Bismillah

Islam's Tolerance for Prisoners of War and Intolerance of Rape  

By Yamin Zakaria

Al-Jazeerah, April 15, 2006

In line with the current fad of war on Islam and Muslims, foul-mouth Zionist-Christian preachers, racist groups like the British National Party (BNP), freethinkers and individuals with a deep hatred towards Islam, are all disseminating malicious propaganda, alleging that Islam endorses rape, as it allows female captives of war to be taken as concubines.

Before we address the allegations, it is pertinent to clarify the notion of rape, so that the impartial readers can judge if the allegation is true or false against Islam. Most societies would concur that rape is where the victim is forced into sexual activity, in particular sexual penetration against his or her will. Note we are exclusively discussing rape of women, as the subject matter is - female captives of war.

Societies that evaluate rape as a serious crime and not just a minor side annoyance of sex tourism [1] would dispense �serious� punishments for such a crime! It would be reasonable to say the seriousness of any crime should be reflected in the severity of the retribution awarded by that society. Yet we find this strange paradox, nations who claim to uphold women�s rights dispense the most lenient punishments for rape, if any, and the rape rates within these countries are far higher than other nations. We learn today that increasing number of convicted rapists in the UK have been getting away with very lenient punishment and some with just cautions. As if the innocent victim�s life or honour has no value in such a society and simultaneously encouraging the criminal to commit more rapes.

Retribution like chopping of hands or stoning are arbitrarily described as barbaric, but these can never be as barbaric as providing such lenient punishments to convicted rapists. Because it deliberately rewards the criminal and condemns the victims by denying them justice, and it is better to over punish the criminal (if you consider the retribution to be harsh) than to inflict any amount of punishment on the victim and thereby encourage immoral behaviour in society through the perceived leniency of its punishments!

So, how does the allegation of rape fit into Islam, given that Islam does not even permit you to have consensual sex outside marriage, then by greater reasoning it could not permit you to force someone to have sex with you. Certainly abduction and rape of any woman inside the Islamic State is severely punishable. It is generally regarded as an act of "waging war against the society" usually punishable by death! The allegation of rape is based on the practice of taking the captured women from the battlefield as war booty, who are then distributed amongst the soldiers as concubines; the Qur'an refers to this category as (Ma Malakat Aymanukum, literally: �what your right hand possesses�.

The argument of rape is built on two basis, first, taking of the captives from the battlefield and second, the subsequent allocation of the captives to the soldiers as concubines (Sabee).

The mere abduction of a woman does not constitute rape but in any case the women are not abducted as the critics claim; they are simply prisoners of war (POW). Nobody went specifically to hunt for them as they allege, they were simply there of their own will aiding the battle. War means killing and usurping the possession of the enemy. If it is wrong to take females as captives then it must also be wrong to kill them and others. In that case the argument should be against the actual war itself not just the taking of female captive as POWs, because the latter is a consequence of war.

If the female captives are not ransomed or killed or set free, then they are allocated to soldiers as concubines. This also depends on the actual international situation, how the enemies are behaving with the Islamic State and how they are treating Muslim prisoners. In the case that the women prisoners are distributed as concubines there are very clear and detailed rules regarding how they should be treated, definitely not left to the whims of the soldiers to do as they please.

What commentators need to realize is that in Islam a captive woman as a concubine, has essentially same legal rights as a wife, this is surely distinct from the victims of abduction and rape. Remember, this is despite the fact that she is not a guest but a prisoner of war. First of all she is allocated to the soldier and then she has to go through the Iddah period of clearing the womb, which can take up to 1 month to ensure that she is not already pregnant, during this period no man may approach her. She has the right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered adequately at all times. After that period her master may approach her but he cannot force himself on her. He cannot have sex against her will. Equally she is not entitled legally to refuse without good reason, the exact same as a wife. But in the case that she does refuse, the relationship would naturally come to an end. Remember, even a slap on her face would mean in Islam necessitating her freedom.

Is it any surprise that most of the Sabees were easily absorbed, many freed themselves and virtually all converted to Islam? If she thought she was treated unjustly she is hardly likely to embrace their religion and/or marry their master after gaining emancipation. Also, Islam has always encouraged freeing these women captives this is why in so many places freeing a female concubine appears as a penance.

In that era, women easily accepted the fair treatment from Islam, as non-Islamic societies took women prisoners their fate was much, much worse, they were virtually treated like animals, they had no legal rights and were humiliated as representative of their enemies rather than treated as distinct individuals with rights. So looking at how the Sabee is treated by Islamic laws, it does not even close to rape, nor is she a sex-slave otherwise she would not have legal rights in any areas. She can even take the head of the Islamic state to court.

