Thursday, December 18, 2008

The Status of Slave Girls in Islam

Could Arabic speaking Muslims please comment on the following post by Raymond Ibrahim at Jihad Watch? Is Ibrahim right or wrong?

Many are now aware that the Koran—that is, Allah’s word—permits, not just polygamy, but forced concubinage (sex with captive women), according to Koran 4:3: “Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice, then only one, or what your right hands possess [captive women taken in war].” There is, however, an interesting, and very telling, linguistic aspect to this verse that is often overlooked—or intentionally obscured. The Arabic states: “Ankahu [marry]…ma [what] malakat [possess] aymankum [your right hands].”

Oddly enough, the Arabic relative pronoun used to indicate these captive women is "ma": ma malakat aymankum, literally, “what your right hands possess” (see Shakir’s acclaimed English translation which most literally translates this). In Arabic, when one refers to a rational being (i.e., a human), the word used is min, which means “who(ever)”; ma, on the other hand, refers only to things or animals—trees, rocks, dogs and cats—very much similar to the English “it.” Thus, in proper Arabic the phrase might have been min malakat aymankum: “who(ever) your rights hands possess.”

For long I assumed this was but a stylistic matter. However, the highly revered Islamic scholar al-Qurtubi (d.1273) also makes this observation in vol. 5, p.12 of his authoritative 20-volume Tafsir Al Koran (Exegesis of the Koran). He points out that members of the human race should be referred to with min (who), whereas only “inanimate objects” or “brute beasts” should be referred to with ma (what).

Does this suggest that the Koran’s Arabic—touted as the most perfect Arabic—is flawed? Of course, no Muslim would allow for that. Nor need they, as this phenomenon (portraying concubines as non-human) accords well with a number of hadiths that place females and animals in the same category. Musnad Ibn Hanbal (vol. 2, p. 2992), for example, records Muhammad saying “Women, dogs, and donkeys annul a man’s prayer.” Indeed, in Qurtubi’s same Tafsir (vol.15, p.172), after examining such hadiths, he writes, "A Woman may be likened to a sheep—even a cow or a camel—for all are ridden.”

12 comments:

El-Cid said...

"...as this phenomenon (portraying concubines as non-human) accords well with a number of hadiths that place females and animals in the same category."

Tabari IX:113 [in reference to Surah 4:34] "Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like DOMESTIC ANIMALS and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an."

I wonder, do Muslims accept on this basis that their mothers, sisters and daughters are "like domestic animals"?

Fernando said...

It's reaaly amaizing!!! I thought those things could not bee true... my english teacher is a muslim woemen and she said they (womens) were admired and prottected in islam...

I made a small searche and found this text...

Bukhari Vol 1; Book 9; hadith 493:

«Narrated 'Aisha: The things which annual prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said, "You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet."»

It looks lihe this might be true... It's shamefful...

Unknown said...

Actually Fernando, you did not bother to understand Aisha(ra)'s argument. She said that if the Prophet(saw) really said women nullify the prayer of men, then he(saw) himself wouldn't have prayed when Aisha(ra) was between him and the Qibla. He did. Therefore, the Prophet(saw) did not really say that women annul the prayers of men.

Fernando said...

My friende Ibn...

Thanks to calle my attention to that fact... I was becaming worried...

But it still lokes like there're a tradition that women, as dogs and donkeys annulled prayer... miss Aisha said it: «The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me»...

were did that tradition came frome?

Maybe from Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 1032: «the messenger of 'Allah said: "when any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black dog"»

And his miss Aisha contradicting them?

Is she lyieng?

Or was men lyieng?

I'm very confused, but it looks like the evidence contunueys: there's a tradition that says that Huhammed condidered women as donkeys and dogs...

it's a pity... and an horror...

Unknown said...

Fernando wrote: And his miss Aisha contradicting them?Is she lyieng?Or was men lyieng?

Being his wife, since Aisha(ra) was closer to the Prophet(saw) than anyone else, her statement carries more weight than that of others. As for the traditions you quoted which seems to contradict what Aisha(ra) said, I theorize that they all come down from one Companion who probably misunderstood what the Prophet(saw) said. This theory is plausible considering that there is another such tradition in which the Prophet(saw) was reported to have said one thing and when this was conveyed to his wife, again Aisha(ra), she refuted it, saying that the Prophet(saw)'s statement was taken out of context.

Fernando said...

Thanks my friend Ibn...

I understand know that Ibn Abbas, Tabari, Bukhari and Sahih Muslim weren't right in the matter of the rules that nnullified praier...

but that is in contradiction withe this words I found:

«When you do not get any help from the Qur'ân or the Sunnah, turn to the words of the companions. For they know the Qur'ân better: they have witnessed its revelation, and passed through the situations in which it was revealed: and know it and understand it fully.»

in www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/how-tafsir-is-performed/:

But maybe women only annule prayer when she moves... can that be read
from "I would slip away by the side of his feet (and keep quite and away from his sight)"?

But one stayes with another doubte: can we truste any Muhammed's word that came from traditions that are in cleare contradiction?

I guess you are wright: all gets resumed to words like "more", "seems", "theorize", "probably", "plausible", "context"...

I thinke thats the only way to refute contradictions in the muslime traditione... one can adopte either saide one wants according to his conscience our convenience...

thats a lot of freedom!!!

tnanks for your clear and

contextual unswer my friend Ibn...

David Wood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Wood said...

Ibn said: "Actually Fernando, you did not bother to understand Aisha(ra)'s argument. She said that if the Prophet(saw) really said women nullify the prayer of men, then he(saw) himself wouldn't have prayed when Aisha(ra) was between him and the Qibla. He did. Therefore, the Prophet(saw) did not really say that women annul the prayers of men."

Ibn's Hypothesis: Since there's an inconsistency here, the tradition I like less must be wrong.

Actually, there's another explanation that fits the facts better than your theory, Ibn.

Wood's Hypothesis: Since there's an inconsistency here, Muhammad was inconsistent (that is, his rulings changed often based on how things were going for him).

El-Cid said...

David,

I wonder why none of the Arabic speakers have yet come forth to address you question on the use of "ma"??

I'm guessing that Ibn might speak Arabic, but he doesn't seem to want to touch the question.

I guess the rest of us will just have to go forth assuming the Qur'an calls women "it" (i.e. a thing similar to an object) since no one is using their knowledge of Arabic to refute that position.

Fernando said...

David Wood said...

Wood's Hypothesis: Since there's an inconsistency here, Muhammad was inconsistent (that is, his rulings changed often based on how things were going for him).

Yep... that's a true pointe... Muhammad/Alaah inconsistacie is the root of all other muslims inconsistacy... until the presente... as I saide: «one can adopte either saide one wants according to his conscience our convenience...»

as we can see, for exemple, in mister Yahya...

Anthony Rogers said...

Commenting on Surah 13:15 ("Whatever beings there are in the heavens and the earth do prostrate themselves to Allah..."), Yusuf Ali says:

"Notice that the original of what I have translated 'whatever being'is the personal pronoun man, not ma. This then refers to beings with personality, e.g., angels, spirits, human beings, and possibly other things of objective (not necessarily material) existence, as contrasted with their Shadows or Simulacre or Appearances, or Phantasms, mentioned at the end of the verse. Both these beings and their Shadows are subject to the Will of Allah. See notes 1825 and 1827." (FN#1824)

sadeqh saleem said...

http://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/askimam/ask.pl?q=14421&act=view

dear brothers an sisters and brothers of the book
read this passage it might emlighten u.... and yeah dun give meaning to the hadith according to ur will....
may allah guide u all.

Peace