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:

Muslim Argument: Islam didn't abolish slavery while conditions were not suitable for it

The most common excuse given by Islamic apologists is that the conditions in earlier centuries were not suitable for abolishing slavery.

However, when we examine the history, this excuse holds no weight:

Buddha came more than a thousand years before Islam. But at that time of ignorance, he preached against slavery and the caste system.

And when Buddha's follower, Ashoka the Great got power in India, then, although he was unable to abolish slavery completely, nevertheless, he ended the Slave Trade and Bazaars of Slavery completely (link). And this is that achievement, that Muhammad missed by miles. And not only Muhammad but also his followers (i.e. Muslims) also missed this achievement by miles throughout their history of 1400 years.

Actually, totally contrary to this achievement of Buddhists, Muslims went in the opposite direction. And slave-trade and bazaars of slavery flourished greatly under the Islamic Caliphate throughout 1400 years of the history of Islam. The slave trade was at its peak in the Islamic caliphate, and slave traders all over the world came to Islamic bazaars of slavery.

In fact, there was no slave trade and Bazaars of slavery were present in India after the next 800 years of Ashoka. But then Muslims conquered India, and they once again established the slave trade and Bazaars of slavery in India.

Even after Ashoka, the Buddhists kept on trying to bring reforms, in order to end slavery. And through Human thinking, the latter coming Buddhist government in the 13th century abolished slavery completely by replacing it with the system of Serfdom (link). Again, this is that achievement, which Muhammad missed by miles during his era, as well as Muslims of the next 1400 years.

And the era of Cyrus the Great (Iran) was even older than Buddha. But he also worked a lot against slavery for the sake of humanity. His efforts were even recognized and praised by the Jewish people in their texts for his humanitarian work and opposition to slavery:

Cyrus was praised in the Tanakh (Isaiah 45:1–6 and Ezra 1:1–11) for the freeing of slaves, humanitarian equality and costly reparations he made.


Even the Jews and the Christians treated slave women better than Muhammad (as we will read about it in this article later). 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. 

In the modern world:

  • These were France and the British Empire, which put a complete ban on the selling and purchasing of slaves in 1833.
  • The League of Nations passed a bill for a complete ban on slavery in 1926.
  • Saudi Arabia and Yemen didn't want to abolish slavery, as it was made Halal by Allah. But after pressure from the British government, they had to agree to end slavery in 1962.
  • The last country in the world, which ended slavery in 2007, was the Muslim country of Mauritania. 

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.


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  

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.

Muhammad fully allowed to use the practice of Azl with slave girls, but uttered the last sentence (i.e. if any soul has to be born, then it will be born) only in order to refute the Jews, who believed that withdrawing the penis (azl) is burying the living girls (Sunan Abu Dawud, 2171)

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, 5105:
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. There is no harm in a man (i.e the owner) taking his female slave (for himself) from his male slave.


Imam Shafii (d. 820) said (link):

وله أن يزوج أمته بغير إذنها بكرا كانت أو ثيبا

“He (the master) can marry off his female slave without her permission whether she is a virgin or non-virgin.”

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):

Marrying a Captive Woman
21:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
21:11  if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 
21:12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails
21:13 And put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 
21:14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.


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.



  • Jews and Christians also took captive women as slaves.

  • Islam also turned captive women into slaves.

  • Owners were not only allowed to rape her, but it was also permissible for an owner to let his brothers and slaves to rape her one by one against her consent in a Temporary sexual relationship.


  • Captive women were given a whole month to mourn the killing of their relatives.


  • But Islam gave no time to the poor captive woman to mourn the killing of her relatives.
    Islam allows Muslim owners to drive sex services from the captive woman the very same night after her relatives (father/brother/husband/sons) had been killed by them during the daytime. 

  • Prophet Muhammad did sex with Saffiyyah (a captive Jewish woman) the same night after her father, brother and husband had been killed during the daytime, while she became clear of her menstrual period the same day (Sahih Muslim, Book of Marriage)

  • Once the owner has married her, then he cannot sell her further like a slave, and make any money.
  • But in Islam, when the owner got bored after fulfilling his lust by raping her, then he handed her over to his brother, or hand her over to his slave. And once when all of them get bored after fulfilling their sexual lusts one by one, then she was sold to the 2nd owner who again raped her, and then sold her to the 3rd owner … and thus the cycle of rape of poor slave woman continued.

  • If the owner did not want her anymore, then he had to set her free.

  • There was no concept of setting her free due to the lack of interest. But the owner simply sold her to another owner and bought for himself a new beautiful slave girl in order to start raping her. 

  • The Bible didn't allow to take the wife of the male slave.
  • If the master got lust for the wife of his slave, then he was allowed to snatch her away from her husband and rape her. 

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.


The answer is simple. 

The laws of ignorant Arab culture brought more “Financial Benefits” to Muhammad, where he and his followerss 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):

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.
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 to 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 112:

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).

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.

The Evil of "Slavery by Birth" in Islam

ٰUnfortunately, Muslim preachers do false propaganda and tell lies all the time that Islam forbade all sources of slavery except for war. But the TRUTH is:

  • Islam not only made slaves through WARS but also through the evil of the SLAVE TRADE (which was a Halal Allah).
  • And Islam also made slaves through the evil of "Slavery by Birth". This means the babies of slave parents are automatically born as slaves in Islam. 

