Critical Review of Slavery in Islamic Law & Defence of Traditional Islamic Jurisprudence on Slavery
Introduction: Context and Purpose
The Islamic Slavery Booklet (Orthodox Islam Publications) sets out to “defend traditional Islamic jurisprudence on slavery” against both external criticism and internal reformist reinterpretations. The framing is explicitly apologetic: slavery is acknowledged as sensitive, but the goal is to show that Islam neither invented it nor condoned its abuses, and that, today, slavery is no longer valid due to treaties and consensus.
On its surface, the booklet appears balanced — acknowledging slavery’s universality, highlighting Islamic limitations on enslavement, and affirming the abolitionist consensus of modern jurists. Yet beneath this, the text is a carefully curated defense of premodern norms, one that preserves classical jurisprudence while sidestepping the deeper moral critique: why did divine revelation not abolish slavery outright?
This review will critically examine the booklet’s arguments, expose selective omissions, and contextualize its claims within the broader history of slavery in Islamic civilization.
Universality Argument: “Everyone Did It”
The booklet begins by normalizing slavery, emphasizing its universality in Babylon, Rome, Greece, and Christianity. Citations from Aristotle and Roman historians illustrate that slavery was once considered “natural.”
This is accurate — slavery was indeed ubiquitous in antiquity. Yet the argument risks falling into a tu quoque fallacy: because others practiced slavery, Islam’s continuation of it is excusable. For a religion claiming final and universal revelation, historical comparison is insufficient. The moral question remains: if slavery was wrong in hindsight, why didn’t Islam abolish it rather than merely regulate it?
Christianity vs. Islam: A Selective Comparison
The booklet paints Christianity as complicit in slavery until modern times, citing Paul’s injunctions for slaves to obey masters and Augustine’s view of slavery as divine punishment. It dismisses Gregory of Nyssa’s anti-slavery sermon as misinterpreted.
This contrast serves apologetic ends: Christianity tolerated slavery, Islam reformed it. Yet the comparison is misleading:
-
By the late 18th and 19th centuries, many Christian movements spearheaded global abolition, from Quakers in Britain to evangelical reformers in the U.S.
-
By contrast, Islamic societies generally lagged in abolition, often under Western pressure (e.g., Ottoman Empire banning slavery only in the 19th century, Saudi Arabia in 1962, Mauritania as late as 1981).
Thus, while both traditions tolerated slavery historically, the Christian world played a disproportionate role in ending it, while Muslim-majority societies resisted abolition well into the modern era.
The “Islamic Reforms” Narrative
The booklet highlights two major Islamic reforms:
-
Default status of humans is freedom (al-asl fil insan al-hurriyyah).
-
Restriction of enslavement routes to (a) war captives and (b) children born of enslaved parents.
This is indeed a narrowing compared to Greco-Roman or Persian practices, which allowed debt bondage, enslavement for crime, or self-sale. Yet, the apologetic gloss hides important realities:
-
War captivity remained the primary route — and given Islam’s early and expansive conquests, this still produced vast numbers of slaves.
-
Hereditary slavery perpetuated bondage across generations, nullifying the claim of “default freedom.”
-
Concubinage was not merely tolerated but normalized, creating systemic sexual exploitation.
Far from shrinking the institution, these rules sustained large-scale slavery across the Islamic world for over a millennium.
Historical Counterexamples: Where Practice Diverged
1. The Zanj Rebellion (869–883 CE)
-
In Basra (Abbasid Iraq), African slaves (the Zanj) were forced into brutal labor on salt marshes.
-
Their revolt, one of the largest slave uprisings in history, revealed that slavery in Islamic societies could be just as exploitative as in Rome or the Americas.
-
The rebellion lasted 15 years, requiring massive military suppression — undermining the claim that Islamic slavery was inherently humane.
2. The Mamluk System (9th–19th centuries)
-
Slaves were recruited (often through capture or purchase of young boys from Central Asia or the Caucasus) to serve as soldiers.
-
Though some rose to high rank — even ruling Egypt as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517) — this was not freedom but a rigid system of militarized servitude.
-
It shows how Islamic polities institutionalized slavery as a political and military foundation.
3. The Ottoman Harems and Sexual Slavery
-
Women captured in wars (notably from the Balkans and Caucasus) filled the harems of Ottoman elites.
-
The jurisprudential justification — concubinage with female captives — facilitated systemic sexual exploitation, often with children produced from such unions.
-
This practice was never marginal: it was central to Ottoman dynastic politics, with many sultans being born of enslaved concubines.
These cases show that the idealized jurisprudence in the booklet does not match the historical realities of Islamic empires.
Ethical Weaknesses in the Justifications
1. “Political Necessity” Defense
The text insists slavery was not “desirable” but “necessitated by circumstances.” This is circular reasoning: if God is all-wise, why sanction an immoral practice at all, rather than provide a moral trajectory toward abolition?
2. Enslavement of Women and Children
The justification offered — women might “give birth to soldiers” and children would “grow into combatants” — is ethically weak and preemptive. By this logic, entire populations could be enslaved perpetually. It reads more like realpolitik than moral revelation.
3. “Slaves are brothers” Hadith
While stressing kind treatment, this obscures systemic inequality: no matter how kindly treated, a slave remains property. The Prophet may have freed slaves, but his contemporaries also owned, bought, and inherited them.
Modern Turn: “Slavery is Over”
The booklet ends by affirming that slavery is impermissible today due to treaties and consensus. This serves two apologetic functions:
-
It shields Islam from association with groups like ISIS, which revived slavery of Yazidis citing classical fiqh.
-
It reassures modern Muslims that they need not defend slavery in practice, only in principle.
Yet this position remains fragile:
-
The prohibition is pragmatic, not principled. If treaties collapse, juristic logic could reopen slavery as permissible.
-
It avoids grappling with universal human rights, instead anchoring abolition in contingent politics.
Philosophical Claim: “Freedom is an Illusion”
The conclusion relativizes slavery itself: since all humans are restricted by authority (state, family, society), slavery is just one form of restriction. This is a dangerous dilution. Being governed under law is not morally equivalent to being owned as property. This conflation is perhaps the weakest part of the booklet, an attempt to neutralize the moral outrage that slavery evokes.
Conclusion: Apologetics vs. Historical Reality
The Islamic Slavery Booklet is a sophisticated but ultimately evasive defense of classical jurisprudence. It rightly notes that Islam narrowed the avenues of enslavement, encouraged manumission, and today no longer permits slavery. But its omissions and justifications are telling:
-
It ignores brutal realities like the Zanj revolt, the Mamluk system, and concubinage.
-
It refuses to concede that Islam could have abolished slavery outright, hiding behind “political necessity.”
-
Its modern defense rests on treaties, not intrinsic morality.
For believers seeking reassurance, it provides a comforting narrative. For critics and historians, it demonstrates the enduring tension between classical Islamic law and modern human rights. The core dilemma remains unresolved: was slavery in Islam a temporary accommodation to context, or a permanent feature of divine law? The booklet affirms the latter, but modern conscience demands the former.
No comments:
Post a Comment