May be we should first agree on a definition of rape.
Wikipedia: In criminal law, rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.
Encyclopedia Britannica: act of sexual intercourse with an individual without his or her consent, through force or the threat of force.
Before getting into the refutation, can you please provide one verse of the Quran and or a Hadeeth that mentions rape? According to the Quran or Sunna (not those leaders or scholars who came after Muhammed's death), what is the correct Islamic procedure to be followed when a woman, whether slave or not, reports a rape? According to the Quran and Sunna, how can a rape be proved and what is the punishment/hadd for a raper?
There are those who argue that since Islam permits Muslim men to have sexual intercourse with their slave girls, this then means that they also have the right to rape them. This is absurd. The right to have sex with a woman does not necessarily imply that one has the right to rape her as well.
No, I agree that permitting someone to have sex with someone else is not the same as permitting someone to rape someone else. However, this distinction might be a little tricky when this “someone else” is one's slave. Realistically speaking, how much power a slave-girl have to say “no” to her master when he decides that he wants to sleep with her? If they had the right to act according to their own will, they wouldn't have been called slaves!
To say that a Muslim man has the right to rape his slave girl is like saying that a man has the right to rape his wife; which is not true. Refer to this article.
The article mentioned here is published on http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/no_marital_rape.htm
. I have my takes on this article, but this article is not the subject of this refutation.
Rape in Islam is completely forbidden. See this and this.
The first article referenced here was published on http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/72338
and the second one on http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1125407868541
The link to the second article was broken but I read the first one and it provided no evidence that rape is forbidden in Islam. It basically said “Rape does not happen in Islam since Muslim women are not supposed to leave their homes”, which is not the same as declaring rape as “haram”!
Imam Maalik said:
الأمر عندنا في الرجل يغتصب المرأة بكراً كانت أو ثيبا : أنها إن كانت حرة : فعليه صداق مثلها , وإن كانت أمَة : فعليه ما نقص من ثمنها ، والعقوبة في ذلك على المغتصب ، ولا عقوبة على المغتصبة في ذلك كله
In our view the man who rapes a woman, regardless of whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a "dowry" like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case. (Imam Maalik, Al-Muwatta', Volume 2, page 734)
Imam Al Shaafi'i said:
وإذا اغتصب الرجل الجارية ثم وطئها بعد الغصب وهو من غير أهل الجهالة أخذت منه الجارية والعقر وأقيم عليه حد الزنا
"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm, Volume 3, page 253)
Notice that both of these top classical scholars have stated that a man is to be punished for raping a slave girl. Of course this not our ultimate proof that Islam forbids rape, but this is to show that the early classical scholars surely did not understand Islam to be teaching it.
These scholars lived hundreds of years after Mohammed. On what are they basing their judgement? What are the evidence in the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah that support their views?
In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685 we read the following story:
Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: 'Allah didn't want to disgrace Dharar'
This narration does not prove your point, on the contrary, it proves that women have no say in the matter of who they have sex with. Here are my takes on this narration:
* Nowhere it is mention that the “pretty bride” was asked whether she wanted to sleep with Dharar or not. He asked ALL HIS OTHER COMPANIENS for THEIR permission, but nobody asked her.
* “They invaded” and “then captured”, this, to me, sounds like using force to secure these women, among them the pretty bride. According to the definition above, a requirement of rape is force, which was present at the moment of capturing the woman.
* There is no mention here why Dharar felt guilty. According to quranic verses and hadith narrations, having sex with slave girls is permitted, so what did he feel guilty about? It is of course possibility that he felt guilty because he forced her to have sex with him, but this is just an assumption since nowhere in the narration it said that.
* Let us assume that he felt guilty because he had forced this pretty bride to have sex with him. Obviously, nobody of his companions objected to his action. Even the leader of his army said that it was OK and that Dharar didn't do anything wrong. The only reason they found out that it was prohibited is because Dharar insisted on writing to Omar and ask him. Meaning that: had Dharar settled for Khalid's judgment, the issue would not have been an issue at all.
* Assuming the above point: since forcing the slave-girls to have sex was obviously accepted (the evidence is in the fact that neither his companions nor his leader saw anything wrong with what he did), Dharar could not have been the only one who practiced it. And yet, nowhere in the narration said that anyone else was subject to the punishment.
* Assuming the above point: Omar was the third khalifa, meaning that he came to the leadership many years after Mohammed's death. The Muslims where involved in over 70 battles during Mohammed's life alone. Khalid was the leader in many of them. If this issue have not been raised before even though it was obviously commonly practiced, how many such incidents have occurred before this one then? (If it was not commonly practiced, Dharar's companions would have objected from the beginning. And if it had actually been raised before, Khalid would have known that it was forbidden).
* Interesting that “Allah didn't want to disgrace Dharar”, yet obviously, Allah didn't mind disgracing “the pretty bride”!
