Dear Shia Muslims!
"When I first heard about the tragedies of KARBALA my heart was filled with sorrow. What a calamity befell Zainab (the granddaughter of Prophet Muhammad) when she witnessed the lifeless bodies of her young sons, Awn and Muhammad, and her eighteen brothers. Can one imagine the agony these women endured when their fathers, brothers, and sons were beheaded and their heads raised on spears from Karbala to Kufa, and then to Damascus during their journey of captivity?
Even after becoming an atheist, my feelings towards Hussein have changed, but despite that, the pain of those captive women and children from Karbala remains present. Perhaps this is a bond of humanity that cannot be broken.
However, this pain intensified when knowledge increased, and the veil was lifted from the tragedies of the captives of Khaybar and Banu Qurayza.
Were the captives of Khaybar and Banu Qurayza not human beings too?"
Ibn Ishaq said: After the Messenger of God conquered al-Qamus, Safiyyah bint Huyayy was brought to him, and another woman with her. Bilal (a companion), who was teh one who brought them, led them past some of the slain Jews. When the woman who was with Safiyyah saw them, she cried out, struck her face, and poured dust on her head. When Messenger of God saw her, he said, "Take this she-devil away from me!" ... The Messenger of God said to Bilal, when he saw the Jewish woman doing what he saw her do, "Are you devoid of mercy, Bilal, that you take two women past their slain men?"
Reading this account, tears welled up in my eyes. Even the captives of Khaybar and Banu Qurayza began to appear human to me. Is it my fault that I started empathizing with their pain (despite their being non-Muslims)?
As a Muslim, I was filled with sorrow when I first heard about Zainab's journey from my Shia friends. Her Hijab was removed, and she was made to walk bareheaded and barefoot through the markets of Kufa and Damascus. But then I learned that the captive women of Khaybar and Banu Qurayza were not only stripped of their upper garments and were forced to bare their chests as well. Can I be blamed for shivering after reading this?
The most UNFORTUNATE issue is, today Muslims (both Shias and Sunnis) are not aware of the fact that Islamic Sharia prohibits a captive/slave woman to take Hijab, and also forces her to keep her chest naked in public. It is done in order to differentiate between the Free Muslim women and the Slave women (i.e. the Hijab and covering the chests is only the Right and Honour of Free Muslim women).
The tale of oppression grew long, and with its length, it became filled with more injustice. After murdering their fathers, brothers, and sons during the daytime, Muslim Jihadists also raped those vulnerable women the same night.
Please imagine, what a distress it would have been for those poor women and small girls when Muslim Jihadists had also started raping them and forcing them to provide the sex-services, while they were in that state of mind, where they were crying and mourning the killings of their fathers, husbands and sons?
Which crime could be greater against humanity than this crime of Islam?
Islamic apologists come up with the excuse that perhaps this tradition of the History of Tabari is weak. But they should realize that this excuse is not going to work, while it is a "Universally Acknowledged Truth" that after the killing of relatives in the war, all women naturally find themselves in a state of grief and sorrow and crying and mourning. Furthermore, another universally recognized truth is that Muslims indeed raped them and forced them to provide sex services the very first night.
The story of injustice did not end there; it continued to unfold, revealing that these women were eventually sold in the markets of Medina as slaves to other men. Meanwhile, their young children were separated from their mothers and sold to different owners.
Are the sufferings of the captives of Khaybar and Banu Qurayza any less distressing than those of the captives of Karbala? It is important to note that at least Hussein was not killed after being taken captive. In modern times, killing individuals after they have already surrendered and become captives is considered a war crime, and even in previous eras, such actions were regarded as abhorrent. However, it is disheartening to see that in the instances of Khaybar and Banu Qurayza, the Quran and Muhammad sanctioned the slaughter of captive men.
And though Zainab's veil was taken, her dignity was not violated on the same night and she didn't have to provide sex services to Yazid's army.
Dear Shia Muslims!
Please forgive my impertinence, but I found the oppression in Khaybar and Banu Qurayza even more pronounced than in Karbala.
