Coitus Interruptus (‘Azl): Equivalent to Burying a Child Alive—or Not?

Coitus interruptus, known as ‘azl (عزل), is the practice of withdrawing before ejaculation to avoid pregnancy.

Muhammad’s stance on this shifted dramatically—first condemning it harshly, then permitting it to accommodate his followers’ desires and financial interests.

Early on, Muhammad equated ‘azl with the horrific pre-Islamic crime of infanticide (burying daughters alive).

Sahih Muslim 1442b The Prophet remarked: “I was considering banning intimacy with women who are nursing, but I noticed the Romans and Persians do it without harming their children.” When asked about ‘azl, he replied: “It is a hidden form of burying a child alive.”

This severe view aligned with Jewish traditions at the time, treating ‘azl as morally equivalent to murder.

But as Muslims grew powerful through conquests, capturing women as slaves and concubines became common—a practice Islam allows. The companions wanted to enjoy these women sexually but avoid pregnancies, which would lower their resale value or complicate ownership.

To keep the women “valuable” for ransom or long-term use, the companions practiced ‘azl extensively with captives.

This put Muhammad in a difficult position. He couldn’t ignore his followers’ lust and greed, so he reversed his earlier ruling, making ‘azl permissible—especially with slave women—while adding a fatalistic twist: “If a soul is destined to be born, it will be born anyway.”

Sahih Muslim (Book of Marriage), Sahih Bukhari (Books of Destiny and Oneness of Allah) Abu Sa’id al-Khudri narrated: During the Banu Mustaliq campaign, we captured fine Arab women. We desired them (sexually) but were separated from our wives—and we also wanted ransom money. So we decided to have relations but practice ‘azl to avoid pregnancy. We thought: “The Prophet is among us—why not ask him?” We asked, and he said: “It doesn’t matter if you do it or not. Any soul meant to exist until Judgment Day will exist.”

The Obvious Contradictions

• First: ‘Azl = secret infanticide (grave sin).
• Later: ‘Azl = perfectly fine (especially with slaves).

Apologists claim the early statement only meant it was “disliked” (makruh), not forbidden. But how can “secretly burying a child alive” be merely “disliked”? That’s not dislike—that’s murder.

Another inconsistency:

• ‘Azl with free wives: discouraged or forbidden (like infanticide).
• ‘Azl with slave/ captive women: fully allowed.

Nature doesn’t distinguish: preventing conception is the same act, whether the woman is free or enslaved. Either it’s “burying alive” in both cases—or neither.

The Real Insight

Muhammad speaks in the first person: “I intended to prohibit…” “I observed the Romans and Persians…” No mention of Allah revealing anything. He based decisions on personal observation and later needs—not divine command.

Had he not known about Roman/Persian practices, nursing mothers would be banned from intimacy in Islam—turning them into mere “milk providers” without affection during a vulnerable time.

Similarly, his outdated view on pregnancy (“another man’s semen nourishes the fetus”) forced pregnant widows/divorcees to wait until birth before remarrying—denying them companionship when they need it most.

Conclusion

Muhammad’s rulings evolved with circumstances:

• Early strictness (influenced by Jewish views).
• Later leniency (to satisfy companions’ sexual and financial wants).

These changes weren’t from an all-knowing Allah—they were human adjustments Muhammad made, then presented as divine will.