What your right hands possess does not mean the ones you will marry. It does not mean that in any other place in the Qur'an nor does it mean that here.
Those whom your right hands possess refers to slaves in every occurrence of the Qur'an and to suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant.
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:
Prohibited to you are women already married, EXCEPT for those whom your right hands possess! It could not be any more clear.
Normally, I don't take part in such disscussions, because it's frankly not my damn business if Faithful-Jinn believes in the divinity of the Quran or not. But when I read something like that, I feel that I am obliged to butt in and have a say. I feel that I have to defend the Quran from the slanderous and demonic interpretations that have been fed to our generations by the godless criminals called "The Salaf". (By that, I mean the Judeo-Persian filth like Bukhari , Tirmizhi, and Co. who forced there "interpretations" of the Quran on us).
The term "ma malakat aymanukum" does NOT mean female sex slaves, nor does it mean "what your right HAND possesses" . It means: "Those whom you have taken under OATH".
The word "aymanukum" is the plural of "yameen", which means OATH.
Here are some examples:
{And do not make God the subject of your casual oaths (aymanukum)}...[2:224]{The ones who purchase with the pledge of God and their oaths (aymanuhum) a cheap price, those will have no portion in the Hereafter}...[3:77]{And they swore by God using their strongest oaths; (aymanuhum) that if a sign came to them they would believe in it.}...[6:109]{And fulfill your pledge to God when you pledge so, and do not break your oath (al-ayman) after making it}...[16:91]There's plenty more where those came from.
Also, in case you didn't know, "ma malakat aymanukum" can be MALES as well. Care to read?
{And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or ...... those maintained by their oaths (aymanuhunna)}...[24:31] (note the feminin
aymanuhunna - referring to those women who own male "slaves" as you put it).
So does the above verse mean that believing women are also allowed to keep male sex slaves?
I guess the Judeo-Persian scumbags who wrote "Islamic History" and served it to our generations on a golden platter must have covered that part with their thumbs when they "interpreted" the Quran.
The Quran is not talking about sex slaves or war captives, as the criminal Salaf, who spread Islam by the sword later on, would have you believe. It is talking about those unfortunate males and females who are financially dependant on others, and have no-one to spend on them. As a result, the believing man (or woman) takes those unfortunate people under their wing, and into their household, and SWEARS an OATH (yameen) to support them and take care of them.
Now if a believing man should happen to want to marry one of those women under his oath, then the Quran says he must PAY THE DOWRY and HAVE THE PERMISSION OF HER PARENTS, if she is not yet an adult:
Care to read?
{And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths (aymanukum) of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents and give them their dowries in kindness; to be independent, not for illicit sex or taking lovers}...[4:25]Does this sound to you like they are slaves to be bedded unconditionally?
Finally, during Muhammad's time (I mean the REAL Muhammad, not the Judeo-Persian abomination that the Muslims have idolized), certain non-believing women who were married to like men who were idol-worshippers or rejecters, eventually embraced the faith, and became believing women. As a reslut, they were no longer lawful for their husbands. Some could not even live with their husbands anymore, and went to seek assylum in Muhammad's commnity. As a result, those women became financially dependant. The Quran gave a solution to this, and instructed believing men to test those women to make sure they were truly faithful, then to take them under their OATH. So they became "malakat aymanukum".
Care to read?
{O you who believe, if the believing women come emigrating to you, then you shall test them. God is fully aware of their belief. Thus, if you establish that they are believers, then you shall not return them to the rejecters. They are no longer lawful for one another. And return the dowries that were paid. And there is no sin upon you to marry them, if you have paid their dowries to them. And do not keep disbelieving wives, and ask back what dowries you paid. And let them ask back what dowries they had paid. Such is the judgment of God; He judges between you. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.}...[60:10]As you can see, that is only case where a believing man can marry an already married woman, in order to bring them under OATH of support and protection.
So when you read, in
[4:24,25], about permitting the Muslim man to marry the "already married women" who are now under OATH, you know that its talking about those same women mentioned in
60:10. It all becomes crystal clear when you use the Quran to interpret the Quran. But if you insist on resorting to the Judeo-Persian bullshit that has been peddled as the tru Islamic history, and reach absurd conclusions as a result, then you have no-one to blame but your self.
And if you had the intellectually honesty to look at Islamic history and the history of Muhammad's own lifetime you would see that this is how the verse was interpreted.
The history of Muhamad??
That's a howler. Do you even know who Muhammad was? Do the so-called "Muslims" know? There is no such thing as "Islamic History" . There is only Islamic GARBAGE. Our so-called "history" has been written by a league of Jews and Persians who conspired together to hijack it. The Muhammad you know and hear about is a
MYTH. The Muhammad who was born in 570 A.D, in the rotten and lifeless Hijaz Desert, who circumbulated a black cube covered with a filthy black rag, and kissed a volcanic stone placed inside a vulva-shaped container, then rode a winged horse to Palestine is a
MYTH. And teh people who made up that Muhammad, are teh SAME ONES who interpreted "Ma Malakat Aymanukum" as "female sex slaves". Until you realize that, you are not qualified to "interpret" the Quran. The alleged "Sahaba" (Companions) Omar, Abu Bakr, Othman, Ali....the whole lot, did not live during Muhammad's time, nor did they have any relationship to him whatsoever. Can you prove the existance of Aisha? Before you debate if "Muhammad the Pedofile" - a mythical figure created by the Judeo-Persian dogs whose descendants are reading these very posts and laughing at us this very moment - married Aisha when she was 6, 9, 13, or whatever,
prove to me that Aisha even existed.. If you can prove Robin Hood of English folklore existed, then you can do the same for figures like "Aisha" and "Hafsa".
Here is the truth: Anything about "Islamic History" not mentioned in the Quran or confirmed by archeology or solid physical evidence is worth no more than a pile of horse excrement. The ENTIRE CORPUS of hadith, tradition, and history books, from cover to cover, are not worth the paper they were printed on.
