Slavery & Concubines in Islam: A Fact Check
One of the greatest misconceptions about Islam, is that it tolerates and permits keeping humans as slaves, and having sex with one’s female slaves i.e concubines.
In fact Islam was the first anti-slavery ideology, predating Western abolitionists by over 1000 years.
In this article we will fact-check common claims made about slavery and concubines in Islam.
Claim: Authentic Hadith, Established Books of Seerah and all classical scholars prove that slavery & concubines are allowed in Islam
Verdict: False.
The Qur’an is the most historically authentic document in Islam. It must stand as arbiter over all extra-quranic sources (25:1).
As we shall see true Islam as found in the Qur’an is strongly opposed to slavery and keeping concubines i.e sex slaves.
The Hadith literature consists of reports from a few narrators (ahaad). The Qur’an is mass transmitted (mutawatir) from one generation to the next.
Even if a hadith is classed as technically ‘authentic’ in chain, scholars such as Imam Abu Hanifa say it should be rejected if it contradicts the Qur’an. All ahadith are ‘dhanni’ (speculative) while the Quran is ‘Qati’ or definite.
Classical scholars of hadith such as Imam Dar Qutni and modern experts in hadith science such as Shaykh Nasir Al Albani have noted that there are WEAK narrations in both Bukhari and Muslim not to say anything of other, less celebrated collections. As such no hadith can be regarded as authentic if it contradicts the Quran.
Given the fact our hadith collections and books of Seerah are from between a century to two and half centuries after the Quran, historically this makes sense.
Indeed, it is illuminating to note that there were major disagreements about the reliability of narrators amongst scholars of hadith, illustrating the subjectivity of their methodology.
Critics of Islam often seek to strengthen their criticisms by relying on one or more Quranic commentaries or tafaseer.
This is an argument from questionable authority fallacy. Of course, some mufassirs have read things into the Qur’an based on secondary sources such as Ahadith and Seerah that are themselves questionable.
Just because it is mentioned in a commentary on the Quran, or the commentator is well-known does not mean it is unquestionable.
Our earlier scholars often disagreed about inumerable matters.
A reference to one or several tafseers does not settle an argument at all.
It is also objected by some that if Islam wanted to end slavery, why did it persist until modern times? Indeed, some Muslim countries were the last ones to end this practice in the 20th century.
The answer is that unfortunately, contrary to the instructions of the Quran, later rulers continued the practice of keeping slaves.
This was at the time when books of history and hadith were being collected. It was obvious, therefore, that spurious narrations providing justifications for these practices were going to creep in.
It is not that modern Muslims are condemning slavery now, because it is deemed unacceptable in the modern world.
It is rather that, Muslims in earlier times were unable to condemn slavery as the Qur’an had, because it was seen as acceptable in that cultural and political climate.
Claim: You are whitewashing slavery in Islam. You are trying to change Islam by making it more acceptable to people in the Modern West.
Verdict: FALSE
Allowing slavery and concubinage contradicts the Qur’an.
This is the reason certain scholars have opposed it including Imam Razi, Muhammad Asad and Maulana Umar Ahmad Usmani.
Even Western scholars- who have no reason to defend Islam – such as Professor Jonathan E. Brockupp, have also concluded concubinage is un-quranic:
Jonathan Brockopp commented that the Quran established new ethics by promoting marriage for slaves, it emphasized “sexual intercourse was to be entirely within marriage bonds.” To assert that males are entitled to female slaves’ sexuality contradicts the Quranic verses 4:3, 24, 23; 23:6; 70:30; and 24:32.4.
I should emphasize here that verse 4:3 means a man who marries a slave must first free her. It is logical then that the concept of umm al walad (literally “mother of the child” and legally a female slave who bears a child for her master) is neither found nor recognized even tangentially in the Qur’an.
Therefore, the interpretation of ma malakat aymanukum as concubines in most interpretations or exegeses of the Qur’an and as implemented in Islamic law does not reflect the language in the Quranic message.
A careful examination of all the occurrences of ma malekat aymanukum in the Qur’an clearly refers to “male and female slaves.”
The interpretation of ma malakat aymanukum as a license for taking slaves as concubines was accepted as a norm by the end of the ninth century. Quranic scholars of this period, such as af-Tabari and lbun al-Kathir, codified the deeply entrenched customs of their contemporary societies in their interpretations of the Qur’an…
El Hamel, ‘Black Morroco: A History of Slavery, Race & Islam’ pg. 25-26
I oppose these practices too, because they evidently breach Quranic ethics, not because they go against modern tastes. The Quran upholds the ‘golden rule’. It emphasises that we should not like for others what we dislike for ourselves, or treat others as we would not like to be treated.
For instance it says we should not give others things in charity that we ourselves would disdain (2:267).
It also counsels us to treat orphans as we would want others to treat our children after we die (4:8-9). Further it asks Muslims to forgive others as they expect God to forgive them (24:22).Finally it censures those who want full measure from others, but give them less than they are due themselves:
Woe to the defrauders. Who demand full measure when receiving from the people. But when giving them the measures or weights, they cheat.
Qur’an 83 :1- 4
The hadith also explicitly uphold the golden rule in words that echo the guidance given by Prophets, Saints and Sages from all religious traditions throughout time:
None of you has faith until he loves for the people what he loves for himself..
Musnad Ahmad 13463
The question now arises. Would any Muslim ancient or modern consider it fair if their wives, mothers, daughters and sisters would be captured by enemies and kept as concubines?
If the answer is no, then clearly it cannot be just or fair if Muslims do so either.
The injustice of concubinage and the humiliation it entails cannot be covered up by falsely equating it to a form of marriage.
It is instead a gross violation of human dignity and goes against the clear teachings of Allah and his Prophet (saw) which ask us to treat others as we would want to be treated.
Slavery and concubines have nothing to do with Islam.
Claim: The Qu’ran allowed slavery to continue. Arabs could buy and sell slaves with impunity. There is not a single verse abolishing slavery.
Verdict: FALSE
There is not a single verse of the Qur’an that mentions buying or selling human beings.
Given the supposedly widespread existence of this practice based on later sourcess, this is most curious.
Indeed the words ‘ma malaykut aymanakum’ – Those who you possess with your oaths/by your right hand, is in the PAST tense.
This indicates that any guidance about captives/slaves relates only to those already possessed not any others who might be enslaved in the future.
All the references in the Qur’an that encourage freeing slaves as a great act of goodness, clearly imply a disapproval of enslaving people. It is unthinkable that the Qur’an would place such emphasis on releasing people from bondage, yet allow human commerce to continue unabated.
The historical reports that paint a picture of widespread trade in humans during the Prophet’s time are almost certainly post-hoc fabrications intended to provide justification for the slavery widely practiced during the second and third centuries after the Prophet (peace upon him).
Claim: The Prophet (saw) and companions, took large numbers of men, women and children as slaves during warfare.
Verdict: FALSE
The Qur’an expressly ended the practice of keeping war captives as slaves. It is utterly unbelievable that the Prophet or companions would have acted contrary to this directive.
The following verse ended the SOURCE of slavery, by ordering that captives in war had to be released either for a bond or for FREE as soon as war ceased, keeping them as slaves was not an option:
…Then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its load…
Qur’an 47:4
The clear implication of the above is that once the existing slaves were freed, or passed away, the institution of slavery would have ceased to exist altogether.
The Qur’an then ordained extraordinary measures to release people from bondage, as we shall see.
Claim: Islam could have simply ordered all slaves to be free. The fact that it allowed bondage to continue, shows it approved of slavery.
Verdict: FALSE
Not only did the Qur’an end the practice of keeping captives beyond the end of war. It also systematically set about freeing the existing slaves, in particular:
It encouraged freeing slaves as the highest form of righteousness (2:177, 90:13) and made freeing slaves a form of penance for certain mistakes made by a person (5:90, 4,92).
It established a fund from Zakaat at State level to free slaves, the Qur’an says:
Alms are meant only for the poor, the needy, those who administer them, those whose hearts need winning over, to free slaves and help those in debt..
Qur’an 9:60
This clearly shows the extent to which the emancipation of slaves was dear to Allah and his Prophet (saw).
It aimed to eliminate the whole concept of human slavery, so abandoned the language that pepertuated the social attitudes supporting it.
The very word slave (‘abd) is not usually used in the Qur’an except in the sense of ‘Slave of God’. The term ‘Those your right hand possesses’ is a term of respect, as the right hand is associated with good deeds and can indicate a sense of responsibility to someone, as with an oath.
The Prophet is reported to have said:
Do not refer to anyone as ‘my slave,’ for all of you are the slaves of Allah. Rather, you should refer to him as ‘my young man.’ The servant should not refer to anyone as ‘my lord,’ but rather he should refer to him as ‘my master’
Bukhari 2414
The Prophet is reported to have ordered Muslims to feed their slaves with their own food, give them clothes like those they themselves wore, help them with their domestic work and declared ‘they are your brothers’ (Sahih Muslim 4094).
The Qur’an gave slaves the right to earn their freedom, and told their masters to give some of their own wealth to them!
“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 ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you”
Qur’an 24:33
Allama Muhammad Asad stresses that this request could not be refused by the owner:
“In view of the imperative form of the verb katibuhum (“write it out for them”), the deed of manumission cannot be refused by the owner, the only pre-condition being an evidence – to be established, if necessary, by an unbiassed arbiter or arbiters – of the slave’s good character and ability to fulfil his or her contractual obligations. The stipulation that such a deed of manumission may not be refused, and the establishment of precise juridical directives to this end, clearly indicates that Islamic Law has from its very beginning aimed at an abolition of slavery as a social institution, and that its prohibition in modern times constitutes no more than a final implementation of that aim“
The Message of the Qur’an
Now why did the Qur’an not order all slaves to be freed immediately?
Because this would have resulted in making them homeless, jobless and left with no option but to beg, steal or resort to prostituting thrmselves to survive.
Instead the Qur’an wanted to create an environment where freed slaves could support themselves and their families and live in total equality.
Claim: The Qur’an gives permission to men to have sex with their female slaves outside of marriage.
Verdict: FALSE
This view is propagated on the basis of some verses of the Qur’an that restrict sexual relations to one’s ‘spouses’ (azwaj) or ‘those your right hand possesses” (ma malaykut aymanakum) (23:1-6 & 7:29-30).
If this verse is taken to imply unrestricted permission, then this would apply to both men and women i.e. women would be able to keep male concubines! This is of course absurd and rejected by all commentators, ancient and modern.
Thus the word ‘ma malaykut aymanakum’ cannot suggest sex is allowed with any or every slave. Clearly it is referring to a particular category amongst them, with certain restrictions attached to this category.
The distinction could not just be gender, since the Quran could have simply specified this by using the words for female slaves, or maids used elsewhere on the Quran (imayikum and fatayatukum in 24:32-33, for example).
So what are the conditions that make sexual relationships with women captives permissible?
A closer look at the Qur’an reveals it is WEDLOCK which makes sex with a former captive (one possessed with the right hand) permissible. Any sexual relationship outside of marriage is condemned by the Qur’an.
Let us now look at the relevant verses.
If you fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.
Qur’an 4:3
This verse is all about marriage, not sexual relations. It clearly is commanding believers to marry either free women, or right hand possessions, and is not giving sanction for non-marital relationships.
The second relevant verse is also in Surah An-Nisa:
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.Thus has God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers as prescribed but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree mutually, there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise.
Qur’an 4:24
From verse 22 onwards in Surah Nisa, a list of women, one is prohibited from marrying is given.
Verse 24 clarifies that one cannot marry a woman who is not yet divorced, unless she is a captive ‘right hand possession’ whose marriage is annulled upon becoming Muslim.
The verse then goes on to make clear that those NOT prohibited for marriage, including those whom your right hand possesses, must be honourably married, not kept for lust and given their dowry.
The very next verse offers further evidence:
And as for those of you who, owing to circumstances, are not in a position to marry free believing women, [let them marry] believing maidens from among those whom you rightfully possess.
And God knows all about your faith; each one of you is an issue of the other.
Marry them, then, with their people’s leave, and give them their dowers in an equitable manner – they being women who give themselves in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions. And when they are married, and thereafter become guilty of immoral conduct, they shall be liable to half the penalty to which free married women are liable.
This [permission to marry slave-girls applies] to those of you who fear lest they stumble into evil. But it is for your own good to persevere in patience [and to abstain from such marriages]: and God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.
Quran 4:25
The Qur’an then addresses those who cannot afford to pay a large enough dower to marry a free woman.
They are allowed to honourably marry female maids from right hand possessions, however even in this case they must pay a dower.
Interestingly, the verse addresses the ‘owners’ of the handmaiden as her ‘family’ and gives the impression that the master is more like a parent, rather than a sexual partner.
Importantly, it stresses this is a concession given to stop a single person falling into sin.
Even in this case either marriage or being ‘patient’ (abstaining from sex altogether) is commanded, no option to have extra-marital sex with existing maids or buying new ones is given. From this it is absolutely apparent, that marriage is a necessity in all cases. Muhammad Asad observes that the verse rules out sex with slave women outside of marriage:
…and not taking unto themselves secret love-companions”. This passage lays down in an unequivocal manner that sexual relations with female slaves are permitted only on the basis of marriage, and that in this respect there is no difference between them and free women; consequently, concubinage is ruled out.
Message of the Qur’an commentary on verse 4:25
Now, we turn to Surah 24 in the Qur’an:
And marry those among you who are single and those who are righteous among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, God will make them free from want out of His grace.
Qu’ran 24:32
This verse once again emphasises marriage to slaves, rather than seeking them out at the marketplace. The subject continues into the next verse:
Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing, give them such a deed if you know any good in them and give them from the wealth of God which He has given you. But force not your slave girls to whoredom when they desire marriage, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)”.
Qur’an 24:33
This verse, absolutely condemns concubinage. It firstly commands those unable to marry must keep chaste.
Having sex with ones slaves outside of wedlock is not an option.
It then commands that slaves are given a deed of emancipation if they want one.
Then, it says you cannot force your your slave girls to bigha or prostitution when they desire ‘tahussun’ or chastity through marriage:
“if they desire protection against unchastity (tahassun)”, i.e., through marriage (cf. the expression muhsanat as used in 4:24 ). Most of the classical commentators are of the opinion that the term fatayat (“maidens”) denotes here “slave girls”: an assumption which is fully warranted by the context. Hence, the above verse reiterates the prohibition of concubinage by explicitly describing it as “whoredom” (bigha’).
Muhammad Asad, commentary on verse 24:33
This means all sexual relationships outside marriage are regarded as ‘prostitution’ by default. Concubinage is thus so regarded by the Quran.
Some claim that the verse only prohibits forcing slave girls to prostitution. However they ignore that the only alternative given to prostitution is ‘honourable marriage’. Moreover, it makes no sense that a slave girl has the right to refuse sex with people who pay the master for her, but cannot refuse sex with the master who has paid others to purchase her!
Indeed, there is little difference between buying a slave girl to have sex with her, and hiring one for a short time. Both are absolutely forbidden.
In view of the above Quranic evidence, it is clear that there are two categories of lawfully wedded wives in Islam. Wives from free women, and wives from the captives whom one rightfully possesses.
The distinction is not that the second category can be kept without marriage.
Rather these women, have less answerability in case of infidelity and also have their previous marriages voided without divorce.
There are two types of marriage in Islam, but definitely no concubinage.
Joseph A. Islam has written a detailed article on this issue, that is required reading. His conclusion is as follows:
Women who are from the category of ‘right hands possess’ are not ‘free’ women in the same sense. They are either slaves or captures. When one takes them in marriage, all the rules of responsibility of wedlock on part of the male applies to the one he marries. However, this spouse still has reduced answerability such as her punishment in the case of ‘Fahisha’ (lewdness).
There remains a crucial difference between a marriage based on complete freedom of choice exacted by a ‘free believer’ without circumstantial influence and one based on compromises, incentives such as freedom, status and financial stability gained through a compromise marriage. These differences in choices based on free and non-free parties are clearly recognized. Hence the noted difference in answerability as well.
‘Slave girls’
He correctly translates the verse mistakenly taken to allow sex with slaves outside of wedlock, as follows:
Qur’an 7:29-30
And those who guard their chastity…except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess (in wedlock), for (then) they are not to be blamed”
Claim: The Prophet kept Maria Al Qibtiyya (sa) as a concubine.
Verdict: FALSE
Not only are these reports against the Qur’an and thus not acceptable, they are contradicted by other narrations that expressly state that the Prophet (saw) married his Coptic wife.
It is reported from ‘Abdullah al-Zubairi who said: that after this the Noble Prophet married (tazawwaju) Mariah daughter of Sham’un. This is the same Mariyah who was sent by Maqauqis, the ruler of Alexandria to the Prophet as a gift”
Sahih al-Mustadarak Hakim [Published Hyderabad, Deccan], volume 4, page 36
Imam Tabari and Ibn kathir also concur with this and there are a host of other relevant references (including from Sahih Muslim) here.
It is also noteworthy that since Maria was not a prisoner of war, there was no justification for keeping her as ‘concubine’ even according to the rules of traditional scholars.
The Prophet (saw) is known to have freed and married captive women such as Saffiyah, and Juwaiyra. He did not even keep these honourable women as concubines, let alone have taken a non-captive woman as a concubine.
There are serious discrepancies in biographical sources regarding the Prophets marriages, and caution is wise in drawing any firm conclusions on the basis of such questionable evidence.