Questions and answers about captives in Islam

 

Question:

A non-Muslim friend sent me this question: "How can Allah say that it is permissible to take a married woman or a girl in war as a captive?! How will this woman feel, whose father, brother and husband were killed in the war at the hands of Muhammad's army, when she sees herself at the end of the day in the same bed with their killer? I am referring to Safiyyah bint Huyayy! No Lord can ever say that. I think the whole issue is fabricated. Think with me a little and you will see!" I read your answer on the site on this issue, and I am completely convinced and I have no problem with it because I am a Muslim, and I know that it is from Allah and I accept it with all faith and certainty, but how do I convince this friend of ours? I was able to convince him of almost every doubt he raises about Islam except this one, so I hope you can help me.


Answer:

Praise be to Allah.

First:
We thank you, my brother, for your zeal for the law of Allah Almighty, and your love for conveying goodness to people. Know that not everyone who reads and hears the truth brought by the Lord Almighty will be guided to accept it or act upon it. These disbelievers find in their religion such contradictions that the leaders of their religion are unable to refute them. So do not feel sorry for someone who sees the truth but does not accept it. Such people are people of whims and desires. Allah Almighty said about them: “And among them are those who listen to you, but We have placed coverings over their hearts, lest they understand it, and deafness in their ears. And if they see every sign, they will not believe in it until, when they come to you, they argue with you. Those who disbelieve say, “We have not believed in you.” They disbelieved. This is nothing but legends of the ancients. ( Al-An`am: 25)


Secondly:
There are facts that must be known regarding the female captives of the disbelieving women, which clarify the matter and make it clear to those who want to know the truth from its original sources, and they are:
1. Islam did not initially legislate the captivity of women, rather it is a system that was practiced by previous nations, and it had many sources by which women were enslaved, so Islam limited it to one source, which is legitimate fighting with the disbelievers. 2. Women are not taken captive in Islam simply because of their disbelief, rather the fighters for the Muslims in battles and the ones who incite the disbelievers to fight are taken captive, and there is no doubt that taking these women captive and enslaving them is better for them than killing them. 3. Taking non-Muslim women captive by Muslims may bring them great good, as they will enter the religion of Allah Almighty and become Muslims, and in doing so they will save themselves from eternal damnation in the fire of Hell, as was reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Allah is amazed at a people who will enter Paradise in chains.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2848). Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Ibn al-Jawzi said: What this means is that they were taken captive and chained, and when they knew that Islam was true , they entered Paradise willingly, so they entered Paradise. Thus, the compulsion to be taken captive and chained was the first reason, and it is as if he called the compulsion chain, and since it was the reason for entering Paradise, he made the effect the cause. “Fath Al-Bari” (6/145). 4.








Some of the captives may attain worldly virtues such as wealth, prestige and knowledge. At the forefront of religious and worldly honor is what happened to Safiyyah bint Huyayy ibn Akhtab and Juwayriyah bint al-Harith. Their captivity was the reason for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to marry them, until they became mothers to all the believers. They are his wives in this world and the hereafter. What honor can a captive like this attain? We do not know how anyone can deny the legislation of captivity and the actions of the Muslims towards them, especially the questioner’s criticism of what happened with Safiyyah bint Huyayy ibn Akhtab, whose condition became what you know.

5. If a woman is taken captive with her husband and they become the property of one Muslim man, then the marriage contract between that infidel woman and her husband is not dissolved and their contract remains valid. Accordingly, the owner of that woman cannot have intercourse with her.

6. It is not permissible for a Muslim to have intercourse with a captive woman directly until her womb is cleared. If she is pregnant, then by giving birth, and if she is not pregnant, then by one menstrual period.
On the authority of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said concerning the captives of Awtas: “A pregnant woman should not be had intercourse with until she gives birth, and a woman who is not pregnant should not be had intercourse with until she menstruates once.” Narrated
by al-Tirmidhi (1564) and Abu Dawud (2157). Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
Al-Mubarakfuri (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
This is evidence that it is haraam for a man to have intercourse with a captive female slave if she is menstruating until she has had one menstrual period. This is the view of the Shaafa’is, Hanafis, al-Thawri, al-Nakha’i and Maalik. End quote from Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi (5/151).

7. It is not permissible for anyone to have intercourse with that woman except the Muslim who has her share, for she is not a common property, rather she is owned by one person and is restricted to him, and enjoyment of the wife is only for her husband. Also, if she marries while she is a slave, the right to enjoy her becomes exclusive to her husband, and is forbidden for her master.

