Le viol dans la loi islamique: Difference between revisions

Le viol, connu dans la loi islamique sous le nom de zina bil-ikrah ou zina bil-jabr (littéralement " fornication de force"), est généralement défini par les juristes musulmans comme un rapport sexuel forcé, perpétré par un homme sur une femme qui n'est ni sa femme ni son esclave. En effet, le consentement d'une esclave au sexe, au coït interrompu (azl) ou à être épousée n'est pas considéré comme nécessaire historiquement.^[1] De même, toujours selon la loi islamique, les femmes mariées sont tenues de se plier aux avances sexuelles de leurs maris. Infliger des rapports sexuels non consentis à son esclave ou à sa femme étant permis^[2], la notion de « viol » est par conséquant jugée inexistante dans les contextes du mariage comme de l'esclavage.^[3][4][1]

Le violeur peut être puni d'une peine de hadd - lapidation (s'il est marié) ou de coups de fouet (s'il n'est pas marié) - tout comme pour la Zina ordinaire (fornication ou rapports illégaux). Il n'y a pas de sanction pour la victime d'un viol si elle est en mesure de prouver qu'elle a été violée. Or, quatre témoins sont nécessaires pour prouver qu'elle a été violée.^[5][6] Les juristes ne s'entendent pas sur la question de savoir si le violeur doit également verser une dot en compensation à la victime. Une position controversée de certains juristes modernes veut que la peine de hadd pour les hors-la-loi devrait s'appliquer aux violeurs (hadd Hirabah), décrite dans le Coran 5:33. D'autres disent que le viol peut être traité par le juge comme une infraction passible de la peine de tazir (discrétionnaire) (comme au Pakistan, par exemple). Ces approches évitent l'exigence peu pratique de quatre témoins pour appliquer une peine de zina hadd en l'absence d'aveux d'un violeur. Dans certains autres tribunaux modernes, une femme risque d'être accusée de zina si elle ne peut pas prouver, selon cette norme, qu'elle a été violée et être lapidée à mort^[7]  pendant que les violeurs restent impunis.^[8]

Kecia Ali, professeure agrégée de religion à l'Université de Boston (musulmane convertie) déclare à propos des relations sexuelles avec des esclaves : "Pour les juristes musulmans prémodernes, ainsi que pour les figures marginales qui croient que l'autorisation [pour l'esclavage] est toujours valable, la qualification de "viol " ne s'applique pas : la propriété rend le sexe licite ; le consentement n'est pas pertinent."^[9] Le Dr Jonathan Brown, professeur agrégé et président de la civilisation islamique à l'Université de Georgetown (également un musulman converti) a fait des commentaires similaires.^[10][11]

Le viol dans le Coran

On ne trouve aucun verset dans le Coran qui décourage explicitement les rapports sexuels forcés et d’ailleurs, il n'y a pas d'équivalent au terme "viol" dans le Coran. Bien que la chasteté soit encouragée en tant que vertu, elle est fréquemment commandée parallèlement à l'exception récurrente "si ce n'est qu'avec leurs épouses ou celles que leur main droite possède" (voir Coran 23:1-6), encourageant les hommes à poursuivre l'assouvissement de leur appétit sexuel avec celles qui leur sont licites.

La sourate 4 est l'une des sourates qui explique quelles femmes sont licites ou illicites pour les hommes musulmans. Alors que les versets pertinents de cette sourate peuvent passer pour inintelligibles en l'absence de contexte (comme une grande partie des textes substantiels du Coran), les Tafsirs (exégèses du Coran) faisant autorité et les Hadiths (narrations prophétiques) Sahih (authentiques) associés à ces versets permettent de normaliser dans une certaine mesure la tradition interprétative et juridique islamique. Bien que les hadiths et surtout les tafsîrs soient théologiquement considérés comme postérieurs au contenu du Coran, les interprétations indépendantes et surtout innovantes du Coran qui divergent de la tradition de ces derniers ne sont pas acceptées.

