Was This Loophole For Prostitution Of Slaves Allowed?
Dressing a sin in a contract doesn’t make it any less of a sin. In a courtroom, these men might have escaped punishment on a technicality, but in Islamic ethics, they were committing a profound deception. The seller is in direct violation of Surah An-Nur (24:33), which explicitly forbids forcing slave women into sexual labor for “worldly gain.” By repeatedly “selling” and “receiving” the woman back for profit, he isn’t a businessman; he’s a trafficker. Using his power to exploit a vulnerable person for money is a total betrayal of the Amanah (trust) God placed in him. In Islam, actions are judged by Niyyah (intent). If the buyer intends to return the woman before he even pays, the “sale” is a sham. He is effectively committing a form of “legalized” Zina (fornication) under the mask of fake ownership. He can lie to a judge about being “discontented,” but he cannot lie to the One who “knows the treachery of the eyes and what the hearts conceal” (40:19). The “pretext of discontent” was a cynical abuse of Contract Law. Legal returns were meant for genuine defects in a purchase. These men treated a human being as a “pay-per-use” service, using the “return” policy to get their money back after the act. This wasn’t a transfer of ownership; it was a revolving door for exploitation. This wasn’t a “flaw in religion,” but a human failure. These people were trying to outsmart Divine Law with human cleverness. No amount of legal jargon transforms an act of greed and lust into a valid religious practice.