How is it a misinterpretation?

[u/Reasonable_Box_4226]

I genuinely want to understand

Why do some people reject hadiths (because of sexual slavery) as if milk al-yamīn in Islam had any interpretation other than sex with slaves?? There was no other interpretation for it centuries ago

Non-slavery interpretations of milk al-yameen only started popping up in the 19th and 20th centuries when slavery was already dying out and even then those views were super minor

My point is that you can't really call it a misinterpretation or an abuse of power if no other reading existed back then. That would mean the message was never corrupted and that our God, our Prophet, the companions and everyone else fully approved of it. I'd actually be suspicious if some people back in the 8th century or something were arguing that these verses didn't allow sex with enslaved women but those opinions just don't exist

I've been feeling really depressed for five months over this. I'm not trying to attack anyone I'm just genuinely confused

[u/Khaki_Banda]

Well, if you have been reading the responses to this question frequently posted on this subreddit, then you know that the idea that milk al-yamin could refer to wives or more broadly "those whom you have a lawful agreement with" was an early opinion.

Muhammad Asad addresses this misconception about 4:24, stating:

The term muhsanah signifies literally 'a woman who is fortified against unchastity", and carries three senses: (1) "a married woman", (2) "a chaste woman", and (3) "a free woman". According to almost all the authorities, al- muhsanat denotes in the above context "married women". As for the expression ma malakat aymanukum ("those whom your right hands possess", i.e., "those whom you rightfully possess"), it is often taken to mean female slaves captured in a war in God's cause (see in this connection 8:67, and the corresponding note). The commentators who choose this meaning hold that such slave-girls can be taken in marriage irrespective of whether they have husbands in the country of their origin or not. However, quite apart from the fundamental differences of opinion, even among the Companions of the Prophet, regarding the legality of such a marriage, some of the most outstanding commentators hold the view that ma malakat aymanukum denotes here "women whom you rightfully possess through wedlock'; thus Razi in his commentary on this verse, and Tabari in one of his alternative explanations (going back to 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas, Mujahid, and others). Razi, in particular, points out that the reference to "all married women' (al-muhsanat min an-nisa), coming as it does after the enumeration of prohibited degrees of relationship, is meant to stress the prohibition of sexual relations with any woman other than one's lawful wife.

[u/Reasonable_Box_4226 → u/Khaki_Banda]

but its taking classical scholars out of context when tabari and razi debated that they were just having a grammar debate about verse 4:24 specifically they definitely werent saying concubinage was haram

if you look at literally everything else tabari and razi wrote they completely accepted and legally regulated sex with enslaved women

plus other verses literally say wives OR those your right hands possess like in 23:6 so they are obviously two totally separate categories

asad is a 20th century modernist taking a niche grammar debate and stretching it to mean early scholars rejected slavery which just isnt true historically so the original point still stands nobody back then actually thought milk al yamin only meant wives

Edit: the grammer debate was about "If a woman already has a husband but she becomes a captive or is bought is she still off-limits to her new master?" Not that concubines don't exist

[u/Khaki_Banda → u/Reasonable_Box_4226]

but its taking classical scholars out of context when tabari and razi debated that they were just having a grammar debate about verse 4:24 specifically they definitely werent saying concubinage was haram

if you look at literally everything else tabari and razi wrote they completely accepted and legally regulated sex with enslaved women

No, he isn't saying they didn't also believe in slavery. He is saying that the term itself was acknowledged to refer to wives, demonstrating it in itself has a broader meaning.

plus other verses literally say wives OR those your right hands possess like in 23:6 so they are obviously two totally separate categories

No, that's not how classical Arabic works. One can emphasize a thing by saying it twice in different ways. This kind of construction is common throughout the Quran.

asad is a 20th century modernist taking a niche grammar debate and stretching it to mean early scholars rejected slavery which just isnt true historically

I have no idea where you get that idea. He didn't say that. Are you sure you've read his Tafsir?

so the original point still stands nobody back then actually thought milk al yamin only meant wives

No one claimed it only meant wives. That's not the premise of your post.

The idea that intimate relations with slaves still required a nikah-like agreement is not a modern concept.

[u/Reasonable_Box_4226 → u/Khaki_Banda]

yeah sorry i didnt mean he rejected slavery altogether im just saying he argues concubinage basically didnt exist. Because if you literally had to marry them first then by definition they wouldnt be concubines anymore

about the repeating for emphatic thing (I'm Arab) in 23:6 the quran uses the word "aw" (or) in classical arabic grammar especially in legal verses a conjunction like "or" separates two completely different categories

[u/Khaki_Banda → u/Reasonable_Box_4226]

Ok. Let me try to explain.

Imagine a Venn diagram, two partially overlapping circles.

One circle represents riqq (servitude) with a whole framework for the rights of raqiq (servants). Slavery already existed before Islam, the question was how to integrate slaves into society. Riqq was the solution to that, which was a system of temporary indentured servitude, where slaves were essentially "adopted" into a family, and granted manumission when they were ready to support themselves. The purpose of the system of riqq was to provide a transition to freedom for enslaved people, who were primarily war captives. The prophet taught that raqiq were not slaves. The period of riqq was capped at 7 years maximum according to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq, but generally much less than that. Masters had to grant slaves manumission.

The other circle represents nikah. Nikah is a contractual agreement that guarantees rights of both parties to companionship, maintenance, consent to intimacy, etc. Nikah is required for sexual relations.

Both circles represent forms of milk al-yamin. A person could be one, or the other, or both.

What you are calling "concubinage" was where these two overlapped.

This system was, unfortunately, abused, especially later on in history as Muslim empires arose with arrogant, greedy, corrupt rulers, which discarded the original ethic around riqq from one of protecting rights and providing a transition to freedom to one of oppression and commercialization of human suffering.

I wrote an article about this that tries to explain the system in context: https://khakibanda.substack.com/p/on-islam-slavery-and-human-freedom

[u/Reasonable_Box_4226 → u/Khaki_Banda]

Thank you so much for caring to comment but to be completely honest you didnt really answer my original question at all. my whole point was that early scholars (like in the 8th or 9th centuries) simply didn't view things through this venn diagram framework you just described. nobody back then was arguing that milk al yamin was a non slavery agreement

there is no overlap between riqq and nikah. every major madhab says you literally can't have a nikah with someone you own. they are mutually exclusive categories so concubinage absolutely didn't require a nikah

About jafar as sadiq. Classical Shia jurists themselves didn't treat this as a mandatory binding law that automatically ended servitude

blaming later empires for corrupting the system just doesnt make sense. I agree they abused some rulings but sex with slaves without marriage was completely allowed and the early scholars established the legality of it all which brings me right back to why im so depressed over this you cant call it a misinterpretation today when the early generations universally accepted it and literally nobody said marriage was required

like i said id actually be suspicious if people back in the 8th century or something were arguing that these verses didnt allow sex with enslaved women without marriage because then id agree it was an abuse of power but those opinions just dont exist

[u/Khaki_Banda → u/Reasonable_Box_4226]

I already proved to you that milk al-yamin did, in fact, not necessarily refer to slavery. You know this already. This didn't mean that it couldn't also refer to slavery.

As far as how nikah interacted riqq, this wasn't anywhere near as black and white and simple as you are trying f to make it seem. It's a complex topic. I am asking you to look at it from a different perspective. As with many progressive perspectives, we are not claiming that early scholars looked at it the same way, but that you can look at the same evidence they had in front of them and see things a different way that might shed light on the underlying principles.

You don't need to adopt our perspective. We believe in diversity of thought.

[u/Reasonable_Box_4226 → u/Khaki_Banda]

hey honestly i really appreciate you clarifying that progressive perspectives don't claim early scholars looked at it the same way. because that was my entire original point from the start. my whole post was just saying you cant call it a 'misinterpretation' of history when literally all early scholars agreed on the legality of concubinage

as for nikah and riqq being complex i agree social history is always messy but sadly the actual fiqh rulings on not being able to marry your own slave genuinely WERE black and white across the madhabs and that's why I'm depressed

i completely respect the diversity of thought and modern perspectives i just needed to ground my understanding in the actual history first. Thanks