Coran 4:24 – viol d'esclaves et de captives précédemment mariées

Ce verset indique que les musulmans sont autorisés à épouser leurs femmes esclaves qui ont déjà un mari tant que la dot est payée. D'autres versets montrent que les propriétaires d'esclaves n'avaient même pas à épouser leurs esclaves pour avoir des relations sexuelles avec elles (voir la section ci-dessous Liberté et mariage comme exigence universelle).

Les hadiths Sahih dans Muslim et Abu Dawud détaillent la nature de l'autorisation accordée par ce verset: certains des combattants de Muhammad étaient réticents à avoir des rapports sexuels avec des captives déjà mariées aux hommes non musulmans du parti vaincu.

Le hadith du Sahih Muslim se trouve dans le chapitre intitulé : « De l'autorisation d'avoir des rapports sexuels avec la captive après la période d'attente ; même si elle est mariée, son statut de captive annule son mariage ».^[12]

Dans le tafsîr d'Ibn Kathir, le plus éminent de tous les exégètes du Coran, concernant le verset 4:24 :

De même dans Tafsîr al-Jalalayn (interprétation du Coran par deux Jalals à savoir : Jalaluddin Mahalli et Jalaluddin Suyuti, les deux autorités) :

Certains des premiers érudits musulmans ont soutenu que les mariages d'esclaves, qu'ils soient entre esclaves ou entre une esclave et son maître, sont dissous lorsque la propriété est transférée parce que deux hommes ne peuvent pas avoir un accès licite à la même femme. Plus tard, un consensus a émergé selon lequel le mariage et l'accès sexuel licite restent entre la femme esclave et son mari lors du transfert de propriété à moins qu'il n'y renonce, quel que soit son statut (par exemple, en lui offrant de l'argent pour divorcer).^[13]

Coran 23:1-6 & 70:29-30

Plusieurs autres versets du Coran mentionnent les relations sexuelles avec des esclaves comme une catégorie distincte des épouses, indiquant clairement que les relations sexuelles avec des femmes esclaves sont autorisées sans épouser l'esclave au préalable. Par exemple, la sourate 23 fait mention des musulmans qui ont réussi et de leurs caractéristiques :

L'instruction de "préserver leurs sexes" est la manière standard du Coran d'ordonner la chasteté. Ce que "la main droite possède" est également la manière standard du Coran de se référer à ses esclaves. Les croyants qui réussissent sont ceux qui se livrent à des activités sexuelles uniquement avec leurs femmes et leurs esclaves.

La même idée revient dans la sourate 70 :

Le viol dans les hadiths

Les scènes décrivants des compagnons de Mohammed, mais aussi Mohammed lui-même, se livrant à une activité sexuelle avec des esclaves et des captives sont courantes dans toute la littérature des hadiths. Or, on peut remarquer que la perspective féminine est largement absente, laissant le lecteur se demander si la femme esclave ou captive était réceptive aux avances du Messager et de ses compagnons. On ne peut que supposer que dans au moins certains de ces cas (sinon la plupart voire tous), l'activité sexuelle a eu lieu sans le consentement de la femme. Ceci est particulièrement clair dans les exemples qui suivent où les compagnons du Prophète initient un contact sexuel avec les femmes captives peu de temps après avoir tué leurs fils, maris, pères et frères. Elle étaient à l'origine des non-musulmanes libres qui furent capturées au combat.^[14][15]] Toute la population d'un territoire conquis peut être réduite en esclavage car le commandant militaire musulman est autorisé à choisir entre la libération inconditionnelle, la rançon ou l'asservissement des captifs de guerre. Cela ouvre la voie au concubinage.^[16][17] Si une personne se convertissait à l'islam après avoir été réduite en esclavage, son émancipation serait considérée comme un acte pieux mais non obligatoire.^[18] La loi islamique n'autorise pas l'asservissement des musulmans nés libres.^[19]

