Part 3: Muslim Excuses/Deceptions regarding Islamic Slavery 🔥ʰᵒᵗ

Table of Contents:

• Muslim Claim: It was only the achievement of Islam to give freedom to the “Umm Walad” (i.e. slave woman who gives birth to the owner’s child)
  • • Muslim Claim: It was only the achievement of Islam that it encouraged to set the slaves free
    • Muslim Claim: It was only the achievement of Islam to Introduce the Mukataba (مكاتبة) i.e. “Contract of Manumission”
    • Muslim Claim: Islam “gradually” ended slavery
    • Muslim Claim: Islam ended “Slavery by Birth”
    • Muslim Claim: Islam ended all other sources of slavery, except for wars
    • Muslim Claim: Islam didn’t allow to make Eunuchs out of slaves
    • Muslim Claim: Quran orders to set the captives free either as Ihsaan (i.e. favour) or after taking ransom money
    • Muslim Claim: The captives of Banu al-Mustaliq and the Tribe of Hawazin were set free as "Favour احسان"
    • How prisoners of the tribe of Hawazin became free:
    • A challenge to Islam apologists: Why were the prisoners (women) of Banu Qurayzah or Khaybar not set free as "Favour"?
    • Muslim Claim: Raping the captive women was not a crime, as other Nations also did the same
    • Muslim Claim: The owner has to set the slave free if he slaps him
    • Muslim Claim: A Muslim owner cannot have sex with a polytheist slave woman
    • Muslim Claim: Islam provided “human rights” to the slaves
  • Message:

Muslim Claim: It was only the achievement of Islam to give freedom to the “Umm Walad” (i.e. slave woman who gives birth to the owner’s child)

Another deception of Muslims is that they claim that it was only the achievement of Islam that after the death of the owner, such a slave woman was given freedom who had given birth to the owner’s child (known as Umm Walad in Islam). Please note:

Firstly:

It is totally false to claim that it was only the achievement of Islam. This practice was part of many cultures which existed before Islam, and they practised it much better than Islam.

Secondly:

It is a false claim by Muslims that Islamic Sharia ordered to set the Umm Walad free. Allah and Muhammad never ordered it in Quran or Hadith, but:

1. During the era of Muhammad, such slave-mother didn’t get freedom.

2. The owner was fully allowed to separate her from her child, and sell her to another owner.

3. And the owner was also allowed to marry the slave mother of his child to any other person or one of his slaves even against her consent.

4. And after the death of the owner, she was inherited by all the children of the owner, and she was sold and the money was distributed among all the children of the owner.

Thirdly:

Later 2^nd Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab came into contact with other civilized cultures of his time and was able to see that other cultures showed more respect to such slave-mother. Therefore:

1. Umar Ibn Khattab was the first one who introduced this innovation (Bid’ah) in Sharia and ordered that Umm Walad should not be sold, but she will remain a slave during the owner’s life, and the owner was even allowed to give her into marriage to other people or to one of his slaves (even against her consent).

2. But after the death of the owner, she will get her freedom, and will not be inherited by all of the owner’s children.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3954:

عن جابر بن عبد الله قال بعنا أمهات الأولاد على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأبي بكر فلما كان عمر نهانا فانتهينا

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
We sold slave-mothers during the time of the Messenger of Allah and of AbuBakr. When Umar was in power, he forbade us and we stopped.

Grade: Sahih (Al-Albani)

This same tradition has also been recorded in Sunan Ibn Majah through another authentic (Sahih) chain of narration.

Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 2517: 

جَابِرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، يَقُولُ كُنَّا نَبِيعُ سَرَارِينَا وَأُمَّهَاتِ أَوْلاَدِنَا وَالنَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِينَا حَىٌّ لاَ نَرَى بِذَلِكَ بَأْسًا ‏.‏
Jabir bin `Abdullah siad: “We used to sell our slave women and the mothers of our children when the Prophet was still living among us, and we did not see anything wrong with that.”
Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)

And although Umar Ibn Khattab gave freedom to Umm Walad after the death of the owner, still the owner was allowed to marry her to any person (even without her consent) (Reference: Fatwa Alamgiri, vol. 6, page 162)

Fourthly:

Islam allowed the master to even refuse the parentage of his own child through his concubine. In this way, no concubine could ever get the status of Umm Walad.

