Does Islam Permit Muslim Men to Rape Their Slave Girls?

By Bassam Zawadi

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. 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. Rape in Islam is completely forbidden. See this and this. Imam Maalik said:

: : , :
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:

"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. 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'

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. Do these critics who raise these arguments know Islam better than Umar ibn al Khattab? 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 girlafter 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) '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). The Prophet (peace be upon him) made it clear that we shouldn't harm slaves:

Saheeh Bukhari
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. Who would rape his own sister? The Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade causing physical harm to slaves:

Saheeh Muslim
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. 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. 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. Thus, our argument is as follows: - The Prophet (peace be upon him) has prohibited causing harm to and oppressing those under our authority. - Rape is causing harm to someone and is considered a form of oppression - 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. - 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. 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. 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 AlMustaliq, 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 - 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, "Cyclopdia 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 captors. 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. 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? How does the critic know whether the Muslim back then actually raped the slave girl who was unwilling to have sex with him? 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. How does the critic know that none of these things happened? What is his proof that the Muslims raped their slave girls? The narration doesn't show: - How many Muslim captors decided to go through with having sex with the slave girls? - How many women actually ended up having sex with their Muslim captors? - Most importantly, whether any slave girls were raped 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. 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: 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:

Saheeh Muslim
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.

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:

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)

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. 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.

Imam Nawawi goes on to say:

, , ,
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)

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. 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. 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 Allh 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:

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 Allh [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. Continuing on:

The Distribution of the Booty at Al-Ji'ranah Upon returning and lifting the siege in Ta'if, the Messenger of Allh [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. 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 Allh [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 Allh [pbuh] to exhort the believers, and we intercede with the believers to exhort the Messenger of Allh [pbuh] to forego the captives of our people fallen to their lot." So when the Messenger of Allh [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 Allh [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 Allh ([pbuh].)" "You have undermined my position." Said Al-'Abbas bin Mirdas spontaneously. Then the Messenger of Allh [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 Allh may provide us." People then said, "We will willingly offer them all for the sake of the Messenger of Allh." The Messenger of Allh [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 Allh [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). So here we see that the Muslims weren't raping savages, but merciful human beings. 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. There is no evidence of any ill treatment of the slave girls by the Muslim soldiers. 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. There is no evidence of any Muslim soldier raping his slave girl. Even if there is evidence, there is no evidence that the Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of it.

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 ceases 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. Again, where is the rape? 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. 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)?

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? 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? 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. 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. 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.

Conclusion
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.

Did the Prophet Muhammad allow Muslim Soldiers to rape female Captives?

Did Muslim Warriors Rape Female Captives? Anti-Islamists often raise -as a point of contention- that there are several ahadith [traditions from the life of the Prophet Muhammad ~sallill'ahu 'aleyhi wa salaam~] and Quran verses which seem to allow not only for men to take female captives in war, but also to have sexual relations with them, even against their will [i.e. rape]. They often point to Quran verses such as the following: And all married women (are forbidden unto you -Muslims) save those whom your right hands possess. [Holy Qu'ran 4:24] The words that are translated into English in that verse as those whom your right hands possess is the Arabic phrase ma malakat aymanukum and in the classical Arabic it is a polite term for slaves captured in war. Thus the above verse is forbidding men to have an intimate relationship with married women, unless those women are war captives. The hot button issue here is that men are seemingly given the permission to have sex with slave-women, whether married or unmarried. It is easy to take this verse out of its context and say, See! Islam doesnt respect womens rights and allows men to take them as slaves and force themselves on them! Boo Islam! THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT A call to grasping the historical context of this Quran verse is in order. We must understand that the first recipients of the Message of Islam, [which is the world as it was known in the 7th century] had a custom of taking women captives of war, and thus it should be noted that Islam did not invent this practice. This custom of having sexual relations with slave-girls was practiced by virtually every culture at the time. The wars in the Pre-Islamic Arabian Penninsula were on a tribal basis, and when the men were killed their women were taken and undoubtedly were treated quite inhumanely.

However, the Prophet Muhammad ~sallillahu aleyhi wa salaam~ was sent to abolish (or start the process of abolishing) all of that which was inhumane and degrading to mankind. He [saas] has said in an authentic tradition that I have been sent to make perfect the moral character [of man]. Having the task of eliminating this [and hundreds of other] evils, the Prophet [saas] could have taken one of two paths: 1-To abolish it at once. 2-To do the same gradually with wisdom. Allah [swt] and His Messenger [saas] preferred the second path because if such a deeply ingrained practice had been abolished at once then thousands of women would have been left to provide for themselves, and the likelihood of Arab men taking damaged goods [as they are called] as their wives was unlikely. The first duty of the Prophet [saas], then was to establish a more humane and compassionate view of women in his society, and gradually teach people to respect and have mercy on the lower class as they are called, to forgive people for that which they may have had inflicted on them or for sins they may have committed in their past, etc. Once the hearts of his followers had reached this level of sublime morality, then steps were taken via Quranic revelations and Prophetic instructions to discourage the practice of concubinage so much so that within 100 years of the death of the Prophet [saas], it had been wiped out of the Arab penninsula as a whole. We have to consider what the condition of such women would have been had the institution of slavery not been in place. This was a time before homeless shelters, before womens rights movements, etc. Imagine a woman whose male family members had all been killed on the battlefield in a dessimated and war-torn city. After the intruding armies had left, what was she to do? How would she support herself? Islam first dealt with this problem by putting them under the guardianship of Muslim men and mandated that they should treat them kindly, provide them board and lodge and give them respect. Imagine what could have been their fate in that particular environment had things not been thus! THE TREATMENT OF CAPTIVES As stated, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. We cannot deny that Muslims were allowed to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, however, the woman would automatically become free if she became pregnant. Furthermore, her child would also become free. The intimate physical relation, if any, had to be consensual. For, forcing somebody into such a situation [i.e. rape] is against the very spirit of Islam. We see that the

Prophet Muhammad [saas] ordered the Muslims to treat their war-captives fairly and to treat them how they themselves would wish to be treated: Narrated Abu Dharr: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Feed those of your slaves who please you from what you eat and clothe them with what you clothe yourselves, but sell those who do not please you and do not punish Allahs creatures. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 5161. Albani classified it as Sahih) The Hadith clearly tells us that if a slave woman does not please her master i.e. refuse to work for him or allow him to lay down with her, the master is supposed to either bare patiently with her, or sell her. If he will not; he will indulge in something wrong i.e. he may force her into such an action and the Hadith terms such an act as punishing Allahs creatures. IS IT LAWFUL TO RAPE A SLAVE-GIRL ACCORDING TO HADITH? The following Hadith even more explicitly states that it is unlawful to force a slave woman into physical relations: Narrated Salamah ibn al-Muhabbaq: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) made a decision about a man who had intercourse with his wifes slave-girl as follows: If he forced her, she is free, and he shall give her mistress a slave-girl similar to her; if she asked him to have intercourse voluntarily, she will belong to him, and he shall give her mistress a slave-girl similar to her. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 4460. Ibn Taymiyya authenticated it in his Majmua al-Fatawa 4/360 saying Some have doubted this Hadith for its chain but it is a Hasan Hadith.) This is the most categorical Hadith maintaining that forced relationship is forbidden and it makes her free. Also: The Prophet (pbuh) was narrated to have said; He who slaps his slave or beats him, the expiation for it is that he should set him free. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 3130) When slapping the slave is such a heinous crime in the House of Islam, how can one think that Islam would allow the raping of slave women? There is also a hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud which mentions that a man forced his slave-girl into fornication [with other men], whereupon Allah [swt] sent down a special revelation of the Quran which stated: But force not your maids to fornication when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them [upon him is wrath], yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them). [Q 24:33].

THE VIEW OF THE COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET: Also, based on these teachings, the companions of Muhammad [saas], particularly his closest companions, considered the practice makruh -an Islamic ruling that means hated by Allah -and this is derived from the fact that the 2nd successor to Muhammad, the blessed Umar ibn al Khattab [raa], ordered the Muslims to send back female captives of war saying, I would not like the taking of concubines to become a custom among the Arabs. [Related in Al Khilafa wal Khulafa' Rashidun p.160]. This authenticated statement of Umar ibn Al Khattab [raa] -who Muslims revere and who the Prophet Muhammad [saas] said of him If there were to be any Prophet after me, it would be Umar in fact, teaches us two things. First it shows that by the time of Umars [raa] rule, which began within three years of the death of the Prophet [saas], it was already a custom which was non-existent in Arabia due to the stringent regulations and emphatic teachings of the Prophet Muhammad [saas]. -Otherwise why was Umar saying that he would not like this to become a practice? It had already been a practice, after all! How could it become a practice again, except that before Umars Caliphate, the practice had been erradicated? The second thing we learn from this statement of Umar ibn Al-Khattab [raa], is that the immediate followers of the Prophet Muhammad [saas], understood the practice to be something which was heavily frowned upon in the Islamic religion, to such an extent that the Caliph has the right to forbid it outright. SLAVE-RAPE ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC LAW: Due to these Prophetic Hadiths and Quran verses, as well as the understanding of the early Muslims, the early schools of Islamic Law actually stipulated punishments for men who raped female slaves. Imam Malik [raa] said, 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) -Now, Imam Malik was an early Muslim scholar who learned from the students of the Sahabah [companions of the Prophet Muhammad], yet his fatwa clearly states that a restitution must be paid to a slave girl who is raped. Imam Shafii [raa], another early scholar of Islamic law, wrote: 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 [which is public lashing]. (Imam Al Shaafii, Kitaabul Umm, Volume 3, page 253) -Imam Shafiis [raa] view was much more strict than that of Imam Malik [raa], as he not only said that the slave girl must be paid a restitution, but she is removed from his guardianship, and the offender is to be publically lashed! SUMMARY: In conclusion the following key points are to be remembered: First, this is a practice Islam did not establish, but rather initially highly regulated, and later eradicated. Both the Quran and Hadith explicitly as well as implicitly forbid the raping of female captives, not to mention the concept of rape is against clearly established principals of the Islamic religion. The companions of the Prophet Muhammad [saas] outlawed the practice of intimate relations with slave girls either toward the end of the life of the Prophet, or very soon after his death because of his teachings on the subject. Umar ibn Khattab [raa], who the Prophet [saas] said of him Were there to be a Prophet after me it would be Umar considered the practice detestable and forbade the Arabs from partaking in it. And, finally, the early scholars of Islamic law considered raping female slaves a crime that carried with it certain corporal punishments. From these facts and others we could mention but have refrained from due to lack of time and will, we see that the Prophet Muhammad [saas], far from being the reason for concubinage in the world, was in fact its main opponent and destroyer, for he is truly the mercy to all humankind.