by drjamorrowNovember 18, 20241:46 pm

A Critical Discussion on Slavery and Islam on Skepislamica

On Tuesday, November 12, 2024, Dr. John Andrew Morrow had the privilege of being interviewed on the Sképsislamica Podcast on the topic of Islam and Slavery. Watch, listen, learn, think, and reflect:

1Comment

Add yours

1
hajara fathimaa on December 2, 2024 at 7:50 pm
Reply
Salam, Recently I watched your interview. I agree with you on some important aspects. I like to share the following content to you which I have shared to a prominent scholar earlier.

Salam,

Due to a hectic schedule, I was unable to reply earlier. Regarding consent, Dr. Kecia Ali published an excellent article, which I believe you may have come across. Consent was not an issue for classical jurists and jurisprudence. However, there are a few manuals that touch upon it, though these discussions were minimalistic and based on moral perspectives. Dr. Brown also cited some jurists’ and theologians’ views in his book regarding staying away from women if they are not interested. The Prophet also exemplified this when a woman named Malika al-Laythiyya was not interested. However, many problems have not been addressed by numerous Muslims. Most of us rely on apologetic arguments without highlighting the real abuses. Recently, I came across a book titled Right Hand Possessed by Dr. Bernard K. Freamon (an African American Muslim). I believe he is a law professor who has studied and written extensively about slavery and human trafficking. In his book, he discusses the abuses and misuses of slavery.

I will try to summarize the concerns as follows:
1. Muslims took concubinage to extremes when it was in decline in the Near East due to Christianity’s influence. While we cannot use modern standards to judge the past, we can say that Muslims reversed the trend and expanded it to an extreme. Dr. JB also highlighted this in his book. Medieval Jews and Christians also considered this extent outrageous.
2. Millions were enslaved in the Trans-Saharan trade, with around 20-30% likely died during transportation due to the harsh conditions. These are not just numbers; they represent human lives.
3. “Pretexted Jihad” to raid and snatch people. Enslaving legitimate POWs in war was one thing, and before the UN and Geneva conventions, everyone engaged in this. However, innocents were raided and snatched from West Africa, the Sahel, the Persian Gulf, East Africa, and even the shores of Europe, as far as Iceland. This is what we would now call “human trafficking” and “sex trafficking.” We often hear about Omar Bin Saeed (a famous African American) was kidnapped, but many others suffered the same fate at the hands of Arab/Berber and Muslim slave raiders and traders (local African tribes assisted). Enslaving combatants and their associates is one thing, but slave raiders also enslaved many common people. Ahmad Bay of Tunisia, when ending slavery, stated that the requirements of Shariah were violated. The same can be said regarding many episodes of Islamic slavery.
4. Reading the descriptions of slave raids and how slave markets functioned is enough to understand the banality of this institution. Consider how women and girls were purchased and inspected at slave markets. Whenever the issue of modesty is discussed, look into this issue—it’s deeply hypocritical. 8,000 eunuchs participated in Saladin’s army, mostly black men. Traders bypassed the prohibition on castration by using other religious groups in Ethiopia and Upper Egypt. I need not explain how women were purchased from slave markets, as it would be graphic. Despite witnessing such abuses, our tradition didn’t produce figures like Frederick Douglass, Benjamin Lay, Gregory, Jerit Smith, or William Garrison. Most of the ulema circle opposed banning the practice, though Tunisia could be an exception.
5. Recently, Dr. Brown wrote an article in Yaqeen on slavery (very recently) and posted a paper about Western views on Muslim slavery (all positive views). He limited the horrors of the Muslim slave trade to the 19th century. However, he ignored grave abuses had happened earlier also, including the slavery in the courts of Moroccan kings in the 17th century, slaves tending fields in Iraq in the 7th century, Zanj rebellion due to grave mistreatment and slaves on plantations in Zanzibar in the 19th century, raids and abuses to kidnap innocents, descriptions of slave markets etc. A simple search of eyewitness accounts by David Livingstone, Richard Burton, Rene Caillie, Henry Savigny, Morton Stanley, Gerhard Rohlfs, Gustav Nachitgal, and G.F. Lyon reveals negative and horrific accounts. These accounts might contain exaggerations, but similar exaggerations can be found in the writings of Bartolomé de las Casas regarding the suffering of native Indians. While some/ many slaves in the Muslim world were treated humanely, we should not ignore the negative side, as some Muslims do when defending this institution. Even in Transatlantic slavery, not every slave faced the same hardships. Malcolm X often spoke of the “house” and “field” slaves to differentiate their experiences. Omar Bin Saeed even praised his second slave owner but criticized his first.
6. Dr. Brown tried to portray slavery in the Muslim world as non-racial. From the very beginning, Caliph Umar issued an order that Arabs could not be enslaved, and there were debates among scholars about whether Arabs could be enslaved. How, then, can one explain the conditions in Morocco and Mauritania, where most slaves had black origins? Isn’t this a form of racial hierarchy? Simply saying that “Blackness means different things at different times and places” does not answer everything. While this may be true, reducing everything to this explanation is not enough. Racial hierarchy persists in the Arab world and other parts today, just as it did in the past.
7. Industrial-scale human suffering did not occur during the Prophet’s era. The abuses that followed after his time cannot be equated with the events during his leadership. The Quran emphasized freeing slaves, and the Prophet freed all his slaves before his death, improving their conditions. His aim was to incorporate them into society. However, Abdul Sheriff, a famous Tanzanian scholar, argues that by around 800 CE, there was a noticeable shift from the more humanistic sentiments in the Quran to a more commercial and immoral trend, with black slaves being ranked alongside animals. A Kurdish scholar, Abdul Karim Mudarris, said, “I firmly believe had the Prophet lived for 10 more years, there would have been little to no slavery.”
8. Reducing everything to customary practices is not a fair approach. This logic could justify practices like sati, female infanticide, headhunting, human sacrifice etc as there is no end for this.
During the time of our Prophet there was around some 50-60 tribes in Arabia fighting, feuding and raiding against each other for revenge or trying to grab material benefits, though those could have been goods, animals and not necessarily humans (though it included slaves also). But those raids were not deliberately done to snatch people like the raids which happened later. Arabia was not a state or kingdom but a tribal setting. The default mode was “not peace.” The Prophet aimed to unite these warring tribes and end the fighting. He used force to unite them under the banner of Islam, creating a brotherhood and changing the status quo. In such a context of war and violence, the Quran accepted and reciprocated certain customs, such as slavery and concubinage. The master was required to feed and clothe the women in his care, treating them like extended family members. Abolishing slavery completely was not feasible for that time and place, and of course, there is the possibility of an intimate relationship developing between master and slave, under the master’s will. The Prophet’s goal was to ensure the safety of Muslims and allow Islam to flourish in the Arabian Peninsula. Slavery in this setting is not comparable to the industrial-scale suffering that took place in later periods, such as the Trans-Saharan, East Coast, and Barbary slave trades. At the end of his life, the Prophet freed all his slaves. According to Islam, slaves should be treated like extended family members. The complete abolition of slavery, however, was not feasible for that time. But does that mean it should continue forever? Here comes the concept of evolving ethical and moral values. Laws must adjust to the best interests of society. In this case, I believe traditional Muslim scholars were hesitant to make meaningful reforms. The Quranic aim regarding slavery was a temporal socio-economic adjustment, but the objective was, “And what will make you know the path that is steep? Freeing a neck.”

My understanding is that in a tribal setting, things are very interconnected. If men went to war, their tribal women would accompany them. Women and dependents accompanying an army usually stayed at a camp at a reasonably safe distance from the front line, but if the male fighters lost, their camp could be overrun and its occupants’ taken captive. If it was a pitched battle, the loser’s tribal women and children would be enslaved due to the very interconnected nature, as women were also closely connected to the warfare. This need not have been the case universally, as most of the slaves captured in later Islamic periods were dragged from their homes, fields, etc.

However, in the later period, the vast majority of captives had been taken from the population of the losing army, as their lands were overrun by the conquering army. The vast majority of people had been taken from their homes and fields. Famous scholar Abdul Sheriff argues that around 800 CE, there was a noticeable shift from the more humanistic sentiments in the Quran to a more immoral commercial trend. Until the establishment of the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war could be enslaved, and it was not considered morally wrong. But in the later period as said before most of the slaves were simply common people snatched from their homes and fields. I won’t say that slavery was wrong for all times and places, because that would be an absurd conclusion. As I said before, history shouldn’t be judged by our modern sensibilities and values. In the old system of society and economy, slavery was something indispensable, and in many cases, the alternative to slavery was hunger. I think the correct stance would be that while slavery may not have been inherently morally wrong in all places and times, Muslims have often practiced it in egregious ways throughout history. This institution has been used to inflict grave abuses on fellow human beings. It should have been reformed, restricted or even abolished long before external pressures forced that action, as this institution created huge humanitarian suffering. When the abolitionists came (some with 40 acres and a mule), the Southern owners said, “We care more about our slaves, as they are our property, but you don’t care about them, as you only pay them wages.” The arguments made by some Muslims who spoke against abolition were also similar to this. Many slaves were freed in Islamic history but replenished with equal or more at the same time.

The fact is that slavery and serfdom were withering away in Western Europe since the 13th century. Only some sections, such as Scottish miners, were considered slaves, but this form of slavery was in decline, though not abolished. Brown didn’t mention this properly. Everybody knew that Tsarist Russia was a nation where serfs were tied to the land, but Russian serfdom, it turned out, wasn’t an ancient institution dating back to the depths of medieval history. Instead, it was introduced in the 16th and 17th centuries. Hence, the rise of serfdom as Russia expanded eastward and the rise of slavery as Europe colonized the New World. It was the human greed and racism of Westerners that took slavery to an industrial scale of suffering. It was this greed that even reversed the positive trend.

After the Black Plague, labor scarcity arrived, but still, slavery didn’t return to Britain, even though land was plentiful and the availability of labor was scarce. In history, there are some good examples of the restriction of the slave trade, such as the Council of London (which restricted it on religious grounds) and the Republic of Ragusa (which banned slavery). However, when it came to ‘others,’ everything changed, and the understanding of slavery as a necessary evil shifted to being seen as a rightful practice, as Europeans used non-European slaves for their colonies and practiced the worst form of chattel slavery. Some historians, like Tom Holland (who wrote a controversial revisionist book about the origin of Islam), argue that the delay in the rise of abolitionist thought in the Christian tradition was due to the industrial-scale suffering had not been witnessed previously (the validity of the quote is open for discussion). This is not to deny the role of industrialization, which played a major part in ending this practice. However, in my understanding, the Islamic tradition should have done more rather than simply relying on the argument about the role of industrialization. One can love oneself by having a good dose of self-criticism, but I don’t think this is found when many Muslims talk about slavery.

God knows the best.