Χ!

Στη σελίδα αυτή θα βρίσκετε κείμενα που δημοσιεύθηκαν για ένα διάστημα στο Ίντερνετ αλλά σε κάποια στιγμή αποσύρθηκαν, καθώς ήταν πολύ αποκαλυπτικά για το Ισλάμ και χαλούσαν την «καλή εικόνα» που προσπαθούν να δημιουργήσουν οι απολογητές του στη Δύση.

1) Άρθρο για τη σεξουαλική σκλαβιά που βρισκόταν στη διεύθυνση http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=5482 του σάιτ AskImam.com (Ask the Imam Online Q & A with Mufti Ebrahim Desai) και το έγραψε ο Mufti Ebrahim Desai. Αν κάνετε κλικ τώρα στο δεσμό αυτό θα δείτε το μήνυμα:

 

Sorry, that fatwa was not found or is unanswered.

Και δεν είναι καθόλου παράξενο που το απέσυραν… Απολαύστε το (σύντομα θα το μεταφράσουμε στα ελληνικά).

Το ερώτημα: Ποιος είναι ο ισλαμικός νόμος αναφορικά με τις σκλάβες; Ήταν επιτρεπτό να έχουμε σχέσεις με αυτές τις σκλάβες χωρίς κανονική τελετή γάμου;

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

QUESTION: What is the Islamic law with regard to slave-women? Was It permissible to have relations with these slave-women without a formal marriage ceremony?

ANSWER: Firstly, it should be borne in mind that slavery was not something that was introduced by Islam; on the contrary, it was something that had its roots planted long before the advent of Islam. It would not be an exaggeration to state that slavery is probably as old as war itself, because it is one of the consequences of war. Thus, slavery apparently first reared its head with the first wars that took place an the face of earth. War is a factor that makes soft men stern, kind men harsh and delicate men rugged. A man who cannot bear to see the sight of blood under normal circumstances becomes capable of shedding the blood of hundreds under the pressure of war. Those who were not killed in warfare, used to be taken as prisoners of war. The pages of history will show that many alternative, expedient methods were used through the ages to deal with prisoners of war. Some used to be executed while others would be set free, with or without a ransom. Then, there were others who were neither executed nor set free. These were enslaved.

When Islam came and prospered, its power was challenged by the enemies of Islam and the need to go to war arose. By that time, slavery had virtually become an international custom. It was also rife among the Arabs from the days of darkness and ignorance. Thus, abolishing it instantateously would have caused chaos and pandemonium among the Arab people. Hence, a process of gradual extirpation had to be implemented. Moreover, if the Muslims would set all their enemy-prisoners free and tolerate their fellow Muslims being captured and enslaved by the enemies, it would have lead to a sharp decrease in the Muslim military force and given a great advantage to the enemy forces which was something that the Muslims could not afford. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that warfare tactics used by one side are often countered by the opposing side in order to maintain a balance of power. Hence, wartime diplomacy necessitated the enslaving of prisoners.

In the ?Jihaads? (Islamic wars) that took place, women were also, at times, taken as prisoners of war by the Muslim warriors. These women captives used to be distributed as part of the booty among the soldiers, after their return to Islamic territory. Each soldier was then entitled to have relations ONLY with the slave girl over which he was given the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP and NOT with those slave girls that were not in his possession. This RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP was given to him by the ?Ameerul-Mu’mineen? (Head of the Islamic state.) Due to this right of ownership, It became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her.

It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man’s legal wife, but once Shariat makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not. It is necessary for a Muslim to be acquainted with the laws of Shariat, but it is not necessary for him to delve into each law in order to find the underlying wisdom of these laws because knowledge of the wisdom of some of the laws may be beyond his puny comprehension. Allah Ta’ala has said in the Holy Quran: ?Wa maa ooteetum min al-ilm illaa qaleelan? which means, more or less, that, «You have been given a very small portion of knowledge?. Hence, if a person fails to comprehend the underlying wisdom of any law of Shariat, he cannot regard it as a fault of Shariat (Allah forbid), on the contrary, it is the fault of his own perception and lack of understanding, because no law of Shariat is contradictory to wisdom.

Nevertheless, the wisdom underlying the permission granted by Shariat to copulate with a slave woman is as follows: The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the ?Ameerul-Mu’mineen? (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be ‘possessed’, bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariat instituted a ‘marriage ceremony’ in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. A similar example can be found in the slaughtering of animals; that after a formal slaughtering process, in which the words, ?Bismillahi Allahu Akbar? are recited, goats, cows, etc.; become ?Halaal? and lawful for consumption, whereas fish becomes ?Halaal? merely through ‘possession’ which substitutes for the slaughtering.

In other words, just as legal possession of a fish that has been fished out of the water, makes it Halaal for human consumption without the initiation of a formal slaughtering process; similarly legal possession of a slave woman made her Halaal for the purpose of coition with her owner without the initiation of a formal marriage ceremony.

In short, permission to have intercourse with a slave woman was not something barbaric or uncivilised; on the contrary, it was almost as good as a marriage ceremony. In fact, possession of a slave woman resembles a marriage ceremony in many ways and both have a lot in common with each other. One similarity is this that just as a free woman cannot have two husbands simultaneously, a slave woman cannot be used for intercourse by two owners. Another similarity is that a free woman whose marriage is on the rocks, cannot marry another man until her previous marriage is nullified through divorce, etc. Due to the discrepancies between husband and wife, the marriage sometimes reaches a stage where it becomes virtually impossible for the couple to live as man and wife with the result that divorce is brought into force to nullify marriage ties. Similarly, if a slave woman was married previously in enemy territory to a non-Muslim, and is then captured alone, i.e. without her husband, it is not permissible for any Muslim to have relations with her until her previous marriage is nullified, and that is done by bringing her to an Islamic country and making her the legal possession of a Muslim. Bringing her into Islamic territory necessitates the rendering of her previous marriage as null and void by Islamic law because with her husband in enemy territory and she in Islamic territory, it becomes virtually impossible for them to meet and live as man and wife. That is why it is not permissible to have intercourse with a woman whose husband is also taken into captivity and put into slavery with her. Another resemblance between the two is that, just as a divorcee has to spend a period called «Iddat» before another man is allowed to marry her, similarly, a slave woman has to spend a period called «Istibraa» before her owner can have coition with her.

Another similarity between marriage and possession of a slave woman is that just as the wife becomes a dependant of the husband and he has to provide a home, food and clothing for her, a slave woman also becomes a dependant of her owner and he has to provide a home, food and clothing for her. Yet another similarity is this that just as marriage makes the close relatives of the wife Haraam upon the husband; i.e. he cannot get married to his wife’s mother, grandmother, sister, etc., similarly if a man has copulated with a slave woman the slave woman’s close relatives also become Haraam upon the owner. With all these similarities it does not make sense to regard copulation with a slave woman distasteful whilst copulation with one’s wife is not regarded as distasteful.

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=5482

 

2) Άρθρο του Oliver A Ruebenacker από τη σελίδα http://archive.today/4pTP#selection-263.0-457.248, το οποίο βρισκόταν σε άλλη σελίδα η οποία εξαφανίστηκε και κοπιάσαμε πολύ να το ξαναβρούμε… Έχει θέμα τη σεξουαλική σκλαβιά και μπορείτε να το δείτε μεταφρασμένο με τα σχόλιά μας εδώ.