Shia Muslims also don't know the Truth (just like Sunni Muslims) today:
Dear Shia Muslims,
Our biggest enemy is our "ignorance". Please find out the "truth", as the truth will set you free.
ابن طريف، عن ابن علوان، عن الصادق، عن أبيه عليهما السلام أن عليا عليه الصلاة والسلام كان إذا أراد أن يبتاع الجارية يكشف عن ساقيها فينظر إليها
Imam al-Sadiq said: When Imam Ali wanted to buy a slave girl, then he used to uncover her thighs and inspect them.
And Dhimmi woman also has no "Sanctity" (حرمة) like the slave woman.Wasail-us-Shia (link):
ـ محمد بن يعقوب ، عن علي بن إبراهيم ، عن أبيه ، عن النوفلي ، عن السكوني ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : قال رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) : لا حرمة لنساء أهل الذمة أن ينظر إلى شعورهن وأيديهن
The holy Prophet said: "There is no Sanctity (حرمة) of Dhimmi women (i.e. Non-Muslim woman living in Muslim Country). The hairs and hands of such woman could be seen.
ابن طريف، عن ابن علوان، عن الصادق، عن أبيه عليهما السلام أن عليا عليه الصلاة والسلام كان إذا أراد أن يبتاع الجارية يكشف عن ساقيها فينظر إليها
Imam Sadiq (as) said when Imam Ali (as) wanted to buy a slave girl, then he used to undress her thighs and check them.
According to Shia Madhab too the "Awra"(nakedness) of a slave girl is only from naval to knees. Bahar-ul-Anwar (Link):
ابن طريف ، عن ابن علوان ، عن الصادق ، عن أبيه عليهماالسلامأنه قال : إذ ازوج الرجل أمته فلا ينظرن إلى عورتها ، والعورة ما بين السرة إلى الركبة
Imam Sadiq (as) said: If the owner wants to marry his slave woman to another person, then the owner should not see her "Awra" (nakedness) which is between naval till knees (i.e. her breasts are naked).
سألت أبا عبد الله (ع) عن المملوكة تقنع رأسها إذا صلت؟ قال لا قد كان أبى إذا رأى الخادمة تصلى في مقنعة ضربها لتعرف الحرة من المملوكة
“I asked Aba `Abd Allah [al-Sadiq] (as) concerning the possession’s (i.e. the slave women) covering of her head when she prayed? He replied: ‘No! For when my father (i.e. Imam al-Baqir) saw the female servant *praying* with a Muqna (outer garment sheet) on, he *hit* her; so that the free (Muslim woman) can be known from the possession (i.e. slave woman).”
And it is in Man La Yahduruh al-Faqih – the author al-Saduq – [1:373] and Wasail-us-Shia (link) that Imam al-Baqir said:
ليس على الأمة قناع في الصلاة
“There is no cover for the slave girl during prayer.”
This report is declared “Sahih” by the Grand Ayatullah al-Sayyid Muhammad Sadiq al-Ruhani in Fiqh al-Sadiq [4:228].
In fact, it is narrated in Qadi Nu`man al-Maghribi’s Da`a’im al-Islam [1:177] and al-Nuri’s Mustadrak al-Wasa’il [3:217] that Ja`far al-Sadiq was asked about the permissibility for a slave girl to cover her through Muqna (outer garment sheet) during prayers and he replied (link):
لا كان أبى رضوان الله عليه إذا رأى أمة تصلى وعليها مقنعة ضربها وقال يا لكع لا تتشبهي بالحرائر
“No, when my father, `alayh as-salam, saw a slave girl praying and she had a Muqna, he hit her! And he said: ‘You rascal! Do not resemble the free women!’”
After going through all of this, the heart automatically starts shedding tears of blood.
Just like Sunni Fiqh, in Shia Fiqh too, if a Muslim owner gets lust for the slave wife of his male slaver, then it is permissible for him to separate her from him. And after she becomes free of her first period, then he can start fulfilling his lust by raping her.