In the case where a free Muslim man marries a slave woman belonging to someone else, the children born from that union are automatically considered slaves of the owner of the slave woman. This is why the Quran discourages free men from entering into marriage with slave women who belong to others, as their offspring would inherit the status of slavery automatically.

Quran 4:25:

And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters ... This (permission of marrying a slave woman) is (only) for him among you who fears falling into evil (i.e. fornication); but still if you abstain (from marrying a slave woman) is better for you (while your children will be automatically born as slaves), and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

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

وقوله تعالى { ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِىَ ٱلْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ } أي إنما يباح نكاح الإماء بالشروط المتقدمة لمن خاف على نفسه الوقوع في الزنا، وشق عليه الصبر عن الجماع، وعنت بسبب ذلك كله، فله حينئذ أن يتزوج بالأمة، وإن ترك تزوجها، وجاهد نفسه في الكف عن الزنا، فهو خير له لأنه إذا تزوجها، جاء أولاده أرقاء لسيدها، إلا أن يكون الزوج غريباً، فلا تكون أولاده منها أرقاء في قول قديم للشافعي، ولهذا قال { وَأَن تَصْبِرُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَٱللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ } ومن هذه الآية الكريمة، استدل جمهور العلماء في جواز نكاح الإماء على أنه لا بد من عدم الطول لنكاح الحرائر، ومن خوف العنت لما في نكاحهن من مفسدة رق الأولاد، ولما فيهن من الدناءة في العدول عن الحرائر إليهن،

The Quran says ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِىَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ  (This permission of marrying slave girl of other person is for him among you who is afraid of falling into fornication;) means that marrying slave girls of other people is permissible for those who fear falling into adultery and don't have the patience to abstain from ZINA (adultery). However, it is better to refrain from marrying slave girls and to observe patience, for otherwise, the offspring will become slaves to the girl's master ...  ... Many scholars have used this verse to argue that it is only permissible to marry a slave woman if one does not have access to free women and is afraid of falling into sin because on one hand the offspring will become slave to the girl's master, and on the other hand Muslim men will become more interested in slave women only, and take no interest in free Muslim women

Imam Jalaluluddin Syuti recorded the following traditions under the interpretation of this verse (link):

‘Ikramah said: “abstain is better” in this verse is due to the reason that although it is permitted to marry them (i.e. the slave-women), but then your child will become the slave of the owner of the slave woman.
Ibn Jarir al-Tibri narrated from Suddi: You better abstain from it, while otherwise your child will born as slave.
Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated from Mujahid that marrying a slave woman is same like eating a dead animal, or drinking blood, or eating the pig. Such marriage is not allowed except for a helpless person.

Musanif Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded this tradition (link):

حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ مَهْدِيٍّ ، عَنِ الْعُمَرِيِّ ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ، قَالَ : وَلَدُ أُمِّ الْوَلَدِ بِمَنْزِلَتِهَا.

Ibn Umar said: The child of a slave woman (except from his master) will have the same status as his/her mother (i.e. the child will also be a slave)

Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded many traditions about it (link).

Sharia of Islam: A slave mother and her baby can be separated and sold (in the Bazaars of slavery) after the baby has his two molar teeth (i.e. about 6 to 8 months)

Why didn't Islam abolish slavery completely? Muslim preachers make an excuse that due to constant ongoing wars, it was not possible for Islam to abolish slavery completely. 

However, the question that arises is why didn't Islam then even grant slave parents the right to keep their children with them and prevent their separation. Instead, Islam granted owners the right to separate children from their slave parents and sell them in the slave markets.

We ask if Islamic State would have been destroyed had it granted slaves the right to keep their children by their side and prevented their separation.

One of the biggest evils of Islam was "Slavery by Birth". All the children of slave men and women were automatically born as slaves (except in this case when the father was the owner himself). 

And the next big evil of Islam was that owners were allowed to separate the children from their parents, and then sell them in the slave markets (or he kept the child and sold the father or mother or both in the market. In both cases, the separation between the children and the parents took place). 

Imam Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd (also known as the younger Imam Malik) wrote in his Maliki Fiqh Book (link 1 & link 2):

ولا يفرق بين الام وولدها في البيع حتى يثغر
A slave-mother and her baby cannot be separated from each other and sold (in the Bazars of slavery) till the baby has his second tooth (i.e. about 6 to 8 months)

The anguish experienced by a mother is indescribable when her six-month-old baby is forcibly taken away from her and sold in the slave market.

Even the slave mothers of the owner's own children (i.e. أم الولد) were also not exempt from this cruelty. They too were separated from their children and sold in the slave markets, leaving behind a trail of heartbreak and despair. 

Sunnan Ibn Majah (link):
جَابِرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، يَقُولُ كُنَّا نَبِيعُ سَرَارِينَا وَأُمَّهَاتِ أَوْلاَدِنَا وَالنَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِينَا حَىٌّ لاَ نَرَى بِذَلِكَ بَأْسًا ‏
Companion Jabir bin `Abdullah said: “We used to sell our slave women (with whom we had intercourse) and the slave-mothers of our children (Umahat Awladina) when the Prophet was still living among us, and we did not see anything wrong with that.”
ٰImam Albani declared this Hadith to be authentic (Sahih). Link.

Once again, we witness the distressing separation between parents and children, with the only distinction being that in this case, it is the mothers who are being sold instead of the babies.

