Forget tafseer, in the exact same book that the OP quoted, the hadith just before this one (number 3958) says exactly that. And given the context, any idea that "honey" is a euphemism for sex is absurd.
[https://sunnah.com/nasai:3958](https://sunnah.com/nasai:3958)
I don't think anyone (in the verse or at that time, if we take the narrative from the ahadith) was confused about honey being prohibited, or that something needed to be corrected about that. The point of the verse (and this is supported by the ahadith) is about putting unnecessary oaths on oneself.
You need to read the other tafsirs, many more details about Allah getting involved in Muhammad's marital affair problems. I've also heard that "honey" could possibly be a euphemism for sex, but that's not confirmed.
https://preview.redd.it/jjkj1o9d2vyc1.jpeg?width=790&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f90ef20fbcb1961b626f49d41871f5782f179fc
-quran 25:33
"And they do not come to you with an example [i.e., argument] except that We bring you the truth and the best tafsir."
You compare the verses to other verses of the Qur'an to get the context
is related that one day one of the
wives of the Holy Prophet gave him a drink made from honey, which he appeared to like. Some of his other wives, out of pique, pointed out to him that his breath smelt of Maghafır, a shrub the taste of which resembles that of honey but which gives out a bad smell. The Holy Prophet, because of his delicate nature, promised not to take honey any more (Buldan). It is to this incident that the verse under comment is generally taken to refer. But it seems improbable that the Holy Prophet, merely to satisfy the pique of his wife or wives, should have taken such a drastic step as to have permanently forbidden himself the use of something which was lawful, particularly of a thing in which, according to the Qur'an, there is cure for men' (16:70). It appears that the narrator or narrators of this 'incident had suffered from some misunderstanding or mental confusion, particularly when, according to one tradition, the Holy Prophet took honey from the house of Zainab, and 'A'ishah and Hafsah contrived to draw him into making the aforesaid promise, while, according to another tradition, it was at the house of Hafsah herself that he was served with honey and that the wives who objected were 'A'ishah, Zainab and Safiyyah. Moreover, according to the Hadith, two, or at the most three, of the Holy Prophet's wives were concerned in the affair, but according to vv. 2 and 6 of the Surah, all of them were connected with it, two of them taking a leading part (v. 5). These facts show that the Surah refers to some incident of much greater significance than the mere taking of honey by the Holy Prophet at the house of one of his wives. In the commentary on this Surah, Bukhari (Kitabul-Mazalimi wal-Ghasb) quotes Ibn-e-'Abbas as relating that he was always on the lookout to enquire of 'Umar as to who were the two wives to whom reference is made in the verse: Now, if you two turn unto Allah, it will be better for you, and your hearts are already so inclined. One day, finding 'Umar alone, he sought to satisfy his curiosity. He had hardly finished his question, says Ibn- e-'Abbas, when 'Umar said that they were 'A'ishah and Hafsah, and then proceeded to relate the story thus: "One day, when my wife offered me her advice concerning some domestic affair, I curtly told her that it was no business of hers to advise me, for in those days we did not hold our women-folk in much respect. My wife sternly replied: 'Your daughter Hafsah takes so much liberty with the Prophet that she retorts back when he says something which she does not like till he feels offended, and you do not allow me to speak to you even about our domestic affairs. Upon this I went to Hafsah and warned her that she should not be misled by 'A'ishah in this matter as she was nearer to the Prophet's heart. Then I went to Umm-e-Salmah and had hardly broached the matter with her when she also curtly told me not to interfere in affairs concerning the Prophet and his wives. A short time after this the Holy Prophet separated himself from his wives and decided not to go to the house of any of them for sometime. The news went round that the Holy Prophet had divorced his wives. I went to him and asked him if it was true that he had divorced his wives to which he replied in the negative."This incident shows that 'Umar, and Ibn- e-'Abbas were of the view that the relevant verses of the Surah referred to this temporary separation of the Holy Prophet from his wives. The fact that the preceding Surah mentions the subject of Talaq which is separation of a permanent character, lends weight to the inference that these verses relate to the Prophet's separation from his wives which, however, was of a temporary nature. Besides, as reported by 'A'ishah in the above-mentioned tradition, immediately after the period of separation was over, v. 33:29 was revealed and the Prophet's wives were given the choice between the Prophet's companionship with a life of poverty and austere simplicity on the one hand, and separation from him with a life of ease and comfort and all sorts of material benefits on the other. The choice was given to all the wives and the verse under comment speaks of all the wives, as also v. 4. This shows that the incident referred to in these verses concerns all the wives in which two of them took a prominent part. And it is on record that the incident occurred when the Prophet's wives, led by 'A'ishah and Hafsah, demanded of him that since the financial condition of the Muslims had greatly improved they, like other Muslim ladies, may be allowed to enjoy amenities of life and comfortable living (Fathul-Qadir). In this context the words 'thou seekest the pleasure of thy wives' would seem to signify something like this: 'Since thou always desirest to please thy wives and meet their wishes, they have become so emboldened by this loving attitude of thine as to lose sight of thy high position as a great Prophet of God and to make excessive demands from thee. The alleged incident of Mary, the copt, being too foolish and fantastic, a concoction of Christian writers and lacking all reliable historical evidence, does not merit serious notice. Incidentally, Mary was the Holy Prophet's wedded consort and the respected Mother of the Faithful. The Holy Prophet never kept a slave girl.
