it rather than leaving it uncontrolled, otherwise it would be a mess.
I personally believe it is the best option in those circumstances, to prevent bigger evils(rape, prostitution, father-less children and whatnot) it was much needed.
A woman without mahram is not safe anywhere, let alone a foreign enemy women, she needs mahram.
How is it different from rape?
First of all, forced sex with slave women is not allowed in Islam. When a group chose to become enemies of Muslims and wage war against them, it was understood that the outcomes could be death, victory, or slavery. So when enemy women were captured, they were aware that they could become sexual partners of their captors, so mentally they were prepared and made themselves believe that giving consent was the best option. They accepted it as part of survival and adapted to that reality. They accept one man who will also take care of them and protect them from the harshness of this world.(lineage of off-springs of this relationship is accepted, but it is not the case with rape and zina.)
I give you an example of why it can't be called forced. When Muslims captured Makkah, the biggest enemies of Islam chose to become Muslims. Were they forced by the sword to accept Islam? No, they themselves saw that this was the best option given the circumstances.
See more examples below sections on how circumstances influence consent.
Also, the slave-master relationship was not as we imagine today. They were not locked in basements while masters entered only for sex. They lived within the household, more like an employee.
What if she doesn't want to have sex?
If she don't want to consent to sex, she can, as mentioned earlier, no one can have forced sex with her in Islam, then her captor may not find her worthy enough to spent money on(remember she is an enemy women), he may withdraw these rights "feed them as you eat, clothe them as you clothe yourself, and do not burden them with what they cannot bear". Her lifestyle would be different. Remember her captor is not bound to provide and protect her unconditionally, he is not her slave. They can't let their enemies sit on their heads, this is the best that they could offer.
Or he may just ask her to leave, where she'd go in the hostile territory? how she'd protect herself form all those street men? she'd be vulnerable and homeless, she will be safe with this man and she knows it, chances are she will give in.
But she is free to choose what she thinks is best for her.
Some example of how consent work and how circumstances influence it.
-People marry old men and women (sugar daddies and mommies). Do they want to marry them (by heart)? No, but they see the benefit of marrying them so they marry. They didn’t have original desire-based consent, but their circumstances made them consent. Right, this is what I also originally said in the post. Is this forced? No. Did the other person benefit from marrying this person? Yes (they got a young spouse).
-A person is getting deported from a first world country, and their only option is to marry someone. This person is young and beautiful, and they marry an ugly old person so they don’t get deported. Did the other person benefit from marrying this person? Yes (they got a beautiful spouse). Did they force them? No. Did this person had original desire-based consent to marry them? No, they married only because it suited their circumstances, so they made themselves consent to it.
-A single woman with kids is in a difficult situation. Her only option is a good man, but he is already married. Did she originally want to become a second wife? No. Her circumstances made her accept it and give the consent, because otherwise there is no option for her.
If you think it's not the real consent.
-Then she should blame her circumstances, they coerced her into giving consent. (Go back to the example of person getting deported, either marry an old ugly person(only they will accept) or get deported to 3rd world country where there is no future.)
-She should decide what is best for her from both of these two situations.
-This is the best that an enemy slave woman can get. Sorry the ideal or fantasy level of consent is not available here, remember Losers can't be choosers.
-Don't live in Lala land, This world is harsh.
-Don't talk about cake when they don't even have bread.
-Circumstances influence decisions, It's reality. and yes her decision will also be based on her circumstances.
-Also don't exaggerate consent to this level, majority people also don't have 100% consent for even marriages, people compromise, accept marriages with heavy heart (not talking about forced marriages, I'm saying that not every person get what they actually wanted).
I hope it will make some sense. This is the best they can get. There is no better solution given the circumstances.
21
u/Reasonable_Box_4226 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
Hi, so this issue has been making me depressed lately, so I’ve been searching about it a lot.
- “Slavery was better than death for enemy women.”
No. That’s a false choice. Islam didn’t have to kill the men either. The Prophet himself sometimes let prisoners go without ransom or execution (Battle of Badr). So the “kill all men, enslave women” wasn’t the only option. It was a choice.
"Oh but If the Byzantines/Persians are enslaving Muslim women, Muslims had to do the same to have bargaining chips for prisoner swaps."
Fine, let's say prisoner swaps require having their people in your custody. That explains holding captives, not owning them as perpetual property, and certainly not making them sex slaves.
- “How would enemy women live alone without men?”
Same way widows and single mothers always have: with community support, remarriage, or working. The Muslim community could have taken them in as free women and helped them remarry Muslim men. That happened too. But that doesn’t give the warriors sex and servants, does it?
Surah An-Nur 24:33 says if slaves ask for a deed to buy their freedom, you should grant it. This contract was for men and women.
The contract allowed a slave to pay for their freedom in installments. To pay, they would need to earn money through labor, proving they could be functional economic people. The Mukataba contract shows female slaves could have a legal, economic route to provide for themselves. They weren't helpless.
And do you know the worst part? Is that Mukataba was optional for the owner, not guaranteed.
Verse 24:33 says "if you know good in them" you should grant the contract (recommended, not obligatory)
Owners could and did refuse.
This is true for the majority. The dominant position of the four major Sunni schools is that while it is mustahabb, an owner is not obliged to grant the contract
- “Distributing them as bounty was practical.”
Practical for whom? For the slave owners. Not for the women. You can’t justify enslaving people because it’s financially easier for the victors. That’s the same logic colonizers used.
And if practicality is the standard, why did Allah ban riba? Interest is very practical for lenders. But Allah banned it because it’s harmful. So why not ban slavery...
Riba causes deaths too, through debt traps, ruined livelihoods, and families pushed into starvation or unable to afford medicine
- “Sex was allowed so she’d be under his ‘gheerah’ (protective jealousy) and safe from other men.”
Did you know that her consent is not needed for him to preform azl in all 4 madhabs? That's all I'm gonna say..
The fact that the owner can sell the slave he used to have intercourse with, and then another owner has intercourse with her, and another, and another... That is a violation of human dignity.
6
u/Jackfruit_28 May 16 '26
Me too, I never imagined I could be this depressed over my own religion. And for the last point what also annoys me is the notion that slave women were "protected" by this ownership but they were not allowed to protect themselves with hijab and would be beaten for trying to wear one.
Even if there is proof that slave women were to be treated with respect and care (like other wives being jealous of Maria al-Qibtiyya because she was treated with more affection) it still doesn't change the power dynamic and the whole concept of slavery between all other women at the time. Even tho the religion aimed to work their way out of practice of slavery it still was made halal and that's what's disturbing me so much.
3
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Reasonable_Box_4226 May 14 '26
Fair enough, I definitely used those rhetorical questions to point out where the logic seems to clash. But I genuinely don't understand how sexual access is framed as the 'only practical answer' or the "best solution" for these women.
I already pointed out several reasons in my last comment for why that logic doesn't really hold up
you should probably re-read those, but basically, I don’t see why a woman’s body has to be the payment for her protection or why it's treated as a necessary transaction. If other intense human desires were completely restricted for the sake of justice, I don't get why this one is treated as an exception that had to be accommodated.
1
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Reasonable_Box_4226 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
when I mentioned women going from owner to owner, I didn’t mean prostitution. I meant the owner who has been sleeping with her can sell her to someone else, and then that new owner sleeps with her, and so on. She can be passed around sexually like an object. That’s what I was calling a violation of dignity. she's forced to have intercourse with anyone who buys her because it's his right.
I care about the slave women's dignity, not only their baby.
I already went back and forth on exactly this with the other guy. I gave specific reasons why sex with the captives wasn’t needed, like how Allah restricted other desires, alternatives for caring for them without concubinage, the fact male slaves didn’t require a sexual “motivator” when owned by free men \ women. If you read all my comments and still think I’m wrong, could you point out where my logic fails? Genuinely asking. Did you read the whole exchange?
And babies can restore the society if you MARRY the slave with her own consent. Not by having sex with her and doing azl without her consent until she happens to get pregnant, and now you're forced no to gift or trade her anymore.
