Does Islam Permit Muslim Men to Rape Their Slave Girls?

Seeking Allah's Mercy

Qul HuwaAllahu Ahud!
Asalamo`Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Baraakaatuh,

Awesome Artical!

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:

ÇáÃãÑ ÚäÏäÇ Ýí ÇáÑÌá íÛÊÕÈ ÇáãÑÃÉ ÈßÑÇð ßÇäÊ Ãæ ËíÈÇ : ÃäåÇ Åä ßÇäÊ ÍÑÉ : ÝÚáíå ÕÏÇÞ ãËáåÇ , æÅä ßÇäÊ ÃãóÉ : ÝÚáíå ãÇ äÞÕ ãä ËãäåÇ ¡ æÇáÚÞæÈÉ Ýí Ðáß Úáì ÇáãÛÊÕÈ ¡ æáÇ ÚÞæÈÉ Úáì ÇáãÛÊÕÈÉ Ýí Ðáß ßáå​
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:

æÅÐÇ ÇÛÊÕÈ ÇáÑÌá ÇáÌÇÑíÉ Ëã æØÆåÇ ÈÚÏ ÇáÛÕÈ æåæ ãä ÛíÑ Ãåá ÇáÌåÇáÉ ÃÎÐÊ ãäå ÇáÌÇÑíÉ æÇáÚÞÑ æÃÞíã Úáíå ÍÏ ÇáÒäÇ


"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 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)

'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 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

- 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 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:

þÍÏËäÇ þ þÚÈíÏ Çááå Èä ÚãÑ Èä ãíÓÑÉ þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þíÒíÏ Èä ÒÑíÚ þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þÓÚíÏ þ þÚä þ þÞÊÇÏÉ þ þÚä þ þÕÇáÍ ÃÈí ÇáÎáíá þ þÚä þ þÃÈí ÚáÞãÉ ÇáåÇÔãí þ þÚä þ þÃÈí ÓÚíÏ ÇáÎÏÑí þ
þÃä ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÈÚË íæã þ þÍäíä þ þÈÚËÇ þ þÅáì þ þÃæØÇÓ þ þÝáÞæÇ ÚÏæåã ÝÞÇÊáæåã ÝÙåÑæÇ Úáíåã æÃÕÇÈæÇ áåã þ þÓÈÇíÇ þ þÝßÃä ÃäÇÓÇ ãä þ þÃÕÍÇÈ ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÊÍÑÌæÇ ãä þ þÛÔíÇäåä þ þãä ÃÌá ÃÒæÇÌåä ãä ÇáãÔÑßíä ÝÃäÒá Çááå ÊÚÇáì Ýí Ðáß þ þæÇáãÍÕäÇÊ þ þãä ÇáäÓÇÁ ÅáÇ ãÇ ãáßÊ ÃíãÇäßã þ
þÃí Ýåä áåã ÍáÇá ÅÐÇ ÇäÞÖÊ ÚÏÊåä



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:



ÝÅäå íäÝÓÎ äßÇÍ ÒæÌåÇ ÇáßÇÝÑ

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:

æÇÚáã Ãä ãÐåÈ ÇáÔÇÝÚí æãä ÞÇá ÈÞæáå ãä ÇáÚáãÇÁ Ãä ÇáãÓÈíÉ ãä ÚÈÏÉ ÇáÃæËÇä æÛíÑåã ãä ÇáßÝÇÑ ÇáÐíä áÇ ßÊÇÈ áåã áÇ íÍá æØÄåÇ Èãáß Çáíãíä ÍÊì ÊÓáã ÝãÇ ÏÇãÊ Úáì ÏíäåÇ Ýåí ãÍÑãÉ , ÝåÄáÇÁ ÇáãÓÈíÇÊ ßä ãä ãÔÑßí ÇáÚÑÈ ÚÈÏÉ ÇáÃæËÇä , ÝíÄæá åÐÇ ÇáÍÏíË æÔÈåå Úáì Ãäåä ÃÓáãä , æåÐÇ ÇáÊÃæíá áÇ ÈÏ ãäå æÇááå ÃÚáã

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 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:


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.

