RE: "who your Oaths give access over" vs "right hand possess"
November 10, 2018 at 11:11 am
(This post was last modified: November 10, 2018 at 11:11 am by Mystic.)
Muta was said by hadiths from Imam Jaffar for example, that it was neither nikah (marriage) nor Zina (fornication).
It was a category on it's own. The only thing that made this hard to read and perceive, was that malakat aymanihim was seen as slavery rather then "who your oath's give right to".
There are verses however that forbid slavery. There is also that it's written in a way, if misinterpreted as slavery, we would have to believe we can have sex with a slave's wife while he is married to her!
That is the worse degree of evil. Poor man and woman are married while slaves, and the owner can have sex with the woman as he pleases????
Come on bro.... People believe that shit only cause the rulers wanted slaves!
It was a category on it's own. The only thing that made this hard to read and perceive, was that malakat aymanihim was seen as slavery rather then "who your oath's give right to".
There are verses however that forbid slavery. There is also that it's written in a way, if misinterpreted as slavery, we would have to believe we can have sex with a slave's wife while he is married to her!
That is the worse degree of evil. Poor man and woman are married while slaves, and the owner can have sex with the woman as he pleases????
Come on bro.... People believe that shit only cause the rulers wanted slaves!