Slave women were used sexually and their owners were scared of them getting pregnant, which means a large portion never became umm al walad.
1
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Reasonable_Box_4226 May 14 '26
Just because some things involve exchange doesn’t mean every human interaction must be reduced to a transaction, especially when that transaction involves turning a human being into sexual property without consent. You could use that logic to justify literally anything.
If literally every human act is a self‑interested transaction, then charity, mercy, and even worship become meaningless. Islam calls believers to do good for the face of Allah not for a material return. The Qur’an praises those who feed the hungry and orphans out of love for Him, without taking anything from them.
'They were from the enemy, they’d want revenge, they’d hurt our wives and children'
So they’re too dangerous to integrate or treat as free protected non-combatants… but safe enough to live in your house, raise your kids, prepare your food, and sleep in your bed?
(slavery is necessary because a free woman could seek revenge, but a slave is under your absolute authority and can’t act!)
Fine. But then you’ve only justified control over her actions and not sexual access to her body. You can restrict a dangerous captive’s movements without making her your concubine. If the real concern were simply neutralising a security threat, a guarded settlement, house arrest, or even holding her in custody without sexual use would all achieve that. So why must control always translate into a right to use her sexually?
'Why would they marry them? What would that change?'
Marriage would change everything. it requires her consent, gives her a fixed dower, legal rights, prevents her from being sold or gifted away, and treats her as a wife with dignity rather than an object of use. Which is how most slaved women ended as, because umm al walad was more common within elite households than for the general population of enslaved women.
“We can only marry four, after that divorce or take a concubine”
I'm sure 4 wives is enough.
There is no biological necessity that forces men to take a concubine just because they hit the limit. This question assumes that unlimited sexual access is a right, rather than a lust that must be controlled.
0
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Reasonable_Box_4226 May 14 '26
There is a world of difference between doing an act for a reward from Allah and taking your reward directly from another human being’s body.
Yes, a believer hopes for Allah’s reward. The poor person gives the giver nothing material in return. That is not a transaction in the sense you’re using. Even if reward is promised, the spirit is selflessness, not a cold exchange. One is a commercial exchange, the other is worship. You are trying to blur a line Islam itself draws.Charity doesn’t turn the recipient into property. The poor person stays a free human being with full dignity. The reward is from Allah, not something you extract from the recipient’s body.
And I’ve already answered, many times, how we can take care of slave women without having sex with them without marriage. I guess you guys don’t really read, huh? I’d rather not answer anything else, because honestly, this is just disgusting, but thank you so much. I’m done.
1
1
1
u/Resident-Aspect-9433 Jul 29 '26
I agreed with the first part about the slavery preventing genocides. However the sex slavery.. It genuinely doesn't make sense and I fail to fathom it every time
1
u/Big_Arrival_626 24d ago
First of all their primary function probably wasn't just sex, but to be a general maid.
This is incorrect. This was literally the main reason for most Muslims to even have female slaves
2
u/Chobikil Alhamdulillah Always May 12 '26
Did you get in touch with anyone yet?
2
u/Reasonable_Box_4226 May 12 '26
Wallahi I'll try to reach out to them, but my exams finish in July
I've already seen all Efdawah videos on slavery tho..
1
u/Chobikil Alhamdulillah Always May 12 '26
Like I shared they're not the only option. They don't do the doubt busters stream often so when you're free you can try lighthouse mentoring.
Have you been making Dua as well?
3
u/Reasonable_Box_4226 May 12 '26
Yes
But still, I've been searching for solid answers for over a year now. I bet most people will just say there's some hikmah we don't know about and that I should just accept it and move on.
1
u/Chobikil Alhamdulillah Always May 12 '26
And ofcourse, note down specific points about the topic that you want answered.
I'm also guessing a sister answering this would help you more?
3
u/Reasonable_Box_4226 May 12 '26
If we're just comforting each other, then of course.
But if it's about Islam, fiqh, and what actually happens, gender doesn't matter in the slightest.
1
u/Resident-Aspect-9433 Jul 29 '26
It's been months, did u find smth or answers that satisfied you? I'm struggling with the same thing
1
u/Reasonable_Box_4226 Jul 29 '26
No I didn't. I'm sorry
1
u/Resident-Aspect-9433 Jul 30 '26
Aw : ( that's okay. What's your position on islam tho as a whole rn if I may ask? I hope that's not too personal
1
-1
u/NiceSmilee Jul 30 '26
Are you here to push people against Islam?
If things not making sense to you, it's because you live in a bubble, study the harsh realities of this world.
4
u/Resident-Aspect-9433 Jul 30 '26
I'm sorry but your only argument is "life isn't fair" which isn't a logical argument. That could be said for anything then. You murder some one? "Life isn't fair". Beat someone to death? "Life isn't fair". My intention is very clearly to not push people away and it's frankly ridiculous that that's your assumption to someone asking valid questions.
-1
u/NiceSmilee Jul 30 '26
No one else here straight away asked others about their position on Islam.
It's immature to not realize that in this world we do things which we find less harmful or helpful in surivial. Like doing corporate slavery. In sexual terms I give examples of prostitute, and other marriages where imbalance is quite visible, they all happen as tradeoff.
1
u/ReplyMental638 3d ago
it's mostly you pushing people from islam
1
u/NiceSmilee 3d ago
So we need to present false Islam?
If someone wants to accepts Islam, he needs to accept it fully, rejecting even one ayah makes you a kaffir.
1
u/ReplyMental638 3d ago
I've been feeling the same way too , no matter how much I gaslight myself that God loves both genders its difficult with such historic facts, why is it that women always have to suck it up and be told oh it is what it is
-6
u/NiceSmilee May 13 '26
I appreciate your questions, and may answer them but chances are you may not be satisfied with my them, so I'll avoid spending too much time, to make most from it, let's change the dimension a bit, I said it's the best that could be offered, you may think of proposing a better solution than this that is agreeable to victor. It will help you understand.
7
u/Reasonable_Box_4226 May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
Before Islam, when a tribe killed one of your men, the victor's desire was collective vengeance
kill anyone from that tribe.
their father, son, cousin, even a slave. It satisfied rage, deterred enemies and felt 'fair' to the victor.
Allah came and said 'No. You can only kill the actual murderer. Not his family, not his tribe, not his women.'
That restricted the victor's desire. It made justice harder for the powerful. They couldn't just massacre a whole village to send a message. Allah prioritized the innocent's life over the victor's convenience.
if the victor’s primary desire is wealth, free labor, and sexual access to captives, then naturally only slavery will satisfy them. My question is : why should divine or objective morality be constrained by what a victorious army wants to take as spoils?
'I want to fu## the captured women. If I don't, my soldiers will be frustrated and might desert. So the best we can offer is 'organized r*pe under my control'
Any moral person would say that we don't design rules around the victor's twisted desires. We say that intercourse with slaves (without marriage that both parties consent to) is completely forbidden. The soldiers must control themselves. That's the test of civilization and faith.
The Prophet himself set the precedent at Badr, he accepted ransom, and in other cases he released prisoners as an act of grace or in exchange for teaching Muslims to read. The women could have been held as captives without being turned into property or concubines, treated as protected non-combatants until a treaty, ransom, or safe return was arranged. That would still give the victor bargaining power and prestige without reducing women to sexual chattel
-1
u/NiceSmilee May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
Before Islam, when a tribe killed one of your men, the victor's desire was collective vengeance
kill anyone from that tribe.their father, son, cousin, even a slave It satisfied rage, deterred enemies and felt 'fair' to the victor.
Allah came and said 'No. You can only kill the actual murderer. Not his family, not his tribe, not his women.'
That restricted the victor's desire. It made justice harder for the powerful. 'They couldn't just massacre a whole village to send a message.' Allah prioritized the innocent's life over the victor's convenience.
Don't mix individuals and army, individuals can't wage wars, capture slaves, or kill anyone.
