Addressing Atheist Objections to Slavery in Islam: A Detailed Response
Question: Atheists raise many objections regarding female and male slaves, such as: what kind of religion is Islam that allows humans to be enslaved, bought, and sold, and where countless women are used for sexual intercourse without marriage? Is this not open indecency and a great injustice? And so on. Detailed answers are required for all such objections!
Answer:
الحمدللہ:
As we mentioned in the previous series, due to the abandonment of Jihad in the present time, the concept of male and female slaves does not exist. However, anti-Islam liberal types still vent their malice against Islam through various excuses. When they have no answer to a point, they start nitpicking Islam, finding faults in the blessed person of the Mercy to the Worlds, صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم, as well as in the laws made by Allah. They mislead the simple-minded public by saying, “You talk about justice and avoiding indecency and immorality, but look at the injustice done to humans in your religion in the form of male and female slaves. Helpless women are kept as bondwomen. Isn’t it utter indecency that first a man is allowed four wives, and then along with them, an unlimited number of bondwomen are also permitted? This is nothing but sexual gratification.”… and so on.
In today’s detailed series, Insha’Allah, we will provide a detailed response to all objections.
First, we will try to understand the status of male and female slaves in the pre-Islamic era of ignorance and in non-Muslim European societies. How were they treated? And then, how did Islam command that male and female slaves be treated? And under what circumstances did Islam grant this permission? What is its purpose? And what methods has the Lawgiver prescribed for benefiting from it?
A Brief Outline of the Historical Status of Male and Female Slaves in the Era of Ignorance and Various Regions of Europe, and the Islamic Perspective
Slavery has been an ancient and favored pastime of humanity. Every powerful nation would enslave its subjugated and helpless peoples without reason and force them to work tirelessly in their homes, fields, business centers, and other places. During this, the master had the legal right to commit any kind of excess against the slave, and they were traded like animals. Among ancient nations like the Egyptians, Hindus, and Persians, they had no basic rights, and for any mistake, they were burned alive. In Greek and Roman civilizations, slaves were also used like animals, and their humiliation, degradation, and oppression were taken to the extreme. The same attitude was adopted by Jews and Christians as was generally practiced throughout the world.
In 1685 CE, the Kingdom of France enacted a law stating that if a slave committed any excess against a free person or stole, he would be killed. If a slave ran away for the first or second time, his ears would be cut off and he would be branded with a hot iron, and if he ran away a third time, he would be killed. It was Europe that kept slaves in cages; before this, there was no custom of keeping them in cages. The Aborigines were regularly kept with ropes around their necks and locked in cages like animals… In Gambia, Nigeria, South, and Central Africa, Negroes were caught with nets like animals and transported to America, where they were subjected to forced labor in exchange for two meals a day. These “Red Indians,” both men and women, were all kept as sexual slaves.
This is the concept of slavery that prevailed from ancient times throughout the world in general, and in medieval Europe and America in particular, until the first half of the nineteenth century CE. These are not very old matters; they are from the colonial era. Americans and Europeans continued this form of Jahiliyyah-style slavery until 150 years ago. The blood of thousands of African slaves, who were captured and forced to work on agricultural farms, is behind their agricultural development. Several films have been made on this topic, and one film recently received an award. When the machine age arrived and there was no longer a need for them, they imposed a ban and also claimed the award for being the global champions of human rights.
In Islam, all methods of enslaving a free person without just cause were declared forbidden and unlawful. However, there was one situation that was necessary for Muslims to adopt concerning their internal and external affairs: the case of prisoners of war. Every nation would enslave its prisoners of war. If Muslims were to release the enemies captured in their conquests, on one hand, it would become difficult to free their own Muslim prisoners, and on the other hand, unilaterally releasing the disbelievers’ prisoners of war would mean enabling the enemy to regain strength and attack the Muslims once again. Therefore, permission was given that if the enemy’s attitude was appropriate, prisoners could be released without ransom, with ransom, or through an exchange of prisoners. If the ruler deemed it appropriate, he could also grant them the right to reside in the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) after releasing them, instead of sending them to the Dar al-Harb (Abode of War) and causing an increase in the enemy’s strength. Similarly, for certain specific crimes or actions of particular prisoners, he could also give the death penalty.
But if the enemy was not interested in an exchange of prisoners, and the Muslims could not afford to increase the enemy’s military strength by releasing them without ransom, and they could not be given the death penalty either, then the solution was to internalize these marginal people into the Islamic society with full human rights, instead of keeping them imprisoned for life, so they wouldn’t always remain a marginal and alien class. It is a result of this internalization that in our history, the Mamluk Sultanate (Slave Dynasty) was established, and great scholars, saints, and intellectuals emerged from among the slaves. By giving temporary permission for slavery, they were made powerless in their actions so that the theoretical and practical effects of disbelief could not spread in society. But along with this, their basic needs, self-respect, and rights were fully taken care of, and Muslims were bound by ethical and legal regulations concerning them. Such commands and laws were established that created maximum opportunities for their freedom, and such rules were set for their living and treatment that the distances between freedom and slavery gradually narrowed.
