On troubling Hadiths
May 27, 2007 – 4:38 amA few thoughts on hadiths and religion in general:
I had a difficult relationship with religion while I was growing up. As a child, I used to be a voracious reader and stumbled upon lots of things, including the Hadith collection my parents had. Now there was one particular Hadith that I read when i was about 10 - which was a real shock to the system. I cannot emphasize how shocking - and how much impact it had - but in any case, it’s something that troubled me for a long long time. Frankly I couldn’t believe it. And it wasn’t something you could speak about to people - a) it was extremely indecent or so I felt as a child ( and the horror of having found it in a Hadith collection, can you imagine) and b) not the sort of thing you can broach to ‘religious’ people very easily - and plus the whole ‘ forbidden areas of thinking’ thing. I felt terribly alone - had anyone else read this stuff? what did they think about it if they had? no answers for a long time.
Now fast forward to the days where you can look up anything on the net -hooray ! and ask all sorts of people questions on the internet and generally find out more about what’s going on in other people’s heads. I’ve had some discussions about this hadith - but not too many -and then I tracked it down just to be sure i hadn’t dreamed it up, thanks to the USC MSa Compendium of Muslim texts which is searchable and a handy resource.
And of course as a child I had no idea about sex slavery or concubinage (whatever you want to call it) - or that islamic fiqh had regulated the conditions of slavery. of course the war booty thing ties in with the ‘taking women ransom’ but I’d never heard such justifications back then. If i had, i’m sure my feelings at the time of the Iraq invasion would have been even more complicated. {and plus all the stories you hear from relatives in bangladesh about the pakistani soldiers raping women in the war} These sorts of things are everywhere, but you don’t expect to read about them in compilations of ‘religious texts’. Why doesn’t it bother more people that’s what I wanted to know, what I still want to know, or how it can be ‘rationalised’. Some people are thinking about these knotty issues, but most people will brush them under the carpet. I daresay that is the natural thing to do - avoid controversy.
The Hadith in question is taken from Sahih Muslim, Book 8 which is the “The Book of Marriage” (Kitab Al-Nikah)
Chapter 22: AL AZL (INCOMPLETE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE): COITUS INTERRUPTUS
Book 008, Number 3371:
“Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
So that’s pretty much what rocked my boat: I don’t know what people manage to rationalize as adults but as a child that was pretty damn shocking to me, particularly given what I was told by my Mother about the ‘morals of sexuality in Islam’.
The next few narrations in Sahih Muslim which touch on this as well:
Book 008, Number 3372: A hadith like this has been narrated on the authority of Habban with the same chain of transmitters (but with this alteration) that he said:” Allah has ordained whom he has to create until the Day of judgment.” Book 008, Number 3373: Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl with them. We then asked Allah’s Messen- ger (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of judgment must be born. Book 008, Number 3381: Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was asked about ‘azl, whereupon he said: The child does not come from all the liquid (semen) and when Allah intends to create anything nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence). Book 008, Number 3377: Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that mention was made of ‘azl in the presence of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) whereupon he said: Why do you practise it? They said: There is a man whose wife has to suckle the child, and if that person has a sexual intercourse with her (she may conceive) which he does not like, and there is another person who has a slave-girl and he has a sexual intercourse with her, but he does not like her to have conception so that she may not become Umm Walad, whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: There is no harm if you do not do that, for that (the birth of the child) is something pre- ordained. Ibn ‘Aun said: I made a mention of this hadith to Hasan, and he said: By Allah, (it seems) as if there is upbraiding in it (for ‘azl).”
Apparently the reason they seem to talk about this “al-azl” thing so much is all tied up with the permissibility of contraception, or so it seems. So that’s what the men were bothered about: contraception - not - oh is it okay if i just have a quickie with this woman captive/slave girl here? and personally what i found the most shocking was that the Prophet was amongst them at the time - so what was he doing there while these men were ‘enjoying’ the captive women? I really had a lot of trouble with this one - once I’d read that I felt really resentful when as a teenager - time and time again- people would say ‘well we are all very moral people. we do not believe in boyfriends or girlfriends’. Sure aunties and uncles..i wanted to say..how do you explain this stuff then? {but of course good asian girls are not mean to answer back to the ‘community’ are they now, oh no}
Wholesome reading isn’t it. I can’t understand personally when you have lurid tales like these why anyone is bothered about cartoons. It seems to me if there is anything that would defame the character of a Holy Prophet then Hadiths like this one are the culprit. Would I choose to accept this as ‘religious tradition’ - well no of course not. If this is meant to be true then I can’t say honestly that I am impressed at all.
A note on inauthentic and authentic hadiths: These Hadiths are from the Sahih Muslim collection. For a long time I was vaguely aware that there were ‘weak” hadiths around - basically Hadiths that were ‘questionable’ and didn’t have a reliable ‘chain’ of narration. So for a while I assumed that this creepy stuff about coitus interruptus with captive women would surely fall into the ‘questionable’ camp, oh no - it turned out to be in Sahih Muslim - which according to Sunni tradition after Sahih Bukharis meant to be the two most reliable ones! ( don’t take my word for it - read the wikipedia links below). Well as far as I know anyway - i’d love it if someone came along and said, actually this stuff is bollocks too. Apparently Shias dismiss Sahih Muslim as inauthentic - I wonder why?
“A Sahih hadith is the one which has a continuous isnad, made up of reporters of trustworthy memory from similar authorities, and which is found to be free from any irregularities (i.e. in the text) or defects (i.e. in the isnad)”
wikipedia tells us that:
Muhammad’s sayings and deeds are called sunnah and are transmitted through hadith. Imam Muslim (full name Abul Husain Muslim bin al-Hajjaj al-Nisapuri) was born in 202 A.H. and died in 261 A.H. He traveled widely to gather his collection of ahadith, including to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt. Out of 300,000 ahadith which he evaluated, only 4,000 approximately were extracted for inclusion into his collection based on stringent acceptance criteria. Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur’an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established. Muslim was a student of Bukhari and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
It is important to realize, however, that Imam Muslim never claimed to collect all authentic traditions. He tried to collect only traditions that all Muslims should agree on its accuracy. There are other scholars who worked as Muslim did and collected other authentic reports. After Sahih Bukhari, this is the most authentic hadith collection in the Sunni perspective.
According to Munziri, there are a total of 2200 hadiths (with no repetition) in Sahih Muslim. This would bring the total of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim to 3000 hadiths. According to most Hadith scholars[1], there are 1400 authentic hadiths that are reported in other books (mainly the Six major Hadith collections).
385 Responses to “On troubling Hadiths”
Sonia, I’m in class but will respond to this soon. Interesting!
By Achelois on May 27, 2007
I read the hadith you quote only a couple of years ago. I didn’t understand why exactly you find the hadith shocking: is it because it talks about sex? Or is it because the Prophet is talking about sex? Or do you find it horrible that men talked about concubines so explicitly?
The hadith didn’t upset me, frankly. It didn’t because first, I did not read it as a child. What upsets me is that Islam did not end concubinage. What upsets me is that even the Prophet had slave women according to some sources. This dialogue should not have taken place in the first place. It is not the hadith that bothers me, it is the fact that such a dialogue could take place even when there is apparently so much emphasis on morality in Islam. What I can gather from all the ahadith is this:
It is either a lie that Muslim men were allowed to have concubines; or the whole fuss about morality has been blown out of proportion by Muslim men after the Prophet’s death. Muslim men kept concubines until the early 20th Century. Why are they considered moral and why were they successful rulers? Why did God not punish Solomon, Moses, Abraham and Muhammed for having sex with concubines? If they and their companions were allowed to have sex with women who were not legally their wives then why is it such a huge crime when two people who are in love have sex before marriage? See, the two and two are not equaling four. Morality should be clearly defined. The idea behind this whole interaction is sickening. It meant that a woman was captured, she could have been married; she could have been pregnant. Men, and worse Muslim men, had sex with them because they were “excellent Arab women” and the former missed their wives. Even during this whole sex scene they were more worried about exchanging the woman for ransom. So, it meant the woman would be used and later spat out – no strings attached.
Back to the hadith. It is apparently “authentic” which means all this was said. If I were to see concubinage as normal under Islam, I wouldn’t mind this hadith, you see. I mean it clearly explains how a man should have sexual relations with his slave because contraception secured ransom for the woman whereas pregnancy meant she could not be exchanged for ransom. Islam had just begun and much was unclear. New Muslims approached the Prophet for advice on every topic. Apparently, he even taught women how to bathe after period and sex. Thus, there are detailed instructions on almost all areas of Muslim life.
If this hadith is made up then that makes my life very easy but I don’t think it is. Ali Ibn Talib is reported to have had 17 concubines aka “slave women” and Omar Ibn Khattab had several as well from whom he had children as well. Many scholars believe that the Prophet never married Maria and Raihana and that they were his slave women.
Concubinage just makes me sick. Sorry for the long comment.
By Achelois on May 27, 2007
Hi Suroor - thanks for your comment - and please don’t apologize! Long comments are always very welcome - and this is hardly the sort of topic one can write short comments on. I hear what you are saying - we have had the concubinage discussion on your blog, I agree it is sickening, and of course the issue with differing standards of morality for different types of relationships.
To go back and answer your original question - why I found the hadith shocking. A couple of things - most obviously - as a child i did find the aspect that a prophet could simply say to some men - oh you’re missing your wives - go have sex with that one - was clearly contravening what I’d understood till then which was only a husband and wife were allowed to have sex. otherwise it was *bad* - a 10 year olds line’ of thinking. And what I had been given to understand was that there were no *contradictions* - unlike the Bible ( ahmed deedat videos - i’d seen a few by then).
