A few thoughts on hadiths and religion in general:
I had a difficult relationship with religion while I was growing up. As a child, I used to be a voracious reader and stumbled upon lots of things, including the Hadith collection my parents had. Now there was one particular Hadith that I read when i was about 10 - which was a real shock to the system. I cannot emphasize how shocking - and how much impact it had - but in any case, it”s something that troubled me for a long long time. Frankly I couldn”t believe it. And it wasn”t something you could speak about to people - a) it was extremely indecent or so I felt as a child ( and the horror of having found it in a Hadith collection, can you imagine) and b) not the sort of thing you can broach to “religious” people very easily - and plus the whole ” forbidden areas of thinking” thing. I felt terribly alone - had anyone else read this stuff? what did they think about it if they had? no answers for a long time.
Now fast forward to the days where you can look up anything on the net -hooray ! and ask all sorts of people questions on the internet and generally find out more about what”s going on in other people”s heads. I”ve had some discussions about this hadith - but not too many -and then I tracked it down just to be sure i hadn”t dreamed it up, thanks to the USC MSa Compendium of Muslim texts which is searchable and a handy resource.
And of course as a child I had no idea about sex slavery or concubinage (whatever you want to call it) - or that islamic fiqh had regulated the conditions of slavery. of course the war booty thing ties in with the “taking women ransom” but I”d never heard such justifications back then. If i had, i”m sure my feelings at the time of the Iraq invasion would have been even more complicated. {and plus all the stories you hear from relatives in bangladesh about the pakistani soldiers raping women in the war} These sorts of things are everywhere, but you don”t expect to read about them in compilations of “religious texts”. Why doesn”t it bother more people that”s what I wanted to know, what I still want to know, or how it can be “rationalised”. Some people are thinking about these knotty issues, but most people will brush them under the carpet. I daresay that is the natural thing to do - avoid controversy.
The Hadith in question is taken from Sahih Muslim, Book 8 which is the “The Book of Marriage” (Kitab Al-Nikah)
Chapter 22: AL AZL (INCOMPLETE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE): COITUS INTERRUPTUS
Book 008, Number 3371:
“Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa”id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa”id, did you hear Allah”s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-”azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah”s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi”l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing “azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah”s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah”s Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
So that”s pretty much what rocked my boat: I don”t know what people manage to rationalize as adults but as a child that was pretty damn shocking to me, particularly given what I was told by my Mother about the “morals of sexuality in Islam”.
The next few narrations in Sahih Muslim which touch on this as well:
Book 008, Number 3372: A hadith like this has been narrated on the authority of Habban with the same chain of transmitters (but with this alteration) that he said:” Allah has ordained whom he has to create until the Day of judgment.” Book 008, Number 3373: Abu Sa”id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do “azl with them. We then asked Allah”s Messen- ger (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of judgment must be born. Book 008, Number 3381: Abu Sa”id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah”s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was asked about “azl, whereupon he said: The child does not come from all the liquid (semen) and when Allah intends to create anything nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence). Book 008, Number 3377: Abu Sa”id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that mention was made of “azl in the presence of Allah”s Apostle (may peace be upon him) whereupon he said: Why do you practise it? They said: There is a man whose wife has to suckle the child, and if that person has a sexual intercourse with her (she may conceive) which he does not like, and there is another person who has a slave-girl and he has a sexual intercourse with her, but he does not like her to have conception so that she may not become Umm Walad, whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: There is no harm if you do not do that, for that (the birth of the child) is something pre- ordained. Ibn “Aun said: I made a mention of this hadith to Hasan, and he said: By Allah, (it seems) as if there is upbraiding in it (for “azl).”
Apparently the reason they seem to talk about this “al-azl” thing so much is all tied up with the permissibility of contraception, or so it seems. So that”s what the men were bothered about: contraception - not - oh is it okay if i just have a quickie with this woman captive/slave girl here? and personally what i found the most shocking was that the Prophet was amongst them at the time - so what was he doing there while these men were “enjoying” the captive women? I really had a lot of trouble with this one - once I”d read that I felt really resentful when as a teenager - time and time again- people would say “well we are all very moral people. we do not believe in boyfriends or girlfriends”. Sure aunties and uncles..i wanted to say..how do you explain this stuff then? {but of course good asian girls are not mean to answer back to the “community” are they now, oh no}
Wholesome reading isn”t it. I can”t understand personally when you have lurid tales like these why anyone is bothered about cartoons. It seems to me if there is anything that would defame the character of a Holy Prophet then Hadiths like this one are the culprit. Would I choose to accept this as “religious tradition” - well no of course not. If this is meant to be true then I can”t say honestly that I am impressed at all.
