Islam and Sex with Slave Girls: My Response to Kamran Mirza and Mohammad Asghar
Taj Hashmi, Toronto
As expected, some Islam-bashers like Syed Kamran Mirza and Mohammad Asghar have responded (NFB, May 9, 2005) to my earlier posting in the NFB, “Sex with Slave Girls and POWs in the Hadis Literature”. And as I pointed out earlier, both the mullah and Islam-basher love to cite Hadis and defective translations of the Quran, including those by Pickthal and Yusuf Ali and all the Bengali translations that I have come across. While mullahs (including most Maulanas, Muftis and Shaykh-ul-Hadises everywhere in the world) rely on Hadises and “convenient interpretations” of the Quran to defend Islam and his pre-modern ideas in support of patriarchy, absolute monarchy, polygamy, concubinage and slavery, Islam-bashers rely on the same books to demolish Islam, out of malice or conviction.
I first tackle the prolific Syed Kamran Mirza. It seems, Syed Sahib is very angry with me and quite for sometime, I guess, he was looking forward to an opportunity to knock me down with his malicious “logic”. What I regret most is his resorting to lies as he has claimed that “whenever he [Hashmi] got no clues to respond my challenge, he hide behind the dark screen [sic].” Nothing could be more inaccurate than what Mirza has asserted above, in his faulty prose. I do not think Mr Mirza suffers from such amnesia that he cannot recall my rebuttal to his earlier assertions, I think sometime in 2003 in the NFB, and since then he did not respond to any of my postings, until he has gathered some courage to face me.
If you do not want to remember Mr Mirza, I remind you what happened. You wrote in your unique style of making unsubstantiated claims that (a) honour killing of wives was only prevalent among Muslims and that (b) most people got killed throughout history in battles and wars fought in the name of religion. In my rebuttal I wrote that (a) honour killing was practised (still practised today) in Brazil. University professors and judges killed their wives with impunity for committing adultery (it was shown on a TV documentary). It is also practised among the Sikhs and some tribes in Africa. (b) I also wrote that the two world wars, and hundreds of other wars waged by Alexander, Napoleon, Halagu Khan and others were not fought in the name of religion. You have not yet respond to that posting. I know, how can you disprove established facts?
Now, you have gathered enough courage to face me again. Congratulations! I am surprised at your audacity to write: “Mr Hashmi has the audacity to compare Iraq’s incidence [“incident” is the right word, Mr Mirza] of Abu Ghraib (as he said “rape and abuse of POWs, a la Abu Ghraib”) with the most uncivilized acts of the 7th century.” Mr Mirza further claims that US soldiers did not rape POWs in Iraq and poses the question to me if I am aware of Pakistani soldiers’ raping Bangladeshi women in 1971. What eyewash! I wish the Pentagon and Daniel Pipes read this piece by you to duly reward you for defending the US war criminals! You have cited certain Quranic verses, albeit with the defective translations, to prove that Islam allows sex with slave girls and POWs. I am re-producing the same verses with the correct translations and contextual interpretations for your knowledge and guidance.
The oft-cited Quranic verse (ironically both by mullahs and Islam-bashers), Surah Al-Ahzaab (revealed in Medina), 33:50 actually means: “ We [God] have made lawful for you, O Prophet, wives to whom you have given their dowers, and God-given maids and captives you have MARRIED…. This is a privilege only for you [Prophet] and not the other believers.”
The problem with the above verse is that many translators and interpreters have wrongly assumed that the phrase, “Malakatu Aimanukum”, stand for “What your right hands possess” or slave girls. Actually the phrase stands for: “What your right hands have pledged or married”. As for example, Ayesha’s self-identification as a wife of the Prophet of Allah in Arabic was: “Malakani Rasul Allah” (The Prophet of Allah married me). One may get further clarifications from the following verse: “… And to those you have given your pledge in marriage give their share, for God is witness to everything” [ Surah Nissa, revealed in Medina, 4:33]. Here the expression “ Malakatu Aimanakum”, stands for “marriage”.
We also come across in Surah Nissa the following verse, which Mr Mirza has used to vilify Islam: “ Also forbidden are married women unless they are captives (of war), such is the decree of God. Lawful for you are women besides them if you seek them with your wealth for wedlock and not for debauchery.” [4:24]
Muslims just cannot have sex with POWs or slaves without marrying them first.
Contrary to the motivated translation/interpretation, the verses 23:1-7 [Surah Al-Muminun, revealed in Mecca] tell us the following: “ The true believers will be successful, who are humble in their service, who shun all frivolities, who strive for betterment, who guard their sex, except for their wives, and ‘women slaves of old’ [who had been in possession of their masters since the pre-Islamic days] are free from blame.” The verse 7 of Surah Al-Muminin only accepts the fait accompli – slave girls whose masters had been sleeping with them since the pre-Islamic period, were allowed to do so. It is just a case of allowing NOT promoting the pre-Islamic custom. We find the same injunction in Surah Al-Maarij (Meccan), verses 29-30: “And those who guard their sex except from their wives and women slaves of old, are free of blame.”
The Prophet, despite his intentions, could not abolish slavery and the pre-Islamic custom of grabbing POWs as booties—slaves and sex objects. After the Battle of Hunayen, Prophet’s attempt to release the female POWs was resisted by his companions. One Sahaba grabbed his robe and told the Prophet sternly: “You cannot deprive us from these female POWs, this is our age-old custom.” The Prophet without any police force, judiciary and regular army, could not enforce his desire.
Now, to turn to Mr Asghar’s comment, I agree with him that “Islam defenders” give the “information” to the Islam-bashers (Hadis, Fiqh and motivated interpretations of the Quran). Yes, this is the problem I have been pinpointing in my assertion against Shariah and Political Islam. Ibn Ishaque, Tabari and the Hadis literature and people like Ghazzali, who considered wives as slaves, created problems for the Muslims and Islam. We want to get rid of these Hadis-Fiqh based Islam.
The other answers to your queries and assertions have been answered above. My rebuttal here does not mean that I want non-believers to believe in what the Quran says -- not at all. I just making things straight factually, as the concocted versions of the Quranic text create prolems for both Muslims and non-Muslims.
More on Sex with Slave-girls and Captive-Women
May 11, 2005
I read quite a number of posts on the sexual use of slave-girls and captive women in Islam. It is quite amusing to note the desperation of a few ‘Islam lovers’ to save Islam from the stigma of abysmal sexual exploitation of slave-women and women-captives caught in a war. Here is what the ‘real Islam’ says about having sex with slave-girls and captives (women, of course). These passages are extracted from my detailed essays: ‘Sex and Sexuality in Islam’ and ‘Root of Terrorism—Islamic Style.’
My question is: Who knows Islam best?—the Imams, the impeccably qualified (Islamically, of course), Mullahs, the pirs, Tabari, Ghazali, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, Sahih Hadith, Hedaya (Hanafi Laws of Islam, vetted by the Inns of Law, London to be the most authentic), Umdat al-Salik (the most authentic Shafi Laws, authenticated by the Al-Azhar Islamic University) or the western educated, western-settled Muslims who claim they have discovered a new brand of Islam---Islam sans politics, and of late, Islam sans those obnoxious ahadith?
When we point out from those impeccable Islamic sources the ‘true’ and unadulterated Islam preached and practiced by Muhammad, these New Islamic scholars would quote from personalities such as: Gandhi, Carlyle, Barnard Shaw, John Esposito……..to demonstrate the ‘beautiful’ face of Islam. It is as if these kaffirs know Islam more/better than Muhammad did!
This gets very funny indeed! How about those despicable verses in the Qur’an that unmistakably demonstrate the utter sexual perversion, vis-à-vis slave-girls and captive women? Are these new Islamically educated, western-inclined Islamic scholars ready to discard those Qu’ranic verses as well? I would like to hear from them. This will really be very interesting, no doubt.
Any way, here are those ‘real Islamic’ excerpts.
Excerpts from ‘Sex and Sexuality in Islam’:
From an Islamic Q & A site:
Right Hand’s Possessions http://www.binoria.org/q&a/miscellaneous.html#possessions ’Question: What is the meaning of right hand possession and what was the purpose of having them. Some brothers in America think it is okay to have right hand possessions now in the USA.
Right hand possessions (Malak-ul-Yameen) means slaves and maids, those came in possession of Muslims through war or purchase. After having the possession of slave maid it is lawful and correct to have sexual relation with them. Even today if Muslims get possession over infidel country, this condition is possible, lawful and correct.’
Please peruse the above statement once again. What is the implication of this Mullah’s opinion? I must appreciate the Mullah for his utter honesty with respect to ‘real Islam.’ He did not beat around the bushes. He has given a straight-forward, unadulterated, pure and unambiguous answer that clearly conforms to the rules of Qur’an and hadith. May I ask the Islamic apologists to say a few words about this honest reply from this Mullah?
You might still think this to be impossible. But, wait! The Pakistani Islamic army did just that in Bangladesh in 1971. They killed about 3 million Bangalees terming them as not so good Muslims, took 250,000 Bengali women as concubines and raped them—many of them repeatedly, and not very far off from their near and dear ones. In recent times, we have heard many such reports from the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. These disturbing acts may enrage a lot of people including many Muslims. Think again. Have the Islamic soldiers committed any crime/sin as far as Islam is concerned. The answer is a simple “NO.” Therefore, doesn’t it make sense to realise that it is the Islam itself that is the motivating factor for the rape of the captive women? In Iran, a woman charged with adultery/blasphemy/apostasy which carry death penalty become a captive of the Islamic state. Therefore, an Islamic guard is appointed to have sex with her repeatedly before she is executed. This, the Islamists laud is a beautiful and “humane” treatment of infidel women prisoners in Islam!
Sex with slave-women
This one is also a hot topic worthy of discussion. So far, we learnt the truth about the sexual exploitation of women taken in a war. This is not the only means by which unlimited sexual gratification is possible in a ’halal’ way. Buying and selling of women as sex slaves is fully permitted in Islam. It is a perfectly a legitimate way to acquire as many sex-slaves as possible. Sky is not the limit, though. The only limitation is the affordability. One may say that this type of flesh trading is no more practiced today. This is true. However, nothing can prevent the Islamists from re-introducing the slave markets as per Qur’an and Sunnah when their ‘Jihad’ against the infidels is successful. Sexual slavery is absolutely legitimate in Islam. If Islam conquered the world slavery could have never been eradicated, because Islamic laws are written on granite stone and are absolutely unchangeable. So, if Islam conquers the infidel countries there is nothing that could prevent the Islamic zealots from re-introducing the slavery system and the slave markets around the globe for trading in female bodies of infidel women. If the Islamists can re-introduce the amputation of hands and feet for theft, stoning to death for adultery, beheading for apostasy and many other barbaric Sha’ria rules, what will prevent them from re-introducing Islamic slavery? Please do think about this.
Muhammad himself had a Coptic slave that was presented to him by the ruler of Alexandria in Egypt. When the delegate from Muhammad visited this Coptic head of Egypt (Muaqaqis) with an invitation for him to convert to Islam he politely refused to do so, but knowing the taste of Muhammad, he presented Muhammad with two beautiful and sexy slave-girls who were sisters. Muhammad took for himself Mariya, the most beautiful one and gave her sister, Sirin, to his poet friend, Hassan ibn Thabit for him to enjoy her. Please note that neither Muhammad nor Hasan b. Thabit married these slave-girls. Mariya gave birth to Ibrahim, Muhammad’s last child who died at infancy. Sirin bore a son named Abdul Rahman to Hassan, the poet (ref. 10, p. 498-499). All these historical records are absolute proof that enjoying a female slave is totally ‘halal’ in Islam.
Here are a few more ‘gems’ from ahadith. Please peruse the following divine sanctions and judge for yourself the mercy, blessing, tolerance, and last but not the least, fairness towards women in Islam when it comes to sex.
You can have sexual intercourse with two slave girls at a time without ghusl (bath) but can’t do like this with free women…(Malik’s Muwatta 2.23.90)
Malik’s Muwatta:Book 2, Number 2.23.90: Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that the slave girls of Abdullah ibn Umar used to wash his feet and bring him a mat of palm leaves while they were menstruating.
Malik was asked whether a man who had women and slave girls could have intercourse with all of them before he did ghusl. He said, "There is no harm in a man having intercourse with two of his slave girls before he does ghusl. It is disapproved of, however, to go to a freewoman on another's day. There is no harm in making love first to one slave-girl and then to another when one is junub."
Malik was asked about a man who was junub and water was put down for him to do ghusl with. Then he forgot and put his finger into it to find out whether it was hot or cold. Malik said, "If no filth has soiled his fingers, I do not consider that that makes the water impure."
Here is something that will break your conscience as it did even the conscience of stone-hearted, cruel Hazrat Umar. This hadith tells us that before banning by Umar it was okay to have sex with a slave mother and her young daughter one after the other.
If a woman and her daughter were both slaves (or captive) then you can’t have sex with one of them after the other. Umar forbade this practice…(Malik’s Muwatta 28.14.33)
Malik’s Muwatta:Book 28, Number 28.14.33: Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud from his father that Umar ibn al-Khattab was asked about a woman and her daughter who were in the possession of the right hand, and whether one could have intercourse with one of them after the other Umar said, "I dislike both being permitted together." He then forbade that.
If both sisters are slaves (or captives) then you may or may not have sex with them depending on the interpreter…(Malik’s Muwatta 28.14.34)
Malik’s Muwatta:Book 28, Number 28.14.34: Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Qabisa ibn Dhu'ayb that a man asked Uthman ibn Affan whether one could have intercourse with two sisters who one owned. Uthman said, "One ayat makes them halal, and one ayat makes them haram. As for me, I wouldn't like to do it." The man left him and met one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and asked him about it, and he said, "Had I any authority and I found someone who had done it, I would punish him as an example."
Ibn Shihab added, "I think that it was Ali ibn Abi Talib. "
Sexual perversion is fully permitted when a slave-girl is involved. We find in HEDAYA that a man can have sex with his slave-girl in any manner although he has restrictions while doing this with his own wife/s.
You can have sex with a slave-woman in any manner--- (ref.11, p.600) A man may gratify his passion with his female slave in whatever way he pleases—It is lawful for a man to perform the act of Azil (i.e. coitus interruption—writer) with his female slave without her consent, whereas he cannot lawfully do so by his wife unless with her permission. –The reason of this is that the Prophet has forbidden the act of Azil with a free woman without her consent but has permitted it to a master in the case of his female slave. Besides, carnal connexion is the right of a free woman for the gratifying of her passion, and the propagation of children (whence it is that a wife is at liberty to reject a husband who is an eunuch or impotent); whereas a slave possesses no such right.—A man, therefore, is not at liberty to injure the right of his wife, whereas a master is absolute with respect to his slave. If, also, a man should marry the female slave of another, he must not perform the act of Azil with her without the consent of her master.
And here are a few more ‘gems’ from Islam
Father can give his slave-girl to his son to do conditional things…(Malik’s Muwatta 28.15.38) Malik’s Muwatta:Book 28, Number 28.15.38: Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibrahim ibn Abi Abla from Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan that he gave a slave-girl to a friend of his, and later asked him about her. He said, "I intended to give her to my son to do such-and-such with her." Abd al-Malik said, "Marwan was more scrupulous than you. He gave a slave-girl to his son, and then he said, 'Do not go near her, for I have seen her leg uncovered.' "
A master can have sex with the slave-girl of his male or female slave…(Malik’s Muwatta 29.17.51)
Malik’s Muwatta:Book 29, Number 29.17.51: Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said, "If a man gives his slave permission to marry, the divorce is in the hand of the slave, and nobody else has any power over his divorce. Nothing is held against a man who takes the slave-girl of his male slave or the slave-girl of his female-slave."
Slave-girls are like fields if you wish then water it by ejaculating inside them or leave it thirsty i.e. coitus interruption with slave-girls is optional…(Malik’s Muwatta 29.32.99)
Malik’s Muwatta: Book 29, Number 29.32.99: Yahya related to me from Malik from Damra ibn Said al-Mazini from al-Hajjaj ibn Amr ibn Ghaziya that he was sitting with Zayd ibn Thabit when Ibn Fahd came to him. He was from the Yemen. He said, "Abu Said! I have slave-girls. None of the wives in my keep are more pleasing to me than them, and not all of them please me so much that I want a child by them, shall I then practise coitus interruptus?" Zayd ibn Thabit said, "Give an opinion, Hajjaj!" "I said, 'May Allah forgive you! We sit with you in order to learn from you!' He said, 'Give an opinion! 'I said, 'She is your field, if you wish, water it, and if you wish, leave it thirsty. I heard that from Zayd.' Zayd said, 'He has spoken the truth.' "
It is possible to share slave-woman for sexual purposes. Thus, a father can have sex with his son’s or even grandson’s slave-women; a son can borrow his father’s or mother’s or even his wives slave women for unlimited sex. Here are few excerpts from HEDAYA (reference 11), the most authentic commentary on Islamic Laws that even the lawyers consult.
No punishment for having sex with the female slaves of a son or a grandson ---(ref: 11: page 183) Nor that with the female slave of a son or a grandson.—PUNISHMENT is not incurred for a man having carnal connexion with the female slave of his son, or of his grandson, although he should acknowledge his consciousness of such female slave having unlawful to him, for in this case the error is by effect, since it proceeds from an argument founded upon the words of the prophet, who said to one with whom he was conversing, “THOU AND THINE are thy FATHER’S ;”-- and the grandfather is subject to the same rule with the father, as he is also a parent. The parentage also of the child begotten in such carnal conjunction is established in the father aforesaid, who remains responsible to his son for the value of the female slave.
‘Or of a father, mother, or wife (where misconception is pleaded)—If a person have carnal connexion with the female slave of his father, or his mother, or his wife, and plead his conception that such slave was lawful to him, he does not incur punishment; neither is the accuser liable to punishment—( but if he should acknowledge his consciousness of the illegality, punishment is to be inflicted upon him,--and the same rule obtains where a slave has connexion with the bondmaid of his master):--because between these there a community of interests in the acquisition of profit; and hence the man who commits the act may in those cases have conceived, with respect to the enjoyment, that this species of usufruct is also lawful to him,--wherefore error by misconception is applicable to him; but nevertheless this is accrual whoredom, for which reason punishment is not incurred by the accuser. The law is the same (according to the Zahir Rawayet), if the female slave, in either of these cases, were to plead her supposing that the act was lawful, without any such plea on the part of the man,--because the carnal conjunction of a man and a woman being one act, it follows that a plea of supposed legality, made by either party, establishes error with respect to both and hence the punishment of both is abrogated.’
Is any one interested in looking at the private parts of a woman? Of course, most men would like to do just this, albeit secretly. That is why we have ‘Playboy’, ‘Penthouse’, ‘Ralph,’…….. etc. magazines. Looking at the glossy pages of these magazines with pictures of naked woman is a great fun that most men will indulge in but very few men (Muslim) will dare to admit. The bad news for these men is that looking at a woman (not related to him) below the level of her naval is absolutely forbidden in Islam. Forget about touching her. It is a kabirah gunaah (absolute sin.) One cannot even look at the naked hands of a woman. This is the height of morality in Islam. Most Islamists cannot wait to announce to the world the great respect they have for women by citing these absurd, silly practices. We would accept this custom as a practice of great morality had it been applied to all women regardless of her social status. Nope. Believe it or not, it does not apply all to women. If you are unfortunate enough to be a slave-woman then you become an object of display of flesh. Islam allows a man to look at every part of a slave (or a captive) woman including her, breast, vagina, clitoris, anus—every part of her pudenda. Unbelievable, you say. Read the following Sha’ria law on the inspection of a slave-woman for sexual purposes.
