The question/claim: "The Qur'an permits relations outside marriage with enslaved/captive women ('what the right hands possess') (4:3; 23:6). Is there really such a concept — and if so, isn't it sexual abuse layered on slavery?"
First, name the concept
- In classical fiqh this relationship is called tasarrī; its legal basis is milk al-yamīn ("possession of the right hand") — in Qur'anic wording mā malakat aymānukum ("what your right hands possess"). The woman involved is a concubine (Ar. surriyya).
- (interpretation) "Marriage-less marriage" is not a precise term: what the classical conception means is a union deemed lawful without a separate marriage contract, through ownership (milk). The whole knot is here: is this union truly contract-less, or does the Qur'an bind it, too, to a marriage stipulation?
Context and the Qur'an's direction
- This regulation is given within the era's institution of slavery — which the Qur'an restricts and pushes toward freedom (Why didn't the Qur'an simply abolish slavery?).
- The Qur'an steers these women toward marriage: marry them "with their owners' leave, giving their dowers, in honour" (4:25); "marry off those fit for it among them" (24:32).
- It forbids forced prostitution and commands the contract of manumission (mukātaba) (24:33).
- The verse the objection cites — "except from their spouses or what their right hands possess" (23:6; parallel 70:30) — places this within the frame of chastity (23:5).
Two readings: is this union without marriage?
The real dispute turns on "is marriage required?" Without imposing one view, here are both by name:
- The classical majority (permitting tasarrī): Milk al-yamīn makes the union lawful without a separate marriage contract, and moreover sets no numerical limit (unlike the cap of four wives). al-Shawkānī states plainly that union with a concubine is "not through a marriage contract, but through milk al-yamīn." The basis is reading "spouses or what the right hands possess" (23:6) as two distinct lawful categories.
- The Qur'an-centric / restrictive reading (requiring marriage): 4:25 explicitly conditions union with a concubine on marriage (fa-nkiḥūhunna = "marry them"), the owner's leave, and dower (ātūhunna ujūrahunna). On this reading the "or" in 23:6, read in light of 4:25, means "by way of marriage" — i.e. the Qur'an opens no contract-less category. Even within the classical tradition Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī held at points that only marital relations are Qur'anically sanctioned; the Qarmatians and many Muʿtazila rejected tasarrī. Modern: Muhammad Asad reads mā malakat aymānukum as "those whom one rightfully possesses through wedlock"; Jonathan Brown and Kecia Ali argue tasarrī is untenable under the modern standard of consent.
- (historical note) Majied Robinson argues that large-scale concubinage stemmed neither from pre-Islamic Quraysh custom, nor the Qur'an, nor the Prophet's practice, but largely from the Umayyad period.
An honest limit
We do not soften this: a relation conditioned on captivity is, by today's moral standards, gravely problematic, and that is a fair part of the objection. But the label "marriage-less" is not, on its own, the text's definitive conclusion either: 4:25 binds union with a concubine to at least leave + dower + chastity; whether tasarrī is a separate contract-less category or one bound to marriage is a juristic/exegetical reading, and scholars disagree. Certain in the text: the Qur'an channels the concubine toward marriage and manumission and forbids forced prostitution. When slavery ends, the ground of this regulation falls away too. "The Qur'an praises abuse" is not the text's necessary conclusion; but we record the historical difficulty as it is.
Related articles
- Does the Qur'an command polygamy? (4:3)
- Why didn't the Qur'an simply abolish slavery?
- Is marriage obligatory in Islam?
- Whom should one marry? — Choosing a spouse in the Qur'an
Source: Qur'anic verses (M. Okuyan meal). Presented soberly and respectfully, with a text/interpretation distinction.