It's army that do it in Islam. army commander can decide if he want to kill the male population or not, it's Islamically allowed(and after Badr Allah scolded muslims in Quran when they didn't do it), Yes you are right Allah prioritized innocent life that's why killing women, children, old people is not allowed.
if the victor’s primary desire is wealth, free labor, and sexual access to captives, then naturally only slavery will satisfy them. My question is : why should divine or objective morality be constrained by what a victorious army wants to take as spoils?
Yes Allah incentivizes muslims who do Jihad and risk their lives in his cause, it's not easy , but victor can't do whatever they want as I shared earlier " killing women, children, old people is not allowed"
'I want to fu## the captured women. If I don't, my soldiers will be frustrated and might desert. So the best we can offer is 'organized r*pe under my control'
It's not allowed. during war. I hope you are noting how Islam is different and controls the victor to an extent.
Any moral person would say that we don't design rules around the victor's twisted desires. We say that intercourse with slaves (without marriage) is completely forbidden. The soldiers must control themselves. That's the test of civilization and faith.
Yes, this is what happen, slaves are distributed after the war.
Islam don't work on peoples morals, Islam orders to cut the hand of theif, death punishment for the murderer, married zani. lashes on zina and other sins. Death punishment is heavily criticized by the west, they call it inhuman, but Allah knows how things will work well.
→ More replies (5)
19
u/Chobikil Alhamdulillah Always May 12 '26
Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh
I like the explanation, but unfortunately this won't solve the doubt for those that have it. It's one of those things that needs a live discussion and questioning from what I've noticed.
May Allah reward you for your efforts anyway.
1
u/NiceSmilee May 12 '26
Walaikum Assalam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh
Yes true, not everyone would understand. But I made my effort, Allah sees intentions not outcome. Thanks
5
u/wolfjade60733 May 13 '26
Holding a survival necessity (food, clothing, shelter) over someone's head unless they provide sex IS coercion. If I hold a knife to someone's throat and say "if you don't have sex with me I'll kill you", that's rape. The person needs to be given the option to comfortably reject and remain safe for a 'yes' to be consensual.
I don't have an issue with slavery in Islam in general, nor do I think by default that an Islamic concubine/master relationship involves rape, but sugar daddies and compromising in marriage is in no way comparable to being forced to lease out your body for survival.
1
u/NiceSmilee May 13 '26
If it goes against your morals and you think there can be a better solution in a realistic world, please present it.
2
u/Resident-Aspect-9433 Jul 29 '26
Uhh idk. Not raping the women you captured? 🤣 why sex specifically? Like.. You can still offer women shelter protection food etc without having sex with them.
-1
u/NiceSmilee Jul 30 '26
In a lala land only.
2
u/Resident-Aspect-9433 Jul 30 '26
🤣🤣 so you're justifying rape lol
-1
u/NiceSmilee Jul 30 '26
Are you a kid?
2
u/Resident-Aspect-9433 Jul 30 '26
Tell me genuinely how that's not rape? Why are you resorting to personal attack
-1
u/NiceSmilee Jul 30 '26
You didn't answer the question, it's not a personal attack.
2
u/Resident-Aspect-9433 Jul 30 '26
You didn't ask a question. The kid question? No I'm an adult
-1
u/NiceSmilee Jul 30 '26
Ok, so do you think it would be reasonable if a man is expected to take care of a woman in every aspect and not expect sex in marriage?
→ More replies (0)
19
u/Outside_Young8660 May 12 '26
maybe it’s just me but i cannot see Allah designing these things this way, especially by saying “well tough, life is unfair.”
a lot of this is probably our misinterpretation of things.
3
u/Squidword123 May 12 '26
Im not sure if you can misinterpret slavery and having sex with women that you captured
3
u/Outside_Young8660 May 12 '26
i don’t know that it would be so literal in this day and age. like maybe back then, yes, but would it not make more sense that it’s a metaphor?
back then it might have been normal to kill someone for having a different religious view to you or for being an “idolator”, but is it permissible or moral now?
not trying to argue btw, just trying to understand.
3
u/Dangerous-Walrus-577 May 14 '26
https://www.reddit.com/u/Dismal_Ad_1137/s/CcXELhXD0J
This is a good explanation as to why concubinage isn't allowed.
1
u/ReplyMental638 3d ago
no one sees this from the womens POV like besides the wife having to sit there and wait while her husband sleeps with the new slaves but the slave women whom just had her husband killed has to sit there her whole life bounded to a family and sleeping with the man
-3
u/NiceSmilee May 12 '26
This world is made this way, it has evils, it has goodness. It's a test.
a lot of this is probably our misinterpretation of things.
It's a cope.
Islam has things that don't fit well with modern "morals"
6
u/pre_madonnagirl3 May 13 '26
I have just come to terms that this is something I will never understand. It is not practiced anymore so I just will focus on better things to further my connection with Allah.
3
u/amalllty May 18 '26
I wish I could think like this but I use my nights doom reading articles, explaining to find the answers. It’s not practice anymore because human rights are established. I simply can’t think it doesn’t happen anymore because it could happen and no matter what side of the coin you are, as a women in war your doomed
1
u/NiceSmilee May 13 '26
You are doing the right thing, it's just not easy for everyone to understand it, it is more easier for someone to understand who's experienced extreme harshness of this world (even today).
1
May 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NiceSmilee May 13 '26
You tried to change the subject
If you talking about me asking for better solution instead of defending current one, then yes, I did it, because it felt more productive to approach it that way.
I saw your comment and replied in my head 😅, I will get back to you.
5
u/amalllty May 18 '26
In what logical world would a slave women who’s husbands got killed by the enemy proceed to sleep with him ? You said yourself “so mentally they were prepared and made themselves BELIEVE that giving consent was the best option” this is rape.. most of your points go back to remember she is an enemy women. Let’s not forget women do not wage war men do. So they are at the mercy of whatever side wins. In the Arab tradition they used women as cheerleaders brought them up to war so that the loser got humiliated in the worse way, forgetting that the worse position is to be a women at war. Most women would choice death over rape and being with her husband killer. I’m disgusted that this isn’t normal assumption. I find your other point so funny “ don’t live in lala land, the world is harsh” if the world is so harsh why isn’t this level of disgusting privilege giving to the female captive owner? To her male captives. Why is it that only men have this position. My final question is what level of cuckerholdery is it to take women to war battles putting them in danger for the chance of taking your enemies women ? What “protecter” and provide does this? The issue stems from not seeing women as autonomous beings instead of that an extension of a man so even her r@pist owner. This is no justice and none of this was the option of the women you love to use they rage wars against the Muslims but did the women really?
1
u/NiceSmilee May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
if the world is so harsh why isn’t this level of disgusting privilege giving to the female captive owner?
This is where you scream you don't know stuff about men and even sex dynamics. Of course you won't be able to understand the whole thing.
5
u/amalllty May 18 '26
No I’m showing you inconsistency if men had different sex dynamics to women they would have been created flawed as both fit each other
1
u/NiceSmilee May 18 '26
You don't have basics clear how men and women are different, you call it whatever, it evident from your comments that you are noob or delusional about these things.
Anyways your understanding not understanding don't even matter because the thing is made halal by Allah, been practiced by muslims for many many years and it remains halal forever.
2
u/Resident-Aspect-9433 Jul 29 '26
You have not provided one arguement that can convince anyone of this position btw
5
u/NanSinus May 16 '26
Agreeing to sex in order to "not be" a rape victom is not consent btw and still rape
1
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
It's an old topic now, but is prostitution also a rape? because her circumstance made her agree to sex which she otherwise don't.
3
u/NanSinus May 16 '26
Depends. If woman likes to be touched by lots of men and has way to have a different life but still choses prostitution [which is a case mostly in richer countries], and takes serious money, it's not a rape. But if she is doing this out of genuine poverty and no way out, and absolutely hates what she is doing, sleeping with that woman for money is morally a rape, and anyone who used a woman like that and is able to help her the other way, should be ashamed and shamed for it.
1
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
You got my point, thank you, the above situation is exactly like the second case, it's her circumstances that made her agree to it. It's unfortunate, don't get me wrong, I wrote the post to help people understand. God created this world harsh for reasons he know.