This is the grim reality that unfolded over the course of 1400 years in Islamic history. A history marred by the tragic separation of countless babies from their slave mothers, who were then traded and sold in the desolate slave markets.

One of the earliest surviving Christian texts from the Islamic period in Syria, dated around 640 CE, describes the rise of Islam in this way (link):

They take the wife away from her husband and slay him like a sheep. They throw the babe from her mother and drive her into slavery; the child calls out from the ground and the mother hears, yet what is she to do?...They separate the children from the mother like the soul from within the body, and she watches as they divide her loved ones from off her lap, two of them go to two owners, herself to another[...] Her children cry out in lament, their eyes hot with tears. She turns to her loved ones, milk pouring forth from her breast: "Go in peace, my darlings, and may God accompany you."

— Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early IslamRobert G. Hoyland[51]

If reading about the suffering of those captive or enslaved mothers does not evoke any empathy or compassion within you, then it is an indication of a severe absence of both mercy and humanity.

slave-mother & baby could be separated and sold in Islam

The whole family of a slave was at the mercy of the owner:

In Islam:

  • The slaves were deprived of the freedom to marry and establish families of their own. They remained entirely dependent on the mercy of their owners.
  • If a slave man or woman dared to marry without the owner's consent, it was deemed as an act of fornication punishable by severe consequences.
  • Even in instances where an owner displayed kindness by arranging a marriage between their slave man and woman, the owner retained the power to dissolve the family unit at any time, reclaiming the wife for personal sexual use.
  • The owner possessed the authority to dismantle a slave mother's family structure, separating the baby from its mother and selling the child in the slave market at approximately six months of age (after the appearance of two molar tooth).
  • Furthermore, the owner had the right to sell the slave father even before the birth of the child. The unfortunate slave father had no right to even lay eyes on his own offspring.
  • Typically, owners would selectively pair their slave women with healthy and young slave men to ensure the birth of healthy babies, subsequently fetching higher prices in the slave market. This parallel can be observed on cattle farms, where a robust bull is chosen to mate with multiple cows in order to produce healthy calves for profit. In this set-up, normally old owners handed over their slave girls to a healthy slave man so that he could rape those slave girls. After the birth of the healthy babies, those old owners again took the slave women back for themselves and started fulfilling their sexual lusts by raping them.

These were the advantages that led Muhammad to overlook the laws of Moses and incorporate the customs of the uncivilized Arab society into Islamic Sharia.

Buying slave babies/minor girls from slave markets and raping and taking sexual pleasures from them

And Sharia allows a Muslim man to buy a slave baby/minor girl from the Islamic Bazaars of slavery, undress her, kiss her naked body, and take all other sexual pleasures, and rub his penis in her thighs to ejaculate. And if she is 6 or 7 years old, and the owner thing she is strong enough, then he can also penetrate in her vagina. 

Imam Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd (who is also known as the younger Imam Malik), writes in his Fiqh book (link):

واستبراء الامة في انتقال الملك حيضة انتقل الملك ببيع أو هبة أو سبي أو غير ذلك. ومن هي في حيازته قدحاضت عنده ثم إنه اشتراها فلا استبراء عليها إن لم تكن تخرج. واستبراء الصغيرة في البيع إن كانت توطأ ثلاثة أشهر
The purification period (i.e. the waiting period) of a female slave is when ownership of the slave is transferred through sale, gift, capture, or other means. If she (is a little girl and) starts menstruating after being taken in possession by her new owner, then she does not have to go through a period of istibrā' (i.e. waiting period). But the waiting period for such a little  girl in the case of sale is three months if she has engaged in sexual intercourse.

The largest Islamic website gave this fatwa:

فإنه لا حرج في تقبيل الزوجة ‌الصغيرة بشهوة ‌والمفاخذة ونحو ذلك ولو كانت لا تطيق الجماع، وقد بين العلماء رحمهم الله تعالى أن الأصل جواز استمتاع الرجل بزوجته كيف شاء إذا لم يكن ضرر، وذكروا في ذلك استمناءه بيدها ومداعبتها وتقبيلها وغير ذلك

There’s no issue in the sexual kissing, thighing..etc of a minor wife, even if she can't yet endure sexual intercourse. Scholars have stated that the default ruling is that a man can enjoy his wife however he wants as long as no harm is caused. The examples they mentioned for this include masturbating with her hand, fondling, kissing, etc.

فتاوى الشبكة الإسلامية، المكتبة الشاملة، ج3 ص8445

The Fatawa of the Islamic web, archived by Al-Maktabah Al-Shamilah library in 2009, vol.3 p.8445

More Fatwas about "مفاخذہ" (i.e. thighing) of minor girls are present here

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim writes in his famous book "Bada'i al-Fawaid" (link):

وفي الفصول روى عن أحمد في رجل خاف ان تنشق مثانته من الشبق أو تنشق انثياه لحبس الماء في زمن رمضان يستخرج الماء ولم يذكر بأي شيء يستخرجه قال وعندي أنه يستخرجه بما لا يفسد صوم غيره كاستمنائه بيده أو ببدن زوجته أو أمته غير الصائمة فإن كان له أمه طفلة أو صغيرة استمنى بيدها

“It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would ejaculate while he was fasting. Ahmed said: “What I see is that he can release semen without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has an “Ammah” (young  slave girl) whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible”.

Ali raped a slave girl on the same night when she was made captive after the war.

Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 22967:

Narrated Buraydah: 
I hated Ali as I had never hated anyone. ... The Prophet sent to us Ali, and among the female captives was a slave girl who was the finest of the female captives, and he apportioned the Khums (one-fifth of war booty given to the Prophet and his family). Ali divided the shares, and his head was dripping (after taking a ritual bath following sexual intercourse with the slave girl). We said: "O Abu al-Hasan (i.e. Ali), what is this?!" Ali replied: "Did you not see the slave girl who was among the female captives? I divided the shares and apportioned Khumus. Then she became part of the Khumus. Then she became part of the household of the Prophet, and then she became part of the house of Ali, and (thus) I had sexual intercourse with her." ...
Grading: Classed Sahih by al-Arna'ut

Since Ali raped that captive girl the same night without any Istibra, thus some people criticized this action of Ali.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani answered this criticism, and wrote (link):

وقد استشكل وقوع على على الجارية بغير استبراء وكذلك قسمته لنفسه فأما الأول فمحمول على أنها كانت بكرا غير بالغ ورأى أن مثلها لا يستبرأ كما صار إليه غيره من الصحابة
"It was problematic that Ali Had sexual intercourse with the slave girl without observing Istibra, and also that he apportioned a share for himself. As for the first issue, it is understood that she was a virgin and not pubescent. He recognized that someone like her need not observe Istibra, and it is in accordance with the practice of other Companions."
Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari 8/67.

Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 16906:

Chapter: Regarding the man who buys a slave girl, may he (immediately) take pleasure in anything of her, and does it exclude the vulva or not? 

Waki narrated to us from Ali bin al-Mubarak, from Yahya bin Abi Kathir, from Ikrimah, regarding the man who buys a prepubescent slave girl, even one younger than that. He said, "There is nothing wrong with touching her before observing Istibra.

Not studied: But all narrators and isnad (chain of transmission) links are of Sahih al-Bukhari. The link of Ikrimah and Yahya occurs in Bukhari 3601107153417061809. The chain of Yahya, Ali bin al-Mubarak, and Waki occurs in Bukhari 9454922.

Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 16907َ:

Zaid bin Hubab narrated to us from Hammad bin Salamah, from Iyas bin Mu'awiyah, regarding a man who bought a prepubescent slave girl, do not those like her have sexual intercourse? He said, "There is nothing wrong with performing the sexual act upon her without observing Istibra.

Not studied:

But all narrators are of Sahih Muslim: Hammad bin Salamah (86 times) and Zaid bin Hubab (16 times). The link of Iyas bin Mu‘awiyah and Hammad is documented by al-Dhahabi. The link of Hammad and Zayd bin Hubab is documented within Musnad Ahmad 21923, in which al-Arna’ut writes:

“Its isnad is hasan. Its men are thiqat (trustworthy) except for Sa‘id bin Jumhan, who is saduq (sincere) among the men narrated by the authors of the Sunans.”

And Imam Bukhari recorded the following traditions:

Sahih Bukhari (link):

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.
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 (i.e. the minor girls are also virgins)."  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.

Try to envision the tragic plight of these young girls who are enslaved, and it will undoubtedly send shivers down your spine.

  • Firstly, Allah/Muhammad separated the small child girl from her mother and sold her in the Islamic Bazaars of Slavery.
  •  Then this young girl finds herself all alone in the unfamiliar residence of her new owner, entirely dependent on his mercy.
  • And when the new owner begins to start raping her, one can only imagine the immense trauma experienced by that little child girl.
  • Furthermore, if this new owner happens to be a psychopath who also brutally tortures her along with raping her, then that slave girl faces an even more devastating situation. Undoubtedly, she would have longed for her slave parents, but their absence left her without any means of finding protection from this harrowing ordeal.

In the situation where a free minor girl is married, there is a possibility that her father may choose to postpone the consummation of the marriage until she is physically mature enough (as was the case with 'Aisha, whose marriage was consummated at the age of 19). But in the case of a slave baby/minor girl, then she is purely at the mercy of her master. It is her master who will decide when she has become strong enough for penetration. If he deems her strong enough at the age of 5 or 6 years, then no one can stop him from doing it. 

If indeed there exists any God, could he ever bring such disgrace upon humanity?

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 and safeguarding humanity.

Swapping of slave girls is also Halal Allah (permissible)

The evil of "Temporary" sexual relationships with slave girls in Islam also led to another evil, where the swapping of slave girls also became Halal Allah. If a Muslim man got lust for a slave girl of another person, he can simply offer that other man to swap their slave girls for rape. 

Tafsir-e-Mazhari is a commentary of the Quran, which is taught in every Hanafi school. It is written under the commentary of verse 33:52 (Link):

Ibn Zayd said about this verse {وَلَآ أَن تَبَدَّلَ بِهِنَّ مِنْ أَزْوَٰجٍ nor to exchange your present wives for other women (Verse 33:52)} that people used to swap their wives during the era of ignorance ... upon that Allah revealed this verse and the swapping of wives is thus not allowed. But the slave women are not included in it, and you can swapp them and there is no issue in it

And in a case, if the owner got lust for the wife of his male slave, then even this swap was not needed. And the owner could simply take the wife of his slave for himself, and used her for sexual services.