Les juristes islamiques ont autorisé les raids pour se procurer des esclaves et l'enlèvement de non-musulmans de Dar al Harb (terre de la guerre).^[20] Les érudits sud-asiatiques ont statué que le djihad n'est pas nécessaire pour saisir les non-musulmans et qu'il n'est pas non plus nécessaire de les inviter à l'islam avant de les saisir. Les pillards étaient libres de prendre et d'asservir n'importe quel non-musulman.^[21] Cependant, les juristes islamiques ont soutenu que les non-musulmans qui vivaient dans des zones ayant conclu des pactes formels avec les musulmans devaient être protégés de l'esclavage.^[22]

Les résidents non musulmans d'un État islamique qui ne paient pas la jizya ou rompent leur contrat avec l'État peuvent également être réduits en esclavage.^[23][24]

Le Prophète a des relations sexuelles avec son esclave Maria bint Sham'un

Mohammed a eu un enfant avec une de ses esclaves connue sous le nom de Maria la Copte qui lui avait été offerte en cadeau par le gouverneur d'Alexandrie. Dans un hadith de Sahih Muslim, une phrase traduite par "fille esclave" est, dans l'arabe original, umm walad (أُمِّ وَلَدِ) (littéralement : "mère de l'enfant") et est le titre donné à une concubine esclave qui a enfanté un enfant de son maître.

Le hadith suivant est classé Sahih par Dar-us-Salam :

Le Tafsir al-Jalalayn dit du verset mentionné dans ce hadith :

Une circonstance alternative ou supplémentaire pour ce verset a également été rapportée dans plusieurs hadiths sahih, par exemple dans Sahih Muslim 9: 3497, Mohammed a mangé du miel chez Hafsa au lieu de chez Zainab).

Le mot "Miel" était aussi un euphémisme sexuel et un exemple explicite de son utilisation dans ce sens se trouve dans un hadith d'Abu Dawud :

Et aussi dans Al Muwatta' de l'imam Mâlik Ibn Anas :

Sean Anthony et Catherine Bronson ont noté que "les érudits modernes ont tendance à considérer l'histoire la plus scandaleuse impliquant l'esclave comme la plus ancienne étant donné qu'elle apparaît dans les premières sources, bien que l'histoire du miel a un pedigrée supérieur aux yeux des savants. Ces érudits modernes raisonnent que, si l'histoire de la jalousie de Hafṣah après avoir vu le Prophète avec son esclave est antérieure à l'histoire du miel, alors les exégètes ont probablement inventé le récit du miel à une date ultérieure afin de fournir une alternative à la représentation peu flatteuse du Prophète et de ses épouses dans la première histoire. De plus, alors que l'histoire du miel peut fournir une explication quelque peu plausible pour les versets 66: 1-2, sa force explicative diminue considérablement lorsqu'elle est appliquée aux versets suivants. La gravité des versets 66: 5-6, qui menacent de divorce comme sanction pour avoir comploté contre le Prophète, semble disproportionnée pour une simple histoire de miel et de mauvaise haleine. "^[25]

Ali rapes an underage ward of the state

Another relevant hadith is one which concerns an incident which led to the famous event of Ghadir Khumm, which is much disputed between Sunnis and Shias. Both Sunni and Shia sources agree that Muhammad received complaints about 'Ali taking a slave-girl from the Khums (the fifth of all booty allotted for the state^[26]) to which those complaining felt that no private party was entitled.

The Arabic of the Sunni hadith below mentions 'Ali taking a Ghusl bath (which is mandatory after sexual contact or ejaculation), implying sexual activity. Later, at a place called Ghadir Khumm, Muhammad tried to pacify those who were upset with 'Ali by declaring Ali to be his Mawla. Mawla is an honorific meaning something between "follower", "ally", and "leader", which the Shia interpret to mean "successor of Muhammad". Thus, in some sense, Ali's having raped an underage captive becomes the immediate cause of what the Shi'a insist was the the announcement of Ali's succession. The emergent Sunni polemic here casts some doubt on the historical reliability of the hadith, yet, as a hadith included in Sahih Bukhari, it more than meets the Sunni requirements for authenticity.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 1449), one of the most famous Hadith scholars of all time, points out in his seminal Fath al-Bari (the still-standard commentary on Sahih Bukhari) what several scholars before him noted: that in accounts of this event, Ali does not observe the required iddah (waiting) period to determine whether or not the girl was pregnant. Al-Asqalani quotes al-Khattabi who summarizes the possibilities: "she was either a virgin [strongly implying a young age in a culture where women married young], had not yet reached maturity, or Ali's ijtihad [independent reasoning] led him to not adhere to the waiting period in her case."^[27]

Muhammad's companions rape captives intended for ransom

On one occasion, presented with newly captured women, Muhammad's companions were only concerned about whether coitus interruptus ('azl) was permissible.

In another version of the same hadith in Sahih Muslim (also found in Malik's Muwatta and Abu Dawud), it is said that the Muslims' goal was to ransom the women back to members of the defeated party for monetary gain. It is explained that as a result of not wanting to get the women pregnant prior to ransoming them, Muhammad's companions inquired as to whether coitus interruptus was permissible.

Yet another version of the same story in Sahih Bukhari is even clearer about Muhammad's companions' sole concern being the potential detriment to the price of the captives if they were impregnated.

Umar tells a man to beat his wife for preventing intercourse with his slave girl

Abdullah ibn Umar (the son of the 2nd Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab) said that his father ordered a man to have intercourse with a slave girl after his wife had tried to make this haram for him by means of adult suckling.

Ghusl (full body wash) not required between intercourse with slave girls

Imam Malik was asked about intercourse with multiple slave girls.

Explicit distinction between zina and legal intercourse

Since zina (fornication or adultery) only applies to intercourse with other than one's wives or female slaves, it is only in these contexts that rape is considered possible. The following narration graded hasan (good) by al-Albani in Abu Dawud explicitly makes this distinction by recognizing offspring with one's wives or slaves as legitimate, and included in inheritance, and by labeling the offspring with other women as illegitimate, and removed from inheritance.

Muhammad's other female captives

On at least two occasions, according to accounts in sahih hadiths, Muhammad captured and cohabited with war captives Safiyah and Juwairiyah, presumably against their will (having just led the slaughter of their families and tribes).

Surah 33 twice gives Muhammad explicit and direct permission to have sexual contact with his existing wives (having married more than a dozen times, he is prohibited here from marrying further) and with any slaves he may possess now or may acquire in the future.

Safiyah bint Huayy

Safiyah the daughter of Huayy was the wife of a Jewish Rabbi named Kinana. when Muhammad conquered the Jewish village of Khaibar, he had the Rabbi tortured and then killed. According to an account in Sahih Bukhari, Muhammad then took captive the Rabbi's wife.

Juwairiyah bint al-Harith

A hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud explains how, following a surprise attack on the Banu Mustaliq, Muhammad took captive the "very beautiful" Juwairiyah, making Aisha jealous.

A hadith in Sahih Bukhari confirms the same narrative.

Punishments for rape

Rape of a free woman

Muhammad ordered the stoning of a confessed rapist who attacked a free woman to whom he was not married.

Rape of another's slave

If the individual raped is a slave owned by other than the rapist, reparations are due to the owner of the slave in the form of a replacement slave or the amount by which the raped slave's value has been depreciated as a result of the rape. Hina Azam writes that "sexual ursupation of a slave woman was a form of property damage that required financial compensation to her owner for a depreciation of the property's value....usually equal to the amount by which she was depreciated by the act (this being of particular relevance if she was previously a virgin)".^[28]

Malik in his Muwatta confirms this punishment.

The authenticity of hadiths concerning the following incident in which Muhammad commands punishment by stoning for a man who has intercourse with his wife's slave are graded da'if (weak) by al-Albani, while Dar-us-Salam grade them hasan (good).

In another, similar incident, the rapist of his wife's slave is to be punished by stoning.

Limitations on rape

Avoiding severe physical injury

Beyond the temporary requirement of waiting past the Iddah period or conversion of a slave, the only restriction on raping one's slaves or wives is that the victims not incur severe physical injury in the process. However, this derives from a generic prohibition against incurring severe physical injury upon anyone at any time, and men are authorized to beat their wives and slaves as a form of physical discipline if they deny him sexual access or fail to obey him in some other mandatory capacity.

In practical terms, the relevance of the "do-no-harm" principle in this case is that a man should not penetrate his wives or slaves against their will if they are physically too small to withstand penetration (i.e. in the case of very young girls) or if they are seriously ill or injured to the point where penetration would inhibit their healing or magnify their injury. There is no consideration here for harm in the form of "mental anguish", and men are permitted to sexually utilize very young, ill, and/or injured wives and slaves against their will through means other than penetration (the example of "thighing" being one discussed explicitly by Islamic jurists) if such less egregious means will help avoid severe physical injury.

Waiting until the completion of the Iddah or childbirth

A hadith graded sahih by Dar-us-Salam in Abu Dawud describes the Iddah waiting period as the "one menstrual period" after acquisition of the slave wherein the new owner must abstain from sexual contact in order to ascertain whether or not the slave is pregnant, so as not to confuse paternity.

Another hadith graded sahih by Dar-us-Salam in Tirmidhi explains that if the slave is pregnant

Waiting until adult polytheist slaves convert, by force if necessary

Although Muhammad's men seem to have had intercourse with captive polytheist women whom they had captured during the expedition to Awtas/Autas, most jurists later ruled that this was later forbidden by Quran 2:221 (the verse only forbids marriage to polytheist women, but scholars inferred that this also applied to intercourse with slaves). Intercourse with Muslim, Christian, or Jewish slaves was not affected by this restriction.^[29]

Early scholars of fiqh devised a workaround for this restriction, including the allowance of raping younger captives who were polytheist:

Modern perspectives

While most Islamic scholars today are comfortable with at least the temporary abolition of slavery in light of the fact that Islamic scriptures universally praise the freeing of slaves as a meritorious act, few are comfortable with the idea of permanently and irreversibly amending divine law. As a result, the legal rulings relating to slaves and the technical permissibility of owning slaves under the proper circumstances (e.g. under the rule of a "legitimate khilafah", or caliphate) persist, as exemplified in the following fatwa from the most popular Islamic fatwa in the world.

Likewise, as with all rulings of the shariah, the basic rulings governing family relations are unchanging. It would be difficult even today to find a trusted Islamic authority that does not still, at some level, permit marital rape and give general license for wife beating as a potential means by which to compel one's able but unwilling spouse into sexual activity, among other things.

Modern revisionary perspectives and criticisms thereof

Violations of the spoils-distribution system as rape

Quote from al-Shafi'i

A quote from al-Umm of Imam al Shafi'i, the founder of the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence, is sometimes misrepresented^[30] as forbidding slave owners from raping their female slaves.

It is clear, however, that "acquires by force" here refers to the manner in which the man gained possession of the slave girl, not a description of the later sexual act. Indeed, this quote comes from the section entitled ghasb (property usurpation). According to Islamic law, a fifth of all war and raid spoils (referred to as the Khum - literally "fifth"), including captives who may be sold for funds, is to be allotted for public spending. Taking and raping a captive from this public allotment, as Ali is reported to have in one instance, amounts to theft and zina (illegal intercourse). This, as well as taking and raping someone else's slave, is of course prohibited and punishable. Indeed, in the remainder of his many-volume legal work al-Umm, al-Shafi'i painstakingly outlines the laws regarding the sexual obligations of one's wives and slaves, in no place suggesting that rape of the female is punishable in these contexts.

Quote from Malik

A quote from the Muwatta of Imam Malik, founder of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, is also sometimes misrepresented in this vein.^[30] As with the quote taken from al-Umm, this quote from the Muwatta is likewise only referring to stolen slaves and has no bearing on one's own slaves and wives. Fines for raping slave girls were always paid to the master.^[31] And, just like Imam Shafi'i, Malik details the legal practices of slavery in several other places throughout the same text.