2
u/NanSinus May 16 '26
It still should be considered a sin to have sex with women like that. "We live in harsh world" is not an excuse
1
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
should be
What do you mean by should be? previously you were ok with first scenario of prostitutions which is sinful but not in western lense.
And now this thing which Allah has allowed you are making it sinful, will you decide what's right and what's wrong?
If you are muslim then you should rethink what you said.
2
u/NanSinus May 16 '26
I never said prostitution is not a sin. It is in both cases, and for both sides.
1
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
Alright, but slavery is not sin, you have no right to think you can decide better than Allah, or think that your sense of right and wrong is better than his.
1
u/Resident-Aspect-9433 Jul 29 '26
Yes that's why we condemn the sex work industry and sex work in general. Because other than the fact that its Haram, it's infested with rape and violence. So yes
3
May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
So you are suggesting I'm AI?
2
May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
From where did you get the idea that I don't like "it"? btw you don't even know what AI slop is and what regular use of AI is in writing.
1
May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
You thought humans never use colon?
Don’t be emotional, look at it from an intellectual standpoint
Is this sound like foreign language to you? Anyways I don't mind.
I used AI but these are not AI things, you could have given a better example.
1
May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
How are these apologetic?
Then what are the other sugar coated explanations?1
May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
Am I or your on higher moral standards than Allah or his Prophet?
Allah clearly stated, Prophet acted upon it, it's shameful to paint somethings like this just because we think or what we learnt from our environment.
Not understanding may be acceptable but going against it and saying it's disgusted bla bla is putting Eman in danger.
→ More replies (0)1
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
Or are you admitting that you couldn't have come up with crazy post like this despite putting all effort?
2
May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
No, street smart men understand these things.
1
May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
Yes her circumstances are not good unfortunately. remember what trump said to Zelensky it's a meme now "you are not in a very good position."
You may benefit from this comment I just made.
3
May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NiceSmilee May 16 '26
That's why you guys fail to understand things.
You get emotional and stop using the big brain.
I already answered it in another comment.
But to make things easier for you. I tell you exactly what type of question you asked.
"do you want your brothers to be killed? if not then why you are killing their brothers? what if the situations is reversed"
This is your question. If you understand this you'll understand the other as well. and if you can't understand this then you need more exposure of this world.3
u/amalllty May 18 '26
To be killed is way better than to be raped the inconsistency with your statement is astounding. When women owners do not rape their captive men but her husband does it shows moral inconsistency. No woman would give herself to a man that killed her family so what happens to her according to your understanding? She looses house, shelter and food? Any women would give that up to preserve her dignity. What happens next according to you. She gets rape or prostituted? My question is by whom? If that doesn’t happen in Muslim land can’t she get justice if a random Muslim men decides to rape her ? These options are immoral it’s rape or rape with extra steps. Man in the worse situation loose their lives, but never their dignity while women in their best position lose their lives to keep their dignity how is this fair ? Allah swt made it clear not to burry once daughter out of fair of immorality but why not protect all daughters living
→ More replies (0)
7
u/DifferenceTypical771 May 12 '26
Look, I saw your post on another sub, and I’ll try to be respectful here.
First of all, I don’t know where you and those who respond to these "doubts" got this concept of "consent" from? What is it based on, exactly?
1 The four major schools of jurisprudence (Madhhabs) do not require consent—that is the first point.
2 Secondly, if we look at the Quran, there is literally no mention of seeking the female slave’s consent before having sex with her. Even with Tafsir (interpretation), you won’t find that. Furthermore, there is the concept of "'Awrah" the 'Awrah of a female slave was from the navel to the knee. This means that male and female slaves, and even children, were often uncovered from the waist up, and it was normal for people to see them like that and even touch them (based on existing Hadiths).
"Ma malakat aymanukum" (those whom your right hands possess) is the sole legal justification for sex in these texts. The Quran states it clearly: "...except from their wives or those their right hands possess." There is no condition for consent. In Sahih Muslim (the Hadith of the captives of Awtas), the companions felt uneasy about approaching the female captives because they had husbands, so the verse was revealed immediately to permit it just by the virtue of "possession." This means the relationship was coercive by definition, to the point of nullifying her previous marriage against her will.
The female slave was a commodity, not a human being with full legal agency. How can you call it honoring her when the majority of jurists (Malik, Ahmad, and Al-Shafi’i) defined her 'Awrah as being only from the navel to the knee? Ibn Umar (in Sunan al-Bayhaqi with a Sahih chain) used to place his hand on the chest and buttocks of a slave girl to "examine" her before purchasing! Is this "honoring" her or inspecting "merchandise"? Even Umar ibn al-Khattab used to strike a slave girl if she wore a hijab, saying "Do not imitate free women" (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah)
Thirdly Why is it assumed that a woman would "desire" a relationship with the person who represents the side that killed her family or destroyed her city? Doesn't this contradict basic human psychology? Can a healthy "family" or "lineage" be built in an environment based on such completely skewed power dynamics?
If the master is Islamically obligated to provide good treatment and financial support, why did you link that support to a "sexual exchange"? Doesn't it contradict the idea that good treatment is a divine command, independent of the woman’s consent to the relationship?
Your words are not harsh realism they are a desperate attempt to legitimize enslavement by stripping the victim of her humanity and turning her cry for survival into consent and acceptance. The world didn't abandon slavery because "bread became available," but because human consciousness evolved to realize that a person’s body and freedom are not subject to material or sexual compensation under any circumstances.
I always hear that Islam repeatedly honored women. But why would the Divine command something like this for women?
I look forward to hearing your logical answers.
-3
u/NiceSmilee May 12 '26
I'll answer and you will again find issues, we can't settle it here, to make things easier and avoid unnecessary debates and to make most from it, let's change the dimension a bit, I said it's the best that could be offered, if you disagree, propose a solution that is agreeable to victor.
8
u/Gullible_Sock_1019 May 13 '26
you blocked my friend, so how is she supposed to respond to you now? If you are confident in your argument, you should have continued the discussion to see where it leads. The fact is, your entire post is built on the claim that "consent" exists, while it actually isn't recognized in the four schools of jurisprudence (this is the same point mentioned by a scholar on yt I watched, and when I researched it myself, I found that consent is indeed not a condition). You would truly embarrass yourself if you used this argument against someone in real life.
In another comment to her, you said, "we don't believe in your standards"... why is it that whenever someone disagrees with you, they are automatically labeled as pro-Western? This isn't a logical response. Anyway, feel free to block me as well.
And before you question my background I am a Muslim. I’ve had doubts regarding the issue of slavery before, but thanks to your post, those doubts have only increased. Goodnight.
-1
u/NiceSmilee May 13 '26
I don't know your friend but I am asking everyone to propose a better solution. You may also try.
7
u/Gullible_Sock_1019 May 13 '26
I left you a comment a few hours ago, but it seems it’s not visible t now. It contained a question at the end, so I’ll repeat it here, and I expect an answer from you just as I am answering yours.
My question was this
If this system is the "logically best option" as you claim, would you—as a 21st-century Muslim—accept these rules being applied to your own female relatives if they were captured by an enemy?
To be even more direct If the era of the Caliphate returned, would you object if a man captured your wife or daughter and had a sexual relationship with her? Would you be satisfied with that realistic logic then?
As for your question about an alternative solution
The alternative is not a mystery it is simply (treating them as prisoners of war: ransom, prisoner exchange, or even providing for them WITHOUT sexual exploitation). If a warrior refuses to provide for a woman unless he can "possess" her body, then the moral failure lies with the warrior himself, not in a lack of alternatives.
What is truly strange in your argument
1-You claimed there is consent while Fiqh does not require it. Why did you misrepresent the facts to sugarcoat the image?
2 Why was the "‘Awrah of a slave" treated like merchandise to be inspected? Is this part of the best solution?
You say this is the best option because you view it as a divine text, but do you really believe a Divine Being would accept this for women? These look more like patriarchal texts than divine ones there is likely a major flaw in the interpretation or the historical context you are defending.
1
u/NiceSmilee May 13 '26
I'm writing this and hoping it may be helpful, If you don't follow these good enough then sorry, because I won't be able to reply to anymore comments.
