Does Islam Allow The Exploitation, Beheading, And Rape Of Female Prisoners of War

The Exploitation, Beheading, And Rape Of Female Prisoners of War Is so-called 'sexual slavery' permitted in Islam? No, says Anne-Marie, who explains the Quran's REAL teachings on female prisoners of war. She shows how sexual assault and ill-treatment of prisoners was not allowed, and how such prisoners were either released or could earn their freedom. No other religion has such humane and beneficial teachings on this difficult subject, and the World could have benefitted from them after World War 2.

Show more

Islamic Teachings on Female Prisoners of War The issue of slavery in relation to Islamic teachings is perhaps one of the most misunderstood subjects. Critics use the example of slavery to paint Islam as a violent religion that only seeks to oppress people. Intricately related to this issue is that of female prisoners of war, who are sometimes referred to as “those whom the right hands possess”, in the Holy Quran.

In this article, I will discuss the issue of slavery, Islamic methods to bring it to an end, and the numerous misunderstandings related to the concept of female prisoners of war.

First of all, it should be clear that Islam did not introduce slavery to the world. On the contrary, Islam condemned slavery in clear terms and prohibited making slaves in any way whatsoever. The confusion arises when prisoners of war are seen as “slaves” by the critics of Islam. It is true that prisoners of war may appear to be slaves, but they are taken in the middle of a battle in order to guard one’s country against the harms of the enemy.

A Slave or a Member of the Family?
When we study the teachings of Islam regarding such so-called “slaves”, we find that they cannot be termed “slaves” as perceived in the minds of many. Islam on the other hand instructs Muslims to be kind to their slaves:

And worship Allah and associate naught with Him, and show kindness to parents, and to kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and to the neighbour that is a kinsman and the neighbour that is a stranger, and the companion by your side, and the wayfarer, and those whom your right hands possess. Surely, Allah loves not the proud and the boastful. [4:37]

Emphasizing the same teaching, the Holy Prophet(sa) says:

Slaves are your brothers whom Allah has put under your control, so feed them with the same food that you eat, clothe them with the same clothes you wear, and do not burden them with so much that they are overwhelmed; if you do burden them, then help them. [Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of Etiquette, Chapter: Beneficence towards slaves; Book 33, Hadith 34]

These are just highlights of many Islamic teachings on the kind treatment of slaves. If these teachings are followed, it would mean that a “slave” no longer remains a slave and would instead be like a member of the family.

Furthermore, Islam teaches the emancipation of slaves in numerous verses of the Quran such as the following:

And what should make thee know what the ascent is? It is the freeing of a slave. [90:13-14]

Similarly, the Holy Prophet(sa) said:

He who emancipates a slave, Allah will set free from Hell, limb for limb.[i]

In light of these teachings, Muslims played a great role in the emancipation of slaves. According to historical records, Prophet Muhammad(sa) himself freed 63 slaves during his life-time, Hazrat ‘Ā’ishah(ra) freed 67, Hazrat ‘Abbās(ra) freed 70, Hazrat ‘Abdullāh bin ‘Umar(ra) freed 1,000, and Hazrat ‘Abdur Raḥmān bin ‘Auf(ra) freed 30,000.[ii]

Why not emancipation for all, as a single commandment?
At this point, some critics ask why Islam did not give a single commandment to end slavery? Why was it not done with a single stroke of the pen?

The answer to this question is that Islam did not come to make an empty show of greatness by doing something like this. Instead, its objective was to slowly and gradually reform and improve the society at large. It was neither feasible, nor wise, to suddenly abolish the institution of slavery which had become interwoven into the very texture of society since pre-Islamic times.

The slaves were dependent upon their masters for food, clothing, and shelter, and a sudden abolishment would have caused a large number of people to lose a source of income and livelihood, without there being any social safety-net in place to prevent the potential crisis which such a measure would have plunged the society into. A portion of them would then have turned to illegal ways of earning a living, and the society as a whole would have taken a moral downturn. Therefore, although Islam sought to abolish all slavery, it proceeded to do it gradually and effectively.

Steps to Emancipation
With this gradual reformation in mind, Islamic teachings followed two steps. First, a teaching was given that put an end to forcing a free person into slavery. Second, it was taught that slaves who already existed should be treated kindly and with love so that they start to live independent lives and are gradually prepared for freedom.

The first teaching is expressed very strongly in the following narration:

Prophet Muhammad(sa) said, “Allah says, ‘I will be displeased with three persons on the Day of Resurrection: (1) One who makes a covenant in My Name, but does not fulfill it; (2) One who sells a free person (as a slave) and personally usurps the sale-proceeds; (3) and one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him but does not pay him his wages”.[iii]

The second teaching was followed in two ways. Either the Muslims set free the slaves in their possession as a virtuous act in accordance with Islamic teachings, or the slaves were given the option of earning their freedom through a system called mukaatabat [i.e. an agreement between a slave and his master, where the slave offers to pay his own monetary value in order to be set free, by working the number of hours required to pay the settled amount].

Through this system, the master was obliged to set a slave free if he made himself qualified for emancipation. This is something to be judged by the court or the government. The Holy Quran says:

And such as desire a deed of manumission in writing from among those whom your right hands possess, write it for them if you know any good in them; and give them out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you. [24:34]

Here, the Holy Quran is very clear in its teaching that if a slave desires to have freedom by payment of an amount, the master is obliged to fulfill the slave’s wish and to set him free provisionally, so that the slave has an opportunity to earn the amount fixed for his release. On top of this, the master is told that he should return some of this money back to the freed slave. This is a system of mukaatabat through which Islam ensures that slavery comes to an end eventually.

