ʿAzl (عزل) is withdrawing the male genital organ before ejaculation during intercourse to prevent conception.
Muhammad INITIALLY declared 'Azl as burying a child alive but LATER made it permissible for his companions' sexual wishes and greed for money.
There was no Allah in the heavens, so initially, Muhammad, following Jewish practices, equated 'Azl with the act of burying a child alive.
(The prophet said:) I intended to prohibit cohabitation with the suckling women, but I considered the Greeks and Persians, and saw that they suckle their children and this thing (cohabitation) does not do any harm to them (to the suckling women). Then they asked him about 'azl, whereupon he said. That is the secret (way of) burying alive
Later, when Muslims gained power, they captured women during wars and started raping captive women as concubines, as this is permitted in Islam. Despite having sexual relations with captive and slave women, the companions preferred to sell them for a higher ransom, which was not possible if the women became pregnant. Alternatively, they wanted the women not to become pregnant so that they could continue to provide them with sexual services in a better way.
As a result, the companions began practicing 'Azl (withdrawing before ejaculation) with the concubines to prevent them from becoming pregnant, allowing them to maximize their enjoyment and maintain their value as captives.
This created a challenge for Muhammad, who now had to address the companions' sexual desires and greed for money. Consequently, Muhammad issued a contradictory ruling, permitting the companions to practice 'Azl freely with captive and slave women, while stating that if a child was destined to be born, it would happen regardless of the withdrawal.
Sahih Muslim, Kitab-ul-Nikah (link), Sahih Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Qadr (link), Sahih Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Tauheed (link):
0 Abu Sa'id al-Khadri said: We went out with Allah's Messenger on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired (to have sex with) them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but we also desired good ransom money by selling them). So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (i.e. withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception so that they don’t become pregnant and could be sold for good ransom money). But then we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger, and he said: (Yes, it is allowed, but) it does not matter if you do it or not, while if any soul has to be born up to the Day of Resurrection, then it will be born.
This statement highlights the contradictions in the Prophet's rulings, which cannot be reconciled.
To address this, Muslims later made an excuse that equating 'Azl with secretly burying a child alive merely implied it was "disliked" (makruh). But can such an explanation be believed when they claim that "secretly killing a child" is not murder but rather an act of "dislike"?
Furthermore, another contradiction emerged: Muhammad prohibited 'Azl with free women but allowed it with captive and slave women. In other words, performing 'Azl with a free woman equates to burying a child alive, yet doing the same with a slave does not.
Our rational minds clearly recognize these as contradictions. Nature does not differentiate the same act of child's killing if child's mother is a free woman or a slave woman. This distinction of free or slave is only a human and religion made evil, and it has no basis in the laws of nature. Thus, either a child would be considered buried alive in both cases (free and enslaved mothers), or it would not in either case.
The core reality of the matter is as follows:
-
In this narration, Muhammad explicitly refers to himself rather than Allah, stating, "I was about to prohibit sexual intercourse with breastfeeding women." This highlights the fact that there was no involvement of a divine entity named Allah; instead, these rulings were entirely based on Muhammad's personal decisions.
-
Muhammad further explains that he ultimately decided not to prohibit intercourse with breastfeeding women because "I (Muhammad) observed that the Persians and Romans engage in such practices, and it does not harm their children." This again reinforces the idea that Muhammad's rulings were not divinely inspired but rather based on his personal worldly observations and knowledge. Had he not been aware of the practices of the Persians and Romans, he would have forbidden sexual relations with breastfeeding women.
This makes it evident that Muhammad's laws were rooted in his personal judgment rather than any divine revelation.
Just like in the time of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic ignorance), Muhammad imposed a restriction on pregnant women that they could not marry another man until the child was born because according to him, the semen of another man would nourish the fetus in the womb.
As a result of this scientific error by Muhammad, pregnant women had to endure the restriction that even if divorced or widowed, they could not remarry until after childbirth. This meant they had to suppress all their sexual desires until the baby was born—a time when they most needed love and attention. The birth of a child, the moment they require the most care and affection, coincides exactly when Islam restricts them from having that attention from another man.
It was fortunate that the Persians and Romans allowed sexual relations with breastfeeding women, otherwise, in the Islamic world, breastfeeding mothers would also be forbidden from having sex. They would be reduced to mere milk machines like cows, providing milk without the comfort or affection from a partner during this crucial period of their lives.
Hassan Radwan