Continuing on:

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.

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).

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.


Source and it was shared by the writer here
 

Rustandi

الفقير الى الله
Wa'alaykumussalaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh,

Jazaakallahu khayran for this beneficial article sister, its a new information for me. I used to have confusion about this as well, but never had the chance to ask it to the knowledgable people.
 

Precious Star

Junior Member
It is interesting, but slavery has been abolished in the modern world. Any practice of slavery is illegal by all international and domestic laws. So the entire issue is moot.
 

rivergum

Junior Member
I am actually surprised the question has been raised.

I thought both slavery and rape are universally condemned - apparently not.
 

HIBBA2009

Daughter of Adam
Asalamalikum wah rahmahtullah wah bahrakhtu sister

jazakAllah khair for this beneficial thread but here are also our small brothers and sisters , so i think this article is not good for them , please be avoid

walikumsalam wah rahmahtullah wah bahkahrtu
 

Seeking Allah's Mercy

Qul HuwaAllahu Ahud!
Wa'alaykumussalaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh,

Jazaakallahu khayran for this beneficial article sister, its a new information for me. I used to have confusion about this as well, but never had the chance to ask it to the knowledgable people.

BaraakAllaahu feek. I had this question for quite sometime too. I intended to do research upon this, but never quite got the time. Alhumdulillah I bumped across this article when try to refute an atheist regarding some rape issues. I think it useful enough to pass it on.
 

Seeking Allah's Mercy

Qul HuwaAllahu Ahud!
I am actually surprised the question has been raised.

I thought both slavery and rape are universally condemned - apparently not.

It is interesting, but slavery has been abolished in the modern world. Any practice of slavery is illegal by all international and domestic laws. So the entire issue is moot.

Slavery in Islam is permissible with certain (and very strict) conditions and with the encouragement of abolishing it to the extent that Islamic world got slavery abolished without a drop of blood spilled and with it being permissible.

The entire issue isn't moot when you are learning your deen and how it sets rules. The world may dictate anything, we follow Islam only and for that, it is necessary that we understand it.

JazaakumAllaahu Khayraa.
 

Seeking Allah's Mercy

Qul HuwaAllahu Ahud!
Asalamalikum wah rahmahtullah wah bahrakhtu sister

jazakAllah khair for this beneficial thread but here are also our small brothers and sisters , so i think this article is not good for them , please be avoid

walikumsalam wah rahmahtullah wah bahkahrtu

Wasalamo`Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Baraakaatuh,

BaraakAllaahu feeki, I understand your concerns dear sister, but I don't see any harm provided they learn filth 24/7 from cartoon network. I find it important for anyone who is old enough to operate his/her way through a forum to be educated about Islam.

Btw many kids would read something so long *Smile*

BaraakAllaahu feeki
 

Rustandi

الفقير الى الله
Assalamu'alaykum


Just wanted to post a great article for people who are still not familiar about the concept of slavery in Islam.

Its quite long, but please read carefully till the end.

Islam and slavery


I often hear Christian missionaries criticizing Islam and accusing it because Islam permitted slavery, and saying that this is a transgression against man’s freedom and rights. How can we respond to these people?.

Praise be to Allaah.
Discussing slavery and asking questions about it on the part of those who promote Christianity and try to divert people from following the religion of Islam is something that annoys the wise person and makes him point the finger of accusation towards the ulterior motives that lie behind these questions.

That is because slavery is well established in Judaism and Christianity, where it has taken unjust forms. They have many books which discuss that in detail and condone it. Therefore it makes you wonder: how can these churchmen call people to Christianity when Christianity condones and legitimizes slavery?

In other words: how can they stir up an issue when they themselves are up to their necks in it?!

The issue of slavery is completely different when discussed from the angles of Christianity and Islam, and when compared with the situation that prevailed at the advent of Islam.

Hence we must discuss this topic in some detail with reference to what is said in Judaism, Christianity and contemporary culture on this matter, then we will speak of slavery in Islam.

Many lies have been fabricated about Islam on this topic, at a time when criminals with lengthy track records are safe and nobody points a finger at them.

Islam and slavery:

Islam affirms that Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, created man fully accountable, and enjoined duties upon him, to which reward and punishment are connected on the basis of man’s free will and choice.

No human being has the right to restrict this freedom or take away that choice unlawfully; whoever dares to do that is a wrongdoer and oppressor.

This is one of the basic principles of Islam. When the question is asked: why does Islam permit slavery? We reply emphatically and without shame that slavery is permitted in Islam, but we should examine the matter with fairness and with the aim of seeking the truth, and we should examine the details of the rulings on slavery in Islam, with regard to the sources and reasons for it, and how to deal with the slave and how his rights and duties are equal to those of the free man, and the ways in which he may earn his freedom, of which there are many in sharee’ah, whilst also taking into consideration the new types of slavery in this world which is pretending to be civilized, modern and progressive.

When Islam came, there were many causes of slavery, such as warfare, debt (where if the debtor could not pay off his debt, he became a slave), kidnapping and raids, and poverty and need.

Slavery did not spread in this appalling manner throughout all continents except by means of kidnapping; rather the main source of slaves in Europe and America in later centuries was this method.

The texts of Islam took a strong stance against this. It says in a hadeeth qudsi: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227).

It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them.

There were many sources of slaves at the time of the advent of Islam, whereas the means of manumitting them were virtually nil. Islam changed the way in which slavery was dealt with; it created many new ways of liberating slaves, blocked many ways of enslaving people, and established guidelines which blocked these means.

Islam limited the sources of slaves that existed before the beginning of the Prophet’s mission to one way only: enslavement through war which was imposed on kaafir prisoners-of-war and on their womenfolk and children.

Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allaah and His Messenger. When Allaah enables the Muslim mujaahideen who are offering their souls and their wealth, and fighting with all their strength and with what Allaah has given them to make the word of Allaah supreme over the kuffaar, then He makes them their property by means of slavery unless the ruler chooses to free them for nothing or for a ransom, if that serves the interests of the Muslims. End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (3/387).

He also said:

If it is said: If the slave becomes Muslim then why keep him as a slave, when the reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allaah and His Messenger, so this reason no longer applies?

The answer is that the well known principle among the scholars and all wise people, which is that the previously established right cannot be erased by a right that is established later, and that what came first takes precedence, is obvious.

When the Muslims captured kuffaar, their right to possession was affirmed by the law of the Creator of all, Who is All Wise and All Knowing. So this right is confirmed and established. Then if the slave became Muslim after that, his right to escape slavery by embracing Islam was superseded by the mujaahid’s prior right to take possession of him before he became Muslim, and it would be unjust and unfair to annul the prior right because of a subsequent right, as is well known to all wise people.

Yes, it is good for the master to free the slave if he becomes Muslim. The Lawgiver enjoined and encouraged that, and opened many doors to it. Glory be to the Most Wise, the All Knowing. “And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All‑Hearer, the All‑Knower” [al-An’aam 6:115].

“in truth” means in what He tells us, and “in justice” means in His rulings.

Undoubtedly this justice refers to owning slaves and other rulings of the Qur’aan.

How many people criticize something sound when their problem is their own misunderstanding. End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (3/389).

Capture of prisoners during war was the most common way of acquiring slaves. Prisoners would inevitably be captured during any war, and the prevalent custom at that time was that prisoners had no protection or rights; they would either be killed or enslaved. But Islam brought two more options: unconditional release or ransom. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam)” [Muhammad 47:4]. During the battle of Badr the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted ransoms from the mushrik prisoners of war and let them go, and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) let many of the prisoners go for free, releasing them with no ransom. During the conquest of Makkah it was said to the people of Makkah: “Go, for you are free.”

During the campaign of Banu’l-Mustaliq, the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married a female prisoner from the defeated tribe so as to raise her status, as she was the daughter of one of their leaders, namely the Mother of the Believers Juwayriyah bint al-Haarith (may Allaah be pleased with her). Then the Muslims let all of these prisoners go.

Islam is not thirsty for the blood of prisoners, nor is it eager to enslave them.

Thus we may understand the limited ways that can lead to slavery. Islam did not abolish it altogether, because the kaafir prisoner who was opposed to truth and justice was a wrongdoer, or was a supporter of wrongdoing or was a tool in the execution or approval of wrongdoing. Letting him go free would give him the opportunity to spread wrongdoing and aggression against others and to oppose the truth and prevent it reaching people.

Freedom is a basic human right which cannot be taken away from a person except for a reason. When Islam accepted slavery within the limits that we have described, it put restrictions on the man who exploits his freedom in the worst possible way. If he was taken prisoner in a war of aggression in which he was defeated, then the proper conduct is to keep him in reasonable conditions throughout his detention.

Despite all that, Islam offers many opportunities to restore freedom to him and people like him.

The principle of dealing with slaves in Islam is a combination of justice, kindness and compassion.

One of the means of liberating slaves is allocating a portion of zakaah funds to freeing slaves; the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce that is forbidden), breaking vows and having intercourse during the day in Ramadaan, is to free a slave. In addition to that, Muslims are also encouraged in general terms to free slaves for the sake of Allaah.

This is a brief summary of some of the principles of dealing with slaves in a just and kind manner:

1 – Guaranteeing them food and clothing like that of their masters.

It was narrated that Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “They are your brothers whom Allaah has put under your authority, so if Allaah has put a person’s brother under his authority, let him feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears, and let him not overburden him with work, and if he does overburden him with work, then let him help him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6050).

2 – Preserving their dignity

It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard Abu’l-Qaasim (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever accuses his slave when he is innocent of what he says will be flogged on the Day of Resurrection, unless he is as he said.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6858).

Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) manumitted a slave of his, then he picked up a stick or something from the ground and said: There is no more reward in it than the equivalent of this, but I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, his expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated by Muslim (1657).

3 – Being fair towards slaves and treating them kindly

It was narrated that ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan tweaked the ear of a slave of his when he did something wrong, then he said to him after that: Come and tweak my ear in retaliation. The slave refused but he insisted, so he started to tweak it slightly, and he said to him: Do it strongly, for I cannot bear the punishment on the Day of Resurrection. The slave said: Like that, O my master? The Day that you fear I fear also.

When ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf (may Allaah be pleased with him) walked among his slaves, no one could tell him apart from them, because he did not walk ahead of them, and he did not wear anything different from what they wore.

One day ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab passed by and saw some slaves standing and not eating with their master. He got angry and said to their master: What is wrong with people who are selfish towards their servants? Then he called the servants and they ate with them.

A man entered upon Salmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) and found him making dough – and he was a governor. He said to him: O Abu ‘Abd-Allaah, what is this? He said: We have sent our servant on an errand and we do not want to give him two jobs at once.

4 – There is nothing wrong with slaves having precedence over free men in some matters

- with regard to any religious or worldly matters in which he excels over him. For example, it is valid for a slave to lead the prayer. ‘Aa’ishah the Mother of the Believers had a slave who would lead her in prayer. Indeed the Muslims have been commanded to hear and obey even if a slave is appointed in charge of their affairs.

5 – A slave may buy himself from his master and be free.

If a person is enslaved for some reason but then it becomes apparent that he has given up his wrongdoing and forgotten his past, and he has become a man who shuns evil and seeks to do good, is it permissible to respond to his request to let him go free? Islam says yes, and there are some fuqaha’ who say that this is obligatory and some who say that it is mustahabb.

This is what is called a mukaatabah or contract of manumission between the slave and his master. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allaah which He has bestowed upon you”

[al-Noor 24:33]

This is how Islam treats slaves justly and kindly.

One of the results of these guidelines is that in many cases, the slave would become a friend of his master; in some cases the master would regard him as a son. Sa’d ibn Haashim al-Khaalidi said, describing a slave of his:

He is not a slave, rather he is a son whom [Allaah] has put under my care.

He has supported me with his good service; he is my hands and my arms.

