Status of Mariyah
Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah is considered a slave because she has been described as such by the sahaba who were witnesses to the situation and by the tabieen who heard that from the sahaba and transmitted it further:
أهدى أمير القبط لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جاريتين أختين ... وأما إحدى الجاريتين: فتسراها، فولدت إبراهيم، وأما الأخرى فأعطاها حسان بن ثابت الأنصاري
Buraydah ibn al-Husayb said: The ruler of the Copts gifted two slave girls who were sisters to the Messenger of Allah ... He made a concubine of one of them and she gave birth to Ibrahim, as for the second one he gifted her to Hassaan bin Thabit
— Mu‘jam al-Awsat
كانت مارية أم إبراهيم أهداها المقوقس وأختها سيرين إلى النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- فاتخذ النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- أم إبراهيم ووهب سيرين لحسان بن ثابت
Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri said: Mariyah and her sister Sirin were gifted to the Prophet ﷺ by Muqawqis. So the Prophet ﷺ kept Mariyah for himself and gifted Sirin to Hassaan bin Thabit
— Tabaqaat al-Kubra
Also see Muslim 2771 , Nasai 3959 , Ibn Majah 2516 where she is described as a slave.
How could she be considered a slave if she was not obtained in war?
This question arises from an improper understanding of the law. The valid sources of obtaining slaves in Islam include:
- A Harbi disbeliever can be captured and enslaved.
- A child born to a slave woman through marriage is born a slave
- One who is recognized as a slave can be purchased, accepted as a gift or be inherited by another person. This includes when the original owner is a disbeliever - Dhimmi or Harbi.
Mariyah was obtained though the third method as she was a slave who was gifted to the Prophet ﷺ.
Her original enslavement by the Egyptians was valid because if she was captured by them then she was a Harbi at the time of capture; otherwise she was born a slave. Further, she could be enslaved the instant she came under the control of the Muslims and so this detail is of no practical consequence.
Obtained in war?
When one says 'obtained in war' then this is a simplification and what they mean is a Harbi disbeliever and they intend to convey that a Muslim, Dhimmi, Musta’min or Mu‘aahid can not be enslaved.
Being a Harbi means being in the 'state' of war with Islam and it does not mean that an actual battle must be carried out to legitimize the slavery. Every disbeliever is by default a Harbi unless they have a treaty with the Islamic state which grants them protection.
The property of a Harbi is lawful to take as spoils of war, even without battle. For example in the Quran there are verses about Fay which are spoils obtained without battle, such as when the enemy abandons or surrenders them or gives them as tribute:
وما أفاء الله على رسوله منهم فما أوجفتم عليه من خيل ولا ركاب ولكن الله يسلط رسله على من يشاء والله على كل شيء قدير
And what Allah restored [of property] to His Messenger from them - you did not spur for it [in an expedition] any horses or camels, but Allah gives His messengers power over whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.
— Quran 59:6
A Harbi himself can be enslaved by the Muslims if control is gained over him without fighting:
إذا أسر الرجل منهم في القتال أو غير القتال مثل أن تلقيه السفينة إلينا أو يضل الطريق أو يؤخذ بحيلة فإنه يفعل فيه الإمام الأصلح من قتله أو استعباده أو المن عليه أو مفاداته بمال أو نفس عند أكثر الفقهاء كما دل عليه الكتاب والسنة. وإن كان من الفقهاء من يرى المن عليه ومفاداته منسوخا
If a (Harbi Kafir) male is made prisoner in fighting or without fighting, such as if he is cast adrift from a ship, or loses his way (and ends up in Islamic territory), or is taken by some ruse then the Imam will deal with him according to what best suits the Muslim interests. The choices being between executing him, or enslaving him, or freeing him as a favor, or exchanging him for ransom or for life (prisoner exchange) according to most of the jurists as this is evident from the Quran and Sunnah. And some of the jurists held that freeing as a favor or exchange are abrogated.
— Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa
Slavery by a disbeliever?
A Harbi can be enslaved and be owned by another Harbi. The validity of the ownership of a Harbi over his slaves is established by the Quran where it says:
والله فضل بعضكم على بعض في الرزق فما الذين فضلوا برادي رزقهم على ما ملكت أيمانهم فهم فيه سواء أفبنعمة الله يجحدون
And Allah has favored some of you over others in provision. But those who were favored would not hand over their provision to those whom their right hands possess so they would be equal to them therein. Then is it the favor of Allah they reject?
— Quran 16:71
ضرب لكم مثلا من أنفسكم هل لكم من ما ملكت أيمانكم من شركاء في ما رزقناكم فأنتم فيه سواء تخافونهم كخيفتكم أنفسكم كذلك نفصل الآيات لقوم يعقلون
He presents to you an example from yourselves. Do you have among those whom your right hands possess any partners in what We have provided for you so that you are equal therein [and] would fear them as your fear of one another [within a partnership]? Thus do We detail the verses for a people who use reason.
— Quran 30:28
This is addressed to the polytheists and it proves that they owned slaves and the Quran recognizes this ownership. These verses are from before migration when fighting and jizya was not yet prescribed for the Muslims - hence these were Harbi disbelievers and the slaves they possessed were obtained by their own methods and not from the prisoners captured in a battle fought by the Muslims.
Further it is proven from the ahadith, such as:
-
كان عتبة بن أبي وقاص عهد إلى أخيه سعد بن أبي وقاص أن ابن وليدة زمعة مني، فاقبضه إليك. فلما كان عام الفتح أخذه سعد فقال ابن أخي، قد كان عهد إلى فيه. فقام عبد بن زمعة فقال أخي، وابن أمة أبي ... وقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم هو لك يا عبد ابن زمعة، الولد للفراش، وللعاهر الحجر ...
Utba bin Abi Waqqas entrusted to his brother Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas saying, "The son of the slave-girl of Zam'a is my (illegitmate) son, take him into your custody."
So during the year of the Conquest (of Mecca) Sa'd took the boy and said, "This is my brother's son whom my brother entrusted to me."
Abd bin Zam'a got up and said, "He is my brother and the son of the slave girl of my father and was born on my father's bed" ...
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "O Abd bin Zam'a! This boy is for you as the boy belongs to the owner of the bed (owner or husband of woman) and for the adulterer is the stone (i.e. deprivation)."
— Bukhari
The Prophet ﷺ gave custody over the boy to the son of Zam'a. This validated the ownership of Zam'a over the slave-girl and her status as his concubine. Zam'a was a Harbi disbeliever who lived in Makkah before its conquest - hence this hadith proves that a Harbi disbeliever can legitimately own a slave.
-
أن حكيم بن حزام، أخبره أنه، قال يا رسول الله، أرأيت أمورا كنت أتحنث ـ أو أتحنت بها ـ في الجاهلية من صلة وعتاقة وصدقة، هل لي فيها أجر قال حكيم ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أسلمت على ما سلف لك من خير
Hakim bin Hizam said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! I used to do good deeds in the Pre-Islamic period of Ignorance, e.g., keeping good relations with my Kith and kin, manumitting slaves and giving alms. Shall I receive a reward for all that?"
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, "You embraced Islam with all the good deeds which you did in the past."
— Bukhari
This proves that the manumission of a slave done by a Harbi disbeliever is valid. For manumission to be valid it is necessary that the ownership over the slave be valid in the first place.
Slavery was common in pre-Islamic Arabia and a number of sahaba would have owned slaves whom they would have inherited from their parents or purchased - before their acceptance of Islam. There is no report which says that they were required to free these slaves after converting to Islam.
Gift from a disbeliever
A Harbi disbeliever can legally transfer ownership of his property by sale or gift . And it is lawful for a Muslim to take ownership from him via purchase or by accepting the gift:
كنا مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم جاء رجل مشرك مشعان طويل بغنم يسوقها فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بيعا أم عطية أو قال أم هبة قال لا بل بيع فاشترى منه شاة
We were with the Prophet (ﷺ) when a tall pagan with long matted unkempt hair came driving his sheep. The Prophet (ﷺ) asked him, "Are those sheep for sale or for gifts?" The pagan replied, "They are for sale." The Prophet (ﷺ) bought one sheep from him.
— Bukhari
This also extends to transfer of ownership of his slaves to a Muslim. That is because a slave is like any other property and so this is like all other transactions between a Harbi and a Muslim.
As evidence see the hadith:
هاجر إبراهيم بسارة، فأعطوها آجر، فرجعت فقالت أشعرت أن الله كبت الكافر وأخدم وليدة
The Prophet Abraham migrated with Sarah. The (king of a town) gave her Ajar (Hajar). Sarah returned and said to Abraham, "Do you know that Allah has humiliated that pagan and he has given a slave-girl for my service?"
— Bukhari
Abraham and Sarah accepted and retained the gift of a slave girl given to a Muslim by a disbeliever king. If the transaction had been invalid they would not have done so.
Conclusion
Egypt at that time was part of the Dar al-Harb since it was ruled by the disbelievers who did not have any treaty with the Muslims. All its non-Muslim residents were Harbis. Hence its people could be legally enslaved - either by the Muslims or by non-Muslim. Their ruler could have could have captured and enslaved Mariyah (for whatever reason), or she could have been the descendant of his other slaves or she could have been purchased her from someone or she could have been inherited by him etc. After he owned her he could gift her to the Muslims.
