Are these men castrated?

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Are these men castrated?

Post by sum »

Koran 24:31 And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

Is this Koranic confirmation of the accounts that claim that the male slaves were castrated and where "the lot" was cut off? I have read that about 90% or more of male slaves who were castrated died of haemorrhage or infection. If this is what the Koran means then it is more evidence of a truly sadisitic, psychopathic and evil Allah. If muslims agree that this is what it means then do they support the Koranic understanding?

sum
User avatar
Cassie
Posts: 2523
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:32 am

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by Cassie »

Good pickup, sum. Certainly looks that way, but I wouldn't be surprised if a Muslim apologist comes up with the excuse that it means impotent males or decrepit toothless old men who'd lost all libido through advanced age. It's how the Muslim mind works.
iffo
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by iffo »

sum wrote:Koran 24:31 And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

Is this Koranic confirmation of the accounts that claim that the male slaves were castrated and where "the lot" was cut off? I have read that about 90% or more of male slaves who were castrated died of haemorrhage or infection. If this is what the Koran means then it is more evidence of a truly sadisitic, psychopathic and evil Allah. If muslims agree that this is what it means then do they support the Koranic understanding?

sum
Mr sum you really look very desperate sometimes, please don't be.
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by sum »

Hello iffo

Do you accept that the African slaves were castrated?

sum
Wootah
Posts: 2056
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:41 am

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by Wootah »

Wow Sum - that is exactly what it means when I read it. is there anything more authoritative to back that up?
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by sum »

Hello Wootah

I do not know of any other Koranic or hadith confirmation of the castration of slaves. It is mentioned in Khan`s book "Islamic Jihad" - well worth a read. The atrocities committed by the muslims were absolutely appalling. All the details came from Islamic records written by muslims.

The verse says "men" and so we can exclude children. Who is left? Adult men. The only men capable of an erection who would show no interest in women would be homosexuals but Islam knows how to deal with them. This leaves men who are attracted to women but impotent, the very old and the castrated. How would the muslims know who was impotent? These impotent men would still be attracted to the sight of the female form although not able to do much about it. Men who are that old to the point where they show no interest in the female form would be very poor quality slaves and pretty useless.

This leaves just one category - the castrated slave. The muslims would know for certain that the slaves with all "cut off" would certainly not be able to have an erection and the loss of testosterone would lead to a very diminished interest in women from a sexual point of view. If they still had a vestige of interest it would be very distressing for them as they could not have an erect penis when it was cut off along with the testes. This type of castration would leave the man physically, sexually and emotionally damaged and I am sure that the sight of the female form would only aggravate the condition. If this is the case then they would avoid seeing the female form as it would distress them.

I am sure that the verse, therefore, refers to castrated men.

sum
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by sum »

Shortly after my last post I referred to Khan`s book on "Islamic Jihad" and, "lo and behold", he actually refers to that verse - Koran 24:31 - as showing that it was referring to castrated men. He makes the point that muslims were the greatest enslavers of all time as well as the most prolific castrators of slaves, especially black African slaves who they regarded as having almost uncontrollable sexual urges. This explains why there are no descendants of the African slaves in Arabia.

Does the Koran forbid castration? No - it just comments on them in verse 24:31.

sum
crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by crazymonkie_ »

Oh no, there ARE descendants of African slaves in the Arabian peninsula. They're just mixed, and they get f***ked over by their more "pure" Arabian cohorts. Apparently OBL had at least one as a mistress- she wrote a book or something quite a few years ago. But it's like how it is in a lot of other countries- if you're not lighter skinned, people even deny you exist. But how could it not be so? (I mean the descendants of black slaves being mixed in Arabia). The slavery in the US made hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of mixed people- most of whom don't even know they're mixed because their skin is dark enough that they couldn't "pass." Those who could, along with the remaining Native Americans, would have their family tree start off with some vaguely Anglo-sounding name like "Smith" or "Jones" and act like they were nothing but white the whole time. Probably the same thing in the Arab world.... they did have about a 300 year start on the Europeans, after all.
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by sum »

Hello crazymonkie_

I do not think that you can compare the time and place of Muhammad with the USA. According to Khan the vast majority of African slaves were castrated and could leave no descendants, whereas those in the USA were not castrated wholesale. Koran verse 24:31 virtually spells it out that there were castrated slaves. I will accept that there could probably have been female slaves who would have been sexually exploited and made breeding machines for more muslim babies. If there were any descendants from the Africam slaves it would have come from the females and not the males. If any males were not castrated I do not see them having much sexual opportunity.

sum
crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by crazymonkie_ »

Oh. Sorry- I didn't realize you were talking about Muhammad's time. Yes, you're definitely right in that case. I was talking about the centuries much later, when Arab slavers started taking Africans. And you're definitely also right about leaving only the women. Right hand possession and all that. My point was just that you made it seem like there were no African descendants in Arabia. There are, just not in the time period you're talking about. My mistake for not reading enough. Carry on!
farishta
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by farishta »

male servants free of physical needs,
Allah has a weird sense of humour and way with understatement. Of all the physical needs a man has, Allah is asking muslims to watch out for horniness.

