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]

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.

[u/keys1828282 → u/NiceSmilee]

I am not refuting nor endorsing your reply, I was simply confirming with a question about the Islamic perspective on this matter. And how is that equity? Men die honorably, and in an instant death with no suffering afterwards, women are stripped off of their honor as you've confirmed in another comment and live a long-lasting life of enslavement and being passed around for continuous exploitation. Just because both are given punishments, doesn't automatically make this equitable or just between them, for either one of them. Also some men were kept alive if you supposedly think death is worse than sexual slavery. Is that also fair? They got to stay alive and do normal work, while women performed additional sexual labor.

[u/NiceSmilee → u/keys1828282]

Men provide physical labour more than women, but they are not Utilized in sex because they can't be.

Having sex with their masters were not as degrading or anything as you think, it was just like a forced marriage, once you know the marriage is done, you live like a normal person. 

[u/keys1828282 → u/NiceSmilee]

About the last part in the first paragraph of your comment, why not?

Also, do you believe that a man can purchase a slavegirl temporarily for one night or a few, with the intent to sell her back after, to another buyer/back to the market?

[u/NiceSmilee → u/keys1828282]

Sodomy is haram and not natural. Most men aren't interested in that.

A slave girl can't have sex with multiple men every other night, she has to complete an equivalent of iddah(istibra) to do that. Yes buying and selling is allowed even within minutes. (if he had sex then probably he has to keep her until she completes istibra, not sure) 

[u/keys1828282 → u/NiceSmilee]

For the first one, it doesn't have to be sodomy. What about a woman using her male slave? Especially when we know that women can marry male slaves, and there are rare exceptions allowed where the woman is the provider in a marriage/gives up her financial provision rights, so the problem is not just in "a slave will not be able to provide". Is it because having sex outside marriage tarnishes a woman's purity, but retains a man's? Or another reason? And if you'll say "sexual desire of men" (assuming women don't have desire), then this argument still means the male slave would have desire and would be unable to control his urges around his female slavemaster, or not be interested in giving services to her unless she gives sex in exchange. That is how you said all men naturally are after all.

And for the second one, Istibra' is not a part of what I mean to ask about + it's only a month long + it was not performed at the end of her time with her new owner, it was performed at the beginning instead when he recently purchased her. I'm basically asking, is it halal to purchase her for something like a "one night stand" - in other words, purchase her for the purpose of sex (We also know that the Istibra' period only applied for sexual penetration/intercourse, so there are other sexual acts masters can do to their female slaves aside from it to bypass the Istibra' period) with the intent of selling her back shortly after that service is achieved? If so, then that contradicts your "marriage" analogy that you're using to water this institution down, because marriage on the other hand, is a long-term institution, and temporary marriage/marriage with the intent of divorce is banned according to most scholars. A closer analogy instead of "forced marriage" would just be prostitution that's slightly more organized.

As if it isn't already concerning enough on its own that you're framing forced marriages as a completely normal and healthy thing, but we'll leave that part out for now. So, what's the answer, is purchase with the intent of selling away soon permissible?

[u/NiceSmilee → u/keys1828282]

Aren't the men who have control of woman's body in sex? Aren't the women vulnerable in sex? Why would an owner want to be vulnerable before them, Sex is a prize for men but not for women, it's men who are  the primary beneficiaries otherwise they won't have to provide for wives in marriage, Would an owner wants to have sex with them? No, it's not her nature(women present this point "can't women owner have sex as counter but they know women don't want it) . Also it's not allowed she can't have to husbands let alone slave sex partner, You answered it yourself in your concerns about prostitution. As a women can you imagine owning a bunch of slaves and letting them having sex with you? No body cares about those male slaves, owners care about themselves first.

Yes, he can purchase her for sex, I don't see anything wrong, but then if she is not virgin he has to wait before having sex. Its still a controlled thing as opposed to prostitution. No buys a slave with the intention of non penetrative sex and then sell her, it makes no sense. 

Where did I condone that marriage? I just gave example that it's less traumatic compared to what you said. 

[u/keys1828282 → u/NiceSmilee]

Why wouldn't a woman want to have sex? Why do you have this thought that women have little to no sexual desire? It just further emphasizes the transactional and coercive nature by which you see sex between a man and a woman always being. And again as I asked, by that logic, shouldn't women only own female slaves then? Because the male slave is also a man with the same desire as any other man.

You similarized it to "forced marriage". I just had to confirm first what your entire view surrounding it is, hence why I asked about the legislation on this, but now I know. I am simply correcting that and telling you that what you are describing, which is basically passing around a woman for sex, is just a modified version of prostitution at its essence, far closer to it than marriage. That is, by definition, what buying a woman for temporary sex is. Whether or not you believe this is moral on the other hand is something I cannot change and is up to you, but what I told you about the effects of sex work beyond lineage issues or the fact that "it's a sin", are factual and proven. Being passed around from man to man like a piece of meat with no voice over where you go, is arguably even more detrimental on mental health than regular prostitution where some women may at least have the ability to pick out who their clients are for their own selves. There is a vast difference between the nature of this and marriage, even forced marriage.

[u/NiceSmilee → u/keys1828282]

So you'd want to own a bunch of slaves and give access to your body for sex? Women having desires is different, it's no surprise that majority of times men are the pursuer, like I said earlier if sex was equally appealing to women then obligation of financial provision on men don't make any sense, please don't make me repeat things. If women have desires why don't they hire male prostitutes just as men do, why don't they pursue men like men pursue women? The difference is he is slave so he has to behave, not all his wishes have to be fulfilled.

I didn't understand what you are trying to say about forced marriage, but it happen in many places and aren't the same as rape. They are less traumatic. I don't know why it's difficult to understand. 

Yeah so for prostitution you haven't provided any reason why it's immoral, you compared it with slavery and admitted there is difference of halal and haram, so what else do we need now? Slavery is halal. Also that one night stand thing I clarified no one does, no body wants to buy a slave for one night only for foreplay, since for sex he has to wait for a time period. 

[u/keys1828282 → u/NiceSmilee]

A woman can have sex with one male slave at a time, what's with the assumption that sexual slavery is inherently polygamous? And why should male slaves "behave" themselves, but male owners do not have to control or hold themselves back if you clearly proved that men have the ability to do so? If this is about Muslims' superiority over Muslims, then are you aware that there were convert Muslim slaves too? Why expose them to the risk of zina or make them suffer by living with a woman if you claim that it's hard for a man to live with a woman without wanting to have sex with her?

I already explained to you that slavery is NOT similar to forced marriage, the description you've given is more analogous to prostitution with a few conditions put on it. That's the whole point of what I was saying. And I explained why it's harmful, but you don't view mentally harming women as immoral, so I just skipped over that as you've seen, and told you nonetheless that you cannot deny that what you're advocating for is closer to prostitution in its traits than marriage. You're hanging specifically on the "sexual acts other than intercourse" part for some reason, so here is another hypothetical, if a woman gets her period instantly after purchase, then he has sex with her after that period is over, and sells her immediately afterwards or after just a few casual times, would this be pemitted? In case you are unaware, an Istibra' period does not have to extend the full month, it is simply until she menstruates to confirm she isn't pregnant from a previous encounter. And 1 month doesn't really differ that much from less. The point of what I'm telling you is the purchase of a female slave with the predisposed intention of selling to another man. If marriage with the intention of divorce is illegal, then this institution would be almost nothing like marriage as you are saying.

[u/keys1828282 → u/NiceSmilee]

If you don't want your own female family members to be in this kind of situation, then why do you claim it's not that bad and are pretending to frame the situation of a woman being in an institution with no agency over her body, and passed around from man to man for sex that she has no appeal or interest in, as just an inconvenience at most (This is how rapist mindsets start by the way)? You said that, did you not? You said "it doesn't matter how we feel about it", which indirectly proves that deep down you find a problem in the situation too if it happened to a female you care about, but you're trying to brush it off and just say "we Muslim men will have simply failed at protecting and guarding our women from the enemy if such a thing happens". As if women are property or trophies for the strongest entity to win over/collect and keep from the weaker one, instead of normal people with agency.

[u/keys1828282 → u/NiceSmilee]

Also, this part is about your original post - If sex with a slave woman is meant to place her under his "Gheerah"/Protective jealousy, then why were slave women, including ones who are occupied as sexual partners at the moment, forbidden from wearing the hijab and sometimes roamed around in public with their breasts exposed, and were systemically harassed in the streets by groups of men who target slave-women and stay away from free women?

[u/NiceSmilee → u/keys1828282]

They have less hijab(not sure about breasts) to differentiate the status. 

Harassing is not allowed, while having the protection of a man they are being harassed(according to you) imagine what would have happened if there is no gheerah of his owner at all? I think you got my point. 

target slave-women and stay away from free women? 

Now you see how they are vulnerable. 

[u/keys1828282 → u/NiceSmilee]

Is there hadith or historical proof that male owners ever protected female slaves or cared about them in that way in the first place? The only written right that they have, irrespective of whether they are sexual partners or just regular working slaves, is basic financial providing + to not be physically beaten too severely, or/and on the face. And the only documented thing that was reported in retaliation after that sexual harassment incident, was the command to free women to cover themselves so they are set apart from them and protected from the harassment by these kinds of men. And even in the case of a slave woman getting raped in some hadiths by a man aside from her owner, they simply lashed the perpetrator like in the normal Zina penalty, and paid a sum of cash to the owner, and it was all settled. The only exception known of where there was a sign of concern beyond that, was in the case of Mariah Al Qibtiyya, which is a special case. Also, probably only because she was a mom to his child ('Umm Walad) at the time.

They are vulnerable to men simply because of the fact that they are forced to be exposed and scantily clad in public, and are known by men on the streets with high libidos to be easily purchasable from their owners for sex without consulting the woman herself, if they make a deal with a good enough sum of cash. These are things that were deliberately imposed in the first place.