Dr. Salamah has deceitfully used Shia traditions about the status of slave-girls in his topic on Nikah al-Mutah while both of them are very different topics. As we noticed that the topic was fabricated by him to malign the Shi’a and this was wholeheartedly embraced as fact by Nasibi websites such as www.ahlelbayt.com, http://allaahuakbar.net and the forums of kr-hcy.com (etc), we have therefore chosen to address this issue once and for all. We will discuss the topic in detail and by the end of the chapter these lunatics will realize that followed a lie, and presented this lie to the masses to stoke up hatred against the pure madhab of Ahlulbayt [as].
Dr. Salamah states:
The Shi’ah books of fiqh carry a separate chapter entitled “I’arat al-Furuj” This could literally be translated as “The Loaning of Vaginas.” Under this heading the Shi’ah imams have discussed the various conditions under which a woman can be temporarily given to another person. The books give details as to how a woman can be loaned only for the pleasure of seeing her naked body or for the pleasure of enjoying her lasses or for the pleasure of having sexual intercourse with her. Most of these descriptions are very explicit and are not even worthy of being reproduced here.
The following are a few of their milder quotations:
A man asked Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq if it was permissible to temporarily loan a woman to another person. The imam said, “It is not permissible.” Then he hesitated for a moment and added, “There is no harm if one offers his slave girl to one of his brothers.” 51
Imam Abu ‘Abdullah [Ja'far as-Sadiq] said, “If a person allows another person to kiss his slave girl, then such a kiss is permissible, and the man should be contented with the kisses alone; but if he offers him her vagina, then everything is permitted. “52
A narrator stated, ‘I said to Imam Abu ‘Abdullah [Ja'far as-Sadiq], ‘a few of our friends have narrated from you that if a person offers his slave girl to another person, she is permissible to him.’ The imam responded, this is correct… ‘ I asked, ‘a certain person has a fine, beautiful slave girl who is a virgin. He keeps her only for himself but says to one of his brothers to enjoy the girl except her vagina. Would sexual intercourse be lawful with her?’ The imam said. No, enjoy what is permitted to yon by your brother.’ I further asked. What if that man gets carried away by his desire and engages in sexual intercourse?’ The imam said, this would be very improper.’ I then asked, Would that man be called a fumigator?’ The Imam said. The man would not be called a fomicator. Rather, he would be called dishonest. If the girl was a virgin, he should pay to the master one tenth of her price; otherwise, the fine will be one twentieth of the price of the slave girl.’” 53
Ibn al-Hashimi in his article at www.ahlelbayt.com did some copy paste work and quoted the same material from Abu Salamah’s article without mentioning the name of the Shia hadith book wherein chapters with the name of “Loaning of vaginas” exist. see:
Screen shot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article at www.ahlelbayt.com
First of all, as we pointed out earlier, there was no need to bring the topic of slave girls amid Mut’a jointly as these two are entirely different topics. Since the motive of the author when combining the two issues was to supposedly portray ‘how badly woman are treated in Shia fiqh and are considered toys to overcome one’s sexual desires’ we deem it appropriate to refute this alleged notion of the author.
By writing the following words the author has demonstrated his ignorance, he said “Most of these descriptions are very explicit and are not even worthy of being reproduced here.” We don’t know why the author has created suspense and has put the element of ‘shyness’ in citing those traditions when similar traditions and edicts exist in Sunni sources. We shall inshallah ‘introduce’ the author to some of the sources of his school on the topic to remove any future shyness in citing the beliefs of his school.
We should point out that the author has committed sheer dishonesty when suggesting that Shi’a ascribe to the ‘loaning of vaginas’ when this is strictly prohibited under Shia fiqh. For example al-Sharif al-Murtudha records in ‘al-Entesar’ page 280:
“Loaning Vagina:
What has been used to malign the Imamiya are the (claims) that they permit the loaning of vaginas and that the vagina can be lawful in the name of loan.
Regarding research in this matter, we didn’t find any jurist permitting that nor did they write about (its permissibility) in any book”
al-Muhaqiq al-Kurki in Jame’a al-Maqasid, Volume 6 page 62, Allamah al-Heli in Al-Tadkira, Volume 2 page 210 and Ali Asghar Merwarid in Al-Yanabi al-Fiqhya, Volume 17 page 187 recorded:
“It is not permissible to loan the slave girl for the purpose of sexual intercourse”
Shaykh al-Tusi stated in Al-Mabsut, Volume 3 page 57:
“It is not permissible to loan (the slave girl) for enjoyment purpose, because sexual intercourse cannot be legitimate through loaning”
These explicit rulings of Shia scholars shall suffice to shut the mouths of Nawasib.