8. If a captive woman gives birth to a child from her master, she is freed upon his death.

9. The pure Sharee’ah has opened many doors for freeing slaves, including captive women, and some of these doors are obligatory for those who are able. Expiation for an oath, murder, mistake, zihar, and intercourse in Ramadan involves freeing a slave, and the punishment for one who slaps or beats his slave is to free him! There are many ahaadeeth that explain the great reward for one who frees a slave for the sake of Allaah.

It is essential to look at the answer to question no. 94840, which contains more explanation about slavery in Islam . Islam Question and Answer http://islamqa.info/ar/ref/172745

---

Question:

I was explaining the issue of Jihad to a non-Muslim man, and I told him that women and children do not fight. He objected that it is permissible for Muslims to rape women in war, and he mentioned that in the Sunnah it is permissible to have intercourse with female captives. Then he mentioned the hadith in Sahih Muslim: (On the authority of Ibn Muhayriz, who said: Abu Sirmah and I entered upon Abu Saeed Al-Khudri, and Abu Sirmah asked him, saying: O Abu Saeed, did you hear the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - mention coitus interruptus? He said: Yes, we went out with the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - to the Battle of Balmustaliq and we captured the best of the Arabs, and the celibacy became too long for us and we wanted to ransom them, so we wanted to enjoy ourselves and practice coitus interruptus, so we said we would do it and the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - was among us and we did not ask him, so we asked the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - and he said: “There is no harm in not doing what Allah has decreed for the creation of a soul that will exist until the Day of Resurrection except that it will happen.” In this hadith, Abu Saeed mentions that he asked the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - about coitus interruptus (and intercourse with female captives), and he permitted it by saying: "You must not do it, you must not do it, you must not do it." So what is the answer to this?!


The answer

is all praise be to Allah for His blessings, and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah. After that:
I say (and Allah is the Grantor of success):

Islam does not permit the rape of women at all, and how can there be any doubt about that?! And intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to a Muslim is one of the greatest indecencies in Islam, which is the indecency of adultery, and it is one of the greatest major sins in Islam, even if it is with the woman's consent, so how about if it is by forcing her to do it?!!

As for marrying what the right hand possesses, which is known in Islamic law as (concubinage), it is a legitimate method that Allah the Almighty has permitted, and He has made a specific system and special rulings for it, just as He has permitted marriage to free women according to a specific system and special rulings. The One who permitted marriage to free women and regulated it, permitted marriage to what the right hand possesses and regulated it, so what is the problem with that?! Both are the rulings of Allah, whose ruling cannot be overturned, and nothing is better than His guidance, and there is no happiness for mankind without adhering to His command, the Almighty and Majestic.

Marrying what the right hand possesses according to the law of Allah Almighty and its regulations is not rape at all, unless marriage to free women according to the law of Allah and its regulations is rape, and it is not like that for all rational people, so the same is true of (concubinage).

I am amazed at a society that allows fornication under the pretext of freedom, legalizes homosexuality, allows its media channels to spread vice and obscenity in the ugliest way, and its soldiers run rampant in countries around the world, killing and raping, depriving people of freedom, enslaving people, seizing the wealth of nations, and interfering in the privacy of the values ​​of civilizations, and then despite all this, a person from this society calls (concubinage) rape!!! If he is ignorant, he knows, and if he is knowledgeable about the reality of concubinage and still calls it rape, then he is being stubborn.

One of the first things I would like to clarify regarding concubinage, which only occurs with the right hand, i.e. with (slavery): Islam does not permit the enslavement of anyone who differs from us in religion. Rather, it does not permit captivity except for the infidel combatants and those with them in the land of war of women and children. As for non-combatants, there is no captivity for them in Islam at all. It is not permissible for a Muslim to transgress against a man or woman if they are infidels who are not fighting the Muslims, with any type of aggression such as killing, beating, or raping women. This is the first difference between absolute rape and concubinage in Islam.

Secondly: The women who are taken captive are not a common pleasure for every Muslim, but are only for those Muslims who fall under their share. She is a slave owned by one master among them, and it is not permissible for him to force her to live with another Muslim.

Thirdly:If a man and his wife are taken captive and they are owned by one Muslim man, their marriage remains as it is. Her owner is not permitted to have intercourse with her unless he separates them by selling one of them to another owner, in which case this is like divorce. The owner of the captive woman has the right to have intercourse with her after waiting for the period of purity to ensure that her husband did not become pregnant before her owner had intercourse with her.

Fourth: If her owner has intercourse with the captive woman and she becomes pregnant and gives birth, it is not permitted to sell her, because this would lead to her being separated from her child, and she would become free with the death of her owner.

