Breastfeeding an Elder رضاع الكبير & Recovering our Institutionalized Character
By Khalid Alkhaja
Our nation must regain its bold and institutionalized character. Until then, I would not be surprised if Muslims in our time denounced some of the legislations and practices of the charitable centuries القرون الخيرية (an institutionalized society of the first 3 Muslim generations) during the era of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) and his righteous companions الصحابة and the predecessors السلف , may Allah be pleased with them, and their sincere followers التابعين لهم باحسان.
The outputs of the methodology followed by the former Muslims السابقون during the charitable centuries were institutionalized and balanced, considering the reality (circumstances), tasks and associated risks. While the outputs of their successor’s اللاحقون methodology are a set of biased legislation and practices, that tend to rightfully fight the risks of seduction الفتنة , but without regard for tasks and circumstances.
This makes us frown and turn away from what seems to us to be pornographic and reckless practices, which were common among the former Muslims during the charitable centuries; and because we are unable to deny some of these correct and explicit Qur'anic practices, we seek in good faith to interpret or restrict them in order to prevent seduction الفتنة.
For now, I will not blame you my dear reader if you repeat to yourself while scratching your chin in astonishment and skepticism: Khalid has gone mad and gone astray!
I say: Rest assured my ‘Knight of truth’ and lend me the ears of your free mind and your brave heart, and read this article to the finish line, and then you can judge me crazy or Masonic.
But in order to find this proposal agreeable, we must address a number of the outputs of the former Muslims during the charitable centuries and their institutionalized methodologies, namely: ‘Awrah’ of a free Muslim woman عورة الحرة (‘Awrah’ in Arabic refers to private parts of the body that are not supposed to be exposed except to the spouse), ‘Awrah’ of an enslaved Muslim womanعورة الأَمَة and breastfeeding an elder male رضاع الكبير. Such practices are phenomenal if compared to what was practiced globally in those ages.
First: The Awrah of a Free Muslim Woman (عورة الحرة)
The former Muslims during the charitable centuries allowed a free Muslim woman to dress comfortably in the privacy of her home, displaying her adorning in front of her adult male slave. The former Muslims were content with her covering just her Awrah (from the navel to the knee) by loosening her clothes, if necessary, thereby exempting her from the hardship and obstacle of wearing the hijab and full clothes in the privacy of her home because of her adult male slave, despite the associated risks on the society because of her displaying her adornment. They considered the adult male slave part of her male ‘mahram’ المحارم , in order to improve the quality of her life and help her to settle in her home (her world), which is the supreme objective of the Islamic society as in verse 33 of chapter Al-Ahzab سورة الأحزاب {وَقَرنَ فِی بُیُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجنَ تَبَرُّجَ ٱلجَـٰهِلِیَّةِ ٱلأُولَى} (and stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves like that of the times of ignorance).
Under this bold legislation, a free Muslim woman was equated with a free Muslim man in the right to own male slaves. In fact, this is a purely institutionalized legislation, which balances the benefits of a free Muslim woman staying at her home and the risks of her adorning in front of her adult male slave, with the utmost realism, justice and humanity. And read if you wish the interpretation of verse 31 of chapter An-Nur سورة النور {أَو مَا مَلَكَت أَیمَـٰنُهُنَّ} (or the slaves whom their right hands possess).
The former Muslims during the charitable centuries also allowed the free elder Muslim women القواعد من النساء who cannot give birth, have stop menstruating and do not desire marriage due to old age, to take off some of their clothes (rope الجلباب) in front of men on the condition that they are not adorned, and with the aim of improving the quality of their life, by enabling them to loosen their clothes, and thus exempt them from the hardship and obstacle of wearing the jilbab جلباب over their clothes. In fact, this is a purely institutionalized legislation, which balances the benefits of modesty of the free elder Muslim women and the risks of her adorning in front of men, with the utmost realism, justice and humanity. And read if you wish the interpretation of verse 60 of chapter An-Nur سورة النور { فَلَیسَ عَلَیهِنَّ جُنَاحٌ أَن یَضَعنَ ثِیَابَهُنَّ} (there is no blame upon them for putting aside their garments).