In Shia fiqh we have nothing that resembles the ‘loaning of vaginas’ as the deceitful author has claimed and there isn’t any chapter in Shia books with the name of ‘loaning of vaginas’ but there are indeed a few traditions about allowing the vagina (not loaning the vagina) and allowing means the master of a slave girl makes her ‘marry’ someone rather than loaning her for sexual proposes because in Islam the slave girl cannot get married without the permission of her master and even if she marries then her master has the complete authority to take her back. But we see the idots from amongst Nawasib mixing up both topics as Sheikh al-Mufid said in ‘Al-Masael Al-Saghatya’ page 72:
“There is difference of word and meaning between ‘making Halal’ and ‘loaning’ and these have separate laws, whoever mixed up the two meanings and couldn’t recognize the difference between them, surely he is far aloof from correctness”
We therefore see traditions used by the author under the chapter No. 300 of al-Kafi, Volume 5 namely “The man makes his slave girl halal to his brother and the wife makes her slave girl lawful to her husband”.
Dr. Salamah and Ibn al-Hashimi have claimed that Shia books of fiqh carry a separate chapter entitled “I’arat al-Furuj” (Loaning of Vaginas) and under this heading the Shi’ah imams have discussed the various conditions under which a woman can be temporarily given to another person but they deceitfully failed to cite references to substantiate his claim because they knew that no chapter exists with the title “Loaning of vaginas” in any Shia book that evidences its permissibility. The chapter from which Dr. Salamah cited three traditions is chapter No. 300 of al-Kafi, Volume 5 and the name of the chapter is “The man makes his slave-girl halal to his brother and the wife makes her slave-girl halal to her husband”. Nevertheless, let us see the first tradtion cted by the author:
A man asked Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq if it was permissible to temporarily loan a woman to another person. The imam said, “It is not permissible.” Then he hesitated for a moment and added, “There is no harm if one offers his slave girl to one of his brothers.” 51
First of all we should point out that the author has not translated the tradition as it should have been, he has used the English word ‘offer’ in all three traditions cited by him for the Arabic word Yu’hillu which should actually be translated as ‘to make Halal’ or ‘to make lawful’. Whilst it won’t entirely change the tradition but still for the benefit of our readers, let us present the correct translation:
A man asked Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq if it was permissible to temporarily loan a woman to another person. The imam said, “It is not permissible.” Then he stopped for a moment and then added, “There is no harm if one makes her slave-girl Halal to one of his brothers”.
1. Al-Kafi, Volume 5, Chapter No. 300, Hadith No. 16
2. Tahdeeb al-Ahkam, Volume 7 page 244
Coming to the text of the tradition, we should point out that in the first part of the tradition when the Imam [as] was asked about ‘loaning of vaginas’ He [as] clearly stated “It is not permissible” so what is the author trying to achieve by citing this tradition? In the final portion of the tradition the Imam [as] clearly states: “There is no harm if one makes her slave-girl Halal to one of his brothers” which was not the continuation of the topic of ‘loaning of vaginas’ rather He [as] was now mentioning the actual law pertaining to slave-girls namely allowing one’s slave-girl to somebody else, this is not a controversial topic and can also be corroborated in Sunni sources.
Nevertheless, Sayyed Muhammad al-Amili in his commentary of the tradition stated:
“The tradition is weak (daeef) because the narrator is unknown”
Ghayat al-Maram, Volume 1 page 317
Allamah al-Majlesi under the commentary of this tradition in ‘Mirat al-Uqool’ volume 20, page 263 termed it ‘Majhul’ (unkown). In addition to that, he stated:
“There is no disagreement among the scholars about the impermissibility of the loaning of vagina”
So we don’t think there remains any need to discuss the tradition cited by the author in light of the statement of Shaykh Baqar Majlisi. We should also point out that the remainder two traditions cited by the author do not contain the words ‘loaning of vaginas’ rather they refer to ‘making ones slave-girl Halal to someone else’ that can be found in authentic Sunni texts, unless our opponents know nothing of their own beliefs. Despite this, we shall rely on the two traditions at pertinent places and shall make our opponents realize that they are in complete conformity with Sunni sources.