But in any case - the other main thing really was the casualness with which the ‘taking’ of the captive women is referred to. The very fact that they were not questioning their. right to those women - or that the women might not want to be ‘taken’. I grew up in the Middle East and as I’m sure you know - war was never very far away. Iraq/Iran at the time - Beirut, Israel/Palestine - all around. And rape of women was something everyone was very aware of. To me, the fact that this Hadith could exist, was suddenly proof of how men have been justifying sexual violence on helpless women in the context of war. And the hypocrisy - of the fact that when we are victims of war - how would we feel if say the soldiers turned around and said, we have the right. Do we accept their right? No we wouldn’t if we were the victims or seeing it from the point of view of the victim, rather than the successful aggressor. And even if it is a ‘religious war’ - I still would not accept it. Perhaps this is the difference between me and other people’s positions. Perhaps people think if it’s a religious war, the ‘religious’ soldiers are allowed to rape those ‘non-muslim’ women.
So - it seemed to me to be a question of the most fundamental morality to me. The very simple matter was that ( as a reader of stories and putting myself in other people’s shoes) I could see a story - written from the women’s perspective - and how would that seem? A story of capture and rape - perhaps. Maybe the women in that instance were happy to have sex with those men - but - most likely not.In any case, the men did not seem to be too concerned with their consent. That is very problematic. Basically, to me, as a child - I thought that Hadith indicated that the Prophet and his companions did not care about rape or women or anything apart from themselves. And yes - that seemed pretty shocking to me. Given how soldiers in all wars go around raping women - I found it incredibly apalling that some men might actually justify their behaviour because of these kind of Hadiths! I didn’t know much about religion but I did know - that ‘taking captive women’ and having sex with them seemed to reek of power and domination.
Whether I was ‘wrong’ about that - please remember as a child we actually have clearer ideas of *good* and *bad* albeit in a simple kind of way. I guess that’s why it was so shocking for me - that moment - it was like a revelation - perhaps things weren’t quite so clear -cut. certainly if what i was reading were true, then there was trouble afoot.
Granted that not long after that - Iraq invaded Kuwait and there was no brushing the issue of rape and violence and domination under the carpet. I don’t know if people are simple enough to think that ‘Muslim’ men do not rape ‘Muslim’ women but that is wishful thinking. All I can say is that I am really lucky to a) be alive today and b) that i wasn’t raped. For any woman in such a violent situation - it is really something unavoidable.
Having been through war myself I felt again - even more strongly - about that Hadith, maybe because I could not see any way of justifying that kind of behaviour, religion or no religion. War is barbaric and there is no getting away from that. Perhaps for people who have not seen the horrors or war or the aftermath, these kinds of dialogues in the Hadith can be ‘abstract’ - but for me I found it incredibly hard. It just seemed to be related from the point of view of the Aggressor - the Powerful ones who take some helpless people ( who happen to be women) captive in war. and what do they do with them? They have sex with them and worry about getting them pregnant. OK so maybe they weren’t torturing them but it surely does sound to me like a scene of violence that would cause someone some serious trauma. As someone who is very critical of war, and torture and a supporter of human rights, i still cannot square this hadith with my conscience.
I’ve rambled on for a long time.
By sonia on May 27, 2007
the hadith is definitely shocking, simply because the Prophet seems to be condoning the rape of captive women. like you said, seeing it from the woman’s perspective is just awful. no one views themselves as ‘war booty’ and gives up their body willingly to random (and married!) soldiers.
why wasn’t this classified as adultery? don’t men get lashes for that? or is it not adultery if the woman is a captive? that just makes it ridiculous! a man can promise his wife that he won’t take any more wives but he STILL has the loophole of striking the jackpot with a captive?
how the hell would we like it if the american soldiers started to rape all the iraqi women and claimed they’d converted to islam and were doing it for religion?!
i really (honestly) admire the way Suroor manages to come to terms with these ‘controversial’ topics (especially since she actually THINKS about it beforehand, unlike most Muslims, who don’t even know about half of these things) but honestly, i just can’t believe in Islam because of such hadiths and verses.
By sarah on May 27, 2007
i really (honestly) admire the way Suroor manages to come to terms with these ‘controversial’ topics
No malice, but it’s hard for me to admire doublethink. But that’s just me. I also like the way she carefully sidesteps the word ‘rape.’ Instead, these men are ‘having sex’ with the captive women.
It’s really pretty simple: Islam is a religion borne of a man, and belongs to a particular era. It is not a divine universal revealed truth — it’s just desert dogma. And because the time of Muhammad was deeply patriarchal, men get to rape women at will, have as many women at their disposal as they can afford and fight for, and sexual ‘morality’ outside of these bounds is strictly regulated, lest those who haven’t fought for and earned these rights, or those who are women, avail themselves of too much unbridled sexual pleasure. It’s fundamentally about status and control.
To even attempt to make sense of any religion’s sexual ethics boggles the mind. I honestly don’t understand why people like Suroor — fundamentally good and intelligent people — go on duping themselves even while their intellect rebels every step of the way.
By apostate on May 28, 2007
Sarah, it was not considered adultery if the woman was captive! And frankly if all this is really true then I have questions. However, I don’t think concubinage existed under Islam like it has been made out to be today. This all is filthy and that is not why I think it is a lie. I don’t think this hadith is authentic because of two reasons:
1. I have read that captive women were proposed to by Muslim men and if they chose to marry them they were married to the men before they could sleep with them. Marriage to free women was the normal nikah and they were called wives. Marriage to captive women was another type of nikah and they were called ‘what the right hand possesses’ because the couple was bound by an oath that was of a different nature.
2. A man had to wait for 30 days before he could have sex with a captive woman after nikah.
Thus, if a man was supposed to first wait for 30 days and then marry the woman before having sex with her how could the interaction quoted in the hadith have taken place because if men were married to such women they would have had to divorce these women, make them complete their iddat and then exchange them for ransom. This would total about 4-5 months.
By Achelois on May 28, 2007
Oh, and I forgot to mention Sonia, this hadith also appears in sahih Bukhari in at least three places.
By Achelois on May 28, 2007
sorry guys -the comment moderation thing seems to have kicked in.
By sonia on May 28, 2007
Sonia, would you mind if I linked to this post on my blog? I really want other Muslims to discuss this but I’m not sure if you’d like unwanted traffic especially since all types of people visit my blog. I did mention the link to a friend in the comments but I was thinking of properly linking to this entry. Let me know either way.
By Achelois on May 28, 2007
Suroor - not at all - please go ahead. The reason I wrote it is that I couldn’t contain myself - it kind of spilled out I needed to work out what I felt about it - and also I do appreciate other people’s thoughts - whatever they are- on this matter - as I said, which is very significant for me. {I do realise it is ‘controversial’ - and I don’t really want to upset anyone either}
thanks for everyone’s comments!
By sonia on May 28, 2007
p.s. I am used to all sorts of people on this blog - there aren’t usually a lot of *friendly* people around. which is fine - i’m used to people coming along and calling me Militant Marxist trying to exhort everyone to revolution etc. !
I realise this is the sort of topic that there is usually very little middle ground - and I do think it tends to invoke strong reactions and opinions. (My own are very strong !)
All and sundry are invited to come along - actually I would really like to hear what other Muslims are thinking about this stuff. It represents a crisis of faith for me pretty much so I do want to think things through carefully.
By sonia on May 28, 2007
Thanks for the link Suroor!
The thing that really got to me when I first read about concubinage and slave women was the permissibility of having sex with them without there being any kind of “marital” bond. They fell under what the “right hand possesses”; but it was only for men- women with male slaves could not sleep with them despite they were what categorically would fall under “right hand possesses”
The other issue was the emphasis on relieving the urges of men (as the hadith which you presented above Sonia) at the poor expense of these captured women. Relieving urges was obviously a more pertinent issue for men of that era than being “faithful” to their wife. Perhaps it was how the culture was back, after all having more than one wife and many slaves wasn’t considered anything too shocking then, but im not too sure about that either.
Also, Im not so sure how many of these women were so willingly wishing to engage in intercourse with the very men who slaughtered their family members. Seems a bit…impossible and dare I say it, distasteful.
Suroor, I was of the view that some of the men did propose to the slave women and wished to take them as their wife, but on the whole majority of them didnt and just kept them as slaves since they also had that option. I’d be interested if you had more information on that, would like to read up on it
By Sumera on May 28, 2007
Sumera, it was actually Sonia who brought the article to my attention which argues that men always married captive women before sleeping with them. I think Sonia, you and I are really troubled by the concept of concubinage and we have discussed this various times
Anyway, the article is here - http://www.averroes-foundation.org/articles/sex_slavery_addendum.html
and we discussed it here - http://achelois.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/possessions-of-the-right-hand/
By Achelois on May 28, 2007
“Also, Im not so sure how many of these women were so willingly wishing to engage in intercourse with the very men who slaughtered their family members. Seems a bit…impossible and dare I say it, distasteful.”
Sumera - you said it before I could.. it is very distasteful in my mind.
Perhaps as Suroor says some of the men were asking the women to marry them - and of course by now - it is a moot question, we don’t really know. One would hope that the men would behave ‘courteously’ - but how realistic was that? whilst i would like to believe the best of them doesn’t it seem that we are idealising their behaviour because they were ‘muslim’? I don’t know - men in battle - makes me very suspicious, it’s my deep-rooted cynicism of human beings which is another factor in my interpretation of all this. And in any case I don’t know that the women had any real choice - so perhaps yes it was ’sugar-coated’ in as much as the men asked their ‘permission’ to get married - rather than grab them and run - which ‘relatively’ is better - but to me it sounds like the devil and the deep blue sea type of choice. overall - I suppose I am not really happy about the ‘Battles’ either..so it’s a slippery slope this one.