A note on inauthentic and authentic hadiths: These Hadiths are from the Sahih Muslim collection. For a long time I was vaguely aware that there were “weak”" hadiths around - basically Hadiths that were “questionable” and didn”t have a reliable “chain” of narration. So for a while I assumed that this creepy stuff about coitus interruptus with captive women would surely fall into the “questionable” camp, oh no - it turned out to be in Sahih Muslim - which according to Sunni tradition after Sahih Bukharis meant to be the two most reliable ones! ( don”t take my word for it - read the wikipedia links below). Well as far as I know anyway - i”d love it if someone came along and said, actually this stuff is bollocks too. Apparently Shias dismiss Sahih Muslim as inauthentic - I wonder why?
“A Sahih hadith is the one which has a continuous isnad, made up of reporters of trustworthy memory from similar authorities, and which is found to be free from any irregularities (i.e. in the text) or defects (i.e. in the isnad)”
wikipedia tells us that:
Muhammad”s sayings and deeds are called sunnah and are transmitted through hadith. Imam Muslim (full name Abul Husain Muslim bin al-Hajjaj al-Nisapuri) was born in 202 A.H. and died in 261 A.H. He traveled widely to gather his collection of ahadith, including to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt. Out of 300,000 ahadith which he evaluated, only 4,000 approximately were extracted for inclusion into his collection based on stringent acceptance criteria. Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur”an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established. Muslim was a student of Bukhari and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
It is important to realize, however, that Imam Muslim never claimed to collect all authentic traditions. He tried to collect only traditions that all Muslims should agree on its accuracy. There are other scholars who worked as Muslim did and collected other authentic reports. After Sahih Bukhari, this is the most authentic hadith collection in the Sunni perspective.
According to Munziri, there are a total of 2200 hadiths (with no repetition) in Sahih Muslim. This would bring the total of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim to 3000 hadiths. According to most Hadith scholars[1], there are 1400 authentic hadiths that are reported in other books (mainly the Six major Hadith collections).
Rumbold
(1) and (3) are available form Amazon.
We are clearly not going to agree on the H of L question. However, I will say that having referendums on major policy decisions (wars/constitutions/criminal law) would most definitely increase participation in politics as people would genuinely feel that they were making a difference to the way the country is run.
Representative democracy stops being representative when politicians become slaves to party politics and sacrifice their constituents’ views for personal gain (gaining a position in the next cabinet etc) - which is what happens in this country.
My comments aren’t even appearing in pre-mod now. Have I been banned from here too sonia?
Sonia,
It is sort of wierd this ‘Your comment is awaiting moderation thingy’
I’d written three posts here, two of which had gone through, and the third, which was written first was just sitting in Limbo ‘awaiting moderation’. Dunno if that helps. It would suggest it’s not related to IP addresses or e-mail identifiers…
well sorry about that folks - no one is banned - and there are certain words the spam filter looks out for, and lots of links too - so somethings it will just put in the moderation queue to be on the safe side, its automated and I don’t know enough about it to do anything, muzumdar some of your posts have gone through without moderation, again, so please bear with me.
I am never put in the moderation queue. Well done Sonia for choosing a filter with such taste.
( Sonia, are you following this conversation because I got lost about 100 comments back )
Do keep up Sumera. We are talking about er…
Hadith literature is a double-edged sword. For top-notch scholars who are steeped in both hadith and fiqh, it is a goldmine of guidance from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace); for non-scholars who “go it aloneâ€, it is a minefield waiting to lead them astray.
Proof isn’t hard to come by: just do a survey of the websites that talk about Islam and you will find a confusing array of conflicting opinions, all clinging to hadiths as their justification. A single hadith is a snippet, a snapshot, a moment out of the 23-year period of divine revelation. Putting this snapshot into its proper context is not an easy task, especially when there are thousands and thousands of snapshots, some real, some forged; some clear, some fuzzy.
(On the issue of slavery: I found it interesting that the Bible believes in this as well. Prophet Abraham (pbuh) had son with his slave Hajar.)
Hello Sonia!
“Why doesn’t it bother more people that’s what I wanted to know, what I still want to know, or how it can be ‘rationalised’. ”
When I would recount stories of concubines, slaves, and etc that kings kept during the Saglik and Moghul empires, quite a few folks whom I knew- and they were liberal/progressive/secular etc- would tell me passionately that Islam does not allow slaves, and therefore it is impossible that Muslim kings would keep concubines, slaves, etc. I would look at the incredulously and ask them, “You’re not being serious, right? Because it’s completely well known from historical records that they DID. And it’s a moot point for me whether they were Muslims or not- concubines, slavery, and taking women as war booty were common for all conquerors and kings, whether they were Muslim or not.” “No,” they responded solemnly. “It’s not possible because the Koran does not permit it. Slavery is condemned in the Koran. In fact, the Koran provided equality to slaves and demanded their liberation.”
This sentiment that a particular religion REALLY adheres to specific ideals/notions we have of equality and so on- is actually a rebuttal to what they percieve others to be thinking of them, especially when it’s pointed out that um, no, there were some pretty egregious things. Not only have I heard Muslims do this, but also Hindus and Sikhs. I’ve heard Hindus say that the caste system doesn’t REALLY stem from Hinduism and the “sacred scriptures” and that if anything, “moksha” provides the opportunity for each individual spirit to become “one” with Brahamana; I’ve heard Sikhs say that Sikhism counteracts the noxious notions found in Hinduism, and so on. These folks like to think their religion was the reformist one (I’m not saying that none of these religions actually were reformist or offered a better solution to the ills afflicting the time of their formation; I’m just saying that this fact causes a lot of people to overlook the evidence that there ARE some questionable things in each religion).
Anyway, I think that one of the pitfalls with some folks is that they fail to see that the Hadiths, Koran, etc are documents of their time: rooted in their social, political, economic, and cultural context of the time in which they was produced. The same goes for the Bible- many see that as timeless Truth which can divorced from its temporal context. It’s not like that, IMO.
This is why I stop listening to/reading people who say start quoting a religious text to prove their points
It’s one thing to discuss and analyze a religion; it’s another things when someone starts quotes or falling back on scriptures to claim why they are ultimately right. (It’s also really yawningly boring when people bust out with religious arguments to defend their positions. Can’t they come up with anything bettter?)
We’re running an unbranded video campaign, highlighting the adverse effects of climate change on British wildlife, and would be interested in buying some advertising or advertorial space on your blog. Sorry- couldn’t see where to get in touch.
I’ve heard Sikhs say that Sikhism counteracts the noxious notions found in Hinduism, and so on.
Well, it does.
I’m just saying that this fact causes a lot of people to overlook the evidence that there ARE some questionable things in each religion).
What have you found that is ‘questionable’ in Sikh Scripture?
Just curious.
Muzumdar,
Good to get back in contact with you here. I’ve been arguing on PP that arguing against each other, just because we are seperated by a religion, or a bit of geography, is a bad thing. Y’know, evil, even.
Woo, woo!
But I’d assume you are not into beating up on the ‘other’, just ’cause their different? You wouldn’t, would you?
“Well, it does.”
Sure. I wasn’t disputing that. Islam codified arguably progressive values for its time. Buddhism did too. And so on.
In the context of what I was saying, I was pointing out how some emphasize the “progressiveness” and reformist aspects of their religion but not believing that practices going against that could exist, like those who argue that since slavery was banned in the Koran, it’s impossible that kings kept slaves. I wrote this above, and I’m repeating myself again…
“What have you found that is ‘questionable’ in Sikh Scripture?”
Again, you are taking my comment out of context but I can see why because I wasn’t making myself clear:
“This sentiment that a particular religion REALLY adheres to specific ideals/notions we have of equality and so on- is actually a rebuttal to what they percieve others to be thinking of them, especially when it’s pointed out that um, no, there were some pretty egregious things. Not only have I heard Muslims do this, but also Hindus and Sikhs. I’ve heard Hindus say that the caste system doesn’t REALLY stem from Hinduism and the “sacred scriptures†and that if anything, “moksha†provides the opportunity for each individual spirit to become “one†with Brahamana; I’ve heard Sikhs say that Sikhism counteracts the noxious notions found in Hinduism, and so on. These folks like to think their religion was the reformist one (I’m not saying that none of these religions actually were reformist or offered a better solution to the ills afflicting the time of their formation; I’m just saying that this fact causes a lot of people to overlook the evidence that there ARE some questionable things in each religion).”
I was making a distinction between what’s in the scriptures and what people do in reality. And I didn’t say this above, but I’ll go as far as saying that in SOME cases, it’s a moot point for me what’s written in scriptures, the Word of God, etc; what’s important are the actual practices people are engaged in. So Sikh (and Buddhist) scriptures might call out caste and say it’s wrong, but the fact is that many Sikhs still follow a caste system, even if some vaunt that Sikhism countered noxious ideologies of Hinduism.
Also, to expand on my above points:
Some Hindus will ferociously (and defensively) argue that the caste system is not sanctioned anywhere in the scriptures. My point is– who cares? I could care less. How much does it matter? The fact is that most adherents of Hinduism (ie those who called themselves Hindus) practiced it. So did folks from other faiths. And if people propose referring to texts written ages ago to look for those answers is also a bit weak willed. Identify the problems- which most likely go across religious lines- and find solutions. No need to consult scriptures, especially when scriptures themselves are not infallible and are subject to all kinds of interpretations.
Oh, I see.
What you took four pages to say could have simply been summed up by saying:
“When it comes to religion, there is a disparity between theory and practice.”
It is a common observation and is applicable to all faiths.
It signifies the complete and utter failure of religion to act as a form of social revolution - if people within a particular religion’s fold cannot adopt its policies, then what is the point of said religion?
“What you took four pages to say could have simply been summed up by saying”
Instead of being snarky, you could have been cordial.
“It is a common observation and is applicable to all faiths.”
Er, I said this already….
“if people within a particular religion’s fold cannot adopt its policies, then what is the point of said religion”
Maybe there is no point of any religion.
Instead of being snarky, you could have been cordial.
Why bother? You sound like an idiot.
Er, I said this already….
But it took you about 27 paragraphs.
Maybe there is no point of any religion.
Maybe you shot Kennedy. Who knows.
Everything is open to interpretation…
With the current day and age, Islam is being attacked from every angle however this was inevitible, unfortunately the very scholars that should be defending the religion through open intelligent channels are no where to be seen.
Instead we have fundamentalists spewing their venom at anyone who dares to speak out and question the religion (which they have a right to).
I have various hadiths in the past like the one mentioned, however I have never taken them into literal context and where I have found the hadith to be questionable in my mind (such as this one) I have simply ignored.
At the end of the day, its futile to start a debate over a hadith that has no relevance in this day and age.
IF your a muslim and you encounter such troubling information, my advice is the following:
1. Leave the hadiths alone
2. Check the Shariah and confirm what is right and wrong (provided the Shariah is correct)
3. And to quote a famous saying, if you find confusion around you, take the Qur’an and go to a secluded place to study it - i.e. refer to the Qur’an, see what god has to say on the matter
This applies to all religions actually, if your in doubt then refer to the original teachings as there must be some basis of truth in there, the reason why that religion flourished to this day.
End of the day, only you know whats right and wrong. Your morality is a testiment to your humanity. People seem to be losing their humanity on a daily basis, haram is becoming halal, halal is becoming haram.
We were told to abstain from certain things for a reason, because it causes doubt and confusion in ones mind ultimately damaging the soul, the place where we get our morality, sensibility and humanity from.
My personal view on the matter is that 90% of hadith are questionable so should be taken with a pinch of salt.
“Why bother? You sound like an idiot.”
Those who accuse others of being idiots are often guilty of being one themselves.
Quite! Good point as ever Desi Italiana.
What i find very interesting: if you aren’t taking things literally, and that’s your choice - that’s fine for you. I certainly am not in favour of ‘orthodoxy’ and you have to follow the book. However, when a religion is supposed to have some set texts, and it swears by them..well, perhaps it might make you think, if only about what it is that makes you uncomfortable, and you dont want to just follow blindly.
If a hadith has no relevance in this day and age ( well quite i definitely agree there) perhaps there is no relevance - of Islam - either. How do people think Sharia was formulated? With no help from the Hadith?
Reading more about Quranic exegesis - it is clear even from someone dipping their toe into that type of literature, that Hadiths have been used by scholars to aid their interpretation and understanding of the Quran, and towards formulation of Islamic jurisprudence.
they are actually all tied up intimately.
still, if people dont want to ask too many questions, if that’s fine for them, that’s their business.
personally i find it weird that people revere a messenger and then dont look too deeply into stories about that person. stories given credibility by the same tradition that tells us to revere said messenger.
and there’s equally disturbing material in the Quran - perhaps i should have covered that too. One thing at a time.
Your answer can be found here.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503544596&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar
“……
When Islam was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves.
In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.
Concerning having slave women, we would like to let you know that it happens to be a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or milk al-yameen are referred to in the Qur’an as “Those whom your right hand possess†or “ma malakat aymanukumâ€; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves.
Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.
But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What’s more, her child would also become free.
Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.
In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people, it’s clear that some people misunderstand the wisdom behind the permissibility of having female slaves and think that it is meant to unleash men’s desires and give them more enjoyment. Never! That is not the point! It is, rather, means of freeing slaves; and this is clarified above in the fact that if a master got a female slave pregnant, then he could neither sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be considered part of his property. She’d receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.
But, we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or maids, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.
Slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and goes in line with aims and objectives of Islam, as it has called for centuries ago.
As for marrying slaves, it is something permissible under two conditions: first, if one is unable to pay the dowry of a free woman. Second, if there is fear of committing adultery if one doesn’t get married. This is clarified by the following verse: “And whose is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you.†(An-Nisaa’: 25)
This verse shows that Muslim men should abstain from illicit relations and seek enjoyment through marriage to free women or through their female slaves.
In conclusion, Allah has forbidden certain types of behavior and permitted other kinds of behavior as a safeguard to the individual and to the society. Allah has forbidden fornication and adultery. However, in the case of captives whom your right hands posses, it’s something necessitated by the special circumstances which were created when the Muslims were at war.â€
About the act of ‘al-azm’ or corpus interruptus, this is also allowed in the sexual relations between a man and his wife in Islam. Taking this into account and the explanation above (that slave women caught as captives in war by Muslims should be treated as wives, before slavery was abolished), it is no surprise that ‘al-azm’ is also allowed, and all other speculations about it mentioned here are flawed.
thanks for your insight Vaderz, the justifications in that extract are the ones most people seem to come up with. to me again they seem to require an assumption that as victors in a war, they have some kind of right over ‘conquered peoples’ and within that context it was a ‘humane’ or understandable action. I can understand people want to control others and have power and go to great lengths to ensure that! However perhaps since i am dubious about imperialism in our human past, i am equally dubious about this example - of - imperialist behaviour. Still, imperialism disguised/masquerading as religion is even more problematic - if they were straight and said, look we want an empire, we want to conquer these people, they are ours to do what we like with, that would be that. But no, the rhetoric is quite different. that i find very interesting.
“Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice.”
Interesting statement.
IMPORTANT: MUST READ THIS COMMENT-ANSWERS ALL QUESTIONS
Assalmualikum brothers and sisters,I have read the opening arguments and briefly skimmed through the rest. These arguments are infact very interesting but do not phase me as a Muslim in the least. Before I give the answer to this particular question I would just like to comment on a common trap I feel a lot of Muslims are falling into. That trap is the one laid out by websites such as faith freedom and answering christianity in defaming Islam. The simple fact is that since 9-11 a massive propaganda war is ensuing against Islam, everything the Prophet Mohammad (SAWS) did is twisted in a derogatory fashion to portray him (SAWS) in a negative light. These odious, malicous sites never mention he (SAWS)’s righteous characteristics worthy only of the last apostle of God. They always fail to mention how his (SAWS) final sermon spoke of men treating their women well, or the rights he gave to the poor, or how women were protected in the newly formed Islamic society, the way the killing of female infants was eradicated, how he made war civilised etc. They would never give this information because it goes against their common agenda, to make Islam look like a backwards, violent, extreme religion. It is a well known fact that anything can be twisted to make it appear different, if I had an autobiography of princess Diana, i am sure I could edit it and twist facts to make her look like a sex starved play girl who only did charity events for publicity. I’m not saying thats what I actually believe, but theoretically such defamation can be done to anyone.
The sad,despisable fact is Muslims with little knowledge of Islam are bombarded by these websites which eventually shake their faith. We must be strong as a community, and when in doubt seek knowledge from the scholars. There is nothing wrong with asking in Islam, the prophet Mohammed (SAWS) himself said that part of gaining knowledge is too admit you don’t know. The link to the answer is below, i hope it clarifies the issue for muslims and non-muslims alike.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996015526