2,743
edits
Rape in Islamic Law: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{QualityScore|Lead=4|Structure=4|Content=4|Language=4|References=4}}Rape, known in [[Islamic law]] as ''zina bil-ikrah'' or ''zina bil-jabr'' (literally "[[Zina|fornication]] by force"), is a punishable crime generally defined by Muslim jurists as forced intercourse by a man with a [[Islam and Women|woman]] who is not his wife or [[Slavery|slave]] and without her consent. | {{QualityScore|Lead=4|Structure=4|Content=4|Language=4|References=4}}Rape, known in [[Islamic law]] as ''zina bil-ikrah'' or ''zina bil-jabr'' (literally "[[Zina|fornication]] by force"), is a punishable crime generally defined by Muslim jurists as forced intercourse by a man with a [[Islam and Women|woman]] who is not his wife or [[Slavery|slave]] and without her consent. There was no concept of consent in Islamic law with regard either to a man's wives or slaves, though they could bring a legal complaint if physical injury was suffered. A small number of hadiths were cited by scholars to support the Islamic punishments for rape. These narrations relate to the rape of free women and of female slaves who are not owned by the perpetrator. However, the Qur'an, on numerous occasions, permits Muslim men to have sexual relations with their own female slaves (famously referred to as "what your right hands possess"), often in conjunction with the commandment for men to keep otherwise chaste. In addition, there are hadith narrations of an incident in which Muhammad's companions were permitted to have sex with female war captives prior to them being ransomed back to their tribe, while various other hadiths mention the sexual intercourse which slave owners (including Muhammad) had with their slaves. | ||
Many Islamic empires in the past have taken non-Muslims as slaves and sex slaves (see [[Slavery in Islamic Law]]). It is important to note, however, that slavery was legally abolished in majority Muslim countries around the world in the 19th and 20th centuries (though persists illegally in a few places such as Mauritania<ref name="Mauritania" />). It is also now considered forbidden in the modern context by most scholars, though a minority, such as Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, argue that slavery remains Islamically legitimate. Similarly, today many Muslim-majority countries have made marital rape illegal or offer other legal protections, though others (mainly in the Arab world) do not do so, often explicitly, as also some non-Muslim countries.<ref>As of the early 2020s, marital rape is not recognised as a crime in many Muslim-majority countries, nor in India, China, Myanmar, much of the Caribbean, and much of sub-Saharan Africa, though is illegal in Indonesia, Turkey, the Balkans, most of central Asia, and much of west Africa. See the detailed information in the Wikipedia article [[w:Marital rape laws by country|Marital rape laws by country]], though note that in some cases the colour-coded map is inaccurate. A lack of legal protection in some countries and / or attitudes which refuse to accept the concept of marital rape exacerbates the predicament of millions of women suffering [[Forced Marriage]] in certain regions of the world.</ref> | |||
Typically, apologetic approaches to the issue of slaves and concubines propose that the women mentioned in the Quran and hadiths consented to intercourse with their captors and to their enslavement lest they be left destitute since their men had been killed. Critics generally argue that this is highly improbable, point out a hadith in which raped captives were due to be ransomed back to their tribe, and in any case would be incompatible with the modern understanding of consent which could not validly be given in captive circumstances. Some Islamic modernist scholars question the authenticity of the relevant hadiths altogether, in line with their general skepticism towards the hadith corpus and rejection of traditional jurisprudence, and attempt alternative interpretations of the Quranic verses. | |||
==The right to have intercourse with wives and slaves in Islamic law== | |||
The consent of a slave for sex, for withdrawal before ejaculation ([[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Al-'Azl|azl]]) or to marry her off to someone else was not considered necessary, historically.<ref name="Ali">{{Cite web|first=Kecia |last=Ali | publication-date=January 20, 2017 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-middle-east-studies/article/concubinage-and-consent/F8E807073C33F403A91C1ACA0CFA47FD | title=Concubinage and Consent|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref> Kecia Ali, Associate professor of religion, Boston University (a Muslim convert) says regarding sex with slaves: "For premodern Muslim jurists, as well as for those marginal figures who believe that the permission [for slavery] still holds, the category “rape” doesn’t apply: ownership makes sex lawful; consent is irrelevant."