There were some answers on this site suggesting slave women were not entitled to modesty norms as free women were and that they should only cover from the navel to the knee. Wouldnt this contradict prophetic warnings against indecent exposure? For instance the prophet pbuh says “There shall be, in the latter part of my nation, women who are dressed but (in fact) naked, on their heads are humps like those of Bukht (one kind of camel), curse them for they are surely cursed.” At-Tabarani related this hadeeth in “Al-Mu’jam As-Sagheer” p.232. Also "The best of your women is the affectionate , the fertile (in productivity), the propitious (favorable), the consultative if they fear Allah. The Most evil of your women are the Mutabar’rijat (those who do Tabarruj), the Mutakhayelat (who strut/swagger), and they are the hypocrite ones. Those who enter Al-Jannah are like the Cough Crow." These relate to women's dress and their wrongness as such. If slave women were to dress as some narrations suggested wouldn't they be violating prophetic commands?

I am aware that a Muslim can sell their slaves to another Muslim and then the one who bought the slave would have to wait for the menstrual cycle to have intercourse in order to be sure that the female concubine is not pregnant but is the Muslim allowed to sell their female slave to a non Muslim? Because a non Muslim would not wait for the cycle and could potentially exploit her make her do prostitution and other evil hideous acts

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته Is Lian is to be done even in a case where Master accuses his slave girl who bore children of adultery and claims the child is not his, just like husband and wife do Lian when husband accuses that wife committed adultery and claims child is not his? Kindly clarify if not than what is done in such case!

So I read this [article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Islamic_law) on Wikipedia which says > According to a hadith, a master could marry off a female slave without her consent Is this claim correct or not because I haven’t heard about this Hadith? Is the Hadith Sahih or not? I tried looking for it from Islamic websites but i couldn’t find it.

From what I understand of the sources of slavery, a non-Muslim darbi living in a non-Muslim land can be legally enslaved by Muslims, even if there is no actual fighting happening. Does this mean that it would have been Islamically permissible to go into a non-Muslim land and simply round up the non-Muslim people living there and sell them as slaves like the Americans did to the Africans? This doesn't seem right but I also can't find evidence against it?

I have confusion regarding the claim which made by Jonathan AC Brown in his book about that some scholars, held the view that not just free men but even slaves could have concubines though they can only own if there master permits either by giving his own slave girl or slave can buy slave girl. Here is the source. I came across only an explanation of Al Kafi of Ibn Qudamah by Shaykh Ibn Uthymeen but I got confused about whether it was permissible or not. Here is the link to Shaykh's explanation. So, what is the Mutamad opinion among Hanabilah regarding this?

What did he state was allowed to be seen/touched of a slave woman by a potential buyer?

Islam is supposed to hold women to the highest regard but I just can’t reconcile that idea with the idea that sex slaves are permitted. I know that the time was different back then but even so I don’t think anyone right now would say that sez slavery is a good thing. Islam is timeless and Allah (SWT) is All-Knowing so why wouldn’t this be banned knowing it would be shunned in the future? This answer https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/77913 says that consent is not needed from masters which makes it even worse. There’s also Hadith like Sahih Muslim 3371 and so on that just paint Islam in a bad light. Wouldn’t it have been better to teach men to control their desires instead of having sex with slave women as this not only makes Islam look bad, it deters people from the religion and makes it seem like women outside of Islam are just sexual objects.

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh, I have a question regarding the Islamic legal perspective on concubinage: If a man has a female slave and he marries her off to another slave, and she gives birth to a daughter, now we know she is the daughter of the slave but her ownership will belong to the master. So, can the young girl be taken as a concubine by the master? Jazakum Allahu Khayran.

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh, I hope you are doing well. I have a question regarding the Islamic rulings on slavery in the context of warfare. Specifically, in classical Islamic jurisprudence, is it permissible to enslave non-combatants, such as women, children, elderly individuals, or others who are not actively participating in battle? Additionally, how do the rulings apply in the case of surprise attacks or raids (ghazw), where captives are taken without prior formal combat? Are there distinctions made based on different categories of captives, such as free individuals versus slaves, or men versus women?

I understand the justification for enslaving captives of war, including women and children at the time, but why would a child born to two already enslaved parents also be considered a slave? If the parents are already in Dar al-Islam, integrated into society, then why should their innocent child inherit their status? That seems like it goes against the Quranic principle that “no soul bears the burden of another” (la taziru waziratun wizra ukhra)—especially when there’s no urgent need for it. Also, I haven’t seen any clear Quranic or hadith evidence that the Prophet ﷺ actually allowed this. If I’m wrong which I 100% might be could you please share any sources and clarify the reasoning behind

First of all, I would like to thank in advance for answering in the most kindest way. And i apologize for making my questions so big. Just wanted to let you know where i'm coming from. I have heard that previously during Imam Malik's time, some slave women were walking around or getting out of their homes bare breasted. He had strongly condemned this practice due to his understanding of the Quran/Sunnah as per this narration: > Kitaab Al-Jami‘ of Al-Imam Ibn Abi Zayd Al-Qayrawani Al-Maliki (died > 386 AH): He said, "He (i.e. Al-Imam Malik ibn Anas) strongly > disapproved of the behaviour of the slave women of Madinah in going > out uncovered above the lower garment." He said, "I have spoken to the > Sultan about it, but I have not received a reply." He said, "Beat the > slave women if they do that." I am aware that slave women had a relaxed awrah compared to the free women as per the differing opinions of the various schools of thought due to their work in servile environments and veiling was prohibited as a social status indicator but in case of **fitnah** or **harassment** or **fear of trouble** they are supposed to cover themselves up as free women have to do. I am also aware that in some point in history, there were practices of slave women being **paraded bare breasted** for attracting the highest bidders or buyers. Also I understand that a seller can adorn their slave women for attracting buyers similar to how a woman is adorned for marriage. I understand that Islam humanizes slaves by granting them certain rights, emphasizing their emancipation, and encouraging them to be treated like family members—with dignity, kindness, and respect. Based on my understanding of the commentaries from various schools of thought, even during the inspection process in slave markets at the time of the Prophet and his companions, the environment was supposedly controlled, with minimal exposure encouraged unless absolutely necessary, and only with the genuine intention to buy could you look or touch upto some extent (over clothing in Umar R.A's case), touching prohibited in the presence of lust. (please correct me if i'm wrong). **My Question is as follows:** - Was bare chested display for ***auctions*** or ***convenience*** or ***parading*** them bare chested for attracting the highest bidders, is that islamic or buyers islamically sanctioned (haram or halal)? Or was it just a corrupt practice that the masters used to do to exploit their slave women for commercial purposes or personal benefits? If it is halal, why? It spreads fitnah, encourages lustful intentions,objectifies and exploits slave women, public indecency, strips off their dignity, violates modesty rules etc which is quite contrary to inspection which usually happens for practical reasons out of necessity as opposed to lustful intentions. Also please answer this as well if possible Question regarding Slave Women Inspection Limits in the marketplace Thanks!

Is a slave woman of Muslim who is captured by Harbi and gives birth to children due to being captured by them considered free if Muslims regain defeat the harbis and take control? > أمة مسلمة سبيت فوطئها حربي > > > .٢١٥٨. ولو أن أمة مسلمة سباها أهل الحرب فوطئها الحربي ثم ظهر المسلمون > على الدار فالأمة وأولادها أحرار لأنها صارت أم ولد الحربي Source - عُيُون الْمَسَائِل Is this position even in Hanbali Madhab?

السلام عليكم Is there any specific ahkam related to the re-enslavement of a kafir slave who was freed by his Muslim master but traveled and settled in the land of Dar al Harb & muslim seized him in Jihad or was captured by other Kuffar? Is it permissible for the Muslims to buy and keep him/her as a slave or he must be set free? Note: Slave is still Kafir

> أخرجه أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة في المصنف ت الشثري (ج11/ص310) حدثنا علي بن > مسهر عن عبيد الله عن نافع عن ابن عمر أنه كان إذا أراد أن يشتري الجارية > وضع يده على أليتيها وبين فخذيها وربما كشف عن ساقيها. وهذا إسناد صحيح > > > > > It was narrated by Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Shaybah in Al-Musannaf, edited by > Al-Shathri (vol. 11, p. 310): Ali Ibn Musher narrated to us from > Ubaidullah from Nafi' from Ibn Umar that when he wanted to buy a > female slave, he would place his hand on her buttocks and between her > thighs, and sometimes uncover her legs. And this is a sound chain of > narration. > >Islamink > عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، > > ١٣٢٠٨ - عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي مَنْ أُصَدِّقُ عَمَّنْ، > سَمِعَ عَلِيًّا، يَسْأَلُ عَنِ الْأَمَةِ تُبَاعُ أَيَنْظُرُ إِلَى > سَاقِهَا، وَعَجُزِهَا، وَإِلَى بَطْنِهَا؟. قَالَ: «لَا بَأَسَ > بِذَلِكَ، لَا حُرْمَةَ لَهَا، إِنَّمَا وَقَفَتْ لِنُسَاوِمَهَا» > > Abdul Razzaq, > >13208 - From Ibn Jurayj, he said: "A trustworthy person told me from whom I trust, that he heard Ali asking about a female slave being sold, whether one should look at her leg, her buttocks, and her belly?" He said: "There is no harm in that, she has no sanctity, she is only standing for us to negotiate her price." > >Shamela My Question is as follows: I have seen that many scholars limit looking and touching slave women in the markets based on their defined awrah (navel to knee which is impermissible to inspect). But in the above narrations, we can see Ibn Umar (r.a) touching buttocks (over clothes) and touching between thighs but both of those areas fall between navel and knee. Also what does between thighs refer to? Vagina? Also Ali (r.a) is saying it's permissible to look at the buttocks. We also see in another narration below that a Companion of the prophet said it's not permissible to look at between navel and knee. > صح عن أبي موسى الأشعري أنه قال ألا لا أعرفن أحداً أراد أن يشتري جارية فينظر إلى ما فوق الركبة أو دون السرة لا يفعل ذلك أحد إلا عاقبته > > It was authentically reported on the authority of Abu Musa al-Ash’ari that he said: “I do not know anyone who wants to buy a female slave and looks above the knee or below the navel. No one should do that except that I will punish him.” > > Islamink I see in places where Islam restricts slave women inspections to navel and knee then isn't what i stated at the beginning contradicting? > وتبقى ميزة الإسلام في تقييد ذلك بحدود العورة, وأمن الفتنة, وغير ذلك من > الضوابط، على خلاف ما كان معمولًا به في الدنيا بأسرها من إطلاق ذلك > تمامًا. ومن وراء هذا كله يأتي حث الشريعة وترغيبها في عتق الرقيق، > والإحسان إليهم. > > And the distinctive feature of Islam remains in restricting that > within the limits of modesty, ensuring the prevention of temptation, > and other regulations, contrary to what was practiced in the entire > world by allowing it completely. And beyond all this comes the > encouragement and urging of Sharia to emancipate slaves and to treat > them kindly. > > Islamway Would like some explanation on this. Thanks.

So in Surah 24 verse 33 say > **Sahih International** > > But let them who find not [the means for] marriage abstain [from > sexual relations] until Allah enriches them from His bounty. And those > who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your > right hands possess - then make a contract with them if you know there > is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which > He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, > if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of > worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is > [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful. the sentence "to them" is only in brackets (that means the word to them is not there at all in the original translation) and if we delete the word "to them" in this verse then the meaning is: > then indeed, Allah is, **after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful**. Does this verse speak to slaves or masters? And is it true that Allah will forgive the sins of masters who have forced their slaves to commit prostitution?

Is it correct that there is a consensus that the chastity of a slave girl and her master is not established and even if she gives birth to children of her master unlike where chastity of husband and wife is established due to Nikah? [١٢٠/ ٢] التسري لا يحصل به إحصان للسيد، ولا إحصان للأمة. - موسوعة الإجماع في الفقه الإسلامي **(Note: I have provided heading only under which whole matter of ijma is discussed in the source)** Though In Qur'an Allah says > **And they who guard their private parts.** > > **Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed -** > - Surah Muminoon 5-6 Correct me If I understood it wrong

I'm aware having a slave is permitted. However, can a slave have multiple owners at the same time? If yes, I'm particularly curious of the case for concubines. For example, if a concubine becomes pregnant while having multiple owners, are all the owners responsible for taking care of the baby?

In the following narration, i have a few issues: Link to the narration below > عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، > > ١٣٢٠٨ - عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي مَنْ أُصَدِّقُ عَمَّنْ، > سَمِعَ عَلِيًّا، يَسْأَلُ عَنِ الْأَمَةِ تُبَاعُ أَيَنْظُرُ إِلَى > سَاقِهَا، وَعَجُزِهَا، وَإِلَى بَطْنِهَا؟. قَالَ: «لَا بَأَسَ > بِذَلِكَ، لَا حُرْمَةَ لَهَا، إِنَّمَا وَقَفَتْ لِنُسَاوِمَهَا» > > Abdul Razzaq, > > 13208 - On the authority of Ibn Jurayj, who said: I was told by > someone whose name I believe, who heard Ali being asked about a female > slave being sold, should he look at her leg, her buttocks, and her > belly? He said: “There is nothing wrong with that, she has no > sanctity, she has only been stopped so that we may bargain over her Regarding the quote above, my questions are as follows: - Is this narration authentic? - Is inspecting slave women awrah (navel to knee) by uncovering halal or haram in slave market? - Also, if i'm not wrong, majority of scholars agree a slave women's awrah is **navel to knee**, then how is looking at the **belly** and **buttocks** permitted? Or is it a translation issue as some say "back" and some "buttocks" or "rump"? Is it talking about over clothes or under? Please also let me know from the Arabic which body parts is it actually referring to. Also is checking private parts (awrah of slave women) allowed?

Could anyone please explain this to me? Does it mean if the man then forcefully has sex with her, he won't be punished? Or only in terms of consentual? Is this authentic? > “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."