The two traditions cited by the treacherous author makes no reference to the ‘loaning of vaginas’ rather they are talking about what is written in the chapter title, namely “The man makes his slave girl halal to his brother and the wife makes her slave girl lawful to her husband”. Whilst there is NO need to discuss this uncontroversial topic, since the cunning Nawasib cite Shia traditions regarding this and then paint them differently, we deem it our responsibility to silence these liars.
Imam Abu ‘Abdullah [Ja'far as-Sadiq] said, “If a person allows another person to kiss his slave girl, then such a kiss is permissible, and the man should be contented with the kisses alone; but if he offers him her vagina, then everything is permitted. “52
A narrator stated, ‘I said to Imam Abu ‘Abdullah [Ja'far as-Sadiq], ‘a few of our friends have narrated from you that if a person offers his slave girl to another person, she is permissible to him.’ The imam responded, this is correct… ‘ I asked, ‘a certain person has a fine, beautiful slave girl who is a virgin. He keeps her only for himself but says to one of his brothers to enjoy the girl except her vagina. Would sexual intercourse be lawful with her?’ The imam said. No, enjoy what is permitted to yon by your brother.’ I further asked. What if that man gets carried away by his desire and engages in sexual intercourse?’ The imam said, this would be very improper.’ I then asked, Would that man be called a fumigator?’ The Imam said. The man would not be called a fomicator. Rather, he would be called dishonest. If the girl was a virgin, he should pay to the master one tenth of her price; otherwise, the fine will be one twentieth of the price of the slave girl.’” 53
First of all, we should point out that the author has incorrectly translated the second tradition, it is as follows:
Imam Abu ‘Abdullah [Ja'far as-Sadiq] said, “If a person made his slave girl lawful to another person to kiss, then more than that, is not permissible for the man, and if he made lawful for him from the slave girl within the vagina, then more than that is not permissible for the man, and if he made the slave girl’s vagina lawful, then every thing is permitted.”
Al-Kafi, Volume 5, Chapter No. 300, Tradition No. 15
Also the deceitful author has put some words from his own pocket in the third tradition of his topic and he used the words “beautiful”, “keeps her only for himself” and “enjoy” cannot be found in the original tradition as we have made these words bold in the quotation table while the word which he translated as “Dishonest” should actually be translated as “betrayer”.
And most importantly, both of these traditions are talking about making the slave-girl Halal to someone and this act of allowing someone actually means a master making her/his slave-girl ‘marry’ someone, yet she remains the possession of her master who can take all the services from her, but since she is now married, the master cannot have sex with her. In the eventuality of her returning to her master, she will have to in the first instance observe iddah (istibra) only after that can the master reinstate sexual relations with her. What issue is causing this Nasibi author such indigestion? Let us present the same from the blessed tongue of Imam Kazim [as] as recorded in ‘Tahdeeb al-Ahkam’ Volume 7 page 244:
Narrated Ali bin Yaqtin that some one asked Abu al-Hassan (as) about the slave: ‘Is it permissible for him to have sexual intercourse with the slave woman without a marriage contract in case the master (of the slave girl) made her lawful to him?’ The imam replied: ‘It is not allowed for him (without a marriage contract)’
Allamah al-Hilli in ‘Mukhtalaf al-Shia’ Volume 7 page 275, Sheikh al-Jawaheri in ‘Jawahir al-Kalam’ Volume 30 page 231 and Sayed al-Khoei in ‘kitab al-Nikah’ Volume 2 page 119 have graded the tradition ‘Sahih’.
Shareef al-Murtudha in ‘Al-Entesar’ page 281 also stated about the condition of Nikah to make a slave-girl lawful to someone else:
“It is permissible for the man to make his slave-girl halal to someone else, which means (the other man) performs Nikah to make her halal for him and it is not sufficient to make her halal only by saying the word ‘halal’.”
