2,743
edits
Rape in Islamic Law: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Added the pages numbers and further quotes from a physical copy of Brown's book
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (Rejected the last text change (by CPO675) and restored revision 137178 by Lightyears: The vids aren't relevant enough here (one is suitable for another page)) Tag: Manual revert |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (Added the pages numbers and further quotes from a physical copy of Brown's book) |
||
| 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. 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 | {{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 intercourse with him caused them physical harm. 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> Human rights groups are also concerned about the risks faced by women reporting rape in some countries where [[Zina]] (illicit sexual intercourse) is a punishable offence, as detailed below. | 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> Human rights groups are also concerned about the risks faced by women reporting rape in some countries where [[Zina]] (illicit sexual intercourse) is a punishable offence, as detailed below. | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==The right to have intercourse with wives and slaves in Islamic law== | ==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 | 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>"'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> | ||
{{Quote|Jonathan A. C. Brown (2019) ''Slavery & Islam'', pp. 281-282<ref>Jonathan A.C. Brown (2019) ''Slavery & Islam'', London: Oneworld Publications, Chapter 7, pp. 281-282, ISBN 978-1-78607-635-9</ref>|As noted earlier, marriage and a male's ownership of a female slave were the two relationships in which sex could licitly occur according to the Shariah. In marriage, the consent of the wife to sex was assumed by virtue of the marriage contract itself. In the case of the slave-concubine, consent was irrelevant because of the master's ownership of the woman in question. As Kecia Ali has noted, there is no evidence for any requirement for consent from slave women in books of Islamic law in the formative centuries of Islam. Books of Islamic law and natural ethics are full of exhortations for husbands to enter in foreplay and stress the wife's right to orgasm. But such books also foreground Hadiths and laws obliging wives to meet their husbands' sexual needs without contest.<BR /> | |||
[...]<BR /> | |||
In the Shariah, consent was crucial if you belonged to a class of individuals whose consent mattered: free women and men who were adults (even male slaves could not be married off against their will according to the Hanbali and Shafiʿi schools, and this extended to slaves with ''mukataba'' arrangements in the Hanafi school). Consent did not matter for minors. And it did not matter for female slaves, who could be married off by their master or whose master could have a sexual relationship with them if he wanted (provided the woman was not married or under a contract to buy her own freedom).}} | |||
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 /> | 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 /> | ||
| Line 13: | Line 16: | ||
"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" | "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." | <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" /> | </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" /> | ||
Jonathan Brown notes that a wife or slave-concubine could though complain to a judge if she suffered physical harm (ḍarar). | |||
{{Quote|Jonathan A. C. Brown (2019) ''Slavery & Islam'', p. 96<ref>Jonathan A.C. Brown (2019) ''Slavery & Islam'', London: Oneworld Publications, Chapter 7, p. 96, ISBN 978-1-78607-635-9<BR />On the same page Brown also remarks, "According to the Quran, both marriage and ownership (in the case of the female slave and her male master) were relationships in which sex was licit (Quran 23:5-6). Within these relationships, consent for sexual relations was assumed or irrelevant. In marriage the relationship itself entailed ongoing consent for sex, and with a female slave it was not needed (assuming the slave girl was soley owned by one man and not married; in both cases she was off limits). Kecia Ali has observed that there is no evidence for any requirement for consent for sex from slave women in books of Islamic law from the eighth to the tenth centuries"</ref>|The Shariah offered protection to both wives and slave-concubines, but it came not under the rubric of consent but that of harm. By definition, the crime of rape (i.e., forced ''zina'') could not occur within a licit relationship. But transgressive harm could still be done by the man. Wives and concubines could complain to local judges if they were being abused or if his demands for sex were excessive (we will discuss the issue of concubinage and consent in the concluding chapter of this book). The Hanbali scholar Buhūtī (d. 1641) even says that if a master forced a slave woman unable to bear intercourse to have sex and injured her, she would be freed as a result.}} | |||
In the final chapter he gives examples of medieval judicial 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="Brown2019page283">Jonathan A.C. Brown, ''Slavery & Islam'', Chapter 7, p. 283, London: Oneworld Publications, 2019 ISBN 978-1-78607-635-9</ref> However, on the same topic Brown earlier points out that "Both wives and slaves had the same recourse to courts or members of the community. Unlike wives, however, slaves were almost by definition cut off from support networks other than their owners".<ref>Ibid. p. 132</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== | ||
| Line 280: | Line 289: | ||
==Limitations on rape of slaves and war captives== | ==Limitations on rape of slaves and war captives== | ||
===Avoiding physical | ===Avoiding physical harm during intercourse=== | ||
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 | 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 physical harm in the process.<ref name="Brown2019page283" /> 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 369: | Line 378: | ||
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."}} | 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=" | 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="Brown2019page283" /> | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||