How many of you know that thousands of slave-women were forced by Islamic Sharia to move with 'Naked Breasts' in the public during Muhammad's era and then later during the era of Caliphs?

The biggest concern is this that perhaps 99.99% People don't know this one of the most important facts, that thousands of slave women with present with naked breasts in front of Muhammad, and he also ordered that they will be sold in the Bazars of slavery in this same naked state, where customers were also allowed to touch their bodies and private parts before buying them.

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, Volume 4, page 289 Tradition 20241 (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
‘Naf’e reported when Ibn Umar wanted to buy a slave-girl he would place his hand on her buttocks, between her thighs, and may uncover her legs’

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 " .
‘Mujahid reported that ibn Umar placed his hand between (a slave-girl’s) breasts and shook them’

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
Mujahid said: ‘I was walking with ibn Umar in a slave market, then we saw some slave dealers gathered around one slave-girl and they were checking her, when they saw Ibn Umar, they stopped and said: ‘Ibn Umar has arrived’. Then ibn Umar came closer to the slave-girl, he touched some parts of her body and then said: ‘Who is the owner of this slave-girl, she is just a commodity!’

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 server 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.”
Sheikh Albani also declared it "Sahih" (Link).

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

Islam forced slave women to move outside with naked breasts, as their Intimate Parts (Arabic: عورة 'Awrah) was from navel till knees

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 parts of slave women (‘Awrah) of slave women was from navel till knee only.

Muhammad again 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 Hijab, but on the other side, Islam snatched away the right of Hijab from the slave women, and forced them to move outside with naked breasts.

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.

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.

And it is also the same ruling in the Fiqh of Imam Shafii 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.

Imam Qurtabi writes in his famous Tafsir of 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.

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.

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 as under (link):

* 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).

* Shubi also said the similar that he could see whole of her body naked except for lower private part (link).

* 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).

* 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 (Link). Saudi grand Mufti Albani declared this tradition to be "authentic" (link)

* 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)

Fiqh of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal:

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

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:
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...

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."

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.

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

Modern Islam 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 slave woman, which exclude women 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 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 Islam apologists is this 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 customer were not allowed to touch their naked bodies.

It seems that Imam Bukhari and 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 to cover their naked breasts. And these other nations considered Islamic society to be uncivilized, wild and ignorant, while they forced slave women to move outside with naked breasts.

That is why Imam Malik objected upon 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 favor of it, nor against it.

Hijab was Only the “Right & Honour” of free Muslim woman, while it was a source of discrimination against the slave women

Do you know that:

  • Only free Muslim women were allowed to take Hijab, while it was forbidden for slave women to take and cover her body.

  • Hijab was considered only the “right & honor” of free Muslim women.

  • And this same Hijab was used as a tool for a great discrimination against the slave women.

The order of Hijab came only so that the men may differ between the free women and the slave women, and then they don’t molest the free women, while slave women were open for molesting.

(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) (in order to cover their bosoms and breasts); this will be more proper so that they may be recognized (as free women), and thus they will not be molested (by men)

In Tafsir (interpretation) of this verse, Tabain (i.e. 2nd generation of Muslims after Sahaba) like Abu Malik, Abu Saleh, Muawiyyah, Hassan, Siddi and Mujahid all wrote that women of al-Madina city used to go out of their houses in evening to the toilets etc. And men (i.e. Companions of Muhammad) sat at the edges of the streets and, they used to molest those women. Upon that, this verse of Hijab was revealed, so that companions could differentiate between the free women and the slave women, and then they did not molest the free women. Please see Tafsir al-Tabri (link), where all these traditions are present. 

Ibn Kathir wrote under the Tafsir of this verse (link):

Here Allah tells His Messenger to command the (free Muslim) believing women to draw their Jilbabs (big outer garment/sheet) over their head and hide their bodies with it, so that they will be distinct in their appearance from the (non-Muslim) women and from the slave women.
Siddi said that men (i.e. Sahaba) used to molest the women who were going on the streets in the nights. Thus, this Hijab became a sign of free Muslim women, so that they could be differentiated from the slave women, and thus men didn’t molest the free Muslim women due to their honour.

Note:

Polytheist Arab women (neither free nor slaves) didn’t cover their breasts in the era of Muhammad. Then writer of Quran stipulated only for the free women to take the Jilbab to cover the whole body, so that they could be separated from the slave-women. While Allah/Muhammad let the slave-women naked as they were naked before the revelation of this verse.  

ٰIbn Kathir wrote under the Tafisr of verse 24:31 (link): 

وقوله تعالى { وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ } يعني المقانع يعمل لها صنفات ضاربات على صدورهن لتواري ما تحتها من صدرها وترائبها ليخالفن شعار نساء أهل الجاهلية فإنهن لم يكن يفعلن ذلك،

And Allah said: (and to draw their veils all over their Juyub) means that they should wear the outer garment in such a way as to cover their chests and ribs, so that they will be different from the women of the Jahiliyyah, who did not do that but would pass in front of men with their chests completely uncovered, and with their necks, forelocks, hair and earrings uncovered. 