<ref>{{Citation|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kecia-ali/islam-sex-slavery_b_8004824.html|title=The Truth About Islam and Sex Slavery History Is More Complicated Than You Think|author=Kecia Ali|publication-date=August 19th, 2016|newspaper=Huffington Post}} ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230224094334/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/islam-sex-slavery_b_8004824 archive])</ref> Dr. Jonathan Brown, Associate Professor and Chair of Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University (also a Muslim convert) has made similar comments.<ref>"In the case of a slave-concubine, consent was irrelevant because of the master's ownership of the woman in question" Brown, J.A.C. "Slavery & Islam", Chapter 7, London: Oneworld Publications, 2019</ref><ref>"'slave rape' is a tough term to decipher from a Shariah perspective. A male owner of a female slave has the right to sexual access to her. Though he could not physically harm her without potentially being held legally accountable if she complained, her 'consent' would be meaningless since she is his slave." [https://np.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/3h1abm/this_is_dr_jonathan_brown_professor_at_georgetown/cu3dkhd/ Comment by Dr. Jonathan AC Brown on his Reddit AMA session], 2016 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20210225213159/https://np.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/3h1abm/this_is_dr_jonathan_brown_professor_at_georgetown/cu3dkhd/ archive])</ref> | |||
As with enslaved females, according to classical Islamic law, married women were required to oblige their husbands' sexual advances.<ref>{{Cite journal|first=Muh Endriyo |last=Susila | year= 2013 |url=https://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/jmh/article/download/271/234| title=Islamic Perspective on Marital Rape |issue=2|volume=20|publisher=Jurnal Media Hukum, p.328}}</ref> He could punish his wife's continued refusal by beating her (with limitations) as a last resort.<ref name="Brown2014">Professor Jonathan Brown writes regarding medieval jurist interpretions of Q. 4:34: "If a wife exhibited egregious disobedience (nushūz) such as uncharacteristically insulting behaviour, leaving the house against the husband's will and without valid excuse or denying her husband sex (without medical grounds), the husband should first admonish her to be conscious of God and proper etiquette. If she did not desists from her behaviour, he should cease sleeping with her in their bed. If she still continued with her nushūz, he should then strike her to teach her the error of her ways."<BR /> | |||
Jonathan A. C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad, London: Oneworld Publications, 2014, p. 276<BR /> | |||
For more details, see the Islamic Law section of the article [[Wife Beating in Islamic Law]].</ref> In the view of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, a husband had legal entitlement to force his wife into intercourse if she did not so oblige and lacked certain legally allowed exemptions such as menstruation or fasting, even though the jurists might consider it unethical in some circumstances, while non-Hanafis neither explicitly authorized nor penalized this.<ref>Kecia Ali (2016) "Sexual Ethics and Islam", Oneworld publications, ISBN: 978-1-78074-381-3 p. 12<BR /> | |||
"The Hanafi view that husbands were entitled to have sex forcibly with their wives when the latter did not have a legitimate reason to refuse sex was not widely shared outside that school. Even the majority of Hanafi thinkers who accepted this doctrine recognized a distinction between forced intercourse and more usual sexual relations between spouses; although both were equally licit, sex by force might be unethical" | |||
<BR />And p. 120 "Non-Hanafis do not penalize a husband for forcing sex on his wife, but neither do they explicitly authorize it in the way that al-Khassaf does. For all, marital rape is an oxymoron; rape (ightisab) is a property crime that by definition cannot be committed by a husband." | |||
</ref><ref name="Ali" /> For jurists, the concept of "rape" was equally non-existent in the contexts of both marriage and slavery.<ref>{{Cite book|first=Asifa |last=Quraishi-Landesi |publication-date=15 April 2016 |url=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=QfkFDAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y | title=Feminism, Law, and Religion|page=178|publisher=Routledge|ISBN=978-1-317-13579-1}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|first=Hina |last=Azam |publication-date=26 June 2015 |url=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=fhy_CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false | title=Sexual Violation in Islamic Law: Substance, Evidence, and Procedure|page=69|publisher=Cambridge University Press|ISBN=978-1-107-09424-6}}</ref><ref name="Ali" /> A wife or slave-concubine could though complain to a judge if she suffered physical harm (ḍarar). There are medieval reports of wives doing so due to issues with their husband's physical anatomy (judges could require him to use a lubricant, though judicial separation of the couple was sometimes considered necessary).<ref name="Brown2019">Jonathan A.C. Brown, "Slavery & Islam", Chapter 7, London: Oneworld Publications, 2019</ref> | |||
