The Crimes of Islamic Slavery against Humanity

Islamic Slavery has perpetrated abhorrent crimes against humanity. However, what is even more disheartening is the widespread ignorance surrounding these issues. Islamic preachers have cunningly concealed the atrocities from the general populace (including Muslims). If only people could become aware of these matters, the inherent compassion within us would triumph in this battle against Islam.

Yes, a lot of ex-Muslims have left Islam due to this issue of Islamic Slavery.

Table of Contents:

Here is the timeline for the abolishment of slavery (link). You can see more than 200 major movements against slavery in the whole world throughout history, but you will hardly find a single significant movement in an Islamic country against slavery in this long list.

Why?

Because Muslims consider that Allah made slavery Halal (i.e. permissible) in His Islamic Sharia, and no man has the right to declare that thing Haram (i.e. prohibited), which Allah made Halal.

According to the Saudi Mufti (link), the prohibition of slavery is considered temporary. It is believed that once an Islamic State is established, it is obligated to engage in offensive warfare, known as Jihad, against non-believers (kuffar). As a result, prisoners of war, including women and children, may be taken and eventually enslaved. Consequently, the institution of slavery would be reinstated with the establishment of an Islamic State.

Islam permitted MULTIPLE Muslim men to rape a slave girl one by one in a TEMPORARY sexual relationship  

Even the Jews and the Christians treated slave women better than Muhammad. They didn't allow MULTIPLE men to rape a slave woman, but Muhammad indeed allowed MULTIPLE Muslim men to rape a slave girl in a TEMPORARY sexual relationship. Muhammad actually left the Laws of Moses from the Bible in this case, and he took the laws of his Arab culture (of the era of Ignorance) and made them a part of his newly made Islamic Sharia. He did so, while those Arab laws regarding slave girls brought more materialistic benefits to Muhammad and his followers. 

Allowing a Muslim owner to rape a prisoner/slave woman was itself a great crime of Islam against humanity. But Islam went even further and it dishonoured the poor captive/slave girl in one of the worst possible ways:

• Firstly, Islam allowed the master to rape the slave girl (against her will). 
• Then, after fulfilling his lust, the master was allowed to hand her over to any of his brothers or slaves (against her will). 
• And after all of his brother and slaves had raped her and fulfilled their lust one by one in a TEMPORARY sexual relationship (like of Mut'ah in Shia Islam), she was sold to the 2nd master in the Islamic Bazaar of slavery, while the 1st master bought a new slave girl and started raping her. 
• And the 2nd master raped her again and then sold her to the 3rd master in the slave market. Thus, the cycle of rape of the poor slave girl continued.

Sahih Muslim, Kitab-ul-Nikah (link), Sahih Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Qadr (link), Sahih Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Tauheed (link):

0 Abu Sa'id al-Khadri said: We went out with Allah's Messenger on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired (to have sex with) them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but we also desired good ransom money by selling them). So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (i.e. withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception so that they don’t become pregnant and could be sold for good ransom money). But then we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger, and he said: (Yes, it is allowed, but) it does not matter if you do it or not, while if any soul has to be born up to the Day of Resurrection, then it will be born.

_{Note: Initially, Muhammad described 'Azl (withdrawal during intercourse) as equivalent to burying a child alive. However, he later changed it and allowed it for his companions, in order to accommodate their sexual desires and financial interests. However, that was a huge contradiction. Thus, in the end, when Muhammad stated, "...whether you practice it or not, if a soul is destined to be born, it will be born," then it was his justification to cover up that contradiction. For more details, you can explore the full discussion here.} 

Moreover, Muhammd also allowed an owner to hand over the slave girl one by one to his brothers or slaves or even to guests in temporary sexual relationships. 

Tafsir Dur-e-Manthur, under the commentary of verse 23:6:

وأخرج عبد الرزاق عن عطاء قال: كان يفعل يحل الرجل وليدته لغلامه، وابنه، وأخيه، وأبيه، والمرأة لزوجها، ولقد بلغني أن الرجل يرسل وليدته إلى ضيفه.

Abd al-Razzaq narrated on the authority of Ata’ that he said: It is a common practice that a man would made his slave girl Halal (permissible) to his slave, son, brother, and father. And the woman (made her slave girl permissible) to her husband.  Indeed, I have heard that a man would send his slave woman to his guest.

Furthermore, Islam also allowed the master, if he got lust for the wife of his male slave, then he could snatch away the wife from his male slave and rape her, thus destroying the whole slave family. 

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Nikah:

[ (25) Chapter: "Forbidden to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, your daughters..."]:

وَقَالَ أَنَسٌ: {وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ} ذَوَاتُ الأَزْوَاجِ الْحَرَائِرُ حَرَامٌ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ لاَ يَرَى بَأْسًا أَنْ يَنْزِعَ الرَّجُلُ جَارِيَتَهُ مِنْ عَبْدِهِ.

Anas said: The meaning of the Quranic verse: {وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ} Married free women are forbidden to you except your married slave women that your right hands possess. But there is no problem if a man (i.e. the owner) takes his (married) female slave (for himself) from his male slave.
[Note: This is our own translation, as Sunnah.Com provide only the Arabic text, but didn't translate it into English]

And Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani wrote in his commentary of Sahih Bukhari (link):

وفي رواية الكشميهني جارية ( من عبده ) وصله إسماعيل القاضي في كتاب " أحكام القرآن " بإسناد صحيح من طريق سليمان التيمي عن أبي مجلز عن أنس بن مالك أنه قال في قوله تعالى والمحصنات : ذوات الأزواج الحرائر إلا ما ملكت أيمانكم فإذا هـو لا يرى بما ملك اليمين بأسا أن ينزع الرجل الجارية من عبده فيطأها 

... and in the narration of Al-Kashmihani: a female slave (from his slave) Ismail Al -Qadi connected it in the book “Ahkam Al-Qur’an” with a sound chain of transmission on the authority of Sulayman Al-Taymi on the authority of Abu Majlaz on the authority of Anas bin Malik that he said in the saying of the Most High: And the chaste women: those who have husbands, free women except those whom your right hands possess , so he does not see any harm in what the right hand possesses, that a man takes away the female slave from his slave and has intercourse with her

This means that all married women are forbidden, but if a female slave of any person is married to a male slave, then it is not forbidden for the owner to separate the married female slave from her husband, and take her for himself.

Unbelievable!

Even the Bible dealt with slave women much better than Islam

There are verses in the Bible which tell that Moses and other prophets killed the men, and took the women for themselves (just as Muhammad killed all the captive men, along with 12 years old male children, and took all the women as slaves). 

But after the women have already been captured, the Bible treats them much more humanely and with respect as compared to Allah/Muhammad. 

Bible didn't allow the owners to rape and selling of the captive/slave women again and again after a temporary sexual relationship like in Islam, but they stipulated that:

• An owner is only allowed to "marry" the slave woman.
• Once married, the status of the slave woman becomes similar to that of a permanent wife.
• Such a slave woman cannot be handed over as a sex object to the owner's brothers or male slaves.
• She cannot be sold to another owner after a temporary sexual relationship; rather, she automatically gains her freedom.
• And of course, the bible didn't allow the owner to snatch away the wife of his slave, start her rape, and thus destroy the whole family of his slave. 

Bible, Deuteronomy, Chap 21 (link):

The “Inverse Journey” of “Religious Morality” (from bad to worse)

The "religious morality" of Judaism and Christianity also had flaws, as they allowed the taking of captive women as slaves. However, this concept of "religious morality" took an even worse turn with the arrival of Islam.

Why did Muhammad leave the laws of Moses, and followed the laws of ignorant polytheist Arab society?

Jews themselves were present in al-Madina, and Muhammad was well aware of the rulings regarding captive women in Judaism. However, Muhammad neglected the Laws of Moses and followed the laws of the polytheist Arab society, which were more ignorant and cruel.

Why?

The answer is simple. 

The laws of ignorant Arab culture brought more “Financial Benefits” to Muhammad, where he and his followers not only got sexual pleasures by raping the captive/slave women but also made much more money by selling them after the rape. Indeed, this additional money and sexual pleasures came at the expense of subjecting enslaved women to the most severe form of cruelty.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that these unfortunate captive or enslaved women were completely innocent and played no role in the wars. Despite their innocence, Muhammad did not spare them and instead exploited them for his personal gain.

