This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ma malakat aymanukum redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 5 years |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ma malakat aymanukum. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ma malakat aymanukum at the Reference desk. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Islamic views on slavery was copied or moved into Ma malakat aymanukum with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
@Code16 claims that rape is allowed with slaves is the mainstream opinion (this edit). This is simply not true. Malik, Shafi'i and the other imams all explained that rape is forbidden in all cases:
Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab that gave a judgment that the rapist had to pay the raped woman her bride-price. Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about the man who rapes a woman, virgin or non-virgin, if she is free, is that he must pay the bride-price of the like of her. If she is a slave, he must pay what he has diminished of her worth. The hadd-punishment in such cases is applied to the rapist, and there is no punishment applied to the raped woman. If the rapist is a slave, that is against his master unless he wishes to surrender him."
The article is thus non factual. --HakimPhilo (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ma malakat aymanukum. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ma malakat aymanukum at the Reference desk. |
HakimPhilo's interpretation of the passage by Malik is mistaken. What Malik is referring to is a man who rapes a slave belonging to another person. That is why the penalty is compensation equivalent to the reduction in her value caused by the rape. It is the slave's owner who has suffered this monetary loss, and the compensation would be paid to the owner. This makes no sense if the rapist is the owner. A slave's consent is simply not relevant. A slaveowner can make his slaves do things: that is what it means to be a slave. Indeed, according to our understanding of consent, it would be impossible for a slave to ever give consent to her master, because coercion is inherent in the relationship. It obviously makes a lot of contemporary Muslims uncomfortable, but Islamic law was produced in a slaveowning, patriarchal society. It's also worth bearing in mind that most ancient and medieval societies were not particularly concerned with women's consent to sex: the position of Islamic law is not surprising in its historical context. This part of Islamic law is of no relevance to Islam today, because slavery has been abolished everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.120.212 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@14.203.129.249: The quote cannot be found in the book about the abu hania part link down below and kecia ali agrees that islam does ask for consent but was shocked other scholars didn't think so. https://archive.org/details/IslamicJurisprudenceAccordingToTheFourSunniSchoolsAlFiqhalaAlMadhahibAlArbaah/page/n17 arsi786 (talk) 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion by Mhhossein (talk · contribs). I think this article should be merged into Islamic views on slavery and Islamic views on concubinage, both of which cover the Qur'anic discussion of slavery and concubinage. Merger was proposed a few years ago by Sa.vakilian (talk · contribs) and James500 (talk · contribs) and noted as having support by the closer. Also pinging @Karaeng Matoaya: and @Eperoton: for their opinions.VR talk 04:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)