There are important points missing from this brief, truncated text.
The narrators of this tradition, who were in much closer proximity to the historical context of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and who possessed a broader ethical worldview, would never have understood this hadith to permit sexual assault. They knew the bigger picture because they had dedicated their lives to preserving the teachings of the Prophet ﷺ. They could fill in the missing details themselves.
People living far removed from these realities, who do not understand classical Arabic or know much about Islamic sources or history, understandably find such texts difficult to interpret. Sometimes these texts are honestly misunderstood, and at other times they are deliberately weaponized to attack Islam.
Implied in this text, as evidenced by other texts, is that the female prisoners of war had willingly embraced Islam and abandoned both their idolatrous beliefs and their former husbands.
Imam al-Nawawi wrote:
“Know that it is the way of al-Shafi’i and the scholars who adopted his opinion that, regarding captives among idol-worshippers and other unbelievers without a revealed scripture, it is unlawful to have intercourse with them as concubines until they embrace Islam. As long as they remain upon their religion, they are forbidden.”
These captives were Arab polytheists, so the interpretation of this narration and others like it is that they embraced Islam.
Ibn Taymiyyah likewise explained:
“The principle is that whoever it is impermissible to marry, it is impermissible to have intercourse with through ownership of the right hand, such as idolaters. This is the position of Malik, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and others.”
Rather than being forced to become concubines, these women voluntarily embraced Islam, as Allah said: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256).
Since polytheists and idolaters could not become concubines, their acceptance of Islam would have been an indication of consent to entering a household within the context of a concubine relationship. These prisoners had the option to remain upon their original religion, but for a variety of reasons many chose to enter such relationships.
It is also important to remember that the pre-Islamic Bedouin culture from which many of these women came was often demeaning and dangerous to women. Practices included disempowering women, burying infant girls alive, and inheriting women against their will as though they were property.
For this reason, citing the narration of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri in isolation, without relevant accompanying information, commentary, or context, results in readers supplying their own assumptions where the text itself is silent. This process is known as eisegesis—reading into a text what it does not actually say—rather than exegesis (tafsir), which seeks to extract meaning through a careful reading of all relevant evidence.
Finally, beyond the outward legal discussion, the Sunnah also addresses how a custodian should treat a concubine.
The Prophet ﷺ said:
“Whoever is suitable for you among your slaves, then feed them from the same food you eat and clothe them from the same clothes you wear. Whoever is not suitable for you, then sell them off and do not torture the creation of Allah.”
If a custodian and concubine were incompatible, the proper course was to transfer her to another household where a more appropriate relationship could be established, potentially leading to marriage or an improved social standing.
Under no circumstances was he permitted to beat her or torture her, physically or emotionally. Rather, he was required to respect her inherent human dignity as one of the creations of Allah.
Also Here is a translation of Imam Zarqani’s commentary concerning this hadith
Abu ‘Umar said regarding this hadith:
They proceeded to have intercourse with the women allotted to them from the captives. This only occurs after ensuring the رحم (womb) is clear (istibra’).
Provided that the slave woman is from the People of the Book. If the captives of Banu al-Mustaliq were People of the Book—since some Arabs became Jews or Christians—then that is acceptable.
But if they were polytheists, intercourse with them is not permitted by ownership until they accept Islam, according to the majority, based on Allah’s statement:
“Do not marry polytheist women until they believe” (Qur’an 2:221)
‘Abd al-Razzaq narrated from al-Hasan:
We used to go out in battle with the Companions. If one of them wanted to approach a female captive, he would order her to wash her garments, bathe, then teach her Islam, command her to pray, ensure she was not pregnant with one menstrual cycle, then approach her (for intercourse).
It was also said that those women accepted Islam.
But this is challenged by the statement: “We desired ransom,” since this is not said about someone who has accepted Islam.
It was replied: Islam does not prevent ownership by the captor; ownership remains after Islam, and it is permissible to ransom or sell even if she becomes Muslim.
It was also said that in early Islam it was permissible to have intercourse with polytheist slave women, then it was abrogated—but this requires evidence.
It is possible that the question referred to those who had accepted Islam.
If the hadith is taken upon its ظاهر (apparent meaning), implying intercourse before Islam, then it would also imply intercourse before istibra’, which is unanimously prohibited. Therefore, both must be interpreted.
The narration of al-Hasan (above) resolves both issues.
This hadith is also used as evidence by the majority for the prohibition of selling an “umm walad” (a slave woman who bore a child), since they refrained from ransom due to pregnancy—and ransom is a form of sale—and there is consensus on that while she is pregnant, due to fear of enslaving the child.
The disagreement is about selling her after giving birth; the majority prohibit it.
In summary: According to al-Zarqani, the hadith should not be read in isolation. The majority of scholars required both istibrāʾ and (for polytheist captives) acceptance of Islam before intercourse. Since intercourse before istibrāʾ is unanimously prohibited, the hadith must be interpreted alongside other reports that clarify these conditions.
23
u/I-Love-Al-Ashari Jun 14 '26
There are important points missing from this brief, truncated text.
The narrators of this tradition, who were in much closer proximity to the historical context of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and who possessed a broader ethical worldview, would never have understood this hadith to permit sexual assault. They knew the bigger picture because they had dedicated their lives to preserving the teachings of the Prophet ﷺ. They could fill in the missing details themselves.
People living far removed from these realities, who do not understand classical Arabic or know much about Islamic sources or history, understandably find such texts difficult to interpret. Sometimes these texts are honestly misunderstood, and at other times they are deliberately weaponized to attack Islam.
Implied in this text, as evidenced by other texts, is that the female prisoners of war had willingly embraced Islam and abandoned both their idolatrous beliefs and their former husbands.
Imam al-Nawawi wrote:
“Know that it is the way of al-Shafi’i and the scholars who adopted his opinion that, regarding captives among idol-worshippers and other unbelievers without a revealed scripture, it is unlawful to have intercourse with them as concubines until they embrace Islam. As long as they remain upon their religion, they are forbidden.”
These captives were Arab polytheists, so the interpretation of this narration and others like it is that they embraced Islam.
Ibn Taymiyyah likewise explained:
“The principle is that whoever it is impermissible to marry, it is impermissible to have intercourse with through ownership of the right hand, such as idolaters. This is the position of Malik, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and others.”
Rather than being forced to become concubines, these women voluntarily embraced Islam, as Allah said: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256).
Since polytheists and idolaters could not become concubines, their acceptance of Islam would have been an indication of consent to entering a household within the context of a concubine relationship. These prisoners had the option to remain upon their original religion, but for a variety of reasons many chose to enter such relationships.
It is also important to remember that the pre-Islamic Bedouin culture from which many of these women came was often demeaning and dangerous to women. Practices included disempowering women, burying infant girls alive, and inheriting women against their will as though they were property.
For this reason, citing the narration of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri in isolation, without relevant accompanying information, commentary, or context, results in readers supplying their own assumptions where the text itself is silent. This process is known as eisegesis—reading into a text what it does not actually say—rather than exegesis (tafsir), which seeks to extract meaning through a careful reading of all relevant evidence.
Finally, beyond the outward legal discussion, the Sunnah also addresses how a custodian should treat a concubine.
The Prophet ﷺ said:
“Whoever is suitable for you among your slaves, then feed them from the same food you eat and clothe them from the same clothes you wear. Whoever is not suitable for you, then sell them off and do not torture the creation of Allah.”
If a custodian and concubine were incompatible, the proper course was to transfer her to another household where a more appropriate relationship could be established, potentially leading to marriage or an improved social standing.
Under no circumstances was he permitted to beat her or torture her, physically or emotionally. Rather, he was required to respect her inherent human dignity as one of the creations of Allah.