It is even terrible to imagine if any father could ever negate the parentage of his own son/daughter, make him/her his own slave and then sell him/her in the slave market. But this was Islam, which allowed this practice while Muhammad copied the laws of the uncivilised Arab society of his time, instead of the laws of Moses.

Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 2746:

وَلَا يَلْحَقُ إِذَا کَانَ أَبُوهُ الَّذِي يُدْعَی لَهُ أَنْکَرَهُ
… a child from a slave woman cannot be named after his father if the man whom he claimed as his father did not acknowledge him.
Imam Albani declared this Hadith as Fair (Hasan). Link.
This same tradition has also been narrated by Amr bin Shoaib in Sunnan Abdu Dawud, and has again been graded as Hasan (link).

Fifthly:

We have already seen that Bible (Deuteronomy, Chap 21 (link)) stipulated if Jews/Christians want to marry any of their slave women, then she automatically became like a permanent wife and could not be sold any further. Thus, this problem of Umm Walad absolutely didn’t exist among the Jews and Christians.

Muhammad again left the Laws of Moses and followed the laws of the uncivilized Arab culture regarding Umm Walad.

Similarly, when the Buddhist States abolished the system of slavery through serfdom, then again, this problem of Umm Walad automatically disappeared completely.

After comparing the Islamic system with different cultures regarding Umm Walad, you could now clearly see that there was no achievement of Islam regarding Umm Walad, but original Islam (till the era of Umar Ibn Khattab) is again culprit in the case of Umm Walad too.

Muslim Claim: It was only the achievement of Islam that it encouraged to set the slaves free

Islam apologists claim that only Islam encouraged freeing slaves. But this is totally wrong. The reality is that slaves were set free too in the societies, which existed thousands of years before Islam.

Even during Muhammad’s era, the polytheist Kafir society also had the custom to set slaves free as a good deed.

For example, Hakim Ibn Hazaam set 100 slaves free during the pre-Islamic time as a polytheist.

Sahih Bukhari, Kitaab-ul-Atq (link):

أَنَّ حَکِيمَ بْنَ حِزَامٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَعْتَقَ فِي الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ مِائَةَ رَقَبَةٍ
Hakim bin Hizam manumitted one-hundred slaves in the pre-lslamic period of ignorance

Hakim bin Hazaam manumitted those 100 slaves only in order to make his idol gods happy during the time of ignorance, but this does not mean that other cruelties upon the slaves by that pagan Arab culture became null and void due to this one teaching of a good deed.

In ancient Greece too, even one thousand of years before Islam, they set the slaves free as a good deed for humanity. If any slave had money, then not only he bought his own freedom, but also his fellow slaves too. In Roman Empire, usually owners used to make this will that all of their slaves would become free after their death. This custom became so widespread that King Augustus had to restrict such manumissions to at most a hundred slaves, and fewer in a small household. Eventually, the practice became so common that Augustus decreed that no Roman slave could be freed before age 30 (link). Islam was unable to show the manumission of slaves at this huge level even after 1000 years.

Now compare it to Muhammad:

Sunan al-Nasa'i 1960

1960. It was narrated from 'Imrân bin Husain that a man freed six slaves of his when he was dying, and he did not have any wealth apart from them. News of that reached the Prophet and he was angry about that. He said: "I was thinking of not offering the funeral prayer for him." Then he called the slaves and divided them into three groups. He cast lots among them, then freed two and left four as slaves.

Classed sahih by al-Albani

Common Roman citizens freed all of their slaves in the name of humanity, but Muhammad played the role of Augustus, and he limited the number of slaves which could be set free. 

And what about Buddhists who first completely abolished the slave markets, and later made all the slaves free by replacing the system of slavery through serfdom? Islam was far behind Buddhists in treating slaves, but still, Muslims dare to claim that only Islam encouraged the manumission of slaves.

The same is true about the Persian King “Cyrus the Great” and the Persian Sassanid Empire.

Muslim Claim: It was only the achievement of Islam to Introduce the Mukataba (مكاتبة) i.e. “Contract of Manumission”

In Mukataba, a slave is required to pay a certain sum of money during a specific time period in exchange for freedom.

Muslims claim that it was only Islam which brought this revolution, in which slaves got the chance to get their freedom through Mukataba.

