Q.1. I talked to many people about the rule concerning non-Muslim women taken captive in war and the rule that Muslims may have sex with them, even forcefully. In fact, long-bearded men in the Arabian Peninsula are proud that their forefathers who conquered countries like Egypt, Syria, Iran, Sudan and Tunisia had women from these areas and slept with them without their consent. While this was common to many societies in the Middle Ages, the world has progressed and such actions are not condoned by modern societies. Should Muslims insist on this rule, people wonder whether Muslims have considered that the rule could be applied to their own women. How about American soldiers forcing sex on Muslim women in Iraq and Afghanistan being viewed in the same way? Can this rule be dropped forever?
Q.2. When two babies are breast-fed by the same woman, they are not allowed to get married. Breast-feeding does not affect the genetics. So why does this rule have to continue when modern science shows that the milk they receive is simply food they consume and does not affect their constitution?
David J.B.
A.1. These are some of the questions raised by a non-Muslim reader who was motivated by the events of 9/11 to study Islamic law. His studies made him raise several points that he feels should be amended in Islamic law, and he wonders whether this could be achieved.
As for the first question, I wonder where in Islamic law did David read about a “rule” that Muslim soldiers have the right to rape women prisoners of war. There is simply no such rule. In fact, Islam prohibits such practices. No rape or forced sex with any woman, even those who take an active role in fighting against Muslims, can be condoned under Islamic law. Prisoners of war must be treated very humanely. This was the practice of Muslim armies throughout the early period of Islam, when they liberated vast areas, including the ones mentioned by the reader. No wonder, they had to follow the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) example who was the most kind even to his enemies.
In his wars, the Prophet chose two women, Juwayriyyah bint Al-Harith who belonged to the Al-Mustalaq Arabian tribe, and Safiyyah bint Huyayy of the Jewish tribe of Al-Nadheer. He married both of them, and they are given the title of “mothers of the believers” along with his other wives.
David and his informers, if he is quoting them correctly, are grossly mistaken about Islamic rules concerning war and captives. The whole question is related to slavery and how Islam viewed it. I will explain this in brief.
Islam abhors slavery and considers it an odd situation that should be ended. When Islam started, slavery was common practice in all societies. Therefore, Islam encouraged the freeing of slaves, considering it one of the best acts of charity that earn God’s rich reward. Moreover, Islam made the freeing of a slave from bondage the penance required to erase a variety of offenses. The aim was to gradually reduce the number of slaves in Muslim society. It also outlawed all slavery sources except for one, namely, prisoners of war. Islam could not stop this source because it was a universal practice in all countries. Hence, it had to continue it until such time as the world agreed to stop it altogether. However, it encouraged the Muslim state to adopt a policy toward prisoners of war which would set them free, either as a gesture of kindness or against ransom, as clearly stated in the Qur’an: (47: 4). Some scholars argue that this rule has been abrogated by a later verse, but the fact is that the later verse is relevant to a specific situation only, while this rule applies to all future situations. However, the possibility of enslaving prisoners of war remained open, should there be a clear interest for the Muslim community. This is not left to individual soldiers or commanders, not even to the commander-in-chief of a Muslim army. It is determined by the Muslim ruler on the basis of what he deems to serve the best interests of the Muslim community. Needless to say, now that slavery has been abrogated throughout the world, the possibility of enslaving non-Muslim captives does not arise, because there is no interest for a Muslim community in reinstating the slavery system, which is against basic Islamic teachings.
When slavery was common practice, Islam needed to legislate for the treatment of slaves. The Prophet took pains in stressing the importance of kindly treatment, making clear that harming a slave was a punishable crime. Under Islam, slaves could marry, and a slave woman could also marry a free man. Alternatively, her master may take her to himself.
If he did, she would not marry another man. It is not possible under Islam for a woman to legitimately sleep with more than one man, in any situation or relationship. Anything of this sort is plain adultery and this is a crime that carries a severe mandatory punishment. If a slave woman gives birth to a child, her status is changed to that of a “mother of child”. Her master could no longer sell her to anyone. She remained his for the rest of his life, unless he wished to set her free. When he died, she automatically became free.
As you see, there is nothing in Islam of the sort of free sex with slaves, prisoners of war, or indeed anyone. It is all regulated in a system that is characterized by its strict and serious morality. Our reader speaks of long-bearded men speaking enthusiastically of sex with prisoners of war. A good understanding of Islam is not measured by the length of a person’s beard. When we speak of Shariah and Islamic law, answers are given by specialized scholars, who may be bearded or clean-shaven. The stress must be on their scholarly knowledge, not their appearance.
The reader raises the possibility of reciprocal treatment, and asks how would Muslims react to American soldiers practicing this ghastly crime in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, American soldiers have been practicing terrible atrocities in both countries, as well as at Guantanamo and in many other countries, while the American president refused to endorse the creation of an international court to try those who are accused of committing war crimes. His reason is that under the treaty, American soldiers might have to face such trials.
He wants those guilty of war atrocities to remain immune. The photos that were published about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq show more than rape. And this takes place at a time when no Muslim country is in a position to treat other nationals unfairly.
A.2. Where a rule is stated in the Qur’an and has clear meaning that leaves no ambiguity; it must be applied as it is. If the rule states that it applies in certain situations, then that determines its area of application, but if it is left general, then it applies universally. The rule prohibiting marriage as a result of breast-feeding is stated in the Qur’an: (4: 23), and endorsed in a Hadith in which the Prophet makes clear that marriage prohibition through blood relations is mirrored in the case of relations through breast-feeding. To be operative, this rule requires that a woman should breast-feed a child five full feeds, consecutively or at different times, before the child completes its second year of life. The woman then becomes a second mother to that child. If the child is a boy, he will not be able to marry that woman, her daughters or sisters, etc. If the child is a girl, she would not be able to marry that woman’s husband, sons or brothers, etc.
This rule cannot be changed. As I explained in my previous answer, to change any law, the change must be enacted by a competent authority that is equal or superior to the one, which enacted the first law. This rule has been enacted by God. Who can suspend or abrogate a rule God has made?
Is it a question of genetics? On the basis of our knowledge of genetics today, we say: Certainly not. However, we must not forget that a hundred years ago, no one knew anything about genetics. We may learn in the next 25 or 100 years that breast-feeding affects the development of genes. Yet, why should we try to relate this rules to genes? The Prophet explains that breast-feeding that causes the prohibition of marriage is that which “helps bones and muscles to grow.” He thus highlights its effects on the growth of the child, not its genes. Besides, why should this rule bother anyone? What purpose can be served by its amendment, other than making God’s law subject to man’s authority? This will never be condoned by any Muslim who respects his faith.
We will deal with more of David’s questions over the next two weeks, God willing.
