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

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

Firstly:

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

Secondly:

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

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

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

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

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

Thirdly:

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

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

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

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3954:

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

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

Grade: Sahih (Al-Albani)

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

Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 2517

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

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

Fourthly:

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

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

Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 2746:

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

Fifthly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firstly:

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

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

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

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

Muwatta Imam Malik (link):

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

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

You can read more about it here.

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

Muslim Claim: Islam “gradually” ended slavery

Again, this is a lie.

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

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

Reality is, as Islam kept on getting powerful, the numbers of slaves also kept on becoming more and more.

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

Forget about ending slavery on the state level, prophet Muhammad didn’t stop taking advantages(/misuse) of evil practice of slavery in his “Personal Life”. He didn’t gradually end slavery in his own house. In fact, the numbers of slaves only increased gradually in his house too.

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

Muslim Claim: Islam ended the “Slavery by Birth”

Again, it is a lie.

Islam never ended the “slavery by birth”. According to Islam, all the children of slaves are automatically born as slaves by birth.

In fact, this evil of “slavery by birth” increases further, and Islam allowed the owners to separate the slave babies from their slave mothers when they are about 6 months old (and get 2 teeth) and could be sold in the slave market. While a slave father does not even have a time of 6 months, but slave-father could be separated on the very first day from his child, and could be sold somewhere else.

Even if a FREE Muslim marries a slave woman of other person, still the children of that free Muslim man will be born as “slaves by birth”, and they will belong to the owner of the slave mother.

Therefore, on one side Islam allowed a man to marry the slave woman of other person, but on the other hand, Islam discouraged it too, while the child of that free person will automatically become slave by birth.

(Quran 4:25) … (if you don’t find free women for Nikah), then marry the slave women with the permission of their owners … this permission is for those who fear to indulge in fornication. But if you show abstain and don’t marry (those slave women), then it is better for you.

All the Muslim Scholars said that Quran is discouraging free man to marry a slave woman of another person, while then the child of that free person will be automatically born as slave of the master of the slave-woman.

Imam Jalaluluddin Syuti recorded 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 Sidi: 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.

Muhammad was again only copying the laws of pre-Islamic Arab society.

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

Again, it is false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Hadith 6671:

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

Translation (link):

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

Grade: Sahih (Ahmad Shakir)

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

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

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

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tafsir Ibn Kathir, verse 8:67:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer:

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

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

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

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

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

How prisoners of tribe of Hawazin became free:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenge to Islam apologists: Why prisoner women of Banu Qurayzah or Khaybar not set free as "Favour"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humanity does not accept any such law where innocent women and small children had to pay for the crimes of the combatant men.

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

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

Muslims present this tradition.

Sahih Muslim (link):

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

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

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

قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم من لطم مملوكه أو ضربه فكفارته أن يعتقه قال العلماء في هذا الحديث الرفق بالمماليك ، وحسن صحبتهم وكف الأذى عنهم ، وكذلك في الأحاديث بعده ، وأجمع المسلمون على أن عتقه بهذا ليس واجبا ، وإنما هو مندوب رجاء كفارة ذنبه ، فيه إزالة إثم ظلمه ومما استدلوا به لعدم وجوب إعتاقه حديث سويد بن مقرن بعده أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أمرهم حين لطم أحدهم خادمهم بعتقها ، قالوا ليس لنا خادم غيرها ، قال فليستخدموها ، فإذا استغنوا عنها فليخلوا سبيلها ، قال القاضي عياض وأجمع العلماء أنه لا يجب إعتاق العبد لشيء مما يفعله به مولاه مثل هذا الأمر الخفيف
Scholars have said that Prophet’s order to set him free due to a slap, is actually only a recommendation in order to treat the slaves with leniency. Same thing is told in the other hadith, upon which Muslim are “unanimous” (Arabic: Ijma) that it is not necessary to set the slave free for such minor act of slapping. One may set him free while hoping that his freedom frees the owner from the sin of slapping him unjustly. And this hadith is the proof that setting the slave free was not obligatory: (حديث سويد بن مقرن بعده أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أمرهم حين لطم أحدهم خادمهم بعتقها ، قالوا ليس لنا خادم غيرها ، قال فليستخدموها ، فإذا استغنوا عنها فليخلوا سبيلها). Qazi Ayyadh said: Scholars are “unanimous” (اجماع) that this minor act of slapping does not make it necessary to set the slave free.

And then there are other traditions, which recorded the beating of the salves, without setting them free.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 142:

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

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

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 1818:

Narrated Asma' bint AbuBakr: We came out for performing hajj along with the Messenger of Allah. When we reached al-Araj, the Messenger of Allah alighted and we also alighted. Aisha sat beside the Messenger of Allah and I sat beside my father (AbuBakr). The equipment and personal effects of AbuBakr and of the Messenger of Allah were placed with AbuBakr's slave on a camel. AbuBakr was sitting and waiting for his arrival. He arrived but he had no camel with him. He asked: Where is your camel? He replied: I lost it last night. AbuBakr said: There was only one camel, even that you have lost. He then began to beat him while the Messenger of Allah was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing? Ibn AbuRizmah said: The Messenger of Allah spoke nothing except the words: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (wearing ihram), what is he doing? He was smiling (when he uttered these words).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Hadith 6671:

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

Translation (link):

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

Grade: Sahih (Ahmad Shakir)

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

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

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

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

Sahih Muslim (link):

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

Chapter: It is permissible to have intercourse with a female captive after it is established that she is not pregnant, and if she has a husband, then her marriage is annulled when she is captured
عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، الْخُدْرِيِّ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَوْمَ حُنَيْنٍ بَعَثَ جَيْشًا إِلَى أَوْطَاسٍ فَلَقُوا عَدُوًّا فَقَاتَلُوهُمْ فَظَهَرُوا عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَصَابُوا لَهُمْ سَبَايَا فَكَأَنَّ نَاسًا مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم تَحَرَّجُوا مِنْ غِشْيَانِهِنَّ مِنْ أَجْلِ أَزْوَاجِهِنَّ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ فِي ذَلِكَ ‏{‏ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ‏}‏ أَىْ فَهُنَّ لَكُمْ حَلاَلٌ إِذَا انْقَضَتْ عِدَّتُهُنَّ ‏.
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end, even if they were polytheists themselves).

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

You could read about it more here.

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

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

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

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

Message:

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

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

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

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

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

Please do hug humanity

Please do support humanity

Please do take the side of humanity