بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
"In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."
Islam came into being at a time when slavery already existed under Roman, Greek, Indian, Jewish, and Christian law. The slave trade then continued among the Western nations right up to recent centuries, with modern Europe practicing slavery as well. Many slaves died from the methods used to capture them and on the way to the shores where the ships of the English Company and others would dock — around 4% died during loading, and 12% during the voyage, not counting those who died in the colonies! England's Queen Elizabeth even owned a ship called Jesus that was used to abduct slaves from West Africa.
The slave trade remained in the hands of English companies that had obtained a monopoly on it under license from the British government, until the government later allowed all British subjects to take part in the practice of enslavement.
Some experts estimate that the total number of people the British seized and enslaved in the colonies between 1680 and 1786 CE was around 2,130,000.
When Europe made contact with sub-Saharan Africa, that contact was a human tragedy: the inhabitants of that continent suffered immense calamity for five centuries. The nations of Europe devised malicious methods for abducting these people and bringing them to their own lands to fuel their development, burdening them with labor beyond what they could bear. And when America was discovered, the calamity only grew — now they were made to serve on two continents instead of one!
The Encyclopedia Britannica (2/779, entry "Slavery") states: "The hunting of slaves from their jungle-surrounded villages was carried out by setting fire to the dry brushwood fencing that enclosed the village; when the villagers fled into the open in panic, the English would capture them using the means they had prepared for that purpose."
One million Black Africans were transported to America, while nine million died during the process of capture, loading, and transport — this in the period between 1661 and 1774 CE. In other words, only one-tenth of those captured actually survived to be transported to America, and not to find rest or citizenship, but to be subjected to forced labor and torture!
The Americans had laws in this regard that any reasonable person would be ashamed of. Among their laws: whoever assaulted his master was killed; whoever ran away had his hands and feet cut off and was branded with hot iron; and if he ran away a second time, he was killed — though how he was meant to run away a second time, after already losing his hands and feet, is another matter.
Among their laws: education was forbidden to Black men, and people of color were barred from the jobs reserved for whites.
Also: if seven slaves gathered together, this was treated as a crime, and any white man passing by was permitted to spit on them and give them twenty lashes.
Another law stated: slaves have no self and no soul, no understanding, no intelligence, and no will — that life exists in them only in their arms, that is, as mere labor.
In summary: when it came to duties, service, and labor, the slave was treated as a rational, responsible being who was punished for any shortfall; but when it came to rights, he was treated as a thing with no soul and no personhood — merely a pair of arms.
Finally, after long centuries of enslavement and injustice, the protocol banning slavery and working toward its elimination was drawn up at United Nations headquarters in 1953. But there is a great difference between a nation issuing regulatory laws and penalties concerning slavery, and having that regulation embedded in the very core of one's religion and legislation. Search online for the phrase "human trafficking" to see the enormous scale of this problem today, and the size of the human trafficking trade in those countries — then compare it with Muslim-majority countries to see the difference.
How Did Islam Contain Slavery?
Containing an existing social phenomenon requires a clear strategic plan. The plan that Islamic law adopted to contain slavery consisted of two key elements: drying up the sources that fed into it, and diversifying and multiplying its outlets — after those sources had previously been far more numerous than the outlets.
To picture this clearly, let us compare slavery to the water in a dam. If a dam is fed by various sources bringing in water, while the outlets draining water from it are fewer, the dam will remain full — its level will even rise. But if the outflow from the dam is far greater than the inflow, the water will eventually be depleted and the dam will empty over time. This is exactly what we see clearly in the Muslim world today: it is empty of slavery.
Furthermore, banning slavery outright and overnight, in societies where it was already widespread, would go against wisdom — neither the societies nor the slaves themselves would have been ready for such a sudden change. It is also wrong to take a shallow, simplistic view of human beings, treating them as if they were objects on which sudden change can be forced with no preparation at all — this contradicts the very foundations of society, and also goes against the nature of slaves who had lived their entire lives within the institution of slavery and would then be released without warning to bear responsibilities of independent life they had never even imagined bearing. Sudden emancipation simply does not fit the social, psychological, and economic realities of people.
The principle of gradualism here is important and highly effective. Even the emancipation of slaves in the United States and the United Nations' abolition of slavery did not happen until the issue had matured in public discourse, slaves themselves had repeatedly demanded their freedom, and battles and revolts sometimes broke out because of it. Only then were societies ready to accept the change — but only after unrest, strife, and rebellions of a kind that never occurred in Muslim lands.
Drying Up the Sources of Slavery
In Islam, slavery was restricted to a single source only: prisoners of war, whether male or female, and only those who had actually fought in combat. It is not permissible to enslave anyone from the enemy who did not take part in the fighting. In this way, Islam shut down the common sources of slavery found elsewhere: kidnapping a free person or deceiving them and then selling them; enslaving a free person because they could not repay a debt; selling one's own children because one could not support them; enslavement based on racism; and enslaving criminals as punishment for their crimes.
Diversifying the Outlets from Slavery
After Islam restricted the sources of slavery to just one, it made the outlets for ending it numerous and varied — some obligatory, some recommended. A Muslim frees a slave either because he already owns one, or by purchasing a slave specifically in order to free them. Among the outlets for ending slavery are:
Atonement (kaffarah) for accidental killing
Atonement for breaking an oath
Atonement for zihar
Atonement for deliberately breaking the fast in Ramadan
Atonement for a free man who strikes his own slave
Mukatabah — a contract between a slave and his master for manumission in exchange for a sum of money
A slave-woman giving birth to her master's child (granting her umm walad status)
Freeing slaves as one of the recipient categories of zakat
The elevated status Islam gives to manumission itself, and the reward attached to it: "And what can make you know what the difficult path is? It is freeing a slave." (Qur'an 90:12–13)
Are Prisoners of War Necessarily Enslaved?
When we say that the only source of slavery in Islam is capture in war, does this mean that whenever there is a war between Muslims and disbelievers and one of the disbelievers is captured, he automatically becomes a slave? And if there are other options, is enslaving prisoners even the best of those options?
The truth is that there are various options, and slavery is not the expected outcome for prisoners at all. A prisoner may remain a prisoner pending exchange, the Muslims may trade him for their own prisoners held by the enemy, or they may release him outright as an act of grace — and the latter two options are certainly better and carry greater reward. Allah, the Exalted, says: "Then [set them free] either by grace or by ransom." (Qur'an, Muhammad 47:4)
In fact, it is very rare for male prisoners to be enslaved; this applied predominantly to women — only those who had actually taken part in the fighting, of course. This was for a number of reasons, among them that it is not permissible to kill women, and so releasing them after battle with no protector could cause harm to them or to society. A clear system was therefore needed, one that would not grant them the status of free Muslim women immediately after they had actively taken part in trying to kill Muslims. So if they were not exchanged for Muslim prisoners held by the enemy, and were not pardoned and returned to the enemy, enslavement was permitted for them, after their lives had already been spared. The same rules that apply to free wives apply to slave-women, with one exception: a free woman has the right to choose her own husband, while a slave-woman does not have that right.
Notice, then, how even this single source of slavery was itself restricted and narrowed further still — so that slavery became just one of three options for dealing with prisoners of war.
1,400 Years Have Passed, and Islam Never Abolished It?
More than 1,400 years have now passed, and — so the objection goes — Islam never abolished slavery, while it was ended within a few decades of the twentieth century by others. There is a major misunderstanding behind those who repeat such a claim, because they simply fail to grasp the difference between legislation itself and its practical application on the ground. When discussing this issue, one must never step outside the bounds of the legislation itself. If you instead start judging legislation by people's actual behavior and by reality on the ground, then fornication, alcohol, murder, and theft are all forbidden too — does their continued existence among people count as a flaw in the legislation that forbids them? Not at all. We must recognize clearly that the principle of personal responsibility for one's own behavior is the fundamental basis of human existence in this life. If people applied the Sharia by compulsion, with no choice of their own, the entire principle of accountability in the Hereafter — one of the foundational articles of faith — would be nullified. From here we can also distinguish between abolishing slavery as a legal principle and abolishing the factual existence of slaves. Pointing to reality on the ground proves nothing except a misunderstanding of the correct Islamic position on the matter.
The Treatment of Slaves in Islam
Islam establishes that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, created the human being with full moral responsibility, obligated him with the duties of the Sharia, and made reward and punishment contingent on his own will and choice. No human being has the right to restrict that will or strip away that choice without legitimate cause, and whoever dares to do so without right is an oppressor and a wrongdoer. We will now clarify when slavery becomes legitimate for a person under Islamic law.
But if a person is a slave, how does Islam treat him? Does it treat him, for instance, the way the Romans did — as a tool for training in combat, to be stabbed and killed — or the way slaves were treated in Europe and America?
Guaranteeing Food and Clothing Equal to Their Masters
It is narrated from Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "They are your brothers; Allah has placed them under your authority. So whoever has his brother under his authority, let him feed him from what he himself eats, and clothe him from what he himself wears, and let him not burden him with work beyond his ability — and if he does burden him with such work, let him help him with it." (Reported by al-Bukhari, no. 6050)
Preserving Their Dignity
Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I heard Abu al-Qasim (peace and blessings be upon him) say: "Whoever slanders his slave while the slave is innocent of what he said will be lashed [with the punishment for slander] on the Day of Judgment, unless what he said was actually true." (Reported by al-Bukhari, no. 6858)
He (peace and blessings be upon him) also said: "None of you should say, 'This is my male slave' or 'This is my female slave' — rather, let him say, 'This is my young man' or 'This is my young woman.'" (Reported by al-Bukhari)
Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) once freed a slave of his, then picked up a twig or something similar from the ground and said: "The reward I have for this is not even worth as much as this twig. I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say: 'Whoever slaps his slave or strikes him, his atonement for that is to set him free.'" (Reported by Muslim, no. 1657)
Justice Toward Slaves and Kindness to Them
It is reported that 'Uthman ibn 'Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) once twisted the ear of a slave of his for an offense the slave had committed. He later said to the slave, "Come and pinch my ear in return." The slave refused, but 'Uthman insisted, so the slave began pinching it lightly. 'Uthman said, "Pinch it properly — I cannot bear the punishment of the Day of Judgment." The slave replied, "And likewise, my master — the Day you fear, I fear it too."
'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf (may Allah be pleased with him), when he walked among his slaves, could not be told apart from them by anyone, because he never walked ahead of them, and he wore nothing but what they themselves wore.
'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) once passed by and saw slaves standing without eating alongside their masters. He grew angry and said to the masters, "What is wrong with people who keep everything to themselves, away from those who serve them?" He then called the servants over, and they all ate together.
A man once visited Salman al-Farisi (may Allah be pleased with him) and found him kneading dough — even though he was a governor at the time. The man asked, "Abu 'Abdillah, what is this?" Salman replied, "We sent our servant out on an errand, and we disliked burdening him with two tasks at once."
A Slave May Take Precedence Over a Free Man
A slave may take precedence over a free man in anything in which he is more accomplished, whether in matters of religion or worldly affairs. It is authentically established that a slave could lead the prayer as imam — 'A'ishah, Mother of the Believers, had a slave who used to lead her in prayer.
A Slave May Purchase His Own Freedom (Mukatabah)
A slave has the right to purchase his own freedom from his master in exchange for a sum of money paid in installments: he enters into a mukatabah contract with his master for a series of payments he brings until the full price is paid, at which point his master sets him free. In the meantime, the master releases him to go and seek a livelihood from which to earn that money. This is what is referred to in Allah's words: "And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among those whom your right hands possess — then make a contract with them if you know there is good in them, and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you." (Qur'an, an-Nur 24:33)
The command here is one of obligation. Al-Tabari, the foremost of the Qur'an commentators (may Allah have mercy on him), said in his tafsir: "The more correct of the two opinions on this matter, in my view, is the opinion of those who say: it is obligatory upon the master of a slave to enter into a mukatabah contract with him if he knows there is good in him and the slave asks him for it — because the apparent sense of His words, 'then make a contract with them,' is a command, and a command from Allah is an obligation."
In fact, if a slave is unable to complete the payment for his own freedom, he may be given the remaining amount from zakat funds, since freeing slaves is one of the eight recognized categories of zakat recipients.
This, then, is the justice of Islam toward slaves, its kindness to them, and its treatment of them. Compare it to what was described above regarding how the Western nations treated slaves, even in recent centuries.