==Punishments for rape in Islamic Law and its application in modern contexts== | ==Punishments for rape in Islamic Law and its application in modern contexts== | ||
By the end of the formative period of Islamic law, there was a consensus that rape was to be categorised as a variant of [[Zina]] (fornication, or unlawful intercourse) in which the coerced woman is spared punishment and the male rapist is punished with the [[w:hadd|hadd]] penalty.<ref name="HinaAzam">Hina Azam [http://www.jstor.org/stable/23645194 RAPE AS A VARIANT OF FORNICATION (ZINĀ) IN ISLAMIC LAW: AN EXAMINATION OF THE EARLY LEGAL REPORTS], Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 28, no. 2, 2012, pp. 441–66</ref> This penalty is [[stoning|stoning to death]] (if he is [[Marriage|married]]) or lashings (if he is unmarried) - just as he would receive for ordinary zina. Four reliable muslim male witnesses (bayyinah) or a confession by the perpetrator are required in order to punish the rapist.<ref name="Al Hakam 2022">{{cite web | title=Rape in Islamic law: Establishing the crime and upholding the rights of the innocent | website=Al Hakam | date=23 January 2022 | url=https://www.alhakam.org/rape-in-islam/ | access-date=2 January 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|first=R. |last= Peters | year= 2012 | title=Encyclopaedia of Islam | edition= 2nd|publisher=Brill |editor=P. Bearman |editor2=Th. Bianquis |editor3=C.E. Bosworth |editor4=E. van Donzel |editor5=W.P. Heinrichs|chapter=Zinā or Zināʾ}}</ref> Jurists agreed that there is no punishment for the rape victim. Her word that she was raped is accepted if there is no named perpetrator. If she does name the alleged rapist but is unable to prove the allegation, the Maliki school held the woman liable to receive the hadd penalty of 80 lashes for slander (qadhf), though the judge may spare her this punishment if there is some circumstancial evidence in support of her allegation. Maliki jurists even held that a woman must be punished with the hadd penalty for fornication (zina) if she falls pregnant while unmarried even if she says she was raped, though she is spared punishment if there is evidence of coercion from her physical state or a witness heard her cry for help. In contrast, for the Hanafi school it was enough to avoid punishment if she simply says that she was raped. Hanafis stated that pregnancy of an unmarried woman is not proof of zina, pointing to the principle that hadd punishments are not applied if there is any doubt.<ref>Position paper by Karamah (Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights) [https://karamah.org/zina-rape-and-islamic-law-an-islamic-legal-analysis-of-the-rape-laws-in-pakistan/ Zina, Rape, and Islamic Law: An Islamic Legal Analysis of the Rape Laws in Pakistan](2011)</ref><ref>See the 2nd of the two hadiths here regarding Imam Malik's view: {{Muwatta|41||16}}</ref> | By the end of the formative period of Islamic law, there was a consensus that rape was to be categorised as a variant of [[Zina]] (fornication, or unlawful intercourse) in which the coerced woman is spared punishment and the male rapist is punished with the [[w:hadd|hadd]] penalty.<ref name="HinaAzam">Hina Azam [http://www.jstor.org/stable/23645194 RAPE AS A VARIANT OF FORNICATION (ZINĀ) IN ISLAMIC LAW: AN EXAMINATION OF THE EARLY LEGAL REPORTS], Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 28, no. 2, 2012, pp. 441–66</ref> This penalty is [[stoning|stoning to death]] (if he is [[Marriage|married]]) or lashings (if he is unmarried) - just as he would receive for ordinary zina. Four reliable muslim male witnesses (bayyinah) or a confession by the perpetrator are required in order to punish the rapist.<ref name="Al Hakam 2022">{{cite web | title=Rape in Islamic law: Establishing the crime and upholding the rights of the innocent | website=Al Hakam | date=23 January 2022 | url=https://www.alhakam.org/rape-in-islam/ | access-date=2 January 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|first=R. |last= Peters | year= 2012 | title=Encyclopaedia of Islam | edition= 2nd|publisher=Brill |editor=P. Bearman |editor2=Th. Bianquis |editor3=C.E. Bosworth |editor4=E. van Donzel |editor5=W.P. Heinrichs|chapter=Zinā or Zināʾ}}</ref> Jurists agreed that there is no punishment for the rape victim. Her word that she was raped is accepted if there is no named perpetrator. If she does name the alleged rapist but is unable to prove the allegation, the Maliki school held the woman liable to receive the hadd penalty of 80 lashes for slander (qadhf), though the judge may spare her this punishment if there is some circumstancial evidence in support of her allegation. Maliki jurists even held that a woman must be punished with the hadd penalty for fornication (zina) if she falls pregnant while unmarried even if she says she was raped, though she is spared punishment if there is evidence of coercion from her physical state or a witness heard her cry for help. In contrast, for the Hanafi school it was enough to avoid punishment if she simply says that she was raped. Hanafis stated that pregnancy of an unmarried woman is not proof of zina, pointing to the principle that hadd punishments are not applied if there is any doubt.