Be that as it may, freeing the slaves (male servants) of their physical need has been a big business in the Muslim world. There are highly technical books with surgical instructions for making eunuchs. I am sure the inspiration for such a venture comes from this verse in the Quran.

I think the proper translation of this verse should be ' male servants freed (surgically) of physical needs ' :roflmao:

here is some excerpts from a useful website.
There were several different varieties of eunuchs:

Sandali, or clean-shaven: The parts are swept off by a single cut of a razor, a tube (tin or wooden) is set in the urethra, the wound is cauterized with boiling oil, and the patient is planted in a fresh dung-hill. His diet is milk, and if under puberty he often survives.

The eunuch whose penis is removed: He retains all the power of copulation and procreation without the wherewithal; and this, since the discovery of caoutchouc, has often been supplied.

The eunuch, or classical thlibias and semivir, who has been rendered sexless by the removing of the testicles..., or by their being bruised..., twisted, seared or bandaged.
http://www.allaboutturkey.com/harem.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by sum »

Hello farishta

Very good link.

It would appear that Allah condoned castration and did not forbid it.
Do the muslims think that Allah was out of order in accepting the castration of captives?
Do the muslims think that castration of captives or slaves should now be outlawed as unacceptable and inhumane?

I somehow think that the muslims will ignore these questions.

sum
User avatar
Ansar al-Zindiqi
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:35 am
Contact:

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by Ansar al-Zindiqi »

Shariah-compliant or is flexibility an issue?
Image
Shariah-compliant
Image
Eunuchs on duty: Pending closer investigation


http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/slaves ... of-god.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Slaves by the grace of God
by Razib

I've developed a mild interest in John Brown, but before I began reading about him I wanted to refamiliarize myself with the cultural history of slavery in the United States...and I noticed a little book titled Islam's Black Slaves, and I had to pick it up. It's real short, I read it in when I was walking to the grocery store and other sorts of errands, but it's got some good data. This post isn't about slavery per se, but rather an issue that crops up now and then, what are the textual constraints on the expression of the Muslim faith? I have periodically expressed mild skepticism at the amount of text derived inferences people sometimes assert are determinants in the modal shape of behavior or median cultural expression. No doubt the constraints exist on some level, and ideas can change the world. That being said, I was curious at how slaves were treated in Islam because the sharia has explicit instructions on this point. The author begins by noting the standard talking points, there are Islamic hadiths which state that there is merit in freeing a slave, a mother and child should not be parted and the child of a master and slave woman is free and not a slave. The standard assertion that slavery in the Muslim world was never so cruel, dehumanizing and barbarous as the chattel slavery deployed for plantation agriculture that became normative in the New World (from Brazil to the American South) seems correct. One thing to consider is that in the Muslim world many more blacks were "house slaves," and so the brutal conditions of the field were less of a concern (there had been revolts by slaves in Iraq early in the history of Islam which discouraged the practice of slave labor on plantations). Nevertheless, there were incredible brutalities, especially in the high mortality rates in transport. And of course, hypocrisy and breach of "Islamic law" was the norm.


I want to highlight two passages from the book. First:
Muslim propriety permitted no such scrutiny as came to be common in the slave markets of the Americans. Male slaves might be examined only above the navel and below the knees, female slaves only by viewing their faces and hands....


But, near the end of the book the author reprints an article from 1956 verbatim that described a slave auction in Djibouti where the merchants were going to transport their "goods" to Arabia, in parctiular, the city of Jiddah:
...A trader would nudge a slave's jaw with a stick and the man would open his mouth to display his teeth. Another probe with the stick and he would flex his arm muscles. Young women were forced to expose their breasts and buttocks. A dispute developed over the virginity of a tall young ebony woman, and during the hour-long argument she was forced to squat while one of the most prominent buyers examined her with his fingers. She was terrified; her trembling was visible fifty yards away.

