Shortly after WW-1, the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s seem to have promoted the idea of having free sex with prisoners of war. In the below, we have a scan of the Al-Fazl of 1922 wherein Hafiz Raushan Ali (who was a Hafiz of the Quran), presents Chapter 70:29-30 of the Quran and argues that these verses give #Ahmadis the right to have sex without a Nikkah, and to girls who work in their house and other slave type of girls. 23:5-6 of the Quran is exactly the same phraseology. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad gave the exact same answer in 1908 (see Chashma-e-Ma‘rifat, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 23, p. 253, in the below). The second Khalifa even called a wife of Muhammad (saw) as a laundi (Sex slave). KM2 contradicts himself in his Tafseer, on one hand he says Maria is part of a different group and hence not comes under the verse which realtes to Haq Mehar, and says it was not needed since she was given as a Gift and was not a war booty. But at the same time says even then Muhammad’s Nikah with her is proven. So if she was not a sex slave and as a wife, why did he not give her Haq Mehar as a free woman and take permission of her Wali and if he himself was her Wali being the owner then Nikah was not necessary as suggested by Raushan Ali in the above context that Nikah can not even take place. Remember Raushan Ali is a senior Sahaba and a student of Maulvi Noorudin.
Many year later, Mirza Tahir Ahmad made the exact same arguments, watch the full video herein. We are quite sure that Tafsir-i-Saghir and Tafseer-i-Kabeer by the 2nd Khalifa contains the same explanation. We have also posted Mirza Bashir Ahmad’s comments in the below, and some comments by Luqman Ahmad, an Ahmadi Mauvi working in Canada. In 1988, via Malik Ghulam Farid’s famous 5-volume commentary, he told his readers to read 4:24 of the Quran, which is mainly about the Nikah Muta. He also continues to argue under 23:5-6 that female prisoners of war must be married before having sex with them, however, consent is not needed. However, Hafiz Raushan Ali and the Ahmadi’s from the previous generation disagreed and claimed that even a Nikkah is not needed when having sex with slave-girls. Malik Ghulam Farid then quotes other similar verses like 24:32, 4:3, 2:221.
Another point of note, both of these Chapters of the Quran (70 and 23) were revealed before Hijra and thus Muslims never even had slave girls since the Battle of Badr hadn’t happened yet. Finally, in reality, in Islam, marrying slave-girls is outside of the 4-wives-at-one-time rule. But Ahmadi’s refuse to address this properly.
Scan and translation
Source: AlFazal 20th July 1922
Author Hafiz Raushan Ali, one of the 313 Sahaba of Promised Messiah
Second question: How many concubines (sex slaves) can a a Muslim keep ? and can he have sex with them without Nikah (Islamic Marriage) ?
Answer: Islam has not restricted the number of concubines, one can keep as many as he wants. And he can go close (have sex) with them without Nikah. Hence in the Quran Allah says in Al-Maarij:
Momins are those who protect their sexual organs but do not protect (keep them away) from their wives and concubines.
In this verse it clearly indicates that one can have sex with concubines without Nikah (Islamic Marriage) Because here the concubine that is being referred, if she was a Concubine under Nikah (marriage) then she would have been included in the wives category.
However, God has mentioned wives and concubines separately, hence it proves that concubines here mean those who are excluded from the Wives. Also, Prophet Muhammad was given a Concubine by the name of Maria Qabtia as a gift. He had sex with her without Nikah (Islamic Marriage). This also proves that one can have sex with concubines without a Nikah.
Now I will explain why one can not have a Nikah with a concubine. A concubine is the one whose body is under the ownership of someone else. That woman has no rights of her own. Her all rights are owned by the owner.
And for Nikah it is required that one accepts the terms, meaning Nikah can only take place when both individuals accept its conditions upon themselves. In other words Nikah can only happen when the individuals have a right to accept Nikah’s conditions. And since it has been explained earlier that a concubine has no rights of her own, so she is not eligible for Nikah. Hence the owner has the right to have sex with her without Nikah, because he owns that woman hence he is also the owner of her sexual organs (vagina).
