101 Reasons Why We Left Islam – Chapter 2: Women in Islam – Reason 9
If some have found a way to ‘live’ with the idea of taking women as war bounty, they did so on the pretense that these women would have been married off to the fighters and, therefore, it is a humane way of saving these women’s lives. And while some fighters may have married their captives, this was not necessary as the story of Mary the Coptic demonstrates.
Mary the Coptic – Sometimes referred to as Mariam or Maria the Coptic, is reported to be a slave girl given to the Prophet as a gift along with her sister Sirin by the then Christian Governor of Alexandria. You can read more about her story here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya
We know that in Islam men are not required to marry their slaves to sleep with them from the Prophet and Mary the Coptic’s story. And again, this change seems to have come to please one person before it becomes a common Islamic practice. The background to this story is found in the Quran.
Quran 66:1:
“O Prophet! Why do you prohibit ˹yourself˺ from what Allah has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
This verse may seem innocent at first until you read the context from Ibn Khatir (the most trusted Islamic scholar), and it changes everything;
“Hafsa the mother of believers (wife of Muhammad) visited her father one day. When the Prophet came home and did not see her in the house (so he) sent to the Mary the Coptic and (mated with her) in the house of Hafsa. Hafsa walked in on them, she said: “O Messenger of God, do not do this in my house!”
On that day he (Prophet) told her: «it is forbidden to do so do not tell anyone». So Hafsa went to Aisha and told her so Allah Almighty in his book announced (O Prophet, did not deny what God has permitted you) to say (and the benefit of believers) ordered to wipe his sin and review the nation. And the story is mentioned by Hasan al-Basri.
Sunan Bayhaqi. Book Disconnect and Divorce (AlKhalaa Wa Talaaq).
It is further narrated in Tafsir Ibn Kathir:
https://quran.com/66:1/tafsirs/ar-tafsir-ibn-kathir (It is in Arabic. So, select your browser to translate)
This is the kind of story you cannot just make it up. Especially if someone had made it up, they would have been killed for suggesting something sick and untoward the behaviour of a Prophet! But clearly this story did trouble Muslims scholars. We see attempts to cover it, hide, or make up a different story to it.
Here you will see how far and to what extent Islamic websites will go to to hide the truth about this and other stories. The above story in Arabic clearly narrates Mary the Coptic as being the background story to this verse as presented to the Arab audience with no further apologies. Now on how the same website, for Western audiences, a completely different story:
https://quran.com/66:1/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir
Notice, it is the same source of Quran.com, English translation talks about ‘smelly honey’ being the reason why the Prophet being told off by Hafza, completely different story that to be honest sounds like the made-up story.
If this is the Quran, what other sources do we have. Well, the Hadith talks about sex with slaves, look out for the term referred to these women.
Jabir bin `Abdullah was heard to say:
““We used to sell our slave women and the mothers of our children (Umahat Awaldina) when the Prophet (ﷺ) was still living among us, and we did not see anything wrong with that.”
Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)
https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:2517
An important term here to understand is the term “Mothers’ of our Children” does not equate to wives. The term refers to female slaves who get pregnant outside wedlock and have a child for their masters. They are not called wives; they are called “mothers of our sons” (Umahat Awaldina). Why? Because the Prophet had his son Ibrahim with Mary the Coptic outside wedlock. Yes, there is a dispute by Muslim scholars if we can or cannot call Mary the Coptic his wife! The sources conflict if the Prophet called Mary the Coptic his wife. She was just the “mother of his son” Ibrahim. And because Ibrahim died of young age anyways, Mary became less relevant in Islam. There are no records of the marriage before the Mary got pregnant, but some scholars argue that by the virtue of her giving birth, she automatically became his wife. Sounds like an excuse because they are embarrassed by the fact that our prophet had a son out of wedlock. And this Hadith, which is also authentic, shows the common practice amongst Muslims that sees these women as sub-humans that they can sell and buy. This hadith proves that slaves did not become wives by virtue of giving birth. In fact, the Hadith shows that it was common to ‘sell’ these mothers and “…we did not see anything wrong with that”.