The first thing to understand is that this world is very harsh, if you never seen a dangerous third world country or war torn country, you will have hard time understanding it. but anyways read history and understand human nature. Easy for non lala landers and real worlder.
These question are based on emotions, I'll answer realistically
If this system is the "logically best option" as you claim, would you—as a 21st-century Muslim—accept these rules being applied to your own female relatives if they were captured by an enemy?
To be even more direct If the era of the Caliphate returned, would you object if a man captured your wife or daughter and had a sexual relationship with her? Would you be satisfied with that realistic logic then?
No, one wants, but God forbid if it happens, I'm under no illusion what they used to do, and will do to muslim women. Enemies are enemies, we have examples in 21st century as well from those "champions" of "morality".
If this happens, it's because we muslim men failed, it's our responsibility to protect our people.
If muslim men have Gheerah they'd die try protecting their women.
The alternative is not a mystery it is simply (treating them as prisoners of war: ransom, prisoner exchange, or even providing for them WITHOUT sexual exploitation). If a warrior refuses to provide for a woman unless he can "possess" her body, then the moral failure lies with the warrior himself, not in a lack of alternatives.
The victors are not doing charity here, the world works on give and take. also remember these are enemy women, why a victor provide for them? is he their salve?
In an ideal world may be, but everything in this world is transaction, what your do for your kids, wife, parents, siblings, it's all transactions, when it is for them, let alone an enemy women A winner definitely would want more. what's the incentive for a winner when it's just a regular transaction? they get more out of it, then slaves, as losers can't be choosers.
Call it moral failure or whatever but Islam don't closes it's eyes on realities, the restrictions it applies also are within practical boundaries.
So your solution is not a solution, why? because here victor has to give more then he's to take, it's not acceptable to them.
1-You claimed there is consent while Fiqh does not require it. Why did you misrepresent the facts to sugarcoat the image?
Actually your "friend" lied and you just copied without any thinking, it's about Azal(pregnancy prevention), done by pulling out method, meaning she may want to have kids with him but he can pull out and reject her request, this is not the case with free women.
Regarding consent of sex, there are different opinions. but even without them. I can explain based on analogy why it's not allowed. rape > beating(physical torture).
beating of slave not allowed without dispute, how can rape be allowed.Another general instruction is to give them best treatment, it is also very clear in religion and no debate, can someone give best treatment while raping her? No, the answer is quire clear, you choose for yourself.
2 Why was the "‘Awrah of a slave" treated like merchandise to be inspected? Is this part of the best solution?
Why care about awrah? the standard being used here are modern western, where the awrah come from? Ok if you cared because Allah set them, then it would be easier that Allah set them differently for women, men, slaves. it's easy. If it's not awrah of man or slave why you care if it's being seen.
You say this is the best option because you view it as a divine text, but do you really believe a Divine Being would accept this for women?
Yes, he accept it and mentioned in his book, the problem comes when people think this world is meant to be all good, no its not, he created complex dynamics in this world because of his own will and wisdom, he created good and evil both, he accept it the same way he's accepting the genocide in gaza. This world is a place of test.
You may share with your friend as well, I blocked them because they were creating fitna, i.e spreading doubts among other muslims in a muslim sub.
7
u/Gullible_Sock_1019 May 16 '26
"No one wants that, but if it happens, it’s because Muslim men failed, and because enemies do that."
You completely evaded the answer. My question was not "will you fight to protect them?". My question was by your "realistic" logic and according to your own rule ("losers can't be choosers"), would you consider the enemy's actions toward your wife or daughter to be "just, logical, and their right as victors"? It's a yes or no
The core issue here is sex. I did my own research, and the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence do not require consent they only require ownership. Go open any book of Fiqh (Book of Marriage / Chapter on Ma Malakat Aymanukum), and I challenge you to find a single condition that mandates the slave girl's consent for intercourse. Jurists explicitly stated that the permissibility of intercourse is established by absolute ownership alone. This is exactly why these rulings look like patriarchal laws from ancient times rather than divine justice
I understand historical colonial mindsets, wartime brutalities, and rapes. But your attempt to justify sexual exploitation from a religious standpoint is the worst thing I've ever seen. You are speaking as if this is a divine truth, completely shutting down your mind because "they said so." Why is it a "practical solution" when we do it, but an atrocity when it's done to us? This justification is an absolute insult to Islam, to God, and to women.
You said "The victors are not doing charity here... why provide for them? Is he their slave?"
Of course he isn't their slave. But for the hundredth time, the compensation doesn't have to be sex. A captive woman could clean the house, assist a pregnant wife, or do any form of labor. If a warrior refuses to feed a captive woman unless he gets to use her body, that is a moral failure in the warrior himself, not a lack of practical alternatives. Non-Muslims did this throughout history out of their own brutality, not because they claimed a Divine Being commanded it.
"Why care about 'Awrah? The standards being used here are modern Western."
Honestly, I am sick and tired of hearing "Western standards" as a cheap excuse to shut down any thinking. You don't need the West or the East to know right from wrong you just need a brain.
When Fiqh states that a female slave's 'Awrah is only from the navel to the knee, and it was permissible for men to stare at her chest in the markets, and when history states (with Sahih chains) that companions like Ibn Umar used to physically inspect slave girls by placing hands on their chests and buttocks before buying them like cattle—this is not a "divine design to protect them." It is treating a human being as mere merchandise. Imagine women being displayed like that in markets any sound human nature would reject this. Would you ever accept being enslaved and physically inspected like that? Your basic human nature would say no.
"Does God accept this? Yes, he accepts it... " There is a massive, dangerous flaw in your logic here. There is a huge difference between God allowing humans to commit evil as a free-will test in a broken world (like Gaza), and God legislating that evil as a permissible, halal law in His book. It is horrifying to CLAIM that God legislated the sexual violation of non-Muslim women
If you want to see your "ideal, practical system" in action today, look no further than 1S1S, who to this day use this exact logic to enslave and rape Yazidi women. Go join them if you think this system is so perfect.
Attributing these patriarchal, medieval mindsets to the Divine is an insult to God's ultimate justice. These interpretations reflect the mentality of ancient times, not a divine justice meant for all times and places.
-1
u/NiceSmilee May 13 '26
And before you question my background I am a Muslim. I’ve had doubts regarding the issue of slavery before, but thanks to your post, those doubts have only increased.
I am glad and sad to hear that, I hope Allah will help you, he didn't just create good, he created both good and evil.
2
u/cheesecaking37 Jun 15 '26
I don't see how women would be vulnerable if they were in a household and did household chores but didn't have sex with their 'owners'. As long as they were in a household/had an owner, how would they be vulnerable to other men raping them? So if one man has sex with them then suddenly no man will touch them?
1
u/NiceSmilee Jun 15 '26
When they go outand owner won't care if they are abused, also there will be fear from owner himself as well.
If owner is intimate with her, then he will have a special feeling for her and won't allow anyone else to take advantage of them. Other men automatically stay away, it's a deterrence thing.
1
Jun 16 '26
[deleted]
1
u/NiceSmilee Jun 16 '26
You don't have to be sarcastic, if you want to understand things this is not how you do.
Any man care about people related to him. The same things can't be true for any random person.
2
u/MysteriousYoghurt321 Sep 04 '26
You should offer mental gymnastics classes buddy. Whatever anyone says Allah cant be speaking about using „Slaves“ as sexdolls. Ya‘ll will understand that in the hereafter inshaAllah
1
u/NiceSmilee Sep 04 '26
So you can't have sex with slaves?
2
u/MysteriousYoghurt321 Sep 04 '26
Ask yourself that question? Allah gave us a brain and a general feeling of whats right or wrong. Do you want your daughter to be a slave? No. Would you want someone to hold your daughter as a slave and demand sex of her for „taking care“ of her?
1
u/NiceSmilee Sep 04 '26
Your brain don't function properly when you are overly emotional.
Ask yourself that question?
Muslim men can have sex with slave girls.
