When Muslims are shown the rape of the captive/slave women without their consent by the Jihadists, then they come up with a new claim that Jihadists didn't rape the captive/slave women, but those captive/slave women themselves consented their Jihadist captors to use them as a sexual object.
And as proof, they present the following (link):
These (Islam) critics are ignorant of history, for slave girls did consent to having sex with their captors back in the past.
John McClintock said:
Women who followed their father and husbands to the war put on their finest dresses and ornaments previous to an engagement, in the hope of finding favor in the eyes of their captors in case of a defeat. (Reference: John McClintock, James Strong, "Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature" [Harper & Brothers, 1894], p. 782)
Matthew B. Schwartz said:
Women have always followed armies to do the soldiers' laundry, to nurse the sick and wounded, and to serve as prostitutes. They would often dress in such a way as to attract the soldiers who won the battle ... The pretty girls crowd around the hero who scores the winning touchdown, not around the players of the losing team. And it is certainly true in war: the winning hero "attracts" the women. (Reference: Matthew B. Schwartz, Kalman J. Kaplan, "The Fruit of Her Hands: The Psychology of Biblical Women" [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007] , pp. 146-147)
Thus we see from two non-Muslim authors that slave girls back in the past would consent to having sex with their captors.
To say the least, this is an extremely stupid excuse by Islam apologists.
Firstly, these Islam apologists gave reference to the two books of Christian writers. But the problem is these Christian writers are themselves Bible Apologists, while the Bible also allowed the rape of the captive/slave women without their consent.
Thus, the modern non-religious (Atheist) movement criticises the Bible severely for this inhuman practice of raping captive/slave women without their consent. And in order to answer the criticism of the non-religious Atheist movement, the Bible Apologists make such claims that the captive women/slave women gave their consent for their rape.
The first question is, what is the 'original source' of these Christian writers for this claim? All we see from the original sources (including the Bible itself) is only one fact the captive women were deeply stressed due to the killings of their beloved ones (like their fathers, sons, brothers and husbands), and they were crying and mourning. How can such women ever think of sex while suffering from trauma?
Moreover, even if we assume that some women (like prostitutes, or those who came to cook or to nurse the injured) indeed wore good dresses to attract the captors in case of defeat, still it does not come under the definition of 'CONSENT', but it comes under the definition of 'helplessness' and 'compulsiveness' and the 'forced consent', which is again a RAPE.
It is like: "Someone pulled a gun to my head and wanted my car and my wallet so i consented to give him both"
It is simply commonsense that those ladies understood that their fate was to be "rapped" by the opponents (while none of the religions taught them to respect the women and not to make innocent women captives and to rape them). Thus, if they failed to attract the rich high-ranking leaders through their beauty, then they would be distributed among the low-ranking soldiers, who would ultimately not only rape them but also they would never be able to provide them with good food and clothing, and they had to do a lot more work as slaves of low-ranking soldiers.
Thus, religions like Islam stay as criminals here, while they never taught their followers to respect the human rights of innocent women.
How do Islam apologists defend the rape of small girls, and making them slaves for the whole of their life?
And Islam taught not only to rape those captive women but also to rape the small girls too, and to make the small children slaves for the whole of their life, although they had no role in the wars.
So, how do Islam apologists are going to defend it now? Will they say that those small girls also consented to their rape by the Muslim Jihadists?
And the women, who already had husbands, were at least not penetrated on the first night, but Muslim Jihadists were raping these small girls with penetration the very first night. Just see the tradition of Ali and how he raped a small prisoner girl (link).
And even the next generations of these prisoner women, and small girls and boys, would be born automatically as slaves due to the evil of "Slavery by Birth" in Islam.
Were those poor prisoner women and girls in a state of mind to do sex even with their consent?
Previously, we explained how Muslim Jihadists killed the beloved ones (i.e. sons, fathers, brothers and husbands) of those prisoner women during the day, and then on the same night, they started to rape the virgin and small girls. And the prisoner women (who already had husbands) were also made naked, and they were compelled to provide all sexual pleasures except for penetration.
Please look at the mental state of these poor prisoner women and girls after their beloved ones had been killed during the day.
