Take the 2-minute tour ×
Islam Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Muslims, experts in Islam, and those interested in learning more about Islam. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Looking at the abolition of slavery time line, Islamic countries such as Oman, UAE, Yemen and Saudi Arabia kept slavery legal up until the 1960s, despite non-Islamic countries taking a lead role a thousand years earlier.

Since Mecca is contained within the state of Saudi Arabia, it follows that Islam should have its greatest influence within this region, yet slavery was still legal there upto 1962. Maybe Islam allows slavery under certain conditions, such as Muslims enslaving non-Mulsims?

Why didn't Shariah law take a lead role in the abolishment of slavery?

share|improve this question
2  
I'm closing this as off-topic; as phrased ("Why did Saudi Arabia...") it's more about politics/history than about Islam the religion, and would probably be a better fit on history.SE. –  goldPseudo Dec 31 '12 at 16:31
    
Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam and is certainly relevant here. –  Larry Harson Dec 31 '12 at 19:52
3  
@LarryHarson The decision-makers of the kind of question you are asking are a peculiar instance of a monarchy. They are not exactly "Islamic." The reasons for their decision are more political and contemporary than Islamic, which is why this question is off-topic. You cannot ask Islam or Muslims in general about why the Saudi monarchy did or didn't do something. –  Ansari Dec 31 '12 at 19:55
    
I think this question should be reopened after my edit. –  Larry Harson Dec 31 '12 at 20:27
    
@LarryHarson - Saudi Arabia (the country) currently contains the area where Islam was birthed. That's the only real connection. The government of Saudi Arabia (past or present) has no official capacity in Islam, nor does any government really. –  System Down Dec 31 '12 at 22:23
show 2 more comments

2 Answers 2

First, we have to separate Islam from the implementation of Islam. The second one is subject to the whims of governments that historically have had different aims and priorities.

Now, to say that Islamic law plays no part in abolishing slavery is not accurate. There is a form of penalty in Shariah law called عتق رقبة Atq Raqaba, in which the penalty is to free a slave (yours or someone else's). Also, freeing of slaves has been described many times as an act that is very pleasing to Allah with many rewards in the hereafter.

The question becomes, obviously, why didn't Islam outright ban slavery? The answer is that Islam is tightly knit to society, and recognizes that societal change is a slow thing. Slavery was very much a cornerstone of society at the time, and completely banning it would've been unenforceable and would only result in a law that no one followed. Instead, Islam created a pathway to the eventual abolishment of slavery by making the act of freeing slaves a highly respected one that increased one's status in Allah's eyes.

A close analogue to this is the ban of alcohol. Alcohol too was a cornerstone of society. Many of the Prophet's companions were known to consume alcohol regularly. So the Prophet did not ban it outright. At first, the act of being sober was made a requirement for prayer. Then the act of making alcohol and profiting from it was banned. And only after those previous changes had taken effect did the complete ban on alcohol make sense.

But unlike alcohol, slavery was far too entrenched to go away during the Prophet's lifetime. Thus, it became the duty of the following generations to do so.

share|improve this answer
    
I don't understand your reasoning, given that Islam succeeded in banning alcohol outright from the start. –  Larry Harson Jan 1 '13 at 1:30
    
According to your good reasoning, 1400 years or so was not enough time to abolish slavery by the people but once non Muslim did away with Slavery, the last 100 years were so was good enough time to abolish slavery? This answer surely also means if for some reason, all non Islamic states perishes, Slavery will again be imposed in Islamic states. Am I wrong here? –  muslim1 Jan 1 '13 at 14:25
    
Great answer, just needs sources (if any) –  Dynamic Jan 1 '13 at 16:31
    
@LarryHarson - See the last paragraph –  System Down Jan 1 '13 at 17:05
    
@Thecrocodilehunter - No. It only means that the prophet's lifetime wasn't enough to enact the change. After that it became the responsibility of the next generations, who IMO failed to follow through in that regard. –  System Down Jan 1 '13 at 17:07
show 4 more comments

The OP's question is based on some implicit assumptions which need to be addressed - that of treatment of slaves (which is separate from the institution of slavery as usually understood today).

Had the slaves not been mistreated in non-Islamic countries, it is unlikely they would have revolted/demanded their rights or that anyone would have exerted enough pressure on the governments of these countries to force them to finally abolish slavery in the first place.

The OP's question assumes that the slavery in Islam is the same as that practiced by Godless colonizers or corporations or individuals who - when they take slaves - be they sex slaves, or debt slaves or slaves of personal assistance and physical labor - treat them as sub-human. The only slavery existent in Islam (which sets policies to end that as well) is that of labor and assistance. The other forms of slavery which are rampant today throughout the world including the developed world, are prohibited. As for physical/personal assistance, unlike the generally understood concept of slavery the questioner may be used to, masters in Islam are not "superior" to slaves anyway, neither are they ever allowed to mistreat their slaves.

'Your slaves are your brothers upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if one has one's brethren under one's control, one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe them with the like of what one wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job).' (Bukhari)

Further, the respect of a slave is such that the Prophet (S) prohibited the master from even calling to the slave using the word "slave". In another Hadith, "Whoever beats the slave or Servant unjustly, revenge will be taken from him on the Day of Judgment." We are commanded to consider them as are equals, and regardless of whether we are slaves or masters, Muslims are constantly reminded that we are all slaves on earth to our One King, God. "Be slaves of God, brothers", said the Prophet (S).

Slaves in Islam have legal rights as well - with plenty of leniency. If slaves commit crimes, their punishments are half of those of a criminal who was a free person. When asked how much the mistakes of slaves should be forgiven, the Prophet (S) said "seventy times" - meaning that even when mistaken, slaves should be treated with kindness. With the respect that masters are demanded to give their slaves in Islam, slaves are also required to respect and serve their masters back. And why not? When they are fed, sheltered, clothed, respected, often educated and treated as one of their own by their masters? In a Hadith, "When a slave or servant is faithful to his master and also worships his Creator, he is deserving of a double reward (in the hereafter)."

So before questioning the idea of abolishing slavery in Islam, one should first recognize that the only slave-master relationship allowed in Islam is that of respect, loyalty, love and protection, and even cooperation in the work, if it is hard work. The slave-master relationship is absolutely not the one that today's non-Islamic countries conceive it to be, based on their own historical realities.

With the Islamic treatment of slaves, it is unlikely that slaves would revolt against their masters or that others would rise up on their behalf in the first place, in the kind of uprisings seen in non-Islamic countries. Why would such a thing happen if slaves were not being abused in the first place?

Despite demanding this respect for those under one's service, Islam still sets policies towards a slavery-free world. The act of setting slaves free is important enough in Islam for there to be more to it than simply "abolishing slavery".

'A bedouin came and said, 'Prophet of God! Teach me an action which will enable me to enter the Garden.' He said, "The question is a broad one, even though you have asked it in only a few words. Free someone. Set a slave free.' He said, 'Are they not the same thing?' 'No,' he replied, 'Freeing someone is setting someone free yourself. Setting a slave free is to contribute to the price of setting him free...' (Bukhari)

The Quran and Hadith give several ways that Muslims should "free slaves".

  • Freeing a slave is one of the highest virtues in Islam, mentioned over and over again as simply a beautiful that should be done for the sake of itself, for God.
  • Freeing slaves (as someone mentioned above) has also been set as the penalty to be paid for certain sins in Islam (such as breaking oaths, or making up to your wife after certain marital problems, etc.)
  • Slaves (especially slave girls) are encouraged to be married out of slavery.
  • Slaves have the right to ransom themselves out of slavery.
  • Freeing a slave in Islam is not as simple as heartlessly placing a "ban on slavery", because in a world where slaves are skilled in a specific labor - then banning slavery doesn't do much for them. Having spent years in someone's service, most have nowhere else to go and nothing else to do anyway. Hence freeing a slave in Islam means giving them a new life, and then freeing them to it. That would include providing them with education, vocational training, wealth, marriage, and more.

Since Islam is a universal religion which must be practical in all times and all ages, it does not make statements which are unreasonable in certain communities or for some people. For example, as it was in Arabia at the time that the Quran was revealed, with so much of the agriculture and livelihood being based on the work of slaves, abolishing it could likely bring the economy to a grinding halt - and what of food and sustenance for everyone else? Hence rather than proclaiming it outlawed in one step, the approach taken was more practical and humane. For another example, if certain individuals are unable to take care of themselves or for any other reason really need permanent assistance, it would be unfair or impractical for them to be considered sinners because they took slaves, despite their good treatment of them.

In addition to this answer, I recommend you to view the slavery related issue being discussed at 22:35 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-uHDxm1oHE

Again, do keep in mind that countries such as Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia etc are hardly "Islamic" countries. The majority population in these countries happen to be Muslim, but the laws that are practiced are not all Islamic, they are cherry-picked to suit the rulers' convenience.

share|improve this answer
    
By the way - all the conditions of respect and kindness to slaves under which Islam allows slavery - all of them are irrespective of whether the slaves are Muslims or non-Muslims. Slaves can be either Muslims or non-Muslims. –  user961627 Mar 31 at 12:08
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.