OK, so let's pick some other verses involving the phrase "right hand possesses"
4:24: "And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess."
33:50: "O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war,"
And here's an Islamic ruling (from a site offering guidance from Islamic clerics to Muslims) on sex with slave women:
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]Now, what defines the status of a slave, a "spoil of war", in Islam? A slave is someone seized in conflict, or purchased from someone who seized her in conflict. And what is the non-Islamic world labeled? Dar el Harb (the realm of War). Islam considers itself to be at war with any contry which is not under Islamic rule, and which has not signed a treaty of peace with Islam. So the West is of Dar el Harb.The Book of Allaah indicates that the sexual relationships that are permitted are only of two types, either marriage or those (women slaves) whom one’s right hand possesses.
Al-Umm, 5/43.
The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.
If a Muslim seizes physical control of a woman in an area which is deemed to be at war with Islam, then by that act he has made her his slave, for the duration of the time he has physical control of her. And thus she is a woman who his right hand possesses, and it is legitimate under Islamic law for him to have sex with her.
And what is rape? Rape is the seizing of physical control of a woman, followed by having sex with the seized woman.
The jury is out on if “right hand possesses” automatically, accurately, and clearly means the Quran justifies rape;
“The Qur’an addressed itself to this reality, noting, for example, whom one cannot and can marry. Sexual relations were not only permissible with one’s spouse, but with “right hand possessions,” generally understood to mean slaves.
Some, by which I mean ISIS and those receptive to their claims, read this as legitimating rape, though it would be a mistake to make the leap from the regulation of sexual relations—you can’t marry your sister, even if she consents—to the crime of rape.
Because rape is a crime, regardless of who the person is.
Omar Suleiman, head of the history department at Bayyinah, an Islamic institute of higher learning based in Texas, confirmed this to me in an extensive conversation on Islam, slavery and sexual consent. “Rape is violence,” Suleiman made clear, “and Islamic scholars have even classified it as muharabah, as war against the community,” the maximal (hadd) punishment for which, he noted, was more severe than adultery.
Indeed, it qualified as a capital crime, indicating that the crime was categorized differently and judged more seriously. “Sex cannot be forced, or taken, from a person,” Suleiman argued, citing the position of Islamic law. Did that include slaves? Suleiman was unequivocal. “Yes.”
Ingrid Mattson confirmed this, and elaborated on it. As early as “the time of Umar [634-44], we have discussions of rape, and what evidence can be used in rape cases.” Mattson would know. Not only is she formerly President of the Islamic Society of North America, the largest Muslim organization in North America, but she is a religious scholar, author, and professor of Islamic studies whose dissertation examined Islam and slavery.
Muhammad permitted slavery, and sexual relations were permitted between a man and a female slave as a possibility. But rape never was. How, I wondered, can this possibly be considered morally acceptable, given that slaves, by definition, cannot give consent? I pushed both Suleiman and Mattson on this, and the answers I received required us to reframe the definition of slavery from what we think it is to what Muhammad wanted it to be.
Why it (Still) Makes Little Sense to Call ISIS Islamic
http://religiondispatches.org/why-it-still-makes-little-sense-to-call-isis-islamic/";
The discussion we are having is similar to ones where atheists condemn “Christians” who conducted the crusades and purges. In the 1000s and 1100s possessing a bible meant death - from so called Christian leaders. I’ll say the “Christians” who conducted that kind of violence were not Christians - obviously they did not follow the two commandments Christ left - how could they be Christians?
When people pick and chose carefully selected Quran verses in an attempt to say “right hand possesses” equals justification for rape they are doing the same thing as atheists condemning Christians with carefully selected OT verses.