Issue 9.1. Doesn’t this story demonstrate that the author of the Quran was making things up as they faced different challenges? Specifically, the Prophet engaged in adultery when supposedly there was no ruling permitting sex with slaves. Only when his wives ‘caught him’ having sex with a slave – now Allah comes in for the rescue!
Issue 9.2. How can someone call Allah an all-merciful and the Prophet an example for us all to follow when we see highly questionable behaviour that has little morality and demonstrates lack of mercy? This is yet another example of a religion created by a man for men with little regards to women.
Apologists Response:
Issue 9.1. Multiple other tafsirs reject this interpretation of verse 66:1 and the Hadith you refer to is not necessarily reliable as it comes as a secondary source. The Tafsir by Ma’arif, Taskirul, Al Wasit, Al Qurtubi, Al Sadi, and Al Baghawti refer to the story of the strong smelly honey being the subject of the verse. In their Tafsirs, the Prophet liked to drink honey mixed with herb called Maghafir. The wives had forbidden the Prophet from drinking that honey because it smelled terrible. When the Prophet was told off and promised not to drink that honey again, the verse came down to say, ‘not to forbid yourself what Allah has made permissible.’ So, you are taking this out of context. As for the Hadith, the hadith is secondary source here. It does not say the Prophet permitted it. There is no direct quote from the Prophet on this matter.
Our response:
If you continue reading the Tafsirs by Al Tabari, Al Qurtubi, Al Sadi, and Al Baghawti, you will find them presenting the story of the sexual affair with Mary the Coptic as well being the main explanations for this verse. Many of these tafsirs provide multiple reasons for a verse but tend to focus on the ‘most likely’ interpretation. What is common between Ibn Kathir, Al Tabari, Al Qurtubi, Al Sadi, and Al Baghawti is that they are the earliest Tafsirs and closest to the time of the Prophet. This indicates that they are more accurate accounts and less likely to be excuses that came later. While the Hadith does not quote the Prophet, the Hadith states a fact that took place at the time of the Prophet, and this is Sahih (authentic). Part of the criteria for authenticating the Hadith is not just by the chain of narrators but if it conflicts with the Quran. This is clearly not seen as in conflict with the Quran.
Issue 9.2: The issue of morality here is being raised out of context. At best, the interpretation of the verse is disputed and the authenticity of the Hadith as a standalone is insufficient as evidence. There is evidence that the Prophet considered Mary the Coptic his wife and that debunks much of the arguments against the Prophet.
Our Response:
There are other sources that address the treatment of women sex slaves that shows they were no more than objects won and lost during wars, sold and bought in the market. We have them mentioned in the Quran at least 14 times: [4:23-24];[16:71]; [23:5-6]; [24: 31-33-58]; [30:28]; [33:50- 52 -55]; [70:27-30], and Hadith at least 15 times:
https://sunnah.com/search?q=%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A7
We say ‘at least’ because the terms used for owning women as war bounty slaves varied over time from “what your right hand possessed”, what your “Faith possessed”, to terminologies such as Al Sabi and Sabayah.
Final Thoughts:
The owning of women for any purpose, be that for marriage or otherwise, is a disgusting idea and demonstrates Islam as a man-made religion for men who want to exploit women. Islamists who accept the practice and try to justify it as a historical need have failed to respond to how they would have reacted if the Americans killed all Talban men and their boys who had pubic hair and taken Talban women as war bounty sex slaves on the sunnah of the Prophet? How would they have reacted if the Kurdish fighters killed all the IS men and boys and taken the IS women and children as war bounty slaves? Would they call it humane to see the IS women and daughters being sold in the open market? Only then can you see their faces change and realise their excuses are just made up, and there is never a real humane justification for this. The excuse of ‘smelly honey’ is pathetic for another reason. Imagine the creator of the universe telling the Prophet in His eternal book that they should eat garlic if he wants! Is this really the eternal book of humanity? Is this book set in stone before time in heaven that starts a chapter with – don’t listen to your wives, eat smelly food! This may have fooled 7th-century desert dwellers, but it is not going to fool us.