Prisoners or Slaves?
A common issue that causes confusion in relation to this topic is that of semantics. Prisoners of war are sometimes conflated with slaves, even though they are completely different. It is true that prisoners of war tended to be called “slaves” and this may have been due to the fact that they were obliged to lived with Muslim families without liberty. However, clear injunctions in the Holy Quran show that prisoners of war are very different from slaves. For instance, the Holy Quran states prisoners of war can only be obtained from among the enemy during a time of a pitched battle:

It does not behove a Prophet that he should have captives until he engages in regular fighting in the land. You desire the goods of the world, while Allah desires for you the Hereafter. And Allah is Mighty, Wise. [8:68]

Then, the Holy Quran says that after the war is over, the prisoners should not be kept:

…[after the battle] either release them as a favour or by taking ransom — until the war lays down its burdens. [47:5]

This means that prisoners are to be released in good will after the battle or by taking ransom in some way (such as money from the family, exchange of prisoners, or some other such means). Further, the Holy Quran states that prisoners are only to be treated strictly to the extent that the enemy is strict to Muslim prisoners:

And if you desire to punish the oppressors, then punish them to the extent to which you have been wronged; but if you show patience, then, surely, that is best for those who are patient. [16:127]

Even here the Muslims are told to restrain themselves and to exercise patience. In brief, regarding prisoners of war, the Quranic teaching is as follows:

The term of imprisonment should terminate with the termination of fighting
No prisoner is to be put to death
No prisoner should be called upon to do anything which is beyond his abilities
The comfort of the prisoner should not be neglected
As a result, it is clear that there is no trace of slavery in Islamic teachings regarding prisoners of war. If terrorist organizations have made slaves out of prisoners of war, or kidnapped people who are free and not even engaged in battle, they have clearly acted against these teachings.

Distribution of Prisoners of War (POWs)
It is true that during the time of the Prophet Muhammad(sa), prisoners of war were distributed and assigned to individuals. Such distribution is one of the reasons why prisoners of war are sometimes confused with slaves.

First, it must be noted that the entire practice of assigning POWs to families or individuals was a retributory measure. Since the enemies of Islam were enslaving Muslims captured in battle, the Muslims assigned POWs to families, as a form of retaliation. Regardless, as shown above, even such assignments did not mean that they were pushed into slavery. The rules were clear in that they were to be treated with kindness and compassion, and to be set free after the war ends. It was in fact such kind treatment meted out to POWs that they started to convert to Islam during the time of Prophet Muhammad(sa).

One logistical reason why POWs were distributed in this manner is that state prisons did not exist at that time. It was a common practice to distribute them in such a way, and Muslims followed the same practice. Over time, this system has become obsolete, and has been replaced by prisons.

The Promised Messiah, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as), writes:

It is a matter of great joy that in our era, those people who are referred to as disbelievers in opposition to Islam, have abandoned this practice of injustice and oppression. For this reason, it is now impermissible for Muslims as well to take their prisoners as bond-women and slaves, because God states in the Holy Quran that you may retaliate against a combatant group to a degree, only when they have first taken the lead. Hence, when now such a time no longer exists and the disbelieving people do not act so violently and unjustly towards the Muslims in a state of war, whereby they themselves as well as their men and women are taken as bond-women and slaves; rather, they are considered to be state prisoners, for this reason, in this era, it is now impermissible and unlawful for Muslims as well to do so. [iv]

https://answeringislam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm

Female Prisoners of War
The most contentious issue in the course of this discussion is that of female prisoners of war. Such prisoners are seen as “slave wives” or an excuse for institutional rape. The truth is that the word “slave”—as understood by most people today—cannot be applied to POWs, as this article has adequately shown. Distribution of female prisoners of war to individuals—similar to male prisoners of war—was due to the circumstances and needs of the time, in light of the absence of state prisons. As state prisons now exist in almost every country, there is no longer a need to distribute male/female prisoners of war among individuals.

Regardless, even when this was allowed, Islamic teachings followed the dictates of justice and compassion, and never created the conditions for oppression or cruelty. Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-din Mahmud Ahmad, the second Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has commented on this issue at length in his commentary of the Holy Quran, known as Tafsīr-e-Kabīr.

In the discussion of 23:7, he lists the following conditions that had to be met before a female prisoner could be handed over to a Muslim soldier (a summary of these points can be seen in the Detailed Commentary of the Holy Quran, and an explanatory list can be found in the book, Life and Character of the Seal of Prophets – Volume II, pages 220-225):

Prisoners can only be obtained during times of war
They should be released through ransom
If the prisoner cannot afford to pay the ransom, or his/her people or his/her home country is unable to pay the ransom, then the Muslim government should release him/her as a gesture of good will
If the government has reasons to not do that, then Zakāt funds should be used for the release
If that is also not possible, then the prisoner should be given the option of mukaatabat
If the female prisoner chooses not to use option 5, it clearly means that something is preventing her from going back to her home country as she has clearly refrained from exercising her right to earn her release. In such a case, her Muslim master was allowed to marry her involuntarily as a last resort. After that, if the female prisoner gives birth to a child, she automatically becomes a free woman.[v]

Does Islam allow rape with slaves?
Despite all the logic and care for justice in the teachings of Islam as shown above, some critics still make objections. At this stage, they ask why Islam has allowed “rape” with such slave-wives?

As shown in this article, there is no such thing as “slavery” for such women, as far as the common understanding of the term “slavery” is concerned. However, there is no doubt that such women who skip all the aforementioned steps to take their freedom will be obliged to get married to Muslim soldiers.

It should be remembered that war-time commandments in the Holy Quran are meant to combat the immorality that spreads during the chaos of war. Whenever wars take place, rape of innocent women becomes rampant. In fact, rape is considered “an unfortunate but inevitable accompaniment of war”.

Islamic teachings combat such evil systematically by giving two important instructions:

Women who are not participating in battle cannot be captured. Only those women (or men) who are actively participating in the battle can be captured and made POWs. [8:68]
Women who are made POWs have five different avenues to work for their release [Detailed Commentary of the Holy Quran]. - https://www.alislam.org/quran/view/?page=2188&region=E54

It is only in those cases where the female prisoners of war did not make use of the five avenues available to them, Islam obliged them to get married as a last resort, in the interest of preventing immorality from spreading. As noted earlier, state prisons did not exist in the past and such women could not be held as prisoners in any one facility, and had to be assigned to soldiers or families. Hence, it is these women who are referred as those “whom the right hands possess”.

