Whereas Christianity commands men to love, honor, and treat women as equals (though still affirming roles) (Eph. 5:25–33; Col. 3:19; 1 Peter 3:7; 1 Cor. 7:3; 11:11–12; Gal. 3:28), the religion of Islam views women as less than men.
Indeed, in just about every aspect, men have more freedom, rights, and leverage than women in Islam.
The following are taken primarily from Islamic (Sunni) literature, some from the Quran, others from the hadiths and writings from scholars, which reeks of blatant misogyny and sexism.
The unfair treatment of women in Islam
“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…”
(Quran 4:11, Yusuf Ali)
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE DEFICIENCY OF A WOMAN’S MIND.”
The following Tafsir is in line with the widespread view in Islam that men are intellectually superior to women. Al-Baghawi wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
(Because Allah has favored some of them over others) meaning: He has favored men over women by increasing their intelligence, religion, and guardianship. It was also said: by testimony, as Allah the Almighty said: “But if there are not two men, then a man and two women” (Al-Baqarah 2:282). It was also said: by jihad. It was also said: by acts of worship such as Friday prayers and congregational prayers. It was also said: that a man marries four women and a woman is only permitted to have one husband. It was also said: that divorce is in his hand.
Qadi Baydawi (d. 1319), who was a jurist, theologian, and Quran commentator from the Shafi’i school of jurisprudence, in his Tafsir held a similar view [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
Men are in charge of women, they are in charge of them as rulers are in charge of their subjects.
He explained this with two reasons: one is a gift and the other is an acquired one. He said: “Because Allah has favored some of them over others, because He has favored men over women with perfect intellect, good management, and greater strength in deeds and acts of obedience. For this reason, they were singled out for prophethood, leadership, guardianship, the establishment of rituals, testimony in all matters, the obligation of jihad, Friday prayers, and the like, and the right to agnatic relationship, an increased share in inheritance, and the right to decide on divorce.(Al-Baydawi’s Interpretation Book = Lights of Revelation and Secrets of Interpretation)
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Then [comes] the degree of the man over her: due to his being more complete than her in excellence, intellect, blood-money (diyyah), inheritance, and war spoils; his suitability for leadership (imamah), judicial office (qada’), and testimony; his ability to marry multiple wives and take concubines; and his capacity to divorce her and take her back even if she refuses, without the reverse being true.
Furthermore, he is more uniquely suited for various types of mercy and reform, such as committing to the dowry and maintenance, defending her, looking after her interests, and shielding her from sites of ruin. Therefore, her fulfilling his service is more emphasized due to these extra rights, as the Almighty stated: {Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has made one of them excel over the other, and because they spend out of their wealth} [An-Nisa: 34].
Hence, the exegetes (mufassirun) stated in their exegesis of this verse: The superiority of men over women is derived from numerous real (haqiqiyyah) and legal (shari’iyyah) aspects.
As for the first [the real/natural aspects]: Their intellects and knowledge are greater, their hearts are more enduring in difficult tasks, and likewise physical strength, writing ability (usually), horsemanship, and archery. Among them are scholars, holders of major and minor leadership, participants in jihad, callers to prayer (adhan), deliverers of Friday sermons, those who perform spiritual retreat (i’tikaf), witnesses in capital/prescribed punishments (hudud) and retaliation (qisas), those who solemnize marriages and the like, as well as a greater share in inheritance, agnatic succession (ta’sib), bearing the burden of blood-money, and the guardianship of marriage, divorce, and revocation. Also, the number of permissible spouses is greater for them, and lineage is traced through them.
Ibn Kathir wrote that men are superior to women based on the Quran and Sunnah [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
{Because Allah has made some of them excel over others}—meaning that men are superior to women, and a man is better than a woman. For this reason, prophethood has been restricted to men, as well as supreme political leadership (al-mulk al-azam), in accordance with the statement of the Prophet (ﷺ): “A people will never succeed who entrust their affairs to a woman,” narrated by Al-Bukhari from the hadith of Abd al-Rahman bin Abi Bakr from his father. Likewise, the position of judgeship (qada’) and other such roles belong to men.
{And because they spend out of their wealth}—meaning from the dowries (muhur), financial support, and expenses that Allah has obligated them to provide for women in His Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet (ﷺ). Thus, a man is superior to a woman in his essence, and he possesses excellence and the capacity to bestow favor. Therefore, it is fitting that he should be her guardian and maintainer, just as Allah Almighty said: {And for men is a degree over them. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise} [Qur’an 2:228].
Women supposedly having a deficiency in the mind is perhaps the reason Ibn Kathir and other Muslim scholars interpreted Quran 4:5, which reads (in Mohsin Khan’s translation) “give not unto the foolish your property,” to mean that the foolish refers to women:
(And give not unto the unwise your property) refers to children and women. Similar was also said by Ibn Mas`ud, Al-Hakam bin `Uyaynah, Al-Hasan and Ad-Dahhak: “Women and boys.” Sa`id bin Jubayr said that `the unwise’ refers to the orphans. Mujahid, `Ikrimah and Qatadah said; “They are women.”
Islamic texts reveal that most people who are in hell are women because they are ungrateful to their husbands and dictate that a woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s. The reasoning for the latter, given in Sahih Bukhari, is the deficiency of the female intellect:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) on ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that THE MAJORITY of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion THAN YOU. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not THE EVIDENCE OF TWO WOMEN EQUAL TO THE WITNESS OF ONE MAN?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”
“Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Abbas… the Prophet replied… ‘I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that MOST of the inhabitants WERE WOMEN.’ The people asked, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Why is it so?’ The Prophet replied, ‘Because of their ungratefulness.’ It was asked whether they are ungrateful to Allah. The Prophet said, ‘They are ungrateful to their companions of life (husbands) and ungrateful to good deeds. If you are benevolent to one of them throughout the life and if she sees anything (undesirable) in you, she will say, ‘I have never had any good from you.’”
The Quran reads that the witness of one man equals the witness of two women:
… but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses…
(Quran 2:282, Shakir)
In Islam, women’s testimony is not even half but zero in serious cases of Hudud (plural of hadd), which are the Islamic penal laws derived from the Quran and the practices of Muhammad. Ibn Hajar wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
2658 — Ibn Abi Maryam narrated to us, Muhammad ibn Ja’far informed us, saying: Zaid informed me, from Iyad ibn Abd Allah, from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him), from the Prophet ﷺ that he said: “Is not the testimony of a woman equivalent to half the testimony of a man?” They said, “Yes.” He said, “That is due to the deficiency of her intellect.”
Regarding his statement: (Chapter: The Testimony of Women, and the Statement of Allah the Exalted: {And if there are not two men, then a man and two women}), Ibn al-Mundhir said: The scholars unanimously agreed on following the apparent meaning of this verse, permitting the testimony of women alongside men. The majority restricted this to debts and financial matters, stating that their testimony is not permissible in prescribed punishments (hudud) and retaliation (qisas). They differed regarding marriage, divorce, lineage, and patronage (wala’): the majority prohibited it, while the Kufans permitted it. He stated: They agreed on accepting the testimony of women individually in matters where men cannot observe them, such as menstruation, childbirth, live birth (istihlal), and women’s physical defects, while they differed regarding breastfeeding, as will come in the subsequent chapter.
Abu Ubaid said: As for their consensus on permitting women’s testimony in financial matters, it is due to the aforementioned verse. As for their consensus on prohibiting it in hudud and qisas, it is due to His statement: {Then they do not produce four witnesses} [An-Nur: 13]. As for their disagreement regarding marriage and the like: whoever categorized it under financial matters did so because it involves dowries and maintenance, whereas whoever categorized it under hudud did so because it involves legalizing or prohibiting intimate relations (furooj). He stated: This is the preferred view, and it is supported by His statement: {And bring to witness two just men from among you} [At-Talaq: 2], after which He termed these legal rulings as limits, saying: {These are the limits of Allah} [At-Talaq: 2], and women are not accepted in hudud. He added: How can they testify in matters where they hold no authority of contract or dissolution? End quote.
(Book of Fath al-Bari by the Commentary on al-Bukhari (Salafiyyah Edition). Cf. with The Book of Consensus by Ibn al-Mundhir – T. Abi Abd al-A’la.)
Hudud offenses include murder, adultery, slander, apostasy, consuming intoxicants, and theft. Hudud crimes cannot be excused by the victim or by the state, and the punishments must be carried out in public. Punishments range from public scourging to public stoning to death, amputation of hands, and even crucifixion.
The following is an early Islamic narration stating that women were not allowed to testify in Hudud cases. Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded the following narration [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
Abu Bakr told us that Hafs and Ibad ibn al-Awwam told us on the authority of Hajjaj on the authority of al-Zuhri who said: It was the Sunnah of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and the two caliphs after him that the testimony of women is not permissible in cases of prescribed punishments.
Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded more narrations. The narrations support each other and unanimously say that women’s testimonies are not allowed in Hudud cases [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
(2) Abu Bakr told us that Bayan told us on the authority of Ibrahim who was asked about three men who testified against a man for adultery and two women, he said: It is not permissible until there are four [males].
(3) Abu Bakr told us that Wakee’ told us on the authority of Shu’bah on the authority of al-Hakam on the authority of Ibrahim who said: The testimony of women is not permissible in cases of divorce and prescribed punishments.
(4) Abu Bakr told us that Abd al-Raheem ibn Sulayman told us on the authority of Mujalid on the authority of Aamer who said: The testimony of women is not permissible in cases of prescribed punishments.
(5) Abu Bakr told us that Ali ibn Hashim and Wakee’ told us on the authority of Zakariya on the authority of al-Sha’bi who said: The testimony of a woman is not permissible in cases of prescribed punishments, nor is the testimony of a slave.
(6) Abu Bakr told us , he said: Abd al-A’la told us, on the authority of Yunus, on the authority of al-Hasan, who said: The testimony of women is not permissible in cases of hadd (punishment) punishments.
(7) Abu Bakr told us , he said: Abdah ibn Sulayman told us , on the authority of Juwaybir, on the authority of al-Dahhak , who said: The testimony of women is not permissible in cases of hadd (punishment) punishments or blood money.
(8) Abu Bakr told us , he said: Waki’ told us, on the authority of Sufyan , who said: I heard Hammad say: The testimony of women is not permissible in cases of hadd (punishment) punishments.
(9) Abu Bakr told us , he said : Ma’n ibn ‘Isa told us, on the authority of Ibn Abi Dhi’b, on the authority of al-Zuhri, who said: No lashing is given in cases of hadd (punishment) punishments except with the testimony of two men.
It is said that there is not even a single narration going back directly to Muhammad in which he ever directly allowed the testimony of women in any Hudud case. That is likely due to Muhammad deeming women deficient in intelligence, as read in the hadiths.
There are not many women in paradise, according to Muhammad:
Imran b. Husain reported that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said:
Amongst the inmates of Paradise the women would form a minority.
Wives are compared to a field that a man can plow when he likes:
Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.
(Quran 2:223, Shakir)
To Muhammad, it seemed wives were just mere tools to please a man sexually. Is there any Islamic text that reads that a wife can use her husband as a sex tool whenever she likes?
Speaking of viewing wives as a field, the following quotation is another example of how Muhammad’s filthy mind influenced the scholars who followed him. Zakariyya al-Ansari wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
… the husband (every form of enjoyment) with his wife is permissible. (For him) even masturbation with her hand, even if it is not permissible with his hand, and even penetration into her vagina from the side of her anus. (And) he has the right to (coitus interruptus) with her, by ejaculating outside the vagina after intercourse, even if she does not give him permission to do so, based on the hadith in the two Sahihs on the authority of Jabir : “We used to coitus interruptus during the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the Qur’an was being revealed, and that reached him, but he did not forbid us.”
(The Book of the Shining Pearls in Explaining the Pink Delight)
According to the following hadith, to the early Muslims, slave-girls were seen as a field in which a man could do whatever he wanted:
99 Yaḥyā related to me from Mālik from Ḍamra ibn Sa‘īd al-Māzinī from al-Ḥajjāj ibn ‘Amr ibn Ghaziyya that he was sitting with Zayd ibn Thābit when Ibn Faḍl came to him. He was from the Yemen. He said, “Abū Sa‘īd! I have slave-girls. None of the wives in my keep are more pleasing to me than them, and not all of them please me so much that I want a child by them. Shall I then practise coitus interruptus?” Zayd ibn Thābit said, “Give an opinion, Ḥajjāj!” I said, “May Allah forgive you! We sit with you in order to learn from you!” He said, “Give an opinion!” I said, “She is your field. If you wish, water it, and if you wish, leave it thirsty. I heard that from Zayd.” Zayd said, “He has spoken the truth.”
(Al-Muwatta’ of Imām Mālik bin Anas: The First Formulation of Islamic Law, 29.34 Coitus interruptus, pp. 440-441)
As a side note, father-daughter incest is even permissible in Islam! It was the opinion of several prominent Muslim scholars that it is permitted for a man to marry his biological daughter born out of wedlock. Ibn Qudamah wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
… It is forbidden for a man to marry his daughter from fornication, his sister, his son’s daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his brother’s daughter, and his sister from fornication . This is the opinion of most of the jurists. Malik and al-Shafi’i said in the well-known opinion of his school: All of this is permissible, because she is a stranger to him and is not legally related to him, and inheritance does not occur between them…
Al-Qurtubi wrote in his Tafsir [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Nasab (lineage) and Sihr (marriage/affinity) are two meanings that encompass all kinship that exists between human beings. Ibn al-Arabi said: Nasab is the mixing of fluids between male and female according to Islamic law. If it is (done) through disobedience (sin, like fornication), then it is merely a creation and not a legally recognized lineage. Therefore, a daughter born from fornication is not included under the saying: “Forbidden to you are your mothers, and your daughters…” (Quran 4:23), because she is not considered his daughter according to the two soundest opinions of our scholars and the two soundest opinions in religion. If there is no legal lineage, then there is no legal marital affinity, so fornication does not prohibit (marriage to) the daughter of a mother or the mother of a daughter. What is forbidden from lawful relations is not forbidden from unlawful ones, because God has bestowed His favor upon His servants through lineage and marriage and raised their status, and tied rulings of permissibility and prohibition to them. Thus, falsehood cannot be attached to them or equated with them.
I (the author) say: Jurists differed regarding a man marrying his daughter from fornication, or his sister, or his son’s daughter from fornication. Some forbade it, including Ibn al-Qasim, which is the view of Abu Hanifa and his companions. Others permitted it, including Abd al-Malik ibn al-Majishun, which is the view of Al-Shafi’i. This has already been extensively discussed in (Surah) An-Nisa.
Abd al-Rahman Jaziri (1882-1941), who was a Muslim Egyptian jurist, wrote in his fiqh book [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
… and it is permissible for a man to marry his daughter who was created from his sperm through fornication. If he commits fornication with a woman and she becomes pregnant from him out of fornication and gives birth to a daughter, then she is not forbidden to him because the sperm of fornication has no sanctity, and just as it is permissible for him, it is permissible for his ancestors and descendants…
(The book of jurisprudence according to the four schools of thought)
Al-Kasani and Zayn al-Dīn ibn Ibrāhīm Ibn Nujaym, who was a prominent Egyptian jurist and a central figure in the development of the late Hanafī tradition of Islamic law (Hanafis comprise a third of all Muslims and the Hanafi is the largest Islamic legal school), believed marital rape was lawful:
… a husband could abandon his wife verbally rather than sexually; or he could bed another woman (wife or concubine) during the nights allotted to his recalcitrant wife; or he could abandon the marital bed but nevertheless have sex with his wife when he desired her, rather than when she desired him. This ensured that the husband would continue to enjoy his sexual rights while denying a woman her rights; after all, disciplinary action was meant to discipline a wife and not deny a husband his sexual rights.28 If a wife’s nushūz consisted of her sexual refusal, then her husband could have sex with her against her will. According to al-Kāsānī, marital rape was legally permissible.29
Marital rape was also regarded as acceptable husbandly conduct by others in the Hanafī legal school.30 For example, Zayn al-Dīn bin Ibrāhīm Ibn Nujaym (d. 970/1563) argued that as long as a wife remains in her husband’s house, she is owed maintenance, even if she is disobedient and withholds sex. This is because as long as she remains in his house, a husband can dominate her (yaghlibu ‘alayhā), forcing her to have sex with him.31 Like al-Kāsānī, Ibn Nujaym was comfortable with marital rape, seeing it as a natural consequence of a wife’s sexual disobedience. ‘Abd Allāh bin Ahmad al-Nasafī (d. 710/1310) added an undeniable shade of violence to his discussion of marital rape. While he argued that a necessary condition of hitting one’s wife is to leave her intact or sound (bi-shart al-salāma), soundness is not a condition for sex, so if a wife dies while her husband is having sex with her, he is not liable. Al-Nasafī understood this to be Abu Hanīfa’s position, who argued that sexual intercourse–unlike disciplinary beating—was not restricted by the condition of soundness (salāma).32
(Dr. Ayesha S. Chaudhry, Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition: Ethics, Law, and the Muslim Discourse on Gender, pp. 104-105. The primary source from al-Kasani: Kitab Bada’i’ al-Sana’i’ fi Tartib al-Shara’i’.)
Non-Hanafis do not penalize a husband for forcing sex on his wife (but neither do they explicitly authorize it). In the footnote, it reads:
29 Kecia Ali notes that “marital rape is an oxymoron; rape (ightsāb) is a property crime that by definition cannot be committed by the husband. Still, they do make a distinction between forced and consensual sex within marriage.” Kecia Ali (n 9) 120. She is correct in her assessment, but given that in modern parlance, forced sex in marriage is referred to as “marital rape,” I have decided to use this term to describe the type of behavior that jurists permitted for husbands. I believe this is necessary to emphasize what Lisa Hajjar calls the “uncriminizable” nature of this act. She writes, “Under shari’a, there is no harm— and thus no crime—in acts of sex between people who are married. Thus, marital rape is literally ‘uncriminalizable’ under dominant interpretations of shari’a. For example, Sura 2, Verse 223, provides a Qur’anic basis for men’s unabridged sexual access to their wives.”
Also in the footnote of the same book (p. 88), it reads that Abu Hayyan, who was a Muslim scholar, mufassir, and jurist, believed marital rape was permissible:
Abū Hayyān suggested that if the imperatives in Q. 4:34 did not work, then husbands ought to tie their wives in bed and rape them (force them to have sex), because sexual access was a husband’s right over his wives.
Abu Bakr al-Khassaf (d. 874), who was a Hanafi law scholar, wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
We have mentioned this issue in Sharh Adab al-Qadi in the chapter on the maintenance of women. (Is it permissible for the husband to have intercourse with her against her will if the refusal was not for the sake of the dowry? It is permissible for him because she is unjust.
(Source, page 42 in the PDF)
Al-Shafi’i condoned marital rape except in certain circumstances [translated from Arabic using Gemini].
If she is physically developed and constitutionally ready (nadhw), she is compelled to enter upon him, unless there is an illness that prevents someone like her from being consummated with, in which case she is given respite.
If he causes ifda’ (severe physical tearing/injury due to forceful penetration) to her and it does not heal, he owes her blood-money (diyah), she receives her full dower, and she has the right to prevent him from touching her until she heals completely—a healing such that if he were to return to her, it would not hurt her or reopen the wound, and the legal statement regarding this matter is her statement.
(Kitāb al-Umm by al-Shāfiʿī – Al-Fikr Edition. Also referenced by al-Mawardi in The Great Book of Al-Hawi)
Ibn Qudamah condoned marital rape [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Our argument is that support is a duty in exchange for a wife’s allowing for enjoyment, and this is impossible to imagine when enjoyment is impossible. Therefore, she is not entitled to support, just as if her guardians prevented him from having access to her. This reasoning invalidates their argument and distinguishes her from a sick woman, because enjoyment is still possible with a sick woman, though it may be diminished by the illness. Also, a wife who does not allow her husband access to herself is not entitled to support, and this case is even more so the case here, because in the other case the husband could compel her and have enjoyment against her will, whereas here that is not possible under any circumstance.
(The Book of the Enricher. A similar view is found in Ibn Abi ‘Umar’s The Great Commentary on Al-Muqniʿ – Al-Manar Edition.)
Ibn Taymiyya was okay with marital rape [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Question:
And he (may God have mercy on him) was asked about a man who married a woman; and wrote her contract (kataba kitaˉbahaˉ), and gave her the immediate (dowry) payment (al-haˉll) in full, but the deferred payment (al-muqsith) from that remained and she had not yet earned any of it (i.e., it was not yet due). He then requested her to move in (consummate the marriage), but she refused; and she has an aunt who is preventing her. So, is she to be compelled to move in? And is her aforementioned aunt required to hand her over to him?
Answer:
He replied: It is not permissible for her to refuse to hand herself over (to her husband) in this situation, by the agreement of the Imams (leading scholars). Nor is it permissible for her aunt, or anyone other than her aunt, to prevent her; rather, the aunt must be disciplined (tu‘azzar) for preventing her from fulfilling what God has made obligatory upon her, and the wife must be compelled (tujbar) to hand herself over to the husband.
(Majmu’ al-Fatāwā, 32/203-204)
Ibn Abidin condoned marital rape [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
… Yes, he is allowed to have intercourse with her by force if she refuses without a legal impediment, and she does not have the right to force him to have intercourse after he has had intercourse with her once, even if it is sometimes religiously obligatory upon him, as will come…
(Ibn Abidin’s Commentary Book = The Response of the Perplexed, Al-Halabi Edition)
Even having sex with one’s wife when she is asleep (which can be rape) is acceptable according to a fatwa posted on Islamweb.net. This is the response a husband received when he asked if he could force himself on his supposed demon-possessed wife, who felt uncomfortable having sex with him. Ibn Abidin’s view is used to justify their answer [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
The ruling on a man forcing his wife to have intercourse or having intercourse with her while she is asleep
The question
I am a 30-year-old married man. My wife is possessed by a demon, and she hates intercourse and feels uncomfortable when I do it. Is it permissible for me to force her to have intercourse in order to overcome the demon that is preventing her from having intercourse, or not? Is it permissible for me to have intercourse with her while she is asleep?
May Allah reward you with good.The answer
Praise be to God, and may God’s prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of God, his family and his companions. Now then:
We ask Allah for well-being for us and for you, and we advise you to use the legitimate ruqyah, and to maintain the recitation of Surat Al-Baqarah in your home, and to be consistent in the evening and morning supplications, and the supplications for entering and exiting, and we hope that Allah will heal the wife from what she is suffering from. As for forcing the wife to have intercourse and having intercourse with her while she is asleep: there is no harm in that, because this is a right of the husband and it is permissible for him to fulfill it even if the one who has the right, which is the wife, is not pleased. Ibn Abidin said: He has the right to have intercourse with her by force if she refuses without a legal impediment…
(Source)
If the wife is demon-possessed, raping her is definitely NOT going to “overcome the demon.” Only by turning to the Biblical Jesus Christ can the wife receive deliverance (Luke 10:17).
On another page on Islamweb.net with the heading “The ruling on forcing a wife to have intercourse,” it reads that a husband can force his wife to have sex [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
If the wife refuses to have sex without an excuse, she is disobedient and rebellious, and it is permissible for the husband to force her to have sexual intercourse in that case.
(Source)
Ibn ‘Awaḍ (d. 1728) was a Hanbali scholar who wrote that a husband can have sex with his wife while she is asleep but not vice versa [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
(1) His statement: (in whatever manner she may be) — even from the direction of the buttocks into the front passage (qubul). The implication of this is the permissibility of that even if she is asleep, unlike the wife, for it is not permissible for her to insert the sleeping man’s organ.
The following hadith reads that if a woman refuses to have sex with her husband, she will supposedly be cursed, but it doesn’t read that a husband will be cursed for refusing to have sex with his wife:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.”
Ibn Hazm, who was a Muslim scholar, wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
1883 – Issue: And it is an obligation (fard) for the female slave and the free woman that they do not deny the master and the husband intercourse whenever he calls them, as long as the one being called is not menstruating, or sick such that she is harmed by intercourse, or fasting an obligation (fard) [fast]. So if she refuses without an excuse, she is cursed.
A wife should always fulfill her husband’s needs:
Talq bin Ali narrated that The Messenger of Allah said:
“When a man calls his wife to fulfill his need, then let her come, even if she is at the oven.”
Al-Munawi (1545-1621), who was a renowned Egyptian Islamic scholar of the Ottoman period and was a prominent Shafi’i jurist, hadith specialist, and is considered one of the greatest Sunni scholars of his time, wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
“(If a man calls his wife) or his slave girl (for his need),” a euphemism for sexual intercourse, “(then she should come to him),” meaning she should allow him to have her immediately as an obligation if there is no excuse, “(even if she is at)” lighting “(the oven)” in which bread is baked, so as to quickly fulfill what he desires, thereby removing the worry from his mind and maintaining his heart’s attachment. The purpose of mentioning the oven is to urge her to let him, even if she is busy with something necessary, no matter what it is. This applies as long as prioritizing his desire does not lead to a loss of property or a change in circumstances, as mentioned before.
A wife can’t fast without the permission of her husband in Islam:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “It is not lawful for a lady to fast (Nawafil) without the permission of her husband when he is at home; and she should not allow anyone to enter his house except with his permission; and if she spends of his wealth (on charitable purposes) without being ordered by him, he will get half of the reward.
Why can’t they fast without their husbands’ consent? To make sure that women are always available for sex. IslamQA.info expounds:
This hadeeth indicates that the husband’s right over his wife takes precedence over her doing voluntary good deeds, because his right is an obligation and doing what is obligatory takes precedence over doing a voluntary action.
Al-Nawawi said:
This is to be understood as referring to voluntary and recommended fasts that are not to be done at a specific time. This prohibition was stated by our companions. The reason for that is that the husband has the right to be intimate with her on all days, and his right must be fulfilled immediately and cannot be delayed by a voluntary action or an obligatory action that could be done later on. If it is said that he should let her fast without his permission, and if he wants to be intimate with her he can do so and break her fast, the answer is that if she fasts, that usually prevents him from being intimate with her, because he would not want to spoil her fast.
(Source)
There is a threat to women who annoy their husbands, but there is no threat to men who annoy their wives:
(19) Chapter: The threat for the woman who annoys her husband
Mu’adh bin Jabal narrated that The Prophet said:
“No woman annoys her husband in the world except that his wife among the Al-Huril-Ain said: ‘Do not annoy him, may Allah destroy you, he is only like a guest with, soon he will part from you for us.’”
The Houris, the made-up supernatural beauties who sexually cater to Muslim men in paradise, say to the earthly wives not to annoy their husbands since they are only temporarily with them:
It was narrated from Mu’adh bin Jabal that:
the Messenger of Allah said: “No woman annoys her husband but his wife among houris (of Paradise) safs: ‘Do not annoy him, may Allah destroy you, for he is just a temporary guest with you and soon he will leave you and join us.”‘
To Muhammad and his deity, women are dirty creatures:
O believers, draw not near to prayer when you are drunken until you know what you are saying, or defiled — unless you are traversing a way — until you have washed yourselves; but if you are sick, or on a journey, or if any of you comes from the privy, or you have touched women, and you can find no water, then have recourse to wholesome dust and wipe your faces and your hands; God is All-pardoning, All-forgiving.
(Quran 4:43, Arberry)
O believers, when you stand up to pray wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads, and your feet up to the ankles. If you are defiled, purify yourselves; but if you are sick or on a journey, or if any of you comes from the privy, or you have touched women, and you can find no water, then have recourse to wholesome dust and wipe your faces and your hands with it. God does not desire to make any impediment for you; but He desires to purify you, and that He may complete His blessing upon you; haply you will be thankful.
(Quran 5:6, Arberry)
Not only did Muhammad compare women to dogs and donkeys, but somehow, a person’s prayer is supposedly canceled if a woman walks in front of a praying person:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey AND A WOMAN (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away, for I disliked to face him.”
Some Muslim apologists make the claim that what was meant by a woman passing by a praying person cutting off the prayer is that she would be a distraction. But if that’s the case, why does the following hadith specify that a menstruating woman cuts off a prayer?
Qatadah said: I heard Jabir ibn Zayd who reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas; and Shu’bah reported the Prophet (ﷺ) as saying: A menstruating woman and a dog cut off the prayer.
Abu Dawud said: Sa’id, Hisham and Hammam narrated this tradition from Qatadah on the authority of Jabir b. Zaid as a statement of Ibn ‘Abbas.
Women are supposedly incapable of running a nation to become successful:
Narrated Abu Bakra:
During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.”
Muhammad discouraged trusting in women [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
A people who entrust their affairs to a woman will never prosper.
(Sahih al-Jami’. This was used as evidence for Ibn Taymiyya to say that “most of what corrupts kingdoms and states is obedience to women” as written in The Requirement of the Straight Path: To Differ from the People of Hellfire.)
Where do we find evil omens?
Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar:
I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying. “Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari 2858. In a similiar hadith, Sunan Abi Dawud 3922, it reads “Abu Dawud said: ‘Umar (ra) said: A mat in a house better than a woman who does not give birth to a child.’”)
What about bad luck?
Sahl b. Sa’d reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
If bad luck were to be in anything, it is found in the woman, the horse and the abode.
Muhammad saw a presumably clothed woman on the street, but called her a devil for merely existing because he got sexually aroused. He then used his wife (his first cousin, whom he took from his adopted son) to relieve himself:
Jabir reported that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them:
The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.
A woman is not to travel unless it is with her husband or a male relative in Islam:
Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
That he heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, “It is not permissible for a man to be alone with a woman, and no lady should travel except with a Muhram (i.e. her husband or a person whom she cannot marry in any case for ever; e.g. her father, brother, etc.).” Then a man got up and said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! I have enlisted in the army for such-and-such Ghazwa and my wife is proceeding for Hajj.” Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Go, and perform the Hajj with your wife.”
In Islam, a woman can’t even leave the house without her husband’s permission. Nur al-Din al-Haythami wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
On the authority of Ibn Abbas, a woman from Khath’am came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked: “O Messenger of Allah, tell me what are the rights of the husband over his wife, for I am an unwed woman. If I can fulfill them, I will marry, otherwise I will remain unwed.” He said: “Indeed, the right of a husband over his wife is that if he asks her for herself while she is on the back of a camel, she must not refuse him. And among the rights of a husband over his wife is that she must not fast voluntarily except with his permission. If she does so, she will go hungry and thirsty, and it will not be accepted from her. And she must not leave her house except with his permission. If she does so, the angels of the heavens, the angels of mercy, and the angels of punishment will curse her until she returns.” She said: “By God, I will never marry!”
This was narrated by Al-Bazzar, and it contains Husayn ibn Qays, known as Hanash, who is weak. However, Husayn ibn Numayr deemed him trustworthy, and the rest of its narrators are reliable.
IslamQA.info posted the following ruling [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Scholars agree on the prohibition of a wife leaving her home—unless for a necessity or a religious obligation—without her husband’s permission. They consider a wife who does so to be disobedient (nashizah).
It states in “Al-Mawsu’ah Al-Fiqhiyyah” (19/107):
“The general principle is that women are commanded to stay in their homes and forbidden from going out… so it is not permissible for her to leave except with his (meaning the husband’s) permission.”
Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami said: “If a woman is compelled to leave, such as to visit a parent, she should do so with her husband’s permission, and without displaying her adornments (non-tabarruj).”
Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani narrated from Al-Nawawi, when commenting on the hadith: “If your wives seek permission to go to the mosque at night, permit them,” that he (Al-Nawawi) said: “This is used as evidence that a woman should not leave her husband’s house except with his permission, because the command for permission is directed at the husbands.” End of abbreviated نقل from Al-Mawsu’ah.
(Source)
If a woman is asked for marriage and keeps quiet, does it necessarily mean she has consented?
Narrated `Aisha:
I asked the Prophet, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! Should the women be asked for their consent to their marriage?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “A virgin, if asked, feels shy and keeps quiet.” He said, “Her silence means her consent.”
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent; and the matron should not be married till she is asked whether she agrees to marry or not.” It was asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! How will she (the virgin) express her consent?” He said, “By KEEPING SILENT.” Some people said that if a virgin is not asked for her consent and she is not married, and then a man, by playing a trick presents two false witnesses that he has married her with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage as a true one, and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, then there is no harm for him to consummate his marriage with her and the marriage is regarded as valid.
A wife entering paradise is based on whether the husband is pleased with her:
It was narrated that from Musawir Al Himyari from his mother that:
she heard Umm Salamah say: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘Any woman who dies when her husband is pleased with her, will enter Paradise.‘ ”
But is a husband entering paradise based on whether the wife is pleased with him?
Only a very few women ever attained perfection compared to men, according to Muhammad!
Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “The superiority of `Aisha to other ladies is like the superiority of Tharid (i.e. meat and bread dish) to other meals. Many men reached the level of perfection, but no woman reached such a level except Mary, the daughter of `Imran and Asia, the wife of Pharaoh.”
Which is the best woman according to Muhammad?
(14) Chapter: Which Woman Is Best?
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: “It was said to the Messenger of Allah: ‘Which woman is best?’ He said: ‘The one who makes him happy when he looks at her, obeys him when he commands her, and she does not go against his wishes with regard to herself nor her wealth.'”
Do women have crookedness? Why not also men?
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “The woman is like a rib; if you try to straighten her, she will break. So if you want to get benefit from her, do so while she still has some crookedness.”
The most harmful form of fitnah left to men is women:
Narrated Usamah bin Zaid, and Sa’eed bin Zaid bin ‘Amr bin Nufail:
that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “I have not left among the people after me, a Fitnah more harmful upon men than women.”
According to IslamQA.info, fitnah is “testing and trial, blocking the way and turning people away; persecution; shirk and kufr; falling into sin and hypocrisy; confusing truth with falsehood; misguidance; killing and taking prisoners; insanity; burning with fire.”
Narrated Usama bin Zaid:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “After me I have not left any trial more severe to men than women.”
There are 3 kinds of things that seem to render one’s prayers ineffective to Muhammad. One is when a woman’s husband is angry with her:
It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
“There are three whose prayer do not rise more than a hand span above their heads: A man who leads people (in prayer) when they do not like him; a woman who has spent the night with her husband angry with her; and two brothers who have severed contact with one another.”
The following hadith is quoted on Islamweb.net:
…Hadeeth from Abu Umaamah… which reads: The Messenger of Allaah… said: “There are three types of people whose prayers will not ascend further than their ears: a runaway slave until he returns to his master, a woman whose husband spends the night angry with her, and an Imaam (in prayer) who leads people while they hate him.” It was classified by Al-Albaani as Hasan (Good) in Saheeh At-Targheeb wa-t-Tarheeb.
(Source)
But where in Islamic literature does it read that a man’s prayer will be rendered ineffective if his wife is angry with him?
According to Islam, a wife has to return her dower or pay some other “ransom money” to her husband to obtain a divorce—it’s called a Khul’, but even then, the divorce can only happen if the husband grants it (except in a very few special circumstances). Traditional jurisprudence considers the husband’s consent to be essential. Islam has made it incredibly easy for men to divorce compared to women. The Quranic verse about the Khul’ is in the following passage:
A marital relation can only be resumed after the first and second divorce, otherwise it must be continued with fairness or terminated with kindness. It is not lawful for you to take back from women what you have given them unless you are afraid of not being able to observe God’s law. In this case, it would be no sin for her to pay a ransom to set herself free from the bond of marriage. These are the laws of God. Do not transgress against them; those who do so are unjust.
(Quran 2:229, Muhammad Sarwar)
IslamQA.info reads:
Khul’ means the separation of the wife in return for a payment; the husband takes the payment and lets his wife go, whether this payment is the mahr which he gave to her, or more or less than that.
…
How is khul’ done?
With regard to the way in which it is done, the husband should take his payment or they should agree upon it, then he should say to her “faraqtuki” (I separate from you) or “khala’tuki (I let you go), or other such words.
Talaq (i.e., divorce) is the right of the husband, and does not take place unless it is done by him, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Talaq is the right of the one who seizes the leg (i.e., consummates the marriage)” i.e., the husband. (Narrated by Ibn Majah, 2081; classed as hasan by al-Albani in Irwa al-Ghalil, 2041).
Hence the scholars said that whoever is forced to divorce his wife by talaq wrongfully, and divorces her under pressure, then his divorce is not valid. (Al-Mughni, 10/352)…
(Source)
If a woman wants “freedom” from her marriage by using the greed of money of her husband, she is declared to be a hypocrite according to Muhammad:
(11) Chapter: What has been related about the women who seek a Khul’
Thawban narrated that:
The Prophet said: “The women who seek a Khul are hypocrites.”
Chapter: What has been related about the women who seek a Khul’
Thawban narrated that :
The Messenger of Allah said: “Whichever woman seeks a Khul from her husband without harm (cause), then the scent of Paradise will be unlawful for her.”
Even if the husband beats and breaks the bones of the wife, she still cannot get a divorce automatically without paying him “ransom money”:
(734) Chapter: Regarding Khul’
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
Habibah daughter of Sahl was the wife of Thabit ibn Qays Shimmas He beat her and broke some of her part. So she came to the Prophet (ﷺ) after morning, and complained to him against her husband. The Prophet (ﷺ) called on Thabit ibn Qays and said (to him): Take a part of her property and separate yourself from her. He asked: Is that right, Messenger of Allah? He said: Yes. He said: I have given her two gardens of mine as a dower, and they are already in her possession. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Take them and separate yourself from her.
Narrated Thawban:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: If any woman asks her husband for divorce without some strong reason, the odour of Paradise will be forbidden to her.
The preceding hadith reads that even the smell of paradise is forbidden for such women, which seems to mean they will not go to paradise. Does Muhammad say anything similar to men asking for divorce without a strong reason? No, because in Islam, men do not ask for a divorce; they simply divorce.
The following quotation from IslamQA.org reads on how easy it is for a man to divorce compared to a woman in Islam:
Therefore, if a man pronounced three divorces at once by stating to the wife: “I divorce you three times” or by saying: “I divorce you”, three times, then three divorces will be effected and the divorce will be irrevocable. The woman will be free to re-marry another man after the termination of her Iddah. She cannot return to her former husband’s marriage unless she is divorced once again from her second husband.
This is the position held by all the Sunni schools of Islamic law, i.e., Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and the Hanbali. This was also the view of the overwhelming majority of the Sahaba (Allah be pleased with them all) and Tabi’in (followers). Only the Ja’fariyya sect amongst the Shi’a and those who followed the literal meaning of the texts, like Imam Ibn Taymiyya and his student Ibn al-Qayyim differed with this view. There view, however, was not accepted by the majority of the Ummah.
(Source)
IslamQA.org also reads:
Divorce (talaaq) is the right of the husband that Allah, may He be glorified, has given to him to be issued to his wife if there is a need to do so. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) affirmed that when he said: “(The right of divorce) belongs to the one who takes hold of the calf [i.e., her husband who has the right to intimacy].” Narrated by Ibn Maajah, 2072; classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.
Al-Maawardi said in his commentary on the hadeeth: Divorce (talaaq) is given to the husband, to the exclusion of all others.
End quote from al-Haawi al-Kabeer, 10/356.
In al-Bayaan fi Madhhab al-Imam ash-Shaafa‘i (10/318) it says: The husband is the one who “takes hold of the calf (i.e., has the right to intimacy).” End quote.
‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Divorce (talaaq) is only in the hand of the one for whom intercourse is permissible.
End quote from al-Mughni by Ibn Qudaamah, 7/355
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said in ash-Sharh al-Mumti‘ ‘ala Zaad al-Mustaqni‘ (12/490): Allah, may He be exalted, has connected marriage and divorce to the husband himself, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): “O you who believe! When you marry believing women, and then divorce them…” [al-Ahzaab 33:49]. Allah has connected divorce to marriage, so divorce is in his (the husband’s) hands. End quote.
Based on that, it is not permissible for the court or anyone else to supersede the husband with regard to divorcing his wife…
(Source. Primary source for Ibn ‘Uthaymeen’s quotation: The enjoyable explanation of Zad al-Mustaqni’. Primary source for al-Mawardi’s quotation: The Great Compeller Book)
The following is another case of Islamic double standards. A husband can take an oath to accuse his wife of adultery without providing four witnesses (called Li’aan). It’s a right given to men. One of the prominent Islamic fatwa websites, Islamweb.net, writes that “Li‘aan [accusation of adultery] Is Not Applicable from A Wife Against Her Husband.”
Li‘aan is only applicable when a man accuses his wife of committing Zina and she denies it, but when a woman slanders her husband, this does not, on its own, warrant Li‘aan. Al-Maawardi said in Al-Ahkaam As-Sultaaniyyah: “If a woman accuses her husband of committing Zina, she would be liable for the Hadd of slander. Li‘aan is not applicable in this case.”
The prominent fatwa website, IslamQA.info, writes:
Li’aan is prescribed for two reasons:
1 – If the husband accuses his wife of zina and cannot produce four witnesses, then he may get the hadd punishment for slander waived by engaging in li’aan.
2 – If he wants to deny that a child is his.
The basic principle concerning that is the passage in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And for those who accuse their wives, but have no witnesses except themselves, let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies (i.e. testifies four times) by Allaah that he is one of those who speak the truth.
7. And the fifth (testimony should be) the invoking of the Curse of Allaah on him if he be of those who tell a lie (against her).
8. But it shall avert the punishment (of stoning to death) from her, if she bears witness four times by Allaah, that he (her husband) is telling a lie.
9. And the fifth (testimony) should be that the Wrath of Allaah be upon her if he (her husband) speaks the truth”
[al-Noor 24:6-9]
Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Tafseer:
This verse offers a way out to husbands if a husband accuses his wife of zina but it is too difficult for him to establish proof; he may engage in li’aan against her as enjoined by Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted. This means bringing her before the judge and making his accusation against her, and the judge should make him swear four times by Allaah, instead of bringing four witnesses, that he is telling the truth i.e., about what he is accusing her of, namely zina. And the fifth time he should invoke the Curse of Allaah upon himself if he is lying. If he says this, she becomes irrevocably divorced by virtue of this li’aan, according to al-Shaafa’i and many of the scholars, and she becomes permanently forbidden to him, and he should give her the mahr (dowry), and the hadd punishment for zina should be carried out on her. The punishment is not averted from her unless she also engages in li’aan and swears by Allaah four times that he is lying, i.e., with regard to what he has accused her of; and the fifth time she should invoke the wrath of Allaah upon herself if he is telling the truth. Hence Allaah says “But it shall avert the punishment (of stoning to death) from her, if she bears witness four times by Allaah, that he (her husband) is telling a lie.
9. And the fifth (testimony) should be that the Wrath of Allaah be upon her if he (her husband) speaks the truth.” End quote.
As for the wife, if she accuses her husband of zina, but she cannot produce four witnesses, then she should be given the hadd punishment for slander, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the Faasiqoon (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allaah)”
[al-Noor 24:4]
These verses apply equally to slander against both women and men.
Al-Qurtubi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Tafseer: Allaah mentioned women in the verse because they are of greater concern and accusing them of immorality is more abhorrent and more hurtful, but slandering men is also included in the meaning of the verse, and the ummah is unanimously agreed on that. End quote.
Al-Maawardi said in Ahkaam al-Sultaaniyyah (p. 287): If a woman slanders her husband, she should be given the hadd punishment, but she should not engage in li’aan. End quote.
If a woman knows that her husband has committed zina but she has no proof, namely four witnesses, then she should advise him and remind him, and tell him to fear Allaah. If he persists in his sin she may ask for a divorce from him or separate from him by means of khula’, because there is nothing good for her in staying with him, and because his having intercourse with her may be harmful for her.
(Source)
Even if the wife is telling the truth but does not have four eyewitnesses, she is still culpable for telling a “lie.” This means not only will her testimony be rejected, but she will also be punished brutally for telling the truth. Punishing women with 80 stripes for telling the truth contradicts justice. Moreover, as we read earlier, wives cannot be among those four eyewitnesses; only male witnesses are considered valid. The testimony of women/girls is not accepted in cases of fornication and adultery (Hudud) in Islamic Sharia. It is not even accepted as a ‘half’ testimony; it is entirely disregarded.
In contrast, a husband can make an accusation of adultery against his wife without 4 witnesses, and he will not be lashed 80 times for Qadhf (i.e., the false accusation):
And those who cast it up on their wives having no witnesses except themselves, the testimony of one of them shall be to testify by God four times that he is of the truthful, and a fifth time, that the curse of God shall be upon him, if he should be of the liars.
(Quran 24:6–7, Arberry)
Muslim men are permitted to marry Christian and Jewish women, but what about Muslim women marrying Christian and Jewish men?
On this day, all pure things are made lawful for you (as food). The food of the People of the Book is made lawful for you and your food is made lawful for them. It is lawful for you to marry chaste Muslim women and chaste women of the People of the Book, provided, you pay their dowry, maintain chastity, and avoid fornication or lustful relations outside of marriage. The deeds of anyone who rejects the faith, certainly, become fruitless. He will be of those who lose on the Day of Judgment.
(Quran 5:5, Muhammad Sarwar)
By the way, this preceding Quranic verse contradicts other verses that prohibit Muslim men from marrying unbelievers, saying that they should marry believing women or girls (2:221). The Quran even reads to not remain married to unbelievers (60:10, Shakir). And the Quran certainly classifies Christians as disbelievers (5:17; 5:72; 9:30, Arberry). According to the Quran, the only true believers are those who believe in Allah and Muhammad as his messenger (24:62, Hilali-Khan). A hadith also affirms it is prohibited to marry a Christian or a Jewish woman (Sahih al-Bukhari 5285).
IslamQA.info answers if Muslim women can marry Christian or Jewish men:
…It is absolutely not permissible under any circumstances in Islamic law (shari’a) of Allah, the most esteemed and exhalted, for a non-Muslim to marry a Muslim woman, as per what He has said regarding the marriage of a kafir (unbeliever) to a Muslim woman and vice versa: (interpretation of the meaning).
They are not lawful (wives) for the unbelievers, nor are the unbelievers lawful (husbands) for them… (Al-Mumtahina:10)
And Allah the most esteemed and exhalted has also said (interpretation of the meaning):
Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe… (Al-Baqara:221)
i.e., it is not ever permissable for someone to marry his Muslim daughter or sister or any Muslim woman for whom he is a guardian to a kafir…
(Source)
A married Muslim man can marry another woman without the first wife’s consent. A Muslim husband is not even obligated to tell his first wife that he married a second wife, and he is not obligated to inform the second wife that he is already married.
IslamQA.info reads:
Question:
Is it OK for a husband to marry a second wife, without the consent of the first wife just because the man, or husband, in our case, falls in love with another woman? Should he marry her, even though he is already married? Does Islam allow such a situation for a man?
Summary of answer
No evidence appears, either in the Quran or the sunnah, requiring the permission of the first wife if her husband wishes to marry a second wife.
(Source)
Question:
I married a foreign woman after she became Muslim in a Shar`i marriage in accordance with the laws of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and I concealed from her the fact that I was married before.
Is my marriage legitimate or do I have to tell her that I am married and that she is the second wife?
Please note that I concealed this matter from her because the country in which we live does not allow plural marriage.
Answer:
It is not obligatory for the husband to tell the second wife that he is already married and this does not affect the validity of his marriage to her.
(Source)
Islamweb.net reads:
Question
I want to ask a serious question this question is life and death for me I want to say that everything in Islam is perfect and has its own reasons even four marriages in islam has its reasons and history. I know that a man can surely marry without the permission of his wife but can he marry without informing her? if yes, then it is like he liked any girl and married her without telling his first wife it will be just like that a man has four wives he is just with all of them but neither of them know that he has other wives. Don’t you think it’s a fraud? A woman after knowing that his husband has married again has two options she can bear sharing her husband and if she can not bear then she is well within her rights to seek divorce but if the husband marries again and does not tell his first wife it will be just like taking her right away from her it will consider as lie and fraud. It will be just like playing with someone’s feelings. Is it allow in Islam to play with someone’s feelings? Is it allow in Islam to keep someone in dark and lie with them? It is so painful so much painful
Answer
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is His slave and messenger.
When the wise Sharee’ah deemed polygyny allowable, it enjoined the Muslim man to treat his wives on a footing of equality. Allaah, The Exalted, says (what means): {And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].}[Quran 4:3]
In fact, this is the only condition set by the Sharee’ah for the Muslim man who chooses to practice polygyny. We know of no evidence suggesting that Islamic Sharee’ah obliges the husband to inform his first wife of his intention to have a second wife. Please refer to Fatwa 86395.
Refraining from informing the wife of the second marriage does not constitute deception on the part of the husband. He is entitled to marry another wife as per the Sharee’ah. In most cases, the greater interest entails that the husband does not inform the first wife of his intention to remarry so as not to hurt her and to spare her the unfavorable feelings of distress. This matter does not involve any tampering with the first wife’s feelings.
In fact, polygyny abounds in many benefits that should not be missed merely because of a given wife’s refusal or aversion towards the idea. A woman is naturally averse to polygyny; however, it is not wise to let the wife’s innate aversion towards having co-wives deny the husband the benefits of polygyny. For more benefit, please refer to Fataawa 86818 and 90132.
However, a Muslim wife should see this experience as any affliction that may befall her. If she is patient, this will be a cause for the raising of her rank and atonement of her sins. Please refer to Fatwa 83577 about the merits of patience.
If the husband informs his wife of his second marriage or she finds out about of it, it is not permissible for her to seek divorce merely because her husband has another wife. But if his second marriage incurs considerable harm on the first wife, she is entitled to ask for divorce or Khul‘ because evident harm is one a legitimate reasons for seeking divorce…
(Source)
One early Muslim told a woman that even sucking the blood and the pus of her husband’s nostrils wouldn’t be enough to fulfill her obligations:
‘Abdullah b. Abu Bakr told me that he was told that when the apostle sent Mua’dh he gave him instructions and orders and then said: Deal gently and not harshly; announce good news and do not repel people. You are going to one of the people with scripture who will ask you about the key of heaven. Say to them it is the witness that there is no God but Allah, Who has no partner. Mua’dh went off to Yaman and did as he was ordered and a woman came to him and said, ‘O companion of God’s apostle, what rights has a husband over his wife?’ He said, ‘Woe to you, a woman can NEVER fulfil her husband’s rights, so do your utmost to fulfil his claims as best as you can.’ She said, ‘By God, if you are the companion of God’s apostle you must know what rights a husband has over his wife!’ He said, ‘If you were to go back and find him with his nostrils running with pus and blood and sucked until you got rid of them you would not have fulfilled your obligation.’
(Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, p. 644)
According to the Muslim website IslamQA.info, “The majority of jurists of the four Schools of Fiqh are of the view that it is not permissible for a menstruating woman to enter and stay in the mosque.” This is supported by the following hadiths:
(15) Chapter: The coming out of the ladies and menstruating women to the Masjid
Narrated Muhammad:
Um ‘Atiyya said: “Our Prophet ordered us to come out (on `Id day) with the mature girls and the virgins staying in seclusion.” Hafsa narrated the above mentioned Hadith and added, “The mature girls or virgins staying in seclusion but the menstruating women had to keep away from the Musalla.”
(23) Chapter: The participation of menstruating women in the two Eid festivals and in religious gatherings of Muslims and their isolation from the Musalla (prayer place)
…May my father be sacrificed for him (the Prophet)! (Whenever she mentioned the Prophet (ﷺ) she used to say, ‘May my father be sacrificed for him) I have heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, ‘The unmarried young virgins and the mature girl who stay often screened or the young unmarried virgins who often stay screened and the menstruating women should come out and participate in the good deeds as well as the religious gathering of the faithful believers but the menstruating women should keep away from the Musalla (praying place).‘ ” Hafsa asked Um `Atiya surprisingly, “Do you say the menstruating women?” She replied, “Doesn’t a menstruating woman attend `Arafat (Hajj) and such and such (other deeds)?”
(1) Chapter: It Is Permissible For Women To Go Out To The ‘Id Prayer And Attend The Khutbah, Separated From The Men
Umm ‘Atiyya said:
He (the Messenger of Allah) commanded us that we should take out unmarried women and the screened away ladies for ‘Id prayers, and he commanded the menstruating women to remain away from the place of worship of the Muslims.
A woman or girl who is menstruating is not even permitted to touch the Quran.
IslamQA.info reads:
Touching the Quran during menses
…
The correct view of the scholars is that it is forbidden to touch the mus-haf [the Quran] when one is in any kind of state of impurity, because Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… which none can touch except the purified.” [al-Waqi’ah 56:79]
In a letter to ‘Amr ibn Hazm, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) told the people of Yemen: “No one should touch the Quran except one who is tahir (pure).”
The hadith is reported by Malik, 1/199; al-Nasai, 8/57; Ibn Hibban, 793; al-Bayhaqi, 1/87. Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar said: A group of scholars classed this hadith as sahih because it is so well known. Al-Shafi’i said: It is proven by them that it was a letter sent by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: “This letter is famous among the scholars of sirah, and is so well known among the scholars that it does not need an isnad. It is like tawatur because the people accepted and recognized it. Shaykh al-Albani said that it is sahih. Al-Talkhis al-Habir, 4/17. See also: Nasb al-Rayah, 1/196; Irwa al-Ghalil, 1/158)…
(Source)
Should a wife prostrate herself before her husband?
(10) Chapter: What has been related about the husband’s rights over the wife
Abu Hurairah narrated that The Prophet said:
“If I were to order anyone to prostrate to anyone, then I would order the wife to prostrate to her husband.”
A woman can’t fulfill her duty towards Allah unless she pleases her husband. And if a husband wants intimacy with a woman, she should not refuse:
It was narrated that:
Abdullah bin Abu Awfa said “When Muadh bin Jabal came from Sham, he prostrated to the Prophet who said: ‘What is this, O Muadh?’ He said: ‘I went to Sham and saw them prostrating to their bishops and patricians and I wanted to do that for you.’ The messenger of Allah said: ‘Do not do that. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands. By the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad! No woman can fulfill her duty towards Allah until she fulfills her duty towards her husband. If he asks her (for intimacy) even if she is on her camel saddle, she should not refuse.’ ”
But what if a woman wants intimacy with her husband, can he refuse?
To Muhammad, girls’ urine is worse than boys’, but why?
Abu Samh said:
“I was a servant of the Prophet, and Hasan and Husain was brought to him and (the infant) urinated on his chest. They wanted to wash it, but the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Sprinkle water on it, for the urine of a girl should be washed, but the urine of a boy should be sprinkled over with water.'”
Women who visit graves are cursed, but why only women?
Abu Hurairah narrated:
“Indeed the Messenger of Allah cursed the women who visit the graves.”
Women who wear perfume are adulteresses:
It was narrated that Al-Ash’ari said:
“The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: ‘Any woman who puts on perfume then passes by people so that they can smell her fragrance then she is an adulteress.'”
But Muhammad loved perfume:
It was narrated that Anas said:
“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘In this world, women and perfume have been made dear to me, and my comfort has been provided in prayer.'”
(Sunan an-Nasa’i 3939. According to Sahih al-Bukhari 2582, he used not to reject the gifts of perfume.)
Muhammad’s mindset: recite a prayer when one buys a slave girl, but no need to offer such a prayer when one buys a male slave. He also compared slave women to camels:
(47) Chapter: Buying Slaves
It was narrated from ‘Amr bin Shu’aib from his father that his grandfather told that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
“When anyone of you buys a slave woman let him say: ‘Allahumma inni as’aluka khairaha wa khaira ma jabaltaha alaihi, wa a’udhu bika min sharriha wa sharri ma jabaltaha alaihi (O Allah, I ask You for the goodness within her and the goodness that You have made her inclined towards, and I seek refuge with You from the evil within her and the evil that You have made her inclined towards).’ And he should pray for blessing. And if anyone of you buys a camel then he should take hold of its hump and pray for. blessing and say similar words.”
Muhammad compared women to domestic animals:
Now then, O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. You have [the right] that they should not cause anyone of whom you dislike to tread your beds; and that they should not commit any open indecency… If they do, then God permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain from [evil], they have the right to their food and clothing in accordance with custom… Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals [ʿawān] with you and do not possess any thing for themselves.
(Al-Tabari, The History of Al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, Vol. IX, p. 113)
The value of women being less than men in Islam is reinforced in the following quotation found in Reliance of the Traveller:
The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.
(Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, o4.9)
A mother has no right to custody of her children from a previous marriage when she remarries:
A woman has no right to custody (A: of her child from a previous marriage) when she remarries (0: because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending the child. It makes no difference in such cases if the (A: new) husband agrees or not (N: since the child’s custody in such a case automatically devolves to the next most eligible on the list (dis: M13.1)), unless the person she marries is someone (A: on the list) who is entitled to the child’s custody anyway (0: as opposed to someone unrelated to the child, since such a person, even if willing, does not deserve custody because he lacks the tenderness for the child that a relative would have).
(Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, m13.4)
A woman is not to leave her house with her face unveiled:
A majority of scholars (n: with the exception of some Hanafis, as at m2.8 below) have been recorded as holding that it is unlawful for women to leave the house with faces unveiled,…
(Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, m2.3)
On a side note, many Muslim apologists boast about the virtues of modesty in Islam. They claim the religion emphasizes that women dress modestly, as it prevents men from lusting after them. If modesty was so important in Islam, then why didn’t Muslims care about modesty concerning slave women and girls for over 1,300 years of Islamic slavery? There is video documentation of slave markets in the Persian Gulf where slave women and girls had their breasts exposed naked in the 1960s!
The following hadith reads that it was impermissible to look at slave girls below the navel, suggesting that it was permissible to look at their breasts:
This tradition has been narrated by Dawud b. Sawar al-Muzani through a different chain of transmitters and to the same effect. This version adds; if any of you marries his slave-girl to his male-slave or his servant, he should not look at her private part below her navel and above her knees.
Abu Dawud said:
Waki’ misunderstood the name of Dawud b. Sawar. Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi has narrated this tradition from him. He said: Anu Hamzah Sawar al-Sairafi.
The following hadith suggests that slave girls were less covered than free girls. Muhammad’s companions wondered if Safiya would be made his slave or wife after he massacred her family and traded 7 slaves for her. This was indicated by whether she veiled or not:
… The Muslims wondered, “Is she (Saffiyya) considered as his wife or his slave girl?” Then they said, “If he orders her to veil herself, she will be one of the mothers of the Believers; but if he does not order her to veil herself, she will be a slave girl. So when the Prophet (ﷺ) proceeded from there, he spared her a space behind him (on his shecamel) and put a screening veil between her and the people.
Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani (744-827), who was a Yemeni hadith scholar, wrote regarding slave girls:
Ibn Al-Musayyib said: A man is permitted to look at any part of her except her vagina.
(‘Abd Al-Razzaq, Al-Musannaf, The book of divorce, Section: A man may examine a slave girl when he buys her)
Al-Jaṣṣās wrote that it was permissible to look at a slave woman’s breasts [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Abu Bakr said: Even if it is not explicitly in the verse, it falls under the meaning of what is mentioned therein, for the reason we stated. And what has been mentioned regarding the prohibition of looking in this verse, except for what is specifically excluded, is limited to free women, not female slaves. This is because female slaves are to all unrelated men like free women are to their dhawi al-maharim (unmarriageable kin) regarding what is permissible to look at.
Therefore, it is permissible for an unrelated man to look at the hair of a female slave, her forearm, her leg, her chest, and her breasts, just as it is permissible for dhawi al-maharim to look at their mahram relative. This is because there is no disagreement that it is permissible for an unrelated man to look at the hair of a female slave. It was narrated that Umar used to strike female slaves and say: “Uncover your heads and do not resemble free women.” This indicates that they are in the position of dhawat al-maharim.
Al-Qurtubi wrote (note that awrah refers to the parts of the body that must be covered with clothing) [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
As for a female slave, her awrah is what is below her breasts. She is allowed to expose her head and forearms. Some say her ruling is like that of a man. Others say it is disliked for her to uncover her head and chest. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) used to strike slave women for covering their heads and say: “Do not resemble free women.”
Shaykh Uthaymin said the following, according to Islamweb.net [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The esteemed scholar Al-Uthaymin (may Allah have mercy on him) further clarified the matter, saying in his delightful commentary on Zad Al-Mustaqni’:
An amah (female slave), even if she is an adult, her awrah (private parts that must be covered) is from the navel to the knee. So, if an amah prays with her body uncovered except for what is between her navel and her knee, her prayer is valid, because she has covered what she is obligated to cover in prayer.
(Source)
In the 7th century, as read, Umar ibn al-Khattab (also spelled Omar), the second Caliph, physically abused slave women (or girls) when they wore the hijab. This is also stated in the following Islamic source [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
Ibn al-Mundhir said: It is proven that ‘Umar said to a slave girl whom he saw covering her head: Uncover your head and do not resemble free women, and he hit her with a whip.) Sahih.
Indeed, Umar had slave women serve people without being covered. Anas bin Malik narrated [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) slave women used to serve us with their hair uncovered, and their breasts shaking.
Apparently, Ibn Umar was okay with certain girls/women having their skin bare [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Abd al-Razzaq from Ma’mar from Amr ibn Dinar from Mujahid who said: Ibn Omar passed by some people who were buying a female slave. When they saw him, they stopped turning her over (to inspect her). Ibn Omar came to them, uncovered her leg, then pushed her chest, and said: “Buy her.“…
(“Al-Musannaf” by Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani, Volume 7, Page 286)
According to the following tradition, Ali, the 4th Caliph, also thought it was permissible to look at slave women uncovered to assess them before bargaining [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Abd al-Razzaq from Ibn Jurayj who said: I heard from someone who heard Ali being asked about a slave woman who is being sold: “May one look at her leg, her buttocks, and her stomach?” He replied: “There is no harm in that; she has no sacredness. She is only put on display for us to bargain for her.”
(Al-Musannaf – Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani – Vol. 7 – Page 287)
Ali himself inspected slave girls [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Qurb al-Isnad: Ibn Tarif, from Ibn ‘Alwan, from al-Sadiq, from his father (peace be upon them) that Ali (peace be upon him) when he wanted to buy a slave girl, he would uncover her shins and look at them.
(Bihar al-Anwar – Allamah al-Majlisi – Vol. 100 – Page 129)
What a contradiction: on one side, Islam compels free Muslim women to wear a full-body hijab, but on the other side, Islam snatched away the right from slave women to wear the hijab and had them bare-breasted. So much for “Islamic modesty” and lowering one’s “gaze.”
Was Muhammad modest when he used to walk holding hands with slave women/girls in public when their breasts were uncovered?
Anas bin Malik said, “Any of the female slaves of Medina could take hold of the hand of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and take him wherever she wished.”
It was narrated that Anas bin Malik said:
“If a female slave among the people of Al-Madinah were to take the hand of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), he would not take his hand away from hers until she had taken him wherever she wanted in Al-Madinah so that her needs may be met.”
The “prophet” walked around holding the hands of slave women/girls with their breasts hanging out, but wouldn’t even shake the hands of presumably free women:
Muhammad bin Munkadir said that he heard Umaimah bint Ruqaiqah say:
“I came to the Prophet (ﷺ) with some other women, to offer our pledge to him. He said to us: ‘(I accept your pledge) with regard to what you are able to do. But I do not shake hands with women.’”
The hijab verse could have been “revealed” for the following reason: The women (whether free or slave) who went outside for their needs or to relieve themselves would get sexually harassed and pounced on by the men in Medina. Muhammad then instructed free Muslim women to wear the cloak so that they could be distinguished from slave women, to try to prevent the men from sexually intimidating the free women. As a result, instead of punishing those men, Muhammad responded by imposing the hijab on free Muslim women while leaving slave women without protection from being molested. The slave women were left entirely at the mercy of these shameful men, vulnerable to further sexual harassment. The men who were involved in such behavior were likely Muhammad’s companions (Muslims); otherwise, Muhammad would have had them directly punished.
Ibn Kathir wrote in his Tafsir on Quran 33:59 [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Ali ibn Abi Talhah narrated from Ibn Abbas that Allah commanded the believing women, when they leave their homes for a need, to cover their faces from above their heads with their jalabibs, showing only one eye.
…
Al-Suddi said regarding Allah’s saying {O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their outer garments over themselves. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused}: “Some dissolute people from the people of Medina would go out at night when darkness fell onto the streets of Medina, exposing themselves to women. The residences of the people of Medina were narrow, so at night, women would go out to the streets to relieve themselves. Those dissolute people would seek them out. If they saw a woman wearing a jilbab, they would say, ‘This is a free woman,’ and they would leave her alone. If they saw a woman not wearing a jilbab, they would say, ‘This is a slave girl,’ and they would pounce on her.“
Another Tafsir reads [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Abd ibn Humayd and Ibn Jarir narrated from Qatadah regarding the saying {O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their outer garments over themselves}. He said: “Allah obligated them, when they go out, to drape it over their eyebrows. {That is more suitable that they should be known and not be abused.} He said: ‘Enslaved women used to be harassed, so Allah forbade free women from resembling slave girls.'”
Abd ibn Humayd narrated from Al-Kalbi regarding the verse, he said: “Women used to go out to the open fields (jabbabin) to relieve themselves, and immoral men would accost them and harass them. So Allah commanded them to draw their outer garments over themselves, so that the free woman could be distinguished from the slave girl.”
Abd ibn Humayd narrated from Mu’awiyah ibn Qurrah that some impudent men from the people of Medina used to go out at night, looking at women and bothering them. They would not do that to free women; they would only do that to slave girls. So Allah revealed this verse: {O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers} to the end of the verse.
Ibn Jarir and Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) regarding the verse, he said: “A free woman used to wear the clothing of a slave girl. So Allah commanded the women of the believers to draw their outer garments over themselves. And the drawing down of the jilbab means to cover her head and tie it over her forehead.”
Ibn Sa’d narrated from Al-Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the saying {O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their outer garments over themselves. That is more suitable that they should be known and not be abused.}. He said: “Your slave girls in Medina were harassed by foolish men, so free women would go out and be mistaken for slave girls and be harassed. So Allah commanded them to draw their outer garments over themselves.”
In Islam, a woman’s blood money is half that of a man’s. Islamweb.net reads [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Authentic and sound religious texts have established that the blood money (diyah) for a free Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a free Muslim man, and the scholars have reached a consensus on this, save for an irregular and aberrant dissent.
The eminent scholar Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy on him, stated: “The blood money of a free Muslim woman is half the blood money of a free Muslim man. Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abd al-Barr said: The people of knowledge have agreed that the blood money of a woman is half the blood money of a man. Others besides them narrated from Ibn Alayyah and Al-Asamm that they said: Her blood money is like that of a man, based on his, peace and blessings be upon him, statement: ‘And for the soul of a female believer, there are one hundred camels.’ This is an aberrant opinion that contradicts the consensus of the Companions and the Sunnah of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. Indeed, in the letter of Amr ibn Hazm: ‘And the blood money of a woman is half of the blood money of a man.’ It is more specific than what they mentioned, and both are in a single document, so what is mentioned serves as an explanation and specification of what they stated.” End quote.
It is obligatory for a Muslim to submit to and accept the ruling of Allah the Almighty, whether he knows the wisdom behind it or does not know it, due to the statement of Allah the Almighty:
“It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.” (Al-Ahzab: 36)
And His statement:
“But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find not within themselves any discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.” (An-Nisa: 65)
There is no harm in a believer searching for the wisdom, because knowing it increases his certainty and tranquility. However, if he does not know it, let him know that Allah the Almighty tests His servants by them not knowing it, in order to test and purify them: do they submit to His ruling and yield to it merely because of His command, or do they not surrender except to what they perceive of its wisdom?
Some scholars have mentioned the wisdom behind making the blood money of a woman half of the blood money of a man. Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, stated in I’lam al-Muwa’i’in:
“As for blood money, since the woman is less than the man, and the man is more beneficial than her, and he fulfills what the woman does not fulfill of religious positions, leadership roles, guarding the frontiers, jihad, populating the earth, performing crafts without which the interests of the world cannot be completed, and defending the worldly life and the religion, their values were not equal alongside that, which is the blood money. For the blood money of a free person runs in the manner of the value of a slave and others among properties, so the wisdom of the Lawgiver necessitated making her value half of his value due to the disparity between them.” End quote.
(Source. Primary sources: Ibn Qudamah’s Book of Blood Money (Diyat), The Enricher; Ibn al-Qayyim’s Informing the signatories about the Lord of the Worlds. Such in an opinion is also shared in Kitab al-Umm by Al-Shafi’i – Al-Fikr Edition.)
Ibn al-Qayyim wrote that there are “five ways in which a female is equivalent to half of a male.” They are (1) freeing a slave, (2) aqeeqah, (3) testimony, (4) inheritance, and (5) blood money [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
From the hadith of Abu Umamah and others, on the authority of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, that he said: “Anyone who frees a Muslim man, it will be his release from the Fire, and each limb of his will suffice as one limb of his. And any Muslim man who frees two Muslim women, it will be his release from the Fire, and each two limbs of theirs will suffice as one limb of his.” He said: This is an authentic hadith. This indicates that freeing a slave is better, and that freeing a slave is equal to freeing two female slaves. Most of those he freed, may God bless him and grant him peace, were slaves. This is one of the five situations in which the female is half the male.
The second: Aqeeqah, which is one sheep for a female, and two sheep for a male, according to the majority of scholars. There are several authentic and good hadiths on this matter. The third: Testimony, as the testimony of two women is equal to the testimony of one man. The fourth: Inheritance. The fifth: Blood money.
(The Book of Zad al-Ma’ad in the Guidance of the Best of Servants – The Second Epistle. Cf. with Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1547.)
It is not lawful for a wife to leave the home except by her husband’s permission:
The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home (0: because of the hadith related by Bayhaqi that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said.
“It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed, or to go out if he is averse”).
(Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, m10.4)
Ibn Taymiyya wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
Umar ibn Al-Khattab said : Marriage is slavery, so let one of you consider who he enslaves his daughter to. In Al-Tirmidhi and others, it is narrated on the authority of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he said: “ Treat women well, for they are captives to you . ” So a woman with her husband is like a slave or a captive, and she is not allowed to leave his house except with his permission, whether her father, mother, or someone else orders her to do so, according to the consensus of the imams.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal was reported to have said that daughters who are younger than seven can be forced into marriage by their fathers:
He said, “Her walī should consult her. Then if she grants permission, he can give her in marriage.” I said, “But if she does not grant it?” He said, “If her father is [her walī], and she has not reached seven years of age, then her father’s giving her in marriage is valid, and she has no option. But if she has reached her ninth year, neither her father nor anyone else should give her in marriage without her permission.
(Chapters on Marriage and Divorce: Responses of Ibn Ḥanbal and Ibn Rāhwayh, §7, p. 93, translated by Susan Spectorsky. Source: The Book of Imam Ahmad’s Questions, narrated by his son Abdullah. Note that Imam Ahmad narrated a chain from Aisha that she said: “If a girl reaches nine years of age, then she is [a woman].” This is written in The Book of Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah — Cairo Library Edition.)
He was also reported to have said that if a father forces his child into marriage, she has no option to annul the marriage when she grows up:
I asked my father about a man who gives his underage daughter in marriage. “Can she opt [to turn down the marriage] when she is of age?” He said, “She cannot exercise this option if her father gave her in marriage. If she could, then ʿĀʾisha could have with regard to the Prophet, because the Prophet married her when she was six or seven years old, had intercourse with her when she was nine, and died when she was eighteen.”
(Chapters on Marriage and Divorce: Responses of Ibn Ḥanbal and Ibn Rāhwayh, §18, p. 97, translated by Susan Spectorsky. Primary source: The Book of Imam Ahmad’s Questions, narrated by his son Abdullah)
Al-Nawawi stated that a father can marry off his young daughter, and once she reaches puberty, she has no choice in annulling it [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
There is a hadith here from `A’isha, may Allah be pleased with her, who said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, married me when I was six years old and consummated the marriage when I was nine.” In another narration, he married her when she was seven years old.
This is explicit proof of the permissibility for a father to marry off his young daughter without her permission, because she is not able to give it. According to us, the grandfather is considered like the father. The previous chapter already extensively covered the difference of opinion regarding the condition of a guardian.
The Muslims have a consensus on the permissibility of a father marrying off his young virgin daughter based on this hadith. When she reaches puberty, she does not have the option to nullify the marriage, according to Malik, al-Shafi`i, and all the jurists of the Hijaz. However, the people of Iraq said she has the option when she reaches puberty.
Ibn Qudamah, of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, suggested that a prepubescent virgin can be married off against her will and the marriage can be consummated:
It is possible to parse the statements made by Ibn Qudāma in such a way that his words open pathways into each discrete topic of this study. His arguments may be outlined here as follows:35
- A father may contract marriage for his mature or prepubescent virgin daughter against her will, as long as he has made for her a suitable match.36
- There is no difference of opinion over the father’s ability to compel the prepubescent virgin. Ibn Qudāma then cites the consensus claim of Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 318/930).37 Accompanying this claim is the caveat that the match must be one that is “suitable.”38
- Prepubescent marriage is licit because of Q65:4.39 The waiting period (ʿidda) does not become mandatory unless an actual divorce from a consummated marriage has taken place; Ibn Qudāma states unequivocally that this verse proves that the prepubescent female can be married and divorced/repudiated without consideration of her opinion.40
- He then cites the report of ʿĀʾisha’s early marriage, noting that it is “agreed upon,” and that ʿĀʾisha at the time of her marriage, being six (at the time of the contract) and then nine (at the time of consummation), had no opinion to give.41
- Next, he cites as precedent the early marriages of Qudāma ibn Maẓʿūn and Umm Kulthūm bint ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.
- Finally, he discusses the difference of opinion over the licit nature of marrying off virgins in their majority without their permission.
…
… we find Ibn Qudāma’s position that prepubescent virgin females can be married and divorced without taking their opinions into consideration. Of major importance here is Ibn Qudāma’s insistence that divorce can only occur after consummation, which clearly reveals that he believes that prepubescents can engage in sexual intercourse (or, as we will see that the language of juristic discourse indicates, “have it performed upon them”45). In other words, these are not marriages that exist merely on paper until such a time as the female matures sexually. The issue of when a prepubescent female becomes sexually viable and when the maintenance payments her sexual availability requires become due are topics of serious legal discussion. Finally, with regard to divorce, it is noted here that Ibn Qudāma implies that a female can be divorced against her will, just as she can be married against her will. He makes no mention here of the minor male, or the doctrine of the right of rescission (khiyār al-bulūgh, the “choice of [annulling a marriage upon reaching] puberty”).46
(Carolyn Baugh, Minor Marriage in Early Islamic Law, pp. 8-9, 10-11)
The following is a quotation from the primary source [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
As for the minor virgin, there is no disagreement regarding her. Ibn al-Mundhir said: “Every scholar from whom we have preserved knowledge has reached a consensus that the father’s marriage of his minor virgin daughter is permissible if he marries her to a compatible suitor, and it is permissible for him to marry her off despite her dislike or refusal.“
The permissibility of marrying off a minor is indicated by the words of Allah the Exalted:
“And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women – if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated.” [At-Talaq: 4]
Thus, He designated a waiting period (‘iddah) of three months for those who have not yet menstruated. A three-month waiting period only occurs due to a divorce within a marriage or an annulment, which indicates that she (the minor) can be married and divorced, and she has no permission that must be considered.
‘Aisha—may Allah be pleased with them both—said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine.” (Agreed upon). It is well known that in that state, she was not among those whose permission is considered.
Al-Athram narrated that Qudamah bin Mazh’un married the daughter of al-Zubayr right when she was born (in her post-natal period). When this was mentioned to him, he said: “If I die, the daughter of al-Zubayr will inherit from me, and if I live, she will be my wife.” Also, ‘Ali married his daughter Umm Kulthum to ‘Umar bin al-Khattab—may Allah be pleased with them both—while she was a minor.
Ibn Abd al-Barr wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
Abu Omar said: The scholars are unanimous that a father can marry off his young daughter without consulting her, and that the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, married Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, when she was young, six or seven years old. Her father married her to him.
(The Book of Remembrance, 5/400-401)
Al-Mawardi wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
A virgin who is nine years old or older, even before puberty, he may marry her off without her permission, according to the correct opinion of the school. The majority of scholars agree with this.
(The Book of Equity in Knowing the Preponderant from the Disagreement – T. Al-Turki)
Ibn Taymiyya wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
A woman should not be married off without her permission, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded. If she dislikes it, she should not be forced into marriage, except in the case of a young virgin girl, whose father marries her off without her permission.
Al-Qurtubi wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
Abu Hanifa said : If the young girl reaches puberty, no one may marry her off without her consent, because she has reached the age of accountability. However, if she is still a young girl, then he may marry her off without her consent, because she has neither permission nor consent, and there is no disagreement about that.
Forced marriage for girls by fathers is permissible according to Reliance of the Traveller:
…Guardians Who May Marry a Virgin to a Man Without Her Consent
Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.
-1- The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a virgin bride’s father or father’s father, compel meaning to marry her to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.
-2- Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and gives her permission.
Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father’s father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin’s silence is considered as permission.
(Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, m3.13)
According to Al-Hidayah, a prepubescent child forced into marriage by her father/grandfather does NOT have the option to annul the marriage upon reaching puberty:
He said: If they are married away by the father or the grandfather, that is, the minor boy and the minor girl, they have no option, after they attain puberty. The reason is that these two (relatives) possess an informed opinion and abundant affection, therefore, the contract will become binding if it is concluded by them. It is just as if it was concluded with their consent after they had attained puberty.
(Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani, Al-Hidayah, Vol. 1, p. 496)
Heavenly Ornaments reads:
12. If a boy or a girl are immature, they do not have their own choice. Their nikah (marriage) is not valid without a wali (guardian). If a boy (or girl) performs his nikah on his own or someone else performs it, it will be dependent on the permission of the wali. The wali has full rights over such a boy or girl. He can get them married to whoever he wishes and refuse whoever he wishes. Immature girls and immature boys cannot reject such a nikah at that time. This is irrespective of whether the girl is a virgin or had been married previously and had also been sent to her (first) husband’s home – the same rule will apply.
13. If the father or grandfather perform the nikah of an immature girl or boy, they do not have the right to reject or repudiate this nikah even after they become mature… In all cases the nikah will be valid and they cannot reject or repudiate this nikah.
(Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Bahishti Zewar (Heavenly Ornaments), p. 411)
From al-Risala, a Maliki law manual:
A father can arrange the marriage of his virgin daughter without her permission even if she is beyond the age of puberty. It is up to him whether he consults her or not.
(Shaikh Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, al-Risala, 32.2a.)
In Mukhtasar Al Quduri, a famous manual of Hanafi fiqh, it reads that a prepubescent child forced into marriage by her father/grandfather does NOT have the option to annul the marriage when he/she reaches puberty:
If the father, or grandfather, marries them off, then there is no option for them after attaining the age of majority, but if someone other than the father or the grandfather marries them off, then each one of the two has an option:
- If he/she wants, he/she may remain in the marriage, or
- If he/she wants, he/she may repudiate [it].
(Al-Quduri, Mukhtasar al-Quduri: A Manuel of Islamic Law According To The Hanafi, NIKĀḤ – MARRIAGE)
One of the largest Muslim fatwa websites, IslamQA.info, says there is a consensus (i.e., Ijma) upon it among all the Salaf (i.e., early) generations of Muslims that a girl can be married off without consulting her:
Marriage to a young girl before she reaches puberty is permissible according to sharee’ah, and it was narrated that there was scholarly consensus on this point.
…
The scholars are unanimously agreed that a father may marry off his young daughter without consulting her. The Messenger of Allaah married ‘Aa’ishah bint Abi Bakr when she was young, six or seven years old, when her father married her to him.
(Source)
According to Muhammad, a woman can’t even have a valid marriage without the consent of her father or master. If she does get married without his permission, the marriage is invalid, but she keeps the dower because the man enjoyed her private parts:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: The marriage of a woman who marries without the consent of her guardians is void. (He said these words) three times. If there is cohabitation, she gets her dower for the intercourse her husband has had. If there is a dispute, the sultan (man in authority) is the guardian of one who has none.
(Sunan Abi Dawud 2083. A similar hadith: Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1102)
Wife-beating is permissible:
I have yet to read any Muslim commentator/scholar/jurist/school of thought, etc., before the 1900s that said it was NOT okay to beat one’s wife according to the text. However, I have read revisionist interpretations that make it palatable to modern Westerners, which shows a lack of intellectual honesty.
The Bible, however, reads:
Colossians 3:19 – Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them.
Ephesians 5:25 – Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Ephesians 5:28 – So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Let’s read what the Islamic literature states.
Muhammad struck his child-wife in the chest. When sleeping with Aisha, Muhammad left his bed and went outside; Aisha surreptitiously followed Muhammad; when he learned about Aisha’s “misdeed,” he struck her (beat her) on her chest, causing pain to Aisha:
Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people):
Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was ‘A’isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ‘A’isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi’ (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.
Another narration reads similarly [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
… He said: Are you the blackness that I saw in front of me? She said: Yes. So he gave me a slap in the chest that hurt me. Then he said: Do you think that Allah and His Messenger would be unjust to you? I said: Whatever people conceal, Allah knows it? He said: Yes. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me, and he did not enter upon you and you had taken off your clothes. He called me but hid from you, so I answered him but hid from you…
On Dorar.net, an excerpt of the explanation or summary of the preceding hadith reads, “A husband can discipline his wife by hitting her with his hand or the like, even if it pains her.”
Some Muslims may argue that the translation of the text in Sahih Muslim, “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain” is inaccurate and that the only correct translation should read that Muhammad pushed or even poked Aisha. The key Arabic word used in the hadith is “lahada.” According to Francis Joseph Steingass’ The Students Arabic-English Dictionary (p. 929), the word can mean to “… oppress; jade; BEAT, push.” But even if that was the case that Muhammad merely pushed or poked her, he still physically harmed his child-wife, which caused her pain.
Since Muhammad did such an action, that makes it sunnah or permissible for Muslims to do.
The Quran clearly permits a man to scourge, beat, or strike his wife!
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
(Quran 4:34, Pickthall)
Another translation reads:
Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great.
(Quran 4:34, Arberry)
The following is a quote from another translation of the Quran:
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
(Quran 4:34, Sahih International)
It is permissible to hit one’s wife under Sharia law:
When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful), he warns her in words (“Your obeying me is religiously obligatory”). If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (having sex) with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her… it is permissible for him to hit her he believes that hitting her will bring her back to the right path…
(Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law), M10.11 – Dealing with a Rebellious Wife)
Ibn Kathir gave his commentary:
…
“And beat them.” If they do not abstain from their disobedience through both advice and desertion. However, the beating should be dharbun ghayru nubrah, i.e. light, according to the Hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Jabir, who had quoted the Prophet as saying in his farewell pilgrimage: “And fear Allah in women, for they are your aides, and their duties towards you is that your beds should not be shared with someone you dislike. Therefore, if they disobey you, beat them lightly, and your duty towards them is that you should maintain and buy them clothes in a reasonable manner.”
Scholars said: dharbun ghayru nubrah means: The husband should beat his wife lightly, in a way which does not result in breaking one of her limbs or affecting her badly.
“But if they obey, seek not against them means (of annoyance).” If a woman obeys her husband in all what he wants from her, as long as within the boundaries of what is lawful, he should not beat nor desert her.”
Some Muslim apologists will try to defend the permissibility of wife-beating by saying it can only be done without causing an injury or leaving a mark on the wife’s body. But the mere act of hitting can cause psychological and emotional damage to the victim, as she is humiliated and demeaned.
What led to the supposed revelation of the verse?
(Men are in charge of women…) [4:34]. Said Muqatil: “This verse (Men are in charge of women…) was revealed about Sa‘d ibn al-Rabi‘, who was one of the leaders of the Helpers (nuqaba’), and his wife Habibah bint Zayd ibn Abi Zuhayr, both of whom from the Helpers. It happened Sa‘d hit his wife on the face because she rebelled against him. Then her father went with her to see the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace. He said to him: ‘I gave him my daughter in marriage and he slapped her’. The Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: ‘Let her have retaliation against her husband’. As she was leaving with her father to execute retaliation, the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, called them and said: ‘Come back; Gabriel has come to me’, and Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse. The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: ‘We wanted something while Allah wanted something else, and that which Allah wants is good’. Retaliation was then suspended”…
Concerning Quran 4:34, Imam al-Tabari believed it was permissible for a husband to tie up their wives. Dr. Ayesha S. Chaudhry, a Professor of Islamic studies and Gender studies, wrote:
… Al-Tabarī considered the various lexical meanings of h-j-r and concluded that the most accurate interpretation of wa-hjurūhunna is not abandonment at all but rather “securing” or “tethering” one’s wife. Using the analogy of tethering a camel, al-Tabarī argued that in the event that admonishment failed, “wa-hjurūhunna fī al-madāji’i” prescribed husbands to imprison their wives by tying them to their beds.83 This interpretation was rejected by some later exegetes, who found it to be ethically abhorrent, but it was upheld by others.84 Still, this interpretation did not compromise al-Tabarī’s standing as an authoritative predecessor, since the same exegetes who denounced his stance on abandonment continued to rely on al-Tabarī’s authoritativeness on other matters.
(Dr. Ayesha S. Chaudhry, Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition: Ethics, Law, and the Muslim Discourse on Gender, pp. 78-79)
The footnote reads:
84 Although some exegetes rejected this interpretation, others, like al-Māwardī and al-Sulamī, cited al-Tabarī’s interpretation as one of several legitimate interpretations of abandonment. Al-Māwardī wrote that wa-hjurūhunna fī al-madāji’i could mean that a husband should “tie her with a hijār, which is the rope used to tie camels, to subdue her to have sex with him.”…
The following is the quotation directly from the Tafsir of al-Tabari [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Since all these meanings contain the inherent flaws we’ve identified, the most accurate understanding of His saying: ﴿And abandon them﴾ is that its meaning is directed towards binding with a hijar, similar to how the Arabs described a camel that its owner ties with a rope, as we explained: he abandoned it, and he abandons it, an abandonment (2).
If this is the meaning, then the interpretation of the verse becomes: “As for those women whose rebellion you fear: admonish them regarding their rebellion against you. If they respond to admonition, then you have no authority over them. But if they refuse to return from their rebellion, then secure them firmly with a tie in their sleeping places (3).” This means: in their homes and houses where they lie down and have intimate relations with their husbands.
As Abbas bin Abi Talib narrated to me, he said: Yahya bin Abi Bukayr narrated to us, from Shibl, he said: I heard Abu Qara’a narrating from (4) Amr bin Dinar, from Hakim bin Mu’awiya, from his father, that he came to the Prophet ﷺ and asked: What is the right of one of our wives upon him? He said: “He feeds her, and clothes her, and does not strike the face, nor revile, nor abandon except within the house (1).”
Al-Hasan bin Arafa narrated to us, he said: Yazid (2) narrated to us, from Shu’ba bin Al-Hajjaj, from Abu Qaza’a, from Hakim bin Mu’awiya, from his father, from the Prophet ﷺ similarly (3).
Al-Muthanna narrated to me, he said: Hibban bin Musa narrated to us, he said: Ibn Al-Mubarak narrated to us, he said: Bahz bin Hakim informed us, [from his father] (4), from his grandfather, he said: I said: O Messenger of Allah, our women, what should we approach from them and what should we leave? He said: “She is your tillage, so approach your tillage however you wish, provided you do not strike the face, nor revile, nor abandon except within the house. And feed when you eat, and clothe when you clothe yourself. How can it be, when some of you have already had intimate relations with others? Except for what is permissible for her (5).”
And similar to what we said in the interpretation of that, several people of interpretation have said.
Mention of those who said that
Al-Muthanna narrated to me, he said: Amr bin Awn narrated to us, he said: Hushaym informed us, from Al-Hasan, he said: If a woman acts rebelliously towards her husband, let him admonish her with his tongue. If she accepts, then that’s it; otherwise, he strikes her with a non-brutal beating. If she returns, then that’s it; otherwise, he is permitted to take from her and leave her.
Ibn Humayd narrated to us, he said: Jarir narrated to us, from Al-Hasan bin Ubayd Allah, from Abu Al-Duha, from Ibn Abbas regarding the verse: ﴿And abandon them in beds and strike them﴾. He said: He does that to her and strikes her until she obeys him in beds. If she obeys him [in bed] (1), then he has no authority over her when she joins him in bed (2).
Al-Muthanna narrated to me, he said: Hibban narrated to us, he said: Ibn Al-Mubarak narrated to us, he said: Yahya bin Bishr informed us that he heard Ikrimah say regarding the verse: ﴿And abandon them in beds and strike them﴾: a non-brutal beating. He said: The Messenger of Allah said: “Strike them if they disobey you in what is good, with a non-brutal beating” (3).
Abu Ja’far said: All of those whose statements we mentioned did not necessitate a meaning for abandonment other than striking, and they did not necessitate abandonment — since it is a state among the states of the beaten woman during striking, along with the indication of the narration that Ikrimah narrated from the Prophet ﷺ, that he commanded striking them if they disobeyed their husbands in what is good, without commanding their husbands to abandon them — for the reason we described.
So if someone thinks that what we said in the interpretation of the narration from the Prophet ﷺ that Ikrimah narrated is not as we said, and it is confirmed that the Prophet’s ﷺ leaving the command for a man to abandon his wife if she disobeys him in what is good, and his command to strike her before abandonment, if it were an evidence for the correctness of what we said that the meaning of abandonment is what we clarified — then it would be necessary that there is no meaning to Allah’s command for her husband to admonish her if she is rebellious, since there is no mention of admonition in Ikrimah’s narration from the Prophet ﷺ — then the matter in that is contrary to what he thought. This is because his ﷺ saying: “If they disobey you in what is good.” is clear evidence that he did not permit a man to strike his wife except after admonishing her for her rebellion. This is because she would not be disobedient to him unless he had previously commanded or admonished her in a good manner, as Allah Almighty commanded.
The saying regarding the interpretation of His saying: And strike them
By that, glorified be His praise, He means: Admonish them, O men, for their rebellion. If they refuse to return to what is incumbent upon them for you, then restrain them firmly in their homes, and strike them so that they may return to what is obligatory upon them of obedience to Allah regarding what is due to you of your rights.
And the people of interpretation said: The description of the striking that Allah permitted for the husband of a rebellious wife to strike her is a non-brutal beating.
Mention of those who said that
Ibn Humayd narrated to us, he said: Hakam narrated to us, from Amr, from Ata’, from Sa’id bin Jubair ﴿And strike them﴾. He said: A non-brutal beating.
Ibn Humayd narrated to us, he said: Yahya bin Wadih narrated to us, he said: Abu Hamza informed us, from Ata’ bin Al-Sa’ib, from Sa’id bin Jubair similarly.
Ibn Humayd narrated to us, he said: Jarir narrated to us, from Mughira, from Al-Sha’bi, he said: The striking is non-brutal (1).
Al-Muthanna narrated to me, he said: Hibban bin Musa narrated to us, he said: Ibn Al-Mubarak narrated to us, he said: Shariq informed us, from Ata’ bin Al-Sa’ib, from, from Sa’id bin Jubair, from Ibn Abbas: ﴿And strike them﴾. He said: A non-brutal beating (1).
Al-Muthanna narrated to us, he said: Abu Salih narrated to us, he said: Mu’awiya narrated to me, from Ali bin Abi Talha, from Ibn Abbas: ﴿And abandon them in beds and strike them﴾. He said: You abandon her in bed. If she complies, then that’s it. Otherwise, Allah has permitted you to strike her with a non-brutal beating, and do not break her bone. If she complies, then that’s it. Otherwise, the ransom from her is permissible for you (2).
Al-Hasan bin Yahya narrated to us, he said: Abd Al-Razzaq informed us, he said: Ma’mar informed us, from Al-Hasan and Qatada regarding His saying: ﴿And strike them﴾. He said: A non-brutal beating (3).
And through him, he said: Abd Al-Razzaq informed us, he said: Ibn Jurayj informed us, he said: I said to Ata’: ﴿And strike them﴾. He said: A non-brutal beating (3).
Bishr bin Mu’adh narrated to us, he said: Yazid bin Zuray’ narrated to us, he said: Sa’id narrated to us, from Qatada: ﴿And abandon them in beds and strike them﴾. He said: You abandon her in bed. If she refuses you, then strike her with a non-brutal beating, meaning: not a deforming one.
Al-Muthanna narrated to me, he said: Ishaq narrated to us, he said: Ibn Uyayna narrated to us, from Ibn Jurayj, from Ata’ [regarding His saying: ﴿And strike them﴾. He said: He strikes her with a non-brutal beating] (4). He said: A toothstick or similar, he strikes her with it.: He strikes her with a non-brutal beating] (4). He said: A toothstick or similar, he strikes her with it.
(The Book: Tafsir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan – Edited by Al-Turki, 6/707-711)
Abu Hayyan wrote about what Muslim scholars Ibn ‘Atiyya, al-Zamakhshari, and al-Razi said concerning what husbands can do to their wives [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The apparent meaning of the verse indicates that he admonishes, abandons in bed, and strikes the one whose nushooz he fears. He may combine these actions, and he may begin with whichever he wishes, because the conjunction “wa” (and) does not imply order. Some scholars held this view.
However, the majority of scholars said: Admonition is when nushooz is feared, and striking is when it becomes evident.
Ibn Atiyyah said: These actions – admonition, abandonment, and striking – are stages. If obedience is achieved at any one of them, he should not proceed to the others.
Al-Zamakhshari said: They are commanded to be admonished first, then abandoned in their beds, then struck if admonition does not benefit them.
Al-Razi summarized: Begin with gentle words in admonition. If that doesn’t work, then use harsher words. Then, stop sharing her bed. Then, completely turn away from her. After that, a light beating like a slap, a punch, or anything similar that conveys disdain and diminishes respect. Then, a beating with a whip or a soft rod or similar, which causes pain and injury but does not result in broken bones or bleeding. If none of that helps, he should tie her with a rope (hijar) and force her into intimacy, because that is his right.
However, if she returns from her disobedience at any point in this sequence, as we’ve arranged, he is not permitted to move to the next step. This is based on His (Allah’s) saying:
“But if they obey you, then seek no means against them.” (Quran 4:34)
(The Book of Al-Bahr Al-Muhit fi al-Tafsir – Dar al-Fikr Edition, 3/627-628)
Ibn Hajar Haytami (d. 1566), who was a Shafi’i and was given the title Shaykh al-Islām, wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Ata’ said: “A strike with the siwak.” And in the hadith is the prohibition of striking the face, and: “Do not strike except in the house.”
Al-Shafi’i said: “It should be less than forty [strokes], because that is the minimum of the legal punishments (ḥudūd) for a free person.” Another said: “Less than twenty, because that is a complete limit in the case of a slave.” It is distributed across her body, and they should not be clustered in one place so that its harm does not become severe, while avoiding the face and vital spots (maqātil).
Ibn Mulaqqin (1323-1401) was a theologian and considered one of the greatest Shafi’i jurists and hadith scholars of his time. He was known for his voluminous scholarship on Hadith and fiqh. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
It includes: That a man has the right to beat his wife when she rebels against him, even if his beating leaves marks on her skin, and there is no blame on him for that. Don’t you see that Aisha , may Allah be pleased with her, said to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: “Her skin is greener than her clothes,” and he did not denounce her?
Al-Nawawi wrote that a husband may inflict corporal chastisement:
At the first indication of disobedience to marital authority a wife should be exhorted by her husband without his immediately breaking off relations with her. When she manifests her disobedience by an act which, though isolated, leaves no doubt as to her intentions, he should repeat his exhortations, and confine her to her chamber, but without striking her. [*He may have recourse to blows, even where disobedience is manifested by an isolated act.] Only where there are repeated acts of disobedience may a husband inflict corporal chastisement.
(Abu Zakaria Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, Minhaj et Talibin: A Manual of Muhammadan Law According to the School of Shafi’i, p. 318)
Mansur al-Buhuti wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
(And when her sign appears) i.e., of nushuz, (by her preventing him) i.e., the husband, (from enjoyment) with her, (or she responds to him with annoyance) such as becoming heavy when he calls her or she responds to him only with aversion, (he admonishes her) i.e., he inspires fear of Allah in her, and reminds her of what He has made obligatory upon her of rights and obedience, and the sin that attaches to her through disobedience, and what drops from maintenance and clothing on account of it, and what is permitted by way of forsaking her and striking her, due to His, the Exalted, saying: {And those from whom you fear nushuz—then admonish them} [An-Nisa: 34].
(Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat by Al-Bahuti (also known as Daqaiq Uli al-Nuha), published by Alam al-Kutub)
Imam al-Haddad (d. 1397-1398) was a Yemeni Hanafi scholar. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The statement of the Most High: “And those [wives] from whom you fear nushuz (rebellion)—admonish them, and forsake them in beds, and strike them”: meaning, the women whose disobedience to their husbands you know, so admonish them.
Al-Nushuz means rising away from the companion, derived from al-nashz, which is an elevated place.
The intent behind admonition, forsaking, and striking in the verse is that this should be done in the sequence mentioned therein, because this falls under commanding the right and forbidding the wrong; when rectification is possible through the easier and lighter method, one does not resort to the heavier one. Thus, it is most appropriate for the husband to begin by saying to his rebellious wife: “Fear Allah and return to my bed” (1)—if she obeys him, [he stops]; otherwise, he rebukes her. Thus said Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him (2).
As for al-hajr: [It can mean] foul speech. It is said: hajara al-rajulu yahjuru when he calms down, and ahjara al-rajulu fi mantiqihi bi-hajrin hijaran when he speaks obscenely.
Al-Hasan and Qatadah said regarding His statement: (“And forsake them in the beds”)—it is from al-hajr (forsaking), which means not drawing near to her bed and not sleeping with her, because the Most High coupled it with His statement (“in the beds”) (3).
If admonition does not benefit her, her husband forsakes her in the bed. If she loves her husband, the forsaking distresses her; and if she dislikes him, that suits her, which serves as evidence of nushuz on her part.
Consequently, the husband strikes her with a non-severe (ghayr muburriḥ) and non-disgraceful strike, just as a man disciplines his child, and this is entrusted to his own judgment and discretion based on what he sees serves the interest. For this reason, it has been said: This striking is bound by the condition of safety, so it is preferable that he strikes her with a sandal or [gives her] two or three slaps according to what he deems appropriate.
Burhan al-Din al-Biq’i (1406–1480) was a prominent 15th-century Muslim commentator, historian, polemicist, and Shafi’i scholar, who became a close student of the famed scholar Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Al-Shafi’i said: One should not exceed three days in abandoning speech.
{and beat them}, meaning, if they persist, with a disciplinary beating that is non-severe (ghayr mubarrah), which is one that does not break a bone nor disfigure a limb. It should be scattered across her body and not concentrated continuously in a single place. The face must be avoided, as it is the locus of beauty, and it should be fewer than forty [strokes].
Al-Shafi’i said: Beating is permissible, but leaving it is better.
(The Arrangement of Pearls in the Coherence of Verses and Surahs)
Ibn Battal wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
In this is [evidence] that a man has the right to strike his wife upon her rebellion against him, even if his strike leaves a mark on her skin, and there is no blame upon him for that. Do you not see that Aisha said to the Prophet—peace be upon him—: “Her skin is greener [more bruised] than her garment,” and the Prophet did not deny that?
(Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (The Commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari) by Ibn Battal)
Ibn Balban al-Hanbali (d. 1672) was a Hanbali scholar, jurist, and muhaddith. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
If she persists and manifests nushuz—such as by disobeying him, refusing his call to the bed, leaving his house without his permission, and the like—he may forsake her in the bed for as long as he wishes, and in speaking for no more than three days. If she is not deterred, he may strike her with a non-severe (non-abrasive) blow, scattering it across her body while avoiding the face, the abdomen, and dangerous areas, and not exceeding ten lashes. If she perishes as a result of that, there is no liability (guarantee of compensation) upon him.
Muhammad explicitly claimed that wives are like “prisoners” in the hands of their husbands and can be hit:
It was narrated that:
Sulaiman bin Amr bin Ahwas said: “My father told me that he was present at the Farewell Pilgrimage with the Messenger of Allah. He praised and glorified Allah, and reminded and exhorted (the people). Then he said: ‘I enjoin good treatment of women, for they are prisoners with you, and you have no right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit clear indecency. If they do that, then forsake them in their beds and hit them, but without causing injury or leaving a mark…
According to Muhammad, one of the rights a wife has over her husband is not to be hit in the face:
Narrated Mu’awiyah al-Qushayri:
Mu’awiyah asked: Messenger of Allah, what is the right of the wife of one of us over him? He replied: That you should give her food when you eat, clothe her when you clothe yourself, do not strike her on the face, do not revile her or separate yourself from her except in the house.
Abu Dawud said: The meaning of “do not revile her” is, as you say: “May Allah revile you”.
Muhammad addressed a crowd of Muslims in Mecca shortly before he died as a result of poisoning; he said:
“You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them but not with severity. If they refrain from these things, they have the right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no control of their own persons.”
(Ibn Ishaq’s The Life of Muhammad, p. 651)
A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that it was described as being “greener” than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband:
Narrated `Ikrima:
Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon `AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) came, `Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When `AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, `Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa`a.” Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa`a unless `Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet (ﷺ) saw two boys with `Abdur- Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that `AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,”
Note how badly Muhammad’s companions treated the women/girls:
Jabir b. ‘Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported:
Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came ‘Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat ‘Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Prophet (ﷺ) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter ofKhadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah’s Messenger (mav peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and ‘Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:” Prophet: Say to thy wives… for a mighty reward” (xxxiii. 28)…
Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn Abu Dhubab reported the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as saying:
Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) complaining against their husbands. So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.
According to Muhammad, a man should not be asked why he beats his wives [translated from the Arabic using Gemini]:
Muhammad ibn Yahya and Al-Hasan ibn Mudrik At-Tahhan narrated to us, saying: Yahya ibn Hammad narrated to us: Abu ‘Awanah narrated to us, from Dawud ibn Abdullah Al-Awdi, from Abdur-Rahman [Al-Musli], from Al-Ash’ath ibn Qais, who said:
“I was a guest of Umar one night. When it was the middle of the night, he got up and started hitting his wife. So I intervened between them. When he returned to his bed, he said to me: ‘O Ash’ath! Remember something I heard from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): “A man will not be asked why he hits his wife. And do not sleep except after observing Witr (prayer).”‘ And I forgot the third thing.”
Muhammad ibn Khalid ibn Khidash narrated to us: Abdur-Rahman ibn Mahdi narrated to us: Abu ‘Awanah narrated to us with its chain of narration, similar to it.
Takhrij (Verification/Grading):
[Hasan (Good)] Narrated by Abu Dawud, in the Book of Nikah (Marriage), Chapter: Regarding Hitting Women, Hadith: 2147, from the hadith of Abu ‘Awanah. Al-Hakim (Vol. 4, p. 175) graded it as Sahih (Authentic), and Al-Dhahabi agreed with him.
(English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, Chapter 51: Hitting Women, p. 135)
Note how Muhammad didn’t rebuke a man who physically abused his wife:
Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri:
A woman came to the Prophet (ﷺ) while we were with him.
She said: Messenger of Allah, my husband, Safwan ibn al-Mu’attal, beats me when I pray, and makes me break my fast when I keep a fast, and he does not offer the dawn prayer until the sun rises.
He asked Safwan, who was present, about what she had said. He replied: Messenger of Allah, as for her statement “he beats me when I pray”, she recites two surahs (during prayer) and I have prohibited her (to do so).
He (the Prophet) said: If one surah is recited (during prayer), that is sufficient for the people.
(Safwan continued:) As regards her saying “he makes me break my fast,” she dotes on fasting; I am a young man, I cannot restrain myself.
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said on that day: A woman should not fast except with the permission of her husband.
(Safwan said:) As for her statement that I do not pray until the sun rises, we are a people belonging to a class, and that (our profession of supplying water) is already known about us. We do not awake until the sun rises. He said: When you awake, offer your prayer.
Mar’i al-Karmi (d. 1624), who was a Hanbali who received the title Shaykh al-Islām, wrote: [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Nushuz (rebelliousness) is her disobedience to him in that which is obligatory upon her. When its signs appear from her—such as denying him enjoyment [with her], responding to him with annoyance and aversion, leaving without his permission, or the like—he admonishes her. If she returns [to obedience], forsaking and striking become unlawful. Otherwise, he forsakes her in the bed for as long as he wills, and in speech for three days, no more.
If she persists, he strikes her—a non-severe strike—[with] ten lashes, no more, while avoiding the face and dangerous places. If she perishes, there is no financial liability.
Whoever is known to withhold her right is prevented from that until he fulfills it to her. He is not to be asked why he struck her; Ahmad said: “It is not proper for anyone to ask him, nor her father, why he struck her.“
((The Ultimate Goal in Combining Al-Iqna’ and Al-Muntaha), published by Dar Ghiras)
In the following hadiths, Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s close companion who claimed satan took possession of him and would later become a caliph, physically abused his daughter Aisha:
Narrated Aisha:
A necklace of mine was lost at Al-Baida’ and we were on our way to Medina. The Prophet (ﷺ) made his camel kneel down and dismounted and laid his head on my lap and slept. Abu Bakr came to me and hit me violently on the chest and said, “You have detained the people because of a necklace.” I kept as motionless as a dead person because of the position of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) ; (on my lap) although Abu Bakr had hurt me (with the slap). Then the Prophet (ﷺ) woke up and it was the time for the morning (prayer). Water was sought, but in vain; so the following Verse was revealed:– “O you who believe! When you intend to offer prayer..” (5.6) Usaid bin Hudair said, “Allah has blessed the people for your sake, O the family of Abu Bakr. You are but a blessing for them.”
Narrated Aisha:
Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, “You have detained the people because of your necklace.” But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) although that hit was very painful.
Muhammad also seemed to have been abusive to his daughter, Fatima, by placing his bare foot on her chest:
Fatima complained of what she suffered from the hand mill and from grinding, when she got the news that some slave girls of the booty had been brought to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ). She went to him to ask for a maid-servant, but she could not find him, and told `Aisha of her need. When the Prophet (ﷺ) came, Aisha informed him of that. The Prophet (ﷺ) came to our house when we had gone to our beds. (On seeing the Prophet) we were going to get up, but he said, ‘Keep at your places,’ I felt the coolness of the Prophet’s feet on my chest. Then he said, “Shall I tell you a thing which is better than what you asked me for? When you go to your beds, say: ‘Allahu Akbar (i.e. Allah is Greater)’ for 34 times, and ‘Al hamdu Li llah (i.e. all the praises are for Allah)’ for 33 times, and Subhan Allah (i.e. Glorified be Allah) for 33 times. This is better for you than what you have requested.”
Violence or abuse against the weaker seemed to have been common and acceptable in the early Muslim community (ummah):
Shumaysa al-‘Atakiyya said, “The disciplining of orphans was mentioned in the presence of ‘A’isha and she said, ‘I would beat an orphan until he submits.'”
Imam al-Qurtubi recorded the following tradition in his commentary on Quran 4:34 that Abu Bakr’s daughter, Asmā’ bint Abi Bakr, used to get beaten severely and Abu Bakr permitted it [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
This interpretation is a strange hadith narrated by Ibn Wahb on the authority of Malik that Asma bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq, the wife of al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam, used to go out until he was reprimanded for that. He said: He reprimanded her and her co-wife, so he tied the hair of one with the other and then beat them severely. The co-wife was better at avoiding evil, but Asma was not so pious, so the beatings were more severe for her. She complained to her father, Abu Bakr, may God be pleased with him, and he said to her: O my daughter, be patient, for al-Zubayr is a righteous man, and perhaps he will be your husband in Paradise.
It’s no wonder she thought of marriage as slavery for women [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
The first hadith came as follows: Muhammad told us, Muhammad ibn Muawiyah told us, he said: Ibn Lahi’ah told us, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Nawfal, on the authority of Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, he said: Asma’ bint Abi Bakr said to us: O my sons and my sons’ sons, this marriage is slavery,so let one of you [scrutinize] look at whom he will enslave his precious daughter .
(Sunan Saeed bin Mansour Book – Beginning of Interpretation – T. Al-Hamid)
Muhammad’s own son-in-law and first cousin, Ali ibn Abu Talib, didn’t hesitate to beat up the opposite sex. He maltreated Aisha’s slave girl:
‘As for ‘Alī he said; “Women are plentiful, and you can easily change one for another. Ask the slave girl, for she will tell you the truth.” So the apostle called Burayra to ask her, and ‘Alī got up and gave her a violent beating, saying, “Tell the apostle the truth,” to which she replied, “I know only good of her…
(Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, p. 496)
Ibn ‘Umar, the son of Umar, the son of the 2nd caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, beat his wife. Al-Khara’iti (d. 938), who was a theologian, wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Al-Ramadi narrated to us, saying: Sulayman ibn Harb narrated to us, saying: Hammad ibn Zayd narrated to us, from Ayyub, from Ibn Abi Mulayka, from Ibn ‘Umar:
He (Ibn ‘Umar) heard his wife speaking to a man from behind a wall. There was a kinship between her and the man that Ibn ‘Umar was unaware of.
(The narrator) said: So he gathered some palm fronds for her, then he came to her and hit her until she became like dried grass.
The following hadith is both weird and disturbing:
Narrated `Abdullah bin Zam`a:
The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade laughing at a person who passes wind, and said, “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?” And Hisham said, “As he beats his slave”
In Islam, it is permissible to whip your wife. Hanafi jurist Ibn al Humām (d. 1457) set the limit to ten lashes:
Hanafī jurists used general qualifiers to describe the type of hitting a husband might undertake when disciplining his wife: the hitting ought to be non-extreme (ghayr mubarrih), and it should not cause disfigurement. As seen in the exegetical literature, non-extreme hitting is a vague qualifier, and the actual definitions of non-extreme hitting can include surprisingly severe actions. Hanafī jurists often compared the disciplinary beating of a wife with the disciplinary beating of a child or a slave.33 Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wāhid Ibn al-Humām (d. 861/1457) thought that as in the case of hitting a child, a husband can whip his wife as long as he restricts himself to ten lashes. He based this opinion on several prophetic reports, including two that tells believers to “Hang the whip where your household can see it” and “Do not lash more than ten times except in the case of corporal (hand) punishment.”34 Lashing a wife or child for more than ten strikes transformed the punishment from a legitimate discretionary (ta’zīr) punishment to a hard penalty, which was meant to be applied by a court, not by individuals.35 In contrast al-Nasafī argued that the ta’zīr punishment was restricted to thirty-nine, seventy-five, or seventy-nine lashes; in general he argued that the upper limit of ta’zīr punishment was a hundred lashes, and the minimum limit was three lashes (thalāth jaldāt).36
Hanafī jurists understood the right of husbands to physically discipline their wives as an essential husbandly right and compared the husband-wife relationship in this regard to a master-slave relationship.37 The analogy between the husband-wife relationship and the master-slave relationship is not coincidental; it is one that permitted in both exegetical literature and legal sources.38 Thinking of marriage as analogous to the master-slave relationship helps to explain the inherent hierarchy in marriage, the right and duty of husbands to discipline their wives, and the discussion surrounding liability if a husband killed his wife while disciplining her. If the wife is seen as property—alongside a slave—then the absence of legal repercussion for a husband who injures his wife (unless he kills her) begins to make sense.39 While Hanafī legal scholars encouraged husbands to hit their wives in a moderate manner, most held fast to the rule that there was no retaliation in marriage, except in the case of a wife’s death at the hands of her husband.40
(Dr. Ayesha S. Chaudhry, Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition: Ethics, Law, and the Muslim Discourse on Gender, pp. 105-106. Primary source: Fath al-Qadir by al-Kamal ibn al-Humam – Al-Halabi Edition.)
Abū Ḥayyān, who was given the title Amir al-Mu’minin (Commander of the Faithful), believed it was permissible not only to whip your wives but also to punch and kick them:
Muhammad ibn Yūsuf Abū Hayyān (d. 745/1344) claimed that mere expectation (tawaqqu`) of wifely nushūz [a wife’s severe act of disobedience] was insufficient to begin any part of the disciplinary process, including admonishment.17 Although he had more stringent requirements for setting the disciplinary process in motion, he granted husbands great leeway in hitting their wives. He believed that husbands were allowed to severely beat their wives, by punching (latm), kicking (lakz), and whipping (sawt) them in order to set them straight.18
(Dr. Ayesha S. Chaudhry, Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition: Ethics, Law, and the Muslim Discourse on Gender, p. 61)
While on the topic of whipping, Muhammad commanded that a whip should be hung in one’s house [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
From Ibn Abbas, he said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him, said: “Hang the whip where the family can see it, for it is more disciplining for them.” Al-Tabarani narrated it in Al-Kabir and Al-Awsat with a similar wording, and Al-Bazzar said: “Where the servant can see it.” The chain of narration in both by Al-Tabarani is hasan (good).
(Gathering of Additions and Source of Benefits. Also found in Kashf al-Khafa’)
In Islam, not every Muslim scholar believed it was permissible for a husband to use a whip on his wife. However, some believed it was permissible for the husband to use a sandal or a stick on his wife:
Supposing a husband chooses to utilize the permission to hit his wife granted by Q. 4:34—for which he had “supremacy” (tasallut)89—Shāfi’ī jurists provided the usual restrictions: a husband should only hit his wife if he thinks it will be effective in deterring her from her nushūz; he should hit her in a non-extreme (ghayer mubarrih) manner; he should avoid hitting her face, sensitive places, and places of beauty and not hit her in a manner that causes disfiguration, bleeding, loss of limbs, or death.90 A husband’s hitting should not cross over from a discretionary (ta’zīr) punishment to a hard penalty, so the beating cannot exceed between thirty-nine strikes or seventy-nine strikes, depending on whether the hadd penalty is set at forty or eighty strikes.91 A husband is permitted to hit his wife with a cloth (thawb), sandal (na’l), and a stick (‘asā), but not with a whip (sawt), because using a whip was not customary and crossed into hard territory.92
(Dr. Ayesha S. Chaudhry, Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition: Ethics, Law, and the Muslim Discourse on Gender, p. 121-122)
To some Muslim scholars, a husband is not liable for the death of his wife in the context of disciplinary beating. This is the view of Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-Nasafi (1067–1142), a Hanafi Muslim jurist, theologian, and mufassir (author of a Tafsir) who was given the titles Shaykh al-Islām and Najm al-Din (The star of religion):
In the case of a wife’s death, there was debate regarding the nature of a husband’s liability. If a husband killed his wife while disciplining her, was he liable? If so, in what way—could he be killed for killing his wife, or was his liability only monetary? Al-Nasafī argued that if a wife dies as a result of her husband’s disciplinary beating, which did not exceed a hundred strikes, then the husband was not liable for her death.41 Al-Nasafī defended his position by arguing that if a husband were financially liable for killing his wife while disciplining her in a reasonable manner (striking her less than a hundred times), then he would be unfairly financially penalized twice: once for paying the bride-price (mahr) at the time of marriage and then again for killing her while fulfilling his husbandly disciplinary duties. However, if he exceeded a hundred strikes, then he crossed the boundary of disciplinary beating into abusive hitting and was then liable to pay the treasury (bayt al-māl) half the monetary compensation (diya) of a free man. In the end, al-Nasafī pleaded with the judiciary to show mercy to the husband who killed his wife, since he might have children and other dependents for whom he was responsible.42 Ibn Nujaym and ‘Alā’ al-Din al-Haskafī (d. 1088/1677) agreed that a husband owed monetary compensation—not his life—if he killed his wife while disciplining her.43
(Dr. Ayesha S. Chaudhry, Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition: Ethics, Law, and the Muslim Discourse on Gender, pp. 107-108)
The following is from an Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
And Al-Haythami said: He should not strike except in the house, and he should distribute it across her body, and he should not concentrate it in one place so that the harm does not become severe. And they said: The beating of a free woman should not reach forty [lashes], and for other than her, twenty (1).
And the Hanbalis said: He must avoid the face out of respect for it, the abdomen and dangerous places out of fear of causing death, and attractive/beautified places so as not to disfigure her. The beating should be ten lashes or fewer (2).
Based on the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: “No one is to be flogged with more than ten lashes except in [the execution of] a punishment from the hudud (fixed punishments) of Allah” (3).
And the Shafi’is—according to the authoritative opinions among them—and the Hanbalis—in the school of thought—[stated]: Indeed, the husband has the right to discipline his wife if she is rebellious (nāshiz) by striking her with a whip or a stick, with a non-severe blow that neither draws blood nor causes disfigurement.
And the Malikis, some Shafi’is, and the Hanbalis said: He disciplines her by striking her with a toothstick (siwāk) or the like, or with a rolled-up handkerchief, or with his hand—not with a whip, a stick, or wood—because the intended purpose is discipline (1).
(The Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence, 40/300-301)
Dr. Yasser Al-Najjar is a contemporary Islamic scholar, researcher, and author specializing in Islamic jurisprudence. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The Hanafis said: The prohibited striking is the severe striking (al-darb al-mubarrih) and nothing else, based on the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: “If they do that, then strike them with a non-severe strike” (1). Thus, he strikes her with a non-severe and non-disfiguring strike, except that if he transgresses, he is liable for damages, as will come.
Likewise, if she commits a forbidden act other than nushuz (rebelliousness) for which there is no fixed legal punishment (hadd), the husband has the right to discipline her by way of discretionary correction (ta’zir), because the husband has the right to discipline his wife just as the master has the right to discipline his owned slave (2).
The Malikis said: The description of the striking is that it should be non-severe (ghayr mubarrih), which is that which does not break a bone nor disfigure a limb, such as a gentle poke and the like. For the intended purpose of it is reform and nothing else, and if it leads to destruction, financial liability (al-daman) becomes mandatory.
Imam Ibn Taymiyya wrote that it is allowed for a husband to beat his wife if she refuses to have sexual relations with him [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
[A question: He has a wife who is disobedient and refuses to have sex with him]
issue:
A man has a wife who is rebellious and refuses to have intercourse with him. Is her maintenance, clothing, and other obligations waived?
Answer: Praise be to Allah. Her maintenance and clothing are dropped if she does not allow him to have intercourse with her, and he has the right to beat her if she persists in her disobedience. It is not permissible for her to prevent him from doing so if he demands it from her. Rather, she is disobedient to God and His Messenger.
(The Book of Major Fatwas by Ibn Taymiyyah. He has said elsewhere a husband can beat his wife if she is disobedient in The Book of the Compendium of Fatwas.)
Imam al-Qurtubi said only compensation is required if the beating leads to death. But in such a horrible situation, the husband is not taking full culpability for the murder (and the murder is mitigated) [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
Eighth: The Almighty’s saying: “And beat them.” Allah has commanded that women should begin with admonition first, then with desertion. If they do not reconcile, then beating; for that is what will make her right and make her fulfill his right. Beating in this verse is a non-severe disciplinary beating, which does not break a bone or disfigure a limb, such as a punch or the like; for the purpose of it is to reform and nothing else. So if it leads to death, then compensation is required. The same applies to a teacher beating his slave to teach the Qur’an and good manners.
Child marriage and child consummation
Note that in Christianity, harming children is condemned
Jesus gave a serious warning to those who harm minors:
“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:6).
But in Islam, child marriage and the consummation of such a marriage are permissible. Such consummation with children is in itself harmful physically, emotionally, and mentally.
In the following passage, the Quran directs Muslims to wait for a certain period (called ‘Iddah) before finalizing the divorce or deciding to forgo it. The Quran gives the commandment for men to wait about three months in the case of women/girls who haven’t yet started their menstrual cycles! Thus, Islam permits men to marry prepubescent girls!
The reason for the waiting period is to guarantee that the wife who is about to be divorced is not pregnant, or if she is pregnant, to make sure that the true father is known (i.e., that the child is from the current husband, and not the next husband that she may marry afterward). The following verse presupposes that Muslim men who are married to prepubescent girls have had sexual intercourse with them. Otherwise, there would be no need for a waiting period. This view is supported by Quran 33:49, which reads that if a man divorces a woman he didn’t touch, then there is no waiting period because there is no possibility of pregnancy. Thus, sexual intercourse isn’t limited to puberty as many Muslims claim!
And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘lddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their ‘lddah (prescribed period) is until they lay down their burden…
(Quran 65:4, Hilali-Khan)
Al-Tabari wrote [the following three quotations translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
… then the ruling on their waiting periods if they are divorced and they are those with whom their husbands have consummated the marriage, is that their waiting period is three months. “And as are those who have not menstruated.” He says: And likewise are the waiting periods of those young girls who have not menstruated due to their young age (5), if their husbands divorce them (6) after consummation.
(The Book: Tafsir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan – Edited by Al-Turki)
Regarding the verse referring to “those who have not yet menstruated,” these are the virgins who haven’t started menstruating, and their waiting period (iddah) is three months (1).
I was told by Al-Husayn, who said: I heard Abu Mu’adh say: ‘Ubayd narrated to us, who said: I heard Al-Dahhak say regarding the verse: “And those women who have passed the age of menstruation…” He said: These are the elderly women. As for “And those who have not yet menstruated”: These are those who have not reached the age of menstruation but have had sexual relations, and their waiting period is three months (2).
(The Book: Tafsir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan – Edited by Al-Turki)
And as for those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have any doubts about the ruling on them, and about their waiting periods, and you do not know what they are, then the ruling on their waiting periods when they are divorced and their husbands have consummated the marriage with them, is that their waiting period is three months, and “as are those who have not menstruated,” meaning: And likewise the waiting period of the young girls who have not menstruated if their husbands divorce them after consummation.
And the interpreters of the Qur’an said something similar to what we have said about this.
A mention of those who said this: Muhammad told us, he said: Asbat told us, on the authority of Al-Suddi, regarding the verse: “And as for those of your women who have despaired of menstruation,” he says: The one whose menstruation has ceased, her waiting period is three months. “and as are those who have not menstruated,” he said: The young girls.
The following is a quotation from al-Qurtubi [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
His saying, the Exalted: { And those who have not menstruated }—meaning the young girl (al-saghira)—so their waiting period is three months…
Ibn Qudamah (1147–1223) was a jurist and theologian who was given the honorific epithet of Shaykh of Islam and is highly regarded in Sunni Islam as one of the most notable and influential thinkers of the Hanbali school of orthodox Sunni jurisprudence. He wrote in Al-Kafi [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The Third Category: Those whose waiting period is reckoned by months. These are of three types:
First of them: The woman who has despaired of menstruation and the young girl / minor (al-saghira) who has not yet menstruated, if she is separated [by divorce] during the lifetime of her husband after consummation of the marriage. If she is a free woman, her waiting period is three months, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted: {And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated} [At-Talaq: 4].
Ibn Qudamah explained why a divorced woman or girl doesn’t have to observe the waiting period if there is no consummation [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
If a man leaves his wife during his life before consummation or seclusion, then she does not have to observe ‘iddah according to consensus, because Allah the Almighty says: {O you who believe! When you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, then you have no waiting period to count for them.} [Al-Ahzab: 49]. And because ‘iddah is required to cleanse the womb, and this is known by the absence of the reason for being busy. If he leaves her after consummation, then she must observe ‘iddah according to consensus, because Allah the Almighty says: {Divorced women shall wait, concerning themselves, three menstrual periods.} [Al-Baqarah: 228]. Because it is a possibility that the womb may be occupied with pregnancy, the waiting period is required to purify it.
(Al-Kafi Book in the Jurisprudence of Imam Ahmad. He also wrote about there being a consensus that it is permissible to marry off young virgin daughters based on Quran 65:4, affirming it speaks about minors in Al-Mughni Book by Ibn Qudamah – Cairo Library Edition.)
Imam al-Bukhari (810-870), who was a muhaddith and widely regarded as the most important hadith scholar in the history of Sunni Islam, wrote:
(39) CHAPTER. Giving one’s YOUNG CHILDREN in marriage (is permissible).
By virtue of the Statement of Allah: “…and for those who have no (monthly) courses (i.e. THEY ARE STILL IMMATURE) …” (v. 65:4)
And the ‘Idda for the girl BEFORE PUBERTY is three months (in the above Verse).
5133. Narrated ‘Aishah that the Prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
(The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, 67 – Book of An-Nikah (The Wedlock), p. 57)
According to Reliance of the Traveller, a classical manual for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, it is lawful to have intercourse with a prepubescent:
09.2 A waiting period is obligatory for a woman divorced after intercourse, whether the husband and wife are prepubescent, have reached puberty, or one has and the other has not.
Intercourse means copulation (def: n7.7). If the husband was alone with her but did not copulate with her. and then divorced her, there is no waiting period.
(Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Umdat Al-Salik), n9.2, p. 567)
Though prepubescent wives are spared from being stoned to death:
If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death (def: ol2.6). someone with the capacity to remain chaste meaning anyone who has had sexual intercourse (A: at least once) with their spouse in a valid marriage, and is free, of age, and sane. A person is not considered to have the capacity to remain chaste if he or she has only had intercourse in a marriage that is invalid, or is prepubescent at the time of marital intercourse, or is someone insane at the time of marital intercourse who subsequently regains their sanity prior to committing adultery.
(Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Umdat Al-Salik), o12.2, p. 610)
Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863–1943) wrote in Bahishti Zewar (Heavenly Ornaments), a classic manual of Islamic sacred law (Hanafi fiqh):
3. If a young girl who has not commenced experiencing hayd [menstruation], or an old woman whose hayd [menstruation] has terminated is divorced, then their iddah will be three months.
(Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Bahishti Zewar (Heavenly Ornaments), p. 446)
Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani (1135-1197), who was an Islamic scholar of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, wrote:
If she is one who does not menstruate due to young or old age, then, her waiting period is three months, due to the words of the Exalted, “Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months…
(Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani, Al-Hidāyah in English, pp. 61-62)
The following is pulled from IslamQA.info, one of the largest fatwa (a ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority) Islamic websites:
Question:
I have not yet reached the age of puberty. Is it correct that a girl could get married before her menses start, or is that just a traditional myth?.
Answer:
Praise be to Allah.
Firstly:
Marriage to a young girl before she reaches puberty is permissible according to sharee’ah, and it was narrated that there was scholarly consensus on this point.
1 – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”
[al-Talaaq 65:4]
In this verse we see that Allaah states that for those who do not menstruate – because they are young and have not yet reached the age of puberty – the ‘iddah in the case of divorce is three months. This clearly indicates that it is permissible for a young girl who has not started her periods to marry.
Al-Tabari (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The interpretation of the verse “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”. He said: The same applies to the ‘idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them…
(Source)
The following fatwa, posted on Islamweb.net, a mainstream Islamic website, reads that one can consummate the marriage with a girl who hasn’t menstruated because of her young age [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
If she does not menstruate due to being too old or too young, then her waiting period is three months, as Allah the Almighty says: {And for those of your women who have despaired of menstruation – if you doubt, their period is three months, and for those who have not menstruated} [At-Talaq: 4]. All of this is if he has consummated the marriage with her, otherwise there is no waiting period for her, as Allah the Almighty says: {O you who believe! When you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, then you have no waiting period to count for them} [Al-Ahzab: 49].
(Source)
Another fatwa on Islamweb.net, with the heading “The ruling on an older man marrying a younger woman and enjoying her,” explicitly says that it is permissible to marry a prepubescent girl [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
It is permissible for an adult man to marry a young girl who has not yet reached puberty. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, married Aisha, may God be pleased with her, when he was over fifty years old, and she was six years old, and he consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old, as stated in the two Sahihs and others.
And in His Almighty’s saying: “And those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you doubt, their waiting period is three months. And those who have not menstruated and those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah – He will make for him of his matter ease.” [At-Talaq: 4], there is an indication that a young girl who has not yet menstruated can marry and be divorced, and her waiting period in that case will be three months.
If an adult man marries a young girl who he normally enjoys without causing her any harm, then it is permissible for him to enjoy her and have intercourse with her if she is able to do so…
(Source)
Yet another fatwa on Islamweb.net reads:
So, Allah set rulings of marriage, divorce and waiting period for the women who have not yet had menses, i.e. the young girls.
The Iddah (waiting period) does not take place except after marriage.
(Source)
Since Muhammad had sexual relations with girls, it is permissible for men to do it in Islam:
Narrated ‘Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
(Sahih Bukhari 5158. Similar hadiths narrated by Aisha can be found in Sahih al-Bukhari 5133 and 5134.)
‘Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
Narrated `Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
It was narrated that ‘Aishah said:
“The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls.”
(Sunan an-Nasa’i 3378. Other chains of transmission going back to Aisha can be found in Sunan an-Nasa’i 3379, Sunan an-Nasa’i 3257, and Sunan an-Nasa’i 3258.)
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.
What have Muslim scholars said concerning Aisha playing with her dolls? Al-Nawawi wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Her statement, “And she was escorted to him when she was nine years old and her toys were with her,” the meaning of “toys” is these toys, known as “girls’ dolls,” that young girls play with. The meaning is to draw attention to her young age. Al-Qadi said: “In this is the permissibility of making toys and the lawfulness for young girls to play with them. It has been narrated in another hadith that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, saw this and did not disapprove of it.” They said the reason for this is to train them for raising children and managing their affairs and their homes.
Ibn Hajar wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Al-Khattabi said: “In this hadith, playing with dolls is not like engaging with other images for which a stern warning has come. He only gave ‘Aishah permission for it because at that time, she was not yet an adult.”
(Fath Al-Bari book with explanation of Al-Bukhari – Al-Salafiya edition)
The following text, compiled by Ahmad bin Hanbal, reads [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
… She made me get down from the swing, and I had a long hair, which she parted, and wiped my face with some water. Then she came forward leading me until she stopped me at the door, and I was still pacing until I calmed down. Then she entered with me, and there was the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sitting on a bed in our house, and with him were Men and women from the Ansar came, so she sat me on his lap, then she said: These are your family, so may Allah bless you in them and bless them in you. So the men and women jumped up and went out, and the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, consummated the marriage with me in our house. No camel was slaughtered on my behalf, nor was a sheep slaughtered on my behalf, until Sa`d ibn `Ubadah sent us a large bowl of food. He would send it to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, when he went to visit his wives, and I was nine years old at that time.”
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet (ﷺ) engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
(Sahih al-Bukhari 3894. Sahih Muslim 1422a is a similar hadith)
Who plays on the swings? Al-Nawawi wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The urjuhah (swing) is a piece of wood on which children and young girls play; its middle is placed on a raised spot, and they sit on its ends and move it, so one side goes up and the other goes down.
More Muslim sources that read Aisha’s marriage was consummated at a very young age:
It was narrated that:
Abdullah said: “The Prophet married Aishah when she was seven years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine, and he passed away when she was eighteen.”
It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “The Messenger of Allah married me when I was seven or six years old. When we came to AIMadinah, some women” —- Bishr said: “Umm Ruman” — came to me when I was on a swing, and took me, and prepared me, and adorned me. Then I was brought to the Messenger of Allah, and he consummated the marriage with me when I was nine years old. She made me stand at the door and I started to breathe deeply. Then I was brought into a room where there were some of the Ansari women and they said: ‘With good and blessings.’”” (Sahih)
(The English Translation of Sunan Abi Dawud Vol. 5, The Book of Etiquette, Chapter 55. About Swings, Hadith no. 4933, p. 327)
‘A’ishah states: We came to Medina and Abu Bakr took up quarters in al-Sunh among the Banu al-Harith b. al-Khazraj. The Messenger of God came to our house and men and women of the Ansar gathered around him. My mother came to me WHILE I WAS BEING SWUNG ON A SWING BETWEEN TWO BRANCHES AND GOT ME DOWN. Jumaymah, my nurse, took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door, she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought [in] while the Messenger of God was sitting on a bed in our house. [My mother] made me sit on his lap and said, “These are your relatives. May God bless you with them and bless them with you!” Then the men and women got up and left. The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me. Only Sa‘d b. ‘Ubaidah sent a bowl of food which he used to send to the Messenger of God.
…
…Then the Messenger of God married ‘A’ishah bt. Abi Bakr, whose name is ‘Atiq b. Abi Quhafah, who is ‘Uthman, and is called ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Uthman b. ‘Amir b. ‘Amir b. Ka‘b b. Sa‘d b. Taym b. Murrah: [The Prophet] married her three years before the Emigration, when she was seven years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old, after he had emigrated to Medina in Shawwal. She was eighteen years old when he died. The Messenger of God did not marry any maiden except her.
(Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, Vol. IX, pp. 130-131)
‘Aishah bint Abu Bakr: He married her in the eleventh year of Prophethood, a year after his marriage toSawdahjand two years and five months before Al-Hijra. She was six years old when he married her. However, he did not consummate the marriage with her till Shawwal seven months after Al-Hijra, and that was in Madinah. She was nine then. She was the only virgin he married, and the most beloved creature to him As a woman she was the most learned woman in jurisprudence.
(Saif-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar) Biography of the Noble Prophet, p. 483)
Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, which contain narrations that Muhammad slept with a 9-year-old, are authentic according to the scholars. Al-Nawawi wrote [both following quotations translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
The scholars agreed that the most authentic books written are Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The majority agreed that Sahih al-Bukhari is the most authentic of the two, and has the most benefits…
Ibn Taymiyya wrote:
As for the well-known books of hadith, such as al-Bukhari and Muslim, there is no book under the sky more authentic than al-Bukhari and Muslim after the Qur’an and what was combined between them…
Al-Qurtubi (source), al-Shawkani (source), Ibn al-Qayyim (source), Qadi ‘Iyad (source), al-Bayhaqi (source), Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (source), and numerous other scholars affirmed Aisha’s marriage was consummated when she was 9 years old.
Despite the numerous authentic hadiths with different chains of narration, some Sunni Muslims still can’t believe Muhammad had sexual relations with a 9-year-old girl. However, to dismiss the authentic hadiths is to reject over 1,300 years of Sunni scholarship!
The following Muslim scholars wrote that there was no doubt Aisha’s marriage was consummated when she was 9 years old:
This tradition is considered gharib (unique in this line).
Al-Bukhari had related, from ‘Ubayd b. Isma‘il, from Abu Usama, from Hisham b. ‘Urwa, from his father, who said, “Khadija died three years before the emigration of the Prophet. He allowed a couple of years or so to pass after that, and then he contracted marriage with ‘A’isha when she was six, thereafter consummating marriage with her when she was nine years old.”
What ‘Urwah stated here is mursal, incomplete, as we mentioned above, but in its content it must be judged as muttasil, uninterrupted.
His statement, “He contracted marriage with ‘A’isha when she was six, thereafter consummating marriage with her when she was nine” IS NOT DISPUTED BY ANYONE, and is well established in the sahih collections of traditions and elsewhere.
(Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Vol. II, pp. 93-94)
Al-Baghawī wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
… on the authority of Aisha, she said: “The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, married me when I was seven years old, and he consummated the marriage with me when I was nine years old. I used to play with dolls, and my female slaves used to come to me. When they saw the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, they would retreat from him, so it was…” The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, would send them to me.”
This is a hadith whose authenticity is agreed upon.
Badr al-Din al-‘Ayni wrote the following [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
The hadith of Aisha – may God Almighty be pleased with her – is well-known and close to being mutawatir; for he – may God bless him and grant him peace – married her when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old, and she was with him for nine years.
According to IslamQA.org, “Hadith Mutawaatir is such a narration which is narrated by such a large number of people in each era that it would be impossible for all the narrators to make up the hadith and orchestrate a lie.”
Even in a Shia hadith, it is said that Muhammad had relations with Aisha when she was at a very young age:
1. Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Yunus from abu Ayyub al-Khazzaz who has narrated the following: “I once asked Isma’il ibn Ja’far, ’When it is permissible for a boy to testify?’ He said, ’It is permissible when he becomes ten years old.’ I then asked, ‘Can he issue a command?’ He said, ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ went to bed with ‘A’ishah when she was ten years old, and it is not permissible to go to bed with a girl unless she is a woman. When a boy becomes ten years old his commanding is permissible and his testimony is admissible.’”
Some Shia scholars even affirmed that Muhammad married Aisha when she was very young. A Twelver Shīa scholar, Sayyid Sa’eed Akhtar Rizvi (1927–2002), who was an Allamah (an Islamic honorary title for a profound scholar), wrote:
At the same time, he married ‘Ayishah bint Abu Bakr, who was then a six-year old child. She came to the Prophet’s house some time after the migration to Medina.
(The Life of Muhammad the Prophet, Marriages of the Holy Prophet)
Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (1627–1699), who was an influential Iranian Akhbari Twelver Shīa scholar from the Jaʿfarī school and an Allamah, believed Aisha’s marriage was consummated when she was just 9 years old:
Later it is mentioned that Qasim was elder to Abdullah. And four daughters were also born from her: Zainab, Ruqaiyyah, Umm Kulthum and Fatima Zahra. The next wife of the Prophet was Sauda binte Zama-a; before marrying the Messenger of Allah (S) she was the wife of Sakran bin Umar. Sakran embraced Islam and died in Abyssinia. The third wife was Ayesha binte Abu Bakr. His Eminence had married her in Mecca when she was seven years old. Except for Ayesha the Prophet did not marry any virgin lady. Seven months after migration to Medina, the Prophet consummated his marriage to Ayesha, when she was nine years old.
(Hayat Al-Qulub Vol.2, Wives of the Prophet – their number and a brief account of them)
Shaykh Ahmad ibn Abi Talib Tabarsi, who was a Persian Shīa Twelver exegete, hadith scholar, theologian, and given the title Amīn al-Islām (Trustee of Islam), wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
… The third: Aisha bint Abi Bakr . He married her in Mecca when she was seven years old, and he did not marry any other virgin. He consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old, seven months after his arrival in Medina. She lived until the caliphate of Mu’awiya.
(Informing the People of the Signs of Guidance – Sheikh Al-Tabarsi – Part 1 – Page 276)
What Muhammad did was undeniably rape, since a 9-year-old can’t consent to any sexual contact. They don’t have the cognitive abilities or the life experience to make an informed decision when it comes to sexual contact.
According to Shia hadiths, it is permissible for men to have sexual relations with little girls as they can be deemed mature, presumably because of Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha:
2. Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father and Muhammad ibn Yahya from Ahmad ibn Muhammad, all from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr from Hammad from al-Halabiy from abu ‘Abdillah… who said: “If a man marries a maid while she is still young, he should not have sex with her until she reaches the age of nine years.“
5. Ali has narrated from his father from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr from a man who has said the following: “I once asked abu ‘Abd Allah… , ‘When is a girl not considered a child? Is it a girl who is six or seven years old?’ He (the Imam) said, ‘No, a nine-year-old girl is not considered a child and all of them are unanimous that a girl who is nine years old is not considered a child unless there is weakness in her reason, otherwise, when she becomes nine years old she becomes mature.’”
(Al-Kāfi – Volume 5, Book 3, Chapter 107, Virgins, Ḥadīth #5)
Note the lax attitude towards having sexual relations with a girl before the age of 9 in the following Shia tradition:
9-16 Muhammad ibn al-Hassan ibn Ahmad ibn al-Walid – may God be pleased with him – narrated that Muhammad ibn al-Hassan al-Saffar quoted Yaqoob ibn Yazid, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abi Umayr, on the authority of Hammad ibn Uthman, on the authority of Ubaydullah ibn Ali al-Halabi that Aba Abdullah as-Sadiq (MGB) said, “Whoever has sexual intercourse with his woman before she reaches nine years old and she gets hurt is responsible for it.”
In the Sunni tradition, Aisha was so small that her mother had to fatten her up before sending her to Muhammad, perhaps so that the little girl could support the weight of her 50+ year-old prophet on top of her:
It was narrated that ‘Aishah said:
“My mother was trying to fatten me up when she wanted to send me to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) (when she got married), but nothing worked until I ate cucumbers with dates; then I grew plump like the best kind of plump.”
It could have been that Aisha’s hair fell out because of the trauma she likely went through being a child bride to a man who was old enough to be her great-grandfather:
(13) Chapter: Marriage of minor girls arranged by their fathers
It was narrated that:
Aishah said: “The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six years old. Then we came to Al-Madinah and settled among Banu Harith bin Khazraj. I became ill and my hair fell out, then it grew back and became abundant. My mother Umm Ruman came to me while I was on an Urjuhah with some of my friends, and called for me. I went to her, and I did not know what she wanted. She took me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house, and I was panting. When I got my breath back, she took some water and wiped my face and head, and led me into the house. There were some woman of the Ansar inside the house, and they said: ‘With blessings and good fortune (from Allah).’ (My mother) handed me over to them and they tidied me up. And suddenly I saw the Messenger of Allah in the morning. And she handed me over to him and I was at that time, nine years old.”
Muhammad tried to justify marrying a 6-year-old because of a supposed divine dream that suggested he should marry her. But what was Allah’s purpose for supposedly arranging Aisha to be a child bride, especially when she eventually ended up childless her whole life? The dream was likely Muhammad’s fabrication. But if the dream was real and was inspired by the spirit world, it definitely wasn’t from the true, pure, holy God. Only satan would try to influence someone to do such evil.
Narrated `Aisha:
Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said to me, “You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘Uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.’ Then you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said (to him), ‘Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.’ “
Narrated `Aisha:
That the Prophet (ﷺ) said to her, “You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and some-one said (to me). ‘This is your wife.’ When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, ‘If this is from Allah, it will be done.”
Even Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s close companion, seemed hesitant to give up his 6-year-old daughter to be married to a 50+-year-old man. But who can deny their supreme cult leader of Allah?
Chapter: The marrying of young lady to an elderly man
Narrated ‘Urwa:
The Prophet (ﷺ) asked Abu Bakr for `Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”
Even Muhammad recognized that a girl could be too young for marriage when Abu Bakr wanted to marry his daughter Fatimah (Sunan an-Nasa’i 3221), who was believed to be 5 years older than Aisha. Of course, in his hypocrisy, Muhammad still married the child Aisha.
Some Muslim apologists will try to justify the 50+-year-old Muhammad having sex with a 9-year-old with the retort that Aisha was mature for her age and was considered to be a woman. The following hadiths suggest otherwise:
…That night I kept on weeping and could not sleep till morning. In the morning Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) called `Ali bin Abu Talib and Usama bin Zaid when he saw the Divine Inspiration delayed, to consul them about divorcing his wife (i.e. `Aisha). Usama bin Zaid said what he knew of the good reputation of his wives and added, ‘O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! Keep you wife, for, by Allah, we know nothing about her but good.’ `Ali bin Abu Talib said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! Allah has no imposed restrictions on you, and there are many women other than she, yet you may ask the woman-servant who will tell you the truth.’ On that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) called Barirah and said, ‘O Barirah. Did you ever see anything which roused your suspicions about her?’ Barirah said, ‘No, by Allah Who has sent you with the Truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of immature age, who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat.’ On that day Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) ascended the pulpit and requested that somebody support him in punishing `Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul. Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who will support me to punish that person (`Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul) who has hurt me by slandering the reputation of my family?…
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) arrived after the expedition to Tabuk or Khaybar (the narrator is doubtful), the draught raised an end of a curtain which was hung in front of her store-room, revealing some dolls which belonged to her.
He asked: What is this? She replied: My dolls. Among them he saw a horse with wings made of rags, and asked: What is this I see among them? She replied: A horse. He asked: What is this that it has on it? She replied: Two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? She replied: Have you not heard that Solomon had horses with wings? She said: Thereupon the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) laughed so heartily that I could see his molar teeth.
“… ‘A’isha said… The women in those days were light of weight and they did not wear much flesh, as they ate less food; so they did not perceive the weight of my haudaj as they placed it upon the camel as I was A YOUNG GIRL at that time… Barira said: By Him Who sent thee with the truth, I have seen nothing objectionable in her but only this much that she is A YOUNG GIRL and she goes to sleep while kneading the flour and the lamb eats that…”
Narrated Yusuf bin Mahik:
I was in the house of `Aisha, the mother of the Believers. She said, “This revelation: “Nay, but the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense); and the Hour will be more previous and most bitter.” (54.46) was revealed to Muhammad at Mecca while I was a playfull little girl.”
Al-Shafi’i suggested that Aisha, being really young, lacked agency in her own affairs [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
(Al-Shafi‘i said): If someone asks: ‘Why do you claim that fathers may marry off minors?’ it is said: ‘Abu Bakr married Aisha to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) when she was six or seven years old, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) consummated the marriage with her when she was nine.’ Thus, the two states in which the marriage and consummation occurred were while Aisha was a minor, one who had no authority over herself. Also, more than one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) married off his minor daughter.
Some Muslims appeal to a narration of Aisha claiming that a 9-year-old is a woman to claim that Aisha wasn’t a girl or a child when Muhammad consummated with her [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
And Ahmad and Ishaq said: “If the orphan girl reaches nine years of age, is given in marriage, and consents, the marriage is valid, and she has no option [to annul] once she reaches maturity.” They cited as evidence the Hadith of ‘Aishah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) consummated marriage with her when she was a girl of nine years, and ‘Aishah said: “When a girl reaches nine years of age, she is a woman.“
(The Book of Sunan al-Tirmidhi – Edited by Shakir [Al-Tirmidhi])
However, Ibn al-Arabi said it was not authentic [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Ahmad said: If she consents while being nine years old, the marriage is permissible, and the consultation is valid, based on the saying of ‘Aishah: “When a girl reaches nine years of age, she is a woman.” But the narration of ‘Aishah is not authentic; and even if it were authentic, what is meant by it is the physical capacity for intercourse, not the validity of legal consent.
IslamQA.info affirmed that it was weak [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Question 324575 It was narrated from ‘Aishah that she said: “When a girl reaches nine years of age, she is a woman.” This appeared in Sunan al-Tirmidhi; is this statement authentic?
Answer Summary This report, whether established from ‘Aishah or not, is not general in its apparent meaning for every girl who reaches nine years of age; rather, its meaning is that whoever reaches this age and menstruates—as may occur in the lands of the Arabs—then she is a woman, and the rulings of adult women apply to her.
Answer Praise be to Allah, and blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah. To proceed:
This report (Athar), despite its frequent usage among jurists (Fuqaha), was recorded in Hadith compilations without a chain of transmission (mu’allaqan min ghayri isnad).
Where al-Tirmidhi (may Allah Almighty have mercy on him) said: “And ‘Aishah said: ‘When a girl reaches nine years of age, she is a woman.'” End quote from Al-Sunan (3/409).
And al-Bayhaqi (may Allah Almighty have mercy on him) said: “And we narrated from ‘Aishah that she said: ‘When a girl reaches nine years of age, she is a woman.'” End quote from Al-Sunan al-Kubra (2/433).
Many researchers have traced it, but they could not find any chain of transmission (isnad) for it.
Shaykh al-Albani (may Allah Almighty have mercy on him) said: “Reported by al-Tirmidhi and al-Bayhaqi as a comment without a chain of transmission (ta’liqan biduni isnad)… I say: And it was narrated as Marfu’ [attributed directly to the Prophet] from the Hadith of Ibn ‘Umar, as will come under ‘Marriage’, and with its wording: (When nine years pass over a girl, she is a woman). Abu Nu’aym reported it in Akhbar Asbahan, and from him al-Daylami in Al-Musnad, from ‘Ubayd ibn Sharik: Sulayman ibn Sharhabil narrated to me: ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Mihran narrated to us: Sahl ibn Aslam al-‘Adawi narrated to us, from Mu’awiyah ibn Qurrah, who said: I heard Ibn ‘Umar [narrate] it. I say: And this chain of transmission is weak (da’if). Regarding ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Mihran, Ibn ‘Adi said: ‘Unknown (majhul)’. And al-‘Uqayli said: ‘A transmitter of rejected narrations (sahib manakir), delusion predominated over him, he does not establish anything of Hadith.’ I say: As for those below him, I do not know them…” End quote from Irwa’ al-Ghalil (1/199).
The conclusion is that this report has no known authentic chain of transmission.
(Source. Primary source for al-Albani’s quote: The Book of Irwa’ al-Ghalil fi Takhrij Ahadith Manar al-Sabil)
Islamweb.net stated [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Question: What is the meaning and implication of the statement of Sayyidah ‘Aishah (“When a girl reaches nine years of age, she is a woman”) and the juristic rulings derived from it?
Answer: Praise be to Allah, and blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah, and upon his family and companions. To proceed:
First, we point out that we have not found this report (Athar) from the Mother of the Believers, ‘Aishah, with a chain of transmission (musnadan); rather, al-Tirmidhi and al-Bayhaqi mentioned it in their Sunan books without a chain of transmission. Ibn Qudamah and others attributed it to Imam Ahmad, but we have not found it in any of his printed books.
Ibn al-Jawzi said in Al-Tahqiq fi Masa’il al-Khilaf: “Issue: The consent of a girl who has reached nine years of age in marriage is valid, contrary to the majority of scholars.” Then he reported with a chain of transmission from the Hadith of Ibn ‘Umar attributed directly to the Prophet (marfu’): “When nine years pass over a girl, she is a woman.” And he said: “In its chain of transmission are unknown narrators (majahil), among them: ‘Abd al-Malik. Abu Ahmad ibn ‘Adi said: ‘He is unknown, not recognized.'” End quote.
Ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi said in Tanqih al-Tahqiq: “This ‘Abd al-Malik is Abu Hashim al-Rifa’i—with a qaf—who narrates rejected Hadiths (ahadith munkarah), and Muhammad ibn Isma’il al-Sulami did not meet him; rather, something was omitted between them. What is well-known is what al-Bukhari mentioned from ‘Aishah that she said: ‘When a girl reaches nine years of age, she is a woman.’ And Imam Ahmad reported it with his chain of transmission from her.” End quote.
The editors of the book Al-Tanqih said: “We have not found it in any of the works of Imam Ahmad or al-Bukhari available to us.” End quote.
(Source)
Even if Aisha claimed that a nine-year-old becomes a woman, does her saying so make it an objective fact?
It was a very mainstream and accepted opinion that Muhammad had sex with Aisha even before she hit puberty. This was the view of the Hanbali, Shafi’i, and some high-ranking Hanafis as stated on IslamQA.info:
… what al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said about ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reaching puberty at the age of fifteen is the view of the Shaafa‘is and Hanbalis, and of two senior scholars of the Hanafi madhhab…
(Source)
Badr al-Din al-‘Ayni said she was prepubescent:
‘Aa’ishah had not yet reached puberty, so this was a concession granted to her. However, it [playing with dolls] is still disliked for those who have reached puberty.
(Source. Primary source: Umdat al-Qari, an explanation of Sahih al-Bukhari)
Al-Nawawi didn’t think she reached puberty before Muhammad had sex with her:
… Imam an-Nawawi’s view that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) was still young and had not yet reached puberty at that time.
(Source)
Al-Bayhaqi (994-1066) was a Shafi’i scholar who was given the title Shaykh al-Islam and was widely recognized as the foremost leading hadith master of his time. He said there is no evidence that she reached puberty [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
From Al-Zuhri, from ‘Urwah, from ‘Aishah, that the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, married her when she was seven years old, and she was brought to him (as a bride) when she was nine years old, and her dolls were with her. And he passed away when she was eighteen years old…
There is nothing in any of the narrations that she had reached puberty in the sense of a woman’s maturity, other than her age at the time of her being brought to him as a bride. It is possible that her preoccupation with her dolls and the Prophet’s, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, approval of that for her until the time she reached puberty, and Allah knows best.
(Kitab al-Sunan al-Kubra – Al-Bayhaqi – Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah)
Muhammad recommended that another person marry a young girl:
Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah:
When I got married, Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’
Muhammad explained why he liked virgins [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
Choose virgins, for they have sweeter mouths, purer wombs , and are more content with little.
Muhammad had intentions to marry another very young girl, but thankfully, he died before she reached the age of 6:
(Suhayli, ii. 79: In the riwaya of Yunus I. I. recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu’lFadl) when she was a baby crawling before him and said, ‘If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. ‘Abdu’l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubab…
(Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, p. 311)
Umm Al-Fadl bint Al-Harith related that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) saw Umm Habib, the daughter of ‘Abbas, when she had just been weaned. And He said: If ‘Abbas’s little girl here grows up and I am still alive, most assuredly I will marry her.
(Musnad Ahmad, Narrations from among women, Section: the hadith of Umm Al-Fadl)
Muhammad did a perverted act with a male child as well, by putting “his mouth in his mouth”:
It is related that Abu Hurayra said, “I never sae al-Hasan without my eyes overflowing with tears. That is because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out one day and he found me in the mosque. He took my hand and I went along with him. He did not speak to me until we reached the market of Banu Qaynuqa’. He walked around it and looked. Then he left and I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, ‘Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.’ Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his mouth in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!'”
Another narration reads that Muhammad sucked his tongue, and whoever whose tongue Muhammad sucked will not be punished (implying hellfire) [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
Hashim bin Al-Qasim narrated to us, Hariz narrated to us, on the authority of Abd Al-Rahman bin Abi Auf Al-Jarshi, on the authority of Muawiyah , who said: I saw the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, sucking his tongue, or he said his lip, meaning Al-Hasan bin Ali, may God’s prayers be upon him, and that a tongue or lips that the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, sucked will not be punished.
The following was narrated by Abu Hurairah [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
I saw the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, sucking the saliva of Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn as a man sucks a date.
Summary of the hadith scholar’s ruling: Sahih
Further showing Muhammad was a (sexual) deviant, it has been reported that he not only used to suck little Hasan’s tongue but also kissed his private part! Imam al-Dhahabi (1274–1348), who was a Shafi’i Islamic historian and Hadith scholar, wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
And Jarir ibn Abd Al-Hamid narrated from Qabus, from his father, from Ibn Abbas: “Indeed, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, spread apart Hasan’s thighs and kissed his private part.” Qabus: Hasan Al-Hadith (good Hadith).
Nur al-Din al-Haythami wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
And from Ibn Abbas, he said: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) spread apart the thighs of Al-Husayn and kiss his ‘zaybaba’ (his small penis).”
Narrated by Al-Tabarani, and its chain of narration is hasan (good).
Ibn Hajar wrote about Muhammad kissing a boy’s genitals [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
And from Ibn Abbas, he said: “I saw the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, spread apart the thighs of Al-Hasan and kiss his ‘zaybaba’ (his small penis).” Al-Tabarani narrated it, and in it is evidence that a child does not have ‘awrah (private parts that must be covered).
(The Book of Knowledge in the Graduation of the Hadiths of Guidance, 1/123-124)
Ibn Kathir wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Abu Muhammad al-Qurashi al-Hashimi, the grandson of the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, the son of his daughter Fatimah al-Zahra’, his basil, and the one who most resembled God’s creation of him in his face. He was born in the middle of Ramadan in the third year of the Hijrah. The Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, gave him his saliva, and named him Hasan. He was the eldest child of his parents. The Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, loved him with an intense love, so much so that he would kiss his “small penis” when he was little, and would sometimes suck his tongue, hug him, and play with him. Sometimes he would come while the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, was prostrating in prayer, and he would ride on his back. The Prophet would allow him to do that and would prolong the prostration for his sake. He would also sometimes climb up with him to the pulpit.
Ibn Taymiyya believed it was permissible to kiss the private parts of little boys because Muhammad did it [both following quotations translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Circumcision is obligatory only when it is highly probable that the circumcised person will be safe. However, if there is a fear for his health due to old age or illness, it is not required and is even forbidden.
Circumcision is only obligatory when purification and prayer become obligatory, because it was legislated for that purpose. It is better to perform circumcision before that time, and according to the most well-known opinion, it is better to do so before the age of discernment rather than after it. This is because it is an act of worship and purification, and performing it earlier is safer, as it prevents touching and looking at the private parts. The private parts of a small child are not subject to the same rules. For this reason, it is permissible to touch and kiss them, just as the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, would kiss the penis of Al-Hasan.
(Sharh Umdat al-Fiqh – Ibn Taymiyyah – Published by Ataat al-Ilm. Also posted on Islamicbook.ws)
And:
Al-Bukhari mentioned that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab performed ablution from a jar belonging to a Christian woman. And the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to kiss al-Hasan’s penis, and he prayed while carrying Umamah, his granddaughter. When he prostrated, he would put her down, and when he stood up, he would pick her up. And there are many similar reports in the traditions that show the breadth of the matter in this regard.
Just how demonized was Muhammad that he would do such an abhorrent, despicable act with a little boy?
Muhammad got really “physical” with his daughter, Fatima, as well, according to a Shia source [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Al-Baqir and Al-Sadiq (peace be upon them) narrated that the Prophet (may God bless him and his family) would not sleep until he kissed the width of Fatima’s face, placing his face between Fatima’s breasts and supplicating for her. In another narration, it says until he kissed the width of Fatima’s cheek or between her breasts.
Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Abdullah al-Shafi’i, Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, and Ibn al-Musayyab, all from Saad ibn Abi Waqqas; Abu Muadh al-Nahwi al-Marwazi and Abu Qatada al-Harrani, from Sufyan al-Thawri, from Hashim ibn Urwah, from his father, from Aisha; al-Kharkushi in Sharaf al-Nabi; al-Ashnani in al-I’tiqad; al-Sam’ani in al-Risalah; Abu Salih al-Mu’adhdhin in al-Arba’in; and Abu al-Sa’adat in al-Fada’il; and from our companions, Abu Ubaydah al-Hadhdha and others, from al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) narrated that the Messenger of God (may God bless him and his family) used to kiss Fatima frequently. Some of his wives disapproved of this…
(Bihar al-Anwar – Allamah al-Majlisi – Vol. 43 – Page 42)
In the following hadith, Muhammad commanded husbands to wait until their wives shaved their pubic hair. In other words, Muhammad instructed the husband to wait until the vagina of his wife resembles that of a young child! Is this a clue or an indication of Muhammad’s own demonic inner desire for young prepubescent vaginas?
Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “If you enter (your town) at night (after coming from a journey), do not enter upon your family till the woman whose husband was absent (from the house) shaves her pubic hair and the woman with unkempt hair, combs her hair” Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) further said, “(O Jabir!) Seek to have offspring, seek to have offspring!”
In the following quotation, sexual contact with one’s minor wife is permitted. The eponym of the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780–855), who was a scholar, theologian, and jurist and is considered to be one of the most venerated intellectual figures in Islamic history, was reported to have said:
Ablutions (Ghusl) Are Required after Intercourse for the Minor Girl, As Well As for Jewish and Christian Women
I asked my father about a man who has intercourse with his wife when she is a minor. “Should she perform an ablution?” He said, “Yes, if intercourse has taken place, ablutions are required for women of all ages.”
(Chapters on Marriage and Divorce: Responses of Ibn Ḥanbal and Ibn Rāhwayh, translated by Susan Spectorsky, §27, p. 100. Primary source: The Book of Imam Ahmad’s Questions, narrated by his son Abdullah)
Ibn Qudamah wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The permissibility of intercourse with a young girl is determined by her condition and her capacity to withstand it. This was stated by Al-Qadi. He further mentioned that girls differ; a younger girl might be suitable, while an older one might not be.
Ahmad set the age limit at nine years old. In a narration from Abu Al-Harith, concerning a young girl whose husband requests her, Ahmad said, “If she reaches nine years, she should be handed over to him. They are not permitted to withhold her after nine.” In arriving at this conclusion, he referred to the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old.
Ibn Qudamah also wrote that there is no punishment for sexually violating a child [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Regarding a minor girl, if she is capable of intercourse, then having intercourse with her constitutes adultery (zina) and necessitates punishment (hadd), as she is considered like an adult in this regard. However, if she is not fit for intercourse, there are two opinions, similar to the case of intercourse with a deceased person.
Al-Qadi stated that no punishment is due for someone who has intercourse with a minor girl who has not reached nine years of age, because such a person is not desired, making it similar to inserting a finger into her private part. Likewise, if a woman inserts the penis of a boy under ten years old into her private part, no punishment is due upon her.
Al-Shafi’i (767–820), the eponym of the Shafi’i school of Sunni jurisprudence, suggests that intercourse is permitted before the wife has reached puberty. Dr. Carolyn Baugh, who holds a master’s and a doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania in Arabic and Islamic Studies, wrote:
If a man is contractually married to a woman upon the like of whom the sexual act can be performed, even if she is not pubescent, and she allows him to visit with her (khalat baynahu wa-bayna al-dukhūl ʿalayhā) or her family allows them to be together (if she is a virgin) (khallā ahluhā baynahu wa-bayna dhālik in kānat bikran), and she is not prevented from visiting him (lam tamtaniʿ min al-dukhūl ʿalayhi), he must pay her maintenance, just as it would be incumbent upon him if he had had sex with her (idhā dakhala bi-hā), for the withholding is from his side.”
(Carolyn Baugh, Minor Marriage in Early Islamic Law, p. 134)
Al-Shafi’i referenced Quran 65:4 to justify men having sexual relations with prepubescent girls [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Allah, blessed and exalted be He, made the waiting period for menstruation to be menstrual cycles, and for those who have despaired of menstruation and non-pubescent girls, He made it months. So He said: “{And those of your women who have despaired of menstruation – if you have doubts – then their waiting period is three months}”.
Ibn Mundhir (d. 930), who was a prominent jurist of the Shafi’i school, said that it was permissible to have sexual relations with a child even before the age of 9:
It is established that the Messenger of God contracted marriage with ʿĀʾisha when she was a girl of seven, and consummated the marriage when she was girl of nine. The scholars have differed with regard to this issue. Aḥmad and Abū ʿUbayd supported a literal interpretation of this hadith (kāna yaqūlān bi-ẓāhir hādha al-ḥadīth), and this was [Abū Ḥanīfa’s] opinion.56
[Ibn al-Mundhir said:] Our opinion is other than this: If she reaches [nine years of age] and does not possess the body and strength [that would allow her to] tolerate a man, her family may keep her away from him (li-ahlihā manʿuhā minhu). And if she is not yet nine, and she possesses the body and strength that would tolerate a man, they should not keep her away from him.
And al-Shāfiʿī said, “If the bride is husky (jasīma),57 and others of her type (mithluhā) tolerate sexual intercourse, it means they should be allowed to be together (khuliyya baynuhu wa baynuhā). If she cannot tolerate that, then her family should prevent her until she can tolerate sex.”
(Carolyn Baugh, Minor Marriage in Early Islamic Law, p. 179. The primary source for Ibn Mundhir’s quotation: The Book of Supervision of the Schools of Scholars by Ibn al-Mundhir)
Baugh notes on the same page regarding the translated word “husky,” “Although semantically jasīma indicates large or fat, the idea is clearly to depict a girl with a bigger, more sexually-developed body.”
Badr al-Din al-‘Ayni wrote that it is permissible to have sexual relations with a girl at a very young age as long as she can handle it [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
A group, including Ahmad and Abu Ubaid: He enters when she is nine years old, following the hadith of Aisha. On the authority of Abu Hanifa: We take the nine, except that we say: If she reaches nine and is not able to have intercourse, her family has the right to prevent her, and if she does not reach nine and is strong enough to have intercourse, they do not have the right to prevent her from her husband. Malik used to say: There is no maintenance for a young girl until she reaches puberty or is able to have intercourse. Al-Shafi’i said: If she is close to puberty and is large enough to have intercourse, her husband has the right to have intercourse with her, otherwise her family prevents her until It is tolerated, i.e. sexual intercourse.
(The book of Umdat Al-Qari, an explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari. The primary source for al-Shafi’i’s quote: Kitāb al-Umm by al-Shāfiʿī – Dar al-Fikr Edition.)
Al-Kamal ibn al-Humām wrote that a girl is fit for intercourse based on her physique. There is no fixed age limit [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
(His statement, “no intimacy can be had with her”) means she cannot be engaged in sexual intercourse. It is explicitly stated in Al-Dhakhira that the meaning of ‘intimacy’ here is intercourse. Al-Hakim also restricted it this way, saying: “There is no maintenance for a minor girl with whom intercourse cannot be had. So she has no maintenance until she reaches a state where she can tolerate intercourse, whether she is in the husband’s house or her father’s.”
There is disagreement on her age for this purpose. Some say the minimum is seven years. Al-‘Attabi said: “The preferred view of our scholars is nine years.” However, the truth is that there is no specific age limit, as her capacity varies with her physique. Our view (that there’s no fixed age) is held by the majority of scholars and is the chosen opinion among the Shafi’is.
(The Book of Fath al-Qadeer by Kamal ibn al-Humam – Halabi Edition)
Ibn Hajar wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
Ibn Battel said: It is permissible to marry a young girl to an older man, by consensus, even if she is in the cradle, but it is not permissible until she is fit for intercourse.
Ibn Abidin (1784-1836), who was a jurist and given the title “Final verifier of the Hanafi School,” wrote that it is permissible to have sexual relations with a girl as long as she can take it [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
[Rad al-Muhtar] This [is established], and they have explicitly stated among us that if a wife is a young girl [minor / sagheera] who cannot bear sexual intercourse, she is not handed over to the husband until she is able to bear it. The correct view is that this is not determined by a specific age; rather, it is delegated to the judge to assess her based on corpulence or emaciation. We previously cited from Al-Tatarkhaniyya that if an adult woman cannot bear [intercourse], she is likewise not ordered to be handed over to the husband. Thus, his statement “cannot bear it” encompasses cases where this is due to her weakness, emaciation, or the large size of his organ. In Al-Ashbah, under the chapters on the rulings of the hashafah (glans) entering [the vagina] regarding what makes intercourse unlawful for a husband with his wife while the marriage remains intact, it states: “And regarding when she cannot bear it due to youth [smallness / sighar], illness, or corpulence.” End quote.
And it is perhaps understood from his corpulence that his organ is large. Al-Shurunbulali meticulously detailed in his commentary on Al-Wahbaniyya that if a man has intercourse with his wife and she dies or becomes mufdah (where the passages merge due to injury), then if she was a minor [young girl / sagheera], or coerced, or unable to bear it, blood-money (diyah) is binding upon him by consensus. It is known from all of this that it is not lawful for him to have intercourse with her in a manner that leads to harming her; rather, he must restrict himself to what she can bear in terms of frequency, based on the judge’s assessment, or the report of women. If he does not know this, then based on her statement. The same applies to the thickness of the organ. As for its length, he is ordered upon entering to insert only as much of it as she can bear, or the equivalent of the organ of a man of moderate build. And Allah Ta’ala knows best.
(Ibn Abidin’s Commentary Book = The Response of the Perplexed, Al-Halabi Edition)
Ibn Abidin also wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
(He was asked) If the husband wants to have intercourse with his young wife, saying that she is able to have intercourse, and the father says that she is not able to have intercourse, what is the legal ruling?
(The answer) : Al-Khair Al-Ramli answered this question by saying: If she is large and fat and can handle men, and he pays the stipulated dowry, which must be paid promptly, the father is forced to hand her over to the husband, according to the most correct of the opinions. Otherwise, no. If she is one of those who does not go out, he orders the women he trusts to come. If they say that she can tolerate men and endure intercourse, the father orders her to be sent to the husband. If they say that she cannot endure it, he does not order that. And Allah knows best. End quote.
Al-Bazzaziyyah said: The father is not forced to give the minor girl to the husband, but the husband is forced to pay the immediate amount. If the husband claims that she can bear men and the father denies it, then the judge shows her to women and age is not taken into consideration. End quote.
(The Book of Pearl Contracts in Refining the Hamidiyya Fatwas)
Muhammad ‘UIaysh (1802–1882), an important late scholar of the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), and perhaps the last of a line of widely read and respected sources of traditional fatwas of the late Maliki school from an Azharite scholar, stated that there is no age limit when it comes to consummation [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
… (and it is possible to have intercourse with her) meaning the wife, and he does not have a specific age [limit for her] because it differs according to the different conditions of girls from the abundance [fat] of the body and its thinness, so her reaching puberty is not a condition…
(The Book of Grants of the Sublime, a Brief Explanation of Khalil)
Burhan Al-Din Ibn Maza (Hanafi) wrote [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
If she has not reached puberty, then her reaching puberty was not mentioned in the hadith, and the sheikhs took this, and some of the sheikhs said: The husband does not have the right to have intercourse with her until she has reached puberty, and most of the sheikhs are of the opinion that age is not important in this matter, but rather the important thing is the capacity, if she is healthy and fat and can tolerate men and there is no fear of her falling ill from that, then the husband can have intercourse with her even if she has not reached nine years. If she is thin and emaciated and cannot tolerate intercourse and there is fear of her falling ill, then it is not permissible for the husband to have intercourse with her, even if she is old, and this is the correct opinion.
Muhammad Aurangzeb Alamgir (1618 –1707) was a Hanafi who was the sixth Mughal emperor, reigning from 1658 until he died in 1707. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
There is a difference of opinion regarding the appropriate time for consummating marriage with a minor girl. Some scholars say consummation should not occur until she reaches puberty. Others permit it once she turns nine years old, as found in “Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq.”
However, most scholars hold that age is not the determining factor in this matter. Instead, the crucial element is her physical capacity. If she is well-built and robust enough to endure sexual relations without fear of illness, the husband is permitted to consummate the marriage, even if she has not yet reached nine years of age. Conversely, if she is frail and weak, unable to tolerate intercourse, and there’s a risk of her falling ill, it is impermissible for the husband to consummate the marriage, even if she is older. This latter view is considered the soundest.
(The Book of Indian Fatawa (Legal Rulings) = The Alamgiri Fatawa)
Imam Muhammad al-Kharashi (1601/1602–1690) was a Maliki Egyptian cleric, author, and Islamic scholar who was reportedly the first Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
(Sh) This means that if one of the spouses initiates (by fulfilling their obligation), whether there was a dispute or not, by giving what is due from their side, the other spouse is compelled to deliver what is due from their side. So, if the husband pays the due portion of the dower, and the wife is capable of intercourse, and the husband is mature, then the wife is compelled to allow him access to herself. Similarly, if the wife initiates by allowing access to herself while being capable of intercourse, and the husband refuses to enter upon her while being mature, then he is compelled to pay her the due portion of her dower.
His statement, “if the husband is mature,” means reaching puberty (the age of majority), not merely being capable of intercourse, according to the well-known opinion. His statement, “and intercourse is possible with her,” means without a specific age limit, as it varies with individuals, and wet dreams are not a condition for her as they are for a man. This is because if a woman is capable of intercourse, a man can achieve complete pleasure with her, and complete pleasure is only achieved if he reaches puberty. This applies if the dower is not a specific item. Otherwise, maturity or capability is not a condition.
(The Book: Commentary by Al-Kharshī on Mukhtaṣar Khalīl – Accompanied by the Gloss of Al-‘Adawī)
Ya’qub ibn Ibrahim al-Ansari (also known as Abu Yusuf) (729-798) was an Islamic jurist and a student of Abu Hanifa and Malik ibn Anas. He was one of the foremost authorities of the early Hanafi school of Islamic law. It is reported that he stated [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
On the authority of Abu Yusuf, may Allah have mercy on him: If a young girl is five years old but “those like her are desired” [due to her physical development], then she is classified as “desired,” as there is no fixed age limit for this. He narrated this from Abu Hanifa. If a man has intercourse with her but does not cause physical rupture (ifda’), she is considered “among those like whom intercourse is performed.” If he causes rupture, the prohibition [of affinity] is not established by it, contrary to the view of Abu Yusuf, based on juristic preference (Istihsan). Imam Muhammad said: Sometimes even a girl physically capable of intercourse can be ruptured. Abu Yusuf stated in the narration of Ibn Sama’ah: Regarding a girl of seven years and five months; if a man touched her [body] with desire and she died—and it was unknown if she was physically mature enough to be “desired” for her beauty—his wife [the girl’s mother] does not become prohibited to him.
Qadi ‘Iyad wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
70 – (…) And Yahya ibn Yahya narrated to us, Abu Mu’awiyah informed us, from Hisham ibn Urwah. And transmitted to us Ibn Numayr—and the wording is his—Abdah narrated to us—who is Ibn Sulayman—from Hisham, from his father, from Aishah, who said: ‘The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, married me when I was a girl of six years, and consummated the marriage with me when I was a girl of nine years.’
Al-Khattabi reported from Malik and Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman: The guardian has the right to marry her off before puberty, and Shurayh and Urwah ibn al-Zubayr said this.
This hadith serves as a foundational basis for determining the timing of consummation when there is a dispute regarding it. A group [of scholars] made it obligatory to compel a nine-year-old girl to submit to consummation, which is the view of Ahmad and Abu Ubayd. Malik and al-Shafi’i said: The limit for that is when she is capable [physically] of [handling] a man. Al-Shafi’i said: And approaching puberty. Abu Hanifa said: The limit for that is physical capability for men, even if she has not reached nine, and because of this, he prevented her husband from her if she was not capable of that, even if she had reached nine, which is similar to the view of Malik.
(Completion of the Teacher with the Benefits of [Sahih] Muslim)
Dr. Carolyn Baugh wrote in the footnote of her book Minor Marriage in Early Islamic Law:
Almost invariably, as jurists consider the legal parameters of sex with prepubescents, (“at what point is the minor female able to tolerate the sexual act upon her”/matā tuṣliḥ lilwaṭʾ) the word used when describing sexual relations with a prepubescent female is waṭʾ. This is a word that I have chosen to translate as “to perform the sexual act upon her.” This translation, although unwieldy, seems to convey the lack of mutuality in the sexual act that this word suggests (unlike, for example, the word jimāʿ ). It is worth noting that the semantic range of the word includes “to tread/step on;” indeed this is given as the primary meaning of the word. See Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-‘Arab (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1955), 2:195–197.
(Carolyn Baugh, Minor Marriage in Early Islamic Law, p. 10, footnote 45)
According to an Islamic law book, the age of a girl is irrelevant when it comes to consummation. As long as a girl can handle intercourse with a man, it is permissible:
There is a difference of opinion as to the time when a marriage with a young girl may be consummated; some saying that it should not be till she has actually arrived at puberty, and others that it may take place when she has attained the age of nine years. Most of the learned are of opinion that no regard should be paid to years in this matter, but that ability is rather to be considered; and that if a girl be stout and plump, able to bear the embraces of a man, and there is no apprehension of danger to her health, the husband may consummate with her, though she should not have attained to nine years; but that if she be weak or slender, and unable, and there is any reason to apprehend injury to her health, the husband is not at liberty to consummate with her, even though she exceed that age: and this is sound.
(Neil B. E. Baillie, A Digest of Moohummudan Law, p. 54)
According to a fatwa on Islamweb.net, a man can have intercourse with a prepubescent as long as she can tolerate it [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
As for enjoyment… if she has reached an age where she can tolerate men, then it is permissible for him to enjoy her through intercourse and other things, even if she has not reached puberty. Some of them have set this age at nine years, but it appears that this is not restricted. How many girls have reached nine years of age and are not able to tolerate intercourse due to the weakness of their constitution?
(Source)
The following is a fatwa ruling issued by the official Darul Ifta (Fatwa Department) of Darul Uloom Deoband. Note that the Deobandi movement strongly emphasizes strict adherence to the Quran and Sunnah, actively seeking to eliminate local cultural practices or innovations (bid’ah) that it views as contrary to authentic Islamic teachings [translated from Urdu using Gemini]:
Question # 68723
Is sexual intercourse/intimacy with a minor girl permissible or impermissible? Meanwhile, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanawi’s book Bahishti Zewar mentions a specific women’s medical condition called Ishtiqāq al-Rahm (uterine tearing/fissure), which is caused by the marriage of a minor girl. Physicians state that if a wife is a minor and her private parts are still dry, wounds can occur. Furthermore, news outlets publish reports—aimed at defaming Islam—stating that in Arab countries, young girls died on their wedding night due to intercourse. Sometimes, people take English potency-boosting medications with a young wife and end up injuring her. Please provide guidance.
Published on: Aug 18, 2016
Answer # 68723
Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim
Fatwa ID: 922-747/D=11/1437
You have already conducted research regarding the subject.
An honorable and conscientious reader should respond to the absurd allegations of newspapers within those very same newspapers.
As far as the jurisprudential (fiqhi) ruling is concerned, one thing is a practice being medically harmful, while another is its permissibility in itself (fi nafsih).
Sexual intercourse with a minor girl after marriage is permissible in itself, but the girl’s guardians should consider this issue before marriage and proceed with the bride’s departure (rukhsati) only after careful thought and deliberation, especially considering the harmful aspects you have read about yourself.
And Allah Ta’ala knows best.
Darul Ifta,
Darul Uloom Deoband
(Source)
As posted on IslamQA.org, there is no age limit when it comes to consummation with a girl:
What is the minimum age for a girl for her to consumate her marriage with her husband? Is it puberty?
Answer
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
The permissibility of consummating a marriage with a girl is based on her physical strength and not on her age. If consummating the marriage will be injurious to her health then it will not be permissible to do so, although she may have reached the age of puberty. However, if consummating the marriage will not be injurious to her health then it will be permissible to do so, although she may have not reached the age of puberty. (Hashiyya Ibn Aabideen, vol 3, pg 204, HM Sa’eed)
…
Checked and Approved by:
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In’aamiyyah(Source)
According to IslamQA.info, in Islam, it is permissible to marry a young girl, and the husband can have intercourse with her as long as she can handle it, and there is no age limit!
This is the Muslims’ conclusion based on Muhammad’s actions. All his actions and sayings—known as the Sunnah—are a model for Muslim conduct universally for all times. As such, Allah requires every generation of Muslims to imitate the example of the “prophet.” This is part of the dark, demonic legacy of Muhammad.
The fact that it is permissible to marry a young girl does not mean that it is permissible to have intercourse with her; rather that should not be done until she is able for it. For that reason the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) delayed the consummation of his marriage to ‘Aa’ishah. Al-Nawawi said: With regard to the wedding-party of a young married girl at the time of consummating the marriage, if the husband and the guardian of the girl agree upon something that will not cause harm to the young girl, then that may be done. If they disagree, then Ahmad and Abu ‘Ubayd say that once a girl reaches the age of nine then the marriage may be consummated even without her consent, but that does not apply in the case of who is younger. Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and Abu Haneefah said: the marriage may be consummated when the girl is able for intercourse, which varies from one girl to another, so no age limit can be set. This is the correct view. There is nothing in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah to set an age limit, or to forbid that in the case of a girl who is able for it before the age of nine, or to allow it in the case of a girl who is not able for it and has reached the age of nine. Al-Dawoodi said: ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated).
(Source. Primary source for Al-Nawawi’s quotation: An-Nawawi’s explanation of Muslim. Another source for Abu Hanifa’s, al-Shafi’s’, etc., quotation: The book of Umdat Al-Qari, an explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari)
It reads that intercourse “should not be done until she is able for it.” The big question is, how does one test if the girl is capable of handling intercourse? Wouldn’t a man have to attempt to penetrate her to test if she can handle it? And what if the man has a micropenis? Does it mean the man can have intercourse with his 6-year-old wife if she can bear it?
It also reads, “Once a girl reaches the age of nine then the marriage may be consummated even without her consent…” In such circumstances, it is unequivocally rape!
In an attempt to defend Muhammad, some Muslims say that Muhammad delayed the consummation till she became mature enough and ready at 9 years old. However, according to the following Islamic source, Muhammad only waited because he couldn’t pay the bridal gift:
According to Ibn ‘Umar [al-Waqidi]—Musa b. Muhammad b.’Abd al-Rahman—Raytah—’Amrah [bt. ‘Abd al-Rahman b.Sa’d]: ‘A’ishah was asked when the Prophet consummated his marriage with her, and she said:
…
We stayed in Abu Bakr’s house for a few days,- then Abu Bakr asked [the Prophet] “O Messenger of God, what prevents you from consummating the marriage with your wife?” The Prophet said “The bridal gift (sadaq).” Abu Bakr gave him the bridal gift, twelve and a half ounces [of gold], and the Prophet sent for us. He consummated our marriage in my house, the one where I live now and where he passed away.
(Al-Tabari, The History of Al-Tabari: Biographies of the Prophet’s Companions and Their Successors, Vol. 39, pp. 171-173. Also referenced in Al-Mustadrak on the Two Sahihs – Al-Risalah Edition)
Muslim apologists may argue that Muhammad consummated the marriage with a girl, who would be the equivalent of a 3rd grader in North America, was a concession only granted to him. However, Quran 65:4 reads that it is indeed permissible for all men to marry prepubescent girls and consummate the marriage. Furthermore, Quran 33:21 reads that Muhammad is a good example to follow. Thus, Allah gives his seal of approval to pedophilia for men universally, regardless of time or culture.
Ibn Hazm (995–1063), who was of the Ẓāhirī school of jurisprudence, a scholar, jurist, and theologian of the so-called Islamic Golden Age, affirmed that men can wed little girls in Al-Muhalla [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
The evidence for permitting a father to marry his young virgin daughter is the marriage of Abu Bakr – may Allah be pleased with him – to the Prophet – may Allah bless him and grant him peace – to Aisha – may Allah be pleased with her – when she was six years old. This is a well-known matter that does not require providing a chain of transmission for it. So whoever claims that it is specific, his statement should not be paid attention to, because Allah the Almighty says: And He, the Most High, said: {Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day.
Sex slavery is permissible in Islam
In Christianity, the 2nd greatest commandment is to treat others the way you want to be treated, to love others as you love yourself. Under that principle, sex slavery is of course condemned. Moreover, fornication and adultery are condemned. But in Islam, it is not only permissible to have women sex slaves, but also children sex slaves. This was practiced throughout Islamic history. Did you know that sex slavery was completely legal in Saudi Arabia until 1962? The only reason why it was abolished was because of pressure from the West.
Slavery has been justified by Muhammad’s example, as clearly laid out in the hadiths. Muhammad took many slaves and was actually very supportive of the institution. Slaves are called in the Quran “Milk al-Yamin,” “the right hand possesses” (4:24). All Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence agree that this verse, “What your right hand possesses,” refers to slaves.
Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.
(Quran 4:24, Muhsin Khan)
The following Tafsir reads:
And forbidden to you are wedded women those with spouses that you should marry them before they have left their spouses be they Muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own of captured slave girls whom you may have sexual intercourse with even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp but only after they have been absolved of the possibility of pregnancy after the completion of one menstrual cycle…
Ibn Kathir wrote:
Forbidding Women Already Married, Except for Female Slaves
Allah said,
<Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess>
The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,
<except those whom your right hands possess>
except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant.
Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Said Al-Khudri said, “We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet… about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed,
<Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess>
Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.” This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasā’i, Ibn Jarīr and Muslim in his Sahīh.
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Vol. 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5 (Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147, pp. 421-422)
Ibn Abbas believed it was okay to violate married slaves. Al-Tabari wrote in his Tafsir [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
…
- 7125 Al-Muthanna narrated to me, who said: Abdullah ibn Salih narrated to us, who said: Mu’awiyah narrated to me, from Ali ibn Abi Talhah, from Ibn Abbas regarding the verse: {And [all] married women are forbidden to you, except for those whom your right hands possess} He said: “Every woman who has a husband is forbidden to you, except a female slave whom you possess and who has a husband in a land of war; she is lawful for you after you have ensured she is not pregnant.” …
Al-Mawardi wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
As for those [female slaves] whom your right hands possess among slave-women: if a buyer purchases her, her marriage is nullified and she becomes lawful to her purchaser, and her sale constitutes her divorce. This is the view of Ibn Mas’ud, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Jabir ibn Abd Allah, Anas ibn Malik, Ibn Abbas (in a narration from Ikrimah), Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib, and al-Hasan.
(The Commentary of Al-Mawardi, titled The Subtleties and the Springs)
Al-Qurtubi affirmed that the four Imams (Malik, Abu Hanifa, Al-Shafi’i, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) all agreed on the permissibility of such a practice [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
… Ibn Abbas, Abu Qilabah, Ibn Zayd, Makhul, Al-Zuhri, and Abu Sa’id al-Khudri said: “Al-muhsanat” here refers to the captive women with husbands, specifically. They are forbidden except for what your right hands possess through captivity from the land of war. That is, such a woman is lawful for the one who gets her in his share, even if she has a husband. This is the opinion of Al-Shafi’i that captivity breaks the marital bond; Ibn Wahb and Ibn Abd al-Hakam said this and narrated it from Malik, and Ashhab also held this view. This is supported by what Muslim narrated in his Sahih from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri that the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, on the day of Hunayn, sent an army to Awtas. They met the enemy, fought them, defeated them, and captured women. Some of the companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, were hesitant to have intercourse with them because of their husbands who were polytheists. So God, the Almighty, revealed in this matter: “And (prohibited are) the chaste women… except those whom your right hands possess.” That is, they are lawful for you after their waiting period has ended. This is a clear and explicit text that the verse was revealed because of the hesitation of the companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, to have intercourse with the captive women who had husbands. So God the Almighty revealed in response: “except those whom your right hands possess.” Malik, Abu Hanifah and his companions, Al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, Ishaq, and Abu Thawr held this view, and it is the correct one, God willing. They differed on how her waiting period should be. Al-Hasan said: The companions of the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, would wait for one menstrual cycle for the captive woman. This has been narrated from the hadith of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri regarding the captives of Awtas: “A pregnant woman should not be had intercourse with until she gives birth, and a non-pregnant woman until she menstruates.” The previous husband’s bed was not given any effect to the point where it would be said that the captive woman, although she was owned, was still a wife whose marriage was broken, so she should observe the waiting period of slave women, as was narrated from Al-Hasan b. Salih who said: She has a waiting period of two menstrual cycles if she had a husband in the land of war. The majority of scholars considered her waiting period and the waiting period of the woman who has no husband to be the same, which is one menstrual cycle.