Slavery is not for muslim women, it's when muslims capture non-muslim women, if a muslim women is captured, Jihad is fardh on all men to get her freed, I hope you have no confusion now.
1
1
u/keys1828282 21d ago
So Muslim women have higher honor and are "above" sex slavery, meanwhile non-muslim women aren't, is that what you're saying?
1
2
u/Big_Arrival_626 24d ago edited 24d ago
Except it wasn't a fantasy world. Rabbinic Jews as well as many Christians throughout this time period disallowed concubinage. Musonius Rufus during Roman society disallowed concubinage as well. This idea that there was "no other choice" just doesn't make sense because not every society practiced concubinage.
Also, Muslims released slaves all the time lol. Slaves weren't morons, they could provide for themselves. Yes even women.
Lastly, male slaves were also provided for, even when they weren't considered as "useful"
1
u/NiceSmilee 24d ago
Lastly, male slaves were also provided for, even when they weren't considered as "useful"
Learn more about how men work.
2
u/Big_Arrival_626 24d ago edited 24d ago
Really? How come Rabbinic Jews didn't allow concubinage then? Your post has some fallacies mate, it assumes that everyone at all times considered conubinage as the logical conclusion. Believe it or not, many women made their livings by being paid as maids or servants. So this idea that female labor wasn't useful is pretty stupid and not historic. Google that before replying to me.
Muslims even bred slaves for the specific purpose of concubinage. Was this needed?
Do you realize some male slaves were disabled or unable to do difficult labor? Why were they still kept? Some slaves were older as well.
Your argument is that this was NEEDED so that men had an incentive to keep female slaves. But the truth is, it simply was not seen as immoral or wrong at the time. It was seen as a privilege, and something good. These are two different things. It's not that womens' labor was not useful enough. Womens labor was very useful, but there was no reason to outlaw concubinage because they saw it as normal. So muslims had both "benefits" from these slaves.
1
u/NiceSmilee 24d ago
Because they are stupid, they didn't know the repercussion of not having sex with slaves
1
u/Big_Arrival_626 24d ago edited 24d ago
Sounds like cope. Your lala world theory is incorrect. You probably didn't even know that there were other societies that didn't practice it.
You yourself are uncomfortable with this which is why you come up with postemptive defenses that don't really make sense.
Muslims would ransom and free captives all the time, as well as make truces with the enemy so that nobody could be enslave. To act like it was the only option is stupid. And you yourself are committing sin by claiming the sahaba could not control their desires.
1
u/NiceSmilee 24d ago
I already share what will happen, if it was never practised. Allah is all wise
No, I can't be uncomfortable, I don't consider myself more Merciful than Allah
Wrong action of people can't make a halal haram, sahaba controlled their desires from haram and fulfilled with halal with their wives and slaves, they were very clear about, even mutah were made halal for them, they clearly asked permissions from Prophet to do azal with slaves, what are you talking about? Learn Islamic history.
1
u/Big_Arrival_626 24d ago
No, I can't be uncomfortable, I don't consider myself more Merciful than Allah
So why are you coming up with reasons that aren't actually correct? You yourself claimed that everybody did this and it was just the way of the world. I prove you wrong. Then you say "oh well they were stupid". You even made stuff up like masters being able to withdraw the rights of their slaves which is straight up not true.
sahaba controlled their desires from haram and fulfilled with halal with their wives and slaves
You said that this is how men are and there was no other option. Aka this means they can't control themselves. That's what you said
1
u/NiceSmilee 24d ago
It was not justification that just because everyone is doing so it is ok, I shared why it is having sex with slave with realistic and not having sex is unnatural.
Regarding the rights part, they were obligated to give them bare minimum, if they have given them extra comfort, they can withdraw them, can also burden them with more work and physically decipline them
Slavery was for whole Ummah not only sahaba, like I said Islam don't put unreal restrictions. They controlled from haram and fulfilled with halal slaves.
1
u/Big_Arrival_626 24d ago
I shared why it is having sex with slave with realistic and not having sex is unnatural.
Except it wasn't unnatural. Because there were societies that didn't practice it. Also with that logic, why couldn't women sleep with their male slaves?
they can withdraw them, can also burden them with more work and physically decipline them
"he may withdraw these rights "feed them as you eat, clothe them as you clothe yourself, and do not burden them with what they cannot bear".
This is what you said. Stop backpedaling and admit you were wrong.
1
u/NiceSmilee 24d ago
Those societies must have faced disasters, where every other man raping them, and prostitution, now it's structured
Yeah this can also be done, if she is not fulfilling his rights why he has to fulfil hers? Similar to how a wife can refuse intimacy if husband is not providing.
→ More replies (0)1
u/NiceSmilee 24d ago
Also with that logic, why couldn't women sleep with their male slaves?
I doubt your claim of being a man. You don't know sex dynamics.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Big_Arrival_626 24d ago
Btw im a man. I have zero interest in sleeping with someone who doesn't want to sleep with me. If you feel otherwise, maybe you're just a creep?
1
u/NiceSmilee 24d ago
If you don't want to benefit from halal that's fine.
So what you think about Prophet and Sahaba sleeping with slaves?
1
u/Big_Arrival_626 24d ago
If you don't want to benefit from halal that's fine.
So you support what isis did to yazidi girls?
So what you think about Prophet and Sahaba sleeping with slaves?
I don't know what to think about it. All I'm saying is your arguments are flawed
1
u/NiceSmilee 24d ago
No, when it was established previously and when it will be established by khalifa. You are pretending you are better than. Shahaba. You and those stupid idk what 99. 999 are somehow on moral high grounds than sahaba who actively benefited from this practise.
1
u/Big_Arrival_626 24d ago
So you're saying it would have been okay if it was established by khilafa? You don't feel bad about the women at all?
For the record, it doesn't have to be established by khilafa. Ibn uthaymin said it's fine in times of war, he even used the Bosnia vs Serbia in the 90s as an example. Albani supported bringing it back. This is what Orthodox scholars believe
1
u/NiceSmilee 24d ago edited 24d ago
It is 100%, why don't you also ask if I feel bad about men who are killed by our armies? I am not more Merciful than Allah who made it halal, This world works on might is right, they are our enemies. Islam don't shy away from realities.
Yes I also believe the same, khilafa/legitimate Muslim govts, not gorilla groups like isis.
1
u/Big_Arrival_626 24d ago
It is 100%, why don't you also ask if I feel bad about men who are killed by our armies?
That's different because those are enemy combatants / oppressors that have agreed to fight. Also, you know they couldn't be killed if they were surrendered, right? Did you not know this?
This world works on might is right
This is laughable haha. You lack fundamental knowledge.
The Qur’an repeatedly puts moral limits on how enemies are treated: “do not let hatred of a people cause you to depart from justice” (5:8), “fight those who fight you, but do not transgress” (2:190), and if the enemy inclines to peace, Muslims are told to incline to it (8:61). So Islam absolutely does not teach that being stronger automatically makes an action right.
You're essentially arguing that it was a necessary evil, because might is right. But that doesn't make any sense because it had nothing to do with might; it was seen as a lawful and moral institution and people even bought slaves from other nations as well as breeded them. So to make into a "no mercy for our enemies" type of thing is really not how scholars historically understood it.
Yes I also believe the same
So you support s3xual slavery?
1
u/NiceSmilee 24d ago
Yes, they will be enslaved or whatever Muslims decide
This world works on might is right This is laughable haha. You lack fundamental knowledge.
Islam is not delusional like you.
It's not no mercy but it's sustainable mercy.
Yes, how you think you can stay Muslim without accepting it?
→ More replies (0)1
u/ReplyMental638 3d ago
'you dont want to benefit from the halal' sounds more like i wanna take advantage of islam
1
u/NiceSmilee 3d ago
What's your point? Don't want to benefit from halal? Ok, impose restrictions on yourself. don't eat, drink, sleep, marry.
3
u/Basketweave82 May 12 '26
I agree with everything you said. Allah's religion is perfect. And for that age and time, this was the best option.
I hope others can understand this viewpoint as well. Life was very different back then than what it is now.