In short, slavery is not a permanent part of Muslim society, but was tolerated as a solution to the problem of prisoners of war under the international circumstances of its time, so that it would be permitted on a limited basis until the consciousness of human equality developed at the international level.
The principle of necessity was also at play behind keeping this option of slavery open in a specific manner. Furthermore, there was wisdom in this, as living among Muslims would give them the opportunity to become acquainted with the virtues of Islam, and by witnessing Islamic civilization with their own eyes, they could understand Islam.
This limited form of slavery in Islam, which remained as an option rather than a command regarding prisoners of war, has always been objectionable to the West, and it has been one of the most significant topics in the major criticisms leveled against Islam. The amusing part is that this objection was raised with great intensity even during the period when the business of buying and selling free human beings was at its peak in the West itself, especially in America, and human markets were set up just like cattle markets, where ships full of people were brought from Africa and they were bought and sold like animals. Even in America’s famous Civil War, known as the war between the North and the South, this issue of buying and selling free humans was a point of contention. During that time, a significant number of intellectuals in the American South used to present arguments in favor of this slavery and human trafficking. Whereas Islam had announced the end of this buying and selling of free humans more than a thousand years earlier.
Different Methods of Making Male and Female Slaves in the Era of Ignorance and Islam’s Just Role
If we examine the history of various societies around the world before Islam, we find the following methods of enslavement:
- Kidnapping children to make them slaves.
- If someone found an ownerless child or person, they would enslave them.
- Attacking a population and enslaving all its inhabitants.
- The government enslaving a person as punishment for a crime.
- Enslaving a debtor for being unable to repay a loan.
- The children of existing slaves were also considered slaves.
- A person selling themselves or their spouse and children due to poverty.
- In case of winning a war, the victors would enslave the prisoners of war.
From the information mentioned above, it is clear that in ancient times there were many types of slaves, and they had been slaves for many generations, with no knowledge of when their ancestors were enslaved or what type of slaves they were. When Islam came, the societies in Arabia and the rest of the world were filled with all these types of slaves, and the entire economic and social system relied more on these slaves than on laborers and servants. The first question before Islam was what to do with these pre-existing slaves. And the second question was what the solution to the problem of slavery should be for the future.
Pre-existing Slaves
In answer to the first question, Islam did not suddenly abolish the property rights people had over all the slaves from ancient times, because not only would this have paralyzed the entire social and economic system, but it would have also subjected Arabia to a devastating civil war, far more severe than the American Civil War. And even then, the real problem would not have been solved, just as it wasn’t solved in America, and the issue of the degradation of Black people (Negroes) remained. Leaving this foolish method of reform, Islam initiated a powerful moral movement of Fakk-i-Raqabah (freeing of necks) and through admonition, encouragement, religious commands, and state laws, motivated people to either voluntarily free slaves for salvation in the hereafter, or release them under religious commands to atone for their sins, or to let them go in exchange for financial compensation.
In this movement, the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم himself freed approximately 63 slaves. Among his wives, just one wife, Hazrat Aisha (RA), freed approximately 67 slaves. The Prophet’s uncle, Hazrat Abbas (RA), freed about 70 slaves in his lifetime. Hakim bin Hizam (RA) freed 100, Abdullah bin Umar (RA) freed a thousand, Dhul-Kala’ Himyari (RA) freed eight thousand, and Abdur Rahman bin Auf (RA) granted freedom to thirty thousand. Similar incidents are found in the lives of other companions, among whom the names of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) and Hazrat Usman (RA) are very prominent. There was a general passion for gaining the pleasure of God, due to which people frequently freed their own slaves and also bought slaves from others to set them free. Thus, as far as the slaves from the previous era were concerned, almost all of them had been freed before the end of the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.
The reforms that Islam implemented had one part related to the slaves already present in society and the other part related to slaves to be made in the future.
Future Slaves
Regarding future slaves, Islam banned all methods of human enslavement except for the last reason. The reason why the last one (enslaving prisoners of war) was maintained is that it saves the lives of people. Because when an enemy marches against Muslims and thousands or millions of its men are captured by Muslims, now someone tell us, what should be done with these prisoners?
One option is to release them all. It is obvious how foolish this would be, to prepare thousands or millions of the enemy to fight against you again.
Another option is to kill them all immediately. If this were done in Islam, the opponents who make so much noise about the issue of slavery would protest even more, saying, “Look at what a harsh command it is that prisoners are killed immediately!”
Another option is to lock them all up in a prison and provide them with food and clothing there. This would make the prison staff and thousands of war captives useless. Experience shows that no matter how much comfort you provide to prisoners in jail, they do not value it because the anger of having their freedom taken away is so great that they consider all your hospitality useless. So, the state incurs so much expense, and all for nothing, as it does not reduce the enemy’s enmity. Then, the thousands and millions of prisoners in jail are completely deprived of intellectual and civilizational progress, and all this is a great injustice.
Instead, Islam invested them in society, giving them better human rights and freedom than prisoners. Society accepted them happily, and the state was also saved from a great burden. Since every person has the right to take service from his prisoner, whatever he gives him in food and clothing is not a burden to him. For him, it becomes a matter of a servant from whom he takes service and in return gives him food, clothing, and shelter. Then, since the slave has the freedom to walk around and for recreation, and is not locked in a prison, he does not feel the anger towards his master that a prisoner in jail does.
The master also had a religious command to treat slaves with kindness and gentleness, so good treatment makes the slave’s heart fond of him, and he begins to consider his master’s home as his own home and his family as his own relatives. These are not just words but historical facts.
Islam commanded the training of slaves. The master himself wants his slave to be civilized and well-mannered. He educates him, teaches him crafts and skills, and he gets a full opportunity for intellectual and civilizational progress. Thus, in Islam, there were hundreds of scholars and ascetics who were originally Mawali (freed slaves). The slave class achieved progress in all sciences; in fact, slaves sometimes even attained kingship. The mention of the Mamluk Sultanate (Slave Dynasty) is present in Islamic history.
Now, the future issue remains. For this, Islam completely forbade and legally blocked the form of slavery where a free person is captured, sold, and bought. Regarding this, the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم said that whoever captures and sells a free person, I myself will be a plaintiff against him on the Day of Resurrection. (Bukhari)
However, regarding prisoners of war, Islam’s law decreed that those captured in battle should either be released as an act of grace, freed in exchange for ransom, or exchanged for Muslim prisoners held by the enemy. But if releasing them outright goes against military interests, ransom cannot be obtained, and the enemy is not willing to exchange prisoners of war, then Muslims have the right to keep them as slaves.
However, it was commanded that such slaves be treated with the utmost kindness, mercy, and compassion. Instructions were given for their education and training to make them excellent members of society, and various avenues were created for their release. For these slaves, on one hand, the opportunity was kept open for them to gain freedom by making a contract (mukatabat) with their masters. On the other hand, all the instructions that existed for previous slaves remained in place for them: that they should be freed for the pleasure of Allah as a good deed, or be granted freedom in atonement for sins. Or a person could keep his slave for his lifetime and make a will that the slave would be free upon his death (which is called tadbir in Islamic jurisprudence, and such a slave is called a mudabbar). Or if a man has relations with his bondwoman and she bears a child, she will automatically become free upon the master’s death, whether the master made a will or not. This is the solution Islam provided for the problem of slavery. Objectors raise issues without understanding this, and apologists, in their attempts to offer excuses, end up denying the fact that Islam did retain slavery in some form.
Today, people find it difficult to understand the laws Islam established for the sabāyā (female slaves and captives) taken in war because the conditions for which these laws were made no longer exist. However, from the most ancient times until the beginning of the eighteenth century CE, the practice of enslaving prisoners of war and buying and selling them was prevalent in the world. In that era, it was very rare for two warring states to exchange prisoners of war or to free them for ransom after making peace. The general rule was that those captured in war remained in the possession of the state whose army had captured and brought them. In this way, entire populations would be taken captive from one country to another, and it was not possible for any state to bear the burden of feeding and clothing such a large number of prisoners by keeping them incarcerated. Therefore, states would keep prisoners according to their needs and distribute the rest among the members of the army, with whom they lived as male and female slaves.
These were the circumstances that Islam faced. In these conditions, it presented the principle to the world that those captured in war should be released for ransom, exchanged for prisoners of war, or released graciously. But the implementation of this reformative teaching could not be achieved by the actions of Muslims alone; it required the consent of the non-Muslim nations with whom the Muslims were at war, and they were not prepared to accept this reform at that time, nor were they prepared for it for twelve centuries thereafter. Therefore, as a last resort, Islam permitted the enslavement of enemy prisoners of war in the same way that other nations treated Muslim prisoners of war.
But with this permission, there was a danger that a depressed class might arise within the Muslim social system, as has happened in the social system of every nation that has subjugated other nations. Apart from the fact that this treatment of prisoners of war was against humanity, there was also the fear of the emergence of many moral and social corruptions that are an inevitable result of the creation of such a class in any social system. Therefore, Islam permitted the enslavement of prisoners of war out of necessity, but at the same time, it established laws whose purpose was to ensure that they received the best possible treatment in their state of slavery and to provide means by which they could gradually be absorbed into Islamic society.
This is the very purpose for which permission was given to have sexual relations with female slaves (londiyon). For a moment, take your imagination a few hundred years back. Suppose a war takes place between Muslims and a non-Muslim nation. Thousands of women fall into their hands. Among them are many young and beautiful women. The opposing side neither ransoms them nor exchanges them for the Muslim women who have fallen into their possession. The Muslims cannot release these women as an act of grace either, because then there would be no hope of their own women being freed. Compelled, they keep them in their possession. Now, please tell me, what should be done with such a large number of women who have entered the Dar al-Islam? To keep them in perpetual confinement is an injustice. To let them roam free in the country would be to spread the germs of vice and immorality. Wherever they are kept, moral corruption will spread from them. On one hand, society will be corrupted, and on the other hand, the stain of disgrace will be permanently marked on their foreheads. Islam solves this problem by distributing them among the individuals of the nation and instructing these individuals: “Beware, do not turn them into prostitutes to engage in illicit acts and make them a source of your income. Rather, either take them into your own possession, or else get them married so they do not go about committing fornication and having illicit affairs.” The various articles of this law are stated in different places in the Quran.
In the fourth section (ruku’) of Surah An-Nur, it is stated:
وَلْيَسْتَعْفِفِ الَّذِينَ لَا يَجِدُونَ نِكَاحًا حَتَّى يُغْنِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا وَآتُوهُم مِّن مَّالِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي آتَاكُمْ وَلَا تُكْرِهُوا فَتَيَاتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَاءِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّنًا لِّتَبْتَغُوا عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَمَن يُكْرِههُّنَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِن بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ۔
(An-Nur 33)
(1) And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah enriches them of His Bounty. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if yo1u see that there is good in them, and give them something out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you. And force not your maids to prostitution, if they desire chastity, in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life. (2) But if anyone compels them, then after their compulsion, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
At this point, it should also be kept in mind that a woman from among the prisoners of war comes into a person’s ownership only when she is officially handed over to him by the government, and after that, only that person has the right to have sexual intercourse with her. To have intercourse with any woman before official distribution is fornication (zina). Similarly, after distribution, for any man other than the owner to commit such an act with her is fornication. And everyone knows that in Islam, fornication is a legal crime.
In the pre-Islamic era of ignorance in Arabia, there were many people who had established regular brothels with their female slaves. They would live off their earnings and increase their retinue by raising their illegitimate children. When the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم migrated to Medina, Abdullah ibn Ubayy, the chief of the hypocrites, had a brothel there in which he had kept six female slaves for this very purpose. This is what has been prohibited in this verse.
This is the first article of the law that definitively closed the door on the evil use of female slaves.
But this is for those who wish to protect their chastity. As for those female slaves who are themselves inclined towards vice, the following command was given for them:
وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَن تَصْبِرُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ۔ (An-Nisa 25)
And whoever among you cannot afford to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable, they2 being chaste, not committing unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And when they are married, if they commit adultery, their punishment is half that for free [unmarried] women. This [permission] is for those among you who fear sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
In this way, the path of prostitution for these female slaves was completely blocked, whether forced or voluntary. However, they too have desires, and the fulfillment of their natural inclinations is also necessary; otherwise, it would be an injustice, and the back doors to moral corruption would open. Therefore, two honorable ways were proposed to fulfill their psychological needs:
1. The first way is that their masters arrange their marriages.
وَأَنكِحُوا الْأَيَامَى مِنكُمْ وَالصَّالِحِينَ مِنْ عِبَادِكُمْ وَإِمَائِكُمْ إِن يَكُونُوا فُقَارَاءَ يُغْنِهِمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ۔ (An-Nur 32)
And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.
Similarly, those poor people who could not afford to pay large dowers to marry into respectable families were also encouraged to marry female slaves for a small dower.
"And whoever among you cannot afford to marry free, believing women from honorable families, then he may marry your believing female slaves" (An-Nisa 25).
When a master marries his female slave to another person, he no longer has the right to have sexual intercourse with that female slave, because he has willingly transferred this right to the other person in exchange for the dower. On this basis, such female slaves also become counted among the muhsanat (chaste, protected women), whom the Quranic text has made forbidden to everyone except their husbands. This is clarified after the aforementioned verse:
"So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. They should be brought under the bond of marriage, not for open or secret indecencies. Then when they are bound by marriage, and thereafter commit adultery, their punishment is half of that for women from honorable families." (An-Nisa 25)
2. The second way is for the master himself to have relations with them. This has three forms. One is to have relations based solely on the right of ownership (milk yamin), considering it as the bond of marriage. The second is to free the female slave and marry her, making her freedom her dower. The third is to free her and marry her with a new dower. The Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم preferred the second and third forms, and there are several hadiths on their virtue:
“Whoever has a female slave, and he gives her a good education and teaches her good manners, then frees her and subsequently marries her himself, he will have a double reward.” (Bukhari, Kitab al-Nikah)
In another hadith, the words are that he “frees her and gives her a dower and marries her.”
Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi has narrated another hadith in which the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم said:
“When a person frees his female slave and then marries her with a new dower, he will have two rewards.”
The Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم himself married Hazrat Juwayriyah in this manner, by first freeing her and then bringing her into the bond of marriage. The narrations differ on whether he paid a new dower or made her freedom the dower, but it is most likely that he acted upon both methods to show the permissibility of both forms. He gave a new dower to some and made freedom the dower for others.
In accordance with this permission, the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم designated for himself Hazrat Rayhana from the captives of the Battle of Banu Qurayza, Hazrat Juwayriyah from the captives of the Battle of Banu al-Mustaliq, Hazrat Safiyyah from the captives of the Battle of Khaybar, and Hazrat Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah, who was sent by the Muqawqis of Egypt. He freed the first three and married them, but he had relations with Hazrat Mariyah on the basis of milk yamin. It is not established that he freed her and then married her.
The fact that the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم married three female slaves in the later part of his blessed life is in itself proof that his real objective was to create a place of honor for female slaves in Islamic society. And he wanted to teach the Muslims through his own actions how they should behave with this unfortunate group of the human fraternity. But the malice of the enemies of Islam has attributed even this most noble act of his to carnal desires. The reality is that if a person is bent on finding faults, there is no good deed in the world from which he cannot extract an aspect of evil.
As for the first form, i.e., having relations based on the right of ownership, that too is permissible because the Quran has given explicit permission for relations based on milk yamin, and no condition or restriction has been attached to it. The aversion that seems apparent in it is merely a delusional aversion. Since temperaments have become accustomed to the common and well-known method of marriage, people think that the only permissible relationship between a man and a woman is one where a Qadi comes, there are two witnesses, there is a proposal and acceptance, and the marriage sermon is recited. Any other form is mere lustfulness. But Islam is not a formalistic religion but a rational one. It looks at the reality, not the ritual. When a woman becomes lawful for a man through marriage, she becomes lawful on the basis that the law of Allah has made her so. Similarly, if the law of Allah makes her lawful on the basis of milk yamin, what is there to be averse to? The purpose of marriage is to confine the human sexual desire within a limit, to regulate it with a code, and to establish the relationship between man and woman in the form of a formal social relationship. This is why the condition of announcement was imposed, so that it becomes known and publicized in society that such and such woman has been designated for such and such man, the children born from her womb will belong to that person, and no other person will have a spousal relationship with this woman. All these purposes can also be fulfilled through milk yamin. It is known and publicized in society that a particular female slave is owned by a particular person. It is not permissible for any other person to establish a spousal relationship with that female slave unless the owner willingly gives her in marriage. Therefore, the designation of a woman for a man occurs in this case with the same definitiveness and publicity as it does in the case of marriage. After coming into the possession of the master, if a woman becomes a mother, she becomes a member of that family. She is called an umm walad. After the master’s death, she automatically becomes free. Her children are considered legitimate and inherit from their father according to Sharia. The legal rights of these children will be the same as those prescribed in Sharia for biological children. Then is this not a formal spousal relationship just like marriage?
Yes, there is one aversion in this method, but it is from another aspect. A female slave with whom relations are had without marriage on the basis of milk yamin essentially remains a slave. She does not attain a status equal to that of free, protected women (muhsanat), and the stigma of being born of a slave (parastar zadgi) remains on her children. This is why the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم gave preference to the method of first freeing her to bring her to the status of honorable women, and then marrying her in the well-known, proper manner, so that the sense of self-respect that is found in honorable women is created in her, and she enters your society on an equal footing, and the stigma of being a slave does not remain on her, nor the stigma of being born of a slave on her children.
Another atheist’s two further questions…!!
- First, if a man has the right to sexual relations (tamattu’) based on ownership (milk yamin), why does a woman not have this right?
- Second, if non-Muslim combatants were to treat Muslim women in the same way, what right would we have to protest?
The answers to both are given below in order.
