Addendum: Traditionalist View on Sex Slavery
by Oliver A Ruebenacker
This is an addendum to this article.
The topic in general and the article in particular continue to draw considerable feedback, and many interactions have taken place since I wrote the article. So far no respected traditionalist has disputed the facts about traditional Islamic law I presented in the article, but most are not happy with the choice of words. In particular, they find the word 'rape' inappropriate and they complain about a lack of respect towards the 'sheikh'. They want to see more positive things about Muslim slavery and some insist that sex slavery is approved by the Qur'an. Here is my response.
Regarding rape, traditionalists argue that having intercourse with slaves against their will should not be considered rape, because rape is usually associated with excessive violence, while slaves had to be treated with kindness. They are wrong on two counts.
First, the usual definition of rape is any intercourse that is performed against the known lack of consent. It is true that some old criminal codes put the bar much higher for something to be considered rape, but there is change and newer criminal codes acknowledge that rape is rape even without violence. The simple truth which traditionalists apparently fail to understand is that humans suffer severely from unwanted intercourse, even if no violence is involved. For this reason, it deserves to be condemned and it deserves to be labelled by a clear word. This clear word is commonly known as rape.
Second, when traditionalists point out that abuse of slaves was forbidden and conclude from that, that there was no violence, they are simply wrong. They fail to realize that violence is considered abuse only if applied without proper reason. A master who beats a perfectly obedient slave is an abuser and might be pulled to court. However, if a master beats a slave because the slave has been disobedient or has failed to fulfill the master's right, it is not the master, but the slave who is considered an abuser and who has to fear the court. Therefore, the threat of violence was always involved, whenever the master wanted and the slave did not.
I am in fact very surprised about traditionalists who fail to see this and I can only assume that they never really thought about what it means that the master has the right to have intercourse with his female slaves against their will. So far, no traditionalist could explain what exactly would happen if the master wants and the slaves does not want - regardless of whether it be it once or many times.
According to classical Islamic law, even a wife had no choice: The husband had the right to request intercourse at any time. If she refused without proper reasons, even once, she was considered rebellious (nushuz) and could be beaten. Now does anybody assume that slaves had more rights than wives? At least a free woman became wife by consent and had options for divorce, although they were tough. A slave, on the other hand, did not become slave by consent and most often did not have the option of getting out.
I have also been criticized for failing to mention all the allegedly nice details of Muslim slavery. Well, honestly, we hear those allegedly nice details all the time, so it is only fair that finally we talk about the dark side as well. But most importantly, much of those allegedly nice details are not very interesting, because they usually are a mixture of misrepresentation, over-simplification and misleading or even wrong statements more suitable to confuse than to enlighten. The linked Sunnipath article is not an exception - almost every sentence in it is wrong or misleading or irrelevant. Papers have been written which dwell on irrelevant details and ignore the crucial questions. It has been long overdue to face the unpleasant facts head on.
It has also been claimed that I fail to show due respect for my former fiqh teacher. Those who claim so fail to realize that this article is not about my teacher, but about some ugly facts of traditional Islamic law. Nevertheless let me add that I greatly respect my former fiqh teacher for giving clear and sound answers to tough questions. He knew traditional Islamic law, believed in it and was not afraid to talk about it. Unlike him, I believe in the need for reform, but in spite of our disagreements, I respect his knowledge and his integrity. He deserves much more respect than some of our most famous traditionalist scholars who, when faced with a tough question, evade.
Some have claimed that the permission to have intercourse with slaves has been given in the Qur'an itself. I know that this is the classical opinion, but the point is that I am convinced it is wrong. It derives from a misinterpretation of the term "those who your right hand possesses" ("milk al-yamin" or "ma malakat aymanukum"), which traditionalists consider to mean slaves. However, they are unable to explain some peculiarities which result from this interpretation.
First of all, the term appears in several places in the Qur'an and every time it appears in the context of marriage or intimacy. It is never used in any of the numerous other places where the Qur'an mentions slaves. Traditionalists can not explain this selectivity.
Second, for some odd reason, traditionalists assume that the term only applies if the master is male and the slave is female, something for which they have no explanation either.
Third, they are unable to explain what is the significance of the right hand. Some argue that the right hand signifies that it is a rightfully owned slave - but fail to explain opposed to what: Maybe an unrightfully possessed slave? Should we really believe that God the Praised and Most High is explaining to us the difference between a rightfully owned slave and a wrongly owned slave?
As Muhammad Asad and Mohammad Shahrour point out, the meaning of milk al-yamin ("those your right hand possesses") is different. It becomes clear if we realize that the right hand signifies oath. Oaths are not exchanged between master and slave, but between two free people. If we read the Qur'an with this in mind, we immediately realize that milk al-yamin is an alternative to full marriage: A relationship that can be formed instead of full marriage, divorced like full marriage, and that allows intimacy like full marriage.
This sounds very surprising to those who hear it for the first time, but in fact, it is nothing new, but rather something which has always existed in the Muslim world, from the time of the Prophet (peace be with him) until today. There are two types of marriages (nikkah): The full marriage (zawaj) and the lesser marriage (milk al-yamin). Milk al-yamin is simply any nikkah that is not a zawaj, such as, for example, the common law marriage (nikkah urfi) or the temporary marriage (nikkah mutah) or the traveller marriage (nikkah misyar). The fact that there are forms of marriage (nikkah) which are not full marriage (zawaj) is accepted by classical scholars, so we are not inventing anything new here. Rather the only new thing is that we realize that those lesser marriages are mentioned in the Qur'an as milk al-yamin, and that milk al-yamin are therefore not slaves.
What is the purpose of the article? Traditionalists often dismiss discussion of the dark side of traditional Islamic law, calling it knowledge that is not beneficial. To them, it is beneficial to praise the traditions but not beneficial to criticize them. Based on this, they invite the young Muslims to a timeless netherland, in which scepticism is practised only within certain boundaries that deprive it of all meaning. Individual judgement is welcome but only to a certain extend, or only between a limited number of options. Essentially, young minds are put in chains and made dependent on authorities. The constant praise of the traditions combined with the constant refusal to criticize creates an all encompassing bias that makes them blind for the alternatives. This purpose of this article is to advocate alternatives.
Mr Oliver A Ruebenacker is a convert from Germany who lives with his wife in Cambridge, Massachuetts. Oliver has a PhD in Physics and works as a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Connecticut Health Center and at Harvard University in Biological physics.