Talk:Ma malakat aymanukum

On the edits by @Code16

@Code16 claims that rape is allowed with slaves is the mainstream opinion (this edit). This is simply not true. Malik, Shafi'i and the other imams all explained that rape is forbidden in all cases:

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab that gave a judgment that the rapist had to pay the raped woman her bride-price. Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about the man who rapes a woman, virgin or non-virgin, if she is free, is that he must pay the bride-price of the like of her. If she is a slave, he must pay what he has diminished of her worth. The hadd-punishment in such cases is applied to the rapist, and there is no punishment applied to the raped woman. If the rapist is a slave, that is against his master unless he wishes to surrender him."

— Al-Muwatta, 36 16.14

The article is thus non factual. --HakimPhilo (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo: That's why I tagged it! Mhhossein (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious, what right of "consent" does a slave possess? If these mainstream madhabs accept slavery, and yet provide them the right of consent, what does that even mean? What happens when the slaves start saying "no"? In any case, if you want to split that classification into sub-sections, you are most welcome to do it, provided you cite your views. As long as the "minority" view that I posted (with citation) remains there as well Code16 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Code16 First, your questions are off-topic since:

Second of all it isn't a minority view when all the 4 madhabs say that the punishment for rape with slaves is death. I have cited WP:PRIMARY material for that (Malik's Muwatta'). Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo: Okay then just add that to the article with citations, what are you wasting time arguing with me for? I'll take out the "mainstream" word from the sub-section, but you'll have to add the rest. Code16 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

HakimPhilo's interpretation of the passage by Malik is mistaken. What Malik is referring to is a man who rapes a slave belonging to another person. That is why the penalty is compensation equivalent to the reduction in her value caused by the rape. It is the slave's owner who has suffered this monetary loss, and the compensation would be paid to the owner. This makes no sense if the rapist is the owner. A slave's consent is simply not relevant. A slaveowner can make his slaves do things: that is what it means to be a slave. Indeed, according to our understanding of consent, it would be impossible for a slave to ever give consent to her master, because coercion is inherent in the relationship. It obviously makes a lot of contemporary Muslims uncomfortable, but Islamic law was produced in a slaveowning, patriarchal society. It's also worth bearing in mind that most ancient and medieval societies were not particularly concerned with women's consent to sex: the position of Islamic law is not surprising in its historical context. This part of Islamic law is of no relevance to Islam today, because slavery has been abolished everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.120.212 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Proof

@14.203.129.249: The quote cannot be found in the book about the abu hania part link down below and kecia ali agrees that islam does ask for consent but was shocked other scholars didn't think so. https://archive.org/details/IslamicJurisprudenceAccordingToTheFourSunniSchoolsAlFiqhalaAlMadhahibAlArbaah/page/n17 arsi786 (talk) 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge

This article was nominated for deletion by Mhhossein (talk · contribs). I think this article should be merged into Islamic views on slavery and Islamic views on concubinage, both of which cover the Qur'anic discussion of slavery and concubinage. Merger was proposed a few years ago by Sa.vakilian (talk · contribs) and James500 (talk · contribs) and noted as having support by the closer. Also pinging @Karaeng Matoaya: and @Eperoton: for their opinions.VR _talk 04:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I also made merger proposal awhile back. There was a counterproposal to pare this down to an article about the Quranic term, because the rest duplicated the scope of other articles. I'm not sure there's enough material about the term as such to merit a separate article, but back then I separated the two topics and tagged the WP:COATRACK material (the banner has since been removed). I would support either merging the COATRACK portion into other articles or merging all of it, and turning it into a redirect. Eperoton (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I nominated the page almost 5 years ago and I still think the page is not a stand alone article. I support merging it into other pages. This view was also supported at AFD which I started back then. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I aree with merging as Vice regent told.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Since there is consensus for the merge I will go ahead and copy the useful material from this article to Islamic views on slavery and then redirect this article to that as well.VR _talk 16:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

After going through this article multiple times, I found that much of the content was sourced only to the Quran or hadith, and so was OR. I tried to find secondary sources but discarded the content where I couldn't. A lot of the well-sourced content already exists at either Islamic views on slavery or Islamic views on concubinage; but material that didn't exist was added here and here, respectively. Let me know if I missed anything. I'm now going to redirect this article.VR _talk 23:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)