2,743
edits
Rape in Islamic Law: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (Added the pages numbers and further quotes from a physical copy of Brown's book) |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{QualityScore|Lead=4|Structure=4|Content=4|Language=4|References=4}}Rape, known in [[Islamic law]] as ''zina bil-ikrah'' or ''zina bil-jabr'' (literally "[[Zina|fornication]] by force"), is a punishable crime generally defined by Muslim jurists as forced intercourse by a man with a [[Islam and Women|woman]] who is not his wife or [[Slavery|slave]] and without her consent. There was no concept of consent in Islamic law with regard either to a man's wives or slaves, though they could bring a legal complaint if intercourse with him caused them physical harm. A small number of hadiths were cited by scholars to support the Islamic punishments for rape. These narrations relate to the rape of free women and of female slaves who are not owned by the perpetrator. However, the Qur'an, on numerous occasions, permits Muslim men to have sexual relations with their own female slaves (famously referred to as "what your right hands possess"), often in conjunction with the commandment for men to keep otherwise chaste. In addition, there are hadith narrations of an incident in which Muhammad's companions were permitted to have sex with female war captives prior to them being ransomed back to their tribe, while various other hadiths mention the sexual intercourse which slave owners (including Muhammad) had with their slaves. | {{QualityScore|Lead=4|Structure=4|Content=4|Language=4|References=4}}Rape, known in [[Islamic law]] as ''zina bil-ikrah'' or ''zina bil-jabr'' (literally "[[Zina|fornication]] by force"), is a punishable crime generally defined by Muslim jurists as forced intercourse by a man with a [[Islam and Women|woman]] who is not his wife or [[Slavery|slave]] and without her consent. There was no concept of consent in Islamic law with regard either to a man's wives or slaves, though they could bring a legal complaint if intercourse with him caused them physical harm. A small number of hadiths were cited by scholars to support the Islamic punishments for rape. These narrations relate to the rape of free women and of female slaves who are not owned by the perpetrator. However, the Qur'an, on numerous occasions, permits Muslim men to have sexual relations with their own female slaves (famously referred to as "what your right hands possess"), often in conjunction with the commandment for men to keep otherwise chaste. In addition, there are hadith narrations of an incident in which Muhammad's companions were permitted to have sex with female war captives prior to them being ransomed back to their tribe, while various other hadiths mention the sexual intercourse which slave owners (including Muhammad) had with their slaves. | ||
Many Islamic empires in the past have taken non-Muslims as slaves and sex slaves (see [[Slavery in Islamic Law]]). It is important to note, however, that slavery was legally abolished in majority Muslim countries around the world in the 19th and 20th centuries (though persists illegally in a few places such as Mauritania<ref name="Mauritania" />). It is also now considered forbidden in the modern context | Many Islamic empires in the past have taken non-Muslims as slaves and sex slaves (see [[Slavery in Islamic Law]]). It is important to note, however, that slavery was legally abolished in majority Muslim countries around the world in the 19th and 20th centuries (though persists illegally in a few places such as Mauritania<ref name="Mauritania" />) and all countries signed the 1949 Geneva convention which in article 27 forbids rape and abuse of female captives. It is also now considered forbidden by most scholars in the modern context, though a minority, such as Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, argue that slavery remains Islamically legitimate. Similarly, today many Muslim-majority countries have made marital rape illegal or offer other legal protections, though others (mainly in the Arab world) do not do so, often explicitly, as also some non-Muslim countries.<ref>As of the early 2020s, marital rape is not recognised as a crime in many Muslim-majority countries, nor in India, China, Myanmar, much of the Caribbean, and much of sub-Saharan Africa, though is illegal in Indonesia, Turkey, the Balkans, most of central Asia, and much of west Africa. See the detailed information in the Wikipedia article [[w:Marital rape laws by country|Marital rape laws by country]], though note that in some cases the colour-coded map is inaccurate. A lack of legal protection in some countries and / or attitudes which refuse to accept the concept of marital rape exacerbates the predicament of millions of women suffering [[Forced Marriage]] in certain regions of the world.</ref> Human rights groups are also concerned about the risks faced by women reporting rape in some countries where [[Zina]] (illicit sexual intercourse) is a punishable offence, as detailed below. | ||
Typically, apologetic approaches to the issue of slaves and concubines propose that the women mentioned in the Quran and hadiths consented to intercourse with their captors and to their enslavement lest they be left destitute since their men had been killed. Critics generally argue that this is highly improbable, point out a hadith in which raped captives were due to be ransomed back to their tribe, and in any case would be incompatible with the modern understanding of consent which could not validly be given in captive circumstances. Some Islamic modernist scholars question the authenticity of the relevant hadiths altogether, in line with their general skepticism towards the hadith corpus and rejection of traditional jurisprudence, and attempt alternative interpretations of the Quranic verses. | Typically, apologetic approaches to the issue of slaves and concubines propose that the women mentioned in the Quran and hadiths consented to intercourse with their captors and to their enslavement lest they be left destitute since their men had been killed. Critics generally argue that this is highly improbable, point out a hadith in which raped captives were due to be ransomed back to their tribe, and in any case would be incompatible with the modern understanding of consent which could not validly be given in captive circumstances. Some Islamic modernist scholars question the authenticity of the relevant hadiths altogether, in line with their general skepticism towards the hadith corpus and rejection of traditional jurisprudence, and attempt alternative interpretations of the Quranic verses. | ||