The Quran never allowed rape of female captives

I note that several hadiths instigate rape of female war captives and slave girls. Aren’t these hadiths inspired by some of the Quranic verses?

No. These anti-Quranic hearsays¹ are the sole source of the traditional sharia provision that allows men to have extramarital or non-committed sex with war captives and slave girls. This provision, however, blatantly violates the Quranic direction that Believers should either free the war captives for ransom or they should simply release them with generosity and kindness (47:4). The raping of female captives or slaves is incompatible with the very spirit of the Quran’s message, which vividly encourages manumission (90:12-13) and the ‘marrying’ of freed ‘slaves’ (4:25; see What is nikah), and which forbids the Believers to compel ‘slave girls’ to prostitution (24:33). Thus, while the Quran strongly encourages people to seek chastity, not lewdness (5:5), it never allowed extramarital or non-committed sexual relationship with disadvantaged women (4:24-25).

But what about Q23:5-7 that seems to allow men to have extramarital and non-committed sexual intercourse with their female slaves?

This is one of the most misused texts that have been traditionally misinterpreted and manipulated through hadith hearsays. Let us read it in context: Successful indeed are the acknowledgers, 23:1/ Those who are humbly submissive in their communication, 23:2/ And who refrain from vain talk, 23:3/ And who are active towards betterment and public welfare, 23:4/ And who guard their private parts, 23:5/ Except around their azwaj (mates) – i.e. (AW, that is), those with whom they have contractual rights (ma malakat aymanuhum); they are free from blame. 23:6/ Then whoever seeks beyond that are transgressors. 23:7

The word azwaj in Arabic simply means mates, partners or opposites. Unless specified, it doesn’t automatically mean ‘married’ or committed spouses. But, for a sexual relationship to be lawful, the parties involved must be committed or enter a contract that makes it so. In other words, ‘acknowledgers’ cannot have sexual relationship with their azwaj (mates) unless they are in a committed relationship, i.e., unless they are “those with whom they have contractual rights” (ma malakat aymanuhum). Hence the legal term MMA occurs here and in similar other contexts as a clause to specify the word azwaj and thereby to add to it the reminding legal requirement. Thus, like 70:29-31 (cf. 24:31), these verses ask people to stay sincere and faithful to their partners, while avoiding promiscuity and infidelity that equal transgression and injustice. Now, the confusion regarding this issue comes from the common misinterpretation of the phrase “ma malakat aymanuhum” as “those whom their right hands possess”, with further assumption that this relates to female slaves in this context, which then leads to the eventual assumption that the particle AW (“or”) in 23:6 therefore denotes a permissible alternative for sexual relationship.

Can you please further elaborate your arguments against the traditional understanding of these verses?

The conventional understanding of these verses doesn’t hold water because it violates some of the clear messages of the Quran and completely ignores the following observations:

Since the term mu’minoon (acknowledgers) here is applied to men and women alike, and since azwaj (mates) too denotes partners of both genders – while “ma malakat aymanuhum” is a common gender – there is no reason whatsoever for attributing to this legal phrase the meaning “their female slaves”. Clearly, this confinement to the females alone was a product of hadiths, influenced by corrupted clerics and royals, in a trend to distort the original message of the Quran.

On the other hand, if mu’minoon (acknowledgers) above is applied to men and women alike, and if MMA here means both male and female slaves, then this would create an impossible scenario as it will allow a male slave to have sex with his ‘owner’ woman, and that too, when she is married.

Then again, if it is thus out of the question that only female slaves, or both male and female slaves, could have been referred to in this context, it is obvious that this phrase here doesn’t relate to slaves at all, but to “those maintained/committed by their oath, i.e., through nikah or wedlock” – with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both spouses, who are mutually committed to each other by virtue of oath/contract.

On the basis of this interpretation, the particle AW which precedes MMA cannot denote an alternative (“or”) but is rather an explanatory amplification, analogous to the phrase “in other words” or “that is”, thus giving the meaning, “i.e. (that is), those with whom they have contractual rights”. (Cf. a similar construction: “And He is the One Who made the night and the day in succession, for those who wish to remember, i.e. (that is), wish to be appreciative. 25:62”). Also see notes of Asad and QXP on 23:6.

Finally, the assumption that Muslim men were allowed to have extramarital or non-committed sexual intercourse with female war captives or slaves is directly dismissed by the Quran itself, since the commandment was: You shall marry them with the permission of their family and give them their bridal-due in kindness, making them women in wedlock, not prostitutes (musafiḥatin) or takers of secret lovers (akhdanin). 4:25: “You shall marry them … making them women in wedlock, not prostitutes (musafiḥatin) or takers of secret lovers (akhdanin), 4:25”. Cf. 4:3, 4:24-25; 24:32. Also see: What is nikah.

Thus we can safely conclude that the Quran never allowed extramarital or non-committed sex with war captives or slave girls.

Related article: Quran’s views on slavery

***********************************

Note 1

Hadith promotes rape of female war captives and slave girls. A few anti-Quranic hearsays are the source of the traditional sharia provision that allows men to have extramarital and non-committed sex with war captives and slave girls, often inappropriately labelled as “those that believers’ right hands possess.” People like Islamist ideologue Maududi and Wahhabi ideologue Zakir Naik also promote this view. Here are some of these hadiths:

Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Messenger about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.” Bukhari 7:62:137 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5210

Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (one fifth of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?” When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, “O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes” He said, “Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus.” Bukhari 5:59:637 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4350

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Sa`id said, “We went out with Allah’s Messenger for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Messenger who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.” Bukhari 5:59:459 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4138