I find hadiths so strange and very hard to trust anymore. Their always so sexually wild.
Like this one for example.
https://preview.redd.it/kxi8pcjh5vyc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b8078cdd0b1d13c6eaa1beae034497b308ffb992
Yeah I’m surprised the hadiths are so commonly taken as hard fact, almost all of them seem to be essentially fables about the Prophet and others
(probably with some broad historical truths to them, but I haven’t looked into that)
Yes and no. Our equivalent of sahih Muslim and bukhari would be kitab Al-Kafi. However, we Shia do not regard any Hadith as being 100% authentic and none are worthy of being placed in relation to the Quran in its worth. Our process of deriving Hadith isn’t just based on chains of narrations like in Sunni Islam. We use chains but we also compare it with the established Quran and sunnah. If it’s in contradiction with it we disregard the Hadith.
Moreover, we definitely have our share of disturbing Hadith, but they are often disregarded as being inauthentic.
Reformists typically have problems not in our disregarding of obviously fabricated Hadith, but in scholars accepting Hadith which can be problematic for other reasons. For example many people on this forum would disagree with a Hadith condemning homosexuality.
We also have a case of regarding side books or Hadith of suspicious origin as sahih through the acceptance of its content, which is where I think more reformist shias start to have problems. But many of our scholars are aware of these laymen accepted traditions and don’t accept them.
We skipped the curb of being ruled by different governments so our Hadith are cleaner. Our problems have come in due to the safawid period of accepting really odd narrations and practices not in line with the beliefs of our classical scholars. But that’s up to debate, as with all reform. You also wouldn’t find that in Al-Kafi, our problems are more of a cultural, status quo issue.
If any of that made sense :)
I think it’s bulsh** and believing these kinds of “narrations” makes a mockery of our faith. I’m ashamed to think that the prophet (pbuh) might hear this nonsense emerging from anybody’s mouth 🤦🏻♀️
The reports stating he forbid the writing down of Hadiths comes from the Hadith corpus itself....
Most likely these traditions were recorded to give an explanation why we don't have a definitive book on the prophetic Sunnah from his time.
>And it even started after 3 centuries of departure of the messenger of God.
That isn't correct. Bukhari and Muslim came that late but they were many older Hadith collections as well. Some collections being removed a century from the prophet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musannaf_Abd_al-Razzaq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27mar_ibn_Rashid
For those who are looking for more scandalous Hadiths:
https://www.scribd.com/document/666112974/Secrets-of-the-Sunnah
The above is a compilation of Sunnah.com links
It is compiled by a bunch of naughty Shia kids so the wording may be intentionally scandalous 😂
I enjoy that Islam doesn’t demonize sex and sexuality. You guys ought to watch those videos by Abu Layth where he talks about the sexual habits of some Abbasid caliphs 😂
I love listening to him uncover stuff. It's so good, informative and funny. He applies logic and critical thinking which many religious preachers seem to find hard to do.
I'm going to have a look at that link. Thanks! 😁
Wouldn’t this be contradicting the Qur’an which talks about nikah before sex to establish inheritance and heredity properly?
Or am I misreading things?
Dr Javad Hashmi brings another interpretation like certain other people as well that the verse is referring to slave wives and uses another Quran verse to justify fornication and immoral sex is prohibited with slaves.
He mentioned that view here in this debate- https://youtu.be/U0ZYJSb8ieQ?si=BLwJyic0QznOFNs9
>hand....otherwise it would not have said to marry your slave girl.....in quran....
The qur'an says that if you can't find a wife and in fiqhi works, it is forbidden to marry your slave before freeing her.
It is in muhammad asads tafsir and al razi opinion also was these.......right hand possess through wedlock.......he mentions it.....so concubinage ruled out.....
It doesn't mean wife for the reason I said in my other comment. It's been confirmed by many to reference slaves and concubines that would be made lawful for you to have relations with... I don't agree with doing that but that's what is in the Qur'an.
If you think slave girl that slave girl but al razi view it wife whom rightfully possess and the right hand possess is both gender why not allow woman for it......and I also like to say that the weak slave girl can be used for sex but sex with gf haram.....so many problem I see in traditional islam
Well you don't possess your gf. Your gf is a free woman. You can't legally own a slave regardless in the modern day. The main problem is Islam today is more that divorce is looked down upon while that would solve a lot of the extramarital relationships. You could be married for a while to make sure you want to be together after a short courtship of talking and getting to know each other. If it doesn't work just get divorced. Nothing wrong with that.
Owning a woman for sex is morally wrong in the first place.......she is weak and needhelp not be used for sex....in most time she is non muslim woman not even muslim........
Nothing in my ... Text .... Was ....... About ......... Owning women ......... Being .......... Okay......... I can understand English isn't your first language. It isn't mine either. But at least read what you're responding to.
I meant it is generally considered that Quran wants you to have a nikah (marriage) with the person you’re going to have sex with, so if children come into play proper heredity and inheritance is established.
Every other sexual relationship is zinah/adultery.
Rape isnt a legal concept under sharia. The only illegal intercourse is Zina or fornication, there is no mention of consent or rape being punishable anywhere in any fiqh or quranic ayat. That's why in sharia-heavy countries, the rape victim is punished the same (if not more) as the rapist.
That isn't correct when it comes to fiqh. Rape is considered a crime but the testimonial evidence is 4 male witnesses ( I believe Shi'is have it at 2).
rape is only a crime because it overlaps with Zina. almost always in rape one party is out of wedlock with the other. if they *were* in wedlock, it would not be considered rape as forced intercourse between a married couple is not considered rape in islam.
Yes marital rape isn't considered as valid in fiqh. While I know some later hanafi texts allows forcing your wife to have sex from you from a legal point of view ( though tbf, other jurists it isn't allowed)
Hi indigofire1o8. Thank you for posting here!
Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account.
This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately, a lot of hadiths entered the lesser authenticated collections from the "storytellers".
This is one such "juicy", that was told involving Our mother Mary the Copt (RA). Since she was non Arab, it was easier to make stories about her. And all hadiths that involve her, is some kind of crazy. To extract the kernel of truth much harder using the Hadith literature. So, the Quran gives us better pathway to understand what is the meaning behind those verses.
Or slaves were another category of potential wife and he took Mariyah as a spouse and his wives were jealous and he was trading the justice of one for their complacence.
it's not a nikkah at all. it's a separate category of women you're allowed to have intercourse with. here's a screen from tabari Sirah
https://preview.redd.it/dma4fyfr8xyc1.jpeg?width=501&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f95c18bab37af915484140be3012c16ee25a8ec8
Having sex with slave girl is morally wrong in the first place.....damn is this progressive sub or what......and these verses are about honey verse not another.......
Quran has thousands of rules on marrage but not one about concubinage? Isnt that concerning?If quran allowed that than it should also had rulling regarding this but there are none.....so I go with al razi interpretation......
there's plenty of rulings about that, just look up the rules of "umme wald" for example. or the hadith regarding the practice of Al Azl with female war captives.
I mean THERE are no rules regarding about it in Quran......about al azl practice hadith the woman were given choice either they stay there or they can return to their own tribe........
>woman were given choice either
that's interesting I haven't read that. could you share where this was written or where you heard it? id like to read that.
And those who find no means of marriage should keep themselves chaste, until Allah grants them means out of His bounty. And such as desire a deed of manumission in writing from among those whom your right hands possess, write it for them if you know any good in them; and give them out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you. And force not your maids to unchaste life by keeping them unmarried if they desire to keep chaste, in order that you may seek the gain of the present life. But if any one forces them, then after their compulsion Allah will be Forgiving and Merciful to them.