1. The answer to the first question is that in the Quran, the right to tamattu’ based on milk yamin is given only to men, not to women.
وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ۔ إِلَّا عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرَ مَلُومِينَ۔ (Al-Mu’minun 5-6)
And they who guard their private parts. Except from their wives or what their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed.
Similarly, in all other verses, the address is to men only.
One reason for this is that in the matter of spousal relations, humanity has always distinguished between men and women, and this distinction is inherent in their very nature (those who wish to understand this should carefully study the chapter “Laws of Nature” in our book “Purdah”). A woman’s sense of chastity is greater than a man’s. The expectation of chastity from a woman is also greater than from a man. If a man commits an immoral act, he is not looked upon with as much contempt as a promiscuous woman is. A woman’s value is halved after the loss of virginity, but even if a man has had ten wives, his value does not change. If a woman goes to a man of another nation, her entire nation considers it a dishonor to them. But a man establishing a relationship with a woman of another nation is not considered very blameworthy. This is human nature, and Islam has regarded it to a certain extent. But when this thing reaches the point of ignorance, it does not hesitate to trample it. For example, Islam permits men to marry women from the People of the Book (Kitabiyah), but it does not permit women to marry men from the People of the Book. To this extent, it has taken human nature into account. But if a Jew or Christian becomes a Muslim, Islam unhesitatingly permits any Muslim woman to marry him, no matter how noble her family may be. To consider marriage with him undesirable merely on the basis of his being a new convert is itself undesirable in the sight of Islam.
If you understand this principle, you can easily understand why Islam does not permit a woman to have tamattu’ with her male slave. The reason is that if this were done, the value and standing of such a woman in society would diminish, and if she were to later break off the relationship with that slave and want to marry someone else, it cannot be expected that any man of her equal status (kufw) would accept her. Not only that, but if a woman has tamattu’ with her slave, there is a risk of her status diminishing within her own family. This is because the weight a woman holds in family life is due to her husband, and here the husband is himself a slave who does not have the same status as a free man. To this extent, Islam has observed the consideration of human nature. However, if a slave is freed, even a woman from the noblest of families can marry him. Indeed, the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم himself married his paternal cousin to his own freed slave.
The second and more important reason for not permitting a woman to have tamattu’ with a slave is that milk yamin can serve as a form of marriage for a man, but not for a woman. The fundamental principle of the law that Islam has prescribed for family life is that the man should be the guardian (qawwam) over the woman. That is why the dower (mahr) of the woman is obligatory upon the man, and the man is given a degree of authority over the woman so that he may look after and protect her and exercise the authority in his home that is necessary to keep the system of family life in order. This great wisdom is lost in the case of having tamattu’ with a slave. A woman’s relationship with her slave can fulfill the purpose of sexual gratification, but within the Islamic social system, it cannot fulfill those other purposes which the Sharia has deemed necessary to observe in the marital relationship between a man and a woman. This is because in this case, the man, being a slave, would be subservient to the woman, and he would not be able to obtain the authority in the home that he should have as a man for overseeing morals and finances and for keeping the family system in order.
2. As for your last question, it seems that while asking this question, you assumed that the Muslim women who fall into the enemy’s possession would be treated just like daughters of the house. Is your assumption really correct? And as for your saying, “what right do we have to protest?” the answer is that we did not want to enslave women, or even men. If the enemy had agreed to an exchange of prisoners of war, we would not have insisted on keeping a single man or woman of theirs as a slave. Therefore, if the custom of slavery persisted in the world for centuries, and the noble women of one nation became bondwomen in the possession of other nations, it was not due to any fault of ours. Rather, the ones responsible were those who for centuries were not willing to adopt a civilized and rational approach regarding prisoners of war.
Another Atheist’s Objection and Its Answer
Objection!
In Islamic Sharia, a limit of four is set for marriage, meaning a man cannot have more than four wives at one time. But for bondwomen, no limit has been set at all. What is the reason for this?
Ostensibly, it seems that this permission has nullified all the benefits of setting the limit of four. It has opened the door to unrestrained indulgence for the well-off. It has created a loophole for the rich and powerful to buy up countless women, bring them into their homes, and indulge in pleasure. This is not just a hypothesis; this has actually been happening in the later history of Muslims. Can you provide a rational explanation for this?
Answer:
The brief answer to your question is that the significant social interests for which the permission for tamattu’ with bondwomen was given would be defeated by the determination of a number. It cannot be determined in which era and in which battle how many women will come into the Dar al-Islam as captives (sabāyā), and at any given time, what the proportion of captives will be within the Muslim population. Now, if the very purpose of giving permission for tamattu’ was to close the door on the social dangers of an extraordinary increase in the number of women, then you yourself should consider how a limit for tamattu’ could possibly be determined when the extent of the increase is not fixed. The Wise One who made this law is not one-eyed, capable of seeing only one side of the matter at a time. His all-encompassing gaze falls upon all aspects simultaneously. That is why the immoderation that man has often complained about not being issued, has not been issued by Him in the legislation of the law.
As for your suspicion that permission to have tamattu’ with an countless number of bondwomen opens the door to sexual promiscuity, and that because bondwomen can be bought and sold, it is possible for wealthy people to buy up bondwomen and assemble an entire fleet of women, turning their homes into dens of debauchery—this and most suspicions of this nature generally arise because only one aspect of the matter is in view, and the other aspects remain hidden. Keep this point firmly in mind: the Lawgiver has made His law for the welfare of humanity, and the facilities and allowances kept in this law are for those genuine needs that humans generally face or may face. If some people take such wrong advantage of these allowances, for which the Lawgiver had not actually provided this allowance, then it is their own lack of understanding or wickedness of the soul. But to create such strictness in the law out of fear of the possibility or occurrence of such individual mistakes, which would cause difficulties for the general public in fulfilling their genuine needs, cannot be the work of any wise being.
Allah’s Sharia does not permit wealthy people to buy countless bondwomen for debauchery. In fact, this is an undue advantage that hedonistic people have taken from the law. The law itself was made for the convenience of human beings; it was not made for people to derive this kind of benefit from it. Its example is exactly like the Sharia permitting a man to have up to four wives and also giving him the right to divorce his wedded wife and take another. This law was made keeping human needs in view. Now, if a person adopts the method of keeping four wives for some time, then divorcing them, and then bringing in another batch of wives purely for the sake of indulgence, this is taking undue advantage of the allowances of the law, the responsibility for which will fall upon that person himself, not on the Sharia of God. Similarly, the Sharia permitted making women captured in war into bondwomen when their people were not prepared to exchange them for Muslim prisoners or to free them by paying ransom, and gave the individuals in whose ownership they were placed by the government the right to have tamattu’ with these women so that their existence would not become a cause of moral corruption for society. Then, since the number of people captured in wars could not be fixed, legally no limit could be fixed on how many male and female slaves a person could keep at one time. The buying and selling of male and female slaves was also kept permissible so that if a male or female slave could not get along with one master, they could be transferred into the ownership of another person, and the permanent ownership by one person would not become a torment for both the master and the owned. The Sharia made all these rules for convenience, keeping human conditions and needs in view. If wealthy people turned them into a means of debauchery, the blame is on them, not on the Sharia.
The Lawgiver did not give permission for tamattu’ with an unlimited number of bondwomen so that every Muslim could become a Raja Indra in his home and spend his days and nights indulging in pleasure in the midst of a throng of women. Rather, the real purpose was that if, due to the emergence of extraordinary circumstances, the number of women in society were to suddenly increase greatly, it could be easily absorbed, and moral corruption would not spread as a result. Several methods were kept for this purpose. For example, marrying bondwomen to male slaves, marrying bondwomen to men of lesser means, masters freeing the bondwomen and marrying them themselves, and those who have bondwomen having tamattu’ with them without freeing them.
Similarly, the purpose of making the sale and purchase of bondwomen permissible was not for licentious people to buy and gather many bondwomen purely for the sake of indulgence, and when they got tired of them, to sell them and recruit another fleet. Rather, this facility was given keeping in mind the needs that humans generally face. For example, a person has become destitute and no longer has the means to keep male and female slaves, or he has accumulated more male and female slaves than he needs, or he does not like one of them. Should the buying and selling of male and female slaves be forbidden merely out of fear that some people will take undue advantage of this rightful law, while ignoring these genuine needs? The possibilities of such evils exist even in the law of marriage and divorce. If a wicked person descends to “legalized fornication,” he can marry a woman for a few rupees one day and divorce her the next to look for another woman. Then would it be right, out of fear of such individual mischief, to increase such restrictions in the law of divorce and marriage that the lives of the general public become difficult?
One more question…!
In the Sharia system, will prisoners of war be permitted to be made into male and female slaves? Will there also be a right to sell these male and female slaves? Will sexual relations (tamattu’) with these female slaves be permissible in addition to wives, and will there be no numerical limit on this?
Answer:
In the Sharia system, permission to make prisoners of war into male and female slaves is given in a situation where the nation with which we are at war is not willing to exchange prisoners, nor will it release our prisoners for ransom, nor will it free its own prisoners by paying ransom. If you reflect on it yourself, you can understand that in this situation, a government will either execute the prisoners who remain with it or it will keep them for life in the kind of human enclosures that are nowadays called “Concentration Camps” and will continue to take forced labor from them without giving them any human rights. Obviously, this situation is both cruel and not very beneficial for the country itself, in which a large number of such prisoners remain forever as a foreign element. The form that Islam has adopted for such situations is that these prisoners should be distributed individually among the Muslims and their legal status should be specified. In this way, the individual connection that each prisoner will develop with a Muslim family holds a greater possibility that they will be treated with humanity and dignity, and a good portion of them will gradually be absorbed into Muslim society.
For those Muslims who have ownership rights over such prisoners of war, the Sharia has prescribed this rule: if a female or male slave requests from their master that they wish to provide their ransom money by working, the master does not have the right to refuse this request. By law, he will have to give them a grace period for a specific duration, and if they pay the ransom money within that period, he will have to free them. When a male or female slave offers to pay compensation to their master for their freedom, and the master accepts it, a sort of agreement is made between the two. This is one of the methods established in Islam for the freedom of slaves. It is not necessary for the compensation to be in the form of wealth. Performing a special service for the master can also be the compensation, provided that both parties agree to it. After the agreement is made, the master does not have the right to create undue obstacles to the slave’s freedom. According to the agreement, he will give the slave the opportunity to work to pay the compensation, and whenever the slave fulfills the amount or service due within the prescribed period, he will free them. There is an incident from the time of Hazrat Umar (RA) where a slave girl made an agreement with her mistress and, before the appointed time, provided the agreed-upon amount and brought it to her. The mistress said that she would not take it as a lump sum but in installments, year by year and month by month. The slave complained to Hazrat Umar (RA). He said, “Deposit this amount in the Bayt al-Mal (state treasury) and go, you are free.” Then he sent a message to the mistress that her money has been deposited here, now she can take it as a lump sum if she wishes, otherwise we will give it to you year by year and month by month (Darqutni, narrated by Abu Sa’id al-Maqburi).
The permission to sell such male and female slaves is actually in the sense that the right a person has to receive ransom from them and to take service from them until the ransom is received, he transfers that right to another person in exchange for compensation. You can fully understand the wisdom for which this provision is kept in the law only if you have had the occasion to keep a soldier of the enemy army as a prisoner. Taking service from military soldiers is not an easy task, and similarly, keeping a woman of an enemy nation in the house is no game. If this provision were not left for a person to transfer the ownership rights of a male or female prisoner whom he cannot manage to someone else, then these people would have become a curse for whomever they were handed over to.
For women captured in war (when neither their exchange nor the matter of ransom can be settled), what better solution could there be than to give the person, into whose ownership the woman is given by the government, the legal right to establish sexual relations with her? If this were not done, these women would become a permanent source of spreading immorality in the country. Legally, there is no particular difference between the right of ownership (milk al-yamīn) and the marriage contract (`aqd al-nikāḥ); rather, in this case, the government itself formally hands over a woman to a man. Then, the social status given to these women in Sharia is that after coming into the ownership of a person, no other person has the right to have sexual relations with that woman. The lineage of any child born from her is established from that man, and they are the legitimate heir of their father in the same way as the child of a free wife. The master does not have the right to sell a bondwoman from whom a child is born, and she automatically becomes free after the master’s death.
A numerical limit for tamattu’ with bondwomen was not imposed because it is not possible to determine the number of women who may be captured in any war. Supposing a very large number of such women were to accumulate, what measure could there be to absorb them into society if a numerical limit for tamattu’ with bondwomen had already been set?
The way the rich and powerful in later times turned this legal provision into a pretext for debauchery was obviously completely against the intent of the Sharia. If a nobleman wants to be debauched and stoops to taking advantage of the law’s provisions against the intent of the law, then when can even the code of marriage be a hindrance to him? He can marry a new woman every day and divorce her the next.
Hopefully, Insha’Allah, all the objections of the atheists have been cleared away, but they will concoct some new objection because their purpose is not to understand or learn but to criticize the religion of Islam. Therefore, all Muslim brothers should not be intimidated by these second-hand liberal atheists at all, nor should they pay any heed to their words. Yes, if there is something you do not understand, then turn to the esteemed scholars (Ulama); they will explain it to you, Insha’Allah. But if you try to understand these issues from atheists, they will weaken your faith (Iman). Therefore, be wary of them and tell your brothers to be wary too.
We pray to Allah that as long as Allah keeps us alive, He keeps us in the best state of faith, and when He gives death, may it be martyrdom… Ameen, O Lord of the Worlds.
((والله تعالیٰ اعلم باالصواب))
((And Allah the Exalted knows best what is correct.))
Reference: https://alfurqan.info/problems/1236
