DID ISLAM STARTED SLAVERY COMPREHENSIVE ANSWER
Did Islam invent slavery?
Islam is the religion of freedom. When it dawned on this world, it found in it a great number of male and female slaves. Islam did not invent slavery, but rather found it to be a universal matter upon which the foundations of life are based throughout the earth.
Islam came when slavery had spread in society, so it addressed this matter from several aspects, and promised those who freed slaves a great reward from God Almighty, and legislated many means to limit the phenomenon of slavery, such as expiations, oaths, and others. It also forbade the sale of free people, whether they were sons or otherwise.
What is Islam’s view of man?
Man is honored in Islam as a human being. Allah the Almighty said:
{ And We have certainly honored the children of Adam …} [Surat Al-Isra, verse 7] and granted him complete freedom in all his voluntary actions, the most important of which is: belief or disbelief. Allah the Almighty said:
{And say, “The truth is from your Lord. So whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve…} [Surat Al-Kahf, verse 26] and asked him to be a slave to Allah alone. Allah the Almighty said:
{And worship Allah and associate nothing with Him…} [Surat An-Nisa, verse 36]. Therefore, the enslavement of one human being by another cannot be acceptable in Islam, which does not accept that a human being be a slave to anyone except his Creator, the Almighty.
How does Islam address the issue of slavery then?
When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was sent, slavery was a system in effect in all parts of the earth, so he dealt with it as a reality, but he sought to free people from it with a large group of legal rulings:
1- Allah Almighty made one of the expenses of zakat to free slaves . He legislated the contract of mukataba between the slave and his master, whereby the slave buys himself from his master for a sum of money, then goes to work to collect this sum, and the Muslims help him from the zakat of their money - until when he pays the sum he obtains his freedom. This matter was not known in that era.
2- He legislated for the Muslim the expiation of freeing a slave (i.e. freeing a slave), if he took an oath and wanted to break it, and if he pronounces zihar (i.e. he says to her: you are to me like the back of my mother, meaning that he will not come near her, then he wants to go back on his word, it is not permissible for him to do so except after paying the expiation ), and if he kills a Muslim by mistake, and if he intentionally breaks the fast one day of Ramadan by having sexual intercourse, he must also pay the expiation.
3- Encouraging Muslims to free slaves as a door to goodness that Allah Almighty loves, and He has made it a reason to overcome the obstacle of Hell on the Day of Resurrection and enter Paradise. Allah the Almighty said:
{So do not attempt the steep path - and what can make you know what the steep path is? Free a slave..} [Surat Al-Balad, verses 11-12-13] Freeing a slave: meaning freeing a slave.
4- Imposing punishment on the master, which is the obligation to free his slave if he beats him severely. However, if the beating was not severe, it is recommended for him to free him.As Abu Ubaidah did when he was beating his slave, the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to him: (Allah has more power over you than you have over him). Abu Ubaidah realized his mistake and immediately said: O Messenger of Allah, he is free for the sake of Allah. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: (If you had not done so, the Fire would have burned you). Narrated by Muslim.
The previous step was in fact a spiritual liberation of the slave, by returning him to humanity and treating him as a noble human being who is no different from his masters in origin. Rather, they were temporary circumstances that limited the external freedom of the slave in direct dealings with society. Except for this point, the slave had all the rights of human beings.
But Islam was not satisfied with this, because its great fundamental rule is complete equality among human beings, which is the complete liberation of all human beings. Therefore, it actually worked to liberate slaves, through two major means: manumission and correspondence.
As for manumission, it is the voluntary liberation of the slaves in their possession by the masters, and Islam encouraged this greatly, and the noble Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, was the first example in this, as he freed the slaves he had, and his companions followed him in this. Abu Bakr spent huge sums of money buying slaves from the infidel masters of Quraysh, to free them and grant them freedom. The treasury used to buy slaves from their owners and free them whenever it had any money left. Yahya bin Saeed said: “Umar bin Abdul Aziz sent me to collect the alms of Africa. I collected it and then asked for the poor to give it to. We did not find any poor people and we did not find anyone to take it from us. Umar bin Abdul Aziz had enriched the people, so I bought slaves with it and freed them.”
The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, would free slaves who taught ten Muslims to read and write, or provided a similar service to Muslims. The Holy Quran states that the expiation for some sins is the freeing of slaves. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, also urged people to free slaves as an expiation for any sin a person commits, in order to free the largest possible number of them, for sins are endless, and every son of Adam is prone to error, as the Messenger says. Here it is appropriate to make a special reference to one of these expiations for its special significance in Islam’s view of slavery. It made the expiation for accidental killing a blood money paid to the family of the victim and the freeing of a slave: “And whoever kills a believer by mistake, the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation paid to his family” (11). The victim who was killed by mistake is a human soul that its family has lost, as has society, without any right. Therefore, Islam decides to compensate for it from two aspects: compensation for its family with the blood money paid to them, and compensation for society by freeing a believing slave! It is as if freeing a slave is the revival of a human soul that replaces the soul that was lost by accidental killing. Slavery, according to this, is death or something like death in Islam’s view, despite all the guarantees that surrounded slavery. Therefore, it seizes every opportunity to “revive” slaves by freeing them from slavery (12)!
History mentions that a huge number of slaves were freed through emancipation, and that this huge number is unparalleled in the history of other nations, neither before Islam nor after it for several centuries until the beginning of the modern era. The factors for their emancipation were purely humanitarian, stemming from people’s consciences seeking to please God, and nothing but God.
As for the contract of manumission, it is granting freedom to the slave whenever he requests it himself, in exchange for a sum of money agreed upon by the master and the slave. Manumission here is compulsory and the master has no right to refuse it or postpone it after paying the agreed upon sum. Otherwise, the state (judge or ruler) would intervene to enforce the manumission by force and grant freedom to the one requesting it.
By establishing the contract of manumission, the door of manumission was in fact opened in Islam for those who felt within themselves the desire for liberation and did not wait for their master to volunteer to free them at an opportunity that may or may not arise over the course of time.
From the first moment he requests the contract of manumission - and the master has no right to refuse the contract of manumission if the slave requests it, and his liberation does not pose a threat to the security of the Islamic state - his work for his master becomes for a wage, or he is allowed - if he wishes - to work abroad for a wage, until he collects the agreed upon amount.
The same thing happened in Europe in the fourteenth century - that is, seven centuries after Islam established it - with a major difference that did not exist in any other country, which is the state’s guarantee of the slaves who have been manumitted - and this is in addition to Islam’s huge effort in freeing slaves voluntarily without compensation, drawing closer to God and fulfilling his worship.
The verse that explains the expenditures of zakat says: “Zakat is only for the poor and the needy and those employed to collect it ... and for freeing slaves ...” (13) It is established that zakat is spent from the treasury - which is the public treasury in modern custom - to help the slaves who have been manumitted from the manumission to pay the price of manumission, if they are unable to pay it through their own earnings.
With this and that, Islam has taken broad, effective steps towards the liberation of slaves, and has preceded all historical development by at least seven centuries, and has added to this development elements - such as state care - that the world did not come to except at the beginning of its modern history. And other elements that it never came to, whether in the good treatment of slaves, or in their voluntary emancipation, without pressure from economic or political developments that forced the West to liberate slaves, as will come.
With this and that, the cleverness of the Communists and their false "scientific" claims fall, which claim that Islam is a link in the chain of economic development that came at its natural time according to the law of dialectical materialism - for here it is, it has preceded its time by seven centuries - and which claim that every system - including Islam - is nothing but a reflection of the economic development existing at the time of its emergence, and that all its beliefs and ideas are compatible with this development and respond to it, but they do not precede it, and cannot precede it, as the mind that does not err and to which falsehood does not come from above or from below, the mind of Karl Marx, may his memory be sanctified, has decided! Here is Islam, which did not act on the inspiration of the economic systems that existed at that time in the Arabian Peninsula and the whole world, neither in the matter of slavery, nor in the distribution of wealth, nor in the relationship between the ruler and the ruled, or the owner and the employee (14), but rather it established its social and economic systems voluntarily and by creation in an unprecedented manner, and it remains unique in many of its aspects in history.
Here the question that bewilders thoughts and consciences comes to mind: If Islam took all these steps towards the liberation of slaves, and preceded the whole world with them voluntarily, without being forced or pressured, then why did it not take the decisive remaining step, and declare in complete frankness the abolition of slavery in principle?
To answer this question, we must realize the social, psychological, and political facts that surrounded the subject of slavery, and made Islam establish the principles that would guarantee the liberation of slaves, and let them work in the long term.
We must first remember that freedom is not granted, but rather taken. And the liberation of slaves by issuing a decree, as some imagine, would not have liberated the slave! The American experience of freeing slaves with the stroke of a pen by Abraham Lincoln is the best witness to what we are saying. The slaves whom Lincoln freed - from the outside - through legislation, could not bear freedom, and returned to their masters, begging them to accept them as slaves as they were, because - from the inside - they had not yet been freed.
The issue, despite its strangeness, is not strange when viewed in the light of psychological facts. Life is a habit. The circumstances in which a person lives are what shape his feelings and formulate his sensations and psychological apparatus (15). The psychological entity of the slave differs from the psychological entity of the free man, not because he is of another species as the ancients thought, but because his life in the shadow of permanent slavery made his psychological apparatus adapt to these circumstances, so the apparatus of obedience grows to the maximum extent, and the apparatus of responsibility and tolerance of consequences shrinks to the maximum extent.
The slave is good at doing many things when his master orders him to do them, so he has nothing to do but obey and implement. But he is not good at anything for which he is responsible, even if it is the simplest of things, not because his body is incapable of doing it, nor because his mind - in all cases - is incapable of understanding it; but because his soul cannot bear to bear its consequences, so he imagines imaginary dangers and problems with no solution, so he flees from them to protect himself from the dangers!
Perhaps those who look closely at Egyptian and Eastern life in recent times will realize the impact of this hidden slavery that the malicious colonialism has placed in the souls of Easterners to enslave them to the West. They realize it in the stalled projects that are often stalled only by cowardice in facing their consequences! And the well-studied projects that governments do not implement until they bring in an English or American expert (16) etc. to take responsibility for the project and issue the permit for implementation! And the terrifying paralysis that looms over employees in the bureaucracies and restricts their production with rigid routine, because none of the employees can do anything except what the "master" the senior employee orders him to do, and this in turn has no choice but to obey the "master" the minister, not because all of these are incapable of working, but because their system of responsibilities is stalled and their system of obedience is bloated, so they are more like slaves, even if they are officially free!
It is this psychological adaptation of the slave that enslaves him. It naturally arises from external circumstances, but it becomes independent of them and becomes something in itself, like a tree branch that hangs down to the ground, then extends its own roots and becomes independent of the origin. This psychological adaptation is not eliminated by a state announcement to abolish slavery. Rather, it should be changed from within, by establishing new circumstances that adapt feelings in a different way, develop the atrophied systems in the slave’s soul, and create a normal human entity from his distorted and deformed entity.
This is what Islam did
, as it began first with good treatment of the slave. Nothing restores the balance of the deviant soul and restores its dignity like good treatment, so it feels its human entity and its innate dignity, and then it senses the taste of freedom and savors it, and does not reject it as the freed slaves of America rejected it.
Islam has reached an amazing level in good treatment and restoring human dignity to the slave, examples of which we have given before in the verses of the Qur’an and the hadiths of the Messenger, and here we will list other examples in practical application.
The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, used to establish brotherhood between some of his clients and some of the free Arab leaders. He established brotherhood between Bilal ibn Rabah and Khalid ibn Ruwaiha al-Khathami, between his client Zaid and his uncle Hamza, and between Kharijah ibn Zaid and Abu Bakr. This brotherhood was a true bond that was equal to the blood bond and reached the level of sharing in the inheritance!
He did not stop at this level…
He married his cousin Zaynab bint Jahsh to his freed slave Zayd. Marriage is a very sensitive issue, especially on the part of a woman. She would accept to marry someone who was better than her in status, but she refused to have a husband who was lower than her in lineage, ancestry, and wealth. She felt that this would demean her and diminish her pride. However, the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, was aiming for a higher meaning than all of that, which was to raise the slave from the abyss into which unjust humanity had pushed him to the level of the greatest Arab masters from Quraysh.
He did not stop at this point.
He sent his freed slave Zayd at the head of an army that included the Ansar and Muhajireen from the Arab masters. When he was killed, he appointed his son Usama bin Zayd to command the army, which included Abu Bakr and Umar, the Messenger’s ministers and his two successors after him. Thus, the freed slave was not given mere human equality, but rather the right to leadership and presidency over the “free people.” He went so far as to say: “Listen and obey, even if an Ethiopian slave whose head is like a raisin is appointed over you, he will not establish the Book of Allah, the Blessed and Exalted (17).” Thus, he gave the Mawali the right to the highest positions in the state, which is the leadership of the Muslims. Omar said when he was caliph: “If Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, were alive, I would appoint him.” He followed the same principle that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, established. Omar gave another wonderful example of respecting the Mawali; when Bilal ibn Rabah opposed him on the issue of the spoils of war, he became very vehement in his opposition, and he found no way to respond except to say: “O Allah, spare me from Bilal and his companions!” This was while he was the caliph who had the power, if he wanted, to give orders and be obeyed!
These models that Islam established were intended to liberate the slaves from within, as we said at the beginning of this chapter, so that he would feel his own entity and seek freedom, and this is the true guarantee of liberation.
It is true that he encouraged and urged emancipation by all means, but this itself was part of the psychological education of slaves, so that they would feel that they could obtain freedom and enjoy all the rights enjoyed by masters, so their desire for freedom would increase and they would accept the consequences for its sake, and here he would hasten to grant it to them, because then they would deserve it and be able to maintain it.
There is a big difference between a system that encourages people to seek freedom and prepares the means for it, then gives it to them the moment they themselves seek it, and systems that let matters become complicated and awkward, until economic and social revolutions occur and hundreds and thousands of lives are lost, and then freedom is only granted to those seeking it reluctantly and unwillingly.
One of the great virtues of Islam in the issue of slaves was that it was keen on the true liberation of slaves from within and without, so it did not suffice with good intentions as Lincoln did by issuing legislation that had no basis in people’s hearts; which proves the depth of Islam’s understanding of human nature, and its intelligence about the best means to treat it. This is in addition to his volunteering to give rights to their owners, while raising them to adhere to them and bear their consequences - on the basis of love and affection between all groups of society - before they fight for these rights, as happened in Europe, that hateful conflict that dries up feelings and breeds grudges. It spoils all the good that humanity can attain along the way.
Now we will talk about the greatest factor that made Islam lay the foundation for the liberation of slaves and then let it do its work through the generations.
Islam dried up all the ancient sources of slavery, except for one source that it could not dry up, which is war slavery. Let us go into some detail.
The prevailing custom at that time was to enslave or kill prisoners of war (18). This custom was very old, deeply rooted in the darkness of history, almost dating back to the first man, but it remained a constant companion of humanity in all its stages.
Islam came while people were in this state. Wars broke out between it and its enemies, so Muslim prisoners were enslaved by the enemies of Islam, their freedoms were taken away, and the men among them were treated with the oppression and injustice that was done to slaves at that time, and the honor of women was violated by every seeker, and the man, his children, and his friends would share one woman with whoever they wanted to enjoy, without any control or order, and without respect for the humanity of those women, whether they were virgins or not. As for the children - if they were taken prisoner - they would grow up in the abhorrent humiliation of slavery.
At that time, it was not appropriate for the Muslims to release any enemy prisoners who fell into their hands. It is not good policy to encourage your enemy to release his prisoners, while your family, clan, and followers of your religion are treated with contempt and torment by these enemies. Reciprocity here is the most just law you can use, or it is the only law. However, we should note the profound differences between Islam and other systems regarding war and prisoners of war.
Wars were - and still are - in the non-Islamic world for the sole purpose of conquest, slaughter, and enslavement. They were based on the desire of a nation to subjugate other nations and expand its territory at their expense, or to exploit their resources and deprive its people of them; or for a personal lust that arises in the soul of a king or war leader, to satisfy his personal vanity and swell with pride and arrogance, or for the lust for revenge... or other lowly earthly goals. The prisoners who were enslaved were not enslaved because of a difference in belief, or because they were lower in moral, psychological, or intellectual level than their captors, but only because they were defeated in the war.
This war also had no traditions that prevented the violation of honor or the destruction of peaceful cities, or the killing of women, children and the elderly. This is logical, since it was waged without a belief, principle or lofty goal.
When Islam came, it nullified all of that and prohibited all wars, except for jihad in the way of Allah... jihad to repel aggression against Muslims, or to destroy the oppressive forces that tempt people away from their religion through coercion and violence. Or to remove the deviant forces that stand in the way of the call and its communication to the people so that they may see and hear the truth.
(And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors) (19). (And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is all for Allah) (20).
It is a peaceful call that does not force anyone: “There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right way has become distinct from the wrong.” (21) The fact that Jews and Christians in the Islamic world have remained faithful to their religion until this moment is conclusive proof that does not accept debate or argument, proving that Islam did not force others to embrace it by force of the sword. (22)
If people accept Islam and are guided to the religion of truth, there will be no war, no hostility, no submission from one nation to another, no discrimination between one Muslim and another on the face of the earth, and no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab except by piety.
Whoever rejects Islam and wants to maintain his belief under the Islamic system - with Islam's belief that it is better than this belief and the most correct path - may do so without coercion or pressure, provided that he pays the jizya in exchange for Islam's protection of him, such that the jizya is dropped or returned if the Muslims are unable to protect him (23). If they reject Islam and the jizya, then they are stubborn and arrogant, not wanting the peaceful call to take its path, but rather wanting to stand with material force in the path of the new light, blocking it from the eyes of a people who might have been guided if they were left to the light.
Only then will fighting begin, but it will not begin without a warning or announcement, to give a last chance to stop the bloodshed and spread peace throughout the land: (And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and rely upon Allah) (24).
This is the Islamic war, it is not based on the desire for conquest or the desire for exploitation, and there is no involvement in it for the arrogance of a warlord or a despotic king, for it is a war in the way of Allah and in the way of guiding humanity, when all peaceful means fail to guide people.
However, it has traditions; The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said in his will: “Fight in the name of God, for the sake of God. Fight those who disbelieve in God. Fight, but do not betray, do not mutilate, and do not kill a child” (25).
There is no killing of anyone other than the warrior who stands with weapons fighting the Muslims, no destruction, devastation, or violation of honor, and no unleashing of the desire for evil and corruption: “God does not love corruptors.”
The Muslims observed these noble traditions in all their wars, even in the treacherous Crusades, when they were victorious over their enemy who, in a previous round, had violated the sanctities and attacked the Al-Aqsa Mosque, attacking those who had taken refuge in it under the protection of God – the Lord of all – and their blood flowed in it like rivers. They did not take revenge for themselves when victory came to them, and they had permission from the religion itself to treat them in kind: “So whoever attacks you, attack him in proportion to his attack on you” (26). But they set the highest example that non-Muslims in all the world are unable to achieve, even in the modern era.
This is a fundamental difference in the aims and traditions of war between Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam, if it had wanted to, and truth supports it in this, could have considered those prisoners who fell into its hands - those who defy guidance and insist on their base idolatry and senile polytheism - as people lacking in humanity, and enslaved them in this sense alone. No human being would insist on this superstition - after seeing the light - unless he has a decline in his soul or a deviation in his mind. He is lacking in his human being, unworthy of the dignity of human beings and the freedom of free people among mankind.
However, Islam did not enslave prisoners simply because it considered them lacking in humanity, but because - and this was their case - they came to attack the sanctity of Islam, or stood with armed force to prevent divine guidance from the hearts of people.
Even so, the permanent tradition of Islam was not to enslave prisoners. The Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, released some of the prisoners of Badr from the polytheists as a favor without ransom, and he released some of them in exchange for ransom, and he took a tribute from the Christians of Najran and returned their prisoners to them, thus setting an example for what he wanted humanity to be guided to in its future.
It is worth noting here that the only verse that deals with prisoners of war: (Then either a favor from us afterwards or ransom until the war lays down its burdens) (27) does not mention enslavement of prisoners, but rather mentions ransom and release without compensation, so that slavery is not a permanent legislation for humanity or a permanent blow, but rather it is something that the Islamic army resorts to when circumstances and conditions require it.
In addition to that, the prisoners who fell into the hands of Islam were treated with the honorable treatment that we described before, and they were not subjected to humiliation and torture, and the door of liberation was opened before them when their souls sought it and endured its consequences, even though most of them were not in reality free before their capture, but were slaves whom the Persians and Romans enslaved and pushed to fight the Muslims.
So it is as if the matter in reality was not slavery for the sake of slavery, nor was slavery a permanent principle that Islam aimed to preserve, so Islam’s tendency towards the liberation of slaves is the prominent tendency that all evidence points to.
Rather, it is a temporary situation that ultimately leads to liberation.
War breaks out between Muslims and the enemies of Islam, and some of the infidel prisoners fall into the hands of Muslims, and they become - in some cases, not in all cases and not necessarily - slaves of war, and they live for a period of time in the atmosphere of Islamic society, seeing closely the image of divine justice applied in the reality of the earth, and the merciful spirit of Islam encompasses them with its good treatment and humane considerations, so their souls are imbued with the radiance of Islam, and their insights are opened to the light. Then Islam liberates them by emancipation in some cases, or by correspondence if their souls yearn for freedom and strive for it.
Thus, the period they spend in slavery becomes in reality a period of psychological and spiritual treatment, based on treating them kindly, making them feel their wasted humanity, and directing their souls to the divine light without coercion. Then in the end comes liberation.
All of this is in the case of slavery. It is not the only path that Islam takes, as is clear from the verse of legislation, and from the practical conduct of the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, in the various battles.
As for women, He honored them - even in their slavery - from what they were subjected to in non-Islamic countries. Their honor was no longer a permissible prey for any seeker in the manner of prostitution (and this was the fate of female prisoners of war in most cases), but rather He made them the property of their master alone, and no one else could enter upon them. He made it their right to gain freedom by writing, just as a woman who bore a child to her master was freed and her child was freed with her, and they were treated well as Islam recommended.
-----
Footnotes:
(11 ) Surat An-Nisa [92].
(12) From “Social Justice in Islam”.
(13) Surat At-Tawbah [60].
(14) See the following chapters.
(15) The advocates of the materialist school say that external circumstances are what “create” feelings. We do not believe in that because it is a blatant fallacy. There is a psychological balance that precedes the existence of these circumstances, and the circumstances (adapt) this balance, but they do not create it from nothing.
(16) Or Russian in some countries now!
(17) Narrated by Al-Bukhari.
(18) The historical encyclopedia called “Universal History of the World” on page 2273 states the following: “In the year 599, the (Roman) Emperor Maurice refused - due to his desire for economy - to ransom several thousand prisoners who fell into the hands of the Avars, so the Khan of the Avars killed them all.”
(19) Surat Al-Baqarah [190].
(20) Surat Al-Anfal [39].
(21) Surat Al-Baqarah [256].
(22) This was witnessed by a European Christian, Sir W. Arnold, in his book (The Call to Islam).
(23) There are many examples of this, including two examples mentioned in the book (The Call to Islam):
He said on page 58: “And it also happened that it was recorded in the treaty that he concluded with some of the people of the cities neighboring Al-Hirah: If we prevent you, then we will pay the jizya, otherwise no.” And he said: “When Abu Ubaidah, the leader of the Arabs, learned of this (of Heraclius preparing to attack him), he wrote to the workers of the conquered cities in the Levant, ordering them to return to them what had been collected from the jizya from these cities. And he wrote to the people saying: “We only returned your money to you because we were informed of what had been gathered for us from the crowds. And you had stipulated that we would protect you, and we are not able to do that. And we have returned to you what we took from you, and we are yours according to the stipulation and what we wrote between us if God grants us victory over them.”
(24) Surat Al-Anfal [61].
(25) Narrated by Muslim, Abu Dawud, and Al-Tirmidhi
(26) Surat Al-Baqarah [194].
(27) Surat Muhammad [4] .
As for what happened in some Islamic eras of slavery other than prisoners of religious wars, and of slave trade, kidnapping and buying of Muslims who were not permitted to be enslaved at all, attributing it to Islam is neither more truthful nor more just than attributing the rulers of Muslims today to Islam with the heinous crimes and sins they commit!
We should pay attention to several matters in this matter.
The first: is the multiplicity of sources of slavery in other countries without any compelling necessity other than the desire for enslavement, from the enslavement of one nation to another, and one race to another, and enslavement due to poverty. Slavery by inheritance from birth in a certain class, slavery due to working on the land, etc., and the abolition of all these sources in Islam, except for the single source whose circumstances we explained before.
The second: Europe, despite the multiplicity of sources of slavery in it without necessity, did not abolish slavery when it abolished it voluntarily, and their writers admit that slavery was abolished when the slaves’ production weakened – due to their poor living conditions and the loss of the desire or ability to work – such that the slave’s costs of living and guarding became more than his production!! It is then an economic calculation and nothing more, in which gain and loss are calculated, and there is no shadow in it of any of the human meanings that give a sense of the dignity of the human race, so that the slave is granted his freedom for it! This is in addition to the successive revolutions carried out by the slave, which made it impossible for him to continue his slavery.
Despite that, Europe did not grant him freedom at that time. But it transformed him from a slave to a slave to the land, bought and sold with it, and served in it, and he was not allowed to leave it, otherwise he would be considered a fugitive and returned to it by force of law, chained and branded with fire. This type of slavery is what remained until the French Revolution prohibited it in the eighteenth century, that is, after Islam decided on the principle of liberation more than eleven hundred years ago.
The third matter: We must not be deceived by names. The French Revolution abolished slavery in Europe, and Lincoln abolished slavery in America, and then the world agreed to abolish slavery... All of that is from the surface. Otherwise, where is the slavery that was abolished? And what is the name of what is happening today in all parts of the world? And what is the name of what France was doing in the Islamic Maghreb? And what is the name of what America is doing to the Negroes, and England to the colored people in South Africa?
Isn't slavery in reality the subordination of one people to another, and the deprivation of a group of people from the rights permitted to others? Or is it something else? And what does it mean that this is under the title of slavery, or under the title of freedom, brotherhood, and equality? What good are flashy headlines if the facts behind them are the most evil facts known to humanity in its long history?
Islam was frank with itself and with the people and said: This is slavery, and its only cause is such and such, and the path to liberation from it is open.
The false civilization in which we live today does not find this frankness in itself, as it uses its skill in falsifying facts and painting shiny banners. Hundreds of thousands were killed in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco for no reason other than that they were demanding freedom and human dignity: their freedom to live in their country without an intruder, to speak their language, to believe their faith, and to serve no one but themselves. And their freedom to deal directly with the world in politics and economics... The killing of these innocent people and their imprisonment in filthy prisons without food or water, the violation of their honor and the robbery of their women, their killing without justification and their bellies being cut open to bet on the gender of the fetus... This is called civilization and urbanity in the twentieth century and the dissemination of the principles of freedom, brotherhood and equality. As for the ideal and generous treatment that Islam granted to slaves thirteen centuries ago, voluntarily and out of respect for the human race in all its states, with its practical declaration that slavery is a temporary situation and not a permanent condition, this is called backwardness, decadence and barbarism.
When Americans put signs on their hotels and clubs that say: "For whites only" or say in disgusting impudence: "No blacks or dogs allowed", and when a group of "civilized" whites assault a colored person, throw him to the ground and beat him with their shoes until he dies, and the policeman stands by, not moving or intervening, and does not care to help his brother in the homeland, religion, or language
, let alone brotherhood in humanity, all of this because he - a colored person - dared to walk beside a white American girl who has no honor - and with her permission, not against her will - this is the highest level of civilization and advancement that the twentieth century has reached.
But when the Zoroastrian slave threatens Omar with death, and Omar understands that, then does not imprison him or banish him from the earth, let alone kill him, and he is a truly incomplete creature because he worships fire and insists on worshipping it out of his fanaticism for falsehood after having seen the truth with his own eyes, how great is Omar's barbarism, and how great is his contempt for the dignity of the human race because he said: "The slave threatens me"! Then he left him free until he committed his crime, killing the Caliph of the Muslims, because he had no authority over him before he committed the crime.
The story of the colored people in Africa, and their deprivation of their human rights and their killing or "hunting" them, as the impudent English newspapers put it, because they dared to feel their dignity and demanded their freedom, this is British justice at its peak, human civilization at its peak, and the lofty principles that allow Europe to be guardians of the world. As for Islam, it is very barbaric because it has not learned to "hunt" people and amuse itself by killing them because they are black-skinned. Rather, its depth of backwardness and decadence has reached the point of saying: "Listen and obey, even if an Ethiopian slave is appointed over you, as if his head were a raisin..."\
Islam had permitted the master to have a number of female slaves from the spoils of war (28) to enjoy them alone and marry them. Europe today denounces this and refrains from this hideous animalism that considers female slaves to be permissible goods, and bodies without sanctity or dignity, whose only mission in life is to satisfy the abhorrent bestial pleasure of a man who does not rise above the level of an animal.
The real crime of Islam in this matter is that it does not permit prostitution! Female prisoners of war in other countries were drawn to the mire of vice because they had no breadwinner, and because their masters did not feel any protection for their honor, so they employed them in this abhorrent task and profited from this dirty trade: the trade of honor. But Islam - the late one - did not accept prostitution, and was keen to keep society clean from crime, so it restricted these slave girls to their master, who had to feed them, clothe them, and protect them from crime, and satisfy their sexual needs - incidentally - while he relieved himself.
As for Europe's conscience, it could not stand this animalism... Therefore, it permitted prostitution and granted it the care and protection of the law! And it deliberately began to spread it in every country it colonized. So what changed in slavery when its title changed? And where is the dignity of the prostitute when she does not have the ability to respond to a seeker - and no one seeks her except for the filthiest meaning to which humanity can descend: the pure physical impulse that is not softened by emotion, nor elevated by the spirit? And where is this sensual and moral filth that existed between masters and slave girls in Islam?
Islam was frank with itself and with people, and said: This is slavery. And these are slave girls. And the limits of their work are such and such. But the fake civilization does not find this frankness in itself, it does not call prostitution slavery, but rather says about it that it is a "social necessity"!
And why is it a necessity?
Because the civilized European man does not want to support anyone: neither a wife nor children. He wants to enjoy himself without bearing the consequences. He wants a woman's body in which to discharge his sexual charge. He does not care who this woman is, nor does her feelings towards him or his feelings towards her. He is a body that lusts like an animal, and she is a body that receives this lust without choice, and receives it not from a specific person, but from any passerby.
This is the social "necessity" that permits the enslavement of women in the West in the modern era. It would not be a necessity if the European man rose to the level of "humanity" and did not give his selfishness all this power over him.
The countries that abolished prostitution in the civilized West did not abolish it because their dignity hurt them, or because their moral, psychological and spiritual level had risen above crime. No! But because amateurs have made professionals richer. And the state no longer needs to intervene!
After that, the West finds in its boasting what it finds fault with the system of concubines in Islam, that system which 1,300 years ago - although it was a system that was not required to last - was much more generous and much cleaner than the system that exists today in the twentieth century, and civilization considers it a natural system, which no one denounces, no one seeks to change, and no one objects to it remaining until the end of life!
And no one should say that these "amateurs" volunteer without being coerced by anyone and they are the owners of their complete freedom. The point is in the system that pushes people with its economic, social, political, intellectual and spiritual conditions to accept slavery or fall into it.There is no doubt that European “civilization” is what encourages and approves prostitution, whether it is official prostitution or the prostitution of amateur volunteers!
This is the story of slavery in Europe until the twentieth century: the slavery of men, women, nations and races. Slavery with multiple sources and renewable resources, without any pressing necessity, except for the baseness of the West and its decline from the level appropriate for human beings.
Forget about the enslavement of the communist state of its people so that none of them has the freedom to choose the work they want, nor the place in which they work, and the enslavement of workers by the owners of capital in the capitalist West so that none of them has the ability to do anything except choose the master who enslaves them.
Forget this and that, you may find those who argue about it and defend it. It is enough what we have listed of the blatant and explicit forms of slavery, which take place in the name of civilization and in the name of social progress! Then look, has humanity progressed in fourteen centuries, far from the revelation of Islam, or has it continued to decline and fall behind, to the point that it needs today a ray of Islamic guidance to pull it out of the darkness it is in?!
Comments
Post a Comment