Was This Loophole For Prostitution Of Slaves Allowed?
The scenario you’ve described is a classic example of how legal loopholes are often used to bypass the spirit of a law while technically staying within its “letter.” In the context of the Ottoman Empire or any historical period where these practices occurred, what you are describing is indeed a form of institutionalized exploitation that mimics prostitution, regardless of the legal “pretext” used to justify it. When a slave is bought, used for intimacy, and then returned under the guise of “discontent” so the original owner can profit again, the core objective isn’t a legitimate transfer of ownership; it’s a commercial transaction for sexual access. From a principled Islamic perspective, this isn’t just a “loophole”—it is a subversion of the moral framework that the Quran intended to establish. To understand why this is problematic, we have to look at the Quranic objective regarding slavery. The Quran did not “invent” slavery; it inherited a world where it was an ancient, global economic reality. However, the Quranic project was one of gradual but certain abolition. It shut the doors on making new slaves (limiting “captives” only to active warfare) and created numerous pathways for their liberation. More importantly, the Quran insisted that even within the temporary existence of concubinage, the relationship must be governed by Ihsan (moral excellence) and the eventual goal of marriage or freedom. “And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.” (Surah An-Nur, 24:33) The Quran explicitly forbade the exploitation of slave women for financial gain through sexual labor, stating that they should not be forced into such lives if they desire to live virtuously. Therefore, any system that turns a human being into a revolving commodity for sexual profit is a direct violation of the Quranic prohibition against “compelling” them into such a life. Furthermore, the legal excuse of “returning for discontent” is a manipulation of contract law. In any genuine sale, a return happens because of a legitimate defect in the “commodity.” Using this as a cover for a temporary sexual transaction is a mockery of the law. Religion is not a set of mechanical tricks to outsmart God; it is a discipline for the heart and soul. If the intent behind the purchase is not to provide a home and a stable status for the woman, but rather to facilitate a “pay-per-use” service, then the transaction is morally void. Just because a historical society or a specific legal school found a way to “accept” it does not mean it aligns with the Divine intent. Historically, many cultures have tried to dress up exploitation in legal clothing, but the Quranic principle of Taqwa (God-consciousness) requires us to look at the reality of our actions, not just the labels we put on them. Ultimately, what you are describing is a human failure to live up to the ethical standards of the faith. The fact that individuals or empires found ways to profit from such loopholes reflects their own moral compromises rather than a flaw in the original message of the Quran. The Quran’s trajectory was always toward the dignity of the human soul and the protection of the vulnerable. Any practice that treats a human being as a rental object for lust and profit is a betrayal of that dignity. True faith demands that we recognize these “legalized” forms of prostitution for what they are: an abuse of power that the Quran sought to dismantle, not encourage. “Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them.” (Bukhari)