Notice that Umar ibn Al Khattab (the second caliph) ordered the man who captured the slave girl and had sex with her to be stoned for this crime, for he took the slave girl unjustly.
Again, that is an assumption, since nowhere in the narration it was explained why Dharar was feeling guilty. Maybe because he got her pregnant and couldn't marry her because he already had four wives?!
Do these critics who raise these arguments know Islam better than Umar ibn al Khattab?
Probably not, but that is not proved by this narration!
We anticipate what our opponents might say in response. They will say that the scholars whom I just cited and the story of Umar ibn Al Khattab only refer to someone who raped a slave girl who did not belong to him, however one may rape the slave girl that is his property. Even though the story in Sunan Al Bayhaqi makes it clear that the man had sex with the girl after possessing her, we will accept this response only for the sake of argument.
It is nonsense to suggest that one could rape the slave girl he possesses because the Prophet (peace be upon him) warned us that we must take good care of those under our authority:
"There is no person to whom Allaah has given people to take care of, and he fails to take care of them properly, but he will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." (Saheeh Bukhari no. 6731; Saheeh Muslim, no. 142)
How do you figure that this hadeeth referes to slaves? The first thing that comes to my mind here is that it refers to one's family or, after reading the hadeeth in Arabic, the orphans who are under his guirdianship. Are you really suggesting that slaves are there so that their masters would take care of them? Salves' function, by definition, is to take care of their masters and obey them, not the other way around. If the master's are required to treat slaves kindly, isn't it kindness to set them free? Or are you suggesting that those who became slaves after being defeated by the Muslims LIKED becoming slaves?
'Umar ibn al-Ahwas (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that he heard the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say during his Farewell Pilgrimage:
"Verily, you have rights over your women, and your women have rights over you. As for your rights over your women, they are that they should not allow anyone to sit on your beds whom you dislike, or allow anyone into your houses whom you dislike. Verily, their rights over you are that you should treat them well with regard to their clothing and food." (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, 1163, and Ibn Maajah, 1851).
For starters, this speech refers to the right of the man from his wife, and the right of the wife from her husband. Since the women mentioned are wives, they are free women, not slaves. And more importantly, it says specifically that the man should treat the women “well with regard to their clothing and food”, and nothing else. This opens the door to a totally different discussion about women's right in Islam. Do you honestly believe that all you have to do to be perceived as kind to a woman is give her food and clothes? If that is all is required (as it is specified that way), a women is still considered well-treated when she is repeatedly raped as long as her raper provides her with food and clothes. And again, this only applied to “free” women. There is no mention of slaves in this speech.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) made it clear that we shouldn't harm slaves:
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29
Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said that our slaves are like our siblings.
Again, this hadeeth specifies that well-treatment is achieved by providing food and clothes. Yes, it does say that your slave is like your brother, but then it specifies that the way you treat your brother well is by providing him with food and clothes like yours (and that's it). Not asking the slaves to do things “beyond their capacity” does not necessarily mean "treat them well". For example, a womans body maybe physically capable of being raped every now and then, so it's not really beyond her capacity, but we all know that it is still not OK.
Who would rape his own sister?
Believe me, it happens, even among Muslims!
The Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade causing physical harm to slaves:
Book 015, Number 4082:
Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free.
Obviously, the problem here is that he hit her on the face. Muqarrin made a point not because the man hit his slave, but because he hit her on the face. Meaning that if he had hit her somewhere else on her body, there would not have been a problem.
Book 015, Number 4086
Abu Mas'ud al-Badri reported: "I was beating my slave with a whip when I heard a voice behind me: Understand, Abu Masud; but I did not recognise the voice due to intense anger. He (Abu Mas'ud) reported: As he came near me (I found) that he was the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he was saying: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; bear in mind. Abu Mas'ud. He (Aba Maslad) said: threw the whip from my hand. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; verily Allah has more dominance upon you than you have upon your slave. I (then) said: I would never beat my servant in future.
Ok. I admit that you have made a point here... finally!.
If the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade slapping and whipping slaves then it's unthinkable that he would have permitted raping them. It just makes no sense.
You would think so, wouldn't you?!
In Saheeh Muslim, hadeeth 135-2619, Mohammed said “A woman ended up in hell because of a cat. She tied the cat up until she [the cat] starved to death”. So obviously Mohammed tells us that we should not hurt a cat. So if Mohammed forbade hurting a cat, then it should be unthinkable that he would have permitted killing people. Yet, he himself and many many Muslims killed people very often!
Thus, our argument is as follows:
- The Prophet (peace be upon him) has prohibited causing harm to and oppressing those under our authority.
No. He prohibited beating slaves heavily. He specified that well treatment is equivalent to providing food and clothes only
- Rape is causing harm to someone and is considered a form of oppression
No, you did not prove that Islam considers rape to cause harm and is a form of oppression. Actually, you did not prove that Islam considers rape a punishable crime.
