Chapter Five
Slavery in
Islam
All the ancient as well as the
contemporary scholars acknowledge the fact of slavery in Islam
and clarify the status of slaves. I have chosen the opinions of
the most famous scholars to shed light on their position.
The Scholars of al-Azhar in
Egypt
In his book, "You Ask and Islam Answers",
Dr. 'Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, the general supervisor and director
of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University, says (pp.
51,52),
"Islam does not prohibit slavery but
retains it for two reasons. The first reason is war (whether
it is a civil war or a foreign war in which the captive is
either killed or enslaved) provided that the war is
not between Muslims against each other - it is not
acceptable to enslave the violators, or the offenders, if
they are Muslims. Only non-Muslim captives may be enslaved
or killed. The second reason is the sexual propagation of
slaves which would generate more slaves for their owner."
The text is plain that all prisoners of
war must either be killed or become slaves. The ancient scholars
are in full agreement over this issue, such as Ibn Timiyya, Ibn
Hisham, Malik etc. Ibn Timiyya says (Vol. 32, p. 89),
"The root of the beginning of slavery
is prisoners of war; the bounties have become lawful to the
nation of Muhammad."
Then (Vol. 31, p. 380), he indicates
clearly and without shame,
"Slavery is justified because of the
war itself; however, it is not permissible to enslave a free
Muslim. It is lawful to kill the infidel or to enslave him,
and it also makes it lawful to take his offspring into
captivity.
In Part 4, p. 177 of the "Prophet
Biography" (Al-Road Al-Anf'), Ibn Hisham says,
"According to Islamic law concerning
prisoners of war, the decision is left to the Muslim Imam.
He has the choice either to kill them or to exchange them
for Muslim captives, or to enslave them. This is in regard
to men, but women and children are not permitted to be
killed, but must be exchanged (to redeem Muslim captives) or
enslaved - take them as slaves and maids."
This is the statement of Ibn Hisham, on
whom all Muslims and students of Muhammad's biography rely. Of
course, these matters which Ibn Hisham recorded used to take
place continuously in all of Muhammad's wars and invasions. All
of Muhammad's people (his wives, and Muhammad himself) owned
many slaves - males and females. In his campaign against the
children of Qurayza (the Jewish tribe), Muhammad killed all the
males (700-900) in one day. Then, he divided the women and the
children among his people.
The Caliphs across the ages followed
Muhammad's footsteps and enslaved (by hundreds and thousands)
men and women who were captured in wars. Many of them were
Persians and Byzantines. All the Islamic Chroniclers without
exception have recorded these facts. The way Arab Muslims
invaded Africa and killed and enslaved Africans is a well-known,
historical fact.
In Vol. 2, Part 3, p. 13, Malik Ibn Anas
repeated the same text as did Ibn Hisham who is also quoted by
Ibn Timiyya, and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in his book, "Zad
al-Ma'ad" (part 3, p. 486). All of them taught the same
principle and said the same words.
This question was delivered to Ibn Timiyya
who was Mufti of Islam (Vol. 31, pp. 376, 377),
"A man married a maid-slave who bore
him a child. Would that child be free or would he be an
owned slave?"
Ibn Timiyya says emphatically,
"Her child whom she bore from him
would be the property of her master according to all the
Imams (heads of the four Islamic schools of law) because the
child follows the (status) of his mother in freedom or
slavery. If the child is not of the race of Arabs, then he
is definitely an owned slave according to the scholars, but
the scholars disputed (his status) among themselves if he
was from the Arabs - whether he must be enslaved or not
because when A'isha (Muhammad's wife) had a maid-slave who
was an Arab, Muhammad said to A'isha, `Set this maid free
because she is from the children of Ishmael.'"
Then Ibn Timiyya states (Vol. 31, p. 380)
that the legist Abu Hanifa says, "Muhammad is an Arab; thus it
is not admissible to enslave Arabs because of the nobility of
this race since Muhammad is from them." Yet other scholars
disagree with him, emphasizing that Muhammad (in one of his
campaigns) enslaved Arabs, too. However, it is evident from
Muhammad's traditions that he regarded Arabs to be the most
noble race, especially the Quraysh, his tribe. His famous saying
(that the caliphs must be elected from the Quraysh tribe) is
acknowledged by all translators of the tradition without
exception.
He should have told A'isha, "Set her free
because she is a human being like you. It is not important
whether she is a descendant of Ishmael or of Isaac!"
Islam Encourages Muslims to
Keep Slaves - No Liberation
All Muslim scholars acknowledge that Islam
has retained the principle of slavery, though some of them claim
that Islam encourages the liberation of slaves. Maybe some of
Muhammad's sayings and a few Qur'anic verses indicate so, yet
from a practical point of view, we realize that the liberation
of slaves was a rare occurrence. The reason is well known.
Neither Muhammad nor his wives or companions were a good example
in this regard. Sometimes, Muhammad used to talk about the
merits of liberating a slave, yet he himself owned dozens of
slaves and maid-slaves. However, we encounter a strange opinion
spelled out by Muhammad's wives and his friends in which he
encourages them to retain their slaves. In Vol. 33, p. 61 Ibn
Timiyya says,
"Anyone who says, `If I do so (such a
thing), every slave I own will become free' is not
obligated by his oath and he can redeem his oath by any
means and retain his slaves. (He can do that) by fasting a
few days or by feeding some hungry people."
On the same page Ibn Timiyya stresses that
this is what all Muhammad's friends said (such as Ibn 'Abbas and
Ibn 'Umar) as well as his wives (such as Zaynab, A'isha, and Um
Salama).
Is the liberation of slaves a bad thing so
that it is possible for a man who swears he will liberate his
slaves to renounce his oath and retain them? It should be said
that whoever takes an oath to free his slaves if so and so
happens, is obliged to fulfill his oath and liberate his slaves,
but we see that Muhammad's wives, his great companions and his
relatives say something different according to the testimony of
Ibn Timiyya.
The Qur'an itself (in several places)
approves of slavery and assures the Muslim the right to own
dozens of male and female slaves either by purchasing them or as
bounty of war. The Qur'an talks about the possession of slaves
as "the possession of their necks" (Chapter 58:3, Surah
Al-Mujadilah).
Slaves of
Muhammad - Prophet of Freedom and Equality!
Muhammad himself owned numerous slaves
after he proclaimed himself to be a prophet. I would like here
to quote Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya who is one of the greatest
scholars and chroniclers of Islam. In his book, "Zad al-Ma'ad"
(Part I, p. 160), he says,
"Muhammad had many male and female
slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased (more
slaves) than he sold, especially after God empowered him
by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca.
He (once) sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob
al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more (than he sold).
He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he
hired more slaves than he rented out.
This trading used to take place in the
slave market in the Arab Peninsula and in Mecca. Muhammad was
accustomed to sell, purchase, hire, rent, and to exchange one
slave for two. Thus, he had an increasing number of slaves,
especially after he claimed to be a prophet, and after his
immigration from Mecca to escape death at the hand of his tribe
Quraysh. Also, the slaves of Muhammad and his followers were
constantly increasing as the result of those who were captured
in wars and not only by purchase. This should alert those who
have accepted Islam - the Muslims of New York, Chicago, Georgia,
Detroit, Los Angeles as well as all the Africans and all Muslims
of the world. Even among the Arabs are Muslims who are not aware
of these facts concerning Muhammad. Sadly, this is only a small
part of the facts of which they are unaware concerning Muhammad.
The Names of Muhammad's Slaves
A) Male Slaves:
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya relies always on
the prophet's biographies written by great ancient scholars.
Therefore, he is regarded by Muslims as an authority, a primary
source and a leader among the students of the Islamic religion.
This scholar tells us in his book, "Zad al-Ma'ad" (part 1, pp.
114, 115, and 116), the following,
"These are the names of Muhammad's
male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, 'Ubayd, Dhakwan,
Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha
al-Hadi, Mad'am, Karkara, Abu Rafi', Thawban, Ab Kabsha,
Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid,
Kasam, Abu 'Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also
a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by
Muhammad) Safina (`ship').
He himself relates his own story; he says:
"The apostle of God and his companions
went on a trip. (When) their belongings became too heavy for
them to carry, Muhammad told me, `Spread your garment.' They
filled it with their belongings, then they put it on me. The
apostle of God told me, `Carry (it), for you are a ship.'
