Duties towards Slaves

 

 Quranic Foundations And Structure Of Muslim Society

(7) DUTIES TOWARDS SLAVES

(A) THE QUR’ANIC STAND CONCERNING SLAVERY AND PRISONERSHIP OF WAR:

We have seen in the section on basic duties towards others that the Holy Qur’an promulgates and upholds most ardently and without reserve the ideals of human equality, liberty and fraternity, and bestows a most comprehensive system of rights and duties based not only on absolute justice but, beyond that, on liberality, graciousness and compassion.

All rights are, however, always subject to curtailment if the interests of human society or even of the individual so demand, because of the unhealthy and injurious attitude or action on the part of anyone. This is a principle which has been universally accepted by mankind, and its validity is ingrained in the very concept of social justice. As such, it has received sanction in the Qur’anic moral code also.

Viewing this principle in the perspective of human freedom, we find that the mission of the Holy Qur’an is to establish and promote conditions in which the ideal of human freedom thrives and prospers and all forms of cruel subjection and exploitation of man by man and all types of misery which a human being may be capable of bringing about for any of his fellow-beings, are eliminated. 

Thus the Holy Qur’an refuses to endorse the different forms of genuine slavery and serfdom practised unblushingly by the ancient primitive communities as well as by such civilized communities as the Greeks, the Romans, the Christians and the Hindus,* recognizing only prisonership of war, and that too under unavoidable circumstances.  

*For details of the cruel principles and practices of these communities concerning slavery refer, among other scholarly works, to Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. II, Art. “Slavery”, pp. 595-631 

It is essential for every student of the Qur’anic teaching to remember that the Holy Qur’an came into a world wherein slavery had been practised as a normal pursuit of the powerful since times immemorial; and consequently it had taken deep roots in the socio-economic life of numerous human communities spread all over the world, including the Arabs.

The Holy Qur’an had, therefore, to tackle not only a time-honored evil custom but also a deep-rooted economic institution. As such, it adopted a gradual program for its total abolition, in the meantime laying down moral principles and statutory laws whereby the evils connected with slavery were totally eliminated from the Muslim society during the period of its revelation itself.

We may now examine the Qur’anic teachings concerning male and female slaves and the problem of prisonership of war and evaluate them:—

1.    The first great truth that reveals itself to a student of the Holy Qur’an is that making slaves of human beings has not been enjoined anywhere even indirectly. And not only is there no command, even an indirect recommendation does not exist.

2.    Taking prisoners of war as a war-strategy has been, of course, permitted in conformity with the practice of all the nations of the world. The Holy Qur’an says:

“Therefore, when you meet in battle the Unbelievers (i.e., non-Muslim enemies), then it is smiting of the necks; at length when you have thoroughly routed them, bind a bond firmly (ie., make them prisoners of war): . . .” (47:4).

Again:

“It is not for a Prophet (and similarly for any of his followers) to have captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land.” (8:67).

This verse goes on further, however, to condemn worldly motives in respect of prisoners of war—the motive of benefiting from their services, or the motive of acquiring money in case they are ransomed, —a Muslim’s motive for fighting in a war being only the triumph of the Divine Order of Truth and Justice: thus discouraging even retaining prisoners of war:

“(O Muslims) You desire the temporal goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the (blessings of the) Hereafter (which are attainable only through rising above worldly passions): and Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (8:67).

3.    As to slavery proper, namely, acquiring men and women in bondage without a just war, there is not even a permission. Rather, the above quoted verse (8:67) makes it positively illegal.

4.    As we have already noted, the institution of slavery formed a vital part of Arab life, with all its economic implications, at the time of the advent of the Holy Qur’an. The Qur’anic method of reform in respect of such complicated evil institutions being their gradual elimination, {the gradual Qur’anic reform in respect of intoxicants} the Holy Qur’an began with emphasizing the evil nature of that institution through exhortations to Muslims to emancipate the slaves, placing that act in the list of the highest virtues and announcing for it the highest reward to which a Muslim can and should aspire, namely, earning the Divine Pleasure. In the very earliest revelations belonging to the first year of the Call, we find the following historic declaration:—

“Ah, what will convey to you what the Ascent (i.e., the high and difficult path of Duty) is! (It is) to free a slave.” (90:12-13).

The exhortation was repeated at Medina in the following words:

“… but righteous is he who … gives his wealth for love of Him (i.e., God) … to set free slaves …” (2:77).*

* This clarion call did not go unheeded. Rather, the response was most enthusiastic. According to a conservative estimate, the number of slaves who received their freedom at the hands of the Companions of the Holy Prophet (Peace be on him) reached a total of thirty-nine thousand, two hundred and fifty-nine. (FatÍ al-‘AllÉm, commentary on BulËgh al-MarÉm, p. 332). It may also be pointed out that this estimate does not include many more whose references are found in other books.
As regards the Holy Prophet himself, it has been recorded that he emancipated sixty-three slaves. (Ibid). 

5.    When the Holy Prophet (Peace be on him) had established the Islamic state at Medina, the problem of the prisoners of war arose in consequence of the battles waged by the enemies of Islam, giving birth to another category of bondmen and bondwomen,—the only category permitted by the Holy Qur’an, as we have seen above.

Prisonership of war is, like war, a necessary evil, and humanity has never been and can never be immune from it. The Holy Qur’an has, however, tried to mitigate this evil to the utmost rational limit.

We have seen above that it has condemned coveting prisoners of war. It being, however, unavoidable to have prisoners of war, the holy book has laid down most humane laws in that respect, giving due weight at the same time to avoidance of positive harm to the Muslims through any politically—unrealistic approach—specially in the case when the enemy has also acquired Muslim prisoners of war, takes up an unjust stand concerning them and closes doors on the Islamic state in respect of awarding freedom to the prisoners of war in its hands. For, the Holy Qur’an, while preaching forgiveness and compassion, has also permitted the Muslims to retaliate if the enemy continues to stick to mischief and injustice:

“If you punish, then punish with the like of that wherefore you were afflicted (by the enemies of Islam). But if you endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient.” (16:126).

Thus, the Qur’anic teaching is fundamentally aimed at the elimination of this form of bondage also, and the Islamic state has been exhorted by the Holy Qur’an to adopt, according to the exigencies of the situation, either of the following courses for setting free the prisoners of war:—

a.     setting free as a favor and out of sheer grace; 

b.    setting free in return for ransom.

 

The injunction reads:—

“Therefore, when you meet in battle the Unbelievers (i.e., non-Muslim enemies), then it is smiting of necks; at length when you have thoroughly routed them, bind a bond firmly (i.e., make them prisoners of war); thereafter either (setting them free as a matter of) grace* or (freeing them in return for) ransom; until the war lays down its burdens (i.e., peace returns, after which no one can be made captive). That (is the ordinance) …” (47:4). 

 * It is worthy of being remembered that in most cases when the Muslim army captured prisoners of war in the battles fought during the regime of the Holy Prophet (Peace be on him), those captives were awarded their freedom as a mark of sheer grace, in conformity with the alternative permitted in this verse, Thus, several of those who had been taken prisoners after the first battle of Islam, namely, the battle of Badr, were granted freedom without ransom. Similarly, the six thousand prisoners connected with the Banu Mustalaq expedition, the inveterate enemies of Islam captured after the fall of Makka, the captives obtained after the siege of Ta’if, and the prisoners captured on some other occasions of warfare, were set free by the Holy Prophet (Peace be on him) by way of grace. (See: Muslim: Sahih, vol. 2, p.93; Bukhari: Sahih, vol. 2, pp. 376, 593; Ibn Athir: al-Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 92).

In case, however, the Islamic state does not find itself strategically in a position where it may adopt the first alternative with justice to the Cause of Truth, nor are the prisoners in a position to take benefit of the permission to ransom themselves, they must naturally remain captives.

But, then, the Holy Qur’an lays down the third ordinance whereby the captives can obtain their freedom in due course. It says:

“And if any of those whom your right hands possess ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum) give them (as your bounden duty) such a deed if you know in them any good (i.e., fitness for earning their livelihood through some work and thus bettering their position), and (for helping them to freedom) bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you …” (24:33).

This actually terminates, from the side of the Holy Qur’an, that form of bondage which is incidental to prisonership of war and which concerns Islam’s bloodthirsty enemies. Of course, the very creation of every other form of bondage is out of the question, as we have already seen. Thus, there should be no bondsmen and bondswomen of any category in an Islamic state.

Indeed the Holy Qur’an is so vehemently opposed to slavery in all its forms that it has ordained redemption of prisoners of war and emancipation of slaves as a collective duty of the Muslims in respect of the definite and permanent functions of the perpetual compulsory Welfare Tax, i.e., Zakat which every Muslim of means has been ordered to pay yearly for planned spending on welfare projects. The holy book says:

“Alms (i.e., compulsory Welfare Tax meant to be collected and spent by the communal treasury or by the Islamic state) are for the poor, and the needy (and) … for those in bondage …”

(9:60).

Thus: (a) prisoners of war should be redeemed, and (b) slaves should be helped to freedom. This injunction forms, indeed, a charter for the Muslims to eradicate slavery from the world on an organized scale.

Here we may refer also to another channel adopted by the Holy Qur’an for the emancipation of slaves. That is the channel of recommending to, or commanding, the Muslims to expiate for certain sins through setting slaves free or purchasing for them their freedom.

Thus:

(1) if a Muslim killed another Muslim by mistake, it was made obligatory for him to emancipate a slave:

“He who kills a Believer by mistake must set free a believing slave . . .” (4:92).

(2) It was, however, not only in case the person killed was a Muslim, but also when he was a non-Muslim and belonged to a community with whom Muslims had a treaty of mutual alliance:—

“… If he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed …” (4:92).

(3) For those who had separated from their wives through zihar, to which a reference has already been made, and desired reunion, the first alternative given to them in respect of expiation was that of setting free a slave:—                                         

“As to those who divorce their wives by zihar, then wish to go back on the words uttered,—(it is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other. This are you admonished to perform and Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that you do.” (58:3).

(4) Failure in keeping to one’s solemn oath was ordained to be expiated, among other alternatives, by freeing a slave:—

“Allah will not take you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths, but He will take you to task for the oaths which you swear in earnest. The expiation thereof is the feeding of ten of the needy with the average of that wherewith you feed your own folk, or the clothing of them, or the emancipation of a slave …” (5:89).*

 *In the hadith we find that if any Muslim terminates his fast deliberately before time, one of the alternatives laid down for him by the Holy Prophet (Peace be on him) for expiating his sin is to free a slave. (Bukhari: sahih: vol. 1, p. 259. Similarly, if a person slaps or beats his slave, the expiation of that sin is to free the slave. (Abu Da’ud: Sunan, vol. 1, p. 466).
    Besides the channel of expiation of sins, another channel, which has been mentioned in the hadith, has also been fixed. The Holy Prophet (Peace be on him) enjoined at Medina that, on the occasion of the solar eclipse, Muslims of means should not only engage in extra devotions like other Muslims, but should also emancipate slaves, (Muslim: sahih; vol. 1, p. 291).

We should now take note of those verses of the Holy Qur’an which speak of the relations of Muslims with slaves and prisoners of war. The question may be asked: If the Holy Qur’an stands firmly for the abolition of bondage and slavery in all its forms, why those injunctions? The plain reply is: The Holy Qur’an, as we have already noted, came into a world wherein slavery was so deep-rooted that to uproot it at a stroke was to bring into existence some other intolerable evils. Hence, while giving that ethical teaching and laying down those laws whereby this institution was to completely wither away in due course, it tolerated the presence of the pre-existing slaves and of the prisoners of war who could not tread the paths of freedom opened out for them by it and chose to stay in the Muslim community,—laying down, however, definite laws for the eradication of the tortures of slavery. In fact, there have been prisoners of war even afterwards who did not avail of the opportunity for freedom offered by the Holy Qur’an. And the same situation can repeat itself in the future. That, however, has been and would be, not because the Holy Qur’an enjoins it or desires it but because of the failures on the side of Islam’s enemies.

