AUTHOR'S NOTE
The Holy Book of Islam has been given
various English spellings over the years. I have chosen to use Qur'an.
Scholars have also used Quran or Koran. When they have
done so in quotes I have used for my essay (or in the titles of their
works I am quoting), I have retained their particular spelling so as not
to alter their original intent. Likewise, and more importantly, there is
an unfortunate male chauvinism pervasive in some of these scholars'
translations of the Qur'an, or in their comments; "Allah" and
"humanity" as Male and men, respectively. (All but one of the
scholars cited in my essay are male.) Although I try to be
gender-neutral when using either concept, I retain their exact wording
as given.
All verses quoted from The Qur'an are
from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation, unless otherwise noted (see Works
Cited).
ESSAY
The existence of slavery is an ancient
condition. It existed long before the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad,
starting in 610 C.E. What is interesting is comparing the depiction of
slavery in the Qur'an to the Old and New Testament. In these older
Jewish and Christian holy texts, a specific plan to eliminate the
human bondage of our temporal present is never discussed. The Qur'an, on
the other hand, not only recognized the immorality of slavery in seventh
century Arabia, but sought to end it. The plan to do so is both implicit
and explicit. To recognize this is to respect the Islamic attempt, in
the name of Allah, to destroy an evil custom nearly thirteen centuries
before America would legally and politically do the same.
The Qur'an is a pragmatic book. It
recognizes that a negative institution that is deeply part of Arabic
culture could not be eliminated instantly, with a single surah:
"Slavery was widely prevalent in Arabia at the time of the advent
of Islam, and the Arab economy was based on it" (Hassan 374).
Instead, repetition of thoughts is often used that either collectively
make God's plan apparent, or build from criticism to condemnation. An
example of the latter is how the Qur'an gradually forbids the
consumption of intoxicating substances:
They ask you concerning
wine . . . Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men;
but the sin is greater than the profit." (2:219)
O you who believe! do not
approach prayers with a mind befogged, until you can understand all that
you say . . . (4:43)
O you who believe!
intoxicants . . . are an abomination, - of Satan's handiwork: eschew
such (abomination), that you may prosper. Satan's plan is (but) to
excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants . . . and hinder
you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will you not then
abstain? (5:90-91)
The Qur'an is always aware of humanity's
resistance to change. Fiery pronouncements may be more dramatic and gain
immediate results, but water wisdom seems to be the path of Allah
(rivers and streams are persistent images in the Qur'an); the Muslim has
old habits and prejudices washed and eroded away, while simultaneously
getting cleansed and purified. Extending this water metaphor, we can see
how Islam will end slavery: with subtle trickles of revelation and rules
that only become an unstoppable river when seen in context as a whole.
First, we will examine Qur'anic passages
that specifically describe releasing slaves:
It is not righteousness
that you turn your faces toward East or West; but it is righteousness .
. . to spend of your substance . . . for the ransom of slaves. (2:177)
Never should a Believer
kill a Believer; but (if it so happens) by mistake, (compensation is
due): if one (so) kills a Believer, it is ordained that he should free a
believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family . . . For
those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two
months running: by way of repentance to Allah. (4:92)
Allah will not call you
to account for what is futile in your oaths, but will call you to
account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent
persons . . . or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is
beyond your means, fast for three days. (5:89)
Alms are for the poor and
the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); . . . for those
in bondage and in debt . . . (9:60)
But for those who divorce
their wives . . . then wish to go back on the words they uttered, - (it
is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each
other: this you are admonished to perform . . . And if any has not (the
wherewithal), he should fast for two months consecutively before they
touch each other. But if any is unable to do so, he should feed sixty
indigent ones. (58:3-4)
Verily We have created
Man into toil and struggle. . . . And what will explain to you the path
that is steep? - (It is:) freeing the bondman . . . (90:4-13)
There are several important facts to
glean from these verses. First, freeing slaves is shown as clearly an easier
choice of penance, whether in expenditure of money or physical effort,
when compared to fasting (from three days to two months) or feeding or
clothing the poor (from ten to sixty people). Therefore, freeing slaves
seems to be the choice that Allah prefers Muslims to take, since
the All-Powerful always desires Muslims to avoid faith-tasks that
overburden them, whenever possible. This also shows the importance of
ending slavery for Muslims by determining the equivalence of freeing a
slave with seemingly the more difficult tasks (part of Surah 90's
"steep path") of fasting, or feeding and clothing many of the
poor. Indeed, one slave is equal to days or months of fasting, or
feeding/clothing ten or sixty needy persons. The Qur'an's statistical
analysis of slaves is important to note. Another example of this is the
punishment of female slaves if they are found guilty of promiscuousness:
"if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that of free
women" (4:25). "In making such a distinction," Riffat
Hassan writes, "the Qur'an while upholding high moral standards . .
. reflects God's compassion for women slaves who were socially
disadvantaged" (373-374). In quantitative logic, Allah constantly
and consistently shows a preference of freeing slaves over other
penances, even giving slaves more compassion than free Muslims.
Secondly, as 2:177 and 9:60 shows,
Islamic society is directed to create a permanent fund for freeing those
in bondage. This is an example of the Qur'an's pragmatism. These
particular verses do not argue if people should not be slaves on
principle. Instead, the Qur'an talks to the Muslims that consider slaves
property; and, like any assets that are "lost," want
compensation for freeing them. Very well, you can almost hear the
Qur'an say, here is your money, if you need a reason to free them.
But, it would be better if you freed them without compensation,
if you only knew. Finally, putting the above verses in context with
the rest of the Qur'an is important. Nowhere can you find verses that
prescribe slavery as punishment, that creates slaves. The freeing
of slaves even includes those gained in war with the enemy, Muslim and
non-Muslim alike (Maudoodi 187). In fact, by freeing POWs, the
elimination of slavery was unavoidable, since "[t]he major source
of slaves - men and women - was prisoners of war" (G.A. Parwez, qtd.
in Hassan 375). Allah's mathematical intent is clear. By having rules
for reducing the amount of slaves instead of rules adding more to the
total, the phasing out of human bondage will inevitably occur.
Other verses address the treatment of
slaves. "The believers must (eventually) win through, - Those who .
. . abstain from sex, except those joined to them in the marriage
bond" (23:1-6) is an indictment against sex with slaves. "When
slavery existed in early Islam and the master had sexual rights over his
slaves," Fathi Osman writes, "Islam, as part of its plan to
gradually end slavery, commanded that a sexual relation with a slave
was lawful only through marriage" (840, my italics). "[T]hey
may wed [believers] from among those whom your right hands
possess," the Qur'an tells us (4:25); it also implores us to
"Marry those among you who are single, or the virtuous ones among
your slaves, male or female" (24:32). A slave is equally fit for
marriage as a freeperson, the beginning of a process that asks: if
slaves and freepersons are equal for marriage, why are they not
therefore equal in other ways? The condemnation of forcing slaves to
have sex with their masters (or others) is also stressed: "[D]o not
force your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity"
(24:33).
Earlier in the same verse indicated
above, the Qur'an gives more details on the emancipation of slaves.
Muslims should not only grant them freedom, but help them financially so
that they may begin their new life with dignity:
And if any of your slaves
ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a
certain sum), give them such a deed if you know any good in them; yes,
give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to
you. (24:33)
"According to the Quran, and the
juristic inference from it," Osman writes, "helping the slave
to become free is an individual and social obligation" (851). The
end of the verse is a warning to the person who believes what he or she
owns - whether it is personal riches, or slaves - as belonging
"only" to him or her, accomplished without outside help:
"The Quran here reminds the individual and the society that the
wealth they have belongs initially to God . . . and any individual or
society is only entrusted by God with the wealth and has to deal with it
. . . according to God's guidance" (Osman 852). Ownership becomes a
temporary privilege, not a permanent right:
Allah has bestowed His
gifts of sustenance more freely on some of you than on others: those
more favored are not going to throw back their gifts to those whom their
right hands possess, so as to be equal in that respect. Will they
then deny the favors of Allah? (16:71, my italics)
The Qur'an's equalization of slave and
master works to further eliminate any distinction between the two in the
eyes of Allah:
[W]ith regard to those
whom "one's right hand possess," an authentic tradition of the
Prophet indicates that they are merely brothers whom God has placed
under one's authority and they should all eat the same food and be
equally clothed. Morever, they should not be required to do what would
over-burden them, otherwise the one who has them himself/herself should
help in such a case. (Osman 781-782)
M. Umaruddin's description of Muhammad
echoes the above:
He led an absolutely
frugal and temperate life, subsisting on the simplest fare, consisting
mainly of dates and barley. He patched his own sandals and repaired his
own clothes. He meted out equal treatment to all, free or slave.
. . . No Muslim, says the Prophet, is a believer unless he desires for
his brethren what he desires for himself. This injunction is one of the
corner-stones of the moral order of Islam. (45, my italics)
This "corner-stone" of Islam,
this equality for all men and women, is perhaps the main teaching
of the Qur'an. In a verse quoted earlier that allowed Muslims to marry a
slave, it continues: "Allah has full knowledge about your Faith.
You are one from another" (4:25). (Osman translates the last
sentence as "each one of you is (equally) a part of the same
wholeness" [849].) In an earlier verse, this phrase is repeated; it
is the work of the Believer that will be judged, not whether the
work comes from master or slave, man or woman:
[Allah tells them:]
"Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male
or female: you are members, one of another . . . verily, I will blot out
from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers
flowing beneath; - a reward from the Presence of Allah, and from His
Presence is the best of rewards." (3:195)
Of the equality of humanity, Muhammad
could not be more explicit:
The sermon of the Holy
Prophet on the occasion of his last pilgrimage declares: "All men
are like brothers: the black has no superiority over the red, nor has an
Arab any preferential claim on a non-Arab. All are sons of Adam and Adam
was made out of clay." This was in fact a charter of equality and
freedom for the enslaved people of the world from whom loyalties of
diverse types were expected. The doctrine of tauhid (Unity of
God) broke all these chains. (Dar 19)
[Muhammad] releases them
from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is
those who believe in him, honor him, help him, and follow the Light
which is sent down with him, - it is they who will prosper. (7:157)
The removal of the slave's chains, the
slave's burdens; indeed, the removal of the yoke of slavery itself -
this is a crucial gift from Allah, made clear by the Prophet.
Commentators on the Qur'an further
elaborate Muhammad's intention. Osman mentions al-Nasafi (d. 1142 C.E.),
and the following long excerpts are invaluable in illuminating Allah's
attitude toward slavery:
[al-Nasafi] points
out that freeing a human being from bondage is the only way to make up
for killing another human being, as freeing a person is comparable to
giving life in its true meaning to a person deprived of it (commentary
on 4:92). . . . Considering bondage equal to death, al-Nasafi states
that slavery is related to a society dominated by the stubborn
concealing of the truth, "kufr", and the injustice of
such a society made its life in its real sense mere death . . . Thus,
Muslims inherited slavery from previous societies, and Islam has
strongly indicated that its principles are against it, and has presented
a comprehensive plan to liquidate it. (Osman 944)
[al-Nasafi says] that
freeing a slave means actually bringing him/her back to life after the
allegorical destruction of the human personality caused by slavery, and
this is the only possible way to make up for killing an innocent person,
since it is impossible to bring the victim back to life. This can be
supported by the Quranic expression for freeing a slave which is
"freeing or releasing the neck" . . . and it implies that
slavery is a chain which strangles the essential human merit of free
will. . . . [S]lavery was not accepted except as a temporary
transitional solution that had to be terminated by the collective
efforts of the people . . . [Also, the] Quran did not initiate slavery
or determine it as one of its laws . . . [In fact, the] Prophet taught
that even the word "slave" should not be used, but one could
only say "my boy" or "my girl" . . . (Osman 989)
Muhammad wanted even the word "slave"
eliminated, and we should have affection for them as we would a member
of our family. After all, we are all equal members in the family of
Allah. The word "master" should only be used for the Creator:
"God Himself is the sole master, ruler, director, and administrator
of His creation" (Maudoodi 191). This idea extends into politics.
Humanity has and needs leaders, but they only lead their people; the
leader does not own the people, and Allah forbids an unjust dictator.
While Abu Ala Maudoodi may claim the Qur'an ultimately allows slavery,
his own description of a proper Islamic State show how the master-slave
relationship is untenable: "[A]n Islamic Caliphate cannot claim an
absolute or unlimited obedience from the people. They are bound to obey
it only so far as it exercises its powers in accordance with the divine
Law . . . There can be neither obedience nor co-operation in sin and
aggression" (194). Certainly one of the definitions of
"slave" is a person forced against their will to serve
another, unable to quit their servitude with their own volition without
risking death or punishment. Traditionally, slaves were forced to do
services that Muslims would consider sinful: sexual acts with someone
other than their spouse, work without fair reward, and other
humiliations that destroy their dignity. For these reasons, as Maudoodi
points out above, Allah supports their disobedience, their refusal to be
slaves. Conversely, the masters themselves are guilty of actions not
congruent with Allah's will. How can these so-called masters gain the
obedience of their slaves? Ultimately, only with coercion and aggression
-- two actions forbidden by Allah. Slaves also increase the chance of
sin-doing for the Believers; they provide an opportunity to have sex
outside of marriage, and create idleness by doing work he or she could
do himself/herself. It is clear that slavery hurts the master as well as
the slave.
Furthermore, Maudoodi notes:
[T]he relations between
State and individual are so balanced in this system that neither the
State has been vested with absolute authority reducing individuals to
virtual slavery, nor has individual freedom been allowed to turn
itself into licence threatening the interest of society. (198, my
italics)
What is true politically between the
government and its citizens is also true between "master" and
"slave"; if the State cannot impose "virtual
slavery" on its citizens, how could Allah allow one person to
impose actual slavery onto another? As Hassan says, "A Book
which does not give a king or prophet the right to command absolute
obedience from another human being could not possibly sanction slavery
in any sense of the word" (375).
We must end our discussion of slavery
with two final questions. First, if Allah did not want slavery to exist,
why not simply forbid it, as the eating of swine and the
consumption of intoxicants are forbidden? We must first remember this:
"Because the Qur'an does not state explicitly that slavery is
abolished, it does not follow that it is to be continued, particularly
in view of the numerous ways in which the Qur'an seeks to eliminate this
absolute evil" (Hassan 375). Still, it is true that some things in
Arabic society, such as alcohol, were considered so destructive that an
outright, unconditional, and immediate ban was necessary. (Even
then, as pointed out in the beginning, intoxicants were gradually banned
over the course of three different surahs.) Slavery, however, was more
difficult to eliminate. As noted earlier, it was an integral part of the
Arab economy. In order to successfully destroy the weed of human
bondage, the roots had to be carefully examined, discovered to be
harmful, then slowly pulled out. The culture of slavery was so ancient a
condition it was considered normal, intractable, inevitable; thus, the
Qur'an had to force Muslims to first rationally conceive that
slavery was evil, so that it would eventually be eliminated:
"Through the use of their own intellect they will determine their
responses - of course, in the light of the broad principles laid down by
the Qur'an - to the changing socio-moral situations that we are bound to
come across in life" (Khaliq 112-113). The dynamic nature of the
Qur'an laid the groundwork for Muslims to examine the social and moral
evils of human ownership. An Islamic State that understands the
universal principle of equality also understands the particular
principle of why slavery cannot exist in a just society.
The second question is more
philosophical; although it may sound cynical and antagonistic, it is a
valid point to logically address. If one accepts that Allah wants
slavery eliminated among the Believers, does not the submissive nature
of Islam itself create slaves of its Believers? More to the
point, does Allah wish us to be slaves of God? I turn to Toshihiko
Izutsu's translation of two Qur'an verses (207):
Verily, We have written
in the Psalms, after the remembrance, "The earth shall my
[righteous] slaves inherit." (21:105, my italics)
[Solomon] said, "My
Lord, urge me to be thankful for Thy favor wherewith Thou hast favored
me and my parents, and to do good work that shall be pleasing unto Thee;
do Thou admit me by Thy mercy in the number of Thy [righteous] slaves."
(27:19, my italics)
Yusuf Ali's translation of the same
verses is similar, but he pointedly chooses to use the term
"servants" instead of "slaves." Is this simple
mistranslation? I could argue it is, since the obvious negativity
associated with the word "slave" seems not intended here; for
further proof, we can remember Muhammad's own objection to using the
word "slave," as noted earlier. Yet I can strongly show the
difference goes beyond mere semantics. Ethically speaking, the
relationships of Allah-Believer and master-slave are shown in the Qur'an
to be completely different. There are two core differences.
The first is: Allah warns, the
slavemaster threatens; furthermore, Islam is a system of reward, slavery
a system of punishment. It is true that both Allah and slavemaster cause
destruction, and fear is an important component of both Believer and
slave. The slavemaster's destructiveness and the slave's fear of him or
her is obvious, so we will instead concentrate on Allah. The most
obvious, visceral, and repeated examples of Allah's destructiveness is
the annihilation of several ancient towns for immoral and unjust
behavior. However, the Qur'an clearly shows these acts are carried out
in the name of justice, and only done after Allah has given repeated warnings
to the townspeople to repent. The townspeople's transgressions are not
as trivial as refusal to work or give sexual favors. Very well, you may
say; but does the slavemaster not "warn" the slave of the
consequences of not following his or her commands; what is the
difference between a slavemaster's "threats" and God's
"warnings"? And if one must obey the law, is it not justice
for the slave to follow the word of the slavemaster? To the latter, I
repeat the assertion that if the law is unjust to Allah, disobedience is
not only allowed, but encouraged. To the former, I answer: the
difference is in selfness and definition of terms. Allah is unselfish
because the Believers are warned to save themselves from eternal
damnation, for their own sake ("if they only knew," the
Qur'an repeats over and over!); whereas a slavemaster is selfish
because he or she threatens the slave to follow his or her
bidding (actions that do nothing positive for the slave) for the sake
of the slavemaster. If the difference between warning and
threatening is not yet clear, here is a metaphor. Consider a driver,
driving at night down an unfamiliar road while talking on a mobile phone
with an operator. The driver casually mentions a bridge over a ravine
she is beginning to cross; the operator knows this bridge recently
collapsed in the middle, and the driver will certainly plunge to her
death. The operator does not personally know this driver; what personal
value does the driver have to her? None, but because the operator cares,
she must do the unselfish act of saving the woman's life. When
she shouts for the woman to hit her brakes, is she threatening
her? Or warning her?
The difference between Allah and
slavemaster lead to two different systems. Islam is a system of reward.
The Qur'an makes clear, in several passages, that bad deeds are met by
Allah with equal punishment, no more, no less; however, good deeds are
rewarded with interest: "Allah is never unjust in the least degree:
if there is any good (done), He doubles it" (4:40); "But those
who have earned evil will have a reward of like evil" (10:27).
Although bad deeds have negative consequences, we can see the emphasis
is on rewarding good deeds. On the other hand, slavery is a system of punishment;
the definition of "good" and "bad" is perverted. To
the slavemaster, obedience is the most important "virtue." It
is imperative for slavery's existence that rebellion is not only quelled
but discouraged to occur in the first place. If a slave does the good
deed of obeying, he or she is only allowed to live without damage or
harm; as farmers do for their horses, so will slavemasters give their
slaves food and shelter. If a slaves does the bad deed of disobeying, he
or she is punished above and beyond the necessary means, for the end is
not merely retribution, but as a warning (to this slave and all
slaves) never to disobey. The emphasis clearly is on punishing bad
deeds. A slavemaster more concerned with being humane, with rewarding
slaves abundant luxuries, will only undermine his or her authority, and
appear "soft"; the slavemaster only cares what slaves can do
for him or her, and certainly cannot truly love them.
Allah does love humanity, as any Creator
does its Creation, as any parent would a child. This brings us to the
second core difference between Allah-Believers and slavemaster-slaves;
fear is in both relationships, yet the fear of the former is one of
deserved awe and respect, the latter is one that only leads to hatred
and contempt. The divine Allah created all of humanity; humans only
created slavery, but not the slave. We should therefore honor not
slavemasters, but our parents and our Parent. Of course, human parents
do not own their children as slavemasters own slaves, but there
is an undeniable and unshakable bond between parent and child. The
Qur'an only asks for Believers to recognize this bond and give thanks,
as they should give thanks to the Ultimate Creator:
We have enjoined on man
kindness to his parents: in pain did his mother bear him, and in paid
did she give him birth. . . . . At length, when he reaches the age of
full strength and attains forty years, he says, "O my Lord! Grant
me that I may be grateful for Your favor which You have bestowed on me,
and upon both my parents, and that I may work righteousness such as You
may approve; and be gracious to me in respect of my offspring. Truly
have I turned to You and truly do I bow (to You) in Islam. (46:15)
Serve Allah . . . and do
good - to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are
near, neighbors who are strangers, the Companion by your side, the
way-farer (you meet), and what your right hands possess [i.e. your
slaves] . . . (4:36)
By teaching us to be grateful for being
created, to "do good" to both our parents and our
"slaves," the Qur'an once again emphasizes the equality of
Allah's creation. A Creator so concerned with equality deserves respect.
The Prophet Muhammad did not believe that
only the slaves of a particular race, religion, or ethnicity should be
freed; instead, he desired to break the chains of slaves all over the
world. The fact that the Qur'an did so with a specificity unparalleled
in a monotheistic holy text makes it one of the greatest of anti-slavery
books, and Muhammad himself one of the greatest of abolitionists. Peace
be upon him.
Special thanks to Dr. Riffat Hassan;
without her class or instruction, my greater awareness of Islam would
not have occurred, and this paper would not have been written.
WORKS CITED
Dar, Bashir Ahmad. Qur'anic Ethics.
4th ed. Lahore, Pakistan: Institute of Islamic Culture, 1993.
Hassan, Riffat. "Rights of Women
Within Islamic Communities." Religious Human Rights in Global
Perspective. Eds. J. Witte Jr. and J.D. van der Vyver. Netherlands:
Kluwer Law International, 1996. 361-386.
Izutsu, Toshihiko. The Structure of
the Ethical Terms In the Koran: A Study in Semantics. Volume II.
Republished in Louisville, Kentucky: Gray's College Bookstore, 2002.
Khaliq, Abdul. Qur'an Studies: A
Philosophical Exposition. Lahore, Pakistan: Victory Book Bank
Lahore, 1990.
Maudoodi, Abul Ala. "Economic and
Political Teachings of the Qur'an." A History of Muslim
Philosophy. Volume One. Ed. M.M. Sharif. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1963. 178-198.
Osman, Fathi. Concepts of the Quran: A
Topical Reading. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: MVI Publication,
1999.
Qur'an, The. 6th ed.
Trans. Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Elmhurst, New York: Tahrike Tarsite Qur'an,
Inc., 2001.
Umaruddin, M. The Ethical Philosophy
of Al-Ghazzali. Lahore, Pakistan: Institute of Islamic Culture,
1988.