Occasionally children were sold in batches. They did not cry, mainly, I think, because they had no tears left, but they held tightly to one another and kept looking around as if for help. Boys of about ten or twelve had their anuses examined; homosexual buyers are fussy about disease.
This and many other passages in the book makes the idea that Islamic slavery was more humanitarian as a matter of kind as opposed to degree seem ludicrous. Granted, in Islam there was far less stigma attached to slavery, and the racial bar was not absolute. Many of the great rulers were once slave soldiers, and potentates often had slave mothers (black and white). But my point in highlighting the above passage was to show how ludicrous the idea that sharia injunctions really made a big difference in the way slaves were treated, the bestial scene occurred in 1956, and the "merchants" were from the "fundamentalist" state of Saudi Arabia.1

There are other issues relating to slavery where sharia commands a particular course of action, but Muslims generally found ways to skirt the letter of the law. For instance, castration is banned in Islam, but eunuchs were omnipresent in Muslim courts. How was this so? There were multiple avenues of recourse. In some places non-Muslims specialized in castrations, in Al-Andalus it was Jews, in the Ottoman Empire it was Christians. In other cases slaves were castrated outside of Muslim lands, so that Prague in Christian Bohemia became a center for the generation of eunuchs for Ottoman service. In Africa the Muslims were often castrated en route. Sometimes, castration was attributed to a "mistake," the slaves were sent to a barber who was going to circumcise them and he simply grasped their genitals and sliced everything off (while European slaves generally had their testicles removed, black slaves had both testicles and penis removed).

Now, the issue of circumcision is important because the enslaved should be non-Muslim, one can not enslave Muslims, though one could encourage a slave to convert. But there were ways to get around this issue of not enslaving Muslims. In the Hausa states of modern northern Nigeria disobedience to the potentate was ruled tatamount to apostasy, so Muslim villages were attacked and enslaved and sold to pay off debts on the pretense that they were in rebellion, ergo, apostates (the rebellion might be due to an incredibly high tax which they could not pay). Another common argument was that Muslims whose practice or tradition deviated from the slavers were not truly Muslims, so they could be enslaved. Of course, sometimes there wasn't even a pretense at following this injunction, there are multiple records of African village leaders as well as Muslim "holy" men leading pilgrimages to Mecca, where they promptly sold everyone into slavery and absconded with the gold to some far off land (this occcurred in Mali in the 20th century, and a delegation to Libya was sent in the hopes of extraditing a man who had led his village on Haj and then sold everyone to merchants and then opened a business in Tripoli with the proceeds). As the demand for slaves increased the merchants became far less scrupulous in determining whether the goods were ill-gotten.

Obviously there is a lot more I could say, but I think I have made my point. Sharia stipulates very specific ways one should treat and obtain slaves. Sharia was almost always breached, sometimes quite blatantly. Nevertheless, often transparent pretexes were concocted to generate an imprimatur of correct form and practice. There seems to have been a wide variance of the expectation that a slave could have about his life, and how he was treated, or whether an innocent villager (Muslim or non-Muslim) could become a slave, and the threads that seem to be the variables that determine the nature of slavery are usually based on historical and social conditions, or just plain greed. All the while in the background are the same common Islamic textual injunctions and specificied practices, which nevertheless seem to have been rendered a dead letter. So the implication here is clear, some Muslims today justify slavery because it is the sharia (see Mauritania, where the white Berbers come close to engaging in racial slavery reminiscient of the American South, though perhaps operationally more like Apartheid South Africa). But in the past the way slavery was practiced violated even the most "liberal" precepts of the sharia, so it seems a short step for one to find out a way that one could render slavery operationally forbidden (for example, consider the argument against polygyny that since Muhammad said that all wives needed to be treated equally and this was not possible, polygyny is not possible). The key here is not just the texts alone, but the interaction between the texts and the stubborn social matrix which interprets the text in a self-serving fashion.

Addendum: This article might be of interest to readers: Extensive female-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa into near eastern Arab populations. Here is part of the abstract:
...a very high frequency of African lineages present in the Yemen Hadramawt: more than a third were of clear sub-Saharan origin. Other Arab populations carried approximately 10% lineages of sub-Saharan origin, whereas non-Arab Near Eastern populations, by contrast, carried few or no such lineages, suggesting that gene flow has been preferentially into Arab populations....
1 - The author suggests that slaves in the Muslim world played a very different role in the economy than in the New World (or ancient Greece and Rome for that matter!). Muslim slaves tended to be consumer items, they were symbols of prosperity, and also domestic helpmates. And quite often, they were also soldiers. These two states, household help and martial occupations, meant that slaves were not treated as commodities toward a profit motive in a production oriented economy like they were in the sugar and cotton plantations of the New World. Though the mortality rates during transport, and especially for males after the castration, were probably as high as the "Middle Passage," those that survived probably lived less dehumanizing existences in the Muslim world. One could argue this was because of the character of sharia (with its stipulations for good treatment toward slaves), but I suspect a more plausible explanation is that they occupied a different niche in Muslim societies, perhaps analogous to slaves in pre-Christian (and early medieval) northern Europe, as opposed to the mass agriculture of ancient Sicily or cash crop plantations of the New World.
Don't be a believer but a heretic unto yourself.
farishta
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by farishta »

Hello SUM

The descriptiopn " male servants free of physical needs " may very well refer to people who may to-day be called " Transgender" or "hermaphrodite" .
The arabic word for them being " Mukhannathun ". In Pakistan these unfortunates are called " Hijras" and live as outcastes in a community by themselves. Here is good link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhannathun

You might also find this video interesting and relevent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rjDTyeqXt8
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by sum »

Hello farishta

Your quote -
The descriptiopn " male servants free of physical needs " may very well refer to people who may to-day be called " Transgender" or "hermaphrodite" .

I think that it is very unlikely. I would suggest that the categories that you mention would be very small in number. The men who were castrated would be in far greater numbers and the Koran is referring mainly to the majority but could also include the small number(as I would suspect) of those that you mention. If Islam prohibited the castration of slaves then it would never have occurred - but it did. The Koranic verse is the only one that I know of that refers to castration - nowhere does it prohibit castration and so it allows the muslims to castrate captives and slaves.

sum
iffo
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by iffo »

sum wrote:Hello farishta

Your quote -
The descriptiopn " male servants free of physical needs " may very well refer to people who may to-day be called " Transgender" or "hermaphrodite" .

I think that it is very unlikely. I would suggest that the categories that you mention would be very small in number. The men who were castrated would be in far greater numbers and the Koran is referring mainly to the majority but could also include the small number(as I would suspect) of those that you mention. If Islam prohibited the castration of slaves then it would never have occurred - but it did. The Koranic verse is the only one that I know of that refers to castration - nowhere does it prohibit castration and so it allows the muslims to castrate captives and slaves.

sum

Neither Quran nor Muhammad castrated anyone, so why you think god is talking about castrated men is beyond anyone. Neither you can find any example that black slaves were castrated during Muhammad period. If anyone did hundred of years after Muhammad then blame it on them. They were definitely cruel bastards. Just like Christians were burning women calling them witches.
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by sum »

Hello iffo

Your quote -
Neither Quran nor Muhammad castrated anyone, so why you think god is talking about castrated men is beyond anyone.

Considering that you are a Koran only muslim, you are in no position to comment on Muhammad. The Koran does not specifically forbid castration therefore it is permitted. Did muslims castrate slaves? Yes, they did. They did not think that it was anti-Islamic to do so.

A simple question for you.

Is it possible that the Koran referred to those who were castrated?

sum
iffo
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by iffo »

sum wrote:Hello iffo

Your quote -
Neither Quran nor Muhammad castrated anyone, so why you think god is talking about castrated men is beyond anyone.

Considering that you are a Koran only muslim, you are in no position to comment on Muhammad. The Koran does not specifically forbid castration therefore it is permitted. Did muslims castrate slaves? Yes, they did. They did not think that it was anti-Islamic to do so.

A simple question for you.

Is it possible that the Koran referred to those who were castrated?

sum
No Mr sum, it means what it means for whatever reason if they can not get it up, its is talking about those men. It is basically talking about old men.
sum
Posts: 6707
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by sum »

Hello iffo

Your quote -
No Mr sum, it means what it means for whatever reason if they can not get it up, its is talking about those men. It is basically talking about old men.

They can`t "get it up" if they do not have one or have been castrated and become testosterone deficient.

Please just tell us if it could include those who have been castrated.

sum
User avatar
Sten
Posts: 3205
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:19 am

Re: Are these men castrated?

Post by Sten »

Eunuchs have been used in many ancient cultures from China to India. It is extremely likely that this Koranic passage is referring to Eunuchs.

From Wikipedia:
In the Middle Eastern empires, eunuchs were typically slaves imported from outside the Islamic domains. A fair proportion of male slaves were imported as eunuchs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch#Ottoman_Empire
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.
- Carl Sagan
Post Reply