As we reiterated earlier, the master after giving her slave-girl in ‘Nikah’ to someone else i.e. making her lawful to someone else, loses the right to have sexual intercourse with her. If, due to any valid reason, the slave-girl is returns to her master, she will have to observe Iddah which is often called ‘Istibra’ in case of a slave-girl. Al-Muhaqiq al-Heli states in ‘Sharai al-Islam’ Volume 2 page 537:
“It is impermissible for a master to have sexual intercourse with the slave girl as long as she remains married, until separation/divorce occurs and her iddah period is completed”
Also Sheikh al-Mufid recored in ‘Al-Muqana’ page 538:
“It is not permissible for a man to have sexual intercourse with a slave-girl which he owns through buying or inheriting from her master before she ends her ablution by one month period”
Sheikh al-Tusi records in Al-Mabsut, volume 2 page 140:
“Ablution for the slave girl is wajib both by seller and the buyer and the ablution is to be performed by one month and it is the monthly period. It is not allowed for the buyer to have sexual relation with her whether through her vagina or other part, to touch her with lust or to kiss her before she performs ablution”
Sheikh al-Mufid records in ‘Al-Muqana’ page 543:
“If a man makes his slave girl married to a free man or a slave, it is now forbidden for him to have sexual intercourse with her”
Sayed al-Khoei records in ‘Minhaj al-Salihin’ Volume 2 page 227:
“It is forbidden for the one who marries his slave-girl to another, to have sexual intercourse with her or touch her to look at her with lust, as long she belongs to her husband, so is the case when she is in Iddah”
So we come to know that unlike Ahle Sunnah, according to Shia fiqh a slave-girl has to be treated with dignity and honour and it is absolutely forbidden to make her a tool of sexual indulgence. Sheikh al-Mufid records in ‘Al-Muqana’ page 544:
“If two men possess a slave girl and they thought that it was permissible for them to have sexual intercourse with her in the same period, and she subsequently becomes pregnant, surely they will be physically punished”
The strictness from the perspective of (Shia) fiqh can be deduced from the following words recorded by Sheikh al-Mufid in “Al-Muqan’a” page 502:
‘Whoever bought a slave girl and looked with lust towards any part of her (body) that is illegal for him to look at before he possessed her or even if he touched her, then she will become unlawful for his son’
When this concept is so clear and logical, it beggars belief that these najis Nawasib look down at it, particularly when the same can be found in their own works, and worse they sink to the lowest forms of sexual degradation that we shall evidence later.
The two traditions cited by the author and similar ones found in Shi’a works, do not refer to the ‘loaning of vaginas’ as the Nawasib falsely claim, rather they refer to a Master making his slave-girl lawful to someone else by him marrying her to that man.
It is indeed surprising to see the author concoct a topic called the ‘loaning of vaginas’ by using Shia traditions that actually refer to making one’s slave-girl Halal to somebody else, when his own house is replete with such traditions and edicts,. For example we read a tradition in Muwatta Imam Malik that clearly shows that in Sunni school one can make his/her slave-girl Halal to another man or woman:
For example we read a tradition in Muwatta Imam Malik that clearly shows that in Sunni school one can make his/her slave-girl Halal to another man or woman:
Malik said, “The best of what is heard about a slave-girl whom a man has intercourse with while he has a partner in her is that the hadd is not inflicted on him and the child is connected to him. When the slave-girl becomes pregnant, her value is estimated and he gives his partners their shares of the price and the slave-girl is his. That is what is done among us.”
Malik said about a man who made his slave-girl halal to (another) man that if the one for whom she was made halal had intercourse with her, her value was estimated on the day he had intercourse with her and he owed that to her owner whether or not she conceived. The hadd was averted from him by that. If she conceived the child was connected to him.
Malik said about a man who had intercourse with his son’s or daughter’s slave-girl, “The hadd is averted from him and he owes the estimated value of the slave-girl whether or not she conceives.”
Muwatta Imam Malik, Book 41, Number 41.6.19a
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hazm provided a detailed analysis of the matter in his authority work ‘Al-Mahala’ Volume 12 pages 207-209:
“2222: Problem: Who allowed the vagina of his slave woman to the others?
“Narrated Hamam from ibn Mufaraj from ibn al-Erabi from al-Deri from Abdulrazaq from ibn Juraij from Amro bin Dinar from Tauws that Ibn Abbas said: ‘If a (free) woman makes her slave woman Halal to a man or daughter or sister, let him (the man) have sexual intercourse with her, she shall remain the possession of her (the free woman), let him perform quick intercourse between her thighs”
We also read that in Sunni school it is totally Halal for a slave-girl to give birth to a child of a man who has been allowed a slave-girl by his wife:
Ibn Juraij narrated that Ibn Taaous narrated from his father that he didn’t see any problem in that and said: ‘It is Halal, if she (the slave girl) gives birth to a child, then the child is free and the slave woman belongs to his wife and there will be no penalty on the husband’.
We further read:
Ibn Juraij narrated from Ibrahim bin Abi Bakr from Abdulrahman bin Zadwieh from Taaus that he said: ‘It is as lawful as food, if she (slave woman) gives birth to a child, the child is legitimate and she belongs to her first master’.