In conclusion, this demonstrates that the so-called "religious morality" took a significant turn for the worse in this instance. This single fact alone is sufficient to understand that Muhammad was a false prophet. It is worth noting that according to his claims, Allah is believed to be 100% perfect and free from making any mistakes. Therefore, if Allah is found to have made even a single mistake, the entire foundation of his ideology is automatically undermined.

Ultimately, this single fact is enough to recognize that he was himself fabricating revelations in the name of a non-existent Allah.

Allah(/Muhammad) allowed Muslims to rape the captive women the first night, although they had killed their fathers/brothers/husbands and sons on the same day

This is the 1400 years of history of Islam, where they killed the men in the day, then took all their women and small girls as captives. They didn’t even allow them to weep upon the killing of their relatives, and Islamic Jihadis (warriors) started raping the small girls and the young virgin girls, the same night (including penetration into their vaginas).

As far as those captive women were concerned, who previously had husbands, then Allah(/Muhammad) allowed to undress them, and kiss their naked bodies, and force them to masturbate them and compel them to provide all types of sex services. They were allowed to drive all kinds of sexual pleasures from them, except for penetration in the vagina. They were allowed to penetrate their vagina after they became free from their first menses (for example, Safiyyah became free from her menstrual blood the same day, and thus Muhammad slept with her the same night, although he had killed her father, brother and husband during the daytime).

Abdullah, the son of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, writes in his book “Masail al-Imam Ahmed” (link) and in the book Al-Musanif:

حدثنا علي بن عثمان قال حدثنا حماد عن علي بن زيد عن أيوب بن عبدالله اللخمي أن ابن عمر قال وقع في سهمي يوم جلولا جارية كأن عنقها إبريق فضة ، فقال ابن عمر : فما ملكت نفسي حتى وثبت إليها فجعلت أقبلها والناس ينظرون

“Narrated Ayoub bin Abdullah al-Lukhmi that ibn Umar said: ‘On the day of the Jalola battle I won a slave girl, her neck was like a silver ewe.’ Then ibn Umar added: ‘I couldn’t control myself, I immediately jumped on her and began kissing her, while the people were looking at me”

Muhammad bin Ismail al-Kahlani (d. 1182 H) comments on this tradition in ‘Subul al-Salam’ Volume 3 page 210 (link):

أعلم أن الحديث دل بمفهومه على جواز الاستمتاع قبل الاستبراء

“You must know that the hadith is significant in relation to the permissibility of enjoying (the slave girl) before she performs ablution (Arabic: Istibra i.e. waiting period in which she becomes free from her first menstruation blood)”

The Jihadists didn’t even spare the pregnant women, but they were also raped the same night (except for penetration in their vaginas).

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani writes in his book “Fath-ul-Bari (link):

وقال عطاء لا بأس أن يصيب من جاريته الحامل ما دون الفرج

Atta said: ‘There is no harm to drive sexual pleasure from the body of the pregnant slave girl except for vagina’

According to Islamic Scholars, Imam Bukhari told about his Fiqh (Jurisprudence) in the "Headings" that he gave for Ahadith in his Book "Sahih Bukhari". 

And Imam Bukhari gives the following heading for one Hadith (link):

 باب هل يسافر بالجارية قبل أن يستبرئها

Chapter: (If one buys a slave woman)  Is it permissible to travel with a female slave before she completes her waiting period?

Under this heading, Imam Bukhari recorded:

ولم ير الحسن بأسا أن يقبلها أو يباشرها. وقال ابن عمر ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ إذا وهبت الوليدة التي توطأ أو بيعت أو عتقت فليستبرأ رحمها بحيضة، ولا تستبرأ العذراء. وقال عطاء لا بأس أن يصيب من جاريته الحامل ما دون الفرج.
Translation:
Al-Hasan did not see any harm in kissing or having sexual intercourse with a female slave. Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) said: "If a female slave who has been engaged in sexual intercourse is given as a gift, sold, or freed, she should be purified by waiting for her menstrual cycle. However, a virgin does not require purification."  And Atta said if a slave woman had become pregnant (from the earlier owner/husband), then still pleasure could be derived from whole of her body, except for her vagina.

The Risala is a famous treatise of Maliki fiqh (jurisprudence). It says the same i.e. virgin woman (including virgin minor girls) don't need any waiting period and can be raped immediately. 

The Risalah, 33:5 (Maliki Fiqh):

Istibra' is observed in the case of a slavegirl who changes ownership. It is one menstruation. Ownership changes by selling, giving away, capture, or any other way. If the woman menstruates after being in the possession of the new master (i.e. she was a minor girl) before he has bought her, then she does not have to observe an istibra' if she has not gone out. The istibra' for a child when she is sold is three months as it is for a woman who no longer menstruates. There is no istibra' for a woman who has never had intercourse.

Moreover, please also see the traditions later in this article, where Ali and other Sahaba raped minor (virgin) girls without any waiting period. 

It happened during the Jihadi wars, where the poor prisoner women were hand-cuffed and then distributed among the Jihadi Muslims, where they were alone with them in their tents during the night. Although it was not allowed to penetrate their vaginas if they previously had husbands, nevertheless, we can better imagine that it was almost impossible for Jihadi Muslims to control themselves and not penetrate in them, while:

• Jihadi Muslims didn't have their wives with them.
• And the prisoner women (along with minor girls) were handcuffed, and they were alone with them in their tents. 
• The upper garments of the poor prisoner women were taken off, and their hair and breasts were made naked, as they were slaves and they were not allowed to resemble the free Muslim women by hiding their hair and their breasts. 
• And Jihadi Muslims were allowed to drive sexual pleasures from their bodies (and compel them to masturbate them etc.). So what if any Jihadi lost control over himself and also raped her with penetration in her vagina?
• Please note that the testimony of slaves against their owners was not accepted in Islamic Sharia (as you will read later in this article). Thus, even if the poor prisoner women were raped, still they were not allowed to go to Islamic courts. Thus, nobody could punish the Jihadi for raping the prisoner women with penetration. 

The intense distress suffered by the vulnerable captive women when they were raped by Muslim Jihadists on the very first night

To comprehend the distress endured by those captive women as a result of the loss of their loved ones, one has to look at this tradition.

History of Tabari, Volume 8, Page 122:

Ibn Ishaq said: After the Messenger of God conquered al-Qamus, Safiyyah bint Huyayy was brought to him, and another woman with her. Bilal (a companion), who was teh one who brought them, led them past some of the slain Jews. When the woman who was with Safiyyah saw them, she cried out, struck her face, and poured dust on her head. When Messenger of God saw her, he said, "Take this she-devil away from me!" ... The Messenger of God said to Bilal, when he saw the Jewish woman doing what he saw her do, "Are you devoid of mercy, Bilal, that you take two women past their slain men?"

Now imagine, what a distress it would have been for those poor women and small girls when Muslim Jihadists had also started raping them and forcing them to provide the sex-services, while they were in that state of mind, where they were crying and mourning the killings of their fathers, husbands and sons?

Which crime could be greater against humanity than this crime of Islam?

Islamic apologists come up with the excuse that perhaps this tradition of the History of Tabari is weak. But they should realize that this excuse is not going to work, while it is a "Universally Acknowledged Truth" that after the killing of relatives in the war, all women naturally find themselves in a state of grief and sorrow and crying and mourning. Furthermore, another universally recognized truth is that Muslims indeed raped them and forced them to provide sex services the very first night.

It is important to note that the Bible (Jews and Christians) did not permit such extreme cruelty towards captive women. Instead, they demonstrated compassion by allowing these women a full month to mourn their lost relatives before considering marriage. This approach does not absolve them of the act of taking captives as slaves, but it does highlight their comparatively more humane treatment of captive women than Allah(/Muhammad).

Looking and touching the private parts of half-naked slave women in the Islamic Bazaars of slavery

The 1400 years of history of Islam also consists of this shameful act against humanity, where Muslims forced those women/girls to become half naked by exposing their breasts, and then forced them to stand in front of thousands of men in the Islamic Bazaars of slavery, who not only looked at them with lust but they were also allowed to touch their private parts (as if they were sheep and goats).

Imam Bayhiqi wrote in his book Sunan al-Kubra (link):

عن نافع ، عن ابن عمر ” أنه كان إذا اشترى جارية كشف عن ساقها ووضع يده بين ثدييها و على عجزها

Ibn Umar reported that when he bought a slave girl, he would uncover her leg, place his hand between her breasts, and on her buttocks.

