Salam. I read in Tafsir Al Qurtubi that a man can marry off his slave according to majority of scholars (and this applies to both genders to Malik and Abu Hanifa RH, don't know about Imam Ahmad.) (https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/qortobi/sura24-aya32.html) He says that Malik says it is not permissible if it is harmful to the slave. My question is- does this apply in the other madhabs, that it should be a suitable match etc etc.. or can a man marry off his slave, even to an untrustworthy and corrupt person? My confusion stems a lot here too- I read from Ibn al Mundhir al Shafi’i that a minor female can be betrothed by her father to another male **if it is a suitable match** (same with a male) without her/his consent being sought directly, so shouldn’t it be the same for slaves to be a suitable match, as it is somewhat a kind of guardianship.. (feed them from what you eat, shelter, etc..)? Thanks. Sorry if I went on too long. It is my first time using a site like this. I usually just stick to my curriculum and teacher

The Quran says > O YOU who have attained to faith! Just retribution is ordained for you > in cases of killing: the free for the free, and the slave for the > slave, and the woman for the woman (Baqarah 178) Does it mean that if a slave is killed, another slave (irrespective of the murderer) is to be killed, and if a woman is killed, then another woman has to be killed in compensation. This is not applied in any Islamic country, so I am sure that I am misreading it. Kindly explain.

I am aware that a Muslim can sell their slaves to another Muslim and then the one who bought the slave would have to wait for the menstrual cycle to have intercourse in order to be sure that the female concubine is not pregnant but is the Muslim allowed to sell their female slave to a non Muslim? Because a non Muslim would not wait for the cycle and could potentially exploit her make her do prostitution and other evil hideous acts

From the hadith below: - أنَّ ابنَ عمرَ كان يضعُ يدَهُ بيْنَ ثَديَيها ( يعنى الجاريةَ ) وعلى عُجُزِها من فوقِ الثيابِ ويكَشفُ عن ساقِها It tells that Umar[ra] used to shack the breasts of slavegirls in public in market. What is the authenticity of the hadith? Is it permissible?

First of all, I would like to thank in advance for answering in the most kindest way. And i apologize for making my questions so big. Just wanted to let you know where i'm coming from. I have heard that previously during Imam Malik's time, some slave women were walking around or getting out of their homes bare breasted. He had strongly condemned this practice due to his understanding of the Quran/Sunnah as per this narration: > Kitaab Al-Jami‘ of Al-Imam Ibn Abi Zayd Al-Qayrawani Al-Maliki (died > 386 AH): He said, "He (i.e. Al-Imam Malik ibn Anas) strongly > disapproved of the behaviour of the slave women of Madinah in going > out uncovered above the lower garment." He said, "I have spoken to the > Sultan about it, but I have not received a reply." He said, "Beat the > slave women if they do that." I am aware that slave women had a relaxed awrah compared to the free women as per the differing opinions of the various schools of thought due to their work in servile environments and veiling was prohibited as a social status indicator but in case of **fitnah** or **harassment** or **fear of trouble** they are supposed to cover themselves up as free women have to do. I am also aware that in some point in history, there were practices of slave women being **paraded bare breasted** for attracting the highest bidders or buyers. Also I understand that a seller can adorn their slave women for attracting buyers similar to how a woman is adorned for marriage. I understand that Islam humanizes slaves by granting them certain rights, emphasizing their emancipation, and encouraging them to be treated like family members—with dignity, kindness, and respect. Based on my understanding of the commentaries from various schools of thought, even during the inspection process in slave markets at the time of the Prophet and his companions, the environment was supposedly controlled, with minimal exposure encouraged unless absolutely necessary, and only with the genuine intention to buy could you look or touch upto some extent (over clothing in Umar R.A's case), touching prohibited in the presence of lust. (please correct me if i'm wrong). **My Question is as follows:** - Was bare chested display for ***auctions*** or ***convenience*** or ***parading*** them bare chested for attracting the highest bidders, is that islamic or buyers islamically sanctioned (haram or halal)? Or was it just a corrupt practice that the masters used to do to exploit their slave women for commercial purposes or personal benefits? If it is halal, why? It spreads fitnah, encourages lustful intentions,objectifies and exploits slave women, public indecency, strips off their dignity, violates modesty rules etc which is quite contrary to inspection which usually happens for practical reasons out of necessity as opposed to lustful intentions. Also please answer this as well if possible Question regarding Slave Women Inspection Limits in the marketplace Thanks!

Someone claimed that Abu Abdullah al-Halimi considered it obligatory (wājib) for the master to obtain the slave girl’s consent before having intercourse with her. According to him, it is compulsory upon the master to refrain from touching her without her permission. How true is his claim? Actually, I do not understand Arabic, so it is not possible for me to know whether their translations are correct or wrong. Imam Abu Abdullah al-Halimi (d. 403 AH) said: >وإن اشترى جارية فكرهت أن يمسها أو يضاجعها، فلا يمسها ولا يضاجعها ولا يطأها إلا بإذنها > > If someone buys a slave girl, and she dislikes that he touches or has intimacy with her, then that he should not touch her or have intimacy with her or have intercourse with her without her permission. > >[ Minhāj fīsh-Shu‘abul Īmān, Halimi 3/267 ](https://shamela.ws/book/18567/1353)

