Truth Seeker,
I am sincerely seeking the truth and want the best most honest answer. I have heard different verdicts on slavery, without being provided with any wisdom behind it. I've heard a scholar say that slavery could return one day if jihad was to happen again, and if it left a lot of female captives, they could be taken as slaves for themselves as booty again.
Discussing slavery is best described by Shaykh Salman Al-'Awdah in his book,
Drowning in minor details, as follows:
How many people talk about the issue of slavery and the legal rulings that are associated with it, like the minimum dress a slave girl must wear? Sometimes these discussions can get very drawn out. Where are the slave girls and where is slavery in the world today? These things are nonexistent today. If slavery does exist somewhere in the world then it is an extremely rare thing. So then, why busy ourselves with such a topic?
Inshaa'Allah, I intend to demonstrate that Islam was not instituting an oppresive system with regard to slavery, but was rapidly eradicating an oppresive system that was already in place. Moiz Amjad writes:
Firstly, the fact that Islam considered the institution of slavery a social vice is the obvious corollary of the various directives of Islam regarding freeing of slaves. Had Islam not considered slavery to be a social vice, there was no reason to promote freeing of slaves as a great virtue.
Secondly, the words 'Islam accepted slavery as a social vice' clearly imply that even though Islam considered slavery to be a vice against humanity, yet due to its deep roots in the world society, at the time, and due to the extra-ordinary social implications that could have followed any drastic measures of the complete and immediate abolition of the institution, Islam tolerated its existence till the time that the world was emotionally and psychologically prepared for its abolition. During this intermediary time, it was equally essential for the Prophet (pbuh) to promote the moral value of treating one's slaves with respect, honor, love and justice.
...It should be remembered that the correction of all such social vices that are as deeply rooted in a society as was slavery in the world of old, clearly need a two faceted approach in their correction. Firstly, the society should be psychologically, emotionally and physically prepared to relieve itself of such vices - which can sometimes translate into a long-term corrective process. Secondly, during this intermediary time, the society should also be taught to deal with the prevalent situation in the best possible manner.
Likewise, Hischam Khan writes:
We must remain conscious of the fact that the Qur'an was revealed in an environment in which slavery was accepted as a normal social custom. This custom was around for so long that everybody accepted it. Had you and I been living there at the time, we too would have seen nothing wrong with it. Therefore, it should be cleared up at the outset that the Qur'an neither created this practice nor encouraged it in any way, shape or form. It only accepted that this has been deeply rooted in that society and would not be eradicated easily. So, a simple demand to free all slaves was unrealistic. Besides, the slaves; many of which were elderly poor people, had nowhere to go and would therefore probably end up becoming beggars and only further the burden upon society. As such, a gradual approach had to be taken for the eradication of this vice. Please remember that the steps toward this taken by the Qur'an would have been seen as abnormal to the people of the time, as keeping slaves feels to you and I. It should be recognized that slavery was a social phenomenon of an international nature, Islam could not have completely abolished slavery, while the world culture remained the same.
...Considering all of this, I really cannot see how the Qur'an displays a "disturbing concept" in regards to slaves. Actually, I reckon that the Qur'an provided the best groundwork toward the actual abolition of slavery itself. Had the Qur'an decided to declare slavery forbidden immediately rather than gradually removing it while giving a set of rules for their better treatment in the mean time, then it would have caused various problems on different levels. In the world at the time, there were such a huge number of slaves that releasing them would have left them without food, money, jobs and care. Many of them were already very vulnerable and would therefore never have been able to cope with such a thing. The societies would never have been able to provide for them all and they may as a result have turned to illegal means to earn a living (e.g. brothels may have been opened etc). Thus, there was wisdom behind the decision to abolish slavery gradually rather than immediately.
You write:
"Secondly, where Quran mentions the prohibition of illegal sexual intercourse, the only exceptions are with a person's wife or SLAVES/ CAPTIVES that their right hand possesses."
Having explained what the social customs were at the time, it should be understood that sexual intercourse with one's slave was considered part of the norm. The slaves too saw nothing wrong in this. In fact, before the advent of Islam the slaves were considered no more than their master's possessions and therefore absolutely anything could be done with them. In other words, they could even take their slaves' lives when and as they pleased. Islam removed such vices and raised them to the position of fellow humans with similar rights. However, as long as slavery was not completely removed, having sexual relations remained part of the master-slave relationship.
Concerning the master-slave relationship, I think it is but natural to assume that it was very close. It seems obvious enough that the master and slave would be around each other a lot of the time. Therefore, it would probably have been difficult to expect them not to have a sexual relationship, especially if the slave happened to be very attractive. However, depicting it as the master “raping” and “abusing” his slave is far from the truth. The slave was fully aware that this was a part of the relationship much like the husband and wife knows that sexual relations are a part of the couple’s relationship. Such was not a hidden relationship; it was known and was also legally and morally accepted, both in the society and the world at large. So, it was not fornication. Quite to the contrary, the exceptions to the impermissibility of having sexual relationships are those under marriage and those with one’s slave. Therefore, it is also incorrect to term it “fornication” (do note that of course, the only permanent exception to the impermissibility of having sexual relations was that under marriage).
Had slavery been abolished on the spot it would have caused chaos in the society and the world at large. It just was not possible. However, the Prophet (p) changed their status and tried to get his people into treating them as fellow members of the family. For this reason, a “master-slave” relationship turned into more of a Father-son, or husband-wife relationship.
The “slaves” were to be fed with the same food as that of the master, clothed with the same clothes (yes, same clothes!), and not asked to do more than they could handle. Nay, the master was even told to assist the slave if the slave was found to be having any difficulties. They were not to refer to them as “slaves” anymore. These are your brothers and sisters, it was declared. Yet further, they were not allowed to hit their slaves. If these slaves objected to their position and desired to be freed, then if the potential and ability to live and cope independently was seen in them, they should be helped toward being freed. Accordingly, what Islam envisaged and wanted to produce, was a treatment of “slaves” that was absolutely free of cruelty and harm. Actually, keeping such things in mind probably renders this undeserving of the term “slavery”.
And in the link I gave you to IslamOnline, they wrote:
The word “right hands” here refers to women taken as prisoners of war. It is by no means an implication of concubinage, for this is totally prohibited in Islam. Nor does it refer to purchasing female slaves from market to be used to satisfy sexual urge. It’s during warfare that the right hand actually takes possession of captives, and this is what the Qur’an means. That’s point number one.
Point number two is that, the word “right hands possess” also has another significance that clearly reflects the great concern Islam has for preserving the rights of those captives. As we know, the right hand has its special merit and privileged functions that man instinctively reserve for it. Imam Kurtubi, in his commentary on this verse, says: “Allah Almighty uses the word ‘right hand’ here for it denotes great honor and respect. It suffices that it’s the one used when referring to spending, as mentioned in the hadith ‘… he who provides charity (seeking only Allah’s reward) in a way that his left hand does not know what his right hand spends …’ And it is the very hand used in making pledge of allegiance … etc.”
All this indicates that the word “what your right hand possess” has a special and glorified meaning in Islamic usage. In fact, it signifies the great care and good treatment that captives or prisoners of wars should be accorded. This is how Islam dealt with the issue from the earliest stages.
All this did not materialize all of a sudden, for slavery was a social ailment that needed to be addressed. So it was a gradual strategy laid down by Islam, not only to eradicate slavery, but also to give the freed slaves a complete social rehabilitation. First of all, Islam stipulated that all masters should take care of their captives; they should not be overburdened with tasks, nor should they be deprived of their human rights. The Prophet (pbuh) made this clear in his hadith that masters should treat their slaves as their brothers and female captives as their sisters, if not in faith, at least in humanity. He said:
“Your servants are thy brethren. Allah has put them under your control. He could, if He willed, make you under their control. Thus, whoever has his brother under his control, let him feed him of his same food and dress him of his same dress. Never saddle them with work that goes beyond their capability. If the work happens to be somehow difficult, lend them a helping hand.”
As for female captives, Imam Bukhari quotes the Prophet, as saying:
“If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward.”
You see; that’s how Islam set the course of emancipating slaves. They should definitely be well treated. Also, educating female captives and marrying them, after emancipation is considered an act of charity, which would earn one great reward. Not only that. Islam further put an end to the habit of using derogative names of “slaves” or “servants”. For in Islam, man must not show servitude to anyone besides Allah the Almighty. So it was stipulated that the captives should be addressed by “fatah” (boy) or “fatat” (girl). Besides, the act of emancipating slaves used to be a competitive work among the Prophet’s Companions, for it was highly recommended by Islam and was considered an act of worship.
As for your comments..
Sorry, wasn't very clear here. I meant difference of opinion between scholars regarding slavery. some say it is a practice that is allowed in islam because we are by nature sexual, while others say that islam forbids it. surely there should only be one answer, and both can't be right. Now, scholars who suggest slavery is allowed and having sex with them is allowed, now why would they lie. I'm more inclined to believing people who say the contrary and say islam forbids it, i feel they are trying to cover it up, because they themselves don't accept it or understand it. From what i see, slavery is allowed in islam, as is stated in this article
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=13737&dgn=4 and in this one
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=10382&dgn=4. What i want to know is why it is allowed, since it is inhumane.
As mentioned before, slavery wasn't prohibited by Islam, but steps were put in place to see that the practice was eradicated. The scholars you have quoted like Shaykh Munajjid, etc. all agree with this, so what is the issue here? Sister Halima very kindly posted the ahadith on slavery for us, all of which make it clear that Islam has placed a massive amount of pressure in the direction of freeing slaves.
The only issue where slavery arises again is with regard to prisoners of war. One must remember that prisoners of war were NEVER distributed amongst the soldiers as slaves. When prisoners of war were taken in, they FIRST WENT TO THE ISLAMIC STATE. It was the Islamic government that took care of the prisoners of war and was responsible for ensuring their well-being. Naturally, back then, the Islamic government did not possess the resources or the necessary instituions to take care of so many prisoners of war. Hence, whomever could be exchanged for Muslim prisoners of war or ransom money was exchanged (Ibn Hisham). They were also set free for teaching others how to read or write. But if the Muslims simply set all the prisoners of war free, many of them would have no one to take care of them and would be unable to return safely to their homes. And it would be illogical to return them to the enemy forces again, where both men and women could contribute to battle preparations against the Muslims. The Islamic state needed to take of the prisoners of war somehow. The custom of that time was to have them all sold off into slavery. What the Islamic government did was it assigned them to different Muslim families to look after, and the only way to ensure that the relationship was secure, other than marriage, was to secure them as bondsmen/bondswomen. But this was not the typical master-slave relationship that you might envision. On the contrary, as demonstrated by some of the evidence quoted earlier, the 'slaves' were to be treated with kindness and compassion as mentioned in an authentic hadith in Sunan At-Tirmidhi. And in Sunan Ibn Majah it mentions that one who treats those under his/her authority badly will not enter paradise.
So the important point to note here is that the soldiers were never allowed to simply capture prisoners of war and turn them into slaves. The prisoners of war were taken by the Islamic government and
they assigned them to families that would be able to take care of them properly.
What about today? I think this is your main question. The answer is very clear. In the past, the only reason why the prisoners of war were assigned to families as slaves was because there was no other way to look after them. Today however, in the event of a military jihad (which is only lawful under an Islamic state) it is most likely that we
would have the resources and institutions to take care of prisoners of war without having to give them as slaves. So the answer is that slavery is indeed a practice of the past (thanks to Islamic directives which aided in its abolishment). Today we have resources and instituions that would mean that we would not have to go down that route.
I find it strange that you call it 'inhumane' when the Islamic rulings were the most revolutionary in bringing humane treatment to slaves. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh said "
If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training, and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward. " (Bukhari).
These kind of statements were unheard of in that era.
If jihad returned, and there were loads of female captives of war, what would be done?
See above. They would become the responsibility of the Islamic state which would shelter, clothe and feed them, since today we have those resources and institutions.
Wouldn't they be distributed among the army as this is what was done during the prophet's SAW time
1. They were NOT distributed during the time of the Prophet saws. They were first taken by the Islamic state and then assigned to those capable of taking care of them.
2. This was only done because the Muslim state did not possess the resources or instutions to shelter and support hundreds to thousands of prisoners of war. Today, we do have these resources and institutions, hence we do not need to use slavery.
Please also read about the treatment of prisoners of war in Islam here:
http://www.islamtoday.net/english/showme_weekly_2002.cfm?cat_id=30&sub_cat_id=491
Read it again, it says "if a slave woman becomes pregnant, the child belongs to the master and she becomes free when he dies". Now here is what i understand from this quote. A slave becomes preganat by her master, has a child, then when the master dies she is then free. It does not say that when a woman becomes pregnant by their master they then become automatically free
This is what you originally said:
This is contrary to the link you provided me saying a new son is not the slave of the master
Clearly you're changing your statement now. To clarify:
-If a slave-girl gives birth to her master's son, the son is NOT a slave, and when the master dies the girl is free as well.
Precisely what i don't understand. Ok even if it was the custom at the time, why couldn't the noble pious companions refrain from having extra marital relationships with them, even through an "interim period". if today in this society filled with invitation to zinna, why couldn't in that society people stop
I think the quotes I gave at the beginning demonstrate why it wasn't possible to remove slavery in a single step.
Daoud,
leaving aside your repugnant and insulting arrogance
Which part was repugnant and/or insulting?
and patronising attitude towards a genuine search for understanding
How do you know which search is genuine or not?
we are constantly told that the Qu'ran is literally true word for word and applies to all times and all places yet here it is being acknowledged that some aspects are culture and time specific and have no relevance to the situation as it currently is in the modern world.
It makes no sense to claim that the Qu'ran, the Holy word and law of Allah, was a) a response to the cultural and legal situation of the time and b) is universally applicable in all its aspects in all times and places.
Can you show me what is the conflict between saying that the Qur'an is universal and that it focused on removing degrading cultural practices at the same time?
Is the abolishment of slavery not universal? And what about when the Qur'an forbids the burying of baby girls? What is your response to that? Clearly, that is only a Qur'anic directive which responds to an oppressive cultural practice, yet the wisdom behind it and the principles of justice which it carries is certainly timeless.
... one last thing. Lest anyone think that slavery is completely alien to Judaism and Christianity, let us examine what
their sources say on the topic.
Leviticus 25:44-46 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. (RSV)
Famous 18th Century Bible Commentator, Reverend Matthew Henry, writes:
That he (i.e. Israelite) should not serve as a bond-servant (v. 39), nor be sold with the sale of a bondman (v. 42); that is, "it must not be looked upon that his master that bought him had as absolute a property in him as in a captive taken in war, that might be used, sold, and bequeathed, at pleasure, as much as a man’s cattle; no, he shall serve thee as a hired servant, whom the master has the use of only, but not a despotic power over.
...That they might purchase bondmen of the heathen nations that were round about them, or of those strangers that sojourned among them (except of those seven nations that were to be destroyed); and might claim a dominion over them, and entail them upon their families as an inheritance, for the year of jubilee should give no discharge to them, v. 44, 46. Thus in our English plantations the negroes only are used as slaves; how much to the credit of Christianity I shall not say… Let me only add here that, though they are not forbidden to rule their bondmen with rigour, yet the Jewish doctors say, "It is the property of mercy, and way of wisdom, that a man should be compassionate, and not make his yoke heavy upon any servant that he has. (
SOURCE)
And another verse:
Exodus 21:20-21 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.
Reverend Henry:
Direction is given what should be done if a servant died by his master’s correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound; yet, if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances, v. 20. But, if he continued a day or two after the correction given, the master was supposed to suffer enough by losing his servant, v. 21. Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master’s reasonable beating of him, but chance-medley. Yet let all masters take heed of tyrannizing over their servants; the gospel teaches them even to forbear and moderate threatenings (Eph. 6:9), considering with holy Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13–15. (
SOURCE)
This one is particularly disturbing:
Exodus 21:7-11 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (NLT)
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (NLT)
These quotes allow us to appreciate the revolution which Islam brought about with respect to removing slavery.
May Allah swt bless you in seeking truth.
