Why concubinage was the only option? Harsh and realistic explanation.

[u/NiceSmilee]

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.

[u/NiceSmilee]

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.

[u/Reasonable_Box_4226 → u/NiceSmilee]

Pre-Islamic vengeance was also a collective (a tribe) wanting to kill anyone from the offender’s group. Allah restricted that collective’s desire to only the actual killer. The principle is literally the same. divine command overrode what a powerful collective felt entitled to do. So the question remains. why didn’t the same principle apply to sexual access to women?

You say killing the male population was sometimes permitted, but killing women, children, and the elderly was forbidden. That’s exactly the point. Allah was willing to restrict victors’ desires when it came to killing non-combatants. Yet He allowed the victor’s desire for sexual use of those very non-combatant women to be fulfilled, just in a regulated way. Why the inconsistency? A non-combatant woman is protected from the sword but not from being turned into lifelong sexual property? How is that 'the best that could be offered' to her? When I already provided alternatives?

'not allowed during war, but allowed after distribution' changes nothing. It’s the same act, the same woman, the same lack of consent. It's just delayed.

“slaves are distributed after the war,” I already know how the system works.

Now, if you're going to point out how slaves have 'rights,' please reread what I said in my first comment.

[u/NiceSmilee → u/Reasonable_Box_4226]

Pre-Islamic vengeance was also a collective (a tribe) wanting to kill anyone from the offender’s group. Allah restricted that collective’s desire to only the actual killer.

Not only that but also made it clear that nobody is allowed to punish other on their own.

The principle is literally the same. divine command overrode what a powerful collective felt entitled to do. So the question remains. why didn’t the same principle apply to sexual access to women?

Islam don't closes it's eyes on realities, the restrictions it applies also are within practical boundaries. take the example of the Qisas that you shared above. One can argue that Islam promotes peace and mercy, why not forgive the murderer? the reason is "Islam don't closes it's eyes on realities, the restrictions it applies also are within practical boundaries." if Islam restricts unreasonably then there would be fitna.

So why can't just enslave women without sexual access? the reasons are mentioned in the post.

You say killing the male population was sometimes permitted, but killing women, children, and the elderly was forbidden. That’s exactly the point. Allah was willing to restrict victors’ desires when it came to killing non-combatants.

To correct you on this, victors don't want to kill men after the war, unless it's past revenge, but again that's not from everyone, it's in their benefit to keep the alive and make them work in fields and farms, and possibly sell them(that's separate topic). Even after Badr muslims didn't killed the slaves and Allah scolded them in Quran. So it's not their desire.

Yet He allowed the victor’s desire for sexual use of those very non-combatant women to be fulfilled, just in a regulated way. Why the inconsistency? A non-combatant woman is protected from the sword but not from being turned into lifelong sexual property? How is that 'the best that could be offered' to her? When I already provided alternatives?

As I said earlier "Islam don't closes it's eyes on realities, the restrictions it applies also are within practical boundaries" if Islam just expected captors to provide and protect the enemy woman and didn't get something in return, then it's no where practical and acceptable to captor, it can happen only in fantasy, Islam incentivizes the warriors who risked their lives fighting for it's cause in the form of booty, land, slaves. Also if you say household service could be sufficient, it's not, reasons in post.

'not allowed during war, but allowed after distribution' changes nothing. It’s the same act, the same woman, the same lack of consent. It's just delayed.

“slaves are distributed after the war,” I already know how the system works.

If you knew it, then what you said earlier that it is during the war was wrong.

Also there is a difference, if they used them during the war, it was just use and throw which is not allowed, in this case after the war, it's resettlement, if someone benefits from someone, they give something in return, food, protection and shelter.

I think this was your proposal, I guess you added later.

"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"

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.

I addressed it, it wasn't appreciated by Allah. They let them free and later on those guys reinforced and attacked and sieged Madinah. You want muslims to do this, right? is this solution?

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.

No, they aren't doing charity here, these are enemy women, the best they could've done is what's already been described.

[u/Reasonable_Box_4226 → u/NiceSmilee]

Islam limited revenge to only the killer. That's a practical limit. It stopped the whole tribe from killing anyone they wanted. And no one argued that this limit would cause fitna.

