A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| Ameeraana |
| 10/02/02 at 21:25:43 |
| I just read this hadith that was referred to me by a person asking a question about Islam.... it made me pretty nauseated at first but now I am hoping someone here can shed some light on this: here is the hadith: [color=Blue]The first hadeeth mentioned is from Chapter 22: AL AZL (INCOMPLETE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE): COITUS INTERRUPTUS (Saheeh Muslim - one of the main six books of authentic hadeeth) Book 008, Number 3371: "Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. ( This is referring to al-Qadr (destiny), as whether or not the man withdraws, Allah has already written who will be born, up until the Day of Judgment)"[/color] [color=Red]Is this confirming the fact that a Muslim man is allowed to have sex with female captives/slaves? It says in theis hadith they had sex with the female captives/slaves even though they had wives. Is there a logical reason why a man may do this to a female he captures during battle. If it is permitted, is it ok for a man to have sex with a female captive/slave against her will? It seems as though it is condoned to "rape"--I know its a strong word, but surely, all slave women could not just have been willing to give their bodies to their enemies. And I just got so confused because everything I really have read an understood about Islam does not condone sex outside of marriage. [/color] [color=Green]Here is an answer I found online at www.islam-qa.com: It is permissible for there to be a physical relationship between a man and his female slave just as there is between a man and his wife, unless he marries her off to someone else, in which case it is not permissible for him to have intercourse with her because it is not permissible for a woman to be in an intimate relationship with two men at the same time.[/color] After reading this, I actually became so nauseated I almost had to --to put it nicely, put my head in the toilet... I just can't understand why this would be allowed and that is why I am here to find the answers so that I may not stray from the right path of Islam... |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| bhaloo |
| 10/02/02 at 23:17:25 |
| [slm] I'm pretty sure there was a thread that we had on this topic. The following question was asked of Dr. Siddiqqi, former ISNA president: Q. In the Qur'an when it talks about you have access to your wives and your slaves that your right hand possess.... What does this mean? A 3. According to the Qur'an, it was allowed to have sexual relations with "those women whom your right hands possess". This term is used in the Qur'an for women who were slaves or who came as prisoners of war and there was no way to return them to their people. Slavery existed in human societies from ancient times. However, Islam gave clear directions to Muslims to free the slaves. Islam also prohibited them from enslaving any free person. If Muslims had followed these teachings of Islam fully and faithfully, the slavery would have been eliminated long time ago. However, unfortunately, Muslims failed in eliminating this evil. Thanks to Allah, now the slavery is abolished and it is outlawed. Thus we can say that there are no "ma malakat aymanukum" now. Since Islam also prohibits enslaving a free person, Muslims are not allowed now to have any slaves, males or females. The only way possible for Muslims to have sexual relations now is through marriage and nothing beyond marriage. |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| se7en |
| 10/15/02 at 13:43:23 |
| as salaamu alaykum, [url=http://www.jannah.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl/YaBB.pl?board=madrasa&action=display&num=3777&start=1]Here[/url] is an older thread on the subject of captives. |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| Dawn |
| 10/15/02 at 14:39:52 |
| Peace and greetings all. I know I am being rather bold with my statement here, but I have (at one point or another) read most (well, all, if I managed to give intelligent search terms) of the discussion at this board on slavery, but I have not read anything which justifies this particular hadith. The discussion, it seemed to me, skirted this particular hadith. The women in this scenario, as I understand it, were war booty, and the intent with women as war booty usually was to get money for them by ransoming them. (At least, this is mentioned in the hadith, and supported in what I have read of the history and culture at this particular time and place.) These women were not going to be enslaved. They were, as I see it, simply prisoners. I agree that the discussion of slavery has given a pretty good treatment to that issue, but this particular hadith does not talk about slavery. Indeed, the topic of this hadith is about the rightness or wrongness of coitus interruptus, and not about the treatment of captives or of slaves. Nonetheless, the implication given here is that the Prophet (pbuh) condoned what were likely non-consensual sexual relations between his male followers and women. Sadly, another term for non-consensual sexual relations is rape. Perhaps in that time and culture, it was not considered rape as these were the "enemy" or "only women" or some other such excuse, but nonetheless, that is not the stance the Prophet (pbuh) took anywhere else concerning the rights of women. And I just don't see a way to rationalize this particular hadith with anything I have read in the Qur'an or about the Prophet (pbuh). I know that it is considered sahih, and that makes the incongruity even worse for me. I am sure that others have had to struggle with this, and if there is any reconciling information that I lack concerning the background of this particular hadith, I would certainly like to know of it. This one has really bothered me for quite some time, and I still see no way of reconciling it to the rest of Islam. :( :( Peace, Dawn |
| 10/15/02 at 14:45:08 |
| Dawn |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| jannah |
| 10/15/02 at 14:53:23 |
| Dawn, That is a very bold and rather completely unfounded statement. Nowhere in Islam does it condone rape!!! What a horrible thing to say!! Please read the Hadith again. As you said it's talking about whether or not a particular birth control method could be used or not. As they were captives, they were slaves. As for slaves, yes it was permissible to own them under Islam, under MANY conditions. And yes if they wanted to have relations it was permissible for them outside the institution of marriage, because the slave relationship was a kind of institution itself since there were many rights and responsibilities and rules and regulations that went with it. For example, if the woman were to give birth, she was by law free, etc. So please, don't make statements like that without actually studying what Islam says about it. And PLEASE don't take discussions on this board as the be all end all of what Islam says about something!! |
| 10/15/02 at 14:54:46 |
| jannah |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| Dawn |
| 10/15/02 at 15:50:38 |
| Jannah, [quote author=jannah link=board=lighthouse;num=1033608343;start=0#4 date=10/15/02 at 14:53:23] That is a very bold and rather completely unfounded statement. Nowhere in Islam does it condone rape!!! What a horrible thing to say!! [/quote] If you will reread my post you will see that I am most definitely NOT saying that Islam condones rape, and I am distressed that you should interpret what I said in that fashion! :( I clearly stated that everywhere I look, this particular hadith excepted, the Prophet (pbuh) and hence Islam treated women as equals (not as "identicals", mind you) and protected their rights. That is why I find this isolated hadith so troubling! [quote] Please read the Hadith again. As you said it's talking about whether or not a particular birth control method could be used or not. As they were captives, they were slaves. [/quote] Could you please support that last statement? To me, slaves and captives are NOT the same thing. Captives are prisoners. And prisoners are not owned, as are slaves. In this case they were to be ransomed. That does not, from what I know, make them slaves. If this is not the case, then please give me the appropriate referrences, as that would equate to the reconciling information (which I requested in my post) that I am lacking. [quote] So please, don't make statements like that without actually studying what Islam says about it. And PLEASE don't take discussions on this board as the be all end all of what Islam says about something!![/quote]Again, I HAVE been studying what Islam says about this topic, which has lead to my trouble with this particular hadith. And I don't take the discussion on the board as the "be all end all" of anything. I am simply trying to learn from others who have passed this way before me. Peace, Dawn |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| jannah |
| 10/16/02 at 23:06:26 |
| Sorry for jumping on you Dawn. It's an automatic reaction these days :( I didn't want anyone who skimmed your post to think the wrong thing. All the stuff going on lately ie Fallwell, pre war in iraq propoganda etc is just frustrating. They all do the same thing. Take one verse or one hadith and twist it to suit their accusations. I'll try to look for the information you're looking for and post it up soon and I'm sorry if I freaked you out. Take care, |
| 10/16/02 at 23:06:56 |
| jannah |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| ascetic |
| 10/21/02 at 18:38:59 |
| I was reading something related to the topic of this thread and thought I'd post it here. http://islamonline.net/completesearch/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=55158 Does Islam grant them freedom, ransom or enslave them to the Muslims? Here, we should again refer to the religious texts and the example given by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. The most direct of these texts is Allah’s saying: “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates." (Muhammad: 4) The Qur’anic verse thus provides alternatives: either the Muslim commander should free those captives who can not offer ransom either in the form of money or an equivalent number of Muslim captives, or he should ransom his captives for money or for a similar number of Muslim captives. This is what is now known as an exchange of prisoners. That kind of ransoming should be adopted, as it leads to the release of two big groups of people – Muslims and non-Muslims. The religion of freedom, therefore, esteems the freedom of those who do not follow it as much as it does that regarding its followers, for if the advocate of freedom is himself free, he will not make any discrimination on regional, racial or religious grounds, because freedom is a natural right to every human being. The Qur’anic verse does not mention a third choice, namely the enslavement of captives; the Qur’anic text explicitly forbids it by limiting the choice to only two alternatives – free dismissal or ransoming – without referring to enslavement. Thus enslavement is not involved in the choice. Moving to the Prophetic Tradition, we shall again find that the Prophet never enslaved a free man throughout his reign. His Companions did take some captives among the spoils in the conquest of “Bani al-Mustaliq” and turned them into salves. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not explicitly prohibit them from doing that, but his own action (of setting free a prisoner) prompted them to release their captives. This implies prohibitions of enslavement although it is not explicit. The Prophet avoided the enslavement of any free man in his wars; his actions tended towards its denunciation. [wlm] --Zahid. |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| jannah |
| 11/13/02 at 17:29:38 |
| For the sake of completion, Captives in war ARE slaves. Between owners and slaves there is a special relationship which allows consensual relations because of the rules and regulations that the relationship is governed by. Rape is NOT allowed in Islam and is PUNISHABLE by law. Book 38, Number 4445: Narrated Salamah ibn al-Muhabbaq: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) made a decision about a man who had intercourse with his wife's 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. Narrated Wa'il ibn Hujr: "When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her. He (the Prophet) said to the woman: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. And about the man who had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death. He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4366) The following quote, from the book "Role of Muslim Women in Society" by Afzalur Rahman (Seerah Foundation, London, 1986),specifically addresses the issue of _rape_ (as opposed to adultery): During the time of the Prophet, _Hudud_ punishment was inflicted on the person who committed adultery on the evidence of the woman who was raped by him. It is reported by Wa'il ibn Hujr that a woman went out in the time of the Prophet to go to prayer, and a man who met her attacked her and got his desire of her. She shouted and he went off, and when a company of the _Muhajirun_ came by, she said: "That man did such-and-such to me." They seized him and brought him to Allah's messenger, who said to the woman, "Go away, for Allah has forgiven you," but of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said, "Stone him to death." (Tirmithi and Abu Dawud) This tradition leaves absolutely no doubt of the validity of the evidence of women in _hudud_ cases. It establishes, first, that in a case of rape, the solitary evidence of the raped woman, in the absence of their evidence, is considered sufficient to convict the rapist of the crime; and second, that the evidence of women is admissible in _hudud_ cases, and that there are no plausible grounds not to admit their evidence in the Islamic Shari`ah. In the light of the above hadith, in answer to the original question, it shows that the evidence of a *single* person, the female victim, can be sufficient to convict someone of rape according to the teachings of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.).... The whole confusion over the rape issue to me seems to be that when people ask about rape, all the answers that are given relate to _adultery_. _Rape_ and _adultery_ are very different things, since in adultery usually both people are consensual, whereas in the case of rape the woman is an unwilling victim. To blindly apply the Islamic rules for adultery for the case of rape to me seems to be completely absurd and totally unjust, particularly when the above hadith demonstrates that the situation for rape is different than that for adultery. To prove a case of adultery, usually you require four eye-witnesses who saw the act of coitus, except in the special case of when one spouse is accusing another, when if the accused swears innocence the innocence is accepted, as taught in the Qur'an. For the case of _rape_, however, the above hadith demonstrates quite graphically that _four witnesses are not required_, and therefore the case of rape is _different_ from adultery. Of course, a bit of sensible thinking also clearly shows why blindly applying the laws for adultery to the case of rape is unjust.... Unfortunately, though, many Muslims seem to see no problem with applying the laws of adultery to rape! I wonder about to what extent such people have really thought about the issue.... More info: http://www.answering-christianity.com/que10.htm |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| Aadam |
| 11/23/02 at 23:28:48 |
| [slm] still...nobody has yet responded to the initial issue raised. Let's stop beating around the bush and playing with words. And Dawn, I agree with the points you brought forward. According to this *authentic* hadith, the Prophet [saw] did not condemn the impending rape of the female captives, unless these women were willing to have sex with their captors. Rather, the main concern was whether the future rapists would have any children out of this action. Aadam |
| 11/23/02 at 23:30:33 |
| Aadam |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| jannah |
| 11/24/02 at 00:27:38 |
The initial question raised was about slaves and whether or not it was allowed to have relations with them. And it was answered by saying yes they were, that it was a special relationship etc etc. So now, what exactly is your question? and who's playing with words here really? There is no rape in Islam, the evidence brought up proves that, what more do you want to know? |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| oneway2paradise |
| 11/24/02 at 02:15:37 |
| [slm] As Muslims, we should not ever doubt the character of Muhammad [saw]. Slavery existed for a loooong time. However, there were no rules. So, Allah revealed certain rules to improve it (i.e. not allowing them to be used as prostitutes, or murdering them). If you look at the alcohol situation, it wasn't prohibited all at once. It was done gradually. Gradual is the best way for new Muslims also. If something bothers you, concentrate more on your belief and then go back to that subject later. If you don't trust in Allah's way, then something is wrong. Slaves were considered property, people owned them. No, we don't agree with that now, but it was an institution that had existed for such a long time and it couldn't be abolished all at once. I am a white American from the south. My family has been in this country since the 1600's. My ancestors had slaves. They probably did many horrible things to them. So, who was the last society to have slaves? Not to mention, women are slaves now more than they have ever been. Men have convinced them that they are free. They can wear whatever they want, dress like prostitutes, have relations with multiple people and not have to be a wife. All because they are free. Who is really free in that situation? The men. They are free of the responsibility. But they let women beleive it's the other way around. [slm] :-) :-* |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| Aadam |
| 11/24/02 at 02:30:14 |
| [quote author=jannah link=board=lighthouse;num=1033608343;start=0#10 date=11/24/02 at 00:27:38] The initial question raised was about slaves and whether or not it was allowed to have relations with them. And it was answered by saying yes they were, that it was a special relationship etc etc. So now, what exactly is your question? and who's playing with words here really? There is no rape in Islam, the evidence brought up proves that, what more do you want to know? [/quote] True, there's no rape in Islam. Then how would you call these forced sexual relationships with captives without their consent? Don't tell me that these female captives were begging their captors for some intimate moments. just to relativize....So right now the occupying forces of unbelievers in Chechnya and Kashmir who are arresting, kidnapping and raping our sisters can use the same argument, right? Why not have some good time with captives when one's wife is far away and these captives look good? How then could we say that it's wrong when it was done in the 7th century Arabia by the earliest MUSLIMS, those whose examples are copied to-day? |
| 11/24/02 at 02:35:12 |
| Aadam |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| jannah |
| 11/24/02 at 02:35:55 |
| [quote] Then how would you call these forced sexual relationships with captives without their consent?[/quote] Since you are the one bringing forth this accusation about Islam, perhaps you should back it up with some evidence of these "forced rapes". |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| Aadam |
| 11/24/02 at 04:30:22 |
| [slm] First of all, I'm not accusing Islam. It's just that over 1400 years, the behavior and conduct of SOME Muslims have not been according to the teachings of Islam. Who knows, maybe this hadith is not 100% true, it might have been made up by some guys centuries after the Prophet's  [saw] time. Only God knows about the truth in this matter. Here's the hadith below. Come on Sis Jannah, is it that hard to make sense of what's going on? I refuse to believe that all these captives were so eager to have sex with their captors. [color=blue]"Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. ( This is referring to al-Qadr (destiny), as whether or not the man withdraws, Allah has already written who will be born, up until the Day of Judgment)" [/color] [color=red]*font edited by moderator[/color] |
| 11/24/02 at 06:56:36 |
| eleanor |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| jannah |
| 11/24/02 at 04:41:06 |
... and I refuse to believe they were forced. So since there is so much more overwhelming evidence against rape in Islam it doesn't make sense to go with your interpretation. |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| Aadam |
| 11/24/02 at 04:47:33 |
| [slm] EDITED BY: ADMIN (BHALOO) - INAPPROPRIATE MSG/AND VERY INSULTING |
| 11/25/02 at 09:27:32 |
| bhaloo |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| Aadam |
| 11/24/02 at 21:01:15 |
| [slm] no reactions at all? I guess you all agree with my thoughts and comparisons then. Aadam |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| jannah |
| 11/24/02 at 22:51:53 |
| Bro you are insulting all Muslims, the Sahaba and the Prophet [saw] with your comments. If it's not there in Islam why are you making it up? Let it go akh. It's interesting but you'll notice missionaries absolutely LOVE this topic... why... because it doesn't make sense in our world... the whole system where these rules and regulations work as a system doesn't exist today.. so they take one or two details of fiqh and then try to apply them today in a vacuum or insinuate things about them... ie slavery, aisha's marriage, war at the time of ras [saw] etc... yet if you bring them back to the topic of the message of islam, why islam is right, why the Quran is from God.. etc they drop the conversation... anyway a word to the wise... after doing your best... don't bother... missionaries will not convert because their job is not to seek the truth...w'Allahu alam.. peace |
| 11/24/02 at 22:52:52 |
| jannah |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| Ameeraana |
| 11/24/02 at 22:54:16 |
| I am the one who originally posted this and I admit when I first read it I beacame nauseated. It was troubling me for the longest time, and even now, it sometimes does... (I am trying hard to come to a conclusion in my heart to just accept it, but its a struggle) Even though it is no longer a practice in these days, it enraged me to think that men could have sexual relations with slave-women (especially even if married) and as this hadith,which if it is true, stated that the men just "decided" to have sex with these women they had captured, first thought to me was, that, even if this was an accepted practice, I just cannot imagine that all captured women wanted to have sex with their captors. Even though I know I have to accept the teachings of Allah, this is one that whenever I read this hadith I get this burning feeling in my chest. I keep telling myself I must accept what Allah has laid down as the law and so I know I cannot go around just denouncing everything... but I just can't help feel that burning sensation in my chest... I just thank Allah that slavery like in those days is not around for now... Ameera |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| jannah |
| 11/24/02 at 23:05:41 |
| Ameerana why do you think ALL of them had relations with them? The person who asked and maybe some of the people with him may have and why do you assume they forced the women? And why take this one hadith out of context with all the other hadiths and ALL THE teachings of ISLAM and the SCHOLARS and the SUNNAH. Your heart should feel nothing but beauty that Islam was revealed for all times and places, and had rules and regulations for everything. Before Islam came women were objects of possession, property. Islam gave everyone rights, including the slaves. They were given the right to ask for an agreement to free themselves. They were automatically free if they gave birth. If someone abused them they were given the right to go to the law for justice. Islam didn't invent slavery, it was part of the culture and society. When Islam came it limited it, gave everyone rights and made checks and balances. Just like polygamy.. Islam didn't invent it.. It was always there, but when Islam came it instituted limits and laws and checked abuses that were a part of the practices. Polygamy laws might not make much sense to us today since most Muslims are monogamous, but it was no doubt important that Allah sent them in case of such situations that might arise and cause it's necessity. |
| 11/24/02 at 23:06:36 |
| jannah |
| Re: I just read something very confusing to me... |
|---|
| bhaloo |
| 11/25/02 at 09:32:30 |
| [slm] I'm going to lock this thread as its not going anywhere, please refer to a scholar. I think I might have some information on this subject (not exactly sure, i was reading something the other day), but if I do, I'll email it to you guys. |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |