Why did prophet Muhammad allow his companions to have sex with war captives?

Question

There is a prophetic statements in Sahih Muslim about prophet Muhammad who sent his companions to invade a neighbour village. The companions invaded the village and captured many women. The statement tells that the companions did not have SEX with those captive women because they were married, but prophet Muhammed gave them the permission to HAVE SEX with those women (even if they were already married).

The statements continues and tells that god PRAISED what prophet Muhammad and those companions did and revealed a Quranic verse for prophet Muhammed that says:

"You can not have sex with married women unless they are your property (slaves)" [Al Nisa'a 4:24]

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=2643&doc=1

http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?nType=1&bm=&nSeg=0&l=arb&nSora=4&nAya=24&taf=KATHEER&tashkeel=0

Was there a specific reason for prophet Muhammad to allow his companions to have sex (or rape) their war captives?

Answer 1

Was there a specific reason that the slave owners raped my ancestors that were slaves and created a mixed group here in America? Anyways, this site explains what you are talking about.

Answer 2

in accordance to the Qur'an and Hadiths, it easily looks that way. i like the later Suras of the Qur'an, that were particularly written first. they're a lot more suitable non violent and poetic, and almost absent of arguable content fabric. it truly is the Suras interior the front of the Qur'an which examine more suitable like a "guidelines of conflict" guide, and carry forth branch between the God fearing human beings of the global contained in the seventh century. each now and then i ask your self if the Qur'an includes in reality the memorized dictation of Mohammad, or maybe if different authors contributed to the "very last version" of the Qur'a good as it became finally written down and licensed by technique of Uthman et. al Peace

Answer 3

Muhammed is a false prophet that taught false doctrine. In Revelation 22:18-19 is says, And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book. And if anyone removes any of the words of this prophetic book, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.

That is exatly what the Quran is, a disorted changed version of the bible in addition with some false teachings of a man claiming to be a prophet. I can only wonder where he is right now.........

Answer 4

Probably for the same reason the xtian god allowed his followers to see the Egyptian women as chattels to be taken as reward....

Answer 5

java jive and kenny u r really misguided

please know that the bible was the book that was distorted by your own people. Also know that the quran is allahs word and it can never be distorted *****

Answer 6

because he is a sham just like the religion

Answer 7

It should be clear that Islam raised the status of slaves higher than that of free men in un-Islamic societies even by modern standards. The author of _The House of Saud_, an American journalist, recounts how the staff and management of the New York Waldorf-Astoria hotel were horrified that King Faysal in an early US visit had not only allowed his black servant into the state dining room but had seated him at his very table - a "white-only" table in a "white-only" room! They had no idea that even slaves in Islam had to be FED and CLOTHED with the same food and clothing as their owner as the Prophet, upon him peace, had stipulated in his "last pilgrimage" speech:

"And your slaves! see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them with what you yourself wear. And if they commit a mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented!"

In another hadith he said, upon him blessings and peace:

"Be kind to slaves as to your own children...and those that say their prayers are your brethren."

A contemporary commentator said:

"The masters were obliged not to put slaves under hardship; slaves were not to be tortured, abused or treated unjustly. They could marry among themselves - with their master's permission - or with free men or women! They could appear as witnesses and participate with free men in all affairs. Many of them were appointed as governors, commanders of army and administrators. In the eyes of Islam, a pious slave has precedence over an impious free man." Al-Tabataba'i, Tafsir (16:338-358).

What ignorant times we live in, in which a nation that used a legally - enforceable concept of "white-only" since its inception and then went on to use it for two centuries, now crusades against Islam and the rest of the world over self-proclaimed civilizational values.

Islam restored dignity to slaves and enhanced their social status both by ancient and modern standards.

Islam made no distinction between a slave or a free man, all were treated with equality. It was this fact that attracted non-Muslim slaves to Islam in droves.

As someone said, it is sad to see that those who never cease to be vociferous in their unjust criticism of Islam remain blind to this principle of equality when even in this age there are countries where laws are made that discriminate against the vast majority of population to keep them in practical servitude.

As for the allegations of slavery made by the US and UK against Islamic Sudan they are part of a joint missionary and government rogue propaganda campaign against an Islamic government which has always condemned and actively repressed instances of abuse in inter-tribal warfare, while there has never been anything remotely near a full-fledged slave trade, cf. the Sudan Foundation papers by David Hoile posted in full: http://www.sufo.demon.co.uk/politics.htm

What follows concerns the Fiqhi rulings pertaining to the slave period even if the present tense is used.

