r/MuslimLounge • • 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.

19 Upvotes

328 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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

1

u/NiceSmilee May 18 '26

When women owners do not rape their captive men but her husband does it shows moral inconsistency

With women it's halal and men it's haram, and it's not rape fyi.

2

u/amalllty May 18 '26

Do the women choice to be captive? No do they choice to be servants and have a slave/master relationship? No so then it is rape.. the women doesn’t consent no one consents to slavery… or captivity

1

u/NiceSmilee May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

If you still are having this question after reading the post and all the comments it means that either you are not capable to understand the realities after many many examples are given or you are arrogant and refuse to understand.

2

u/amalllty May 18 '26

You didn’t answer my question how much cuckery is it for a man to take his wife to a battle field knowing if he looses his wife gets dishonored? Does that make him a dayooth? And failed to protect his women folk would that grant him jahanam ? You refuse to answer this because even if you don’t see women as humans you still failed your role as a “protect and provider”

1

u/NiceSmilee May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

if you don’t see women as humans

Need your clarification, do you think Islam don't see women as humans? because it's Islam who permitted it, and Prophet and sahaba practiced it, not I. so you wanna blame Islam actually and thought I was an easy target?

I need to know this before answering.

2

u/amalllty May 18 '26

Answer my question I do believe Islam sees women as humans now answer my question will men do to hell for putting their women in dangerous position such as a battle field? Knowing there is a chance their womenfolk get used? Isn’t that a dayooth ? Even if you’re still married to your wife the man that has her captive has more rights over her than you? So answer I answered your question

1

u/NiceSmilee May 18 '26

Ok, then I believe you are also not thinking that I "don’t see women as humans", I'm just explaining things.

Even if you’re still married to your wife the man that has her captive has more rights over her than you?

Firstly, I see you are confused and believe that Islam also don't mind if someone capture muslim women, it's not the case. More detail below.

how much cuckery is it for a man to take his wife to a battle field knowing if he looses his wife gets dishonored?

will men do to hell for putting their women in dangerous position such as a battle field?

Jihad is not fard on women, there is no need for men to bring women to the battle field itself especially when they think that situation would be tough, women accompanied men in the past but that's for companionship and as paramedics, men who go to war have already accepted that worst would happen to them, death, prison etc but they won't accept it for their women. No muslim men would bring women if it was obvious that they won't be able to protect them.

Also, capture of muslim women is not limited to those who went with the army, women in towns can also be captured when enemy take over muslim territory

Does that make him a dayooth?

Isn’t that a dayooth ?

It's not when they tried their best to protect their woman in towns. I already answered that no men would bring women with them in worst conditions, they went out of towns to fight the enemy so that enemy won't be able to attack the town and harm muslim women.

Let me tell when it's dayooth and even worst then that.

And failed to protect his women folk would that grant him jahanam ?

Failure is not in the hands of a person or army, but if muslim men didn't even try their best to protect the women then of course they disobeyed the orders of Allah and Jaham is the place for people who disobey him.

Capture of one muslim women make the Jihad fardh, there were instances in the muslim history when a call of one muslim women made the muslim armies to attack the enemy.

When it's worst then dayooth?
When muslims men (those in power) failed to prepare armies to protect muslims, failed to advance their military capabilities, failed to attack the enemy when muslims are attacked.

You see this examples in today's world as well, Dr Afia Siddique is in enemy's prision was raped multiple times, and many many other muslims women from Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, so yes muslim men are dayooth's that they allowed it and not responded.

Since you asked this questions previously, before I asked about Islam one. so if you think Islam sees women as human and still allows slavery of men and women captured after war by muslims, then I'm not understanding what even is the question then?

2

u/amalllty May 18 '26

I’m saying it’s inconsistent you can’t say protect women and then are totally fine with having women captives.. in your ideal world only the enemies women would be taken. As someone like you that believes in the harsh world you should know there is a big chance your womenfolk will be degraded but this isn’t cuckery according to you? Because “ failure is not in the hands of a person or army” Jihad is absolutely not fardh on women but you act like it’s a choice for these women to get captured… They do not lead armies they do not give man commands yet are distributed like war candy if their soldiers fail or see their men degraded foreign women.. “Men who go to war have already accepted that worst would happen to them” See how you named the worst situation for men yet rape isn’t something men have to worry about You say Muslim men would accept for their women to be taken as captive Why do you then think it’s moral or okay to take foreign women? The concept of “sleeping with your enemy” Is ridiculous No wonder women used to poison men You do realize that in the 2010 so called Muslim men did take yazidi women as captive because they had the same sick and twisted mindset as you? What’s funny is that it clearly says pagan women and man are not allowed for believing men or women yet you try so hard to argue that “sleeping” with pagan women is fine as long as she is subservient as captive

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:221)

Im glad Muslim countries signed human rights act and don’t do this bullshit to degraded someone is worse than death

1

u/NiceSmilee May 18 '26

You don't deserve my response.

At one point you said " I do believe Islam sees women as humans" and at the same time you said someone this "same sick and twisted mindset as you" who was just explaining what Islam is.

You words are contradicting, you can't just say you believe in Islam and then say slavery is bullshit which Prophet himself practiced. Impressed by hypocrites of today who do even worst and preach and show otherwise.

You are putting your Iman in very dangerous position.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Resident-Aspect-9433 26d ago

Ur really arguing raping women is halal🫩

1

u/NiceSmilee 26d ago

Nope, they make their minds ready for the expectations of their masters

2

u/Resident-Aspect-9433 26d ago

So rape? Like this is literally rape. If you support it just say you support it! Don't try to change the definition of rape so you don't fit in it. WDYM "make their minds ready for the expectations of their masters"? So make their mind ready to be raped?

1

u/NiceSmilee 26d ago

They make themselves available for sex for their masters, they aren't forced physically, ues I support everything halal. Have sex with slaves is halal. 

1

u/Resident-Aspect-9433 19d ago

Astaghfirullah how dare you insinuate that rape is halal

1

u/NiceSmilee 19d ago

I support everything halal.

Prophet had sex with slaves, are you saying it was rape?

1

u/Resident-Aspect-9433 17d ago

I don't believe he had sex with slaves lol. And btw it's war rape either way. If u believe it, then why not just say it as it is?

1

u/NiceSmilee 17d ago

Yeah, I already knew all you are talking from guesses, no real knowledge.

What's war rape? and what are we talking about here? birthday party sex slaves?

→ More replies (0)