One of the big moral issues with the Quran is its explicit permission to have sex with female captives of war. Some believers claim that Islam came with the perfect moral system and way of life, and that Prophet Muhammad was the primary example of this type of perfection. Does the Quran really allow this? We will look at this first and then quote hadith next.

Let us look at the evidence:

Allah says in the Quran,

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ

إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ

And those who guard their private parts

Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed – Surah Maarij 70:29-30

Also this is repeated in Surah Muminuun:

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ

إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ

And they who guard their private parts

Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed – (Quran 23:5-6)

Ibn Kathir and Al-Jalalayn in their tafseers say that “right hands possess” means slave girls

IslamQA in this fatwa explains that Intercourse with a slave girl is not considered Adultery

Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her. This is not regarded as adultery

Also See What is a “right hand servant”? Does the owner of a “right hand servant” have to be married?

Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason why a person may be taken as a slave is his being a kaafir and waging war against Allaah and His Messenger. If Allaah enables the Muslims who are striving and sacrificing their lives and their wealth and all that Allaah has given them to make the word of Allaah supreme over the kaafirs, then He allows them to enslave the kuffaar when they capture them, unless the ruler chooses to free them or to ransom them, if that serves the interests of the Muslims. If a mujaahid takes possession of a female slave or male slave, it is permissible for him to sell them. In either case – whether one acquires a slave through battle or through purchase – it is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with a female slave until she has had a period from which it may be ascertained that she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant then he must wait until she gives birth.

Prophet Muhammad himself owned many slaves, 16 male ones according to this list. His female slaves included: Salma, Maymoonah bint Sa’d; Khadrah; Radwa; Razeenah; Umm Dameerah; Maymoonah bint Abi ‘Usayb; Maariyah and Rayhaanah.

Is it too much to ask that Prophet Muhammad not partake in the slave trade and enjoying personal benefits (sexually and otherwise) from slavery?

Is it too much to ask that Allah would have asked Muslim men to free and marry their female slaves first before having sex with them?

There is a story about him sleeping with some of his female slaves and making certain wives angry, but that is a story for another day.

Read more at Muhammad and his female captives (Answering Islam)

Slavery also had continued in the Muslim world almost until the 20th century. Read more at Wikipedia on Arab slave trade

Arab slave trade was the practice of slavery in the Arab world, mainly in Western Asia, North Africa, Southeast Africa, the Horn of Africa and certain parts of Europe (such as Iberia and Sicily) beginning in the era of the Roman Empire and continuing until the early second half of the 20th century. The trade was conducted through slave markets in the Middle East, North Africa and the Horn of Africa, with the slaves captured mostly from Africa’s interior.

Although not necessarily condoned by Islam, the fact that the Quran explicitly allows slavery must have been one factor leading to certain people continuing to trade in slaves. From my understanding, Islam only allows slaves that are captured as prisoners of war, not slavery done by kidnapping or otherwise. So I do not know if the arab slave trade would be officially condoned by the Quran & Sunnah, but it is a real problem that existed in the Muslim world for a very long time.

Back when I was Muslim, many many years ago I had a fellow Muslim brother (who was in Hizbut Tahrir) tell me that in Islam, the awrah for slave girls does not include their chest. Thus some slave girls were not allowed to cover their chests. Apparently they even have a fatwa about this. I was really shocked when I heard this.

Merchant with a slave, Source unknown, obtained online

Examining Slaves” by Ettore Cercone, 1890, obtained online

Apparently there is evidence for this claim:

Narrated through Hamad Ibn Salama from Thamana Ibn Abdullah Ibn Anas from his grandfather Anas who said: “The slave-girls of Umar were serving us with uncovered hair and their breasts were shaking/wobbling ( تضطرب).” Al-Albani: The chain of this Hadeeth is ‘Jayyid’ (at a level between Hasan and Saheeh) and all of it’s narrators are trustworthy except the teacher of Bayhaqi Abul Qasim Abdul Rahman Ibn Ubaidullah Al-Harbi and he is very Truthful as Al-Khatib says and Al-Bayhaqi said: “And the reports from Umar Ibn Al-Khattab concerning that matter are authentic.” Ref: Irwa Al-Ghalil. Vol. 6, Pg. # 204 Umar hit the slave women from the family of Anas ibn Malik, when he saw them covered and said, “Uncover your head, and do not resemble the free women.” – Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanani (d. 211 AH/826 CE) in Al-Musannaf. (Arab women pre-islam)

And here is another reference. The prominent Hanafi jurist, Imam Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) provides us with answers to these two questions in his authoritative work, Radd al-Muhtar.