Tafsir al-Mizan of Allamah Tabatabai (tafsir of verse 4:24, and those around it -- can be accessed here):
It has been narrated in traditions that the owner of a married slave woman may take away that woman from her husband, keep her untouched for the prescribed term, then have sexual relation with her, and thereafter return her to her husband. ... Ibn Muskan has narrated through Abu Basir, from one of the two Imams (a.s.), about the word of Allah: And all married women except those whom your right hands possess, that he said: "They are the women having husbands except those whom your right hands possess. If you have given your slave girl in marriage to your slave boy, you may remove her from him if you so wish." "I said: 'Do you see, if he has given her in marriage to other than his own slave boy?' He said: '(Then) he has no right to remove (her from him) until she is sold away; then if he sells her, her affair is transferred to other than him (i.e, to the buyer); then the buyer may separate (her from her husband) if he so desires, and may reconfirm (the marriage) if he so wishes." (at-Tafsir, al-'Ayyashi)
The same thing is present in these 3 traditions of Al-Kafi:
Al-Kafi, vol. 5, page 481 (link):
(باب) * (الرجل يزوج عبده أمته ثم يشتهيها) * 1 - علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن عبد الله بن المغيرة، عن عبد الله بن سنان، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: سمعته يقول: إذا زوج الرجل عبده أمته ثم اشتهاها، قال له: اعتزلها فإذا طمثت وطئها ثم يردها عليه إذا شاء. 2 - محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن ابن محبوب، عن أبي أيوب، عن محمد بن مسلم قال: سألت أبا جعفر (عليه السلام) عن قول الله عز وجل: (المحصنات من النساء إلا ما ملكت أيمانكم) (1) قال: هو أن يأمر الرجل عبده وتحته أمته فيقول له: اعتزل امرأتك ولا تقربها ثم يحبسها عنه حتى تحيض ثم يمسها (2) فإذا حاضت بعد مسه إياها ردها عليه بغير نكاح. 3 - محمد بن يحيى، عن محمد بن أحمد، عن أحمد بن الحسن، عن عمرو بن سعيد، عن مصدق بن صدقة، عن عمار بن موسى، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: سألته عن الرجل يزوج جاريته من عبده فيريد أن يفرق بينهما فيفر العبد كيف يصنع؟ قال: يقول لها: اعتزلي فقد فرقت بينكما فاعتدى فتعتد خمسة وأربعين يوما ثم يجامعها مولاها إن شاء وإن لم يفر قال له مثل ذلك، قلت: فإن كان المملوك لم يجامعها، قال: يقول لها: اعتزلي فقد فرقت بينكما ثم يجامعها مولاها من ساعته إن شاء ولا عدة عليها.
Chapter on a man who marries his (male) slave to his slave-girl, then desires her (the slave-girl):
The three hadith basically say the same thing that Allamah Tabatabai mentioned in his tafsir--that an owner of a slave girl, who is married to his (male) slave, can separate the slave-girl from her husband until she menstruates (or separate her for a period of 40 to 50 days, according to the third hadith), and then can have sexual relations with her. And then she can be returned to her husband (the male slave) without any need to renew their nikah.
The gradings of these three Ahadith, according to Allamah Majlisi are: (1) Hasan (i.e. Fair), (2) Sahih (i.e. Authentic and (3) Muwaththaq (i.e. Reliable).
The primary Hadith book of Shia Muslims is Al-Kafi, encompassing a comprehensive chapter concerning slave women that contains more than a hundred Ahadith, all of which describe the deplorable mistreatment of these women.
Interestingly, while Shia scholars have translated the entire book of Al-Kafi into English, they deliberately omitted this specific chapter discussing the humiliation of slave women. This omission appears to be an attempt to conceal the injustice perpetrated against these vulnerable individuals by the so-called divine will.
Reasoning by Shia Scholars for not translating the chapter about slave women was articulated as follows (link):
Chapter 112 to 137:
Chapters one hundred twelve to one hundred and thirty-seven deal with issues of slaves and slave-girls, which are not of any practical benefit today and its translation may not be of any benefit as well.