Another result of the Muslims treating slaves in this manner is that the slaves became part of Muslim families as if they were also family members.

Gustave le Bon says in Hadaarat al-‘Arab (Arab Civilization) (p. 459-460): What I sincerely believe is that slavery among the Muslims is better than slavery among any other people, and that the situation of slaves in the east is better than that of servants in Europe, and that slaves in the east are part of the family. Slaves who wanted to be free could attain freedom by expressing their wish. But despite that, they did not resort to exercising this right. End quote.

How did non-Muslims treat slaves?

Attitude of the Jews towards slaves:

According to the Jews, mankind is divided into two groups: the Israelites form one group and all of mankind is another group.

As for the Israelites, it is permissible to enslave some of them, according to specific teachings contained in the Old Testament.

As for people other than the Israelites, they are a low-class race according to the Jews, who may be enslaved via domination and subjugation, because they are people who are doomed to humiliation by the heavenly decree from eternity. It says in Exodus 21:2-6:

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.

3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.

4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,'

6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life”

As for enslaving non-Hebrews, this is done by taking them captive or overpowering them, because they believe that their race is superior to others, and they try to find a justification for that slavery in their distorted Torah. So they say that Ham the son of Noah – who was the father of Canaan – angered his father, because Noah was drunk one day and became naked as he was sleeping in his tent, and Ham saw him like that. When Noah found out about that after he woke up, he got angry and he cursed his progeny who were descendents of Canaan, and he said – according to the Book of Genesis 9:25-26): “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.’ He also said, ‘Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.’”

In the same chapter (v. 27) it says: “May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his [or their] slave”.

In the Book of Deuteronomy 20:10-14, it says:

“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.

11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.

12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.

13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.

14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves”

Attitude of the Christians towards slaves:

Christianity confirmed slavery as it had been affirmed beforehand by Judaism. There is no text in the Gospels that prohibits or denounces slavery. It is remarkable that the historian William Muir criticized our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for not immediately abolishing slavery, whilst overlooking the attitude of the Gospels concerning slavery, as there is no report from the Messiah, or from the Disciples, or from the churches concerning this issue.

Rather, in his Epistles, Paul advised that slaves should be loyal to their masters, as he says in his Epistle to the Ephesians, where he enjoins slaves to obey their masters as they would obey the Messiah:

“5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men,

8 because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free”

(Ephesians 6:5-9).

In Grand Larousse encyclopédique, it says: It comes as no surprise that slavery has continued among Christians until today; the official representatives of the faith have affirmed its validity and accepted its legitimacy.

… to sum up: the Christian religion approved fully of slavery and still does so today. It is very difficult for anyone to prove that Christianity strove to abolish slavery.

The saints affirmed that nature makes some people slaves.

Churchmen did not prevent slavery or oppose it; rather they supported it, to such an extent that the philosopher saint Thomas Aquinas supported the philosophical view that agreed with the view of religious leaders, and he did not object to slavery, rather he praised it because – according to the view of Aristotle – it is one of the conditions in which some people are created naturally, and it does not contradict faith for a man to be content with the lowest position in life.

Haqaa’iq al-Islam by al-‘Aqqaad (p. 215).

In the Dictionary of the Bible by Dr. George Yousuf it says: Christianity did not object to slavery for political or economic reasons, and it did not urge believers to oppose their generation’s views with regard to slavery, or even debate it, and it did not say anything against the rights of slave owners or motivate the slaves to seek independence; it did not discuss the harm or harshness of slavery and it did not enjoin the immediate release of slaves.

It did not change anything in the nature of the relationship between master and slave; on the contrary, it affirmed the rights and duties of both parties.

Contemporary Europe and slavery

It is the reader’s right, in this era of advancement and progress, to ask questions about the pioneers of this progress and the numbers of people who died because of the way in which they were hunted, and who died on their way to the coast where the ships of the English Company and others would wait, then the rest died due to changes in climate. Approximately 4% died as they were being loaded onto the ships, and 12 % during the journey, let alone those who died in the colonies.

The slave trade continued at the hands of English companies that obtained the right of monopoly with the permission of the British government, then gave free rein to British subjects to enslave people. Some experts estimate that the total number of people seized by the British during slavery and exiled to the colonies between 1680 and 1786 CE was around 2,130,000.

When Europe made contact with Black Africa, this contact led to human misery during which the black people of that continent were faced with a major calamity that lasted for five centuries. The states of Europe came up with evil ways of kidnapping these people and bringing them to their lands to serve as fuel for their revival, where they burdened them with more work than they could bear. When America was discovered, the calamity increased and they became slaves in two continents instead of just one.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says (2/779) on the topic of slavery: Hunting slaves in the villages that were surrounded by the jungle was done by lighting fires in the straw of which the corrals surrounding the villages were made, then when the villagers fled to open land, the British hunted them down with whatever means they had at their disposal.

During the period from 1661 to 1774, for every million Black Africans who reached the Americas, a further nine million died during the hunting, loading and transportation. In other words, only one tenth of those who were hunted survived and actually reached the Americas, where they found no rest or relief, rather they were subjected to hard labour and torture.

At that time, they had laws which any wise person would be ashamed of.

Among these evil laws were those which said that any slave who transgressed against his master was to be killed, and any slave who ran away was to have his hands and feet cut off, and he was to be branded with hot iron; if he ran away again, he was to be killed. How could he run away if his hands and feet had been cut off?!

It was forbidden for a black man to become educated, and the jobs of whites were forbidden to coloureds.

In America, if seven black people gathered together, that was regarded as a crime, and if a white man passed by them it was permissible for him to spit at them and give them twenty lashes.

Another law stated that the blacks had no soul and that they possessed no smartness, intelligence or willpower, and that life existed only in their arms.

To sum up, with regard to his duties and service to his master, the slave was regarded as sane, responsible and punishable if he fell short, but with regard to his rights, he had no soul and no being, and he was not more than a strong pair of arms!

Finally, after many centuries of enslavement and oppression, there came the protocol to abolish slavery and strive to put an end to it, in a resolution issued by the United Nations in 1953 CE.

Hence their consciences did not awaken until the last century, after they had built their civilization on the corpses of free men whom they had enslaved unlawfully. What fair-minded person can compare this with the teachings of Islam, which came fourteen hundred years ago? It seems that accusing Islam with regard to this topic is like the saying, “She accused me of her problem then walked away.”

And Allaah knows best.

See: Shubahaat Hawl al-Islam by Muhammad Qutub; Talbees Mardood fi Qadaaya Khateerah by Shaykh Dr. Saalih ibn Humayd, the Imam of the Haram in Makkah.

Source​
 

al-fajr

...ism..schism
Staff member
Asalamalikum wah rahmahtullah wah bahrakhtu sister

jazakAllah khair for this beneficial thread but here are also our small brothers and sisters , so i think this article is not good for them , please be avoid

Assalamu'alaykum wa rahmatullaah wa barakatuhuh,

Yes there are young members on the site but if they are so young, it is up to the adults in their lives to monitor what they're accessing on the internet.

This site is for da'wah first and foremost and this article seems to address one of the anti-Islamic accusations put forward these days.
 

Ershad

Junior Member
Assalamu Alaykkum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,


Jazaakum allahu khayran for this beneficial articles. Something related to slavery from The Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta' :

Emancipation

(Part No. 16; Page No. 570)
The first question of Fatwa no. 1977
Q 1: It is said: why does Islam not prohibit slavery?

A: Allah (Exalted be He) has the perfect knowledge, wisdom, kindness and mercy. He is All-Knowing with the matters of His creation, Compassionate with His servants and Wise in His creation and legislation. Therefore, He legislated for people that which makes them good in the world and in the Hereafter and that which will guarantee their real happiness, freedom and equality in fair circumstances, comprehensive guidance and within limits that do not transgress the rights of Allah and that of His servants. He sent this legislation with His Messengers as announcers of glad tidings and warners. So he who follows His path and follows the guidance of His Messengers, deserves dignity and attains success and bliss. Whoever refuses to follow the straight path, he deserves to be killed or enslaved in order to establish justice, maintain security and peace and safeguard lives, honor and properties. For these mentioned causes, Jihad (striving for the cause of Allah) was legislated to deter the oppressors and eliminate the corruptors and clean the earth from the wrongdoers. Whoever among them is captured by Muslims, the ruler has the choice either to kill him if his evil is eminent and he will not be corrected, or forgive him and accept a ransom from him if he can be deterred by that or lead him to goodness.
(Part No. 16; Page No. 571)
The ruler may take him as a slave if he believes that holding him among Muslims will correct him, rectify him and cause him to find the way to guidance, believe in and submit to it due to what he can see of Muslims' justice, their kindness and good treatment. He may also listen to the texts of legislation and morals. Accordingly, his heart may be opened to Islam, Allah will make faith dear to him and make disbelief, transgression and disobedience unpleasant to him. Then, he will start a new life with Muslims to gain his freedom by an agreement of freedom. Allah (Exalted be He) says: And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allâh enriches them of His Bounty. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allâh which He has bestowed upon you. (Surah Al-Nur 24:33) . This also may be achieved through the expiation for false oath, Zhihar (a man likening his wife to an unmarriageable relative), vow or the like. It also may be achieved through the way of emancipation for the sake of Allah, seeking His reward and other kinds of emancipation. Therefore, it will be known that the origin of slavery is the capturing in Jihad against the disbelievers to correct those who were captured by isolating them from the evil environment they lived in and starting a new life in a Muslim community to guide them to the path of goodness, save them from evil, purify them from the effects of disbelief and error and make them deserve
(Part No. 16; Page No. 572)
a better life in which they enjoy security and peace. Slavery in Islam is like a purifying machine or sauna in which those who are captured enter to wash off their dirt and then they come out clean, pure and safe from another door. May Allah grant us success. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Companions.


Source:
http://alifta.com/Fatawa/FatawaChapters.aspx?View=Page&PageID=6286&PageNo=1&BookID=7

Baarakallahu feekum!
 

xAllahKnowsBestx

Junior Member
Wa 'alaykum assalam warahmatullahi wa barakahtuh.

Great thread, sis. I learned so much. We need more threads like this!

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).

Peace and blessings be upon him! :) :) :)
 

Idris16

Junior Member
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)
Is the author of the article sure that the scholars meant his slave i.e. the slave of the owner or simply a slave that belongs to someone else?
 

rivergum

Junior Member
Assalamu'alaykum


Just wanted to post a great article for people who are still not familiar about the concept of slavery in Islam.

Its quite long, but please read carefully till the end.

Basically the article is nothing short of a polemic against Christianity. The article, like Richards Dawkins, does little more than out line the worst attributes of Christianity. This is not 'news' as you seem to think or the article seeks to suggests.

It totally ignores the fact that it was Christians that promoted the abolition of slavery and it's aftermath. To make the statement
It is very difficult for anyone to prove that Christianity strove to abolish slavery
demonstrates the lack scholarly skill involved - Martin Luther King Jnr comes to mind.

The only thing this articles confirms is that slavery was essentially abolished by the UN in 1953 - which is basically what I said in my post.
 

kashif_nazeer

~~~Alhamdulillah~~~
:salam2:
:jazaak: for sharing this article sister.Critics come up with some weird questions.Alhamdulillah this site is very helpful for tackling such issues.
Also I think a slave in Islam is not the same as that in western ideology,in western ideologies slaves don't have any rights and is to be treated like an animal whilst in Islam a slave has rights and is to be treated fairly,justly and with mercy.

PS:Sister,the arabic text cannot be read,it's appearing in an 'ajeeb format,if that could be fixed insha'Allah?BarakAllahu feeki.


:wasalam:
 

Akram Fakir

Junior Member
physical relation with the slave is not wrong if she permit u.But when you create pressure to her
it is not allowed.Than it means rape.
 

Seeking Allah's Mercy

Qul HuwaAllahu Ahud!
Asalamo`Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Baraakaatuh,

Is the author of the article sure that the scholars meant his slave i.e. the slave of the owner or simply a slave that belongs to someone else?

Akh, as far as my understanding of the article goes, he started explaining about raping the "owned" slave girls "after" those quotation and the following hadeeth:

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'

The guy was stoned after he did what he did to the girl that Khalid (May Allaah be pleased with him)permitted him to have. And then he goes on with the article. . .But you can still contact Br. Bassam on multaqa.

Basically the article is nothing short of a polemic against Christianity. The article, like Richards Dawkins, does little more than out line the worst attributes of Christianity. This is not 'news' as you seem to think or the article seeks to suggests.

It totally ignores the fact that it was Christians that promoted the abolition of slavery and it's aftermath. To make the statement demonstrates the lack scholarly skill involved - Martin Luther King Jnr comes to mind.

The only thing this articles confirms is that slavery was essentially abolished by the UN in 1953 - which is basically what I said in my post.

The article was in refutation to the claims of Christian "Missionaries" who try to tarnish the image of Islam by saying it allows slavery. What about Christianity. It allows slavery too.

It's doesn't matter what Christians or Muslims do. It was a Christianity Vs Islam, Bible Vs Qur'an sort of thing. Martin Luther may have struggled to abolish slavery, that doesn't remove anything from the bible which allows slavery and provide them with lil to none rights.

I believe the Shaykh posses "every" bit of scholarly skill in tacking the question in it's context. It's about providing an answer to the Muslims who are approached by Missionaries trying to create doubts in our hearts about Islam.

:salam2:
:jazaak:

PS:Sister,the arabic text cannot be read,it's appearing in an 'ajeeb format,if that could be fixed insha'Allah?BarakAllahu feeki.

:wasalam:
BaraakAllaahu feek. Br. It was in same format on the page I copied it from. You are a member at Multaqa. Ask Brother Bassam Zawadi regarding it Inshaa'Allaah.
 

rivergum

Junior Member
The article was in refutation to the claims of Christian "Missionaries" who try to tarnish the image of Islam by saying it allows slavery. What about Christianity. It allows slavery too.

As I said - the article was a polemic and fails to recognize that we now live in the 21st century and not the 1st century.

It's doesn't matter what Christians or Muslims do. It was a Christianity Vs Islam, Bible Vs Qur'an sort of thing. Martin Luther may have struggled to abolish slavery, that doesn't remove anything from the bible which allows slavery and provide them with lil to none rights.

The Bible also sanctions all sorts of other behaviour which we now find abhorrent. Stoned anyone lately? How about burning an ox in your backyard?

All of these things are against the law in some form - well they are if you live in a Western country.

So the OP question is a non question - rape is against the law.

I believe the Shaykh posses "every" bit of scholarly skill in tacking the question in it's context. It's about providing an answer to the Muslims who are approached by Missionaries trying to create doubts in our hearts about Islam.

So you accept the lie because you have little faith.
 

Janaan

ربنا اغفر لنا ذنوبنا
Staff member
Asalamo`Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Baraakaatuh,

Awesome Artical!

wa`alaikum salaam warahmatullaahi wabaraakatuh!

Awesome, indeed!=) I'm about halfway through it, hopefully I'll be done by tomorrow! (kiddin'- tonight maybe...)



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.

I just rcently heard of such cases... and I've yet to understand it! How does one *rape* his wife?:confused: Subhaanallah, what has the world come to?

But Jazaakillaahu khayr for sharing this. I've always wanted to look more into this issue- 'bout time I did!:)
 

Rustandi

الفقير الى الله
@rivergum

The point that i was trying to make is simple actually.. that "slavery" in islam and modern world concept of it is different, that's all.


suhaanah said:
I just rcently heard of such cases... and I've yet to understand it! How does one *rape* his wife? Subhaanallah, what has the world come to?

Same question sister, kinda confused about it. Although i kinda have a general idea as to how it can happen, maybe in certain scenarios [rape victim who were forced to marry her rapist that continues her misery]
 
Top