Traditionalist View on Sex Slavery
by Oliver A Ruebenacker

Are great people immune to mistakes? Most people – even among physicists – consider Albert Einstein the greatest physicist of all times, but would not hesitate to admit that Einstein made devastating mistakes during his career as a physicist; especially that Einstein rejected Quantum Mechanics. However, many Muslims still have painful difficulties admitting that the great ancient scholars of Islam made major mistakes. The traditionalists among today’s Muslims not only believe that there can be no scholar of Islam greater than those who lived several hundred years ago, but they also insist that the teachings of the old scholars need no substantial revisions. How problematic this view is, becomes manifest in two areas: Slavery and treatment of women. This article is about an ugly topic where those two areas overlap: Concubinage or in more modern terms: Sex slavery.
I was confronted with the issue of sex slavery, when I attended a class in traditional Islamic rules and regulations (fiqh) from Fall 2004 to Spring 2005. The class was primarily based on the Shafi’i school, one of the four orthodox Sunni schools of fiqh. Since I am not a traditionalist, my approach to the knowledge we were taught was to apply what sounded right and to dismiss what sounded wrong and I also learned about the Shafi’i school out of academic interest. However, for the more traditionally minded students, everything that our teacher (whom we called «the shaikh») said was a religious requirement. For those, the class catered to an urgently felt need for religious knowledge, which they felt was necessary to make even the most basic acts of worship valid, and they had every reason to assume that they were taught in the best available quality.
The class, along with a number of other classes, was organized by a non-profit organization whose board consisted of well-educated and well-respected people, including community leaders and popular speakers. There was a ten dollar fee for every student per class session with the possibility of tuition waivers. By now our teacher has left the US, but back then, all classes were taught by the shaikh, who was a traditional scholar not only by subject matter but also by credentials: He had no degrees, but he did have a large pile of teaching certificates (ijazas) by other traditional scholars, who had certificates from their teachers, and so on, claiming to be part of a line reaching back to the Prophet (peace be on him). This kind of qualification was what counted in the eyes of those who ran the classes.
During every class session, our shaikh would at some point start to praise the famous Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, and from the way he talked about him, it was obvious that the two were personally close to each other. One day our shaikh even told us Shaikh Keller appeared to him in a vision. A classmate once told me in a private conversation that Shaikh Keller considered our shaikh to be the second-most knowledgeable person in North America, right after Shaikh Hamza Yusuf, who is the director of the Zaytuna Institute. In fact, Zaytuna served as a role model for this organization.
The class consisted of one three-hour session per week with a five-minute break, and was about stuff that every Muslim was required to know, or so we were told. We learned about how to pray, how to fast, how to do ablution and other things down to incredibly tiny and subtle details. And every little piece we learned was considered required knowledge, necessary to keep our worship valid under all kinds of circumstances which might arise. Our textbook was «Reliance of the Traveller», a translation into English by Shaikh Keller of an old Shafi’i fiqh manual by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, mostly drawing from the teachings of Imam Nawawi, whose opinion is considered to be the strongest in the Shafi’i school until the present day. The manual was more than 600 years old. Nevertheless, it is believed that it is this translation which makes the Shafi’i school the most accessible one for English-speaking Muslims.
Years ago, before I became Muslim, when I first learned about Islam, one point that bothered me was that Islam appeared to tolerate slavery, at least according to traditional opinion. My Muslim friends responded to my concern with the classical apologetic logic: They said, Islam tolerated slavery only to avoid a social and economic collapse and therefore made slavery vanish not suddenly but gradually over time. When I heard this for the first time, I assumed slavery disappeared in the course of a few generations. Several years after I became Muslim I was shocked when I learned that in fact, slavery lasted on for more than a thousand years, until the nineteenth century, when international agreements with Western countries forced Muslim countries to ban slavery. It is true that the Qur’an commands Muslims to give each slave the right to earn their freedom in the verse 24:33, but traditional scholars played this down to a mere recommendation, which proved to be not effective enough.
But there was something even more shocking: Traditional scholars not only paved the way for centuries of Muslim slavery, but they also ruled that every male master had the right to have sex with any of his female slaves whenever he wanted, no matter whether she agreed or not. This not only shatters any illusion one might have about the dignity a slave enjoyed according to traditional scholars, it also smashes any hope to find a social or economical rationale for it. To me, this became a prime example for the necessity of reform of Islamic rules and regulations. I thought that any reasonable person would agree that the case of slavery and sex slavery showed clearly that the traditional schools could not be relevant for us today without major revision. Unfortunately, I had to learn that traditionalists do not agree.
Finally, in late Spring of 2005, the day came which turned out to be the last day I ever went to this fiqh class. I happened to meet one of the other students shortly before class, and I asked him how he thought we should respond to the need for revision, especially considering that our textbook was based on a work more than six hundred years old. The other student replied, there was not much need to revise the traditional thought, but maybe only add something in those places where the traditional scholars were silent. No need at all to change anything substantial. I asked him about slavery and sex with slaves, and he suggested I ask the shaikh. And so I did.
And so it came as it had to come. When the class reached the five minute break, I asked the Shaikh, whether it was permitted for a male master to sleep with slave women against their will. He immediately said yes, and he added this was agreed upon by all four Sunni schools – Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali. I asked to clarify, so if there was a slave market today, I could go and buy a fourteen year old girl just in order to sleep with her? He said yes, and he added, not only was it permitted, it was also common practice among early Muslims. Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the shaikh said, had children from his slaves. The class was shocked, especially the female students. One female student asked, what if the slave woman did not want to? The sheikh affirmed that this was not relevant. Another female student asked, whether this was still applicable today? The shaikh did not address this question – he did not seem to understand what the student meant by «applicable» – but he added that when agreements against slavery came up the Muslim countries «were the first ones to sign». The shaikh said sex slavery was perfectly according to the Qur’an. I later checked with a more reform-oriented scholar who assured me that the Qur’an does not permit this kind of abuse of human beings.
Now let me be absolutely clear that this was more than just the words of a crazy fiqh teacher. What our shaikh told us is perfectly in line with the consensus of more than thousand years of Islamic scholarship. Let me spell it out:
It is permitted (halal) according to all traditional schools (madhabs) to have sexual intercourse with slave girls of the age of nine years or above against their will and without marrying them. And when I say according to the traditional schools, I mean it was consensus among the scholars of all classic schools of Islamic law be it Sunni or Shia. It is all over the classic sources of Islamic law where this issue is elaborated to great detail.
Now what the past scholars said is one thing, how modern Muslim scholars deal with it is another. Unfortunately, the question is rarely asked, because most Muslims are unaware of the problems, but if it is asked, traditionally oriented scholars fail to condemn sex slavery. Even some of the most influential contemporary scholars are defending and justifying sex slavery [1].
Sunnipath is one of the favourite places where Western Muslims go for Islamic education and fatwas (legal opinions) on everyday life issues. Ask any of the great scholars living today who adhere to traditionalist Islamic thinking. They will all say you have to put the issue of slavery and sex slavery into historical context, but they will all agree that these are permissible in principle, at best suspended due to the lack of a proper Islamic state. And they will refuse to call it abuse or rape or evil.
If they fail to condemn slavery and sex slavery as a universal evil, then what would stop these immoral practices from coming back in the future?
Slavery was supposed to gradually disappear according to Islam. The Qur’an tells believers to give their slaves options to buy themselves free. The Prophet (peace be upon him) freed all his slaves. We Muslims are supposed to take him as a role model. But our traditionalist scholars still refuse to believe that slavery and sex slavery are permanently banned by Islamic Law and can not come back under any circumstances. And if in ten or twenty years international law disappears and there is a Caliph who fights a just war and takes war captives, then there could be slave markets again, and then Muslim men would go and buy slave girls and have sex with them without marrying them, whether these girls like it or not.
After this, I did not go to fiqh class any more. I figured out there is no use in learning details from people I do not agree with on the basic moral principles. The issue of sex slavery caused me to doubt that classic Islamic schools can be reformed without abolishing the traditionalist approach. Both Sunni and Shia consider Ali Ibn Abi Talib a major role model, and if he slept with his slaves, according to traditionalist logic, it must be fine. But it has also clarified the lines: The position on slavery and sex slavery is a litmus test which helps us to distinguish between traditionalists and modernists rather sharply.

Notes

[1]
For a while (more than a year, maybe much longer), there was an article by Shaykh Gibril Haddad on the website of the Sunnipath Academy, originally here, which disappeared, but has been copied by other websites, for example here, here and here. Shamira Chothia, a fiqh teacher from Zaytuna Institute, referred to this article when asked about sexual intercourse with slaves.

Mr Oliver A Ruebenacker is a convert from Germany who lives with his wife in Cambridge, Massachuetts. Oliver has a PhD in Physics and works as a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Biological Physics.
Advertisements

3 Σχόλια

  1. Περιμένατε να το αφήσουν; Θα του την έπεσαν του Desai που τα βγάζει έτσι στη φόρα… Πάντως πρέπει να μεταφραστεί.

  2. […] Χ! […]

  3. […] Χ! […]

Σχολιάστε

Εισάγετε τα παρακάτω στοιχεία ή επιλέξτε ένα εικονίδιο για να συνδεθείτε:

Λογότυπο WordPress.com

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό WordPress.com. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Φωτογραφία Twitter

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Twitter. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Φωτογραφία Facebook

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Facebook. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Φωτογραφία Google+

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Google+. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Σύνδεση με %s

Αρέσει σε %d bloggers: