Did the Companions Rape the Female Captives of Awtas on the Day of Hunayn?

Allegation:

On the day of Hunayn, the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) fought at Awtas, captured some women, and took them as bondswomen. Since their husbands were still alive, the companions hesitated as to whether having intercourse with these women was permissible. However, a Quranic verse was revealed annulling the marriages of those bondswomen, thereby granting the companions permission to do so. Would any woman willingly agree to sleep with another man while her husband is alive? The companions coerced these women and raped them (Na'udhubillah - We seek refuge in Allah).

Response:

The hadith cited by critics of Islam in support of this allegation is as follows:

عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَعَثَ يَوْمَ حُنَيْنٍ بَعْثًا إِلَى أَوْطَاسٍ فَلَقُوا عَدُوَّهُمْ فَقَاتَلُوهُمْ فَظَهَرُوا عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَصَابُوا لَهُمْ سَبَايَا فَكَأَنَّ أُنَاسًا مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم تَحَرَّجُوا مِنْ غِشْيَانِهِنَّ مِنْ أَجْلِ أَزْوَاجِهِنَّ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى فِي ذَلِكَ ‏(‏ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ‏)‏ أَىْ فَهُنَّ لَهُمْ حَلاَلٌ إِذَا انْقَضَتْ عِدَّتُهُنَّ ‏.‏

Meaning: "Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him): On the Day of Hunayn, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) dispatched an expedition to Awtas. They encountered the enemy, fought them, triumphed over them, and took female captives. But some companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) deemed it a sin to have intercourse with them because of their polytheist husbands. Concerning this matter, Allah revealed the verse: 'And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess' (Surah An-Nisa: 24)—that is, they become lawful for them once their waiting period ('iddah) has concluded." ^[1]

A similar hadith is also recorded in Sahih Muslim.

The question arises: Would any woman willingly consent to sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive? Were these women, then, raped?

We will refute this allegation step by step.

The Prohibition of Sexual Relations with Polytheist Bondswomen

In the Holy Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 221 states:

وَ لَا تَنۡكِحُوا الۡمُشۡرِكٰتِ حَتّٰی یُؤۡمِنَّ ؕ

Meaning: "And do not marry polytheistic women until they believe..."

In the explanation of this verse in Tafsir al-Qurtubi, it is stated:

وَنَكَحَ أَصْلُهُ الْجِمَاعُ، وَيُسْتَعْمَلُ فِي التَّزَوُّجِ تَجَوُّزًا وَاتِّسَاعًا،

Meaning: "And the root meaning of nakaha is 'sexual intercourse,' but it is used metaphorically and in an extended sense to mean 'marriage.'" ^[2]

Although the term nikah generally refers to marriage, in the Arabic language it is also used in a broader sense to signify sexual intercourse. Therefore, this Quranic verse fundamentally prohibits all forms of sexual relations with polytheistic women—whether with a wife or with a lawful bondswoman. In light of the Quranic verse, nearly all scholars of the Muslim Ummah agree that sexual relations with a polytheist bondswoman are impermissible. While a very small number of scholars held a differing view, their numbers are so insignificant that this difference is not even categorized as an established disagreement (ikhtilaf). In this regard, Imam Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi (may Allah have mercy on him) noted in his celebrated work Al-Mughni:

أَنَّ مَنْ حُرِّمَ نِكَاحُ حَرَائِرِهِمْ مِنْ الْمَجُوسِيَّات، وَسَائِرِ الْكَوَافِرِ سِوَى أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ، لَا يُبَاحُ وَطْءُ الْإِمَاءِ مِنْهُنَّ بِمِلْكِ الْيَمِينِ. فِي قَوْل أَكْثَرِ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ، مِنْهُمْ؛ مُرَّةُ الْهَمْدَانِيُّ، وَالزُّهْرِيُّ، وَسَعِيدُ بْنُ جُبَيْرٍ، وَالْأَوْزَاعِيُّ، وَالثَّوْرِيُّ، وَأَبُو حَنِيفَةَ، وَمَالِكٌ، وَالشَّافِعِيُّ. وَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبْدِ الْبَرِّ: عَلَى هَذَا جَمَاعَةُ فُقَهَاءِ الْأَمْصَارِ، وَجُمْهُورُ الْعُلَمَاءِ، وَمَا خَالَفَهُ فَشُذُوذٌ لَا يُعَدُّ خِلَافًا.