By sonia on May 28, 2007
ah yes it was interesting reading that addendum of oliver ruebenacker - there is a sensible thinker. when i read his ‘addendum’ I thought it was the first time someone has tried to address the ‘right hands possess’ statement and what it could mean in the Quran. If i understood him correctly - his was a pretty revolutionary idea - that given that the ‘right hands possess’ statement wasn’t referring to slaves - but a relationship akin to marriage. which doesn’t bring in the issue of whether it is ‘consensual’ or not - i daresay that is implied. I think most traditional scholars just did not address the issue of female consent because they fundamentally thought women were for possession - someone who can afford to pay for them can have them - so the ‘objectification’ of women didn’t leave room for agency. Ruebenacker’s thesis is much more salutary than the idea that your right hands possess is a slave.
yes discussions on concubinage do seem to cover the same ground Suroor!
By sonia on May 28, 2007
Thanks for the links Suroor - I did read your entry on it; but must’ve slipped my mind. Its like a sieve at the best of times :-/
Its an interesting topic, although quite unsettling and disturbing at times.
I share the same cynical view as yourself Sonia and that is one of the reasons why concubinage doesn’t sit with me very well.
If presented with the choice of becoming a wife to these men and/or slave, I think the former would be far more attractive a choice (if attraction comes into this - after all would you be in any state to make a decision properly when captured and homeless, scared and nervous of what was going to happen with you?)
By Sumera on May 28, 2007
What I often wonder about is why the wives and daughters of the Prophet and his companions never captured in wars? Why was it that the two enemies fighting a battle never lost their focus while trying to protect their women from the enemies in battle fields? It could be a possibility that the women captured during wars were from a specific stratum of society exclusively meant for such purposes much like the prostitutes and the dancing gypsies. It is only a hypothesis but is quite possible. We know that battles were fought away from civilization in specific battle fields that were often very far from residential towns. We also know from recorded material that wives usually did not accompany soldiers and hence they missed their women. Who were these captured women then? It is odd that a battle be fought miles away from home and the enemy should then travel miles back to capture women from their homes. Safiyya bint Huyayy was the daughter of the chief of a Jewish tribe captured by Muslims and it is possible that she insisted on accompanying her family to war much like many other Muslim women who accompanied their men. But it is also a possibility that specific women went to war to nurse soldiers, cook food for them, and perhaps even offer them sex. Mutah and misyar types of marriages were specifically designed for such ‘comfort’ purposes. Non-Muslims also had several types of marriage, some of which were temporary. These could have been the women captured in wars and although their men tried to bring them back (with or without ransom), losing these women was not as hazardous to war as losing sisters, wives and daughters could have been to these men. Muslim men captured these women and married them (temporarily or permanently) before sleeping with them. Of course, the woman’s consent to marriage in such a situation is another debate. This still does not justify sex with slaves.
By Achelois on May 29, 2007
Sorry about the long comments, Sonia. We could together write a thesis on this!
I have linked to you on my blog but couldn’t help myself and left you a long comment!
By Achelois on May 29, 2007
Interesting point you raise there Suroor - ( pls keep the long comments coming in! you know i can’t help myself on your blog either!) + thanks for the link..always good to hear a wide range of opinions/thoughts.) - actually one which I was mulling over recently - about the potential capture of wives/companions of the Prophet, and the questions you raise about the type of warfare yep I know very little about this area. military tactics are not something I know much about - but I suppose the same issues exist around other medieval warfare. Battles which were fought in the battlefield and then the victors helping themselves to the ’spoils of war’ i.e. what was left in the houses of the combatants - sometimes that involved staying and taking over the town - and sometimes looting, raping and then off on their way. It depended on the exact situation I guess. I generally would like to know more about the Battles fought - this is some historical research I think does need doing. Because as you say - did the women who were captured go out to battle? or was it that once their tribe had lost the battle, the victors came to their village to ‘take the booty’ - after all - even though females were considered part of the booty - this term generally applies to ‘goods’ too does it not - and I can’t see people taking their things to war either.
I don’t know - all good questions. The thing that interests me is - wouldn’t the Muslims feel offended if the wives of the Prophet had been taken and forced to marry the captors ( assuming the Muslims had lost) I daresay that might be on account of the loss rather than feeling bad the women had to be married off to the victor - but still - you get my gist. if the tables were turned would we not think it gross injustice. I mean after the Prophet died, no one even was allowed to marry his wives - so it seems funny to me that the Prophet was keen to marry other people’s wives, but arrange it so that no one would marry his after he was no longer around.( I am sorry this if comes out as disrespectful) Why should a wife of the Prophet be the ‘Mother of the Muslims’ - it doesn’t make any sense - they were women - yes they could have been -wonderful women - but in the same way everyone keeps saying oh we had to marry the widows to look after them, and fulfil their sexual desires etc. etc. - same could have been said of the Prophet’s wives?
I digress here. I am pretty sure that the Muslims would consider it a dishonour if their daughters/wives were taken in battle and ‘married’ to their captors, and they must have been aware the same was true of their ‘enemies’ - they were of a similar culture after all - one that put a huge importance on the ‘honour’ of their women. It has always been a big factor or men in war- that the victor in battle will take your women - so fight to the death. I think the issue for me is that all of this is nothing new, this is what battles and wars were about - and if people think religion mandated certain wars, then perhaps this behaviour is also justified - but therein i think lies the problem.
Self-defense is one thing - this sort of thing ( for me ) is what you get into once you start being a successful aggressor. what do you do with the people who survived etc. etc. you develop a system perhaps - one which may seem humane when you’re in that situation - lots of women and children - what are we going to do with them - give them a home - marry them. etc. Which to me - really does not seem any different to a ‘forced marriage’ situation. What we generally refer to ‘forced’ marriages today have the same hallmarks - not a lot of choice and vulnerability - though one could argue people today have more choices than if you have been captured in battle - although it obviously depends on circumstances.
(and also this brings to mind the bride kidnapping issue which Suroor also raised on her blog - in my opinion another kind of ‘forced’ marriage)
Because women have accepted these situations because they didn’t have a choice - and made the best of their choice - does not mean - for me - that there was no problem there. In fact- i think precisely this is where the idea comes from that women are weak - which women seem to have accepted for centuries.
I dunno - for me - I feel the core problem is using God to justify dubious activities. I don’t actually have an issue with believing in God per se - but it seems suspicious when there is a lot of activity - that if you took God out of the equation - would seem very suspect otherwise. I know this is what a lot of atheists say and I can’t help agreeing on this point. ( i have to link to a a very good article talking about this - some brilliant points about using religion as dogma to justify dodgy practices)
But at the end of the day people need to believe in what is right for them, and what makes them comfortable.
I think that there are too many dodgy practices that have been justified by religion - and I am beginning to think that is perhaps why I am not very comfortable with religion.
By sonia on May 29, 2007
apostate, i think credit has to be given when people actually have the balls to question or merely even think about what specific things in the Quran mean. I’m surrounded by Muslims (cause i live in the Middle East) and practically no one, including my own family members, know about these hadiths or verses. And even when they do, it’s sort of shrugged off as ‘those were different times’. If the Quran is supposed to be a ‘guide to life’ and valid even today, then we can’t claim that the things we don’t like in it are only relevant to those times, simply because we wish it to be so.
Anyway, the fact that Suroor and a lot of the people on her blog actually think about these things is a really positive thing. Yes, you and i think the religion is man-made but that doesn’t mean others aren’t free to believe what they want.
Suroor, i somehow doubt that the men married the slaves, and even if they did, it was for sex and the women did not really have much say (given that they were captives).
On hadiths…isn’t it easier not to believe in them at all? ANY of them? I say that because rejecting seemingly ‘authentic’ hadiths that are unpleasant and accepting only those that say positive stuff seems a bit too convenient to me.
By sarah on May 29, 2007
Sumera - “after all would you be in any state to make a decision properly when captured and homeless, scared and nervous of what was going to happen with you?)”
