Yes, in the classical Sunni reading, Quran 4:24 was understood to address female war captives whose previous marriages to enemy husbands were treated as dissolved by lawful captivity. That concession must be stated honestly. But the verse was not a license for private rape, abduction, or modern militias to revive slavery. It belonged to a premodern public-law institution of war captivity, with legal constraints, and that institution has been abolished by binding covenants that Muslims are required to honor.
What Quran 4:24 Says
And [also prohibited to you are] married women, except those whom your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, provided that you seek them with your wealth in chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse.
Quran 4:24
The phrase "married women" translates al-muhsanat min al-nisa. The word muhsanat can carry different meanings in different contexts, but here the classical commentators understood it to mean women already bound by marriage. The exception, "except those whom your right hands possess," refers to the legal category of milk al-yamin: lawful ownership of slaves or captives in the premodern legal system.
It is therefore not accurate to say that this verse has nothing to do with concubinage. Islam also legislated marriage to slave women in Quran 4:25, but the specific exception in Quran 4:24 was classically understood to include captive women whose previous enemy marriages no longer remained legally operative.
The Hadith of Awtas
The clearest report is the authentic hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri in Sahih Muslim:
On the day of Hunayn, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) sent an army to Awtas. They met an enemy, fought them, overcame them, and took captives. Some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) felt reluctant to have relations with the captive women because of their husbands among the polytheists. So Allah revealed concerning that: "And married women, except those whom your right hands possess," meaning that they became lawful for them when their waiting period ended.
Sahih Muslim 1456
This report is sahih. It directly addresses the objection: some of the women had husbands among the enemy, and the Companions hesitated for that reason. The revealed ruling, as understood in the report, was that lawful captivity dissolved that previous marriage in this case, and relations were not permitted until after istibra, the waiting period used to establish that the woman was not pregnant.
Classical jurists discussed further details, such as whether the husband was captured with her, whether one spouse accepted Islam, and other legal scenarios. But the Awtas case itself cannot be dismissed: it is an authentic basis for the classical rule that a captive woman's prior marriage to an enemy husband could be ended by captivity.
What This Did and Did Not Permit
An honest answer must avoid two mistakes. The first mistake is to pretend that classical Islamic law used the modern individual-consent model for concubinage. It did not. In premodern fiqh, lawful ownership, not a marriage contract, was the legal basis for sexual access to a concubine.
The second mistake is to describe the ruling as unrestricted sexual violence. That is also false. In Islamic law:
- Captives were a matter of public authority in war, not a private right of any fighter, gang, or movement.
- A captive woman was not sexually available to anyone merely because she had been captured.
- Relations were prohibited before istibra; if she was pregnant, the juristic rules required waiting until delivery.
- She could not be shared, loaned, or treated as sexually available to multiple men.
- If she bore her master's child, the child was free and attributed to him, and she acquired the protected status of umm walad in mainstream Sunni law.
- The Quran prohibited forcing slave women into prostitution: Quran 24:33.
- Good treatment of slaves and captives was repeatedly commanded, and abuse was condemned.
This does not remove the moral difficulty of slavery and concubinage for modern readers. It does, however, place the ruling where it actually belongs: within the premodern institution of war captivity, not within a free-for-all permission to violate women.
The Wider Islamic Framework: Regulation and Emancipation
Islam did not create slavery. It addressed an existing global institution of war, debt, captivity, and servitude, then restricted it and opened many paths to freedom. The Quran praises freeing slaves and makes emancipation an act of righteousness and expiation in multiple rulings:
- Freeing a slave is praised as "the steep path" in Quran 90:13.
- Righteousness includes spending wealth to free slaves in Quran 2:177.
- Zakat may be used for freeing those in bondage in Quran 9:60.
- Contracts of emancipation are recognized in Quran 24:33.
- Freeing slaves is prescribed as expiation in rulings such as Quran 4:92, Quran 5:89, and Quran 58:3.
And they give food, in spite of love for it, to the needy, the orphan, and the captive, [saying], "We feed you only for the countenance of Allah. We wish not from you reward or gratitude."
Quran 76:8-9
The Quran also names release and ransom as treatments of war captives:
Then, when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have subdued them, bind them firmly; then either confer favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens.
Quran 47:4
Classical jurists, operating in a world where all major civilizations practiced slavery, also discussed enslavement as one possible state-controlled outcome for prisoners of war. But the Quranic and Prophetic direction consistently pushed toward restraint, humane treatment, and emancipation.
Why This Cannot Be Revived Today
The category "what your right hands possess" depends on the existence of lawful slavery. In the contemporary world, that institution has been abolished by domestic laws and international covenants. Muslim states have entered binding agreements prohibiting slavery and regulating prisoners of war through release, exchange, ransom, detention, and repatriation.
O you who believe, fulfill your contracts.
Quran 5:1
Honoring such covenants is not a betrayal of the Quran. It is a lawful commitment to use options already recognized by the Sharia, such as release and ransom, while closing a historical institution tied to reciprocal premodern warfare. No private actor, militia, terrorist group, or self-declared movement has the authority to declare people slaves, distribute captives, or create milk al-yamin. In today's legal and Islamic reality, such acts are kidnapping, enslavement, and sexual assault, not lawful concubinage.
Conclusion
Quran 4:24 did permit, in the classical premodern setting, concubinage with certain female captives after their previous enemy marriages were legally dissolved and after istibra. That should not be denied. But the ruling was part of a regulated public-law system of war captivity, not a permission for private abuse. Islam restricted that institution, encouraged emancipation, and commands Muslims to honor binding covenants. Since lawful slavery no longer exists, no one today may invoke this verse to enslave captives or claim sexual access to them.
For related issues, see discussions on prisoners of war, slavery and abolition in Islamic law, and the Quranic commands to fulfill treaties.