Table of Contents:

 Allah/Muhammad forced the poor slave-women to move with naked breasts in the public

Do you know that: 

  • Quran allowed ONLY the FREE Muslim women to take a Hijab as a sign of Respect and Honour against Slave Women.
  • If any slave woman took a Hijab by mistake, then Umar Ibn Khattab used to beat her with a stick and told them not to resemble the Free Muslim Women by taking a Hijab.
  • In Islamic Sharia, not only slave women were not allowed to take a Hijab, but their breasts were also naked. Islam compelled them to move in this semi-naked state in the public. And they were also sold in the Bazars of slavery in this semi-naked state, where the customers were also allowed to touch their private parts too as if they were sheep or goats.

It was an old practice in the pre-Islamic Arab, where they made the women of high status, to veil themselves as a sign of 'honour', but prohibited the prostitutes and the slaves-women to veil themselves. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#History

Elite women in ancient Mesopotamia and in the Byzantine, Greek, and Persian empires wore the veil as a sign of respectability and high status.[74] In ancient Mesopotamia, Assyria had explicit sumptuary laws detailing which women must veil and which women must not, depending upon the woman's class, rank, and occupation in society.[74] Female slaves and prostitutes were forbidden to veil and faced harsh penalties if they did so.[7] Veiling was thus not only a marker of aristocratic rank, but also served to "differentiate between 'respectable' women and those who were publicly available".[7][74]

Muhammad didn't introduce Islamic Hijab for any so-called 'decency حياء', but he only followed the old practices of the Arabs of time of ignorance. Muhammad's intention was only to differentiate the free Muslim women from the slave women through Hijab. 

Quran 33:59:
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَٰجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَآءِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَٰبِيبِهِنَّ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰٓ أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ ۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا
O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments (Arabic: Jilbab); this will be more proper, so that they may be recognized (as free Women) and not annoyed/molested

Under the commentary of this Verse, all Muslim Quran Muffassirin (commentators) unanimously recorded this incident that this verse was revealed while people of Medina (i.e. companions) used to sit on the side of the streets and used to molest all the women who passed from there. But after the revelation of this verse, they stopped to molest the free women, while the molestation of the slave girls continued, while they were not using a Hijab and thus people recognized them as slave women. 

Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Commentary of Verse 33:59 (link):

يقول تعالى آمراً رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم تسليماً أن يأمر النساء المؤمنات ــــ خاصة أزواجه وبناته لشرفهن ــــ بأن يدنين عليهن من جلابيبهن ليتميزن عن سمات نساء الجاهلية وسمات الإماء ... قال السدي في قوله تعالى { يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِيُّ قُل لأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَآءِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلاَبِيبِهِنَّ ذٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلاَ يُؤْذَيْنَ } قال كان ناس من فساق أهل المدينة يخرجون بالليل حين يختلظ الظلام إلى طرق المدينة يتعرضون للنساء، وكانت مساكن أهل المدينة ضيقة، فإذا كان الليل، خرج النساء إلى الطرق يقضين حاجتهن، فكان أولئك الفساق يبتغون ذلك منهن، فإذا رأوا المرأة عليها جلباب، قالوا هذه حرة، فكفوا عنها، وإذا رأوا المرأة ليس عليها جلباب، قالوا هذه أمة، فوثبوا عليها، وقال مجاهد يتجلببن فيعلم أنهن حرائر، فلا يتعرض لهن فاسق بأذى ولا ريبة.

Translation:
... (In this verse, Allah ordered the free women) to draw their Jilbabs over their bodies, so that they will be distinct in their appearance from the women of the Jahiliyyah and from slave women ...
And Suddi said about the revelation of this verse 33:59 that the mischief-mongers among the people of Madīnah would come out on the streets at dusk and get after the women. The houses of the people of Madīnah [in those days] were very small in size and at nightfall the women would go out on these streets [making their way to the fields] to relieve themselves. These evil people would tease and molest these women. While if they saw a woman who would be wearing a Jilbab (cloak/outer garment), they would say she is a free woman [and not a slave] and would abstain [from molesting her] and if they saw a woman who would not be wearing a cloak, they would molest her by saying that she is a slave woman.
And Mujahid said that those women would wear cloaks [in the way prescribed by the Qur'ān] so that it be known that they are free women and the mischief-mongers would not then harm or molest them.

Abu Saleh said (Tafsir-e-Tabari, Verse 33:59):

حدثنا ابن حميد، قال: ثنا حكام، عن عنبسة، عمن حدثه، عن أبـي صالـح، قال: قدم النبـيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم الـمدينة علـى غير منزل، فكان نساء النبـيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وغيرهنّ إذا كان اللـيـل خرجن يقضين حوائجهنّ، وكان رجال يجلسون علـى الطريق للغزل، فأنزل الله: { يا أيُّها النَّبِـيُّ قُلْ لأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَناتِكَ وَنِساءِ الـمُؤْمِنِـينَ يُدْنِـينَ عَلَـيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلابِـيبِهِنَّ } يقنعن بـالـجلبـاب حتـى تعرف الأمة من الـحرّة. 
Abu Saleh narrated: When the holy prophet came to Medina, he had no house in Medina. He and his wives and other women used to go outside at evening to relieve themselves. And men used to sit on the streets and used to recite poetry (to tease and molest the women). Upon that Allah revealed the verse of Hijab (33:59) so that free women could be differentiated from the slave women. 

— Tafsir Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanani (d. 211 AH/826 CE) (link):

عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن الحسن قال كن إماء بالمدينة يقال لهن كذا وكذا كن يخرجن فيتعرض لهن السفهاء فيؤذوهن لأنه فكانت المرأة الحرة تخرج فيحسبون أنها أمة فيتعرضون لها ويؤذونها أخبرنا فأمر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم المؤمنات أن يدنين عليهن من جلابيبهن ذلك أدنى أن يعرفن من الإماء أنهن حرائر فلا يؤذين
Translation:
Al-Hassan al-Basri (died 110 Hijri year) said: Slave women in Medina used to be told certain things when they went outside. (One night) some foolish people accosted a group of women and bothered (hurt) them because they thought they were slave women, but they were actually free women. Because of this, the Prophet ordered the believing women to cast their Jilbabs (cloaks/outer garments) upon themselves, so they would be distinguished as free women, and known from the slave women, and not bothered.

Tafsir Ibn Jarir, verse 33:59 (link):

حدثنـي مـحمد بن سعد، قال: ثنـي أبـي، قال: ثنـي عمي، قال: ثنـي أبـي، عن أبـيه، عن ابن عبـاس، قوله: { يا أيُّها النَّبِـيُّ قُلْ لأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَناتِكَ وَنِساءِ الـمُؤْمِنِـينَ يُدْنِـينَ عَلَـيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلابِـيبِهِنَّ }.... إلـى قوله: { وكانَ اللَّهُ غَفُوراً رَحِيـماً } قال: كانت الـحرّة تلبس لبـاس الأمة، فأمر الله نساء الـمؤمنـين أن يدنـين علـيهنّ من جلابـيبهنّ ، وأدنى الجلباب: أن تقنع، وتشده على جبينها.
Ibn Abbas said about the verse 33:59, the free (Muslim) women used to dress same as the slave women. Upon that Allah ordered them that they let down upon them their over-garments (Arabic: Jilbab), and letting the outer-garment means to cover their faces and to tie it on their foreheads. 

From Mujahid (link):

عن مـجاهد، قوله: { يُدْنِـينَ عَلَـيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلابِـيبِهِنَّ } يتـجلببن فـيُعلـم أنهنّ حوائر فلا يعرض لهنّ فـاسق بأذى من قول ولا ريبة.
Mujahid said regarding verse 33:59, that women have to take Jilbab (outer garment) so that people know that they are free women, and no mischief-monger teases them either with his talk or by doubting about her (character).

