📜 What Do the Qur’anic Verses Say?

➤ Qur’an 4:24

“And [forbidden to you are] married women except those your right hands possess...”
This verse permits sex with slave women even if they are married — a clear departure from the otherwise strict ban on adultery.

➤ Qur’an 33:50

“O Prophet, We have made lawful to you… those whom your right hand possesses from what Allah has given you as captives of war…”
This is addressed to Muhammad directly, confirming he was permitted to have sex with female war captives (concubines).

➤ Qur’an 23:5–6 & 70:29–30

“…those who guard their chastity, except from their wives or those their right hands possess…”
Again, concubinage is explicitly mentioned as a lawful sexual outlet — alongside marriage.

---

🏛️ Did Muhammad Practice Concubinage?

Yes. According to Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ibn Ishaq, and other primary sources:

• Muhammad had a concubine named Maria al-Qibtiyya, gifted to him by the Egyptian ruler.

• He had sexual relations with Safiyyah bint Huyayy, a war captive taken after her tribe was defeated and her family killed.

• Concubinage was widespread among his companions and institutionalized in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh).

These acts were not considered sinful. In fact, they were codified into Islamic law and practice.

---

🧩 What Does That Mean Logically?

Let’s apply strict logic:

Premise 1:

Rape is defined as sexual intercourse without the voluntary consent of the other party.

Premise 2:

Slaves (by definition) do not possess legal autonomy to give or withhold consent. They are property in Islamic jurisprudence (milk al-yamin).

Premise 3:

Islam permitted men to have sex with female slaves whom they owned — without requiring marriage or any indication of consent.

Conclusion:

Islam logically permitted rape, since it allowed non-consensual sex with enslaved women.

This was not accidental or later distortion — it is rooted in the Qur’an and Muhammad's own behavior.

---

⚖️ Objections & Rebuttals

❌ Objection: "But consent was implied or encouraged."

Rebuttal:
There is no evidence in the Qur’an or hadiths that consent of slave women was required. Islamic law explicitly allowed a master to have sex with his slave regardless of her will.

---

❌ Objection: "It wasn’t considered rape back then."

Rebuttal:
Correct. In 7th-century Arabia, it wasn’t called rape — but changing terminology doesn't alter moral reality. By modern standards and ethical definitions, sex without consent = rape.

---

❌ Objection: "This was part of a different historical context."

Rebuttal:
Then Islamic teachings are time-bound and not universal. If morality changes based on time, then the Qur’an is not eternal or universally valid.

---

🧠 Final Logical Summary

• The Qur’an permits sex with female slaves.

• Slaves cannot consent under coercion or ownership.

• Therefore, Islam sanctioned non-consensual sex.

• Non-consensual sex is rape by modern standards.

• Ergo, Islam permitted rape — specifically institutional rape via concubinage.

Any attempt to deny this requires either:

• Redefining rape,

• Redefining slavery,

• Denying Qur’anic verses,

• Or rejecting Muhammad's documented behavior.

There is no logical way to reconcile the Islamic institution of concubinage with a modern ethical rejection of rape unless one admits the Qur’anic text and prophetic example are morally flawed or historically bound.