By Naseer Ahmad (Observer) for New Age Islam
13 January, 2014
In this article, I have discussed how the verses relating to sex with female slaves must be correctly interpreted.
Attributes of Quran that help in interpreting the Book
(27:1) These are verses of the Qur´an,-a book that makes (things) clear;
(18:28) (It is) a Qur´an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein): in order that they may guard against Evil.
(4:82) Do they not consider the Qur´an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
(18:69) We have not instructed the (Prophet) in Poetry, nor is it meet for him: this is no less than a Message and a Qur´an making things clear:
(39:23) Allah has revealed (from time to time) the most beautiful Message in the form of a Book, consistent with itself, (yet) repeating (its teaching in manifold forms): the skins of those who fear their Lord tremble thereat; then their skins and their hearts do soften to the celebration of Allah´s praises. Such is the guidance of Allah: He guides therewith whom He pleases, but such as Allah leaves to stray, can have none to guide.
(10:82) "And Allah by His words doth prove and establish His truth, however much the sinners may hate it!"
(9:125) But those in whose hearts is a disease,- it will add doubt to their doubt, and they will die in a state of Unbelief.
The important points to note are:
a) That the Quran is not a book of poetry. Poets use key words in such a fashion that the word can take all or several of its many meanings and yet the verse remains intelligible or the same word is used in a single verse with different meanings. This is a characteristic of poetry. The Quran makes it clear that it is not a book of poetry and therefore it uses words to make the meaning clear and not to confuse or allow different interpretations. The key takeaway here is that one should not interpret the Quran as one would interpret poetry and debate about the different meanings that its verse can take but should take the simple and straightforward meaning communicated by it and as consistent with the rest of the Book. This is especially so when it concerns the ‘Muhkamat’ verses that instruct a Muslim in the right practice or conduct. As it concerns the allegorical verses, these are capable of being taken either literally or allegorically without affecting the manner in which a Muslim is required to conduct his affairs.
b) The message is repeated taking manifold forms that assist a correct interpretation. Any mistake in understanding a verse therefore gets easily corrected.
c) Any doubt regarding the interpretation of any verse of the Quran can be settled with reference to other verses of the Quran itself. The Quran is its best and most comprehensive commentary.
d) The consistency, clarity and lack of discrepancy that the Quran shows is phenomenal. It is a book of over 6000 verses and yet one would be hard pressed to find any word that takes two or more meanings across these 6000+ verses. The consistency is therefore not within a verse or Sûrah alone but across the Book. With such consistency, only someone who is careless can go wrong or someone “in whose heart is a disease” can go astray.
The meaning of `Ma Malakataimanukum’ and its variations
With the above in mind, let us look into the meaning of ma Malakataimanukum and its grammatical variations. Let us first start with the literal meaning.
Ma – what (relative pronoun)
Malakat – own (as used in the Quran, it means ownership in the legal sense and not just physical possession) (3rd person feminine singular perfect verb)
Aymanukum – rightfully, they rightfully possess, their right hands (N – nominative masculine plural noun or PRON – 3rd person masculine plural possessive pronoun)
Aymanukum – your right hands (2nd person masculine plural)
Aymānuhunna – they rightfully possess (third person feminine plural)
The Variations used in the Quran
Ma Malakataimanukum - What your right hands possess (2nd person masculine plural) *
(4:3; 4:24; 4:25; 4:36; 24:33, 30:28)
Ma Malakatyaminuka - What your right hands possess (2nd person masculine single)(33:50; 33:52)
Alazeenamalakatayymanukum - Those whom your right hands possess * (2nd person masculine plural)(24:58)
Ma Malakataimanuhum - What their right hands possess * (3rd person masculine plural) (16:71; 23:6; 70:30)
Ma Malakataymanuhunna - What their right hands possess (3rd person feminine plural) (24:31; 33:55)
The expression “ma Malakataiman” is one of the most beautiful expressions used in the Quran. Malakat has been used in the sense of legal ownership and not just physical possession. Ayman also means trust. The expression has been used in the Quran exclusively to mean ‘slave’ and this is how every authority has interpreted it with a few exceptions which will be discussed separately. The expression therefore also implies that your wife, children, orphans and relatives who may be living with you under your care and trust are not your ‘Malakat’ that is ‘owned by you’. They are free people although dependent. A man’s wife as per the Quran is therefore clearly a free woman, with all the rights and privileges that go with it on par with her husband. It also subtly communicates that while you own the slave, it is in trust from God to Whom you are fully accountable for humane and kind treatment of the slave.