- If the critic says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) made an exception to this general prohibition by allowing one to rape his slave girl, the burden of proof is upon him to show evidence for this exception.
No, the critics are not saying that Mohammed made an exception to the general prohibition. The critics are saying that he did not prohibit it at all, and the burden of proof is upon you by showing examples from the Quran and hadeeth
- If he is not able to show evidence for this exception then we must assume that the Prophet's (peace be upon him) general command is upheld, thus proving that Islam forbids one to rape his slave girl.
We can come up with examples of Muslims raping women. Safiyyeh, who you mention bellow, is the first one (we'll get to her in a moment).
Critics would reply back and say that it's unthinkable that slave girls back then would hae willingly consented to having sex with their Muslim captors who just killed their family members. They would usually point to the specific example of Banu Al-Mustaliq.
Nice to see a Muslim not denying "their Muslim captors who just killed their family members".
The narration states:
Sahih al-Bukhari 4138 - Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e., coitus interruptus). Abu Sa'id said, "We went out with Allah's Messenger for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq, and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So, when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus without asking Allah's Messenger while he is present among us?' We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection.'" (Sahih Bukhari, no. 4138)
Here the critic's argument goes something like this:
- The Islamic traditions show that Muslims had sex with their slave girls
Not just that. It shows that the women's consent was not required. The women were not even asked.
- According to my subjective logic it is inconceivable that slave girls would consent to having sex with the captors that just killed members from their tribe
- In conclusion, the Islamic traditions show that Muslims raped their slave girls
These critics are ignorant of history, for slave girls did consent to having sex with their captors back in the past.
John McClintock said:
Women who followed their father and husbands to the war put on their finest dresses and ornaments previous to an engagement, in the hope of finding favor in the eyes of their captors in case of a defeat. (John McClintock, James Strong, "Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature" [Harper & Brothers, 1894], p. 782)
Matthew B. Schwartz said:
The Book of Deuteronomy prescribes its own rules for the treatment of women captured in war [ Deut 21:10-14 ] . Women have always followed armies to do the soldiers' laundry, to nurse the sick and wounded, and to serve as prostitutes
They would often dress in such a way as to attract the soldiers who won the battle. The Bible recognizes the realities of the battle situation in its rules on how to treat female captives, though commentators disagree on some of the details.
The biblical Israelite went to battle as a messenger of God. Yet he could also, of course, be caught up in the raging tide of blood and violence. The Western mind associates prowess, whether military or athletic, with sexual success.
The pretty girls crowd around the hero who scores the winning touchdown, not around the players of the losing team. And it is certainly true in war: the winning hero "attracts" the women. (Matthew B. Schwartz, Kalman J. Kaplan, "The Fruit of Her Hands: The Psychology of Biblical Women" [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007] , pp. 146-147)
Thus we see from two non-Muslim authors that slave girls back in the past would consent to having sex with their captors. So if we put aside our 21st century mindset and look at history objectively, there is nothing wrong with saying that slave girls back then consented to having sex with their capturs.
This is ridiculous. For starter, let us assume that they did dress nicely to attract their captures in case of defeat (wich I doubt, but I would have to read the source first before I utter an opinion), these are the women who followed their fathers and husbands to war. The women the Muslims took were mostly draged from their homes. Many of them were the “royalty” of their tribes. Being captured and turned into slaves was a huge shame. There is no way that the women who held the pride of their tribes would dress in a way to attract their captures “in case of defeat”. Defeat was the source of shame.
One might object to the fact that the above authors are only speaking about the Israelite era. However, that is really not a good response. The point I am trying to make is that the idea of the possibility of slave girls willingly having sex with their captors is not absurd. Thus, one is required to provide proof that those slave girls who had sex with their Muslim captors did not consent. This is especially due to the fact that 1) It was possible for slave girls back in the past to consent to having sex with their captors and 2) Muslims were prohibited from harming their slave girls.
Actually, the only proof I want to see is that these women were supposed to be asked for their consent. Merely ASSUMING that they consented because of some historical observations of that time is not enough. This is about God's orders for all time to come, not a history lesson.
If the critic says that not all of the slave girls felt this way and there were bound to be some who didn't want to have sex, I would agree with him. However, how does this prove that the Muslims raped their slave girls?
None of what you said proves the opposite either!
How does the critic know whether the Muslim back then actually raped the slave girl who was unwilling to have sex with him?
How do you know that they didn't?
Isn't it possible that if he saw her unwilling he would have sold to her to another Muslim at a cheaper price? Or he would have purchased another slave girl who was willing to have sex with him? Or he would have waited for her to consent, for by that time he would have treated her very nicely and convinced her that Islam is true and that it was her tribe's fault for starting the battle, etc. Yes these things are possible.