Ibn Kathir also wrote in his commentary under verse 24:31 of Surah Nur (link):

هذا أمر من الله تعالى للنساء المؤمنات، وغيرة منه لأزواجهن عباده المؤمنين، وتمييز لهن عن صفة نساء الجاهلية وفعال المشركات. وكان سبب نزول هذه الآية ما ذكره مقاتل بن حيان قال بلغنا ــــ والله أعلم ــــ أن جابر بن عبد الله الأنصاري حدث أن أسماء بنت مرشدة كانت في محل لها في بني حارثة، فجعل النساء يدخلن عليها غير متأزرات، فيبدو ما في أرجلهن من الخلاخل، وتبدو صدورهن وذوائبهن، فقالت أسماء ما أقبح هذا فأنزل الله تعالى { وَقُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنَـٰتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَـٰرِهِنَّ }

This is a command from Allah to the believing women, and jealousy on His part over the wives of His believing servants. It is also to distinguish the believing women from the women of the Jahiliyyah and the deeds of the pagan women. The reason for the revelation of this Ayah was mentioned by Muqatil bin Hayyan, when he said: "We heard -- and Allah knows best -- that Jabir bin Abdullah Al-Ansari narrated that Asma' bint Murshidah was in a house of hers in Bani Harithah, and the women started coming in to her without lower garments so that the anklets on their feet could be seen, along with their chests and forelocks. Asma' said: `How ugly this is!' Then Allah revealed: وَقُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ (And tell the believing women to lower their gaze...).''

Names of the 12 Sahaba (companions) and Tabaeen (successors) who reported it are:

  1. ٰIbn Abbas (ابن عبـاس): Tafsir Ibn Jarir
  2. Suddi ( السدي): Tafsir Ibn Kathir
  3. Abu Malik ( أبي مالك): Tafsir Durr-e-Manthur
  4. Abu Saleh (أبي صالح)ٰ: Tafsir Ibn Jarir
  5. Zuhri (الزهري): Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim, Hadith 17786
  6. Ibn Shahab (ابن شهاب): Tafsir Durr-e-Manthur
  7. Qatadah (قتادة): Tafsir Ibn Jarir
  8. Kalbi (الكلبي): Tafsir Durr-e-Manthur
  9. Muawiyyah bin Qurrah (معاوية بن قرة): Tafsir Durr-e-Manthur
  10. Hasan (حسن): Tafsir Durr-e-Manthur
  11. Mujahid (مجاهد): Tafsir Ibn Jarir
  12. Muhammad bin Ka'b al-Qarzi (محمد بن كعب القرظي): Tafsir Durr-e-Manthur

Note:

Islamic apologists claim that those people who were sitting on the sides of the streets and who were molesting the women were hypocrites

It is difficult to consider them hypocrites, but they seem to be normal Muslims (i.e. companions) while:

  • Neither the Quran claimed them to be hypocrites
  • Nor Muhammad declared them to be hypocrites
  • Nor the Quran nor Muhammad punished those hypocrites.
  • What to talk about punishing, both of them not even warned or rebuked them.
  • And in place of punishing them, both the Quran and Muhammad left the slave women at their disposal to keep on molesting them. They provided absolutely no protection to the slave women, but only to the free women by asking them to take a Hijab. By showing this behaviour, actually Quran gave the "license" to these people to go ahead and keep on molesting the poor slave girls. 

It was indeed a strange thing to let the poor slave girls be molested by the men, and for this, no excuse can be given. People wonder how could divine Allah not rebuke those people for molesting the slave girls.

An excuse by Islamic Preachers: But the verse of Hijab 33:59 was revealed during the incident of 'Umar and Sawda

It is impossible for Islamic preachers to accept the incident that Sahaba used to molest women and thus Hijab verse was revealed only to differentiate between the Free and the Slave women. They have to deny it while it is shaking the whole building of Islam and every person becomes doubtful about Islam after knowing these facts.

Therefore, they try to use the following tradition and claim that the verse of the Hijab was revealed during the incident of Umar and Sauda.

Sahih Bukhari, 146:

عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ النَّبِيِّ، صلى الله عليه وسلم كُنَّ يَخْرُجْنَ بِاللَّيْلِ إِذَا تَبَرَّزْنَ إِلَى الْمَنَاصِعِ ـ وَهُوَ صَعِيدٌ أَفْيَحُ ـ فَكَانَ عُمَرُ يَقُولُ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم احْجُبْ نِسَاءَكَ‏.‏ فَلَمْ يَكُنْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَفْعَلُ، فَخَرَجَتْ سَوْدَةُ بِنْتُ زَمْعَةَ زَوْجُ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم لَيْلَةً مِنَ اللَّيَالِي عِشَاءً، وَكَانَتِ امْرَأَةً طَوِيلَةً، فَنَادَاهَا عُمَرُ أَلاَ قَدْ عَرَفْنَاكِ يَا سَوْدَةُ‏.‏ حِرْصًا عَلَى أَنْ يَنْزِلَ الْحِجَابُ، فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ آيَةَ الْحِجَابِ‏.‏

Narrated `Aisha: The wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqi` at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. `Umar used to say to the Prophet (ﷺ) "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam`a the wife of the Prophet (ﷺ) went out at `Isha' time and she was a tall lady. `Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized (Arabic: عَرَفْنَاكِ) you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab".

Answer: 

Firstly, it is clear that any sub-narrator of this tradition made a mistake, while another tradition of Sahih Bukhari (which we have already mentioned above), is also from 'Aisha, where she clearly mentioned that this incident of 'Umar and Sauda happened after the verse of Hijab had already been revealed. 

Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4795:

Narrated Aisha: Sauda (the wife of the Prophet) went out to answer the call of nature after it was made obligatory (for all the Muslims ladies) to observe the veil. She had a large frame and everybody who knew her before could recognize her. So `Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her and said, "O Sauda! By Allah, you cannot hide yourself from us, so think of a way by which you should not be recognized on going out. ....

Secondly, it is also clear from both the traditions that Umar needed to recognise her through her tall height/large frame, while she was indeed taking a Hijab (Jilbab), due to which he was unable to see her face. This proves that the verse of Hijab (33:59) had already been revealed before this incident. 

The verse of Hijab (i.e. 33:59) is itself proof that it was not revealed during the incident of 'Umar and Sauda

There are two facts which prove it. 

The first fact is:

  • By taking Jilbab (cloaks), actually the women CANNOT be Recognised (through their faces).
  • But the Quran is saying: "(the women) should take Jilbab (cloaks), so that they CAN be RECOGNISED (Arabic: أدنى أن يعرفن) ...".

So, why then the Quran is saying the opposite, i.e. that they CAN be recognised by using cloaks?

The reason is, the Quran is saying it in the sense of recognising and differentiating who are slave women, and who are free Muslim women

Thus, this part of the verse is itself proof that this verse was not revealed about the incident of Umar/Sawda.

And the second fact is, this verse is also claiming: "... and (these women are) not molested".

Please ask these Islamic preachers, if Umar Ibn Khattab was molesting Sawda? Surely they will answer with a No.

Indeed, Umar Ibn Khattab didn't molest Sawda, but it were those people, who were sitting on the streets, who were molesting the women of Medina. 

Thus it again proves that this verse has nothing to do with the incident of Umar/Sawd, but this verse is itself a witness of those 12 traditions, which tell about the incident where people were molesting the women of Medina.

The incident of Umar Ibn Khattab beating the slave women for taking the Hijab is also a witness to those 12 traditions

The incident in those 12 traditions, which tells that the verse of the Hijab was revealed in order to differentiate between the free women and the slave women, is also supported by the incident of Umar Ibn Khattab. 

According to authentic traditions, Umar Ibn Khattab used to beat those slave girls with a stick, who by mistake took the Jilbab and covered their bodies. He used to tell those slave girls not to try to resemble the free Muslim women by taking Jilbab/Muqna.

Saudi grand hadith master SheikhAlbani recorded this authentic tradition (link):

أخرجه ابن أبي شيبة في "  المصنف " ( 2 / 82 / 1 ) :  حدثنا وكيع قال :  حدثنا شعبة عن قتادة عن أنس قال : "  رأى عمر أمة لنا مقنعة فضربها وقال :  لا تشبهين بالحرائر " .  قلت :  وهذا إسناد صحيح
Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded in his book al-Munsaf  that Umar Ibn Khattab saw a slave girl who took a garment/sheet as a Hijab and covered her body. Upon that Umar hit her and told her that she should not try to resemble the free Muslim women (by taking Jilbab/Muqna).”
The chain of narration of this Hadith is “authentic/Sahih”
This same tradition is also narrated by Ibn Qalabah (link).

