He left behind an Empire. Surely they were treated like nobles at least
Omar hit a slave woman with a stick for putting on Hijab and would not allow any slave woman to put it on.
- Thread starter Aurelian
- Start date
Insulting ? Where I insulted him. You people need to stop deifying mortals. The jannah was also promised to Ali, who was promised the jannah killed some of the sahabah who were also promised the jannah. Humans aren't sinless
Last edited:
We are talking about Jilbab
Hotchick12
VIP
bilal was a born a slave his mother was a habesha slave and his father was an arab slave
???
Bilal was born before Islam by 30 years.
May curse of Allah be on anyone who insults Omar.
Inquisitive_
VIP
The people back then valued lineage and wealth above everything else in a female when it comes to marriage, especially lineage, beauty was valued the least, out of the 3 before Islam spread.
Hence the slaves and those deemed to be of lesser lineage were regarded as least desirable regardless of their beauty, the highest status they could obtain is becoming a concubine, the noble men wouldn't go near them, so it doesn't matter if she's half naked, attraction just isn't there.
This concept is hard to fathom today because in our world we did a 360, we value beauty the most and value lineage the least to the point of having aversion against it.
That's why you will see for e.g. confused diaspora Xaalimo chick of high lineage stock (parents and great parents righteous good people) fall in love with some Farax of terrible lineage (entire sub-tribe known for Sixir and Voodo practices), and she continues to suffer the terrible consequences of this, and the worst part polluting her lineage with his seeds.
This is despite her parents warning her against them, she brushed it off as "tribalism" like most of them do in the diaspora, this is a very common story you will hear 1000x times, sure even @Angelina heard a few because we look down at considering the lineage of the person you are marrying, basic stuff like parents, grand-parents, the family tree, what they are known for (righteousness or wickedness)
These things play a major role in the harmony of marriage, especially children, all the human souls were created before Adam, and Allah decides which soul enters which fetus to which Family, you often hear this person became wicked because the family was wicked, No! the wicked soul was paired with that wicked family, yes you will always have outliers, but we don't base our judgement on outliers but the norm.
The Prophet in an authentic hadith said that his lineage to his Father Ibrahim, was pure e.g. (no fornication or illegitimacy took place) all the Prophets have this pure lineage.
Its sad because we consider genetic traits like height, intelligence, beauty and disease being things that we pass on, but righteousness and piety? we see it as something foreign, a lottery, not something that is passed on.
A lot of the destructions we see in marriages today could have been easily filtered out if we took lineage more seriously as a criteria, and with lineage I am not talking about the Jaahiliyi tribal way, but purely a case of filtering out family trees known for serious stuff like magic, Multiple Divorces, abandonment of children, Murder, Shamelessness etc.
If you know the male/female mother is involved in sorcery or any of the extended family, it doesn't matter how righteous or pious the daughter/son is (usually a false perception due to love), YOU STAY AWAY FROM THEM AT ALL COST, it's Russian roulette, unless your own family tree is polluted with the same ***
Last edited:
You’re either a liar or someone who talks without 0 knowledge. Most sultans were the sons of concubines. Learn history and do research before spouting stuff. Even the Prophet s.a.w who is the noblest of men was said to have had Ibrahim with Mariya a concubine although I’m of the opinion that he actually married her and my opinion is a minority opinion when we look at the consensus of the majority. The majority of scholars believe that the Prophet s.a.w did indeed have a child with one.
Even if you believe in the opinion of the minority of scholars like me, what’s an inescapable fact is that most noble men during the Islamic golden age, during the time of Andulusia and the Ottoman period all had concubine slave mothers. In fact, noble men preferred them. ( If you want me to go into detail as to why I make this conclusion, feel free to ask and I’ll expand on it, although you can also ask ChatGPT especially with regards to the Ottomans, thepreference for concubines was well known).
The concept is hard to fathom because a simple look at history shows that you know nothing and that most so called noble men never cared. After the Islamic empire became powerful and cities started to flood with concubines, the true realities of so called men’s preferences and attractions became clear and is easily tracked.
The whole slave economy mostly made up of enslaved women was mostly for sexual bondage and wasn’t the same as American slavery in which it was mostly for agricultural labour. Reproductive & sexual slavery was the bigggest driver of the Arab slave economy of the early medieval period. If they valued linage as much as you’re arguing, they would not have purchased them solely for sex and had children with them and their children with concubines had the same rights and lineage of the children of free women.
Ask yourself: How can they only value lineage when a good % of Islamic sultanates if not nearly all were the sons of concubines and not free women? Look at the mother of Harun Rashdi? Look at the mothers of nearly every Ottoman? You cannot gaslight people with your waffle. All of the mothers of these elite men are recorded and I’d say that more than 85% are the sons of concubines. For the Ottomans it’s higher at like 95%. What’s even funnier about your waffle is that the ONLY female semi ruler we’ve had in the Muslim world in fact started off as a concubine. She wasn’t a free woman in the beginning, but a slave woman of a Sultan. Again, pick up a book for once.
This has always been my issue with you. You’re the king of historically and socially inaccurate waffle. Imagine saying that men didn’t desire them when they specifically bought and sold them for sexual purposes. This has to be the biggest cope and contradiction I’ve read in a long time. These medieval elite Arabs literally had manuals of the type of women to buy for sexual purposes and reproduction and their backgrounds. It was elite and noble men who were the driving force of concubinage.
The fact that you wrote what you wrote shows me that you couldn’t cope with the mental gymnastics with regards to the none veiling of lower class slave women. You don’t need to resort to lies. A simple explanation is that the idea of slave women not veiling is an old Middle Eastern culture. The Persians, the Assyrians used to beat and sometimes kill slave women who dared to wear hijab and Muslims who at that time were from conquered middle Eastern cultures clearly continued with that cultural practice that has nothing to do with the deen.
Last edited:
Firstly, I do not believe in that Mawquf and its accuracy. Hadith isn’t the right word to use since it’s a saying of a companion. A simple explanation is that the idea of slave women not veiling is an old Middle Eastern culture that predates Islam. The Persians, the Assyrians, The Greeks ect used to beat and sometimes kill slave women who dared to wear a veil and Muslims who at that time were from conquered middle Eastern cultures clearly continued with that cultural practice that has nothing to do with the deen. Most Kufar middle Eastern cultures at the time had some forms of hijab but all of them believed that the veil was only for free women.
I find it strange that Albani has authenticated that saying when he actually doesn’t believe that slave women don’t have to wear hijab, this is his view:
There is nothing in the Quran and Sunnah to suggest that a slave woman isn’t subjected to the same modesty laws as free women. In fact it defies the idea of an Islamic modest society and illustrates the glaring hypocrisy of Muslims who believe that a slave woman can show her naked breasts but will scream fitnah at seeing the hijab silhouette of a free Muslim woman.
One cannot say that men are attracted to women’s beauty and charms hence why we as women have to be extra modest but believe that a subsection of biological women can walk around anyhow. Clearly hijab isn’t about modesty then but a class marker.
People can call me anything they want, but I can’t help but feel this was a religious loophole utilized by men for the men that was clearly influenced by the pagan cultures that they were surrounded by and descended from like the Persians. If you go back to 10th century Cairo, you would have seen more immodesty and nakedness than gaalo UK. Hence I find many modern Muslims to be hypocritical. Why are they obsessed with modesty when many believe that modesty is only for a class of women. They believe all other women who aren’t free and lower class can walk around half naked?!
Anyways, for the posters here, there are scholars who were consistent and believed that it’s haram for all women like Albani, Ibn Hazm and Hajr ect. No point worrying about what the rest thought because it will lead you to question concepts like modesty, hijab being a class marker due to illogical inconsistencies and you will also end up making low IQ takes like @Inquisitive_ about noble men not desiring slave women when most of their heirs were sired by them LOL. I never knew men could buy, sleep with and reproduce with women they weren’t attracted to. Who would have thought?
The Quran and actual Sunnah never make a distinction and that should be enough for us rather than scholarly ijtihad influenced by 10th century whims and desires and before you lot come for me, many notable scholars of the past make the exact same assessment I’m making. They too could see the hypocrisy.
I find it strange that Albani has authenticated that saying when he actually doesn’t believe that slave women don’t have to wear hijab, this is his view:
There is nothing in the Quran and Sunnah to suggest that a slave woman isn’t subjected to the same modesty laws as free women. In fact it defies the idea of an Islamic modest society and illustrates the glaring hypocrisy of Muslims who believe that a slave woman can show her naked breasts but will scream fitnah at seeing the hijab silhouette of a free Muslim woman.
One cannot say that men are attracted to women’s beauty and charms hence why we as women have to be extra modest but believe that a subsection of biological women can walk around anyhow. Clearly hijab isn’t about modesty then but a class marker.
People can call me anything they want, but I can’t help but feel this was a religious loophole utilized by men for the men that was clearly influenced by the pagan cultures that they were surrounded by and descended from like the Persians. If you go back to 10th century Cairo, you would have seen more immodesty and nakedness than gaalo UK. Hence I find many modern Muslims to be hypocritical. Why are they obsessed with modesty when many believe that modesty is only for a class of women. They believe all other women who aren’t free and lower class can walk around half naked?!
Anyways, for the posters here, there are scholars who were consistent and believed that it’s haram for all women like Albani, Ibn Hazm and Hajr ect. No point worrying about what the rest thought because it will lead you to question concepts like modesty, hijab being a class marker due to illogical inconsistencies and you will also end up making low IQ takes like @Inquisitive_ about noble men not desiring slave women when most of their heirs were sired by them LOL. I never knew men could buy, sleep with and reproduce with women they weren’t attracted to. Who would have thought?
The Quran and actual Sunnah never make a distinction and that should be enough for us rather than scholarly ijtihad influenced by 10th century whims and desires and before you lot come for me, many notable scholars of the past make the exact same assessment I’m making. They too could see the hypocrisy.
Last edited:
What do you gain from insulting a sahaba? Even if you are Muslim and believe this wouldn’t it be better to steer away from potentially being wrong and sinning? You only have things to lose.
You absolutely can. I once thought that if you converted to Islam, you’d be automatically freed and no one could be born a slave, but both were false. I’m not criticizing here but I feel like that’s messed up.
where the insulting?
Better to not even believe in that Mawquf. It’s clearly something concocted to rationalize the idea of slave women not veiling which was a pagan belief of all surrounding ancient cultures from the Greeks to the Assyrians hence an educated guess would be that early scholars who conquered those groups along with some of the scholarly class descending from Persians incorporating that into Islamic law. Even Albani believed there simply wasn’t enough evidence for them to come up with their conclusion and even weakened numerous Hadiths concerning that.
Trending
-
Diaspora Syrians moving en masses backhome (200k back already)- Started by Hurder
- Replies: 28
-
-
Feeding Our Future defendant sentenced to 17-and-a-half years in prison- Started by SixthAbdi
- Replies: 46