So according to the Sunni school, it is Halal for a man to have sexual intercourse with a slave-girl and for a slave-girl to give birth to a child of a man who has taken her from the actual owner of the slave-girl, the child born will be legitimate and it will go with his biological father while the slave-girl will remain the possession of her actual owner, however there is a minor difference of opinion by Imam Malik regarding the Fiqh aspect of this whole concept, as we further read:
“Then there is a difference in his (Imam Malik’s) judgment about it, once he said: ‘She is owned by her master as long she didn’t get pregnant, if she gets pregnant, her ownership transfers to whom she was made lawful’. Once he said: ‘Her ownership will transfer to whom she was allowed by first sexual intercourse’
We further read that there isn’t any punishment in Islam for sharing a slave-girl:
Abu Muhammad may Allah’s mercy be upon him said: ‘This is an opinion and Sufyan al-Thowri would, (Abu Muhammad) said: ‘Malik and his companions said: ‘There is no punishment (hadd) in that at all”
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/library/BooksCategory.php?idfrom=2315&idto=2315&bk_no=17&ID=2258
So when each and every aspect of sharing a slave-girl pertaining to jurisprudence can be found in authentic Sunni texts, then what is the ‘moralistic’ author trying to achieve by citing two Shia traditions of the same nature but placing them under the heading ‘loaning the vaginas’? Shall we also assert that Sunnis ascribe to the ‘loaning of vaginas’ in the light of the above cited Sunni edicts?
Dr. Salamah cited a Shia tradition irrelevant to the topic as he wanted to attribute to the Shias (loaning of vaginas) whilst similar matters can be located in Sunni sources. The cited Shia tradition also refers to one making his/her slave-girl lawful to somebody else. May be it was the ‘compensation’ of a slave-girl suggested by our Imam [as] in the tradition that created such outrage for Dr. Salmah:
A narrator stated, ‘I said to Imam Abu ‘Abdullah [Ja'far as-Sadiq], ‘a few of our friends have narrated from you that if a person offers his slave girl to another person, she is permissible to him.’ The imam responded, this is correct… ‘ I asked, ‘a certain person has a fine, beautiful slave girl who is a virgin. He keeps her only for himself but says to one of his brothers to enjoy the girl except her vagina. Would sexual intercourse be lawful with her?’ The imam said. No, enjoy what is permitted to yon by your brother.’ I further asked. What if that man gets carried away by his desire and engages in sexual intercourse?’ The imam said, this would be very improper.’ I then asked, Would that man be called a fumigator?’ The Imam said. The man would not be called a fomicator. Rather, he would be called dishonest. If the girl was a virgin, he should pay to the master one tenth of her price; otherwise, the fine will be one twentieth of the price of the slave girl.’” 53
The tradition can be read in Al-Kafi, Volume 5, Chapter No. 300, Tradition No. 1. If ignorant Nawasib have objections to the decision of ‘compensation’ put forward by our Imam [as] deeming it an insult to a woman then they need to pay attention to the decision put forward by the Holy Prophet [s] in esteemed Sunni books:
Narrated Salamah ibn al-Muhabbaq:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) made a decision about a man who had intercourse with his wife’s slave-girl as follows. If he forced her, she is free, and he shall give her mistress a slave-girl similar to her; if she asked him to have intercourse voluntarily, she will belong to him, and he shall give her mistress a slave-girl similar to her.
1. Sunnan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4445
2. Musnad Ahmad, volume 5 page 6
3. Sunnan al-Nesa’I, volume 6 page 125
4. Al-Sunnan al-Kubra of al-Nesa’I, volume 3 page 330
5. Al-Sunnan al-Kubra of al-Bayhaqi, volume 8 page 240
6. Al-Musanaf of Abdulrazaq, volume 7 page 343
7. Al-Musanaf of ibn Abi Shaybah, volume 6 page 522
8. Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi termed the tradition ‘Sahih’ in al-Elal, Vol 2 page 315
9. Allamah Ibn Abdulbar termed it ‘Sahih’ in al-Estidkar, Vol 7 page 529
The words of our Holy Prophet [s] recorded in this esteemed Sunni source namely ‘if she asked him to have intercourse voluntarily, she will belong to him’ makes it clear that a man can have sexual intercourse with the slave-girl whom he doesn’t own rather she is actually his wife’s slave-girl. In the above cited Shia tradition there was a very similar situation but in the Shia text, we can at least find the discouragement for having intercourse with the slave-girl who was not under the possession of a man.