exactly -i think it was your sentence that made me think of the current debate around forced marriages. It’s something we’ve talked about a lot on the Pickled Politics discussion forum. It certainly isn’t a ‘Muslim’ issue - but one i think where patriarchal societies decide for themselves what happens to girls - and the girls are considered to have no choice. this mindset seems to me the same kind of mindset - where the choice/feelings of the girl are not taken into account, not even considered. Which is such a de-humanising thing - it totally seems bound up in gender inequalities to me. And that seems more the work of Man than God. But to return to my point - ( i am writing such essays here) what worries me about all this is perhaps religion reveals more about Man than God’s desires - i have always had a sneaking suspicion about this when I was little - and it seems more the case now. Men seem to think that by invoking God they can lord it over us women. Like i said earlier - in terms of abstract metaphysical reasoning I think is theoretically possible to admit the existence of ‘God’ - ( though obviously i cannot KNOW it ) i though I disagree about the general Judeo-Christian interpreation and characterisation of God (which allegedly we are not supposed to do but it happens anyway -imho). i don’t think we can know much about what God wants - and hence the difficulty when certain people announce ‘Prophethood’ - if i am honest - this is my issue. We can try to work it out for ourselves - and maybe that’s where our brains come in to play. Otherwise if we blindly believe in something because someone comes along and says ‘oh God told me to tell this to you’ - then surely we are leaving ourselves open to all sorts of things. ( like justifying slavery and rape and war) How would we know which is the Right way - we wouldn’t would we. The reason why I say this is that people have suggested that if you don’t believe in God - all of these things seem funny, but not if you believe it was mandated by God. Actually I come at it the other way - i grew up with a belief in God - and then I read about what it was God mandated us to do etc., and most of it seems to me what men want for themselves and most of that seems to involve controlling that women. ( and if this is what God is mandating I am afraid I don’t want to believe in that kind of God. Perhaps this is the crux of the matter) That seems clear to me - hence my suspicions. It seems like the thing to do doesn’t it - misuse people’s beliefs in a deity - to say ‘ah deity said to me that you should have sex with me, deity said I should kill this person’ - the minute power, sex and death entered the equation - I got suspicious. And i feel the fact that you are supposed to revere someone without question - is doubly suspicious. I don’t think that because the Prophet is the Prophet I am not allowed to apply the reasoning I am applying - that would be unfair and repressive - I daresay to some it is disrespectful. Surely if someone is believed to be a Prophet they should be upheld to the highest of standards - otherwise misuse of religion becomes a very easy thing. ‘Do as I say not as i do’. Now I am not suggesting that everything I have read about the Prophet’s life is bad - a lot of what I have read about him as a young man is interesting. Certainly I respect him for - if nothing else - having the courage of his own opinions and go against centuries of his ancestor’s tradition ( Pretty much what we Muslims call Apostasy! another irony there) and put his faith in what HE believed - not what his family told him - having the courage of his own beliefs. And also his time with Khadijah ( of course i am assessing all this with my moral compass) and pre-Medina seems to be what one expects from someone concerned with the troubles of their society, wanting justice etc. That all i think is great stuff -however - it’s the stuff later that I have issues with. it seems to me when people gain power, they often change - i don’t think the Prophet’s example is very strange when compared to other military leaders who wanted conquest and power - ( from what I have read) but I find much that is problematic. When I was little i heard that lots of people ’said bad things’ about the Prophet - and I hope people don’t think i am trying to malign him - however - i am simply being honest about my reaction when I actually read things about his life - which frankly i didn’ t do as a child. after the ’shocker’ hadith i have to admit i closed my mind to religious stuff because i was too *scared*. so i avoided the issue.
Given my ambivalence - i feel i have a lot of research to do - about the Prophet’s life - i need to read some biographies, and more about the warfare.
right i’ll stop now - i think ive written about 10 essays. i want to thank everyone for their comments - this is really helping me to sort out my thoughts!
p.s. no men reading this?
By sonia on May 29, 2007
Sonia, Muslim women were captured by non-Muslims as well. The women that pagans and Jews captured and married were Muslim. Of course, it would have hurt the Muslim ego but it was part of warfare.
The reason why I see the Prophet’s wives were not allowed to remarry is linked to the fact that he had no surviving sons - sons mean the continuation of a legacy in tribal societies. It could have meant continuation of prophet-hood to some people. The fact that the Prophet had grandsons led to the division of two sects, didn’t it? Imagine what would have happened if he had surviving sons. This is why he married his adopted son’s wife to ensure that his followers do not start treating his adopted son as his real son and thereby make a prophet out of him. If any of his wives had remarried and had sons from those marriages I’m pretty sure there would have been people who would have made them prophets/saints. Why his wives are called ‘Mothers of Believers’ also has to do with the fact that after the Prophet’s death his followers took the responsibility of looking after his wives financially. His wives are promised double reward for their patience and loyalty. Personally, it would have disturbed me if he had only married virgins and then prohibited them from remarrying.
By Achelois on May 29, 2007
sonia, excellent points in that last comment of yours. i think that’s exactly the reason why i lean towards religion being man-made (and i mean MAN made, not men AND women). i don’t see women getting a single benefit from being a Muslim (aside from spiritually, perhaps) that they can not get anyway in the modern world. men, on the other hand, benefit a lot more from being a muslim, thanks to the 4 wives, concubines, subservient women, and all that. there isn’t a single verse in the Quran (to my knowledge) that tells a woman how to deal with a difficult husband or encourages her to ‘banish him from her bed’ or stop talking to him or hit him or leave him.
i’m not very spiritual but i do believe in God…however, not the sort of God that expects me to be subservient or disregards my needs or my rights. nor do i buy into the idea of a God that wants to be worshiped 5 times a day because someone who created this unverse simply can’t be that needy or need affirmation this badly. i feel like a lot of the qualities that we’ve assigned to God are very human (vengeance and mercy both). man has created god in HIS image, romanticized him as our saviour and lord, aggrandized him simply because he is too weak or will feel too lost. and of course, because he can’t expect women to do his bidding without having ‘GOD’ to back him up.
my creator would never give me needs that can’t be fulfilled or allow men to have an upper hand or slap me around. and if he really has, then sorry, i’d rather take hell over believing in someone like that.
By sarah on May 29, 2007
Why don’t men have more respect for women? This is not so much about religion as about testosterone, a substance that causes chaos and suffering all over the world. Men seem to think with their balls most of the time.
By Leighton Cooke on May 29, 2007
sigh, i suppose they were all upto much the same sort of thing, as you say Suroor.
though that doesn’t excuse any of it!
sarah, good points - i can see apostate’s point of view and i also see what you mean, about having the guts to face up to this. after all - its not being able to talk about this stuff with most people that has really driven me up the wall! plus i do think everyone has different reference points - so for some, this can be *taken* in kind of the way say if you love someone you try and accept their bad faults ( ok not good example maybe) and for some - this is the kind of thing that makes people think twice about religion fullstop. I think it is interesting that we have a range of opinion/beliefs here.P ersonally I am probably headed on a road that most Muslims would dissuade me from going further down. I don’t know.
it is helpful hearing other people’s journeys and thoughts - I’ve of course i’ve been reading Suroor’s blog for a while and now Apostate’s blog a lot lately - ( another very brave honest person) and I think - I really need to find myself. Sarah -thanks for your thoughts - I do feel pretty much the same as you. Most of my issue with the concept/interpretation of God of all three Abrahamic religions is that it appears to be an anthropomorphic one.
We can’t seem to get away from the idea of God as a person, a demanding ruler type of king. very human traits - the kind of thing an angry ruler would say when he found his subjects not paying enough attention. a lot of ego.
By sonia on May 29, 2007
Hi Leighton! Good questions indeed. A lot of it just seems to me to be about ‘ah we can get some sex now let’s go for it’ type of attitude.
Interesting that religious environments breed hyper-sexuality!
By sonia on May 29, 2007
This may be slightly offtopic, but I find it somewhat strange that on one hand women are told that as widows if they do not re-marry they will be “reunited” with their husband, whereas on the other hand some women are compelled to re-marry because they cannot survive financially, emotionally etc on their own.
I don’t see the same “advice” given to widowed men.
By Sumera on May 29, 2007
nothing is off-topic round here Sumera! Yes I didn’t know about that - interesting.
By sonia on May 29, 2007
sumera, i actually read the other day that women are reunited with their husbands in heaven, which i wasn’t aware of. i wonder if there is a choice in that matter. i mean, what if it was an arranged, loveless marriage or just an unhappy one and you didn’t really want to be reunited? are they destined to relive the unhappiness experienced on earth for all of eternity? presumably, one would not be reunited with a husband who abused his wife but what if he was just an unattractive, good for nothing, bad in bed, lazy sod?!
By sarah on May 29, 2007
the mind just boggles…
i always thought of heaven as where the cats ended up! and full of lions and tigers and furry animals. i don’t want any insects there.
(!)
By sonia on May 29, 2007
i daresay so really heaven is to each of us a different vision - it represents that what we feel we cannot have in this world. Which is why i find it interesting that heaven is full of lush green grass and flowing rivers ( of wine!) which is a big contrast to the desert. and the whole 72 virgins of course! ( :-))
By sonia on May 29, 2007
Sarah, I think the reuniting is for those women who’s husbands were pleased with them and vice versa. So it would be if they found wordly life pleasurable with their other half; it’d be replicated for another eternal repetition. So if he was a sodding old git - then you wont be lumped with him again :p
My view of heaven was always that it is how you wish for it to appear to be, Sonia. So yes perhaps the arabs who were used to the arid dry landscape longed for lush grassy gardens, and flowing rivers but the opposite could be said for those who were used to these gardens and rivers and found them quite unfulfilling, they perhaps wish for sand dunes.
What they feel they cannot have - thats replicated in heaven. Its a common theme really, sacrifices and rewards if not obtained here on Earth are said to be granted when in Heaven.
By Sumera on May 29, 2007
certainly, you are one truly devoted militant marxist. But then when Islam talks of revolution, you start to get uneasy. Ohh, Pakistani army raped the Bengali women?! I did not know that? Maybe, they were the Biharis and not West Pakistanis? Get your facts right! I can estimate your knowledge level from the fact that you are using wikipedia as an authentic source of information. If you are using wrong source and claiming it is authentic, then you are one liar scumbag. I thought they teach difference between a scholarly journal and wikipedia in University? But what, the Bengali you are, it is in your genes to twist information. I have some good Bengali friends who realize that the truth is. Sheikh Mujeeb, the savior of the nation, was killed by his own army. Now what is that? I can also recall the rebellious Bengalis getting help from the enemy during the liberation struggle when they were pretty much Pakistani! Pakistani was not ethnicity, as Bengali was but you guys made a big deal out of it.
Well, back to your topic. You are missing your historical context regarding the ahadith. Were those Arab men just raping those slaves or both sexes had their interest in it? No one knows, then simply labelling it a rape is irrational. This again proves it, Bengalis cannot think. If they could, they would have solved the problem of countless floods in their country.
By ghost on May 29, 2007
very interesting post from ghost don’t you think everyone?! well whoever raped whomever - it don’t matter to me!the fact that it was rape is the key issue. im not fussed about the ins and out of bengali history actually at all - your ‘taunts’ fall flat with me - but very amusing all the same. since Indian capitalist stopped haunting my blog no one calls me a militant marxist any more or writes anything controversial - so welcome!
sure maybe those desert hotties were just waiting for those big strong ‘apostates’ to come and kill their husbands and fathers and sweep them right off their feet. just like you see in the movies.
By sonia on May 29, 2007
and the interesting thing is that of course the people who converted to Islam would have been considered ‘apostates’ or some such synonym - by their ex-religionists. Sure these pagans didn’t seem to like people leaving their religion - much like the Islamic Mullahs - so they had that in common. where was the religious freedom? that’s why everyone said the wars were justified - isn’t it - to get the Muslims ‘freedom’. {Though personally it seems to me the wars exceeded just gaining freedom - and were about gaining ascendancy}
By sonia on May 29, 2007
Sarah, I agree that it’s admirable to question. What I said I didn’t admire was the ‘coming to terms’ with these ‘controversial topics.’ That, I don’t think is praiseworthy, simply because I see the ‘coming to terms’ as rationalization. But again, that’s just me — rather uncompromising about the truth — and naturally everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I often link to Achelois because she does raise interesting points, but to me, her analysis goes only so far — she stops before she can reach the logical conclusions entailed by her own line of thought. Or so it appears to me.
Anyway, I don’t want to derail the discussion (sorry, Sonia!).
Before I left Islam, I discovered the ’submitters’ - a small sect of Islam, started by Rashid Khaleefa, that is very liberal in its interpretation of Islam and also, in order to get rid of a lot of theological/moral problems, discards hadith entirely. They also have the whole numerology thing going, where they ‘prove’ the divine origin of the Koran by adding up various stuff — a lot of nonsense, which funnily enough has been adopted by mainstream Muslims, particularly the Salafi variety.
Before I came across the numerology, I actually thought the Khaleefans might be on the right track — hadith is the most problematic part of Islamic theology, but dumping all of it seemed too convenient and also rather rash. After all, we get SO MUCH of the Islamic religion from hadith. It’s like taking Islam’s pants off. Make that pants and shirt — leaving only the hat (hijab if you will) - Koran, which mostly consists of bad science, plagiarized history and praise of Allah.
If one studies the science of hadith, there is the inescapable conclusion that those who know what they’re doing, and don’t have ‘modern’ prejudices, have examined this stuff as thoroughly as possible, and canonized what is more or less internally consistent and theologically water-tight. It is very difficult to dismiss a sahih hadith that has excellent isnad, without ending up in the ‘picking and choosing’ arena — and Muslims have mostly found that Christian practice unacceptable.
It would be better for Muslims if we could do that without insulting our intelligence, but that’s the issue: it doesn’t seem honest to discard what personally offends you, and keep what suits your ethical ideas. Why have religion at all, in that case?
And Sonia — you raised an issue that I’ve never seen anyone else raise — why was it ok for Muhammad to leave his ancestors’ religion, but not ok for people to leave his religion? Why is it ok (morally) to leave Christianity to accept Islam — and they MUST have the freedom to do so! — and not the other way around? Of course, Muslims (of that stripe) say because Islam is the truth and you must be punished for forsaking the truth, without realizing the irony of their words. For which religion does not believe itself to be in the right?
Muhammad was a man ahead of his time — he certainly gave women some rights that no other religion has, and many of his social policies are advanced. He was also not a racist, unlike many Arabs. He could have abused his power far more than he did. But for our times, he is no longer very advanced. We’ve outstripped him morally and socially. Because he was just a man: If he had been a true prophet of an actual God, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
By apostate on May 29, 2007
And oh - do read biographies of Muhammad, yes. I’ve read at least five myself. I can recommend Maxime Rodinson’s. And Karen Armstrong is very pro-Islam, so read hers for balance, perhaps (although Rodinson is pretty objective).
Muhammad Asad’s The Road to Mecca is an interesting book as well. Eye-opening.
On a completely unrelated note, Ghost is a funny guy. What racism. No wonder ‘West Pakistan’ lost Bangladesh.
By apostate on May 29, 2007
Sarah, in my excitement I had missed your comment about marriage to slaves and belief in ahadith, sorry.
I don’t think either that men married captured women and I argued against it here - http://achelois.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/possessions-of-the-right-hand/
Regarding ahadith, to be honest although I have read many ahadith, I don’t use them guide my life. Many people have been upset with me on my blog because I refute some ahadith and avoid quoting them as much as I can to prove my point. It is an odd thing to say since I’m a practicing Muslim but then I’m twisted because I regularly go to church as well! My life is guided by Abrahamic religions and I follow from each religion what appeals to me. I appreciate the fact that the Bible and Torah clearly mention that a captor must marry the captive woman and allow her a mourning period of 30 days before having sex with her. I think 30 days are not enough to fall for a murderer of your family but it could have made him less repulsive if he proved to be a good man. For me, Jesus was a great man and a humble prophet. Sadly, Muslims don’t follow his teachings per se. I don’t believe that he is the son of God but that doesn’t lessen the lrespect I have for him. I feel no shame in learning anything good that comes from any religion or even people who don’t believe in any religion
By Achelois on May 29, 2007
i feel like telling this ghost guy to act like one and fucking disappear! what a retard! and how predictable, he’s a paki. should have guessed…anonymous, gutless, terrible english, full of anger and irrationality…yep, definitely paki.
By sarah on May 29, 2007
Short reply at my blog
By Yursil on May 29, 2007
apostate you bring up many superb points, it would be hard to ignore the weight of what it is you are saying.
yes the irony of the fact that the Prophet was the ultimate apostate - and Islam the result of ‘apostasy’, in the same way that Jesus was born a Jew etc. And as you say - each religion thinking IT is the Right Way and no one can leave it, and of course, as long as they each believe they have Monopoly on Truth..where does that leave things? a ridiculous sate of affairs
By sonia on May 29, 2007
i agree also that the Prophet indeed was a far-seeing man for his time, and I do not have difficulty believing that as a young man he was a visionary. but i do concur with apostate on the fact that we are in the here and now, and that he was just a man.
By sonia on May 29, 2007
What I want to say
By tke on May 29, 2007
Wasn’t the Prophet divinely inspired? So, if he agreed with rape, so did his Master.
By tke on May 29, 2007
well that’s what the problematic at hand boils down to i suppose.
By sonia on May 29, 2007
yeah ghost was pretty funny - i giggled at the fact that he thought being bengali was the main thing he should pick on! so much for not fussing about ethnicity, hah ha * you bengalis should have sorted out global warming!*
i was once referred to as a bengali lesbian rice-eating farmers’ daughter on the i
By sonia on May 29, 2007
..on the internet..!
By sonia on May 29, 2007
hey i’ve been mistaken for a bengali many times (which i’ll take as a compliment cause some of them are incredibly pretty) and my parents grew up in chittagong & dhaka, and we LOVE rice! haven’t ever been called a lesbian farmer’s daughter yet though, but it’s quite hilarious. extremely creative, if not exactly insulting, which i suspect it was meant to be.
By sarah on May 30, 2007
Where did the random Bengali rant come from? Strange.
By Sumera on May 30, 2007
sumera - i thought it was funny that he was most riled about the bengali thing rather than saying something like ‘you sound like a disrespectful muslim’ which i would have expected!
By sonia on May 30, 2007
History of Slavery in the West vs. History of Slavery in Islam
It will be presented by:
Professor Saiful Islam Abdul Ahad
Sixteen years of progressive experience in providing academic advising for students from various racial, ethnic and social economic backgrounds.Eight years of supervisory experience as Assistant Director of Academic Support Services and Director of Academic Advising Services UCF Southern Region, Director of the Academic Exploration Program Advising Office for undeclared majors.Thirteen years of progressive experience in teaching university-level course work in United States History, African-American History, Military History, History of the Modern Middle East, History of World Civilizations, Western Civilization, Humanities, Philosophy and Religion and Strategy for Success courses. He has taught courses on US History, History of Western Civilization, History of World Civilizations, Early Islamic Empires, History of the Modern Middle East, US Military History I and Moses, Jesus & Muhammad.
masha’aAllah he’s a really dynamic speaker.
If you want to listen to it WILL be broadcasted LIVE on
masjidibrahim (dot) org
You can catch it. I really suggest listening in.
By A Muslim on May 30, 2007
I think bengali women have the most beautiful eyes and hair that would put Cleopatra to shame!
By Achelois on May 30, 2007
Assalmaulaykum wa rahematullah Sister
What is troubling is the tone of your post and the “verdict” that you have delivered. We should be very careful how we speak about the matters in the deen of Allah Subhanuwat3laa . This should not mean that we should not search for the ans , rather we should humbly search and ask, but we should refrain from making comments and accusations based on our limited knowledge of this deen.
Here is something that may be useful insha’Allah .
“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts). Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]
“O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal‑money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you, and the daughters of your ‘Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your ‘Ammaat (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khaal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khaalaat (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Ahzaab 33:50]
1)Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her.
2)What Sahaba were asking about was the ruling on practicing ‘azl with the slave women whom they had acquired in the course of jihad.
3)The relationship between a man and his female slave should be announced publicly and not kept secret.
4)Man is responsible for the child that is concieved through this relationship.
Sahaba and the prophet Muhammad Sallhuwa3liwaslaam had slaves who also bore them children and this is also from the other prophets before Muhammad Sallhuwa3lihiwasalam.
May Allah Subhnauwat3laa give us all proper undestanding of this deen and may he save us from the whispers of shaitan.