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Marriage (link):

وَقَالَ أَنَسٌ: {وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ} ذَوَاتُ الأَزْوَاجِ الْحَرَائِرُ حَرَامٌ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ لاَ يَرَى بَأْسًا أَنْ يَنْزِعَ الرَّجُلُ جَارِيَتَهُ مِنْ عَبْدِهِ.
Companion Anas Ibn Malik said: The meaning of the verse (وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ Surah Nisa) is this if a slave girl of any owner, is in a marriage of his slave man, then there is no issue if the owner take her back for himself (to have sex with her) from his slave man.

2 to 5 Official Fathers of a child (due to her rape in a temporary sexual relationship)

If there were two or more joint owners of the slave women, then Islam allowed those joint owners to rape her one by one. They only had to wait for 3 (to 7) days in between, so that the slave woman became free of her menstruation blood, and after that next owner was allowed to start raping her.

But this caused doubts in many cases that who was the real father of a child. Normally a child is born after 9 months of pregnancy. However, in some cases, the delivery may take place within 6 months, or it may exceed 9 months. 

Thus, Muhammad adopted this solution where both those 2 (or more) joint owners became the Combined Official Fathers of the child.

Imam Ibn Qadamah wrote in his book Al-Mughani (link):

وإذا كانت الأمة بين شريكين فوطئاها لزمها استبراءان

If a woman is shared between two partners, it is necessary for her to undergo purification after being sexually penetrated by each of them.

And it is written in Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, vol. 6, page 162, Urdu edition (link):

If two men have joint ownership of a slave woman, and a child is born, and both claimed the parentage of the child, then both will be the (official) fathers of that child.

In this same Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, vol. 6, page 173, Urdu edition (link), it has been written:

Imam Abu Hanifa said: If a slave woman is in joint ownership of 3 or 4 or 5 men, and all of them claimed the parentage of the child, then all of them will be his (official) fathers.

Fatawa-e-Alamgiri is an authentic Fiqh book of Hanafi jurisprudence and has been taught in all the Hanafi Madaris (religious schools) of the Indian Sub-Continent (i.e. Pakistan/India/Bangladesh).

A master has the authority to deny the parentage of his own child and declare him an illegitimate Bastard and make his own child a slave

If there were two or more joint owners of the slave women, then Islam allowed those joint owners to rape her one by one. They only had to wait for 3 (to 7) days in between, so that the slave woman became free of her menstruation blood, and after that next owner was allowed to start raping her. But this caused doubts in many cases that who was the real father of a child. Normally a child is born after 9 months of pregnancy. However, in some cases, the delivery may take place within 6 months, or it may exceed 9 months.

Mohammad devised a solution wherein the owner had the privilege to deny the parentage of his own child, thus declaring the own child to be an illegitimate BASTARD (Arabic: Walad-ul-Haram). The child would then become the slave of his father, and then the father could sell him/her in the slave market and make money. 

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)

Imam Muhammad bin Ahmad Sarkhasi (d. 483 H) writes in his book Al-Mabsut, Volume 2 page 152 (link):

وولد أم الولد ثابت من المولى ما لم ينفه لأنها فراش له وقال عليه الصلاة والسلام الولد للفراش ولكن ينتفي عنه بمجرد النفي عندنا
The child belongs to the owner of the slave woman unless he denies the parentage. It is considered his offspring as long as he does not disown it, as stated by the Prophet (peace be upon him). However, the parentage is immediately negated once the denial is made according to our understanding.

And Imam Ibn Hamam writes in his book Fath al-Qadir (link):

أم الولد بسبب أن ولدها ، وإن ثبت نسبه بلا دعوة ينتفي نسبه بمجرد نفيه ، بخلاف المنكوحة لا ينتفي نسب ولدها إلا باللعان
“The slave woman’s son, even if his paternity is proven without a claim (from the father), has his parentage disassociated just by denial, unlike the wife in a Nikah whose son’s parentage cannot be dissociated except through “le’an.”

Imam Showkani records in Nail al-Awtar, Volume 7 page 77 (link):

وروي عن أبي حنيفة والثوري وهو مذهب الهادوية أن الأمة لا يثبت فراشها إلا بدعوة الولد ولا يكفي الإقرار بالوطئ ، فإن لم يدعه كان ملكا له
“It is narrated from Abi Hanifa, al-Thawri and it is the Hadwiyah madhab that the paternity of a slave woman’s (child) cannot be proved without the claim (from the father), the admission of performing sexual intercourse shall not suffice, if he didn’t claim paternity, the child will become a slave for him (i.e. the father). “

The subsequent crime against humanity was that Islam made that innocent child suffer in Islamic society in the name of being an illegitimate Bastard:

  • Islam came up with an Islamic Terminology (Walad-ul-Haram ولد الحرام) for them (meaning Bastards).
  • These children were prohibited from bearing their fathers' names and were instead compelled to be identified solely by their mothers' names, marking them easily recognised as illegitimate bastards and subjecting them to humiliation within society.
  • Furthermore, they were denied any inheritance rights from their fathers.
  • If the child is a girl, then she is a non-Mahram for her father and stepbrothers and therefore she can never get fatherly love, nor brotherly love from her stepbrothers.
  • All four Fiqh Imams (Malik, Abu Hanifa, Shafi'i, and Ahmed bin Hanbal) concur that an illegitimate child is not permitted to lead congregational prayers (Reference: Biggest English Fatwa Website Link).

Moreover, Allah claims that a bastard daughter/son is bigger evil and sinner than his/her parents.