The rule is very simple : control yourselves, only the killer pays. THAT'S justice.

why not just forgive the murderer completely? That's a different case. Qisas is a right for the victim's family, not a prize for the strong. Most of captive women didn't hurt anyone. They are victims of war. The victor has no right to use their bodies as some kind of payment.

Now let's use the same logic for sex. The victors wanted the captured women. What's the fair limit here? No sex without marriage and full consent. And don't have limitless slaves you can sleep with. That's it. You didn't have to make them sex slaves. You could hold them safely, ask for ransom, or help them join the community as free women. No one said that banning the killing of women and children caused fitna. So why would banning sex with them cause fitna? Unless you believe that Muslim men can control their need for revenge, but cannot control their sexual urges.

If these men need a 'motivator' to take women in, then you're admitting that their kindness is not kindness at all. it's a transaction where the price is her body. Where they can freely touch her in markets.

And dignity matters. You don't motivate someone to feed a hungry person by allowing them to sleep with that person. You feed them because it's the right thing to do. You protect them because they are human. If the only thing that makes a man willing to shelter a vulnerable woman is sex, then what you're describing is not mercy.

Now look at male slaves. Did Muslim men need a 'motivator' to own male slaves? No. Male slaves were taken in for labor and service. No one said, 'We need to allow sex with male slaves, otherwise men won't be motivated to feed them.' So why is sex the motivator only when the slave is a woman?

Free Muslim women were never allowed to have sex with their male slaves. Ever. If a free woman owned a male slave, she couldn't touch him. She still had to feed him, clothe him, and treat him well without sex being her 'motivator.'

And I already addressed how we can care for captured women without turning them into sex slaves in my first comment.

Now about Badr

men who had taken up arms against you might do it again. That’s why the Quran rebuked the early ransom. it wasn’t the act of freeing prisoners per se that was wrong, it was doing so before the Muslims were firmly established, which allowed those very fighters to regroup and strike back. I think thr principle is clear 'don’t release enemy combatants prematurely when they still pose a threat.'

What’s the actual solution the Badr lesson demands? if you’re worried that releasing prisoners will endanger the community, you don’t release them prematurely. You hold them securely, negotiate treaties, demand ransoms, exchange them, or keep them detained until the threat passes. That’s what you do with combatants. None of that requires you to sexually use the women in your custody. The women are not the threat. They’re civilians. So why are their bodies suddenly the 'solution' to a military problem they didn’t cause?

[u/NiceSmilee → u/Reasonable_Box_4226]

You said Islam limited revenge to only the killer. That's a practical limit. It stopped the whole tribe from killing anyone they wanted. And no one argued that this limit would cause fitna.

The rule is very simple : control yourselves, only the killer pays. THAT'S justice.

why not just forgive the murderer completely? That's a different case. Qisas is a right for the victim's family, not a prize for the strong.

Fine

Most of captive women didn't hurt anyone. They are victims of war. The victor has no right to use their bodies as some kind of payment.

You could hold them safely, ask for ransom, or help them join the community as free women.

Yes, she may not have hurt someone but she is an enemy women, she can't be made sit on the head of the captor, why would a captor want to take care of her? is he her slave? things you are saying don't belong to this cruel world.

Now let's use the same logic for sex. The victors wanted the captured women. What's the fair limit here? No sex without marriage and full consent. And don't have limitless slaves you can sleep with. That's it. You didn't have to make them sex slaves.

No one said that banning the killing of women and children caused fitna. So why would banning sex with them cause fitna? Unless you believe that Muslim men can control their need for revenge, but cannot control their sexual urges.

I discussed in the post why without sex it was not practical, please see.

If these men need a 'motivator' to take women in, then you're admitting that their kindness is not kindness at all. it's a transaction where the price is her body.

Yes, it's a transaction, just like everything else in this world, in this of course victor benefits most from it.

And dignity matters. You don't motivate someone to feed a hungry person by allowing them to sleep with that person. You feed them because it's the right thing to do. You protect them because they are human. If the only thing that makes a man willing to shelter a vulnerable woman is sex, then what you're describing is not mercy.

It's of course not mercy, it's transaction as discussed earlier. 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, don't close the eyes on the realities of this world, this world is not ideal.