Al-Shafi’i wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
“… All women’s private parts are prohibited except by one of two meanings: marriage or intercourse by right of ownership.’…”
And:
… It is said to him: “A man has a wife and a female slave, and he is forbidden from having intercourse with them while they are menstruating or fasting. If he were to do so, that intercourse would not be lawful for him in that state, but neither of them would become forbidden to him in a state other than that one, since their origin is permissible and lawful.”
… “And the origin of a man’s wealth is forbidden to others except by what it is made lawful through, such as a legal transaction. And women’s private parts are forbidden except by what they are made lawful through, such as marriage and ownership…
(Kitab al-Risala, pp. 354-355)
Ibn al-Qayyim wrote that Allah allowed the Muslims to have sex with slave-girls/women [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
… they would have intercourse with them after they had been purified, and Allah permitted that for them, and did not stipulate Islam, but rather Allah the Most High said: {And chaste women, except those your right hands possess} [An-Nisa’: 24] [An-Nisa’: 24], so He permitted intercourse with the possession of the right hand, even if she was Married if her waiting period has ended by purification. (Salama ibn al-Akwa’ said to him, when he asked him for the Fazarite slave girl from the captives: By God, O Messenger of God! I am pleased with her, and I have not uncovered any of her clothing.)…
(The Book of Zad al-Ma’ad in the Guidance of the Best of Creation – The Second Message)
Muhammad himself had sex slaves:
Narrated `Aisha:
The Prophet (ﷺ) used to take the Pledge of allegiance from the women by words only after reciting this Holy Verse:–(60.12) “..that they will not associate anything in worship with Allah.” (60.12) And the hand of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) did not touch any woman’s hand except the hand of that woman his right hand possessed. (i.e. his captives or his lady slaves).
The Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir mentions one of Muhammad’s sex slaves, Mariyah:
…”He presented to the prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a donkey and a mule which was white… The apostle of Allah liked Mariyah who was of white complexion and curly hair and pretty… Then he cohabited with Mariyah as a handmaid and sent her to his property which he had acquired from Banu al-Nadir.”
(Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir (Book of the Major Classes), Vol. 1, Part I & II, pp. 151-152)
He [Muhammad] used to visit her there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property.845 When she became pregnant [and her time was due] she gave birth there, the midwife being Salma, the Prophet’s client.
(Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: Biographies of the Prophet’s Companions and Their Successors, Vol. 39, p. 194)
The footnote reads “845. That is, Mariyah was ordered to veil herself as did the Prophet’s wives, but he did not marry her.”
A modern Muslim biographer lists Mariyah as one of Muhammad’s slave women:
Besides these, he had two concubines. The first was Mariyah, the Coptic (an Egyptian Christian), a present gift from Al-Muqauqis, vicegerent of Egypt – she gave birth to his son Ibrâhim, who died in Madinah while still a little child, on the 28th or 29th of Shawwal in the year 10 A.H., i.e. 27th January, 632 A.D. The second one was Raihanah bint Zaid An-Nadriyah or Quraziyah, a captive from Bani Quraiza. Some people say she was one of his wives. However, Ibn Al-Qaiyim gives more weight to the first version. Abu ‘Ubaidah spoke of two more concubines, Jameelah, a captive, and another one, a bondwoman granted to him by Zainab bint Jahsh.
(Saif-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar) Biography of the Noble Prophet, p. 485)
The Tafsir of al-Jalalayn is another source that states that Mariyah was owned by Muhammad. Here is what the commentary says about Quran 33:52:
Women are not lawful for you (read lā tahillu, or lā yahillu) beyond that, beyond the nine that have chosen you [as their husband], nor [is it lawful] for you to change (tabaddala: one of the two original tā’ letters [of tatabaddala] has been omitted) them for other wives, by divorcing them or some of them and marry in place of those whom you divorce, even though their beauty impress you, except those whom your right hand owns, of slavegirls, which is [in contrast] lawful for you. In addition to these [slavegirls] the Prophet (s) came to own Māriya [the Copt]. She bore for him Ibrāhīm, who died during his lifetime. And God is Watcher over, Preserver [of], all things.
Muhammad committed adultery with his wives by sexually exploiting his slave (though in Islam, it’s conveniently not considered adultery for a married man to have sexual intercourse with one’s slaves or captives):
“It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but ‘Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed:
“O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you.’ until the end of the Verse.”
The following Islamic text gives more details about Muhammad getting caught having sex with his slave:
(O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee…) [66:1]. Muhammad ibn Mansur al-Tusi informed us> ‘Ali ibn ‘Umar ibn Mahdi> al-Husayn ibn Isma’il al-Mahamili> ‘Abd Allah ibn Shabib> Ishaq ibn Muhammad> ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar> Abu’l-Nadr, the client of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd Allah> ‘Ali ibn ‘Abbas> Ibn ‘Abbas> ‘Umar who said: “The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, entered the house of Hafsah along with the mother of his son, Mariyah. When Hafsah found him with her [in an intimate moment], she said: ‘Why did you bring her in my house? You did this to me, to the exception of all your wives, only because I am too insignificant to you’. He said to her: ‘Do not mention this to ‘A’ishah; she is forbidden for me [i.e. Mariyah] if I ever touch her’. Hafsah said: ‘How could she be forbidden for you when she is your slave girl?’ He swore to her that he will not touch her and then said: ‘Do not mention this incident to anyone’. But she went ahead and informed ‘A’ishah. The Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, decided not to go to his wives for a month. He stayed away from them twenty nine days when Allah, glorious and exalted is He, revealed (O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives?)”…
Al-Qurtubi wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Most commentators agree that the verse was revealed concerning Hafsa, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was alone with his concubine in her house, as mentioned by Al-Tha’labi.
At least on one occasion, Muhammad’s child-wife thought that he had gone to one of his slaves, presumably for sex:
‘Aishah said:
“I noticed that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was missing from bed, so I started to look for him, and I thought that he had gone to one of his concubines. Then my hand fell on him when he was prostrating and saying: “Allahummaghfirli ma asrartu wa ma a’lant (O Allah, forgive me for what (sin) I have concealed and what I have done openly).'”
Remember, since Muhammad practiced owning sex slaves, it makes it permissible for Muslim men.
In Islam, it is allowable to have sex with (really rape) captive women when they are free from their menstrual course or give birth:
Narrated Ruwayfi’ ibn Thabit al-Ansari:
Should I tell you what I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say on the day of Hunayn: It is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the last day to water what another has sown with his water (meaning intercourse with women who are pregnant); it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to have intercourse with a captive woman TILL she is free from a menstrual course; and it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to sell spoil till it is divided.
(711) Chapter: Regarding Intercourse With Captives
Abu Sa’id Al Khudri traced to Prophet (ﷺ) the following statement regarding the captives taken at Atwas. There must be no intercourse with pregnant woman till she gives birth to her child or with the one who is not pregnant till she has had one menstrual period.
Narrated Umm Habibah bint ‘Irbad bin Sariyah:
From her father who told her that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) prohibited intercourse with female prisoners, until they deliver what is in their wombs.”
[Abu ‘Eisa said:] There is something on this topic from Ruwaifi’ bin Thabit, and the Hadith of ‘Irbad is a Gharib Hadith. This is acted upon according to the people of knowledge.
Al-Awza’i said: “When a man purchases a slave girl from the captives and she is pregnant, then it has been related from ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab that he said: ‘Do not have intercourse with the pregnant women until she gives birth.'” Al-Awza’i said: “As for the free women, then the Sunnah about them has passed, in that the ‘Iddah is observed.” All of this was narrated to me by ‘Ali bin Khushram who said: ” ‘Eisa bin Yunus narrated to us from Al-Awza’i.”
Muhammad’s deity gave the green light to rape married women after Muhammad’s companions were initially reluctant to do so:
Chapter: It is permissible to have intercourse with a female captive after it is established that she is not pregnant, and if she has a husband, then her marriage is annulled when she is captured
This hadith has been reported on the authority of AbuSa’id (al-Khudri) (Allah be pleased with him) through another chain of transmitters and the words are:
They took captives (women) on the day of Autas who had their husbands. They were afraid (to have sexual intercourse with them) when this verse was revealed:” And women already married except those whom you right hands posses” (iv. 24)
Abu Sa’id Al Khudri said “The Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of Apostle of Allaah (ﷺ) were reluctant to have relations with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. So, Allaah the exalted sent down the Qur’anic verse “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand posses.” This is to say that they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.
Indeed, in Islam, it is permissible to rape captive women/girls even when their husbands are still alive:
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:
” And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess [captives of war] (iv. 24)” (i. e. they were lawful for them when their ‘Idda period came to an end).
Sadly, Muhammad’s companions committed rape against married females. Again, Ibn Kathir is quoted:
Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said, “We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed…
<Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess>.
Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.” This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih.
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Vol. 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5 (Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147, p. 422)
Some Muslim apologists will claim it’s not actually rape when they (the Muslim captors) had sexual intercourse with their captives, but what woman or girl would willfully have sexual intercourse with their captors, especially a married woman or girl?
Adultery is defined as the voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse. Even if it is granted that the married captive women and girls consented to sexual intercourse with their jihadi captors, that would mean Muhammad permitted and condoned the practice of adultery as the word is defined! It’s no wonder Muhammad taught that adulterers will still enter paradise:
Narrated Abu Dhar:
Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Someone came to me from my Lord and gave me the news (or good tidings) that if any of my followers dies worshipping none (in any way) along with Allah, he will enter Paradise.” I asked, “Even if he committed illegal sexual intercourse (adultery) and theft?” He replied, “Even if he committed illegal sexual intercourse (adultery) and theft.“
The preceding quotation contradicts the Bible, which reads that adulterers and thieves will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
Raping slaves or captives was common amongst the Muslims. Note Muhammad’s indifference to the Muslim men using their newly acquired women and girls for sex:
…Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: “O Abu Said, did you hear Allah’s messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?” He said, “Yes”, and added: “We went out with Allah’s messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl” (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: “We are doing an act whereas Allah’s messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?” So we asked Allah’s messenger and he said: “It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born”.
Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and said:
I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise ‘azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.
Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri:
A man said: Messenger of Allah, I have a slave-girl and I withdraw the penis from her (while having intercourse), and I dislike that she becomes pregnant. I intend (by intercourse) what the men intend by it.
The Jews say that withdrawing the penis (azl) is burying the living girls on a small scale. He (the Prophet) said: The Jews told a lie. If Allah intends to create it, you cannot turn it away.
Muhammad is offered the clear opportunity to condemn raping women/girls — yet instead he advises on how to proceed!
But in the following hadith, Muhammad discourages coitus interruptus, which is just another example of Muhammad flip-flopping, showing his prophetic fallibility:
Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) he said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
Here, the “prophet” of Islam did not mind his men raping women/girls, as long as they ejaculated within the bodies of their victims!
It was narrated that Salamah bin Al-Muhabbaq said:
“The Prophet passed judgment concerning a man who had intercourse with his wife’s slave woman: ‘If he forced her, then she is free, and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as a replacement; if she obeyed him in that, then she belongs to him, and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as a replacement.'”
Umar ibn al-Khattab (the 2nd Caliph) practiced coitus interruptus with one of his slave women, but became concerned when she became pregnant. When she gave birth to a black child, knowing that it wasn’t his, he rejoiced. Ibn Qudamah wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Sa’id narrated, he said Sufyan told us, from Ibn Abi Najih, from a young man from the people of Medina, that Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, used to practice coitus interruptus with one of his slave women, and she became pregnant, which distressed him. He said: “O Allah, do not attribute to the family of Umar those who are not from them, for there is no concealment for the family of Umar.” So she gave birth to a black child, and he said: “From whom is he?” She said: “From the camel shepherd.” So he praised Allah and glorified Him.
Imam Malik ibn Anas said that the practice of coitus interruptus (following the act of rape) can be done with a slave-girl without her permission:
100 Yaḥyā related to me from Mālik from Ḥumayd ibn Qays al-Makkī that a man called Dhafif said that Ibn ‘Abbās was asked about coitus interruptus, He called a slave-girl and said, “Tell them,” She was embarrassed. He said, “It is all right, and I do it myself.”
Mālik said, “A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a freewoman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practising coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone who has someone else’s slave-girl as a wife does not practise coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission.”
(Al-Muwatta’ of Imām Mālik bin Anas: The First Formulation of Islamic Law, 29.34 Coitus interruptus, p. 441. Ahmad ibn Hanbal gave a similar opinion in Chapters on Marriage and Divorce: Responses of Ibn Ḥanbal and Ibn Rāhwayh, §66, p. 69, translated by Susan Spectorsky)
Imam Malik ibn Anas was asked about intercourse with multiple slave girls. He said Ghusl (full body wash) was not required between intercourse with slave-girls. Thus, it is permissible to rape multiple slave-girls before doing a full body wash:
Yaḥyā related to me from Mālik from Nāfi‘ that the slave-girls of ʿAbdullāh ibn ‘Umar used to wash his feet and bring him a mat of palm-leaves while they were menstruating.
Mālik was asked whether a man who had wives and slave-girls could have intercourse with all of them before he did ghusl. He said, “There is no harm in a man having intercourse with two of his slave-girls before he does ghusl. It is disapproved of, however, to go to a free woman on another’s day. There is no harm having intercourse first with one slave girl and then with another when one is junub.”
Mālik was asked about a man who was junub and water was put down for him to do ghusl with. Then he forgot and put his finger into it to find out whether it was hot or cold. Mālik said, “If no impurity has soiled his fingers, I do not consider that that makes the water impure.”
(Al-Muwatta’ of Imām Mālik bin Anas: The First Formulation of Islamic Law, 2.22 Ghusl for major ritual impurity, pp. 70-71)
According to the book al-Hidayah (“the guidance,” also spelled Hedaya), a 12th-century legal manual by Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani, which is considered to be one of the most influential compendia of Hanafi jurisprudence (fiqh), a husband is permitted to rape his wife:
But not if she be refractory.—If a wife be disobedient or refractory and go abroad without her husband’s consent, she is not entitled to any support from him, until she return and make submission, because the rejection of the matrimonial restraint in this instance originates with her; but when she returns home, she is then subject to it, for which reason she again becomes entitled to her support as before. It is otherwise where a woman, residing in the house of her husband, refuses to admit him to the conjugal embrace, as she is entitled to maintenance, notwithstanding her opposition, because being then in his power, he may, if he please, enjoy her by force.
Or an infant incapable of generation. — If a man’s wife be so young as to be incapable of generation, her maintenance is not incumbent upon him, because although she should be within his custody, yet as an obstacle exists in her to the carnal embrace, this is not the custody which entitles to maintenance, that being described “custody, for the purpose of enjoyment,” which does not apply to the case of one incapable of the act : — contrary to the case of the sick woman, to whom maintenance is due, although she be incapable, as shall be hereafter demonstrated. — Shafei says that maintenance is due to an infant wife, because he holds it to be a return for the matrimonial propriety, in the same manner as it is with respect to a slave for the propriety in his personal service.
(Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani, The Hedaya Commentary On Islamic Laws, p. 141. The Arabic: The Book of Al-Hidayah in Explaining Bidayat al-Mubtadi. Other Hanafi scholars who affirmed the permissibility of marital rape as stated in The Hedaya: Abd al-Ghani al-Maydani’s Al-Lubab fi Sharh al-Kitab; and Badr al-Din al-Ayni’s The Book of Al-Binayah in Explaining Al-Hidayah.)
It also reads:
A man may gratify his passion with his female slave in whatever way he pleases- It is lawful for a man to perform the act of Azil (i.e. coitus interruptus) with his female slave without her consent, whereas he cannot lawfully do so by his wife unless with her permission. –The reason of this is that the Prophet has forbidden the act of Azil with a free woman without her consent but has permitted it to a master in the case of his female slave. Besides, carnal connexion is the right of a free woman for the gratifying of her passion, and the propagation of children (whence it is that a wife is at liberty to reject a husband who is an eunuch or impotent); whereas a slave possesses no such right.—A man, therefore, is not at liberty to injure the right of his wife, whereas a master is absolute with respect to his slave. If, also, a man should marry the female slave of another, he must not perform the act of Azil with her without the consent of her master.
(Ibid., p. 600)
The early Muslims differed on whether one can practice coitus interruptus after raping their slave girls. Ibn Mundhir wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
“Scholars have differed on the issue of a man performing coitus interruptus with his slave-girl. A group of the Companions of the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, permitted it. Among those from whom we have narrated that they permitted it are Ali ibn Abi Talib, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Zayd ibn Thabit, Ibn Abbas, Jabir ibn Abdullah, al-Hasan ibn Ali, Khabbab ibn al-Aratt, Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab, and Tawus. We have also narrated from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ibn Mas’ud, and Ibn Umar that they disliked it. Abu Bakr said: ‘Coitus interruptus with a slave-girl is absolutely permissible.’ This is based on a confirmed report from the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, who said to a man who had a slave-girl: ‘Perform coitus interruptus with her if you wish, for whatever is destined for her will come to her.'”
… “They differed on the issue of coitus interruptus with a free woman and a slave-girl, with or without their permission. We narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said: ‘A free woman must be consulted about coitus interruptus, but a concubine does not have to be consulted. However, if a slave-girl is married to a free man, she should be consulted just as a free woman is consulted.'”
(Al-Ishraf: A Survey of the Doctrines of the Scholars by Ibn al-Mundhir)
Abdullah ibn Umar (the son of 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 forbidden (haram) for him through adult suckling:
Yaḥyā related to me from Mālik that ‘Abdullāh ibn Dīnār said, “A man came to ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar when I was with him at the place where judgements were given and asked him about the suckling of an older person. ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar replied, ‘A man came to ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb and said, ‘I have a slave-girl and I used to have intercourse with her. My wife went to her and suckled her. When I went to the girl, my wife told me to watch out because she had suckled her!’ ‘Umar told him to beat his wife and to go to his slavegirl because kinship by suckling was only by the suckling of the young.”
(Al-Muwatta’ of Imām Mālik bin Anas: The First Formulation of Islamic Law, 30.1 Suckling of the young, p. 448)
Umar seemed to like sexually assaulting slave girls [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
…on the authority of Nafi` , on the authority of Ibn Umar , “that when he bought a slave girl, he would uncover her leg and place his hand between her breasts and on her buttocks, and it was as if he was…”
(The Book of Sunnahs by Al-Bayhaqi. Also referenced in Irwa’ al-Ghalil – Muhammad Nasir al-Albani – Vol. 6 – Page 201)
Umar called a slave merchandise, showing how the Muslims (sahabah) dehumanized certain people. Ibn Abi Shaybah wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
A Man Wants to Buy a Female Slave, So He Touches Her
(1) Jarir narrated to us from Mansur from Mujahid who said: I was walking with Ibn Umar in the market when we came upon some slave dealers gathered around a female slave, turning her over. When they saw Ibn Umar, they moved aside and said: “Ibn Umar has come.” So, Ibn Umar approached her, touched something of her body, and said: “Where are the owners of this female slave? She is merely merchandise.”
(2) Ali ibn Mus’hir narrated to us from Ubaidullah from Nafi’ from Ibn Umar that when he wanted to buy a female slave, he would place his hand on her buttocks or between her thighs, and sometimes he would uncover her shins.
According to Islamic thought, the lack of consent of female sex slaves is irrelevant. Slave women and girls do not have agency over their sexual access, so their owners can have sex with them. No Quranic or hadith text reads that it is prohibited to rape one’s own slaves or captives, as they are considered property in Islam. Dr. Hina Azam, in her book Sexual Violation in Islamic Law: Substance, Evidence, and Procedure, wrote, “Coercion within marriage or concubinage might be repugnant, but it remained fundamentally legal” (p. 69). Dr. Kecia Ali, in her book Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam, wrote, “…sexual and marital self-determination was never available to an enslaved female. Her master’s right of possession granted him licit sexual access to her, and if he married her off that right passed to her husband” (p. 40). Dr. Jonathan Brown wrote in his book, Slavery & Islam, “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… 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)” (pp. 281-282).
Some Muslim apologists appeal to al-Halimi (d. 1012), a Shafi’i jurist, who gave an anomalous opinion about consent regarding one’s female slave [both following quotations translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
If a man buys a slave who has an unsightly physical defect to serve him, and the slave dislikes his master’s health [or condition], he should sell him. If he buys a female slave and she dislikes that he should handle her or have intimate relations with her, he must not touch her, nor have intimate relations with her, nor have intercourse with her except with her permission; if she desires it, he should sell her.
But this was his recommendation, not a formal legal obligation (wājib). Such a recommendation is not a binding Sharia requirement.
Elsewhere, he mentioned that the master can force his pagan slaves to convert to Islam, with one of the given reasons being that it makes his female slaves sexually permissible for him. Doesn’t it strain logic to suggest that the slave master can force his slave to convert to Islam for the sake of having sex with her but, for some reason, cannot have sex with her against her consent?
Therefore, if the owned person is a non-Arab, it is sufficient to infer his faith through the presence of signs from him, and he is not required to produce what is demanded of native speech and debate. If he questions him and he explicitly expresses disbelief, then one looks: if he is a pagan, he is compelled to convert to Islam; and if he is a People of the Book, he is invited to it without compulsion.
I only mentioned this ruling as a transmitted report regarding a pagan female slave. It is permissible that it applies specifically to her rather than to a male slave, because her paganism makes it impossible for her master to enjoy intimate relations with her, so she is compelled toward Islam in order to make intimacy permissible—just as a man compels his Dhimmi wife to perform ritual purification from menstruation so she becomes available for intercourse. A male slave differs from a female slave in this regard, as his paganism does not prevent his master from enjoying him in any way. The report regarding this does not go beyond physical chastisement up to a minor punishment.
If the non-Arab is asked: “Where is God?” and he is a Turk, and he points to the sky, that does not indicate his faith, because most Turks view the sky itself as their deities. This gesture is only accepted in place of verbal expression for some of the names of God, Almighty and Majestic, from someone who does not view the sky as a deity. If the woman pointing to the sky is Turkish, it is not permissible for her master to approach her until she converts to Islam, and he may compel her to do so by measures short of death until she acknowledges the truth.
The following Islamic sources reaffirm that rape is indeed permissible in Islam:
And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts). Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed…
(Quran 70:29-30, Muhsin Khan)
And who guard their modesty -Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy…
(Quran 23:5-6, Pickthall)
Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Abbad (1934- ), who is a Saudi religious scholar, wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The master may have intercourse with her, as she is his property and his concubine. As for anyone else, it is not permissible for him unless it is through marriage. It is not permissible for the master to give her to someone else or to give permission to anyone else to have intercourse with her. Rather, intercourse with her is only permissible through right-hand possession (slavery) or through marriage, based on the statement of the Almighty: “Except with their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed. But whoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are the transgressors.” (Al-Mu’minun: 6-7).
O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses…
(Quran 33:50, Muhsin Khan)
Ibn Kathir wrote:
…(those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses whom Allah has given to you,) means, `the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you.’ He owned Safiyyah and Juwayriyah, then he manumitted them and married them, and he owned Rayhanah bint Sham`un An-Nadariyyah and Mariyah Al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibrahim, upon him be peace; they were both among the prisoners, may Allah be pleased with them…
Bahz b. Hakim said that his father told on the authority of his grandfather:
I said: Messenger of Allah, from whom should we conceal our private parts and to whom can we show? He replied: conceal your private parts except from your wife and from whom your right hands possess (slave-girls)…
Muhammad’s companion(s) would even rape a prepubescent girl. In the following hadith, after a battle, Muhammad sent Ali Ibn Talib (the 4th Caliph) to collect the khumus, one-fifth of the war booty that goes to Muhammad. Ali goes to collect the war booty and rapes a slave girl. Since it seems he didn’t wait until she menstruated once, they assumed that she was prepubescent. Their rationale was that there was no reason to follow the commandment to wait because the girl had not reached menarche; such a girl is unlikely to be fertile and therefore not likely to be pregnant.
Narrated Buraida:
The Prophet (ﷺ) sent `Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated `Ali, and `Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you see this (i.e. `Ali)?” When we reached the Prophet (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He said, “O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari 4350. The event is also found in The Virtues of the Companions by Ahmad ibn Hanbal.)
Ibn Hajar gave his understanding of the event [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The occurrence of Ali lying with the slave-girl without waiting for an istibrā’ (clearing period to ensure she is not pregnant) has been found problematic, as well as his dividing a share for himself. As for the first issue, it is interpreted as meaning that she was a virgin below the age of puberty, and he held the view that someone like her does not require an istibrā’, as other Companions also maintained. Alternatively, it is permissible that she menstruated shortly after becoming his, then purified herself after a day and a night, and then he lay with her—and there is nothing to dismiss this possibility. As for the division [of the spoils for himself], it is permissible for such a person who is a partner in what he is dividing—just like a ruler when he distributes among the citizenry while being one of them; likewise is the one appointed by the ruler who stands in his place. Al-Khaṭṭābī answered with the second explanation, and answered the first by the possibility that she was a virgin, or below the age of puberty, or his legal reasoning (ijtihād) led him to conclude that no istibrā’ was required.
It can be derived from the Ḥadīth that it is permissible to take a concubine (tasarri) over the daughter of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—unlike marrying a second wife over her, based on what occurred in the Ḥadīth of al-Miswar in the Book of Marriage.
Ibn al-Jawzi wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
A group of scholars have held the view that girls who have not reached puberty do not need a waiting period, among them Al-Qasim bin Muhammad, Al-Layth bin Sa’d, and Abu Yusuf. Abu Yusuf did not see a need for a waiting period for a virgin, even if she had reached puberty. So, it is possible that the handmaiden was a virgin.
(Book of the Notables of Hadith (Explanation of Sahih al-Bukhari))
Al-Suyuti wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
(To take the fifth, and he had performed ghusl): This is an abbreviation. It is established in the narration by Al-Isma’ili, who said: “Ali chose a captive girl for himself, and then he woke up with his head dripping.” In another wording, “a handmaiden,” meaning, from the best of the captives. His act of taking a share for himself and his intercourse with the girl without a waiting period (istibra’) have been questioned.
The first issue is answered by stating that this was an authority delegated to him by the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. The second is answered by the possibility that she was a virgin or a minor, and his legal reasoning led him to believe that no istibra’ was required, a view held by more than one Companion.
I say: This hadith explicitly states that the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, was aware of this, which serves as a tacit approval from him. This can be used as evidence for the lack of a required waiting period for a minor, which is one of the two opinions we hold. I will elaborate on this issue in the Hawashi al-Rawdah. It also indicates that Ali was not prevented from taking a concubine while married to Fatimah, may Allah be pleased with her, but only from marrying another wife.
Muhammad did not voice a single objection against the evil committed against the helpless prisoner of war, who was a girl. Nowhere does it read that he was concerned about the welfare of the girl who had been violated.
Ali was the husband of Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad. How many fathers-in-law would be okay with their sons-in-law to rape a defenseless girl? But Muhammad did. Why? Because he was a heartless demoniac. Such a practice wasn’t out of the ordinary for the sahabah. Muhammad seemed to have defended his son-in-law by saying, “he deserves more than that from the Khumus.” The implication is that he deserved to rape more girls and women; after all, raping captives is fair game in Islam.
The following is another disturbing story. Safiya was the daughter of a Jewish tribe leader. “Prophet” Muhammad killed her father, husband, and brother in the battle of Khaybar, and then didn’t even let her weep at their dead bodies, but distributed all the captive women on the same day as slave women amongst his companions. Safiya came into the possession of the companion Dihya Al-Kalbi.
When Muhammad learned about the beauty of Safiya, he took her for himself by giving up 7 of his own slaves to Dihya in exchange for her (Sunan Ibn Majah 2272). Then he handed her to Um Salim so that she could prepare her as a bride for him. Safiya was only 17 years old when she was given to Muhammad (The History of al-Tabari, Vol. 39, p. 185).
Herein lies one of several problems: This is RAPE! No woman or girl would consent to have sex with a man who had just killed her family.
It is a diabolical act to rape a captive woman or girl, but raping her when she is in a state of trauma due to the killing of her relatives is the peak of cruelty. That’s what Muhammad did:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah’s Apostle. The Prophet (ﷺ) selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba,’ Safiya became clean from her menses…
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet (ﷺ) stayed for three rights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. I invited the Muslim to h s marriage banquet and there wa neither meat nor bread in that banquet but the Prophet ordered Bilal to spread the leather mats on which dates, dried yogurt and butter were put. The Muslims said amongst themselves, “Will she (i.e. Safiya) be one of the mothers of the believers, (i.e. one of the wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) ) or just (a lady captive) of what his right-hand possesses” Some of them said, “If the Prophet (ﷺ) makes her observe the veil, then she will be one of the mothers of the believers (i.e. one of the Prophet’s wives), and if he does not make her observe the veil, then she will be his lady slave.” So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him (on his and made her observe the veil.
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said to Abu Talha, “Seek one of your boys to serve me.” Abu Talha mounted me behind him (on his riding animal) and took me (to the Prophet (ﷺ) ). So I used to serve Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) whenever he dismounted (to stay somewhere). I used to hear him saying very often, “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from, having worries sadness, helplessness, laziness, miserliness, cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overpowered by other persons unjustly.” I kept on serving till we -returned from the battle of Khaibar. The Prophet (ﷺ) then brought Safiyya bint Huyai whom he had won from the war booty. I saw him folding up a gown or a garment for her to sit on behind him (on his shecamel). When he reached As-Sahba’, he prepared Hais and placed it on a dining sheet. Then he sent me to invite men, who (came and) ate; and that was his and Safiyya’s wedding banquet. Then the Prophet proceeded, and when he saw (noticed) the mountain of Uhud, he said, “This mountain loves us, and we love it.” When we approached Medina, he said, “O Allah! I make the area between its two mountains a sanctuary as Abraham has made Mecca a sanctuary. O Allah! Bless their Mudd and Sa (special kinds of measure).
In the following hadith, the term “hostile” in parentheses is not in the original Arabic. It is deceitfully added in the English translation to justify the unprovoked attacks of Muhammad against the Jews:
The Prophet (ﷺ) offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet (ﷺ) had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet (ﷺ) made her manumission as her ‘Mahr’.
Noted Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq wrote:
The apostle seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them. The first to fall was the fort of Na‘im; there Mahmud b. Maslama was killed by a millstone which was thrown on him from it; then al-Qamus the fort of B. Abu’l-Huqayq. The apostle took captives from them among whom was Safiya d. Huyayy b. Akhtab who had been the wife of Kinana b. al-Rabi’ b. Abu’l-Huqayq, and two cousins of hers. The apostle chose Safiya for himself.
Dihya b. Khalifa al-Kalbi had asked the apostle for Safiya, and when he chose her for himself he gave him her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims. The Muslims ate the meat of the domestic donkeys and the apostle got up and forbade the people to do a number of things which enumerated.
(Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, p. 511)
Muhammad traded some of his slaves like they were Baseball cards to acquire Safiya:
Anas (Allah be pleased with him) reported:
I was sitting behind Abu Talha on the Day of Khaibar and my feet touched the foot of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), and we came (to the people of Khaibar) when the sun had risen and they had driven out their cattle, and had themselves come out with their axes, large baskets and hatchets, and they said: (Here come) Muhammad and the army. Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: Khaibar is ruined. Verily when we get down in the valley of a people, evil is the morning of the warned ones (al-Qur’an, xxxvii. 177). Allah, the Majestic and the Glorious, defeated them (the inhabitants of Khaibar), and there fell to the lot of Dihya a beautiful girl, and Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) got her in exchange of seven heads, and then entrusted her to Umm Sulaim so that she might embellish her and prepare her (for marriage) with him. He (the narrator) said: He had been under the impression that he had said that so that she might spend her period of ‘Iddah in her (Umm Sulaim’s) house. (The woman) was Safiyya daughter of Huyayy. Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) arranged the wedding feast consisting of dates, cheese, and refined butter, and pits were dug and tiers were set in them dining cloths, and there was brought cheese and refined butter, and these were placed there. And the people ate to their fill, and they said: We do not know whether he (the Holy Prophet) had married her (as a free woman), or as a slave woman. They said: If he (the Holy Prophet) would make her wear the veil, then she would be a (free married) woman, and if he would not make her wear the veil, then she should be a slave woman. When he intended to ride, he made her wear the veil and she sat on the hind part of the camel; so they came to know that he had married her. As they approached Medina, Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) drove (his ride) quickly and so we did. ‘Adba’ (the name of Allah’s Apostle’s camel) stumbled and Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) fell down and she (Radrat Safiyya: also fell down. He (the Holy Prophet) stood up and covered her. Women looked towards her and said: May Allah keep away the Jewess! He (the narrator) said: I said: Aba Hamza, did Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) really fall down? He said: Yes, by Allah, he in fact fell down.
Muhammad didn’t even pay her the mahr (gift or sum of money that a groom gives his bride as part of an Islamic wedding). Despite Muhammad being responsible for Safiya’s calamity, to him, freeing her from sex slavery by “marrying” her was the mahr:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) manumitted Safiyya and regarded her manumission as her Mahr.
The following tradition gives a clearer picture of the amount of distress endured by those captive women and girls as a result of the loss of their loved ones:
… After the Messenger of God conquered al-Qamus, the fortress of Ibn Abi al-Huqayq, Safiyyah bt, Huyayy b. Akhfab was brought to him, and another woman with her. Bilal, who was the one who brought them, led them past some of the slain Jews. When the woman who was with Safiyyah saw them, she cried out, struck her face, and poured dust on her head. When the Messenger of God saw her, he said, “Take this she-devil away from me!”… The Messenger of God said to Bilal (according to what I have received) when he saw the Jewish woman doing what he saw her do, “Are you devoid of mercy, Bilal, that you take two women past their slain men?”
(Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, Vol. 8, p. 122)
Was it really necessary for the man deemed by many to be the greatest example for humanity to call her a she-devil for her trauma?
Understandably, Safiya initially refused to marry Muhammad, but it seemed like she relented to save herself [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
When he reached a place called Tabar, six miles from Khaybar, he wanted to marry her, but she refused him. So the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, felt bad about that… He kept talking to her and said to her: “What made you do what you did when I wanted to go down to the first place and enter with you?” She said:I feared for you because of the proximity of the Jews, and that increased her anxiety in the presence of the Messenger of Allah.
The following authentic tradition reads that Safiya considered Muhammad as the “most hated” for murdering her father, brother, and husband [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
Abdullah Ibn Umar narrates:
…The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was the most hated of people to me. He killed my husband, my father and my brother…
Since Muhammad had slaughtered Safiya’s family, Muhammad’s companion was worried that she might try to take revenge on Muhammad when he was lying with her:
Ibn ‘Umar [al-Waqidi] – Kathir b. Zayd – al-Walid b. Rabah – Abu Hurayrah: While the Prophet was lying with Safiyyah Abu Ayyub stayed the night at his door. When he saw the Prophet in the morning he said “God is the Greatest.” He had a sword with him; he said to the Prophet, “O Messenger of God, this young woman had just been married, and you killed her father, her brother and her husband, so I did not trust her (not to harm) you.” The Prophet laughed and said “Good”.
(Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: Biographies of the Prophet’s Companions and Their Successors, Vol. 39, p. 185)
It is believed that Muhammad violated the command ordered by his god with the Jewess Safiya, whose family he had killed since he purportedly didn’t wait for her waiting period of four months and ten days (‘Iddah) (Quran 2:234–235) to end before consummating the “marriage” with her, reaffirming he was a hypocrite.
After all the evil Muhammad did to Safiya, he still didn’t treat her well:
[3228] 387 – ( … ) It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “When the Prophet wanted to depart, he saw Safiyyah at the door of her tent, looking sad and sorrowful. He said: ‘(May you become) barren and shaven-headed,[1] you are going to detain us.’ Then he said to her: ‘Did you perform Tawâf Al-Ifâdah on the Day of Sacrifice?’ She said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then depart.”
(The English Translation of Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, The Book of Hajj, Chapter 65. It Is Permissible To Ride The Sacrificial Animal If Necessary, pp. 471-472)
This is not the only girl who was violated and taken by force by Muhammad in Islamic literature. After Muhammad and his companions committed genocide on the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe, he admitted Rayhana d. ‘Amr b. Khunafa into his stable of women/girls. Understandably, “She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism” (The Life of Muhammad, p. 466).
Muhammad and his companions made widows out of young women so that they could sexually assault them. How can such a man be an exemplar of perfect conduct? Why would his deity be okay with such savagery and barbarism?
Raping women was one of the incentives to conquer. Indeed, his deity promised the Muslim jihadis “much booty” that they “will capture” (Quran 48:20, Pickthall).
One of Muhammad’s jihadis disgustingly declared:
“By God, I did not come to fight Thaqif with you, but I wished Muhammad to be victorious over al-Ta’if, so that I might obtain a slave girl from Thaqif whom I might make pregnant so that she might bear me a son, for Thaqif are clever people (manakir).”
(Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, Vol. IX, pp. 25-26)
Another Islamic source reveals how the early Muslims sexually assaulted girls [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
On the authority of Ayoub bin Abdullah Al-Lakhmi, on the authority of Ibn Omar, he said: A girl fell into my lot on the day of Jalula , and her neck was like a silver jug. Ibn Omar said: I could not control myself but began to kiss her – while people were watching – for pleasure was permitted before purification – and success comes from God Almighty
Consistent with what the Muslim men would do, Umar ibn al-Khattab (the 2nd Caliph) committed what seems to be the rape of a female slave. During his fast, he noticed an attractive slave girl. He exploited her sexually. There is no mention of her being his “wife.” There is no mention that he ever “married” her. She looked good to him, and he took her:
A slave girl passed by me who attracted me, and I cohabited with her while I was fasting.
(Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al Tabaqat Al Kabir Vol. 2, Part I & II, p. 438. Also reported in Al-Ateeq book is a collection of fatwas of the companions of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace by Mohammed bin Mubarak Hakimi, graded as authentic. Moreover, it has been reported that Umar raped Atikah bint Zayd in Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, but the chain of narration is broken according to The Comprehensive Book of Hadith by al-Jalal Al-Suyuti.)
It has been reported that Umar had someone buy him a slave girl to have sexual relations with, but she was married [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
8584 – And they narrated to us from Ali bin Hajar, who said: Sharik narrated to us, from Ubaydullah bin Sa’d, from Yasar bin Numayr, who said: Umar commanded me to buy a slave girl for him. So I bought him a slave girl who had a husband. He said: “You bought me a slave girl who has a husband?! Buy her intimacy for me.” So I bought her intimacy for five hundred or thereabouts. (2)
(The Intermediate Book of Sunan, Consensus, and Disagreement – Al-Falah Edition)
Astonishingly, Islam is perhaps the only religion in the world that includes rules for rape!
Islamweb.net gave the following fatwa with the heading “Ruling on sexual intercourse with one’s polytheistic slave-woman”:
The slave owner has the right to be intimate with his female slave (who is a Muslim, Christian, or a Jew) because she is his “milk yameen” (that which his right hand possesses) but he cannot marry her. If he wishes to marry her, he has to set her free and then marry her like the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, did with Safiyyah bint Huyayy…
…
Most of the slave women owned by the Companions were from the polytheist Arabs and it is known that they were idol-worshippers; they did not hold that it was impermissible for them to be intimate with them. It has not been reported that the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, deemed it unlawful and he, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, never forbade any of the Companions from being intimate with their polytheistic slave women.
(Source)
In IslamQA.info, it is reaffirmed that in Islam, one could have sexual relations with their female captives, which is indeed rape, as it is inconceivable that any girl or woman would consent to have sexual relations with their captor. Thus, Islam permits men to have sex slaves:
It is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with anyone except his wife or his female slave (concubine). A wife becomes permissible after shar’i marriage and a concubine becomes permissible to the man who owns her. She may originally be a prisoner of war, and a Muslim may obtain a concubine from the ruler or commander if he took part in fighting in jihad, or if he buys her from her owner. She becomes permissible for him by virtue of his ownership after it is established that she is not pregnant by waiting for one menstrual cycle, or until she has given birth if she is pregnant.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)
6. Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess, ـــ for then, they are free from blame”
[al-Mu’minoon 23:5-6]
It was narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, concerning the prisoners of Awtaas: “Do not have intercourse with a pregnant woman until she gives birth, or with one who is not pregnant until she has menstruated once.” Narrated by Abu Dawood, 2157. This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by Shaykh al-Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel, 187.
In the answer to question no. 10382 we have stated that Islam permits a man to have intercourse with his slave woman whether he has one or more wives or he is not married.
In the answers to questions no. 5707 and 12562 it states that female prisoners of war may be distributed by the commander in jihad, because he has the choice of either distributing them, or ransoming them or setting them free.
(Source)
Imam Ibn Hajar wrote about how the early Muslims thought it was permissible to sexually assault female slaves (note that an istibra’ was the waiting period that had to be observed before commencing intercourse with a newly acquired slave woman or girl to avoid doubts about paternity if she became pregnant) [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Chapter: Traveling with a Female Slave before Istibra’
The chapter is specifically about travel, likely because travel often leads to physical intimacy.
Opinions on Physical Contact
Al-Hasan saw no harm in kissing or foreplaying with her. Ibn Abi Shaybah reported this from Yunus ibn Ubaydah from Al-Hasan. However, Ibn Sirin disliked it. Abd al-Razzaq also reported Al-Hasan said: “One may engage in acts short of vaginal penetration.” Al-Dawudi deemed Al-Hasan’s view correct if it referred to a captive woman. But Ibn al-Tin disagreed, saying there’s no difference in istibra’ between a captive and others.
Ibn Umar on Istibra’
Ibn Umar said: “If a female slave who has been subject to intercourse is gifted, sold, or freed, her womb must be ‘cleared’ by one menstrual cycle. A virgin does not need istibra’.” Ibn Abi Shaybah connected the first part from Abdullah from Nafi’ from Ibn Umar. Abd al-Razzaq connected the second part (“A virgin does not need istibra’“) from Ayyub from Nafi’ from Ibn Umar. He seems to have believed that virginity prevents pregnancy or indicates its absence or lack of intercourse, but this is debatable. Even if true, istibra’ has a devotional aspect, which is why even menopausal women undergo it.
Ata’ on Pregnant Slave Girls
Ata’ said: “There is no harm in a man engaging in acts short of vaginal penetration with his pregnant slave girl.” He cited Allah’s verse: “Except with their wives or those their right hands possess.”
Al-Nawawi wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
It is strictly and severely forbidden (haram) for a wife or a female slave to refuse if her master/husband requests her for lawful intimacy. It is not forbidden (haram) to have intercourse with a nursing mother or a pregnant woman. It is disliked for a woman to describe another woman to her husband without a need, based on the authentic hadith prohibiting that.
(Rawdat al-Talibin wa Umdat al-Muftin (The Garden of Seekers and the Support of Legal Counsel))
According to IslamQA.info, a husband may beat his wife if she refuses to have sex with him, and a slave doesn’t have the right to refuse sex from her master [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Question: 33597 Is it permissible for a man to compel his wife or his female slave to have sexual intercourse if she refuses?
Answer: …
A woman is not permitted to withhold herself from her husband. Rather, it is obligatory for her to fulfill his request whenever he calls her, unless it harms her or prevents her from an obligation.
Al-Bukhari (3237) and Muslim (1436) narrated from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “(If a man invites his wife to his bed and she refuses, and he spends the night angry with her, the angels curse her until morning).”
If she refuses without a valid excuse, she is disobedient (nashiz) and forfeits her right to maintenance (n_afaqa_) and clothing.
The husband should advise her, warn her of Allah’s punishment, abandon her in bed, and he may hit her with a non-severe (non-mubarreh) beating. Allah, the Almighty, said: “As for those [wives] from whom you fear disobedience [nashuz], advise them; forsake them in bed; and strike them. But if they obey you, seek no means [of annoyance] against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.” (Quran, An-Nisa/34).
Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about what a husband should do if his wife prevents herself from him when he requests it. He replied: “(It is not permissible for her to be disobedient (nashuz) to him, nor to withhold herself from him. Rather, if she withholds herself and insists on it, he may hit her with a non-severe beating, and she is not entitled to maintenance or a share [of his time if he has other wives].)” (Majmoo’ al-Fatawa 32/279).
He was also asked about a man whose wife is disobedient (nashiz) and withholds herself from him; does she forfeit her maintenance and clothing, and what is obligatory upon her? He replied: “(Her maintenance and clothing are forfeited if she does not allow him access to herself, and he may hit her if she insists on disobedience. It is not permissible for her to refuse if he demands it from her; rather, she is disobedient to Allah and His Messenger. In the Sahih: ‘If a man invites a woman to his bed and she refuses him, the One in the heaven is angry with her until morning.’)” (End of quote from Majmoo’ al-Fatawa 32/278, and the hadith was narrated by Muslim (1736)).
Therefore, the wife should first be advised and warned about disobedience (nashuz), Allah’s anger towards her, and the angels’ curse. If she does not respond, the husband should abandon her in bed. If she still does not respond, he may hit her with a non-severe beating. If that also does not work, he may withhold her maintenance and clothing. He may also divorce her or allow her to seek khul’ (dissolution of marriage) by offering him money.
Similarly, a female slave is not permitted to refuse her master’s desire except for a valid excuse. If she does so, she is disobedient, and he may discipline her in a way he deems appropriate and that Islamic law permits…
(Source. The primary source for Ibn Taymiyya’s statements: The Book of Collected Fatwas 32/278-279)
According to the following fatwa, it is permissible (halal) for a husband to “compel” his wife and his “right-hand possession” [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Is a Master Allowed to Force a Female Slave into Intimacy if She Refuses?
The Question:
If a female slave (Malak Al-Yamin) refuses intimacy, is it permissible to force her?
The Fatwa:
All praise is due to Allah, and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah, and upon his family and companions.
It is better for a Muslim to occupy himself with relevant religious rulings and to invest his time and effort in seeking beneficial knowledge, for the purpose of knowledge is to act upon it. What does not lead to action is not worth researching. This includes matters related to female slaves, as they hold little practical benefit in the current era.
Regarding the specific question: If a wife is not permitted to refuse intimacy with her husband except for a valid excuse, then it is even more so that a female slave is not allowed to refuse intimacy with her master except for a valid excuse. This is because a master’s right to intimacy with his female slave is stronger than a husband’s right to intimacy with his wife through a marriage contract. Ownership of a female slave grants complete ownership, including her person and her benefits, whereas a marriage contract only grants the benefits stipulated by the contract, which is a restricted ownership.
Therefore, if a wife or a female slave refuses intimacy without a legitimate Islamic excuse, then the husband or master is permitted to compel her. However, he should consider her psychological state and generally treat her kindly and gently, as the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “Indeed, gentleness is not in anything except that it beautifies it, and it is not removed from anything except that it disgraces it.” (Narrated by Muslim).
(Islamic Network Fatwa Book. Also found on Islamway.net)
The following Islamic text, pulled from a comprehensive encyclopedia on Islamic jurisprudence, reads [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
… The master has the right to have intercourse with his female slave as long as there is no legal impediment, such as her being in her menstrual period, or in her postpartum period, or married, or a non-Scriptural disbeliever, or an apostate, or other such cases, or if she is co-owned with another. If she is had intercourse with, she becomes a concubine, except that if she was married and then was taken captive, it is permissible for her owner to annul her marriage and then have intercourse with her after purification. And there are legal rulings and controls for enjoying female slaves, which are to be looked at in their proper place from what follows. And in the term: (concubinage).
And it is obligatory for the female slave to allow her master to enjoy her, and it is forbidden for her to refuse that because it is a denial of a right, unless she is forbidden to him, or she has a valid excuse…
(Al-Mawsu’ah al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kuwaitiyyah (The Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence), 23/24-25)
In Islam, it is even allowed for the master to snatch away the wife from his male slave and rape her if he has lust for her. Sunnah.com didn’t translate the following hadith in Sahih Bukhari into English. The following is found under the heading “Chapter: ‘Forbidden to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, your daughters…’” [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
And Anas (ibn Malik, a prominent companion of the Prophet Muhammad) said regarding: “{And (also forbidden are) married women}” (This is part of Quran 4:24) (meaning) free women who have husbands are forbidden (to marry another man) “except those your right hands possess” (This refers to female slaves captured in lawful war; their previous marriages are considered dissolved, making them permissible to their new masters after a period of istibra’, i.e., ensuring no pregnancy from a previous partner). He (Anas) saw no harm in a man taking his female slave from his (own) slave (This refers to a specific legal scenario where a master can annul the marriage between his female slave and his male slave, and then take the female slave for himself).
Ibn Hajar wrote in his commentary on Sahih Bukhari [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
His statement: (And Anas said: “And unlawful are married women among free women, except those whom your right hands possess; a man sees no harm in taking his female slave [jāriyah] back from his male slave”)—and in the transmission of al-Kushmayhanī: “a female slave” [jāriyah]—(“from his male slave”): Ismāʿīl al-Qāḍī connected it in the book Aḥkām al-Qurʾān with an authentic chain of transmission (isnād ṣaḥīḥ) via Sulaymān al-Taymī, from Abū Mijlaz, from Anas ibn Mālik, that he said regarding the saying of the Almighty: “And married women [are prohibited]—the free ones—except those whom your right hands possess”: He [Anas] saw no harm in a man taking a female slave back from his male slave to have intercourse with her by virtue of right hand possession (malk al-yamīn).
An early Muslim believed it was permissible for slaveholders to swap slave girls and slave women. Al-Baghawī wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Ibn Zayd said regarding His statement—(nor [is it] for you to exchange them for [other] wives): During the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic period), the Arabs used to exchange wives; a man would say to another, “Exchange your wife with me, and I will exchange my wife with you; you cede your wife to me, and I cede my wife to you.” So Allah revealed: (nor [is it] for you to exchange them for [other] wives), meaning: Do not trade your wives with others by giving your wife to someone and taking his wife, “except what your right hand possesses”—there is no harm in exchanging your female slave for whatever you wish, but as for free women, no.
Islamically, a man can have an unlimited number of sex slaves [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Ata said: He intended by His saying (except those your right hands possess) that an individual’s slave woman be in the marriage of his slave, so it is permissible for him to strip her away from him. And it is said: He intended by al-muhsanat free women, and its meaning is that whatever is beyond four is forbidden from them except what your right hands possess, for there is no numerical limit upon you regarding slave girls.
In Islam, the length of the waiting period is addressed if both joint owners of a sex slave have intercourse with her. Imam Ibn Qudamah wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Chapter: A Slave Girl Owned by Two Partners
(6378) Section: If a slave girl is owned by two partners, and both of them have intercourse with her, two waiting periods (istibra’an) are required of her.
The companions of Al-Shafi’i said, in one of two views: Only one waiting period is required because the intention is to ascertain the clarity of the womb, and that is why no more than one menstruation is required for the waiting period, and the clarity of the womb is known through one waiting period.
Sexual intercourse with the sister of a female slave is permissible if the female slave is sold or freed after the rape of her. Al-Shafi’i wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
If he has intercourse with a female slave, then sells her immediately, or frees her, or makes a contract of manumission with her, or sells part of her, he is permitted to have intercourse with her sister in her place. But with a wife, he cannot marry her sister while she is his wife, nor can he transfer ownership of her to someone else, nor can he make her forbidden to himself without divorce.
It is permissible to rape female slaves from the People of the Book (Christians/Jews). It’s a scholarly consensus even more unanimous than that of having marriage with them. Ibn Taymiyya wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The answer: Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds. Having sexual intercourse with female slaves who are People of the Book by right of ownership is considered more valid than having sexual intercourse with them by right of marriage, according to the majority of scholars among the four imams and others.
(The Great Fatwas of Ibn Taymiyyah. He also stated “And if she is taken captive and enslaved without her husband, it is permissible to have intercourse with her without doubt…” in The Collected Fatwas.)
The following Islamic text provides more scholars who gave the permissibility to rape female slaves of the People of the Book [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
A Muslim is permitted to own female slaves. If these slaves are from the People of the Book, he is allowed to have intercourse with them through right of ownership, without a marriage contract. She remains a slave by right of ownership and does not become a wife through a marriage contract. Several scholars have conveyed a consensus (ijma’) on the permissibility of having intercourse with them by right of ownership.
Scholars who conveyed this consensus:
- Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 318 AH) stated: “They are in agreement on the permissibility of intercourse with female slaves from the People of the Book by right of ownership” (1).
- Ibn Hubayra (d. 560 AH) stated: “They are in agreement that a Muslim is permitted his female slave who is from the People of the Book, but not a Zoroastrian, a pagan, or any other type of disbeliever” (2).
- Ibn Rushd (d. 595 AH) stated: “They differed on the permissibility of a female slave from the People of the Book through marriage, but they agreed on her permissibility through right of ownership” (3)…
(Encyclopedia of Consensus in Islamic Jurisprudence – Al-Fadilah Edition)
Al-Mundhir wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Abu Bakr said: Every scholar whose knowledge has been preserved by us has agreed that if a woman among war captives falls into the ownership of a man while she has a husband residing in the Abode of War (Dar al-Harb), her husband’s marriage to her is dissolved, and it becomes lawful for her master to have sexual relations with her after establishing her innocence (istibra’).
They differed regarding the case where both she and her husband are captured together and fall into the share of a single man who then owns her.
Al-Shafi’i used to say: When she is taken captive and enslavement befalls her, her marriage is dissolved and sexual relations with her become lawful after istibra’, regardless of whether her husband was captured with her or not.
Imam Ibn al-Qayyim reported in Badai’ Al-Fawa’id the idea that it is permissible for a man to masturbate using his slave’s hand even when the slave is prepubescent [translated from Arabic using Gemini]!
In Al-Fusul, a narration from Ahmad states that if a man fears his bladder or testicles will burst from sexual urgency due to holding back semen during Ramadan, he should release the semen. He didn’t mention how he should release it. He said: “In my view, he should release it in a way that doesn’t break someone else’s fast, such as masturbating with his hand or with the body of his wife or slave who is not fasting. If he has a young or small slave girl, he can masturbate with her hand, and similarly with a non-Muslim woman. It is permissible to have intercourse with her in a way that doesn’t involve the vagina. However, if he wants to have vaginal intercourse while it is possible to release the semen otherwise, then in my view, this is not permissible, because when the necessity is removed, what is forbidden beyond it is also removed.
Ibn Taymiyya wrote concerning sexually exploiting one’s young female slave [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Ibn Aqil and others among our companions said: This person with lustful desire may release his fluid in a manner that does not invalidate the fast of another. This can be through masturbation with his hand, or with the body of his wife or his female slave who is not fasting and whose arousal he fears. If he has a wife or a female slave who is young or a disbeliever, he may masturbate with her hand. It is also permissible for him to release his fluid through foreplay without full intercourse.
(Sharh ‘Umdat al-Fiqh (Explanation of “The Mainstay of Jurisprudence”))
Ibn Qudamah wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Whoever is permitted to break the fast due to his intense lust, if he is able to repel the desire with something other than intercourse, such as masturbation with his hand or with the hand of his wife or slave-girl, then intercourse is not permissible for him.
(The Enricher. Cf. The Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence According to the Four Schools of Thought – Yasser Al-Najjar.)
Ibn Abi Umar (1200-1283) was a prominent Hanbali jurist, scholar, hadith master, preservationist (hafiz), and nephew of Ibn Qudamah. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
As for the one permitted to break the fast due to intense sexual urge (shaq): if he is able to fend off the desire without sexual intercourse—such as through masturbation using his own hand, his wife’s hand, or his slave girl’s hand—he is not permitted to engage in intercourse. This is because he broke the fast out of necessity, and it is not permissible to exceed what is strictly necessary to remove that necessity, similar to eating carrion out of necessity.
If he does engage in intercourse, expiation (kaffarah) is obligatory upon him. Likewise, if he can repel the urge through something that does not invalidate the fast of another person—such as having relations with his wife, his young (saghirah) slave girl (amah), a People of the Book (Kitabiyyah) slave girl, intimate touching of an adult Muslim woman short of the private parts, or masturbation using her hand or his own—it is not permissible to invalidate the fast of another person. When the necessity is removed, anything beyond it becomes impermissible, just as eating beyond bare survival (sadd al-ramq) is forbidden once necessity is met by eating carrion.
(The Book of Al-Sharh al-Kabir (The Great Commentary) on Al-Muqni’ – Al-Manar Edition)
According to Ibn al-Qayyim, men can rape female slaves. However, it is prohibited for women to take advantage of their male slaves [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
On the Lawulness of a Master Enjoying His Female Slave, But Not a Slave Enjoying His Mistress
As for the statement, “It is permissible for a man to enjoy his female slave by right of ownership, through intercourse or otherwise, but it is not permissible for a woman to enjoy her male slave, neither through intercourse nor otherwise,” this is also from the perfection and wisdom of this law. Indeed, the master dominates his enslaved person, rules over him, and owns him. The husband dominates his wife and rules over her, and she is under his authority and rule, similar to a captive. For this reason, the enslaved man is forbidden from marrying his mistress due to the contradiction between his being her property and her husband, and between her being his mistress and his sexual partner. The repulsiveness of this is well-known by human nature and intellect, and the law of the Most Wise of Rulers is far exalted from bringing such a thing.
(Book: I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in ‘an Rabb al-‘Alamin – Al-Ilmiyya Edition)
According to al-Soghadi (1068), who was a Hanafi jurist, it is permissible to sexually assault one’s female slave who is so young that she can’t bear intercourse as long as it doesn’t involve vaginal intercourse [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Regarding sexual relations by men with young slave girls who are not fit for intercourse: This does not make them unlawful unless he has vaginal intercourse with her. If he does have vaginal intercourse with her, compensation (for her sexual rights) is due. If the intercourse causes her death, blood money is also due, with the compensation amount included within the blood money.
According to the following Sharia text (Maliki jurisprudence), there is no need for a waiting period for a virgin slave woman (including virgin minor slave girls). They can be raped immediately:
Istibra’ is observed in the case of a slavegirl who changes ownership. It is one menstruation. Ownership changes by selling, giving away, capture, or any other way. If the woman menstruates after being in the possession of the new master before he has bought her, then she does not have to observe an istibra’ if she has not gone out. The istibra’ for a child when she is sold is three months as it is for a woman who no longer menstruates. There is no istibra’ for a woman who has never had intercourse.
(Shaikh Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, al-Risala, 33.5. Arabic version: Kitab al-Risala.)
Ibn Rushd wrote:
About the slave-woman who has despaired of menstruation, or one who is a minor, Mālik and most of the jurists of Medina said that her ‘idda is three months. Al-Shafī’ī, Abū Hanīfa, al-Thawrī, Abū Thawr and a group of jurists held that her waiting period is a month and a half, being one-half of the ‘idda of the free woman, which is based upon analogy, if we concede the restriction of the general meaning.
Ibn Rushd, The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer I& II, pp. 112-113. Primary source in Arabic: The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer and the Average Jurist’s End.)
Ahmad ibn Hanbal was reported to have said that there is no need for a waiting period with someone who is a suckling slave girl, indicating that it is even permissible to have sexual relations with such a person:
I heard Aḥmad asked about an istībrāʾ for a girl of ten, and he thought there should be one. I heard Aḥmad say, “A girl of ten years of age may become pregnant.” Someone said to Aḥmad while I was listening, “Even if she is too young to menstruate (ṣaghīra)?” He said, “If she is [very] young, that is, if she is still suckling, then waiting an istibrāʾ has no legal consequences.”
(Chapters on Marriage and Divorce: Responses of Ibn Ḥanbal and Ibn Rāhwayh, translated by Susan Spectorsky, §59-§61, p. 68. Primary source: The Book of Imam Ahmad’s Questions, narrated by Abu Dawud al-Sijistani)
In the preceding quotation, Ahmad clearly permitted the rape of 10-year-old slave girls after a waiting period because they could become pregnant. But even with a suckling girl, it is indicated that they can be raped.
The following further shows that Ahmad clearly permitted raping prepubescent slaves:
I said, “What about a man who buys a female slave not old enough to menstruate?” He said, “He abstains from having sexual intercourse with her for three months.”… I said to my father, “May he have intimate contact other than that of sexual intercourse with his prepubescent female slave?” He said, “Not until he has abstained from having sexual intercourse with her for three months.”…
I asked my father about a man who buys a female slave who is too young to menstruate. “How long should he refrain from having sexual intercourse with her?” He said, “For three months.” I said to my father, “What about intimate contact other than that of intercourse? Can he, for example, touch or kiss her?” He said, “I prefer him not to do that. He should wait an istibrāʾ, for I cannot be certain that if he does touch or kiss her and she is pregnant, he will not do so in an unlawful manner.”
(Chapters on Marriage and Divorce: Responses of Ibn Ḥanbal and Ibn Rāhwayh, translated by Susan Spectorsky, §138, p. 135. Primary source: The Book of Imam Ahmad’s Questions, narrated by his son Abdullah)
Ahmad ibn Hanbal explained that he should avoid fondling or kissing, and raping his prepubescent sex slaves UNTIL three months have passed since they were initially bought!
Ibn Qudamah wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The acquisition of a slave woman by a buyer leads to a potential mixing of bodily fluids and the confusion of lineages. The fundamental distinction between a sale and a marriage is crucial here. Marriage is intended solely for sexual enjoyment, making it permissible only with a woman one is legally allowed to marry. Thus, it is obligatory to precede marriage with an istibra’ (a waiting period to ensure no existing pregnancy). This is why it’s invalid to marry a woman currently in her waiting period after a previous marriage, an apostate, a Magian, an idol worshiper, or someone prohibited due to suckling or marriage affinity. A sale, however, serves purposes other than sexual enjoyment, so it is valid before istibra’. Consequently, sales are permissible even for those prohibited in marriage, and istibra’ becomes mandatory for the buyer for the reasons already stated.
Regarding a young girl who cannot be sexually penetrated, Al-Khiraqi’s apparent view, and Ahmad’s in most narrations, is that kissing or touching her with desire before her istibra’ is forbidden. Ahmad himself stated: “She must undergo istibra’, even if she is in the cradle.” Yet, another narration from him questions: “If she’s a small nursing infant, how would she undergo istibra’?“ A different account specifies istibra’ as one menstruation if she experiences cycles, or three months if she is capable of intercourse and pregnancy.
This latter position implies that her istibra’ is not mandatory, and intimate touching is not forbidden. This stance is favored by Ibn Abi Musa and Malik, and it’s considered the correct opinion. The rationale is that the fundamental permissibility is already established. There is no explicit text or inferred meaning from a text that prohibits such actions. The prohibition of intimacy with an adult woman stems from it potentially leading to forbidden intercourse or the concern of uncertain parentage. Neither of these applies to a young girl, so acting on the principle of permissibility is essential.
Ibn al-Qayyim wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
It was said: As for if she is a small child whose like is not had intercourse with, her kissing and fondling are not unlawful. This is explicitly stated by Ahmad in one of his two narrations, which was chosen by Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, our Shaykh (1), and others, for he said (2): If she is a small child, with what thing is her istibra’ performed if she is an infant? And he said in another narration: Her istibra’ is performed with a menstrual cycle if she menstruates, or otherwise three months if she is of an age to be had intercourse with and bear children.
Abu Muhammad (3) said: The apparent meaning of this is that her istibra’ is not obligatory, nor is her fondling unlawful. This is the choice of Ibn Abi Musa, and the view of Malik, and it is the correct view, because the cause of permissibility is realized, and there is no evidence for its prohibition, for there is neither a textual ruling (nass) nor the underlying rationale of a textual ruling (ma’na nass). The prohibition of fondling an adult woman was only because it serves as an inducement to unlawful intercourse, or out of fear that she might be an umm walad to someone else, and this cannot be imagined in the case of this child; therefore, it is obligatory to act in accordance with the requirement of permissibility. His statement ends here.
If she is of an age where her likeness is had intercourse with:
If she is a virgin, and we say: istibra’ is not obligatory, then the matter is clear.
And if we say: istibra’ is obligatory, then our companions said: Her kissing and fondling are unlawful.
In my view, it is not unlawful even if we hold that her istibra’ is obligatory, because the prohibition of sexual intercourse does not necessitate the prohibition of its preliminary acts (dawa’i), just as in the case of the fasting person. This is especially true given that they only prohibited fondling her because she might be pregnant, in which case he would be taking pleasure in another person’s female slave. This is how they reasoned for the prohibition of fondling, and then they said: For this reason (1), taking pleasure in a female captive through means other than intercourse before istibra’ is not unlawful in one of the two narrations, because there is no suspicion of the nullification of ownership in her case, since ownership has become firmly established through captivity; thus, no meaning remains to prohibit taking pleasure with the virgin through kissing and other such acts.
If she is a non-virgin (thayyib), the companions of Ahmad, Al-Shafi’i, and others said: Taking pleasure in her before istibra’ is unlawful. They said: Because it is an istibra’ that prohibits intercourse, so it prohibits taking pleasure just like the iddah; and because one cannot be secure from her being pregnant, in which case she would be an umm walad, rendering the sale void, meaning he would be taking pleasure in another person’s umm walad. They said: It is through this that [the ruling on] the prohibition of intercourse with a menstruating woman and a fasting person differs.
Hasan al-Basri said: Nothing is unlawful from the woman undergoing istibra’ except her private part, and he has the right to take pleasure from her however he wishes as long as he does not have intercourse (2), because the Prophet—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—only prohibited intercourse before istibra’ and did not prohibit what falls short of it. Furthermore, the prohibition of intercourse does not necessitate the prohibition of what falls short of it, just like the menstruating woman and the fasting woman. It has been said: Ibn Umar [kissed] (3) his female slave from the spoils of war when she fell to his share before performing her istibra’ (4).
(Kitab Zad al-Ma’ad fi Hadi Khayr al-Ibad – Dar Ataa’at al-Elm edition, 6/410-411)
Imam al-Hijjawi (d. 1560) was a prominent Hanbali jurist, scholar, and judge (qadi). He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
[Chapter on Istibra’] And it is: the intent to ascertain the clearance of the womb of a right-hand possession [female slave], newly acquired or whose ownership is ceasing, from pregnancy usually, through one of the means by which istibra’ is performed.
When a person—even if a child—acquires a female slave through purchase, gift, inheritance, captivity as spoils of war, bequest, battle spoils, or otherwise, it is not lawful for him to have sexual intercourse with her, nor to enjoy her through kissing, looking with desire, or anything short of sexual intercourse, whether she is a virgin or a non-virgin, a young girl capable of being engaged in intercourse or an adult, whether she is of an age to bear children or not—until he performs istibra’ of her. This applies equally whether he acquired her from a minor or an adult, a man or a woman, a castrated man (majjub), or from a man who had already performed istibra’ on her but had not had intercourse with her.
If he purchased an unmarried [female slave] and manumitted her before performing istibra’ of her, it is not valid for him to marry her before it, nor for anyone else to marry her before istibra’, while she is still a slave or after manumission—provided the seller did not have intercourse with her, or had intercourse and then performed istibra’.
Istibra’ is not obligatory for a young girl who is not of an age to have intercourse, nor when a female owns another female.
(The Book: Al-Iqna’ fi Fiqh al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, 4/120-121)
Malik ibn Anas said in the following [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
I said: What is your view if she is one who does not menstruate due to young age or old age, but one like her is [capable of being] copulated with, and a man buys her?
He said: [p. 384] Malik said: He clears her womb (yastabri’uha) with three months.
I said: And if she is among those who [do] menstruate?
He said: Malik said: He clears her womb with one menstruation.
I said: And if she is among those who menstruate, but her menstruation has ceased for [several] months, how is it done according to the saying of Malik?
He said: Malik said: The buyer does not copulate with her until three months have passed for her, unless she has a doubt (suspicion of pregnancy). If she has a doubt, her doubt is extended to nine months; then if pregnancy does not become clear by her, he copulates with her in her place, and there is nothing upon him after the nine months unless she doubts [due to] a pregnancy. If she doubts [due to] a pregnancy, she is not copulated with until she is cleared of that doubt. And if the doubt is cut off from her after the three months, then whenever it is cut off, her master may touch her (have relations) and does not wait nine months for her.
Ibn al-Jallab (d. 988) was a prominent jurist and scholar of the Maliki school of Islamic law. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
[Chapter 30: The Istibra’ (Clearance)]
[Section: The Clearance of a Female Slave upon Purchasing Her]
Whoever purchases a female slave who is of an age where she can be had intercourse with must not have intercourse with her until he clears her (yastabri’uha). If she is from among those who menstruate, one menstrual cycle clears her. If she is from among those who menstruate not, due to menopause or youth, then three months clears her. If she is from among those who menstruate, but her menstruation stopped for a reason other than menopause, then her clearance period is nine months. If she is pregnant, then her clearance is upon delivering her pregnancy.
It is not permissible for the master of a female slave who is undergoing istibra’ to have intercourse with her during her clearance period, nor to kiss her, touch her with desire (mubasharah), or take any physical pleasure from her until her clearance period has ended.
Al-Shafi’i wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
A man who purchases a female slave while she is menstruating
(Al-Shafi’i said): When a man acquires a female slave through purchase or other means, and she is at the beginning of her menstrual cycle, its middle, or its end, this menstrual cycle does not count as an istibra’, just as it does not count as part of the iddah according to the one who says the iddah is menstruation, nor according to the one who says the iddah is purity. Instead, he must perform istibra’ for her with a menstrual cycle preceded by a period of purity, and a single menstrual cycle is sufficient for her. If the woman undergoing istibra’ experiences doubt, she shall not be had intercourse with until the doubt is removed, and there is no fixed time for that other than the removal of the doubt. If she was purchased, she is not returned on the basis of this, but I have women examine her; if they say, “This is a pregnancy” or “an illness,” she is returned.
The iddah of a female slave who does not menstruate
(Al-Shafi’i said): People differed regarding the istibra’ of a female slave who does not menstruate due to youth or old age. Some said: It is one month, by analogy with a single menstrual cycle. Others said: It is a month and a half, and this has no basis, for it must either be one month or what some of our companions went with, which is three months.
(Al-Shafi’i said): The istibra’ of a female slave is one month if she is someone who does not menstruate, by analogy with a single menstrual cycle, because Almighty God made three months equivalent to three purification periods, so for every menstrual cycle there is one month—unless a transmitted report has been passed down that contradicts this and establishes its like, in which case the transmitted report is more deserving of being followed.
Al-Omrani wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
When a man acquires a female slave through purchase, gift, inheritance, or spoils of war, it is not lawful for him to have intercourse with her until he performs istibra’ for her—whether she is young or old, a virgin or non-virgin, of an age where she is had intercourse with or not, and whether she is of an age to bear children or not. This is the view of Umar, Uthman, and Ibn Mas’ud, and it is the view of Abu Hanifah.
Ibn Umar said: “If she is a virgin, istibra’ is not obligatory upon him; but if she is a non-virgin, istibra’ is obligatory upon him.” This is the view of Dawud and his followers.
Al-Minhaji al-Asyuti (d. 1475) was a notable Egyptian Shafi’i Islamic scholar and jurist. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The Imams, may Allah the Most High have mercy on them, agreed that whoever acquires a female slave through sale, gift, capture, or inheritance is obligated to clear her if she is capable of pregnancy and menstruates, [which is done] by a purification period (qur’). If she is from among those who do not menstruate due to youth or old age, then [it is cleared] by months.
If someone sells a female slave to a woman or a eunuch, and they then rescind the sale (taqayala), he is not permitted to have intercourse with her until he clears her, according to the three [Imams]. Abu Hanifa said: If they rescind the sale before taking possession (qabd), there is no clearance; but if after taking possession, clearance is obligatory upon him.
There is no difference regarding clearance between a young girl (saghirah) and an adult (kabirah), nor between a virgin and a non-virgin (thayyib), according to Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi’i, and Ahmad. Malik said: If she is of an age where her likeness is had intercourse with, it is not permissible to have intercourse with her prior to clearance; and if she is of an age where her likeness is not had intercourse with, it is permissible to have intercourse with her without clearance. Dawud said: Clearance is not obligatory for a virgin.
Whoever acquires a female slave is permitted to sell her prior to clearance, even if he has had intercourse with her, according to Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Shafi’i, and Ahmad. Al-Nakha’i, al-Thawri, al-Hasan, and Ibn Sirin said: Clearance is obligatory upon the seller just as it is obligatory upon the buyer. Uthman al-Bati said: Clearance is obligatory upon the seller to the exclusion of the buyer.
(Jawahar al-Uqud wa-Mu’in al-Quda wa-al-Muwaqqi’in wa-al-Shuhud)
Al-Rimi (d. 1390), who was one of the leading Shafi’i scholars in Yemen, wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
[The Chapter of Istibra’ (Clearing the Womb) of a Slave Woman]
Issue: According to al-Shafi’i, Umar, Uthman, Ibn Mas’ud, Abu Hanifa, and all the Zaydiyyah, when a man comes to own a slave woman through purchase, gift, inheritance, or spoils of war, it is not lawful for him to have sexual intercourse with her until he clears her womb (performs istibra’), regardless of whether she is young or old, a virgin or non-virgin, whether someone like her is typically had intercourse with or not, and whether she is capable of bearing children or not.
According to Ibn Umar, Dawud, and his Shia, if she is a virgin, istibra’ is not obligatory upon him, but if she is a non-virgin, istibra’ is obligatory upon her.
According to al-Layth ibn Sa’d, if she is someone who can bear children like her, it is not permissible for him to have intercourse with her until he clears her womb, but if she is someone who cannot bear children like her, it is permissible for him to have intercourse with her before istibra’. This was also stated by al-Nasir from the Zaydiyyah.
Issue: According to al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and most scholars, it is permissible for the slave woman undergoing istibra’ to remain in the possession of the master performing the istibra’, whether she is beautiful or ugly.
According to Malik, if she is beautiful, she is not left in the possession of the master performing istibra’, but rather is left in the custody of a trustworthy person (adl); if she is ugly, she remains in the possession of the master.
