Talk:Rape in Islamic Law

From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Information-icon.png This article talk page contains some tasks related to the article. See the WikiIslam:Tasks page for more information.

But how do you know that 'whom the right hands possess' is definitely referring to 'Sex Slaves'?

Hi there, thanks for your question! There are many evidence that those 'in your right hand' are sex slaves. For starters I will present the sahih ahadith supporting our claims abut 4:24. Forbidden to you (for sex) are thse who are already married, except what your 'right hands possess.' I put (for sex) in brackets there because reading the verse in context, it's clearly talking about halal sexual relations - with an 'iddat required for marrying women (who are not in your right hand). Incidentally this is the verse that the Shi'a use to justify temporary marriage.
Anyway, onward and upward, check out these ahadith from Sahih Muslim which give the context for 4:24:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) 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 (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).

The ahadith above give the revelational circumstances Quran 4:24 and as you can see, the women were taken captive for the purpose of being sex slaves. So 4:24 is telling us that you are forbidden to have sexual relations with any married woman that is not in your right hand - since they are not your property (right hand possession = property). BUT you can have sex with one of your captives even if they are married (and the husband is of course, still alive).
The narrations I have provided are of course, sahih and mutawatir. If you would like more information just ask here and I will be glad to provide it. Peace!! Sanitarium 18:05, 18 July 2010 (PDT)
Thats great, maybe that could be added to the page about what right hand means, I didnt look carefully though. --Whale 21:19, 18 July 2010 (PDT)

What 'forbidden' means

In 4:24 the article says 'forbidden' refers to intercourse, but 4:23, the verse immediately preceding it, says "Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:" Surely 4:24 is just a continuation of the prohibitions on marriage? Then it would be saying you can marry captives even if they are already married. -- 08:58, 15 August 2015 (PDT)

You cant only look at the verse. The hadiths/Tafsirs are already on the page and there's no mention of marriage there. Please read the rest of the page and you can easily see that its sex with captives that is the issue and marriage is not a requirement.
So in other terms, this is what is recorded in the hadiths and Tafsirs: Women taken as captives and their captives then had sex with them and thats the main point of the article. Marriage is not mentioned anywhere and was not done.
The article is titled Rape in Islam and most people will agree that taking women captive and having sex with them is rape. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:48, 15 August 2015 (PDT)

Misleading reference designation

Regarding this quote at the beginning of the article

Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married...Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.

Islam Q&A site has no authority to issue any fatwa, and the designation of the page as 'Fatwa number 10382' is simply an exaggeration of the article's URL. This is both misleading and nonsensical. It should be cleared that the page is merely a summary of legal opinions, instead of an officially issued fatwa (while it may contain quotes of valid legal opinion, the page itself is not a legal document in any sense).

-- 09:29, 17 January 2012 (PST) (konoame)

Okay, Since the only purpose here is to waste an editors time, I wasn't going to answer this nonsensical complaint. But I will answer this nonsense for the benefit of readers.
Islam Q&A site has no authority to issue any fatwa
Pure rubbish. Anyone who is a qualified scholar can issue a fatwa. That site is owned and run by Shaykh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, and he is not just any old scholar. He is an extremely well-respected Saudi Islamic scholar, lecturer, and author.
and the designation of the page as 'Fatwa number 10382' is simply an exaggeration of the article's URL
No it is not. Are you blind? Look at the top left-hand side.
This is both misleading and nonsensical.

I agree; your complaint is both misleading and nonsensical.

It should be cleared that the page is merely a summary of legal opinions, instead of an officially issued fatwa

No it's not clear. Shaykh Al-Munajjid gives us his ruling and provides us with the evidence he used to come to that conclusion. It's as "officially issued" as they come.

while it may contain quotes of valid legal opinion, the page itself is not a legal document in any sense

What a load of gibberish. It's as "legal" as any other fatwa. And what's up with the emphasis on "may"? The figures that fatwa quotes are as authoritative as they get. For example, al-Shafi‘i, the founder of the Shafi'i school of fiqh. --Admin3 11:22, 17 January 2012 (PST)

Anon IP, you wrote: "Islam Q&A site has no authority to issue any fatwa" - What Islamic authority do YOU have to make such a statement? Why dont you go say that to the Islamic scholars at Islam QA? You have no status and Islamic authority to challenge the Islamic scholars on that site. Go talk to them and explain how you're more qualified than them in the matters of Islam. As to "while it may contain quotes of valid legal opinion" - and your own opinion is completely invalid. You have to be a known Islamic scholar before rendering any such opinion on another Islamic scholar. Good luck in defending in Islam. --Whale 15:59, 17 January 2012 (PST)

(To do) Responses to Apologetics: Hirabah

Task for this article: Add a "Responses to Apologetics' section and talk about Hirabah and how this term is not found in the Quran and how it contradicts the Quran (right-hand possesses) and the issue of Muhammad forcefully marrying Safiyah and Juwairiyah. Also point out Hirabah ('unlawful warfare') doesnt have anything to do with 'rape'. A few Islamic scholars cannot contradict Quran and hadiths. Scriptural basis "who wage war against Allah" is vague and can apply to anything and again, if some people think it refers to Rape, it directly contradicts Quran's own 'right hand' issue which qualifies more for a scrptural basis for Rape.

Also, attempt to edit Wikipedia for Hirabah and remove all Original research from the article.

If that is not possible, then add the 'right hand' verse to the page in the same way the other verse has been added.

Paraphrasing or copying

I was wondering if Paraphrasing or copying from here along with the sources is allowed. Can someone guide me?-Raman (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Raman, generally speaking, while using Wikipedia as a guide on how to approach a topic is an acceptable way to help you in editing an article, copying text over is not allowed (unless, in some rare case, you actually wish to quote and reference a wikipedia article - though this is generally not advised). General plagiarism rules apply. As for this particular topic and article, you could add a section to the article on the "Modern Implementation" of the law, and provide the details on how it is implemented in Saudi Arabia and maybe give an example case. Since this article is not about specific rape cases and since the wiki doesn't concern itself with "news" related topic in general, do not outright compile specific instances of rape as has been done on the wikipedia article (review the WikiIslam:Scope and Article Relevance page for further clarification of what does and doesn't fit on the wiki). I hope that helps, let me know if you need any further help. --IbnPinker (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)