Your Brother in Islam
By A Muslim on May 30, 2007
thank you for your comment My dear brother in Islam.Absolutely I agree we should ‘humbly ask for questions; (instead of arrogantly proclaiming we have arrived at Truth) - in any case I did not have a ‘verdict’ - simply expressed my feelings of dismay, shock and horror (all precisely because I would expect better) - I am sorry you see it as ‘accusations’ - and ‘comments’ and questions are effectively the same things to me anyway - i don’t think we can really know any ‘answers’ per se. Still, thank you for your words - yes I suppose my tone doesn’t sound ‘humble’ enough or what would conform to religious requirements - i don’t feel the need to drop Arabic phrases much.There are plenty of rude people on the internet and im not actually one of them! i find it all too amusing to be bothered with that. But i do apologise if my ‘tone’ rubbed you the wrong way - I don’t mean to ‘insult’ people’s beliefs. It’s simply that they are supposed to be mine too!
But I don’t feel you have really addressed any of my questions though.
By sonia on May 30, 2007
humbly ask questions i mean.
By sonia on May 30, 2007
sister, read my comment @ 7:53 pm.
By A Muslim on May 30, 2007
Wow quite a lot of interesting discussions going on. Personally I look back to the time Allah revealed the verses “Today I have perfected your religion for you” Qur’an 5:3. That was the day Islam became “perfect”. Before that we had a number of things practiced in the Islamic society that today we won’t have.
For example every immigrant was a brother of a resident, with all property to be divided 50-50. Today immigrants do their own thing, in those days women were treated as property as some Ansar offered to divorce half their wives for the immigrants.
Ali used to drink. Many muslims did.
Usury etc. So many things were allowed before that.
So we should examine the societal structures after this verse was revealed.
By Mezba on May 31, 2007
Interesting Mezba what you say - I haven’t seen that verse - I’ll look it up. You’ve got a good point about examining what the social structures were like before and after.
By sonia on May 31, 2007
Sonia, first, thank you so much for this post. This may be my final comment on this topic.
Through the various discussions we have had, I have come to the conclusion that our (and by ‘our’ I mean the general human population and not just Muslims) concept of morality has changed tremendously in the last many centuries. In the present time, our concept of ‘adultery’ is also very different from what it used to be centuries ago. Women have always been abused and used for sex. This is something, at least I cannot deny. I have also realised that no matter how much I would want that men stop treating women like a walking vagina, it will not happen. Women will be catcalled, pinched, touched, stared at, grouped, kissed, raped, divorced, bought, sold, and kept as concubines. It will take another world, in another time, on another planet to reverse the deep rooted gender roles which exist and shall always exist on earth. Much as we would like to own a couple male concubines, we can’t!
Our sense of the sanctity of marriage is also constantly evolving. At the moment, many people believe that the unity a man and woman achieve through marriage must solely be based on the concept of monogamy which should be an everlasting bond. Muslim men as well as men from other beliefs and even atheists have proven time and again that such a universal mode of monogamy can only be achieved in Utopia. In this world, there are men (as well as women) who will grow weary of their spouse, or will fall in love with another person, or will want to share their lives, love and emotions with more than one person.
Centuries ago, adultery meant a man sleeping with a free married woman and vice versa. In the absence of captive slaves, adultery today means any married man sleeping with a married or unmarried woman and vice versa. Marriage was of various types in the past: a man could be married to any number of women (in Islam the number of wives could not increase); he could be married temporarily (also happened under Islam for a some time); and a man could kidnap a woman and force a marriage (banned by Islam), amongst the many types of marriage. There still exist several types of marriage.
Men also had concubines. Concubinage was a social norm and no one found it immoral, disgusting or inappropriate. Abrahmic religions laid down several laws concerning concubinage, for example, Christian and Jewish men had to marry the captive woman if they wanted her sexually. Muslim men were not allowed to use contraception and any child born through the union was the man’s responsibility for as long as he lived and after his death the child became the responsibility of the entire ummah. The captive woman, if not freed earlier, was automatically freed upon the death of the master. She was also allowed to return to her family if she desired. Concubinage helped in the spread of all religions and there must have been women who did not find their situation utterly disturbing while there must also have been several women for whom captivity was a curse.
The problem arises when we apply the current social and moral norms to what happened several centuries ago. This becomes more disturbing for Muslims because we are taught to believe that the teachings of Islam are true for all times. I have no doubt that the teachings of Islam are true for all times but concubinage is NOT a teaching. It is simply a social fact of the past. The hadith you quote was included in the sahih almost 1200 years ago. It must have been relevant for teaching purposes in those times because men did have concubines at that time. The ayahs which deal with the women possessed by the right hand are again fixed in the context of the 7th century Arabia. Today, they should only be read as guidelines for early Muslims. This is one problem with sahih; we will never revise them because somehow in our minds they are exactly as scared as the Quran and we equate them with the word of God. So, no doubt there are ahadith in the sahih that may seem out of place and thereby ‘shocking’, we should be able to note that they serve little purpose other than historical accounts. However, if any person (Muslim or not) tries to justify the importance of concubinage in today’s world, then that is wrong. Muslim sense of morality has changed in unspoken and unwritten ways through sociological interactions and social osmosis. Although it is not written anywhere in the Quran or the hadith that a man must marry only one woman (and actually it isn’t even written that a woman can marry only one man and that she cannot have relations with her captive slave!), society has governed how we behave sexually and morally. So, while concubinage and polygamy was completely moral thousands of years ago, concubinage is definitely immoral today and polygamy is frowned upon by many Muslim societies. Conversely, though we know what women want today and what we (as women) see as immoral and moral, sadly there are very few historical accounts (if any) of the feelings of concubines in pre-Islamic and early Islamic societies. We know that women did not sleep with their male slaves and our current sense of morality sees it as outrageous for any woman to want her slave, but I have actually never read anything that says it never happened. Perhaps it is attributed to the fact that collection of information for the purposes of recording history has always been influenced by the sieve of male prejudices. But, would it make women feel better if we somehow found out that slaves, whether men or women were equally used sexually by their male and female masters? Would concubinage become less stigmatizing to our present sense of morality?
1400 years from now, concubinage could return (if the world hasn’t ended). Or perhaps the institution of marriage would become archaic – a “thing of the past.” Maybe polyandry would become the norm. We don’t know, but there will be changes for sure; changes people may or may not like. Changes Muslims may or may not like. And when that happens, our current sense of morality may be utterly stupid for a nation that perhaps may not believe in marriage, love, humanly bonds, and sexual loyalties, or what we find moral today may not be moral enough and in fact may be completely immoral.
First records of atheism date back to 1000 BC and atheist men did have several concubines in ancient times. Would I want to give up Islam and indeed all religions because all men from all religions had concubines? I don’t think so; just because concubinage is an outmoded social fact and even men who followed no religion also had concubines but today theists and atheists unanimously condemn the practice.
I think this is what I have gathered from our discussions.
Thanks once again!
By Achelois on May 31, 2007
Achelois:
It’s the gender issue. How ‘civilized’ we consider us to be, through culture, social interaction etc, we are still animals. We have to accept and to admit that. In the end it boils down to the chromosomes. The gender issue is as old as existence itself.
I think it is like that: A fact is that women have two X chromosomes, sometimes only one is acting, mostly they act both. That ‘duo’ factor is what makes women very complex, and almost incomprehensible for the male, who is a simple creature, has a simple nature. Men have only one X chromosome and a deteriorated X chromosome, actually named ‘Y chromosome’. So man is missing something (if not, he would be a woman) but that makes him a rather ‘defect’ human being compared to the woman (evolutionary seen) or, if you wish so, he is ‘created’ with a defect. As man has a simple nature and woman has a complex nature, than, you can guess what that means in relations: collisions all the time. Man’s satisfaction is simple (sports, fast cars, bikes, male friends for drinking beer, try to impress women in a ‘Tarzanian’ way, acting as an ape), while the ladies satisfaction is complex. Above that there are also cultural issues to deal with, but most cultural issues are set by men.
(Actually I am a man. My description is generalizing, as I don’t fit in my own description for the stereotype man, I don’t like sports or cars etc, but my wife thinks I act as an ape, especially when other women are around.) Well I think the base of the problem is in the chromosomes.
Hans
By Hans on May 31, 2007
thanks for that suroor. absolutely if religion is providing a valuable useful role in your life and helping you to be spiritual of course it would be silly to give it up because some men used to have concubines in the past and used religion to justify that fact. even if religion is used to justify evil, if there is something that ‘clicks’ with you and helps you be a better thinker/person etc. then of course you should =follow your heart, and independent reasoning.
I think for me, that’s what this line of thinking boils down to: the need for independent reasoning.
unfortunately i don’t know that men in the middle east who appear to so carelessly think their maids are their modern-day equivalents of slaves and therefore ‘theirs to have’ are using their independent reasoning. what worries me is the potential effect social traditions which uphold such hadith - might have on a man who wants a cast-iron excuse to rape his maidservants.
I also agree morality has changed very much throughout the ages - that is definitely clear.
I suppose what seems clear to me is that religions often seem to put their priorities in the weirdes of places - e.g. with Islam, fussing niqab or hijab or whether males and females can use the same mosque exit ( as Mezba has pointed out :-)) and making young people think it is a big sin if they consensually slept with each other in a committed relationship. and sex in general - and not thinking about the welfare state and more important things like that ( imho). So i daresay precisely because religious obsessions (for the most part) focus on these ‘nitty gritty’ it doesn’t seem to have much relevance,or much to offer in my life - and my ethical dilemmas today. I’ll take the good where i find it and hopefully ignore the rest.
I suppose the thing is of course the difference between doing that with organised religions and say - a set of good books - is the reaction from the community ‘oh if you don’t accept all of this you will burn in Hell’ . It bothered me for a long time - my own Mother said that to me - and it is hard to get away from. But now - I realise there is no point feeling guilty, or being scared about Hell. Frankly, clearly all humans make mistakes and we have to learn for ourselves. I think it is as a child our parents have a hold over us - and anything they tell us - seems to be ‘True’ and they say it is perfect. But we all have to work things out for ourselves. And for me - being prepared to believe in a God concept really doesn’t mean that one has to then accept automatically that this must be ‘who’ Prophet X Y or Z received ‘revelations’ from. the two don’t automatically follow. That ‘connection’ is - in my opinion - a social construct forced on us by our ancestors simply because it is what they believed.
By sonia on May 31, 2007
Thnaks Hans! That’s interesting!
Sonia, just to illustrate how twisted unrecorded history can get - literal translators claim that “what the right hand possessed” was the penis and so it refers to masturbation. Therefore, a married man can only have sex with his wives and an unmarried man can only masturbate!
I think Sumera is aware of this interpretation too
By Achelois on Jun 1, 2007
I agree with you Sonia, we tend to debate and argue over the smallest (and stupidiest) things and of things that have no real relevance in todays era (such as concubinage) when perhaps we should focus on th real concerning, larger issues
But then again, that doesn’t mean we should forfeit discussion on these altogether. Its good to be able to discuss and voice issues that we have about these things.
Balance is key
By Sumera on Jun 1, 2007
Sonia,
So this is where you hang out. And I’d only ever seen the Pickled Politics version (of the debate). Which was very shallow compared to this.
I’ve read the entire thread, and the issue that will not go away is whether or not something that was relatively benign, compared to what was going on elsewhere at the time, has the right - religiously inspired - to be seen as a current truth. Because it was religiously inspired. You can see the circle closing in, can’t you?
What’s to say that, given the opportunity, deeply religious men would not invoke a hadith to justify deeply regressive anti-social acts? Right now, right here. You, sort of, hint that that was the case in Kuwait.
“God said it’s OK.”
“Right, let’s get the trousers down.”
It is a get out of jail card for psychopaths, and the like. I seem to recall that Peter Sutcliff felt he was acting on a religious impulse. A voice from God.
The apologists for religion will always make excuses for what is simply an adolescent males’ view of what women are:
Err, virgins really really ‘want it’. With me, me, me, me.
An attractive enough male fantasy, well for men anyway, but unfortunately bullshit.
And that goes for each of the big three Abrahamic religions. If you wanted text books on keeping women down, you wouldn’t have to go much further than the Bible, etc. Primers in owning cattle!
Patriarchy rules!
(I hope you know me well enough to realise that a lot of that is satire?)
By douglas clark on Jun 1, 2007
Its good to see men commenting on your blog, Sonia! Men usually avoid commenting on ‘contorversial’ posts on my blog.
By Achelois on Jun 2, 2007
Excuse my typos!
By Achelois on Jun 2, 2007
sonia, on another blog, someone has responded to your post (he left a comment here, which is how i got there) and has claimed:
“Concubinage was a willing arrangement between prisoners of war and their captors. They could certainly remain prisoners of war and await ransom, or they could enter the contract of concubinage with all the protections and rights given therein.”
do you or suroor have the same information? i’d really like to know because according to my (admittedly imited) knowledge, this isn’t true. and if it is, then i’m sure we’d all be a little happier, because at least rape would have been taken out of the equation, although i’d still say that this is like being caught between a rock and a hard place. one could either wait (possibly indefinitely) to be taken back to her family or she could resign herself to her fate and enter into a relationship, hoping she gets either freed or pregnant. so it’s definitely not perfect (which is fine, because after all, it WAS during a war) but much better than rape.
By sarah on Jun 2, 2007
Sarah, I have never heard this before and I’d actually like to know the source of this information because according I assumed that as per the hadith given below it was not the women who decided their ’status’:
According to Muhammad al-Bukhari, Muhammad stayed for three days between Khaybar and Medina, and there consummated his marriage to Safiya. His companions wondered if she was to be considered a captive (Arabic: ma malakat aymanukum) or a wife. The former speculated that they would consider Safiyya as Muhammad’s wife, and thus “Mothers of the Believers”.
By Achelois on Jun 2, 2007
Thanks for your comment douglas - yes this is where i hang out - hope to see you here again! You raise pertinent points - precisely that is the problem - there are many men who are using religion to extremely dodgy ends and sex plays a big part. {People who grow up in the UK for example are always shocked at these ‘back-home’ stories.} for many people it is an academic debate - however for me when i’m in bangladesh this is the sort of thing that turns me into a militant feminist, i really have to work hard to not feel as aggressive towards the Mullahs back home as I do. It’s so negative - aggression.
i think when you point to the adolescent male view of women - i thought halleluja! i’m glad someone’s noticed. precisely - it’s like these old guys never really ‘got’ women, they never really connected. in a way, it contaminates what they put forward as ‘truth’ - i really think their activities on the side mean for me I cannot take their claims seriously at all. I also don’t buy any of these arguments about the captives having had any choice. What choice did they have precisely? Not much choice at all. Even if they were being ‘fed’ does that mean the psychological damage of not just losing your family but being fucked by the killers, the victors, is negligible? What kind of religion goes around suggesting that? It’s one thing if you’re a soldier, quite another if you’re a Holy Prophet. If Islam has the ‘answer’ to all social ills I don’t consider the answer to be one of a particularly high standard. Slavery was supposed to *go away* but in the meantime, honey, God says its ok for me to fuck them.
*gags*
People keep talking about the ‘reality of war’ - have they any idea? With the kind of honour-crazed societies we are talking about I find that a pretty bizarre thesis -no really. That’s like saying the Palestinian women should have been glad if Israeli soldiers had offered to marry them after raping them after killing their husbands/fathers and taking their village. How many Muslims can say they would think that was in any way acceptable? In that case would the marriage thing sugarcoat the bitter pill? Well maybe, who knows.
Well actually I do personally have an idea of war and that is precisely why the idea is ludicrous to me. I’m sorry but there you go. I KNOW what i would have thought had an Iraqi soldier offered ‘marriage’ - what *choice* would i have and would i think it *better* than just rape.
Sarah, it’s interesting what you’ve pointed to - i’ve no idea if that could be true. yes I’d be happy to find out more - because obviously I just don’t know enough.
Just to end with some more controversy: i noticed on the comments page of Yursil’s blog someone asked what we would think if American soldiers should be encouraged to start marrying Iraqi women. Good point i thought. Here’s a situation - where so many men have been killed in battle - the US soldiers should offer to marry upto 4 Iraqi women each. Never mind if the Iraqi women don’t want to - someone’s got to feed them haven’t they? And it seems worryingly common to think if someone’s feeding you, it’s acceptable if they want to fuck you. They’ve been feeding you haven’t they - they’re entitled.
That is possibly the other disgusting thing to all this - with that mindset, frankly i can’t see such a [bizarre] concept of ‘marriage’ being more than a long-term exclusive prostititution. And if that’s the view of marriage, it’s hardly surprising men go around quoting Hadiths which say that women would be cursed if they didn’t sleep with their husbands.
Anyway, i’ve said a lot. This stuff is one big minefield.
By sonia on Jun 3, 2007
of course the thread over at Yursil’s blog is very interesting. I have refrained from commenting! I thought Sarah’s analogy of a pimp being ‘fair and just’ was a good one! And Nafeesa’s questions are interesting - she asks at one point whether a ‘concubine’ who converted to Islam could be freed. Good question - I’d been wondering that myself for a while, and from what i’ve read, the ‘loophole’ of converting in order to gain freedom was closed - so even if you ‘converted’ that didn’t automatically ‘free’ you. Sigh!
By sonia on Jun 3, 2007
this comment was left on yursil’s blog -
“instead of establishing a welfare state or some system of giving zakat (without taking their bodies in return), Islam decided to continue to the practice of concubinage and legitimized it. adding on a few rules here and there does not mean that it’s still not a despicable practice.”
i think this is a really crucial point.. about the ‘taking bodies in return’ - that’s how i see it. when it came to the ‘excuse’ for polygamy - oh we’ve got to support those poor orphans and widows - oh look we have to have sex with them in return - i just find that really disgusting.
By sonia on Jun 3, 2007
yeah sonia, that’s exactly what i said earlier in your thread…it would be so convenient for the american soldiers to convert to islam and start taking in the iraqi women and raping them, claiming that it’s part of their religion.
how would the muslim men react when it’s their own daughters, wives and mothers being taken by the american (muslim) soldiers? also, i said this on yursil’s blog as well, there isn’t an apparent limit set on the number of concubines, so a wife could potentially be sharing her husband with an unlimited number of women (like the moghuls and sultan’s wives who had to contend with 6000 to 12000 concubines)! i don’t care how virile or kind or just the man is, there is no way he can divide his ‘love’ equally between that many women! it would take at least a few of years before he’s even done with the 12000 to get back to his wife’s bed.
and like you said, for a religion so concerned with morality, it just seems suspect that there are so many loopholes for men to do as they want, sexually and none for women. we’re just supposed to sit at home and knit while our men go around collecting concubines and wives??! we all know women have a sex drive too…why isn’t that even once taken into account, in the Quran? surely our sex drive wasn’t bestowed upon us only to service the one man in our lives?
By sarah on Jun 3, 2007
hi sarah yep you did say just that!
and of course… the men would deny that women have a sex drive at all ( and for some reason many women seem to keep this myth up - obviously not every one is the same! - but still. But if God created us then surely God would know, hence these religious edicts are suspiciously human male. ( and as douglas points out - particularly juvenile male viewpoints!) I like how you say it - sit by and knit while the men go around collecting concubines. precisely - !! Basically they’ve sorted out ‘legal’ sex for themselves whilst IN THE SAME BREATH denying it to women. The cheek!
