In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds. May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and all of his Companions.

Slavery in Islam

A Sharīʿah and Historical Study on the Reality of Slavery, Captivity, Concubinage, and Responses to the Most Common Objections

Introduction

One of the most common objections raised against Islam today is the claim: How can Islam recognize slavery, permit the enslavement of prisoners of war, and allow concubinage with female captives, while at the same time presenting itself as a religion of mercy, justice, and human dignity?

At first glance, this objection may appear compelling to those who have not studied the historical reality of slavery, who are unfamiliar with the world that Islam came to reform, and who fail to distinguish between institutions established by Islam and those that Islam inherited and gradually transformed.

As a result, many people view Islamic slavery through the lens of modern European slavery, ancient Roman slavery, or the Atlantic slave trade, judging them all by the same standard, even though the difference between these systems is greater than the difference between opposites.

This reflects a fundamental methodological error.

Many critics isolate individual legal rulings from their historical and legislative context, then judge them without considering the society into which they were revealed, the legal system to which they belong, or the objectives they were intended to achieve.

Consequently, they assume that slavery in Islam is identical to every other form of slavery known throughout history.

Yet merely sharing the same name does not mean sharing the same reality, just as different forms of trade, marriage, or judicial systems are not identical simply because they share a common label.

One of the greatest mistakes in studying Islamic law is to remove its rulings from their historical setting and evaluate them according to circumstances that did not exist at the time of their revelation, without examining the conditions they came to address, the problems they sought to solve, or the method by which they sought reform.

This does not mean that truth changes with time.

Rather, it means that legislation cannot be properly understood without first understanding the circumstances in which it was revealed, the problems it sought to remedy, and the wisdom behind its gradual implementation.

Suppose someone were to ask:

Did Islam come into a world that knew nothing of slavery and then establish it?

The answer is an unequivocal no.

Slavery was already a deeply rooted global institution long before the revelation of quran.

It existed throughout the East and the West.

No nation or civilization was free from it.

It formed an integral part of the economic, social, and political order of the ancient world.

The means by which people became slaves were numerous and often unlimited.

People were enslaved through warfare, kidnapping, piracy, debt, poverty, criminal punishment, hereditary caste systems, the sale of one’s children, or even the sale of oneself to escape starvation.

Millions of human beings lived and died under these systems for countless generations.

The correct question, therefore, is not:

“Why did Islam create slavery?”

For Islam did not create it.

The proper question is:

“How did Islam deal with a global institution that already existed centuries before the mission of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ?”

This is where every fair-minded discussion must begin.

Judging a treatment without first understanding the disease it was intended to cure is to judge something other than the issue itself.

When one carefully examines the Qur’an, the Sunnah, the life of the Prophet ﷺ, the practice of the Companions, and the writings of the classical scholars, it becomes evident that Islamic law was never designed to expand slavery or multiply its causes.

Rather, it pursued an entirely different path built upon four fundamental principles.

The First Principle

Islam drastically restricted the avenues through which people could become slaves.

It abolished virtually every recognized avenue of enslavement that existed among other nations, leaving only one narrowly regulated circumstance governed by strict legal conditions.

The Second Principle

Islam opened numerous paths leading out of slavery.

The emancipation of slaves became one of the most beloved acts of worship before Allah.

It was linked to many religious expiations, repeatedly encouraged throughout the Qur’an and Sunnah, and supported through multiple legal mechanisms that gradually led slaves toward freedom.

The Third Principle

Islam preserved the dignity of those who remained in slavery.

It recognized their religious, social, legal, and human rights.

A slave in Islam was no longer treated as a mere commodity to be bought and sold without rights, as occurred in many civilizations.

Rather, he or she remained a human being whose religion, life, honor, and dignity were protected by divine law.

The Fourth Principle

Islam made the treatment of prisoners of war dependent upon the public interest (maṣlaḥah) as determined by the legitimate Muslim ruler.

Enslavement was never made the mandatory fate of every captive.

Instead, Islamic law recognized several lawful options—including release without ransom and ransom itself—each applied according to what best served justice, mercy, and the interests of the Muslim community.

When these four principles are considered together, the profound difference between slavery in Islam and the systems practiced by other civilizations—ancient and modern alike—becomes unmistakably clear.

Likewise, many of the common objections repeatedly raised against Islam collapse once these principles are properly understood.

The purpose of this study is not to provide an exhaustive treatment of every juristic issue related to slavery, nor to catalogue every scholarly disagreement on the subject.

Such a task belongs elsewhere.

Rather, the purpose of this work is to present the foundational principles upon which this subject rests and to answer the most common objections raised against it in a manner that is clear, accessible, and grounded in the Qur’an, the Sunnah, sound historical evidence, and reasoned analysis, while avoiding unnecessary detail that does not contribute to a clearer understanding.

We ask Allah to grant us sincerity in speech and action, to make this work purely for His Noble Face, and to make it beneficial for His servants.

Indeed, He alone is the Guardian of success, and He is capable of all things.

Preliminary Discussion

Before addressing the objections, it is necessary to clarify three fundamental matters that are often confused with one another, giving rise to many misconceptions about this subject:

The true nature of slavery.
The difference between captivity and enslavement.
The historical reality that Islam came to address.

Many modern objections are built upon confusion between these three issues. Once this confusion is removed, a large portion of the objection collapses before we even begin answering it in detail.

First: What Is Slavery? And What Is the Difference Between Captivity and Enslavement?

Before judging any system, one must first understand it correctly, for a judgment upon something is based upon a proper conception of it.

Many misconceptions regarding slavery in Islam arise because people imagine that every prisoner of war automatically becomes a slave, or that every slave was originally someone kidnapped from his home or unjustly sold into bondage, or even that Islam itself invented and established slavery.

None of these assumptions is correct.

In Islamic jurisprudence, slavery is not an inherent characteristic of a human being, nor does it represent a category of humanity in which some people are intrinsically superior to others.

Rather, it is a temporary legal status that arises only through specific causes recognized by Islamic law, and it disappears once those causes cease or when one of the lawful means of emancipation is fulfilled.

For this reason, Islam never regarded a slave as belonging to a different race or a lesser form of humanity.

A slave remains a complete human being whom Allah has honored just as He has honored the rest of the children of Adam.

The only distinction between a free person and a slave lies in certain legal rulings related to the condition of slavery, just as Islamic rulings differ between children and adults, the sick and the healthy, or travelers and residents—while all remain equally human.

Thus, the exegetes(fuqaha) explained Allah’s statement:

“He presents to you an example from yourselves…” (Qur’an 30:28)

to mean that a slave is your equal in humanity. Slavery is merely a temporary condition, not an essential part of his nature.

The author of Al-Durr al-Maṣūn writes:

“Your slave is your equal in every respect once he is freed, and he is your equal in humanity even while he remains a slave.”

Source: Al-Durr al-Maṣūn fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb (1/4042).

Likewise, the author of Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb states:

“A slave may eventually become your equal in every respect. Indeed, even while he remains a slave, he is your equal in humanity. You have no right over his life or humanity by killing or mutilating him, nor may you prevent him from worshipping Allah or from fulfilling his basic human needs.”

Source: Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb (12/489).

ʿUmar ibn ʿAlī al-Nuʿmānī likewise wrote:

“The word amah (female slave) refers to a woman characterized by slavery, and slavery is merely a temporary attribute.”

Source: The same work (5/131).

This principle should remain firmly in the reader’s mind throughout this study.

Islam never treated slavery as an intrinsic quality of a person.

Rather, it regarded it as a temporary condition, which explains why Islamic law established so many avenues through which slavery could come to an end, as will be discussed later.

The Difference Between Captivity and Enslavement

One of the greatest mistakes made by critics is confusing captivity with enslavement, even though the distinction between them is obvious.

Captivity simply means that a combatant falls into the hands of his enemy during war.

Enslavement, on the other hand, is only one possible legal ruling that may apply to certain prisoners under particular circumstances.

Not every prisoner becomes a slave.

Just as not every prisoner is executed.

Once prisoners have been captured, Islamic law grants the Muslim ruler several lawful options, each to be chosen according to the interests of the Muslim community, the circumstances of the war, the condition of the captives, and the benefits or harms associated with each option.

Allah says after mentioning warfare:

“When you meet those who disbelieve in battle, strike their necks until you have thoroughly subdued them. Then bind them securely. Thereafter either release them graciously or ransom them, until the war lays down its burdens.” (Qur’an 47:4)

This verse itself demonstrates that no single ruling automatically applies to every captive.

Rather, the ruler chooses whichever option best serves the legitimate interests of the Muslim community.

Accordingly, the Prophet ﷺ dealt with prisoners in different ways throughout his life.

Some were released freely.

Some were released for ransom.

Some remained in slavery.

Others were executed under exceptional circumstances where justice and public welfare required it.

Enslavement was therefore never the mandatory fate of every prisoner.

It was only one of several legal options, each applied according to the circumstances.

This fact alone removes a substantial portion of the objection, because many critics mistakenly imagine that Islam automatically enslaved every prisoner of war.

That simply is not true.

What Was the Only Cause of Slavery That Islam Retained?

When the Quran was revealed, the avenues leading to slavery were countless.

People were enslaved because of poverty.

Because of debt.

Through kidnapping.

Through the sale of children.

As criminal punishment.

Through oppression.

Because of tribal domination.

And through numerous other practices.

Islam abolished all of these avenues.

It retained only one possible avenue:

that which may arise under certain circumstances during a lawful war against enemy combatants, when the legitimate Muslim ruler judges that doing so best serves the public interest.

Accordingly, under Islamic law, a person can never be enslaved merely because:

He is poor.
He cannot repay a debt.
He belongs to a particular race.
He is Black or non-Arab.
He was kidnapped from his homeland.
He disagreed with a ruler or master.
He belongs to a particular social class.

This marks a profound difference between Islam and virtually every civilization that preceded it.

Earlier societies enslaved people for countless reasons.

Islam reduced the causes of slavery to the narrowest possible limit and then established numerous means by which slaves could be emancipated.

The overall direction of Islamic legislation was therefore toward reducing slavery, not expanding it.

Summary

It should now be clear that the first mistake underlying this objection is the assumption that Islam created slavery, that it automatically turned every prisoner into a slave, or that it permitted Muslims to enslave whomever they wished.

The reality is precisely the opposite.

Islam did not invent slavery.

Nor did it expand its causes.

Rather, it encountered a deeply entrenched global institution, closed nearly all of its avenues, retained only one tightly regulated circumstance, and then established numerous laws and incentives that made the path out of slavery far broader than the path into it.

Having established this principle, we may now examine the world into which Quran came, so that we may understand the nature of the institution it sought to reform, and whether slavery was merely an isolated practice or a universal system embraced by nearly every civilization.

Second: Was Slavery Invented by Islam, or Was It a Global Institution Before Islam?

One of the central assumptions behind this objection is the claim that Islam either created slavery or was the only religion that permitted it. This leaves the reader with the impression that Muslims were the ones who first introduced the enslavement of human beings.

This is one of the clearest historical errors.

Slavery existed thousands of years before the Quran. It was a universal institution practiced throughout the known world. Entire economies, armies, agricultural systems, and industries of ancient civilizations depended upon slave labor. No civilization viewed slavery itself as something inherently unjust that ought to be abolished. Rather, it was considered a normal legal and social institution across virtually every society.

For that reason, the real question is not:

“Why did slavery exist in Islam?”

Rather, it is:

“How did Islam deal with a global institution that already existed long before it?”

These are two very different questions.

Slavery in Ancient Civilizations

Slavery was well established among the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians, and nearly every other civilization.

People became slaves for many reasons:

Debt.
Poverty.
Kidnapping.
Criminal punishment.
Piracy.
Or simply because the stronger nation conquered the weaker one.

In most of these civilizations, slaves were not regarded as fully human persons possessing rights. They were considered property, to be bought, sold, and used at the owner’s discretion.

Therefore, any fair comparison must compare Islam with the civilizations that preceded it—not with the modern international order of the twenty-first century, after slavery had largely disappeared for historical and political reasons.

Slavery in the Roman Empire

Perhaps the clearest example is the Roman Empire, one of the greatest powers before the rise of Islam.

Roman law regarded slaves not as persons, but as property.

Massive numbers of slaves were acquired through conquest and military expansion—not to spread religion or repel aggression, but simply to provide cheap labor for the ruling classes.

They worked in fields and mines while chained in irons.

They were given only enough food to keep them alive.

They were driven by whips.

Confined in filthy, overcrowded quarters.

They possessed virtually no legal right to object or complain.

Roman cruelty went even further.

Slaves were forced to fight one another to the death in gladiatorial arenas for public entertainment, while nobles and emperors watched, applauded, and delighted in the spectacle of bloodshed.

How can this be compared with a religion that makes striking one’s slave a cause for his emancipation, commands masters to feed them from the same food they eat, clothe them from the same clothing they wear, and forbids insulting or humiliating them?

Slavery Among the Persians and Other Civilizations

Persia, India, and many other civilizations were little better than Rome, although their forms of oppression differed.

Despite their differences, they shared one fundamental principle:

the slave’s humanity was diminished, he was burdened with the harshest labor, and deprived of many basic rights.

Slavery in Judaism

The Old Testament likewise contains explicit legislation concerning slavery, while distinguishing between Israelites and non-Israelites.

Hebrew slaves were subject to one set of regulations.

Foreign nations, however, could be permanently enslaved.

The Book of Leviticus states that male and female slaves may be acquired from the surrounding nations and become permanent property to be inherited by future generations.

The Book of Exodus also contains legislation concerning the sale of daughters as female slaves.

Other passages discuss capturing women and children in war, killing enemy men, and taking female captives as possessions.

Later in this work, Allah willing, we shall examine these passages in greater detail.

For the present, the point is simply this:

Slavery was not unique to Islam.

It was explicitly recognized in the very scriptures that many critics themselves regard as authoritative.

Slavery in Christianity

Christianity likewise did not abolish slavery.

The Gospels contain no general prohibition against it.

On the contrary, the Epistles of Paul instruct slaves to obey their masters and assume the continuation of the institution.

Many historians of Christianity therefore acknowledge that, for centuries, the Church neither abolished slavery nor regarded it as inherently unlawful.

Some historical sources even note that influential churchmen—including Thomas Aquinas—did not reject slavery as an institution, and considered it compatible with their understanding of the natural order.

Slavery Among the Arabs Before Islam

The Arabs before Islam also practiced slavery, just like every surrounding nation.

Its causes included:

Captivity in war.
Kidnapping.
Debt.
Occasionally the sale of children.
And other widespread customs of the time.

Islam did not expand these avenues.

Rather, it abolished most of them and retained only what was required by the realities of lawful warfare and reciprocal treatment within the international order of that age.

An Important Conclusion

All of this demonstrates that Islam neither invented slavery, nor was unique in permitting it, nor did it expand the institution.

Instead, it entered a world in which slavery was a universal reality accepted by virtually every civilization.

Had Islam simply declared the immediate abolition of slavery while every surrounding nation continued enslaving Muslim prisoners of war, Muslims alone would have borne the consequences, while the international system itself remained unchanged.

Instead of issuing an isolated declaration detached from reality, Islam chose to reform the institution itself.

It dramatically restricted the causes leading into slavery.

It multiplied the avenues leading out of slavery.

It transformed the treatment of slaves.

It linked emancipation to acts of worship, expiation, charity, and righteous deeds.

Thus, the overall direction of Islamic legislation consistently moved toward reducing slavery and gradually eliminating it.

This naturally leads to the central question:

If Islam did not invent slavery, why did it not abolish it immediately, as it prohibited wine? What wisdom lay behind retaining such a tightly restricted system?

That is the subject of the next section, Allah willing.

Third: How Did Islam Restrict the Sources of Slavery and Open the Doors to Freedom?

Once it is established that Islam did not invent slavery, and that it entered a world in which slavery was already a universal institution, the next question naturally arises:

How did Islam deal with it?

Here lies the fundamental difference between Islam and the civilizations that preceded it.

Earlier societies continually expanded the sources of slavery.

Islam, by contrast, closed those sources one after another while simultaneously opening numerous avenues for emancipation, until freeing slaves became one of the greatest acts of worship and devotion to Allah.

Islamic legislation was therefore never designed to increase the slave population. Rather, its direction was to reduce slavery gradually until it disappeared, without causing social chaos or injustice.

First: Islam Closed Most of the Doors Leading to Slavery

Before Islam, people could become slaves for countless reasons:

Religious differences.
Poverty.
Debt.
Kidnapping.
Piracy.
Highway abduction.
The sale of children.
Criminal punishment.
And many other causes.

Islam abolished all of these.

A free person cannot be enslaved because he is poor.

Nor because he owes money.

Nor because he cannot repay a debt.

Nor because he has been kidnapped.

Nor because of his race or ethnicity.

Nor simply because he belongs to another nation.

For this reason, Islam issued one of the strongest warnings against enslaving a free person unlawfully.

Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet ﷺ said, reporting from his Lord:

“Allah said: There are three people against whom I Myself will be the opponent on the Day of Resurrection… one of them is a man who sells a free person…”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 2114).

Reflect upon the words:

“I Myself will be his opponent.”

What greater warning could there be than for Allah Himself to become one’s adversary on the Day of Judgment?

This demonstrates that freedom is the natural state of every human being, and violating it is among the gravest crimes.

Second: Only One Cause of Enslavement Remained

After abolishing all those numerous avenues, Islam retained only one possible source of slavery:

Captivity during a lawful war against hostile enemy combatants, in an era when every nation on earth followed the same practice.

This was not something unique to Islam.

It was the accepted international practice of the time.

Even then, enslavement was not mandatory.

The Muslim ruler was required to choose whichever option best served the interests of the Muslim community.

He could:

Release prisoners freely.
Exchange them for ransom.
Or, where circumstances required, keep them as slaves.

The Prophet ﷺ himself employed each of these options in different situations.

This clearly shows that enslavement was never an end in itself, but merely one option available when circumstances required it.

Third: Islam Opened Numerous Doors to Emancipation

While restricting the causes of slavery, Islam simultaneously opened countless avenues toward freedom.

Manumission became:

One of the greatest acts of worship.
One of the most rewarding deeds.
An expiation for certain sins.
One of the lawful recipients of Zakah.
A recommended charitable act.
A contractual right.
And even a consequence of childbirth in certain cases.

Anyone who studies all these rulings together will immediately recognize that Islamic law consistently moves in one direction:

Increasing the number of free people while steadily reducing slavery.

Among these means are the following:

1. Freeing Slaves for the Sake of Allah

The Qur’an praises the liberation of slaves and describes it as one of the greatest righteous deeds.

Allah says:

“But he has not attempted the difficult ascent. And what will make you know what the difficult ascent is? It is the freeing of a slave.”
(Qur’an 90:11–13)

Qatadah رحمه الله said:

“There is a steep path before Paradise, and crossing it includes freeing a slave.”
(Al-Durr al-Manthur, 8/523).

Ibn ‘Ashur wrote:

“This verse is one of the fundamental principles of Islamic legislation, demonstrating the Lawgiver’s aspiration toward freedom.”
(Al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir, 30/483).

This is an explicit indication that Islamic law seeks to spread freedom, not expand slavery.

2. Freeing a Slave Is a Means of Salvation from Hell

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

“Whoever frees a believing slave, Allah will free every limb of his from the Fire in exchange for every limb of the slave—even his private parts for the slave’s private parts.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6337; Sahih Muslim, no. 1509).

Notice how Islam makes liberating another human being a means of one’s own deliverance from Hellfire.

3. Manumission as an Expiation for Sins

Islam did not merely encourage emancipation.

It incorporated it into the legal system itself.

Freeing slaves became an expiation for several major offenses, including:

Accidental homicide.
Zihar (an unlawful form of divorce).
Certain broken oaths.

Every time Muslims fulfilled these expiations, more slaves were set free.

This is yet another practical demonstration that Islamic legislation consistently worked toward reducing slavery.

4. Oppressing a Slave Could Become a Cause for His Freedom

Islam even made mistreating a slave a reason for his emancipation.

Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

“Whoever strikes his slave without justification, or slaps him, his expiation is to set him free.”
(Sahih Muslim, no. 1657).

It is reported that Ibn ‘Umar once noticed a mark on one of his servants.

He asked:

“Did I hurt you?”

When the servant replied that he had not, Ibn ‘Umar nevertheless said:

“You are free.”

He then explained:

“I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: Whoever strikes his slave without justification or slaps him, his expiation is to free him.”
(Sahih Muslim, no. 1657).

Likewise, in the narration of Mu’awiyah ibn Suwayd, a man slapped his servant girl.

The Prophet ﷺ ordered that she be freed.

When they explained that she was their only servant, he replied:

“Then let them continue using her services, and once they no longer need her, they should set her free.”
(Sahih Muslim, no. 1658).

Notice how Islam refused to let such mistreatment pass without consequence.

Instead, it transformed even a single slap into a step toward liberty.

This alone highlights the immense difference between Islam and many other civilizations.

Numerous societies granted masters the right to beat—or even kill—their slaves.

Islam, on the other hand, made merely slapping a slave one of the causes of emancipation.

In the next section, we shall see that Islam did not stop at encouraging owners to free their slaves.

It also granted slaves themselves legal mechanisms through which they could seek their own freedom, while obligating the Muslim community to assist them until they achieved it.

Fourth: Islam Did Not Make Freedom a Favor Granted by the Master, but a Right the Slave Could Pursue with the Support of the Muslim Community

Some people mistakenly imagine that a slave in Islam could only gain freedom if his master voluntarily chose to emancipate him, and that his fate remained entirely dependent upon another person’s will.

This is not correct.

Islam did not make freedom dependent solely upon the generosity of the master. Rather, it established an independent legal mechanism through which the slave could purchase his own freedom: the contract of emancipation (Mukatabah). Furthermore, Islam instructed the Muslim community to assist him in achieving that goal.

For this reason, Mukatabah became one of the greatest means through which Islamic law gradually eliminated slavery.

First: The Legislation of Mukatabah

Allah says:

“And those among your slaves who seek a contract for emancipation, 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 24:33)

Mukatabah is a contract in which a master agrees that his slave may purchase his freedom by paying an agreed amount over time. Once the agreed payment is completed, the slave becomes free.

Notice that the Qur’an does not say:

“If the master wishes…”

“If he chooses…”

Rather, Allah commands:

“Contract with them.”

Because of this wording, some scholars—such as ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah and ‘Amr ibn Dinar—held that this command is obligatory whenever the slave requests such a contract and the required conditions are met.

They cited the report that Sirin requested Anas ibn Malik to grant him a contract of emancipation.

When Anas hesitated, Sirin brought the matter before ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab رضي الله عنه.

‘Umar struck Anas lightly with his whip and ordered him to write the contract, whereupon Anas complied.

(Reported by ‘Abd al-Razzaq in al-Musannaf 8/372; al-Tabari 18/126; referenced by al-Bukhari in suspended form; see Fath al-Bari 5/186–187.)

The majority of jurists, however, held that the command is one of strong recommendation rather than obligation.

Regardless of this juristic disagreement, all scholars agreed that Islam strongly encourages Mukatabah and establishes it as a legitimate path to freedom.

Second: The Contract Is Granted Only When There Is “Good” in the Slave

Allah says:

“…if you know there is good in them.”

This condition is not intended to make emancipation difficult.

Rather, it is a mercy toward the slave himself.

Islam does not wish to burden someone with a debt he cannot repay.

For this reason, the early scholars differed regarding the meaning of “good.”

Ibn ‘Umar, Malik, and al-Thawri said:

It refers to the slave’s ability to earn a living.

Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, Ibn Zayd, and ‘Ubaydah said:

It refers to honesty and trustworthiness.

Tawus and ‘Amr ibn Dinar said:

It refers to both financial ability and trustworthiness.

Imam al-Shafi’i said:

“The clearest meaning of ‘good’ is the ability to earn along with trustworthiness.”
(Tafsir al-Baghawi 6/43.)

‘Ubaydah even interpreted the verse as referring to religious commitment, saying:

“‘If you know there is good in them’ means: if they establish the prayer.”
(Reported by ‘Abd al-Razzaq in al-Musannaf 8/371.)

Thus, the purpose is simply to ensure that the slave is capable of fulfilling the contract without harming himself financially or socially.

Third: Islam Did Not Leave the Contracting Slave to Struggle Alone

Islam did not merely permit Mukatabah.

It also commanded that those seeking freedom be assisted.

Allah says:

“And give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you.”

The scholars differed regarding whom this command addresses.

Some Companions—including ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, and al-Zubayr رضي الله عنهم—as well as Imam al-Shafi’i, held that it addresses the masters themselves, requiring or strongly recommending that they forgive part of the agreed payment.

(Tafsir al-Baghawi 6/43.)

Others understood the verse to refer to assisting such slaves through the Zakah category:

“For freeing slaves.”

Ibrahim al-Nakha’i said:

“It is an encouragement for all people to assist them.”
(‘Abd al-Razzaq 8/376–377.)

Although these interpretations differ, they all agree on one principle:

Islam intends for the slave to reach freedom—not to place obstacles in his path.

Fourth: Even Zakah Was Allocated for the Liberation of Slaves

Islam went beyond individual encouragement.

It made freeing slaves one of the permanent categories eligible to receive Zakah.

Allah says:

“Zakah expenditures are only for the poor… and for freeing slaves…”
(Qur’an 9:60)

Thus, the public treasury itself became a means of emancipation.

It is reported that ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz appointed Yahya ibn Sa’id to distribute the Zakah of Ifriqiyah.

After collecting the Zakah, he found no poor people in need.

He therefore used the funds to purchase slaves and set them free.

(Sirat ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam, p. 59.)

One may well ask:

What other civilization dedicated part of its public treasury specifically to liberating slaves?

Fifth: Allah Himself Promised Assistance to the Slave Seeking Freedom

The Prophet ﷺ said:

“There are three whom Allah has promised to help: the Mukatab who sincerely intends to fulfill his contract, the one who marries seeking chastity, and the one who strives in the path of Allah.”
(Jami’ al-Tirmidhi 1655; Sunan al-Nasa’i 3120; Sunan Ibn Majah 2518. Authenticated by al-Hakim and graded Hasan by al-Albani.)

Reflect upon these remarkable words:

“Allah has promised to help them.”

What greater honor could there be than Allah Himself promising assistance to the slave striving for his own freedom?

Sixth: Practical Implementation During the Prophet’s Lifetime

This was not merely theoretical legislation.

When Salman al-Farisi رضي الله عنه entered into a Mukatabah contract requiring him to plant three hundred date palms and pay forty ounces of gold, the Prophet ﷺ instructed the Companions:

“Help your brother.”

Some brought thirty young date palms.

Others brought twenty.

Others fifteen.

Together they completed the required number.

The Prophet ﷺ himself planted the trees with his own hands and later helped Salman fulfill the remaining financial obligations until he was completely freed.

(Musnad Ahmad 5/441; graded Hasan by al-Albani in al-Silsilah al-Sahihah, no. 894.)

The Muslim community therefore did not stand by while a slave struggled alone to obtain his freedom.

Rather, the entire community participated in helping him become free.

This demonstrates that Islam did not make freedom a favor granted solely at the master’s discretion.

Instead, it established legal mechanisms, financial assistance, and communal support, making the transition from slavery to freedom the natural direction toward which Islamic legislation consistently moved.

Fifth: Islam Did Not Merely Free Slaves—It Preserved Their Dignity Even While They Remained Slaves

One of the greatest misconceptions behind this objection is the assumption that slaves in Islam lived as they did in ancient civilizations—as mere property over which their masters possessed absolute authority.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Islam did not wait until a slave was emancipated before honoring him.

Rather, it guaranteed his dignity while he was still a slave.

In Islam, slavery is only a temporary legal status. It does not strip a person of his humanity or deprive him of the rights that Allah has granted every human being.

First: Slaves Are Human Beings Like Everyone Else

Allah says:

“He presents to you an example from yourselves: Do you have among those whom your right hands possess any partners…”
(Qur’an 30:28)

The commentators explained this verse by saying:

“Your slave is like you in every respect once he becomes free, and even during slavery he is equal to you in his humanity.”
(Al-Durr al-Masun, 10/4042.)

Abu Hafs Ibn ‘Adil wrote:

“A slave may eventually become your equal in every respect. Even while he remains a slave, he is your equal in humanity. You have no right over his life by killing or mutilating him, nor may you prevent him from worshipping Allah or attending to his natural needs.”
(Al-Lubab fi ‘Ulum al-Kitab, 12/489.)

‘Umar ibn ‘Ali al-Nu’mani likewise stated:

“The state of slavery is only a temporary condition.”
(Ibid., 5/131.)

Islam therefore does not regard slavery as part of a person’s nature.

It is merely a temporary legal condition that may come to an end.

Second: Islam Called Them Brothers

Among the most remarkable teachings of Islam is that the Prophet ﷺ did not describe slaves as an inferior class.

Instead, he called them brothers.

The Prophet ﷺ said:

“Your servants are your brothers whom Allah has placed under your authority…”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 30.)

Notice that he begins with the words:

“Your brothers…”

before mentioning any legal rulings.

In another narration he said:

“They are your brothers whom Allah has placed under your authority. Whoever has his brother under his authority should feed him from what he himself eats, clothe him from what he himself wears, and not burden him with work beyond his capacity. If he assigns him difficult work, he should help him.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6050.)

What legal system in the ancient world required a master to feed his slave the same food he himself ate, clothe him from the same clothing he himself wore, and personally assist him when the work became too difficult?

Third: Islam Forbade Humiliating Them

Islam did not stop at commanding good treatment.

It even prohibited language that demeaned slaves.

Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

“None of you should say, ‘My slave’ or ‘My slave-girl.’ Rather, let him say, ‘My young man,’ ‘My young woman,’ ‘My servant,’ or ‘My maid.'”
(Sahih Muslim, no. 2249.)

Reflect upon this carefully.

Even expressions that implied superiority were discouraged, despite slavery still existing as a legal institution.

The purpose was to preserve the sense of shared human dignity.

Fourth: Insulting or Belittling Them Was Forbidden

Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه once insulted a man by mocking his mother.

When the Prophet ﷺ learned of this, he said:

“You are a man in whom there remains something of the pre-Islamic ignorance.”

He then continued:

“They are your brothers…”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 5703; Sahih Muslim, no. 1661.)

Thus, insulting someone because of his lineage or race was condemned as a remnant of Jahiliyyah.

Fifth: Oppression and Abuse Were Strictly Prohibited

Islam was so severe regarding injustice toward slaves that, in some cases, mistreating them became a cause for their emancipation.

The Prophet ﷺ said:

“Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, his expiation is to set him free.”
(Sahih Muslim, no. 1657.)

In another incident, a man came to the Prophet ﷺ complaining that his master had castrated him.

The Prophet ﷺ said:

“Go—you are free.”

The man then asked:

“Who will support me if he enslaves me again?”

The Prophet ﷺ replied:

“Every believer.”
(Sunan Abu Dawud, no. 4519; Sunan Ibn Majah, no. 2680. Graded Hasan by al-Albani.)

This clearly demonstrates that a master did not possess unrestricted authority over his slave.

Sixth: Their Honor Was Protected Against False Accusation

The Prophet ﷺ said:

“Whoever falsely accuses his slave of immorality will be flogged on the Day of Resurrection unless his accusation is true.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6858.)

Even attacking a slave’s honor and reputation was not tolerated.

Seventh: Islam Commanded Kindness Toward Them

Allah says:

“Worship Allah… and be good to… those whom your right hands possess.”
(Qur’an 4:36)

Notice that Allah mentions slaves in the same passage commanding kindness toward:

Parents.
Relatives.
Orphans.
The poor.
Neighbors.

This demonstrates the importance of their rights.

Eighth: They Had the Right to Worship and Seek Knowledge

A master had no right to prevent his slave from worshipping Allah.

Nor could he prevent him from seeking knowledge.

Indeed, some of the greatest scholars in Islamic history were former slaves.

‘Ikrimah, the freed servant of Ibn ‘Abbas, became one of the foremost Qur’anic commentators.

Salim, the freed servant of Abu Hudhayfah, became one of the greatest reciters of the Qur’an.

The Prophet ﷺ said:

“Learn the Qur’an from four people… among them Salim, the freed servant of Abu Hudhayfah.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 3524.)

In fact, before the Prophet ﷺ arrived in Madinah, Salim used to lead some of the senior Companions in prayer because he knew the Qur’an better than they did.

(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 651.)

Ninth: Superiority Is Based Upon Piety, Not Freedom

Allah says:

“Indeed, the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you.”
(Qur’an 49:13)

The Prophet ﷺ also said:

“An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab over an Arab; neither a white person over a black person nor a black person over a white person—except through piety.”
(Musnad Ahmad, 1/411; authenticated by al-Albani in al-Silsilah al-Sahihah, no. 2700.)

‘Umar ibn al-Khattab رضي الله عنه used to say about Bilal:

“Abu Bakr is our master, and he freed our master.”

He also said that had Salim, the freed servant of Abu Hudhayfah, still been alive, he would have considered appointing him as the leader of the Muslims.

Tenth: These Teachings Were Put into Practice

These principles were not merely words on paper.

‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf used to walk alongside his servants in such a way that people could not distinguish him from them.

Salman al-Farisi رضي الله عنه was once seen kneading dough with his own hands.

When someone asked:

“Where is your servant?”

He replied:

“We sent him on an errand, and we disliked burdening him with two tasks at once.”

‘Umar ibn al-Khattab once saw servants standing while their masters ate.

He became angry and ordered the servants to sit and eat together with them.

These were not slogans.

They were realities lived by the early Muslim community.

Summary

Slavery in Islam was never intended to humiliate people or strip them of their humanity.

It was a temporary legal status under which the individual remained fully human, with his dignity protected.

He retained the right to worship.

The right to seek knowledge.

The right to marry.

The right to food and clothing.

The right to legal protection.

The right to pursue freedom.

Anyone who compares slavery in Islam with slavery in ancient civilizations will discover far more than a few legal differences.

He will discover the difference between treating a human being as property and treating him as a person.

Sixth: Islam Did Not Leave Slaves Without Families—It Protected Their Right to Marriage, Opened a Path to Freedom, and Safeguarded the Rights of Female Slaves

One of the realities often overlooked is that, in many ancient civilizations, slaves were treated primarily as laborers. Their family life, lineage, and stability were of little concern.

Islam took a completely different approach.

It recognized slaves as fully human and granted them family and social rights that reflected their inherent dignity, even while they remained in the temporary legal condition of slavery.

First: The Right to Marry

Allah says:

“Marry off the unmarried among you, and the righteous among your male and female slaves.”
(Qur’an 24:32)

This verse addresses guardians and masters, commanding them to arrange marriages for their male and female slaves.

The commentators stated:

“This verse encourages masters to marry off their righteous male and female slaves despite their state of slavery.”
(Al-Lubab fi ‘Ulum al-Kitab, 12/95.)

The verse does not merely permit marriage.

It actively encourages it, so that slaves may live lives of chastity, dignity, and family stability.

Allah immediately follows this command by saying:

“If they are poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty.”

Thus, poverty is not considered a reason to deny them marriage.

Second: Marriage and Freedom Were Closely Connected

Since a married slave might need to earn income to support a family, Islam legislated Mukatabah (the contract of emancipation), enabling him to work toward both financial independence and eventual freedom.

Ibn ‘Ashur observed that the Qur’anic verses concerning marriage and Mukatabah are closely connected, demonstrating Islam’s objective of promoting freedom, strengthening stable families, and reforming society.

(Al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir, 18/477.)

Third: Slaves Had the Right to Worship and Seek Knowledge

As discussed previously, Islam never prevented slaves from worshipping Allah or pursuing knowledge.

Indeed, many of Islam’s greatest scholars were former slaves.

They became leading authorities in Qur’an, Hadith, and Islamic law.

Had slavery stripped a person of his humanity or dignity, such individuals could never have become teachers of the Companions or scholars of the Muslim Ummah.

Fourth: The Honor of the Believing Female Slave

Allah says:

“A believing slave woman is better than a polytheist woman, even though she may please you.”
(Qur’an 2:221)

Al-Alusi commented:

“A believing slave woman, despite the social disadvantage of slavery, is better than a free polytheist woman despite her status as a free person.”
(Ruh al-Ma’ani, 2/217.)

Reflect upon this.

Islam places faith above social status.

A believing slave woman is considered superior to a free polytheist.

This completely overturns the pre-Islamic standards that measured a person’s worth by lineage, class, or social position.

Fifth: Female Slaves Possessed Financial Rights

Allah says:

“Marry them with the permission of their guardians and give them their bridal gifts according to what is customary.”
(Qur’an 4:25)

Imam Malik used this verse as evidence that a female slave is entitled to receive a bridal gift (Mahr).

Al-Alusi likewise wrote:

“The verse is to be understood according to its apparent meaning, and the bridal gift belongs to the slave woman.”
(Ruh al-Ma’ani, 4/21.)

Thus, Islam did not regard female slaves as mere property.

It recognized their financial rights as part of a lawful marriage.

Sixth: Forcing Female Slaves into Prostitution Was Strictly Forbidden

Before Islam, many masters exploited slave women for prostitution in order to earn money.

Islam categorically prohibited this practice.

Allah says:

“Do not compel your slave girls into prostitution…”
(Qur’an 24:33)

This verse was revealed concerning ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul, who forced one of his slave girls into prostitution.

(Sahih Muslim, no. 3029.)

Reflect upon the contrast.

At a time when entire civilizations profited from exploiting female slaves sexually, Islam explicitly forbade such abuse.

Seventh: Separating Mothers from Their Children Was Forbidden

The Prophet ﷺ said:

“Whoever separates a mother from her child, Allah will separate him from those whom he loves on the Day of Resurrection.”
(Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, no. 1566; graded Hasan by al-Albani.)

This is among the clearest texts demonstrating Islam’s concern for preserving family bonds.

Ownership was never permitted to destroy the relationship between a mother and her child.

Eighth: Islam Recognized a Mother’s Love

After a group of captives was brought before the Prophet ﷺ, he saw a woman desperately searching among them for her child.

Whenever she found a child, she embraced it, hoping it might be her own.

Finally she found her baby, held him tightly, and began nursing him.

The Prophet ﷺ asked his Companions:

“Do you think this woman would throw her child into the Fire?”

They replied:

“No.”

He then said:

“Allah is more merciful to His servants than this mother is to her child.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 5653; Sahih Muslim, no. 2754.)

The Prophet ﷺ used the compassion of a captive slave woman to illustrate one of Allah’s greatest attributes: His mercy.

Had Islam regarded female slaves with contempt, the Prophet ﷺ would never have used her maternal love as an example through which to teach the mercy of Allah.

Ninth: When a Female Slave Bore Her Master’s Child

Among the unique features of Islamic law is the institution of Umm al-Walad (“the mother of a child”).

If a female slave bore a child to her master, the child was recognized as his legitimate offspring and was born free.

The mother herself acquired a special legal status.

Among its rulings were:

She could no longer be sold.
She could not be given away.
She could not be pledged as collateral.
She could not be donated.
She automatically became free upon her master’s death.

The scholars unanimously agreed that her child was born free.

(Tafsir al-Baghawi, 6/43.)

Thus, concubinage in Islam was not a mechanism for increasing the slave population.

On the contrary, it often became a means of liberating the mother herself while ensuring that her children were born free.

This stands in sharp contrast to many ancient systems, in which the children of slave women automatically inherited their mother’s slave status.

Summary

Slaves in Islam were not denied family life.

They were not denied marriage.

They were not denied lineage.

They were not denied dignity.

They were not denied motherhood.

Nor were they denied their basic human rights.

Rather, Islamic law protected all of these rights and transformed many of them into practical means leading toward freedom rather than perpetuating slavery.

This alone demonstrates the profound difference between the Islamic conception of slavery and the systems of bondage that characterized many other civilizations.

Seventh: Concubinage in Islam Was Not a License for Sexual Chaos, but a Regulated Institution Connected to the Existing System of Slavery, Intended to Promote Chastity and Protect Rights Rather Than Degrade Women

One of the most frequently misunderstood issues raised by critics of Islam is concubinage. They portray it as unrestricted sexual exploitation while ignoring both its historical context and its legal framework.

This misunderstanding arises from isolating the ruling from the society in which it was revealed and judging it according to standards that ignore the historical reality of the time.

Concubinage was not an institution invented by Islam, just as slavery itself was not.

Rather, it was a universal institution practiced by virtually every civilization. Islam retained it only within a very limited framework, surrounded it with numerous legal restrictions, and made it a means of preserving chastity, protecting lineage, and ultimately leading female slaves toward freedom—not a means of abusing women.

First: What Is Concubinage?

Concubinage refers to a master taking his female slave as a concubine and having lawful intimate relations with her according to the regulations established by Islamic law.

This was not unique to Islam.

It existed centuries before Islam.

According to the well-known historical and religious tradition, Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) عليه السلام had Hajar, the Egyptian, as a concubine, and she gave birth to Prophet Isma’il (Ishmael) عليه السلام.

Likewise, Prophet Sulayman (Solomon) عليه السلام is historically known to have had concubines.

Thus, the institution long predates Quran.

Second: Islam Did Not Permit an Unrestricted Sexual Relationship

Had the objective merely been satisfying desire, Islamic law would not have imposed so many restrictions.

Before intercourse could take place, Islam required Istibra’ (waiting to ensure the womb was free of pregnancy).

The Prophet ﷺ said concerning the female captives of Awtas:

“A pregnant woman must not be approached until she gives birth, and one who is not pregnant must not be approached until she has completed one menstrual cycle.”
(Abu Dawud, no. 2157; Ahmad, 2/224; authenticated by al-Albani.)

This ruling protects lineage and prevents confusion regarding parentage.

Furthermore, Islam restricted intimacy exclusively to the lawful owner.

No woman could be shared among multiple men, nor could she become available to anyone who desired her, as occurred in systems of prostitution.

Third: The Objective Was Chastity and Social Protection

The context of Surah al-Nur demonstrates this clearly.

The verses address, in one continuous sequence:

lowering the gaze,
guarding chastity,
marriage,
contracts of emancipation (Mukatabah),
and the prohibition against forcing slave women into prostitution.

Allah says:

“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze…”

Then:

“Marry off the unmarried among you…”

Then:

“Those among your slaves who seek a contract of emancipation…”

Then:

“Do not compel your slave girls into prostitution.”

This sequence makes the overall objective unmistakable:

the preservation of chastity and moral integrity.

Fourth: Concubinage Often Became a Path to Freedom

One of the facts most often ignored by critics is that concubinage frequently became a means of liberation rather than perpetuating slavery.

If a female slave bore her master’s child, she became Umm al-Walad (“the mother of a child”).

Under Islamic law:

she could no longer be sold,
could not be given away,
could not be pledged as collateral,
could not be donated,
and automatically became free upon her master’s death.

Furthermore, her child was born free by the unanimous agreement of the scholars.

Thus, concubinage often resulted in both the mother’s eventual freedom and the permanent freedom of her children.

Fifth: Islam Protected the Honor of the Female Slave

In many ancient civilizations, enslaved women were vulnerable to exploitation by numerous men and were frequently forced into prostitution.

Islam completely changed this.

The female slave could only lawfully have relations with her owner.

No one else was permitted to approach her.

She could not be forced into prostitution.

She had the right to marry—with her master’s permission—and once married, her master was no longer permitted to have relations with her.

She could also enter into a contract of emancipation (Mukatabah) if she sought her freedom.

If she became Umm al-Walad, her eventual freedom was guaranteed.

These rulings demonstrate that Islamic law did not treat her as a mere commodity.

Rather, it protected her honor, preserved her lineage, and established multiple paths toward freedom.

Sixth: An Honest Comparison

The purpose of this comparison is not to justify Islam by pointing to the mistakes of others.

Rather, it is to expose the inconsistency of those who apply different standards to different systems.

Many who harshly criticize concubinage in Islam have little objection to modern societies that permit sexual relationships outside marriage and where widespread sexual exploitation and organized prostitution continue to exist.

Which system deserves greater criticism?

A woman whose intimate relationship is restricted to one man, whose children’s lineage is preserved, whose rights are recognized, who cannot be forced into prostitution, whose children are born free, and who herself eventually becomes free—

or a woman whose body may be shared by countless men without protected lineage, lasting commitment, or legal responsibility, all under the label of “personal freedom”?

Anyone who compares the two systems in terms of protecting lineage, preserving dignity, and enforcing responsibility will recognize the enormous difference between them.

Seventh: Historical Rulings Cannot Be Judged After Their Cause Has Ceased

It is also important to understand that concubinage was inseparably connected to the existence of lawful slavery.

Once lawful slavery ceased due to the disappearance of its legitimate causes and the international agreements prohibiting enslavement, there remained no legal basis for concubinage.

Therefore, discussing concubinage today is a discussion of a historical legal ruling tied to a particular historical reality—not of a practice carried out by Muslims in the modern world.

Summary

Concubinage in Islam was never intended as a license for sexual immorality or as a means of degrading women.

Rather, it was a legal institution connected to the existing system of slavery, regulated by strict rules that protected lineage, safeguarded honor, prohibited prostitution, and frequently became a means through which female slaves and their children attained freedom.

Anyone who studies the Islamic texts in their entirety and compares them fairly with the systems practiced by other civilizations will recognize that Islam did not increase the suffering of enslaved women.

Instead, it elevated them to a legal and social status that was virtually unknown in much of the world at that time.

Eighth: Why Did Islam Not Abolish Slavery Outright as It Prohibited Alcohol?

This is the heart of the objection and the question around which most criticisms revolve.

The response is simple:

The question itself is based on an incorrect assumption. It assumes that slavery is comparable to alcohol, and that the same method used to prohibit one could have been applied to the other.

In reality, the two are fundamentally different.

Alcohol is an individual act that a person can abandon immediately once prohibited.

Slavery, however, was a worldwide institution intertwined with warfare, economics, international customs, and the lives of millions of people.

For this reason, it could not be addressed by a mere declaration. Rather, it required reforming an existing global system in a way that removed it with the least possible harm.

First: Slavery Was Not an Islamic Institution but a Universal One

When Quran appeared, slavery already existed among every civilization.

The enslavement of prisoners of war was an accepted international norm.

Had Islam instructed Muslims to release every prisoner in their possession while all other nations continued enslaving Muslim captives, what would have happened?

The result would have been obvious:

A Muslim captured in war would remain a slave.

His enemy, if captured by Muslims, would immediately return home free.

Where would the justice be in that?

How would such a policy protect the Muslim community?

For this reason, Islam maintained this option within the framework of reciprocity until the international system itself changed.

And that is exactly what eventually happened, when nations collectively agreed to prohibit the enslavement of prisoners of war.

Second: The Ruler Acts According to the Public Interest

Islam did not establish one fixed ruling for prisoners of war in every time and place.

Rather, it entrusted the Muslim ruler with choosing whichever option best serves the interests of the Muslim community.

He may:

release them without compensation,
exchange them for Muslim prisoners,
enslave them,
or execute certain prisoners when the public interest genuinely requires it.

The Prophet ﷺ himself employed different policies under different circumstances.

He granted amnesty to the people of Makkah.

He ransomed certain prisoners.

He released Thumamah ibn Uthal, who later embraced Islam.

He also exchanged Muslim captives for enemy prisoners.

This demonstrates that the objective was never slavery itself.

The objective was achieving justice and protecting the interests of the Muslim community.

Third: Immediate Emancipation Could Sometimes Harm the Slave Himself

This is a point many people overlook.

The purpose of emancipation is the welfare of the person being freed.

If releasing someone immediately would leave him homeless, destitute, or unable to survive, then such emancipation would not truly benefit him.

Imam al-Sa’di, commenting on the verse:

“…then the freeing of a slave…”

said:

“The objective of emancipation is to benefit the freed person and grant him control over his own affairs. If freeing him would result in his ruin, while remaining in slavery would be more beneficial for him, then the intended purpose of emancipation has not been achieved.”
(Tafsir al-Sa’di, 1/192.)

For this reason, Islamic law did not simply release slaves without preparation.

Instead, it established systems such as Mukatabah (contracts of emancipation), financial assistance through Zakat, and community support so that the individual would be capable of living independently.

Fourth: Gradual Reform Was Wisdom, Not a Deficiency

Someone may ask:

Why was there not a single verse abolishing slavery outright, as happened with alcohol?

The answer is that different issues require different legal approaches.

Not every matter that is addressed gradually reflects imperfection.

Nor does every institution that is not abolished immediately become inherently acceptable forever.

Islam considered the unique nature of each issue.

Slavery was not merely an individual habit.

It was an international social, economic, and political institution.

Therefore, wisdom required reforming it by:

closing nearly all avenues leading into slavery,
opening numerous paths toward emancipation,
improving the condition of existing slaves,

until the institution naturally diminished without producing widespread social chaos.

Fifth: Did Islam Intend Slavery to Continue Forever?

The answer is no.

The clearest evidence is that Islamic law created far more avenues for emancipation than for enslavement.

Enslavement was ultimately restricted to only one possible cause.

Meanwhile, emancipation was encouraged through dozens of different means.

Which direction, then, was the legislation clearly promoting?

One narrow avenue into slavery—

or dozens of avenues leading out of it?

For this reason, Ibn Ashur wrote:

“This verse establishes one of the fundamental principles of Islamic legislation: the Lawgiver’s desire to promote freedom.”
(Al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir, 30/483.)

Had Islam intended slavery to remain indefinitely, it would never have legislated so many mechanisms designed to eliminate it.

Sixth: History Confirmed the Wisdom of This Approach

When the international system eventually changed and nations collectively abandoned the enslavement of prisoners of war, the practical basis for slavery disappeared.

It is worth noting that the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II (Muhammad al-Fatih) concluded agreements with other states prohibiting the enslavement of prisoners of war, and later this became the accepted international norm.

Islamic law does not require Muslims to violate legitimate treaties that fulfill the objectives of the Shari’ah, so long as those treaties do not contradict the Qur’an or the authentic Sunnah.

Summary

The difference between Islam and other systems is that Islam did not address slavery through slogans.

It addressed it through practical legislation.

It narrowed the avenues leading into slavery.

It greatly expanded the paths leading to freedom.

It elevated the status of slaves.

It required kind treatment toward them.

It allocated public funds to assist in their emancipation.

It legislated contracts of emancipation.

It made freeing slaves one of the greatest acts of worship.

Thus, the overall direction of Islamic legislation consistently moved toward reducing slavery and eventually eliminating it, while simultaneously protecting both society and the slaves themselves.

Therefore, anyone who asks,

“Why didn’t Islam abolish slavery the way it prohibited alcohol?”

has compared a complex global institution with an individual habit—two matters that are fundamentally incomparable.

Ninth: What Was the Practical Attitude of the Prophet ﷺ and His Companions Toward Slaves and Prisoners?

Someone may say:

“These teachings sound noble in theory, but how did the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions actually apply them?”

The answer is that the practical example of the Prophet ﷺ is the strongest evidence for the reality of this legislation.

Legal texts may sometimes be interpreted in different ways, but when those rulings become a lived reality, doubts disappear.

Anyone who studies the life of the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions will find countless examples of kindness toward slaves, proving that these teachings were not mere ideals—they were a way of life.

First: The Prophet ﷺ Freed Slaves Even Before Prophethood

One of the earliest examples is the story of Zayd ibn Harithah رضي الله عنه.

The Prophet ﷺ purchased him before receiving revelation and later set him free, to the extent that people referred to him for a period as “Zayd ibn Muhammad.”

Abdullah ibn Umar رضي الله عنهما said:

“We used to call Zayd ibn Harithah ‘Zayd ibn Muhammad’ until the verse was revealed: ‘Call them by their fathers; that is more just in the sight of Allah.'”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 4409.)

Allah also says regarding Zayd:

“And remember when you said to the one upon whom Allah had bestowed favor and upon whom you had bestowed favor…” (Qur’an 33:37)

The scholars of Tafsir explained:

“Allah’s favor was Islam, while your favor was granting him freedom.”
(Fath al-Qadir, 4/404.)

Even more telling is that when Zayd was given the choice between returning to his biological father or remaining with the Prophet ﷺ, he freely chose to stay with the Prophet ﷺ—a powerful testimony to the kindness with which he had been treated.

Second: Helping Salman al-Farisi Gain His Freedom

When Salman al-Farisi رضي الله عنه entered into a contract of emancipation (Mukatabah), the Prophet ﷺ did not leave him to face the burden alone.

Instead, he instructed the Companions:

“Help your brother.”

Each Companion contributed according to his ability.

The Prophet ﷺ himself planted the required date palms with his own hands and later provided Salman with gold so he could complete the remainder of his contract and obtain his freedom.

(Musnad Ahmad, 5/441; authenticated by al-Albani in al-Silsilah al-Sahihah, no. 894.)

This was the practical implementation of Allah’s command:

“And give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you.”

Third: He Visited His Freed Servants in Their Homes

The Prophet ﷺ never considered it beneath him to visit his former servants.

Anas رضي الله عنه narrated:

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ visited a tailor who had once been his freed servant…”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 5013.)

He sat with him and ate from his food.

His lofty status never prevented him from associating with someone who had once been a slave.

Fourth: He Honored Them Publicly

The Prophet ﷺ often had Usamah ibn Zayd رضي الله عنهما ride behind him on his mount.

Usamah said:

“I rode behind the Messenger of Allah ﷺ from Arafat.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 1558.)

This was not an isolated incident.

The Prophet ﷺ honored Usamah greatly and eventually appointed him to command an army that included many of the senior Muhajirun and Ansar.

Fifth: The Companions Practiced the Same Teachings

This conduct was not unique to the Prophet ﷺ.

Umar ibn al-Khattab رضي الله عنه once saw people eating while their servants stood nearby.

He became angry and ordered the servants to sit and eat with them.

Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf رضي الله عنه would walk alongside his servants in such a manner that people could hardly distinguish him from them.

Salman رضي الله عنه once kneaded dough himself.

When someone asked why the servant was not doing it, he replied:

“We sent the servant on an errand, and we disliked burdening him with two tasks at once.”

Likewise, Uthman ibn Affan رضي الله عنه once disciplined one of his servants.

Afterward he said to him:

“Take retaliation from me.”

When the servant refused, Uthman insisted until he accepted.

Then Uthman explained:

“I cannot bear the punishment of the Day of Judgment.”

The servant replied:

“Nor can I, my master.”

Few examples illustrate humility and justice more clearly than this.

Sixth: The Women Also Competed in Freeing Slaves

The encouragement to free slaves was not limited to men.

The Mothers of the Believers actively participated as well.

Aishah رضي الله عنها wished to purchase Barirah in order to free her.

When Barirah’s owners attempted to stipulate that they would retain the right of allegiance (Wala’), the Prophet ﷺ said:

“Buy her, for the right of allegiance belongs only to the one who frees the slave.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 2061; Sahih Muslim, no. 1504.)

Likewise, Maymunah رضي الله عنها freed one of her slave girls.

(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 2454; Sahih Muslim, no. 999.)

Seventh: Former Slaves Became the Scholars and Leaders of the Ummah

Had Islam regarded slaves as an inferior class, so many of them would never have become the leading scholars of the Muslim world.

Among them were:

Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, who led the Muhajirun in prayer before the Prophet ﷺ arrived in Madinah because he knew the Qur’an best.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 651.)
Ikrimah, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas, one of the greatest Qur’anic commentators.
Ata ibn Abi Rabah, the leading jurist of Makkah.
Tawus, the foremost scholar of Yemen.
Makhul, the leading scholar of Syria.
Yazid ibn Abi Habib, the leading scholar of Egypt.

Al-Zuhri once informed the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan that many of the leading scholars of the Muslim world were former slaves.

The Caliph expressed astonishment.

Al-Zuhri replied:

“This is Allah’s religion. Whoever preserves it is elevated, and whoever neglects it falls.”
(Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’, 5/85; Tarikh Dimashq, 40/393.)

This statement beautifully summarizes the Islamic worldview.

Honor is determined neither by lineage nor by race nor by previous social status.

It is determined by knowledge and piety.

Eighth: Their Role in Serving the Islamic State

Their contributions extended far beyond scholarship.

Former slaves became:

governors,
military commanders,
administrators,
transmitters of Hadith,
and distinguished reciters of the Qur’an.

It has been recorded that approximately 320 freed slaves (Mawali) narrated Hadiths found in the six canonical collections.

Could a truly despised social class ever have reached such prominence in any civilization?

Summary

Had the previous texts been nothing more than lofty slogans, we would never have witnessed their practical implementation in the lives of the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions.

Instead, history shows that they genuinely lived these principles.

Former slaves sat beside their masters at the same table.

They led free men in prayer.

They governed provinces.

They became among the greatest scholars of the Ummah.

These historical realities alone are enough to refute the claim that Islam viewed slaves as an inferior or degraded class of human beings.

Tenth: What About the Texts the Critic Is Proud Of, Even Though Stronger Ones Exist in the Bible?

It should first be understood that our appeal to the Bible is not the foundation of our argument.

A Muslim establishes his beliefs from the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

However, if the critic is a Christian—or appeals to the Bible while attacking Islam because of slavery—it is only fair to ask:

If the existence of slavery in a religious scripture proves that the religion is false, then why do you not apply that same standard to your own scripture?

If you reject your own book on that basis, you have undermined your own religion before criticizing Islam.

If you accept it, then your objection against Islam collapses.

This is an argument of consistency, not our primary proof.

First: The Bible Never Prohibited Slavery

Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament contains a single verse that universally abolishes slavery.

Instead, both contain regulations governing it and acknowledging its continued existence.

The New Testament even states that if a debtor cannot repay what he owes, he—and his family—may be sold.

In Matthew 18:25:

“Since he was unable to pay, his master ordered that he, his wife, his children, and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.”

Should the critic conclude, then, that the Gospel legislates slavery for debt?

Second: Selling One’s Daughter as a Slave

In Exodus 21:7, we read:

“If a man sells his daughter as a servant…”

This is an explicit text permitting the sale of one’s daughter as a female slave.

If the mere presence of slavery invalidates a religion, then the critic should begin with this passage.

Third: Perpetual Slavery for Non-Israelites

Among the most striking passages in the Torah is its distinction between Israelites and everyone else.

An Israelite slave could, under certain circumstances, eventually be released.

Non-Israelites, however, could be enslaved permanently.

Leviticus 25:44–46 states:

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you… You may leave them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.”

Reflect on this.

Islam multiplied the paths leading to emancipation until slavery gradually diminished.

This biblical passage, on the other hand, explicitly permits perpetual slavery.

Which legal system, then, deserves greater criticism?

Fourth: Killing the Men and Enslaving the Women and Children

In Deuteronomy 20:14:

“As for the women, the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city… you may take these as plunder for yourselves.”

Likewise, Numbers 31:17–18 states:

“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

The text then proceeds to count the number of young women who were kept alive.

These passages are well known within the Bible itself.

If someone objects to Islam because of female captives, why not begin with these passages?

Fifth: A Call to Peace That Ends in Forced Labor

Another remarkable passage appears in Deuteronomy 20:10–15.

A city is first offered peace.

If it accepts, its inhabitants become subject to forced labor.

If it refuses, the men are killed while the women and children are taken.

How does this compare with Islamic law, which first calls people to the truth, then permits peaceful coexistence under treaty and Jizyah where applicable, and only permits fighting under legitimate legal circumstances?

Sixth: Christianity Did Not Abolish Slavery Either

The matter is not confined to the Old Testament.

The New Testament itself never abolishes slavery.

Instead, Paul instructs slaves to obey their masters.

Ephesians 6:5 says:

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling…”

Where, then, is the verse that categorically abolishes slavery?

The Larousse Encyclopedia states:

“The official representatives of the Church accepted slavery and acknowledged its legitimacy.”

Likewise, the Dictionary of the Bible, by Dr. George Youssef, states:

“Christianity did not oppose slavery from either a political or economic standpoint. Nor did it urge believers to reject the social customs of their age regarding slavery, nor did it command the immediate emancipation of slaves.”

These are testimonies from within Christian scholarship itself.

Seventh: So Where Is the Objection?

After all of this, we ask the critic one simple question:

If the existence of slavery in a sacred text proves that the religion is false, why do you not reject the Bible?

If your answer is:

“Because slavery was already a worldwide institution, and those scriptures merely regulated an existing reality rather than creating it,”

then we simply reply:

That is exactly what we say about Islam.

You cannot use the very explanation you accept for your own scripture as an argument against the Qur’an.

Doing so is an obvious inconsistency.

Eighth: The Difference Between Islam and Other Systems

In fact, a fair comparison reveals a significant difference.

The Bible recognizes slavery and permits perpetual slavery for non-Israelites.

Islam, by contrast:

closed nearly all avenues leading into slavery,
opened numerous avenues toward emancipation,
made freeing slaves one of the greatest acts of worship,
commanded kindness toward slaves,
and even made striking a slave a cause for his emancipation.

Which legal system, then, stands closer to freedom and mercy?

Summary

We do not argue that Islam is true because similar rulings appear in the Bible.

Rather, we say to the person who attacks Islam because of slavery:

Either apply the same standard consistently—in which case you must reject your own scripture before criticizing the Qur’an—

or acknowledge that the mere existence of slavery within a revealed scripture does not by itself invalidate that scripture.

What matters is how the institution is regulated and transformed.

Once that principle is accepted, the objection against Islam falls apart entirely.

This demonstrates that the criticism is not built upon a fair and consistent analysis, but rather upon selectively condemning what appears in Islam while overlooking even stronger passages in the very sources accepted by the critic himself.

Final Chapter: Inescapable Challenges for the Secularist and the Atheist

After all that has been established, it is only fair to turn the question back upon the critic himself. Many who raise this objection assume they are in the position of judging Islam, when in reality their own worldview is even more deserving of scrutiny.

First: By What Standard Have You Decided That Slavery Is Absolutely Evil?

The first question the critic must answer is:

By what objective standard have you concluded that slavery is intrinsically and universally evil?

If he says:

“Because it is immoral.”

We ask:

According to what source is it immoral? Is that morality revealed by God, or is it merely a human preference?

If he says:

“It is simply what people consider good.”

Then we reply:

For thousands of years, the overwhelming majority of civilizations believed otherwise. Was all of humanity mistaken until modern man finally discovered the truth?

If he says:

“It violates human rights.”

We ask:

Why should those rights be objectively binding in the first place? Who granted them? And what proof is there that they are objective realities rather than social agreements that can be revised or abandoned?

The Muslim’s answer is straightforward.

Human beings possess dignity because God granted them dignity.

Oppression is wrong because God prohibited it.

Human rights are objective because their source is God, not public opinion or social consensus.

The atheist, however, cannot—according to his own worldview—ground objective morality. At best, morality becomes the product of evolution, social conditioning, or collective preference. Such foundations cannot serve as an absolute standard by which all peoples, civilizations, and eras are judged.

Second: Why Is Islam Alone Being Put on Trial?

Slavery was a universal institution.

It existed among the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Indians, Chinese, Jews, Christians, and virtually every known civilization.

If the mere existence of slavery proves that a civilization is morally bankrupt, then human history as a whole stands condemned.

But if the real question is how each civilization dealt with that reality, then fairness begins—and the profound difference between Islam and other systems becomes clear.

Third: Which Legal System Treated Slaves More Humanely?

Once we acknowledge that slavery was a worldwide reality which no single society could abolish unilaterally, the real question is no longer:

Did slavery exist?

Rather, it is:

Which legal system treated slaves with greater humanity?
Which opened more paths toward emancipation?
Which better preserved their dignity and rights?

As this study has demonstrated, Islam:

drastically restricted the causes of enslavement,
greatly expanded the means of emancipation,
made freeing slaves one of the greatest acts of worship,
encouraged or required contracts of emancipation (mukātabah),
commanded kindness toward slaves,
prohibited injustice against them,
and granted them rights unmatched by earlier civilizations.

If the critic can produce an earlier legal system that combined all of these qualities, then let him present it.

Fourth: Where Is Your Outrage Over Modern Forms of Slavery?

One of the greatest inconsistencies is that many who relentlessly attack Islam over historical slavery say almost nothing about modern forms of human exploitation.

Human trafficking.

Sex trafficking.

Organized prostitution.

Forced labor.

Child exploitation.

Organ trafficking.

Economic systems that reduce people to disposable commodities.

All of these continue to exist across large parts of the world.

If what truly matters is the reality of human exploitation rather than the label attached to it, then slavery has by no means disappeared—it has merely changed its name and been surrounded by more appealing slogans.

Fifth: The Challenge the Atheist Cannot Escape

There remains one question that the atheist cannot answer consistently within his own worldview:

If human beings are nothing more than the accidental products of matter and blind evolutionary processes without purpose or design, then where does human dignity come from?

Why is one human being enslaving another objectively wrong?

What do “justice,” “rights,” and “human dignity” even mean in a universe consisting of nothing but matter and motion?

These concepts cannot be objectively grounded within atheism.

Atheists often borrow moral language inherited from the religious traditions they reject.

Islam, however, provides a coherent foundation.

Human beings possess dignity because they are created by God.

Oppression is evil because God declared it so.

Justice is obligatory because God commanded it.

Thus these values remain objective, fixed, and independent of changing opinions, cultures, and historical trends.

The irony, then, is that the atheist criticizes Islam using moral principles that his own worldview cannot objectively justify, while simultaneously rejecting the very foundation upon which those principles ultimately rest.

Conclusion

After this discussion, it becomes clear that the slavery objection is one of the most misleading criticisms leveled against Islam, because it is built upon isolating texts from their proper context, examining one part of the Islamic legal system while ignoring the rest, and judging a seventh-century society according to standards that emerged more than a thousand years later—all while overlooking the history of humanity as a whole.

As we have seen, Islam did not invent slavery, nor was it the first religion or civilization to recognize it. Rather, Islam emerged at a time when slavery was a deeply entrenched global institution, shared by virtually every nation and civilization, forming an integral part of both economic and military life, especially with regard to prisoners of war.

Had Islam abolished slavery outright from the very beginning while every other nation continued enslaving Muslim prisoners without releasing them, the result would have been severe injustice toward Muslims and a serious imbalance in the international laws of war that prevailed throughout the world. Instead, Islamic law adopted a wise and practical approach: it drastically restricted the avenues into slavery, greatly expanded the paths to emancipation, made freeing slaves one of the noblest acts of worship, attached emancipation to numerous acts of expiation, strongly encouraged it, established contractual means through which slaves could earn their freedom, encouraged—and in some cases obligated—society to assist them in doing so, and granted slaves rights and protections unparalleled in earlier civilizations.

Nor did Islamic law wait until a slave was freed before recognizing his dignity. Even while remaining a slave, he was guaranteed the right to worship, the right to seek knowledge, the right to marry, the right to maintenance and clothing, protection from injustice, humiliation, and abuse, protection against separating mothers from their children, and the right to kind treatment. Human superiority was measured by piety rather than freedom or slavery, until many former slaves became leading scholars, judges, jurists, military commanders, and teachers of the Muslim community. Hundreds of prophetic narrations were transmitted through them, and they earned honor through knowledge and righteousness rather than lineage or social status.

It also became evident that most critics object not to the treatment of slaves under Islam, but to the very existence of slavery itself. If that is their objection, then it cannot be directed exclusively at Islam. The same criticism would apply to every ancient civilization, as well as to Judaism and Christianity. Indeed, the biblical texts on slavery are often broader and more explicit, permitting perpetual slavery, hereditary ownership of slaves, and the enslavement of women and children, while the New Testament never abolished the institution.

One of the greatest inconsistencies is that many who fiercely condemn Islam over historical slavery remain largely silent regarding modern forms of human exploitation that continue to exist today under different names—human trafficking, sexual exploitation, forced labor, economic exploitation, and numerous other forms of one human being dominating another.

Anyone who compares the condition of slaves in the ancient world with the reforms introduced by Islamic law will realize that Islam was not part of the problem; rather, it represented one of history’s greatest steps toward solving it. As international customs eventually changed and the legitimate causes of enslavement disappeared, lawful slavery likewise came to an end because its legal cause had ceased to exist.

This leads us to an important principle that is often overlooked: religious rulings cannot be understood in isolation from their causes, objectives, and historical circumstances. Nor can they be detached from the reality in which they were revealed and judged independently of that context. Such an approach is neither fair nor academically sound.

The purpose of this article is not to claim that slavery, in and of itself, is something desirable, nor that Islam sought to perpetuate it indefinitely. Rather, the purpose is to present the historical reality as it truly was: Islam encountered an existing global institution that it did not create, then guided society toward restricting it, reducing it, and ultimately leading it toward emancipation, while preserving the rights and dignity of those slaves who remained within that system.

All praise belongs to Allah for a law founded upon justice, mercy, and wisdom—not upon slogans or passing ideologies—a law that took into account the realities of human life, neither burdening people with what they could not bear nor abandoning them to lawless chaos, but legislating what benefits them in both this world and the Hereafter.

We ask Allah, the Exalted, to grant the Muslims a correct understanding of their religion, to bless them with beneficial knowledge and righteous deeds, to keep them steadfast upon the truth, and to make this work sincere for His sake alone and beneficial to His servants.

May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and all of his Companions.

الحمد الله رب العالمين