Grade: (Authentic) Sahih (Albani)

Musanaf Abdul Razzaq recorded this tradition (link):

عبد الرزاق ، عن الثوري ، عن جابر ، عن الشعبي قال : "  إذا كان الرجل يبتاع الأمة ، فإنه ينظر إلى كلها إلا الفرج " .

Shu’bi said: If any man has to buy a slave girl, then he can see the whole of her body, except for her vagina

Musanaf Ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 4, page 289 Tradition 20241 (link):

نا علي بن مسهر عن عبيدالله عن نافع عن ابن عمر أنه إذا أراد أن يشتري الجارية وضع يده على أليتيها وبين فخذيها وربما كشف عن ساقها

‘Naf’e reported: Ibn Umar, when intending to buy a slave girl, would place his hand on her breasts, between her thighs, and sometimes even expose her leg.

Grade: Sahih (Usamah ibn Ibrahim)

Musnaf Abdur Razak, Volume 7, page 286, Tradition 13204 (link):

13204 عبد الرزاق ، عن ابن عيينة قال : وأخبرني ابن أبي نجيح ، عن مجاهد قال : " وضع ابن عمر يده بين ثدييها ، ثم هزها " .

‘Mujahid reported that ibn Umar placed his hand between (a slave girl’s) breasts and shook them’

Grade: Unstudied. But all links are of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, and entire chain of transmission (Ibn Uyaynah ← Ibn Abi Najih ← Mujahid ← Ibn Umar) can be found in Sahih al-Bukhari 72 and Sahih Muslim 2811c (7100). In Musnad Ahmad 4599, al-Arna’ut writes: “Its chain of transmission is sahih according to the conditions of the two shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim).”

Musanaf Ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 4, page 289 Tradition 20241 (link):

حدثنا جرير عن منصور عن مجاهد قال :  كنت مع ابن عمر أمشي في السوق فإذا نحن بناس من النخاسين قد اجتمعوا على جارية يقلبونها ، فلما رأوا ابن عمر تنحوا وقالوا :  ابن عمر قد جاء ، فدنا منها ابن عمر فلمس شيئا من جسدها وقال :  أين أصحاب هذه الجارية ، إنما هي سلعة

Mujahid said: I was walking in the market with Ibn Umar when we came across slave-traders gathered around a slave-girl, and they were examining her. When they saw Ibn Umar, they withdrew and said: "Ibn Umar has come." Ibn Umar approached her and touched part of her body. He said: "Where are the owners of this slave-girl? She is but an item for sale."

Grade: Sahih (Usamah ibn Ibrahim)

Imam Shaybani (died 189 hijri year) wrote in his book al-Masoot (link):

ولا ينبغي للرجل أن ينظر من أمة غيره إذا كانت بالغة أو تشتهي مثلها أو توطأ إلا ما ينظر إليه من ذوات المحرم ولا بأس بأن ينظر إلى شعرها وإلى صدرها وإلى ثديها وعضدها وقدمها وساقها ولا ينظر إلى بطنها ولا إلى ظهرها ولا إلى ما بين السرة منها حتى يجاوز الركبة

"It is not permissible for a man to look at the body of a female slave who is mature or whom he desires, except for what is allowed in the case of mahram (close relatives). There is no harm in looking at her hair, chest, breasts, shoulders, arms, and legs. However, one should not look at her stomach, back, or the area between her navel and knee.".

The slave women of Umar Ibn Khattab used to serve men with naked breasts. Imam Bayhiqi recorded this tradition and declared it "Sahih" in his book al-Sunan al-Kubra (link):

 ثم روى من طريق حماد بن سلمة قالت : حدثني ثمامة بن عبد الله بن أنس عن جده أنس بن مالك قال : " كن إماء عمر رضي الله عنه يخدمننا كاشفات عن شعورهن تضطرب ثديهن " . قلت : وإسناده جيد رجاله كلهم ثقات غير شيخ البيهقي أبي القاسم عبد الرحمن بن عبيد الله الحربي ( 1 ) وهو صدوق كما قال الخطيب ( 10 / 303 ) وقال البيهقي عقبه : " والاثار عن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه في ذلك صحيحة " .

Anas bin Malik said: ‘The female slaves of Umar were serving us with uncovered hair and their breasts shaking”

Sheikh Albani also declared it "Sahih" (Link).

The Hanbali jurist Ibn Muflih explains the necessity for visually inspecting a sex slave:

”This is because necessity calls for it, and because viewing what is described achieves its purpose. This is because she is desired for enjoyment and other purposes of trade, and her physical attractiveness increases her price.”

He quotes the jurists Hanbal ibn Ishaq and Al-Qadi Abu Ya‘la on the need for groping the sex slave, but that it should be done over fabric.

“Hanbal transmitted, ‘There is nothing wrong with inspecting her, if he wants to buy her, (touching her) over the garment. This is because she is not inviolable.’ Al-Qadi said, ‘It is permissible to inspect her bosom and backside, meaning that he touches her over the clothing.’”

Ibn Muflih, Al-Mubdi fi Sharh al-Muqni 7/7.

 This humiliation of the slave woman is the real “Islamic modesty”, which is utterly shameful. Is it that PERFECTION that the Quran boasts about? 

And this day I have perfected for you your religion. (Quran 5:3)

The "waiting period" for captive or enslaved women who were previously married ends with the completion of their first menstrual cycle

The "waiting period" for captive or enslaved women who were previously married ends with the completion of their first menstrual cycle. Therefore, if she becomes free of blood in 3 days, then the new owner can start raping her (with penetration) after 3 days.

Saffiyyah (a Jewish captive woman) became free of her blood the next night after her father, brother and husband were killed in the war by Muslims. Thus Muhammad had sex with her the next night.

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Military Expeditions (link):

We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba,' Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah's Messenger slept with her.

Thus, the waiting period for a slave woman was only one menstruation, i.e. if she became free of menses blood in 3 days, then the next owner could start raping her after that.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book of Marriage (link):

Narrated Ruwayfi' ibn Thabit al-Ansari:
Should I tell you what I heard the Messenger of Allah say on the day of Hunayn: It is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the last day to water what another has sown with his water (meaning intercourse with women who are pregnant); it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to have intercourse with a captive woman till she is free from one menstrual course.

Istibra' (i.e. the purification/waiting period) of a female slave is when ownership of the slave is transferred through sale, gift, capture, or other means. If she starts menstruating (i.e. if she is a minor girl) after being taken in possession by her new owner, then she does not have to go through any waiting period (i.e. the owner can have sex with her without any waiting period). But the purification period for such a (minor non-mentruating) girl in the case of sale is three months if the previous owner had sex with her. 

Regrettably, religious Muslims have relinquished their humanity and shame as a result of religious indoctrination. Astonishingly, they emerge to still defend Islam for committing the most heinous crimes against humanity.

This was the practice of Muhammad and his followers for the last 1400 years, until the secular non-religious West emerged as the saviour, putting an end to these wicked acts of slavery.

Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal: 

أنَّ رسولَ اللَّهِ صلَّى اللَّهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ قَضى أنَّ كلَّ مُستَلحقٍ يُستَلحَقُ بعدَ أبيهِ الَّذي يُدعَى لَهُ ، ادَّعاهُ ورثتُهُ من بعدِهِ ، فقَضى : إن كانَ من أَمةٍ يملِكُها يومَ أصابَها فقد لَحقَ بمنِ استلحقَهُ ، وليسَ لَهُ فيما قسمَ قبلَهُ منَ الميراثِ شيءٌ ، وما أدرَكَ مِن ميراثٍ لم يُقسَمْ ، فلَهُ نصيبُهُ ، ولا يَلحقُ إذا كانَ أبوهُ الَّذي يُدعَى لَهُ أنكرَهُ ، وإن كانَ من أَمةٍ لا يملِكُها ، أو من حرَّةٍ عاهرَ بِها ، فإنَّهُ لا يَلحقُ ولا يرثُ ، وإن كانَ أبوهُ الَّذي يُدعَى لَهُ هوَ الَّذي ادَّعاهُ ، وَهوَ ولدُ زنًا لأَهْلِ أمِّهِ ، من كانوا ، حرَّةً ، أو أمةً

"The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, ruled that every child belongs to the one who claims him after his father. His heirs can claim him after his death. He ruled that if the child belongs to a slave whom he possessed on the day the child was born, then the child belongs to the one who claimed him, and he has no share in the inheritance that was divided before his claim. However, he will have a share in any remaining inheritance that has not been divided. But if the father to whom he is attributed denies him (i.e. his parentage), the the child will not joined to the heirs. If the child belongs to a slave whom he does not possess, or to a free woman with whom he committed adultery, then the child will not join the heirs and will not inherit him, even if the one to whom he was attributed is the one who claimed paternity, since he was a child of fornication whether his mother was free or a slave.

Grade: Sahih (Shakir)

Muhammad and "Slave Trading":

Allah (i.e. Muhammad) could have at least ended the slave trade with the non-Muslim countries.

Throughout the history of Islam, girls were kidnapped all over the world, and they were brought to the grand Islamic Bazaars of Slavery for trade. 

Muhammad also didn't prohibit buying castrated slaves. Thus, boys were castrated, and then sold in the Islamic Bazaars of Slavery. 

Actually, Muhammad himself sent Jewish captive women of Banu Qurayzah (who believed in the same God as of Muhammad) to the Kuffar (polytheists). He was not worried that Kuffar will rape those poor captive women (who were innocent as they had no role in war). Muhammad traded those poor women for horses and weapons. 

History of Tabari, vol. 8, Page 39 under the incident of Banu Qurayzah):

Then the Messenger of God sent Sa'd b. Zayd al-Angara (a member of the Banu 'Abd al-Ashhal) with some of the captives from the Banu QurayZah to Najd, and in exchange for them he purchased horses and arms.

The enslaved men and women were denied the fundamental right to experience "love" and to have "children" 

It is inherent in human nature for individuals, both male and female, to engage in love relationships. Likewise, it is natural for people to desire the formation of their own families and the experience of parenthood by having their own children.

However, Islam defied this fundamental aspect of human nature and stripped away the rights of love and the longing for family and children from enslaved men and women.

Not only was a slave girl denied the right to have a partner whom she could love and had a family, but she was also forbidden from desiring to have children of her own. Instead, her owner was permitted to engage in sexual relations with her and also practice al-'Azl i.e. withdrawing the penis from the vagina and ejaculating outside to prevent pregnancy. This way, the slave girl would not conceive, and the owner could fetch a higher price by selling her to another man. Many Muslim owners also denied children to slave girls, because they wanted to keep on enjoying them by raping them, and a pregnant slave girl was not good enough to provide them with sex services. 

In the case of male slaves, Islam did not address their essential human right to love, marry, form a family, and have children. They were entirely dependent on the mercy of their owners. Occasionally, an owner would show compassion by allowing a male slave to have a relationship with one of his slave girls. However, the owner retained the right to dissolve the slave family and reclaim the slave girl for personal enjoyment at any time. Furthermore, the owner had the authority to separate the male slave from his children, either by selling the father or the children in the slave markets.

No “Witness” was needed for having sex with the slave girl (even if one is having sex with the slave girl of another person)

The owner didn’t need to have any “witness” for having sex with his slave girl. He could purchase her, and then start raping her.

Unfortunately, this evil didn’t stop there, it went further, as Islam also allowed the owner to present her as a “gift” to any of his brothers or friend or any other person, who was again allowed to rape her against her consent and without any “witness”.

Fatawa Alamgiri, vol 3, page 268, Urdu edition (link):

A Singular Report is enough on religious issues. Therefore, if a slave woman comes to any person and tells him that her master gifted her to him, then that person can trust that slave girl and have sex with her.

This ruling of Islam was then “misused” by the owners, and they compelled their slave women to engage in sex with multiple men and earn money for their owners through prostitution. We will read the details later in this article 

Slaves are not human enough to “testify” in the court according to Allah(/Muhammad)

Although the single witness of a slave woman was enough to have sex with her (i.e. if she comes and tells him that her master made her Halal for him), nevertheless, Allah/Muhammad didn’t even consider slaves as human enough to give their testimony in court in other matters. 

Ibn Qaddamah writes in his book al-Mughani (link):

وقال مالك وأبو حنيفة والشافعي وجمهور العلماء : لا تجوز شهادة العبد

Malik, Abu Hanifa, Shafi'i, and the majority of scholars have stated: "The testimony of a slave is not valid." 

Imam Shafii wrote in his book “Ahkam-ul-Quran, vol 2, page 142 (link):

And the testimony should be from the free men, and not from the slaves. Similarly, these free men should be the follower of our religion (i.e. they should be Muslims), while the testimony of non-Muslims free men is also not accepted.

Imam Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd writes in his Fiqh Book (link):

ولا تجوز شهادة المحدود ولا شهادة عبد ولا صبي ولا كافر
The testimony of someone who has been given a fixed punishment, or of a slave, a minor or a Kafir, is inadmissible.

Please remember that in Islam:

1. There exists a big misunderstanding that the testimony of a free Muslim woman is regarded as a "half testimony". No, but the testimony of a free Muslim woman is also regarded as ZERO in serious “Hudud” cases (like Rape of women, killing, stealing, and robbery). Her testimony is regarded as "half" only and only in the "financial" issues. 
2. In contrast, the testimony of slaves was entirely disregarded in any circumstance. It held no value, not even as a "half testimony".  For instance, if a free man assaulted a slave man, the testimony of the slave man or any other slaves who witnessed the crime would not be considered valid.
3. Similarly, if a free Muslim man sexually molested a slave woman, then neither her testimony was accepted, nor of other slave women who witnessed that crime, nor even of free Muslim women while rape came under “Hudud” cases.
4. The same is the case with non-Muslim men and women. Their testimonies are also not accepted against any free Muslim man in an Islamic State, while Allah/Muhammad wanted to humiliate them through this.

Note:

There is an incident in which Prophet Muhammad accepted the testimony of a slave woman regarding feeding a baby with breast milk. However, according to Salaf Islamic Fiqh Imams, these were considered minor "exceptions" where the testimonies of women, including slave women, could be accepted in specific cases involving private matters related to women. For instance, if a slave woman testified that she was free from menstrual bleeding, her testimony could be accepted in such a case, and her new owner could start having sex with her.

Hence, apart from this one exceptional instance, out of the vast Hadith literature and Quranic verses, there are no recorded incidents where slaves were permitted to provide testimony. Thus, all early Muslims were unanimous that the testimony of slaves is not valid.

Forcing slave women into Prostitution, as a source of Income by the owners

In the Indian Sub-Continent, slave girls were sold in the Diamond Markets. They were trained in dancing and singing. They were also used as sex objects, and the owners used them as a source of income. The origin of this practice also lies in Islam.

There were people who used to force their slave girls into prostitution during the time of Muhammad. When those slave girls complained to Muhammad, then he didn't punish their owners for compelling them to prostitution. 

But why didn't he punish them?

The answer is, that the witness of those slave girls was not admissible in Islamic courts. 

This incident is present in the Quran itself.

Quran 24:33:

And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.

Sunnan Abu Dawud, Kitab-ul-Talaq (link):

Musaykah, a slave girl of some Ansari, came and said: My owner forces me to commit fornication (in order to earn money from it). Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "(Quran 24:33) And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful."

Therefore:

• Islam not only allowed the owner to rape the slave girl but also allowed the owner to present her as a gift to any other person, who can then rape the slave girl too against her consent.
• And no “Witness” was needed in Islam for having sex with a slave woman (please see the reference above, if a slave woman comes to any person and tells him that her master has gifted her to him, then that person can trust that slave girl and have sex with her).
• And the “witness” of a slave woman is not accepted in an Islamic court. Actually, slaves are absolutely not allowed to go to court against their owners. 

Therefore, due to these reasons, a slave girl can cry as much as she can about her rape, but her witness is not accepted in any Islamic court, which makes it impossible for the owner to be punished.

That is why, the writer of the Quran (i.e. Muhammad), at maximum, only recommended the owners not to force the slave women into fornication, but he was unable to punish the owners for forcing their slave girls into prostitution. 

Slave women were sexually Molested by Sahaba, but Allah/Muhammad neither stopped it nor punished them. Why?