<ref>Position paper by Karamah (Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights) [https://karamah.org/zina-rape-and-islamic-law-an-islamic-legal-analysis-of-the-rape-laws-in-pakistan/ Zina, Rape, and Islamic Law: An Islamic Legal Analysis of the Rape Laws in Pakistan](2011)</ref><ref>See the 2nd of the two hadiths here regarding Imam Malik's view: {{Muwatta|41||16}}</ref> | ||
| Line 24: | Line 28: | ||
===Rape of another's slave=== | ===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)".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t349/e0075 |title=Rape |last=Azam |first=Hina |date= |website=Oxford Islamic Studies |publisher=http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com |access-date=7 April 2021}}</ref> | 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 and the perpetrator receives the hadd punishment. 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)".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t349/e0075 |title=Rape |last=Azam |first=Hina |date= |website=Oxford Islamic Studies |publisher=http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com |access-date=7 April 2021}}</ref> | ||
Malik in his ''Muwatta'' confirms this punishment. Malik was founder of one of the four Sunni legal schools. | Malik in his ''Muwatta'' confirms this punishment. Malik was founder of one of the four Sunni legal schools. | ||
| Line 276: | Line 280: | ||
==Limitations on rape of slaves and war captives== | ==Limitations on rape of slaves and war captives== | ||
===Avoiding | ===Avoiding physical injury=== | ||
Beyond the temporary requirement of waiting past the ''Iddah'' period or conversion of a slave, the only restriction on | Beyond the temporary requirement of waiting past the ''Iddah'' period or conversion of a slave, the only restriction on sex with one's slaves or wives is that they do not suffer serious physical injury in the process.<ref name="Brown2019" /> However, this derives from a generic prohibition against incurring harm (ḍarar) upon anyone at any time, and men are authorized in the view of jurists to [[Wife Beating in Islamic Law|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.<ref name="Brown2014" /> | ||
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 [[Child Marriage in Islamic Law|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 slaves against their will through means other than penetration if such less egregious means will help avoid severe physical injury. | 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 [[Child Marriage in Islamic Law|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 slaves against their will through means other than penetration if such less egregious means will help avoid severe physical injury. | ||
| Line 315: | Line 319: | ||
==Modern revisionary perspectives and criticisms thereof== | ==Modern revisionary perspectives and criticisms thereof== | ||
===Freedom and marriage as a requirement for intercourse=== | |||
Verses 4:23-24 ({{Quran-range|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-range|23|1|6}} and {{Quran-range|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.<ref>{{Bukhari|5|59|459}}, {{Muslim|8|3371}},{{Muwatta|29||95}}, {{Abudawud||2167}}, and {{Bukhari|3|34|432}}</ref> | |||
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. The child is free from birth and the mother is free upon her owner's death. 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. | |||
{{Quote|{{Muslim|8|3377}}| Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that mention was made of 'azl in the presence of Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) whereupon he said: | |||
Why do you practise it? They said: There is a man whose wife has to suckle the child, and if that person has a sexual intercourse with her (she may conceive) which he does not like, '''and there is another person who has a slave-girl and he has a sexual intercourse with her, but he does not like her to have conception so that she may not become Umm Walad''', whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: There is no harm if you do not do that, for that (the birth of the child) is something pre- ordained. Ibn 'Aun said: I made a mention of this hadith to Hasan, and he said: By Allah, (it seems) as if there is upbraiding in it (for 'azl).}} | |||
===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. | |||