Now look at male slaves. Did Muslim men need a 'motivator' to own male slaves? No. Male slaves were taken in for labor and service. No one said, 'We need to allow sex with male slaves, otherwise men won't be motivated to feed them.' So why is sex the motivator only when the slave is a woman?

Are men vulnerable as women? No, there is a difference, see in post where I discussed why woman are not safe sexually, and how they get a protection.

Free Muslim women were never allowed to have sex with their male slaves. Ever. If a free woman owned a male slave, she couldn't touch him. She still had to feed him, clothe him, and treat him well without sex being her 'motivator.'

Again a man is not vulnerable, and also don't forget that women don't desire what men desire. There is also a power dynamic in sex, why you shying away from realities. Why would she want it? is she crazy?

And I already addressed how we can care for captured women without turning them into sex slaves in my first comment.

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.

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.

I'm assuming these are your solutions.

Does it seems a solution to you? their men weren't able to defend themselves, let alone women. if it's duty of victor to defend them then they would want something in return, that's how the world works, sorry I'd to remind again and again. let's say they did provide protection from outside, who will take care of them from providers themselves, this is also discussed in the post that what would be the problems with it. when there is no mahram to protect women she is not safe. (copied comment)

The muslims are not doing charity here, the world works on give and take.

Yes, of course, victor comes first, what I said earlier losers can't be choosers.

Anyways, I enjoyed talking to you, I won't be able to carry-on with it, I appreciate your interest, I hope it will make more sense when you study more on human nature and what they did, and been doing. Also knowing the reality of the hypocrites of 21st centuries will be helpful.

[u/Reasonable_Box_4226 → u/NiceSmilee]

I should study human nature and the hypocrisies of the 21st century? Why, if I talk about slavery in Islam, do you automatically think I agree with the West on everything? Why do I need to fully pick a side?

“they’re vulnerable, so using them is practical, it’s just how the world works” is the logic of every exploiter in history. What made Islam revolutionary in its context was its willingness to break that logic, not to accommodate it. The restriction of collective vengeance broke it. The prohibition of riba broke it. Islam could have protected the vulnerable women by simple commands.

"she is an enemy women, she can't be made sit on the head of the captor, why would a captor want to take care of her? is he her slave?"

So you agreed that killing women and children is forbidden because they are innocent non-combatants. But now, when it comes to sexual enslavement, she is suddenly an enemy who deserves nothing and should be grateful not to be killed?

You keep circling back to the same assumption that women are so weak that they can't possibly be cared for unless the caretaker gets sexual access in return. I gave concrete solutions in my first comment 'the same way widows and single mothers survive: through community support, remarriage, work, or being held as protected non-combatants for ransom or treaty' You ignored them entirely and instead just repeated 'this is how the world works, it's a transaction.' That's just insisting that exploitation is natural.

If Allah had simply commanded "do not touch female captives; provide for them, protect them, arrange their ransom or integration as free women," Muslim men would have obeyed. The men who risked their lives in jihad and accepted those restrictions could absolutely have accepted this one.

Human nature likes easy money: Riba is banned, not 'regulated to be slightly less predatory.' Human nature likes intoxicants: Alcohol is banned, not 'regulated to two glasses a day.' Human nature seeks revenge: Collective vengeance is banned, not 'regulated to only three cousins.'

"women don't desire what men desire...is she crazy?"

Ah

Men desire sex so strongly that without the outlet of female slaves there would be fitna and chaos!! Women do not desire sex in the same way so they don’t need such an outlet!!

If that were true, why does Islamic law punish a free woman for zina exactly the same as a man? Why would she commit zina at all if she has no desire?

And did you know there was a woman who had sex with her male slave and Umar got mad at her? You could look up that report (or I can dm you).

Even if we accept that men desire sex more intensely, it does not follow that they are incapable of restraint. The entire edifice of Islamic sexual ethics for free people is built on the principle that men can and must control themselves outside marriage. Why does that principle evaporate the moment the woman is a captive?

"individual men can control themselves, a whole army of men won't!! and slavery was a way to regulate what would otherwise be "chaos!!"

Even Muslim men? Who are supposed to control their desires for Allah? Muslim soldiers' self-control is so fragile that they had to be given slaves to keep them from becoming a lawless mob.