Second: The Awrah of an Enslaved Muslim Woman (عورة الأمَة)
During the charitable centuries القرون الخيرية , the former Muslims السلف considered the ‘awrah’ of an adult enslaved Muslim woman as the ‘awrah’ of a free Muslim man (from the navel to the knee). This bold legislation aims to improve the quality of life of an adult enslaved Muslim women who are tasked to perform hard work outdoors, just like a free Muslim man. Thus, the former Muslims simply equated her with a free Muslim man and enabled her to loosen her clothes if her work required it, thus relieving her from the hardship and obstacle of wearing the hijab and clothes while performing her tasks, as men do. According to this provision, it is okay for an adult enslaved Muslim woman to take the permission and put down her clothes, despite the associated risks of seduction on the society because of her adorning. In fact, this is a purely institutionalized legislation, which balances the benefits that the enslaved (working) Muslim woman brings to the society, with the associated risks that her adorning causes to the society, with the utmost realism, justice and humanity.
Third: Breastfeeding an Elder Male (رضاع الكبير)
Some of the former Muslims during the charitable centuries, led by the Prophet (ﷺ), allowed the practice of "breastfeeding an elder male" with the aim of improving the quality of life of a free Muslim woman who lacked a chaperone and found it hard to stay at her houses (as expected). This practice enabled her to expand the range of her male ‘mahram’ المحارم (a chaperone that she cannot ever marry, such as her father) when needed, by breastfeeding a free Muslim adult, thus exempting a free Muslim woman from the hardship of wearing hijab and covering up in presence of non-’mahram’ Muslim man (a necessary chaperone) and that in the privacy of their home! In fact, the authentic teachings of the prophet (ﷺ) ‘hadith’ الصحيحة الآحاديث describe to us how different, realistic, intellectually and culturally advanced that pure Muslim community (the charitable centuries) used to be. This is a purely institutionalized legislation, which balances the benefits that the staying of a free Muslim woman in her home bring to the society with the risks that her adorning may cause to the society as a result of mixing with those whom she cannot do without in her daily life, with the utmost realism, justice and humanity.
In fact, the ‘hadith’ of "breastfeeding an elder male" is authentic and was narrated by Aisha, the mother of the believers ام المؤمنين عائشة (may Allah be pleased with her). As an institutionalized individual, I am proud of this ‘hadith’, and consider it one of the deepest institutionalized ‘hadith’, even if it sounds strange to others. Here is an example of that ‘hadith’, and its number is 1453 as reported in the ‘Sahih of Imam Muslim’ صحيح مسلم (may Allah have mercy on him), book al-Ridda' كتاب الرضاعة , chapter on ‘breastfeeding an elder’ باب رضاع الكبير :
A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) and said: Messenger of Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) said: “Suckle him”. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) smiled and said: “I already know that he is a young man”.
"عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ: جَاءَتْ سَهْلَةُ بِنْتُ سُهَيْلٍ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ (ﷺ) فَقَالَتْ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ! إِنِّي أَرَى فِي وَجْهِ أَبِي حُذَيْفَةَ مِنْ دُخُولِ سَالِمٍ (و َهُوَ حَلِيفُهُ). فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ (ﷺ): "أَرْضِعِيهِ". قَالَتْ: وَ كَيْفَ أُرْضِعُهُ وَ هُوَ رَجُلٌ كَبِيرٌ؟! فَتَبَسَّمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ (ﷺ) و َقَالَ: "قَدْ عَلِمْتُ أَنَّهُ رَجُلٌ كَبِيرٌ".
https://sunnah.com/muslim:1453a
Dr. Maher Yassin Al-Fahal ماهر ياسين الفحل(College of Islamic Sciences, Ramadi, Anbar University, Department of Jurisprudence and its Fundamentals) has quoted us in his distinguished research "No prohibition in breastfeeding the elder" the opinion of the majority of scholars of Islam that: Breastfeeding that affects the prohibition يؤثر في التحريم (results in becoming a ‘mahram’) is what was in the first two years of the infant's life. If a boy is breastfed after they have passed those two years, such breastfeeding has no effect on the prohibition (becoming a ‘mahram’). This is the opinion of those who reject ‘Breastfeeding an Elder’, and Dr. Maher favors this opinion in his research. However, Dr. Maher has also quoted us the sayings of the former Muslims المتقدمين on the issue of ‘breastfeeding an elderly’, namely:
The first saying: Those who entirely refuse to ‘breastfeed an elder’, and this as mentioned by Dr. Maher is the opinion of most of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and the majority of the Muslim scholars.
The second saying: Those who entirely accept to ‘breastfeed an elder’, and this is the opinion of some of the Companions, led by the Mother of the Believers Aisha, may Allah be pleased with them.
The third and compromising saying (which I tend to): Those who accept to ‘breastfeed an elder” when necessary, but not entirely. This view was chosen by Imam Ibn Taymiyyah الامام ابن تيمية (may Allah have mercy on him), as narrated by Ibn al-Qayyim الامام ابن القيم (may Allah have mercy on him). Ibn al-Qayyim stated that this position is the closest to working with all ‘hadiths’, and it was also chosen by Imam al-Shawkaani الامام الشوكاني , Imam al-San'ani الامام الصنعاني and others, may Allah have mercy on them. Most of those who hold this view require that a nursing woman gathers her milk in a glass for the elder male to drink from, without the need to touch each other.
The above three examples illustrate the realistic and balanced judgments of the former Muslims during the charitable centuries. They enabled the free Muslim women to adhere to verse 33 of chapter Al-Ahzab سورة الاحزاب {وَقَرنَ فِی بُیُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجنَ تَبَرُّجَ ٱلجَـٰهِلِیَّةِ ٱلأُولَى} (and stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves like that of the times of ignorance) by equating their rights with the rights of free Muslim men in owning male slaves. They helped the enslaved Muslim women to perform hard work outdoors like free Muslim men, by equating their dress code (awrah) with men's. What a realistic, balanced and institutionalized society!
In fact, the excellence of the former Muslims during the charity centuries gets manifested, if we reflect on the legislations that they did not adopt. For example, in the matter of the free Muslim woman's dealings with her adult male slave, they could have forbidden her to own a male slave in order to ward off risks of seduction الفتنة , thus depriving her of what is permissible for a free Muslim man, but the former Muslims did not like this solution. They could have imposed hijab on the free Muslim woman in the presence of her adult male slave in order to ward off seduction, thus making life difficult for her in the privacy of her house, but they did not adopt this ruling as well.
Shaikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid الشيخ محمد صالح المنجد (may Allah reward him) explains on his website the reason for the leniency of the former Muslims during the charitable centuries regarding the ‘awrah’ of the enslaved Muslim woman, saying:
"Sharia came to differentiate between the free and enslaved women, as the free woman veils with full hijab, while the enslaved woman loosens her cloths, and it is permissible for the enslaved woman to reveal her head (hair), hands and face because of the great need to use them (for working outdoors), and the imposition of the hijab on them is a great hardship."
"جاء الشرع بالتفريق بين الحرائر و الإماء، فالحرة تحتجب الحجاب الكامل، و الأمة تبرز، و يجوز لها كشف رأسها و يديها و وجهها لكثرة الحاجة في استخدامهن، و كان فرض الحجاب عليهن مما يشق مشقة بالغة".
https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/220750
Shaikh al-Munajjid further describes to us on his website the enslaved women of the Caliph 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), saying:
Al-Bayhaqi البيهقي (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his Sunnan السُنن 3222: It was narrated that Anas ibn Malik أنس بن مالك (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Umar’s enslaved women (may Allah be pleased with him) used to serve us, unveiling their hairs that touched their breasts”. The transmitted chain is fine.
"قال البيهقي رحمه الله في سننه 3222: عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ قَالَ: كُنَّ إِمَاءُ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ يَخْدِمْنَنَا كَاشِفَاتٍ عَنْ شُعُورِهِنَّ تَضْرِبُ ثُدِيّهُنَّ". و هذا إسناد حسن.
https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/198645/
Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated to us in his collection of fatwas مجموع الفتاوى how the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) used to beat (spanked) enslaved woman if she went out (outdoors) veiled like a free Muslim woman:
"Whenever Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) saw a veiled enslaved woman, he used to spank her and say: 'How could you resemble a free Muslim women, you fool?!”
"و كَانَ عُمَرُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ إذَا رَأَى أَمَةً مُخْتَمِرَةً ضَرَبَهَا وَ قَالَ: أَتَتَشَبَّهِينَ بِالْحَرَائِرِ أَيْ لَكَاع؟"
https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/198645/
Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, I do not need to conduct a survey among the Muslim community to be prove that the majority of the general public nowadays will denounce the previous examples and find even talking about them provocative and corruptive. They would even consider them as pornographic and reckless practices, even though they were common among the former Muslims during the charity centuries.
