In Islam a muslim is not required to marry his slave woman before he can have sex with her, from Islam QandA

20802: Intercourse with a slave woman is not regarded as zina (adultery)


Hadith 3.718 : I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interrupts. Abu Said said, “We went with Allah’s Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Bani Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the ‘Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah’s Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, “It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come into existence.”
Does this mean that the Companions of the Prophet (SAW) didn’t commit adultery when they practiced ‘azl with the captive girls?.

Published Date: 2002-12-27
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.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to In Islam a muslim is not required to marry his slave woman before he can have sex with her, from Islam QandA

  1. θ says:

    “Article says: permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her. This is not regarded as adultery as suggested in the question. ”

    The opinion above is without a clear permission to have an unwed coitus.

    First of all, Qur’anic verses Q.24, v.32, Q.4, v.24-25, and Q.5, v.5 consistently make impossible for Moslems to have concubines.
    In Q.24, v.32 Allah plainly commands us Moslems to put all slaves into the marriage. Then how could it possibly leave any unmarried slave or any concubines in entire Moslem household?

    Q.24, v.32 And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

    Afterward, Allah thru Qur’an commands every poor single persons (both bachelor and spinster) to marry, rather than to give any permission for the poor bachelors to rape female slaves or fornicate with them outside of marriage.

    Moreover, both Qur’an and Hadith consistently showed that the early Moslem men always married the slaves or captives by giving them the obligatory dowry, at least a garment, or an iron ring, or just teaching the verses of Qur’an to them, that means those captives are new Moslem convert.

    Qur’an at the verse Q.4, v.25 prohibits the Moslem men from permitting or having any unwed relationship – either betrothal or marriage – with any female slave who is whoring herself into a concubinage (Musafihatin) and from being a fornicator who serves other secret lover illicitly (Mutakhidhati akhdanin). Qur’an commands Moslem to pay dowry to either wives or handmaiden.

    Equally, in both verses Q.4, v.24 and Q.5, v.5 Moslem men are prohibited from ever taking the concubines (Musafihin) and from being a secret lover (Mutakhidhi Akhdanin) for other women of Jews and Christians. Once again, Qur’an commands Moslem to pay dowry to either those Scriptural wives or handmaiden.

    Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 62, Hadith 130.
    Narrated Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said: Shall we get ourselves castrated? He forbade us that and then allowed us to *marry* women with a temporary contract and recited to us: O you who believe, Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.
    Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 62, Hadith 139.
    Narrated Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said: Shall we castrate ourselves? But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to *marry* a woman by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you.
    Q.5, v.87. O you who believe, Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.
    Arabic: An nankiha almar-atan (to marry a woman).

  2. madmanna says:

    The jidhadist is allowed a maximum of four wives. This includes sex slaves according to your interpretation. He would soon have to refuse his booty because of exceeding his allowance.This is not the classical interpretation which would allow four wives and unlimited sex slaves or concubines. I think you misinterpret the Koran to make it more politically correct and acceptable to the modern mind.

    So the Koran is differentiating between lawful and unlawful sex not a lawful or unlawful relationship which is first of necessity in order for lawful sex to be made possible.

  3. θ says:

    “madmanna says: This is not the classical interpretation which would allow four wives and unlimited sex slaves or concubines. ”

    By marrying the slaves per Q.24, v.32 “And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves”, then we only have at most four wives to be allowed. Okay?
    The classical interpretations tend to be too hypocritical and misleading when it comes to pleasure, and tend to be a scholarly cultism. They just overlooked a great Prophet Muhammad’s legacy of marrying all slaves. They just deceived themselves by saying they love him so much but ironically in fact do not imitate him when it comes to marrying the slaves.

  4. madmanna says:

    This verse is obviously just telling Muslims from which group they should choose to marry. Your interpretation is silly and no classical scholar agrees with it. A lot of your Islam appears to be made up by you.

  5. θ says:

    “madmanna says: This verse is obviously just telling Muslims from which group they should choose to marry. ”

    If Classical or Medieval scholars truly imitated the life of Prophet Muhammad, they must marry the female slaves per Q.24, v.32. But they just deceived the world and themselves.

    Moreover, Qur’an at the verse Q.4, v.25 prohibits the Moslem men from having two kinds of unwed relationships – either betrothal or marriage – concerning the female slaves:
    (i) A concubinage (Musafihatin), i.e. taking a female slave who is whoring herself freely into without getting a marital covenant.
    (ii) A fornication (Mutakhidhati akhdanin), i.e. a female slave who also serves other secret lover illicitly, either personally or group.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s