Abdur Razzak (d 211 Hijri year) recorded this narration (link):

عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن أيوب عن نافع أن عمر رأى جارية خرجت من بيت حفصة متزينة عليها جلباب أو من بيت بعض أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فدخل عمر البيت فقال من هذه الجارية فقالوا أمة لنا – أو قالوا أمة لآل فلان – فتغيظ عليهم وقال أتخرجون إماءكم بزينتها تفتنون الناس
Umar once saw a young girl leaving the house of Hafsa (his daughter), adorned with a jilbab — or, from one of the houses of the Prophet’s wives. Umar entered the house and said, “Who is this girl?” They said, “A slave of ours” — or, a slave of someone’s family. He became enraged at them and said, “Your slave girls left with their adornment, and created discord (by taking Jilbab) amongst the people (while they were unable to distinguish her from the free Muslim women).”

Imam Shaybani (died 189 hijri year) wrote in his book al-Masoot (link):

ولا ينبغي للرجل أن ينظر من أمة غيره إذا كانت بالغة أو تشتهي مثلها أو توطأ إلا ما ينظر إليه من ذوات المحرم ولا بأس بأن ينظر إلى شعرها وإلى صدرها وإلى ثديها وعضدها وقدمها وساقها ولا ينظر إلى بطنها ولا إلى ظهرها ولا إلى ما بين السرة منها حتى يجاوز الركبة
It is not permissible for a man to look at a slave woman other than his own, if she has reached puberty, or he has a desire for her, except what it is permissible to look at from his close relative women (maharam). So, there is no harm that he looks at her hair, her chest, her breasts, her arm, her foot, or leg. And he does not look at her stomach or back, or what is between the navel and the knees.

 And Saudi grand hadith master Sheikh Albani recorded this tradition (link):

حدثنا على بن مسهر عن المختار بن فلفل عن أنس بن مالك قال: "  دخلت على عمر بن الخطاب أمة قد كان يعرفها لبعض المهاجرين أو الأنصار ,  وعليها جلباب متقنعة به ,  فسألها:  عتقت؟ قالت:  لا:  قال:  فما بال الجلباب؟!  ضعيه عن رأسك ,  إنما الجلباب على الحرائر من نساء المؤمنين ,  فتلكأت ,  فقام إليها بالدرة ,  فضرب بها رأسها حتى ألقته عن رأسها ".
قلت:  وهذا سند صحيح على شرط مسلم.
Companion Anas bin Malik said: A slave girl of some Muhajir or Ansar came to Umar Ibn Khattab in a state that she was wearing a Jilbab (and she covered her breasts and body with it). Upon that Umar ordered her to take away the Jilbab from her head, while Jilbab is reserved only for the free (Muslim) woman. The slave girl hesitated, upon which Umar stood up and he started beating her with the stick. He hit her head, till the slave girl removed the Jilbab.
Sheikh Albani said that his Hadith is “authentic (Sahih)” according to the standards of Imam Muslim.

These traditions of Umar Ibn Khattab are also supporting and proving those 12 traditions, which tell that the verse of Hijab 33:59 was revealed in order to differentiate between the slave women and the free Muslim women. 

And the Fatwas of all 4 Sunni Imams are also a witness that there was no Hijab for slave women. 

All four Sunni Imams are unanimous that the nakedness (Awrah عورۃ) of a slave woman is from the navel to the knee

Even when Islam was not selling the slave women in the Bazaars, still it forced them to move outside in front of thousands of men, with naked breasts, while Islam declared the intimate part of a slave woman was from the navel to the knee only.

Muhammad took this law from the ignorant Arab society of that time, and he once again rejected the Laws of Moses which didn’t allow for the naked breasts of slave women.

It is perhaps the “Biggest Contradiction” in Islam. On one side, Islam asked free Muslim women to take full-body hijabs, but on the other side, Islam snatched away the right to Hijab from the slave women and forced them to move outside with naked breasts.

All four Sunni Imams of Fiqh are unanimous that the nakedness of a slave woman is only from the navel to the knee.

Hanafi Fiqh:

Hanafi Scholar Imam Jassas wrote (link):

يَجُوزُ لِلْأَجْنَبِيِّ النَّظَرُ إلَى شَعْرِ الْأَمَةِ وَذِرَاعِهَا وَسَاقِهَا وَصَدْرِهَا وَثَدْيِهَا
Translation:
A man could see the hairs, arms, calves, chest and breasts of the slave woman of another person.

According to Hanafi Fiqh book "Fatawa-a-Alamgiri" (which was written by 500 Islamic Scholars upon the order of Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir (link):

* It is allowed to see whole naked body of a slave woman of other person, except between her navel and the knees.
* And all that is allowed to be seen, it is also allowed to be touched.

Shafi'i Fiqh:

And it is also the same ruling in the Fiqh of Imam Shafi'i too. See the book "Al-Muhadab fi Fiqh al-Shafi'i, written by Shirazi (link):

المذهب أن عورتها ما بين السرة والركبة
Translation:
The 'Awrah (of a slave woman) is between here navel and knees.

Maliki Fiqh:

Imam Malik is himself a Tabi'i (i.e. a person who saw Sahaba). He saw what happened during the era of Sahaba when slave women were moving in Medina with naked breasts. He was PERSONALLY not in favour of this, as every sane person can see the CONTRADICTION here that on the one side free women had to cover the whole body in the name of modesty, while on the other hand, Islam made slave women move with naked breasts in public. 

The Maliki Scholar Imam Ibn Abi Zayd (died 386 Hijri) wrote in his book "al-Jameh" (link), and also see here:

"He (i.e. al-Imam Malik ibn Anas) strongly disapproved of the behavior of the slave women of al-Madinah in going out uncovered above the lower garment (i.e with naked breasts). He said: "I have spoken to the Sultan about it, but I have not received a reply."

The Sultan didn't reply to him, while Malik had no support for his personal opinion from the Quran or Sunnah, and it was not obligatory for the Sultan to take any action upon his personal views. 

In fact, despite his personal disliking for the naked breasts of slave women, when it came to giving FATWA about Islamic Sharia, then Imam Malik himself accepted that Islamic Sharia kept the breasts of slave women naked. 

It is written in the Book "Al-Sharh al-Saghir" of Maliki Fiqh (link):

فيرى الرجل من المرأة - إذا كانت أمة - أكثر مما ترى منه لأنها ترى منه الوجه والأطراف فقط، وهو يرى منها ما عدا ما بين السرة والركبة، لأن عورة الأمة مع كل واحد ما بين السرة والركبة
A man could see more of the body of a slave woman as compared to what she could see of a man. She is allowed only to see his hands and feet, while a man is allowed to see her whole body naked except for the part between her navel and knees.

Imam Qurtabi al-Maliki writes in his famous Tafsir of the Quran, Verse 7:26 (Link):

“وأما الأمة فالعورة منها ما تحت ثدييها ، ولها أن تبدي رأسها ومعصميها . وقيل : حكمها حكم الرجل”
Translation:
As far as slave woman is concerned, then here 'Awrah (i.e. Nakedness) is under her breasts, and she could expose her head and arms.

Please also watch the video of Sheikh Hamza Yousuf (link) where he is telling that slave women used to walk outside with naked breasts during the era of prophet Muhammad.

Fiqh of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal:

Kitab al-Kafi fi Fiqh al-Imam Ahmed (link):

وما يظهر دائماً من الأمة كالرأس واليدين إلى المرفقين والرجلين إلى الركبتين ليس بعورة ، لأن عمر رضي الله عنه نهى الأمة عن التقنع والتشبه بالحرائر ، قال القاضي في الجامع وما عدا ذلك عورة ، لأنه لا يظهر غالباً ، أشبه ما تحت السرة .
وقال ابن حامد عورتها كعورة الرجل ، لما روى عمر بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : إذا زوج أحدكم أمته عبده أو أجيره فلا ينظر إلى شيء من عورته فإن ما تحت السرة إلى الركبة عورة يريد عورة الأمة ، رواه الدارقطني . ولأنه من لم يكن رأسه عورة لم يكن صدره عورة ،
What normally appears of the slave woman, like the head, the hands up to the elbows, and the feet up to the knees, it is not 'awrah, because 'Umar, radhiyallahu 'anhu, forbade the slave woman from covering her head (at-taqannu') and imitating the free women. Al-Qadhi said in "al-Jami'" that everything besides that (i.e. what is mentioned above) is 'awrah, because it is usually not exposed, similar to what is beneath the navel. And Ibn Hamid said that her 'awrah is the same as the 'awrah of the man, because of what is narrated by 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, said: "When one of you marries off his slave woman to his slave or hireling, let him not look at anything of her 'awrah, for whatever is below the navel until the knees is 'awrah." He meant the 'awrah of the slave woman. Narrated by ad-Daraqutni. Head is not included in the 'awrah of a slave woman as well as their breasts...