I recently came across the following quote from al-Shafi. وهكذا لو كانت منفردة به أو مع أمة له يطؤها أمر بتقوى الله تعالى وأن لا يضر بها في الجماع ولم يفرض عليه منه شيء بعينه إنما يفرض عليه ما لا صلاح لها إلا به من نفقة وسكنى وكسوة وأن يأوي إليها فأما الجماع فموضع تلذذ ولا يجبر أحد عليه. The gist of it is that he's talking about intercourse with concubines and wives, and at the end he says " فأما الجماع فموضع تلذذ ولا يجبر أحد عليه." (as for intercourse, then it is a place of pleausre, and no one can be forced into it). Doesn't this mean al-Shafi explicitly ruled against unconsentual intercourse with concubines, considering his wording? Some may argue that he talks about the rights of the wife in the middle, but his wording is deliberately inclusive in the last sentence (i.e he doesn't just say the wife cannot be forced into it), and his logic is that it is supposed to be a place of pleasure which also extends to concubinage. The first sentence also covers scenario with both the concubine and the wife, so we can safely assume he would have clarified if he had meant otherwise, no? He would have said "the right of the wife ensures she cannot be forced ..." I'm aware of a consensus (although i'm not too sure if it is on this topic) being claimed on something like this but doesn't this discredit it? Edit: I also came across another interesting quote by him in his al-umm "ولم أعلم دليلاً على إيجاب إنكاح صالحى العبيد والإماء كما وجدت الدلالة على إنكاح الحر إلا مطلقاً ، فأحب إلى أن ينكح من بلغ من العبيد والإماء ثم صالحوهم خاصة ، ولا يتبين لى أن يجبر أحد عليه ؛ لأن الآية محتملة أن يكون أريد الدلالة لا الإيجاب" For those who don't know he's essentially saying that although it's highly recommended for slaves to marry, he's saying that it isn't clear to him that they should be be compelled into it because it's a reccomendation. I'm not asking about the permisibity of concubinage like the other question, but al-Shafi's view on it, and his legal ruling

Where does this quote from Al-Shafi'i originate from? And could I please get a source for the Arabic? Al-Shafii (d. 820) said: > “He may marry off his female slave without her permission whether she is a virgin or non-virgin.” Quoted by Kecia Ali in Marriage and Slavery, pg. 40

I've recently come across the claim by Quranists that what is commonly translated as "whom your right hand possesses" in the Quran (e.g. [33:50](https://www.quran.com/33/50)) actually refers to oaths and that the Quran itself never contains an explicit context of warfare or prisoners of war. Not being able to read Arabic, I'm curious whether this is true. Question: which verses in the Quran explicitly talk about prisoners of war in the context of "whom your right hand possesses", if any?

Can a master force his polytheist concubine to embrace Islam so that he can legally have sex with her?

Can a master marry his concubine without emancipating her from slavery?Is it allowed for a Muslim man to take a woman as both his wife and also His right hand possession??What are the views of scholars regarding that.

If a slave wants to make Mukataba contract with her master would it be compulsory for the master to agreed to it? Or Can a master refuse her? What if the slave is a non-believer prisoner of war and hates Muslims and shows hostile behavior?

In islam it is said that the awrah of slave women is less than that of free woman. This is because it makes it easier to do chores as move about as explained by some. **However:** If ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) saw a slave woman covering her head, he would hit her and say: Are you trying to imitate free women, O foolish one? So slave women would uncover their heads, hands and faces."(Majmu‘ al-Fatawa 15/372). This indicates that it was not only a way to make life easier for the slaves but there is another reasoning behind why slaves were forbidden to dress like free women with the full head covering. It seems that it was not an option but a rule. **Q:** What was that reason was behind forbidding the slaves from wearing a head covering and why not let everyone dress the same (with head covering)?

Is consent before sex needed in sexual slavery and does the sex slave woman have to give her consent in the case of her master wants to marry her?

I have confusion regarding the claim which made by Jonathan AC Brown in his book about that some scholars, held the view that not just free men but even slaves could have concubines though they can only own if there master permits either by giving his own slave girl or slave can buy slave girl. Here is the source. I came across only an explanation of Al Kafi of Ibn Qudamah by Shaykh Ibn Uthymeen but I got confused about whether it was permissible or not. Here is the link to Shaykh's explanation. So, what is the Mutamad opinion among Hanabilah regarding this?

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته Is Lian is to be done even in a case where Master accuses his slave girl who bore children of adultery and claims the child is not his, just like husband and wife do Lian when husband accuses that wife committed adultery and claims child is not his? Kindly clarify if not than what is done in such case!

So I read this [article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Islamic_law) on Wikipedia which says > According to a hadith, a master could marry off a female slave without her consent Is this claim correct or not because I haven’t heard about this Hadith? Is the Hadith Sahih or not? I tried looking for it from Islamic websites but i couldn’t find it.

From what I understand of the sources of slavery, a non-Muslim darbi living in a non-Muslim land can be legally enslaved by Muslims, even if there is no actual fighting happening. Does this mean that it would have been Islamically permissible to go into a non-Muslim land and simply round up the non-Muslim people living there and sell them as slaves like the Americans did to the Africans? This doesn't seem right but I also can't find evidence against it?

What did he state was allowed to be seen/touched of a slave woman by a potential buyer?

Islam is supposed to hold women to the highest regard but I just can’t reconcile that idea with the idea that sex slaves are permitted. I know that the time was different back then but even so I don’t think anyone right now would say that sez slavery is a good thing. Islam is timeless and Allah (SWT) is All-Knowing so why wouldn’t this be banned knowing it would be shunned in the future? This answer https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/77913 says that consent is not needed from masters which makes it even worse. There’s also Hadith like Sahih Muslim 3371 and so on that just paint Islam in a bad light. Wouldn’t it have been better to teach men to control their desires instead of having sex with slave women as this not only makes Islam look bad, it deters people from the religion and makes it seem like women outside of Islam are just sexual objects.