In the video below, Haitham al-Haddad explains why a system of ‘slavery’ is superior to systems of the West when dealing with prisoners of war. Predictably, only a non-Muslim prisoner of war qualifies for the position of slave. The master of a female slave may enjoy sexual relations with her and if she is lucky enough to fall pregnant, she can escape the joys of being sold on to someone else and will earn herself some more rights.
“In terms of this slavery, what is the source of raqiq [slaves] in al-Islam? The source of raqiq in al-Islam, OK, let me just make it very simple because we have a time constraint, raqiq in al-Islam is another, or an alternative for POW, prisoners of war. OK? As simple as this. Now many people don’t talk about it. Now, prisoners of war, you know prisoners of war are those prisoners who have been taken in a war between the Muslim state and the enemies of the Muslim state provided that they are disbelievers. And historically, or according to the Islamic fiqh, the enemies of the Islamic state should not be Muslims. So fighting between Muslims and Muslims will not lead to raqiq or prisoners of war, OK? Will not lead to raqiq, sorry, it might lead to prisoners of war but they should not be taken as raqiq.”
“…let me mention one more thing about the Islamic system. The Islamic system narrowed the sources of raqiq, narrowed it to be just the prisoners of war, not a snatched person etc. and of course their children. So it narrowed that. The prisoners of war and their children. However, if the prisoner of war was a lady, her master had the right to have intimacy with her, because what? Because if he had the right to have intimacy with her he will have kind of love and attachment to her. And not only that, if she brought children, she became a mother of children, she is not allowed to be sold OK? And it is not allowed for her to be separated from her children OK? Not at all. And then she had more rights.”
For a second opinion here is al-Haddad’s partner in crime, Assim Al-Hakeem, speaking on the subject:
“And in Islam slavery is permissible only through wars. Now, if a man has a woman as his slave he has the right to have intercourse with her. She’s not his wife and she is bought and sold in the market of slavery. When we say this you have to look at the holistic picture. Don’t say that ‘Oh, this is barbaric. How can a man sleep with a woman just because he bought her and then he sells her after a month and isn’t this prostitution?’ No it is not. However, if a person buys a slave woman and he sleeps with her and she becomes pregnant, this is for her sake because the minute she gets pregnant she cannot be sold, and she can’t be inherited and she cannot be given as a gift. Her pregnancy sets her free. So she is now known as the mother of a child. She cannot be sold or dealt with financially. She’s not free. She stills stays with her master and her master owns her and he has to be kind for her but he cannot sell her.”
Surely these men do not believe this is still applicable today?