According to Sunnis, since it is permissible thus there isn’t any ‘Hadd’ (legal punishment) for having sexual intercourse with the slave-girl of one’s wife and Sunni ulema have concluded this on the basis of the very hadeeth cited above. As Ibn Rushd records in ‘Baydyatal Mujtahid’ Volume 2 page 355:
“The proof of those who avert the “hadd” is what has been narrated from the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) when he ruled on a man who had sexual intercourse with the slave girl of his wife, if she was forced, she is free and he has to give her mistress a similar slave girl, and if she performed sexual intercourse voluntarily she will be owned by him and he shall give her mistress a similar slave girl”
The Sunni sources contain the clear-cut edict:
“If a man makes his slave-girl halal for another man who then has sexual intercourse with the slave-girl, there will be no legal penalty for him.”
Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, volume 3, page 268, Kitab al-Hudood, published by Daar ul-Isha’at, Karachi
Neverthelss, Dr. Salamah wrote in the initial note of the topic of slave girl that The Shi’ah books of fiqh carry a separate chapter entitled “I’arat al-Furuj” This could literally be translated as “The Loaning of Vaginas” which is an out and out lie but nevertheless allow us to present an esteemed Sunni (Maliki) reference for him:
“There is no Hadd in it because according to Ata’ loaning of vaginas (I’arat al-Furuj) is permissible”
Al-Sharh al-Kabir by Abu al-Barakat, Volume 3 page 250
We have proven that sharing a slave-girl is totally permissible in the Sunni school, the only condition is that a slave-girl who is shared must observe ablutions per number of shareholders. We read in the authority Sunni work ‘Al-Mughni’ by Ibn Qadamah:
“If the slave woman was shared by two partners and both had sexual intercourse with her, she must perform two ablutions (istibra)”
Al-Mughni, Volume 9 page 157
According to Sunni belief, it is totally permissible to see and touch the chest, breast and legs of other’s slave-girls. Imam Shebani records:
“A man should not look at others’ slave-girls if she was an adult or able have sexual desire or able to have sexual intercourse, he should look at those parts of her that are allowed to look at amongst the mahram, and no harm to look at her hair, chest, breast, arm, feet and leg, he should not look at her back nor the part between her navel and knees, and what ever is not allowed for him to watch it so its not allowed for him to touch it without cover though if he believe its not uncovered, unless if he obligated to carry her, and no harm to touch what is allowed to watch”
Al-Mabsoot, Volume 3 page 54
In fact one can see anything of any slave-girl except her vagina as Imam Abdur Razak records:
Jabir al-Shu’abi said: ‘If a man wants to buy a slave-girl, he can see every part of her body except the vagina’
Musnaf Abdur Razak, Volume 7 page 287 Tradition 13207
We read in Fatwa Alamgiri:
“It is written in Jami’ Sagheer that if someone decided to buy a slave-girl, there is no problem if he touches her feet, chest and both of arms completely and looks at the uncovered organs”
Fatwa Alamgiri, Volume 9 page 44
According to Sunnis there is ‘no harm to touch what is allowed to watch’ that means that a man has the free reign to respect and fondle those areas, that any decent woman would seek to keep hidden from public gaze.
It is quite strange that Dr. Salamah and the filthy Nawasib of Sipah-e-Sahabah attribute the belief of ‘loaning of vaginas’ by using the traditions about “making one’s slave-girl Halal to someone” when this concurs with Sunni Fiqh. Let us now introduce these Masters of morality to their decency in respect of slave-girls that might explain their fabricating false beliefs to the Shias of Ahlulbayt [as] – namely diverting the Sunni masses away from the filth in their own house.