Chapter 70:29-30 of the Quran per Tafsir Ibn Kathir, revealed at Mecca
and those who guard their private parts,
except from their wives and those (slave-girls) owned by their hands,- because they are not to be blamed,
Chapter 23:5-6 of the Quran, the final chapter revealed at Mecca
and those who guard their private parts,
except from their wives and those (slave-girls) owned by their hands,- because they are not to be blamed
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s comments
Chashma-e-Ma‘rifat, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 23, p. 253
“A female prisoner of war did not have to be married before conjugal relations. The Promised Messiah as wrote:
‘Remember that the true reality of marriage is that the consent of the woman, her guardian, and the man is taken. However, when a woman has lost her rights of freedom and is not free, rather she is of those oppressive militant people who commit- ted unjust oppression against Muslim men and women, so when such a woman is captured and is made into a prisoner of war as a consequence of the crimes of her relatives, then all rights of her freedom are lost. Therefore, she is now a prisoner of war of the victorious king, and to bring her into one’s harem does not require her consent. Rather, to bring her into captivity by victory against her militant relatives is her consent.’”
The 2nd Khalifa comments
KM2 did not write any English commentary or detailed complete commentary of the Quran in any language.) .Whereas in the notes to 66:2 in Tafseer-e-Saghir, KM2 calls Maria Qabtiya “Londi” (slave-girl) of Muhammad.
About Maria Qibtiya ra, the Khalifa, Hazrat Mirza Basheerudin ra(2nd Caliph) clearly says:
“But he married them according to Islamic Law. Mariyah was sent to him by the King of Egypt. He also married her and she enjoyed the status of a free wife like his other wives. She observed “purdah” and was included among “the Mothers of the Faithful.”
KM2 contradicts himself in his Tafseer, on one hand he says Maria is part of a different group and hence not comes under the verse which realtes to Haq Mehar, and says it was not needed since she was given as a Gift and was not a war booty. But at the same time says even then Muhammad’s Nikah with her is proven. So if she was not a sex slave and as a wife, why did he not give her Haq Mehar as a free woman and take permission of her Wali and if he himself was her Wali being the owner then Nikah was not necessary as suggested by Raushan Ali in the above context that Nikah can not even take place. Remember Raushan Ali is a senior Sahaba and a student of Maulvi Noorudin.
Mirza Bashir Ahmad’s comments
“Seal of the Prophets”, Volume 2, http://alislam.org/holyprophet/Seal-of-Prophets-Vol-2.pdf
You should be able to get the full context starting with the section Specific Issue Relating to Bond-Women on page 227 and continue until page 233, the end of the section entitled, A Question of Female Prisoners.
page 231 :
“”If a woman may be imprisoned in criminal cases and this practically occurs in every country and nation, why then should a combatant woman not be taken captive in the eld of battle? In addition to this, during that era, the disbelieving people would take Muslim women as captives; as a matter of fact, they would even keep them as bond-woman. Moreover, in these early wars, a general ultimatum given by these wicked souls was that they would take the Muslim women as captives, make them bond-women, and would have intimate relations with them as if they were slaves. For this reason, the God of Islām, Who is forbearing on the one hand, but possesses great indignation on the other, permitted the Muslims that if needed, they may treat the disbelievers in a similar manner, if not exactly the same, in order to bring them to their senses and so that they do not grow bolder and more daring in their persecution. Those who are aware of the requirements of war can understand that every so often it becomes necessary to employ a retributive strategy in wars, and this is why the law of warfare is always different from civil law. Hence, this was a necessity of unavoidable circumstances, without which there was no other option.”””
So let me paraphrase what is so delicately conveyed by the excerpt on page 231:
- The wicked enemy of non-Muslims, having captured female prisoners (i.e. Muslim women) had resorted to raping them.
- The only way for Muslims to get the non-Muslims to stop this practice, was to treat the female captives of war in their own possession, in a similar manner—if not exactly the same.
- The Muslim men would thus be justified in raping the non-Muslim female captives of war, so long as the enemy had not ceased this behavior themselves.
In the Jan-1935 edition of the ROR, Maulvi Sher Ali confirms that Qadiani-Ahmadi’s believe in contrast to Lahori-Ahmadi’s on the topic of female prisoners of war and concubinage. Maulvi Sher Ali confirms that Qadiani-Ahmadi’s believe that it is permissible under certain conditions.
Murrabi Farhan Iqbal
Ahmadiyya theory allows “involuntary” marriage/nonconsensual marriage with female prisoners of war. This is mentioned in Murabbi Farhan Iqbal’s article (link).
Links and Related Essay’s
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim #ahmadiyyatrueislam #qadiani #qadianism #mirzaghulamahmad