If critics and hate mongers want to criticize the actions of individuals, criminals or monsters so be it; however if they want to comment on what is Islam, they will have to concede its fair and practical nature is in no way endorsing or encouraging of rape, in fact the opposite is the case with harsh punishments for rapists unlike the domiciles of its critics. No doubt, the treatment given by the Islamic state in the past excelled the track record of other nations in this arena of treating prisoners of war.

On the contrary real rape is flourishing within secular societies. Only recently we saw literally mass raping and gang raping inside the heart of Europe during the Bosnian war, even the UN took part in the gruesome rituals. Japanese forces did the same when they invaded China, the infamous rape of Nanking. Russian soldiers raped over 500,000 German women during the Second World War, and the Italian women were also raped. I use the word rape because it fits the above mentioned notion of rape, women were randomly picked up by anyone and forced to have sex, then the soldiers left or others took over like in the gang rape situation. One can go on listing examples but such traits were never followed by Muslims as it was never endorsed by Islam.

Let us not forget the US armies have also been committing rape [2] in Iraq, not just women, but also men and young boys and girls according to the reports of Seymour Hersh. Many of them are sick perverts, they have made videos of rape and torture for their friends and families back home, it was reported that over 30,000 US soldiers exchanged these sick pictures to gain access to porn sites, it really speaks volumes about the American society. In Iraq, the fatwa was only passed permitting the Iraqi resistance to take American women captives as concubines after the Iraqi women were raped by US soldiers. But note the fatwa is to take the American women as a concubine (Sabee) and not to rape them like the Americans were doing in places like Abu-Ghraib. It is the US forces that have a reputation of committing rape, and numerous reports have shown that they are doing this to their own male and female soldiers with increasing frequency. Where ever there has been a US military base in foreign soil, US soldiers have been known to rape the local women; most recent examples were from Philippines and Japan.

Throughout history the captive women from the battlefield were subjected to various forms of treatment like rape/gang rape, torture, and executions, sometimes ransomed or taken as concubines, or very rarely set free. In that case why single out Islam, especially as it has far better system of treating prisoners of war. Selectivity indicates that the one bringing the accusation is not sincere and has hidden motives. Even some of the fanatical Christian-Zionists have joined in the attack without realising that the biblical texts also endorse taking female captives as concubines, but with far harsher conditions. The bible commands, take only the virgins as concubines otherwise they are to be killed along with the rest, even including children.

What is even more amusing is the freethinking clowns accuse Islam of promoting rape without understanding the facts, and using their own vague notion of morality, which is rooted in the religions that they try to mock. In fact it is the freethinkers that endorse a culture of rape by promoting sexual freedom. By advocating such a climate where morality in terms of right and wrong is the product of reason only, backed with empirical evidence, then any forms of sexual relationship from incest, homosexuality, paedophilea to rape are in theory to be permitted. Who can impose a standard when everyone is free to decide their own limits? And if we observe the reality, that is exactly what is taking place. Yet these freethinking clowns will not recognise the fact they are the ones who are guilty of promoting what they are alleging against Islam.

In fact according their beliefs as freethinkers or rationalists or pure secularists rape should not only be permitted but encouraged. They only recognise the material world, the confine to using their reason with what they perceive with their senses (empirical evidence), therefore their values must emanate from the observation of the natural world around them. There should be no concept of morality which has a metaphysical context and root. If we look at the environment around us, observe nature, the male species fights for the female, and wins the right by the use of force. Their scientific mentor, Charles Darwin, also made the same observation of the �survival of the fittest� (natural selection) which formed the basis for his theory of evolution.

Accordingly, the strongest man should have the right to spread his seeds, even by force: otherwise the gene pool gets contaminated by the genes of the weaker males. Hence, rape should be seen as a necessary measure to ensure the survival of the fittest species, allowing human beings to reach to a higher level with the strongest genes. To maintain healthy pool of genes, inferior races should be eliminated. There should be no scope for the subjective and religious notions of morality where rape is concerned. Even their economic paradigm of the free-market functions on this principle of: �survival of the fittest�, so why should this not also apply in social relationships, particularly with reproduction.

Coming back to the real world away from the idiocy of freethinkers, it is established international conventions dictate how nations should treat prisoners of war. Such conventions have developed through the historical experience of the manner in which warring nations have reciprocated in treating prisoners of war. The Islamic state (Khilafah) can agree with other nations to abide by certain standards in treating prisoners of war. However, as the recent events have shown, those who scream loudest about international laws are the first to violate them, from Abu-Ghraib to Bagram to Camp-X-ray.

Yamin Zakaria, London, UK ( http://www.iiop.org/ - www.iiop.org ) 

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.