A Question of Female Prisoners

At this instance it is also necessary to mention that Islām has instituted a special system for those women who participate in war against the Muslims on behalf of the disbelievers, and are taken captive as prisoners. Muslims may establish a bond of marriage with such female prisoners whose husbands do not arrive quickly to have them released on ransom, or who do not demand their own release as per the method of Mukātabat. The fundamental purpose for this as stated by Islām, is to prevent the moral deterioration of these female slaves and the people who hold them captive; and so that immorality and promiscuity does not spread. History shows that generally, whenever a nation has been faced with a large-scale war, usually, the ills of adultery and fornication have become widespread. The reason being that: firstly, the ratio of women generally increases after war; secondly, due to the hardships of war, the nerves of men are affected in such a manner that their faculties of self-control generally fall weaker. Hence, since Islām gives more precedence to the safeguarding of individual and national morality above all other civil and societal issues, it was necessary to institute special precautionary injunctions for circumstances of this nature. As such, on the one hand exceptional permission for polygamy has been granted. On the other hand, Muslims have been permitted as an exception, to maintain intimate relations with those women who are taken captive in such wars wherein a nation has waged an attack against the Muslims in order to destroy their religion; if their husbands are not taken captive along with them; or if they do not arrive quickly to have them released; or if these female prisoners do not demand freedom according to the method of Mukātabat themselves. This is in order to ensure that the morals of these female prisoners are not corrupted, and also to prevent the spread of fornication within the Muslim society on their account. Additionally, in order to prevent a mix-up or confusion in lineage, a condition has been stipulated which states that this relationship should only take place with these female prisoners after the assurance that they are not already pregnant.1 Perhaps this system may appear strange to a lover of modern civilization and culture. However, if the circumstances are kept in mind, for which this system was proposed, at least, those people who know how to sacrifice other ideals for the thought of safeguarding individual and national morality, can appreciate that this was a very wise system according to the circumstances in which it was instituted. As such, in these exceptional circumstances it was considered necessary for the true interests of mankind. In addition to this, it should also be remembered that when the door of Mukātabat is open to every female prisoner, it shall be assumed with regards to such a woman who does not benefit from this, that she desires to sever her past relations and become a part of the Islāmic society. Hence, in this case it cannot be objectionable for a relationship to be established between her and a Muslim man.

The question may arise as to why women were captured during wars in the first place, so that dangers of this nature would arise. The answer to this is that in that era, it was a general practice in Arabia for women to frequently participate in war. At times, they would even physically take part in war as well. The task of rousing the spirits of the warriors was primarily entrusted to the women. Hence, in these circumstances, there was no reason why they should not have been taken captive. If a woman may be imprisoned in criminal cases and this practically occurs in every country and nation, why then should a combatant woman not be taken captive in the field of battle? In addition to this, during that era, the disbelieving people would take Muslim women as captives; as a matter of fact, they would even keep them as bond-woman. Moreover, in these early wars, a general ultimatum given by these wicked souls was that they would take the Muslim women as captives, make them bond-women, and would have intimate relations with them as if they were slaves.2 For this reason, the God of Islām, Who is forbearing on the one hand, but possesses great indignation on the other, permitted the Muslims that if needed, they may treat the disbelievers in a similar manner, if not exactly the same, in order to bring them to their senses and so that they do not grow bolder and more daring in their persecution. Those who are aware of the requirements of war can understand that every so often it becomes necessary to employ a retributive strategy in wars, and this is why the law of warfare is always different from civil law. Hence, this was a necessity of unavoidable circumstances, without which there was no other option. When a state of affairs came about that women were taken captive, and the disbelieving people would consider it lawful to treat the Muslim women in any way desirable, it was also necessary to institute a special law so that the inevitable and dangerous results of this conduct could be prevented. Albeit, in the current era, the disbelieving people do not treat the Muslims in this manner, and even if women are imprisoned, they are kept as state prisoners. Therefore, according to the fundamental Qur’ānic injunction mentioned above, in this era it would be unlawful for Muslims to take disbelieving women as captives without any real necessity or to give them into the custody of individual Muslims after their being taken captive, and thus practice a form of enslavement.3

At this instance, the doubt may arise in someone’s heart that in certain circumstances the verdict of the Islāmic Sharī‘at is something, and in others, it is something else. The answer is that such a practice is not a deficiency, rather, if one contemplates, it is this very point that is evidence of the complete and universal nature of the Islāmic Sharī‘at. For this proves that varying circumstances have been fully taken into account by the Islāmic Sharī‘at. On the one hand, certain injunctions, which are fundamental in principle, have been kept in a firm and unchangeable nature, where there is no room for alteration. On the other hand, there are many such injunctions as well where the form of the commandment is flexible along with a change in circumstances; or in accordance with varying circumstances there is room for modern, but lawful interpretations of the law. As such, the Holy Qur’ān states itself:

Meaning, “God has revealed the Holy Qur’ān in a form where certain verses are decisive in meaning, i.e., which are fundamental principles that are applied in all circumstances in the same manner - and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations, i.e., they possess such flexibility as can take on different forms which are similar to one another in varying circumstances.”4

In summary, the Islāmic teaching on slavery is divided into two parts. Firstly, that teaching which relates to such people, who for some reason or other had drawn into a cruel circle of slavery and their morals and habits were generally very inferior and ignoble; the very quality which makes a person capable of living a free life in the world were absent in them. With regards to such people, Islām proposed that first their morals and values be set aright, and as they continue to be reformed, so too they continue to be released. Furthermore, it proposed that such a system be set in place as after their manumission, the freedom of such people proves to be a freedom in the true sense of the word, and not merely an orthodox and superficial freedom. Moreover, the task of supervising this system was included among the obligations of the Islāmic State, so that people did not act lazily or negligently in any way. Secondly, the fundamental teaching given by Islām relevant to the issue of taking in slaves, and in light of which all forms of cruel slavery were categorically abolished. Then remains the issue of prisoners of war. As regards to this issue, undoubtedly, in various circumstances permission to take slaves has been granted as a method of retribution. However, if one contemplates the details of this, it becomes clearly evident that this is not a slavery of that type as is generally known in the non-Muslim world. Rather, this is actually a form of imprisonment, and even this retaliatory and pseudo slavery which has been permitted, is impermissible and unlawful in the current era. The reason being that now a system of state prisons has been established, and non-Muslims do not enslave the Muslims, rather, they are kept as state prisoners. Hence, it is also impermissible for Muslims as well to distribute disbelieving prisoners into the individual custody of Muslims, and create a form of slavery. As far as the issue of the treatment of slaves and prisoners of war is concerned, Islām has given such a just and benevolent teaching, that the like of it cannot be presented by any nation in any era.

5