Sunnan Abu Dawud (link):

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏قَالَ:‏‏‏‏ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:‏‏‏‏ "وَلَدُ الزِّنَا شَرُّ الثَّلَاثَةِ"، ‏‏‏‏‏‏وقَالَ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ:‏‏‏‏ لَأَنْ أُمَتِّعَ بِسَوْطٍ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ أَحَبُّ إِلَيَّ مِنْ أَنْ أَعْتِقَ وَلَدَ زِنْيَةٍ.
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The child of fornication is worst of the three (among father, mother & child). Abu Hurayrah said that he prefers to give dirt as alms in path of Allah then freeing such illegitimate slave (due to his/her being even bigger evil and sinner than his/her fornicating parents).
Imam Albani graded this Hadith as "Sahih" (link).
Imam Wadai declared this Hadith as "Sahih" according to the standards of Imam Muslim (link).

This level of injustice from any God is just unbelievable. 

It was not incumbent upon the Owners to marry their slaves, and if they married on their own, then it became fornication and punished for it

An owner may possess dozens of slave girls and may rape dozens of them himself, but still it was not incumbent upon him to marry his male slave to any of his female slaves. Eventually, if any one of them marries on his/her own out of love (or out of necessity), then Islam considers such a marriage to be fornication, for which poor slaves have to be punished with lashes.

Sunnan Abud Dawud, Book of Marriage (link):

حَدَّثَنَا عُقْبَةُ بْنُ مُكْرَمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو قُتَيْبَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ إِذَا نَكَحَ الْعَبْدُ بِغَيْرِ إِذْنِ مَوْلاَهُ فَنِكَاحُهُ بَاطِلٌ ‏"‏
Ibn ‘Umar reported the Prophet as saying “If a slave marries without the permission of his owner, his marriage is null and void.

Sunnan al-Tirmiddhi (link):

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أيما عبد تزوج بغير إذن مواليه فهو عاهر
Prohet said: When a slave marries without the permission of the owner, then that slave is a fornicator.

Can one still believe in this Muslim claim that Islam gave the “Basic Human Rights” to slaves?

Muhammad, the "Slave Trader":

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 doing 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 detail later in this article 

A master can hand her slave girl over to all of his brothers and slaves one by one

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. And I have been informed that the man sends his slave girl to his guest too.

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.


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 can 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 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."


  • 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. 


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


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."

The 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 years long history of Islamic Slavery. Why? While Allah/Muhammad failed to provide them with any protection against molestation. 

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). 

عن سمرة بن جندب، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: " اقتلوا شيوخ المشركين، واستحيوا شرخهم "،قال عبد الله: سألت أبي عن تفسير هذا الحديث: " اقتلوا شيوخ المشركين "، قال: يقول: " الشيخ لا يكاد أن يسلم، والشاب، أي يسلم، كأنه أقرب إلى الإسلام من الشيخ "، قال: " الشرخ: الشباب "
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.'"
Ibn Qudammah wrote in his book al-Mughani (link):
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.

Muhammad himself killed all men of Banu Qurazah, including all elderly men (Sahih Bukhari, 4028 & Jami at-Tirmidhi, 1584). He left no men alive except for non-adult male children who didn't get their pubic hair.
Thus, Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab also killed all men, including the elderly 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)
Can humanity within us, make us hear the cries of these innocent elderly men, as they were ruthlessly slaughtered by Jihadists?

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


  1. All 4 Fiqh Imams are unanimous upon this that an owner cannot be punished even if he killed his slave through beating. There is absolutely no Qisas (i.e. killing the owner as a punishment for killing the slave), or any lesser physical punishment or any Diya (دية)  i.e. fine for the owner for killing his slave.
  2. And if a free Muslim kills the slave of another person, still the killer (i.e. the free Muslim man) can not be killed in Qisas (i.e. equal retaliation in Islamic Sharia), while Islamic Sharia does not consider a free Muslim and a slave at the same human status. According to Islam, the punishment is this the free Muslim killer only has to pay the “Half of Diya price (i.e. blood money)” to the owner of the slave. And the wife or children of that slave will not get that Diya price, but it is the owner of the slave who will get that money.

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 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.

There is absolutely no 'physical' 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.” 

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. 

Non-Muslim slaves cannot be set free as an atonement (kaffara) of sins:

Muwatta Imam Malik, Hadith 1477:

Malik said, "The best of what I have heard on the obligation of freeing slaves (as an atonement) is that it is not permitted to free a christian or a jew to fulfil it, and one does not free a mukatab or a mudabbar or an umm walad or a slave to be freed after a certain number of years, or a blind person. There is no harm in freeing a christian, jew, or magian voluntarily, because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'either as a favour then or by ransom,' (Sura 47 ayat 4) The favour is setting free."

Malik said, "As for obligations of freeing slaves which Allah has mentioned in the Book, one only frees a mumin slave for them."

Malik said, "It is like that in feeding poor people for kaffara. One must only feed muslims and one does not feed anyone outside of the deen of Islam."

Muslim Excuse: Islam enslaved innocent women and children too in order to provide them with PROTECTION

Women and small children had no role in the wars, and they were totally innocent of any crime. But still, Allah/Muhammad enslaved them, and that too for their entire life. 


The Muslim excuse is that Islam wanted to give "protection" to those women and small children, which is why they were also made slaves. 

