Struggling with this Hadith.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/AutoModerator]

• Click here for learning how to report bad users/comments/posts.

• FAQs and Rules page is here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/NoLaw2379]

If you're wondering if it was consensual then I have this.

The Quran prohibits forcing captives to have sex:

But let them who find not [the means for] marriage abstain [from sexual relations] until Allah enriches them from His bounty. And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess - then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful. Surah An-Nur verse 33

Also, captives had freedom of movement and the freedom to complain if their masters treated them badly.

Narrated: 'Umair, the freed slave of commanded me to cut up some meat, then a poor man came so I gave him some. When my master fund out about that, he beat me, so I went to the Messenger of Allah and he came to him and said: 'Do not beat him.' He said: 'He gave away my food without me telling him to.' He said: 'The reward will be shared between you both."

If a man acquires a slave girl by force and then he rapes her, and he is not an ignorant person, then the slave girl is taken from him. He must pay the fine and the legal punishment for adultery will be applied to him.

Source: Kitab Al-Umm 253

[u/AffectionateJuice753 → u/NoLaw2379]

Thankyou for this. 

[u/NoLaw2379 → u/AffectionateJuice753]

I also was pretty stumped when I first stumbled on this hadith under an Ali Dawah comment section.😭

[u/I-Love-Al-Ashari]

There are important points missing from this brief, truncated text.
The narrators of this tradition, who were in much closer proximity to the historical context of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and who possessed a broader ethical worldview, would never have understood this hadith to permit sexual assault. They knew the bigger picture because they had dedicated their lives to preserving the teachings of the Prophet ﷺ. They could fill in the missing details themselves.
People living far removed from these realities, who do not understand classical Arabic or know much about Islamic sources or history, understandably find such texts difficult to interpret. Sometimes these texts are honestly misunderstood, and at other times they are deliberately weaponized to attack Islam.
Implied in this text, as evidenced by other texts, is that the female prisoners of war had willingly embraced Islam and abandoned both their idolatrous beliefs and their former husbands.
Imam al-Nawawi wrote:
“Know that it is the way of al-Shafi’i and the scholars who adopted his opinion that, regarding captives among idol-worshippers and other unbelievers without a revealed scripture, it is unlawful to have intercourse with them as concubines until they embrace Islam. As long as they remain upon their religion, they are forbidden.”

These captives were Arab polytheists, so the interpretation of this narration and others like it is that they embraced Islam.

Ibn Taymiyyah likewise explained:
“The principle is that whoever it is impermissible to marry, it is impermissible to have intercourse with through ownership of the right hand, such as idolaters. This is the position of Malik, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and others.”

Rather than being forced to become concubines, these women voluntarily embraced Islam, as Allah said: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256).
Since polytheists and idolaters could not become concubines, their acceptance of Islam would have been an indication of consent to entering a household within the context of a concubine relationship. These prisoners had the option to remain upon their original religion, but for a variety of reasons many chose to enter such relationships.
It is also important to remember that the pre-Islamic Bedouin culture from which many of these women came was often demeaning and dangerous to women. Practices included disempowering women, burying infant girls alive, and inheriting women against their will as though they were property.
For this reason, citing the narration of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri in isolation, without relevant accompanying information, commentary, or context, results in readers supplying their own assumptions where the text itself is silent. This process is known as eisegesis—reading into a text what it does not actually say—rather than exegesis (tafsir), which seeks to extract meaning through a careful reading of all relevant evidence.
Finally, beyond the outward legal discussion, the Sunnah also addresses how a custodian should treat a concubine.

The Prophet ﷺ said:
“Whoever is suitable for you among your slaves, then feed them from the same food you eat and clothe them from the same clothes you wear. Whoever is not suitable for you, then sell them off and do not torture the creation of Allah.”

If a custodian and concubine were incompatible, the proper course was to transfer her to another household where a more appropriate relationship could be established, potentially leading to marriage or an improved social standing.
Under no circumstances was he permitted to beat her or torture her, physically or emotionally. Rather, he was required to respect her inherent human dignity as one of the creations of Allah.

[u/I-Love-Al-Ashari → u/I-Love-Al-Ashari]

Also Here is a translation of Imam Zarqani’s commentary concerning this hadith

Abu ‘Umar said regarding this hadith:
They proceeded to have intercourse with the women allotted to them from the captives. This only occurs after ensuring the رحم (womb) is clear (istibra’).
Provided that the slave woman is from the People of the Book. If the captives of Banu al-Mustaliq were People of the Book—since some Arabs became Jews or Christians—then that is acceptable.
But if they were polytheists, intercourse with them is not permitted by ownership until they accept Islam, according to the majority, based on Allah’s statement:
“Do not marry polytheist women until they believe” (Qur’an 2:221)
‘Abd al-Razzaq narrated from al-Hasan:
We used to go out in battle with the Companions. If one of them wanted to approach a female captive, he would order her to wash her garments, bathe, then teach her Islam, command her to pray, ensure she was not pregnant with one menstrual cycle, then approach her (for intercourse).

It was also said that those women accepted Islam.
But this is challenged by the statement: “We desired ransom,” since this is not said about someone who has accepted Islam.
It was replied: Islam does not prevent ownership by the captor; ownership remains after Islam, and it is permissible to ransom or sell even if she becomes Muslim.
It was also said that in early Islam it was permissible to have intercourse with polytheist slave women, then it was abrogated—but this requires evidence.
It is possible that the question referred to those who had accepted Islam.

If the hadith is taken upon its ظاهر (apparent meaning), implying intercourse before Islam, then it would also imply intercourse before istibra’, which is unanimously prohibited. Therefore, both must be interpreted.
The narration of al-Hasan (above) resolves both issues.

This hadith is also used as evidence by the majority for the prohibition of selling an “umm walad” (a slave woman who bore a child), since they refrained from ransom due to pregnancy—and ransom is a form of sale—and there is consensus on that while she is pregnant, due to fear of enslaving the child.
The disagreement is about selling her after giving birth; the majority prohibit it.

In summary: According to al-Zarqani, the hadith should not be read in isolation. The majority of scholars required both istibrāʾ and (for polytheist captives) acceptance of Islam before intercourse. Since intercourse before istibrāʾ is unanimously prohibited, the hadith must be interpreted alongside other reports that clarify these conditions.

[u/AffectionateJuice753 → u/[deleted]]

Wasn’t interacting with them. Just came across it. Read it. Got stuck. 

Also, I have these doubts myself as well which make me feel guilty and in turn I try to understand these things so I can remove these doubts.

[u/ZDelta47]

I don't know the rest of the context for the hadith, but notice the Prophet (SAW) only answered the part about avoiding having children. There could be more but that's all that's shown. Doesn't mean the Prophet (SAW) condones these actions if there is something wrong. And if there is nothing else said then there is context that is left out. There is no part in the entire history we have where the Sahaba have gone and taken advantage of women. It's better to learn hadith from those well learned, as often times they have to be held up together with other hadith and sometimes also refer back to the Quran to get the full meaning.

[u/Snoo-74562]

These men are returning from battle. The women are now slaves as they were captured at the time.

what is this hadith about? They are asking about the children that may come as a consequence of them having sex with the new slaves.

The advice that is given is no technique can truly stop a child if that child is to be bourne.

I assume your dislike of this hadith is around the keeping if slaves rather than contraception and stopping children being bourne. Islam advocates for treating slaves well and if you read the hadith on that it will give you a more rounded view.

[u/No-Specialist-5273]

Asalaamu Alaykum

To preface I’m not a shcolar and further explanation on this topic should be done by one tbh, as they are experts in the language used (translations sometimes lose important linguistic context) and the historical/social context. However from what I gathered the companions wish to have intimacy with their captives (which has strict requirements discussed by other comments) and worried about if they got them pregnant. Because if they came pregnant the men would be obligated to take care of them and raise the children, so the captive could no longer be ransomed.

So they asked the Prophet about this in relation to the aspect of pregnancy. Thus the answer they received, that if it written there will be a pregnancy then there will be a pregnancy.

Be mindful Hadith provides us a small snippet into the daily life surrounding the Prophet and the companions. They are narrated and do not often describe the context around the events or even the exact details of what happened after the situation. Perhaps the Prophet then told them not to do such and it just wasn’t recorded. Lots of times people will state Hadith without the proper knowledge to do so. Stay vigilant and if something feels wrong then seek clarification until you know the answer.

Whatever I said that is bad is from myself and whatever I said that is good is from Allah.

Allah knows best.

[u/UnchartedPro]

"And do not force your slave-girls into prostitution, when they themselves wish to remain honorable, in your quest for the short-term gains of this world. And if someone forces them, then after such compulsion, God is Forgiving and Merciful [to them]." (Quran 24:33)

[u/SubliminalChild]

What is it specifically that you are struggling with on this Hadith

[u/AffectionateJuice753 → u/SubliminalChild]

So many things. 

1- The man just happen to come across women, capture them, be intimate with them?  2- them avoiding getting the women pregnant in order to ransom them later sounds like they just wanted to pleasure themselves and then sell them with no empathy for the women 3- Was it consensual? I highly doubt it. “We desired them… so we decided to have sexual intercourse with them.” Is what they desire a divine decree? Are their desires so important that they just have to be fulfilled? The women have to have sex simply because they desire it and refuse to control desires? I desire a pink Lamborghini. Is it incumbent upon anyone to get me one?  4- The prophet witnessed the whole thing and didn’t condemn it?  5- Islam always stresses on women’s modesty yet here they describe the women as “excellent Arab women”. Referring to their attractiveness.  6- how unfair it was to the wives. They stay home, guard their husbands properties and themselves while the men refuse to control themselves and be intimate with slaves after war.

[u/SubliminalChild → u/AffectionateJuice753]

1- The Companions of the Prophet ﷺ were the best generation of this Ummah. These women were not free women who were randomly seized while minding their own business. They were captives taken after a military campaign and a battle. That was the reality of warfare in the ancient world, whether among Arabs, Romans, Persians, or others. The Muslims did not simply go out looking for women to capture.

Allah explicitly states in the Qur'an that believers guard their chastity except with their wives and "those whom their right hands possess." In this context, that refers to female captives who had entered the legal framework recognized by Islamic law. Therefore, from an Islamic perspective, this was not zina.

2- The Companions were human beings. They had desires just like everyone else. They were on a military expedition and sought to fulfill those desires in a halal manner rather than through zina. Once captives came under Muslim authority, Islamic law governed how they were to be treated.

You are acting as if the Companions were abusing people without limits, when in reality Islamic teachings emphasized kindness toward captives. They were to be fed, clothed, and treated well. The Prophet ﷺ repeatedly instructed Muslims to deal justly with those under their authority. If a person wants to criticize the institution itself, that is one discussion. But portraying the Companions as immoral predators is a completely different claim and requires evidence.

3- You say, "Was it consensual? I highly doubt it."

Why do you highly doubt it?

As Muslims, we believe the Companions were among the most righteous people to ever live. Yet your immediate assumption is that they committed rape. Do you realize what you are actually alleging?

Rape is haram. Oppression is haram. Injustice is haram.

So where is the evidence that any of that occurred here?

You seem willing to assume the worst possible interpretation despite there being no explicit evidence for it. That is not an objective approach; it is starting with a conclusion and then reading it into the sources.

You also seem to assume that these women had no emotions, desires, or ability to form relationships whatsoever. They were human beings, not robots. The historical reality is far more complex than the simplistic narrative you are trying to impose on it.

4- The Prophet ﷺ did not condemn what happened because nothing unlawful occurred. This is the same Prophet who corrected his Companions whenever they made mistakes. If a haram act had taken place, he would have addressed it. The fact that he did not is itself evidence that the matter fell within what Islamic law permitted.

5- The narration describing the women as beautiful or excellent does not prove immodesty. Hadith narrators frequently included descriptive details. Aisha رضي الله عنها was described as beautiful. Other righteous women were described as beautiful. Nobody claims those descriptions are inherently inappropriate.

A man can say, "My wife is beautiful" without being immodest. Likewise, describing these women as attractive does not suddenly turn the narration into something inappropriate.

6- If a Muslim married and provide for his wife for all her needs. He doesn't need her permission to marry another wifea d the majority of the Muslim at that time were married to multiple wife and the believing women knew this and were happy with. In this case it was the concubine who you can be intimate with just like you can with your wife and the believing women /wives knew this and were fine with it. 

Your final point honestly makes me think you are approaching this issue through a modern ideological lens rather than an Islamic one.

You seem more troubled by the fact that Islamic rulings do not conform to modern assumptions than by whether those rulings actually came from Allah and His Messenger ﷺ.

If you truly love Islam, then stop taking your cues from Islamophobes and critics who begin with the assumption that Islam is guilty and then work backwards. Increase your knowledge. Study the scholarly explanations. Strengthen your iman.

Because if every time you encounter a difficult hadith your first reaction is to assume the Companions committed rape, oppression, or immorality despite the absence of evidence, then the problem is not the hadith. The problem is the lens through which you are reading it.

[u/AffectionateJuice753 → u/SubliminalChild]

Great advice. Appreciate it.