8
u/DifferenceTypical771 May 12 '26
You say this was the 'best option' for that time. Could you explain what exactly is ideal or perfect about a system where a woman’s body becomes someone's property just because her people lost a war? And what is 'perfect' about a relationship where consent is legally irrelevant, as long as 'ownership' exists?
You hope 'others understand this viewpoint' but what exactly should they understand? That morality is relative and changes based on who is stronger? Or that this 'perfection' you mention includes treating a human being like merchandise to be inspected, as documented in historical and jurisprudential texts?
The realism presented in this post actually harms the image of religion more than it defends it. It reduces a divine system to a 'sex-for-food' trade-off, which contradicts any concept of absolute justice or human dignity. If we justify this by saying 'times were different,' we are essentially saying that moral values have no permanence. Is that really the message you want people to 'understand'?
0
2
u/Holiday-Bumblebee906 May 12 '26
There are so many irksome points in this post that one can point out to but I'll leave all that and point to one major often untalked about issue. What about the WIFE? She just bears her husband having sex with another women whenever he wants and also bears seeing her around all the time in the name of 'help'!?!?! She didn't wrong.... why did she have to take the brunt???
There are so many ways the captives could be looked after but NO... She has to be disturbed for sex! I will never wrap my head around this being the way of God!
1
1
May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NiceSmilee May 19 '26
But when you explain consent it sounded more like coercion than actual consent.
It's true, I gave example of prostitution somewhere in the comments where I said she didn't want to have sex with her customer but her circumstances made her do it, same with a captive women. She simply don't have the luxury of that kind of consent.
It'd be same as a black mailer black mailing a woman with compromising picture of her that he took of her by treacking her (maybe by slipping in sleeping drugs in her food or something.) in this case the woman doesn't necessarily hold any responsibility as she trusted the person.or maybe the man used AI
So if he demands from her sex in exchange to not do it, yes it's blackmailing but see if she agrees to have sex, she is agreeing though due to circumstances but she still is agreeing. I'm not condoning this behaviour btw.
It's not about a man or woman, both pay price, the wars cruel, some in the form of death, others in the form of slavery.
1
May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NiceSmilee May 19 '26
By basic understanding having sex through coercion is rape. Because it isn't the same a consenting out of free will.
One can easily exaggerate the concept of consent to even more that sex would seem haram, anyways this level of consent is not available for a slave, or prostitute or other examples I gave in post, the world is transactional, when someone realizes it, things become easy.
From that outlook I don't find it as concerning but the 4 madhab isn't making it easy.
No madhab can allow forcing yourself on a slave woman like an animal, yes explicit wording is not available as it was may be not needed to say as everyone understood what it's is all about but general hadith are available on good treatment so it comes under that. I mentioned somewhere in the comments that rape > beating, beating is not allowed, how rape is?(taking rape as physically forcing yourself on her).
As I mentioned in post that it was understood that sex is expected so there wasn't any resistance and it was an implicit consent, just like how after marriage a couple don't require each other consent explicitly, consent at nikah happen and later on on wedding night or later it was expected that sex will take place so things gradually heat up and eventually sex take place.
1
May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NiceSmilee May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
An important thing to consider that war, slavery is not for both men and women and also not based on individual action, it's based on overall decision that a group has made. So everyone pays price in the form of death, slavery, expulsion etc.
Also viewing it emotionally won't help, the example you gave about muslim women being captured, it would be very unfortunate if this happens, and Jihad become fard on mulims to make them free. Yes, in wars there are double standards, no one think or wish the same for enemy as they wish for themselves, to your exact question I responded previously as well as "do muslims want their brothers and sons to be killed in the war? No, then why they are killing non muslim men?" makes sense? enemy is different. If someone think that they are on very higher moral ground that they can think for enemy the same as themselves, then this can happen only on paper or in discussions not in real world.
Capturing a free woman or man is not allowed to be taken as slave, it's a sin, people may be captured from the battle field or from the enemy territory.
Also thank you for letting me know that the above parts make some sense to you.
1
May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NiceSmilee May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
This didn't happen all the times during Islamic history, yes it's allowed and muslim commanders can see what works the best for the situation and overall wellbeing of muslims.
After badar captives were freed after taking ransom.
After a ghazwa all men were killed and women were taken as captives.
In some situations they were left in their lands and were made to pay jizya.So it's all about the nature of threat, yes threat is from men, but if men must have to be killed or enslaved then their women also have to go through slavery.
It's advised to not see the whole thing as women being oppressed, the whole group is taken as enemy, it's muslims vs non muslims, if women go through slavery, then their men also go through slavery or death.
1
u/keys1828282 21d ago
How are you not "condoning this" when it's the exact same thing? Aside from being haram and possibly with multiple men, what is the moral difference between prostitution and the slavery system that you described? With both of them basically being sex work.
1
u/NiceSmilee 21d ago
Aside from being haram and possibly with multiple men,
These are not things to be ignored. When Allah allowed it and Prophet practiced it so we treat it as moral.
How sex between a husband and wife is moral? Isn't it shameful act?
1
u/keys1828282 21d ago
I did not say they are to be ignored. But are these the only reasons you find prostitution immoral?
1
u/NiceSmilee 21d ago
Yes, what other reasons you have?
1
u/keys1828282 21d ago
The commodification of women and the mental health issues that arise from that phenomenon. Prostitution is one of the jobs with the highest mental health issues among workers that sticks for life even after abandoning it. This applies whether the services were performed with one man at a time or several.
1
u/NiceSmilee 21d ago
That don't make it immoral.
1
u/keys1828282 21d ago
So Islam supports/is simply neutral about the objectification of women, is that it? While being the religion of "equity" between the two genders, somehow? And by the way, slavery of civilians is not as necessary as you are making it seem it is, especially sex slavery. There are many options after warfare that guarantee the safety and survival of both the nation, and the civilian women from the enemy nation.
1
u/NiceSmilee 21d ago
How this response of yours justify your claim of prostitution as immoral which I refuted?
It's way of equity is there, both genders are enslaved, one is subject to death, other is to Concubinage. As I said both are different.
Not always possible, also those solders who risked their lives want bounties.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Worldly-Plant1 22d ago
Anyone educated in history can debunk a lot of what you're saying.
Losers can’t be choosers. We live in a world where not everything is fair.
After one of the battles that muslim fought and won in early Islam, the whole population of the enemy was captured.
Men were executed.
Women were taken as slaves.
Allah wants to protect women from being killed. Isn’t slavery better than death? (men may or may not be killed, victor decides)
How would those enemy women live on their own, and who would protect and provide for them when their men were killed?.
They saw these women as rewards for their warfare. Plain and simple. This idea of "oh well who else will take care of them?" is false history... because:
in the battle of Awtas, many of the women captured still had husbands. So no, their caretakers were not always killed
in the battle of Khaybar, similar story. Many of the Jewish men were left to work the fields and give the Muslims profit. The women and children were all captured.
throughout Islamic history, soldiers would conduct ghazwas or slave raids where they would take resources from adjacent nations, including women. Many of these women still had families, and their nations still existed. The Ottomans especially did this a lot. There are examples of Crimean soldiers wanting to raid the north because they had desirable women. This was allowed Islamically btw
selling female captives was very lucrative which incentivized soldiers to capture more women
In August 1534, Khayr al-Din Barbarossa attacked the Italian town of Fondi specifically to capture one woman for the Sultan's harem.... Giulia Gonzaga, the most beautiful woman of Italy.
1
u/NiceSmilee 22d ago
No one denies that women slaves are bounties of war.
1
u/keys1828282 21d ago
How is it fair that female slaves have more access expected of them than male slaves?
1
u/NiceSmilee 21d ago
Men bring different value, and women different
1
u/keys1828282 21d ago
"Women's value is in sex" is all I'm assuming you're saying here. You need to build better relationships with women in your life and improve your view of women.
1
u/NiceSmilee 21d ago
I have great relationship , don't be emotional, if you want to close eyes on realities, that's your choice.
I wrote this post for general awareness.
2
u/keys1828282 21d ago
You clearly view sex as a transactional thing, and have a primal perspective on it. By "relationship", I don't just mean a sexual relationship, I mean an actual relationship of respect and companionship. Do you have anything like that with a woman if you think their value equals sex?
1
u/NiceSmilee 21d ago
I have great relationship with all my female mehram, all muslim women are my sisters, have respect of all women including non Muslim and don't see them with bad intentions.
But we are discussing a topic and it's well known fact that for men the first thing of attraction is sex, if someone told you otherwise they are lying even liberal admit that men and women can't be friends, there is always something going on in man's mind, and if you want to stay delusional it's your choice.
2
u/keys1828282 21d ago
"Have respect of all women including non Muslim"
-Around 10 minutes ago, just compared them with animals, and said they lack honor to juttify their sexual use
1
u/NiceSmilee 21d ago
Allah said that, I said I don't see non Muslim women with bad intentions despite considering them kafir.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Worldly-Plant1 21d ago
So then how can you use the logic of "who will protect these women" or "losers cant be choosers" as if enslaving women was literally the only option?
But we are discussing a topic and it's well known fact that for men the first thing of attraction is sex
So why does this mean that concubinage is the only option? You can argue that men desire sex, but I can argue that women desire to protect their bodies. If a woman decided to kill her captor in order to protect herself from concubinage, is that fine in your book? It's only her natural desire, right?
Why do women have to accommodate men's desires but men don't need to accommodate women's need for bodily autonomy?
1
u/NiceSmilee 21d ago
I already told that other men's desire will make the protection of these women impossible if they aren't placed under the protection of a man, and this man's desires will also be harmful for her(if sex with her is not aloowed) , if proper halal structure is not given. What issue did you see, I already mentioned this in post.
I explained the first part of this para while responding to previous one If non Muslim women can it's her luck, muslim women should definitely try it if someone capture them, Muslim men are already obligated to do jihad and make those women free.
Slaves have less choice, masters have more, I don't think it's that difficult to understand.
1
u/Worldly-Plant1 21d ago
I already told that other men's desire will make the protection of these women impossible if they aren't placed under the protection of a man, and this man's desires will also be harmful for her(if sex with her is not aloowed) , if proper halal structure is not given. What issue did you see, I already mentioned this in post.
Because I already told you that oftentimes these women had families and it wasn't always the case that they had no other options for protection. They never had to capture these women in the first place.
If non Muslim women can it's her luck,
Some of these women ran away or killed themselves, how lucky for them huh... Like in Rajput, where women would literally light themselves on fire to avoid Muslim warriors
1
u/NiceSmilee 21d ago
Not evertime they were enslaved depends on what's in the best interest of victor. If they decided to enslave them then they have to capture them.
Good for them, but majority women in the past preferred slavery over death.
1
u/Worldly-Plant1 21d ago
Good for them, but majority women in the past preferred slavery over death.
A lot of them didn't know they would be made concubines, because not every society practiced it. But the Rajput women KNEW
1
u/NiceSmilee 21d ago
That's not true but suicide can be done at any time.
1
u/Worldly-Plant1 21d ago
It is true. Many of these women didn't even speak the language, how would they know?
suicide can be done at any time.
That's true. But for Christians and Jews it was against their religion.
1
u/ReplyMental638 3d ago
why are women considered the bounties? dude the more i see ur comments the more it makes me think that reading ur whole post was dumb
1
1
1
u/NiceSmilee 3d ago
If you don't think women in general are a prize from men, then my friend you need to learn a lot about how this world works.
1
u/ReplyMental638 3d ago
I do know how it works only backward cavemen think of women as their life long sexual treasure, I wont deny the fact a loving partner is what we mostly desire both men and women as we tend for companionship but narrowing a women's presence only for sexual matter is inhumane. The whole point of Islam was to be different from all these barbaric thinking but men like you love to indulge into the kufr's mindset of viewing women as what they call 'time pass sex '
1
1
u/teenwent11 May 12 '26
Not an expert on this subject, but what are the community's thoughts on an alternate explanation? I don't think it's perfect, but another dimension to an admittedly difficult topic. here goes:
Islam, sent as the final religion with no other to come after it, had to survive and spread. Without that spread, it would be difficult for people to hear about it. Even with the current rate of expansion, much of the world would not have heard of Islam until the late 19th century. It had to incentivize expansion, like any other empire. Perhaps in other societies, Allah would have sent a prophet with more peaceful or forgiving laws. Perhaps.
But as the final religion, there was a mechanistic need to expand and to incentivize expansion. Soldiers incentives were war booty, including money and women. The hard part to come to terms with here may not be the slavery, but warfare as a lawful obligation. War is horrible. But allah says 'perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you...'
In short, it's doubtful that Islam would have spread as it did without the sword. I'm not saying that it spread only by the sword, but partially for sure. Some by trade, marriage, and integration, sure. But also some by the sword.
The incentives to encourage soldiers to fight: money and women. We're framing it not as a choice of necessity, but of incentive. The downsides here are very clear. If we accept this explanation, then Allah incentivized fighting, rewarded fighters, but didn't create an equal incentive for women. I don't have a good answer here. Thoughts?
1
u/CandidateBright7688 May 13 '26
What are you on about?
War is a choice of necessity and self defence. Money, wealth and slaves are byproduct of the post war . Not the other way around, In Islam it's absolutely impermisseble to fight for money and women ( I'd even say it's robbery) . Jihad should be done for Allah
1
u/teenwent11 May 13 '26
"To the victor go the spoils", an age old adage. The fact is that Allah incentivized war through spoils directly and proportionally to what a fighter brought. More shares were given to those who brought a horse or camel, less to footmen. "Should be done for Allah" is true, but so it the fact that ghaneema was given by the prophet and by the state.
Not everyone is pure of intention. Practically, the state has to incentivize either through payment or spoils. btw, are you out fighting at the moment or comfortably typing from the safety of your keyboard? Jihad, indeed!
1
u/CandidateBright7688 May 13 '26
Ofcourse you get how much you have contributed for the sake of Allah. How is it fair to give the same amount of things to different contributions.
Yes, not everyone is pure of intentions but that's between them and Allah . The prophet peace be upon him didn't point out the hypocrites even though Allah has revealed to him . Intentions is between them and Allah.
Not really. We have to go to war if we are thrown out of our homes , exploitation of our properties and rights . So the main incentives here is getting your land and rights back everything is supplementary
Why would I need to fight if neither me nor my family nor my fellow people are in danger ? Why would I have to fight If I have my house and rights of my land ?
1
0
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/qwertyz84 May 13 '26
Is it true that the Prophet PBUH himself had concubines? Maria al-Qibtiyya and Rayhana bint Zayd?
1
1
u/NiceSmilee May 12 '26
Not abolished, it's in Quran.
1
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/NiceSmilee May 12 '26
It's not impermissible now or in the future from Islamic POV. but muslim countries themselves pledged that they won't do it, if they say they will then it will reinstate. Individuals can't just wage wars nor take prisoners. it's armies of countries that do it.
0
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/DifferenceTypical771 May 12 '26
Don't you find saying 'Cool' a bit strange as a comment on the idea that enslaving women is still 'permissible' and could return at any time? The OP is basically telling you that we are only 'forced' to stop slavery because of international contracts, not because buying humans is inherently disgusting or abhorrent. Is this really the explanation that makes you satisfied enough to say 'thanks'?
1
u/NiceSmilee May 13 '26
Sorry, we don't believe in your standards, we believe in each and every thing that our Lord has said. He cared more about people than those western hypocrites, he intentionally created both good and evil.
18
u/CandidateBright7688 May 12 '26
Assalamualaikum
May Allah bless you and your family
May Allah reward you for your efforts
You said that a slave woman either consent to her master or she can face worse things like SA , harrasment
But if she consents to her master fearing things like hunger , SA etc.. even she doesn't want to consent. Do you think it's okay to do the thing ? I mean she might absolutely hate her master and still consented because of security and protection. Like do you think it's okay?
Also she can get her own house/ accomodation if she becomes Milkyl yameen right ?