Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Rape
Contents
Qur'an
They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah.
"Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad)."Hadith
Raping Prisoners of War
Raping Slaves
Scholars
Classical Views
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Tafsir al-Jalalayn
Tafsir 'Ibn Abbas
Tafsir al-Wahidi
Sheikh Burhanuddin Abi Al Hasan Ali Marghinani
Modern Views
Answer: Praise be to Allaah.
The woman does not have the right to refuse her husband, rather she must respond to his request every time he calls her, so long as that will not harm her or keep her from doing an obligatory duty.
Al-Bukhaari (3237) and Muslim (1436) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, and he spends the night angry with her, the angels curse her until morning.”
If she refuses with no excuse, she is disobeying and is being defiant (nushooz), and he is no longer obliged to spend on her and clothe her.
The husband should admonish her and remind her of the punishment of Allaah, and forsake her in her bed. He also has the right to hit her, in a manner that does not cause injury. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allaah is Ever Most High, Most Great”
[al-Nisa’ 4:34]
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked what a husband should do if his wife refuses him when he asks for intimacy.
He replied:
It is not permissible for her to rebel against him or to withhold herself from him, rather if she refuses him and persists in doing so, he may hit her in a manner that does not cause injury, and she is not entitled to spending or a share of his time [in the case of plural marriage].” Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 32/279.
And he was asked about a man who has a wife who is rebellious and refuses intimacy – does she forfeit the right to maintenance and clothing, and what should she do?
He replied:
She forfeits her right to maintenance and clothing if she does not let him be intimate with her. He has the right to hit her if she persists in being defiant. It is not permissible for her to refuse intimacy if he asks for that, rather she is disobeying Allaah and His Messenger (by refusing). In al-Saheeh it says: “If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, the One Who is in heaven will be angry with her until morning comes.”
From Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 32/278. The hadeeth was narrated by Muslim, 1736.
So the wife should be admonished first, and warned against defiance (nushooz) and of the anger of Allaah and the curse of the angels. If she does not respond, then the husband should forsake her in her bed, and if she does not respond to that, then he may hit her in a manner that does not cause injury. If none of these steps are effective, then he may stop spending on her maintenance and clothing, and he has the right to divorce her or to allow her to separate from him by khula’ in return for some financial settlement, such as giving up the mahr.
Similarly a slave woman does not have the right to refuse her master’s requests unless she has a valid excuse. If she does that she is being disobedient and he has the right to discipline her in whatever manner he thinks is appropriate and is allowed in sharee’ah.
And Allaah knows best.Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 33597
Answer: Praise be to Allaah.
Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.
A slave woman with whom a man has intercourse is known as a sariyyah (concubine) from the word sirr, which means marriage.
This is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and this was done by the Prophets. Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) took Haajar as a concubine and she bore him Ismaa’eel (may peace be upon them all).
Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah, the righteous and the scholars. The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice”
[al-Nisa’ 4:3] What is meant by “or (slaves) that your right hands possess” is slave women whom you own.
And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal‑money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you, and the daughters of your ‘Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your ‘Ammaat (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khaal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khaalaat (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Ahzaab 33:50]
“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).
Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.
But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers” [al-Ma’aarij 70:29-31]
Al-Tabari said:
Allaah says, “And those who guard their chastity” i.e., protect their private parts from doing everything that Allaah has forbidden, but they are not to blame if they do not guard their chastity from their wives or from the female slaves whom their rights hands possess.
Tafseer al-Tabari, 29/84
Ibn Katheer said:
Taking a concubine as well as a wife is permissible according to the law of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him). Ibraaheem did that with Haajar, when he took her as a concubine when he was married to Saarah.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 1/383
And Ibn Katheer also said:
The phrase “and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you” [al-Ahzaab 33:50] means, it is permissible for you take concubines from among those whom you seized as war booty. He took possession of Safiyyah and Juwayriyah and he freed them and married them; he took possession of Rayhaanah bint Sham’oon al-Nadariyyah and Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both), and they were among his concubines, may Allaah be pleased with them both.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/500
The scholars are unanimously agreed that it is permissible.
Ibn Qudaamah said:
There is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one's slave woman, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).
Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]
Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah was the umm walad (a slave woman who bore her master a child) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and she was the mother of Ibraaheem, the son of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), of whom he said, “Her son set her free.” Haajar, the mother of Isma’eel (peace be upon him), was the concubine of Ibraaheem the close friend (khaleel) of the Most Merciful (peace be upon him). ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) had a number of slave women who bore him children, to each of whom he left four hundred in his will. ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) had slave women who bore him children, as did many of the Sahaabah. ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn, al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad and Saalim ibn ‘Abd-Allaah were all born from slave mothers
Al-Mughni, 10/441
Al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).
Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]
The Book of Allaah indicates that the sexual relationships that are permitted are only of two types, either marriage or those (women slaves) whom one’s right hand possesses.
Al-Umm, 5/43.
The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.
And Allaah knows best.Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 10382, November 24, 2005
Does this mean that the Companions of the Prophet (SAW) didn't commit adultery when they practiced 'azl with the captive girls?.
Answer: Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
This hadeeth was narrated by al-Bukhaari (2542) from Ibn Muhayreez who said: I saw Abu Sa’eed (may Allaah be pleased with him) and I asked him. He said: We went out with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on the campaign of Banu al-Mustaliq, and we captured some prisoners from among the Arabs. We desired women and the period of abstention was hard for us, and we wanted to engage in ‘azl (coitus interruptus). We asked the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said, “There is no point in doing that, for there is no soul which Allaah has decreed should exist until the Day of Resurrection but it will come into existence.” According to another report, They captured some female prisoners and wanted to be intimate with them without them becoming pregnant. They asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about ‘azl and he said, “There is no point in doing that, for Allaah has decreed who should be created until the Day of Resurrection.”
This hadeeth was also narrated by Muslim (1438), whose version says: We captured some women of the Arabs and we had been abstinent for a long time; and we wanted to be able to sell them, but we wanted to engage in intimacy with coitus interruptus. We said, “Shall we do that when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is among us without asking him about it?” So we asked the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said, “There is no point in doing that, for Allaah has not decreed that any soul should be created until the Day of Resurrection but it will come into existence.”
It may be understood from the hadeeth that those who wanted to engage in ‘azl did so for two reasons: they did not want the women to become pregnant, and they wanted to be able to sell them – if a slave woman got pregnant she could not be sold.
It may also be understood that ‘azl (coitus interruptus) does not change anything. If Allaah decrees that a child should be born, water (semen) will come out before the man realizes it.
Secondly:
Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her. This is not regarded as adultery as suggested in the question. Allaah says, describing the believers (interpretation of the meaning):
“those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)
Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess,__ for then, they are free from blame”
[al-Mu’minoon 23:5]
What is meant by “those whom their right hands possess” is slave women or concubines. See also question no. 10382, 12562.
Once this is understood, it should be noted that what is suggested in the question, that this was zina, never occurred to the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). What they were asking about was the ruling on practicing ‘azl with the slave women whom they had acquired in the course of jihad.
Moreover ‘azl may be done with a concubine or with a wife, if she agrees to that. See question no. 11885.
And Allaah knows best.Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 20802
This (position) on spoils is clear. There is also the saying in the two Sahihs [Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim] from Abi-Hurayra, the first of which is, "One among the prophets (PBUH) raided..." In the other hadith from Yush'a bin Nun, the Prophet (PBUH) said, "When Allah saw our weakness, he made it permissible for us," meaning spoils. The Prophet (PBUH) said, "Spoils were not permitted for any masters besides you." Allah Almighty forbade (the taking of) spoils for all nations before us. He permitted it on the day of the Battle of Badr, as agreed to by all scholars. Not a single Muslim scholar has a problem with this.
'Spoils' refers to what? It refers to people and wealth. The people are those who are taken prisoner. I want to say that it is not at all permissible to take prisoners from among Muslims, even if they are heretics, because the rule for Muslims is that they are free, and not prisoners. Jihad, as I stated in the beginning, is between Muslims and non-Muslims, from among the infidels. But if two Muslims fought each other, like from Iraq and Iran for example; if Iraq invaded Iran to occupy it, it would not be permissible for an Iraqi man to take a Shi'ite woman captive, because she is Muslim, even though she's a heretic. Likewise if Iran invaded Iraq, it would not be permissible for one of their men to take a Muslim woman captive, because she is free.
Therefore jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. That between Muslims and Muslims is called oppression, or fighting: "If two parties among the believers fall into a quarrel..." [Qur'an 49:9]. They are called 'believers,' and this name is not taken from them, even though they are fighting. "If one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses..." Here they are called transgressors, but the name of believers is still not taken away from them. In the verse directly following this one, Allah Almighty says: "The believers are but a single brotherhood..." They were brothers, even though a party of them transgressed against the other, and some of them fought each other. But the name of believers was not taken from them.
Do you understand what I'm saying? Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars--there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.
When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur'an by the name milk al-yamin, "that which your right hands possess" [Qur'an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur'an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn't need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point--there is no disagreement from any of them.
These are called slaves. The Prophet (PBUH) talked about them in the hadith narrated by al-Bukhari in his Book of Jihad: "Allah is delighted at a people who enter the Garden in chains." Also as narrated by Abu-Dawud: "They are led to the Garden in chains." Naturally, many people might not understand someone being jerked along in chains in order to enter the Garden. This is because all people, even the worst of the unbelievers, say the garden is for them and no others. They run to the Garden without anybody pulling them in chains.
The meaning of the hadith is this: these slaves were in a religion other than Islam. However, when they were conquered, and defeated, and taken prisoner, they came to live in the land of Islam. Then when they witnessed the justice, compassion, and mercy of Islam, they became Muslims. These did not convert to Islam except in the chains of war. If they had not been chained, bound, and had their freedom taken from them, they would not have converted to Islam. Therefore this hadith is referring to these slaves.
I am very shocked and surprised at those who say that we permit slavery. We don't call people to become slaves. In fact, there are vows to free the necks (i.e. slaves). The same Islam which permits us to take slaves, also urges us to free their necks.
. . .
Shaykh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni, al-Hikma TV, May 22, 2011
It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man's legal wife, but once Shariah makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not. It is necessary for a Muslim to be acquainted with the laws of Shariah, but it is not necessary for him to delve into each law in order to find the underlying wisdom of these laws because knowledge of the wisdom of some of the laws may be beyond his puny comprehension. Allah Ta'ala has said in the Holy Quraan: "Wa maa ooteetum min al-ilm illaa qaleelan" which means, more or less, that, "You have been given a very small portion of knowledge". Hence, if a person fails to comprehend the underlying wisdom of any law of Shariah, he cannot regard it as a fault of Shariah (Allah forbid), on the contrary, it is the fault of his own perception and lack of understanding, because no law of Shariah is contradictory to wisdom.
Nevertheless, the wisdom underlying the permission granted by Shariah to copulate with a slave woman is as follows: The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be 'possessed', bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariah instituted a 'marriage ceremony' in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. A similar example can be found in the slaughtering of animals; that after a formal slaughtering process, in which the words, "Bismillahi Allahu Akbar" are recited, goats, cows, etc.; become "Halaal" and lawful for consumption, whereas fish becomes "Halaal" merely through 'possession' which substitutes for the slaughtering.
In other words, just as legal possession of a fish that has been fished out of the water, makes it Halaal for human consumption without the initiation of a formal slaughtering process; similarly legal possession of a slave woman made her Halaal for the purpose of coition with her owner without the initiation of a formal marriage ceremony.Mufti Ebrahim Desai, Ask-Imam.com, Fatwa No. 10896, http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20071213134624%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.islam.tc%2Fask-imam%2Fview.php%3Fq%3D10896&date=2015-02-20.
Pooya/M.A. Ali
Mufti Ebrahim Desai, Ask-Imam.com, Fatwa No. 14421, http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20101027002420%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.islam.tc%2Fcgi-bin%2Faskimam%2Fask.pl%3Fq%3D14421%26act%3Dview&date=2015-02-20.
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Tafhim al-Qur'an
Answer: All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger.
It is an abominable sin that a father sexually abuses his daughter and it is even more abominable if he rapes her. If he does so with any girl, it is strictly forbidden, let alone him doing so with his own daughter.
However, it is not permissible to accuse the father of rape without evidence. Indeed, the Sharee’ah put some special conditions for proving Zina (fornication or adultery) that are not required in case of other crimes. The crime of Zina is not confirmed except if the fornicator admits it, or with the testimony of four trustworthy men, while the testimony of women is not accepted.
Hence, the statement of this girl or the statement of her mother in itself does not Islamically prove anything against the father, especially that the latter denies it.
Therefore, if this daughter has no evidence to prove that her accusations are true, she should not have claimed that she was raped by her father and she should not have taken him to the court. But if what she says is true, then she has the right to ask for protection from him even by taking him to the court so that he would not continue committing this evil or practice more sinful acts with her. In this case, she would claim his dissoluteness and her fear of his evil so that she will be kept apart from him.
Allaah Knows best.Islamweb, Fatwa No. 156817, May 18, 2011
See Also
- Rape - A hub page that leads to other articles related to Rape
- Violence Against Women (Primary Sources) - A hub page that leads to other articles related to Violence Against Women (Primary Sources)
References
- ↑ No, it is unIslamic to stop husbands: Aamir - Daily Times, August 26, 2006
- ↑ Row erupts in Malaysia over marital rape - Agence France-Presse, August 23, 2004