And Abd al-Razzaq narrated from Taba’i Hassan al-Basri (d. 110 Hijri year):

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
Hassan al-Basri said when slave women used to go outside in public, then men used to trouble/molest them. One night some men (i.e. Sahaba) followed a group of women and troubled them while they thought that they were slave women. But those were the free Muslim women. That is why Prophet Muhammad ordered the free Muslim women to use Jilbab (big outer garment/sheet) to cover their whole body, so that they could be differentiated from the slave women and not molested by the men (while slave women were not allowed to use Jilbab and cover their bosoms and breasts).

Note: These men who molested the women, they were Sahaba (companions) themselves. Jews lived separately in Medina city in their tribes, while Muslim women lived among the tribes of 'Aws and Khizraj, and thus they there were no Jews present on the streets, but it were the Sahaba (companions) themselves. Moreover, a Jews would have not stopped molesting the women even if they knew that they were free Muslim women, thus it also proves that they were Sahaba, who were ready to respect the free Muslim women due to this verse. 

Hijab has nothing to do with Modesty, but it is the RESPECT of women and their choices which is counted as Modesty

Unfortunately, 99% of common Muslims today themselves don’t know this bitter reality of Hijab and Islam. They are surprised when this truth is presented to them. While Mullahs (Islamic Scholars) try their best to hide this truth from them.

Muslim claim that women have to take Hijab while it stops the men to become horny, and if there is not a wrapper on the candy, then flies will come blah blah blah.

But it was Allah (i.e. Muhammad) himself who compelled thousands of slave women to move in the public without Hijab (i.e. without wrapper). So, the question is, did Muhammad thus make Sahaba horny and did Sahaba rape those naked slave women of other people?

Reality: 

  • Hijab has nothing to do with Modesty, but it is the RESPECT of women and their choices which is counted as Modesty.
  • And Western world is the most modest, as it Respects the women's right the most.
  • Hijab is not modesty, but it is the sign of worst discrimination against the poor slave women for 14 long centuries by Islam.

PS: Why didn't Allah/Muhammad didn't punish the companions (i.e. men) who sexually molested the slave-women? 

Answer is this that Allah/Muhammad didn't allow the poor slave-women to give 'testimony' in the courts against any crime of any Muslim in the court. Their testimony was not even counted as 'half' but as 'ZERO'. That is why, a salve woman was not even allowed to go to the court, and to testify against the person who sexually molested her. For details, please read our article: Evils and Crimes against Humanity of Islamic Slavery.

Muhammad copied the custom of Hijab from the pre-Islamic Assyrian culture

Actually, it was the Assyrian Culture of pre-Islamic Arab, where veil was used to differentiate between the status of women. Only the rich and high-status ladies were allowed to veil themselves, and it was considered only their honour to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_pre-Islamic_Arabia#Veiling
Veiling:
During pre-Islamic times, the Assyrian law clearly depicted within their written regulation who was allowed to veil. Those women who were family to "seigniors" had to veil as well as those who were previously prostitutes but now married. Laws on veiling were so strict that intolerable consequences were enacted for these women, some of which included beating or cutting their ears off. Prostitutes and slaves were prohibited from veiling.

Thus, Muhammad introduced this practice of veil for this same reason i.e. discrimination against the slave women, and showing honour to the free women.

Muslims think that Hijab was introduced for “modesty”. But this is not true. Had it been a case of “modesty” for Muhammad, then he would have also made Hijab compulsory for the slave women too. Thus, excluding slave women from Hijab, and even prohibiting them to cover their naked breasts, this is a proof that Muhammad was not intended for any “modesty” as he claimed the revelation of Hijab verse.

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”, and practically imprisoned her in her home, and cut her off from the outside world, she could not even talk with other person, and even if she has to talk, then she must talk in hard voice.

But on the other hand, Prophet Muhammad used to walk in the public with hands of slave girl of other person 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 prophet Muhammad needed to take her hand in his hand? Why were they not able to move into the city without taking 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 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 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 breast and the body.

  • And “Khimar (Arabic: خمار)” is a small head scarf, 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 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 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 فسألهاعتقت؟ قالتلاقالفما بال الجلباب؟ضعيه عن رأسك إنما الجلباب على الحرائر من نساء المؤمنين فتلكأت فقام إليها بالدرة فضرب بها رأسها حتى ألقته عن رأسها ".
قلتوهذا 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.

 What 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 nackedness (‘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 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 Sunnan 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 by hitting the slave girls for taking Hijab, is the real “Islamic Modesty”, which Muslims hide today.

All this problem of nakedness of slave woman 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 slavery was prohibited in Saudi Arabia due to the immense pressure by the Western countries in 962, but still Muslims kept on practicing it secretly later on. In 1964, some western journalists were able to save this crime in the camera. Please see this Video (at the end of the video, you could 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 this half naked state in public. But Muslims of today still unable to believe all these references. They could look at the following original Photos from camera.