While interpreting it as `slave’ in 11 of the fourteen occurrences of the expression in the Quran, Muhammad Asad has interpreted it differently following Tabari and Razi in three occurrences of the expression. If the Quran were to show inconsistency in the usage of an expression irrespective of the number of meanings the expression may have in its usage outside the Book, it would not qualify as a Book that makes things clear and is without any crookedness. The inconsistency is never on the part of the Quran. It is on account of the interpreter. The very fact that someone has shown such inconsistency renders all his work of doubtful scholarship. If a person interprets the Quran not as the word of God but as poetry, giving different meanings to the same expression in their various occurrences, then he lacks the qualities essential in an exegete of the Quran.
Let us examine the three cases:
a) Verse 4:3 Walmohsinato Min Nisaiillama Malakataimanukum
Asad: And [forbidden to you are] all married women other than those whom you rightfully possess [through wedlock]:
Yusuf Ali: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:
Asad is saying that forbidden to you are all married women except the ones who are already married to you which is meaningless! Apart from that, he is treating `Mohsinat’ which means both a married woman and free woman in this context as ‘owned’ by you. Wedlock does not give Malakat or ownership and is clearly antithetical to the usage of the expression elsewhere in the Quran and also to the status of wife as a free woman. The verse is correctly interpreted by Yusuf Ali as granting rights over slaves who may have been married women before becoming slave.
b) Verse (23:5 - 7) as translated by Asad:
(23:5) and who are mindful of their chastity, (23:6) [not giving way to their desires] with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock] -:3 for then, behold, they are free of all blame, (23:7) whereas such as seek to go beyond that [limit) are truly transgressors; (
As translated by Yusuf Ali
23:5) Who abstain from sex,(6) Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame, (7) But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;-
In this case, Asad interprets ‘aw’ meaning ‘or’ as ‘that is’. He does not therefore treat `spouse’ and `ma Malakataimanuhum’ as separate categories but spouse as ‘ma Malakataimanuhum’ subverting the status of spouse once again to ‘slave’ or a person owned by the husband. Also, if the intention was to say only wife as Asad implies, where was the need to use the expression `Ma Malakataimanuhum’? In verse 4:33, `Aqadataimanukum’ translated as ‘those to whom your right hand was pledged’ and implies spouse (husband or wife) has been used to denote spouse. Clearly, therefore usage of ‘Ma Malakataiman’ for spouse is improper and only means ‘slave’ wherever it has been used in the Quran.
c) Verses 70:30 which is similar/identical to 23:6 and therefore the discussion under (b) above would repeat.
In his translation of the complete Quran, Asad has translated ‘aw’ as ‘that is’ only in verses 24:3 (twice), 25:62, and 50:37 besides the two cases under b) and c) above. Therefore, as against hundreds of occurrences of the conjunction ‘aw’, Asad has translated it as `that is’ only in 5 verses. Yusuf Ali has consistently translated ‘aw’ as ‘or’. The Quranic consistency in usage of words is therefore not just for complete expressions such ‘ma malakataiman’ but for even conjunction such as ‘aw’!
The ‘mistranslation’ in the three verses does not have the same drastic consequences as in 23:6 and 70:30
I reproduce those three verses below:
24:3 Translated by Asad:
[Both are equally guilty:] the adulterer couples with none other than an adulteress - that is, a woman who accords [to her own lust] a place side by side with God; and with the adulteress couples none other than an adulterer - that is, a man who accords (to his own lust] a place side by side with God: and this is forbidden unto the believers.
Translated by Yusuf Ali:
(3) Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.
Clearly, Yusuf Ali’s translation is the more correct one since adultery was commonplace among pagan Arabs and not a social taboo or crime. An adulterer was therefore allowed to marry only another adulterer or a disbeliever.
(25:62) as translated by Asad:
And He it is who causes the night and the day to succeed one another, [revealing Himself in His works] unto him who has the will to take thought - that is, has the will to be grateful.
(25:62) as translated by Yusuf Ali:
And it is He Who made the Night and the Day to follow each other: for such as have the will to celebrate His praises or to show their gratitude.
Here the difference is less significant but clearly, Yusuf Ali’s translation is the more correct because reflection of the phenomena described can result in a person praising God or showing gratitude or both which what is meant when ‘or’ is used.