Hadith regarding the caliph Umar

A hadith in the Sunan of al-Bayhaqi describes the Caliph Umar punishing Dhiraar for raping a captive woman and is sometimes presented as evidence that one is not permitted to have sexual intercourse with slaves.^[30]

As with the quote taken from Imam Shafi'i, this almost certainly refers to a violation of the system for distributing war spoils. Dhiraar's intercourse with the captive girl was illegal and merited stoning not because of her captive status or lack of consent, but because he had intercourse with the girl without that girl having been allotted to him at the behest of the caliph (Umar in this case), who has the responsibility of distributing spoils. Neither captivity nor consent are mentioned as a factor in the punishment. Indeed, in a another hadith discussed above, Umar tells a man to have intercourse with his slave girl after his wife tried to prevent it.

Freedom and marriage as a universal requirement

Verses 4:23-24 (Quran 4:23-24) are sometimes presented as evidence for the idea that a man must first manumit and marry a slave in order to have sex with her. The verse lists the types of women a Muslim man is permitted to marry, one given option being his slave women, of whom he may free and marry. While 4:23-24 do not mention slaves outside of a marital context, several other verses (e.g. Quran 23:1-6 and Quran 70:29-30) make clear reference to sexual activity with slaves with whom the owner is not married by explicitly distinguishing between his sexual access to his wives and his sexual access to his slaves. The further example of Muhammad's companions raping captives from Banu al-Mustaliq prior to ransoming them (a scenario which effectively necessitates their non-marriage) confirms this idea.^[32]

In addition, there is the universally attested legal category of the Umm Walad (literally "mother of child") that is used by Islamic jurists to refer to those slaves who have given birth to one of their master's children. An Umm Walad is legally distinct from a free mother because she is still a slave. Indeed, the concept of Umm Walad is apparently attested even in the prophet's time according to a hadith in Sahih Muslim - further clarifying the matter is the fact that in this very hadith, Muhammad approves of the companion's sexual relations with his unmarried slave girl.

Encouragement to chastity as a prohibition on rape

Verse 24:33 (Quran 24:33), which instructs unmarried men to keep chaste and instructs slaveowners to "force not [their] maids to prostitution", is sometimes presented as evidence for the idea that sexual activity is only permitted in a marital context and that slaveowners may not compel their slave girls to sexual activity of any sort.

Chastity is instructed throughout the Qur'an and is repeatedly defined as the habit of one who "guards their private parts" from all except "their wives [of whom they may have up to four] and what their right hand possesses [i.e. female slaves, of whom they may have an unlimited number]" (e.g. Quran 23:6, Quran 33:50, Quran 33:52, and Quran 70:30). It is clear that, in the view of the Qur'an's author, an unmarried male may be considered chaste even if he engages in sexual activity with a technically unlimited number of women, so long as they are his slaves.

The portion of the verse which instructs slaveowners to "force not [their] maids to prostitution" has traditionally been understood in its simplest sense, which prohibits slaveowners from playing the role of a pimp and trafficking their slave women - such a business built on illegal intercourse is of course prohibited and, understood this way, the verse says nothing of novel import. Another accepted sense of this verse is that if a female slave desires her (or, say, her child's) freedom, her master ought to give her some legal means by which to pursue it, the alternative being her feeling compelled to prostitute herself to earn the funds necessary to purchase that freedom (traditional tafsirs also mention the also undesirable possibility of a master forcing a slave to prostitution as a condition for her freedom). Since such a temptation on the part of the slave girl is all the more plausible given the likelihood that she was captured in a war or raid where her people were both slaughtered and enslaved (leaving her with no means), and so the verse concludes by saying that if a slave girl is driven to such behavior, then Allah will be forgiving. And in the simpler sense, if her master forces her to prostitution, then Allah will forgive her for what was not in her control.^[33]

See Also

• Rape - A hub page that leads to other articles related to Rape

External Links

• The High Rape-Scale in Saudi Arabia - WomanStats Project (blog), January 16, 2013 (archived), http://womanstats.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/the-high-rape-scale-in-saudi-arabia/ 

References