Slave woman—you can look at pudenda---(ref. 11, p.599) ‘A man may view his wife or his slave in any part.—IT is lawful for a man to look at his slave girl in any part, provided he be not related him within the prohibited degrees; and also at his wife in any part, even in the pudenda, if he pleases; because the Prophet said, “shut your eyes from all excepting your wives and female slaves.” Nevertheless, it is most becoming that a husband and wife should neither of them look at the genital parts of the other, as the Prophet gas said, “when ye copulate with women of your own tribe, you must conceal as much s possible; and be not then naked, as that savours too much of the custom of asses.”’
Although the above provision recommends a man to show restraints while copulating, nothing can prevent him from indulging in all sorts of fetish/sadomasochism with a slave woman, if he wishes so. Since beating of women is a permitted in the Qur’an (see Qur’an verse 4:34), therefore, sadomasochistic method of sexual gratification is absolutely possible in an Islamic way.
It is noteworthy that many Islamists often hide the truth about the extreme tyranny of sexual slavery under Islam by saying that one can marry a slave woman. On the surface, this looks fair enough. But when we dig deeper, we find the naked truth. The truth is a Muslim man cannot marry his own slave-woman. He can only marry a slave woman that belongs to another person. He cannot purchase a slave woman and marry her. It is forbidden. However, he is allowed to have unlimited sex with her (the woman bought as a sex slave).
One can’t marry one’s own slave but one can have sex with her---(ibid, p.317) The Legal Disabilities to Marriage There are nine prohibitions to marriage namely:- ………………………………………… 8. A woman is prohibited by reason of property. For example, it is not lawful for a man to marry his own slave, or a woman her bondsman.
Excerpts from ‘Root of Terrorism—Islamic Style’
The Muslim soldiers were hungry for sex and Muhammad allowed them to rape the B. Mustaliq women captives. Here is a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459: Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e., coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle 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 interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."
After having sex (rape) with his captive-girl, Said al-Khudri took this young girl to the nearest slave market for a quick sale. Here is the continuation of the above story, as told by al-Waqidi (vol.i, p.413) and excerpted by Rodinson:
“A Jew said to me: ‘Abu Said, no doubt you want to sell her as she has in her belly a baby by you.’ I said: ‘No; I used the ‘azl.’ To which he replied [sarcastically]: ‘Then it was lesser child-murder!’ When I repeated this story to the Prophet he said: ‘The Jews lie. The Jews lie.’”
In this connection it is worthwhile to mention the Sharia Law (Islamic Law) on captive women and children:
Shafi Law o9.13 Where a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact that of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.
Muhammad appointed Abu Bakr as the leader of this raiding party. When Abu Bakr arrived at Wadi al-Qura, he ordered his troop to rest there; then they prayed. After prayer, Abu Bakr made a raid on B. Fazarah. The Muslims killed a number of B. Fazarah people and captured a number of their women and children. Among them was Umm Qirfa, a very old lady, wearing a worn-out piece of leather coat. With her was her young daughter, the fairest of the Arabs. Abu Bakr gave Umm Qirfa’s pretty, young and vivacious daughter to the Jihadist Salamah b. al-Akwa who had captured her as a booty or sex-slave. After Salamah b. al-Akwa returned to Medina and met Muhammad at the market place, he (Muhammad) asked Salamah to give this pretty young lass to him. Salamah told Muhammad that he liked her but had not had sex with her yet. Then he offered her to Muhammad.
Quoting Salamah, Tabari writes: ‘When I returned to Medina, the messenger of God met me in the market and said, “Salamah—how excellent the father who begot you!—give me the woman.” I said, “Messenger of God, I like her, by God, and I have not uncovered her garment.” He said nothing to me until the next day, when he met me in the market and said, “Salamah—how excellent a father begot you!—give me the woman.” I said: “Messenger of God, I have not touched her garment. She is yours, Messenger of God.” The Messenger of God sent her to Mecca, and with her he ransomed some Muslim captives who were in the hands of the polytheists.’
There is a similar Hadith from Sahih Muslim (Refer to: Sahih Muslim: Book 19, Hadith number 4345)
Note: If you want more: Read those two essays--either www.muktomona.com or www.vinnomot.com