Omar hit a slave woman with a stick for putting on Hijab and would not allow any slave woman to put it on.

[Inquisitive_]

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.

You have changed your post drastically from your original response, showcasing your chaotic nature, but I am not surprised as arguing for the sake of arguing runs in the blood of our Xaalimo's.

You brought up Ottomans when the discussion was about 7th century Arabia, your conflating marriage with concubinage, not realising that even concubines themselves looked down on being one.

A case in point Fatima the daughter of the Prophet, she took issue with Ali marrying another Quraishi female, even the Prophet intervened in the matter and stopped it, but Ali had several concubines which she took no issues with, it wasn't just exclusive to her, but the same for the rest of the women, because these women were regarded and seen as so insignificant, they didn't pose a threat.

This is the cultural nuance point your incapable of grasping because times have changed and your too emotionally charged like a typical Xaalimo to be able to comprehend this.

So why did she oppose Quraishi co-wife but had no problems with several concubines?? why do you think that was the case? try to think logically without superimposing current culture baggage.

This was the same with the Ottoman Turks and other ancient societies, I wanted to educate you the reasons in a long post but its a waste of time because I know it will go over your head because your pre-wired to emasculate not understand or reflect.

The biggest preposterous statement you made was about concubine offspring being treated the same and even worse the concubine herself, I wonder if you even know about the hadith of the Prophet on his death bed

And Abu Dawud (5156)and Ibn Majah (2698) narrated that `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The last words that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) spoke were, “The prayer, the prayer! And fear Allah with regard to those whom your right hands possess.”

If your preposterous statement of equality was true and common knowledge, why would the Prophet on his death bed warn about this? unless neglect was common?

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.

[Surah Nisa Ayah 25]

But if any of you cannot afford to marry a free believing woman, then ˹let him marry˺ a believing bondwoman possessed by one of you. Allah knows best ˹the state of˺ your faith ˹and theirs˺. You are from one another.1 So marry them with the permission of their owners,2 giving them their dowry in fairness, if they are chaste, neither promiscuous nor having secret affairs. If they commit indecency after marriage, they receive half the punishment of free women.3 This is for those of you who fear falling into sin. But if you are patient, it is better for you. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


Why do you think they receive half the punishment of a free women? because when the Islamic army goes to battle against these heathens who much like today fornicate like animals with no morality.

Those women whose husbands and Fathers are slain in battle who now have to be integrated with Islamic society despite coming from an uncultured and promiscuous society, it will be injustice to give them the same punishment for indecency and fornication as a believing women from the Muslim society.

This is part of the many reason why they were collectively looked down upon, the closest analogy to today is a side-chick, but even that is far off, because the actual girlfriend or wife is upset about the side-chick because of the involvement of sex, but no one cared about sex with the concubines or the number of offspring she had because that was a survival mechanism for the tribe, those men went to the front-line in war times.

No supply of concubines means bigger chance the wife's sons dying and even worse the destruction and annihilation of her tribe and she herself becoming a concubine to a foreign male.

Go and read about the Ottoman Janissary's, they mostly consisted of concubine offspring, it's why the Eastern Europeans hate Muslims so much, because according to their account, that was the whole purpose of the harems, in their words 'stealing slavic' women for Jihad against them.

The wife's were a lot more sophisticated back then, they knew it was just sex & offspring with the concubines and their status was never in threat, in fact, if she had many sons, bigger chance of survival for her sons, as the concubine offspring go to the front-line in war times, much like the poor today go to war and everyone else stays at home.

Also if you read between the lines here towards the end of the Ayah, Allah states its better if you are 'patient' e.g. avoid marrying them and wait patiently for a righteous free believing women. (same applies vice versa) reinforcing my point.

This is why its futile to have a discussion with you because you don't want to learn, and why little knowledge is so dangerous, I only posted this for the benefit of others as I know it would go over your head again.

 

[Vacelere]

I'm surprised how some so called Muslims talk about the companions of the prophet like they are their equals.

Even if you see that this companion did wrong you MUST show respect because at the end he is a sahahabi.

 

[Angelina]

You have changed your post drastically from your original response, showcasing your chaotic nature, but I am not surprised as arguing for the sake of arguing runs in the blood of our Xaalimo's.

I actually didn’t. I shortened it as I didn’t think you’d read a long essay. I’ve never changed the essence of the post. That’s another lie you’ve been caught in.

You brought up Ottomans when the discussion was about 7th century Arabia, your conflating marriage with concubinage, not realising that even concubines themselves looked down on being one.

I never not once conflated marriage with concubinage. NOT ONCE. Authobillah. I’m beginning to think you can’t read and or don’t actually read to understand but to debate. I was debating your premise about upper class noble men not going near them. They did go near them, many and children with them.

I brought up Islamic golden age, The Ottomans and Adalusia. I was talking about early Islamic societies

A case in point Fatima the daughter of the Prophet, she took issue with Ali marrying another Quraishi female, even the Prophet intervened in the matter and stopped it, but Ali had several concubines which she took no issues with.

That is besides the point? What’s wrong you? Are you challenged mentally? What proof do you have she knew about them? There is no proof to suggest that these concubines were around when she was alive. They didn’t even have a slave in the house and we know this when they complained to the prophet s.a.w about needing extra help and he told them to read a dua instead! Furthermore, all the kids he fathered with concubines were after Fatima’s death.

This is the cultural nuance point your incapable of grasping because times have changed and your too emotionally charged like a typical Xaalimo to be able to comprehend this.

The Prophet s.a.w had a child with a concubine according to the Majority although I believe she was a wife Many Sahabas were also said to have had children with them as well. Why did you bypass this?

So why did she oppose Quraishi co-wife but had no problems with several concubines?? why do you think that was the case? try to think logically without superimposing current culture baggage.

How do you know she never did? How do you know she knew about any concubines? We have no records of Ali R.A living with a concubine whilst she was alive? All of the known concubines of Ali are recorded after Fatima’s death.


Furthermore, what does the tolerance of lack of tolerance of women have to do with anything? We are talking about male desire here, not about a concubine having a lower status. Why are you conflating different things and contradicting yourself?! Do you not see the blatant contradiction?

1. One min you say noble men weren’t attracted to concubines.

2. The next moment you say that Ali had one showing that he slept with them and even fathered children with them after Fatima’s death.

This was the same with the Ottoman Turks and other ancient societies, I wanted to educate you the reasons in a long post but its a waste of time because I know it will go over your head because your pre-wired to emasculate not understand or reflect.

No, I’m pre-wired to not listen to nonsense. Even now you can’t admit your silly mistake and are waffling on something that is beside the topic.

1. What does the low status of concubines have to do with desire when men still slept with them?

2. Are you suggesting that men bought and sold then for sex and reproduction but didn’t desire them? Please explain this

The biggest preposterous statement you made was about concubine offspring being treated the same and even worse the concubine herself, I wonder if you even know about the hadith of the Prophet on his death bed

And Abu Dawud (5156)and Ibn Majah (2698) narrated that `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The last words that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) spoke were, “The prayer, the prayer! And fear Allah with regard to those whom your right hands possess.”

If your preposterous statement of equality was true and common knowledge, why would the Prophet on his death bed warn about this?

The prophet s.a.w also warned the Ummah about treating free wives correctly before his death as well! It was part of his last sermon?

Concubines, women in general, the poor, racism ect, the Prophet s.a.w warned against being terrible to those that were vulnerable. Obviously concubines were vulnerable. Why do you insist on changing the goal post and not talking about the topic at hand? When did I suggest they weren’t looked down upon? When did I say they weren’t vulnerable?

Also show me in black and white where it talks about the children of concubines?! The Hadith talks about the concubines and
NOT the free children of concubines.

What your right hand possesses includes offspring of the concubines too, because the masses clearly didn't value them anything close to how they would value their wife and the children she birthed, they were mostly mistreated and looked down upon, hence the death bed warning of the Prophet.

No it does not, Inquisitive, I will not debate with you with something that is well known. Children with concubine mothers had full rights. Nearly all of the mothers of Emirs and Sultans had concubine mothers. Stop debating for the sake of it. I will not accept your lies.
Because disgusting and unscrupulous men used to prostitute them! Also what does that have to do with men not desiring them? ! The fact that men would fornicate with them is a great example as why they should be wearing full hijab so that men wouldn’t desire them?!

Those women whose husbands and Fathers are slain in battle who now have to be integrated with Islamic society despite coming from an uncultured and promiscuous society, it will be injustice to give them the same punishment for indecency and fornication as a believing women from the Muslim society.

Of course and historically men used to prostitute them and put them in positions in which it was easier for them to commit Zina. They were vulnerable and didn’t have the protection free women had. I know all of this, so what now? How does that go against the idea of men not desiring them? What on earth are you talking about? That actually works against your opinion. The purpose of hijab is modesty and because supposedly women are fitnah due to their beauty. Men will try and commit Zina or harass women regardless of their status. That should be obvious.

This is part of the many reason why they were collectively looked down upon, the closest analogy to today is a side-chick, but even that is far off, because the actual girlfriend or wife is upset about the side-chick because of the involvement of sex, but no one cared about sex with the concubines because that was a survival mechanism.

It doesn’t matter if they were looked down upon. Men still desired them, men still bought them for sex, men still had children with them. We are talking about male desire here.

Also if you read between the lines here towards the end of the Ayah, Allah states its better if you are 'patient' e.g. avoid marrying them and wait patiently for a righteous free believing women. (same applies vice versa)

I know this, but we are talking about History and men’s desires here.

This is why its futile to have a discussion with you because you don't want to learn, and why little knowledge is so dangerous, I only posted this for the benefit of others.

You’re very stupid and I don’t know if you’re trolling me at this point.


1. Why did men sleep with them?
2. Why did Sultans shun marriage at one point?
3. Why did they have free born offspring with them?
4. Why did men buy them for sex and reproduction if they didn’t desire them and or want children with them?

 

[Angelina]

@Inquisitive_

own up to the fact that you lied about history. My point had nothing to do with the low status of concubines. Obviously slaves were looked down upon that was never my debate, but to straight up lie and say that noble men didn’t desire them is proposterious considering that most young female slaves were used for sexual and reproductive purposes. How are you saying that noble men didn’t go near them when they were the main buyers of concubines? How can you say that them being half naked wasn’t an issue when they slept with them? You literally suggested that them being half naked wasn’t an issue as men won’t look or desire them but they were literally bought for the purpose of sex. Men looked at them and bought them for their beauty or so that they can have children!

Learn to read, pick up a book and stop waffling and changing the goal post. To suggest that men won’t go near them due to their low status when these men literally had children with them and even promoted those sons as Emir is a mad statement to make and no I’m not just talking about the Ottomans, we have enough cases of the Ummayads and The Abbasid as well.

 

[Angelina]

@Inquisitive_

Look at your colossal contradiction. You went from lying and saying that they never went near them:

To now admitting that men did go near them and have children with them. Admit that you lied and or were ignorant instead of embarrassing yourself and backtracking for everyone to see in 4K. Also the claim that they can’t aspire to be wives is false. We have a Hadith that suggests men would get extra ajar if they educate, free and marry her:

Just sex and ‘offspring’ whilst before you were arguing that they wouldn’t desire them Or want to have kids with them. Also, the lies you spew and you need to make Tawba. The Sharia doesn’t differentiate between the offsprings of free wives and concubines and after a concubine has a child the man cannot sell her and her rights become similar. In fact we have so many cases of the children of concubines becoming Emirs and Sultans even before the children of the wives!

The heir apparent of Harun Rashdi was a concubines child before the children of his wife descended on the thrown for example.

Why lie? Why can’t you simply accept that you don’t have a good understanding of Islamic history and move on.

Everything I’ve mentioned is a fact whilst you lied, backtracked and even changed the topic at hand. Not once did I suggest that concubines had the same status as wives, but male desire doesn’t hinge upon status like it does for women. YOU should know this.

Even your argument of wives not being jealous of concubines is a lie. We know that Zubaida the wife of the Abbasid ruler would be jealous of them since he sometimes spent more time with them. We have many cases of history of wives hating their husbands concubine.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Aurelian]

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.

What mawqif? I certainly don't believe the cawra of any female is the same as male.

 

[Aurelian]

I'm surprised how some so called Muslims talk about the companions of the prophet like they are their equals.

Even if you see that this companion did wrong you MUST show respect because at the end he is a sahahabi.

Stop with the deification

 

[Angelina]

What mawqif? I certainly don't believe the cawra of any female is the same as male.

Sayings and actions of Sahaba.

I don’t believe that it’s actually authentic personally and there is a reason why Albani doesn’t fully by it despite authenticating it. I reckon it has all the markers of something authentic but isn’t believable. I wish he wrote why he disbelieved that slave women didn’t have to wear hijab and argued that it wasn’t part of the Sunnah to suggest this but still went ahead and authenticated that Mawqif. Mind boggling. He clearly thought that classical scholars were dead wrong in this regard and defied common sense.

 

[Keep it a boqol]

@Aurelian look at the fitna you spread. You have a history of pushing weird beliefs and flirting with shiaism

 

[Angelina]

@Aurelian look at the fitna you spread. You have a history of pushing weird beliefs and flirting with shiaism

Sorry I take it back, I didn’t see his post ripping into Omar. That’s mad he wrote that. Mad indeed. I was so caught up in debating with the other poster who @ me I didn’t even fully read the OPs post. Waa wax waalan.

 

[Aurelian]

@Aurelian look at the fitna you spread. You have a history of pushing weird beliefs and flirting with shiaism

Shiaism? I am called Nasibi here and there when I talk about Shi'ism

I am not a nasibi thou

 

[Aurelian]

Sorry I take it back, I didn’t see his post ripping into Omar. That’s mad he wrote that. Mad indeed. I was so caught up in debating with the other poster who @ me I didn’t even fully read the OPs post. Waa wax waalan.

yaah? you didn't read it? What makes me qof waalan? It is a historic incident, in fact some of the shcolars who made the mawqif you think i follow, which i don't, is based on Omar's view on the matter. Islam clearly says "and the believers of women" when it comes to jilbab or hijab, but Omar saw the aya meaning only the free women.

 

[Angelina]

Shiaism? I am called Nasibi here and there when I talk about Shi'ism

I am not a nasibi thou

Why would you insult Omar R.A? There is a good chance that this isn’t even accurate or real? Especially in the light of early jurists wanting justification for their weird ruling that can’t be found in the Quran and Sunnah?

 

[Aurelian]

Why would you insult Omar R.A? There is a good chance that this isn’t even accurate or real? Especially in the light of early jurists wanting justification for their weird ruling that can’t be found in the Quran and Sunnah?

Where is the insults????

 

[Angelina]

Where is the insults????

You literally said he was heavy handed ect when there isn’t even sufficient proof that this incident really took place? Even Albani who authenticated it questioned the idea of slave women not wearing hijabs and if that was the understanding of Omar we both know he wouldn’t have questioned early jurists since Sunni Muslims look at the practices of Sahabas especially those of the status of Omar as being fully in line with the Sharia.

 

[Keep it a boqol]

Shiaism? I am called Nasibi here and there when I talk about Shi'ism

I am not a nasibi thou

this thread you have shia and anti sahih bukari views and then you make claims about ALI RA.

You have beliefs that are anything but sunni orthodox islam

Hardest nasheed of all time: It's aimed at Shias who like to dishonor Ahlul Bayt and the sahaba with insults and lies

I don't know what you read but it is all rubbish. https://sunnah.com/muslim/1/146 So Aisha and some of the Sahaba whom the paradise was promised to them and Ali killed them were hypocrites?

www.somalispot.com

 

[Aurelian]

You literally said he was heavy handed ect when there isn’t even sufficient proof that this incident really took place? Even Albani who authenticated it questioned the idea of slave women not wearing hijabs and if that was the understanding of Omar we both know he wouldn’t have questioned early jurists since Sunni Muslims look at the practices of Sahabas especially those of the status of Omar as being fully in line with the Sharia.

You saying these two hadiths of Anas in Sahih Muslim not true? Al-albani himself autheticated one of the hadiths

Narrated Abd Al-A’laa from Mo’ammar from Al-Zuhri from Anas. (Al-Albani: I say: This chain is Authentic, if Al-Zuhri heard it from Anas) Narrated Alee Ibn Mos’har from Al-Mokhtar Ibn Folfol from Anas Ibn Malik who said: A slave girl of Muhajirin or Ansaar came to Umar wearing Jilbab (complete Hijab), he said: "Have you been freed?" She said: “No!” He said: “Put it off your head!” Jilbab is for the freed women. So she hesitated, so he got up to her with the whip (Darrah), and he hit her on the head, until she threw it.

the scholars explained it to Omar's pre-Islamic culture and how he viewed the world. Beside that, he was very impulsive, I am not saying that, but his actions and scholars (Sunnis) say that he would act harshly on things he viewed as wrong. And if, came to conclusion that he was on the wrong side, he would apologize

Look at these hadiths

'Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) once saw a man speaking to a woman on the roadside. He began to beat him with his stick and asked the man why he was shamelessly speaking to a woman by the roadside. The man answered that the woman was his wife.

‘Umar then said: “Then why are you discussing your personal matters by the roadside and enticing the people to listen to your personal conversation?”

He answered: “O leader of the believers, we have just arrived in Madeenah and were discussing where we should stay.”

When ‘Umar heard his answer he apologizes to the man, gave him his stick, and ordered him to take his revenge. The man said: “I forgive you for the sake of Allaah.” However ‘Umar insisted that the man take the stick and seek out his revenge, but the man refused every time. Thereby, ‘Umar said: “Your reward will be with Allaah.”

 

[Aurelian]

this thread you have shia and anti sahih bukari views and then you make claims about ALI RA.

You have beliefs that are anything but sunni orthodox islam

Hardest nasheed of all time: It's aimed at Shias who like to dishonor Ahlul Bayt and the sahaba with insults and lies

I don't know what you read but it is all rubbish. https://sunnah.com/muslim/1/146 So Aisha and some of the Sahaba whom the paradise was promised to them and Ali killed them were hypocrites?

www.somalispot.com

Shia views? Where ?

 

[Aurelian]

@Keep it a boqol waryaa what Shia views?

 

[Abu Hesi]

@Aurelian look at the fitna you spread. You have a history of pushing weird beliefs and flirting with shiaism

This guy is raafida, we already established long ago lol