I'm far too ignorant to make judgments about the verse and that hukum taken from it, so I wanted to ask if you could explain the verse, if that opinion is generally accepted and why. Do these verses refer solely to men, or women Believers also?

These verses refer to the permissibility of a man for intercourse with his unmarried female slaves without having to marry them. Such an option was not available to women owners of male slaves nor to men owners of married female slaves.

Is it in order to fulfill his desires and avoid any unlawful fitna? (this is hard for me to understand, seeing as how taqwa, self-restraint, and other things are so emphasized in Islam)

His and her desires, yes, but within certain parameters including rights. This will be detailed insha Allah.

However, it seems that intercourse with slaves was probably considered a method of contraceptive sexual enjoyment through coitus interruptus (`azl), since the slave owner could practice `azl without prior permission from his slave mate while he could not do so with his free wife without prior permission from her. And if the contraception intended by this `azl failed and the slave woman still bore a child from her master, her child was automatically freed and obtained a son or daughter's rights including inheritance. In addition, the mother herself could no longer be sold and was freed upon the owner's death.

From the slave's perspective, the above scenario could have formed an accepted kind of lawful gamble from which she stood to gain much more than to lose. This could be problematized with the claim that "the cost of freedom is therefore rape" but such is just an inflammatory rephrasing of the truism that the cost of a war captive's life is her imprisonment; emancipation from which is a dramatically enhanced possibility in the above scenario.

Consider some more the dynamic of manumission in Islam. It took the French until the 1780's and 1790's through their "Revolution" and "Terror" to finally decide that any slave that steps into French territory automatically becomes free; but Islam had already said, 11 centuries earlier: a free parent's newborn from a slave is free and that newborn inherits from his or her free parent.

In addition, Islam gave all slaves the inalienable right to buy themselves out, either on payment of an agreed sum or on completion of service for an agreed period. The legal term for this is mukataba and the slave party to such a written contract was called a mukatab or mukataba.

{And those of your slaves that seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if you are aware of any goodness in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah that He has bestowed upon you} (24:33).

{Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to *free the captives and the debtors,* and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarers; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is knower, Wise} (9:60).

{Righteous is he who believes in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the Prophets; and gives his wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free} (2:177).

Note that the above verses stipulate that when a slave wants emancipation the master not only has to agree to it but is also directed to help the slave from his own wealth and from alms, which includes the public treasury (bayt al-mal), the only provision being the satisfaction that the slave would live a respectable life after earning his or her freedom!

In addition, if a non-Muslim slave accepted Islam before their masters, they would become free automatically. If the slave became blind or handicapped he would also become free.

In addition to these compulsory ways of emancipation, voluntary emancipation of slaves was declared as the purest form of charity and included providing the freedmen with sufficient means to earn their livelihood respectably. Thus, Islam is the first and only religion that has prescribed liberation of slaves as a virtue and a condition of genuine faith.

How is intercourse permissible without a marriage contract binding them?

Because the contract in place is that of property which includes the right to sexual enjoyment but excludes the abuses used under all other historical forms of slavery such as mutilation, inhumane labor, or killing as was the rule in Egyptian, Greek, and Roman times, and the cruelest of all forms, unparalleled in human history, the United States Transatlantic slave trade.(*)

(*) Incidentally, many scholars estimate that over 20 percent of Africans brought in bondage to both American continents and the Caribbean were Muslim.

If the man then later frees the slave-woman, and perhaps she has a child, would the man need to marry her? Is he still liable for child-support? Does he still raise his children as a father? Is the man allowed to do this with slaves that are not Muslim? (if so, under what conditions?) and is this woman entitled to any inheritance from him? I was under the impression that a person can only inherit by either marriage or blood-ties. wouldn't she be considered a "concubine"?

Yes, the word concubine literally means bed-mate and applies to any female slave that shares the bed of her master. The man is liable to support any child of his and whatever need of its mother that is related to that liability. He is not obliged to marry her but is definitely held to the responsibilities of a father including inheritability whether the mother is a Muslim or not, her child being Muslim. Nor is she entitled to any inheritance unless he decides to marry her AND she is Muslim. Allah knows best