Considering these beautiful teachings of Islam, it would take a very mischievous critic of Islam to term such a union as rape. Instead, critics of Islam should appreciate the lengths to which Islam has gone even to protect female enemy combatants from being treated with barbarity. Had they been left alone, they would be exposed to numerous dangers and may even become the cause of the spread of immorality in the army and the society at large.

Rape as a weapon of war
The rape of women by soldiers during wartime has occurred throughout history. Indeed, rape was long considered an unfortunate but inevitable accompaniment of war—the result of the prolonged sexual deprivation of troops and insufficient military discipline. Its use as a weapon of war was gruesomely demonstrated during World War II, when both Allied and Axis armies committed rape as a means of terrorizing enemy civilian populations and demoralizing enemy troops. Two of the worst examples were the sexual enslavement of women in territories conquered by the Japanese army and the mass rape committed against German women by advancing Russian soldiers.

In the second half of the 20th century, cases of rape were documented in more than 20 military and paramilitary conflicts. In the 1990s, rape was used as an instrument of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and as a means of genocide in Rwanda. In the former case, women belonging to subjugated ethnic groups were intentionally impregnated through rape by enemy soldiers; in the latter case, women belonging to the Tutsi ethnic group were systematically raped by HIV-infected men recruited and organized by the Hutu-led government.

In the late 20th century, in part because of the prevalence of rape in the Balkan and Rwandan conflicts, the international community began to recognize rape as a weapon and strategy of war, and efforts were made to prosecute such acts under existing international law. The primary statute, Article 27 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949), already included language protecting women “against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault”; this protection was extended in an additional protocol adopted in 1977.

In 1993 the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights (replaced in 2006 by the UN Human Rights Council) declared systematic rape and military sexual slavery to be crimes against humanity punishable as violations of women’s human rights. In 1995 the UN’s Fourth World Conference on Women specified that rape by armed groups during wartime is a war crime. The jurisdiction of the international tribunals established to prosecute crimes committed in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda both included rape, making these tribunals among the first international bodies to prosecute sexual violence as a war crime. In a landmark case in 1998, the Rwandan tribunal ruled that “rape and sexual violence constitute genocide.” The International Criminal Court, established in 1998, subsequently was granted jurisdiction over a range of women’s issues, including rape and forced pregnancy. In a resolution adopted in 2008 the UN Security Council affirmed that “rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide.”

In 2008 the government of Congo (Kinshasa) and various international organizations increased efforts to combat the country’s rape crisis—the continuing use of rape on a massive scale by all sides in the brutal civil war that had begun in 1998. Instruction in forensic techniques and construction of courthouses, legal clinics, and prisons subsequently yielded a substantial increase in arrests, prosecutions, and convictions in Congo. The crisis and its victims—by then more than a quarter of a million women and girls, by some estimates—were documented in the 2008 film The Greatest Silence by filmmaker Lisa Jackson.

In 2009 UN officials and several human rights and aid organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Oxfam, reported a large number of rapes of males in eastern Congo. The attacks, estimated in the hundreds, were believed to be in retaliation for joint military operations between Congo and its former rival Rwanda.

Why does the Quran say that infidels should be killed?
The verse of the Holy Quran is often mentioned to malign Islam. The verse does not say infidels it says idolaters. (9:5) And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

This verse, chapter 9 verse 5, is often used as evidence that Islam allows killing of non-Muslims, but what is not recognized is the context and history behind these verses. The history of this verse is that when Prophet Muhammad(sa) began preaching the unity of God he was persecuted for 13 years, much as Prophets Abraham and Jesus were. Since Muslims who are being persecuted are encouraged to leave for safer areas, rather than create disorder, Muhammad(sa) and his followers migrated to Medina. After they left, the Meccans attacked them in Medina on and off for a period of nine years until Chapter 9 was revealed.

Looking at the context of the verses, it becomes obvious that the commandment of this verse only relates to those tribes who continued hostilities against the Muslims even after they had migrated. In particular, reference is made to 5 tribes (‘Banu Khuza’ah, Banu Mudlij, Banu Bakr, Banu Damrah, and Banu Sulaiim) that did not honor the treaties they made with Muslims. It is also important to remember that the preceding verses give these people respite for 4 months to reconsider their behavior and cease hostilities. Sadly after 4 months passed, the enemies of Islam continued their hostilities against the Muslims. Only then was Prophet Muhammad(sa) commanded by God to meet them in battle to defend Muslims and the religion of Islam.

Even in this situation the Quran states that if the enemies repent of their behavior and promise to fulfill their treaties, it becomes incumbent on Muslims to cease military action and forgive them. Unfortunately those who take this specific verse out of context fail to see that as the title Al-Taubah suggests, the main subject matter of the chapter is forgiveness and repentance.

Custodianship of the Right Hand: Concubinage, Rape, and ‘Sexual Slavery’ in Islam In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful The issues of slavery, concubinage, and the rape of women in warfare throughout history are subject to fierce intellectual, philosophical, and psychological discussion. They are issues that have led to painful doubts within many faith communities, including the Muslim community. This paper addresses the allegations that the early Muslims permitted and encouraged the rape of women in warfare and their exploitation as ‘sex slaves.’ These claims are based upon citing a set of historical facts and Islamic texts out of context, sometimes in the service of hardline anti-immigration politics intended to demonize and dehumanize Muslim immigrants on the whole as sexual predators. The legal status of sexual relationships within the historical institution of slavery (or more accurately in Islamic terms, the “custodianship of the right hand”) is explained in detail, and the firm prohibition of rape and sexual harm in early Islam is documented. It is also demonstrated that Islam, having inherited an historical system of economic slavery in Arabia, proceeded to humanize slaves and grant them rights and inherent dignity, with several indications in the law that logically resulted in universal emancipation. Finally, it will be proven that sexual consent, while difficult to define in law even today, was certainly a moral requirement as understood by the early Muslims and later scholars, including consent within the concubine relationship.

Beheading in France and the rise of radical Islam in Europe It is a paradox as to how a person can loathe and hate the same society which he or she desires to be part of. Europe is battling with this paradox where the first and second generation immigrants from Muslim countries have led to rise in Islamic terrorism.