And the tradition of  'Amr b. Suh'aib (which is mentioned by Ibn Hamid), it has been recorded in Sunan Abu Dawud through different chains of narration. 

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 4114 and 4113:

Narrated 'Amr b. Suh'aib: On his father's authority, said that his grandfather reported the Prophet (ﷺ) said: When one of you marries his female servant to his slave or to his employee, he should not look at her private part below the navel and above the knees.

Grade: Hassan (Albani). 

Actually, not only these 4 Sunni Imams were unanimous upon it, but ALL the Salaf Muslims of the first 5 centuries were unanimous about the 'awrah of slave women. 

Looking and touching the private parts of half-naked slave women in the Islamic Bazaars of Slavery

The 1400 years of history of Islam also consists of this shameful act against humanity, where Muslims forced those women/girls to become half naked by exposing their breasts, and then forced them to stand in front of thousands of men in the Islamic Bazaars of slavery, who not only looked at them with lust but they were also allowed to touch their private parts (as if they were sheep and goats).

Imam Bayhiqi wrote in his book Sunan al-Kubra (link):

عن نافع ، عن ابن عمر ” أنه كان إذا اشترى جارية كشف عن ساقها ووضع يده بين ثدييها و على عجزها
Translation:
Nafe’e narrated that whenever Ibn Umar wanted to buy a slave-girl, he would inspect her by analyzing her legs and placing his hands between her breasts and on her buttocks”
Saudi grand hadith master Sheikh Albani declared this tradition to be “authentic” (link).

Musanaf Abdul Razzaq recorded this tradition (link):

عبد الرزاق ، عن الثوري ، عن جابر ، عن الشعبي قال : " إذا كان الرجل يبتاع الأمة ، فإنه ينظر إلى كلها إلا الفرج " .
Shu’bi said: If any man has to buy a slave girl, then he can see whole of her body, except for her vagina

Musanaf Ibn Abi Shayba (link):

نا علي بن مسهر عن عبيدالله عن نافع عن ابن عمر أنه إذا أراد أن يشتري الجارية وضع يده على أليتيها وبين فخذيها وربما كشف عن ساقها
  1. Narrated Nafi: "Ibn Umar narrated that when he wanted to buy a slave-girl, he would place his hand on her buttocks and between her thighs, and he sometimes probed her legs." 
Grade: Sahih (Albani)

Musnaf Abdur Razak, Volume 7, page 286, Tradition 13204 (link):

13204 عبد الرزاق ، عن ابن عيينة قال : وأخبرني ابن أبي نجيح ، عن مجاهد قال : " وضع ابن عمر يده بين ثدييها ، ثم هزها " .
(Abdul Razzaq- Ibn 'Ayniyah -Ibn Abi Najih - Mujahid) Mujahid reported that Ibn Umar placed his hand between (a slave-girl’s) breasts and shook them’
Grading: This same chain of narration (i.e. Abdul Razzaq- Ibn 'Ayniyah -Ibn Abi Najih - Mujahid) is also present in this tradition of Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 72, and Sahih Muslim, Hadith 7100. This makes this hadith Sahih according ot the criteria of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. 

Musanaf Ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 4, page 289 Tradition 20241 (link):

حدثنا جرير عن منصور عن مجاهد قال : كنت مع ابن عمر أمشي في السوق فإذا نحن بناس من النخاسين قد اجتمعوا على جارية يقلبونها ، فلما رأوا ابن عمر تنحوا وقالوا : ابن عمر قد جاء ، فدنا منها ابن عمر فلمس شيئا من جسدها وقال : أين أصحاب هذه الجارية ، إنما هي سلعة

Narrated Mujahid: I was walking in the market with Ibn Umar when we came across slave-traders gathered around a slave-girl, and they were examining her. When they saw Ibn Umar, they withdrew and said: "Ibn Umar has come." Ibn Umar approached her and touched part of her body. He said: "Where are the owners of this slave-girl? She is but an item for sale." 

Imam Shutri declared this tradition to be "Sahih" (link)
And Imam Usama bin Ibrahim also declared it to be "Sahih" (link)

Imam Shaybani (died 189 hijri year) wrote in his book al-Masoot (link):

ولا ينبغي للرجل أن ينظر من أمة غيره إذا كانت بالغة أو تشتهي مثلها أو توطأ إلا ما ينظر إليه من ذوات المحرم ولا بأس بأن ينظر إلى شعرها وإلى صدرها وإلى ثديها وعضدها وقدمها وساقها ولا ينظر إلى بطنها ولا إلى ظهرها ولا إلى ما بين السرة منها حتى يجاوز الركبة
It is not permissible for a man to look at a slave woman other than his own, if she has reached puberty, or he has a desire for her, except what it is permissible to look at from his close relative women (maharam). So, there is no harm that he looks at her hair, her chest, her breasts, her arm, her foot, or leg. And he does not look at her stomach or back, or what is between the navel and the knees.

The slave women of Umar Ibn Khattab used to serve men with naked breasts. Imam Bayhiqi recorded this tradition and declared it "Sahih" in his book al-Sunan al-Kubra (link):

 ثم روى من طريق حماد بن سلمة قالت : حدثني ثمامة بن عبد الله بن أنس عن جده أنس بن مالك قال : " كن إماء عمر رضي الله عنه يخدمننا كاشفات عن شعورهن تضطرب ثديهن " . قلت : وإسناده جيد رجاله كلهم ثقات غير شيخ البيهقي أبي القاسم عبد الرحمن بن عبيد الله الحربي ( 1 ) وهو صدوق كما قال الخطيب ( 10 / 303 ) وقال البيهقي عقبه : " والاثار عن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه في ذلك صحيحة " .

Anas bin Malik said: “The slaves of Omar, may God be pleased with him, served us, revealing their hair and their breasts were shaking.”

Grading: Sheikh Albani also declared it "Sahih" (Link).

 This humiliation of the slave woman is the real “Islamic Modesty”, which is utter shameful. 

Traditions about the 'Awrah (i.e. nakedness) of a slave woman:

And Imam Abdul Razzaq recorded many traditions upon the 'Awrah (i.e. nakedness) of a slave woman in his books "al-Munsif". Some of these traditions are presented below (link):

13206 - عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج عن رجل عن ابن المسيب أنه قال: يحل له أن ينظر إلى كل شئ فيها، ما عدا فرجها.
Said ibn al-Musayyib said if one wants to buy a slave girl, then he could see whole of her body except for her lower private part (link).

13207 - عبد الرزاق عن الثوري عن جابر عن الشعبي قال: إذا كان الرجل يبتاع الأمة فإنه ينظر إلى كلها إلا الفرج.
Shubi said if someone wanted to buy a slave girl, then he could see whole of her body naked except for lower private part (link).

13208 - عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج قال: أكل في.... (1) أصدق عمن سمع عليا يسأل عن الأمة تباع، أينظر إلى ساقها، وعجزها، وإلى بطنها؟ قال: لا بأس بذلك، لا حرمة لها، إنما وقفت لنساومها.
Fourth Caliph 'Ali was asked about seeing the calves, stomach and back of a slave woman. Upon that he replied there is no harm in seeing them while a slave woman has no honour. She is standing in the slave market for exactly for this purpose that people could evaluate her price (by seeing and touching her) before buying her (link).

1792 - ( روى أبو حفص بإسناده : " أن ابن عمر كان يضع يده بين ثدييها ( يعني الجارية ) وعلى عجزها من فوق الثياب ويكشف عن ساقها " ذكره في الوقع ) . صحيح . أخرجه البيهقي ( 5 / 329 ) من طريق عبيد الله بن عمر عن نافع عن ابن عمر : " أنه كان إذا اشترى جارية كشف عن ساقها ووضع يده بين ثدييها وعلى عجزها " . وفي آخره زيادة : " وكأنه كان يضعها عليها من وراء الثياب " . ولعلها من البيهقي أو من بعض رواته . والسند صحيح .
There are many traditions about Abdullah Ibn Umar (A prominent companion and son of 2nd Caliph) which tell that whenever he had to buy a slave girl, then he used to uncover her back, stomach and calves. And he used to check her back and chest by putting his hands between her breasts. Saudi grand Mufti Albani declared this tradition to be "authentic" (link).

13203 - عبد الرزاق عن ابن عيينة عن عمرو بن دينار عن مجاهد قال: كنت مع ابن عمر في السوق، فأبصر بجارية تباع، فكشف عن ساقها، وصك في صدرها، وقال: اشتروا، يريهم أنه لا بأس بذلك.
Mujahid said that once Abdullah Ibn Umar came to a market where some traders wanted to buy a slave girl. Ibn Umar exposed her calves, then put his hands between her breasts and shook them. Afterwards he told the traders to buy that slave girl as there was no defect in her (link)

Muslim Objection: These traditions about the naked breasts of slave women are not present in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim

Modern Islamic apologists come up with this lame excuse why Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim didn’t record these traditions about the naked breasts of the slave women in Islamic society.

We have seen the unanimous fatwas of 4 Imams above about the ‘Awrah of the slave woman, which exclude women's breasts from it. Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik are themselves Tabai (i.e. the 2nd generation of Muslims who found the era of Companions and saw their practices) and Taba-Tabai (the 3rd Muslim generation). They themselves personally witnessed this unanimous and continuous practice of the Companions of Muhammad, where they let the slave women move in the markets with naked breasts, and they were sold in this particular state in the markets of slavery.

Is it not enough for these traditions to be authentic that all 4 Imams agreed upon it, and no Salaf (i.e. earlier) Imam or Scholar disputed it?

And is it not enough that not a single Quranic Verse or Hadith is present which asks the slave women to cover their breasts?

The tactic of these modern Islamic apologists is that they are themselves unable to find a single tradition, in any Hadith book, which declares that slave women were required to cover their breasts in Islam. Thus, they have ZERO proof of their claim. It is a challenge for them to:

  • Present us a single tradition from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim or any other Hadith Book, which claims that slave women were required to cover their breasts.
  • Present us a single tradition that those slave women were not sold in this half-naked state in the Bazaars of slavery.
  • Present us a single tradition from Bukhari or Muslim or any other Hadith Book that customers were not allowed to touch their naked bodies.

It seems that Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim didn’t record this tradition while till their time, Muslims had already come in contact with the more civilized nations, where respect was given even to the slave woman by letting them cover their naked breasts. And these other nations considered Islamic society to be uncivilized, wild and ignorant, as they forced slave women to move outside with naked breasts.

Actually, all sane people can easily feel this insane CONTRADICTION in Islamic Sharia, where on one side it made Free Muslim women to take full body Hijab in the name of modesty, but on the other hand, kept even the breasts of slave women naked. 

That is why Imam Malik objected to the naked breasts of the slave women, and he wrote a letter to the Caliph to end this practice. 

The Maliki Scholar Imam Ibn Abi Zayd (died 386 Hijri) wrote in his book "al-Jameh" (link):

"He (i.e. al-Imam Malik ibn Anas) strongly disapproved of the behaviour of the slave women of al-Madinah in going out uncovered above the lower garment (i.e with naked breasts). He said: "I have spoken to the Sultan about it, but I have not received a reply."

Perhaps due to this shame, Imam Bukhari and Iman Muslim didn’t record even a single tradition if slave women have to move with naked breasts in the public or not. They absolutely neglected this issue, and neither recorded anything in favour of it, nor against it.

And Imam Malik also failed to make any changes to it, while it was the original Islamic Sharia. 

Prophet Muhammad used to walk in public with hands of another person's slave girl in his hand

On one side Islam made life difficult for a woman in name of “Hijab and modesty”, practically imprisoning her in her home, and cutting her off from the outside world, she could not even talk with other men, and even if she has to talk, then she must talk in a hard voice.

But on the other hand, Prophet Muhammad used to walk in public while holding the hands of the slave girl of other people in his hand.

Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 4177:
“If a female slave among the people of Al-Madinah were to take the hand of the Messenger of Allah, he would not take his hand away from hers until she had taken him wherever she wanted in Al-Madinah so that her needs may be met.”
Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)

Please remember that this slave girl was there with naked breasts too, which makes things more complicated.

Why did prophet Muhammad need to hold her hand in his hand? Why were they not able to move in the city without holding each other’s hands?

This same tradition is also present in Sahih Bukhari too.

Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 6072:
Anas bin Malik said, "Any of the female slaves of Medina could take hold of the hand of Allah's Apostle and take him wherever she wished."

2nd Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab used to beat the slave women with a stick if they ever took Hijab

Please note:

  • Jilbab was a big outer garment/sheet that is worn on the head, draped around the body and that totally covers the breasts and the body of the woman. While Muqna was also an outer garment like Jilbab, but shorter than Jilbab. Both were used for hiding the naked breast and other parts of the body.

  • In the verse of Hijab (Quran 33:59), the writer of the Quran ordered free Muslim women to use this same Jilbab, to cover their breasts and bodies.

  • While slave women were not allowed to use Jilbab to cover their breasts and the body.

  • And “Khimar (Arabic: خمار)” is a small headscarf, which covers only the head and comes up to the shoulders. We see Arab men using this “Khiman” (Arabic head scarf) today. 

According to authentic traditions, Umar Ibn Khattab used to beat those slave girls with a stick, who by mistake took the Jilbab and covered their bodies. He used to tell those slave girls, to not to try to become equal in status with the free Muslim women, by taking Jilbab/Muqna.

Saudi grand hadith master Sheikh Albani recorded this authentic tradition (link):

أخرجه ابن أبي شيبة في " المصنف " ( 2 / 82 / 1 ) : حدثنا وكيع قال : حدثنا شعبة عن قتادة عن أنس قال : " رأى عمر أمة لنا مقنعة فضربها وقال : لا تشبهين بالحرائر " . قلت : وهذا إسناد صحيح
Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded in his book al-Munsaf  that Umar Ibn Khattab saw a slave girl who took a garment/sheet as Hijab and covered her body. Upon that Umar hit her and told her that she should not try to resemble the free Muslim women (by taking Jilbab/Muqna).”
The chain of narration of this Hadith is “authentic/Sahih”
This same tradition is also narrated by Ibn Qalabah (link).

Abdur Razzak (d 211 Hijri year) recorded this narration (link):

عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن أيوب عن نافع أن عمر رأى جارية خرجت من بيت حفصة متزينة عليها جلباب أو من بيت بعض أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فدخل عمر البيت فقال من هذه الجارية فقالوا أمة لنا – أو قالوا أمة لآل فلان – فتغيظ عليهم وقال أتخرجون إماءكم بزينتها تفتنون الناس
Umar once saw a young girl leaving the house of Hafsa (his daughter), adorned with a jilbab — or, from one of the houses of the Prophet’s wives. Umar entered the house and said, “Who is this girl?” They said, “A slave of ours” — or, a slave of someone’s family. He became enraged at them and said, “Your slave girls left with their adornment, and created discord (by taking Jilbab) amongst the people (while they were unable to distinguish her from the free Muslim women).”

Imam Shaybani (died 189 hijri year) wrote in his book al-Masoot (link):

ولا ينبغي للرجل أن ينظر من أمة غيره إذا كانت بالغة أو تشتهي مثلها أو توطأ إلا ما ينظر إليه من ذوات المحرم ولا بأس بأن ينظر إلى شعرها وإلى صدرها وإلى ثديها وعضدها وقدمها وساقها ولا ينظر إلى بطنها ولا إلى ظهرها ولا إلى ما بين السرة منها حتى يجاوز الركبة
It is not permissible for a man to look at a slave woman other than his own, if she has reached puberty, or he has a desire for her, except what it is permissible to look at from his close relative women (maharam). So, there is no harm that he looks at her hair, her chest, her breasts, her arm, her foot, or leg. And he does not look at her stomach or back, or what is between the navel and the knees.

 And Saudi grand hadith master Sheikh Albani recorded this tradition (link):

حدثنا على بن مسهر عن المختار بن فلفل عن أنس بن مالك قال: " دخلت على عمر بن الخطاب أمة قد كان يعرفها لبعض المهاجرين أو الأنصار , وعليها جلباب متقنعة به , فسألها: عتقت؟ قالت: لا: قال: فما بال الجلباب؟! ضعيه عن رأسك , إنما الجلباب على الحرائر من نساء المؤمنين , فتلكأت , فقام إليها بالدرة , فضرب بها رأسها حتى ألقته عن رأسها ".
قلت: وهذا سند صحيح على شرط مسلم.
Companion Anas bin Malik said: A slave girl of some Muhajir or Ansar came to Umar Ibn Khattab in a state that she was wearing a Jilbab (and she covered her breasts and body with it). Upon that Umar ordered her to take away the Jilbab from her head, while Jilbab is reserved only for the free (Muslim) woman. The slave girl hesitated, upon which Umar stood up and he started beating her with the stick. He hit her head, till the slave girl removed the Jilbab.
Grade: Sheikh Albani said that his Hadith is “authentic (Sahih)” according to the standards of Imam Muslim.

Umar Ibn Khattab left not a single slave woman during his reign, who could take Hijab. 

Musanif Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded this tradition (link):

قال أبو قلابة : إن عمر بن الخطاب كان لا يدع أمة تقنع في خلافته , وقال : إنما القناع للحرائر إنما القناع للحرائر لكيلا لا يؤذين

Abu Qalaba said: Umar Ibn Khattab left not a single slave woman who could take Hijab. He used to tell them that it was only the right of the Free Muslim women to take Hijab. 

Slave women were standing in the mosques with naked breasts, during the prayers

What's more, slave women were offering their PRAYERS with naked breasts. Imam Ibn Hazm recorded in his book

Al-Muhala, Kitab al-Rizaa, Volume 10 page 23 (link):

لا يستحي من أن يطلق أن للمملوكة أن تصلي عريانة يرى الناس ثدييها وخاصرتها وان للحرة أن تتعمد أن تكشف من شفتي فرجها مقدار الدرهم البغلي تصلي كذلك ويراها الصادر والوارد بين الجماعة في المسجد
“He (Abu Hanifa) was not shy to say that a slave woman can pray naked and the people can observe her breasts and waist. A free woman can purposely show the parts of her vagina during prayers and can be observed by whosoever enters and leaves the mosque.”

Another Saudi grand Mufti Sheikh Uthaymeen gave this fatwa (link):

الأَمَةُ ولو بالغة وهي المملوكة، فعورتها من السُّرَّة إلى الرُّكبة، فلو صلَّت الأَمَةُ مكشوفة البدن ما عدا ما بين السُّرَّة والرُّكبة، فصلاتها صحيحة، لأنَّها سترت ما يجب عليها سَتْرُه في الصَّلاة.
The nakedness (‘Awrah) of a slave woman is from her navel till knees, even if she is an adult and belongs to someone. If she offers her prayers while her body is covered only from navel till knees, and the rest of her body is naked, still her prayer is valid while she covered those parts of body, which needed to be covered in the prayer.

It is also reported about Umar Ibn Khattab that his slave women used to serve the guests in this state of nakedness. It has been recorded in Sunan al-Kubra by Imam Bayhaqi, and has been authenticated by Albani (link):

عن أنس بن مالك قال كن إماء عمر رضي الله عنه يخدمننا كاشفات عن شعورهن تضرب ثديهن

Anas bin Malik said: ‘The slave-girls of Umar were serving us with uncovered hair and their breasts were shaking” 

This humiliation of hitting the slave girls for taking a Hijab is the real “Islamic decency”, that Muslims hide today.

All this problem of the nakedness of slave women is present in Islam, while Muhammad rejected the laws of Judaism/Christianity, and took the laws of non-civilized Arabs as Islamic Sharia, while those laws were more beneficial for Muhammad and Muslims materialistically. 

Video of selling of a slave woman with naked breasts in Saudi Arabia in 1964

Even though slavery was prohibited in Saudi Arabia due to the immense pressure of the Western countries in 962, but still Muslims kept on practising it secretly later on. In 1964, some western journalists were able to save this crime on camera. Please see this Video (at the end of the video, you can see how the slave women were sold with naked breasts). 

Original Photos of half-naked Muslim slave women

We have seen complete reference above in this article, where it was prohibited for the slave women to take Hijab and to cover their breasts and body. They were compelled to move in public in this half-naked state in public. But Muslims of today are still unable to believe all these references. They can look at the following original Photos from the camera.

 

 

An article by a Muslim Apologist (Abu Amina Elias), who denies that the breasts of slave women were naked

Of course, proofs are so abundant that the breasts of slave women in Islamic society were naked, that it is impossible for the Islamic apologists to refute all the proofs directly. 

Nevertheless, they tried to deceive the readers by bringing lame excuses from a few later coming Muslim scholars. You can read this complete article here

This article is unable to bring a single proof against this unanimous practice of the early whole Islamic Community, where the breasts of slave women were kept naked.

In fact, this article is proof itself that later coming few Islamic Scholars were so much ashamed of this practice, that they tried to hide it by making lame excuses.

First Issue: All Scholars that are mentioned in this article, came several hundred years after Muhammad

This article presented the statements of the following Scholars, that who denied that slave women were naked during Muhammad's era. 

All of them came about 450 to 750 hundred years after Muhammad. Ibn Hazm (died 456 Hijri) was the first one who went against the IJMA of all Salaf Muslims of the first 450 years). 

And the second problem is that all of them belonged to the Zahiri Madhab. 

And all other Ulama (of 4 Sunni Fiqh) during their time and after them and until now deny them on the issue of the nakedness of a slave woman. 

  • Just look at Tābi‘ūn (i.e. the 2nd generation of Muslims after Sahaba), and Tabi' al-Tabi'in (i.e. 3rd generation of Muslims), like Abu Malik, Abu Saleh, Muawiyyah, Hassan, Siddi and Mujahid (see the discussion about verse 33:59 above in our article).
  • Just look at the fatwas of all 4 Sunni Imams of Fiqh.
  • Just look at the practice of the whole Muslim community. Imam Malik personally disliked it but he was a witness himself that the whole Muslim community was practising it where the breasts of slave women were naked. Thus, Imam Malik was unable to convince the Caliph to stop this practice, as Malik was unable to present any proof from Quran and Sunnah against it.
  • Even after Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah (and all others who are mentioned in this article), the later coming Muslim Scholars like Ibn Kathir and Fiqh Scholars didn't give any importance to these lame excuses of Ibn Taymiyyah and to these other few Zahiri madhab followers and kept this view that breasts of slave women were naked in the Islamic society.

2nd Issue: Not a SINGLE Proof is present, which states breasts of a slave woman is included in their 'Awrah

In this whole article:

  • They are unable to bring a SINGLE Quranic verse that says that slave women have to take cover their breasts.
  • They are unable to bring a SINGLE Hadith of Muhammad, where he says that slave women have to cover their breasts.
  • They are unable to bring a SINGLE Atha (report) from Sahaba which asks slave women to cover their breasts.
  • They are unable to bring a SINGLE report by Tabi'in which asks slave women to cover their breasts.
  • They are unable to bring a SINGLE Fatwa of Salaf Muslims of the first 450 years, which tells that the breasts of slave women are included in their 'Awrah. 

Yes, they do not have a single proof. 

While there are many Ahadith (mentioned above in our article), which are unanimously telling only one thing i.e. slave women were present there with naked breasts.

The deception of Islamic apologists is that they themselves are not able to present a single Hadith in their favour but deny all those reports which go against them. 

3rd Issue: Only so-called proof by Abu Hayyan and Ibn al-Qattan is their conjecture about verse 33:59

In the whole article, only Abu Hayan, Ibn al-Qattan brought a single proof i.e. verse 33:59 and claimed that this verse prohibits the naked breasts of slave women. According to this article:

Abu Hayyan (died 745 hijri) wrote: "The apparent meaning of His saying ‘the believing women’ (i.e. verse 33:59) includes free women and maidservants. 
Ibn al-Qattan (died 623 hijri) wrote: "Upon this, there is no difference between free women and maidservants in respect to the verse 33:59. 

It is not counted as proof, but only their claim, which is based only upon their conjecture, as they failed in bringing any other proof from the Quran, or any other single Hadith as support of their claim. 

In fact, this verse is refuting them itself as it is making a distinction between the free women and the slave women, as has been mentioned by all the rest of Muslims Scholars and Mufassirin (Quran Interpreters), and Tabaeen (2nd Generation Muslims) and Umar Ibn Khattab used to beat and took away the Jilbab from the slave-women only due to this verse. 

Verse 33:59 is as under:

(Quran 33:59)

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ

O Prophet! tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments (Arabic: Jilbab); this will be more proper so that they may be recognised (as free women, and differentiated from the slave-women), and thus they will not be molested (by men).

We had already presented the detailed proofs and sayings of 2nd and 3rd generation of Muslims (i.e. Tābi‘ūn and Tabi' al-Tabi'in) and Muslim Scholars and Muffasirin and Fiqh Imams, and Ahadith, who are all denying this claim of Abu Hayyan and Ibn al-Qattan (see the details above in our article).

4th Issue: Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah came up only with their conjecture

According to this article, the Zahiri scholars Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah made the following claims:

Ibn Hazm (died 456 hijri) wrote: The nakedness of a woman is her entire body excluding the face and palms only. The free man and male servant, the free woman and maidservant are equal in this respect; there is no difference

Ibn Taymiyyah (died 728 hijri) worte: The default position is that the nakedness of a maidservant is like a free woman, ...

Answer:

It is not proof. It is counted only as a claim/conjecture by Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah, which they presented without any proof from Quran or Hadith.

And these claims/conjectures of Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah have no value as they have been refuted by Quranic verse 33:59 itself, where Quran is itself making a distinction between free Muslim women and the slave women by ordering only the free women to take the Jilbab (outer sheet). And Umar Ibn Khattab himself took away the Jilbab from slave women, how could then Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Hazm claim that the nakedness of free women and the slave women is the same?

All the Muslim Quran Mufassirin (Interpreters) are refuting Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah.

All the Ahadith on this subject are refuting Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah.

All the Fiqh Imams refuted Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah.

Ibn Taymiyya also wrote (link):

إنَّ الإماء في عهد الرسول عليه الصَّلاة والسَّلام، وإن كُنَّ لا يحتجبن كالحرائر؛ لأن الفتنة بهنَّ أقلُّ، فَهُنَّ يُشبهنَ القواعدَ من النِّساء اللاتي لا يرجون نكاحاً، قال تعالى فيهن: ) فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْهِنَّ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ يَضَعْنَ ثِيَابَهُنَّ غَيْرَ مُتَبَرِّجَاتٍ بِزِينَةٍ ) (النور: من الآية60)، يقول: وأما الإماء التركيَّات الحِسَان الوجوه، فهذا لا يمكن أبداً أن يَكُنَّ كالإماء في عهد الرسول عليه الصَّلاة والسَّلام، ويجب عليها أن تستر كلَّ بدنها عن النَّظر،
Slave women during the Prophet’s time didn't use to cover themselves like free women, while their chances of spreading Fitna (making men excited through their half-naked body) were not too much, and their ruling was like of the old women who didn’t need to take Hijab as Quran said in verse 60 of Surah Noor. But as far as the beautiful Turkish slave women of today are concerned, then they could not be compared with the slave women of the time of prophet Muhammad. These beautiful Turkish slave women should thus cover whole of their bodies and to safeguard themselves from the eyes of men.

This claim of Ibn Taymiyyah makes absolutely no sense.

Was there really no young and beautiful Arab or Persian slave girl during the time of the prophet Muhammad?

Were all of the young Arab and Iranian slave girls of the prophet’s era ugly, and thus they didn’t need to cover themselves, and they resembled only the old free Muslim women?

5th Issue: Claim by Albani

This article claims that Albani wrote:

It is strange that some exegetes are fooled by these weak narrations, such that they adhere to the view restricting His saying ‘the believing women’ as free women to the exclusion of maidservants,

Answer:

As compared to Albani, there are Tabaeen (like Abu Malik, Abu Saleh, Muawiyyah, Hassan, Siddi and Mujahid) who all pointed out that in this verse the believers who are addressed are the free Muslim women, and this verse was itself revealed to make a distinction between the free and the slave woman.

After Tabaeen, all the Fiqh Imams, and all the Quran Mufassirin of the first 450 years and then later till today (except for a few Zahiris) pointed out that this verse is indeed making a distinction and, in this verse, the "believing women" only mean the free women as only they had to take the jilbab. 

Therefore, the conjecture of Albani has no value in front of these Tabaeen, and then Ijma of the whole Ummah for the first 500 years, and late too except for a few Zahiri Scholars.

Therefore, there are not "some exegetes", but ALL of them (except for a few Zahiris) accepted these traditions and the collective practice of Muslim Society proves that 'Awrah of a slave woman is only from navel to knee. 

Islamic apologists also claim that Albani declared all these Traditions as weak:

It is strange that some exegetes are fooled by these weak narrations

While the reality is totally opposite to what Albani claims, as:

  •  Neither are they "some exegetes", but almost ALL of them accepted these traditions.
  • And All the Fiqh Imams accepted these traditions.
  • And in fact, it is no more a question of traditions, because it was the continuous practice of the whole Muslim society and in the first 450 years no one challenged it. The first one was Ibn Hazm who claimed otherwise, but he was unable to bring a single verse from Quran or single Hadith for his claim. 

6th Issue: Deceptive claim about Hanbali Fiqh

This article also claimed:

The Hanbali scholars said the nakedness of a maidservant is like the nakedness of a free woman. It is not permissible to look at her except with what is permissible to see in regards to a free woman.

Firstly, this article didn't answer the other Fiqhs of Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi'i.

Secondly, it is deceiving the readers while Hanbali Fiqh Scholars also claimed the same that awrah of salve women is only from the navel to the knees.

Kitab al-Kafi fi Fiqh al-Imam Ahmed (link):

وما يظهر دائماً من الأمة كالرأس واليدين إلى المرفقين والرجلين إلى الركبتين ليس بعورة ، لأن عمر رضي الله عنه نهى الأمة عن التقنع والتشبه بالحرائر ، قال القاضي في الجامع وما عدا ذلك عورة ، لأنه لا يظهر غالباً ، أشبه ما تحت السرة . وقال ابن حامد عورتها كعورة الرجل ، لما روى عمر بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : إذا زوج أحدكم أمته عبده أو أجيره فلا ينظر إلى شيء من عورته فإن ما تحت السرة إلى الركبة عورة يريد عورة الأمة ، رواه الدارقطني . ولأنه من لم يكن رأسه عورة لم يكن صدره عورة ،

Translation:

What normally appears of the slave woman, like the head, the hands up to the elbows, and the feet up to the knees, it is not 'awrah, because 'Umar, radhiyallahu 'anhu, forbade the slave woman from covering her head (at-taqannu') and imitating the free women. Al-Qadhi said in "al-Jami'" that everything besides that (i.e. what is mentioned above) is 'awrah, because it is usually not exposed, similar to what is beneath the navel. Ibn Hamid said that her 'awrah is the same as the 'awrah of the man, because of what is narrated by 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, said: "When one of you marries off his slave woman to his slave or hireling, let him not look at anything of her 'awrah, for whatever is below the navel until the knees is 'awrah." He meant the 'awrah of the slave woman. Narrated by ad-Daraqutni. Head is not included in the 'awrah of a slave woman as well as their breasts...

And the tradition of  'Amr b. Suh'aib (which is mentioned by Ibn Hamid), it has been recorded in Sunan Abu Dawud through different chains of narration. 

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 4114 and 4113:

Narrated 'Amr b. Suh'aib: On his father's authority, said that his grandfather reported the Prophet (ﷺ) said: When one of you marries his female servant to his slave or to his employee, he should not look at her private part below the navel and above the knees.

Grade: Hassan (Albani). 

7th Issue: Casting doubts about Umar Ibn Khattab beating the slave women for taking Jilbab

This article tried to cast doubts about the wrongdoing of Umar Ibn Khattab by writing:

Anas reported:

قَالَ رَأَى عُمَرُ أَمَةً لَنَا مُتَقَنِّعَةً فَضَرَبَهَا وَقَالَ لَا تَشَبَّهِي بِالْحَرَائِرِ

Umar saw one of our maidservants wearing a veil and he flogged her. Umar said: Do not resemble free women.

(Source: Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah 6/236)

The authenticity of this report, through various chains of authority, is questionable. Even if it is authentic, it does not prove anything about the limits of a maidservant’s nakedness.

We have already provided multiple traditions above, which have been authenticated by Muslims Scholars themselves, and all of them prove that indeed Umar Ibn Khattab beat the slave woman for taking the Jilbab and hiding her body. And indeed it proves that the breasts of slave women became naked after the removal of Jilbab/Muqna, while it was the only garment they used to hide their naked bodies and breasts. 

Islamic apologists claim that the tradition says the Umar uncovered the head/hairs of the slave girl and not her breast. 

Answer:

Covering the head/hair was not a part of the 'Awrah (nakedness) of the slave women. Their 'Awrah was only from the navel till the knees.

The slave girls used the Jilbab for covering the whole body and it was Jilbab that was the sign of distinction between the free woman and the slave woman.

Therefore, when Umar took away the Jilbab, then not only breasts became naked, but also the head/hairs, but it was not the issue.

8th Issue: Excuse that slave women made their breasts naked only while they were physically working

The article claims:

 It seems to have been a concession granted as a way of lightening their workload ...

It is a lame excuse. 

Covering the naked breasts is not a problem in doing physical work.

And when Umar Ibn Khattab beat the slave woman for wearing Jilbab, then she was not working at that time, but she was only walking in public with a Hijab. Nevertheless, Umar Ibn Khattab still took away her Hijab and told her not to resemble the free Muslim women by taking a Hijab. 

9th Issue: Ibn Umar was not touching the bodies of the slave women in the open markets, but only examining the minor slave-girls

Islam not only allowed the customers to watch the naked breast and bodies of the slave women but they were also allowed to touch their bodies, including the private parts like breasts, buttocks and thighs (whole body, except for vagina). For example, Imam Bayhiqi wrote in his book Sunan al-Kubra (link):

عن نافع ، عن ابن عمر ” أنه كان إذا اشترى جارية كشف عن ساقها ووضع يده بين ثدييها و على عجزها
Translation:
Nafe’e narrated that whenever Ibn Umar wanted to buy a slave-girl, he would inspect her by analysing her legs and placing his hands between her breasts and on her buttocks”
Saudi grand hadith master Sheikh Albani declared this tradition to be “authentic” (link).

But this Website of Islamic apologists denied it, and presented the following excuse:

The word used in this Hadith is “jariya جارية” , and Jariya refers to a very young girl that has the ability to run around, not even a girl who attained puberty.

This is a strange excuse. 

Firstly, even if Ibn Umar and Muslim customers were placing their hands on the naked breasts and buttocks of a young girl, still that is disgusting enough to leave the whole religion of Islam. 

Secondly, it is a false excuse, and Allah/Muhammad allowed to dishonour even the fully grown-up slave girls and slave women by touching their naked bodies.

Word "Jariya" does not mean small girl (as Islamic apologists claimed), but it means fully grown-up slave girl. We can see it in hundreds of other Ahadith. For example, let us see this word in a Hadith that is present in Sahih Muslim, Book of marriage (link):

عَنْ جَابِرٍ، أَنَّ رَجُلاً، أَتَى رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ إِنَّ لِي جَارِيَةً هِيَ خَادِمُنَا وَسَانِيَتُنَا وَأَنَا أَطُوفُ عَلَيْهَا وَأَنَا أَكْرَهُ أَنْ تَحْمِلَ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ اعْزِلْ عَنْهَا إِنْ شِئْتَ فَإِنَّهُ سَيَأْتِيهَا مَا قُدِّرَ لَهَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَلَبِثَ الرَّجُلُ ثُمَّ أَتَاهُ فَقَالَ إِنَّ الْجَارِيَةَ قَدْ حَبِلَتْ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ قَدْ أَخْبَرْتُكَ أَنَّهُ سَيَأْتِيهَا مَا قُدِّرَ لَهَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏

Jabir  reported that a man came to Allah's Messenger  and said: I have a slave-girl (جَارِيَةً) who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise 'azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.

10th Issue: Imam Malik's statement

Islamic apologists also presented this argument:

Malik was asked: Do you dislike a servant-girl to go out bare-chested? Malik said: Yes, and I would punish her for that. (Source: Mawāhib al-Jalīl 1/501)

We have already made it clear about Imam Malik that it was his "Personal Liking/Disliking", but it has nothing to do with Quran/Hadith and Islamic Sharia.

You could see that despite this personal disliking, Malik is unable to present a single verse from Quran or to bring a single Hadith which claims otherwise.

That is why when Malik wrote a letter to Sultan and demanded to ban slave women with naked breasts in the public, the Sultan denied it while Malik failed to provide any proof from Quran/Sunnah. 

The Maliki Scholar Imam Ibn Abi Zayd (died 386 Hijri) wrote in his book "al-Jameh" (link), and also see here:

"He (i.e. al-Imam Malik ibn Anas) strongly disapproved of the behavior of the slave women of al-Medinah in going out uncovered above the lower garment (i.e with naked breasts). He said: "I have spoken to the Sultan about it, but I have not received a reply."

In fact, these statements of Imam Malik are themselves proof of the continuous practice of the whole Muslim society where slave women were moving in public with naked breasts. 

In fact, when it came to giving Fatwa about Islamic Sharia, then Imam Malik himself accepted that breasts are not included in the 'Awrah of slave women. 

And it is written in the Book "Al-Sharh al-Saghir" of Maliki Fiqh (link):

فيرى الرجل من المرأة إذا كانت أمة أكثر مما ترى منه لأنها ترى منه الوجه والأطراف فقط، وهو يرى منها ما عدا ما بين السرة والركبة، لأن عورة الأمة مع كل واحد ما بين السرة والركبة
A man could see more of the body of a slave woman as compared to what she could see of a man. She is allowed only to see his hands and feet, while a man is allowed to see her whole body naked except for the part between her navel and knees.

Islamic apologists: Taba'in became corrupt and they initiated the Bidah (innovation) of naked breasts of slave women

The incident of Imam Malik itself became a strong witness that slave women were present in the public with naked chests.

Thus Islamic apologists made up this excuse (on their own) that the breasts of slave women were not naked during the time of Muhammad and Sahaba, but then Tabi'in (i.e. the Muslim generation which followed Sahaba) became corrupt and they went against Islamic Sharia, and they initiated the Bidah (innovation) of keeping slave-women naked in the public. See this fatwa at Islam.web

This is a ridiculous claim and a conjecture without any proof. 

There is an Ijma of ALL the Salaf Muslims of the first 450 years that it was not a Bidah, but indeed Islamic Sharia. 

How can these modern Muslim apologists blame ALL of their Salaf Muslims of the first 450 years of UNANIMOUSLY indulging in misguidance, and introducing an innovation of keeping the breasts of slave women naked in public? 

Islamic apologist: Touching the body parts of a slave woman is Ok, while she is standing there for sale

Unbelievable, but it is true that Islamic apologists do come up with this argument that it is the right of customers to check the product before buying it, and thus there is no harm in touching the naked body of slave-girl, while she is standing there for sale.

This is only the Tip of the iceberg, while the real "base" is this Islamic Order that it is Halal to rape the prisoner/slave-woman. 

The problem is that this "base" of Islam is wrong, as it turns the captive women and small children into slaves. 

These poor women and children had no role in the wars, and they were innocent, but still, Muhammad turned them into slaves for the whole of their lives, and then also made their rape Halal, and then their sale Halal too, and then making them naked too, and then touching their private parts too (except for vagina). Not only those women and small girls/boys were made slaves for the whole of their lives, but their later coming generations were also born automatically as slaves, due to the evil of "Slavery by Birth" in Islam. 

Nothing good could come out if your base is itself pure evil.