By sonia on Jun 4, 2007
on that note, this was yursil’s last response:
“However it also views certain things as aspects of unhealthy sexual confusion (homosexuality, beastiality and also a females desire for multiple men, etc).”
“And while today’s society continues to push women towards more masculine sexual roles and of course, this does cause women to feel that they may want more than one man, this is new social development from the perspective of Islamic society.”
uh huh, cause we’re biologically designed to want just the one man!! i can’t believe someone can actually buy into the fact that wanting more than one man, or even just the one that is actually there 24/7, is sexual confusion or masculine.
By sarah on Jun 4, 2007
i know it’s typical isn’t it and extremely important in ‘keeping women down’. The ultimate ‘card’ they are trying to play is that despite being men and not having a clue about women, they claim to know because they claim to be in ‘contact’ with our Creator, so therefore feel they are in a privileged position to TELL us what our gender role ought to be.
By sonia on Jun 4, 2007
frankly if i am honest the reaction that ‘Islam’ (whatever that is to anyone else) for me seems to bring me back to this whole business of being female and gender roles - and all it seems to have done is turned me into a major feminist. I read a lot of stuff on islamic feminism and i thought it interesting from the point of view of reforming religion. personally though, i think i am a feminist because of the problems i see in religion, and i see religion as holding me back as a woman, so i can’t see that i could go down the ‘islamic feminism’ route. in fact i can only see myself getting more and more annoyed with these medieval men.
( and their modern day apologists, like Brother Yursil, who seems to have very strange ideas about women. )
By sonia on Jun 4, 2007
i just encountered a ‘modern muslim female’ on yursil’s blog who basically told me to shut up as she felt i didn’t know what i was talking about. i find it so disturbing that she also thinks along the same lines (that it was okay for men to have concubines, that men have a nature that JUST can’t be controlled so Allah gave them all these outs, and that women don’t have a sex drive).
and she’s a Native American who converted less than a decade back!! i don’t get it, sonia. i understand religion, i understand the need for it, i understand having a spiritual connection with God, with Islam, of being close to it because we were all brought up with it and of the need to believe in the divine, something bigger and better than us.
but i don’t understand how one can disregard their own feelings and nature, and decide that you know, my sex drive is just sexual confusion while a man’s sex drive is his nature?
i mean, even my own (illiterate) grandmother who is a devout Muslim, read the Quran day and night, never watches all these films that MAY be blamed for putting ideas in our head (by yursil and his clan), was disturbed by the fact that men could sleep with slaves. in fact she’s the first one who brought it up then she just said, anyway, Allah knows best, perhaps these are things we can’t understand.
so a 75 year old woman feels an innate sense of discomfort at that idea, that no, this just doesn’t sound okay.
and i prefer her reasoning to either Yursil or the convert chicks cause if i were to remain a Muslim, i’d really prefer to think that yes, perhaps we just don’t know - perhaps this is beyond our understanding. as opposed to, hey, perhaps we don’t have a sex drive after all, and i am just sexually confused and an idiot for not wanting my man to sleep with concubines etc.
why are Muslims so afraid to say that no, this wasn’t right and we wouldn’t like this to be repeated should a war come up again but perhaps this was the best way to deal with this situation 1400 years back. why do they have to intellectualize this and come to terms with it and defend it?? do they really fear their just & merciful God to that extent?
By sarah on Jun 4, 2007
A slave was not freed automatically upon conversion so even if a slave woman did convert it was up to her master to free her. I don’t know exactly how many but I read somewhere that Omar Ibn Khattab left behind several slave women who hadn’t been freed and so did Ali Ibn Talib which means women weren’t being readily freed. A slave woman was automatically freed upon the master’s death IF she bore him a child (she was then called “umm-al walad” so some people argue that a slave had to have a male child to gain freedom while others say that walad refered to both the male and female child in old Arabic).
Thinking about Sarah’s comment I really wonder just how virile these men thought they were to want so many women. Also it is one thing to deny that women CAN want more than one man and another thing to accept that a woman may want that one man written in her ‘luck’ at least some of the time. How many weeks would it have taken an average man with 4 wives and a dozen slaves to return to his first wife?
By Achelois on Jun 4, 2007
Yes precisely - all this stuff about these men being so sex-obsessed just makes me gag. THAT SEEMS TO BE ALL THEY EVER THOUGHT OF! i can’t really find any excuses for it unfortunately = they wanted people to give up their ancestor’s religions, but not slavery? that is just too much - no really they could have freed them if they wanted to. unfortunately I think this is much more serious - they were using religion to justify their excesses.
Yes i hear from everyone that everyone else was doing it, that it was ‘different’ back then, etc. etc. But so what - that doesn’t make it better - if you are supposed to be a bunch of religious men you either do things differently or people will conclude there is not much point in the religion. If we can rationalise those terrible deeds then why cannot we rationalise all sorts of other activity? Why a religion in the first place, why not just ‘follow our chromosomes’?
Personally, I am wondering what Kind of God leaves people with a game of Chinese Whispers in the desert? I don’t know - i feel it far more likely that these dodgy desert sex-craved men used Religion as a tool to justify what they wanted to do. There is no way around that conclusion for me - if God sanctioned that stuff, it is not a God worth believing in for me. And personally, I’m beginning to think that ( well for non-Arabs anyway) the Arab-centric obsession of Islam is a bit weird. I hope everyone else can take whatever good they can ( i don’t want some Mullah coming and saying i am turning people against the Prophet!)
But frankly - collectively taking the stories in the Hadith - there was so much sex going on I really cannot see how I can believe the man was not - at the very least - using God to justify his very busy sex life - which sounds far too much like your bog standard cult leader. the only reason i think most of us cannot admit this is because he was a Muslim man and supposed to be our Holy Prophet. take those things away and I doubt very much Muslims - even well meaning ones - would be able to defend those episodes. I have thought very hard about this and that is my conclusion. Of course, it goes to say that I cannot then believe such a person’s claims about the Quran etc. or = anything really. ( I hope this doesn’t upset anyone else - I really am not trying to get at other people’s faiths here) but at the same time - I don’t want to be ticked of for ‘abusing someone else’s Prophet’ - no one has the monopoly on that. And seeing as since I was little I was fed on this diet of Holy Prophet this and Holy Prophet that - I feel like I am justified in ensuring for myself - whether I was happy to take this for the Truth. But I find I cannot. I have to admit for a long time I had thoughts like this but I felt so *guilty* I pushed them to the back of my head. But you can only hide for so long.
Funny, i feel really free now. Religion - has been a blight on my life - but positive in some ways ( there are always mutual benefits hehe!) as it’s forced me to think for myself, and not just *follow my parents*. I’m going to try and not be annoyed with them for forcing it on me which is effectively what they did do, and next time i see them i shall be bringing up the slavery question and asking why they felt it was ok to not raise this issue with me. But of course -that goes to the heart of what religion is - for most of us anyway - it is nothing to do with ethics, it has nothing to do with anything but an ‘order’/authority - which our parents lay down for us - and we follow - no questions asked. When you come from a south asian background of ‘parental authority is sacrosant’ this religion business becomes very insidious i feel.
thanks to everyone who spent their valuable time contributing to this discussion.. i really appreciate all your thoughts.
By sonia on Jun 4, 2007
Sarah,
This is quite amusing:
You quote Yursail as saying:
“However it also views certain things as aspects of unhealthy sexual confusion (homosexuality, beastiality and also a females desire for multiple men, etc).”
This is clearly not someone out to make a strong case. Here is a stronger version of the same thing:
“However it also views certain things as aspects of unhealthy sexual confusion (corprophilia, pig fucking and also a females desire for multiple men, etc).”
The gimmick here is to link abhorrent things with relatively normal ones. Obviously we are largely against the first two, so we are invited to see the third as in some way comparable. Bullshit.
The silence on mens desire for multiple women is a further weakness. What’s sauce for the goose…… or not.
Morality should not be gender based, I think.
By douglas clark on Jun 4, 2007
And doing a Sonia, y’know one post after the other whilst the thought is still there, Achelois, what was that post all about?
In their heads, they’d get through that little lot in an afternoon. Obviously.
Reality and male sexual prowess are not the best of chums. Strangers, even.
Anyway you seem to be accepting a disparity between men’s ‘rights’ to multiple women, and women’s rights to only a single man. Or am I reading your post wrong?
By douglas clark on Jun 4, 2007
That post was in response to this from Sonia:
Nafeesa’s questions are interesting - she asks at one point whether a ‘concubine’ who converted to Islam could be freed.
By Achelois on Jun 4, 2007
doing a sonia - heh douglas you know me too well -churn ‘em out i say!
morality should not be gender -based . Absolutely! And you’ve said it succintly as well.
By sonia on Jun 4, 2007
I didn’t say this on Yursil’s blog because I believe in being *fairly polite* on other people’s blogs.. so i’ll say it here instead..
I am pretty sure - knowledge of Islam or no knowledge of Islam - but through knowledge of humanity - that say, if i were in that horrific position, i.e. my husband were killed by an army and my home captured and I were *offered* marriage to the captors and killers, - whilst I have no idea that, in fear of my life, I would be able to refuse, but I do know that from the bottom of my heart I would feel SICK SICK SICK and feel utter revulsion towards the captor. And no amount of ‘marriage’ plying would make feel I had not been violated and raped. And I believe that every other woman - unless she is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, would feel the same. { Maybe in time people would get over that - I don’t know } - but I bet you all at that moment in time, you would all feel SICK SICK SICK. If the captor said they justified in the name of their God I would feel even sicker. Somehow, maybe I’m a weirdo, but introducing religion into it somehow makes it even SICKER.
By sonia on Jun 4, 2007
Sacrificing people to the altar of religion?
By sonia on Jun 4, 2007
and w