We may now consider this part of the Qur’anic teaching.

 

(B) DUTIES:

(a) Duties of Commission:

(1)  Doing good to slaves and prisoners of war enjoined:

The first and foremost teaching of the Holy Qur’an in this connection is the promulgation of the duty of doing good in all respects to “those whom the right hands possess”,—doing good positively as well as negatively; positively, in the sense of doing all positive good possible; and, negatively, in the sense of refraining from all injury:—

“… and do good to parents … and to those whom your right hands own.* Lo! Allah approves not the arrogant, the vainglorious.” (4:36). 

* “What your right hands own.” This includes prisoners of war, slaves, people in one’s power and the animals which might belong to a person. (See A. Yusuf Ali. op. cit. n. 553). 

(2)  Enabling the male and female slaves to enjoy healthy, married life, enjoined:

“And wed the single among you and the fit ones among your male and female slaves (both of whom to become free by marriage); if they be poor, Allah will give them means out of His grace. For Allah encompasses all, and He knows all things.” (24:32).

(3)  Marriage with female slaves advocated and recommended:

“… But if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with wives more than one), then (marry) only one (free woman), or (marry) what your right hands possess (i.e., a prisoner of war or a slave). That will be more suitable, to prevent you from injustice.” (4:3).

 

(b) Duties of Omission:

(1)  Compelling slave-girls to prostitution, prohibited:

“And compel not your slave-girls to prostitution (—a custom practised by the pagan Arabs and certain other pagan communities—), they being desirous of keeping chaste, in order that you may seek the frail goods of this world’s life…” (24:33).

(2)  Promiscuous relations with female slaves, prohibited:

“Also (forbidden unto you for marriage are) women already in wedlock, except* those whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained (prohibitions) against you. Except for these, all others (including those whom your right hands possess) are lawful (for marriage), so that you seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. Seeing that you derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but there is no blame on you, if, after a dower is prescribed, you agree mutually on anything (more). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

“And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. Allah knows best (concerning) your faith. You (i.e., the free and those in bondage) are the same in this respect (i.e., equals in human status). So (without entertaining the false notion of loss of dignity) wed them by permission of their folk, and give unto them their dowers in kindness (as properly) wedded women, not (as) fornicatresses, nor as those taking to themselves secret paramours. When they are taken into wedlock, if they fall into lewdness, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission to marry female captives and slaves) is for those among you who fear sin. But it is better for you that you practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (4:24-25). 

* The reason for this exception is that the Holy Qur’an places a married female prisoner of war whose husband has not been captured along with her, and who is therefore alone, in the category of a divorced woman. Marriage with her in case her husband has also been captured, is illegal. (See Abdul Majid Daryabadi, op. cit., p. 154, n. 3). 

The above discussion shows that prisonership of war, as also the “slavery” of those whom the early converts to Islam possessed as a pre-Islamic legacy and whom they retained thereafter, is actually “controlled freedom”,—the basic human rights, i.e., rights to proper food, clothing, shelter, health, marriage, education, etc., having been ensured with the exception of what falls under the proprietary rights of the guardian in the services of the prisoner of war or of his so-called slave. And these proprietary rights in services have been retained, in respect of the prisoner of war, as atonement for his or her crime in engaging in war against the Cause of God, and the restrictions on freedom that have been prescribed are solely with reference to the protection of the Islamic state and of the Muslim community from the harm that he may likely inflict otherwise as an active enemy. It is, thus, not slavery in the sense in which, for instance, the Greeks, the Romans, the Hindus and the Christians have practised it by treating their slaves as something sub-human or even non-human. The Holy Qur’an, and its exposition: the Hadith, have commanded the Muslims to treat them just like servants and that too with affection and full regard for their welfare.

 

(C) THE PROBLEM OF CONCUBINAGE:

Concubinage may be defined as the establishment and maintenance of sexual relations between a man and a woman outside the marriage bond. As such, it has been widely practised by human communities, which include not only primitive tribal groups but also civilized peoples like the Japanese, the Chinese, the Hindus, the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews and the Christians*. As for the Arabs, they lagged behind none in that respect when the Holy Qur’an came. 

* Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 3,

We have already noted that the Qur’anic reform in respect of slavery was of a gradual nature. But the question is: Does the Holy Qur’an sanction concubinage?

The reply to this question necessitates certain observations:—

1.    We have already noted that the Holy Qur’an prohibits promiscuity and debauchery in relations with those “whom the right hands possess”.

2.    We have also noted that the holy book upholds, advocates and enjoins marriage with them.

3.    If it is said that marriage with polytheists has been forbidden by the Holy Qur’an (2:221), and most of the female captives of war obtained during the period of Qur’anic revelation were polytheists, and that, therefore, the Qur’anic injunction concerning marriage with female captives does not include them; and if the inference is made that the Holy Qur’an sets aside that category for being used as concubines, it would be, in the first instance, a fallacious inference, and secondly, it would go against the explicit Qur’anic injunction which forbids extra-marital relations in an unqualified manner (17:32).

Moreover, as we have already noted, the Holy Qur’an forbids Muslims from employing their female captives for prostitution. Can it be conceivable that a Muslim would be free to establish extra-marital relations with her himself?

4.    There are certain verses in the Holy Qur’an wherein those with whom a Muslim can have legitimate sexual relations have been classed separately as ‘spouses’ and ‘those whom the right hands possess’ (23:5-6; 23:50; 33:52; 70:30). But this distinction does not imply, even according to the most anti-modernistic, conservative and literalistic exponents of the Holy Qur’an, that the expression “those whom the right hands possess” refer to concubines. Rather, the word “spouses” denotes “free women joined to them by regular marriage bond” and the expression: “those whom the right hands possess” stands for “women taken as captives in war and raised to the status of wives”. ^{[See Abdul Majid Daryabadi Commentary notes on verses 5 and 6 of Sura 23]}

5.    There is no doubt that, although “those whom the right hands possess” enjoy all the rights as wives, they are distinguishable from those wives who are from among the free women, and hence their separate mention as wives. This distinction of the ‘free’ and the ‘captive’ is there even when they are not wives of anyone but merely servants in the household. And this distinction has a natural and rational basis. For, the captive belongs originally to the enemy camp where her original mission was to destroy Islam and Muslims, while the free woman belongs solely to the fold of Islam. The loyalty to Islam and to the Islamic state of the latter cannot be normally doubtful; while in respect of the former’s loyalty great precautions are necessary; because even when a captive embraces Islam, it is possible that he or she may have done so to be able to do greater injury to the Muslim community under the mask of conversion. Of course, if he or she is sincere, the devotion from the Muslim community is bound to come to him or her gradually but definitely, to which Muslim history bears ample testimony.

That distinction is there not only with regard to their position in society but also in respect of punishment for crimes, wherein they have been placed at an advantage out of regard for their lesser infusion into Islamic culture*. Their punishment is half of that of a free person:

“… When they (i.e., “those whom the right hands possess”) are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that of free women …” (4:25). 

* Contrast it with the outlook of non-Qur’Énic ideologies where the punishment of those in bondage was higher, often to a most cruel extent, than that of the free persons. (See: Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Art., “Slavery”). 

To sum up: a critical study of the relevant verses proves that the Holy Qur’an does not sanction the institution of Concubinage.

g

 

Source

to be continued . . . . . 

Quranic Foundation & Structure Of Muslim Society In The End Times