This Is Islam Uncovered

Islam and the Morality of Sex Slavery

Why Qur’an 4:24 Is a Problem That Cannot Be Explained Away

When Divine Revelation Permits Owning and Using Women as Spoils of War

“And [forbidden to you are] married women — except those your right hands possess…”
— Qur’an 4:24

This single clause — tucked into a longer verse about sexual prohibitions — has been one of the most troubling moral blemishes in Islamic scripture. It establishes that sexual access to enslaved women is divinely permitted, even if they are married.

It doesn’t take interpretation. It doesn’t require obscure hadiths. It’s right there in the Qur’an.

This article critically examines:

The verse and its context
How classical Islamic law implemented it
The broader justification through Islamic theology
And why it remains a theological and moral failure that can't be excused today.

📜 The Verse in Question: Qur’an 4:24

Here is the full section (Sahih International translation):

“And [forbidden to you are] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them with your wealth in marriage, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse…”

The key phrase:

“Except those your right hands possess” (Arabic: illa ma malakat aymanukum)

This is not metaphor. It refers explicitly to:

Female captives,
Enslaved in war,
And considered property of the Muslim man.

According to this verse, sexual access is permitted — even if the woman was married to someone else before her capture.

🕌 How Islamic Law Interpreted It: Full Permission

Classical tafsir confirms:

Tafsir al-Tabari: This means a Muslim man may have intercourse with a female slave who was captured, even if she had a non-Muslim husband prior to capture.
Ibn Kathir: The marriage of a non-Muslim woman is nullified upon her capture.
Al-Qurtubi: This verse abrogated the earlier prohibition on intercourse with married women, in the case of captives.

In Hadith:

Sahih Muslim 3432:

“They (the Companions) took them as captives… and were reluctant to have intercourse with them because their husbands were polytheists. Then Allah revealed: ‘And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess…’”

So the Companions were hesitant — and the Qur’anic revelation gave them permission.

🔥 Why This Is Morally Indefensible

1. Sex Without Consent = Rape

A woman captured in war, with her family slaughtered, becomes the sexual property of her captor.
Consent is legally irrelevant — and the idea of “marriage” to a slave is a fiction used to sanitize ownership-based intercourse.

This is by every modern standard, rape under coercion.

2. Legalized War Rape

In Islam, this wasn’t just a one-time allowance — it was implemented into Sharia:
- Captives could be divided among fighters.
- Children born from slaves were the property of the father unless manumitted.
- Multiple hadiths confirm that even coitus interruptus was a concern — not the ethics of consent.

The implications are clear:

As long as the woman was a slave, intercourse was halal — regardless of her consent, trauma, or marital status.

3. Apologetic Excuses Collapse Under Scrutiny

Some Muslims today try to argue:

“Islam eventually aimed to abolish slavery”
“This was better than what other nations did at the time”
“It was regulation, not endorsement”

But:

🔸 The Qur’an nowhere says slavery is wrong.
🔸 It regulates sex with slaves, not abolishes it.
🔸 No verse even implies slavery is temporary or sinful.

And even centuries later, Muslim empires continued to:

Capture and rape non-Muslim women in war (e.g. Ottoman, Safavid, Mamluk)
Castrate male slaves
Participate heavily in the East African and Central Asian slave trades

This wasn’t just a cultural artifact. It was a sustained, religiously justified institution.

🌍 The Broader Historical Context: Not an Excuse

Yes, slavery existed everywhere in the ancient world — but that’s not the point.

The issue isn’t whether others were worse — it’s that Islam:

Claimed to be the final, universal moral code
Claimed to be superior to all systems
Claimed to be from a God who is most merciful and just

And yet:

It codifies sexual access to human beings as property
It never forbids the practice
And its defenders today are forced to either deny history or accept rape as moral in context

A perfect religion would never permit what modern conscience calls evil.

🧠 Final Verdict: Islam Failed the Test of Moral Universality

Claimed by Islam	But the Reality
“Islam elevated women’s status”	Women were bought, sold, and used sexually
“Islam is timeless moral guidance”	It permits a practice now universally condemned
“The Qur’an came to reform slavery”	No abolition, no condemnation — only regulation
“Prophet Muhammad is a mercy”	He owned, sold, and had sex with slave women

You cannot defend this without either lying, justifying sexual slavery, or redefining morality itself.

A god who permits rape-through-captivity is not merciful.
A law that allows sexual domination of the powerless is not just.
A theology that enshrines sexual coercion as holy is not divine.

📚 Sources:

Qur’an 4:24, 23:6, 33:50
Sahih Muslim 3432, Sahih Bukhari 4138, 2229
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi on 4:24
Bernard Lewis – Race and Slavery in the Middle East
Kecia Ali – Sexual Ethics and Islam
Ronald Segal – Islam's Black Slaves