Islam’s Tolerance for Prisoners of War

schmikbob wrote: arefin, I must assume you do not mean what you write here. It sounds an awful lot like you are saying that the Quran can mean one thing a thousand years ago and something different today. To me this means it can mean whatever the authority in power wants it to mean. This would be a prescription for chaos. Biblical apologists are forever telling me that the Old Testament was written for a different time and the legal prescriptions in it are not valid today. This sounds like exactly what you are saying.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I didn�t mean that. What I am trying to say is because of the eternal knowledge of Allah; He verily knows what things should stay the same way forever and what wont. Ok, don�t get me wrong, but doesn�t it surprise you that Allah has always stick to the phrase, �What your right hand possess� and He does this purposefully, when He indicates legitimate intercourse with slaves (bought or made due to losing a battle), He could�ve said everything explicitly, using Arabic synonyms for the words like �prison of war�, �slave� etc. I'm not an Arabic linguist, but as far as my knowledge goes there exists specific words for these meaning. But Allah didn�t use them; I don�t think this point should be ignored entirely. Why? Understandably, He wanted to keep the provision for alternative probabilities to remain alive. And I think this is one of the reasons why there are so many phrases and allegories in the Qur�an. Ok don�t be hard on me, I'm no authority on Qur�an, I'm just a learner who is trying with all his intelligence and common sense.

Although there�re some Islamic scholars who hold the belief that intercourse beyond truly marital relation is strictly prohibited (e.g. Muhammad Asad, in his translation of the Qur�an), but after some researching I found the truth might be something else. Nevertheless this was something confusing even during the reign of Muhammad (pbuh). The Prophet of Allah (pbuh) temporarily had one or two slaves, but his relation with them is something unclear (a loophole often exploited for anti-Islamic propaganda and to defame Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)). By the time Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) died he had either freed or married all his slaves. Therefore I must say it is more likely that intercourse with slave was something that was implicitly allowed, or at least something that isn�t reckoned as a crime in Islamic law. And as the laws of Allah are unchangeable, hence intercourse with slave won�t be considered as a criminal offense even in the present days. But does this have to mean that if an Islamic country is in fight against another country (may or may not be Islamic) then everyone captured from the other country will be treated as sex-slaves? By any level of morality, is this be an ethically correct behavior, or at least is it humane. Consider the long term hatred this will create and then carried on for generations. And consider the newborns born with a dual identity and social crisis. At least consider the situation of Muslim soldiers� wives and children, what mentality they will grow in. In a monogamous society, this will wreak havoc, women with high self-esteem will never accept their husbands going to war and bringing several sex-slaves to their family. Look at the reaction of someone else on the forum

MuslimQueen wrote: Im actually disappointed to be honest. sexual relations with a woman without marrying her???? seriously?? as much as sexual intercourse is looked down on...How can this be?? Just because she is a slave does not make it permissible..or does it?? Honestly when I was faced with this question I said "no and laughed". I did not know or think that something like this could be true but after some research Im guessing that I was very wrong to me I dont mean to sound so ignorant but to me its the same as a female asking "Can men who are slaves of war become concubines of muslim women?"

As the world has moved on we must change our views toward it, from a moral and ethical point of view, from views of social and cultural values. I don�t think there is a problem with changing for the better as long as that doesn�t contradict with what Allah demands of us. As in many places Allah describes the Muslims to be a superior race that will be an example to others and guide others unto truth and righteousness-

You (those who follow Quran and prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) are indeed the best community that has ever been brought forth for mankind: you enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and you believe in God (3:110, Al-i �Imran)

So if we as Muslims wish to hold onto this high status, we need to uplift our moral standards within the limit of what is the will of Allah. If we don�t do that people won�t be amazed at us and we will find it hard to preach Islam, the message of truth. It is important to have self-esteem, but we must make sure we don�t cross the line and become arrogant. Slavery was allowed in Islam and at the time Qur'an was revealed, slavery reined the whole world and it was brutal and inhumane, and although Islam didn�t ban slavery but it established the most humane and righteous slavery system in the whole world making Islam the highest standard in its time. Similarly when Islam was established prisoners of war had no human rights, they were raped, tortured and brutally murdered. But in Islam they might be enslaved but given a normal life to live. So Islam was still the highest standard.

Since then world has moved on, we have seen enough cruelty around the globe, but people changed, morality, humanity changed. To be honest after 1500 years world has touched Islam (considering how war crimes are treated these days, primarily by Geneva Convention and its numerous amendments), though not in practice but in theory at least, now it�s up to us to uplift our standards as well. If we keep arguing in favor of slavery, and making prisoner of wars sex-slaves things won�t look pretty for Muslims. And here comes my point from the first section, Allah knew this day is going to come and therefore He used the phrase �What your right hand possess� instead of saying �make the prisoner of war your sex-slaves�, that would make the message of Qur�an outdated in the present context. Please don�t get me wrong and start an argument citing examples of war crimes committed by people of other religion. I know what is said is hardly followed. But what I'm talking about is the established standards for expected behavior not what is followed.

Edited by arefin - 10 April 2012 at 12:10pm

I think we need to reconsider our thought process. Allah is all-knowing and all-powerful, and hence the eternity of the glorious Qur�an. Due to the omniscience of Allah, the Qur�an is written linguistically in such a manner that whenever the moral value of something might change over time, the other implications are also embedded in the very text that represents Allah�s will.

So it is important for us to contemplate on the fact that whenever Allah is talking about the legality of an intercourse He is using the phrase which literally means "what your right hand posses"? Isn�t it obvious that Allah is deliberately using a unique and probably first introduced phrase instead of a word with a well established meaning? Of course it is. It is quite evident that the obscurity of the phrase establishes lenience of its application to a wide variety of situation with different implications.

The very construction of the phrase and the use of the term "right hand" make it more probable to the meaning of �something righteous and just� and �something on the right path� or �something that will not cause injustice to anyone related�. Then the use of the word "possess" is indicative of authority of being legally or lawfully correct. So, quite certainly the statement has time and situation specific significance, and cannot directly condone a particular set of actions in a timeless manner, rather it's more likely the word is time-bound, and situation specific and can endorse or invalidate the same action depending upon time and circumstances. In short the word "what your right hand posses" indicates the legitimacy of the relations that are morally, ethically and lawfully correct under the scenario prevailing at the time of action, regarding family structure, social values, national and international regulations.

Edited by arefin - 07 February 2012 at 5:05am

I see, so this article posted by Mockba is speaking of Arab society of centuries past and not current thinking?  Is this correct?

Also, cherry picking Charles Darwin is ignorant at best.