As for our distinguished scholars, they never denied that during the time of charitable centuries, an enslaved woman (albeit an adult) could show up to men while covering between her navel and knee, just as free Muslim men could do. They have not denied that an enslaved woman (as opposed to a free Muslim woman) was required to work outdoors like a free Muslim man (does not stay home as a free Muslim woman does). However, scholars differed regarding the details of issues such as the breastfeeding an elder male, or the ‘awrah’ of the enslaved woman in presence of men (outdoors) or the ‘awrah’ of the free Muslim woman in presence of her adult male slave (in her house). They differed in the details depending on their custom and the degree of reservation. In this regard, scholars could be put into three categories, as follows:
First Category: A venerable and loyal group of scholars, but over-conservative, ever-anxious, and may suffer from seduction-phobia. The interest of society takes precedence over the individual in order to eliminate all seditions precursors. They can’t coexist with any degree of seduction risk on society, and at any cost. However, they (such as the Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam Ibn Hazm and Allama Al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on them) have my trust. They are the companions of their time, my imams and my role models, even if I disagree with them in some matters.
Second Category: A liberal over-permissive group. They are victims of colonialism and its outputs. They are a reckless group, suffering from globalization-phobia. Their purpose is to satisfy people by downsizing the threat of seduction and accepting the status quo, at any risk and cost to the society. They are known for defaming the science of hadith, challenging the justice of the companions of the prophet (ﷺ), and re-interpreting the Qur'an to emulate the Western liberal values. They do not have my trust and I do not consider them my role models, even if I agree with them on some issues.
Third Category: A institutionalized group, with a compromising methodology that balances the risks of seduction against the rights of both the individual and society. They can coexist with some calculated degree of seduction in order to achieve a greater interest. This is the methodology of the former Muslims during the charitable centuries. These (such as Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani and Sheikh Saleh Al-Moghamsi, may Allah protect them) have my confidence and appreciation. They are the companions of their time, my imams and my role models, even if I disagree with them in some matters.
Therefore, scholars of the first category would equate the ‘awrah’ of the enslaved woman with the ‘awrah’ of the free woman, because they are both females and despite of their different tasks. Such scholars refuse to coexist with risks of seduction associated with the adorning of the enslaved Muslim woman. Their methodology gives utmost importance to the elimination and warding off risks of seduction. They don’t consider the rights of the enslaved Muslim woman as a human being who is tasked to perform differently when compared to the free Muslim woman. But because our first category of scholars are unable to refute the explicit practices that were popular in the era of the former Muslims, they strive to interpret or restrict them (in good faith) in order to eradicate risks of seduction on the society.
On the other hand, the scholars of the third category would equate the ‘awrah’ of the enslaved Muslim woman to the ‘awrah’ of the free Muslim man, as both of them perform hard work outdoors (irrespective of their different genders). Their institutionalized methodology balances between risk of seductions and tasks required to be performed. They consider the interests of both parties (the individual and the society) and conclude that it is unjust for the society to benefit from the enslaved woman performing free Muslim men’s work, without benefiting from a free Muslim man’s relaxed dress code (‘awrah’). Therefore, such scholars were content to live with the risks of seduction associated with adorning of the enslaved Muslim woman as a result of following free Muslim man’s dress code or ‘awrah’.
In this regard, the website of the "Comprehensive Library of Hadith" المكتبة الشاملة الحديثية as well as the website of Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, quote the words of the Imam Al-Uthaymeen العثيمين (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding "Sharh Al-Mumti'" شرح الممتع , saying:
"The enslaved woman (albeit an adult), her ‘awrah’ is from the navel to the knee. If the enslaved woman prays uncovered except between the navel and the knee, her prayer is correct, because it will cover what she must cover in prayer."
"الأَمَةُ (و لو بالغة) و هي المملوكة، فعورتها من السُّرَّة إلى الرُّكبة. فلو صلَّت الأَمَةُ مكشوفة البدن ما عدا ما بين السُّرَّة و الرُّكبة، فصلاتها صحيحة، لأنَّها سترت ما يجب عليها سَتْرُه في الصَّلاة".
https://al-maktaba.org/book/31615/29982
Al-Uthaymeen adds: "With regard to the chapter of ‘looking’ باب النظر , the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) stated that the 'awrah’ of the enslaved woman is also between the navel and the knee. But Shaykh al-Islam ابن تيمية (may Allah have mercy on him) opposed this issue with regard to the chapter of ‘looking’ باب النظر , while Ibn Hazm ابن حزم opposed it in the chapters of ‘looking’ and ‘praying’ باب النظر و باب الصلاة , and (Ibn Hazm) said:
"The enslaved woman is like a free woman, because their nature is one and creation is one, and slavery is an accidental description that is outside her reality and nature, and there is no evidence of differentiation between her and a free woman."
Al-Uthaymeen adds: Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: "The enslaved woman in the era of the Prophet (ﷺ), did not veil like the free women, because they were not sedative. They resembled the elder women who do not desire marriage, the Almighty said regarding them { فَلَیسَ عَلَیهِنَّ جُنَاحٌ أَن یَضَعنَ ثِیَابَهُنَّ} (there is no blame upon them for putting aside their garments) chapter Al-Nur, verse 60.
Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah added: "As for the Turkish slaves with beautiful faces, they can never be like a slave in the era of the Prophet (ﷺ), and she must cover her whole body from sight, in the chapter of ‘looking’."
"و أما في باب النَّظر: فقد ذكر الفقهاءُ رحمهم الله تعالى أن عورة الأَمَة أيضاً ما بين السُّرَّة و الرُّكبة. ولكن شيخ الإسلام رحمه الله في باب النَّظر عارض هذه المسألة، كما عارضها ابن حزم في باب النَّظر و في باب الصَّلاة، و قال ابن حزم:
"إن الأَمَة كالحُرَّة، لأن الطَّبيعة واحدة و الخِلْقَة واحدة، و الرِّقُّ وصف عارض خارج عن حقيقتها و ماهيَّتها، و لا دليلَ على التَّفريق بينها و بين الحُرَّة".
و قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية: "إنَّ الإماء في عهد الرسول (ﷺ)، و إن كُنَّ لا يحتجبن كالحرائر، لأن الفتنة بهنَّ أقلُّ، فَهُنَّ يُشبهنَ القواعدَ مـن النِّساء اللاتي لا يرجون نكاحاً، قـال تعالى فيهن {فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْهِنَّ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ يَضَعْنَ ثِيَابَهُنَّ غَيْرَ مُتَبَرِّجَاتٍ بِزِينَةٍ}" النور: من الآية 60. "و أما الإماء التركيَّات الحِسَان الوجوه، فهذا لا يمكن أبداً أن يَكُنَّ كالإماء في عهد الرسول (ﷺ)، و يجب عليها أن تستر كلَّ بدنها عن النَّظر، في باب النَّظر".
https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/220750/
Shaikh Al-Uthaymeen comments: "And he (Ibn Taymiyyah) explained this with a good and acceptable reasoning, and he said: "The purpose of the hijab is to cover what is feared to cause seduction الفتنة unlike when in prayer, and for this reason a person must cover in prayer, even if he is alone in a place that only Allah can see. But in case of ‘looking’ النظر , it is necessary to cover up where people are looking."
He (Ibn Taymiyyah) said: "The issue in this is not the issue in that, as the issue in ‘looking’ is: fear of seduction, and there is no difference in this between free women and enslaved women."
Shaikh Al-Uthaymeen comments: “His statement is undoubtedly true, and that is what should be followed." The words of the Imam al-'Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) ends here.
قال (العلامة العثيمين): "و علَّل ذلك بتعليل جيِّدٍ مقبولٍ، فقال: "إن المقصود من الحجاب هو ستر ما يُخاف منه الفِتنة بخلاف الصَّلاة، و لهذا يجب على الإنسان أن يستتر في الصَّلاة، و لو كان خالياً في مكان لا يطَّلع عليه إلا الله. لكن في باب النَّظر إنما يجب التَّستر حيث ينظر الناس". قال: "فالعِلَّة في هذا غير العِلَّة في ذاك، فالعِلَّة في النَّظر: خوف الفتنة، و لا فرق في هذا بين النِّساء الحرائر و النِّساء الإماء".
و قوله صحيح بلا شكٍّ، و هو الذي يجب المصير إليه". انتهى كلام العلامة العثيمين، رحمه الله.
https://al-maktaba.org/book/31615/29982
My dear reader, Sharia has come to achieve and complement interests of individuals and the society, and to disable and reduce evils. Therefore, I agree with the honorable imams such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Hazm and Al-Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on them) that managing the risks of seduction and finding what eliminates them or alleviates them is a legislative necessity, which is at the heart of commendable institutionalized work.
However, although managing the risks of seduction was also a priority for the former Muslims during the charitable centuries, we find that they have chosen to live with some risks and seductions (which has always worried the successors اللاحقون) rather than eliminating them, in accordance with the principle of choosing between the lowest of two evil. The proof of this is that the former Muslims in the charitable centuries accepted to live with the risks of seduction associated with a free Muslim woman adorning at her home and in front of her adult male slave, and them accepting to coexist with the seduction associated with an enslaved woman adorning in front of men outside the house.
Indeed, the corporation of the former Muslims during the charitable centuries had even accepted to live with the risks of the seduction of shirk and kufr الشرك و الكفر on Muslim children (which is the mother of all risks and seductions), when they approved Muslim man to marry a Jewish and a Christian women, and thus to live with the risk of seduction by taking non-Muslim wives as mothers and nannies for his children.
Then I am surprised when I find the successors اللاحقون such as our honorable imams Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Hazm and Al-Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on them) being ascetic in the approach of the former Muslims of the charitable centuries when they practice managing the risks of temptation, and tend to fully incline with their anxious methodology to cut off all seductions, through their soft withdrawal from the former Muslim’s legislations that offered concessions and facilities in the dress code of enslaved Muslim women. And there is a difference between the balanced rulings issued by the former Muslims during the charitable centuries with their institutionalized methodology in managing the risks of women's seductions, and the biased rulings issued by the institution of successors that is afflicted with women’s seduction phobia, until they ended up preventing women from driving a car to ward off seduction, and until Sheikh Nasir al-Din al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) disagreed and said in objection: Ask them, is it not permissible for a woman to ride a donkey? And which is more seditious, riding in the car or riding a donkey?!
As you can see my dear reader, the Imam Al-Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) confirms that Muslim jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) considered the ‘awrah’ of the enslaved woman in both cases (prayer and looking) is between the navel and the knee. But then he tells us that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on them) opposed the jurists (and the former Muslims in the charitable centuries).
But the argument of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) is hypothetical and is not based on explicit and correct evidence. Because he assumed a hypothesis that may bear the error of 600 years, when he assumed that the enslaved women in the era of the Prophet (ﷺ) did not wear hijab like free Muslim women because they were not as seductive, and that they were not beautiful and resembled the elder women (unlike the beautiful Turkish slaves in his time). Accordingly, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) believes that an enslaved woman should cover all her body from the sight of men, just like a free Muslim woman, because the enslaved woman is a ‘female’ like a free woman, regardless of their different tasks. Thus he is closer to following the biased and anxious methodology of the successors than the confident, balanced and institutionalized methodology of the former Muslims during the charitable centuries.
Moreover, a period of 3 to 6 centuries come between the time of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) and the time of the charitable centuries, which is a very long period and does not qualify him (Ibn Taymiyyah) to judge the beauty of the enslaved women during the charitable centuries, except with the authority (evidence). But where is such evidence?! Then who said that the Arabic, Jewish, Persian and Levantine enslaved women during the charitable centuries were less beautiful than the Turkish enslaved women?! {إِن یَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا ٱلظَّنَّ وَ مَا تَهوَى ٱلأَنفُسُ} (they follow nothing but assumptions and whatever their souls’ desires) chapter An-Najm, verse 23.
It seems to me that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) based his opinion on conjecture, and thus contradicted (in good faith) with what was practiced by the former Muslims during the charitable centuries.
Here, it becomes clear how the behaviors and practices of societies change over decades and centuries to gradually deviate from its origins between excess and negligence إفراط و تفريط , by becoming more liberated and destructive (such as the negligence of Liberalism) or more conservative and destructive (such as the excessiveness of conservatism). Time can change nations and disturb their balance, to deviate gradually and unconsciously from their pure and balanced essence, just as the people of Noah (ﷺ) النبي نوح unconsciously deviated over the centuries from the justice of monotheism to the injustice of polytheism. Or as the Muslim community has been deviating over the centuries from its just institutionalized origin to its unjust presumptive present.
It is also clear to us that scholars such as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Hazm, al-'Allama al-'Uthaymeen and others (may Allah have mercy on them) are examples of over-conservative scholars and surpassing the former Muslims in the charitable centuries. It is as if the over-conservatives wish to quietly erase the memory of the Islamic nation and redefine the ‘awrah’ of the enslaved woman to be the same as the ‘awrah’ of the free Muslim woman (as in the case of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and the Imam al-Uthaymeen and others, may Allah bless their souls), despite their different tasks. It is as if the over-conservatives wish to prevent free Muslim women from adorning in front of their adult male slave in the privacy of their homes (as in the case of Imam Ibn Hazm and others, may Allah bless their souls), for fear of seduction.
Perhaps examining different interpretations of verse 31 of Surat Al-Nur:
{ أَو مَا مَلَكَت أَیمَـٰنُهُنَّ} (or the slaves whom their right hands possess) is enough to show the over-conservative successor’s relentless pursuit of restricting every practice of the former Muslims during the charitable centuries, that seems pornographic and corrupt them. Here is a sample of what is mentioned in the occasion of the revelation أسباب النزول (of verses), in the interpretation of Al-Baghwi تفسير البغوي:
"The scholars differed in the interpretation of { أَو مَا مَلَكَت أَیمَـٰنُهُنَّ} (or the slaves whom their right hands possess), so some people said: A (free Muslim) woman's (male) slave is ‘mahram’ to her, so it is permissible for him to enter on her if he is chaste, and to look at the body of his sire except between the navel and the knee, like her ‘mahram’, which is the letteral meaning of the Qur'an. This was narrated from 'Aisha and um Salamah (may Allah be pleased with them)."
"Some people said: He (the slave) is like a foreigner with her (the free Muslim woman), which is the saying of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib سعيد بن المسيب (Taabi'I تابعي, may Allah have mercy on him, is the follower of the companions of the prophet ﷺ) and he said: What is meant by the verse is enslaved women and not enslaved men. Ibn Jurayj ابن جريج (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Or their wives or their enslaved women, that it is not permissible for a Muslim woman to be stripped in presence of a polytheistic woman, except if that polytheistic woman is her enslave woman."
"إخْتَلَف العلماء فِي تفسير {أَو مَا مَلَكَت أَیمَـٰنُهُنَّ}، فَقَالَ قَوْمٌ: عَبْدُ الْمَرْأَةِ مَحْرَمٌ لَهَا، فَيَجُوزُ لَهُ الدُّخُولُ عَلَيْهَا إِذَا كَانَ عَفِيفًا، وَ أَنْ يَنْظُرَ إِلَى بَدَنِ مَوْلَاتِهِ إِلَّا مَا بَيْنَ السُّرَّةِ وَ الرُّكْبَةِ، كَالْمَحَارِمِ و َهُوَ ظَاهِرُ الْقُرْآنِ. رُوِيَ ذَلِكَ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ وَ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ رضوان الله عليهما".
"وَ قَالَ قَوْمٌ: هُوَ (العبد) كَالْأَجْنَبِيِّ مَعَهَا (المرأة)، وَ هُوَ قَوْلُ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيَّبِ (تابعي) رحمه الله، و َقَالَ: الْمُرَادُ مِنَ الْآيَةِ الْإِمَاءُ دُونَ الْعَبِيدِ. و عن ابن جريج أنه قال: أو نسائهن أو ما ملكت أيمانهن أنه لا يحل لامرأة مسلمة أن تتجرد بين يدي امرأة مشركة إلا أن تكون تلك المرأة المشركة أَمَة لها".
https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/baghawy/sura24-aya31.html
It is worth mentioning, as quoted by the website of Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, may Allah bless him, that the interpretation of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and the Imam Ibn Al-Uthaymeen, may Allah bless their souls, of the previous verse and their position on the male slave looking at his adorned free female Muslim (the owner), is considered a purely institutional position, as it is based on the need of the free Muslim woman and not on her gender. Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, may Allah bless him, says:
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: "Based on this, his (Allah) saying:
{أَو مَا مَلَكَت أَیمَـٰنُهُنَّ} “or the slaves whom their right hands possess”, indicates that she has the right to show her inner adornment to her male slave (that she owns). In this regard, there are two sayings (two opinions of two groups of the scholars):
(As for the first group of the scholars): It was said it means female slaves, and Christian/Jewish female slaves, as said by Ibn al-Musayyib and preferred by (Imam) Ahmad and others (may Allah bless their souls).
(As for the second group of the scholars): It was said: He is the male salve, as Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) and others said, and it is the other narration from (Imam) Ahmad. This requires that it is permissible for a male slave to look at (the inner adornment of) his Muslim female owner, and this is backed by Hadiths, and this is for the sake of need. Because she needs to address her male slave more than she needs to see the witness, the worker and the suitor. So, if it is permissible for them to look (at her), then (her) slave looking (at her) is of higher priority (needful).
And there is nothing in this that requires him (the male slave) to be a mahram and able to travel with her (as required by the first group of scholars). As in the case of male attendants with no (sexual) desire, who are permitted to look (at an adorned free Muslim women) though they are not mahrams, who are able to travel with her. Not everyone who is allowed to look (at her) may necessarily (be capable to) travel with her or allowed to be alone with her. But her male slave can look at her when there is a need, even if he is not allowed to be alone with her or travel with her. He (the male salve) is not part of his (prophet’s) saying (ﷺ):
" لا تسافر امرأة إلا مع زوج أو ذي محرم" (A woman should not travel except with a husband or a mahram.), as it is permissible for him (the male slave) to marry her (X Muslim owner) if he is freed, just as it is permissible for her sister's husband to marry her if he divorces her sister. The mahram is the one who is perpetually forbidden from (marrying) her." End quote from Majmoo' al-Fataawa (22/111).
و قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية: "و على هذا فقوله : "أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ" يدل على أن لها أن تبدي الزينة الباطنة لمملوكها. و فيه قولان: قيل المراد الإماء، و الإماء الكتابيات، كما قاله ابن المسيب و رجحه أحمد و غيره .
و قيل: هو المملوك الرجل: كما قاله ابن عباس و غيره، و هو الرواية الأخرى عن أحمد. فهذا يقتضي جواز نظر العبد إلى مولاته، و قد جاءت بذلك أحاديث و هذا لأجل الحاجة؛ لأنها محتاجة إلى مخاطبة عبدها أكثر من حاجتها إلى رؤية الشاهد و المعامل و الخاطب، فإذا جاز نظر أولئك فنظر العبد أولى، و ليس في هذا ما يوجب أن يكون محرمًا يسافر بها، كغير أولي الإربة، فإنهم يجوز لهم النظر و ليسوا محارم يسافرون بها، فليس كل من جاز له النظر جاز له السفر بها و لا الخلوة بها، بل عبدها ينظر إليها للحاجة و إن كان لا يخلو بها و لا يسافر بها، فإنه لم يدخل في قوله (ﷺ): "لا تسافر امرأة إلا مع زوج أو ذي محرم " فإنه يجوز له أن يتزوجها إذا عتق، كما يجوز لزوج أختها أن يتزوجها إذا طلق أختها، و المحرم من تحرم عليه على التأبيد" انتهى من "مجموع الفتاوى" (22/111) .
https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/184458/
In conclusion: only a sophisticated and institutionalized community would permit "breastfeeding an elder male" when its absolutely necessary. Also, only an elegant and institutionalized society would equate the ‘awrah’ of an enslaved woman to the ‘awrah’ of a free Muslim man. Furthermore, only a balanced and institutionalized society would consider the ‘awrah’ of a free Muslim woman, in the privacy of her house and in front of her enslaved male, is from navel to knee.
An institutionalized community is the one that pursues the success of its members through easiness and simplification, taking the objectives into account and then balancing and weighing the tasks and their risks, and choosing the fairest among a good and an evil.
The fault is not in the ‘hadith’, but in our anxious psyches, the pornography complexities, and the female seduction-phobia. The verses and ‘hadith’ are fully consistent with the institutionalized spirit of the former Muslims during the charitable centuries, with their bold, balanced and realistic practices. We should not exaggerate in checking the transmittal chain and body of a ‘hadith’, simply because it authorizes a practice that seems pornographic to us.
Let us remember that chastity, honor, fighting corruption and seduction were fundamental values in the societies of the charitable centuries. Let us watch off that our over-conservatism does not become the characteristic of those who disinclined his Sunnah (ﷺ) and the characteristic of those who are more Kingish than the king. Therefore, I see the renaissance of our nation in recovering its bold institutionalized character.