This is sad that Muslims try to deceive by giving the name of “protection” to the "crimes" of Allah/Muhammad against humanity.


  • Captive women wanted protection so that no one made them slaves for their entire life.
  • Captive women wanted protection against their rape.
  • They wanted protection so that no one could them in the slave market by making their breasts naked.
  • They wanted protection so that multiple men didn't use them as sex objects by raping them in a temporary sexual relationship.
  • Captive women wanted the protection that no one would have compelled them to do forced labour work for their entire life.
  • Captive women wanted the protection that their children should not be taken away from them and then sold in the slave markets.
  • Captive women wanted the protection that their babies were not automatically born as slaves.

But the problem is that Islam is itself committing exactly "All These Crimes" against the captive women in the name of “protection”.

If Islam really wanted to give protection to the captive women, then it should have not looted all of their wealth in the name of war booty.

If Islam really wanted to give protection to these women, then it would have allowed them to go to their relatives in other cities.

Instead of this, Islam took their small children too as slaves for the whole of their life and then separated them from their mothers, and then sold them in the slave markets.

Is all this oppression by Islam, really a “Protection”?

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.
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.

Muslim Excuse: It was NORMAL back then

Our Response:

The argument that "it was okay back then" fundamentally contradicts the core concept of religion, which is divine guidance.

If we ultimately judge based on societal norms of the time, the relevance of divine guidance becomes obsolete.

Idolatry was once considered "normal." So why abolish it?

According to the Islamic narrative, killing infant girls was also deemed "normal" in the past. So why abolish it?

If we dismiss divine guidance by claiming that past norms determine what is acceptable, then why introduce any guidance at all?

Then just let the people go by their norms in all cases. What's with these double standards then?

One of the criticisms concerning Slavery in Islam is the direct involvement of Muhammad, who is considered by Allah and Muslims as the ultimate example for humanity, in slavery throughout his lifetime. Allah immortalized slavery by having his Messenger Muhammad take part in it. He had multiple slave women for sex, despite having more than 9 wives. He kept those enjoying those slave women for his entire life, and he didn't free them. 

At the very least Allah could have prevented his Prophet from being a part of it. But nope.

Anyone attempting to assert that Islam abolished or discouraged Slavery is simply deceiving themselves in an effort to hold onto their faith. There is no truth to such claims.

Muslim Argument: Allah didn't abolish slavery due to constant ongoing Wars and the Economy and while the slaves would have suffered to death as it happened with African American Slaves after the emancipation 

Muslim preachers also come up with this excuse:

Look how the black African American slaves, after being set free by the 13th Amendment, suffered and some of them died after being freed. Thus Islam couldn't abolish slavery because then the slaves would suffer the same fate as the black American slaves.

Simlialry, every war brought slaves, and Muslims could not have abolished it one-sidedly, when Kuffars were also enslaving Muslims after wars. 

Moreover, the economy was directly linked with slavery, and it was impossible to completely abolish slavery, and to give freedom to all slaves who were the private properties of their owners, who bought them from slave markets. 


Firstly, the Muslim argument about African American slaves holds no value. Slavery was also abolished in the whole of Europe, but no such problem occurred in Europe. Actually, The British Empire also abolished slavery from all its colonies all over the world, and still, slaves faced no such problems in those colonies. 

Actually, it was the "Racial Prejudice" of the white supremacists in America, which played the most important role in bringing hardships to African American Slaves later after their emancipation. The question is if Sahaba (i.e. companions of Muhammad) also had such "Racial Prejudice" against all slaves that Allah/Muhammad feared and thus didn't dare to emancipate slaves in the Islamic state.

Secondly and most importantly, if ongoing wars were bringing more slaves every time, still Allah/Muhammad could have given slaves more human rights, which could have reduced their sufferings. But Allah/Muhammad failed miserably in providing the slaves with even basic human rights

For example, Ashoka the Great of India was also not able to completely eradicate slavery due to ongoing wars. However, he successfully eliminated all forms of slave trade and slave markets within India.

Here is a list of some basic human rights, which Allah/Muhammad could have very easily provided to slaves, and his companions would have not rebelled against Allah/Muhammad. Or the economy of the Islamic State would have also not collapsed due to those basic human rights.:

  1. Allah/Muhammad could have at least abolished the rape of the virgin and small girls on the first night. If the Jews and the Christians (who were the neighbours of Muhammad) were following the rule of the Bible and not raping captive women and girls for the first full month for thousands of years before Muhammad, why then it was impossible for Allah/Muhammad to do the same? 
  2. And Allah/Muhammad could have at least ordered if anyone desired the captive woman, then he should marry her, and should not further sell her to another man after a temporary sexual relationship. If the Bible successfully gave this right to the poor captive and slave women thousands of years before Islam, what then stopped Allah/Muhammad from giving this important basic human right to the captive/slave women? Instead of that, Allah/Muhammad made the repetitive rape and repetitive sale of slave women Halal in the name of temporary sexual relationships.
  3. Had Prophet Muhammad wished, then he could have allowed the slave women to take Hijab (when they were not working) and to cover their naked breasts. It has nothing to do with economic conditions but with basic human rights. But Allah/Muhammad went towards the opposite direction. Not only breasts of slave women were kept naked, but they were also beaten with sticks if they ever wished to cover their bodies by taking Hijab.
  4. Allah/Muhammad could have accepted the testimony of slaves in the court, and Sahaba would not have revolted against Allah/Muhammad for that, while it has nothing to do with the economic situation. But Allah/Muhammad wanted to dishonour the slave men and women. In fact, Islam/Muhammad didn't even allow the non-Muslims to give testimony against any crime of any free Muslim man in the court. It was also in order to humiliate the non-Muslims. While Allah/Muhammad usurped the right of "witness" from slave women, thus those poor women were not even able to go to the courts and give witness against the rapist who raped them, or against their own owners if they forced them into prostitution. That is why verse 33:59 tells that Sahaba used to sit on the roads and used to sexually molest the slave women. And Allah/Muhammad didn't punish those companions but only differentiated the free women from the slave through the use of the Hijab so that Sahaba didn't then molest the free women. 
  5. Allah/Muhammad could have easily spared the old elderly men by not killing them after taking them as prisoners. Did sparing the elderly men would have destroyed the economy of the mighty Islamic Caliphate?
  6. Allah/Muhammad could have easily declared that the life of a slave had equal value as that of his owner. And he could have easily imposed Qisas (or any other kind of physical punishment) in order to discourage the owners to beat or to kill their slaves. Merely giving a recommendation not to slap them was not enough, and there should have been any physical punishment for the owners for beating or killing them. Again, this has nothing to do with the economic situation, but basic human rights. Had Sahaba revolted against Allah/Muhammad if they had declared the blood of slaves equal to their owners? 
  7. He could have allowed the slaves to indulge in love, and to marry the woman of their choice. Would giving such basic human rights to the slave have really destroyed the Economy of the mighty Islamic State? 
  8. He could have prohibited the Muslim masters from destroying the slave family by taking the wife of his male slave for his lust and raping her. 
  9. He could have ordered that owners were not allowed to disown the parentage of their own children from their slave women. How much did it affect the Economy of the Islamic State? 
  10. He could have ordered to end of the institution of “Slavery by Birth” (i.e. children of slaves are automatically born as slaves in Islam). Did that really destroy the Economy of the mighty Islamic State? 
  11. He could have ordered that it was not allowed to separate the babies (after they got two molar teeth at the age of 6 months) from their slave mothers and then sold in the Islamic Bazaars of Slavery. Did the prohibition of such sale of 6 months old babies really destroy the economy of the mighty Islamic State? 
  12. He could have prohibited the “private ownership” of the slaves and could have declared that all the captives/slaves should only be kept in the ownership of the State. For example, the Law of Draco (which was written 1200 years before Islam), declared that only the State had the right to own the slaves (link).
  13. He could have at least ended the Bazaars of Slavery, where poor slave women were paraded half-naked, and the buyers were even allowed to touch their private body parts too. If Ashoka the Great of India could have ended all the Slave Trade and the Bazaars of Slavery 800 years before Islam, why then Muhammad (or powerful Muslim rulers like Umar Ibn Khattab) were unable to end the slave trade and the Bazaars of Slavery?
  14. He could have at least ended the slave trade with the non-Muslim countries, where the Muslim owners were even able to sell the Muslim/Jews/Christian slave women to the Polytheists, who raped those women, although those slave women believed in God (Refence: History of Tabari, vol. 8, Page 39 under the incident of Banu Qurayzah). After that Prophet Muhammad handed over the captive (Jewish) women to companion Saad bin Zayd, and sent him to the area of Najd, so that he could sell those captive (Jew) women there (to the polytheists) and buy weapons and horses from that money.
  15. Muslim Bazaars of Slavery were notoriously famous throughout the world and became one of the major sources of income for the Muslim community. But such an economic source from slavery is even worse than the economic sources from other crimes like stealing and robbery.
  16. He could have replaced the institution of slavery with the institution of Serfdom (like the Buddhist Governments of the 13th century did for the sake of humanity, and to give basic human rights to the slaves (Link). If the normal Buddhist States were able to do it, why then Muhammad or later coming powerful Muslim rulers not able to do it?

As the wise people say: “Where there is a will, there is a way”. But Allah/Muhammad was unable to find ways to end slavery, or even to give basic human rights to the slaves, while they didn’t will it. Otherwise, Muhammad and other powerful Muslim rulers got all the full power and economic stability to abolish slavery completely.

In conclusion, even if Muhammad/Allah was not able to abolish slavery completely, still he was in the position of providing the slaves with these basic human rights, thus reducing their sufferings. But Muhammad/Allah failed miserably here.

And in many cases, Muhammad/Allah even INCREASED the sufferings of slaves (like raping captive/slave women in Temporary sexual relationships Halal for Mulsim men and then selling them to another master). While Muhammad's neighbours (i.e. the Jews and Christians) were neither allowing the practice of temporary sexual relationships with captive/slave girls, nor they were allowing multiple masters to rape their shared slave girl, nor they were allowing the swapping of slave girls, nor they were allowing the masters to take the wife of their male slaves for their lust. 

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 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

Some important videos about Islamic Slavery:

Slave Bazars in Saudi Arab in 1964:

You have to watch this video directly on youtube, as it is age-restricted (Slave women with naked breasts are shown to be sold in the Islamic Bazaar of Slavery). This is the story of the 1300 years 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. 

The History of Arab Trade:

Open admission by Sheikh from al-Azhar about Slavery in Islam and how it was practiced in Egypt till 1948:

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.


Please also read the Part 2 and Part 3 of this series here: