The readers may find this hard to imagine (especially Muslim ones) that the Quran actually allows Muslim women to have sex as much as they want without requiring them to first get married:
Successful indeed are the believers, Who are humble in their prayers, And who keep aloof from what is vain, And who are givers of poor-rate, And who guard their private parts, Except before their mates (azwajihim) or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable, But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they that exceed the limits; S. 23:1-7 Shakir
And those who of their private parts are guards. Save in regard to their spouses (azwajihim) or those whom their right hands own; so verily they are not blameworthy – S. 70:29-30 Abdul Majid Daryabadi https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/70/st4.htm
The reference to “their mates/spouses” includes both the males and the females, e.g. to the husbands and wives of the believers. The word zawaj can refer to either spouse and is not gender specific. Notice how the late A. Yusuf Ali translated this word:
Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, – for (in their case) they are free from blame, S. 23:6
Further notice what the late Muslim scholar Muhammad Asad wrote in relation to Q. 23:6:
Lit., “or those whom their right hands possess” (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw (“or”) denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage: an assumption, which is contradicted by the Quran itself (see 4: 3, 24, 25 and 24: 32, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Quran applies the term ‘‘believers” to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj (“spouses”), too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of “their female slaves”; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 4: 24 – namely, “those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note on 4: 24) – with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who “rightfully possess” one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative (“or”) but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase “in other words” or “that is”, thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, “save with their spouses – that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]”, etc. (Cf. a similar construction 25: 62 – “for him who has the will to take thought -that is [lit., “or”], has the will to be grateful”.) (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, p. 713, f. 3: bold emphasis ours)
Asad acknowledged that the term azwaj or zawaj are inclusive terms which refer to either spouse, not just to the wives of the men, even though he tried so desperately to deny the obvious teaching of the Quran that Muslims can own and have sex with slaves and captives.
Another Muslim source agrees with Asad:
Commentary: “Azwaj” is the plural of “Zauj” that is a pair. This is the reason that in Arabic it applies to both, masculine as well as feminine. Man is the Zauj of woman and woman is the Zauj of a man… (Riyad-us-Saliheen, compiled by Al-Imam Abu Zakariya Yahya bin Sharaf An-Nawawi Ad-Dimashqi, commentary by Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf, revised by M.R. Murad [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore, First Edition: June 1999], Volume 2, Book Fourteen – The Book of Supplicating Allah to Exalt the Mention of Allah’s Messenger, Chapter 243: The Obligation of Supplicating Allah to Exalt His Mention and its Excellence, and its Manner, Number 1407, p. 1042)
What this basically means is that the Quran actually permits Muslim women to have sexual relations with slaves that they own. I.e. we have a clear statement from Allah permitting women to engage in sexual relations outside the confines of marriage.
This isn’t merely our understanding of the aforementioned references, since one Muslim narration even acknowledges that this is how certain Muslims understood these particular texts:
Qatadah said, “A woman slept with her male slave so they brought her to Umar. And they told him she understood verse 23:6 to say that, so Umar shaved the male slave head and let her go after expelling the slave from Madina and said the woman shouldn’t marry any one after that.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 23:6 http://quran.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=221&BookID=11&Page=1; bold and underline emphasis ours)
Notice the passage that was cited to justify what the woman had done with her male slave. They clearly understood Q. 23:6 to be permitting even the women to enjoy sexual intimacy with their slaves without being required to marry them.
Now how did Umar respond? Did he use a Quranic verse to refute them or did he simply forbid them from engaging in sexual relations even though they cited a Quranic text to support their case? Which holds more authority, the Quran, which claims to be a clear book that provides a thorough explanation for all its passages?
Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained?… S. 6:114 Pickthall
Alif Lam Ra. These are verses of the clear Book. S. 12:1 Sher Ali
… and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims. S. 16:89 Yusuf Ali
A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; – a Qur’an in Arabic, for people who understand; – S. 41:3 Yusuf Ali
Or Umar’s arbitrary interpretations and decrees?
Following Umar, many Muslims today may want to restrict the permission for immorality to Muslim men, but the Quran on the other hand allows sexual relations outside of marriage for both sexes. This is in stark contrast to the inspired NT writings, which restrict sexual relations to marriage (cf. Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7).
As it stands, the foregoing Quranic texts are formulated to encompass both genders, i.e. they apply to both male and female believers, and thus the Islamic “holy” book even allows for Muslim women to have sex with those whom their right hands possess without needing to be married first!
For Islam there remains a final question: Why would sexual intercourse with a male slave be a sin for a woman although it is taken for granted that Muslim men have the right to have sexual relations with their slave women without having to marry them?
We will let the dawagandists answer that.
Further Reading
Does the Quran permit sexual relations outside of Marriage? https://answeringislam.net/Responses/Osama/extramarital.htm
Refuting A Dawagandist’s Rebuttal https://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/allah_wives.html
Answering Islam Blog 