and I believe this is reported from some of the early scholars. Thus, it is clear that there is disagreement over intercourse with an idolatrous slave woman. As for a slave woman from the People of the Book, the permissibility of intercourse with her is not disputed when marriage to such women is permitted; rather, there is well-known disagreement over marrying her. All this demonstrates that no one has held that marrying such women is permissible while taking them as concubines is prohibited, nor would any jurist hold such a view.
We therefore say:
There are several grounds establishing that taking them as concubines is not forbidden.
First: The basic presumption is permissibility, and no evidence prohibiting them has been established from a scriptural text, scholarly consensus, or analogy. The permissibility of intercourse with them therefore remains the default ruling. This is because the evidence cited by those who dispute the permissibility of marrying them, such as His words:
“Do not marry polytheistic women,”
and His words:
“Do not hold on to marriage bonds with disbelieving women,”
applies only to marriage, not to intercourse by right of ownership. It is known that neither the Sunnah nor analogy provides grounds for prohibiting them, so permissibility remains the default ruling.
Second: His words, Most High:
“And those who guard their private parts, except with their wives or those whom their right hands possess, for then they are free from blame,”
establish the general permissibility of intercourse by right of ownership, without restriction except where evidence establishes an exception. Indeed, ‘Uthmān and other Companions regarded a text such as this as encompassing having two sisters as concubines at the same time, saying: “One verse made them lawful, and another verse made them unlawful.” If they understood its general scope to include a case in which marriage is forbidden, then it is all the more fitting and appropriate that its general scope should include a case in which marriage is not forbidden.