A brother send me this post and wanted answers to his questions.
Al-Hassan al-Basri (d. 728 AH/110 CE) said: Slave women in Medina used to be told certain things when they went outside. (One night) some foolish people accosted a group of women and bothered (or hurt) them because they thought they were slave women, but they were actually free women. Because of this, the Prophet ordered the believing women to cast their jilbabs upon themselves, so they would be distinguished as free women, and known from the slave women, and not bothered. — Tafsir Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanani (d. 211 AH/826 CE)
Here the free women were told to cover up and not go uncovered like slave woman in order to be distinguished and not attacked. Another report can be read regarding the case of Safiyyah RA :
It was narrated that Anas said: “The Prophet stayed between Khaibar and Al-Madinah for three days when he consummated his marriage to Safiyyah bint Huyayy, and I invited the Muslims to his Walimah, in which there was no bread or meat. He commanded that a leather cloth (be spread) and dates, cottage cheese and ghee were placed on it, and that was his Walimah. The Muslims said: ‘(Will she be) one of the Mothers of the Believers, or a female slave whom his right hand possesses?’ They said: ‘If he has a Hijab for her, then she will be one of the Mothers of the Believers and if she does not have a Hijab then she will be a female slave whom his right hand possesses.’ When he rode on, he set aside a plate for her behind him and extended a Hijab between her and the people.” (Sunan an-Nasa’i 3382 Book 26, Hadith 187; bold emphasis mine)
In fact Umar RA even prevented slave girls from wearing the veil:
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”
As for Umar’s RA son :
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” (Sunan Al-Kubra, Volume 5 page 329)
‘Nafee reported that when ibn Umar wanted to buy a slave-girl he placed his hand on buttocks, between her thighs, and may uncover their her legs’ (Musanaf ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 4 page 289 Tradition 20241)
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 KISSING 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)
Some sources even say how Umar RA prevented slave women from covering in prayer and beat them when they covered themselves up in public :
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)
We are taught that the hijab was intended to promote modesty and protect the integrity of the woman. How can it be if slave women were deprived of it and portrayed with their breasts out and inspected in slave markets. Moreover it would increase temptation in public. Were both Umar’s RA and ibn Umar’s RA actions justified according to the teachings of the Prophet SAW? TO WHAT EXTENT is the difference of Hijab between free women and slave-women? Did they really walked bare-breasted? I need help.
Brother stated:
عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن الحسن قال كن إماء بالمدينة يقال لهن كذا وكذا كن يخرجن فيتعرض لهن السفهاء فيؤذوهن لأنه فكانت المرأة الحرة تخرج فيحسبون أنها أمة فيتعرضون لها ويؤذونها أخبرنا فأمر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم المؤمنات أن يدنين عليهن من جلابيبهن ذلك أدنى أن يعرفن من الإماء أنهن حرائر فلا يؤذين
Al-Hassan al-Basri (d. 728 AH/110 CE) said: Slave women in Medina used to be told certain things when they went outside. (One night) some foolish people accosted a group of women and bothered (or hurt) them because they thought they were slave women, but they were actually free women. Because of this, the Prophet ordered the believing women to cast their jilbabs upon themselves, so they would be distinguished as free women, and known from the slave women, and not bothered. — Tafsir Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanani (d. 211 AH/826 CE).
Here the free women were told to cover up and not go uncovered like slave woman in order to be distinguished and not attacked. Another report can be read regarding the case of Safiyyah RA :
It was narrated that Anas said: "The Prophet stayed between Khaibar and Al-Madinah for three days when he consummated his marriage to Safiyyah bint Huyayy, and I invited the Muslims to his Walimah, in which there was no bread or meat. He commanded that a leather cloth (be spread) and dates, cottage cheese and ghee were placed on it, and that was his Walimah. The Muslims said: '(Will she be) one of the Mothers of the Believers, or a female slave whom his right hand possesses?' They said: 'If he has a Hijab for her, then she will be one of the Mothers of the Believers and if she does not have a Hijab then she will be a female slave whom his right hand possesses.' When he rode on, he set aside a plate for her behind him and extended a Hijab between her and the people." [Sunan an-Nasa'i 3382 : Sahih]
Some sources even say how Umar RA prevented slave women from covering in prayer and beat them when they covered themselves up in public :
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)
RESPONSE: IslamQa Answered a relevant question in following manner:
The hadeeth came after the revelation of the hijaab and after it was made obligatory for the believing women. But the full hijaab is only for free women; slaves and concubines should not resemble free women by wearing the full hijaab.
A slave woman does not have to cover her face, and ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) used to forbid them to do so. This is the case if there is no fear of fitnah from them; but if there is fitnah, then they have to do whatever will prevent that fitnah.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/8489/is-the-hijaab-only-for-a-specific-class-of-womenSo, yes in normal circumstances a slave woman is not required to cover her face. However there could be a difference of opinion between the Jurists over this issue.
As for the issue of Umar(RA) hitting the slave girl, then the word “darab” can mean anything from “flap” to “poke” to “hit.” The narration here does not anyhow suggest that `Umar (ra) hit her inhumanely. Rather it simply tells us that he disallowed her to cover her head like free women do. But since these arguments are raised by Shias or atleast copied from then, then its important to make them taste their own medicine. So let's see what was the view of their infallible Imams from Shia books.
It is also narrated by Shahid al-Awwal in Dhikra [3:10] and al-Barqi in al-Mahasin [2:318]:
سألت أبا عبد الله (ع) عن المملوكة تقنع رأسها إذا صلت؟ قال لا قد كان أبى إذا رأى الخادمة تصلى في مقنعة ضربها لتعرف الحرة من المملوكة
“I asked Aba `Abd Allah [al-Sadiq] (as) concerning the possession’s covering of her head when she prayed? He replied: ‘No! For when my father saw the female servant *praying* with a scarf on, he hit her; so that the free can be known from the possession.”
And it is in Man La Yahduruh al-Faqih – by al-Saduq – [1:373] and al-Kafi [5:525] that Imam al-Baqir said:
ليس على الأمة قناع في الصلاة
“There is no cover for the slave girl during pray.”
This report is declared “Sahih” by the Grand Ayatullah al-Sayyid Muhammad Sadiq al-Ruhani in Fiqh al-Sadiq [4:228]
In fact, it is narrated in Qadi Nu`man al-Maghribi’s Da`a’im al-Islam [1:177] and al-Nuri’s Mustadrak al-Wasa’il [3:217] that Ja`far al-Sadiq was asked about the permissibility for a slave girl to cover her head during prayers and he replied:
لا كان أبى رضوان الله عليه إذا رأى أمة تصلى وعليها مقنعة ضربها وقال يا لكع لا تتشبهي بالحرائر
“No, When my father, `alayh as-salam, saw a slave girl praying and she had a scarf on her, he hit her! And he said: ‘You rascal! Do not resemble the free ones!’”
There is another report which is used by Shias:
عن المسيب بن دارم قال : رأيت عمر وفي يده درة فضرب رأس أمة حتى سقط القناع عن رأسها ، قال : فيم الأمة تشبه بالحرة
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
RESPONSE:It does not matter what al-Musayyab ibn Darim saw or heard, for he himself and his credibility are both unknown. Which makes this narration inauthentic.
Brother Said:
In fact Umar RA even prevented slave girls from wearing the veil:
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”
RESPONSE:This is how the narration is in both Sunan al-Kubra [2:227 (Dar al-Fikr) = 2:227 (Dar al-Baz)] and Ma`rifat al-Sunan wa al-Athar [2:94 (Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyya)] of al-Bayhaqi:
وأخبرنا أبو القاسم عبد الرحمن بن عبيد الله الحرفي ببغداد أنبأ علي بن محمد بن الزبير الكوفي ثنا الحسن بن علي بن عفان ثنا زيد بن الحباب عن حماد بن سلمة قال حدثني ثمامة بن عبد الله بن أنس عن جده أنس بن مالك قال كن إماء عمر رضي الله عنه يخدمننا كاشفات عن شعورهن تضرب ثديهن
Few points to note here:
- Since the narration starts with “kunna,” it would send the sentence to the farther past, and “serve” is used as a present-future tense [mudari`] verb so that would make it “used to serve us” not “were serving us.”
- The “tadrabu” here refers to the hair but not to the breasts. So the hair hit the breasts, the breasts do not hit each other! So the correct translation of the text [matn] would be:
“The slaves of `Umar (ra) used to serve us with their hair uncovered and hitting their breast.”
Let us for arguments sake believe that the hair was uncovered and their breasts were hitting each other.
How on earth does that necessitate being nude? The conjectures of Rafidi imaginations are worth pondering over, but moving breasts can symbolize loose cloths, silk, or even the swiftness of the service mentioned in the Hadith. If a woman is wearing a shirt but not wearing hijab and undergarments, then you can see her breasts shaking while she moves. It doesn't mean that her breasts are uncovered and out in the open.
- What Imam al-Bayhaqi said actually clears the misconception. What al-Bayhaqi said in Sunan al-Kubra after narrating this narration is:
والآثار عن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه في ذلك صحيحة وانها تدل على أن رأسها ورقبتها وما يظهر منها في حال المحنة ليس بعورة
“and the reports from `Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) concerning that (issue) are rigorously authentic [sahiha] and they serve as a proof that her head, neck and whatever was revealed from it in the state of endurance is not considered the `awra.”
This is sufficient to show that the “serve” part in the Hadith is the reason behind the revelation. What any unbiased person would understand from this is that disclosures during service take place and this narration provides proof that such revelation is not from the `awra. That is a it, an issue of jurisprudence.
Brother then said:
As for Umar’s RA son :
عن نافع ، عن ابن عمر " أنه كان إذا اشترى جارية كشف عن ساقها ووضع يده بين ثدييها و على عجزها
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” (Sunan Al-Kubra, Volume 5 page 329)
‘Nafee reported that when ibn Umar wanted to buy a slave-girl he placed his hand on buttocks, between her thighs, and may uncover their her legs’ (Musanaf ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 4 page 289 Tradition 20241)
RESPONSE: The word used here is “jariya.” Jariya refers to a very young girl that has the ability to run around, not even a girl who attained puberty.
The act of Ibn `Umar (ra) has no aphrodisiacal side to it as the Shias love to believe. A jariya or a little girl was checked not so one can fulfil their desires right in front of hundreds of marketers, but to see whether the girl suffers through any deficiencies and injuries or not, so she could serve with proficiency and be a good working servant.
This is further cleared from another Sahih narration right before the one you quoted from in Irwa al-Ghalil [6:201]:
أن ابن عمر كان يضع يده بين ثدييها ( يعني الجارية ) وعلى عجزها من فوق الثياب ويكشف عن ساقها
“Ibn `Umar (ra) used to put his hand between her [meaning the jariya’s] breasts and on her haunch from above (her) clothes and used to unveil her leg.”
Now the question is, if Ibn `Umar (ra) really was doing what the Shi`is think he was doing, then why did he choose to unveil her leg and not her chest and haunch?
The answer is simple. Because the bones and muscle between the breasts [sternum, ribs, etc.] and the haunch [pelvis, etc.] can be checked with the clothes on, but the disfigurement of legs or anything related to it would require the uncovering of the legs since women in those days wore long coverings, not pants.
It should also be kept in mind that, in those days slave girl trade was similar to other trades, in which buyers had to rely on their senses, and not solely on the word of the salesperson. It is in this light that Ibn Umar saw it as permissible to touch slave girls (not directly, but with clothes as a separation) in order to inspect if they meet his requirements. If Ibn Umar’s actions were purely sexual, then he may as well have touched her from under her clothes.
One should be aware that slaves were bought and sold and that some matters that surrounded them were seen as permissible when they usually would not be.
Similar to the above, we find that Ali, the first infallible imam, in an authentic Shia chain, did the same thing:
أنه كان إذا أراد أن يشتري الجارية يكشف عن ساقيها فينظر إليها
[Mohammad Al-Baqir narrated from Ali (alaihi al-salam) that when he wanted to buy a slave girl, he would expose her legs and look at her.]
Shia source: Qurb Al-Isnad (p. 103) by Al-Himyari. And this report is declared reliable [mu`tabira] by Grand Ayatullah Abu al-Qasim al-Khu’i in Kitab al-Nikah [1:33].
Shias also quote this report:
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
RESPONSE: This is unreliable report. Narrated by Mu`ammar from Ibn Abi Najih. While Ibn Abi Najih never narrated traditions to Mu`ammar.
Brother stated:
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 KISSING 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)
RESPONSE:This is incorrect and mischievous translation, and seems the original source of the article which had this report with incorrect translation, has corrected the translation. And this is the current translation they have for this report:
حدثنا جرير عن منصور عن مجاهد قال كنت مع بن عمر امشي في السوق فإذا نحن بناس من النخاسين قد اجتمعوا على جارية يقلبونها فلما راوا بن عمر تنحوا وقالوا بن عمر قد جاء فدنا منها بن عمر فلمس شيئا من جسدها وقال أين أصحاب هذه الجارية إنما هي سلعة
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.
This serves as a perfect example that how the Shias have fooled people with this deceitful translations.
Anyways, The purpose for procuring such slave girls was not molestation or enjoyment with them in marketplaces. Rather to free them from the trade market and provide them with an Islamic atmosphere, so they could understand the wisdom behind Islam and accept it.
The issue of slavery is a sensitive one. Normally, the view in an average secularist’s eyes is nothing but a fragment of imagination; such as chains, ill-treatment, hostility, discrimination, or even nudity. But when we say “slave” we mean bond servants, not the slaves kept by the English.
Who are treated in the same manner others are. As stated in the Qur’an:
“Worship Allah, and do not associate with Him anything, and be good to parents and to kinsmen and orphans and the needy and the close neighbor and the distant neighbor and the companion at your side and the wayfarer and to those (slaves who are) owned by you. Surely, Allah does not like those who are arrogant, proud, those who are miserly and bid people to be miserly, and conceal what Allah has given them of His grace - and We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment, and (for) those who spend their wealth only to show people, and do not believe in Allah and the Last Day. Anyone for whom Satan is companion, evil he is as a companion.” [4:36-38]
This is why one would find examples where servants or slaves were either married or freed after being purchased.
The only difference is of the rights; not conduct. And that difference too is scrupulously just in light of theism and religious conventialites.
Courtesy: Multaqa ahlalhadeeth post.