We have already proved from Shia sources that a slave-girl has to observe iddah (istabra) before going to a man who has the right to have sexual intercourse with her. Compare this to an esteemed figure of the Nawasib Abdullah Ibn Umar for whom even Iddah was no bar to his satiating his sexual appetite in relation to slave-girls, an appetite that helped formulate Sunni Fiqh in this regards:
“Narrated Ayoub bin Abdullah al-Lukhmi that ibn Umar said: ‘On the day of the Jalola battle I won a slave-girl, her neck was like a silver ewe.’ Then ibn Umar added: ‘I couldn’t control myself, I immediately jumped on her and began kissing her, while the people were looking at me”
1. Masail al-Imam Ahmad, page 281
2. Al-Tarikh al-Kabir of Imam Bukhari, Volume 1 page 419, No. 1339
3. Musanaf ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 3 page 347
Muhammad bin Ismail al-Kahlani (d. 1182 H) comments on the tradition in ‘Subul al-Salam’ Volume 3 page 210:
“You must know that the hadith is significant in relation to the permissibility of enjoying (the slave girl) before she performs ablution (istibra)”
Ibn Umar was extremely passionate when it came to the physical beauty of slave-girls, we shall inshallah further discuss this later on. In the meantime let us highlight the views of Imam Abu Hanifa regarding the ablution (iddah/istibra) of a slave-girl:
Abu Yusuf stated in al-Amali that Abu Hanfia was reporting about conjecture (qiyas) but then he switched to ‘estihsan’ and said: ‘It is not required for him to let her (the slave-girl) perform ablution’ and same is the statement of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad may Allah’s mercy be upon them’
Al-Mabsoot by Serkhasi, Volume 13 page 148
While discussing the transfer of the ownership of pregnant slave-girl, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Fatah al-Bari, Volume 4 page 423:
Atta said: ‘There is no harm in going into a slave-girl anywhere you want except the vagina’
As previously stated the only motive of the author behind weaving the topic of the slave-girl within the topic Mut’a was to portray ‘how badly women are treated in Shia fiqh and are infact deemed them sex toys’. Whilst the previously cited material shall suffice to refute the absurdity and deceitfulness of the author we shall now present some facts and incidents as evidence of how ‘well’ women are treated in their school.
Ibn Kathir records:
“Ibn Asakir has narrated under the events of Muawiyah’s slave Khadij al Hazi that Muawiyah bought a fair complexioned and beautiful slave-girl and he (Khadij) undressed her and brought her before Muawiyah, he was carrying a stick in his hand and began bowing towards her vagina and said: “I wish this vagina was for me; take her to Yazeed bin Muawyah.” He then said “No! Call Rabi’ bin Umro al Qarshi”. He (Rabi) was a jusrist (Faqih). When he came, Muawiyah asked him: “This slave-girl has been brought before me in a naked condition and I have seen her here and there, I want to send her to Yazeed”. He said: “O commander of faithful! Don’t do this. This is inappropriate”. Muawiyah said: “Your suggestion is correct”. The narrator says that Muawiyah then gifted her to the servant of Fatima, daughter of Holy Prophet [s] namely Abdullah bin Mas’adat Fazari who was black and Muawiyah told him: “Make your children white through her”.
This demonstrates the cleverness and intelligence of Muawiyah he observed her in a lustful manner, and felt weak in front of her, he feared gifting her to Yazeed due to the verse of Holy Quran, and Faqih Rabi` bin Umro al Jarshi al Damashqi concurred with him”
We don’t understand how the children of Muawiyah can praise him for playing with the honor of a woman. According to the supposed hadith Nasibis deem Muawiyah to be their “guide”. We can deduce the horrible guidance they derive from their beloved guide. How can a religious guide allow a man to undress a woman and not only that, he passed inappropriate comments about a naked woman in front of another person and deemed her as a toy ball that he could toss from one hand into another, in that same naked condition.
Note: Since Nawasib were incapable of defending the immoral act of their lord Muawiyah that was clearly praised upon by their esteemed scholar Ibn Kathir, they had no other option but to remove it from the online Arabic version of the book found at official Saudi Salafi website history.al-islam.com.
Let us cite a supreme example of ‘shyness’ and ‘shame’ possessed by the Sahaba in relation to the respect of poor slave-girls. Imam al-Beyhaqi records in ‘Al-Sunnan al-Kubra’ Volume 2 page 227:
Anas bin Malik said: ‘The slave-girls of Umar were serving us with uncovered hair and their breasts shaking”
Al-Bayhaqi graded the tradition as ‘Sahih’ while Al-Albani the Wahabi in his book ‘Erwa al-Ghalil’ volume 6 page 204 said: ‘The chain of narration is perfect’.
In order to know more about the ‘gentle’ treatment Umar bin Khatab gave to slave-girls, let us cite a reference from Musnaf Ibn Abi Shaybah:
Anas reported: ‘Umar once saw a slave-girl that belonged to us (to Anas) wearing a scarf, so Umar hit her and told her: ‘Don’t assume the manners of a free woman.”
Musnaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Volume 2 page 41 Tradition 6236
Imam Ibn Hajar in ‘al-Deraya’ Volume 1 page 124 and Al-Albani the Salafi in ‘Irwa al-Ghalil’ Volume 6 page 203 have graded this hadith as ‘Sahih’.
Regarding this very treatment by Umar, we also read in different Sunni sources:
Al-Musaiab bin Darum said: ‘I saw Umar holding a stick in his hand and striking a slave-girl’s head until her scarf same off, he the said: ‘Why does the slave assume the manners of free woman?’
1. Tabaqat ibn Saad, Volume 7 page 127
2. Kanz al-Umal, Volume 15 page 486 Hadith 41928
3. Tarikh Damishq, Volume 58 page 191
According to the Shi’a, it is recommended that a slave-girl covers her head (Al-Resael al-Asher by ibn Fahad al-Heli, page 288) but according to our opponents, if a poor slave-girl wishes to live with dignity by covering her head, that is rightly considered a symbol of shame in Islam not only should we forbid her from doing it, rather we should assault her to teach her a lesson, as well as other slave girls that might to partake in the same act!
In order to find an appropriate animal for the purpose of sacrificing at Eid ul Azah, it is a common practice in the sub-continent particularly in Pakistan to spend hours in the animal market to examine the animals by touching their body parts so that they buy the strongest one at a reasonable price. Unusually when we inspect Sunni sources, we find that this practice was previously performed by Abdullah Ibn Umar, but not in relation to buying animals rather it was in relation to slave-girls. We read in Sunan al-Kubra by Imam Beyhaqi:
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”
Sunnan Al-Kubra, Volume 5 page 329
Imam Al-Baani al-Wahabi termed the tradition as ‘Sahih’ in his book “Mukhtasir Irwa Al-Ghalil Fi Takhrij Ahadith Manar Al-Sabil” Volume 1 page 355 Hadith number 1792.
We also read:
‘Mujahid reported that ibn Umar placed his hand between (a slave-girl’s) breasts and shook them’
Musnaf Abdur Razak, Volume 7 page 286 Tradition 13204
We also read in Musanaf Ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 4 page 289 Tradition 20241:
‘Naf’e reported that 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’
To help visualize a women markets during the era of Sahabah let us consider this reference:
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 master of this slave-girl, she is just a commodity!’
Musanaf ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 4 page 289 Tradition 20240
We don’t understand how Nawasib can fabricate a belief and attribute it to the Shias when according to their filthy belief, the prayers (Salat) can be performed in the following manner:
“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.”
Al-Muhala, Kitab al-Rizaa, Volume 10 page 23
O Nawasib! If you are so fond of making a woman naked and ogling at her body, why not open a separate place for this purpose and bring in your women for this job? why have your Ulema contaminated the revered station of Salaat (prayers) as a mechanism to fulfill your perverted filthy wishes?!
It is quite strange that the author is trying to falsely suggest that women are mistreated in Shia fiqh when actual Sunni edicts leave us with no doubt about which Fiqh disgraces women:
“If a person’s slave-girl commits a deliberate crime against some other person, then the person who has suffered the crime commits adultery with her, he is not subject to any legal penalty.”
Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, volume 3, page 265, Kitab al-Hudood, published by Daar ul-Isha’at, Karachi.
Great work! Islam has taught us to be kind with poor people and taught and indeed stressed the importance of pardoning others or balanced revenge but here we see that according to the jurisprudence of our opponents, one can unlock the dignity and honor of a poor woman (which means rape) in retaliation to whatever crime she had committed, and he is not subjected to any penalty for this act. We won’t be surprised to see if the impure nawasib of Sipah-e-Sahabah rape someone’s poor female maid and then claim immunity from prosecution since she committed a crime against him, he therefore meted out pleasurable retaliation as was his right under the above edict.
If the above Sunni edict does not prove the ‘blessed’ place a slave-girl enjoys in their school then let us move to the next one which is very interesting especially for the followers of the Khalifas and the Khilafa system.
“If the Caliph or the head of the city ordains legal penalties on people using his authority, personally goes on Jihad with the army and commits adultery, or he associates with the people at war and indulges in adultery, no legal penalty will be enforced on him.”
Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, volume 3, page 266, Kitab al-Hudood, published by Daar ul-Isha’at, Karachi.
Sunnis often advocate equality amongst all in Islam, and they frequently cite the statement of the Prophet [s] that had his own daughter Fatima committed theft, he would have punished her. Compare this to the immunity that the Ahl’ul Sunnah have granted to the Khalifas. It is little wonder that the supporters of Bani Ummayah happily fought the people to grasp hold of the caliphate and then fought the people in different states and raped their women folk.