(Quran 33:59)
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ
O Prophet! tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments (Arabic: Jilbab) (in order to cover their bosoms and breasts); this will be more proper so that they may be recognised (as free women), and thus they will not be molested (by men)

In the interpretation (Tafsir) of this verse, Islamic scholars such as Abu Malik, Abu Saleh, Muawiyyah, Hassan, Siddi, and Mujahid all wrote that women from the city of al-Madina used to go out of their houses in the evening for various reasons, including using the toilets. Meanwhile, men (specifically the companions of Muhammad) would sit at the edges of the streets and engage in sexual harassment towards these women. As a response to these incidents, this verse regarding the Hijab was revealed.

This verse instructed free Muslim women to cover themselves with a Jilbab (a large outer garment) in order for men to differentiate between free women and slave women, thus protecting the free Muslim women from molestation. Please see Tafsir al-Tabri (link), where all these traditions are present.

Ibn Kathir wrote under the Tafsir of this verse (link):

Here Allah tells His Messenger to command the (free Muslim) believing women to draw their Jilbabs (big outer garment/sheet) over their head and hide their bodies with it, so that they will be distinct in their appearance from the (non-Muslim) women and from the slave women.
Siddi said that men used to molest the women who were going on the streets in the nights. Thus, this Hijab became a sign of free Muslim women, so that they could be differentiated from the slave women, and thus men didn’t molest the free Muslim women due to their honour.

More details about this incident of molesting of slave women by men can be read here. 

It is strange that Allah/Muhammad neither punished those companions, nor rebuked them, nor even stopped them from molesting the slave women. Instead of this, Allah/Muhammad only saved the free women from this molestation by asking them to use the Jilbab. 

Why?

The answer lies in the fact that Allah/Muhammad usurped the right of 'testimony' from the slave women. They are not even allowed to go to the Courts in an Islamic State and testify against the person who sexually molested them. 

Quran is a huge book, and then there are about 1 million Ahadith present there, but Allah/Muhammad forgot to mention the physical punishment for the men who sexually molest the slave women (or even to rebuke them). 

Kidnapping & Raping a slave woman of another person is also Halal-Allah if you got a lust for her

Unbelievable!

Sahih Bukhari, The Book of TRICKS, printed English Translation, volume 9, page 72 (Online Link) :

فَقُضِيَ بِقِيمَةِ الْجَارِيَةِ الْمَيِّتَةِ، ثُمَّ وَجَدَهَا صَاحِبُهَا، فَهْيَ لَهُ، وَيَرُدُّ الْقِيمَةَ، وَلاَ تَكُونُ الْقِيمَةُ ثَمَنًا.
وَقَالَ بَعْضُ النَّاسِ الْجَارِيَةُ لِلْغَاصِبِ لأَخْذِهِ الْقِيمَةَ، وَفِي هَذَا احْتِيَالٌ لِمَنِ اشْتَهَى، جَارِيَةَ رَجُلٍ لاَ يَبِيعُهَا، فَغَصَبَهَا وَاعْتَلَّ بِأَنَّهَا مَاتَتْ، حَتَّى يَأْخُذَ رَبُّهَا قِيمَتَهَا فَيَطِيبُ لِلْغَاصِبِ جَارِيَةَ غَيْرِهِ. قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «أَمْوَالُكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ حَرَامٌ»، «وَلِكُلِّ غَادِرٍ لِوَاءٌ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ».

(9) Chapter: If somebody kidnaps a slave girl and then claims that she is dead, whereupon he is obliged by law to pay the price of the dead slave girl, but then her master finds her (alive), then she is for him, and the money is to be returned and should not be regarded as a price:

Some people said, "The slave girl is for the kidnapper because the previous master has taken the price." In this there is a trick for whoever desires the slave girl of another man who refuses to sell her, so he kidnaps her and tells her master that she is dead and when her master takes her price, the kidnapper then has a legal right to have the slave girl of somebody else. The prophet (saw) said: "(O Muslims!) Your properties are sacred to each other, and for every treaherous betrayer, there will be a flag on the Day of Resurrection."

Islamic apologists come up with an excuse that Imam Bukhari didn't favour this trick, but he recorded it in his book while he was against the use of this trick.

But even if we accept their excuse, still the core question is, why those some people were able to apply this trick in an Islamic state?

It is for these reasons: 

• There is no Qisas (i.e. physical punishment) for killing the property (i.e. slave men and women) of another person. But you only have to pay half of the blood money. 
• And MOLESTING of slave girls in Islamic societies was very real. 
• And if someone got lust for a slave girl of another person, then he could ask for a mutual swapping of slave girls, in which both of them raped the slave girls of each other.
• Nevertheless, if the owner of the slave girl refused for swapping, still there was a TRICK for men to fulfil their lust. In such cases, the Muslim men simply kidnapped the poor slave girls and raped them, and fulfilled their lust. 
• And they got absolutely no physical punishment for this. But they only had to pay the price of the slave girls to their owners (for damaging their property). 

Dear Readers!

It was Allah (i.e. Muhammad):

• Who put the first stone for such practices when he neither rebuked Sahaba for molesting slave women nor physically punished them.
• Then the 2nd stone was put when Muhammad snatched away the right of witness from the slaves.
• And then the 3rd stone was put in when Muhammad declared slaves only as property, and not as humans. 

This evil was not only limited to the era of Imam Bukhari, but the poor slave girls suffered from this evil throughout the 1300-year-long history of Islamic Slavery. Why? While Allah/Muhammad failed to provide them with any protection against molestation. 

Muhammad's mindset: Recite a prayer when you buy a slave girl, but no need to offer such prayer if you buy a male slave

Sunan Ibn Majah, 2252:

 ... the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "When anyone of you buys a slave woman let him say: 'Allahumma inni as'aluka khairaha wa khaira ma jabaltaha alaihi, wa a'udhu bika min sharriha wa sharri ma jabaltaha alaihi (O Allah, I ask You for the goodness within her and the goodness that You have made her inclined towards, and I seek refuge with You from the evil within her and the evil that You have made her inclined towards).' And he should pray for blessing. And if anyone of you buys a camel then he should take hold of its hump and pray for. blessing and say similar words."

Grade: Sahih (authentic)

The slave girl was as much a property as a camel was. This was the mindset of Muhammad. 

Muhammad ordered the killing of all Old Captives, while they were unable to work as slaves

Prophet Muhammad commanded the killing of all elderly captives, similar to what occurred in the incident of Banu Qurayzah, regardless of whether they were part of the civilian population or had no involvement in the war. This directive was based on the understanding that these elderly captives were unable to be utilized as slaves, and selling them would not generate any monetary value. Keeping them would have only placed a financial burden on the captor.

Sunnan Tirmidhi, Book of Battles (link):

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ أَبُو الْوَلِيدِ الدِّمَشْقِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ بَشِيرٍ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، عَنْ سَمُرَةَ بْنِ جُنْدَبٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ اقْتُلُوا شُيُوخَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَاسْتَحْيُوا شَرْخَهُمْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَالشَّرْخُ الْغِلْمَانُ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُنْبِتُوا ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ غَرِيبٌ ‏.‏ وَرَوَاهُ الْحَجَّاجُ بْنُ أَرْطَاةَ عَنْ قَتَادَةَ نَحْوَهُ ‏.‏

We were informed by Ahmad ibn Abdul Rahman Abu Al-Walid Al-Dimashqi, who narrated from Al-Walid ibn Muslim, who narrated from Sa'id ibn Bashir, who narrated from Qatadah, who narrated from Al-Hasan, who narrated from Samurah ibn Jundab, that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said,: "Kill the elder men among the idolaters and spare the Sharkh among them."

And the Sharkh are the boys who did not begin to grow pubic hair.[Abu 'Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan Sahih.Hajjaj bin Artah narrated similarly from Qatadah.

This hadith is authentic (Sahih). Link.

And this tradition is also recorded in Musnad Ahmad, and Imam Ahmad told the reason for killing the elders of polytheists that they are less likely to accept Islam (link). 

Samurah ibn Jundab, that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said,: "Kill the elder men among the idolaters and spare the Sharkh (i.e. young boys who have not got pubic hair) among them."
Abdullah (the son of Imam Ahmad) said, "I asked my father about the interpretation of this hadith, 'Kill the elders of the polytheists.' He said, 'It means that the elderly are less likely to embrace Islam, while the young are more likely to embrace it.'"

وقال الشافعي، في أحد قوليه، وابن المنذر: يجوز قتل الشيوخ؛ لقول النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم -: «اقتلوا شيوخ المشركين، واستحيوا شرخهم» . رواه أبو داود، والترمذي، وقال: حديث حسن صحيح. ولأن الله تعالى قال: {فاقتلوا المشركين} [التوبة: 5] . وهذا عام يتناول بعمومه الشيوخ. قال ابن المنذر: لا أعرف حجة في ترك قتل الشيوخ يستثنى بها من عموم قوله: {فاقتلوا المشركين} [التوبة: 5] . ولأنه كافر لا نفع في حياته، فيقتل كالشاب

Al-Shafi'i, in one of his opinions, and Ibn Mundhir said: It is permissible to kill the elderly based on the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Kill the elders of the polytheists but spare their non-adult boys." This hadith is narrated by Abu Dawood and At-Tirmidhi, and it is considered a good and authentic hadith. Also, because Allah said: "So kill the polytheists" [Quran 9:5]. And this is a general statement that includes the elderly. Ibn Mundhir said: I do not know any evidence to exempt the killing of the elderly from the general statement: "So kill the polytheists" [Quran 9:5]. Since they are disbelievers and their life has no benefit, they are killed like young adult men.

كتب عمر إلى أمراء الأجناد أن لا تقتلوا امرأة ولا صبيا

Umar Ibn Khatab wrote to the generals of the armies to not kill a woman or child and to kill whoever has pubic hair.

Grade: Sahih (Albani)

Allah(/Muhammad) allowed the master to slaughter his slave if he dared to flee in order to avoid the cruelty of his master

In every civilization of antiquity, severe punishments awaited slaves who dared to escape the brutalities inflicted upon them by their owners.

Yet, the cruelty and oppression demonstrated by Islam surpassed all others, leaving an indelible mark.

Muhammad implemented a “Double layers System” of oppression, in order to stop the slaves from fleeing.

1. First Layer:
   Muhammad allowed the owners to torture the slave, and even to “slaughter” the slave as punishment for fleeing. Jarir (a companion of Muhammad) slaughtered his slave, who tried to flee, but unfortunately got arrested.

2. Second Layer:
   Muhammad also used a psychological tactic to stop the slaves from fleeing. He declared that any slave who tries to flee, then Allah will not accept his Prayers, and he will become a Kafir and an Apostate in the eyes of Allah, and he will be burnt in the eternal fire of hell.

Sahih Muslim, Kitab-ul-Iman (link):

عَنْ جَرِيرٍ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَهُ يَقُولُ ‏ "‏ أَيُّمَا عَبْدٍ أَبَقَ مِنْ مَوَالِيهِ فَقَدْ كَفَرَ حَتَّى يَرْجِعَ إِلَيْهِمْ ‏"
It is narrated on the authority of Jarir that he heard (the Holy Prophet) saying, the slave who fled from his owner committed an act of infidelity as long as he would not return to him.

And the companion Jarir slaughtered his slave as punishment for fleeing. Sunnan Nisai (link):

عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ إِذَا أَبَقَ الْعَبْدُ لَمْ تُقْبَلْ لَهُ صَلاَةٌ وَإِنْ مَاتَ مَاتَ كَافِرًا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَأَبَقَ غُلاَمٌ لِجَرِيرٍ فَأَخَذَهُ فَضَرَبَ عُنُقَهُ ‏.‏
Jarir used to narrate from the Prophet Muhammad:"If a slave runs away, no prayer will be accepted from him, and if he dies he will die a disbeliever." A slave of Jarir's ran away, and he caught him and struck his neck (killing him).
Hadith Masters declared this tradition to be authentic (Sahih). Link.

The owner faced no punishment, even if he killed his slave by beating

Mercy!!! 

1. If a free Muslim kills another free Muslim, then either he will be killed in retaliation (known as Qisas), or he has to pay the Diya (دية) (i.e. blood money). In case blood money is taken, then no other physical punishment is imposed (i.e. neither any killing in Qisas nor any other lesser physical punishment i.e. Ta'zir).

2. If a free Musims kills a slave of another person, then he cannot be killed for that, but he only has to pay Half of the Diya (blood money). After the payment of Diya money, there is no other physical punishment (either Qisas or Ta'zir) can be imposed upon him.

3. But in case the killer is the owner of the slave, then he does not even have to pay the Diya money. Even if he has to pay it, then it will ultimately go back to him. Therefore, there is absolutely no punishment (or fine) for the owner if he kills his slave. The loss of the life of his slave (i.e. property) is considered enough fine for him. All 4 Fiqh Imams are unanimous upon this that an owner cannot be punished even if he killed his slave through beating.

4. In case, the slave does not die but only gets mutilated by his owner, then again there is no physical punishment (i.e. neither Qisas nor Ta'zir) that can be imposed on the owner. But he has to free the slave as fine for mutilating him. 

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 can not be killed for killing his slave, or a Muddbir slave (who will get freedom after the death of his owner), or a Mukkatib slave (who will get his freedom through a contract), or even for killing his own child. 

In Shafi'i Fiqh book "Umdat as-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller)", it is written (link):

ولا تجب الدية بقتل الحربي والمرتد ومن وجب رجمه بالبينة أو تحتم قتله في المحاربة ولا على السيد بقتل عبده.

Blood money (compensation) is not required for killing a person of the nation who is in fight with Muslims, an apostate, or someone whose punishment is stoning if the evidence is clear, or if killing them is necessary in combat. And a master also has to pay no blood money (compensation) for killing his slave.

Imam Qurtabi gathered the fatwas of Imams in his Tafsir of the 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 that of 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 a Kafir, although a Kafir 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 free Muslim man could not be killed as punishment if he kills a Kafir … similarly, a free Muslim man could not be killed as punishment if he kills a slave. Indeed, this is the correct religion, upon which Sahaba (companions) acted upon.

Pregnancy of a virgin slave girl becomes an evidence of her fornication, even if she was raped

If a free Muslim man rapes a slave girl, then it is impossible to prove his crime, while 4 maile eyewitnesses is needed to charge the rapist (if he is a free Muslim man). But for slave girl:

• Her master can punish her even on doubts and rumours (false testimony). No court trial is needed, and testimony of slave has no value. 
• And the pregnancy of a virgin slave girl also becomes an evidence against her for fornication (even if she was raped).
• However, the free Muslim rapist will face no chagres, as he neither becomes pregnant nor 4 male eyewitnesses are possible who see the action of sex as khol stick going into kohl container (i.e. penis going into vagina).

Umar declared pregnancy to be enough evidence of adultery and no 4 witnesses are needed. Umar said it in front of companions, but none of them opposed him (link):

Sahih al-Bukhari 6829:

`Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession."

Muhammad himself ordered Ali to flog his slave girl, who became pregnant. 

Sunan Abu Dawud, 4473 and Sahih Muslim 1705a:

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) committed fornication (and became pregnant). He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her (due to giving birth), and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves).

Please also keep in mind that pregnancy was not a problem for non-virgin slave girls, as their masters were already having sex with them. But pregnancy only became an evidence of fornication in case of "vigin" slave girl. Moreover, the age of losing virginity for slave girls was probably 9 to 11 years in that Muslim society of Muhammad. Thus, Muhammad's  slave girl, who was lashed by 'Ali, if she was charged for adultery due to her pregnancy, then she was most probably not older than 10 or 11 years. 

In an Islamic society, it was relatively EASY to rape slave girls, as they were not allowed to wear the Hijab, and they had to move in public outside of the house for work, and Muslim men used to often molest them (as it is evident from the verse of the Quran 33:59 as they were not free Muslim women). And it was even more dangerous for slave girls inside the house, as male members of the family (like father, brother, sons of the owner) had easy access to them and were in commanding position. 

It was almost IMPOSSIBLE for Slave Girls to prove that they were RAPED

Moreover, it was almost impossible for both free or slave women to prove their innocence if they were raped. For example:

Muwatta Malik Book 41, Hadith 15:

Malik said, "The position with us about a woman who is found to be pregnant and has no husband and she says, 'I was forced,' or she says, 'I was married,' is that it is not accepted from her and the hadd is inflicted on her unless she has a clear proof of what she claims about the marriage or that she was forced or she comes bleeding if she was a virgin or she calls out for help so that someone comes to her and she is in that state or what resembles it of the situation in which the violation occurred." He said, "If she does not produce any of those, the hadd is inflicted on her and what she claims of that is not accepted from her."

And the largest Fatwa Website (run by Saudi Salafi Muftis) Islam Q&A writes in its fatwa (link):

Rape is essentially zina (fornication or adultery) and is proven in the same way as zina is proven, which is with four witnesses. The punishment is one hundred lashes if the man was a virgin and stoning if he was previously married ...  Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: She is not to be punished if it is proven that he forced her and overpowered her. That may be known from her having screamed and shouted for help. (Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146 ) ...  

Logically, it is almost impossible for raped women to fulfill these requirements, while women are not raped in public where someone can hear their calls for help and come to see their state. 

Moreover, the Largest Islamic Website is Islamweb.Net records this Fatwa (link):

“This means that if a woman accused a pious man of forcing her into adultery and there were no witnesses to prove her claim and she did not drag him by his clothes (to prove the offense), then she should be subjected to the hadd of slander whether or not she is well-known for chastity she should be subjected to the hadd of zina if she becomes pregnant as a result.

Dear Readers, please think about it:

• How can a poor slave girl (especially if she is 9 or 10-year-old) have power to drag his rapist to public? 
• And if no witness was present there, then she will get "double" punishments. One for adultery, and the 2nd one of Qadhaf, i.e. falsely accusing a free Muslim man, although she is telling the truth. 
• And her pregnancy becomes an evidence for her crime of doing fornication, instead of being raped. 

From where should we bring words to protest against these great injustices of Islam against poor slave girls? 

No 4 witnesses are needed to punish slaves for fornication, but the ruler/owner can lash them if they become convinced based on rumours or personal doubts

In case of of 'Aisha (i.e. free women), Muhammad put the conditions like:

• Four male eyewitnesses are necessary
• And they should have seen penis going into vagina as kohl stick goes into kohl container.
• And if the 4 witnesses are not complete, then rest 3 will be lashed 80 times for making a wrong allegation (although they told the truth). 

But for poor slaves:

• No four male eyewitnesses.
• No kohl stick/container condition is necessary.
• No court trails are needed (where the slave could defend himself/herself)
• But the ruler (or the owner) could inflict punishment upon slaves, if they become satisfied on the bases of rumour or personal doutbs. 

Just look at the following traditions, where Muhammad asked Ali to kill a Coptic Slave only on basis of rumours and personal doubts. 

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2771:

Anas reported that a person (a Coptic slave whose name was "Mabur" and he was the cousin of Maria al-Qibtiyya) was charged with fornication with the slave girl of Allah's Messenger (i.e. Maria al-Qibtiyya). Thereupon Allah's Messenger said to 'Ali: Go and strike his neck. 'Ali came to him and he found him in a well making his body cool. 'Ali said to him: Come out, and as he took hold of his hand and brought him out, he found that his sexual organ had been cut. Hadrat 'Ali refrained from striking his neck. He came to Allah's Apostle and said: Allah's Messenger, he has not even the sexual organ with him.

Imam Hakim recorded the following tradition in his book al-Mustadrak (link):

«عن عايشة قالت : اهديت مارية إلى رسول اللّه ومعها ابن عم لها . قالت : فوقع عليها وقعة فاستمرت حاملا . قالت : فعز لها عند ابن عمها . قالت : فقال اهل الافك والزور : «من حاجته إلى الولد ادعى ولد غيره» وكانت امّه قليلة اللبن فابتاعت له ضائنة لبون فكان يغذى بلبنها فحسن عليه لحمه . قالت عايشة : فدخل به علىّ النبى صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ذات يوم فقال : «كيف ترين»؟ فقلت : من غذى بلحم الضأن يحسن لحمه . قال : «ولا الشبه» قالت : فحملنى ما يحمل النساء من الغيرة أن قلت : ما أرى شبها . قالت : وبلغ رسول اللّه ما يقول الناس فقال لعلى ... ».

Aisha said: " Maria" was presented to the prophet of Islam (as a slave woman) and her cousin (a coptic male slave) was with her. After a while Maria became pregnant. Upon that, the people started slandering that since he [the prophet of Islam] needed child, he related the son of that slave-man to himself. Since Maria, as a mother, didn’t have enough breast milk, they fed him by sheep 's milk that’s why he (the son Ibrahim) became fat. 'Aisha said: Once the prophet brought him to me and asked what I thought about him, I replied, "everyone fed by sheep 's milk will get fat." The holy prophet said doesn’t he look like me? Aisha said, "I jealously said "No"." and then the prophet heard of the untrue accusations (rumours) of people toward Maria. Upon that the prophet sent Ali to kill her cousin (i.e. the Coptic slave) ...

Hence:

• Muhammad did not give the Coptic slave a chance to have a fair trial in court.
• He didn’t ask the people (who accused that Coptic slave) to bring the 4 witnesses for fornication. 
• Furthermore, all the companions who falsely accused the slave and Mariyah of fornication should have received 80 lashes, as per the Islamic punishment of "حد القذف i.e. false testimony." Their testimonies should have been invalidated in court from that point onward. This aligns with Muhammad's own actions during the incident of Ifk involving 'Aisha, where he lashed all the Sahaba who made false accusations of fornication against her.

Thus, Imam Malik said (link):

فقال مالك: يقيم السيد على عبده حد الزنى وحد القذف إذا شهد عنده الشهود

Malik said: The master applies, to his slave, the hadd of unlawful intercourse and of false accusation of intercourse, if the witnesses render testimony before him.

But the question is, if in the case of Aisha, three witnesses (even those of the rank of COMPANIONS) could give false testimony due to rumors, then why can't ordinary people give false testimony in the case of slavey due to rumors (just as they did in the case of Mariya and the coptic slave)? 

So, why these double standards? Why not to protect slaves the similar way and put conditions of 4 male eyewitnesses and stick and kohl container for them too? 

And Hanbali Fatwa says (link):

وإن ثبت موجب الحد بعلمه أي السيد فله إقامته لأنه قد ثبت عند ذلك كما لو أقر به ولأنه يملك تأديبه

An owner can enforce the Hadd on his slave when it is proven based on his personal knowledge as it becomes proven to him just like it is proven through a confession and because he has the authority to discipline the slave (in other matters without requiring witnesses).

This Hanbali fatwa is even worse, as an owner does not even need any external witness. If the owner becomes convinced on the basis of rumours (like Muhammad became convinced about adultery of Mariya and the coptic slave), then he can just punish innocent slaves solely on the bases of rumous and doutbs. A normal person (i.e. owner) is not so careful about testimonies and other issues as a court (a judge) is.   

So what, if an owner, out of anger, falsely accuses a slave, then who will protect such a slave from these brutal punishments?

Moreover, there were tons of psychopath owners who on slight doubts start beating slaves.

It is an open licence in hands of owners to beat their slaves. For example, if an owner intentionally wanted to tease and beat the slave, then he could easily do it by making a false allegation of fornication against the slave and nobody could stop him. 

Giving this authority to the owner to punish slave without any witness, just based upon his doubts, rumours, without proper witnesses, without proper trail in the court in front of a neutral judge, is INJUSTICE against poor slaves.

Islamist Excuse: An Islamist wrote: "It is written in Sahih Muslim 1703a: "When the slave-woman of any of you commits adultery and this (offence of hers) becomes clear, she should be flogged..." Thus, a slave girl can only be flogged for fornication if it becomes CLEAR, and not on the basis of doubts and rumour.

Our Response: This word "clear" is not enough. We stay on our opinion that a proper trail in a court is needed where the testimonies can be judged properly, and the truth can be separated from rumours. Otherwise, it also became CLEAR to Muhammad on basis of doubts and rumours that Mariyah fornicated with a coptic slave and he ordered to kill him. And it also became CLEAR to many companions of Muhammad that 'Aisha indulged in adultery in the incident of IFK and they gave false testimonies against her, based upon their doubts. 

There is absolutely no 'physical' punishment for the owner for CASTRATING the slave boy and cutting his nose 

The following case also proves that an owner needs no witnesses or trial, but he can directly punish the slaves for adultery. 

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.” 

Grade: Sahih (Ahmad Shakir)

So, there was absolutely no "physical" punishment for the owner for castrating him and cutting his nose. At the maximum, he had to set him free, which is not difficult for a rich owner. 

And he had to set him free, while prescribed punishment for adultery for slaves is 50 lashes. But instead of it, he castrated him. That is why he had to set him free.

Moreover, modern Islamic preachers falsely claim that the ruler has to give a physical punishment (i.e. Ta'zir) if the owner kills his slave or mutilates him. But Muhammad's practice is clearly against this where he gave no physical punishment as Ta'zir in the case of mutilation, but the only punishment was to set the slave free as a fine. 

Caution: Radical Muslims pose a threat of reinstating slavery once they acquire power

In the event that religious Muslims acquire power and successfully establish an Islamic Caliphate, it is crucial to understand that they will be compelled to engage in "Jihad" against all other non-Muslim states. And once this "Jihad" ensues, the revival of "slavery" will inevitably accompany it (as the captive women and children of the non-Muslims will be made slaves after the war).

This same ruling can be found in the fatwa issued by Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh Saleh al-Fawzan, where he openly declares that the institutions of Jihad and Slavery will automatically be reinstated upon the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_Al-Fawzan
In the tape he was quoted as saying, “Slavery is a part of Islam ... Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.” As for the modernist interpretation that Islam totally abolished slavery, he dismissed its exponents saying, “They are ignorant, not scholars. ... Whoever says such things is an infidel.”

Stay vigilant and informed.

Despite being aware of the potential consequences, we were caught off guard by ISIS when they initiated the killing of all Yazidi men and the abduction of women and young girls as sex slaves. It is undeniable that our failure to recognize these dangers was a fault on our part. We were in a state of denial, refusing to accept the true face of this evil.

ISIS openly claim that all those Muslims who say that slavery is illegal, then all these Muslims have become Kafirs, while they are declaring the Halal of Allah (i.e. slavery) as Haram on their own.

It is not ISIS, but the writer of the Quran himself, who claims that only Allah has the right to make the laws in Sharia, and no human is allowed to change these laws. And whoever does it, then he becomes a Kafir.

(Quran 5:44) لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers.

Muslims find themselves defenceless against this argument put forth by ISIS, as they remain unable to provide a counter-response.

Ibn Battuta: How Muslim Rulers took Hindu Princesses as slaves and raped them

Ibn Battuta writes about Sultan Muhammad Tughlaq:

(On the festivels of Eid) ... Then the musicians and dancers come in. First of all, the daughters of the infidel Indian kings who have been taken as captives of war during that year and whom, after they have sung and danced, then Sultan presented to the Amirs and to the distinguished foreigners, then after them the rest of the daughters of the infidels and these, after they have sung and danced, he gives to his brothers and kinsmen and relatives (to him) by marriage and to the sons of the maliks. The Sultan's session for this purpose takes place after the hour of afternoon prayer. Then on the next day also, after the hour of afternoon prayer, he holds a session after the same manner, to which are brought singing girls whom, after they have sung and danced, he gives to the amirs of the mamluks.
Online Reference:
The Travels of Ibn Battuta, A.D. 1325-1354, Volume 3, page 667 and 668

Video of a Slave Bazaar in Saudi Arabia in 1964 with Naked Slave Girls in Public:

In this video, Slave women with naked breasts are shown to be sold in the Islamic Bazaar of Slavery. This is the story of the 1300-year-long history of Islamic Slavery. Although Saudi Arabia had to ban slavery in 1962 due to the pressure of the Western world, still unofficially it continued. This documentary was made in 1964. (YouTube Link)

Manuals of Islamic Sex Slavery

There exist many such manuals. For example, have a look at this:

"Slaves for Pleasure in Arabic Sex and Slave Purchase Manuals from the Tenth to the Twelfth Centuries"

Let us read some excerpts from it:

Jābir ibn Ḥayyān said: Byzantines have cleaner vaginas than other female slaves have. Andalusians […] are the most beautiful, sweet-smelling and receptive to learning […] Andalusians and Byzantines have the cleanest vaginas, whereas Alans (Lāniyyāt)53 and Turks have unclean vaginas and get pregnant easier.54 They have also the worst dispositions. Sindhis, Indians, and Slavs (Ṣaqāliba) and those similar to them are the most condemned. They have uglier faces, fouler odor, and are more spiteful. Besides, they are unintelligent and difficult to control, and have unclean vaginas. East Africans (Zanj55) are the most heedless and coarse. If one finds a beautiful, sound and graceful woman among them, however, no other species can match her. Women from Mecca (Makkiyāt) are the most beautiful and pleasurable of all types.

...

In Kufa there was an excellent brood (nitāj karīm) of male slaves from Khurasan and female slaves from India.61 The union between these two brought forth [slaves with] delicate brown complexion and beautiful stature. This went on for so long time that it became a reason behind common people’s preference for slaves from Kufa over slaves from Basra. Nevertheless, the expensive and valuable slave women, who were the most outstanding and distinguished, were from Basra, not Kufa.

The account is supported by a statement attributed to the famous author alJāḥiẓ (d. 255/868–869): Abū al-ʿAbbās, the husband of Ibrāhīm al-Naẓẓām’s sister, asked me:

“Do you know which of all species is the most favorable for privacy with women?” I answered, “No, I do not know that.” He continued, “Know that there is abundant happiness and complete pleasure only in the brood of two dissimilar kinds. The breeding between them is the elixir that leads to purity. Specifically, that is the mating of an Indian woman with a Khurasanian man; they will give birth to pure gold.

...

Groups of Turks cauterize the breasts of slave-girls to prevent them from sagging, but instead they droop very much. Some of them cauterize slavegirls on the tops of their head; others cauterize them on their vulvas. Other cauterize them on their bellies and their […]91 There are imaginary stories about the Turks on this subject, but verily, they do it with their own daughters. Islamic law makes it obligatory for the buyer to be allowed to return her, even after he had sexual intercourse with her, on the condition that she was not a virgin and he did not know about the burn mark or something that looks like it.

...

A merchant told me that he bought a Turkish slave-girl and when he got bored of her, he endeavored to return her. There was a small mark, the size of a lupine bean, on her genital area and so he could return her to her owner with a signed record (maḥḍar) from the judge (al-qāḍī).

A friend of mine told me that he had bought a beautiful Turkish slavegirl and had intercourse with her several days. One night when they woke up at sunrise after having slept together, he looked at her eyes and saw that an eyelash had grown inward and caused her eye to tear. Because of this defect, he returned the slave-girl to her owner

...

The stages of inspection observed by Fabri at the slave market in Alexandria correspond roughly to those recommended by Ibn al-Akfānī. The overall process, which Fabri referred to as handling (contrectatio), began with a general survey of the slaves offered for sale. This survey, which Fabri called consideration (consideratio), was conducted at a distance and based on knowledge of physiognomy. Once the buyer had settled on a slave, he reached into the crowd and extracted the one he had selected for a second and more comprehensive appraisal (probat emendum, literally testing the thing to be bought). This stage included public viewing and touching of the slave’s naked body. If, having completed the second inspection, the buyer found the slave to be satisfactory, he met with the seller to discuss the price. This description makes clear that the slave-buying manuals’ advice to inspect the shame zones prevailed over the muḥtasib’s responsibility to prevent it. It also illustrates the dangers that threatened slaves who attempted to resist the slave-buying process: those who balked at the humiliating public inspection of their naked bodies were beaten until they complied.

Prices of slaves was even lower than animals in Islamic States:

Islamic Slavery could have spread HIV, while a slave girl was raped by MULTIPLE masters in TEMPORARY sexual relationships

Islamic slavey has an evil of a master raping a slave girl, and then after fulfilling his lust, handing her over to his brothers one by one (or to sell her to a new master).

Thus, Islamic slavery is fully capable of spreading HIV.

But only thanks to the modern civilized Western world, Islamic slavery does not exist today. 

This should be enough to open the eyes of Muslims who blame the WEST for spreading HIV. The solution to HIV is not putting restrictions upon consenting adults, but to find a cure, or to take preventive measures. 

For example, if scientists find a cure to HIV tomorrow, are then Muslims going to allow consenting adults to have sex without marriage? 

Question: Will Muslim allow their wives today to have TEMPORARY sexual relationships too with multiple partners?

Do you allow your wives too to have sex with multiple men today (as men are allowed in Islam to have sex with multiple wives and dozens of slave girls)?

Yes, the excuse of not knowing about the child's father has already been solved today due to DNA test. So, what is stopping you today for not allowing women to have multiple husbands (if they wish)?

The question is:

• If Muslim men can have TEMPORARY sexual relationships with dozens of slave girls (not out of any necessity, but only for pleasure) 
• And you can also force slave girls to undergo TEMPORARY sexual relationships.
• Then why cann't then women have TEMPORARY relationships out of their own desire?

Welcome to the world of Double Standards !!!