50:37 as translated by Asad:
In this, behold, there is indeed a reminder for everyone whose heart is wide-awake - that is, [everyone who] lends ear with a conscious mind
(50:37) as translated by Yusuf Ali:
Verily in this is a Message for any that has a heart and understanding or who gives ear and earnestly witnesses (the truth).
Once again the difference is less significant but clearly Yusuf Ali’s translation is the more correct.
If a translator or an exegete follows the discipline outlined in the article and ensures consistency in his work, he can never go wrong, as the Quran is remarkably consistent in the manner and the meanings of words and expressions that it uses. The Quran itself provides a check on the accuracy of one’s understanding and interpretation. It is truly a Book that makes everything manifestly clear beyond doubt and is without crookedness.
Dear Truth and Rational,
The truth is hidden from Mr Yunus in several layers of
The first layer is his belief that the laws allowing sex
with female slaves were immoral. I therefore first attempted to remove this
layer of darkness by establishing that these laws effectively prevented the
abandonment of women after gang raping them which continues till today in every
war. Islamic wars were the only wars in history in which no
woman was publicly humiliated by stripping and gang raping and abandoning her
thereafter. The woman slave was never shared between men and although her owner
had sexual rights, he could not ill-treat her and had to take good care of her,
feeding her the same food that he ate. Children born to the women were born
free and if the woman who had borne her master’s children was not given freedom
by her master, she automatically became a free woman on his death.
I expected that once this layer of darkness was removed, Mr
Yunus would realize his error and back off but he did not.
Layer 2 :
The layer 2 of darkness was the misinterpretation of the
verses of the Quran on account of cognitive bias that can be attributed to
layer 1 of darkness. I wrote the article
which leaves no room for doubt as to the correct interpretation. I definitely
expected Mr Yunus at this stage to accept that he had erred.
Layer 3 :
Sometimes people convince themselves through their own false
arguments. I did not rebut his article until I had removed the first two layers
of darkness giving him ample opportunity to back off rather than subject his
article to a point by point rebuttal. Anybody can see how feeble his arguments
are. His article which stood on the foundation of loose sand, crumbled. Since
it took me sometime to clear the first two layers of darkness, Yunus sb assumed
that his arguments in the article were unassailable and I had no answer. This is
what he said “Why don't you take the trouble to read the article and the
dlaael (arguments) it furnishes rather than dismissing it as one bent on
denying the truth that is presented in a clear and irrefutable manner, for
which the Qur'an uses the word kafir”. Now that I have demolished all his
arguments, he has fallen back on ‘his duly authenticated book’ refrain.
Since Mr Yunus still persists with his errors, this layer is
his own ego which Allah alone can remove and I am helpless beyond a point. May
Allah grant him the wisdom to realize his errors and correct himself. Islam,
the Prophet (pbuh) and the Quran should not be shown disrespect by misrepresenting
Morality is not what the majority think is moral or immoral.
Our concepts of morality change with the times just like fashions do. Morality
is what promotes maximum good and who can know this better than God? If rape
was not a feature of every war (including wars for liberation and wars to win
the ‘hearts and minds’ of the people), I would have had no hesitation in
accepting that allowing sex with female captives was immoral. However, facts
only confirm that the word of God cannot be found fault with even today.
The Quran encourages freeing of slaves, warns against burdening
them with work that exceeds their capacity, and asks the Muslims to share the work
with them. It also mandates allowing them to buy their own freedom and helping
them with charity to purchase their freedom. As far as slavery other than sex
slavery as a consequence of war is concerned, it is made irrelevant today.
Slavery represented muscle power. Power from fossil fuel and other sources is a
thousand times cheaper than muscle power which makes slavery an uneconomic
proposition besides being morally untenable and unconscionable and permissible
only as a lesser of two evils.
Mr Yunus has been dishonest in his arguments. Let him point out where I have relied on Sharia Laws for interpretation. I have not even relied on any authority or hadith but simply on a rigorous analysis of the plain text of the message. Read my article once again Mr Yunus and learn how to systematically go about establishing the meaning of any verse beyond doubt.
Mr Yunus however dragged in Zakir Naik, fatwas, Sharia Laws, Imrana case, Ahle Hadeesis and what not in his bid to malign.
The reason why Mr Yunus is uanble to see the truth is because he worships modern western values and is engaged in a project to reinterpret the Quran in the light of these values. Religion for him has passed the 'theological phase' and obeisance must be paid to the modern western values. If he thinks he is serving the cause of Islam by doing so, who am I to stop him. My own conviction is that once our focus shifts from Allah as the source of all wisdom, we are on the path that leads us astray. The truth then gets covered in multiple layers of darkness and we can no longer see it. I pray that Mr Yunus will find his way back again to the straight path.
You clutched at the straws that Ghaus Sb flung at you and tried
to run away. Ghaus Sb is unable to defend what he said. Please respond to my
point by point rebuttal of your article:
Yunus says in his article :
“If the Prophet or the Qur'an were to give any extra
institutional sexual license to men, the pagan Arabs would have unquestionably
charged him for this. …..But not one single word did they utter that pointed,
even remotely, to his sanctioning of any form of sexual license.”
And in his comment Yunus says:
“The verse 23:5/6 and 70:29/30 you are repeatedly quoting date
from an early Meccan period when sex slavery was normative and one would read
the particle 'awe' (if you understand Arabic) in its normal usage as an option.
So the verses and their traditional translations were context specific.”
My Response: Isn’t Mr Yunus contradicting himself? And if
yes, then he has lied deliberately in his article.
If sex slavery was normative (which I agree that it was) why the
“pagan Arabs would have unquestionably charged the Prophet (pbuh) with giving
extra institutional sexual license to men”?
And if 23:5/6 and 70:29/30 are early Meccan verses granting the option of sex
with slaves then what does Yunus consider to be the “extra institutional sexual
license to men” which is not there in the verses because of which “the pagan Arabs
did not utter a single word that pointed even remotely, to his sanctioning of
any form of sexual license” ? Yes of course sex with slave is an option and not
a religious duty so why wouldn’t `aw’ be used?
Point 2: Yunus has also said in his article that the verse 23:5/6 and
70:29/30 are gender neutral. The verses are not gender neutral. Anyone can
check the same using the following link which provides for a word by word
translation giving all grammatical details of each word used.
does Yusuf Ali whom Mr Yunus has quoted in the article use gender neutral
language. Is Mr Yunus suggesting that the ladies had the option of not guarding
their chastity from their male slaves? Specifically, Muminiun is masculine and
Muminat is feminine and the verse addresses the Muminun. From context, it is
possible that Muminun may refer to both males and females but that is not the
case here. Moreover, look up 24:3 which is about adultery and applies to
both male and female but there is no implied gender neutral language. Male
adulterer and Female adulteress have been addressed separately.
Further, Mr Yunus argues that the rendition of ‘awe’ in 23:6/
70:30 which equates spouse with Ma Malakat Ayman, by
mistranslating ‘awe’ as `that is’ instead of correctly ‘or’ is consistent
with the usage of the particle ‘awe’ in the verse 25:62.
Asad has mistranslated in 25:62 as well and equated zikr with
shukr which everyone knows is incorrect. Mr Yunus is trying to support one
error with another obvious error!
Yunus says: “The traditional interpretation of Ma
Malakat Ae’man invoking an institution of slavery in the biblical or
historical sense is totally misleading as expounded in the main body of this
My response: There are 14 occurrences of the expression and
in each occurrence it is unmistakably referring to slave. I give one instance
as an example. Every verse that contains the expression is cited in my article:
(4:36) Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do
good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near,
neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye
meet), and what your right hands possess: (ma malakat aimanukum ) For Allah loveth
not the arrogant, the vainglorious;-
Please note the order in which the command to do good is
2. Kinsfolk 3. Orphans 4. Those in need 5 near neighbours 6 far neighbours 7
companions or friends 8. The wayfarer and 9. ma malakat aimanukum or your slaves
The wife is clearly included in kinsfolk and cannot be
part of ma malakat aimanukum. The slaves are listed last after ‘the wayfarer’.
Point No 5:
Yunus says: “The passages date
from the early Meccan period when Muslims were ‘just a few in number, weak and
helpless in the land, and were afraid that their enemies might oppress and
kidnap them’ (8:26). Accordingly, the Meccan Suras are full of exhortations for
patience and self-restraint and it is least likely that the Qur’an would grant
a sexual license at this stage except to mandate what was prevalent at that
point in time – when marriage laws were a decade away”.
My Response: Yunus could be right. However slavery
preexisted Islam and the verses clarified that a person should guard his
chastity from all except from his wives or from his female slaves. I hope that
Yunus is not implying that slavery was an Islamic invention and there were no
slaves in the early Meccan period and they came only through the wars. Although
I have justified sex with female war captives on the basis that this effectively
prevented the abandoning of women to their fate after gang raping them, God does not have to wait until wars to make
Point no 6: Yunus says:
In a different plane, unlike the legal codes that preceded it,
and succeeded it for over a millennium, the Qur’an does not enact any separate
civil law or code for the slaves or the ma Malakat Ayman class. The Qur’an does,
however, refer to slavery in the context of the past or even prevalent
traditions, but its civil, commercial, inheritance and family laws are for all
believers, without any reference to their being freeborn or slaves.
The punishment to a female slave for the sin/crime of
adultery is half of that of a free person. As far as inheritance laws go, if
the slave woman bears children, the children are born free and inherit the
property of their father like his other children. If the slave woman is freed
and married, she inherits as a wife; else she gains her freedom on the death of
For Ghulam Ghaus to
respond to the Tafsir by Ala Hazrat Raza Ahmed Khan.
The Quranic expression
is 'ma malakat aimanukum' which simply means a "slave whom one legally
owns and possesses". The Quranic expression does not express anything like
'believing or disbelieving slave'. That is something Ala Hazzrat has added on
his own and is included in his urdu tafseer also. Please keep in mind that a
Muslim is allowed to marry only a believing woman. So if Ala Hazrat says that
the ‘wives of disbelievers who come into your possession as bondwomen’ are permissible,
he does not even remotely mean allowed through marriage!
Nisa 4:24] And all
married women are forbidden for you except the wives of disbelievers who come
into your possession as bondwomen; this is Allah’s decree for you; and other
than these, all women are lawful for you so that you seek them in exchange of
your wealth in proper wedlock, not adultery; therefore give the women you wish
to marry, their appointed bridal money; and after the appointment (of bridal
money) there is no sin on you if you come to a mutual agreement; indeed Allah
is All Knowing, Wise.
[Mominun 23:05] And who guard their private organs.
[Mominun 23:06] Except from their
wives or the legal (sharia) bondwomen that they possess, for then there is no
blame upon them.
Mominun 23:07] So whoever desires
more than these two - they are crossing the limits.
[Maa`rij 70:29] And those who protect their private organs
[Maa`rij 70:30] Except with their
wives and the bondwomen in their possession, for there is no reproach on them.
[Maa`rij 70:31] So those who desire
more than this – it is they who are the transgressors.
[Ahzab 33:50] O Herald of the Hidden! We have indeed made
lawful for you the wives to whom you have paid their bridal money, and the
bondwomen you possess whom Allah gave you as war booty, and the daughters of
your paternal uncles, and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the
daughters of your maternal uncles, and the daughters of your maternal aunts,
those who migrated with you; and the believing woman if she gifts her life to
the Prophet, if the Prophet desires to take her in marriage; this is
exclusively for you, not for your followers; We indeed know what We have
enjoined upon the Muslims concerning their wives and the bondwomen they possess
– this exclusivity for you is so that you may not have constraints; and Allah
is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.
[Ahzab 33:52] Other women are not
permitted for you after these, nor that you change them for other wives even if
their beauty pleases you except the bondwomen whom you possess; and Allah is
the Guardian over all things.
Reposting comment on 4:25 for your
Now let us look at 4:25 on which
Asad, Tabari and Razi and now Gahus Sbmostly
base their interpretation. The verse talks about marriage. It says:
Marry a free woman if you can afford the dower
If you cannot afford the dower for a free woman, marry a believing slave you
If you are so poor that you can neither marry a free woman nor own a female
slave, then marry someone else’s believing slave woman with the permission of
the owner. Marrying of the slave of another person must however be for
honorable purpose and not for satisfying lust.
The verse anticipates that this
permission to allow the marriage of one’s slave to another person could be
misused and therefore the stress is on chastity and seeking an honorable and
open relationship without secrecy and not amounting to taking a paramour.
Without this caution, the permission could be turned into license/prostitution.
The slave woman continues to be the ‘malakat’ or property of her master while
married to a third person who gets only conjugal rights and enjoys the same
with the permission of the master of the slave woman. Also presumably, the
master can keep the dower. We can therefore easily see that this permission
could be easily into prostitution with a series of marriages and divorces. The
person is therefore advised that restraint is better than seeking the last
option of marrying someone else’s slave which may be resorted to only when
there is fear of otherwise falling into sin. Clearly this verse is discouraging
marriage to a female who is someone else slave.
This verse is clearly advising Muslims to marry since marriage saves them from
the sin of engaging in illicit sex and the various options are listed out. It
is not about slaves who are only incidental to the advice on marriage as the
less preferred option when a person cannot marry a free woman. This verse
cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as saying that sexual
relationship with slaves is permissible only under contract of marriage and
overrides 23:5/6 etc which is what Asad and others have done. Even if we accept
the argument of Asad etc for a moment, the question that begs itself is ‘if
marriage with non-believers is impermissible, was sex with such slaves
permissible?” The clear answer is yes since 4:25 talks about marrying a
believing slave only. Nowhere in this verse or in any other verse is there a
prohibition on sex with own slave without marriage.
“The passages date from the early Meccan period when Muslims were ‘just a few in number, weak and helpless in the land, and were afraid that their enemies might oppress and kidnap them’ (8:26). Accordingly, the Meccan Suras are full of exhortations for patience and self-restraint and it is least likely that the Qur’an would grant a sexual license at this stage except to mandate what was prevalent at that point in time – when marriage laws were a decade away”.
Yunus could be right. However slavery preexisted Islam and the verses clarified that a person should guard his chastity from all except from his wives or from his female slaves. I hope that Yunus is not implying that slavery was an Islamic invention and there were no slaves in the early Meccan period and they came only through the wars.
Dear Observer,If you want to refute my article re Abolition of Slavery in Islam, then you have to clearly point out which of its statement is flawed. You have written this article (above) to present an interpretation of two identical verses 23:5/6 and 70:29/30. They date from an early Meccan period. That was a time when the Muslims were oppressed and persecuted and there was no question at all of their taking any war captives. In fact you ought to know that there is no report of any armed encounter, let alone war in the Meccan period. Besides, the major wars of the Medinite period were fought in battlefields and the Qur'anic glimpses on these wars as covered in my article referenced below give no indication whatsoever of the capture of any female captive. Therefore, it appears, by insisting that the verses 23:5/6 and & 70:29/30 allow sex with female captives, slaves even after the abolition of sex without marriage about a decade later, you are bent on establishing the classical sharia law ruling on slavery. My take on the passages that contain these verse is spelled out in my comment to Gholam Muhiuddin Sahab, below that reads as follows (copy pasted):"But once the
marriage laws were introduced, the notion of maa malakat aeman will
overlap with that of spouse. This is how at least three of the most
distinguished exegetes al-Tabari, al-Razi and Muhammad Asad have done. It
is important to bear in mind the timing and the context of the
revelation and the nuances of the Arabic. Thus, its second person
masculine plural form in Assalam u alaikum for example represents the
feminine form as well. We do not say to a Muslim woman, Assalam u
alihunna (technically a feminine form) We use common masculine form for
both the genders. So the expression 'azwajkum' is gender neutral as
rendered in my rendition tabled in my article re Abolition of Slavery in
Islam. Thus, the passages 23:5/6 and 70:29/30 are addressed to common
humanity and believers as indicated in the opening address of the
passages in which they appear that are rendered as follows in my jt.
will indeed succeed (23:1): those who are humble in their prayer (2), who avoid
foul talk (3), who are active in charity (zakah) (4), and who preserve their private parts (furujah)* (5) - except from their spouses,
those under their lawful trust - and then (they are) not blame worthy" (23:6) “Man (insan)
has been created restless (70:19). He is panicky when evil befalls him (20) and
ungrateful when something good happens to him (21), except the prayerful (22):
those who are regular in prayer (23), and in whose wealth, there is a definite
right for (24) the beggar and the destitute (25); and who affirm the (truth of)
the Day of Judgment (26); and who fear the punishment of their Lord (27) - for
indeed none should feel secure from their Lord’s punishment (28); and who
preserve their private parts (furujah)*
(29) - except from their spouses (azwaj), that is (awe) those under their lawful trust (ma
malakat ayman), and then (they are) not blame
worthy" (70:30). Re, Ch. 19.1 The truth is, any restrictive interpretation of these verses (23:5/6; 70:29/30) for
battlefield or realities of war detracts from the universal,
expansive and holistic message of the Qur'an, and is patently untenable - a stark denial of truth - a kufr - though God knows best. Re: The
Radical Intelligentsia of Islam and Its Orthodox Ulema Are the ‘Hypocrites’ and
‘Nomadic Arabs Intense In Kufr’ Of This Era: They Are Its Twin Internal
Enemies, and Must Be Resisted