Issue: In the school of al-Shafi’i, if a man acquires ownership of her through a sale or a legal decree, and she gives birth or menstruates before taking physical possession (qabd), there are two views:
The first view: It does not count as her waiting period (iddah/istibra’). This was also stated by Abu Hanifa in one narration.
The second view: It does count. This was stated by Ahmad.
According to Malik, if she menstruates while in the seller’s possession for a short part of her menses while the major part remains in the buyer’s possession, it counts. If the major part of her menses passes while in the seller’s possession and only a minor part remains in the buyer’s possession, it does not count until she restarts the istibra’.
Issue: According to al-Shafi’i, it is permissible for the master to enjoy the purchased slave woman in ways other than sexual intercourse before istibra’, according to the correct view. This was also stated by Abdullah ibn Umar and some of the Zaydiyyah.
The second view is that it is not permissible. This was stated by Abu Hanifa, Zaid ibn Ali, and al-Hadi from the Zaydiyyah, and was authenticated by some Shafi’is.
(The Book of Subtle Meanings in Knowing the Differences Among the People of the Sacred Law)
Al-Nawawi wrote that a female slave could be sexually exploited through ownership-based intercourse after the prescribed waiting period, even if she was a virgin:
1. A man who becomes the owner of a female slave by purchase, succession, donation, right of booty, redhibition, judicial oath, cancellation by agreement, may not lawfully cohabit with her by virtue of right of ownership until she has accomplished her days of waiting, whether she be a virgin or not. This period of waiting must be observed even though the seller abstained from cohabiting with her for a sufficient period, or she was obtained from a minor, or a woman, or any other person incapable of coition.
(Abu Zakaria Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, Minhaj et Talibin: A Manual of Muhammadan Law According to the School of Shafi’i, p. 375)
According to one very early Muslim who is believed to have been a student of Ibn Abbas, Ikrimah, it is permissible to molest one’s slave girl in Islam without observing the istibra’ [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
16653 – Waki’ reported from Ali bin al-Mubarak, from Yahya bin Abi Kathir, from Ikrimah, regarding a man who buys a young slave girl who is even younger than that: He said, “There is no harm in his touching her before he waits for her innocence period (istibra’).”
Al-Zuhri (d. 741–742), another early Muslim, was one of the most prominent and influential Islamic scholars of the Tabi’un. He was reported to have stated [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
919 – Muhammad ibn al-Mubarak informed us: Umar ibn Abd al-Wahid narrated to us, from al-Awza’i, who said: I asked al-Zuhri about a man who purchases a slave girl who has not yet reached the age of menstruation and does not [typically] bear children at her age: How long should he wait to clear her womb (istibra’)?
He said: “By three months.”
And Yahya ibn Abi Kathir said: “By forty-five days.
Ibn Mundhir wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
M 3352 – Ikrimah and Iyas bin Mu’awiyah said: If a man buys a young slave girl who is not of an age for sexual intercourse, there is no harm in his having sexual relations with her without performing istibra’.
Al-Musayyib said: If he buys her from a woman, he does not perform istibra’ for her.
(The Book of Supervision of the Schools of Scholars by Ibn al-Mundhir)
Ibn Abd al-Barr (978–1071), who was a Maliki scholar, wrote in Al-Kafi that it is permissible to rape one’s prepubescent slave without any waiting period [translated from Arabic using Google Translate]:
Whoever owns a female slave in any way, whether by purchase, gift or inheritance, if he has intercourse with her, he must purify her by a complete menstrual period if she is one of those who menstruate, or by three months if she is one of those who do not menstruate, whether young or old, unless she is young and her like cannot bear children, in which case there is no waiting period for her. If she is pregnant, then until she gives birth to what is in her womb or miscarries it, complete or incomplete, or a lump of flesh or a clot.
Al-Kasani (d. 1191), a Hanafi who was nicknamed Malik al-‘Ulama’ (“King of the Scholars”), wrote in Bada’i’ al-Sana’i’ that one can rape one’s prepubescent slave after one month [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The slave girl fundamentally either is among those who menstruate or is among those who do not menstruate.
If she is among those who menstruate, her istibra’ is by one single menstrual cycle, according to the general body of scholars and the general body of the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them.
It is narrated from Muawiyah—may Allah be pleased with him—that her istibra’ is by two menstrual cycles, because istibra’ is the sister of iddah, and her iddah is two cycles.
The correct view is the view of the majority, due to what has been transmitted from the Prophet—peace be upon him—that concerning the captive women of Autas, he said: “Verily, pregnant women shall not be had intercourse with until they give birth, and non-pregnant women until they undergo istibra’ with one menstrual cycle.” An action formulated in the singular denotes a single instance, and the legal prescription prevents adding to it except by evidence. Furthermore, the objective for which istibra’ is legislated—which is attaining knowledge of the purity of the womb—is achieved through a single menstrual cycle. Thus, a specific count should not be stipulated, just as in the chapter of iddah—except that we knew that [latter exception] through an explicit text (nass) contrary to analogy, so it must be restricted to the scope of the text.
If she is among those who do not menstruate, she either does not menstruate due to youth or old age, or she does not menstruate due to a physical condition/illness (meaning her period of purity is prolonged), or she does not menstruate due to pregnancy.
If she does not menstruate due to youth or old age, her istibra’ is by one month, because months are set in place of menstrual periods (quru’) regarding a woman who has despaired of menstruation and a young girl in the context of iddah; hence the same applies in the chapter of istibra’.
Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani (749–805), who was a scholar, a jurist, and a disciple of Abu Hanifa (later being the eponym of the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence), wrote that slave girls who were so young that they didn’t even menstruate had a waiting period, which implies it is permissible to have sexual relations with them [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
… It has reached us from Umar ibn al-Khattab and Ali ibn Abi Talib—may Allah be pleased with them both—that they said: “The waiting period of a slave woman is two menstrual cycles.” And Umar ibn al-Khattab—may Allah be pleased with him—said: “If I were able, I would make it a cycle and a half.” If she is from those who do not menstruate due to youth or old age, then her waiting period is a month and a half.
(The Book of Origin by Muhammad bin Al-Hasan – T. Boynocalan)
Iyas ibn Mu’awiya al-Muzani, who was a Qadi (judge) and a tābiʿ (a follower or successor of the generation of Muslims who followed the companions of Muhammad), stated that there is no waiting period for a young virgin female slave. She can be raped right away [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
16654 – Zaid bin Hubab reported from Hammad bin Salamah, from Iyas bin Mu’awiyah, regarding a man who bought a young slave girl of an age not suitable for sexual intercourse: He said, “There is no harm in his having sexual relations with her, and he does not need to wait for an innocence period (istibra’).“
Al-Sarakhsi stated the length of the waiting period to rape a prepubescent [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The obligation of istibra’ (clearing/waiting period to ascertain freedom of the womb) in a purchased female is narrated from Ali and Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both. The underlying wisdom (hikmah) behind this is to ascertain the freedom of the womb, to protect one’s own fluid from being mixed with the fluid of another, and to guard against one’s fluid becoming the irrigator of another’s crop. However, the legal ruling is established by the presence of its legal cause (illah), not by its wisdom (hikmah).
For this reason, we have stated: If he purchases her from a woman, or from a young boy whose father sold her or whom the boy purchased, or if he purchases her while she is a virgin, or purchases her from a slave, the istibra’ is binding upon him due to the existence of the obligating legal cause, which is the occurrence of lawful ownership by virtue of ownership of the person.
Abu Yusuf said: If he is certain that her womb is free from the seller’s fluid, then no obligatory istibra’ is incumbent upon him concerning her. This is because istibra’, true to its name, is the ascertainment of the freedom of the womb. He drew an analogy to a woman divorced before consummation, arguing that the iddah (waiting period) is not binding upon her because the objective of the iddah in cases involving consummation is to ascertain the freedom of the womb.
However, we say: This is the wisdom behind istibra’, whereas the legal ruling is tied to the legal cause (illah), not to the wisdom (hikmah). Furthermore, the occupation of her womb with fluid at the time of purchase cannot be known with absolute certainty. Therefore, the law establishes the ruling based on the apparent observable attribute (the legal cause)—namely, the occurrence of lawful ownership by virtue of ownership of the person—so that the ruling revolves around it in terms of existence and non-existence, thereby facilitating matters for people.
Likewise, he may not kiss her, fondle her, or look at any part of her nakedness (awrah) until he performs istibra’ for her. This is because it is possible that she became pregnant by the seller and that the sale concerning her is invalid, and these actions are not lawful except in the case of true ownership—just like sexual intercourse (wat’). Furthermore, sexual intercourse is forbidden during the period of istibra’, and these acts are precursors (dawA’i) to intercourse; therefore, they are prohibited by the prohibition of intercourse.
This is analogous to when a man makes zihar (a pre-Islamic form of oath declaring one’s wife unlawful like one’s mother’s back) regarding his wife: when intercourse with her became forbidden to him, its precursors became forbidden to him as well. This differs from menstruation; the prohibition due to menstruation is directed at utilizing the harmful thing (al-adha), as indicated by the text, and that is not present in kissing and touching. Moreover, the precursors in the case of menstruation do not lead a man to commit the unlawful act because of a natural aversion within his temperament toward her due to the harm (adha), whereas the precursors here do lead one to commit the unlawful act—namely, intercourse—because he desires her intensely as long as his objective with her has not been attained.
If she does not menstruate due to young age or advanced age, then her istibra’ is by [waiting for] one month. This is because a month stands legally in the place of menstruation and purity, for every month customarily encompasses a period of menstruation and a period of purity. Do you not see that Allah the Exalted established three months regarding the woman who has despaired of menstruation and the young girl in place of three quru’ (intervals of purity/menstruation) in the iddah, and the duration of istibra’ is one-third of the duration of the iddah? Thus, it is measured as one month.
Ibn Abi Shaybah wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Mu’tamir, on the authority of Kathir bin Yasar, on the authority of Ibn Sirin, who said: ‘If a man purchases a young female servant (al-wasifa) and she has not reached [the age of] menstruation, he shall seek her purification (istibra’) for three months. Then, if he has intercourse with her and desires to sell her, he must also seek her purification for three months.’
(The Book of Al-Musannaf — Ibn Abi Shaybah — Edited by [Kamal] Al-Hut)
Al-Ahmad Nagri (d. 1738) was an 18th-century Indian Hanafi scholar, encyclopedist, and jurist who lived during the Mughal Empire. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
Al-Istibra’ (Clearing/Inquiring): Seeking the clearance of a female slave’s womb from pregnancy. For one who owns a slave girl, it is forbidden to have sexual intercourse with her, touch her, or look at her private part with desire until she undergoes istibra’.
Istibra’ for a pregnant [slave] is by the delivery of the pregnancy.
For those who menstruate, it is by one menstruation cycle.
If she does not menstruate due to her youth, her istibra’ is by one month.
If she menstruates during it, the istibra’ by days becomes void.
If her menstruation ceases—meaning her period of purity becomes prolonged, and she is among those who menstruate—she is left until it becomes clear that she is not pregnant, after which he may have intercourse with her. There is no [fixed] measure for this in Zahir al-Riwayah (the prominent narration), except that our shaykhs said that this becomes clear in two or three months. Muhammad—may Allah the Exalted have mercy on him—used to say four months and ten days, then he retracted and said: He performs istibra’ for her in two months and five days, and upon this is the legal fatwa.
Ibn al-Uthaymin said that one’s slave girl has to be at least 9 years old to rape her, which seemed to have been an anomalous opinion [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
“Whoever owns a female slave who is capable of being penetrated” means one who has completed nine years of age. “It is forbidden for him to have intercourse with her and its preliminaries,” whether the owner is a minor or an adult, male or female. A female, however, cannot have intercourse. Likewise, whether he acquired her from a minor, an adult, a male, or a female, he must perform Istibra’. The details of Istibra’ will be mentioned later.
Sheikh Ibn Jibrin (1933–2009) was a prominent Saudi Islamic Hanbali scholar and jurist who was part of the Salafi movement, a movement that emphasizes a return to the traditions of the predecessors (salaf), the first three generations of Muslims. He was a member of the Council of Senior Scholars and the Permanent Committee for Fatwas. He wrote that one can molest his slave girl who is as young as 8 years old. [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
[Rulings on Istibra’ (Clearing the Womb)]
Let us enter into the topic of istibra’ (clearing the womb).
He, may Allah have mercy on him, says: “(Whoever comes to own a female slave whose like is capable of being engaged in sexual intercourse, from whomever she may be acquired, it is forbidden for him to have intercourse with her or engage in preliminary acts leading to it before clearing her womb: a pregnant one by giving birth, one who menstruates by a single menstrual cycle, and a woman past menopause and a young girl by one month).”
This is istibra’, and it is specific to female slaves. It is known that a female slave’s master may have intercourse with her, but if he has had intercourse with her, it is forbidden for him to sell her before clearing her womb. Why? She might be pregnant by him, and if she becomes pregnant by him, she attains the status of umm walad (mother of his child), and an umm walad is not permitted to be sold. In this case, he must leave her until she menstruates once, thereby knowing the clearance of her womb, and only then may he sell her.
The purchaser must also clear her womb, and it is not permissible for him to have intercourse with her before clearing her womb once again. Even if the seller says to him: “I have already cleared her womb, and she is clear; there is no sperm in her womb,” the purchaser must still clear her womb. Thus, her womb is cleared twice as a matter of precaution.
The condition for this is that she be of mature age—meaning, of an age where her like is engaged in intercourse. As for a young girl, such as an eight-year-old or an eight-and-a-half-year-old, her like does not typically menstruate, nor is her like engaged in intercourse, nor does she become pregnant like a mature woman. Therefore, it is permissible for the purchaser to touch her, kiss her, and things of that nature.
If the seller was a woman, does the purchaser still need to clear her womb? He might say: “I bought this from a woman, and can a woman have intercourse with a woman? And could there be a pregnancy when the one who owned her was a woman?”
The answer: Yes, he must still clear her womb.
If the one who sold her was someone for whom intercourse with her was forbidden—meaning, it was not permissible for him to have intercourse with her for some reason, such as if she had breastfed him, making intercourse unlawful for him despite his ownership of her—in this case, even if he says: “I did not have intercourse with her because she breastfed me, or she is my foster sister, but I inherited her from my father, and I know she was not had by me, nor by anyone other than me”—
The purchaser must still clear her womb. He may not have intercourse with her before clearing her womb, nor kiss her, nor embrace her, nor touch her before istibra’.
The method of istibra’ is stated in the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, regarding the captives of Autas: “(No pregnant woman shall be approached with intercourse until she gives birth, and no non-pregnant woman until she has a menstrual cycle).” If she is pregnant, [her womb is cleared] by the delivery of the fetus. If she is not pregnant, then by a single menstrual cycle. If she is past menopause or a young girl, her womb is cleared by [waiting] one month. If she is a young girl, even if she is close to puberty, such as being ten or thirteen years old, but has not yet menstruated, her istibra’ is one month. Similarly, a woman past menopause who has reached sixty or fifty-five and despaired of menstruation, her istibra’ is one month.
With this concludes what pertains to iddah (waiting period), istibra’ (clearing the womb), and ihdad (mourning).
And Allah knows best.
(The Commentary on Akhsar al-Mukhtasarat (The Shorter of the Briefs) by Ibn Jibrin)
Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
[Chapter on Istibra’ (Waiting Period to Establish Paternity/Innocence of the Womb)]
Istibra’ refers to a waiting period intended to ascertain the innocence (unpregnant state) of the womb of a newly acquired female captive or slave (milk yamin). It is derived from al-bara’ah, which means distinction and severance.
Whoever acquires a female slave who is of an age to be approached sexually—whether through purchase, gift, capture in war, or other means—is forbidden from having sexual relations with her or engaging in preliminary acts leading to it before performing istibra’. This is based on the statement of the Prophet (ﷺ): “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him not water the crop of another,” narrated by Ahmad, Al-Tirmidhi, and Abu Dawud. In another hadith narrated by Abu Dawud: “A pregnant woman shall not be approached until she gives birth.”
The istibra’ of a pregnant slave ends with the delivery of the child, due to the generality of Allah the Almighty’s statement: ‘And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth’ [Qur’an 65:4].
For a non-pregnant slave who menstruates, her istibra’ is completed with one menstrual cycle. This is based on the statement of the Prophet (ﷺ) regarding the captives of Awtas: “A pregnant woman shall not be approached until she gives birth, and a non-pregnant woman until she completes one menstrual cycle,” narrated by Ahmad and Abu Dawud. This hadith indicates the obligation of istibra’ for a captive female slave and others before having sexual relations with them, and it demonstrated the method by which both pregnant and menstruating captive women must fulfill their istibra’.
As for a slave who has despaired of menstruation (reached menopause) and a young slave girl who has not yet begun to menstruate, their istibra’ is fulfilled by the passing of one month, because a month stands in place of a menstrual cycle in the waiting period (iddah).
The underlying wisdom (hikmah) behind performing istibra’ on a female slave before sexual relations is clarified by the statement of the Prophet (ﷺ): “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him not water the crop of another.” This explains that the purpose of istibra’ is to avoid the mixing of fluids and the confusion of lineages.
(Al-Mulakhas al-Fiqhi (often translated into English as A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence), 2/431-432. Can also be read in an English translation PDF in chapter 10, “Verifying the Slave Girl’s Non-Pregnancy,” pp. 479-480.)
Ibn al-Mundhir wrote about how many early Muslims had differing opinions on the waiting period for slave girls who were pubescent and prepubescent [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
5 – Chapter: The Female Slave Purchased While She is Menstruating
M 3355 – And they differed regarding a female slave who is purchased while she is currently menstruating.
A group said: She must be cleared (tastabri’) by another [subsequent] menstruation. This is the opinion of al-Hasan al-Basri, al-Shafi’i, al-Thawri, Ahmad, al-Nu’man [Abu Hanifa], and Ibn al-Hasan [al-Shaybani].
In this, there is a second opinion: Which is that one may suffice with that current menstruation [the one she is in during the purchase]. This is the opinion of al-Zuhri, al-Nakha’i, Ishaq, and Ya’qub [Abu Yusuf]. Indeed, differing reports have been narrated from al-Hasan al-Basri regarding this.
In this, there is a third opinion: Which is that if he purchased her on the first day she began menstruating, or two or three days after that, he may suffice with that menstruation. However, if he purchased her in the middle of her menstruation or at the end of it, he must seek her clearance [with another cycle]. This is the opinion of al-Layth ibn Sa’d, and Malik said something of similar meaning.
6 – Chapter: The Clearance (Istibra’) of a Female Slave Who Does Not Menstruate, and Those Like Her Who Do Not Conceive Due to Youth or Old Age
M 3356 – And they differed regarding the clearance of a female slave who does not menstruate due to youth or old age.
A group said: A virgin who has not yet menstruated is cleared by three months. Thus said al-Hasan al-Basri, Mujahid, Ibn Sirin, Abu Qilaba, al-Nakha’i, al-Awza’i, Ahmad, and Malik ibn Anas. Ahmad said the same regarding an elderly woman who has despaired of menstruation [menopause].
Ishaq said: Forty days, whether she is an elderly woman or one who has neared the age of menstruation.
Al-Thawri said: A month and a half, or three months; whichever of those he does, there is no harm.
A group said: She is cleared by a month and a half. This is the opinion of Ibn al-Musayyib, ‘Ata ibn Abi Rabah, Sa’id ibn Jubayr, and Yahya ibn Abi Kathir. Al-Hakam and Hammad differed regarding this.
A group said: She is cleared by one month. This is the opinion of ‘Ikrimah, al-Shafi’i, the proponents of opinion (Ashab al-Ra’y), and it is the choice of al-Layth and Ahmad in that regard, for pregnancy does not become apparent in less than three months.
Abu Bakr [the author] said: What is apparent regarding the condition of a woman who has previously menstruated is that one menstruation suffices for her clearance, and this is the most common case among the affairs of women.
(The Book of Supervision of the Schools of Scholars by Ibn al-Mundhir, 5/392-393)
The following Islamic text corroborates that it is lawful to rape one’s prepubescent slave girl; however, as already shown, opinions vary on the length of the waiting period [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
The Istibra’ (clearing of the womb) of a slave girl who does not menstruate due to young age or old age:
27 – The school of Malik holds that the slave girl who does not menstruate due to young age or old age must wait for three months. Ibn Rushd noted in Al-Muqaddimat that a difference of opinion occurred within the Maliki school: it was said that her istibra’ is one month, it was said one month and a half, it was said two months, and it was said three months—which is the well-known view in the Hanbali school, the opinion of Al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin, Al-Nakha’i, and Abu Qilabah, and it is a second opinion in the Shafi’i school.
The school of Abu Hanifa and the preferred view of the Shafi’i school is that she undergoes istibra’ for one month only. The reason given for this is that a month contains both a period of purity and a menstruation in other women, and legally, a month stands in place of purity and menstruation (1).
Enjoyment of a slave girl undergoing istibra’:
28 – The school of Abu Hanifa, Malik, and Al-Shafi’i in one narration hold that a man may not kiss a slave girl undergoing istibra’, nor fondle her, nor look at her awrah (private parts) until the period of istibra’ is completed. This is because it is possible that she is pregnant by the seller, and that the sale is invalid, and these actions are only permissible within rightful ownership. Ahmad agreed with them, though he has another narration detailing a distinction between one who is capable of intercourse and one who is not (2).
Abu Bakr al-Qaffal al-Shashi (904–976) was a scholar of Imam Shafi’i’s school of thought and a jurist. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
[Chapter on Ensuring a Female Slave’s Womb is Clear and the Mother of a Child]
Whoever acquires ownership of a female slave through sale, gift, inheritance, or capture is obligated to (ensure her womb is clear) (1). If she is not pregnant and menstruates, he should ensure her womb is clear with a single menstrual cycle. Regarding the meaning of “qur'” (cycle), there are two opinions:
…
And if she is one who does not menstruate due to youth or old age, there are two opinions on this:
First: She waits a month to ensure her womb is clear (1).
Second: (That she) (2) waits for three months (3).
And if he buys a slave girl with the option to return her, and she menstruates during the option period:
- If we say that there is no ownership until the option period expires, then that is not counted as ensuring her womb is clear (4).
- And if we say that it is a transfer of ownership, then there are two perspectives:
(The Book of the Ornament of Scholars in Knowing the Schools of Jurists – Modern Message Edition (7/358-359))
Does the seller of his own female slave have to keep the istibra’? Judge Abdul Wahab wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
[The Istibra’ of a Female Slave from the Seller and the Buyer]
… If a man has had intercourse with a female slave and then wants to sell her, he must perform istibra’ before the sale. Similarly, the buyer is also required to perform istibra’. If they agree on a single istibra’, it is permissible.
Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi’i said that istibra’ is only required for the buyer, not the seller. It has been narrated from some that it is required for the seller, but not the buyer.
Our evidence for it being required for the seller is that when he had intercourse with her, it is possible for her to have become pregnant from that act. This would make him a seller of his own child and introduce ambiguity into the lineage. This is also by analogy to the buyer, because he is one of the two parties to the transaction. Furthermore, the buyer is only required to perform istibra’ to protect his fluid from mixing with the fluid of another, and the seller is equally required to protect his fluid, so he is also obligated to perform istibra’. This is a contract that permits intercourse with her, so her owner must perform istibra’, just as he would if he intended to marry her off.
(The Book of Supervision on the Subtle Points of Disputed Issues)
In Islam, the value of a virgin slave girl that a man has intercourse with decreases in the slave market. Omar ibn al-Husayn al-Kharqi (or Al-Khiraqi) (d. 945) was a prominent Islamic jurist and a significant figure in the Hanbali school of jurisprudence. He wrote [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
If one purchases a non-virgin female slave and has intercourse with her or utilizes her services, and then discovers a defect, he has the choice between returning her and taking back the full price—because ‘gain accompanies liability’ (al-kharaj bi-d-daman) and intercourse is [treated] like [providing] service—or taking the difference between [the value of] the sound state and the defective state. If she was a virgin, then if he wishes to return her, he must compensate for the decrease [in value caused by the loss of virginity], unless the seller had concealed the defect (dallasa), in which case the seller is obliged to return the full price; and the same applies to all other sold items.
If the buyer sells a portion of her and then discovers a defect, he has the choice between returning the portion he still owns for its equivalent share of the price, or taking the compensation (arsh) for the defect according to the portion he owns of her. If a defect is discovered after he has manumitted (freed) her or after her death while in his possession, he is entitled to the compensation (arsh). If a defect appears that could have occurred either after the purchase or before it, the buyer shall take an oath, and he shall have the right to return [the item] or [receive] the compensation.
The following is from The Jamal Abdel Nasser Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence (later renamed The Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence), which outlines rulings across the major Sunni schools. The encyclopedia meticulously cites traditional primary sources, legal maxims, and evidences for each school of jurisprudence. It is highly authoritative, academic, and reliable. It underwent rigorous academic peer review and editorial oversight. The contributors are prominent jurists, comparative law specialists, and Sharia professors. It reads [translated from Arabic using Gemini]:
[Istibra’ of the Womb]
It states in Al-Inayah in Hanafi jurisprudence: “The female slave (jariyah) performed istibra’, meaning she sought the clearance of her womb from pregnancy (4).”
Al-Shafi’i said that it is the waiting period (tarabbus) of a female slave for a specific duration due to the establishment or cessation of right-hand possession (milk—al-yamin), in order to ascertain the clearance of the womb or as an act of worship (5). The Hanbalis (6), Ibadis (7), and Malikis (8) hold similar views.
[When is Istibra’ Obligatory?]
[The Hanafi School]
It states in Al-Hidayah: “Whoever buys a female slave must not approach her, touch her, or kiss her… until he performs istibra’ for her.” The basis for this is the statement of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, regarding the female captives of Awtas: “Beware! Pregnant women shall not be had relations with until they give birth, nor non-pregnant women until they undergo istibra’ of one menstrual cycle.” This indicates that istibra’ is obligatory upon the master (1).
In Sharh al-Inayah, it is noted that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prohibited enjoyment with the strongest prohibition while complete legal ownership and physical access were present, and this occurs only for an obligation (2). This ruling extends to all causes of ownership.
Thus, it states in Al-Mabsut: “If someone acquires her through a gift, charity, bequest, inheritance, or as a penalty requiring compensation, or through a kitabah (manumission contract) or khul’ (divorce settlement), istibra’ becomes obligatory upon him due to the establishment of lawful sexual ownership arising from ownership of her person.”
If a man wishes to sell his female slave whom he had been having relations with, it is not fitting for him to sell her until he performs istibra’ for her. Thus it was narrated from Abdullah ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both. This istibra’ on the part of the seller is recommended (mustahabb) according to the Hanafis (3), because the obligation of istibra’ falls upon the buyer. Therefore, it is recommended for the seller to perform it as a precaution, but the buyer cannot suffice with it because lawful sexual ownership has newly been established for the buyer through the purchase, so he must perform istibra’ himself.
If the seller wishes to marry her off, he may not do so until he performs istibra’ for her.
In Al-Jami’ al-Saghir, a husband is permitted to have relations with her before performing istibra’ according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Muhammad said: “It is more beloved to me that he does not have relations with her until he performs istibra’ for her, so that it does not lead to two men sharing a single woman during one period of ritual purity.” The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “It is not lawful for two men who believe in Allah and the Last Day to gather over a single woman during one period of ritual purity.”
The reasoning of Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf is that istibra’ is the function of ownership by right hand (milk—al-yamin), just as the waiting period (iddah) is the function of ownership by marriage (milk—al-nikah). Just as the function of marriage does not transfer to right-hand ownership, the function of right-hand ownership does not transfer to marriage (3).
[The Maliki School]
It states in Al-Sharh al-Kabir: “Istibra’ of a female slave becomes obligatory upon acquiring ownership through purchase or otherwise—even by forcibly taking her from his slave—though not through marriage (4).”
Therefore, if someone buys a female slave, is gifted her, or receives her in charity, and wishes to have relations with her, he must perform istibra’ for her. It states in Al-Muqaddamat that istibra’ of female slaves is obligatory for the preservation of lineage (5).
According to the Malikis, three conditions are required for istibra’ to be obligatory:
First: That the clearance of her womb is not certain. If the clearance of her womb is certain—meaning it is strongly presumed—then there is no istibra’.
Second: That having relations with her was not already permissible for the person who owned her before the transfer of ownership. If it was permissible, then no istibra’ is required, such as someone who buys his wife or is gifted her…
Third: That she does not permanently unlawful for him in the future. Thus, there is no istibra’ for someone who buys a female relative within prohibited degrees or a woman married to someone else.
If she is not permanently unlawful to him in the future, but is a young girl (saghira) capable of having relations, or an adult woman—where both the capable young girl (saghira) and the adult woman typically do not become pregnant, such as a nine-year-old or a seventy-year-old—istibra’ is still obligatory.
Likewise, istibra’ is obligatory for a female slave even if she is considered lowly (wakhsh—i.e., insignificant), whether she is previously deflowered (thayyib) or a virgin (bikr), due to the possibility of pregnancy (1).
If a man other than the husband buys a female slave and she is then divorced before consummation, the buyer must not have relations with her until he performs istibra’. The buyer does not take the place of the husband in omitting istibra’, contrary to Sahnun.
Just as istibra’ is obligatory upon acquiring ownership, it is also obligatory upon parting with her—meaning when selling her or marrying her off. However, if the master has not had relations with her, it is permissible for him to sell her or marry her off without istibra’ because there is no fear of pregnancy from her (2).
Istibra’ is obligatory upon an heir due to the master’s death, even if the master performed istibra’ for her before his death, because the heir’s istibra’ is indispensable. Al-Dasuqi stated: If the master was absent, could not reach her, and she did not leave her quarters for needs, it is not obligatory upon the heir to perform istibra’ for her, and he is permitted to have relations with her without istibra’ (3).
As for a female slave whose husband died or divorced her, after which she observed her iddah until it ended, and then her master died thereafter, the heir must perform istibra’ for her because she was lawful to the master for a period of time. Similarly, istibra’ is obligatory upon a buyer if her iddah ended and then her master sold her. However, if her master died before the expiration of her iddah, istibra’ is not obligatory because she was never lawful to the master for any period of time.
Istibra’ is also obligatory upon manumission, whether immediate or conditional. A third party may not marry her before her istibra’ by menstruation if her emancipator did not perform istibra’ for her before manumission, and if she also did not complete her husband’s iddah before manumission. If her master performed istibra’ for her before manumission, or her iddah ended before it, istibra’ is not obligatory. As for the emancipated slave herself, she may marry without istibra’ if she is free from an iddah (4).
[The Shafi’i School]
It states in Mughni al-Muhtaj: Istibra’ is obligatory for the lawfulness of sexual enjoyment or marriage due to two causes:
The first, which is specific to the lawfulness of enjoyment, is the complete ownership of a female slave who was not previously his wife, acquired through purchase, inheritance, gift, or capture after distribution—since war spoils cannot be owned prior to distribution.
Likewise, istibra’ is obligatory for a female slave due to a return for a defect, mutual oath-taking, legal rescission, revocation of a sale, acceptance of a bequest, or other causes like the rescission of a sale due to bankruptcy or the revocation of a gift. Thus, there is no difference between forced ownership (qahri) and voluntary ownership (ikhtiyari).
Istibra’ is obligatory regardless of whether the female slave is a virgin, whether the seller performed istibra’ before the sale, whether she was transferred from a minor (saghir) or a woman, or whether the female slave is a young child (saghira) or a woman past menopause.
If someone acquires a female slave who is married, or is undergoing an iddah from a husband, or if sexual intercourse occurred under a semblance of right (shubhah), it is not obligatory for him to perform istibra’ for her immediately because she is occupied by the right of another. If the marriage and the iddah cease…, then istibra’ becomes obligatory according to the more apparent view (1).
The second cause: The cessation of a bed (firash) regarding a female slave who had been engaged in sexual relations through right-hand ownership—whether she is a mother of his child (umm walad) or not, and whether the cessation of the bed occurs through immediate manumission or the death of her master. It is obligatory for her to undergo istibra’ due to the cessation of her bed, just as an iddah is obligatory upon a woman separated from marriage. If the female slave was never engaged in sexual relations, there is definitively no istibra’ upon her manumission…
If the master dies leaving a female slave with whom he had sexual relations without manumitting her, she is transferred to the heir, and it is obligatory upon the heir to perform istibra’ for her due to the establishment of his ownership. If a female slave is emancipated while she is married or undergoing an iddah from a husband, there is no istibra’ upon her because she was not a bed for the master, and because istibra’ is for the lawfulness of enjoyment, whereas she is occupied by the husband’s right (2).
[The Hanbali School]
It states in Kashshaf al-Qina’: “It is obligatory to perform istibra’ upon acquiring ownership through right-hand possession—whether of a full slave (qan), a female slave under a manumission contract (mukatabah), an umm walad, or a mudabbarah—when ownership occurs via purchase, gift, inheritance, bequest, war spoils, or other means, such as taking her as compensation in a lease, a debt transfer (hawalah), a khul’ divorce settlement, or a reconciliation agreement. It is not lawful for him to have sexual relations with her or enjoy her until he performs istibra’ for her, regardless of whether she is a virgin or previously deflowered, whether she is a young girl (saghira) of an age where relations are possible or an adult, and whether she is of an age that can bear children or past childbearing age, for istibra’ is obligatory…”
This applies whether he acquired her from a minor (saghir / saghira), an adult, a man, a woman, a castrated man (majbub), or if she was owned by a man who performed istibra’ before the sale but did not have relations with her; the buyer still may not have relations with her until he performs istibra’…
If someone buys a female slave who is unmarried and emancipates her before performing istibra’, it is not valid for him to marry her before istibra’, because marriage is intended for sexual relations, which are unlawful [without it]…
If he sells his female slave, gifts her, reconciles a debt with her, gives her as a dowry (asdaqha), or uses her in a khul’ settlement, and then she returns to him due to the rescission of a contract over an option, a defect, the cancellation of a sale, or otherwise—wherever ownership was transferred—it becomes obligatory to perform istibra’, even if before taking physical possession, because it is the renewal of ownership, regardless of whether the buyer was a man or a woman, and whether the seller and buyer have separated or not. If they have not separated, istibra’ is not obligatory…
If he buys a female slave who is married and her husband divorces her before consummation, it is obligatory to perform istibra’ for her (3).
If he has sexual relations with his female slave and then wishes to marry her off or sell her, it is not permissible for him to do so until he performs istibra’ for her. If he violates this and does so—meaning he marries her off or sells her before performing istibra’—the sale is valid because the base assumption is the absence of pregnancy, but the marriage is invalid because marriage is not valid prior to istibra’…
It is recommended (mustahabb) to perform istibra’ for a woman past menopause, based on the view that it is not strictly obligatory, in order to steer clear of legal divergence (4). And if he frees his umm al-walad or frees his female slave whom he had cohabited with prior to seeking her clearance, or he died leaving her, it is incumbent upon her to seek clearance for herself because she is a slave-woman who was cohabited with in a manner that commands sanctity, thus requiring the ascertainment of the clearance of her womb (1).
…
[The Ibadi School]
It states in Sharh al-Nil: “Clearance of a female slave is obligatory even if it is not known whether the person who previously had her took her as a concubine (tasarraha) or did something with her that would necessitate a waiting period, because it is the nature of a female slave that her owner may take pleasure from her. Clearance is obligatory prior to taking her as a concubine if she became his property through purchase, or became his property upon the death of her master via inheritance, or by purchasing her from his heirs, or the like… It is said that clearance is not obligatory for a young girl (saghira) who is incapable of bearing a child, such as a six-year-old girl and younger. The clearance of a female slave is obligatory even if she comes from a just Imam, or from a male child incapable of intercourse… or from her unmarriageable male relative (mahram) to the extent that she would not be permitted to uncover before him were she a free woman, such as her uncle or maternal uncle through fosterage (5)… And the owner of a female slave has the right to free her or enter into a contract of manumission with her (mukataba) without seeking clearance (6).”
(The Encyclopedia of Gamal Abdel Nasser in Islamic Jurisprudence, 5/182-187)
The Bible reads that satan is behind the oppression of people (Acts 10:38; Luke 13:11–16). It’s not far-fetched that he is behind this religion.
If you don’t know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you can receive Him into your heart, and He can deliver you from darkness and sin and have your name written in His Book of Life.
If you are sincere, you can say this simple prayer to the Father (it doesn’t have to be word for word):
“God, I recognize that I have not lived my life for You up until now. I have been living for myself, and that is wrong. Please forgive me for all of my sins just as I forgive others. I need You in my life; I want You in my life. I acknowledge the completed work of Your only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, in giving His life for me on the cross; I believe in my heart Jesus is Lord and was raised from the dead, and I long to receive the forgiveness You have made freely available to me through this sacrifice. Come into my life now, Lord. Take up residence in my heart and be my king, my Lord, and my Savior. From this day forward, I will no longer be controlled by sin or the desire to please myself, but I will follow You all the days of my life. Those days are in Your hands. I ask this in the Lord and GOD Jesus’ precious and holy name. Amen.”
Discover more from Jesus Truth Deliverance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.