-
Female Prisoners Of War (Examples Of Hazrat Safia & Hazrat Jawairiyah)
Can you explain the Principal, for which muslims took female prisoners of war, at Ghazwa-e-Khayber & Ghazwa-e-Mustaliq, while the non-believers were on defense. It were muslims who did the offence.
That resulted in Hazrat Safiya & Hazrat Jawaria R.A eventually marring Prophet Mohammad s.a.w
But God knows what would have happened to the other female POWs.
My question is, why was is necessary to take them as POWs given the fact that Females can’t take part in war and were not a threat?
I am aware of Sir. Ghamdi’s perspective on quran fully banned new slaves before Baddar
But, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to leave those females and some of the remaining young man and boys alone, so that this “Islam legalized sex slavery” accusations could be avoided on higher moral grounds, specially when they were on defense.
So please if you could clearly thay principle and its wisdom.
Thanks
-
4 Replies
-
Female Prisoners Of War (Examples Of Hazrat Safia & Hazrat Jawairiyah)
updated 1 year, 6 months ago
3 Members
·
4
Replies
-
Read the article of Ghamidi saheb on this issue
also watch this video
-
The statement that “Islam legalized sex slavery” is based on lack of information becasue Islam never leaglized sex slavery, instead sex slavery was already a part of Arab Culture. Islam adopted a gradual approach in creating an environment which would lead to eradication of slavery and other menace associated with slavery. For details on Islam’s approach in eradicating Slavery, please see:
The examples quoted in question had nothing to do with sex slavery; there is a difference between prisoners of war and slaves. Free men and women made captives during war were kept as prisoners not as slaves; only those men and women who were already slaves, their status was not changed unless they could decide for themselves to stand on their feet and change their status. Any intimate relationship that was made with those prisoners, it was only after their consent, after their freedom and after proper Nikah.
The notion that females and other men and kids should have been left alone without making them prisoners first is an impractical solution and is also against the norms/ethics of war. Leaving behind helpless women and kids alone is again not a very sound strategy unless people from their family can come to retrieve them which can ensure their safety and health. Every person’s status can only be decided, whether to retain them as a prisoner or to free them and against what ransom, after rounding up every person of the opposing party and deciding their status accordingly based on the information that can be gathered about them.
In the battle of Bani Mustaliq, the prisoners captured were either freed in the battlefield as a favour while some others were freed on ransom. The Prophet (sws) brought the remaining prisoners to Medinah and while waiting for their families to procure them, gave them into the temporary custody of his Companions. Among them was Sayyidah Jawairiyah as well. Her father arrived with some camels as ransom. The Prophet (sws) inquired about the two well-bred camels he had hid behind. This astounded him so much – for he knew that there could be no way that the Prophet (sws) could have had knowledge of them – that he accepted faith. At this, Sayyidah Jawairiyah also accepted faith. The Prophet proposed for her to which her father consented. Upon this, the marriage was solemnised. The result of this marriage was that all the remaining prisoners of war were set free by the Muslim soldiers, since they thought that it was not appropriate to keep the Prophet’s in-laws in captivity.
In the battle of Khaibar, after a peace treaty had been concluded with the enemy, the Muslim forces came across Safia binti Huyee – a helpless widow of an aristocratic family. Her father, Huyee bin Akhtab – a prominent leader of the Jews had been killed in the battle of Quraizah. The Prophet (sws) set her free and gave her the option to go to back to her family or to marry him if she wanted. Saffiyah showed her consent to marry the Prophet. The marriage subsequently took place.
______
(For Further Details, please see: Discussion 1763 AND Discussion 32623)
-
Asalam-u-alikum Sir
Thanks for your Response to both Mr. Umer Qureshi and Mr. Dr. Irfan Shahzad. as well as the entire team of Ghamdi center. I really can not appreciate enough Sir Javaid Ghamdi and his efforts. Do tell him my personal humble regards from Pakistan.
anyhow… I have already watched almost all of Mr. Ghamdi’s videos in this regard and I totally concur with his findings and perspective. I acknowledge that Islam never promoted slavery let alone sex slavery and there is a difference between a slave and a Prisoner of war in Islam. Thats why I used the word POW deliberately in my original question. I also understand the legitimacy and wisdom of Huzoor s.a.w marring Hazrat Jawariya (rta) and Hazrat Safiya (rta). And I also deliberately did not mention the battle of Banu-qureza because I knew it was an exception resulting in the marriage of Hazrat Rehana bint Zaid (rta). I also acknowledge that even after capturing POWs muslims must have not treated them inhumanly, as a Prophet of God was among them to call out any mistreatment.
The trouble I am currently having to grasp is the fact the Muslims are only to fight against injustice ( apart from “itmaam-e-hujat”). ” translation: fight until the war through off its weapons”.
When Muslims besieged Khayber and Bani Mustaliq, after the war is over the objective of war is achieved. These people ( their children and women ) did not come forward in a battle to fight with you. They did not made an offence. And Muslims only made the offence (war) to achieve an objective which was to fight against the conspiracies and injustices of Jews. “itmaam-e-hujjat” was announced afterwards, even after the fateh-maka.
Someone might say well, it was the norm to take prisoners after battle, to which I can’t agree. Even if the entire word is lying about sth, my deen tells me to always say the truth. Islam was there to abolish norms, not to protect them. Islam care about Principals not norms.
I understand that there might be some other aspects that I don’t see yet, which can justify as to why Muslims took female and other non combatants as POWs in the battle of Khyber and Mustaliq.
One thing that I could come up with was maybe it was for ransom. I mean you have fought the battle and all, and if the leader (Prophet) thinks that would be good then we take prisoners. Or maybe It was not okay to leave these “now helpless” women and children out to suffer. but again if I keep myself into the feet of prisoners, I sure would like to suffer rather than being caught as a prisoner.
any other additions that you can tell me besides that Ransom theory? I am sure there must have been some social factors but can’t pinpoint them exactly.
so I repeat my initial question.
what was the wisdom behind taking POWs in the battle of Khyber & Bani-Mustaliq, when non believers were on defense? what is the principal on which muslims take POWs in general?
Thanks.
-
The Hujjah was completed on Quraish even before the migration. After the conquest of Makkah it was only the punishment that was announced.
Taking the woman and children of the enemies who were present on the battlefield after their defeat in the war was a norm at that time to inflict more humility or injury to the enemy by making them pay ransom for their women and children. The prophet showed many exceptions of mercy and generosity in this regard but to there was a need to be stern towards the enemies so that they might not take the Muslims for granted.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