On this point of comparison, Gustave Le Bon writes in La Civilisation des Arabes (pp. 459–460): "What I consider true is that slavery among the Muslims was better than it was among others, that the condition of slaves in the East was better than the condition of servants in Europe, and that slaves in the East were treated as members of the family... Those who wished for their freedom obtained it simply by expressing that wish — yet even so, they rarely resorted to exercising that right." Note that he considers the Muslims' treatment of slaves better even than Europe's treatment of its own household servants.
Why Good Treatment Without Freedom?
Some might say that Islam's concern for treating slaves kindly, preserving their rights, and treating them well in food, drink, and clothing, as explained above, resembles the way the old witch treats the children in the story of Hansel and Gretel — fattening them up only in order to eat them! The flaw in this objection becomes clear the moment you consider what their position would be if Islam instead looked down on slaves and permitted their mistreatment — what would their stance toward Islam be then? When a critic takes an opposing position both in the case of good treatment and, naturally, in the case of mistreatment, this is clear proof that he is not arguing from a principled position at all, but out of underlying hostility. His mindset is prepared, in every case, for only one thing: turning everything into a flaw. You will stand accused either way with such a person, whether you do good or ill — and accusations of this kind have no real value, since they collapse the moment their lack of credibility and objectivity becomes clear.
Is Slavery Inherently a Moral or Immoral Act?
Not every act can simply be classified, as a whole, as moral or immoral, independent of its causes and purpose. Only practices defined by a single, fixed value can be labeled across the board as moral or immoral, lawful or unlawful. General practices, however, cannot be judged wholesale, either morally or legally.
For example, "trade" cannot be regarded as wholly moral or wholly immoral — some people trade in cars, for instance, while others trade in drugs.
Notice, too, that a sexual relationship between a man and a woman is permissible, moral, and essential for the continuation of the human race if they are spouses — but if it is fornication or rape, it is immoral.
Even killing need not always be considered immoral: in many legal systems it can be moral, even required, if carried out in the name of justice and retribution, or to protect the security of a nation against traitors, so that others are deterred from committing treason.
Measure many other practices by the same standard — and slavery, which we are discussing here, is one of them. If you overpower an enemy on the battlefield after he had already set out to kill you and actively tried to do so, and you then keep him alive as a prisoner despite having full ability to kill him, and you punish him with the lesser penalty — stripping him of his freedom — even though by rights you could have taken his life, then there is no doubt that choosing enslavement over killing him is a moral act. And if you gave him the choice between death and slavery, he would never choose death, especially knowing there was a strong likelihood of his escaping slavery through the many outlets described above. And if he had been trying to take your life had you fallen into his hands, yet when he falls into your hands you instead spare his life and only take away his freedom, knowing full well he may later be freed and return to his people — then you have shown yourself to be more noble and of higher moral character than he was. And if you pardon him outright and treat him kindly, you have gone even further in honoring him, and you will have a tremendous reward for that.
As for female combatants, it is not permissible to touch them at the moment of their capture, as some mistakenly imagine — this is only permissible after each of them has been assigned to a specific master. And the difference between a slave-woman and a free woman comes down to one single matter: a free woman chooses her own husband, while a slave-woman does not have that freedom of choice.
What About Importing Slave-Women?
What is meant here is the purchase of slave-women from outside the Muslim lands. We must not forget that these women were already slaves before Muslims purchased them — Muslims had no role in making them slaves in the first place. The critic who condemns Islam for purchasing them, or accepting them as gifts, is not arguing from the facts of the matter, but from an underlying hostility toward Islam. The reality is that their living among Muslims was, by moral standards, far better than living among non-Muslims, for two reasons: first, Islam imposed a strict system of kind treatment toward slave-women, as explained above; and second, their prospects of gaining freedom under Islam were far higher than under non-Muslims. And if this critic's real concern is truly the welfare and dignity of these women, how can he object to their moving into a better situation, one in which they were more likely to eventually gain their freedom?
