“Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice.”

Interesting statement.

“……

When Islam was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves.

In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.

Concerning having slave women, we would like to let you know that it happens to be a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or milk al-yameen are referred to in the Qur’an as “Those whom your right hand possess” or “ma malakat aymanukum”; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves.

Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.

But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What’s more, her child would also become free.

Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.

In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people, it’s clear that some people misunderstand the wisdom behind the permissibility of having female slaves and think that it is meant to unleash men’s desires and give them more enjoyment. Never! That is not the point! It is, rather, means of freeing slaves; and this is clarified above in the fact that if a master got a female slave pregnant, then he could neither sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be considered part of his property. She’d receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.

But, we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or maids, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.

Slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and goes in line with aims and objectives of Islam, as it has called for centuries ago.

As for marrying slaves, it is something permissible under two conditions: first, if one is unable to pay the dowry of a free woman. Second, if there is fear of committing adultery if one doesn’t get married. This is clarified by the following verse: “And whose is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you.” (An-Nisaa’: 25)

This verse shows that Muslim men should abstain from illicit relations and seek enjoyment through marriage to free women or through their female slaves.

In conclusion, Allah has forbidden certain types of behavior and permitted other kinds of behavior as a safeguard to the individual and to the society. Allah has forbidden fornication and adultery. However, in the case of captives whom your right hands posses, it’s something necessitated by the special circumstances which were created when the Muslims were at war.”

About the act of ‘al-azm’ or corpus interruptus, this is also allowed in the sexual relations between a man and his wife in Islam. Taking this into account and the explanation above (that slave women caught as captives in war by Muslims should be treated as wives, before slavery was abolished), it is no surprise that ‘al-azm’ is also allowed, and all other speculations about it mentioned here are flawed.

What i find very interesting: if you aren’t taking things literally, and that’s your choice - that’s fine for you. I certainly am not in favour of ‘orthodoxy’ and you have to follow the book. However, when a religion is supposed to have some set texts, and it swears by them..well, perhaps it might make you think, if only about what it is that makes you uncomfortable, and you dont want to just follow blindly.

If a hadith has no relevance in this day and age ( well quite i definitely agree there) perhaps there is no relevance - of Islam - either. How do people think Sharia was formulated? With no help from the Hadith?

Reading more about Quranic exegesis - it is clear even from someone dipping their toe into that type of literature, that Hadiths have been used by scholars to aid their interpretation and understanding of the Quran, and towards formulation of Islamic jurisprudence.

they are actually all tied up intimately.
still, if people dont want to ask too many questions, if that’s fine for them, that’s their business.

personally i find it weird that people revere a messenger and then dont look too deeply into stories about that person. stories given credibility by the same tradition that tells us to revere said messenger.

and there’s equally disturbing material in the Quran - perhaps i should have covered that too. One thing at a time.

Those who accuse others of being idiots are often guilty of being one themselves.

With the current day and age, Islam is being attacked from every angle however this was inevitible, unfortunately the very scholars that should be defending the religion through open intelligent channels are no where to be seen.

Instead we have fundamentalists spewing their venom at anyone who dares to speak out and question the religion (which they have a right to).

I have various hadiths in the past like the one mentioned, however I have never taken them into literal context and where I have found the hadith to be questionable in my mind (such as this one) I have simply ignored.

At the end of the day, its futile to start a debate over a hadith that has no relevance in this day and age.

IF your a muslim and you encounter such troubling information, my advice is the following:

1. Leave the hadiths alone
2. Check the Shariah and confirm what is right and wrong (provided the Shariah is correct)
3. And to quote a famous saying, if you find confusion around you, take the Qur’an and go to a secluded place to study it - i.e. refer to the Qur’an, see what god has to say on the matter

This applies to all religions actually, if your in doubt then refer to the original teachings as there must be some basis of truth in there, the reason why that religion flourished to this day.

End of the day, only you know whats right and wrong. Your morality is a testiment to your humanity. People seem to be losing their humanity on a daily basis, haram is becoming halal, halal is becoming haram.

We were told to abstain from certain things for a reason, because it causes doubt and confusion in ones mind ultimately damaging the soul, the place where we get our morality, sensibility and humanity from.

My personal view on the matter is that 90% of hadith are questionable so should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Why bother? You sound like an idiot.

Er, I said this already….

But it took you about 27 paragraphs.

Maybe there is no point of any religion.

Maybe you shot Kennedy. Who knows.

Instead of being snarky, you could have been cordial.

“It is a common observation and is applicable to all faiths.”

Er, I said this already….

“if people within a particular religion’s fold cannot adopt its policies, then what is the point of said religion”

Maybe there is no point of any religion.