Even if I was carrying the load of six or seven donkeys
while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw
his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would
carry that, a heavy load. The prophet told me, `You are a
ship"' (refer to Ibn Qayyim, pp. 115-116; al-Hulya, Vol. 1,
p. 369, quoted from Ahmad 5:222).
The story shows their ruthlessness and
does not need explanation or clarification. The ill treatment
Muhammad and his companions made of Mahran is very repulsive.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya is not the only one who recorded this
episode and the list of names of Muhammad's slaves. The Tabari
also (in his Chronicles, Volume 2 p. 216, 217, 218) presents us
with these accounts. No one among the contemporary Muslim
leaders denies these matters, especially if he is faced with the
Tabari's and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's records.
Still, in regard to Muhammad's slave Zayd
Ibn Haritha, Muhammad set him free and adopted him, then he
married him to his (Muhammad's) cousin Zaynab. Later Zayd
divorced her after he realized that Muhammad was captivated by
her. The scandalous story is documented by verses in the Qur'an,
and Muslim scholars admit it.
B) Maid Slaves:
In this same Section (One, p. 116), Ibn
Qayyim al-Jawziyya as well as other Muslim authors of chronicles
recorded the list of names of Muhammad's maid-slaves. They are
Salma Um Rafi', Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter
of Sa'd, Khadra, Radwa, Razina, Um Damira, Rayhana, Mary the
Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given
to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one
captured in a war.
The Status of
the Slave Under Islam's Unjust Laws
Let us survey together some strange things
embraced by Muhammad and Islam pertaining to slaves. Then let us
shed some light on the attitude of Christianity towards this
issue.
The Freeman Should Not Be
Killed For A Slave
The Qur'an as well as Muslim scholars are
explicit in this regard The Qur'an (the Chapter of the Cow:178)
shamelessly says,
"O ye who believe! Retaliation is
prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered - the
freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and
the female for the female."
The reader does not need the
interpretations of the scholars to understand these explicit
words which indicate that the freeman should be killed only for
another freeman, a slave for a slave, and a female for a female.
Still, I promised to stick to the interpretations of the great
expositors of these Qur'anic verses from among the Muslim
scholars because they are more knowledgeable of their Book and
its verses. We rely on their interpretations and not on our own.
In the commentary of the Jalalan (p. 24), we read the following
regarding the above mentioned verse,
"The same punishment was imposed on
believers and what is similar to the act of the crime in the
case of a homicide, by virtue of description or actuality. A
freeman should be killed for another freeman but not for a
slave, a female for a female, but a Muslim (even if he is a
slave) must not be killed for an infidel, even if that
infidel is a freeman."
What kind of equality is this between
human beings!
To explain the aforementioned verse
(2:178), the Baydawi relates what really happened with the
prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr and 'Umar. This is recorded in his
book entitled, "The Commentary of al-Baydawi". On p. 36, we
read,
"The Shafi'i and Malik prohibit the
killing of a freeman if he slays his slave or other men's
slaves. This is because 'Ali Ibn Abi-Talib mentioned that a
man had killed his slave and Muhammad scourged him only; he
did not kill him. It was related on the authority of
Muhammad that he said a Muslim should not be killed for a
non-Muslim, nor a freeman for a slave; also because Abu Bakr
and 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab did not kill a freeman for a slave.
(This was said) in the presence of all Muhammad's
companions, and no one disapproved or objected to it."
These are the verses of the Qur'an and
this is the attitude of Muhammad himself as well as Abu Bakr and
'Umar after him.
The Muslim legists
The Shafi'i, Malik and Ibn
Timiyya, pronounce the same principle as in the Qur'an (2:187).
The Imam Shafi'i tells us plainly and
decisively in Part I of his book, "Ahkam al-Qur'an" ("The
Ordinances of the Qur'an", p. 275),
"A man is not to be killed for his
slave nor the freeman for a slave."
On the same page he adds,
"A believer is not to be killed for a
non-believer, nor a man for his son, or a man for his slave
or for a woman."
What justice! What equality! Then he adds,
"The freeman is not to be killed for a
slave according to the scholars."
Malik Ibn Anas was asked: "What is the
punishment of a master who beats his slave to death?" He
answered: "Nothing!" (Vol. 6, Part 15, p 164).
In Vol. 28, p. 378, Ibn Timiyya also says:
"What we mentioned in regard to the
believers whose blood is treated equally is restricted to
the free Muslim against another free Muslim."
I do not have better witnesses in this
regard than these scholars: Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Ali and Muhammad's
deeds, and all great, popular Muslim scholars.
A Slave Is Not Entitled To
Property Or Money
Ibn Hazm says in Vol. 6, Part 9,
"The slave is not permitted to write a
will when he dies, nor can he bequeath (anything) because
his entire possessions belong to his master."
In part I, p. 180 of his book, "The
Ordinances of the Qur'an", the Shafi'i also says,
"The Qur'anic verse; `Marry of the
women who seem good to you, two or three or four are meant
for the freeman only and not for the slaves because he says
in it that the one who acts fairly is the person who owns
money and slaves do not own money."'
He also indicates in Part II, p. 21, "The
owned one does not have money." Besides, according to the
Islamic law, all Muslims receive portions of war bounty except
slaves and women. Malik Ibn Anas says (Vol. 2, Part 3, pp.
33,34),
"Slaves and women do not have any
portion in the bounty."
This is true even if they have been
fighting with the rest of the Muslims. In Part III of the
"Prophetic Biography" (p. 386), Ibn Kathir says,
"The slave does not get anything from
the bounty whether the bounty is money or women."
The Testimony Of The Slave Is
Not Admissible
In Vol. 35, p. 409 Ibn Timiyya remarks,
"The Shafi'i, Malik, and Abu Hanifa,
who are the legists of Islam, assert that the testimony of
the slave is not acceptable."
If we also turn the pages of the
"Ordinances of the Qur'an" by the Shafi'i (part II, p. 142), he
determines,
"The witnesses must be from among our
freeman, not from our slaves, but from freeman who belong to
our religion! "
The testimony of a Jew or a Christian is
not acceptable, as we have mentioned before, even if justice
would be hindered for lack of their witness. This is not
important. In his "Sahih" (Part III, p. 223), Al-Bukhari
remarks,
"The testimony of a slave is not
acceptable in marriages."
What is the meaning of the Shafi'i's
statement,
"A witness should not be from our
possessed slaves."
Does not Mr. Shafi'i know that God only is
the One who owns people? How dare he utter the phrase, "our
possessed slaves."
There Is No Punishment For One
Who Makes False Accusation Against Slaves
It is well known that if a Muslim falsely
accuses another free Muslim and slanders his honor, he will be
punished by being flogged with eighty lashes. This is what
happened when some of Muhammad's companions and relatives
accused A'isha, his wife, of adultery with one of the young men
because they stayed behind after the departure of the caravan,
then later in the morning they arrived together. Muhammad
ordered each one of them flogged with eighty lashes. But if a
Muslim calumniates a slave, he would not be punished.
This is the opinion of all the scholars.
For instance (Vol. 8, Part II, p. 27 1),
Ibn Hazm asserts that this is the opinion of Abu Hanifa,
Shafi'i, Malik, and Sufyan al-Thawri and not only his own
opinion. This is what the Sharawi shamelessly remarks,
"Female slaves are deprived of dignity
and subject to abuse because they are not `an honor' to
anyone (that is, they are not free, respectable women who
belong to a free man). These are the same words reiterated
by the Shafi'i (Part I, p. 307) in his book, `Ahkam of the
Qur'an'; thus a female slave must not be veiled. When- ever
Muhammad took a woman as a captive, if he imposed the veil
on her, Muslims would say he took her as a wife, but if he
left her unveiled they would say, `He owned her as a slave';
that is, she became a property of his right hand."
A good example is the incident of Safiyya,
daughter of Hay, who was taken as a bounty in the war of
Khaybar. All the chronicles (as well as the biographies without
exception) have recorded, "We wonder why it is said about women
and girls that they are of `shed dignity'." The Shafi'i and the
Sharawi state this word for word. Is it necessary for us to
repeat that Islam sheds the dignity of man under the pretense
that he is a slave, that she is a woman, or that he is a
non-Muslim?
On Matters Of Sex And Marriage
- and About Black Slaves
1. The Slave cannot choose for himself.
This was confirmed by all the Muslim
scholars on the authority of Muhammad. In Vol. 6, Part 9, p.
467, Ibn Hazm said,
"If a slave gets married without the
permission of his master, his marriage will be invalid and he
must be whipped because he has committed adultery. He must be
separated from his wife. She is also regarded as an adulteress
because Muhammad said, `Any slave who gets married without the
approval of his master is a prostitute.'"
The same text is quoted by Ibn Qayyim
al-Jawziyya (Part 5, p. 117 of "Zad al-Maad"), as well as Ibn
Timiyya (Vol. 32, p. 201). Malik Ibn Anas relates (Vol. 2, Part
4) more than that. He says (pp. 199, 201, 206),
"The slave does not get married
without the approval of his master. If he is a slave to two
masters, he has to obtain the approval of both men."
2. The male slave and the female slave are
forced to get married.
Malik Ibn Anas says explicitly,
"The master has the right to force his
male or female slave to marry without obtaining their
approval" (Vol. 2, p. 155).
Ibn Hazm says that Sufyan al-Thawri, too,
has said that the master has the right to force his male or
female slave to marry without securing their approval (Vol. 6,
Part 9, p. 469). Ibn Timiyya is of the same opinion.
I must not fail in this regard to mention
that Malik Ibn Ons, who (after agreeing with the other scholars
that the master has the right to force his male or female slave
to get married) added,
"The master does not have the right to
force the female slave to wed to an ugly black slave if she
is beautiful and agile unless in case of utmost necessity"
(refer to Ibn Hazm, Vol. 6, Part 9, p. 469).
We wonder here, what did Malik Ibn Anas
mean when he said, "An ugly black slave"? Is a man valued
on the basis of the color of his skin? Do you say that, O Malik
Ibn Anas, and you are one of the great four legists? Or is a man
valued on the basis of his personality, reasoning, and heart? We
also have the right to wonder why Mihran, the black slave,
suffered the humiliation afflicted on him by Muhammad and his
companions when they made him carry their belongings in the
burning desert while Muhammad was saying to him, "Carry them,
for you are a ship." Thus he became known by that surname. Did
they not have dozens of other slaves?
Muhammad even discriminated (in Islam)
between a black dog and a white dog! Yet, what concerns us here
is what I pointed out about slaves in general, their masters
treat them as if they are not human beings who have feelings,
desires and self-will.
Let us continue our discussion in order to
have a more complete picture about how the Islamic religion
abuses the dignity of men and women under the pretense that they
are slaves and not free human beings.
3. The Arab freeman does not marry a slave
unless it is inevitable:
In Vol. 31, p. 383, Ibn Timiyya says,
"It is not permissible for the Arab
freeman to marry an owned slave unless it is inevitable,
such as being unable to get married to a free woman. If it
happened and he were wed to a slave, her children would be
slaves, too, because they follow (the status) of the mother
in slavery."
Malik Ibn Anas notes,
"It is not allowable for a man to wed a
slave besides his freewoman wife. In this case, his wife has the
right to divorce him. Likewise, if he marries a freewoman while
he is already married to a slave and he fails to tell her so,
the freewoman has the right to leave him" (Malik, Vol. 2, p.
204).
I do not have any comment on these strange
principles, yet I wonder why an Arab freeman cannot marry a
slave. Is not he a man and she a woman? And why (if it is
inevitable that he should marry her) should all her descendants
be slaves? These are iniquitous and ruthless ordinances. It is
obvious that Muhammad failed to change the traditions of the
tribal society of the pre-Islamic period. Most Arab Muslims
had slaves. His companions, wives and he himself owned and
retained dozens of them. He bought more after he claimed his
prophethood and declared his message - the message or equality,
and freedom, and human rights!
What Would Happen If A
Freewoman Married Her Slave?
She might be an open-minded woman who did
not discriminate between one man and another. Thus she might
have fallen in love with her slave who also loved her and they
intended, officially, to get married. What is the attitude of
Islam in this case? If something like that took place in Islamic
society, it would be a disaster! Let us see the reaction of Umar
Ibn Khattab in these situations. In Vol. 8, Part 11, pp. 248,
249, Ibn Hazm remarks,
"A woman was wed to her male slave.
Umar intended to stone her, but instead he made them
separate and sent the slave to exile. He told the woman, `It
is unlawful for you to get married to your owned slave!'
Another woman got married to her slave. Umar scourged her
with a whip and forbade any man to marry her. Another
time, a freewoman came to Umar and told him, `I am not a
pretty woman and I have a slave to whom I would like to get
married.' Umar refused to do so. He whipped the slave
and ordered him to be sold in a foreign country. He told the
woman, `It is unlawful for you to get married to what your
right hand owns. Only men have the right to get wed to what
their right hand owns. Even if you set him free in order to
marry him and he becomes a freeman, the manumission will be
invalid and the marriage is not valid."'
Is there any comment on the ruthlessness
of this second caliph who was Muhammad's father-in-law and one
of the ten to whom Muhammad promised paradise? He is one of the
two whom Muhammad requested the people to follow as a model when
he declared, "Emulate Abu Bakr and Umar." Yet Umar was a tyrant,
a ruthless man without a heart who attempted to stone a woman
for no reason except she married a man who was her slave. He
also scourged another woman, forbidding any other man to marry
her, and beat and exiled a slave. And when a third woman wanted
to free her slave in order to marry him and live happily
together, especially after she lost hope in getting married to a
freeman, Islam and Umar intervened and said, "No, this is not
permissible." He scourged the slave and sold him into a foreign
country. By that, he became an example of relentlessness, a hard
heart, and detestable oppression.
In matters of sex and marriage, Ibn
Timiyya states:
"The one who owns the mother also owns
her children. Being the master of the mother makes him the
owner of her children whether they were born to a husband or
they were illegitimate children. Therefore, the master
has the right to have sexual intercourse with the daughters
of his maid-slave because they are his property,
provided he does not sleep with the mother at the same time"
(Vol. 35, p. 54).
The Value Of The Slave - What
Is His Price In Dinars?
"If an owned slave assaults somebody
and damages his property, his crime will be tied to his
neck. It will be said to his master, `If you wish, you can
pay the fine for the damages done by your slave or deliver
him to be sentenced to death.' His master has to choose one
of the two options - either the value of the slave and his
price or the damage the slave has caused" (Vol. 32, p. 202,
Ibn Timiyya).
Is this how the value of a man is
calculated? If the loss amounted, for example, to 600 dinars and
the value of the slave in the estimation of the master did not
exceed more than 400 dinars because he was sick or weak, his
master would, in this case, deliver him to be killed!
We have looked at six points concerning
the status of slaves in the Islamic religion. Actually, any one
point, if we ponder it, is sufficient to clarify the truth. It
reveals to us how human dignity is crushed in the practice of
slavery. From the very beginning, we referred to the principle
of slavery as it is manifested in this religion, and we have
listed the names of Muhammad's slaves, the master and the
"apostle of God!"
The Position
of Christianity - the Teaching of the Gospel
Christianity is very decisive in this
matter. The words and the spirit of the Gospel are very clear.
From the very beginning, we have used a fundamental principle in
this study and research; namely, the comparison must always be
between the Gospel and the Qur'an - Christianity as religion and
teachings and Islam as religion, in order to see which one of
the two reveals the thoughts of the true, living God. Also, the
comparison should be between Muhammad, his life and his sayings
on the one hand, and Christ, His life and teachings on the
other.
If we were to find (for example) some
Europeans or Americans who allowed themselves to acquire slaves,
we should not blame Christianity for that because we must
realize that the Gospel teaches something different. We see that
Jesus and His disciples did not possess slaves.
We do blame Islam in this regard because
Muhammad himself acquired male and female slaves by dozens. All
his friends, his wives and most Muslims of his time and after
owned slaves. The Qur'an encourages that and the scholars do not
negate it. We blame Islamic thought and the behavior of Muhammad
in regard to this matter and other issues recorded in the most
authentic Islamic sources.
We should not, in any subject, dwell on
the behavior of some Christians or some Muslims
but rather try to examine the attitude of Islamic thought (or
Christian thought) toward the issues under discussion. Some
people, for instance, believe that a man like Khomeini is an
extremist because of Islam, the religion of tolerance, love, and
reason. We, for our part, feel surprised to hear that, because
who says that this statement is true? Islam is not the religion
of tolerance, love, or reason. Not at all! Islam is the exact
opposite of this claim.
Did we not see that this religion
humiliates and persecutes women and non-Muslims as well as
waging offensive wars and encouraging Muslims to kill apostates?
Is Muhammad, who ordered the killing of a woman who insulted
him, the prophet of tolerance? Why should we blame Khomeini when
he issued an order to kill Rushdie? Does not Rushdie (according
to the law of Islam and Muhammad, not the law of the United
Nations) deserve death for attacking the Qur'an, Muhammad and
his wives? Khomeini was never radical; he was always a
true student of Muhammad. He intended to enforce the Islamic
laws and to fight nations which do not comply with them - such
as Iraq (even though Islam is its official religion).
When Muslims kill one another, it is
because Muhammad's friends and disciples did so immediately
after his death, each one of them trying to force his friend to
go in the right way. Khomeini is a true Muslim who follows
Muhammad and his friends. Thus, we hear about "exporting the
Islamic revolution" to other countries. All these things are
compatible with the views of Muhammad and the rightly guided
Caliphs who succeeded him such as Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali. When
Khomeini slaughtered his opponents, he was following the
footsteps of Ali who killed the dissenters, like Talha, Al
Zubair and Al Khwareg, even though they were faithful Muslims.
Now, what does the New Testament say about
slaves? If we turn in the pages of the New Testament we read
these verses:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there
is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).
Christ was always warning his disciples
and all believers from calling themselves masters. He said to
them:
"But you, do not be called `Rabbi'
[master]; for One is your Teacher [master], the Christ, and
you are all brethren" (Matt. 23:8).
"But he who is greatest among you shall be
your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be abased
(humbled); and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Matt.
23:12).
By these last words Christ has turned over
all the feeble human standards - The "... greatest among you
shall be your servant." How profound and deep are these
wonderful words!
This truth is clearly taught in the New
Testament by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It happened that
there was a slave called Onesimus who ran away from his master,
Philemon. Onesimus met the apostle Paul in Rome and was
converted to Christianity. Paul sent him back to Philemon with a
very impressive letter which is included in the New Testament
and in which we read these shining words,
"I am sending him back. You therefore
receive him, that is, my own heart. Receive him ... no
longer as a slave but ... as a beloved brother, ..., both in
the flesh and in the Lord" (Chapter 1).
Paul, Peter and the rest of the disciples
did not have the authority to abolish slavery within the Roman
Empire. Paul was not one of the Roman governors, but a fugitive
and a persecuted man. Later he and most of the disciples were
killed at the hands of the Romans along with thousands of their
Christian brothers. Muhammad and his successors were rulers and
could have outlawed slavery. Instead, they retained it and kept
their slaves.
In another letter, Paul urged the
Christians to "give your servants what is just and fair" (Col.
4:1). The text emphasizes these two words - brotherhood and
justice - because there is neither slave nor freeman, but
all are one in Christ.
Egyptian history relates a story about a
courageous man who stood in front of his tyrannical rulers who
mistreated people and wondered in agony, "Why have you enslaved
people whose mothers gave birth to them as free persons?" This
brave man did not know that he was addressing multitudes of
people across the ages, whether ruthless Westerners in Europe
and America or the prophet of Islam himself who failed to
liberate the slaves because he himself had acquired dozens of
them.
Christian religious leaders such as John
Wesley boldly condemned slavery in Europe and sent strong
messages to the rulers of Europe and America. They led the
movement of slaves' liberation during the day of Abraham
Lincoln. Now there are multiplied black men who hold various
positions of honor and respect in America. They teach in
colleges and universities. They sit on the bench of the courts
of the land-even the Supreme Court. They are freely elected to
local, county, state and federal positions. They hold high
military offices. They build their own fortunes with which they
do as they wish. They freely marry and raise their families
without fear.
This is what Jesus taught - "There
is no difference ...."
|