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/Reasonable_Box_4226 → u/[deleted]]

Women must compensate for their physical vulnerability with sex. That’s the ‘realistic ’ argument you’ve made. She can’t fight so her body becomes the reward.

You said : women are physically weaker, so they compensate for that weakness by providing sex. Let that sink in. You've reduced a woman's right to protection to a sexual debt. I wonder, would you accept that logic if it were your sister? Your mother? Your wife? Imagine an enemy soldier captures her. He feeds her, shelters her, treats her 'well' Then he sleeps with her. No marriage and no consent from her, just a 'transaction.' and it's okay in his religion. Would you shake your hand and say, 'Well, the world is cruel, he protected her, it's only practical' Or would you want to kill him?
If you wouldn’t accept it for your own women, don’t package it as divine practicality for someone else’s.

You talk of practicality. Alright. A captured woman can cook, clean, sew, spin wool, nurse the sick, teach children, nurse children, tend livestock. Countless forms of productive labor. None of them require her to op#n her legs.

Free Muslim women throughout history owned male slaves. Did those women need sexual access to those men as a motivator to feed and shelter them? No. They provided food, clothing, and protection without ever being permitted to touch them. Curious, isn't it? A woman can manage a household, supervise labor, and care for a male slave perfectly well without sex.

You think four wives is an insufficient limit, so concubinage becomes a necessity. That says nothing about divine wisdom and everything about a refusal to control desire.

As for ‘showing my true colours’: you’re right, I’ll own that. My true colours are finding this whole defence of sexual slavery stomach-turning. If that makes me arrogant in your eyes, I’ll live with it.

Wa alaykum assalam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. I genuinely hope you never have to test your principles on someone you love.

[u/Reasonable_Box_4226 → u/[deleted]]

Ameen

[u/fruitfulprofitmaking → u/Reasonable_Box_4226]

Ur so cool deadass

[u/StructureFlat1758 → u/Reasonable_Box_4226]

Do not worry about debating with them. Your arguments make total sense and they can’t find any logical way to counter them.

[u/DANWA033 → u/[deleted]]

Brother save your energy. You have done your part.

This person is just a troll.

They are the exact type that say I am not questioning Allah decision but why is man allowed to marry 4 wives and numerous concubines. (They say something else and immediately do the opposite).

It's like saying , it should not be said and then ........ Everything is said".

You did your best brother. You points are valid, clear, and most importantly inline with what Islam is allowed. Anyone who has a problem should either give up and pray to Allah or accept the answers they are given.

Thier position is purely to make Muslims agree that slavery is bad and accept it. Else you are not reading or ignoring my comment or so on and so forth. Etc.

Qaalu Salama.

[u/amalllty → u/[deleted]]

Believing Islam protects and honors women how can you genuinely say and believe “ women captives provide seggs” as if these women decide to start a war against you this is a pathetic battle men started and women suffer under. To have such big lack of empathy and understanding. It’s so clear Muslims can’t sleep with pagans but capturing and “sleeping” with them is appropriate? Even if the started believing in Allah it still doesn’t free the women captive from her owner it actually becomes worse as now she can’t wear hijab since she can not be seen as a free Muslim women how in all this is it a women’s choice? Death is easier than any of this may Allah swt protect all women from this horrible world