Interesting warning about exploring issues which are not clearly prohibited in Islam and its reasoning.

1. Hadith of Abu Tha’labah al-Khushani (the “left out knowingly” part)

إن الله فرض فرائض فلا تضيعوها، وحدّ حدودًا فلا تعتدوها، وحرّم أشياء فلا تنتهكوها، وسكت عن أشياء رحمةً لكم غير نسيان فلا تبحثوا عنها

“Allah has laid down obligations, so do not neglect them. He has set limits, so do not cross them. He has forbidden things, so do not violate them. And He has been silent about things out of mercy to you, not out of forgetfulness, so do not go searching into them.”

Sources: Daraqutni, and Nawawi’s 40 Hadith (no. 30), where Nawawi graded it hasan. Ibn Rajab notes a weakness in the chain, because Makhul did not hear directly from Abu Tha’labah. Abu al-Darda’ narrates a supporting version (Hakim, Bazzar): “What He was silent about is pardoned… for Allah does not forget.” He then recited 19:64: وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ نَسِيًّا, “and your Lord is never forgetful.”

2. Hadith of al-Nu’man ibn Bashir (the “halal is clear, haram is clear” part)

إن الحلال بيّن وإن الحرام بيّن، وبينهما مشتبهات لا يعلمهن كثير من الناس

“The halal is clear and the haram is clear, and between them are doubtful matters that many people do not know.” The hadith continues: whoever avoids the doubtful matters protects his religion and honour.

Sources: Bukhari 52 and Muslim 1599. It is sahih and agreed upon.

3. The “crooked minds” part: Qur’an 3:7

فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ

“As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they follow what is ambiguous in it, seeking discord.”

The Prophet ﷺ explained this verse to Aisha: “When you see those who follow the ambiguous verses, they are the ones Allah named, so beware of them.” This is in Bukhari 4547 and Muslim 2665.

Related warnings against digging into what was left open:

• Qur’an 5:101: “Do not ask about things which, if made plain to you, would trouble you.”
• Bukhari 7289: “The greatest wrongdoer among the Muslims is the one who asked about something that was not forbidden, and it became forbidden because of his asking.”

Q:

Issue related to concubines in Islam has been a difficult one to defend/ justify as there is no clear prohibition about having sexual relations with them without formal marriage in Quran and sunnah. Can you share how it is explained by different Islamic scholars , is there any ijma on either opinion. How other non Islamic powers dealt with issues like this? Does it exist in Islamic countries and non Islamic countries? or uno say any thing on this issue?

Response: compiled by AI CLOUDE

The honest starting point is that classical scholars did not see the Qur’an as silent here. They read verses like 23:5–6, 70:29–30, 4:3 and 33:50 as explicit permission. So the strongest modern responses accept that it was permitted and argue about context, conditions, and whether it can apply today.

How scholars explain it

• Classical view (all four Sunni madhhabs and Ja’fari fiqh): Relations with a female slave (tasarri) were lawful, with conditions. She had to belong to one owner, she could not be shared, a waiting period (istibra’) was required, and a mother and daughter could not both be taken. A child born to her was free and legitimate, and she became umm walad, freed when the master died. The Qur’anic phrase ma malakat aymanukum appears 15 times, and some scholars read it as covering male and female slaves in general, not only concubines.
• “Suspended” view (mainstream traditionalist): The ruling still exists in the books but cannot apply, because slavery no longer exists legitimately. Muslim states have also signed binding treaties abolishing it, and Qur’an 5:1 requires honouring agreements.
• Abolitionist/maqasid view: The Qur’an’s direction was toward freedom. It made manumission an act of expiation, praised freeing slaves (90:13), and required mukataba contracts (24:33). On this view, ending slavery completes what the Qur’an started.
• Minority reinterpretation: Some, including Muhammad Asad in his tafsir notes, argue from 4:25 and 24:32 that relations with slave women also required nikah and mahr. Most classical scholars did not hold this view.

Is there ijma? Classically, yes: there was effectively consensus that concubinage was permitted. Today there is no formal ijma that it was always forbidden. There is, however, very broad agreement that bringing slavery back is haram. In 2014, an open letter from about 140 Muslim scholars to ISIS’s leader stated that reintroducing slavery is forbidden in Islam and that it was abolished by universal consensus. Most modern Muslims, scholars and laypeople alike, hold that concubinage is no longer permitted and that sexual relations are lawful only within marriage.

How non-Muslim powers handled it Concubinage and sexual access to enslaved women were common across many societies:

• Ancient and Biblical: Rome and Byzantium practiced it, and the Hebrew Bible regulates it (Hagar; Exodus 21; Deuteronomy 21:10–14).
• Asia: Imperial China kept concubines until the 1950 Marriage Law. Hindu and Buddhist royal courts also had them.
• American slavery: Sexual exploitation of enslaved women was widespread. Unlike the umm walad system, the children usually stayed enslaved.
• 20th century: Japan’s wartime “comfort women” system is a modern example of state-organised sexual slavery.

Does it exist today? Slavery is legally abolished everywhere. Mauritania was last, in 1981, and only made it a crime in 2007. Violations still happen in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries:

• ISIS enslaved Yazidi women, and Boko Haram abducted girls.
• Descent-based slavery persists in parts of the Sahel.
• Domestic workers are abused in some Gulf states.
• Devadasi practices continue in India.
• Sex trafficking happens worldwide. The ILO, Walk Free and IOM estimated that in 2021 about 6.3 million people, mostly women and girls, were in forced commercial sexual exploitation.

What the UN and international law say Sexual slavery is prohibited without exception:

• 1926 Slavery Convention
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4
• 1956 Supplementary Convention, which also covers servile marriage
• ICCPR, Article 8
• Rome Statute (1998), which makes sexual slavery a war crime and a crime against humanity

A UN commission found in 2016 that ISIS’s treatment of Yazidis was genocide. The OIC’s own Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990, Article 11) also says no one may enslave another.

Critics, including some Muslim writers, point out that the “suspended” view leaves open the possibility of revival. They argue a clear theological statement that it is impermissible is more convincing than pointing to treaties. That debate is still open within Muslim scholarship.