They are possible (though the last one is very unlikely). However, you do not have proof for any of it. All you have is a “maybe”.
How does the critic know that none of these things happened?
How do you know that they did? Do you have any references?
What is his proof that the Muslims raped their slave girls?
Their actions otherwise. They attacked people without warning, took them by surprise, took their property and possessions, killed their men and enslaved their women and children. What makes you think they stopped at raping the women?
The narration doesn't show:
- How many Muslim captors decided to go through with having sex with the slave girls?
Does it matter how many? Isn't it enough with one?
- How many women actually ended up having sex with their Muslim captors?
Nowhere it is mentioned that they didn't. Just like nowhere it is mentioned that their consent was required.
- Most importantly, whether any slave girls were raped
When all those who didn't praise Islam had their heads cut off, all you have left is “reading between the lines”, which is actually not that hard to figure out in this case!
Even if the critic is successful in showing that the Muslims raped them, what is his proof that this was approved by the Prophet (peace be upon him)? It's possible that Muslims committed sins back then and disobeyed the Prophet (peace be upon him). So where could the critic show us the Prophet (peace be upon him) approving of such behavior?
He cannot and I challenge him to.
Where can you show us that he didn't approve of such behavior? Let's assume that he didn't approve, why didn't he express that? Why no one was punished? Let's assume that Muslims raped their captives behind the “prophet's” back. Did they do it behind God's back too? Why didn't God inform his prophet and tell him that it was forbidden?
Another narration that the critics appeals to is this:
Sunan Abu Dawud
Volume 2, Number 2150
Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, 'And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess'. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.
The critics would argue that no slave girl would consent to having sexual intercourse in the presence of her husband.
However, this is a completely false translation of the hadith. The words "in the presence of" are no where to be found in the Arabic text.
The full Arabic text (found here) states:
حدثنا عبيد الله بن عمر بن ميسرة حدثنا يزيد بن زريع حدثنا سعيد عن قتادة عن صالح أبي الخليل عن أبي علقمة الهاشمي عن أبي سعيد الخدري
أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث يوم حنين بعثا إلى أوطاس فلقوا عدوهم فقاتلوهم فظهروا عليهم وأصابوا لهم سبايا فكأن أناسا من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم تحرجوا من غشيانهن من أجل أزواجهن من المشركين فأنزل الله تعالى في ذلك
والمحصنات من النساء إلا ما ملكت أيمانكم
أي فهن لهم حلال إذا انقضت عدتهن
If the reader does not know how to read Arabic, let him bring someone who does and ask him whether he can point out to him the words "in the presence of". He won't be able to. The translation in Saheeh Muslim seems more accurate:
Book 008, Number 3432:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).
So here we see that the Muslim soldiers were feeling uncomfortable with engaging in sexual intercourse with women who were already married. However, the verse was revealed saying that it is permissible to engage in sexual intercourse with slave girls even if they are married.
Poor Muslim men who could only capture married women! But no worries.. Allah can fix that!
Again, nowhere it's said that the women were asked whether they wanted to have sex with their captures or not. The only proof I want to see is that the women's consent was required in order for the Muslim men to have sex with them. But time and again, we see evidence that Islam treats women as if they don't matter. Only property of men.
Imam Al Tabari in his commentary on Surah 4:24 cites several of the companions and second generation Muslims stating that the marriage of a woman is annulled after she has been captured and made a slave.
Imam Nawawi in his commentary on this hadith states:
فإنه ينفسخ نكاح زوجها الكافر
It (i.e. to come to own a slave girl) annuls the marriage between her and her disbeliever husband. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Ridaa', Bab: Jawaaz Wati' Al Missbiyyah Ba'd Al Istibraa' wa en Kaana laha Zawj Infasakh, Commentary on Hadith no. 2643, Source)
Although this is not directly our discussion, I would like to point to the heart of the issue for the Muslims here. Muslims had problem because the women's husbands were polytheists. They had no problem with the women themselves even though they also were polytheists. They also didn't have problem with the fact that they were married. Another indication that women have no value in Islam?
Thus, we see that in the eyes of Islam this marriage becomes invalid (some opinions like that of the Hanafi school state other conditions required for the annulment to occur). The critic would definitely argue back stating "what gives your religion the right?" but that is not the point of discussion. This is an external critique of Islam and the basis for this discussion really isn't about this topic in particular but about whether Islam really is true and whether this is God's decree.
I thought this discussion was to examen whether Muslims were allowed to raped their slave-girls!
To debate the specifics is just useless. The Muslim sees this decree to be internally consistent and submits to God's law that states that action x results in a divorce.
One might shout out to the Christian as well, "What gives your Bible the right to declare a woman an adulteress if she happened to marry a man who divorced her by not following the proper procedures (Matthew 5:2)?" The Christian really has nothing to say except the fact that he believes that this is God's decree and submits to it. He believes that God has the power and right to determine how divorce should take place (e.g. what conditions are valid for divorce) and submits to them. Well, the Muslim says the same thing in this regard.
