Historically, yes: classical Islamic law permitted concubinage between a man and a female slave whom he lawfully and exclusively owned. This was a defined legal relationship within the historical institution of slavery—not permission to approach any servant, employee, prisoner, or enslaved woman at will. Abuse and forced intimacy were not made lawful by ownership.
Are concubines allowed in Islam?
The Quran permits intimacy through two recognized relationships: marriage and “those whom your right hands possess” (Quran 23:5–6 and 70:29–30). The latter phrase, ma malakat aymanukum, referred to slaves under the historical legal system. A female slave in such a relationship is commonly called a concubine.
Therefore, the historically accurate answer is that classical Islamic law allowed concubinage. It did not require a separate marriage contract, and the limit of four wives did not apply to concubines. This permission, however, operated within a specific legal institution and was subject to rules governing ownership, kinship, pregnancy, parentage, maintenance, and treatment.
Permission did not mean unrestricted access
A man could not have relations with any woman merely because she was socially vulnerable or under his authority. Classical law required exclusive lawful ownership. Someone else’s slave was forbidden to him, as was a jointly owned woman without the legal impediment being resolved. The ordinary prohibitions of close kinship also applied, and a waiting period had to establish that the woman was not pregnant before relations could begin.
A captive did not automatically become the private possession of an individual soldier. Captives fell under public authority and could not simply be seized or treated as available for intimacy. Nor did Islam permit the kidnapping or enslavement of a free person. The Prophet (PBUH) reported that Allah will oppose on the Day of Judgement the person who enslaves and sells a free human being (Sahih al-Bukhari 2227).
Abuse and forced intimacy were not permitted
Lawful ownership was not a licence to rape, injure, humiliate, or otherwise abuse a woman. Islamic law’s general prohibition of harm applied to enslaved people as it did to others. The Prophet (PBUH) called those under a person’s authority “your brothers,” commanding Muslims to feed and clothe them properly, not burden them beyond their capacity, and assist them when a burden was too great (Sahih al-Bukhari 30; Sahih Muslim 1661a).
The Quran expressly prohibited forcing enslaved women into prostitution: “Do not compel your slave girls into prostitution” (Quran 24:33). A person who used violence, threats, injury, or coercion for sexual access would be committing oppression and harm, not exercising an unrestricted religious right.
At the same time, historical accuracy matters. Classical jurists discussed concubinage within a system of legal ownership rather than through the modern framework of affirmative sexual consent. That difference should not be concealed. But neither should the historical permission be misrepresented as authorizing rape or abuse: Islamic teachings imposed duties of humane treatment and prohibited oppression, physical harm, and sexual exploitation.
Was the number of concubines limited?
The four-wife limit in Quran 4:3 applied to wives, not concubines. Classical law stated no equivalent fixed numerical maximum for female slaves lawfully owned by a man. On that narrow point, the critic is correct.
But “no numerical maximum” did not mean “access to unlimited women.” Every relationship still depended upon the woman possessing the required legal status and being exclusively and lawfully owned. Rules concerning kinship, pregnancy, waiting periods, maintenance, and humane treatment remained applicable.
If a concubine bore her owner a child, the child was free, legitimate, and legally attributed to the father. She became known as an umm al-walad. Under the dominant Sunni ruling she could no longer be sold and became free upon the father’s death, although early jurists differed over some details.
Does this include domestic workers today?
No. A domestic worker is a free employee, not “one whom the right hand possesses.” Employment, sponsorship, financial dependence, or control over someone’s immigration status does not create ownership or make sexual relations lawful.
Relations with a domestic worker outside a valid marriage are zina and forbidden. Coercing or abusing her compounds that sin with oppression and criminal violence. The same applies to prisoners, trafficking victims, refugees, and other vulnerable women: none becomes a concubine merely because another person exercises power over her.
Conclusion
Concubinage was permitted in classical Islamic law within the historical institution of lawful slavery. It did not require a marriage contract, and the four-wife limit did not apply. But it was never a general permission to have relations with servants, employees, captives at will, or any vulnerable woman. It required a specific and exclusive legal status and remained subject to rules protecting lineage, maintenance, humane treatment, and freedom from harm and exploitation.
Accordingly, no one may use the verses about “those whom your right hands possess” to justify relations with domestic workers, prisoners, or trafficked women. Abuse and forced intimacy are forbidden, and employment or physical control never makes another human being sexually lawful.
For the fuller historical and legal discussion, see Can You Be Intimate with Slaves? and Islam’s Perspective on Slavery.