1

I know that Muhammad encouraged the freeing of slaves throughout his lifetime, but I'm wondering why it wasn't eventually made forbidden to own slaves, like for example how alcohol was made forbidden?

John Doe
  • 303
  • 4
  • 14

1 Answers1

-1

Islam banned all forms of slavery except within the context of war where slavery serves as an alternative to a captive being killed when the ruler deems the individual unfit to be released or ransomed. It's a way to save the captive's life (the end goal still being the freeing of slaves). Outside of war, slavery is forbidden. Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said in hadith that on the Day of Judgement, he will be against "one who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price" ~ Bukhari 2227.

Slavery serving this purpose within war is the reason there is no total Qur'anic ban on slavery whereas, in contrast, there being no usefulness and mostly harms associated with alcohol is the reason there is a direct Qur'anic ban on alcohol.

Muslimah
  • 4,327
  • 2
  • 12
  • 25
  • "There being no usefulness...associated with alcohol" The Qur'an explicitly states there's still benefit to wine and gambling, yet that is still forbidden where slavery is not. Your post really doesn't get to the heart of why there's an apparent double standard here, which I believe is what the questioner is ultimately looking for. – goldPseudo May 23 '19 at 20:52
  • The Quran also explicitly states in the same verse that you are referring to that the harms far exceed the benefit. I've sufficiently pointed out that slavery serves a greater societal benefit whereas alcohol serves a greater societal harm. – Muslimah May 24 '19 at 00:29
  • ^ You said the reason for it not being banned in the Quran is because there are cases in which slavery is beneficial, but I still wonder why the Quran doesn't stipulate these conditions and explain under what circumstances slavery is permissible . It is only the hadith which you mentioned that says something about it. Also, regarding that hadith Bukhari 2227, it seems it is merely referring to selling a free person as a slave, but what about selling a person who already IS a slave? Also, what does "eats the price" mean? – John Doe May 24 '19 at 04:22
  • Also, that hadith seems to cover all contexts, including wartime in the disapproval of selling free men/women into slavery. – John Doe May 24 '19 at 04:36
  • Also I forgot to include as part of my questions 2 posts ago ^^: What happens if someone simply wants to keep a slave they already own? ( neither buying nor selling occurs in this case). – John Doe May 24 '19 at 04:38
  • Qur’an establishes this fact just as clearly as hadith do. Qur’an only mentions captives in the context of war (e..g, 8:67, 47:4) and never mentions captives in any other context which is proof in an of itself that war is the prerequisite and only source. Additionally, the Messenger was sent to explain the Qur’an so if Allah says X is halal then leaves it to His Messenger to explain the conditions then we’re required to learn it from the Messenger; who are we to question why God chose the information to come to us in this way? The rest of your questions are best asked in a separate post. – Muslimah May 25 '19 at 15:37
  • "and never mentions captives in any other context which is proof in an of itself that war is the prerequisite and only source" - But just because there's no mention of captives outside of the context of war, that doesn't lead us to the conclusion that all other forms of slavery outside that context are prohibited, they simply aren't discussed, and so slavery seems to be still allowed outside this context. – John Doe May 28 '19 at 22:03
  • Allah said "produce your proof" so you cannot say it is allowed in other contexts unless you provide direct evidence either from the Qur'an and Sunnah, which you have not as of yet. You're only speculating right now. With the direct statement of the Prophet saying it's banned for "free people" i.e., non-captives, we see it's not allowed in any other context. – Muslimah May 29 '19 at 01:05
  • I don't think what I said was speculation at all. I was merely reasoning through it. If the prophet says he doesn't like for free people to be sold then that applies to free people only. This doesn't automatically extend to other cases of slavery such as the ones I mentioned previously ( the keeping of a slave, or the buying / selling of a slave). Therefore it would seem slavery is permitted in these cases since it hasn't been prohibited by the prophet. – John Doe May 29 '19 at 03:22
  • If the prophet had said something along the lines of " slavery is only permissible in the context of war, and nowhere else", then that would evidence backing up what you're saying. – John Doe May 29 '19 at 03:27
  • Also if the prophet had said something along the lines of " every person who owns a slave must release their slaves permanently" and " no one can buy slave from anyone else" that would also be evidence supporting the claim that slavery was prohibited in all other contexts as you were suggesting. – John Doe May 29 '19 at 03:50
  • I'm referring to war as the source of slavery, not that slaves aren't kept in different environments such as people's homes, etc. It's allowed to keep slaves, buy or sell them. But is it allowed to kidnap people and make them slaves when there's no war? No, as per the Prophet. I will leave the discussion at this; it's the established view and there's no evidence otherwise. – Muslimah May 29 '19 at 16:39
  • But see when referring to slavery, it's not exclusive to turning free people into slaves. Slavery includes things such as keeping , and trading slaves so when I ask the question of why Islam didn't prohibit slavery, the answer cannot be that Islam prohibits it outside of the context of war if clearly the most it does is say that you cannot sell free people into slavery. So in a way your answer "straw man" 's the question. – John Doe May 29 '19 at 16:49