مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَٰنُهُمْ

24:23; 30:29.

Commentary:

This verse contains another very important argument in favour of Divine revelation. The object and purpose of Divineguidance, it says, is not only to bring about reformation in religious beliefs and doctrines but also to maintain a just balance in the distribution of material wealth and political rights and power. It is a divine law that in every age some individuals or nations, by their superior intellect and harder work, come to acquire ascendancy and control over other individuals or nations. This is neither unfair nor unjust so long as proper opportunities are not denied to the less fortunate peoples also to make proper use of their talents and intelligence for earning the good things of life. But the "haves" have always set their face against all attempts by the "have-nots" to better their material condition and to have a share in the power and privileges the "haves" enjoy. The only way to save the world from the tyranny of those in possession of power and privilege and to open the doors of progress and advancement to real merit and talent and thereby to rehabilitate justice and equality among mankind is that God should send His Messengers. Their advent heralds a new era and the dispossessed and the "have-nots" have their rights restored to them.

So when people become separated from the era of a Prophet by a long time and vested interests grow and become entrenched and power and privileges flow from father to son and common people are denied all share in the government and even so-called religious leaders come to trade upon the superstitious fears of their followers and monopolize all religious authority and common men are not even considered competent to be consulted on religious or secular matters, God raises a Prophet who wages a relentless war against this tyranny and untruth and the so-called leaders who held the reins of power in their hands on the plea of supposed superior abilities are dethroned and man begins to breathe in an atmosphere of true freedom.

Briefly but very beautifully the verse has laid down the Islamic law with regard to private ownership. Whereas on the one hand Islam has recognized the right of private ownership by emphasizing the word their in the expression, "of their worldly gifts", it has, by using the words "will restore" (برادی) also accepted the principle of the collective ownership of all things by all human beings as such, because only that thing is "restored" to another person which belongs to him. In fact, Islam has accepted the principle of dual ownership of everything—the right of possession of a property by the person who earns it and the right in the possession of that property of all human beings as human beings. Moreover, by its institution of Zakah, the prohibition about hoarding wealth and taking and giving of interest, Islam has sought to prevent the accumulation of wealth in a few hands and thus by its free circulation has kept the avenues of progress equally open for all men. Islam, in reality, neither believes in the right of unrestricted private ownership nor in complete and unreserved possession of wealth and the means of its production by the State. It adopts the middle course.

Ordinarily, the words "whom their right hands possess" mean slaves, and in the Quran these words have generally been used in this sense; but they possess a much wider significance and include all persons under one’s control such as private servants, subordinates, labourers, ryots etc.

70:31.

Important Words:

ما ملکت أیمانھم (what their right hands possess). أیمان is the plural of یمین which is derived from یمن یمین. They say یمن الرجل i.e. he came from the right hand of the man. یمن اللّٰه فلاناً means, God blessed such a one.

یمین means, good luck; the right hand; power and strength; a covenant confirmed by an oath; a good position. They say فلان عندنا بالیمین i.e. such a one possesses high position with us. An Arab would say ھذا ملک یمینی i.e. he or it is in the possession of my right hand, meaning, he or it is in my possession (Lisan & Aqrab). The expression ما ملکت ایمانھم generally signifies prisoners of war whether men or women, who are in the custody and control of their Muslim captors because they had taken part in a war which was waged to destroy Islam. The term has been used in the Quran in preference to عباد and اماء (slaves and bondwomen) to point to a just and rightful possession. It includes both slaves and bondwomen, but it is only the context which determines what the expression signifies in a particular place. See also 4:25.

Commentary:

Much misunderstanding prevails as to what the expression "their right hands possess" signifies, and what are the rights and status of the persons to whom it applies.

It should be clearly understood that Islam has condemned slavery in unequivocal terms. According to it, it is a mortal sin to deprive a person of his liberty by kidnapping him, i.e. to make him a slave, unless, of course, he renders himself liable to deprivation of it by taking part in a war waged to destroy Islam or an Islamic state. It is also a grievous sin to buy or sell slaves. All human beings as such are equal in the sight of God and enjoy equal human rights. Islamic teaching on this point is quite clear, unequivocal and emphatic. According to it a person who makes another person his slave commits a grave sin against God and man (Bukhari, Kitabul-Bai’ & Abu Dawud as quoted by Fathul-Bari). It is also worthy of note that when Islam came into the world slavery was a part and parcel of the human social system and there existed large number of slaves in every country. It was therefore not feasible, nor even wise, to abolish with a stroke of the pen, an institution which had become so inextricably interwoven into the whole texture of human society, without doing serious injury to its moral tone. Islam, therefore, sought to abolish it gradually but effectively and surely. The Quran has laid down the following very sound principles for the speedy and complete abolition of slavery:

(1) Prisoners of war (i.e. ما ملکت أیمانھم) can only be taken after a regular battle.

(2) They cannot be retained after the war is over.

(3) They are to be set free either as a mark of favour or by exchange of prisoners.

The Quran says:

And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and when you have overcome them; bind fast the fetters—then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom—until the war lays down its arms. That is the ordinance (47:5).

Those unfortunate persons however, who, may fail to gain their freedom through any of these means, or should choose to remain with their Muslim masters can purchase it by entering into a contract called mukatabat (24:34). Now if a woman is taken prisoner in a war of the nature mentioned above and thus loses her liberty and becomes ملک یمین and she fails to get her release by exchange of prisoners of war, and the exigencies of government also do not justify her immediate release as a mark of favour, nor do her own people or government get her ransomed and she does not even seek to buy her freedom by entering into mukatabat and her master, in the interest of morality marries her, whether she likes it or not, in what way, it may be asked, can this arrangement be regarded as objectionable and the great hue and cry raised over it as justified or justifiable?

Let it be clearly understood that as regards establishing sexual relations with a female prisoner of war or a slave-wife, which is the real significance of the expression ما ملکت أیمانھم used in the present verse, without first marrying her, neither this nor any other verse of the Quran lends any support whatsoever. Not only does the Quran not give any sanction for the treatment of female prisoners of war as wives without first taking them into proper wedlock, but there are clear and positive injunctions to the effect that these prisoners of war, like free women, should be married if they are to be treated as wives, the only difference between the two being a difference of social status inasmuch as prior consent of prisoners of war to their marriage is not considered necessary as in the case of free women. The fact that the expression ما ملکت أیمانھم signifies female prisoners lends no support whatsoever to the untenable view that Islam has upheld and encouraged concubinage. Besides the present verse, at least in as many as four other verses of the Quran, the injunction has been laid down in clear and unambiguous terms that female prisoners of war should not remain unmarried. These verses are as follows:

1. And marry widows from among you and your male-slaves and female-slaves who are fit for marriage (24:33).

2. And those of you who cannot afford to marry free believing women, let them marry what your right hands possess, namely your believing handmaids—so marry them with the leave of their masters and give them their dowries according to what is fair (4:26).

3. And if you fear that you will not be fair in dealing with the orphans, then marry of women as may be agreeable to you, two or three or four; and if you fear you will not deal justly, then marry only one or (if you cannot afford to marry even one free wife then marry) what your right hands possess (4:4).

The verse may also be rendered as "then marry of women as may be agreeable to you two or three or four or what your right hands possess;" the words "and if you fear you will not deal justly, then marry only one," forming a parenthetical clause. According to this rendering also slave-girls are to be married before they are treated as wives.

4. And marry not idolatrous women until they believe; even a believing bondwoman is better than an idolatrous woman, although she may highly please you (2:222).

The sense being that a believing slave wife should be preferred to a non-believing free wife. The Holy Prophet is also very explicit on this point. He is reported to have said, "He who has a slave girl, and gives her proper education and brings her up in a becoming manner and then frees and marries her, for him is double reward" (Bukhari, Kitabul-‘Ilm). This hadith implies that if a Muslim wishes to have a slave girl as wife, he should first set her free and then marry her. The Holy Prophet’s own practice was quite in harmony with his precept. Two of the Holy Prophet’s wives, Juwairiyyah and Safiyyah, came to him as prisoners of war. They were his ملک یمین. But he married them according to Islamic Law. Mariyah was sent to him by the King of Egypt. He also married her and she enjoyed the status of a free wife like his other wives. She observed "purdah" and was included among "the Mothers of the Faithful."

Another verse of the Quran, viz. O Prophet We have made lawful to thee thy wives whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesses from among those whom Allah has given thee as gains of war, and the daughters of thy paternal uncle, and the daughters of thy paternal aunts, and the daughters of thy maternal uncle, and the daughters of thy maternal aunts who have migrated with thee (33:51), points to the fact that the commandment regarding marriage applies to ما ملکت أیمانکم (whom your right hands possess) as much as it does to daughters of the Holy Prophet’s paternal and maternal uncles and aunts. Both are to be legally wedded before they are treated as wives. All the three categories mentioned above were made lawful to the Holy Prophet through marriage.

The verse 4:25 viz. And forbidden to you are married women, except such as your right hands possess, seems to present some difficulty. But in reality there is no such difficulty. The verse along with its predecessor deals with women whom it is unlawful for a man to marry and among these are included married women. But it makes one exception. Those married women who are taken prisoner in a religious war and then choose to remain with Muslims, can be married to their masters. The fact that they choose not to go to their former husbands is considered as tantamount to the annulment of their former marriage.

It may also be noted in passing that it is not permitted to take in marriage such female relations of a slave as correspond to the relations of a free woman within the prohibited degree. For instance, the mothers, sisters, daughters etc., of a slave wife cannot be taken in marriage. This also shows that the Quranic commandments with regard to marriage and in-laws apply as much to bondwomen as they apply to free women.

It may further be stated here that in view of circumstances obtaining at the time of its revelation the Quran had to make a distinction between the social status of two classes of women. That distinction was expressed by the word زوج (a free woman taken in marriage) and ملک یمین (bondwoman taken in marriage). The former word connotes a sense of equality between husband and wife while the latter implies an inferior status of the wife. The Quran and the Holy Prophet, however, desired and encouraged that bondwomen should first be given full freedom and full status and then married as the Holy Prophet himself did.

Besides, Islam does not allow women taken prisoner in ordinary wars to be treated as wives. This exceptional injunction comes into operation only when a hostile nation wages a religious war against Islam in order to extirpate it and to compel Muslims to abandon their religion at the point of the sword and then treats their prisoners—men and women, as slaves, as was done in the time of the Holy Prophet. At that time the enemy took away Muslim women as prisoners and treated them as bondwomen. The Islamic injunction was thus only a retaliatory measure and served also the additional purpose of protecting the morals of captive women. Those conditions have ceased to exist now. There are no religious wars now and hence no prisoners of war to be treated as slaves and bondwomen. For a fuller note on slavery see 24:34.

23:7.

Commentary:

For a detailed explanation of this verse see 23:7 and 24:34.