The Qurʼān permits sexual access to wives and to “those whom your right hands possess.” Classical fiqh understood this to include enslaved female captives or concubines, without a separate marriage contract.
Modern Muslim scholars often argue the practice was contextual and should not exist now. That modern conclusion may be morally compelling, but it is not the simple classical rule.
What the Qurʼān and fiqh say
Several Qurʼān passages define the category.
- Q 4:24 excepts “those whom your right hands possess” from the prohibition on married women.
- Q 23:5 permits sexual relations with wives or right-hand possession.
- Q 70:29 gives a parallel formulation.
- Q 33:50 includes the Prophet’s permissions involving captives.
Classical fiqh developed detailed rules around capture, ownership, sexual access, children, and umm walad status.
Where the question gets more complicated
(1) Q 4:24's permission for sexual access to married captives is often startling to modern readers; classical tafsīr (Ṭabarī, Qurṭubī) and fiqh straightforwardly permit it. (2) The distinction between marriage and concubinage in classical fiqh has no modern moral analog; some modern scholars say this was a ceiling on ancient practice, others that it should be seen as no longer applicable. (3) Practical revival: ISIS cited classical fiqh on concubinage (Yazidi enslavement in 2014) accurately. The modern repudiation requires either reinterpretation or rejection of classical law on this point. None of this is hidden in the sources.
Two ways to understand the evidence
There are two broad ways Muslims understand concubinage today.
The classical-regulation view
A traditional reader may say:
The Qurʼān regulated a world where captivity and slavery existed, and classical law placed rules around the practice.
This view treats the permission as part of a regulated legal system.
The modern non-applicability view
Other Muslims say:
Because slavery is now abolished and morally rejected, concubinage has no lawful place today.
This view may be the overwhelming modern moral instinct, but it requires explaining why classical rulings no longer apply.
Sources to read
Click a source title to read it on an authoritative site (quran.com for the Qurʼān and tafsīr; sunnah.com for ḥadīth).
| Source | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Q 4:24 | Permission for sexual access including "those whom your right hands possess." |
| Q 23:5–6 | Parallel statement on chastity and captives. |
| Q 33:50 | The Prophet's particular permissions including captives. |
| Tafsīr on Q 4:24 | Classical reading of the captives clause (al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī). |
| Kecia Ali, Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam (Harvard, 2010) | Modern academic treatment. |
How to think about it
- Read the right-hand-possession verses directly. The category is Qurʼānic, not an outsider invention.
- Distinguish classical permission from modern rejection. Both need to be named honestly.
- Ask what abolition changes. If slavery is abolished, what happens to rulings built on slavery?
Common objections
- Was concubinage the same as rape?
Classical fiqh had rules around ownership, waiting periods, children, and status, but it did not require a modern marriage contract or modern consent framework. That difference is exactly why the issue is morally difficult today.
- Do Muslims practice this today?
Mainstream Muslims reject it today. The historical question is what the Qurʼān and classical fiqh permitted, and how modern Muslims explain the change.
Related questions
Want a private, source-backed conversation about this question? Ask it in chat — voice or text — and the assistant will quote the verses and ḥadīth in full.