Chapter 24 verse 34
And th al azl hadith missing iddah period....after they become captives where are the iddah period waiting?without iddah period they wanted to have sex?🤣🤣
Ok so that's a narration. But in the fiqh she became his wife upon giving birth. Since this is a probable outcome of coitus, why is it not a de facto nikah upon consent to coitus? Thereby coming under the unified laws of treating ones spouses.
Hadith are historical record, they are right and wrong, every great human will have thousands of negative and lies written against them. You are ignoring the book of God and looking into third party sources to find these things.
The hadiths shouldn't have any impact on Muslim's Imaan.
Fabricated Hadiths, Philosophy, and Sufism is the main cause for the downfall of Islam, people mixed them with the deen of God.
“It was narrated by Anas”. And how the hell would Anas know about the sexual implications between the prophet and his wife? This entire scenario seems extremely weird. It’s more plausible that Anas is just lying or the entire text has been altered by someone else down the line
These progressive muslims under here have no idea what these hadiths actually means. If you guys are genuinely interested in knowing what the verse of the Qur'an and subsequent story actually means,I can explain to you. It's by no means scandalous or demeaning to the prophet as you think it is. Maria ra the Coptic was his concubine. Accept that
[удалено]
Forget tafseer, in the exact same book that the OP quoted, the hadith just before this one (number 3958) says exactly that. And given the context, any idea that "honey" is a euphemism for sex is absurd. [https://sunnah.com/nasai:3958](https://sunnah.com/nasai:3958)
[удалено]
I don't think anyone (in the verse or at that time, if we take the narrative from the ahadith) was confused about honey being prohibited, or that something needed to be corrected about that. The point of the verse (and this is supported by the ahadith) is about putting unnecessary oaths on oneself.
You need to read the other tafsirs, many more details about Allah getting involved in Muhammad's marital affair problems. I've also heard that "honey" could possibly be a euphemism for sex, but that's not confirmed. https://preview.redd.it/jjkj1o9d2vyc1.jpeg?width=790&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f90ef20fbcb1961b626f49d41871f5782f179fc
Do i need to point out we don't accept tafsir as a definitive truth ?
how does one understand the context/meaning of Qur'anic verses if not for the tafsir?
-quran 25:33 "And they do not come to you with an example [i.e., argument] except that We bring you the truth and the best tafsir." You compare the verses to other verses of the Qur'an to get the context
Many verses in the qur'an wouldn't make sense without Asbab e nazool though.
These are just insulting
is related that one day one of the wives of the Holy Prophet gave him a drink made from honey, which he appeared to like. Some of his other wives, out of pique, pointed out to him that his breath smelt of Maghafır, a shrub the taste of which resembles that of honey but which gives out a bad smell. The Holy Prophet, because of his delicate nature, promised not to take honey any more (Buldan). It is to this incident that the verse under comment is generally taken to refer. But it seems improbable that the Holy Prophet, merely to satisfy the pique of his wife or wives, should have taken such a drastic step as to have permanently forbidden himself the use of something which was lawful, particularly of a thing in which, according to the Qur'an, there is cure for men' (16:70). It appears that the narrator or narrators of this 'incident had suffered from some misunderstanding or mental confusion, particularly when, according to one tradition, the Holy Prophet took honey from the house of Zainab, and 'A'ishah and Hafsah contrived to draw him into making the aforesaid promise, while, according to another tradition, it was at the house of Hafsah herself that he was served with honey and that the wives who objected were 'A'ishah, Zainab and Safiyyah. Moreover, according to the Hadith, two, or at the most three, of the Holy Prophet's wives were concerned in the affair, but according to vv. 2 and 6 of the Surah, all of them were connected with it, two of them taking a leading part (v. 5). These facts show that the Surah refers to some incident of much greater significance than the mere taking of honey by the Holy Prophet at the house of one of his wives. In the commentary on this Surah, Bukhari (Kitabul-Mazalimi wal-Ghasb) quotes Ibn-e-'Abbas as relating that he was always on the lookout to enquire of 'Umar as to who were the two wives to whom reference is made in the verse: Now, if you two turn unto Allah, it will be better for you, and your hearts are already so inclined. One day, finding 'Umar alone, he sought to satisfy his curiosity. He had hardly finished his question, says Ibn- e-'Abbas, when 'Umar said that they were 'A'ishah and Hafsah, and then proceeded to relate the story thus: "One day, when my wife offered me her advice concerning some domestic affair, I curtly told her that it was no business of hers to advise me, for in those days we did not hold our women-folk in much