{{Quote|1={{Quran|24|33}}|2='''Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste''', until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But '''force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity''', in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),}} | |||
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 [[Polygamy in Islamic Law|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.<ref>See [https://tafsir.app/qurtubi/24/33 Tafsir Qurtubi 24:33] in particular; see also [https://tafsir.app/tabari/24/33 Tafsir al-Tabari 24:33], [https://tafsir.app/ibn-katheer/24/33 Tafsir Ibn Kathir 24:33], and [https://tafsir.app/24/33 Tafsirs 24:33] in general</ref> | |||
===Violations of the spoils-distribution system as rape=== | ===Violations of the spoils-distribution system as rape=== | ||
====Quote from al-Shafi'i==== | ====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<ref name=":0">{{Citation|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112021758/https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_permit_muslim_men_to_rape_their_slave_girls_|url=https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_permit_muslim_men_to_rape_their_slave_girls_|author=Bassam Zawadi|publisher=Call to Monotheism|chapter=Does Islam Permit Muslim Men to Rape Their Slave Girls?}}</ref> as forbidding slave owners from raping their female slaves. | A quote from ''al-Umm'' of Imam al Shafi'i, the founder of the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence, is sometimes misrepresented<ref name=":0">{{Citation|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112021758/https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_permit_muslim_men_to_rape_their_slave_girls_|url=https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_permit_muslim_men_to_rape_their_slave_girls_|author=Bassam Zawadi|publisher=Call to Monotheism|chapter=Does Islam Permit Muslim Men to Rape Their Slave Girls?}}</ref> as forbidding slave owners from raping their female slaves. | ||
| Line 340: | Line 361: | ||
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 [[Rape_in_Islamic_Law#Umar_tells_a_man_to_beat_his_wife_for_preventing_intercourse_with_his_slave_girl|another hadith discussed above]], Umar tells a man to have intercourse with his slave girl after his wife tried to prevent it. | 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 [[Rape_in_Islamic_Law#Umar_tells_a_man_to_beat_his_wife_for_preventing_intercourse_with_his_slave_girl|another hadith discussed above]], Umar tells a man to have intercourse with his slave girl after his wife tried to prevent it. | ||
=== | ===Quote from Shafi'i on pleasure without compulsion in intercourse=== | ||
A passage from al-Shāfiʿī's ''al-Umm'' is occasionally proposed on Islamic websites as establishing a principle for sexual consent in general from a major legal figure. However, such a generalization is not justified from the context, which is about marital relations and specifically the husband's obligation but not compulsion to satisfy his wife' sexual needs. Here are comments and a translation by Professor Kecia Ali: | |||
{{Quote|Shāfiʿī's ''al-Umm'' quoted by Kecia Ali, ''Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam'', p.119<ref>Kecia Ali,"Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam", Massachussets: Harvard University Press, 2010, p.119</ref>|Where there was no question of justice to co-wives, Shāfiʿī explicitly denies the wife's claim to a specific amount of intercourse: | |||
<blockquote>He said: And so if she is alone with him [i.e., he has no other wives], or with a slavegirl he has that he has sex with, he is ordered [to fulfill his obligations] in reverence to God the Exalted, and not to do her harm with regard to intercourse, and he is not obligated to any specific amount of it (wa lam yufraḍ ʿalayhi minhu shayʾbi ʿaynihi). Rather, he is only [obligated] to provide what she absolutely cannot do without, maintenance and lodging and clothing, and also to visit her (yaʾwī). However, intercourse is a matter of pleasure and no one is compelled to it. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
Shāfiʿī is unaware of his blinders. He obviously refers only to men when he declares that "intercourse is a matter of pleasure and no one is compelled to it." Women's sexual availability is, for him, a condition of their support and a prerequisite for their rights to visitation: "if any of them [his wives] refuses to have sex with him, she has disobeyed and abandoned her claim."}} | |||
Professor Jonathan A. C. Brown in reference to the same ruling remarks, "Shafiʿi himself, in a ruling followed dutifully by the major figures of his school, did not require a husband to have sex with his wife or slave-concubine because, ‘as for sex, it is a locus of pleasure and no one should be compelled to do it.’"<ref name="Brown2019" /> | |||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||