Firstly:

Again, Muslims are deceiving the people and only telling a lie, while such emancipation through contract was not a new thing, but it had already been a custom in the societies which existed for thousands of years before Islam.

And even the uncivilized Arab Culture of the pre-Islamic era also had this custom of Mukataba even before Muhammad (link), and Muhammad only copied it from them.

And slaves in ancient Greece and Roman Empire were able to make such “contracts of manumission” even 1000 years before Islam (link).

Secondly:
According to Islam, it was not necessary for the owner to agree to Mukataba if the slave demanded it, but it was the choice of the owner to either agree to it or not.

Muwatta Imam Malik (link):

Malik said, "What is done among us is that the owner of a slave does not have to give his slave a kitaba if he asks for it. I have not heard of any of the Imams forcing a man to give a kitaba to his slave. "

Note: Malik is not giving a Fatwa here, but he is talking about the IJMA' اجماع (i.e. unanimous decision) of the whole Muslim society of his era (and before him) who didn't think it necessary upon the owner to do Kitaba to their slaves.

You can read more about it here.

In short, Islam didn’t initiate Mukataba as Muslims try to present it today, but this custom had already been present in different cultures, and Muhammad only copied it from the pre-Islamic Arab culture.

Muslim Claim: Islam “gradually” ended slavery

Again, this is a lie.

Islam never “gradually” ended slavery, and 1400 years long history of Islam is a witness to this.

Actually, Islam gradually only “increased” slavery. If there were thousands of slaves during Muhammad’s era, then their numbers increased to hundreds of thousands during the time of 4 Rightly guided Caliphs, and then to millions in later coming Islamic Caliphates.

The reality is, as Islam kept on getting powerful, the number of slaves also kept on becoming more and more.

Muhammad gave nowhere such orders that in case the economy and conditions become suitable, then slavery should be abolished gradually.

Forget about ending slavery on the state level, prophet Muhammad didn’t stop taking advantage (/misuse) of the evil practice of slavery in his “Personal Life”. He didn’t gradually end slavery in his own house.

It is then beyond comprehension how then Muslims can tell such a lie that Islam ended slavery gradually.

Muslim Claim: Islam ended “Slavery by Birth”

Again, it is completely false. 

Islam never ended the evil of "Slavery by Birth". All Muslims of the last 14 centuries are unanimous that a child of a slave father and mother will automatically be born as a slave. We have already written about this in detail above. 

Muslim Claim: Islam ended all other sources of slavery, except for wars

Again, it is completely false.

Firstly, many other societies before Islam had already prohibited slavery through kidnapping (e.g. Buddhists or Zoroastrians of Iran and Jews and Christians etc.).

Secondly, Islam didn’t prohibit the source of the “Slave Trade”. Muslims were fully allowed to visit other countries and buy beautiful slave women, in order to fulfil their sexual lust by raping them.

Muslims bought not only beautiful slave women, but they also bought thousands of Eunuchs too, which were used in the Harems of Muslim rulers and rich people in order to control the hundreds and thousands of concubines, which were present in the Harems. And all that was considered Halal-Allah and no Islamic scholar ever issued a Fatwa of that being prohibited.

Thirdly, Islam also let the door open for “Slavery by Birth”. All the babies of the slaves were born as slaves automatically according to the Sharia of Islam. Muslim preachers try to hide this truth, but this is only their dishonest

Muslim Claim: Islam didn’t allow to make Eunuchs out of slaves

Again, this claim is also not completely true, as Islam gave full permission to Muslims to buy as many Eunuchs through the slave trade from other countries, and to use them in their Harems as they wished.

Due to the high demand of Muslim slave traders, thousands of slaves were castrated and changed into eunuchs.

Moreover, there was absolutely no Qisas punishment for the owner for CASTRATING the slave boy and cutting his nose:

Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Hadith 6671:

 أن زنباعا أبا روح وجد غلاما له مع جارية له فجدع أنفه وجبه فأتى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال من فعل هذا بك قال زنباع فدعاه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال ما حملك على هذا فقال كان من أمره كذا وكذا فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للعبد اذهب فأنت حر فقال يا رسول الله فمولى من أنا قال مولى الله ورسوله فأوصى به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المسلمين قال فلما قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جاء إلى أبي بكر فقال وصية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال نعم نجري عليك النفقة وعلى عيالك فأجراها عليه حتى قبض أبو بكر فلما استخلف عمر جاءه فقال وصية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال نعم أين تريد قال مصر فكتب عمر إلى صاحب مصر أن يعطيه أرضا يأكلها