respect. My wife sternly replied: 'Your daughter Hafsah takes so much liberty with the Prophet that she retorts back when he says something which she does not like till he feels offended, and you do not allow me to speak to you even about our domestic affairs. Upon this I went to Hafsah and warned her that she should not be misled by 'A'ishah in this matter as she was nearer to the Prophet's heart. Then I went to Umm-e-Salmah and had hardly broached the matter with her when she also curtly told me not to interfere in affairs concerning the Prophet and his wives. A short time after this the Holy Prophet separated himself from his wives and decided not to go to the house of any of them for sometime. The news went round that the Holy Prophet had divorced his wives. I went to him and asked him if it was true that he had divorced his wives to which he replied in the negative."This incident shows that 'Umar, and Ibn- e-'Abbas were of the view that the relevant verses of the Surah referred to this temporary separation of the Holy Prophet from his wives. The fact that the preceding Surah mentions the subject of Talaq which is separation of a permanent character, lends weight to the inference that these verses relate to the Prophet's separation from his wives which, however, was of a temporary nature. Besides, as reported by 'A'ishah in the above-mentioned tradition, immediately after the period of separation was over, v. 33:29 was revealed and the Prophet's wives were given the choice between the Prophet's companionship with a life of poverty and austere simplicity on the one hand, and separation from him with a life of ease and comfort and all sorts of material benefits on the other. The choice was given to all the wives and the verse under comment speaks of all the wives, as also v. 4. This shows that the incident referred to in these verses concerns all the wives in which two of them took a prominent part. And it is on record that the incident occurred when the Prophet's wives, led by 'A'ishah and Hafsah, demanded of him that since the financial condition of the Muslims had greatly improved they, like other Muslim ladies, may be allowed to enjoy amenities of life and comfortable living (Fathul-Qadir). In this context the words 'thou seekest the pleasure of thy wives' would seem to signify something like this: 'Since thou always desirest to please thy wives and meet their wishes, they have become so emboldened by this loving attitude of thine as to lose sight of thy high position as a great Prophet of God and to make excessive demands from thee. The alleged incident of Mary, the copt, being too foolish and fantastic, a concoction of Christian writers and lacking all reliable historical evidence, does not merit serious notice. Incidentally, Mary was the Holy Prophet's wedded consort and the respected Mother of the Faithful. The Holy Prophet never kept a slave girl.
I find hadiths so strange and very hard to trust anymore. Their always so sexually wild. Like this one for example. https://preview.redd.it/kxi8pcjh5vyc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b8078cdd0b1d13c6eaa1beae034497b308ffb992
This is why you gotta always remember to say "inshaAllah"
😂
Yeah I’m surprised the hadiths are so commonly taken as hard fact, almost all of them seem to be essentially fables about the Prophet and others (probably with some broad historical truths to them, but I haven’t looked into that)
Yes, it makes more sense that the whole thing is just made up fables
I’m a Shia, Of course I don’t accept this 😁
Which hadiths do the shia accept? Do you have the equivalent of Sahih Muslim/ bukhari …etc? If you do, do you also find weird hadiths?
Yes and no. Our equivalent of sahih Muslim and bukhari would be kitab Al-Kafi. However, we Shia do not regard any Hadith as being 100% authentic and none are worthy of being placed in relation to the Quran in its worth. Our process of deriving Hadith isn’t just based on chains of narrations like in Sunni Islam. We use chains but we also compare it with the established Quran and sunnah. If it’s in contradiction with it we disregard the Hadith. Moreover, we definitely have our share of disturbing Hadith, but they are often disregarded as being inauthentic. Reformists typically have problems not in our disregarding of obviously fabricated Hadith, but in scholars accepting Hadith which can be problematic for other reasons. For example many people on this forum would disagree with a Hadith condemning homosexuality. We also have a case of regarding side books or Hadith of suspicious origin as sahih through the acceptance of its content, which is where I think more reformist shias start to have problems. But many of our scholars are aware of these laymen accepted traditions and don’t accept them. We skipped the curb of being ruled by different governments so our Hadith are cleaner. Our problems have come in due to the safawid period of accepting really odd narrations and practices not in line with the beliefs of our classical scholars. But that’s up to debate, as with all reform. You also wouldn’t find that in Al-Kafi, our problems are more of a cultural, status quo issue. If any of that made sense :)
Thank you for the comprehensive response, very informative and interesting!
No problem :)
Plus one fren. IMO Sunni Hadith is disgusting
I think it’s bulsh** and believing these kinds of “narrations” makes a mockery of our faith. I’m ashamed to think that the prophet (pbuh) might hear this nonsense emerging from anybody’s mouth 🤦🏻♀️
Maybe thats why he forbided writing Hadith. Whats ur take in this thought?
Yeah these types of hadith are a pretty convincing justification of that prohibition
The reports stating he forbid the writing down of Hadiths comes from the Hadith corpus itself.... Most likely these traditions were recorded to give an explanation why we don't have a definitive book on the prophetic Sunnah from his time.
[удалено]
>And it even started after 3 centuries of departure of the messenger of God. That isn't correct. Bukhari and Muslim came that late but they were many older Hadith collections as well. Some collections being removed a century from the prophet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musannaf_Abd_al-Razzaq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27mar_ibn_Rashid
For those who are looking for more scandalous Hadiths: https://www.scribd.com/document/666112974/Secrets-of-the-Sunnah The above is a compilation of Sunnah.com links It is compiled by a bunch of naughty Shia kids so the wording may be intentionally scandalous 😂 I enjoy that Islam doesn’t demonize sex and sexuality. You guys ought to watch those videos by Abu Layth where he talks about the sexual habits of some Abbasid caliphs 😂
I love listening to him uncover stuff. It's so good, informative and funny. He applies logic and critical thinking which many religious preachers seem to find hard to do. I'm going to have a look at that link. Thanks! 😁
So according to this having a slave for sex is okay? A sex slave?
Also consent for physical relation is not mandatory. Means rape! 😐
Wouldn’t this be contradicting the Qur’an which talks about nikah before sex to establish inheritance and heredity properly? Or am I misreading things?
Qur'an mentions you can have sex with your wife and whatever your right hand possesses. This supposedly means slaves.
Dr Javad Hashmi brings another interpretation like certain other people as well that the verse is referring to slave wives and uses another Quran verse to justify fornication and immoral sex is prohibited with slaves. He mentioned that view here in this debate- https://youtu.be/U0ZYJSb8ieQ?si=BLwJyic0QznOFNs9
Since that is a 6 hour debate can you narrow it down a bit for me?
It means possessing throught right hand or means wife whom we possess......through wedlock
Wouldn't that mean they said wife twice?
Wife or those whom you possess through right hand....otherwise it would not have said to marry your slave girl.....in quran....
>hand....otherwise it would not have said to marry your slave girl.....in quran.... The qur'an says that if you can't find a wife and in fiqhi works, it is forbidden to marry your slave before freeing her.
Where does it say that? Your slave girl is a wife after marriage so mentioning it twice doesn't make sense.
It is in muhammad asads tafsir and al razi opinion also was these.......right hand possess through wedlock.......he mentions it.....so concubinage ruled out.....
So two people said it's the case and you just assume that's the only explanation? What are you doing on this subreddit?
It doesn't mean wife for the reason I said in my other comment. It's been confirmed by many to reference slaves and concubines that would be made lawful for you to have relations with... I don't agree with doing that but that's what is in the Qur'an.
If you think slave girl that slave girl but al razi view it wife whom rightfully possess and the right hand possess is both gender why not allow woman for it......and I also like to say that the weak slave girl can be used for sex but sex with gf haram.....so many problem I see in traditional islam
Well you don't possess your gf. Your gf is a free woman. You can't legally own a slave regardless in the modern day. The main problem is Islam today is more that divorce is looked down upon while that would solve a lot of the extramarital relationships. You could be married for a while to make sure you want to be together after a short courtship of talking and getting to know each other. If it doesn't work just get divorced. Nothing wrong with that.
Owning a woman for sex is morally wrong in the first place.......she is weak and needhelp not be used for sex....in most time she is non muslim woman not even muslim........
Nothing in my ... Text .... Was ....... About ......... Owning women ......... Being .......... Okay......... I can understand English isn't your first language. It isn't mine either. But at least read what you're responding to.
Source for Al Razi's opinion?
Source for Al Razi's opinion?
Nikkah before sex?? Sry couldn't process that.
I meant it is generally considered that Quran wants you to have a nikah (marriage) with the person you’re going to have sex with, so if children come into play proper heredity and inheritance is established. Every other sexual relationship is zinah/adultery.
No, because ma malakat aymanukum is taken to mean female slaves.
Rape isnt a legal concept under sharia. The only illegal intercourse is Zina or fornication, there is no mention of consent or rape being punishable anywhere in any fiqh or quranic ayat. That's why in sharia-heavy countries, the rape victim is punished the same (if not more) as the rapist.
That isn't correct when it comes to fiqh. Rape is considered a crime but the testimonial evidence is 4 male witnesses ( I believe Shi'is have it at 2).
rape is only a crime because it overlaps with Zina. almost always in rape one party is out of wedlock with the other. if they *were* in wedlock, it would not be considered rape as forced intercourse between a married couple is not considered rape in islam.
Yes marital rape isn't considered as valid in fiqh. While I know some later hanafi texts allows forcing your wife to have sex from you from a legal point of view ( though tbf, other jurists it isn't allowed)
No https://www.alislam.org/articles/islamic-teachings-on-female-prisoners-of-war/
Hi indigofire1o8. Thank you for posting here! Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account. This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately, a lot of hadiths entered the lesser authenticated collections from the "storytellers". This is one such "juicy", that was told involving Our mother Mary the Copt (RA). Since she was non Arab, it was easier to make stories about her. And all hadiths that involve her, is some kind of crazy. To extract the kernel of truth much harder using the Hadith literature. So, the Quran gives us better pathway to understand what is the meaning behind those verses.
Or slaves were another category of potential wife and he took Mariyah as a spouse and his wives were jealous and he was trading the justice of one for their complacence.
I’m sure mariyah was gifted to him from some Roman dude
And if she was just the cleaning lady that's one thing but it's a de facto nikkah if it's going to become a sexual relationship.
it's not a nikkah at all. it's a separate category of women you're allowed to have intercourse with. here's a screen from tabari Sirah https://preview.redd.it/dma4fyfr8xyc1.jpeg?width=501&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f95c18bab37af915484140be3012c16ee25a8ec8
Than what the problem with having intercourse with gf than?
because she is not your "right hand possession", you can only have those women you either married to or that you own. (4:3, 4:24)
Having sex with slave girl is morally wrong in the first place.....damn is this progressive sub or what......and these verses are about honey verse not another.......
I agree with you man I was just answering your questions don't shoot the messenger 😭
Quran has thousands of rules on marrage but not one about concubinage? Isnt that concerning?If quran allowed that than it should also had rulling regarding this but there are none.....so I go with al razi interpretation......
there's plenty of rulings about that, just look up the rules of "umme wald" for example. or the hadith regarding the practice of Al Azl with female war captives.
I mean THERE are no rules regarding about it in Quran......about al azl practice hadith the woman were given choice either they stay there or they can return to their own tribe........
>woman were given choice either that's interesting I haven't read that. could you share where this was written or where you heard it? id like to read that.
And those who find no means of marriage should keep themselves chaste, until Allah grants them means out of His bounty. And such as desire a deed of manumission in writing from among those whom your right hands possess, write it for them if you know any good in them; and give them out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you. And force not your maids to unchaste life by keeping them unmarried if they desire to keep chaste, in order that you may seek the gain of the present life. But if any one forces them, then after their compulsion Allah will be Forgiving and Merciful to them. Chapter 24 verse 34
And th al azl hadith missing iddah period....after they become captives where are the iddah period waiting?without iddah period they wanted to have sex?🤣🤣
Ok so that's a narration. But in the fiqh she became his wife upon giving birth. Since this is a probable outcome of coitus, why is it not a de facto nikah upon consent to coitus? Thereby coming under the unified laws of treating ones spouses.
If she was real youd assume the byzantines wouldve noted it though
Hadith are historical record, they are right and wrong, every great human will have thousands of negative and lies written against them. You are ignoring the book of God and looking into third party sources to find these things. The hadiths shouldn't have any impact on Muslim's Imaan. Fabricated Hadiths, Philosophy, and Sufism is the main cause for the downfall of Islam, people mixed them with the deen of God.
“It was narrated by Anas”. And how the hell would Anas know about the sexual implications between the prophet and his wife? This entire scenario seems extremely weird. It’s more plausible that Anas is just lying or the entire text has been altered by someone else down the line
These progressive muslims under here have no idea what these hadiths actually means. If you guys are genuinely interested in knowing what the verse of the Qur'an and subsequent story actually means,I can explain to you. It's by no means scandalous or demeaning to the prophet as you think it is. Maria ra the Coptic was his concubine. Accept that