Slave-girls are sexual property in the Noble Quran?

Further Topic Research:
Run "Go" twice to bypass Bing

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube |

Slave-girls are sexual property in the Noble Quran?

By Umar



Article located here: http://www../Authors/Arlandson/women_slaves.htm

 He Wrote:

Would you join a religion that permitted men to have sex with their slave-girls throughout their enslavement—if this religion codified this act in its holy book?

Many persons in the West (and elsewhere) who convert to Islam are women. I just got an email from a Muslim woman who said she converted to Islam two years ago. Would women do this if they knew about ALL of this religion? Reasonable women should stop and think a second time before taking this serious step (but a reversible one, albeit punishable by death in many Islamic countries).


 My Response:


  First of all, I want to make it real crystal, the Bible has NO problem what so ever with slavery:

  1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." 

"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.  (From the NIV Bible, 1 Timothy 6:1)

 What about the Old Testament? :

 Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

As we can see, the Bible has NO dispute with slavery.


He Wrote:

Islam goes more deeply than just the benign Five Pillars. It has many unpleasant truths lurking in its sacred texts. The goal of this article is to bring out yet another of these truths, so people can make fully informed decisions from all of the facts.

Would the true God inspire the following verses six hundred years after Jesus showed us a better way?

My Response:


 Let us proceed with James Arlandson’s Article

He Wrote:

Sex with slave-girls in times of peace

Sura (Chapter) 23 was revealed during Muhammad’s life in Mecca before his Hijrah or Emigration from his home city to Medina in AD 622. During the early years of his ministry, he never waged war on anyone, so these were times of peace, although he suffered from a measure of persecution. For more information on the historical and the literary topical contexts of Sura 23, click here.  Also visit: How big was the first New Testament?

The Quran in Sura 23:5-6 says:

5 [Most certainly true believers] . . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy. (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 3, p. 237)

The key words are "those who are legally in their possession." Maududi (d. 1979) is a highly respected commentator on the Quran, and he interprets the plain meaning of the clause, saying that sex with slave-girls is lawful.

Maududi writes:

Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relation with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately. (Ibid. p. 241, note 7)

The main point in this section, which Maududi overlooks or refuses to criticize, is that Muhammad himself endorses not only the entire institution of slavery, but also sex between male owners and their female slaves within this institution. But how can he and devout Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") criticize their prophet without seriously damaging Islam? But Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") must do this, if they think clearly and critically, and for the good of humanity.

It should be noted that Sura 70:29-30, also revealed in Mecca, uses nearly the identical words as Sura 23:5-6. Men must guard their private parts from everyone but their wives and slave-girls, meaning that men may have sex with both "categories" (Maududi’s word).

If readers would like to see these verses in multiple translations, they should go to this website. This one has three translations, and this one is funded by the Saudi royal family.

My Response:

  Now here’s a good to ask ourselves, Why does the Quran Allow Slavery? Here is the answer. In Islam if a master has sex with his slave, then when the slave girl is pregnant, she and her child is automatically freed after the masters death.  But that’s not the only way a slave can get freedom, infact if a slave request his/her freedom, she or he can get it!

  Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"

As we can clearly see, Islam says that if a slave request freedom, he/she can get it, including some money, in order for the slave to get a good jump start in life.

Beside this, the Prophet (S) also ordered for slaves to not be forced into having sexual intercourse:

"Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)"  (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)"

Also read how the Prophet (S) used to free slaves:

Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America and Director of the Islamic Society of Orange County, Garden Grove, California. He states the following:

"The author claims that “the Bible condemns slavery” and “one who practices slavery contradicts right teachings.” In order to prove his point he even adds “the slave traders” in 1Timothy 1:10. There is no such word there in the Revised Standard Version.

Actually in the whole Bible this word does not exist. The author also makes false allegation against Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) by saying that he used to buy, sell, hire, and rent slaves.

Slavery existed throughout the Biblical period including the time of Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him). Most of the Biblical prophets had slaves, both males and females. Perhaps the author of this flyer did not read his own New Testament. Otherwise he would have found there the following advice to slaves: “Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed.” (1 Timothy 6:1) and “Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory…” (Titus 2:9)

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) did not own slaves. He had many slaves purchased and freed. The author quotes Muslim scholar Ibn Al-Qayyim who said about the Prophet, “His purchases of slaves were more then he sold.” This is correct because he used to purchase slaves in order to free them, not to sell them. However, the author of the pamphlet mistranslates Ibn Al-Qayyim when he says, “The Prophet used to rent out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves then he rented out.” The author has mischievously added the words “many slaves” and “more slaves” in the text. Ibn Al-Qayyim is not talking here about the sale, purchase, renting, and hiring of slaves, but about general business practices of the Prophet before he received the Prophethood. Actually, he is saying that “the Prophet himself was hired before he became the Prophet to take care of some sheep and he was hired by Khadijah to do business for her.” (see Zad Al-Ma’ad, vol. 1, p. 154)