Meaning: "Those free women whose marriage has been forbidden—comprising the Zoroastrians (Majus) and all other disbelieving women except the People of the Book—it is not permissible to have intercourse with their bondswomen by right of ownership (milk al-yamin). This is the stance of the majority of scholars, among whom are Murrah al-Hamdani, Az-Zuhri, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Al-Awza'i, Ath-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, Malik, and Ash-Shafi'i. Ibn Abd al-Barr said: 'This is the position held by the jurists of the various lands and the majority of scholars; any view contrary to it is an anomaly (shudhudh) and is not even considered a valid difference of opinion.'" ^[3]

Why is this legal ruling mentioned here? Because those female captives of Awtas were polytheists when captured on the battlefield. Furthermore, the hadith mentions the companions inquiring about whether intercourse with them would be permissible. If intercourse with polytheist women was forbidden, how could the companions have even considered it?

The answer is: They were no longer polytheists at that time!

The Captives' Acceptance of Islam and the Emergence of the Ruling on Intimacy

Commenting on the hadith regarding the captives of Awtas, the celebrated hadith master Imam An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) stated:

الْمَسْبِيَّةَ مِنْ عَبَدَةِ الْأَوْثَانِ وَغَيْرِهِمْ مِنَ الْكُفَّارِ الَّذِينَ لَا كِتَابَ لَهُمْ لَا يَحِلُّ وَطْؤُهَا بِمِلْكِ الْيَمِينِ حَتَّى تُسْلِمَ فَمَا دَامَتْ عَلَى دِينِهَا فَهِيَ مُحَرَّمَةٌ وهَؤُلَاءِ الْمَسْبِيَّاتُ كن من مشركي العرب عبدة الأوثان فيؤول هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ وَشِبْهُهُ عَلَى أَنَّهُنَّ أَسْلَمْنَ وَهَذَا التَّأْوِيلُ لَا بُدَّ مِنْهُ

Meaning: "A female captive from among the idolaters and other disbelievers who do not possess a [revealed] scripture is not lawful for physical intimacy through right of possession (milk al-yamin) until she accepts Islam. As long as she remains upon her religion, she remains unlawful. These female captives were from the Arab polytheists, the idolaters; therefore, this hadith and similar narrations must be interpreted to mean that they accepted Islam—and this interpretation is indispensable." ^[4]

A verse from the Holy Quran (Surah An-Nisa: 24) was also revealed in connection with this event. In Tafsir al-Tabari, one of the earliest Quranic commentaries, the exegesis of Surah An-Nisa, verse 24 states:

"Based on the hadith narrated by Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the occasion of revelation (sabab al-nuzul) of the aforementioned verse, an objection might be raised claiming that all other explanations provided for this passage and any alternative occasions of revelation mentioned are redundant, since the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri clearly implies that Allah Almighty revealed this verse specifically regarding the women captured in the Battle of Awtas.

In response to this erroneous claim, it is asserted that physical relations were not engaged in with the captives of Awtas by right of ownership until they became Muslims. They were polytheistic idolaters, and the ruling was already in effect that mere ownership does not make idolatrous women lawful for Muslims. When they embraced Islam, a separation was created between them and their polytheistic husbands. This ruling applied not only to captives, but also to all married women of other religions who migrated or left their husbands. When the female captives of Awtas embraced Islam and attained purity, they became lawful for intimacy with Muslims. There is no basis to assert that Allah Almighty referred exclusively to married female captives to the exclusion of other women in the words وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ, as there is no evidence for such an assertion. Although the verse was revealed on the occasion of the captives of Awtas in light of the hadith narrated by Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him), it was not revealed merely to legalize physical intimacy with captives to the exclusion of what we have explained in the verse's interpretation. Although Quranic verses were revealed in connection with specific incidents at various times, their legal application is universal." ^[5]

One of the greatest exegetes of all time, Imam Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him), narrating this incident in his renowned historical work Al-Bidayah wa an-Nihayah, mentioned the majority (jumhur) opinion of scholars: "This incident was an exception. It is possible that they had accepted Islam, or that they were from the People of the Book." ^[6]

There is no historical record indicating that the captives of Awtas were from the People of the Book. Therefore, they were polytheists, and the conclusion that must be accepted is that the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) only contemplated intimacy with them after they had embraced Islam. Imam Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi (may Allah have mercy on him) noted:

وَقَدْ أَجَبْت عَنْ حَدِيثِ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ بِأَجْوِبَةٍ، مِنْهَا أَنَّهُ يَحْتَمِلُ أَنَّهُنَّ أَسْلَمْنَ،

Meaning: "I have addressed the hadith of Abu Sa'id [al-Khudri] with several responses, one of which is that it is probable that these women had accepted Islam." ^[7]

Was Their Marriage Dissolved Due to Enslavement or Due to Change of Religion?

Many allege that the marriages of the captive women were severed merely due to their enslavement, even though their husbands were still alive. What is the historical and legal reality of this assertion? Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) discussed this matter extensively. For anyone harboring doubt or confusion regarding this event, reading this comprehensive discourse by Imam Ibn Hazm should fully dispel it:

{وَلا تَنْكِحُوا الْمُشْرِكَاتِ حَتَّى يُؤْمِنَّ وَلأَمَةٌ مُؤْمِنَةٌ خَيْرٌ مِنْ مُشْرِكَةٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَتْكُمْ} [البقرة: ٢٢١] .

وَلَمْ يَخُصَّ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى مِنْ هَذَا التَّحْرِيمِ إلَّا مَا كَانَ بِالزَّوَاجِ فَقَطْ بِقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: {وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ} [المائدة: ٥] .

وَقَدْ صَحَّ أَنَّ عُقُودَ نِكَاحَاتِ الْكُفَّارِ صِحَاحٌ، وَمِنْهَا كَانَتْ وِلَادَةُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - وَأَصْحَابِهِ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ - وَمَا صَحَّ فَلَا سَبِيلَ لِإِبْطَالِهِ إلَّا بِنَصٍّ - فَصَحَّ أَنَّهَا مَا لَمْ تُسْلِمْ الْمَسْبِيَّةُ ذَاتُ الزَّوْجِ فَهِيَ عَلَى زَوْجِيَّتِهَا سَوَاءٌ بَقِيَ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ أَوْ سُبِيَ مَعَهَا.

وَأَمَّا قَوْلُ مَنْ قَالَ: إنَّ اخْتِلَافَ الدَّارَيْنِ يَقْطَعُ عِصْمَةَ النِّكَاحِ، فَقَوْلٌ بَاطِلٌ فَاسِدٌ، لِأَنَّهُ دَعْوَى مُجَرَّدَةٌ لَمْ يُؤَيِّدْهَا قَطُّ قُرْآنٌ، وَلَا سُنَّةٌ وَقَدْ تَكَلَّمْنَا فِي صَدْرِ كِتَابِنَا هَذَا فِي الْخَبَرِ الْوَارِدِ مِنْ طَرِيقِ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ إذْ أَصَابُوا سَبَايَا أَوْطَاسٍ، فَتَحَرَّجُوا مِنْ غَشَيَانِهِنَّ، فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ: {وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ} [النساء: ٢٤] فَهُنَّ لَكُمْ حَلَالٌ إذَا انْقَضَتْ عِدَّتُهُنَّ.

وَبَيَّنَّا أَنَّهُنَّ بِيَقِينٍ - مُتَّفَقٍ عَلَيْهِ - وَثَنِيَّاتٌ مِنْ سَبَايَا هَوَازِنَ، وَوَطْؤُهُنَّ لَا يَحِلُّ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ حَتَّى يُسْلِمْنَ بِلَا خِلَافٍ مِنَّا وَمِنْ الْحَاضِرِينَ مِنْ الْمُخَالِفِينَ وَبِنَصِّ تَحْرِيمِ الْمُشْرِكَاتِ حَتَّى يُؤْمِنَّ - فَصَحَّ أَنَّ مُرَادَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى بِذَلِكَ إذَا أَسْلَمْنَ.

قَالَ أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ: فَإِذَا أَسْلَمْنَ فَلَا يَخْلَوْنَ ضَرُورَةً مِنْ أَنْ يَكُونَ زَوْجُ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ مِنْهُنَّ سُبِيَ مَعَهَا أَوْ لَمْ يُسْبَ، بَلْ هُوَ فِي أَرْضِهِ، فَإِنْ كَانَ مَعَهَا أَوْ فِي أَرْضِهِ وَلَمْ يُسْلِمْ قَبْلَ إسْلَامِهَا إنْ كَانَتْ كِتَابِيَّةً، أَوْ مَعَ إسْلَامِهَا كَائِنًا مَا كَانَ دِينُهَا؟ فَقَدْ انْفَسَخَ نِكَاحُهَا مِنْهُ عَلَى مَا نَذْكُرُ بَعْدَ هَذَا - إنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى - فَإِذَا انْفَسَخَ نِكَاحُهَا بِإِسْلَامِهَا دُونَ إسْلَامِ زَوْجِهَا فَقَدْ حَلَّ فَرْجُهَا لِسَيِّدِهَا الْمُسْلِمِ حِينَئِذٍ: بِنَصِّ الْقُرْآنِ وَالسُّنَّةِ بِلَا خِلَافٍ، فَإِنْ أَسْلَمَ زَوْجُهَا مَعَ إسْلَامِهَا كَائِنًا مَا كَانَ دِينُهَا، أَوْ أَسْلَمَ قَبْلَ إسْلَامِهَا وَهِيَ كِتَابِيَّةٌ، فَهُمَا فِي كُلِّ مَا ذَكَرْنَا بَاقِيَانِ عَلَى زَوْجِيَّتِهِمَا، لِمَا ذَكَرْنَا: مِنْ أَنَّ كُلَّ نِكَاحٍ صَحَّ بِتَصْحِيحِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى إيَّاهُ فَإِنَّهُ لَا يَحِلُّ لِأَحَدٍ فَسْخُهُ إلَّا بِنَصِّ قُرْآنٍ أَوْ سُنَّةٍ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - ثَابِتَةٍ، وَلَا سَبِيلَ إلَى وُجُودِ شَيْءٍ مِنْ ذَلِكَ فِي فَسْخِ نِكَاحِ الْمَسْبِيَّةِ بَعْدَ إسْلَامِهَا دُونَ إسْلَامِ زَوْجِهَا فَقَطْ.

Meaning:

"{'And do not marry polytheistic women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you.'} [Surah Al-Baqarah 2:221].

Allah the Exalted did not exempt anything from this prohibition except marriage [to chaste women of the People of the Book], as He stated: {'[Lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation.'} [Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:5].

It is firmly established that the marriage contracts of the disbelievers are valid, and it was through such marriages that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and his companions (may Allah be pleased with them) were born {as their parents were polytheists}. What is valid cannot be invalidated except by an explicit textual proof (nass). Thus, it is proven that as long as a married captive woman does not accept Islam, she remains within her marital bond—whether her husband remains in hostile territory (Dar al-Harb) or is captured alongside her.

As for those who assert that a difference of domains (ikhtilaf al-darayn) severs the marriage bond, this is a baseless and corrupt assertion, for it is a bare claim unsupported by the Quran or the Sunnah. We have already addressed at the beginning of this book the report transmitted via Abu Sa'id al-Khudri concerning the captives of Awtas, where the Muslims hesitated to have intercourse with them, whereupon Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed: {'And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess'} [Surah An-Nisa: 24]—meaning they are lawful for you once their waiting period ('iddah) has concluded.

We have made clear that they were definitively—by scholarly consensus—idolatrous captive women from the Hawazin tribe, and sexual relations with them were not lawful for Muslims until they accepted Islam, without any dispute among us or among the opposing scholars, and based on the explicit prohibition of polytheistic women until they believe. Thus, it is firmly established that Allah's intent in this was: when they accept Islam.

Abu Muhammad [Ibn Hazm] said: If they [the female captives] accept Islam, then necessarily, either the husband of the woman who embraced Islam was captured with her, or he was not captured and remained in his own land. If he is with her or in his own land and did not accept Islam prior to her (if she was from the People of the Book) or alongside her acceptance of Islam (whatever her religion might be), then her marriage to him is annulled, as we will discuss later, if Allah wills. When her marriage is annulled due to her conversion to Islam without her husband accepting Islam, intimacy with her becomes lawful for her Muslim master at that point, by the explicit text of the Quran and the Sunnah, without any disagreement.

If her husband accepts Islam alongside her—whatever his religion was—or if he accepts Islam before her while she was from the People of the Book, then in all these scenarios, they remain upon their marital bond. This is because, as we stated, every marriage validated by Allah cannot be annulled by anyone except through an explicit text from the Quran or an established Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ); and there exists no evidence whatsoever for the annulment of a captive woman's marriage except solely in the case where she accepts Islam while her husband does not." ^[8]

Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly clarifies here, reflecting the scholarly consensus, that the captive women of the Hawazin tribe at Awtas had embraced Islam, and only then did they become lawful for the companions (may Allah be pleased with them). There is no question of their marriages being dissolved merely due to enslavement. The issue of marriage annulment arises only when one of the spouses converts from polytheism to Islam. If both remain polytheists or if both accept Islam, the marriage is not annulled. Islamic history demonstrates that the husbands of those women also subsequently embraced Islam and the women were returned to them. A detailed examination of this follows.

Compulsion in Religion Is Strictly Forbidden

The Holy Quran explicitly prohibits coercing anyone into accepting Islam:

لَاۤ اِكۡرَاهَ فِی الدِّیۡنِ ۟ۙ قَدۡ تَّبَیَّنَ الرُّشۡدُ مِنَ الۡغَیِّ ۚ

Meaning: "There is no compulsion in religion. The right course has become distinct from the wrong..." ^[9]

In the commentary of this verse in Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it is recorded:

"Asbaq (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated through a continuous chain via Abu Hilal, Sharik, Amr ibn Awf, the father of Ibn Abi Hatim, and Ibn Abi Hatim: Asbaq said:

'I was a slave of [Umar] Ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) while remaining steadfast upon my religion. He would invite me to Islam, and I would decline his invitation. Thereupon, he said, "There is no compulsion in religion." He further said, "O Asbaq! Had you accepted Islam, there would have been much good in it for you."'" ^[10]

This incident concerning the Christian slave of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is authentically transmitted. ^[11] This proves that the verse was never abrogated (mansukh) and that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) derived the legal principle that even a slave cannot be forced to accept Islam. It is established beyond doubt from the Quran that no one may be coerced into embracing Islam.

Consequently, it is evident that the captive women of the Hawazin tribe were not forced into accepting Islam. It is inconceivable that the God-fearing companions (may Allah be pleased with them) would commit an act strictly forbidden in the Quran. Furthermore, their conversion to Islam was entirely natural, not anomalous. The husbands of those women had cowardly abandoned them on the battlefield to flee and save their own lives. It is completely natural for wives to feel disdain toward such cowardly husbands, as well as their tribe and religion. Before being distributed among the companions, these women were hosted as guests for ten days (as discussed below); in Islam, captives are treated with utmost benevolence and veritable hospitality. Having witnessed the noble character of the companions during these ten days and learning about Islam, those women accepted the faith. It is also a natural human tendency to follow brave and victorious individuals rather than defeated deserters.

Why Were Those Women Taken as Captives or Enslaved?

Some may ask: Even if they were not forced to convert to Islam, why were they captured and enslaved in the first place? To address this, we first outline the Islamic principles regarding who may be taken into captivity. The Kuwaiti Fiqh Encyclopedia (Al-Mawsu'ah al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kuwaitiyyah) notes:

٦ - مَنْ لَهُ حَقُّ الاِسْتِرْقَاقِ:

اتَّفَقَتْ كَلِمَةُ الْفُقَهَاءِ عَلَى أَنَّ الَّذِي لَهُ حَقُّ الاِسْتِرْقَاقِ أَوِ الْمَنِّ أَوِ الْفِدَاءِ هُوَ الإِْمَامُ الأَْعْظَمُ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ، بِحُكْمِ وِلاَيَتِهِ الْعَامَّةِ، أَوْ مَنْ يُنِيبُهُ، وَلِذَلِكَ جُعِل إِلَيْهِ أَمْرُ الْخِيَارِ فِي الاِسْتِرْقَاقِ وَعَدَمِهِ

[المغني ٨ / ٣٧٢، ٣٧٧، وأسنى المطالب ٤ / ١٩٣ طبع المكتبة الإسلامية، وحاشية الدسوقي ٢ / ٢٠٥، وحاشية] .

أَسْبَابُ الاِسْتِرْقَاقِ:

أَوَّلاً - مَنْ يُضْرَبُ عَلَيْهِ الرِّقُّ:

٧ - لاَ يَجُوزُ ضَرْبُ الرِّقِّ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ إِلاَّ إِذَا تَوَفَّرَتْ فِيمَنْ يُسْتَرَقُّ صِفَتَانِ: الصِّفَةُ الأُْولَى الْكُفْرُ، وَالصِّفَةُ الثَّانِيَةُ الْحَرْبُ، سَوَاءٌ أَكَانَ مُحَارِبًا بِنَفْسِهِ، أَمْ تَابِعًا لِمُحَارِبٍ، عَلَى التَّفْصِيل التَّالِي:

أ - الأَْسْرَى مِن الَّذِينَ اشْتَرَكُوا فِي حَرْبِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فِعْلاً.

٨ - وَهَؤُلاَءِ إِمَّا أَنْ يَكُونُوا مِنْ أَهْل الْكِتَابِ، أَوْ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ، أَوْ مِنَ الْمُرْتَدِّينَ، أَوْ مِنَ الْبُغَاةِ.

(١) فَإِنْ كَانُوا مِنْ أَهْل الْكِتَابِ: جَازَ اسْتِرْقَاقُهُمْ بِالاِتِّفَاقِ، وَالْمَجُوسُ يُعَامَلُونَ مِثْلَهُمْ فِي هَذَا.

(٢) أَمَّا إِنْ كَانُوا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ: فَإِمَّا أَنْ يَكُونُوا مِنَ الْعَرَبِ أَوْ مِنْ غَيْرِهِمْ، فَإِنْ كَانُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ الْعَرَبِ فَقَدْ قَال الْحَنَفِيَّةُ، وَالْمَالِكِيَّةُ، وَبَعْضُ الشَّافِعِيَّةِ، وَبَعْضُ الْحَنَابِلَةِ: يَجُوزُ اسْتِرْقَاقُهُمْ. وَقَال بَعْضُ الشَّافِعِيَّةِ، وَبَعْضُ الْحَنَابِلَةِ: لاَ يَجُوزُ.

أَمَّا إِنْ كَانُوا مِنَ الْعَرَبِ: فَقَدْ ذَهَبَ الْمَالِكِيَّةُ، وَبَعْضُ الشَّافِعِيَّةِ، وَبَعْضُ الْحَنَابِلَةِ إِلَى جَوَازِ اسْتِرْقَاقِهِمْ.

وَاسْتَثْنَى الْمَالِكِيَّةُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ الْقُرَشِيِّينَ، فَقَالُوا: لاَ يَجُوزُ اسْتِرْقَاقُهُمْ.

Meaning:

"6 - Who Possesses the Right to Impose Enslavement:

The jurists have agreed that the one who has the authority to impose enslavement, grant uncompensated release (mann), or accept ransom (fida') is the Supreme Leader (Al-Imam al-A'zam) of the Muslims by virtue of his general authority, or his designated representative. For this reason, the discretionary choice to enslave or not is assigned to him.

[Al-Mughni 8/372, 377; Asna al-Matalib 4/193, Al-Maktabah al-Islamiyyah edition; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 2/205].

Causes of Enslavement:

First - Those Upon Whom Enslavement May Be Imposed:

7 - It is not permissible to impose enslavement upon women unless two characteristics are simultaneously present in the individual:

The first characteristic is disbelief (kufr), and the second is being in a state of war (harb)—whether directly as an active combatant or as a dependent/follower of an active combatant, as detailed below:

a) Captives who actively participated in warfare against the Muslims.

8 - These are either from the People of the Book, polytheists, apostates, or rebels.

(1) If they are from the People of the Book: Enslaving them is permissible by consensus, and the Zoroastrians (Majus) are treated similarly in this regard.

(2) If they are polytheists: They are either Arabs or non-Arabs. If non-Arabs, the Hanafis, Malikis, and some Shafi'is and Hanbalis state that enslaving them is permissible, while some Shafi'is and Hanbalis say it is not permissible.

If they are Arabs: The Malikis, some Shafi'is, and some Hanbalis held that enslaving them is permissible. However, the Malikis exempted the Quraysh, stating that it is not permissible to enslave them."  ^[12]

Works of prophetic biography (Sirah) explicitly record that the men of the Hawazin and Thaqif tribes brought their wives and children directly to the battlefield against the Muslims. ^[13] Consequently, under standard Islamic rules of engagement, the Muslims captured them on the battlefield as camp followers and dependents of the enemy forces. Why was this battle fought? Because the tribes of Hawazin and Thaqif, under the leadership of Malik ibn Awf, were marching with a massive force of 20,000 warriors to launch an assault against the Muslims following the conquest of Mecca. ^[14] The battle was fought in direct self-defense against this impending aggression.

Did the Companions Actually Engage in Intercourse with Those Women?

The women of the Hawazin tribe did not become bondswomen immediately upon being captured on the battlefield. The Prophet (ﷺ), sent as a Mercy to the Worlds (Rahmatan lil-'Alamin), wished for their husbands to return and reclaim their wives and families. Describing this historical sequence on the authority of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's renowned Fath al-Bari, Allamah Idris Kandhlawi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:

"The Prophet (ﷺ) departed from Ta'if and arrived at Ji'ranah on the 5th of Dhu al-Qi'dah, where the spoils of war were assembled. The spoils included 6,000 captives, 34,000 camels, 40,000 sheep/goats, and 4,000 uqiyyah of silver. Upon arriving here, the Prophet (ﷺ) waited for over ten days for the Hawazin tribe, hoping they would arrive to secure the release of their kinsfolk, children, and women. But when no one arrived even after ten days of waiting, the Prophet (ﷺ) distributed the spoils among the participants of the battle. (Fath al-Bari, Vol. 8, p. 38; Uyun al-Athar, Vol. 2, p. 193)" ^[15]

When the men of Hawazin still failed to arrive to reclaim their wives, the women—who had already embraced Islam—were distributed among the companions. It was at this juncture that the legal question arose as to whether the companions could have intimacy with their lawful bondswomen, and the Quranic verse was revealed in response.

However, even though it became legally permissible, did the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) actually engage in intercourse with those women? For the answer, we return to the historical accounts of the Sirah. In Sirat al-Mustafa (ﷺ), Allamah Idris Kandhlawi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:

"After the distribution of the spoils, a delegation of nine men from the Hawazin tribe arrived in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). Having accepted Islam, they pledged allegiance (bay'ah) at the hands of the Prophet (ﷺ). They then pleaded for the return of their wealth and families. ...

... The Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'Whatever share was allocated to me and to Banu Hashim and Banu Abd al-Muttalib is returned to you. As for what was distributed among the rest of the Muslims, stand up after the Zuhr prayer and present your plea, and I will intercede on your behalf.'

Accordingly, after the Zuhr prayer, the representative of the Hawazin tribe delivered an eloquent address appealing to the Muslims for the release of their captives. Then the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) stood, praised Allah Almighty, and said: 'These brothers of yours from Hawazin have come to us having embraced Islam. I have returned to them my share and the share of my clan. I deem it proper that the rest of the Muslims also return their captives. Whoever does so willingly and seeking goodness, it will be better for them. Otherwise, I am prepared to compensate them.' All replied: 'We willingly agree and are pleased to do so for the sake of goodness.' In this manner, 6,000 captives were emancipated and released all at once." ^[16]

The Prophet's (ﷺ) ten-day wait and the subsequent return of the women at the request of the men of Hawazin are authentic facts established by narrations in Sahih al-Bukhari. ^[17]

For ten days following their capture, those women of the Hawazin tribe were not distributed in the hope that their men would return to reclaim them. Only when they failed to appear were the captives distributed among the companions. Immediately afterward, the delegates of Hawazin arrived, petitioning for their return. The merciful and magnanimous Prophet (ﷺ) granted their request on the spot, returned everyone allocated to his own clan, and urged the other tribes to do the same. He even offered financial compensation to anyone reluctant to release their captives voluntarily. Out of devotion and seeking Allah's pleasure, everyone willingly released their captives. In this manner, 6,000 captives were freed.

The question remains: When could the companions have had intercourse with these bondswomen?

Even after ownership was assigned, it was legally impossible for the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) to engage in intimacy with them immediately, because an absolute prerequisite for intimacy with a female captive is the completion of her waiting period ('iddah). The waiting period for a captive woman requires the passage of a menstrual cycle (istibra'). ^[18] There is no historical indication that enough time elapsed for this requirement to be met, let alone for intimacy to take place. Furthermore, the companions returned these women to their husbands. The wives had embraced Islam earlier, and the husbands subsequently accepted Islam and took their wives back. Thus, former enemies were transformed into respected companions of the Prophet (ﷺ). All were emancipated, free, returned to their families, and carried the religion of Islam with them. What better resolution could there possibly be?

A Quranic verse was revealed answering whether intimacy with these captives would be permissible, and critics of Islam seize upon the hadith describing this occasion to slander the companions with false accusations of rape (Na'udhubillah). Yet, historical analysis proves that far from rape or coercion, the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) emancipated every single one of them. Nor does any historical record suggest that intercourse ever took place. And if no intercourse occurred, how can an accusation of rape even arise?

Even if they had engaged in relations with their lawful bondswomen, there would have been no wrongdoing under the established laws of the era. In Islam, slaves are accorded the highest degree of humane treatment; ^[19] Islamic servitude bears no resemblance to the inhumane slavery found across other historical civilizations, ^[20] and any form of injustice, oppression, or abuse against a bondswoman—in intimacy or otherwise—is strictly forbidden. ^{[21] [22]} In reality, however, there is zero historical evidence that intercourse ever took place, rendering claims of rape entirely baseless. Critics merely exaggerate and distort historical accounts to wage a smear campaign against Islam. In truth, these allegations are nothing other than fabrications and malicious misrepresentations.

References: