Who are women whom your right hand possess

[understanding the truth]

The quran states in many verses that men are allowed to see/handle women whom their right hand possess.
Who are these women, many non muslims have interperated them as being concubines? do they still exsist in our society

[sumuque]

Right Hand possess women are Slaves Girls which a Muslim Man can own, its allowed and many Quranic reference can be presented as evidences to confirm it.

"04:24 Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever AllKnowing, AllWise"

23:5-6 And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts); Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame;

And there are other examples too. Its lawful to for Muslims to have sexual acts with their slaves girls. Now main argument against this, presented by Muslims is that it was meant for war times and it was the custom of Arabia in 7th CE, but I don't think that these verses are saying any where anything like this. These are general commands for Muslims to observe, in recent history, Pakistani Army during the time of 1971 war was accused to raped Bangali women, thinking that they are legal war captives. Its not surprise to note that you may find even today in some Islamic states like Saudi Arabia, people having sex with their maids..

The subject is clear from the Quranic point of view, however as you can expect Modern Muslims have a problem accepting some of its legal and moral implications.

Peace

[naderM]

Right Hand possess women are Slaves Girls which a Muslim Man can own

Ma malakat aymanykum, wrongly translated as "right hand" posession has nothing to do with slavery or fornication, as ill prove using the Quran.

-Prisoners of war = Asraa or asira (plural) 8:67,76:8
-Slave = Abdan (Mamluka) 16:75,24:32,2:221, imaakum 24:32 or ammah (singular) 2:221, abid to mean slave(s) of Allah
-YOUR OATHS = Aymanikum 2:224,225,5:89,16:92,94,66:2 THEIR OATHS = Aymanihim 5:108,6:109,16:38,24:53,35:42
-right hand = Maimanah 56:8,90:18 or Yamin 17:71,20:17,56:27,38:90-91,74:39

the Quran NEVER EVER uses the word AYMANIKUM to refer to the RIGHT HANDS but always and exclusively for YOUR OATHS.

Ma Malakat aymanikum (lit. "whom your oaths posess" wrongly translated as right hand possession) is a phrase used for the poor humans whom an oath has been pledged to be taken care of. They are not necessarly prisonners of wars but can be if one wishes to take under his special care (under oath) a war prisonner, ie raising his/her status.
In 33:50, the prophet is told that among the categories of women lawful for marriage are Ma Malakat yaminuka (singular) FROM AMONG the prisonners of wars, which proves they are a seperate group from war prisonners. Further in 33:55, the prophet's wives are not blamed for not wearing the veil in the presence of certain groups, including Ma Malakat aymanikum and this again excludes regular war prisonners. Or in 24:58 setting the limits of privacy inside a home between an adult and the rest of his/her household, including Ma Malakat aymanikum who cannot logically be war prisonners. In the context of marriage, they are also mentionned seperately than regular male/female slaves 24:32-33.
Ma malakat aymanikum are therefore some special people in society, weak and unable to provide for themselves. They might have families but are very poor to take care of them, Islam encourages a wealthy/capable believer to take them under his/her wing through an oath that he/she will provide for them.

16:71,4:33,24:33 remind the people of the moral obligation of sharing from what Allah has given them with the weak and poor, including Ma Malakat aymanikum. Then 4:36 clearly explains that the oath takers must provide Ma Malakat aymanikum i.e. those poor humans in our care under oath, equitably with everyone else "And serve Allah and do not associate any thing with Him and be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbour of (your) kin and the alien neighbour, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and Ma Malakat aymanikum; surely Allah does not love him who is proud, boastful".

No sexual relation (fornication) is allowed with them outside of wedlock 4:3,24:33.
This is emphasized again in 4:25"And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) ma malakat aymanikum from among your believing fatayaat (young women); and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters (ahlihuna), and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; and when they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil; and that you abstain is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful", the believer is told to marry Ma Malakat aymanikum if he cannot sustain a free (financially) believing woman, and he has to take the consent of her family (ahlihuna wrongly translated as masters or owners). Ma Malakat aymanikum must be given their dowries justly and in case they commit an indecency they will have half the punishment of the self sustained women, and if one abstains from punishement altogether and is patient with them it is better, due to their past hardships that may have affected their common sense and judgement.

"04:24 Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess

Its lawful to for Muslims to have sexual acts with their slaves girls.

Ma Malakat aymanikum has nothing to do with slavery or unlawful sex as i showed above, now this verse you brought expands on the categories of women unlawful for marriage such as mothers, daughters, sisters etc as well as all married women and the Quran makes an exception that already married Ma Malakat aymanikum are lawful for marriage. This exception comes under very special circumstances explained through 60:10, where we are told that if a believing married woman deserts her unbelieving husband and comes to seek protection and shelter in a Muslim household, she must not be turned back to her previous home and a Muslim man in this household may take her under his wing as Ma Malakat aymanikum, taking an oath to provide for her. If he wishes to marry her later (with hers and her family's consent) he must pay back the dowry to her initial husband, hence annuling the previous marriage.

[sumuque]

Dear NaderM

Thanks for your reply.

"the Quran NEVER EVER uses the word AYMANIKUM to refer to the RIGHT HANDS but always and exclusively for YOUR OATHS"

You came up with something new and its quite interesting to read. However, I am afraid you are just trying to avoid the clear evidence and then indirectly what Quran says and how it was understood so far.

If we look Muhammad and attitude towards captives slaves, then the matter is clear like the day light, for your reference here are few Hadiths from Sahi Bukhari

"Volume 8, Book 77, Number 600:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

That while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get slave girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?" Allah's Apostle said, "Do you do that? It is better for you not to do it, for there is no soul which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created."

so if the war captives are not "Right hand possess" what kind of women they were mentioned in this Hadith ?

"Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist." "

Let me tell you NaderM, that what you are saying is not what your other Muslim Brothers says, what is this ? Just another interpretation among Million other interpretations ?

Your objection is "Right hand possess" lets see some of the "scholars" on this issue to clear this finally for you.

"16:71 And Allah has preferred some of you above others in wealth and properties. Then, those who are preferred will by no means hand over their wealth and properties to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Do they then deny the Favour of Allah?"

First see what Allah is actually telling us. He actually made some people to be slaved or owned by others, this is their destiny, instead of making them all equal, he admitted that yes, there are people who are to be take as their right hand possess, what a justice, any how lets see the Tafsirs of this verse;

Jalaludding Suyuti said;

"And God has favoured some of you above others in [respect of] provision, thus, some of you are poor, some are rich, some owners, others are owned. Now those who have been [more] favoured, namely, the masters, would not hand over their provision to those [slaves] whom their right hands possess, that is, they would not assign that wealth and other things which We have given them as something to be shared [equally] between them and their slaves, so that they, that is, the slaves and [their] masters, become equal, partners, in respect thereof. The meaning is: they do not have partners from among their slaves in respect of their wealth, so how can they make certain of God’s servants partners of His? Is it then the grace of God that they deny?, [that] they reject, when they ascribe partners to Him?"


pretty clear haan..? now lets see Ibn Abbas injections on it.

"(And Allah hath favoured some of you above others in provision) this verse was revealed about the delegation of Najran who claimed that Jesus was the son of Allah. So Allah revealed this verse to tell people that He has favoured some people to the exclusion of others in relation to the possession of wealth and servants. (Now those who are more favoured) with wealth and servants (will by no means hand over their provision to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they) i.e. the master and the slave (may be equal with them in respect thereof) about wealth. They said: “We will not do so nor are we happy about this”, and so Allah said: (Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny?) Do you like for Me what you do not like for yourselves, and thus deny the Oneness of Allah?"

Now you should ask yourself a question, if Allah is sanctioning you a right to own a slave, why you are in a mood to reject it ? Logically speaking you do not like to be a slave, so you reject this idea that you should own a slave !! When you rationality does not accept this inhuman concept, then how can you accept such things in Quran ?

I can give you more example, but I think above mentioned is enough to establish the case of right hand possess.

[naderM]

im gonna make somethjing very clear to you.

-do NOT bring me the hadith of men to counter the hadith of Allah

its obvious you have no argument against anything i said so now, you're just indulging in popular appeal. i didnt even read your quotes, why should i when i have the words of Allah in front of me.

also, i clearly explained how the phrase ma malakat aymanikum has nothing whatsoever to do with illegal sex, or slavery so why do you bring me a verse where you add the word slaves before ma malakat aymanikum?
i already cited 16:71 and explained you how this verse reminds us of the moral obligation of sharing from our wealth with ma malakat aymanikum, those whom your OATHS possess. tell me, how can you logically say that ma malakat aymanikum are slaves or war captives when the Quran is giving us the ORDER of sharing from our wealth with them?
these people are clearly, a category of men/women whom an oath has been taken to be provided for.

[aamantubillah]

We read:

The phrase "to share their sustenance with.. .", etc., reads, literally, "to turn over their sustenance to". The expression "those whom their right hands possess" (i.e., "those whom they rightfully possess") may relate either to slaves taken captive in a war in God's cause (see surah 2, notes 167 and 168, and surah 8, note 72) or, metonymically, to all who are dependent on others for their livelihood and thus become the latters' responsibility. The placing of one's dependants on an equal footing with oneself with regard to the basic necessities of life is a categorical demand of Islam; thus, the Prophet said: "They are your brethren, these dependants of yours (khawalukum) whom God has placed under your authority [lit., "under your hand"]. Hence, whoso has his brother under his authority shall give him to eat of what he eats himself, and shall clothe him with what he clothes himself. And do not burden them with anything that may be beyond their strength; but if you [must] burden them, help them yourselves." (This authentic Tradition, recorded by Bukhari in several variants in his Sahih, appears in the compilations of Muslim, Tirmidhi and Ibn Hanbalas well.) However, men often fail to live up to this consciousness of moral responsibility: and this failure amounts, as the sequence shows, to a denial of God's blessings and of His unceasing care for all His creatures.(Quran Ref: 16:71 )

The excerpt above, to my knowledge, is in support of the position of Nader.

[sumuque]

Dear NaderM

Are you saying you deny the Hadiths ? I understand your position and trouble as they do not give you a point on which you can put your legs to stand on! however, what you are saying is merely an attempt to re-write the history of Islam and to avoid the logical consequences.

"its obvious you have no argument against anything i said so now, you're just indulging in popular appeal. i didnt even read your quotes, why should i when i have the words of Allah in front of me"

Perhaps you should do this. It will help you to see the world around you. The real world. You want to read the words of Allah, just like your other Brother in Islam wanted to read when they translated and interpreted these verses with totally different opinions. Have you ever thought about why did they do that ? You think you are some how a better Muslim then the scholars of Islam ?

By the way, the history of Islam and Majority of Islamic scholars agree that these verses do support the notion that a Muslim can own slaves and its legal for them to have sex with them. The only prove you can bring against this is to completely deny it, its up to you.

[aamantubillah]

Sumuque, with all due respect, I think your going in cirlces. He has explained in detail a response to what you have said, but instead of refuting his points you ask if he's disagreeing with scholars. Its one thing to refute a person but its another thing to throw needless quasi-ad hominoms like "you have no legs to stand on". In my opinion, I believe anyone who were to make such a statement should follow it with an example of WHY they have no leg to stand on. I'm sure this comment of mine will be of no good in redirecting your method of approach to his response, but its worth noting.

On a side note, scholars can make mistakes and there are errors in Hadith. We are all human and scholars are no special angels who are sinless. A scholars opinion need not necessarily be a representation of Islam or Quran. If a scholar's opinion disagrees with the Quran, its HIS opinion that is incorrect, not the Quran. I think you should understand the priorities when it comes to Muslims. In terms of weight it goes Quran, Sunnah, and Hadith that dont contradiction the Sunnah or Quran.

Again, if a scholar disagrees with the Quran, its the scholar that is wrong, not the Quran. The words of God, who has no son and who was not resurrected, take presidence over the words of men as Nader has stated.

hope this helps

[sumuque]

Dear Amant..

Thanks for your reply. You think I am going in circles, it may appear to you, however the point I am making is simple to understand. You are a Muslim and you see from a certain perspectives, I am a neutral person and I see whole Muslim Ummah differently. Now you want me to accept a certain opinion based on what ? Because He said so! You are asking me to accept his opinion and reject others who may have more knowledge then him.

Have you noticed that confusion here ? Do I have a right to ask him why He is right and why others are wrong ? Lets put it simple, lets say I am no scholar of Islam what so ever, right, just for second consider this, I came here to ask few question, I got one from him, I went on and searched the work of other scholars and I found them totally opposing his theories ? what should one do in this situation ?

you are saying that scholars can make mistakes, right, what about the fact that NaderM can make a mistake ? what make you belief Him then these scholars ?

Generally speaking with out any offense, you pay more attention to the work of Scholars, that is why they are their, to explain facts about Islam. You are asking me to reject them. I do not see anything wrong in it. All I am asking him or from you to explain me on what basis they are wrong.

Peace

[aamantubillah]

I now regret making that post because it serves as more ammunition for you to use to derail the topic at hand. I wont bother answering your questions because of my inability to honestly care, but I would like to see your response to the points he made...and now sir/madaam, the floor is yours...

[naderM]

Are you saying you deny the Hadiths ?

im not denying anything, im doing exactly what Allah told me to do by following the best hadith divinely protected till the end of times.

39:23"Allah has revealed the best HADITH, a book conformable in its various parts, repeating, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts become pliant to the remembrance of Allah; this is Allah's guidance, He guides with it whom He pleases; and (as for) him whom Allah makes err, there is no guide for him".

and concerning the various hearsay hadith and traditions, again im doing exactly what Allah told me to do by using my brains (ulu-l Albab means “those who have brains”) and reflecting over them, following only the best and discarding anything that contradicts the Quran or common sense in the slightest

39:18"Those who listen to the word (qawl or saying), then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding (ulu-l Albab)".

[sumuque]

What you meant with Best Divinely protected Hadiths ? You wanna say you only follow Quran and that is it ? You don't belief what was written in Sahi Bukhari/Muslim etc ?

Sure in order to avoid problems one can simply reject half of the Islamic history, very easy and clean. However you are not even following Quran properly ! You are doing things which are not mentioned in Quran rather in Hadiths, lets give you an example, you know Allah order you to pray only two or three times in Quran ? Why are you offering prayers then five times ? Where is this information in Quran, the so called divinely protected Hadith ?

"33:42 and praise Him morning and evening."

"30:17 So glory be to Allah when ye enter the night and when ye enter the morning"

"17:78 Observe prayer at sunset, till the first darkening of the night, and the daybreak reading - for the daybreak reading hath its witnesses"

For you who strictly follow the Best divinely protected Haditsh, these are pretty clear words ? so why you are offering five prayers ?

About your injections on

39:18"Those who listen to the word (qawl or saying), then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding (ulu-l Albab)"

who made you think that he was talking about you ? May be its other way round, who knows.

My dear NaderM, the matter of Right Hand possess is very clear from the Islamic History, I gave you couple of Hadiths in which Muhammad was clearly sanctioning the use of illegal sexual conduct of His companions, you read clearly they were all slave captives from war, all they were worry, how to act sexually ? I understand your reasons for dismissing these Haditsh, they give you a bad feeling about Muhammad and his conducts, but yet you are not ready to reject the Idea that it may well been be truth. You wanted to find a way out so you decided to dismiss Hadiths. Very convincing indeed !

What you have done is all Muslim apologist usually do, they invent all the new meanings of verses which suits them. You like me to belief that Right Hand possession does not mean slaves, rather ones who are under your oaths ? You may not be aware of the Quranic language then, many places Allah used strange and confusing language, but you have to see the logic and the time of these verses and society these things were revealed, Muhammad was born in Jahiliya and Jahiliya custom was full of fairy tales and slavery and things like these. What kind of concept I should find in 7th CE, will I am going to see Slavery and people owned by rich, or your theory of So called honorable people under so called Oath ?

Lets put your theory in a simple Quranic test, lets assume what you said in your interpretation was correct, it mean every thing what was mentioned in Quran is literal and we have to be literal in while translating Quranic verses, would you then kindly expalin me following fairy tale from Quran ?

"27:82 And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with assurance in Our Signs."

Now I am using your logic strictly here and I hope you will be doing justice while explaining the the above mentioned verse ? Allah will produce a Beast from the Earth ? which will going to talk/speak with Humans ? in future ? we have not see any sort of incident yet so I am guessing it will going to happened in future ? Please use your strict logic here and explain us the above.

Peace

[naderM]

keep dancing around the night fire like a red indian. the fact is, you stepped into unknown territory and thought you could inject some doubts but you quickly got overwhelmed.
this is gonna be my last post to you, if you dont bring each and every verse i quoted in my original post and prove them wrong using other verses from the Quran or using the arabic language to counter my claim regarding the clear contextual, and LITERAL meaning of ma malakat aymanikum as those whom your OATHS possess.

[sumuque]

"keep dancing around the night fire like a red indian. the fact is, you stepped into unknown territory and thought you could inject some doubts but you quickly got overwhelmed"

Hahahahaha........ sure I will keep doing this.. Thanks for you tip. For your other accusations that I got "overwhelmed".. I have to disappoint you one more time, you just have to look on your silly statements you made and associated with Quran and with Allah. He may not be very happy with you. The matter of fact is that your "Tafsir" is just one among Millions of Tafsirs spreaded around. One Brick Mosque..

"this is gonna be my last post to you, if you dont bring each and every verse i quoted in my original post and prove them wrong using other verses from the Quran or using the arabic language to counter my claim regarding the clear contextual, and LITERAL meaning of ma malakat aymanikum as those whom your OATHS possess"

Dear NaderM this is the most wise decision you have made so far, I fully agree with you, its beyond your comprehension so better stay off. I am amazed with the level of intelligence and wisdom you showed in just one small paragraph, wonderful and I really appreciated. However for others, who are just keen to know what just happened please read the theory Mr. NaderM brought up that Quran should be translated literally in order to understand it. He forgot though that Allah himself made his life difficult in 3:7 where he said that part of Quran will never be understood by people.. and some of the Quran is literal and some of its "Metaphorical" !!

But please do pay attention to the verses quoted and try to use Mr. NaderM's theory a valid chance, try to find literal meanings of each and every thing presented in Quran, may your Allah be with you.