Slave-girl raping in islam

[garet122]

Hi,


FROM SAHIH BUKHARI - VOLUME 5, #637:
Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (part of the war booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)? When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him for he deserves more than that from the Khumus."


ROM SAHIH BUKHARI - VOLUME 9, #506:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. The prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection".
Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Said saying that the prophet said, "No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.""


Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's messenger we said, "Oh Allah's messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence."


FROM THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, # 2150:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah 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 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 Quran verse is 4:24].


FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3432
Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger 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 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 (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to an end).


We can conclude that the muslim soldiers, after winning a battle, were capturing women as a booty and they were having sex with them.

Some of you will say that it is not a rape, that the women were consenting to have sex with the muslim soldiers... But there is a problem:



Think about it from the women's point of view. A battle is fought and her side lost. Many of the husbands, fathers, and sons are now dead. Some have been captured. The women and children are also taken as captives. Imagine the horror of the females. Family members dead, homes and possessions are now gone, they are in the total power of their captors.

The captives are distributed amongst the Muslim men as slaves, husband and wife captives are separated. As soon as a female has her menstrual cycle her owner appears. He has been separated from his wife for a while out on the field of battle, sexually hungry, and he proceeds to have sex with his female slave.

Do you think that this female slave willingly has intercourse with him? Is that her wish? She has just experienced one of the most horrible events in her life, - the destruction of her tribe and family, the taking of her possessions, and being made someone's slave, and now she willing consents to have sex with the very men who brought this disaster upon her!? Of course not! What women would look upon with loving eyes the men that brought destruction upon her family and tribe!

[NNoor]

I always wondered about this. In the ancient world, it was generally understood by all that the women from the losing side would be taken captive and used for sex. However, I was under the impression that Muslims are not allowed to pillage and plunder villages. So when we read about war captives, does it mean that the women were on the battlefield? And can a man have relations with a woman captive whose husband is still alive?

[garet122]

nobody wants to reply?

[Saqqib_Ali]

I'm sure no Muslim is proud of these things happening but it was the way at the time, that was how justice was handed out.

[faizol]

I'm sure no Muslim is proud of these things happening but it was the way at the time, that was how justice was handed out.

This is among the so-called "right hand posession" that we see many non-Muslims debaters would use its out of context meaning. Quran specifically tells us to not let the our desire to be the deciding factor in this matter. There are many other issues regarding the survivors of a war, especially involving women. The most important aspect of this rule is to give the captive women shelters, protections and food. And if you're assigned one of the slave girls, you'll be responsible for her safety and well-being like she's one of your own family.

Try to look up for "right hand possession" articles on the web. I think you can find a few articles on this on answering-christianity.com as they archive some in-depth answers to refute the "right hand possession" polemic raised by the Christians, specifically by "answering Islam" website.

Allah Knows Best.

[transitory]

I think you are only looking at the negative aspect of this issue.

Think about it, after the war most of the males of the losing tribe are killed, leaving behind women and children. Now what Islam did was instead of raping and killing these women and children - as was norm in those days (read medieval history, such as what happened after Jerusalem was conquered by curusaders, and after the Tartar conquest of Baghdad), it abolished this barbaric practice of killing of women and children. Islam went a step further and made it an absolutely madatory that if a women has a small children they cannot be separated from her mother, something that never happened before. Also, what was the alternative for a women who has lost all the males of her family, how would she support herself and her childrens, so instead of becoming prostitute they became slave girls for a very small time (because of the super emphasis layed by Islam on freeing slaves). BTW, a Muslim men cannot take a Muslim womens as a slave girls, it only applies to non Muslims.

While Islam did not abolished the taking of slave girls, but it layed a very strict guidlines on how these slaves can be treated. They had to be treated fairly and with kindness, along with numerous exhortations in Quran and from Nabi Kareem (saw) to free the slaves, and talks about the amount of blessing one gets for freeing a slave. If the slave becomes Muslim, then they can pay their way out of slavery. These things did not existed before.

I will go one step further and will boldly say that Islam actually raised the status of slaves, it is the only religion on the face of this earth that raised the status of slaves from being just slaves to Kings and Sultans. Just read your history before you start doubting - research about the Slave dynasties, who were Mamluks and Slave dynasty of India?

[a.s.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCwpj6KjeqA



Also, look up the Tafseer/Commentary of verses 32-33 from Surah Nur (Surah #24)
You can read it here: http://islamicstudies.info/maarif/

[Nomadic]

Bismillah
First of all you can't read hadith to derive rules without being trained in fiqh. So quoting hadith means little when rules are concerned.



Modern day war is very much different from the war of the past.
Unlike modern times (at least in west) there were no social services provided. The option left open to female captive after loss of their bread earner in battle were non existance. So to be in custody which guarnatees basic rights makes perfect sense.

The only difference is the amount of rights given to slaves by their owner. The issue of slavery has been disscussed in many islamic publication.

Trying to projects ones relative modern notion of acceptability on the event of historical events in most cases does not make sense.
In the islamic hisotorical context, the captives were seperated from their husbend (if they were still alive and became part of war booty) and sex took place at later.
One must understand the war booty meant those who took part in the battle.
Those who didn't engage were left alone.
There are clear ruling with regards to conducts in the war.

In modern times, rapes are used as tool of war manily by the european armies - French, Italian, Serbs and many others. Perhaps it would be better to deal with the recent times than trying to compare it with the past.

Allahualam

[garet122]

But why is there female captives?? Women aren't soldiers!

& is it allowed in islam to have sex with a female prisonner of war without her permission (rape)??

[uber_mensch]

But why is there female captives?? Women aren't soldiers!

& is it allowed in islam to have sex with a female prisonner of war without her permission (rape)??

>implying that she has the right to refuse