Imam Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) expounds on the issue of a slave-woman’s Awra. He states here and in another chapter of his work that the Awra of a slave-woman (excluding one’s own) is similar to the Awra of a Mahram woman, in that it is permissible to see of a slave-woman that which is permitted to see of a Mahram woman. The area between the navel up to and including the knees was understandable but there was a need to define the stomach and back. As such, he clarifies what precisely is meant by the stomach and back and stipulates clearly that the chest including the breasts and the area parallel to the chest from the back are not considered to be part of the Awra of a slave-woman and a Mahram. Thus, strictly speaking, it is not necessary for a woman to cover these parts in front of a Mahram male. Similarly, it is stated in al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya: “It is okay for a man to see from his mother, mature daughter, sister and all other Mahram women such as grandmothers, grandchildren, paternal and maternal aunts, at their: hair, chest, locks, breasts, forearms (shoulders) and shins. It is not permissible to look at their back, stomach and the area between the navel and (including the) knees.”(Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 5/328)

We read in Sunan al-Kubra by Imam Beyhaqi:

عن نافع ، عن ابن عمر ” أنه كان إذا اشترى جارية كشف عن ساقها ووضع يده بين ثدييها و على عجزها

Nafe’e narrated that whenever Ibn Umar wanted to buy a slave-girl, he would inspect her by analysing her legs and placing his hands between her breasts and on her buttocks”

Irwa al-Ghalil [6:201] by Sheikh Albani states:

أن ابن عمر كان يضع يده بين ثدييها ( يعني الجارية ) وعلى عجزها من فوق الثياب ويكشف عن ساقها

“Ibn `Umar (ra) used to put his hand between her [meaning the jariya’s] breasts and on her haunch from above (her) clothes and used to unveil her leg.”

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf says,

In an Islamic system in Medina there were women walking around bare breasted, and that is a fact, that is a historical fact and you can read it and look it up in the books. Umar did not allow the ima (slave girl) to wear the hijab. Source: Video on Youtube at 1min 16seconds

I find this quite strange, you can look at her breasts but not her stomach?

Also, A female cannot marry her slave. How strange! IslamQA states:

It is haraam for a slave to marry his mistress. Ibn al-Mundhir said: The scholars are unanimously agreed that marriage of a woman to her slave is invalid. Al-Athram narrated, with his isnaad from Abu’z-Zubayr, who said: I asked Jaabir about a slave marrying his mistress, and he said: A woman came to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, when we were in al-Jaabiyyah. She had married her slave, and ‘Umar rebuked her and thought of stoning her, and he said: He is not permissible for you. If a woman owns her husband [i.e., if he is a slave or she bought him, for example], her marriage becomes invalid. End quote.

How one sided Islamic law is.

Further links:

Zakir Naik discusses whether sex with a slave woman is allowed (YouTube)

He basically says its allowed because it was a gradual prohibition and everyone was promiscuous back then. But my question would be, why was alcohol eventually forbidden but slavery not? Also, he says slavery is allowed in Islam, why not, because Islamic law is far superior to how people are treated in Guantanamo Bay. Hmm, okay.

He basically says its allowed because it was a gradual prohibition and everyone was promiscuous back then. But my question would be, why was alcohol eventually forbidden but slavery not? Also, he says slavery is allowed in Islam, why not, because Islamic law is far superior to how people are treated in Guantanamo Bay. Hmm, okay. Muhammad – A Rapist? (Faith Freedom)