Rise of radical Islam in Europe has come in many colours and shades, but France remains an exception where Islamic terror attacks continue unabated. The latest being beheading of a teacher who apparently showed caricature of Prophet Mohammad to his students.

The irony is that he would ask Muslim students in his class to leave lest he hurt their religious feelings. What he practised was quintessentially French like secularism which separates the state from the church, other values also define what it means to be a French.

On a lighter note, it can be sweet breakfast in the morning and on a serious side it can be French commitment towards the ideal of freedom of speech and expression which does not entertain the idea of blasphemy.

French society and law will hold in contempt discriminatory views, but they do hold the right of an individual to ridicule and criticise very strongly. It is a modern French value apart from many others which emanate from manners to customs to food.

Does this make Islam incompatible with modern values of liberal democracy? Does Islam want its version of liberal democracy to be implemented on modern European democracies?

Are Islamic values incompatible with the ideals of the French revolution and ideas associated with it? Fundamentally, today’s Europe apart from many other differences does not entertain the idea of blasphemy.

A point to be noted is that most of the Islamic terror cases in Europe do not involve the Madrasas. Those involved in radical Islam are not all necessarily poor people. They come from varied backgrounds. Two schools of thought exist in Europe over Islamic terrorism.

One school is of the view that radicalisation has witnessed Islamisation and another locates protest and violence in disempowerment, poverty and dislocation.

The former believes that Islamic violence is a product of modernity and has nothing to do with essential nature of Islam and what we witness today is modern civilization reinventing Islam in which participants have less to do with the book and more to do with the homogenous Muslim identity which is not located in a common culture.

The other school argues that Islamic radicalism should be seen from the perspective of disempowerment in Western cities and a sense of solace and brotherhood being received from an idea of Ummah. With the same logic, racist and right-wing violence can be explained which too wants to alter the character of the state by subversion or capture.

In my view, there exists a third position. Europe over the years has been able to come to terms with the idea of blasphemy. It has been able to rest its bloody history of inquisitions and witch-hunting when hundreds of women were burnt in the name of one supreme God.

Europe over a period of time witnessed literary, cultural and sexual revolution which is not the case with Islamic societies. Early Christianity considered marriage only for procreation and not pleasure which was not the case with Islam which within its ambit provided for sexual appetite. This has often led to the caricature of lustful Muslim men but is a matter of another debate.

In the last 80 years, Europe has witnessed intense waves of immigration because of multiple reasons. The first wave was during the post World War-II era when Europe was falling short of hands and required men to run industries. The second wave took place as expertise was required and had to be imported and third took place because of the dislocation of West Asian states.

This changing demography in countries like Sweden and France, despite welcoming them in the country, cultural assimilation did not take place.

Immigrants can be modern by dress but not through values and tastes as incompatibility remains. Whether a woman being beaten in France for wearing a short skirt to violence in Norway over disrespect to one's own religion are all new. They will continue to exist till values of the adopted countries are not inculcated properly.

Islamisation of Europe may be a far-fetched reality but the clash between the native values and self-imbibed imagination of Islam in danger and religion being affronted remains the biggest challenge to a liberal Europe.

In the 1970s, hijab, purdah and head scarves were seen as a symbol of patriarchy and gender discrimination. Women fought against it the world over and won the battle. Today in places like the Americas and Europe, head scarves and purdah are back as a symbol of cultural relativism and diversity. Let’s not fool ourselves.

There are things which need to be kept at bay and first being the idea of blasphemy and punishment for it.

Hinduism has been able to deal with this problem by building laws on prevalent caste practices. Christianity has been able to deal in parts by cultural shift in popular imagination, but Islam has not been able to inject this change.

Till the idea to entertain and respect the idea of blasphemy remains, violence will remain justified and would continue to express in multiple forms in the name of Jihad. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

French President Emmanuel Macron denounced what he called an “Islamist terrorist attack” against a history teacher decapitated in a Paris suburb Friday, urging the nation to stand united against extremism.

The teacher had discussed caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad with his class, authorities said. The suspected attacker was shot to death by police after Friday’s beheading.

The French anti-terrorism prosecutor opened an investigation concerning murder with a suspected terrorist motive, the prosecutor’s office said.

Macron visited the school where the teacher worked in the town of Conflans-Saint-Honorine and met with staff after the slaying. An Associated Press reporter saw three ambulances arrive at the scene, and heavily armed police surrounding the area and police vans lining leafy nearby streets.

“One of our compatriots was murdered today because he taught ... the freedom of expression, the freedom to believe or not believe,” Macron said.

He said the attack shouldn’t divide France because that’s what the extremists want. “We must stand all together as citizens,” he said.

The gruesome killing of the teacher occurred in the town of Conflans-Sainte-Honorine while the suspect was killed by police in adjoining Eragny.

A police official said the suspect, armed with a knife and an airsoft gun — which fires plastic pellets — was shot dead about 600 meters (yards) from where the male teacher was killed after he failed to respond to orders to put down his arms, and acted in a threatening manner.

The teacher had received threats after opening a discussion “for a debate” about the caricatures about 10 days ago, the police official told The Associated Press. The parent of a student had filed a complaint against the teacher, another police official said, adding that the suspected killer did not have a child at the school. The suspect’s identity was not made public.

The suspect’s identity was not made public. French media reported that the suspect was an 18-year-old Chechen, born in Moscow. That information could not be immediately confirmed.

The two officials could not be named because they were not authorized to discuss ongoing investigations.

France has offered asylum to many Chechens since the Russian military waged war against Islamist separatists in Chechnya in the 1990s and early 2000s, and there are Chechen communities scattered around France.

France has seen occasional violence involving its Chechen community in recent months, in the Dijon region, the Mediterranean city of Nice, and the western town of Saint-Dizier, believed linked to local criminal activity.

The attack came as Macron is pushing for a new law against what he calls domestic “separatism,” notably by Islamic radicals accused of indoctrinating vulnerable people through home schools, extremist preaching and other activities.

France has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe with up to 5 million members, and Islam is the country’s No. 2 religion.

“We didn’t see this coming,” Conflans resident Remi Tell said on CNews TV station. He described the town as peaceful.

It was the second terrorism-related incident since the opening of an ongoing trial on the newsroom massacre in Jan. 2015 at the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo after the publication of caricatures of the prophet of Islam.

As the trial opened, the paper republished caricatures of the prophet to underscore the right of freedom of expression. Exactly three weeks ago, a young man from Pakistan was arrested after stabbing, outside the newspaper’s former offices, two people who suffered non life-threatening injuries. The 18-year-old told police he was upset about the publication of the caricatures. The incident came as Macron’s government is working on a bill to address Islamist radicals who authorities claim are creating a parallel society outside the values of the French Republic.

https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Sharia-law-and-the-death-penalty.pdf

This can also be seen in Quranic verses that refer to those who will enter Paradise as "companions of the right hand." The Qur'an allows men to have sexual relations with their female slaves, but promotes abstinence and marriage as better choices. The Quran regards such slaves as part of the family, though of lower social status than free family members. Verse 4:3 formed the basis for a later rule that concubines must be freed before their master can marry them. Verse 24:33 mandates that slaves be allowed to marry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_concubinage

The subject of Islam and slavery is vast. This brief introduction will focus on the following specific areas in an attempt to sketch the basic interplay of the ideals and realities of Muslim slavery:

https://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/muslim/slavery.html

The Qur’an, which Muslims believe to have been revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century, makes numerous references to slaves and slavery (e.g., Q. 2.178; 16.75; 30.28). Like numerous passages in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, the Qur’an assumes the permissibility of owning slaves, which was an established practice before its revelation. The Qur’an does not explicitly condemn slavery or attempt to abolish it. Nonetheless, it does provide a number of regulations designed to ameliorate the situation of slaves. It recommends freeing slaves, especially “believing” slaves (Q. 2.177). Manumission of a slave is required as expiation for certain misdeeds (Q. 4.92; 58.3) and another verse states that masters should allow slaves to purchase their own freedom (Q. 24.33).

The Qur’an also suggests certain means of integrating slaves, some of whom were enslaved after being captured in war, into the Muslim community. It allows slaves to marry (either other slaves or free persons; Q. 24.32; 2.221; 4.25) and prohibits owners from prostituting unwilling female slaves (Q. 24.33). Despite this protection against one form of sexual exploitation, female slaves do not have the right to grant or deny sexual access to themselves. Instead, the Qur’an permits men to have sexual access to “what their right hands possess,” meaning female captives or slaves (Q. 23.5-6; 70.29-30). This was widely accepted and practiced among early Muslims; the Prophet Muhammad, for example, kept a slave-concubine (Mariya the Copt) who was given to him as a gift by the Roman governor of Alexandria.

Traditional Islamic law (fiqh) elaborates significantly on the Qur’anic material concerning slavery. The enslavement of war captives is regulated, along with the purchase and sale of slaves. While it is not permissible to enslave other Muslims, the jurists clarify that if a non-Muslim converts to Islam after enslavement, he or she remains a slave and may be lawfully purchased and sold like any other slave. (This rule closes a potential loophole allowing for slaves to gain their freedom by the simple fact of conversion.) The law also prescribes penalties for slave owners who maltreat or abuse their slaves; these penalties can include forced manumission of the slave without compensation to the owner.

Islamic law devotes special attention to regulating the practice of slave marriage and concubinage, in order to determine the paternity and/or ownership of children born to a female slave. A man cannot simultaneously own and be married to the same female slave. The male owner of a female slave can either marry her off to a different man, thus renouncing his own sexual access to her, or he may take her as his own concubine, using her sexually himself. Both situations have a specific effect on the status of any children she bears. When female slaves are married off, any children born from the marriage are slaves belonging to the mother’s owner, though legal paternity is established for her husband. When a master takes his own female slave as a concubine, by contrast, any children she bears are free and legally the children of her owner, with the same status as any children born to him in a legal marriage to a free wife. The slave who bears her master’s child becomes an umm walad (literally, mother of a child), gaining certain protections. Most importantly, she cannot be sold and she is automatically freed upon her master’s death.

How have these laws played out in Muslim history? Slavery was a social fact in most of the Muslim world for nearly 1400 years, with large numbers of slaves employed in domestic service as well as commerce. Large-scale agricultural slavery, like the plantation slavery of the U.S. South, was seldom practiced in the Muslim world. This was not due to any prohibition against such forms of slave labor, but rather to economic and geographical factors. This does not mean that Islamic slavery was not harsh, as some apologists have argued, or that masters were not sometimes brutal to their slaves.

However, slavery did not always equal low social status. In medieval Egypt, the Mamluk (literally, “owned”) dynasty ruled for some time, with manumitted military slaves rising to govern others. The conscript slave troops (janissaries) of the Ottomans are another example. Most striking is the case of the royal concubines who wielded tremendous influence and amassed considerable wealth in the later centuries of the Ottoman empire.

The issue of slavery in Muslim societies is not purely historical but has lingering contemporary effects, especially in certain parts of Africa and the Gulf states. Some majority Muslim nations – Saudi Arabia, for example – were among the last to outlaw slavery in the twentieth century. Vestigial effects of domestic slavery still exist in certain Gulf nations in the failure of police and lawmakers to protect immigrant household workers against potential abuses by employers. Women employed as maids and nannies have little recourse against sexual coercion or harsh beatings; in some cases, those who have escaped and sought refuge with police have been forcibly returned to their employers. It is important to note that these women are not legally enslaved, and they generally receive compensation for their work that differentiates their situation from that of those in debt bondage. However, because of the acceptance of controls on their mobility (employers often take their passports), and the refusal of law enforcement officials to respond to complaints of maltreatment, they are particularly vulnerable to abuse.

In some African nations, actual slavery continues. Repeated attempts to outlaw slavery in Mauritania have had little effect. The most recent declaration of abolition, in 1980, has been largely ineffective, with 90,000 black Mauritanians remaining essentially enslaved to Arab/Berber owners (citation). In the Sudan, Christian captives in the ongoing civil war are often enslaved, and female prisoners are often used sexually, with their Muslim captors claiming that Islamic law grants them permission (citation).

The existence of actual and quasi-slavery is by no means unique to the Muslim world; slavery and slavery-like practices are found in numerous nations world-wide. Further, they are not found everywhere in the Muslim world; there specific socio-economic and political factors that help to account for their existence. Still, the claiming of religious justification for slaveholding in some of these cases makes them particularly urgent to address.

While the vast majority of contemporary Muslims agree that there is no place for slavery in the modern world, there has not been a strong internally developed critique of past or present slaveholding practices. In fact, modern Muslims have generally devoted little attention to thinking about or discussing the religious, ethical, and legal issues associated with slavery, perhaps because it is difficult to acknowledge and confront the scriptural and traditional permission for it. Yet it is possible to analyze slavery (as well as other forms of gross social inequity) as inconsistent with basic Qur’anic precepts of justice and human equality before God. The enslavement of human beings to other human beings is, in fact, marginal to the Qur’anic worldview. In contrast, slavery of a different type is conceptually central: the status of each Muslim as a slave before God is a slavery that can never be abolished.

HAREM, less frequently Haram or Harim (Arab harim- commonly but wrongly pronounced harem - " that which is illegal or prohibited "), the name generally applied to that part of a house in Oriental countries which is set apart for the women; it is also used collectively for the women themselves. Strictly the women's quarters are the haremlik (lik, belonging to), as opposed to selamlik the men's quarters, from which they are in large houses separated by the mabein, the private apartments of the householder. The word harem is strictly applicable to Mahommedan households only, but the system is common in greater or less degree to all Oriental communities, especially where polygamy is permitted. Other names for the women's quarters are Seraglio (Ital. serraglio, literally an enclosure, from Lat. sera, a bar; wrongly narrowed down to the sense of harem through confusion with Turkish serai or sarai, palace or large building, cf. caravanserai); Zenana (strictly zenana, from Persian zan, woman, allied with Gr. yvvii), used specifically of Hindu harems; Andarun (or Anderoon), the Persian word for the " inner part " (sc. of a house). The Indian harem system is also commonly known as purdah or purdah, literally the name of the thick curtains or blinds which are used instead of doors to separate the women's quarters from the rest of the house. A male doctor attending a zenana lady would put his hand between the purdah to feel her pulse.

The seclusion of women in the household is fundamental to the Oriental conception of the sex relation, and its origin must, therefore, be sought far earlier than the precepts of Islam as set forth in the Koran, which merely regulate a practically universal Eastern custom.' It is inferred from the remains of many ancient Oriental palaces (Babylonian, Persian, &c.) that kings and wealthy nobles devoted a special part of the palace to their womankind. Though in comparatively early times there were not wanting men who regarded polygamy as wrong (e.g. the prophets of Israel), nevertheless in the East generally there has never been any real movement against the conception of woman as a chattel of her male relatives. A man may have as many wives and concubines as he can support, but each of these women must be 1 In Africa also, among the non-Mahommedan negroes of the west coast and the Bahima of the Victoria Nyanza, the seclusion of women of the upper classes has been practised in states (e.g. Ashanti and Buganda) possessing a considerable degree of civilization.

his exclusive property. The object of this insistence upon female chastity is partly the maintenance of the purity of the family with special reference to property, and partly to protect. women from marauders, as was the case with, the! people of India when the Mahommedans invaded the country and sought for women to fill their harems. In Mahommedan countries theoretically a woman must veil her face to all men except her father, her brother and her husband; any violation of this rule is still regarded by strict Mahommedans as the gravest possible offence, though among certain Moslem communities (e.g. in parts of Albania) women of the poorer classes may appear in public unveiled. If any other man make his way into a harem he may lose his life; the attempted escape of a harem woman is a capital offence, the husband having absolute power of life and death, to such an extent that, especially in the less civilized parts of the Moslem world, no one would think of questioning a man's right to mutilate or kill a disobedient wife or concubine.

Turkish Harems
A good deal of misapprehension, due to ignorance combined with strong prejudice against the whole system, exists in regard to the system in Turkey. It is often assumed, for example, that the sultan's seraglio is typical, though on a uniquely large scale, of all Turkish households, and as a consequence that every Turk is a polygamist. This is far from being the case, for though the Koran permits four wives, and etiquette allows the sultan seven, the man of average possessions is perforce content with one, and a small number of female servants. It is, therefore, necessary to take the imperial seraglio separately.

Though the sultan's household in modern times is by no means as numerous as it used to be, it is said that the harem of Abdul Hamid contained about 1000 women, all of whom were of slave origin. This body of women form an elaborately organized community with a complete system of officers, disciplinary and administrative, and strict distinctions of status. The real ruler of this society is the sultan's mother, the Sultana Valide, who exercises her authority through a female superintendent, the Kyahya Khatun. She has also a large retinue of subordinate officials (Kalfas) ranging downwards from the Hasnadar ousta (" Lady of the Treasury ") to the " Mistress of the Sherbets " and the" Chief Coffee Server." Each of these officials has under her a number of pupil-slaves (alaiks),whom she trains to succeed her if need be, and from whom the service is recruited. After the sultana valide (who frequently enjoys considerable political power and is a mistress of intrigue) ranks the mother of the heirapparent; she is called the Bash Kadin Effendi (" Her excellency the Chief Lady "), and also hasseki or kasseky, and is distinguished from the other three chief wives who only bear the title Kadin Effendi. Next come the ladies who have borne the younger children of the sultan, the Hanum Effendis, and after them the so-called Odalisks or Odalisques (a perversion of odalik, from odah, chamber). These are subdivided, according to the degree of favour in which they stand with the sultan or padishah, into Ikbals (" Favourites ") and Geuzdes (literally the " Eyed " ones), those whom the sultan has favourably noticed in the course of his visits to the apartments of his wives or his mother. All the women are at the disposal of the sultan, though it is contrary to etiquette for him actually to select recruits for his harem. The numbers are kept up by his female relatives and state officials, the latter of whom present girls annually on the evening before the 15th of Ramadan.

Every odalisk who has been promoted to the royal couch receives a daira, consisting of an allowance of money, a suite of apartments, and a retinue, in proportion to her status. It should be noted that, since all the harem women are slaves, the sultans, with practically no exceptions, have never entered into legal. marriage contracts. Any slave, in however menial a position, may be promoted to the position of a kadin effendi. Hence all the slaves who have any pretension to beauty are carefully trained, from the time they enter the harem, in deportment,. dancing, music and the arts of the toilette: they are instructed in the Moslem religion and learn the daily prayers (namaz); a certain number are specially trained in reading and writing Harebell (Campanula rotundifolia). for secretarial work. Discipline is strict, and continued disobedience leads to corporal punishment by the eunuchs. All the women of the harem are absolutely under the control of the sultana valide (who alone of the harem of her dead husband is not sent away to an older palace when her son succeeds), and owe her the most profound respect, even to the point of having to obtain permission to leave their own apartments. Her financial secretary, the Haznadar Ousta, succeeds to her power if she dies. The sultan's foster-mother also is a person of importance, and is known as the Taia Kadin. The security of the harem is in the hands of a body of eunuchs both black and white. The white eunuchs have charge of the outer gates of the seraglio, but they are not allowed to approach the women's apartments, and obtain no posts of distinction. their chief, however, the kapu aghasi (" master of the gates ") has part control over the ecclesiastical possessions, and even the vizier cannot enter the royal apartments without his permission. The black eunuchs have the right of entering the gardens and chambers of the harem. Their chief, usually called the kislar aghasi (" master of the maidens "), though his true title is dares skadet aga (" chief of the abode of felicity "), is an official of high importance. His appointment is for life. If he is deprived of his post he receives his freedom; and if he resigns of his own accord he is generally sent to Egypt with a pension of ioo francs a day. His secretary keeps count of the revenues of the mosques built by the sultans. He is usually succeeded by the second eunuch, who bears the title of treasurer, and has charge of the jewels, &c., of the women. The number of eunuchs is always a large one. The sultana valide and the sultana hasseki have each fifty at their service, and others are assigned to the kadins and the favourite odalisks.

The ordinary middle-class household is naturally on a very different scale. The selamlik is on the ground floor with a separate entrance, and there the master of the house receives his male guests; the rest of the ground floor is occupied by the kitchen and perhaps the stables. The haremlik is generally (in towns at least) on the upper floor fronting on and slightly overhanging the street; it has a separate entrance, courtyard and garden. The windows are guarded by lattices pierced with circular holes through which the women may watch without being seen. Communication with the haremlik is effected by a locked door, of which the Effendi keeps the key and also by a sort of revolving cupboard (dutap) for the conveyance of meals. The furniture, of the old-fashioned harems at least, is confined to divans, rugs, carpets and mirrors. For heating purposes the old brass tray of charcoal and wood ash is giving way to American stoves, and there is a tendency to import French furniture and decoration without regard to their suitability.

The presence of a second wife is the exception, and is generally attributable to the absence of children by the first wife. The expense of marrying a free woman leads many Turks to prefer a slave woman who is much more likely to be an amenable partner. If a slave woman bears a child she is often set free and then the marriage ceremony is gone through.

The harem system is, of course, wholly inconsistent with any high ideal of womanhood. Certain misapprehensions, however, should be noticed. The depravity of the system and the vapid idleness of harem life are much exaggerated by observers whose sympathies are wholly against the system. In point of fact much depends on the individuals. In many households there exists a very high degree of mutual consideration and the standard of conduct is by no means degraded. Though a woman may not be seen in the streets without the yashmak which covers her face except for her eyes, and does not leave her house except by her husband's permission, none the less in ordinary households the harem ladies frequently drive into the country and visit the shops and public baths. Their seclusion has very considerable compensations, and legally they stand on a far better basis in relation to their husbands than do the women of monogamous Christian communities. From the moment when a woman, free or slave, enters into any kind of wifely relation with a man, she has a legally enforceable right against him both for her own and for her children's maintenance. She has absolute control over her personal property whether in money, slaves or goods; and, if divorce is far easier in Islam than in Christendom, still the marriage settlement must be of such amount as will provide suitable maintenance in that event.

On the other hand, of course, the system is open to the gravest abuse, and in countries like Persia, Morocco and India, the life of Moslem,women and slaves is often far different from that of middle class women of European Turkey, where law is strict and culture advanced. The early age at which girls are secluded, the dulness of their surroundings, and the low moral standard which the system produces react unfavourably not only upon their moral and intellectual growth but also upon their capacity for motherhood and their general physique. A harem woman is soon passee, and the lot of a woman past her youth, if she is divorced or a widow, is monotonous and empty. This is true especially of child-widows.

Since the middle of the r9th century familiarity with European customs and the direct influence of European administrators has brought about a certain change in the attitude of Orientals to the harem system. This movement is, however, only in its infancy, and the impression is still strong that the time is not ripe for reform. The Oriental women are in general so accustomed to their condition that few have any inclination to change it, while men as a rule are emphatically opposed to any alteration of the system. The Young Turkish party, the upper classes in Egypt, as also the Babists in Persia, have to some extent progressed beyond the orthodox conception of the status of women, but no radical reform has been set on foot.

In India various attempts have been made by societies, missionary and other, as well as by private individuals, to improve the lot of the zenana women. Zenana schools and hospitals have been founded, and a few women have been trained as doctors and lawyers for the special purposes of protecting the women against their own ignorance and inertia. Thus in 19,35 a Parsee Christian lady, Cornelia Sorabjee, was appointed by the Bengal government as legal adviser to the court of wards, so that she might give advice to the widowed mothers of minors within the harem walls. Similarly trained medical women are introduced into zenanas and harems by the Lady Dufferin Association for medical aid to Indian women. Gradually native Christian churches are making provision for the attendance of women at their services, though the sexes are rigorously kept apart. In India, as in Turkey, the introduction of Western dress and education has begun to create new ideas and ambitions, and not a few Eastern women have induced English women to enter the harems as companions, nurses and governesses. But training and environment are extremely powerful, and in some parts of the Mahommedan world, the supply. of Asiatic, European and even American girls is so steady, that reform has touched only the fringe of the system.

Among the principal societies which have been formed to better the condition of Indian and Chinese women in general with special reference to the zenana system are the Church of England Zenana Missionary Society and the Zenana Bible and Medical'Mission. Much information as to the medical, industrial and educational work done by these societies will be found in their annual reports and other publications. Among these are J. K. H. Denny's Toward the Uprising; Irene H. Barnes, Behind the Pardah (1897), an account of the former society's work; the general condition of Indian women is described in Mrs Marcus B. Fuller's Wrongs of Indian Womanhood (1900), and Maud Dover's The Englishwoman in India (1909) Missions.

Glories of the old days are often talked about, and many people think that times were good back when wars were fought with honor using sword and shield and people still cared about integrity. But looking back, people refuse to accept the state of repair society in general was. There was violence in plenty, and although for men it mostly resulted in losing their property or their lives, for women it was being used until they died or being made into the property.

In times like that, what did it mean to be in the Ottoman Sultan’s harem? Was life unended slavery, or did the women have a say in what kind of life they lead? Unchecked lust is one of the seven deadly sins, and there was great debauchery in the Sultan’s harem, where the most beautiful women of the empire resided, often trained from childhood about the rules of pleasure and the expectations that were held of them.

Prisoners in a paradise of pleasure.
Secluded from the world inside a maze of beautiful courtyards and secret doors, the women of the harem were impossible to spy upon by prying eyes. It was a completely different world from what the outside rabble lived in, with beautifully tiled rooms in exotic colors that pleased the eyes as much as the women did.

The women were, of course, not allowed to leave the harem, because they were considered to be the Sultan’s property and only he and his court could see them. Even the people who belonged to the court were carefully scrutinized before they were allowed entry inside the harem, and this is where the eunuchs reigned supreme.

This was because their bodies could not provoke them to sexual pleasures, they were considered safe enough to be the guardians of the ladies, and the eunuchs protected their position with haughty pride, and as the lockkeepers of the harem, they had a lot of influence. They could learn things by invading the privacy of men and women alike like no other person could, which allowed some of them a high position in the imperial court.

Harems
The harem is central to western popular perceptions of women and sexuality in Middle Eastern societies. In this context, it is often incorrectly perceived as a glorified brothel where a Muslim ruler or grandee keeps numerous women to slake his sexual desires. While some modern-day minor princes in the Persian Gulf and the Pacific Rim do maintain such establishments, the harem has historically been a far more complex institution geared toward family reproduction and preservation. A classic example of gendered space, it extended, under a variety of names, to Europe and Asia.

DEFINITION
The word harem derives from the Arabic harim, referring to a place that is off limits, sacred, and/or taboo. Accordingly a residential harem is an interior space off limits to persons who do not belong to the household. In private residences and royal palaces alike, it is occupied by women and young children. However, the palace of a Muslim royal family in the medieval and early modern eras contained both a female harem and a male inner sanctum, accessible only to members of the family and personal aides. Behind such spatial arrangements, which were common to royal palaces throughout Asia in the Byzantine Empire, and in parts of Africa, lay the notion that a ruler demonstrates power through seclusion and inaccessibility rather than public visibility. Most Western European courts contained separate women's quarters, as well, although the degree of seclusion was generally not as pronounced.

Residents of the female harem included the ruler's mother, unmarried daughters and sisters, and wives. Islamic law permits a man to take up to four wives provided he can treat them all equally, although opinions differ as to what constitutes equal treatment. To these wives were added numerous concubines, usually slaves imported from non-Muslim lands and converted to Islam. A large staff of celibate female attendants, many of them slaves of the ruler's wives and mother, performed chores ranging from bookkeeping to washing clothes.

FUNCTIONS
Contrary to popular stereotypes, the premodern harem was not a den of iniquity but resembled a separate female household run by the ruler's or householder's consort. In a royal palace, the harem regulated dynastic reproduction by supplying the ruler with women of reproductive age while providing a space for the rearing of progeny. A hierarchy prevailed, with the ruler's first wife, favorite concubine, or mother playing a major role in choosing other women for the harem and determining the ruler's access to sexual partners. The ruler could not enter the harem whenever he liked but ordinarily required the permission of the female household's head. Children, both male and female, were raised and educated within the harem until their teenage years; princes were then often sent to govern provinces whereas princesses were prepared for marriage, often to high officials or foreign rulers.

A harem in a private home or in the residence of a subordinate government official replicated the ruler's harem on a smaller scale, although it was not a major arena for reproductive politics. It could, however, serve as a political and economic safe haven. If the male household head ran afoul of a political rival, he might hide in the harem or deposit part of his wealth there. While an enemy might ransack the public areas of the house, he would usually refrain from violating the harem. As for a wife's property, under Islamic law, it remained hers throughout her life.

This Is End Of Text For Part One Thanks

https://rumble.com/v3p5knb-does-islam-allow-the-exploitation-rape-children-female-prisoners-of-war-par.html

See Part Two Link Above For Rest Of This Text !

The Exploitation, Beheading, And Rape Of Female Prisoners of War Is so-called 'sexual slavery' permitted in Islam? Part Two Now. It's almost a decade since ISIS militants swept through Iraq and Syria but the legacy of their brutal caliphate remains. While many Iraqis are reclaiming their lives in a period of relative calm, the targets of ISIS’ genocide, the Yazidis, are not at peace. The world was transfixed when this religious minority fled to the mountains of Sinjar. Rescue efforts managed to airlift some to safety and others who escaped on foot and were eventually settled in countries like Australia. But many were trapped and killed, and huge numbers tens of thousand of women and girls and baby were taken as sex slaves and some 8,000+ raped daily and baby killed too.

https://www.e-ir.info/pdf/96731

We The People Of The New World Order Year Zero Thank You Let's Stop All Wars Now

https://rumble.com/v3omcs3-we-the-people-of-the-new-world-order-year-zero-thank-you-lets-stop-all-wars.html

Let's Stop All Wars. The Final Speech from The Great Dictator Movie 1940 ! Wow.

Show less