One of the most distressing elements of early Islamic warfare was the treatment of women taken captive after battles. Authentic sources indicate that Muslim fighters were allowed to initiate sexual relations with these women on the very night their male relatives—fathers, husbands, brothers—had been killed, offering no time for mourning or emotional recovery.

This was not an occasional exception but a recurring practice throughout centuries of Islamic conquests: men slain by day, their surviving women and daughters captured and subjected to forced intimacy by night.

To grasp the depth of this trauma, consider the well-documented case of Safiyyah bint Huyayy, a Jewish woman taken after the Battle of Khaybar.

History of al-Tabari, Vol. 8, p. 122 Ibn Ishaq reports: When the fortress of al-Qamus fell, Safiyyah and another woman were brought to the Messenger of God. Bilal led them past the bodies of slain Jews. The woman with Safiyyah screamed, slapped her face, and threw dust on her head. Seeing this, the Messenger said: “Remove this she-devil from me!” He then turned to Bilal: “Have you no mercy, Bilal, leading two women past their dead kinsmen?”

This account alone reveals the profound grief these women endured.

Now add the further violation: while still overwhelmed by loss, they were compelled into sexual servitude. Islamic rulings permitted immediate sexual access by their new captors, with no required delay.

Neither the Quran nor hadith record Muhammad condemning this timing. In fact, he himself consummated relations with Safiyyah the same night her father, brother, and husband were killed, once she was ritually clean from menstruation (Sahih Muslim, Book of Marriage).

Apologists’ Claims and Rebuttals

Some defenders argue early Muslims waited for a menstrual cycle, supposedly allowing mourning time.

Reality:

1. The waiting period (istibra’) existed solely to confirm no prior pregnancy—not for emotional healing.
2. For virgin captives (including minors), no waiting was required—immediate relations were standard.
3. Non-penetrative acts were permitted even during any brief delay.
4. In Safiyyah’s case, relations occurred the same night, as her cycle had ended.
5. Classical scholars explicitly allowed various forms of intimacy before full istibra’, including with pregnant captives (everything except vaginal penetration).

Imam Bukhari titled a chapter: “Is it permissible to travel with a female slave before istibra’?” Under it, authorities like Ibn Umar, al-Hasan al-Basri, and ‘Ata permitted kissing, touching, and more—while ‘Ata allowed all pleasure from a pregnant slave except vaginal intercourse.

A narration from Ibn Umar describes him unable to restrain himself upon capturing a beautiful slave girl, immediately kissing her in public view.

The Quran’s Silence

If the Quran is divine and perfect, why no explicit protection for these vulnerable women? No verse mandates mourning time, consent, or delay in sexual access.

Instead, the text focuses elsewhere—warnings of hellfire, repeated prophet stories, praises of Allah—while remaining silent on this acute human suffering.

This absence is not minor. When captive women needed clear mercy and justice most, the “final revelation” offered none.

Such omission raises serious questions about a system that failed to address one of warfare’s greatest moral horrors.