 

 

An article by Islam apologists, which denies that breasts of slave-women were naked

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

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

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

In fact, this article is a proof itself that later coming few Islamic Scholars were so much ashamed of this practice, that they tried to hide it by making the 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 they denied that slave-women were naked during the Muhammad's era. 

  • Ibn Hazm
  • Ibn Hayyan
  • Ibn al-Qattan
  • Ibn Taymiyyah

All of them came about 450 to 700 hundred years after Muhammad. 

And the second problem is this that they belonged to the Zahiri Madhab. 

And all other Ulama (of 4 Sunni Fiqh) during their time and after them and un till now deny them. 

So, question is, where are ALL the other Muslim Scholars, Quran Mufassirin (i.e. Muslim Quran Interpreters), Imams of Fiqh (Jurisprudence) of the first 500 years, who "Unanimously اجماع)" claimed that naked breasts of slave woman is from navel till knees. 

  • 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 whole Muslim community. Imam Malik who although personally disliked it, but was a witness himself that whole Muslim community was practicing it where 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 which 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 Hadith is present, which states otherwise

In this whole article, they are unable to bring even a Single Hadith which claims otherwise (i.e. a hadith which claims that slave-women had to cover their naked breasts).

While there are dozens of 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 Islam apologists is this that they themselves are not able to present a single Hadith in their favour, but deny dozens of Ahadith which go against them by claiming that all of them are weak.

Actually, they are telling a lie, while many of these Ahadith have been declared Sahih by Muslim Scholars themselves. Please read our article and see for yourself that many of those hadiths were authenticated by the Muslim scholars themselves. Moreover, it was the unanimous practice of whole Muslim society and no one disputed it.

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: "The apparent meaning of His saying ‘the believing women’ (i.e. verse 33:59) includes free women and maidservants. 
Ibn al-Qattan: "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 Quran, or any other single Hadith as support of their claim. 

In fact, this verse is refuting them itself as it is itself 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, Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah made the following claims:

Ibn Taymiyyah: The default position is that the nakedness of a maidservant is like a free woman, ...
Ibn Hazm: 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

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 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 are refuting 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 ) (النورمن الآية60)، يقولوأما 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 prophet Muhammad?

Were all of the young Arab and Iranian slave girls of 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 first 500 year and then later till today (except for 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 whole Ummah for the first 500 years, and late too except for few Zahiri Scholars.

Therefore, there are not "some exegetes", but ALL of them (except for 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. 

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

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

While 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 whole Muslim society and in first 450 years no one challenged it. 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 about the other Fiqhs of Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi'i.

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

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

This article tried to cast doubts about the wrong doing 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 women for taking the Jilbab and hiding her body. And indeed it proves that breasts of slave-women became naked after the removal of Jilbab/Muqna, while it was the only garment they used to hide their naked body and the breasts. 

Islam apologists claim that the tradition says the Umar uncovered the heads/hairs of the slave-girl and not her breast. 

Answer:

Covering head/hairs was not a part of 'Awrah (nakedness) of slave-woman. Her 'Awrah was only from navel till 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 the physical work.

And when Umar Ibn Khattab beat the slave woman for wearing Jilbab, then she was not working as that time. 

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 body 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 Islam 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 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 body.

Word "Jariya" does not mean small girl (as Islam apologist 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

Islam apoligist 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 alread made it clear about Imam Malik that it was his "Personal Liking/Disliking", but it has nothing to do with Quran/Hadith. 

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 the women with naked breasts in the public, then Sultan denied it while Malik failed to provide any proof from Quran/Sunnah. 

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

Islam apologists: Islamic Ummah became corrupt till Malik's time 

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

Thus Islam apologists made up this excuse (at their own) that breasts of slave-women were not naked during the time of Muhammad and Sahaba, but Islamic Ummah became corrupt till time of Imam Malik and thus slave-women became naked in the public. See this fatwa at Islam.web

It is this conjecture without any proof. 

Moreover, Malik was a Tabi'i himself (i.e. he belonged to the 2nd Generation of Muslims). How come the 3rd generation of Muslims  became corrupt on the mass level that slave-girls came out on in the public with naked breasts?

Instead of stopping it, all the Sunni Fuqaha issued this fatwa that the 'Awrah (nakedness) of slave woman is only from navel till knees. 

Imam Abu Hanifa was also a Taba'i like Imam Malik, he also gave the same Fatwa.

In fact, despite personal dislike of naked breasts of the slave-women in the public, when it came to giving Fatwa, then Imam Malik himself admitted that in Islamic Sharia, the 'Awrah of a slave-woman is only from navel till knee. 

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.

Islam apologist: Touching body parts of slave woman is Ok, while she is standing their for sale

Unbelievable, but it is true that Islam 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. 

Problem is this that this "base" of Islam is wrong, where 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 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). 

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