This is really not our topic here!
Imam Nawawi goes on to say:
واعلم أن مذهب الشافعي ومن قال بقوله من العلماء أن المسبية من عبدة الأوثان وغيرهم من الكفار الذين لا كتاب لهم لا يحل وطؤها بملك اليمين حتى تسلم فما دامت على دينها فهي محرمة , فهؤلاء المسبيات كن من مشركي العرب عبدة الأوثان , فيؤول هذا الحديث وشبهه على أنهن أسلمن , وهذا التأويل لا بد منه والله أعلم
And know that the school of thought of Al Shafi'i and who agreed with him from amongst the scholars have stated that the idol worshipper and those whom have no religious book cannot be approached for sexual intercourse unless they convert to Islam first. As long as they are following their religion they are forbidden to approach. These slave girls (i.e. in the particular narration) are idol worshippers. This hadith and whatever resembles it must be interpreted as implying that the slave girls accepted Islam. There is no other choice but to interpret the hadiths this way and Allah knows best. (Ibid)
First of all, how did Al Shafi'i motivate this prohibition? What are the verses in the Quran or the hadeeth that support his fatwa?
In addition to that, when a slave-girl becomes Muslim, she is prohibited from having sex with someone other than her husband, otherwise she risks punishment either by 100 lashes or by stoning. So how is she supposed to have sex with her master without her being married to him?
So here we see that a great number of scholars have argued that just as Muslims are forbidden to marry idol worshippers, they are forbidden as well from engaging in sexual intercourse with idol worshipping slave girls. In order to engage in the sexual act, the Muslim must wait for the slave girl to convert to Islam and in Islam there is no shred of evidence whatsoever that the Muslim can force or compel his slave girl to convert to Islam.
Again, which Quran verse or hadeeth supports this view?
We see cases in the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) where slave girls willingly prefer to accept Islam over returning to their tribe due to recognizing the truth of Islam and injustice of their own tribe for provoking the Muslims to war. The most famous case being that of Safiyyah, one of the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Furthermore, when analyzing the particular story mentioned in the hadith we see that no rape could have reasonably taken place.
Here comes the mention of Safiyyah. First of all, Safiyyeh, like most of the captured women, had no tribe left to go back to. Safiyyah had to chose between becoming one of Mohammed's wives or becoming a slave to one of his men. This is her story according to Bukhari, hadeeth nr 371 (among other hadeeths):
---After the Muslims took Khaiber by surprise and force, they gathered the women. A man named Dihieh came to Mohammed and asked him to give him a slave-girl and Mohammed answered him “go take one”, so he took Safiyyeh. Some people then told Mohammed “you gave him Safiyyah, the lady of Quraida and Nadeer? She suites no one but you“ and he said “bring her to me”. They brought her to him and he looked at her, then he told Dihieh to go get himself another slave-girl. He then “set Safiyyah free” and married her. Her dowry was her freedom.---
Does this sound like a willing conversion to Islam? What could she have done? As a matter of fact, she didn't even CHOSE to marry “the prophet”, she wasn't even asked. There are at least 4 different narrations of this story in Bukhari alone and in none of them Safiyyah was asked if she actually wanted to marry Mohammed! Even more, according to the biography of Mohammed written by Ibn Hisham (who based it on the biography written by Ishaq) and according to the biogrophy witten by Haikel, Mohammed had killed Safiyyah's husband in that very raid (over money, but that's not our discussion now) and then “married her” and consummated the marriage (with a guard standing outside his tent all night just in case she would think of avenging her family) the same night that narration above took place. Well, she was Jewish, which means that it is lawful that she gets married to a Muslim man. She was also married and had just become a window. According to Islam, the widow's Idda (waiting period before getting re-married) is 3-4 months, which Safiyyah obviously was not granted. That of course beside the fact that the normal thing for her to do now is morn for her dead husband, specially with her status as the first lady of her tribe.
Please explain how this was not a rape performed by Mohammed himself?!
Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri states:
The Enemy's March and their Encampment at Awtas
When Malik bin 'Awf - the general leader - decided to march and fight the Muslims, he made his countrypeople take their wealth, women and children with them to Awtas - which is a valley in Hawazin land and is quite near Hunain. It differs from Hunain in its being adjacent to Dhi-Al-Majaz which is around ten miles from Makkah in 'Arafat's direction. [Fath Al-Bari 8/27,42]
The War-experienced Man wrongs the Leader's Judgement
As soon as they had camped in Awtas, people crowded round Malik. The old sane Duraid bin As-Simmah, who was well-known as a war-experienced man, and who was among those who gathered round Malik, asked: "What valley are we in?" "In Awtas," they said. "What a good course it is for horses! It is neither a sharp pointed height nor a loosed soiled plain. What? Why do I hear camels' growling, the donkeys' braying, the children's cries and the sheep bleating?" asked Duraid. They said: "Malik bin 'Awf had made people bring their women, properties and children with them." So he called Malik and asked him what made him do such a thing. Malik said that his aim was to have everybody's family and properties around them so that they fight fiercely to protect them." "I swear by Allâh that you are nothing but a shepherd," answered Duraid, "Do you believe that there is anything whatsoever, can stand in the way of a defeated one or stop him from fleeing? If you win the battle you avail nothing but a man with a sword and a spear; but if you lose you will bring disgrace on your people and properties," then he resumed his talk and went on wondering about some septs and their leaders. "O Malik, thrusting the distinguished people of Hawazin into the battlefield will avail you nothing. Raise them up to where they can be safe. Then make the young people mount their horses and fight. If you win, those whom you tarried will follow you, but if you were the loser it would be a loss of a battle, but your kinsmen, people and properties would not be lost." (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar): The Third Stage, Source)
So here we see that it was the disbeliever's fault for bringing their own women and children to the battle field. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was not interested in invading their lands and taking their women as it would be made clear as we read on:
Ok. That was the Awtas. How about the other tribes who Mohammed and his men attacked in their homes? One example is Khaiber. In Saheeh Bukhari, hadeeth 371 (among others) stated clearly that the Muslims surprised Khaiber in the early morning and attacked them while they were going to their work. In Ibn Hisham biography and Haikel's biography, it was clearly stated that Mohammed took Taifs's land and made the people of Taif work it in exchange of half their products. So Mohammed was indeed interested in invading others' lands and taking their women.
A similar battalion of horsemen pursued the idolaters who threaded the track to Nakhlah and caught up with Duraid bin As-Simmah, who was killed by Rabi'a bin Rafi'. After collecting the booty, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] left for Ta'if to face the greatest number of the defeated idolaters. The booty was six thousand captives, twenty four thousand camels; over forty thousand sheep and four thousand silver ounces.
So here we see that the Muslims were victorious and obtained an impressive amount of war booty.
The Distribution of the Booty at Al-Ji'ranah
Upon returning and lifting the siege in Ta'if, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] had stayed over ten nights at Al-Ji'ranah before starting to distribute the booty. Distribution delay was due to the Prophet's hope that Hawazin's delegation might arrive and announce their repentance and consequently reclaim their loss. Seeing that none of them arrived, he started dividing the booty so as to calm down the tribes' chiefs and the celebrities of Makkah. The first to receive booty and the ones who obtained the greatest number of shares were the people who had recently embraced Islam.
Notice this crucial point. The Prophet (peace be upon him) intentionally delayed distributing the booty because he wanted the Hawazin to come back and surrender and then collect their lost war booty.
Notice how the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not eager to keep the women and have his men rape them as some critics allege.
Or he just hoped that he could pressure more people to submit to him this way?
What happens next is amazing:
Arrival of the Hawazin Delegation
Hawazin's delegation arrived a Muslims just after the distribution of spoils. They were fourteen men headed by Zuhair bin Sard. The Messenger's foster uncle was one of them. They asked him to bestow upon them some of the wealth and spoils. They uttered so touching words that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said to them: "You surely see who are with me. The most desirable speech to me is the most truthful. Which is dearer to you, your wealth or your women and children?" They replied: "Nothing whatsoever compares with kinship." Then when I perform the noon prayer, stand up and say: "We intercede with the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to exhort the believers, and we intercede with the believers to exhort the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to forego the captives of our people fallen to their lot." So when the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] performed the noon prayer, they stood up and said what they had been told to say. The Messenger [pbuh], then, said: "As for what belongs to me and to the children of Abdul Muttalib, you may consider them, from now on, yours. And I will ask my folksmen to give back theirs." Upon hearing that the Emigrants and the Helpers said: "What belongs to us is, from now on, offered to the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh]." But Al-Aqra' bin Habis said, "We will grant none of what belongs to me and to Bani Tamim,"; so did 'Uyaina bin Hisn, who said: "As for me and Bani Fazarah, I say 'No'." Al-'Abbas bin Mirdas also refused and said: "No" for Bani Saleem and him. His people, however, said otherwise: "Whatever spoils belong to us we offer to the Messenger of Allâh ([pbuh].)" "You have undermined my position." Said Al-'Abbas bin Mirdas spontaneously. Then the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said: "These people have come to you as Muslims. For this I have already tarried the distribution of the booty. Besides, I have granted them a fair option but they refused to have anything other than their women and children. Therefore he who has some of theirs and will prefer willingly to give them back, let them do. But those who favours to keep what he owns to himself, let them grant them back too, and he will be given as a recompense six times as much from the first booty that Allâh may provide us." People then said, "We will willingly offer them all for the sake of the Messenger of Allâh." The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said: "But in this way we are not able to find out who is content and who is not. So go back and we will be waiting for your chiefs to convey to us your decisions." All of them gave back the women and children. The only one who refused to comply with the Messenger's desire was 'Uyaina bin Hisn. He refused to let an old woman of theirs go back at first. Later on he let her go back. The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] gave every captive a garment as a gift.
Just look at the mercy of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Indeed, this is the true definition of the word "mercy". Mercy is only real when one is in power to not be merciful yet willingly decides to be, just as we see the Prophet (peace be upon him) do in this situation (and many other situations as well).
How merciful indeed! I wonder where this “mercy” had been when he took these people by surprise, killed their men, captured their women and confiscated their property just because he could! No, saying that they were attacked because they were Jews who plotted against Mohammed is not an accepted excuse because it's a completely baseless accusation and I challenge you to produce solid evidence that they actually did plot against Mohammed.
But again, that's not really our subject. Our subject is whether Muslims raped their slave-girls or not!
So here we see that the Muslims weren't raping savages, but merciful human beings.
How did you arrive to this conclusion from the above? They attacked Taif and took their women. The men of Taif were fighting the Muslims, so why did the Muslims took the innocent women? Because it was the custom that the winning party takes the women of the losing party? Well, you don't become merciful by doing what everyone else does, you become merciful by doing what everyone else does not do, otherwise your actions are not outstanding in any way! If Mohammed and the Muslims were really merciful human beings, they would not have attacked Taif in the first place. And if they would attack, they would have left the women and children morn in peace in their homes. Even if the Muslims felt they were forced to attack, no one could possibly have forced them to take the women!
Thus, for this particular narration we can conclude that:
- Muslims are not permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with idol worshippers unless they convert to Islam first and once they have converted to Islam it would make their consenting to sexual intercourse much easier.
No, you did not provide evidence for that from the Quran, Hadeeth or Sunnah
- There is no evidence of any ill treatment of the slave girls by the Muslim soldiers.
The women were taken from their homes and distributed between the Muslims by force. Doesn't that classify as ill treatment?
- There is no evidence of any slave girls engaging in sexual intercourse with any Muslim soldier. The Muslims might have returned them back to their tribe before they had the chance to.
“Might” is not an argument. “The Muslims might have returned them back to their tribe before they had the chance to”? Did you actually read your own words? First of all, you don't have evidence that supports your “might” theory. You say they might have been returned before they engaged in sexual activity and I say they might have been returned after they engaged in sexual activity. Why should anyone take any of our words against the other without backing them with evidence.
Let's assume that the captives were returned before they had the chance to have sexual activity (these were your own words), this only means that the only reason the Muslim men did not engage in sexual activity with these captives is because they didn't have the chance, they didn't have the time, not because they were “nice people”. Besides, these women were returned to their tribes, what about the thousands of other women captured after other battles and raids and were not returned?
- There is no evidence of any Muslim soldier raping his slave girl.
The slave-girls weren't even asked! Meaning that there consent was not required. If their consent was not obtained then it is rape according to the definitions.
- Even if there is evidence, there is no evidence that the Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of it.
Mohammed himself raped Safiyyah, so that's not an excuse. Even if we assume that he didn't approve, where are the evidence indicating that?
The Islamic critic would also appeal to the following narration, which states:
Jami At-Tirmidhi 1137 - Jabir bin Abdullah narrated: "We practiced Azl while the Qur'an was being revealed." . . . Malik bin Anas said: "The permission of the free woman is to be requested for Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus), while the slave woman's permission need not be requested."
He would argue that this narration shows that one could engage in coitus interruptus without the permission of his slave girl, which means that he could rape her.
The first and most important thing to note is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn't say that, Imam Maalik said that. The Prophet (peace be upon him) is our final authority.
Imam Maalik's reasoning was that the free woman has the right to have a child. The man doesn't have the right to forbid his wife from having a child, thus he must ask her permission before doing azl. However, if the Muslim gets his slave girl pregnant, she seizes to become his slave girl and he must marry her. The Muslim therefore, doesn't have to ask for her permission to do azl when they make consensual sex.
This contradicts the hadeeth YOU mentioned above:
“Sahih al-Bukhari 4138 - Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e., coitus interruptus). Abu Sa'id said, "We went out with Allah's Messenger for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq, and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So, when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus without asking Allah's Messenger while he is present among us?' We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection.'" (Sahih Bukhari, no. 4138)”
According to this hadeeth, there is no point of azl because if God wanted someone to be born, he/she will get born. This is the rule and is regardless of the woman being slave or free. So whether the man and his wife intended to practice azl or not, this has no effect on her becoming pregnant if God willed her to.
A question though, what if he got his slave-girl pregnant and he already had four wives? What if he already have children with all his four wives or if all his four wives got pregnant around the same time he got the slave-girl pregnant? Theoretically, this could happen. Which wife then should he divorce so that he could marry the pregnant salve-girl?
Again, where is the rape?
What's azl got to do with rape? One can practice both!
Even if Imam Malik said that you can rape her (which he didn't), he is not my final authority, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is.
Then why are you quoting him?!
So what evidence did Imam Maalik use then from the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify his statement that one can rape his slave girl (which he didn't say, it's only for the sake of argument)?
What specific evidence did Imam Maalik use from the Quran and Sunnah to state that rape is not permitted in Islam?
The critic might reply back and say that the fact that the man has a "right" to have sex with his slave girl indicates that the man is permitted to do "all it takes" to take his rights.
Even if we say that it is his right, it is his right just like how it is his right to receive obedience from his children. Just like how it is his right to get inheritance if his father passes away.
Now is the critic seriously trying to argue that Islam would permit a man to physically abuse his children if they didn't give him his right of respect?
Yes. In Dawood's hadeeth collection we can read that Mohammed said “Order your children to pray at the age of seven and beat them if they do not do so by the age of ten”. Sure it is because the children are neglecting “God's rights”, but the point is that he permitted the parents to hit their children, aka. physically abuse them.
Is he also trying to say that he can physically abuse and harm his sister if she were to try and steal some of his inheritance money?
If his sister tries stealing his inheritance money, he is entitled to cut off her hands – Quran 5:38. Don't you consider this as physical abuse and harm?
Furthermore, verse 4:34 in the Quran states clearly that a man is permitted to beat his wife if she does not obey him (which is his right). Sure there are steps that should be taken before that, but once these steps are taken, he's free to beat her. Since the “function” of a slave-girl is closer to the function of a wife (they both have to obey him and he's allowed to sleep with both of them), she should be compared with the disobeying wife, not with the thief sister. So if he's is allowed to beat his wife, the free woman, for disobeying him, why wouldn't he be allowed to beat his slave-girl for disobeying him? Since the verse does not specify the reason why a woman should be beaten, why isn't he allowed to beat her if she disobeyed him by refusing to have sex with him? You would probably say that a woman is not entitled to obey her husband if he orders her to do something against God's command. Neither sleeping with one's wife nor slave-girl is against God's command, so she is required to obey him in this case.
In Islam, one of the rights that a Muslim has over his brother is to be visited when he is sick and to be greeted with peace. If my Muslim brother does not greet me with peace or visit me when I am sick, does that mean that I can physically abuse him until he does, so that "he gives me my right"?
It seems like this is what he is saying if he were to be consistent. According to this logic, if the Qur'an says someone is entitled to something or has a right to something that means that the person can do whatever he wants - even if it was forbidden - in order to obtain that right.
Interesting point! So which rights entitles one to use force to get them, and which rights that don't? How do you decide?
This is something absolutely ridiculous, which no Muslim scholar in antiquity has stated. I am really speechless and don't really know how to reply back to such a laughable argument.
Actually, I find your arguments are laughable. Why would a man be allowd to obtain his right of obedience from his wife by beating her but not his right of a visit from his brother when sick by breaking his brother's leg?
Plus, this could also work against the Christian. I can argue that the Bible states that the man has the right to have sex with his wife, thus if she refuses then he can hurt her! The Christian would reply back and say that he can't hurt his wife because there are other verses that state that he can't do so and this is exactly what we have shown in this article in regards to the slave girl.
We are not really talking about the Bible and Christianity now, are we?
Islam forbids one to harm those under his authority. Since rape is considered a form of harm that would mean that rape is forbidden. We have also seen that history shows that slave girls in the past did consent to having sex with their captors; hence we must keep our subjective emotions aside and agree with this objective fact. In light of this fact, there is nothing absurd in believing that the Muslims did not rape their slave girls especially since they were forbidden from doing so. And even if some of the Muslims back then did rape their slave girls, this would only show that they committed a sinful act and not that the Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of such behavior. In conclusion, Islam does not permit the Muslim man to rape his slave girl.
Muslims claim that women had no rights, whatsoever, before Islam. They claim that female infants used to be berried alive and that women did not use to inherit anything. On the contrary, they used to be inherited themselves as any object in the house. They claim that Islam gave women their rights and dignity.
Since women had no rights before Islam and were treated like any other object in the house, it would be natural that early Msulims laughed at the idea that the women's consent is required in order for a man to engage in sexual activities with them. If Allah really wanted to show that women are worth something, wouldn't the first thing he would have done be to emphasize the importance of the woman's consent before engaging in sexual activities with her? But as it is, nowhere in the Quran, Hadeeth or Sunnah it is mentioned that a woman, any woman, whether slave of free, should be asked whether she wanted to engage in a sexual activity. How is it not considered rape when their consent is not even required?