To shed light on this matter, we present a few selected traditions (with English translation) from this chapter of Al-Kafi, specifically concerning slave girls, so that you can discern for yourself the reasons why Shia scholars opted not to translate them.
Minor slave girls can be used for driving sexual pleasure by multiple men without any waiting period
3 - محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن ابن محبوب، عن ابن بكير عن هشام بن الحرث، عن عبد الله بن عمرو قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله أو لأبي جعفر (ع): الجارية يشتريها الرجل وهي لم تدرك أو قد يئست من المحيض؟ قال: فقال: لا بأس بأن لا يستبرئها.
Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad, from Ibn Mahboub, from Ibn Bukeyr, from Hisham Bin Al Haris, from Abdullah Bin Amro who said, ‘I said to Abu Abdullahasws or to Abu Ja’farasws, ‘The slave girl whom the man buys, and she has yet to be an adult, or has despaired from the menstruation’. So, the Imam said: ‘There is no problem if he does not clear her womb (i.e. observe any waiting period before penetrating in her vagina)’.
It practically means, multiple men can drive sexual pleasure from a minor girl (from the age of breastfeeding till the age of 12 when she gets her first menstruation) one by one even in one day, while there is no "waiting period" for her, even if her vagina is penetrated by these men.
According to Shia Fiqh, marrying a minor girl (even if she is breastfed) with the permission of her father, and then driving sexual pleasures is "Halal Allah" (i.e. permissible). This minor girl can be made naked and then her husband can kiss her body, and he is also allowed to do "thighing" (i.e. rubbing their penis in the thighs of that minor girl and ejaculate). Or if she is 4 or 5 years old, then he can compel her to masturbate his penis. And if she is 9 years old (or even before), then she can even be penetrated into her vagina if the husband thinks that she is strong enough to bear the penetration.
For details, please read our article: Islam: Even a breastfed baby girl can be married and used for sexual pleasure. Shia Mujtahideen like Khomeini and Khoi etc. gave this fatwa in the light of the Quran.
The differences are:
- If a minor girl is a "Free person", then his father gives her in Nikah of any man. He does not need any "consent" either from his minor daughter, or of her mother, or any Islamic court.
- But in the case of a minor "Slave girl", even the consent of the father is also not needed. A rich Muslim man can directly buy a minor slave girl from the slave market, and he can drive all kinds of sexual pleasures from her and no one can stop him even if he is a psychopath, and even if he beats and tortures the minor slave girl while raping her.
- And another difference is if the minor girl is a "free person", then only her husband can drive sexual pleasure from her. Nevertheless, if the minor girl is a slave, then the master, along with his brothers or friends (i.e. multiple men) can drive sexual pleasure from her (including penetration in her vagina) in a single day.
It is not only about the minor girl, but it is also true about an old slave woman who does not get any menstruation due to her old age (i.e. when she is 45 years old when menstruation stops naturally). Such a slave woman can also be raped by multiple men in a single day one by one, and it is totally Halal Allah (i.e. permissible).
۔۔۔ وسألته عن رجل اشترى جارية وهي حائض، قال: إذا طهرت فليمسها إن شاء.
. He (the narrator) said, ‘And I asked the Imam about a man who bought a slave girl and she was menstruating. He said: ‘When she is pure, then let him touch her if he so desires to’.
Taking all kinds of pleasures except for penetration in her vagina is allowed even before the end of her first period
محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن علي بن الحكم، عن موسى بن بكر، عن زرارة، عن حمران قال: سألت أبا جعفر (ع) عن رجل اشترى أمة هل يصيب منها دون الغشيان ولم يستبرئها؟ قال: نعم
‘I asked Abu Ja’far about a man who bought a slave girl. Can he attain from her besides the overwhelming (copulation), and he has not cleared her womb?’ He said: ‘Yes, when it Obligates her, and she comes to be from his wealth. So, if she were to die, it would be from his wealth’.
Taking sexual pleasure is also allowed (except for the vagina) even if the slave woman is pregnant from another man
محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن ابن فضال، عن ابن بكير، عن زرارة بن أعين قال: سألت أبا جعفر (ع) عن الجارية الحبلى يشتريها الرجل فيصيب منها دون الفرج قال: لا بأس، قلت: فيصيب منها في ذلك؟ قال: تريد تغرة.
‘I asked Abu Ja’far about the pregnant slave girl whom the man buys, so he attains from her besides the private part. He said: ‘There is no problem’. I said, ‘Supposing he attains from her in that (i.e. vagina) too?’ He said: ‘Do you intend deception?’
If a slave woman marries a person without the permission of her master, then it is adultery, while if a male slave marries a woman without permission, then it is not adultery but only disobedience
عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر البزنطي، عن داود بن الحصين، عن أبي العباس قال: سألت أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام) عن الأمة تتزوج بغير إذن أهلها، قال: يحرم ذلك عليها وهو الزنا
‘I asked Abu Abdullah about the slave girl who gets married without the permission of her owner. He said: ‘It is Prohibited unto her and it would be the adultery’.
محمد بن إسماعيل، عن الفضل بن شاذان، وعلي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن عبد الرحمن بن الحجاج، عن منصور بن حازم، عن أبي عبد الله (ع) في مملوك تزوج بغير إذن مولاه أعاص لله؟ قال: عاص لمولاه، قلت: حرام هو؟ قال: ما أزعم أنه حرام وقل له أن لا يفعل إلا بإذن مولاه
(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullah regarding an owned slave who married without permission from his master, has he disobeyed Allah?’ He said: ‘He disobeyed his master’. I said, ‘Prohibited, is it?’ He said: ‘I do not claim that it is Prohibited, and say to him that he should not do it except with the permission of his master’.
محمد بن إسماعيل، عن الفضل بن شاذان، وأبو علي الأشعري، عن محمد بن عبد الجبار جميعا، عن صفوان بن يحيى، عن ابن مسكان، عن الحسن بن زياد قال: سألت أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام) عن رجل اشترى جارية يطؤها فبلغه أن لها زوجا؟ قال: يطؤها فإن بيعها طلاقها وذلك أنهما لا يقدران على شئ من أمرهما إذا بيعا
I asked Abu Abdullah about a man who bought a slave girl. He slept with her, and (news) reached him that for her is a husband. He said: ‘He can sleep with her, for her sale is her divorce.
In simple words, slaves had no human rights to have a "Family". The owner was allowed to destroy the whole slave family whenever he wished, either by selling one of them, or taking the female slave for himself for sex services.
محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن علي بن الحكم، عن سيف بن عميرة، عن إسحاق بن عمار قال: سألت أبا الحسن (عليه السلام) عن رجل اشترى جاريه حاملا وقد استبان حملها فوطئها قال بئس ما صنع، قلت فما تقول فيه؟ قال: أعزل عنها أم لا؟ قلت: أجبني في الوجهين، قال: إن كان عزل عنها فليتق الله ولا يعود وإن كان لم يعزل عنها فلا يبيع ذلك الولد ولا يورثه ولكن يعتقه ويجعل له شيئا من ماله يعيش به فإنه قد غذاه بنطفته.
‘I asked Abu Al-Hassan about a man who bought a pregnant slave girl and her pregnancy had manifested, so he slept with her. He said: ‘Evil is what he has done’. I said, ‘So what are you saying regarding it?’ He said: ‘Is he isolated from her or not?’ I said, ‘Answer me regarding the two aspects’. He said: ‘If he had isolated, so let him fear Allah and he should not repeat (i.e. there is no physical punishment for him), and if he had not isolated from her, so he should not sell that child, and the child would not inherit him, but he should emancipate the child and make something from his wealth to be for the child so that the child can live by, for he had nourished the child with his seed (i.e. semen)’.
علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن النوفلي، عن السكوني، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) أن رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) دخل على رجل من الأنصار وإذا وليدة عظيمة البطن تختلف فسأل عنها، فقال: اشتريتها يا رسول الله وبها هذا الحبل، قال: أقربتها؟ قال: نعم، قال: أعتق ما في بطنها، قال: يا رسول الله وبما استحق العتق؟ قال: لأن نطفتك غذت سمعه وبصره ولحمه ودمه.
(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullah that Rasool-Allah went over to a man from the Helpers, and there was a mother with a large belly arguing. So he asked about her, so he said, ‘I bought her, O Rasool-Allah, and with her was this pregnancy’. He said: ‘Did you go near her?’ He said, ‘Yes’. He said: ‘Emancipate whatever is in her belly’. He said, ‘O Rasool-Allah, with what is emancipation deserved?’ He said: ‘Because your seed nourished his hearing, and his vision, and his flesh, and his blood’.
Therefore, even if he rapes the pregnant slave woman with penetration, still there is no punishment for him.
It happened during the Jihadi wars, where the poor prisoner women were hand-cuffed and then distributed among the Jihadi Muslims, where they were alone with them in their camps during the night. Although it was not allowed to penetrate their vaginas if they previously had husbands, nevertheless, we can better imagine that it was almost impossible for Jihadi Muslims not to penetrate them, while:
- Jihadi Muslims didn't have their wives with them.
- And the prisoner women were handcuffed, and they were alone with them in their tents.
- The upper garments of the poor prisoner women were taken off, and their hair and breasts were made naked, as they were slaves and they were not allowed to resemble the free Muslim women by hiding their hair and their breasts.
- And Jihadi Muslims were allowed to drive sexual pleasures from their bodies (and compel them to masturbate them etc.). So what if any Jihadi lost control over himself and also raped her with penetration in her vagina?
- Please note that the testimony of slaves against their owners was not accepted in Islamic Sharia. Thus, even if the poor prisoner women were raped, still they were not allowed to go to Islamic courts. Thus, nobody could punish the Jihadi for raping the prisoner women with penetration.
In the hadith above, you have read that a pregnant woman is not allowed to marry another man till the delivery of the child. This Sharia Ruling came while Allah/Muhammad/Imams made a scientific mistake here.
Islam shared a common belief with the people of Jahiliyyah (i.e. the time of ignorance). They believed that the semen of another person could nourish a fetus, and it affects the "parentage" of the child. This misconception led to the practice, common among both Shia and Sunni Islam, of burdening pregnant women by prohibiting them from marrying another person until the delivery of the fetus.
But this is nothing else than a scientific mistake of Islam. Sex with another man cannot change the DNA of the fetus, and thus the parentage is absolutely not affected.
And even if we assume that sex with another man affects the fetus's hearing, vision, flesh, and blood, still what is wrong with it that it should be prohibited? The father is not present, and sex with another man is only bringing "GOOD" for the fetus i.e. improving his hearing, vision, flesh and blood.
During pregnancy, a woman requires significant love, care, and financial support. For a divorced or widowed pregnant woman, marrying another man could provide her with these essential aspects. However, Islamic Sharia imposed unnecessary hardships by imposing waiting periods on such women, preventing them from seeking love, care, and support from another partner during their pregnancy.
Just like Sunni Islam, Shia Islam also allows the owner to separate the child from the slave mother and then sell the child in the Bazar of Slavery. Just look at this hadith above, where the Shia Imam is asking the owner not to sell the child. This means, if the owner had not penetrated the vagina of the pregnant slave mother, then he would have all the right to sell the child in the slave market.
Therefore, it was actually a blessing for the child if the owner raped his/her slave mother with penetration in her vagina. It became a reason for the freedom of the child, and his good luck that he/she will not be separated from his/her mother and will not be old in the slave market.
Just like Sunni Islam (link), Shia Islam also has the same evil of "slavery by birth". The child of a slave woman, who is not from the owner, he/she will be automatically born as a slave to the owner of the slave woman.
For example, if she was pregnant from the earlier owner (as in the above-mentioned hadith), or if her master marries her to another free Muslim man, or to any of his slaves, then the children from such a union will automatically be born as slaves to the owner of the slave woman.
A child from a slave woman can only be free if the owner himself rapes the slave woman, and then his own child is born.
In the Quran, it is "discouraged" that a free man does Nikah with a slave woman of another person. And the reason behind this is, the children of that free Muslim men will then automatically born as slaves of the owner of the slave mother.
And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters ... This (permission of marrying a slave woman) is (only) for him among you who fears falling into evil; and that if you abstain (from marrying a slave woman) is better for you (while your children will be automatically born as slaves), and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
All Shia Muffasirin and Fuqaha (jurists) are unanimous on this. Allamah Tabatabai wrote under the commentary of this verse 4:25 (link):
However, abstinence and patience is better (than marrying the slave women), in any case. If it indicates abstaining from marrying slave girls, it is because of the rights their masters have on them and on their offspring — as described in books of jurisprudence.
An 'Akhbari Shia Website' (that doesn't follow Shia Mujtahidden, but only Shia traditions) in fact translated this chapter into English. You can read all these Ahadith here (link). Please start from reading page 31 to read all these Ahadith, which are humiliating and discriminating against poor slave women in the worst possible way.
Even if you are a Shia, we request you to please still read our article about slavery in Sunni Islam too, while it has 5 times more material than the Shia article, and you will find a lot more evils of Islamic Slavery there.
As usual, Shia apologists came, and they claimed that these Ahadith about slavery are not 'authentic', and they are also against the Quran.
But we ask them that:
- Please tell us the verses of the Quran which are against these Ahadith.
- The Quran is a thick book. But this thick book is only filled with boasting and self-praise of Allah, or with the cursing of opponents, and promising them hellfire, or some old stories.
- Nevertheless, when it comes to important issues, like Human Rights, then the Quran is empty of them.
- The writer of the Quran knew very well about the sufferings of the slave women (even of those who could happen to them in the future). But still, he didn't reveal any direct verses about their human rights in that big thick book i.e. the Quran. Why?
- There are only a few verses about slave women, which tell only that Muslim masters have the full right to have sex with them.
Therefore, if Shia Muslim apologists claim that ALL these Ahadith are weak, then we ask them why the writer of the Quran didn't reveal the human rights of slave women in the Quran, which could have saved them from these sufferings.
As far as these Shia Ahadith are concerned, then please note that:
- Sahih Ahadith is a small issue, we have here "Mutawatir" (متواتر, Mutawātir; meaning: successive) Shia Ahadith, whose numbers are above hundred (alone in al-Kafi there are more than 50 Ahadith present), which are openly telling about the exploitation and slave women. They are telling only one-sided things like owners are allowed to rape their slave women without their consent. They are telling only that owners can also hand them over to their brothers and slave (without their consent). They are telling only this how multiple men can rape them in a such TEMPORARY sexual relationship. They are telling only that owner can sell the children from his slaves in the slave markets without their consent etc.
- This means, there exists not even a SINGLE Shia Hadith, which refutes them and tells contrary to them. There is not even a SINGLE Shia Hadith which tells that slave women have to take Hijab when they are not working, or they have to cover their naked breasts in public. There is not even a SINGLE Shia Hadith present which claims that owners cannot compel their slave women not to sleep with his brothers/slaves in temporary sexual relationships etc.
Today, these Shia apologists want to declare these dozens of Shia Ahadith to be weak, but the reality is, this is the 1300 years long history of Islam (both Shia and Sunni) where slave women were prohibited from taking Hijab, where breasts were kept naked, where they were raped by multiple Muslim men, where their children were taken away from them and sold in the slave markets etc.
How are you going to deny this 1300 years long history of your Shia and Sunni Islam now, by making the lame excuse of Weak Ahadith?
In conclusion, after going through all of this, the heart automatically starts shedding tears of blood.