Islam allows this.
Now that the whole truth is finally out about the Muslim rape gangs in Britain, numerous Muslim and non-Muslim Islamic apologists are rushing to deny that Islam gives any sanction to such behavior. These apologists are either lying or ignorant.
Years ago, the South African Mufti Ebrahim Desai wrote on his popular online fatwa site, Islam Q & A Online: “In the ‘Jihads’ (Islamic wars) that took place, women were also, at times, taken as prisoners of war by the Muslim warriors. These women captives used to be distributed as part of the booty among the soldiers, after their return to Islamic territory. Each soldier was then entitled to have relations ONLY with the slave girl over whom he was given the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP and NOT with those slave girls that were not in his possession. This RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP was given to him by the ‘Ameerul-Mu’mineen’ (Head of the Islamic state.) Due to this right of ownership, it became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her.”
“It may, superficially, appear distasteful,” Desai continued, “to copulate with a woman who is not a man’s legal wife, but once Shariah makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not.” He nonetheless went on to explain that wisdom, saying that “the LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the ‘Ameerul-Mu‘mineen’ (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY.”
Since “a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her.” As a result, “permission to have intercourse with a slave woman was not something barbaric or uncivilised; on the contrary, it was almost as good as a marriage ceremony.”
What if she was already married? The mufti has a ready answer: “If a slave woman was married previously in enemy territory to a non-Muslim, and is then captured alone, i.e. without her husband, it is not permissible for any Muslim to have relations with her until her previous marriage is nullified, and that is done by bringing her to an Islamic country and making her the legal possession of a Muslim.”
Desai explains that it is not only not necessary to marry a slave woman, or even possible to do so. This is because Islamic law requires that the groom give his bride a dowry; as a slave doesn’t own anything, but everything she has is the property of her owner, it is not possible to give her anything that would become her own. And so no dowry, and hence no marriage, is even possible.
Mufti Desai argued that “it would be difficult to implement” this system today, “because of the stringent conditions attached to it. Firstly, the prisoners have to be captured in ‘Jihaad’ in the true sense of the word. Then again, if true ‘Jihaad’ did break out somewhere, there are still a number of other laws and conditions to abide by which are far too stringent for any Islamic country in the world to abide by in this time and age when people’s personal gains and whims and desire are being given preference to [sic] over Islamic Law.”
This would appear to rule out the abuse of infidel women in this way today, but that actually depends on the point of view of individual Muslims as to whether jihad is being waged against unbelievers today. The mufti did maintain that if jihad is being waged, taking slave women as spoils of war was an integral part of that struggle: “According to Islamic Law, captive female prisoners are also part and parcel of the booty…The Ameerul-Mu‘mineen (Head of the Islamic State) remains the guardian of the female prisoners until he allocates them to the soldiers. Only after a soldier has been allotted a slave girl, and made the owner of her, will she become his lawful possession.”
Another online fatwa site, IslamQA.com, gave the same view: “Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.” This teaching is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and this was done by the Prophets. Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) took Haajar as a concubine and she bore him Ismaa’eel (may peace be upon them all). Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah, the righteous and the scholars. The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.”
Another fatwa on the IslamQA site answers the question of whether a married Muslim man commits adultery by having sex with his slave: “Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her. This is not regarded as adultery as suggested in the question.”
Were the victims of the Muslim rape gangs actually slaves? They certainly were treated as if they were.
Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
