Are We Reading the Text or Protecting It? 4:3/23:5-6

[Fusion]

I recently listened to a YouTube lecture (which I translated below as accurately as possible for review). I am sharing it here for discussion, not endorsement.
I want to ask something sincerely to those of us who identify as Qur’an-focused or Qur’an-only.
**But first let me post the transcript: **
*

Questioner:

“Doctor Sahib, I want to ask that the slave women who were there during the time of the Prophet — what was the status of their contract compared to the marriage contract of regular wives?

How were they regarded as wives?
How were they treated?
What share did they have in inheritance?

And does any such form exist today in any society? Is there any permission for it today?

Secondly, Doctor Sahib, if you could elaborate on this, and also tell us regarding Surah An-Nisa, verses 4 and 24, where ‘wa ma malakat aymanukum’ is mentioned — which tafsir would be best to read to understand this further?”

Scholar:

“First, correct your wording.

There was no nikah (marriage) with slave women or bondwomen.

Those with whom there was nikah were called wives.
These were called bondwomen.

This was ownership (milkiyat).

A wife is not ownership.
A wife comes to you under a social contract.
She lives her life with you under that contract.
Without her consent, nikah cannot take place.
With her permission, nikah is done.

And a wife also has the right that if she wishes, she can obtain separation from you.

But in this concept of ownership, these things are not there.
There is no nikah.
There is no share in inheritance.
Rather, she herself could be transferred in inheritance.

If a man had some bondwomen, then after his death, they would be transferred as property — just like other property.

So first of all, whether you like it or not, understand this as the factual reality.
We should not try to reshape it or modify it.
The status of a slave woman was what I have described.

Now the real question arises: does such a situation exist today?
Today, no such situation exists.

These bondwomen during the Prophet’s time were those who came as war captives — as spoils of war.

For example, a battle has occurred — say the Battle of Badr.
When the disbelievers were defeated, you know they had brought 900 camels. Those were not all consumed — they became spoils of war.
Their horses, if left behind, were spoils of war.
Weapons thrown away by fleeing soldiers — spoils of war.

Similarly, if women were present (I am not certain about Badr; in Uhud there were women), but if women were there, they would become bondwomen. They would be distributed.

The basic concept of slavery and bondwomen in Islam is a solution for POWs (Prisoners of War).

What do you do with prisoners of war?
Do you establish large concentration camps and let them rot there?
What about their needs?

If they are men, there is no arrangement for their sexual needs.
If they are women, there is no arrangement for their sexual needs.

Yes, food is given, as in any POW system.

Islam did this: instead of letting POWs become a burden on the Islamic treasury, absorb them into society. Distribute them among households.

Their status would be slave or bondwoman.
You must feed them what you eat.
Clothe them what you wear.
Treat them well.

Then a process of emancipation was started:

If you commit a sin — expiation is to free a slave.
If you accidentally kill someone — free a slave.
Freeing slaves was encouraged as a great virtue.

Through these measures, they were gradually emancipated.

So much so that at one time, in the Muslim world, entire governments were ruled by former slaves.
The Mamluks in the Middle East.
In India, the first Delhi rulers — Qutbuddin Aibak, Iltutmish, Balban — they were slaves.
Many great scholars were former slaves.

Islam adopted this path.

Now the final question that comes to my own mind is:
Why did Islam not finally abolish this institution?

However capturing a free person and enslaving them is a grave sin — unforgivable.

What the Americans did — capturing Africans and enslaving them under harsh conditions — that never happened in Islam and is not permitted.

Capturing a free person and forcibly enslaving them has never been allowed and never will be.

Only in the context of prisoners of war did this form exist in Islam.

And we must understand it in that way.

Even if the modern world criticizes it, or finds it difficult to digest — we must remain faithful to what the original teaching of the religion is.”*

Now I want to ask few questions please:
Many of us reject Hadith partly because we believe God is just, and therefore could not have sanctioned injustice especially toward women. So when we encounter verses like “ma malakat aymanukum”, there is an immediate theological instinct to reinterpret them in a way that removes any implication of ownership, concubinage, or war captivity.
I understand that instinct.
But here is my question:
Even if we set Hadith aside, history itself tells us that pre-modern societies — including the Arabs — practiced war captivity, distribution of spoils, and slavery. This was not unique to Muslims. It was the global norm.
So when the Qur’an was revealed into that world — a tribal, war-engaged, pre-modern society — is it possible that the verses were addressing an existing institution as it actually was, rather than redefining it into something entirely different?
In other words:
Is it possible that “ma malakat aymanukum” meant what it linguistically and historically appears to mean — those under one’s legal authority through war — without that meaning invalidating God’s justice?
Could it be that the Qur’an was regulating and gradually transforming a pre-existing system rather than abolishing it instantly?
Sometimes I feel we may be going beyond the text in our effort to defend it — almost being “more loyal to the king than the king himself.” Re-reading ownership as “wives,” or redefining the phrase into something that the Arabic and historical setting do not naturally support.
Are we interpreting the Qur’an in its historical reality — or are we reinterpreting it to align with modern moral discomfort?
And if the verses did indeed address real war captives within a pre-modern framework, does that necessarily compromise divine justice? Or does it show divine legislation working within historical conditions?
I am genuinely asking for perspectives....

[Mohammed_]

"There was no nikah (marriage) with slave women or bondwomen."

Peace, Fusion. While reading this post, I wanted to note that verses such as 4:25, 4:3, 2:221, 24:32–33, and 4:23–24 indicate the presence of marriage between believers and both bondwomen and bondmen (slave women and men).