History of Tabari, vol.8, page 122:
... (After the war) Safiyyah bint huyayy was brought to prophet, and another woman with her. Bilal, who was the one who brought them, led them pass some of the slain Jews. When the woman who was with Safiyyah saw them, she cried out, struck her face, and poured dust on her head. When the Messenger of God saw her, he said, "Taker this she-devil away from me."
Actually, you don't even need any tradition to find out the mental state of such captive innocent women/girls, who lost their beloved ones during the daytime. Your mind will automatically guide you that every innocent woman/girl would have been crying as the poor Jewish girl above after her beloved ones had been killed. And when Islam compels such girls in such a state of mind to provide sex services to the Jihadists, then it is the peak of cruelty.
Even Jews and Christians were then much better than Islam, while they showed at least so much humanity that they didn't allow the rape of the captive women/girls the same night. Actually, if they liked any captive girl, then they had to marry her (even without their consent), and to give her a full one month time to mourn her the killing of her beloved ones. Only after that, he was allowed to have sex with her.
Bible, Deuteronomy, Chap 21 (link):
Marrying a Captive Woman:
When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives. If you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured.
After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes.
You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her.
Although we criticize the Bible for still allowing them to marry her even without her consent, the TRUTH is, Islam is many folds worse than the bible in this matter. The truth is:
- At least the bible is not saying that women were wearing good clothes to be raped by the victors.
- At least the bible is accepting that those women were suffering from trauma due to the killing of their beloved ones, and they needed time to morn their death and separation, and their clothes of slavery should also be burnt while they could have made them remember the day when they were taken as captives and when their beloved ones were killed.
- Moreover, the bible conditioned sex with the 'permanent marriage' with the captive women. While Islam simply allowed the Jihadists to rape the captive women without any marriage, but they were raping the prisoner women in Shia Mut'a type "temporary sexual relationship" and after fulfilling their lusts, they were selling them to other Muslim owners to rape them again.
Muhammad refused to make these laws of the Bible a part of Islamic Sharia. Instead of that, he took the laws of the Arab Society of the time of Jahilliyyah (ignorance) and made them part of Islamic Sharia, where the captive women/virgin girls/minor girls were not given one month time to mourn the killing of their beloved ones, but they were raped the very first night. And this is the peak of cruelty which Muhammad showed towards the captive women/virgin girls/minor girls.
State of Mind of Saffiyyah on the first night when Muhammad had sex with her after killing her father, brothers and husband
The same case of 'helplessness' and 'compulsiveness' and the 'forced consent' also happened with Saffiyyah.
Safiyyah was the daughter of a Jewish tribe leader. Prophet Muhammad killed his father, husband and brother in the battle of Khaybar, and then didn't even let her weep at their dead bodies, but distributed all the captive women on the same day as slave women among his companions. Safiyyah came in the possession of companion Dihya Al-Kalbi.
When companions described the "beauty" of Safiyah in front of Muhammad, then he gave 7 slave women to Dihya and got Safiyah for himself.
Sahih Muslim, Book of Marriage (link):
After the battle of Khaiber, the companion Dihya got beautiful slave woman (i.e Safiyah). When Prophet Muhammad came to know about the beauty of Safiyah, then he took her for himself and gave 7 slave women to Dihya as exchange for Safiyah. Then he handed her to Um Salim so that she could prepare her as bride for him.
Muhammad got attracted towards her due to her beauty. He bought her from one of his companions by giving her 7 captive slave women in return (Reference: Sahih Muslim, Book of Marriage).
And then Muhammad asked if she was ready to marry her if he emancipated her. And she agreed to it, while she knew that the other option was slavery for the rest of her life with extreme hardships.
Sahih Ibn Habban (11/607) (link):
عن عبد الله بن عمر رضي الله عنه قال : ... قالت صفية :وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من أبغض الناس إليَّ قَتل زوجي وأبي وأخي فما زال يعتذر إليَّ ويقول : ( إن أباك ألَّب علي العرب وفعل وفعل ) حتى ذهب ذلك من نفسي .۔۔ رواه ابن حبان في " صحيحه " ( 11 / 607 ) ، .
Abdullah Ibn Umar narrates that Safiya said:"Rasool Allah was among the most hated person for me, while he killed my husband, father and brother. Then he used to make excuses that my father used to incite the Arabs against him. He kept on apologizing for so long till I was no more angry.
Grading: Sahih (authentic)
This tradition is itself a testimony that Safiya was not happy with Muhammad after the killing of his husband, father and brother and considered him the most hateful person, and if she slept with him the very same night, then it was only in order to safe herself from the harm that Muhammad could have inflicted upon her as a slave woman.
And according to the following tradition, at first, Safiyyah denied to slept with Muhammad which even upset him.
Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabqat (link):
Safiyyah mounted the camel. The Prophet rode beside her and put a veil over her. They travelled with the Muslim army until they were six miles from Khaybar, the home of the enemy where the battle had taken place, where they stopped to rest. While they were resting, the Prophet wanted to consummate the marriage with her, but Safiyyah refused, which upset him. Reaching As-Sahbaa', which is sixteen miles away from Khaybar, Safiyyah obeyed him (and slept with him). He asked: "Why did you refuse during the first rest?" She replied, "O Messenger of Allah, I was afraid for you because the Jews were too near.” ( " مَا حَمَلَكِ عَلَى الَّذِي صَنَعْتِ حِينَ أَرَدْتُ أَنْ أَنْزِلَ الْمَنْزِلَ الأَوَّلَ فَأَدْخُلَ بِكِ ؟ " فَقَالَتْ : خَشِيتُ عَلَيْكَ قُرْبَ يَهُودَ)
Therefore, at first, Safiyyah denied sleeping with Muhammad. But later she got control of her anger in order to save herself from harm and agreed to sleep with Muhammad. And when Muhammad asked him why she didn't sleep with her previously, then she made an excuse that she feared the enemies. But we all know that enemies (i.e. the Jews) had already been defeated completely, and the Muslim army was going back, and Muhammad and his Army knew the strength of the enemies was ZERO, and they knew it much better than the young Safiyyah. Clearly, it was an excuse that Safiyyah had to make in order to save her from harm.
The History of al-Tabari, Volume XXXIX (39), p. 185:
Ibn ‘Umar [al-Waqidi] – Kathir b. Zayd – al-Walid b. Rabah—Abu Hurayrah: While the Prophet was lying with Safiyyah Abu Ayyub stayed the night at his door. When he saw the Prophet in the morning he said "God is the Greatest." He had a sword with him; he said to the Prophet, "O Messenger of God, this young woman had just been married, and you killed her father, her brother and her husband, so I did not trust her (not to harm) you." The Prophet laughed and said "Good".
How could a prisoner woman give her consent when Islam was oppressing her in the following ways:
One of the earliest surviving Christian texts from the Islamic period in Syria, dated around 640 CE, describes the rise of Islam in this way (link):
They take the wife away from her husband and slay him like a sheep. They throw the babe from her mother and drive her into slavery; the child calls out from the ground and the mother hears, yet what is she to do?...They separate the children from the mother like the soul from within the body, and she watches as they divide her loved ones from off her lap, two of them go to two owners, herself to another[...] Her children cry out in lament, their eyes hot with tears. She turns to her loved ones, milk pouring forth from her breast: "Go in peace, my darlings, and may God accompany you."
— Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, Robert G. Hoyland
If you don't feel the pain of these prisoner/slave women after reading it, then you have no mercy and no humanity left in you, just like the Islam apologists, who still came up with lame excuses for justifying all this oppression and cruelty of Muhammad/Allah upon the poor women.
An ex-Muslim lady commented (link):
As a woman, if this happens to me I'd "consent" too. Through the abuse I've experienced, I learned fawn response will keep me alive and not "seriously harmed". As long as I keep quiet and be good, I will survive another day. I can't imagine what's in the sex slaves' minds when their husbands were murdered and they have to please men who murdered them.
And another ex-Muslim commented (link):
I’m glad I don’t belong to an ideology that requires me to know this, and yet to praise the man responsible.