Therefore, the issue cannot be portrayed as rape, but rather as right-hand ownership and slavery that has its own rulings and etiquette.

If a person remembers that this enemy whom you enslaved was keen to kill you, and if he killed you on the battlefield, this would be nothing but justice and reciprocity, then enslaving him after that is easier than killing him. Therefore, people would prefer captivity and enslavement over killing, and ask the victor to keep them alive. The West and its civilization today permit the imprisonment of prisoners of war, and perhaps treat them in the worst way, like the Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo in the American camps. So which of the two forms of slavery is kinder? Western slavery in cages and prisons, or Islamic slavery, which is a restriction of some freedom, with the release of slaves on earth, and with the manners that Islam has obligated its followers towards slaves, to treat them well and be kind to them, and not to harm them, and the prohibition of assaulting them, and that they be fed what their master feeds, and that their owner clothe them from the same clothes he wears, and even to be gentle in addressing them, and not to say: (my slave) and (my female slave), but rather to say: (my boy) and (my girl)... To this extent of gentleness Islam has legislated slavery and established its rules.

The problem with the West is that when it fought slavery, it thought that slavery in Islam was like slavery in its view, and the difference between them is vast.

While the West fights the enslavement of individuals through explicit slavery, some of its countries enslave entire peoples by occupying their homelands militarily (such as Iraq and Palestine), and by establishing governments that implement their desires at the expense of the peoples’ desires and freedoms, and drain the wealth of these oppressed peoples, and prevent them from the sciences that would advance those peoples to ensure their continued control of Western civilization and the dominance of its countries. These forms of slavery are still practiced by many Western countries, and in the most hideous forms of practice, and then after that these people claim to fight the enslavement of individuals, even if it is with the ethics of Islam with slaves, which the West has not known nor heard of its civilization!!

By the way: slavery and its permissibility are not unique to the religion of Islam, but Judaism and Christianity have also permitted and legislated it, so look at that in the Book of Kings in their holy book (9/15-23). ​​Rather, secular regimes in the West have banned it in the modern era, based on their false perceptions of it that were practiced in Europe and America before they banned it.

Here I remind the questioner that the hadith he mentioned, and the story that took place in it, were at a time when no one called for the abolition of slavery. Rather, slavery and captivity were a law in effect among all the peoples of the earth. Christians would take Muslim women captive if they were able to, and so were the Jews. What happened in that hadith was not something unusual for the civilizations of the earth at that time. Rather, it was a common and practiced matter, until slavery for prisoners of war today was replaced by imprisonment, humiliation, and torture, as in the American Guantanamo prison.

I know that whoever lived in this era, and whose thoughts were influenced by the values ​​that prevailed in it, and who was a prisoner of its reality = will have a narrow horizon about accepting the idea of ​​slavery and captivity, in any form, even if it was in the just form that Islam brought.

As for the one who broadens his horizons and remembers that humanity from its most ancient ages permitted slavery, to the modern age that fought one form of it and permitted other forms that were uglier and more horrible, and tried to look at it far from the effect of habit and its captivity, free from arrogance about his civilization = he will find that the form of slavery in Islam does not contain anything to be condemned at all, rather it is a just, fruitful and beneficial rule, and it is better than the other forms of slavery that the West practiced in ancient or modern times!!

While writing this answer, I remembered the words of a European traveler in the nineteenth century AD, the Dutch-born Christian Snouck, who received his doctorate in 1880 AD from Leiden University, who visited the Arabian Peninsula, entered Mecca, and stayed in the Hijaz in 1882 AD for six months. He wrote the events of his journey in German, and spoke on this journey about the slavery that he saw and witnessed in the Hijaz. Although it is not slavery in all its Islamic customs, he said about it: “Whoever enters the slave market with European ideas and in his mind Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which is a reference to the slaves who were sent to the New World, will get a bad impression, and will leave the market disgusted by the bad sight. This initial impression is a wrong impression, and unfortunately most of the orientalist travelers only depicted their initial impressions, and this is the source of their error.”

Until he said: “In general, slaves in the Islamic world do not differ much from servants and workers in European society. Anyone who knows local conditions knows this very well, and also knows that the abolition of slavery means a social revolution in the Arabian Peninsula.

There are many Europeans who know the affairs of the East well, but they do not want to say this frankly; lest these people be accused of being against the prevailing trend in general, which calls for the final liberation of slaves, and that they are against the trend based on noble human feelings...”, until he said: “The trick of the so-called slave liberation movement is not due to popular interest in a noble goal, but rather it is a dangerous, fake game carried out by the great politicians, for inhuman purposes, in order for the Christian world to take a false and hostile position against Islam.” (Pages from the History of Mecca, Snook is Rukhuniyyah, and translation by Dr. Ali Al-Shuyukh, printed by Darat Al-Malik Abdul Aziz: (1419 AH: 2/323, 326, 330).

And I say finally: If fair-minded Westerners knew the truth of the rulings of Islam, including the rulings on slavery and captivity in it, they would wish to be saved from a life of spiritual emptiness (due to their false beliefs about God Almighty, His prophets and His books) and from a life of vice and obscenity (due to the freedoms that permit adultery and the actions of the people of Lot), even by enslavement according to the rulings of Islam!!

Yes.. It is a difficult choice for every free person; but the slavery of Islam is better than the freedom of disbelief!!

And God knows best.

http://islamport.com/d/2/ftw/1/26/2188.html

---

Question :

I have had two questions for years.

First: What is the concept of captivity in Islam? Were all the women in the conquered city captives? What was the situation in Andalusia when Musa bin Nusayr conquered cities numbering hundreds of thousands? It is certain that not all of this number were captives.

Second: Previously, Christians were oppressed in their countries, paid taxes, and owned their land, meaning they were poor and without freedom. The conquerors found this to be a help to them, and the people converted to Islam and welcomed the conquest.

Today, however, the European people have material and technological luxury, absolute freedom in behavior and conduct,

and their rights - even animal rights - are protected, and security is available in an unprecedented way. If we assume today that there is an Islamic state and we are now on the verge of conquering a European country, how will the Muslims deal with the people of that country?

May Allah reward you.


Answer

: Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family and companions. As for what follows:

It is better for a Muslim to occupy himself with the rulings of his religion that concern him, and to invest his time and energy in seeking knowledge that will benefit him, because the purpose of knowledge is action, and that which is not based on action, it is not good to research it. This includes issues related to captivity and slavery, because they are not of great benefit in the current era. See Fatwa No.: 122478. Regarding

the concept of captivity in Islam, the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence states: Captivity and sabaa in the language means: taking prisoner. It is said: the enemy or others took captive captive and sabaa if they captured him, so it is captive on the weight of fa’il for males and females sabaa, sabaya, sabaya and masbiyya, and women are sabaya, and for boys sabaa and masbi.

In terminology: The jurists usually specify the term “captive” to refer to women and children, and “captivity” to refer to men. In Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaniyyah: Spoils include: prisoners, captives, lands, and money. As for the prisoners, they are the male fighters from the infidels if the Muslims capture them alive, and as for the captives, they are the women and children.

In Mughni Al-Muhtaj: What is meant by captives: women and children.

From the above, it is clear that captivity does not include all the women of the conquered countries, but rather it is applied to those whom the Muslims captured from their spoils of war, including women and children, such as the conquest of Andalusia. Captivity did not include all the women of its cities in number .

The conquest of Andalusia was at the hands of the commander Tariq bin Ziyad, and Musa bin Nusayr participated in the conquest of some of its cities at a later time, and he also conquered the countries of the Maghreb. See Fatwas No. 26203 and No. 97084 .

Second: Islam is all lights and beauties, and its message is not limited to lifting oppression from nations only. Rather, it is a comprehensive message and a vast mercy that came to bring out whomever Allah wills from the worship of servants to the worship of the Lord of servants, from the narrowness of this world to the spaciousness of this world and the Hereafter, and from the injustice of religions to the justice of Islam. See Fatwas No. 29786 and No. 20818.

And Allah knows best.

http://www.islamweb.net/fatwa/index....Option=FatwaId

---

It is known that captivity in Islam has only one method, which is in war, invasion and jihad. If the village or country is at peace with the Muslims, it is safe. However, if they fight the Muslims, their country is the spoils of the Muslims, and their women and children are spoils of war for the Muslims.

Someone asks: Why do Muslims not leave people alone after the conquest without captivity or anything else? We say, with the help of Allah:

There is no doubt that in wars, the biggest victims are always men. Despite the fact that some women and children are killed, intentionally or accidentally, men constitute the largest number of victims, which may exceed thousands or even more.

This is seen and experienced in all the wars that man has fought.

In this case, the defeated country will have been exposed to three blows:

First: the fall of a huge number of its men killed, who are the backbone of labor in any state or country.

Second: the collapse of the economic, security, political and social situation.

Third: the loss of thousands of families of their male breadwinners.

The third point is the crux of the matter. If these families were left without care from the conquering state, they would undoubtedly be torn apart and collapse in search and search for food and provisions.

Since the situation in the country has collapsed, as we mentioned, from all sides, the women and children of the country who have lost their breadwinners will seek a living alone after losing any assistance. This is evident in front of us in all countries exhausted by wars.

Here we say: What are the means by which they will try to reach a living?

What still stands in my memory is the scene of a French woman I saw on a cultural program about World War II after the Germans entered France, sticking out her breast and offering passersby the opportunity to sell her milk that she breastfeeds her baby in order to obtain a few measly pennies.

This is a simple scene of what happens in countries swept by war, and in other ways we will find a lot of humiliation and moral and social decadence. Women, even if some of them will find jobs that are best described as socially lowly, such as domestic service and others, many of them will find the only way to feed themselves and their families is through vice, obscenity and other satanic ways.

As for children, we will find them eating garbage or learning to beg, and some of them turn to theft, crime, drug dealing and others. This is especially seen in this era and other eras.

In this case, the conquest of the state only led to the destruction of the country in all aspects instead of rebuilding it. Thus, we see that there is no good in leaving the people of the country alone, but leaving them means spreading vice, crime and others.

The conquering state is responsible before God for the people in this country, so how can it neglect them?

Another says: Okay, but isn't there another way other than captivity?

So we say there are two ways and let us study them together:

First:

That the conquering state bears responsibility for these people in their spending and living.

This is a beautiful statement in theory, but in practice it has several flaws:

1- The state’s dealings with these people will be inhuman, merely a duty that it must implement due to their large number. In this case, it is like a teacher who has fifty students in his class. Because of their large number, he does not pay attention to their problems, but his concern is to deliver the service he provides. He does not devote time to each one of them to listen to him.

2- The conquering state bears unbearable financial expenses that it needs on people who do not produce, which will lead to neglect in performing this duty if an emergency arises that requires transferring its money to him.

3- Neglecting people's needs, as women need a husband, and children need a man to take care of them and guide them to what is best for them, and the absence of this will also lead to the corruption of society.

Second:

That the conquering state entrusts its citizens with taking care of these people, and this will be rejected by the people because of the expenses they will bear, especially if the number of children and women is in the thousands and sometimes even millions.

The person will feel that he is wasting his money on children while he sees his children as more deserving of it than them, and this will lead to neglecting them and not spending on them in a balanced manner.

However, if he feels that this woman or child is his personally, serves him and obeys him, and can even benefit financially from him by employing him or selling him and other things, then he will feel that this is a gain and not a loss.

Thus, we guarantee two things, worldly and religious:

As for the worldly, we rescue this person from the depths of hardship and poverty, so that he may live as a productive individual in society, working and toiling in what is right instead of what is wrong, and living in a noble and pure home so that he may feel his humanity, which is better for him than living in the streets, eating garbage or in people’s pockets.

As for the religious matter, we guarantee that this person will live in a Muslim home where he will see Islam with his own eyes instead of hearing about it, so that the rulings and morals of Islam will take root in his soul and he will enter Islam willingly, not reluctantly, and love it with all his heart.

If he grows up, he will be able to liberate himself through correspondence with his friend, so that we will see a free, honorable, productive person who will fill the world with goodness and work, instead of filling it with corruption and injustice.

Likewise, the woman lives in the bosom of the Muslim home and receives the teachings of Islam directly from its people. Instead of her heart being filled with hatred for those who killed her men and left her in the streets and neglected her, she loves Islam, respects it and learns it gradually until faith fills her heart, so she becomes one of the best women, after shame, obscenity and destruction were written for her.

A final question comes from someone asking:

All of this is beautiful, but why did Islam permit a man to have intercourse with his female slave? And why was it not enough for her to serve him without intercourse?

We say, by the will of God:

There is no doubt that this woman, like all women, has desires that, if they are not fulfilled in what is lawful, will be fulfilled in what is unlawful.

The same applies to her husband. He sees a woman serving in his home, so she must show what women in the home show, so his instincts will be aroused. If he is forbidden to have intercourse with her, then he is undoubtedly falling into what is unlawful.

Islam permitted intercourse with her for her sake and his own, so that her desires and his desires are extinguished without falling into what is unlawful.

And she has the right to that from the rulings of Islam that preserve her dignity and even raise her status.

If she bears him children, her children are free and are attributed to their father and inherit from him. In this case, he is not permitted to sell her, but she remains with him until God takes his soul. If he dies before her, she becomes free and is removed from the inheritance.

In this way, she becomes a free and honorable woman with free male children who take care of her in her old age and whom she is proud of and who fill her life with happiness and joy, and she watches her offspring grow and spread.

Isn’t this better than leaving her alone to immerse herself in the world of obscenity as is seen in the world today