|
HOW
IS IT THAT ISLAM, A RELIGION INSPIRED BY
GOD FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY, ALLOWS
SLAVERY?
There
are historical, social and psychological
dimensions to this question, which we
must work through patiently, if we are
to arrive at a satisfactory answer.
Why
is the institution of slavery is thought
of or remembered with such revulsion?
First
of all, it is useful to recall why the
institution of slavery is thought of or
remembered with such revulsion. Images
of the brutal treatment of slaves,
especially in ancient Rome and Egypt,
provokes sorrow and deep disgust. That
is why even after so many centuries, our
conception of slaves is of men and
women carrying stones to the pyramids
and being used up in the building
process like mortar, or fighting wild
animals in public arenas for the
amusement of their owners. We picture
slaves wearing shameful yokes and
chains around their necks.
Nearer
modern times there is the practice of
slavery on an enormous scale by the
Western European nations; the barbarity
and bestiality of this trade beggars all
description. The trade was principally
in Africans who were transported across
the oceans, packed in specially
designed ships, thought of and treated
exactly like livestock. These slaves
were forced to change their names and
abandon their religion and their
language, were never entitled to hope
for freedom, and were kept, again like
livestock, for hard laboring or for
breeding purposes-a birth among them
was celebrated as if it were a death. It
is difficult to understand how human
beings could conceive of fellow human
beings in such a light, still less treat
them thus. But it certainly happened:
there is much documentary evidence that
shows, for example, how ship-masters
would throw their human cargo
overboard in order to claim
compensation for their loss. Slaves had
no rights in law, only obligations;
their owners had absolute rights over
them to dispose of them as they
wished-brothers and sisters, parents and
children, would be separated or allowed
to stay together according to the owner’s
mood or his economic convenience.
After
centuries of this dreadful practice had
made the West European nations rich from
exploitation of such commodities as
sugar, cotton, coffee, they abolished
slavery-they abolished it, with much
self-congratulation, first as a trade,
then altogether. Yet the Muslim regions
had also known considerable prosperity
through the exploitation of sugar,
cotton, coffee (these words in European
languages are of Arabic origin), and
achieved that prosperity without the use
of slave labor. More important, let us
also note, when the Europeans abolished
slavery, it was the slave-owners who
were compensated, not the slaves-in
other words, the attitude to fellow
human beings which allowed such
treatment of them had not changed. It
was not many years after the abolition
of slavery that Africa was directly
colonized by the Europeans with
consequences for the Africans no less
terrible than slavery itself. Further,
because the attitude to non-Europeans
has changed little, if at all, in modern
times, their social and political
condition remains, even where they live
amid the Europeans and their descendants
as fellow-citizens, that of despised
inferiors. It is barely a couple of
decades since the anthropological
museums in the great capitals of the
Western countries ceased to display,
for public entertainment, the bones and
stuffed bodies of their fellow human
beings. And such displays were not
organized by the worst among them, but
by the best-the scientists, doctors,
learned men, humanitarians.
It
is not only the institution of slavery
that causes revulsion in the human
heart, it is also the attitudes of
inhumanity which sustain it.
In
short, it is not only the institution of
slavery that causes revulsion in the
human heart, it is also the attitudes of
inhumanity which sustain it. And the
truth is, if the institution no longer
formally exists but the attitudes
persist, then humanity has not gained
much, if at all. That is why colonial
exploitation replaced slavery, and why
the chains of unbearable, unrepayable
international debt have replaced
colonial exploitation: only slavery has
gone, its structures of inhumanity and
barbarism are still securely in place.
Before we turn to the Islamic
perspective on slavery, let us recall
a name famous even among Western
Europeans, that of Harun al-Rashid, and
let us recall that this man who enjoyed
such authority and power over all
Muslims was the son of a slave. Nor is
he the only such example; slaves and
their children enjoyed enormous
prestige, authority, respect and (shall
we say it) freedom, within the Islamic
system, in all areas of life, cultural
as well as political. How could this
have come about?
You
are sons of Adam and Adam was
created from clay.
No
Arab is superior over a non-Arab,
and no white is superior over
black.
Superiority
is by righteousness and respect
for God alone.
When
the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace
and blessings, was raised as a Prophet,
racism under the name of tribalism was
prevalent in Makka. The Quraysh
considered themselves in particular, and
Arabs in general, superior to all the
other peoples of the world. God’s
Messenger came with the Divine Message
and proclaimed that no Arab is
superior over a non-Arab, and no white
is superior over black (Ibn Hanbal, Musnad,
5:441) and superiority is by
righteousness and respect for God alone
(sura al-Hujurat, 49:13). He also
declared that even if an Abyssinian
black Muslim were to rule over Muslims,
he should be obeyed. (Muslim,
‘Imara,’ 37.)
Islam
amended and educated the institution of
slavery and the attitudes of masters to
slaves. The Qur’an taught in many
verses that all human beings are
descended from a single ancestor, that
none has an intrinsic right of
superiority over another, whatever his
race or his nation or his social
standing. And from the Prophet’s
teaching, upon him be peace, the Muslims
learnt these principles, which they
applied both as laws and as social
norms:
Whosoever
kills his slave: he shall be
killed. Whosoever imprisons his
slave and starves him, he shall be
imprisoned and starved himself,
and whosoever castrates his slave
shall himself be castrated.
(Sunan Abu Dawud, ‘Diyat,’
70; Sunan al-Tirmidhi,
‘Diyat,’ 17; Sunan Al-Nasa’i,
‘Qasama,’ 10, 16)
You
are sons of Adam and Adam was
created from clay.
(Tirmidhi, ‘Tafsir,’ 49;
‘Manaqib,’ 73; Abu Dawud,
‘Adab,’ 111)
You
should know that no Arab is superior
over a non-Arab and, no non-Arab is
superior over any Arab, no white
is superior over black and no black
is superior over white. Superiority
is by righteousness and God-fearing
[alone].
(Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 411)
Because
of this compassionate attitude, those
who had lived their whole lives as
slaves and who are described in ahadith
as poor and lowly received respect from
those who enjoyed high social status (Sahih
al-Muslim, ‘Birr,’ 138; ‘Janna,’
48; Tirmidhi, ‘Manaqib,’ 54,
65). ‘Umar was expressing his
respect in this sense when he said: ‘Master
Bilal whom Master Abu Bakr set free’ (Sahih
al-Bukhari, ‘Fada’il al-Sahaba,’
23). Islam (unlike other civilizations)
requires that slaves are thought of
and treated as within the framework of
universal human brotherhood, and not as
outside it. The Prophet, upon him be
peace, said:
Your
servants and your slaves are your
brothers. Anyone who has slaves
should give them from what he eats
and wears. He should not charge
them with work beyond their
capabilities. If you must set them
to hard work, in any case I advise
you to help them.
(Bukhari, ‘Iman,’ 22;
‘Adab,’ 44; Muslim, ‘Iman,’
38-40; Abu Dawud, ‘Adab,’
124)
Not
one of you should [when
introducing someone] say ‘This
is my slave’, ‘This is my
concubine’. He should call them
‘my daughter’ or ‘my son’
or ‘my brother’. (Ibn
Hanbal, Musnad, 2, 4)
For
this reason ‘Umar and his servant took
it in turns to ride on the camel from
Madina to Jerusalem on their journey to
take control of Masjid al-Aqsa. While he
was the head of the state, ‘Uthman had
his servant pull his own ears in front
of the people since he had pulled his.
Abu Dharr, applying the hadith
literally, made his servant wear one
half of his suit while he himself wore
the other half. From these instances, it
was being demonstrated to succeeding
generations of Muslims, and a pattern
of conduct established, that a slave is
fully a human being, not different from
other people in his need for respect
and dignity and justice.
This
constructive and positive treatment
necessarily had a consequence on the
attitudes of slaves to their masters.
The slave as slave still retained his
humanity and moral dignity and a place
beside other members of his master’s
family. When (we shall explain how
below) he obtained his freedom, he did
not necessarily want to leave his former
master. Starting with Zaid bin Harith,
this practice became quite common.
Although our Prophet, upon him be peace,
had given Zayd his freedom and left him
a free choice, Zayd preferred to stay
with him. Masters and slaves were able
to regard each other as brothers because
their faith enabled them to understand
that the worldly differences between
people are a transient situation-a
situation justifying neither haughtiness
on the part of some, nor rancour on the
part of others. There were, in addition,
strict principles enforced as law:
Whosoever
kills his slave, he shall be
killed, whosoever imprisons his
slave and starves him, he shall be
imprisoned and starved himself.
(Tirmidhi, ‘al-Ayman
wa l-Nudhur,’ 13)
Beside
such sanctions which made the master
behave with care, the slave also enjoyed
the legal right to earn money and hold
property independently of his master,
the right to keep his religion and to
have a family and family life with the
attendant rights and obligations. As
well as personal dignity and a degree of
material security, the Islamic laws
and norms allowed the slave a still more
precious opening-the hope and means of
freedom.
Human
freedom is by God, that is, it is
the natural and proper condition
which must be regarded as the norm
Human
freedom is God-given, and therefore
everyone’s natural and proper
condition. Thus to restore a person,
either wholly or partly, to this
condition is one of the highest virtues.
Freeing half of a slave’s body is
considered equal to saving half of one’s
own body from wrath in the next world.
Freeing a slave’s whole body is
considered equal to saving one’s
whole body. Seeking freedom for enslaved
people is an acceptable reason for
engaging in warfare. Muslims were
encouraged to enter into agreements
and contracts that enabled slaves to
earn or be granted their freedom after a
certain time or, most typically, on the
owner’s death. Unconditional
emancipation was regarded as the most
meritorious and worthy of recognition in
the Hereafter. Sometimes groups of
people would buy and free large numbers
of slaves in order to obtain the favor
of God.
Freeing
a slave also was the legal expiation for
certain sins or failures in religious
duties, such as breaking an oath or a
fast-a good deed to cancel a moral
lapse. The Qur’an orders that a person
who accidentally kills a Muslim must
free a believing slave and pay the
blood-money to the victim’s family
(4:92). A killing affects both the
society and the victim’s family. The
blood-money is a partial compensation
for the latter, while freeing a slave is
a bill paid to the community-it gains a
free person. To free a living person in
return for a death was considered like
bringing someone back to life. Both
personal and public wealth were used to
free slaves. The Prophet and Abu Bakr
were well known for this practice. Later
on, especially during the reign of ‘Umar
ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, public zakat
funds were used for this purpose.
A
possible question:
Islam
regards slavery as a social evil,
regardless of how well slaves are
treated or how many rights they enjoy.
Therefore, why was it not abolished, as
happened with alcohol, interest,
gambling, or prostitution? Why did the
Prophet condone it?
Until
the evil of the European slave trade,
slavery was largely a byproduct of war,
for the victors normally enslaved the
survivors. During Islam’s early years,
there was no reliable system of
exchanging prisoners of war. The
available means of dealing with them
were execution, placing them in prison,
allowing them to go home, or
distributing them among the Muslims as
spoils of war.
The
first option must be ruled out on the
grounds of its barbarity. The second is
practicable only for small numbers and
for a limited period of time, provided
that there are enough resources to care
for them. This option was used, for
prisoners were taken in the hope of
ransom payments. Many Makkans held by
the Muslims were so satisfied with their
treatment that they became Muslims and
changed sides. The third option is
imprudent in times of war. This leaves,
as a general practice, only the fourth
option. Islam instituted humane laws and
norms for what is, in effect, the
rehabilitation of prisoners of war.
While
living among Muslims, slaves saw at
close quarters the truth of Islam in
practice. Many slaves were won over by
the kind treatment they received and
Islam’s humanity, not to mention
their access to many of the legal rights
enjoyed by Muslims, and, ultimately,
by the chance to regain their freedom.
Thousands of ex-slaves can be found
among the great and famous names in
Islam, whose own example then become a
norm for future Muslims-imams such as
Nafi‘, Imam Malik’s teacher (the
founder of the Maliki School of Law, one
the four most famous Schools of Muslim
Law), and Tawus ibn Qaysan, (one of the
greatest scholars of the generation
succeeding the Companions) to name only
two.
Muslims
considered slavery a temporary condition
In
general, Muslims considered slavery a
temporary condition. Unlike Western
civilization, whose values are so much
in fashion, slavery was not an inherited
condition that engulfed whole
generations of people in a deepening
spiral of degradation, despair, and
hopelessness. On the contrary, enjoying
a status as fundamentally equal to
everyone else, slaves in Muslim society
could and did live in secure possession
of their dignity as creatures of the
same Creator. They had access to the
mainstream of Islamic culture and
civilization-to which, as we have noted,
they contributed greatly. In Western
societies where slavery was widespread,
particularly in North and South America,
the descendants of slaves, even
generations after their ancestors’
formal emancipation, remain largely on
the fringes of society, a sub-culture or
anti-culture-which is only sometimes
tolerated, and mostly despised, by the
dominant community.
When
the Muslims were secure against foreign
conquest, why did they not free all of
their former captives or slaves?
Again,
the answer has to do with existing
realities. Those former captives or
slaves did not have the personal,
psychological, or economic resources
needed to establish a secure and
dignified independence. Remember what
happened in the southern United States
when the slaves were suddenly freed by
President Lincoln. Many were abruptly
reduced to destitution and homeless by
owners (who were compensated) who no
longer accepted any responsibility for
them. They were thrown, without any
preparation, into the wider society from
which they had been so long excluded by
law.
In
contrast, observant Muslim masters who
embraced their slaves as brothers and
sisters encouraged them to work for
their freedom, recognized their
rights, helped them support a family,
and helped them find a place in society
before freeing them. The example that
comes to mind is that of Zayd ibn Harith,
who was brought up in the Prophet’s
own household and set free. He married a
noblewoman and was appointed commander
of a Muslim army composed of many
noblemen and Companions. There are many
similar examples.
Islam
considered slavery an accidental and
therefore temporary condition, one that
is to be reformed step by step until it
almost completely disappears
There
are two important points to emphasize
here: the Muslims’ attitude toward
slavery, and the condition of slaves in
non-Muslim countries. Islam considers
slavery an accidental and therefore
temporary condition, one that is to be
reformed step by step until it almost
completely disappears. However, it
sometimes was observed that some
Muslims, especially rulers, continued to
hold slaves. Islam cannot be blamed for
this, for it is the spiritual deficiency
of such Muslims that caused them to
behave in such a manner.
The
other point is that personal habits
engender a second nature. When Lincoln
abolished slavery, most of the slaves
had to return to their owners because
they had never learned to take the
initiative and choose for themselves. As
a result, they could not live as free
people. Given this psychological
reality, prisoners of war were
distributed among Muslims so that one
day they could live a true Islamic
social life as free people in a Muslim
society and fully enjoy their legal
rights.
Islam
sought to abolish slavery by steps. In
the first step, it enabled slaves to
realize their true human consciousness
and identity. After that, it educated
them in Islamic and human values, and
inculcated in them a love of freedom.
Thus, when they were freed, former
slaves were equipped to consider all
kinds of possibilities on how to be
useful members of the community:
farmers, artisans, teachers, scholars,
commanders, governors, ministers, or
even prime ministers.
Islam
attempted to destroy the institution of
“individual slavery,” and never
envisaged or tried “national slavery.”
So, as a Muslim, I pray to God that
enslaved-colonized, oppressed-peoples of
the world should enjoy real freedom.
|
|