Translation (link):

Zanba Abi Rawh found his servant boy with a servant girl, so he maimed his nose and castrated him. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, came and he said, “Who did this to you?” The boy said, “Zanba.” The Prophet summoned him and he said, “What made you do this?” Zanba said, “He was misbehaving in such a way.” The Prophet said to the slave, “Go, for you are free.” The slave boy asked: “Who is my Maula (i.e. who is setting me free)?” The Prophet said, “Your Mawla is Allah and Prophet (i.e. you are set free by Allah and his messenger).” And the prophet also made a testament about his freedom (from Allah and his side). When the messenger died, then that slave boy came to Abu Bakr and told him about the testament of messenger. Abu Bakr said: "Yes I remember it. Let me give share of meny to you and your family from Bait-ul-Mal." And when Abu Bakr died, and Umar became the new caliph, then that slave boy came to him and told him about the testament of messenger. Umar also said: "Yes I remember it. Where do you want to go?" He told that he wanted to go to Egypt. Upon that Umar wrote a letter to the governor of Egypt to give him certain amount of land for his expenditures. 

Grade: Sahih (Ahmad Shakir)

Muslim Claim: Quran orders to set the captives free either as Ihsaan (i.e. favour) or after taking ransom money

Muslims also claim that Allah abolished slavery completely in verse 47:4:

(Quran 47:4) So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite the necks; then, when you have overcome them, make (them) prisoners, and afterwards (set them free) as a favour or for ransom

This is again a deception by Muslims. They don’t tell the background of this verse, or all the incidents which happened after this verse.

Background:

In 2nd Hijri year, the battle of Badr happened, in which 70 polytheists of Mecca were killed, and also 70 of them were taken as captives.

Since Muslims got their hands upon the captives for the first time, therefore, they were not sure of what to do with the prisoners.

Abu Bakr suggested that Muslims should take the ransom money for those captives and then set them free. In this way, Muslims will get wealth, and the people of Mecca would also not seek revenge.

But Umar Ibn Khattab opposed Abu Bakr and suggested killing all those prisoners. Therefore, Ali Ibn Abi Talib should slaughter his brother Aqeel (who fought from the side of the Meccans), Umar should kill his relatives, and Abbas and Hamza (who were the real uncles of Muhammad) should also be killed (as both they also fought from the side of Meccans), while all these were the leaders of the polytheists.

But prophet Muhammad didn’t like the suggestion to kill his uncles Hamza and Abbas due to his relationship with them. Therefore, Muhammad ordered to take ransom money and to set the prisoners free, as Abu Bakr suggested (Reference: Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal).

Ibn Kathir recorded a tradition under the commentary of verse 8:67, how Muhammad was worried about his uncles.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir, verse 8:67:

Abbas was captured by one Ansari man, and Ansars wanted to kill Abbas. When prophet Muhammad came to know about it, he said that he was unable to sleep due to the worry that Abbas would be killed. Upon that Umar asked him if he was allowed to go to the Ansar? Muhammad gave him the permission. Umar then came to Ansar and asked them to set Abbas free. Ansar replied that they would not set him free. Umar told them that Prophet Muhammad wanted him to become free. Upon that Ansar told Umar to took Abbas with him as they set him free happily (as Ahsaan) for the sake of Prophet Muhammad.

At that time, Muhammad claimed that Allah send this 47:4, which asks to set free the prisoners either as a favour or by taking the ransom money.

But after Abbas had become free, later prophet Muhammad changed his opinion, as he desired revenge from other Meccans, who were not his relatives.

Therefore, Muhammad claimed that the earlier verse 47:4 had been abrogated by new verse 8:67, where it was made necessary to slaughter some of the prisoners.

(Quran 8:67) It is not fit for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter (of them) in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter.

Please remember, the killing of “Prisoners” is not only considered a war crime today, but even the Arabs of that era of ignorance also considered it a disgusting thing to do.

Later some Muslim Scholars tried to defend it by saying that it was only an exception at the time of Badr. But this is not correct, as Muhammad later also killed 800 men of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah, after they already had laid down their weapons, and became prisoners.

The battle of Badr happened in the 2^nd Hijri year. Later Muhammad fought dozens of more wars and captured thousands of captives. But he didn’t set the slaves free as a favour to them. All these thousands of captives were made permanent slaves for the whole of their life, along with their small children. Therefore, it is a plain lie from Muslims that Muhammad ended slavery by setting all captives of war free as a favour or through ransom.

Muslim Claim: The captives of Banu al-Mustaliq and the Tribe of Hawazin were set free as "Favour احسان"

Muslim claim that captives of Banu al-Mutaliq were set free as a favour. And they present the following tradition:

Sunnan Abu Dawud (link):
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said to Juwayriyyah: Are you inclined to that which is better? She asked: What is that, Apostle of Allah? He replied: I shall pay the price of your freedom on your behalf, and I shall marry you. She said: I shall do this. She (Aisha) said: The people then heard that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) had married Juwayriyyah. They released the captives in their possession and set them free, and said: They are the relatives of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) by marriage. We did not see any woman greater than Juwayriyyah who brought blessings to her people. One hundred families of Banu al-Mustaliq were set free on account of her.

Answer:

The first problem is that this tradition was narrated by Ibn Ishaaq with "'An عن". According to the own standards of Muslims, such traditions of Ibn Ishaq are not authentic, but weak. That is why the interpreter of Sunan Abu Dawud criticises this tradition in his book "Awn al Ma'bud (link)" by writing: "( عن ابن إسحاق ) هو محمد بن إسحاق بن يسار وروايته عند المؤلف بالعنعنة" ) 

The second problem is that other "traditions" of Muslims are telling another story. One tradition claims that it was the relatives of those Jewish women, who paid the ransom money in order to get them free. While another "tradition" claims that even Juwayriyyah was also not set free as "favour احسان" by Muhammad, but it was the Jewish father of Juwayriyyah who paid the ransom for her and set her free. You can read these traditions here (link).  It was not difficult for Muslims to fabricate traditions on their own in order to show the greatness of Islam. But contradictions among these traditions become proof against themselves that they were fabricated by Muslims. 

The third problem is that Muhammad also married Safiyyah, but there exists no such tradition that Muslims set free all the slave women of Khaybar due to Safiyyah. Therefore, this again is proof that stories about setting slaves free in the case of the marriage of Juwayriyyah are only fabricated. 

The fourth problem is this even if it is accepted that Muslims set 100 slave women of Banu al-Mustaliq free, still it will stay as an "exceptional" case, where the "reason" for their becoming free was not "Love for Slaves", but it was mainly due to the RESPECT and HONOUR of their own prophet. For example, when Sobiyyah (ثوبیہ)، a slave woman brought the news of the birth of Muhammad to Abu Lahab, then he set her free for this act in love of his nephew. 

Therefore, it would have been accepted as the "Love of Slaves", if slaves of every tribe had been set free without any marriage of Muhammad in that tribe. 

How prisoners of the tribe of Hawazin became free:

Muslims also claim that slave women of the tribe of Hawazin were also set free as a favour. But again, this Muslim claim is also false. The women of Hawazin were set free for the purpose of "reconciliation" of the hearts of the tribe of Hawazin, who were "newly converted" to Islam, otherwise, it was feared that they will leave Islam and start a war against Muhammad. 

The background of this incident is that initially, the tribe of Hawazin refused to accept Islam. Upon that Muhammad attacked them and kept on besieging their castle for 15 days, but failed to capture it.  After 15 days, Muhammad left them and came back to Mecca. 

In Mecca, people accepted Islam due to the fear of Muhammad. After that none was left in the whole of Arabia, who was powerful enough to fight against Muslims and to help the tribe of Hawazin. Muhammad also stipulated "Stipends" for the newly converted people of Mecca as bribes, so that they don't leave Islam and don't convert back to their original religion (Reference: Quran Verse 9:60). 

When this news came to the tribe of Hawazin, then they thought if they also convert to Islam, then perhaps Muhammad would also do them a favour as new converts, and set their women free (... Muhammad captured their women in an earlier war). 

Thus, the tribe of Hawazin sent their delegation to Muhammad and told him that they will accept Islam if Muhammad agrees to set their women free and give them back their belongings (which Muhammad took as war booty earlier). 

Muhammad on the one side wanted to reconcile their hearts as a bribe so that they don't start a war against Muslims, but on the other hand, he also didn't want to lose all the war booty. Thus, he told them to pick either freedom of their women or the war booty. They chose the freedom of their women. 

Thus, the women of Hawazin were not set free for the sake of "favour to Slaves", but they were set free as a bribe, so that tribe of Hawazin stop fighting Muslims. 

You can read the whole incident of Hawazin here (link). 

A challenge to Islam apologists: Why were the prisoners (women) of Banu Qurayzah or Khaybar not set free as "Favour"?

Could Muslims show that the prisoner women and children of Banu Qurayzah or Khybar were also set free as a favour? 

ٰIf not, then please tell us what crime was committed by them that they were not set free as a favour? 

What else, even Muhammad himself didn't set the prisoner woman "Rayhana binte Zayd" free as a favour. Muhammad took her as his share from the booty of war. The crime of Rayhana was that she refused to accept Islam and remained on her original religion of Judaism. Thus Muhammad kept her as a slave for the whole of her life and had sex with her as master. 

So, when Muhammad himself didn't release Rayhayna from slavery but kept on driving sex enjoyment from her, despite having multiple other wives, how could then we expect other Muslims to release their slaves then as a favour to them?

The same thing happened with Maria al-Qibtiyya, who was presented to Muhammad as a slave. And Muhammad didn't set her free as a favour, but kept her as a slave whole of his life and had sex with her, despite having multiple wives. 

Muslims also present this tradition of Muhammad as boasting of the excellence of Islam. 

Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1956:
Messenger of Allah P.B.U.H said: "Whoever has a slave woman and teaches her good manners and educates her, then sets her free and marries her, will have two rewards.

Now the problem is that Muhammad himself didn't set Maria free and didn't marry her and didn't act upon this tradition. This is proof that this tradition is a fabricated one.

As said earlier, it was easy for Muslims to fabricate such traditions in order to show the false excellence of Islam. 

These dishonest Muslims also fabricated other traditions which claim that indeed Muhammad set Maria and Rayhana free and married them. But these traditions have been contradicted by other Muslims themselves while other traditions (who are more authentic) show contrary to it, i.e. Muhammad kept them as slaves the whole of his life. 

Muslim Claim: Raping the captive women was not a crime, as other Nations also did the same

What type of argument is this that if others did the crimes against those poor women and children, then those crimes against humanity also became Halal (permissible) for prophet Muhammad too?

Even if the men of both sides fought with each other, still the non-combating citizens and women and small children were innocent and should have not been made slaves for the whole of their life. (Actually, in most cases, their men also didn’t fight, but it was Muhammad and Muslims who attacked them in order to get the war booty).

Humanity does not accept any such law where innocent women and small children had to pay for the crimes of combatant men. Actually, the combatant non-Muslim men also didn't deserve to be killed or enslaved, while it was Islam which ordered Muslims to attack other non-Muslim tribes/nations and capture them in offensive Jihad. 

European nations captured all the Muslim countries during the 20^th century, but they didn’t rape Muslim women. You have to be thankful for the non-religious Western nations of the 20^th century, who abolished slavery only for the sake of humanity, and this ultimately saved Muslim women from being raped.

Muslim Claim: The owner has to set the slave free if he slaps him

Muslims present this tradition.

Sahih Muslim (link):

Abdullah Ibn Umar said: I heard Allah's Messenger say: He who slaps his slave or beats him, the expiation for it is that he should set him free.

Contrary to the Muslim claim, it is only a recommendation to set him free for beating, and not obligatory to do it, as Imam Bukhari gave the heading of “Someone who slaps his slave should free him even though he is under no obligation to do so”, and then he recorded this same hadith in his book al-Adab al-Mufrad (link).

Imam Nawawi writes under the commentary of this tradition of Sahih Muslim (link):

قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : من لطم مملوكه أو ضربه فكفارته أن يعتقه قال العلماء : في هذا الحديث الرفق بالمماليك ، وحسن صحبتهم وكف الأذى عنهم ، وكذلك في الأحاديث بعده ، وأجمع المسلمون على أن عتقه بهذا ليس واجبا ، وإنما هو مندوب رجاء كفارة ذنبه ، فيه إزالة إثم ظلمه . ومما استدلوا به لعدم وجوب إعتاقه : حديث سويد بن مقرن بعده : أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أمرهم حين لطم أحدهم خادمهم بعتقها ، قالوا : ليس لنا خادم غيرها ، قال : فليستخدموها ، فإذا استغنوا عنها فليخلوا سبيلها ، قال القاضي عياض : وأجمع العلماء أنه لا يجب إعتاق العبد لشيء مما يفعله به مولاه مثل هذا الأمر الخفيف ، قال : واختلفوا فيما كثر من ذلك وشنع ، من ضرب مبرح منهك لغير موجب لذلك ، أو حرقه بنار ، أو قطع عضوا له ، أو أفسده أو نحو ذلك مما فيه مثلة ، فذهب مالك وأصحابه والليث إلى عتق العبد على سيده بذلك ، ويكون ولاؤه له ، ويعاقبه السلطان على فعله ، وقال سائر العلماء : لا يعتق عليه .

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 142:

وَلَا تَضْرِبْ ظَعِينَتَکَ کَضَرْبِکَ أُمَيَّتَکَ
and do not beat your wife as you beat your slave-girl.

And then again, we have a hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud, where Abu Bakr was beating his slave during the state of Ahraam (during Hajj), while the prophet was smiling and saying: Look at Abu Bakr, and what he is doing in the state of Ahraam.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 1818:

Similarly, Islamic Sharia says if the owner beats the slave to the extent that he dies, still there is no physical punishment for the owner, as well as no fine for that killing.

Al-Hadaya is the famous jurisprudence book of Hanafi Fiqh. It is written in it (link):

ولا يقتل الرجل بعبده ولا مدبره ولا مكاتبه ولا بعبد ولده
A free man could not be killed for the crime of killing his slave ۔۔۔

Imam Qurtabi gathered the fatwas of Imams in his Tafsir of Quran (link):

والجمهور من العلماء لا يقتلون الحر بالعبد ، للتنويع والتقسيم في الآية . وقال أبو ثور : لما اتفق جميعهم على أنه لا قصاص بين العبيد والأحرار فيما دون النفوس كانت النفوس أحرى بذلك …
Majority of Scholars have this opinion that none of free Muslim could be killed in Qisas (equal compensation) for killing a slave, while the verse (Quran 2:178) divided their status in this way, as Abu Thoor mentioned that majority of Ulama agree that human status of a slave is lower than a free person ...

And Imam Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd writes in his book (link):

ولا يقتل حر بعبد ويقتل به العبد ولا يقتل مسلم بكافر ويقتل به الكافر ولا قصاص بين حر وعبد في جرح ولا بين مسلم وكافر ۔۔۔ ومن قتل عبدا فعليه قيمته
A free man should not be put to death for murdering a slave, although a slave should be put to death for murdering a free man. And a Muslim should not be put to death for murdering an unbeliever, although an unbeliever should be put to death for murdering a believer …

Imam Shafi’i wrote in his book al-Am (link):

وكذلك لا يقتل الرجل الحر بالعبد بحال ، ولو قتل حر ذمي عبدا مؤمنا لم يقتل به۔
A free person will not be killed for the crime of killing a slave. Even if a free Kafir Dhimmi (i.e. protected person of Kafir minority in Islamic State) kills a slave, still that Kafir Dhimmi could not be killed for this crime.

And it is written in Hanbali Fiqh book “al-Insaaf” (link):

وَلَا يُقْتَلُ مُسْلِمٌ بِكَافِرٍ وَلَوْ ارْتَدَّ وَلَا حُرٌّ بِعَبْدٍ هذا الْمَذْهَبُ بِلَا رَيْبٍ وَعَلَيْهِ الْأصحاب
A Muslim could not be killed as punishment if he kills a Kafir … similarly, a free man could not be killed as punishment if he kills a slave. Indeed, this is the correct religion, upon which Sahaba (companions)

And there was absolutely no Qisas punishment for the owner for CASTRATING the slave boy and cutting his nose. 

Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Hadith 6671:

 أن زنباعا أبا روح وجد غلاما له مع جارية له فجدع أنفه وجبه فأتى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال من فعل هذا بك قال زنباع فدعاه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال ما حملك على هذا فقال كان من أمره كذا وكذا فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للعبد اذهب فأنت حر فقال يا رسول الله فمولى من أنا قال مولى الله ورسوله فأوصى به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المسلمين قال فلما قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جاء إلى أبي بكر فقال وصية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال نعم نجري عليك النفقة وعلى عيالك فأجراها عليه حتى قبض أبو بكر فلما استخلف عمر جاءه فقال وصية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال نعم أين تريد قال مصر فكتب عمر إلى صاحب مصر أن يعطيه أرضا يأكلها

Translation (link):

Zanba Abi Rawh found his servant boy with a servant girl, so he maimed his nose and castrated him. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, came and he said, “Who did this to you?” The boy said, “Zanba.” The Prophet summoned him and he said, “What made you do this?” Zanba said, “He was misbehaving in such a way.” The Prophet said to the slave, “Go, for you are free.” The slave boy asked: “Who is my Maula (i.e. who is setting me free)?” The Prophet said, “Your Mawla is Allah and Prophet (i.e. you are set free by Allah and his messenger).” And the prophet also made a testament about his freedom (from Allah and his side). When the messenger died, then that slave boy came to Abu Bakr and told him about the testament of messenger. Abu Bakr said: "Yes I remember it. Let me give share of meny to you and your family from Bait-ul-Mal." And when Abu Bakr died, and Umar became the new caliph, then that slave boy came to him and told him about the testament of messenger. Umar also said: "Yes I remember it. Where do you want to go?" He told that he wanted to go to Egypt. Upon that Umar wrote a letter to the governor of Egypt to give him certain amount of land for his expenditures. 

Grade: Sahih (Ahmad Shakir)

Please also understand that a recommendation of one good deed does not make all the other cruelties null and void.  

Muslim Claim: A Muslim owner cannot have sex with a polytheist slave woman

Some Muslims claim that Muslims were allowed to rape only those women slaves, who were either Muslims or Jews or Christians, while it was not allowed for the owner to have sex with the polytheist slave woman.

But again, this claim is false. Just look at the following tradition of Sahih Muslim, which makes it clear that the Quran allowed the raping of captive women, who were polytheists.

Sahih Muslim (link):

باب جَوَازِ وَطْءِ الْمَسْبِيَّةِ بَعْدَ الاِسْتِبْرَاءِ وَإِنْ كَانَ لَهَا زَوْجٌ انْفَسَخَ نِكَاحُهَا بِالسَّبْي

Chapter: It is permissible to have intercourse with a female captive after it is established that she is not pregnant, and if she has a husband, then her marriage is annulled when she is captured

عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، الْخُدْرِيِّ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَوْمَ حُنَيْنٍ بَعَثَ جَيْشًا إِلَى أَوْطَاسٍ فَلَقُوا عَدُوًّا فَقَاتَلُوهُمْ فَظَهَرُوا عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَصَابُوا لَهُمْ سَبَايَا فَكَأَنَّ نَاسًا مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم تَحَرَّجُوا مِنْ غِشْيَانِهِنَّ مِنْ أَجْلِ أَزْوَاجِهِنَّ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ فِي ذَلِكَ ‏{‏ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ‏}‏ أَىْ فَهُنَّ لَكُمْ حَلاَلٌ إِذَا انْقَضَتْ عِدَّتُهُنَّ ‏.

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end, even if they were polytheists themselves).

The people of Autas were polytheists, and their wives too. But Quran openly told Muslims that they could have sex with those polytheist women of Autas, even if their husbands were alive, while Muslims had become their owners.

You could read about it more here.

Muslim Claim: Islam provided “human rights” to the slaves

Feeding a slave does not come under the category of giving him his “human rights”. Not only slaves, but people are also responsible for feeding their pet animals at home.

While “basic human rights” are those, which make all humans “equal”.

The truth is that Islam never provided the “basic human rights” to the slaves, but it deprived them of many of their human rights.

Message:

Please remember that the system of perfect Allah should also be 100% perfect. But if you see Allah going against Humanity in any single place, then it destroys the whole building of Islam.

100% perfect means 100% perfection, and not 99.99%.

No such entity could be accepted as God, who shows injustice and tyranny in even a single case. While Allah of Muslims is responsible for the oppression of millions of slave men and women and children during the last 1400 years.

There is a fight going on between “religion” and “humanity” in every human being.

But please don’t be like those people who kill humanity for the sake of religion

Please do hug humanity

Please do support humanity

Please do take the side of humanity