Testimonies of Fair-Minded Observers
The German orientalist Annemarie Schimmel says: "Islam commands good treatment of slaves. Slaves, for example, have the right to receive their wages in cases of incapacity and illness. Freeing slaves is something Islam actively encourages, and a slave has the right to buy the very business in which he works, as well as a right to a share of its income... Islam brought slavery to an end, and slaves rose to the very highest positions [in Muslim society] — as one can see from a general reading of Islamic history." (Islam: The Religion of Humanity, p. 82)
The Egyptian Christian thinker Dr. Nazmi Luqa says: "Islam made slaves, Abyssinians, and the kings of Quraysh equal." (Muhammad: The Message and the Messenger, p. 185)
The scholar Gustave Le Bon confirms, in his book La Civilisation des Arabes, that the condition of slaves in Muslim lands was incomparably better than that of household servants in the West. Slaves, as Le Bon observes, were considered members of the family, with no distinction between them and the master's own children: they ate the same food, wore clothing similar to their masters', and mixed with them in daily life so completely that an outsider could hardly tell the slave from the master in an Arab household. Many slaves, in fact, refused their freedom and preferred to remain with their Arab masters, on account of their masters' nobility and generosity. (La Civilisation des Arabes, Egyptian General Book Authority edition, Family Library project)
What these fair-minded non-Muslim observers have stated is confirmed by historical fact: history shows that Muslims genuinely treated their slaves as if they were their own children. This is why former slaves excelled throughout every Muslim land, in every craft and profession, and rose to command armies and hold the highest administrative posts — even reaching the very headship of the state, as happened in the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt.
Sultan Qutuz, the conqueror of the Tatars, was himself a mamluk (slave-soldier) whose master showed him kindness, raised him, and educated him, then pushed him to the front ranks until he rose to rule Egypt. The same is true of al-Zahir Baybars, Queen Shajar al-Durr, 'Izz al-Din Aybak, Kafur al-Ikhshidi, and others. Had it not been for Islam's tolerance and the nobility of its treatment of the mamluks, none of these figures would have become rulers immortalized in Islamic history — something that never happened in any other nation or civilization. How true are the words of 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him): "This is how Islam works: it increases the noble in nobility, and raises the enslaved up onto the throne."
Among the most important figures in the whole of Islamic history are people who had once been slaves, and upon whom Allah bestowed the blessings of Islam, freedom, and then an everlasting legacy. Here are just a few examples:
Bilal ibn Rabah — the man who gave the very first call to prayer (adhan) in the history of Islam, and who remained the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) personal mu'adhdhin for his entire life. Is there anything more honorable than the call that summons people to the house of their Lord, to stand before the Creator? Does the Prophet's entrusting this exalted task to Bilal, a former slave, not itself testify to the honor Islam gave to those whose humanity had once been enslaved and disregarded? 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) would allow Bilal into his presence even before Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, the chief of Mecca in the pre-Islamic era.
Suhayb al-Rumi ("Suhayb the Byzantine") — he led the Companions in the funeral prayer over 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, with 'Uthman ibn 'Affan, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, al-Zubayr ibn al-'Awwam, Talhah, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, and other chief nobles of the Arabs standing behind him in the row — and he was the former slave whom Allah honored through Islam.
Zayd ibn Harithah — he, and after him his son Usamah, took command of the Muslim army, an army that included in its ranks nobles and senior figures from the Muhajirun and the Ansar.
al-Hasan al-Basri — his father had been among the slaves freed through Islam, and his mother was a freed servant of Umm Salamah; he himself became a great jurist holding an immense standing in the history of Muslim scholars.
Muhammad ibn Sirin — both of his parents were freed through Islam; he attained a lofty standing, vast knowledge, piety, and an elevated place in the hearts of both the early and later generations.
'Ikrimah, the freedman of Ibn 'Abbas — he was among the people most knowledgeable in the scholarship of the great scholar of the Ummah, his master Ibn 'Abbas. The same is true of Nafi', the freedman of Ibn 'Umar.
Salim, the freedman of Abu Hudhayfah — 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said of him: "Had he still been alive, I would have appointed him caliph over the Muslims."
Zayd ibn Harithah — his name is mentioned in the Qur'an itself, and 'A'ishah said of him: "Had he still been alive, the Messenger of Allah would have appointed him caliph over the Muslims."
"And all praise is due to Allah, Lord of all the worlds, and may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his companions."