The Qur’an teaches that freeing the salves is a great virtue (See Surah 90:13). One of the expenditures of zakah (obligatory charity) is to spend the money for the freedom of the slaves (surah 9:60). It is forbidden in Islam to enslave a free person. If Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") had consistently followed the Islamic teachings in this regard, slavery would have become extinct a long time ago. It is unfortunate that some Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") did not follow these teachings of Islam and slavery continued in Muslim lands for centuries. We are ashamed that some Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") practiced slavery against the teachings of Islam. However, it is also a historical fact that for centuries the worst type of slavery in its most extensive and horrible form was practiced by those who claimed themselves to be the followers of Christ. They enslaved millions of free men, women, and children and shipped them like animals from one continent to another. They made millions in profit by this most shameful trade of human beings.

I wish to remind the author of this flyer what Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)"



So let’s see the points made:

1)      Slaves can NOT be forced into having sexual intercourse with

2)      Slaves ARE automatically free after the masters death if they bare a child from the master

3)      Slaves CAN ask to be freed, and become free , including they will get an amount of money to jump start in life.

So Islam destroyed the social illness called slavery, if you look at the proof open-mindedly.

Proceeding with the response:


He Wrote:

Sex with slave-girls in times of war

Now Muhammad has emigrated from Mecca to Medina. By the time Sura 4 is revealed, where our next Quranic verse is found, he has fought many wars and skirmishes. For example, he fights the Meccans in the Battle of Badr in AD 624 and again the Meccans at the Battle of Uhud in AD 625. He also exiles the Jewish tribes of Qaynuqa in AD 624 and Nadir in AD 625. He carries forward this policy of sex between male owners and their female slaves to his new city of Medina, with the added twist of enslaving women prisoners of war and permitting his soldiers to have sex with them. For more information on the historical and literary topical contexts of this next sura, please click here.  Also visit: How big was the first New Testament?

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319). (See also Suras 4:3 and 33:50)

Thus, women captives are sometimes forced to marry their Muslim masters, regardless of the marital status of the women. That is, the masters are allowed to have sex with the enslaved human property.

Maududi says in his comment on the verse that it is lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44).

But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge? The answer is obvious for those who understand simple justice. No sex should take place between married female prisoners of war and their captors. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords under any circumstance.

This sexual injustice is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonetheless—the Quran says so.

Predictably, the hadith perpetuate this Quran-inspired immorality.

The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s actions and words outside of the Quran. The most reliable collector and editor is Bukhari (d. 870).

The hadith demonstrate that Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following passage, Khumus is one-fifth of the spoils of war.

Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, just finished a relaxing bath. Why?

The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and . . . Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus).

What was Muhammad’s response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?

Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)

Thus, Muhammad casually believes that slave women who are part of the one-fifth of the spoils of war can be treated like sexual property. Ali is a Muslim hero. He was the husband of Fatima, Muhammad’s daughter by his first wife Khadija. So why would the model prophet for the world scold his son-in-law for having sex with a slave-girl? After all, slaves are fair sexual game. The Quran says so.

Moreover, holy jihadists may not practice coitus interruptus with the women they capture, but not for the reason one expects: simple justice.

While on a military campaign and away from their wives, Muslim jihadists "received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus." They asked the holy prophet about this, and it is important to note what he did not say.

He did not scold them or prohibit any kind of sex whatsoever, declaring it haram (forbidden). Rather, he gets lost in theology and the quirky doctrine of fate:

It is better for you not to do so [practice coitus interruptus]. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection. (Bukhari; for parallel hadiths go here and here)

That is, these enquiring Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") should stop doing coitus interruptus, but instead go all the way with the enslaved sex objects. Fate controls who should be born. Muhammad does not prohibit this extremely immoral practice just when the time was right to forbid it.

It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text.

Islam codifies and legalizes rape.

It is disappointing that the Quran does not abolish this sexual crime in the clearest terms: Thou shalt not have sex with slave-girls under any circumstance!



My Response:

For reasons as to why Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir were banished, please read this article:


I honestly don’t know why James’ article was divided into 2 sections, they both deal with sexual intercourse with slaves. I already showed why Sexual intercourse with slaves was allowed, but lets deliver a blow to James, heres a fatwa by a Scholar of Islam:

Title of Fatwa

Status of Slave Women in Islam

Date of Reply


Topic Of Fatwa


Country Applied

United Kingdom

Question of Fatwa

Is it true that Islam permits Muslim men to own slave women, and permits them to have sex with them without marrying them? And that this was carried out by the Prophet’s Companions with his approval? Surely, this is in contradiction of the Qur’an's condemnation of zina. Could you please clarify this issue?

Name of Mufti

A Group of Islamic Researchers

Content of Reply

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, thank you very much for having confidence in us and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah’s Sake, meet your expectations.

When Islam was reveled to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves.

In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.

Concerning having slave women, we would like to let you know that it happens to be a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") found themselves vis--vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or milk al-yameen are referred to in the Qur'an as “Those whom your right hand possess” or “ma malakat aymanukum”; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves.

Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more").

But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What's more, her child would also become free.

Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.

In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people, it's clear that some people misunderstand the wisdom behind the permissibility of having female slaves and think that it is meant to unleash men’s desires and give them more enjoyment. Never! That is not the point! It is, rather, means of freeing slaves; and this is clarified above in the fact that if a master got a female slave pregnant, then he could neither sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be considered part of his property. She'd receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.

But, we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or maids, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.

Slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and goes in line with aims and objectives of Islam, as it has called for centuries ago.

As for marrying slaves, it is something permissible under two conditions: first, if one is unable to pay the dowry of a free woman. Second, if there is fear of committing adultery if one doesn’t get married. This is clarified by the following verse: “And whose is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you.” (An-Nisaa’: 25)

This verse shows that Muslim men should abstain from illicit relations and seek enjoyment through marriage to free women or through their female slaves.

In conclusion, Allah has forbidden certain types of behavior and permitted other kinds of behavior as a safeguard to the individual and to the society. Allah has forbidden fornication and adultery. However, in the case of captives whom your right hands posses, it's something necessitated by the special circumstances which were created when the Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") were at war.”


I think the above Fatwa pretty much refuted James Arlandson…

He Wrote:


It may be argued that American slave-owners committed sexual crimes against their slaves before the Civil War (1861-1865), so who are Christians or Americans (the two are not identical) to complain about Islam?

In reply, however, the two situations are different. First, it is wrong to compare the US with the Muslim community founded by Muhammad, who claimed divine inspiration. Instead, it is best to compare the founder of a religion (Jesus) with another founder (Muhammad). Second, in no place in the New Testament does God give permission to men—Christian or secular—to have sex with slave-girls. This would violate the spirit of Jesus’ ministry and the entire writings of the New Testament authors, who understood Jesus as fulfilling the Old Testament. If Americans in a bygone era did this, then they were not following God’s law. The Quran, however, codifies and legalizes this sexual crime, and allegedly this book came down from Allah through Gabriel to Muhammad. Any clear-thinking individual can see that having sex with women in their most desperate condition (slavery) is wrong.

But the real issue is much larger than questions about American history.

The following question must be asked and answered: Is Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam the best prophet, book, and religion to lead humanity into the new millennium?

For those of us on the outside of Islam who examine the evidence with as much objectivity as we can and who have not been blinded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious: no, they are not the best to lead all of humanity into the new millennium.

Therefore, all clear-thinking Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") who live under hyper-religious oppressors must throw them off and ignite secular revolutions, such as the one that happened in Turkey after World War I. Maybe this will happen in Iran, and maybe Iraq will steer clear of sharia (Islamic law), as Iraqis take their first baby steps towards democracy. They must get away from the Quran and Muhammad’s example.

Until these revolutions happen and until religious leaders renounce many verses in the Quran and the hadith, we on the outside of this religion are allowed to distrust Muhammad’s religion.

And women who are tempted to convert to this religion must stop and think a second time.

My Response:

James Arlandson’s article has been refuted, the reason why intercourse was allowed with slaves was made clear, also James decided NOT to tell the Christian readers that in the Quran slaves can request freedom and get it, he also forgot to mention that you are not supposed to force your slave into sexual intercourse. Should we take this as a missionary tactic…... You be the judge! Also, here is Answering-Christianity’s challenge to James Arlandson :

1)      Show us where in the Bible a slave can request his/her freedom and actually receive it, including some money

2)       Respond to the fact that in the Bible, you can literally sell your daughter to be a slave!:

             Exodus 21:7-11


               When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment

3)      Give us a good reason why you DIDN’T acknowledge the ayat of Sura 24:23 which says

Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"

 Was this one of your cheap tactics, or were you ignorant of this verse??

  As we’ve read in the above Fatwa I posted, it was made clear that Islam gradually destroyed the social illness called slavery, just like it did with alcohol. In fact, the above fatwa pretty much refuted his trash, but the show just had to go on…..


And Allah Knows Best!






Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Women in Islam and the Bible.

Rebuttals to James M. Arlandson's Articles section.

Rebuttals by Umar.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.


What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube