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

The biggest excuse by Muslims is this that conditions were not suitable in the earlier centuries to abolish slavery.

But this excuse holds absolutely no value when we look at the history of flagbearers of humanity in the past:

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

And when Buddhas follower, Ashoka the Great got power in India, then although he was unable to abolish slavery completely, nevertheless, he ended the Slave Trade and Bazars of Slavery completely (link). And this is that achievement, which 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 into the opposite direction. And slave-trade and bazars of slavery flourished greatly under the Islamic Caliphate throughout 1400 years of history of Islam. Slave trade was at its peak in the Islamic caliphate and slave traders all over the world came to Islamic bazars of slavery.

In fact, there was no salve trade and Bazars 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 Bazars 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 later coming Buddhist government in 13th century abolished slavery completely by replacing it through 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. Even the Jews themselves praised Cyrus in their books for his humanity and work against 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.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great

What to talk about Buddhists and Cyrus, Muhammad was unable to give slave women even those rights, which were given by Jews and Christians for thousands of years before arrival of Muhammad. Muhammad simply neglected the Moses laws regarding slave women, and followed the laws of his ignorant Arab culture, as they brought more worldly benefits and money to Muhammad.  We will read about it in detail further in this article.

In the modern world:

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

Here is the timeline of abolishment of slavery (link). You can see more than 200 major movements against slavery in whole world throughout the history, but you will not find a single movement in Islamic country against slavery in this long list.

Why?

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

According to Saudi Mufti (link), the ban upon slavery is only temporary. And as soon as an Islamic State is established, then it has to wage Jihad (i.e. offensive war) against the Kuffar (i.e. infidels) and then to take them and their women and children as prisoners, which will ultimately turn into slaves. Thus, the institution of slavery will establish once again along with the establishment of an Islamic State.

Allah/Muhammad not only allowed the owner to rape the slave-girl, but also to hand her over to other men to rape her one by one in a "temporary sexual relationship" 

Allowing a Muslim owner to rape a prisoner/slave-women was itself a great crime of Allah (i.e. Muhammad) against the humanity.
But Allah went even further in cruelty against the prisoner/slave-girl, and Allah dishonored the poor slave-girl in one of the worst possible ways by letting her to be raped by multiple Muslim men one by one.
Allah made it Halal for the Muslim owner that after fulfilling his Lust in Shia Mut'a type "Temporary Sexual Relationship), if he got bored, then he could hand her over to one of his brothers (or even to any of his slave). And after all of his brothers (/or slaves) had raped her one by one and fulfilled their lust and got bored, then she could be sold to the 2nd master, who again raped her, and then sold her to the 3rd master .... and thus, this cycle of rape continued for the poor slave-girl.
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 at the same time) we also desired good ransom money for them 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). 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.

Allah/Muhammad allowed the master to snatch away the wife of his slave, and to start raping her, and thus destroying the whole slave family. 

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Marriage (link):

وَقَالَ أَنَسٌ: {وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِذَوَاتُ 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 that if a slave girl of any person is in the marriage of his slave man, then owner could take that woman back for himself (to have sex with her) from his slave man.

Unbelievable!

Even Judaism/Christianity dealt with slave women much better than Islam

There are verses in Bible which tell the 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, then Bible treats them in 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 temporary sexual relationship like Islam, but they stipulated that:

  • An owner is allowed only to "marry" the captive/slave-woman.

  • After marriage, the status of captive/slave-woman became like a permanent wife.

  • And such slave-woman could not be handed over to the brother or slave as a sex object, and could not be sold to another owner after temporary sexual relationship, but she becomes automatically a free woman. 

  • And off course bible didn't allow the owner to snatch away the wife of his slave, and to start her rape, and thus to destroy the whole family of his slave. 

Bible, Deuteronomy, Chap 21 (link):

Marrying a Captive Woman
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 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. 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)

“Religious Morality” of Judaism/Christianity was bad too, while they allowed to take the captive women as slaves. But this “religious morality” became worse after the arrival of Muhammad. 

Judaism/Christianity

Islam

  • Jews and Christians also took the captive women as slaves.

  • Islam also turned the captive women into slaves.

  • Owners were not only allowed to rape her, but it was also permissible for them to let other people and their slaves to rape her one by one against her consent.

 

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

     

  • But Islam gave no time to the poor captive women to mourn the killing of her relatives.
    Islam allows the owners to start raping the captive women the very same night, after killing her relatives (father / brothers / husband / sons) in the day time.

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

  • Once the owner has married her, then he could not sell her further like slave, and make any money.
  • But in Islam, when owner got bored after raping her, then he could present her to his brother, or to hand her over to his slave. And once when all of them get bored after fulfilling their sexual lusts one by one, then she could be sold to the 2nd owner who again raped her, and then sold her to the 3rd owner … and the 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, and bought for himself another beautiful slave-girl in order to rape that new slave-girl. 

 
  • The master was allowed to snatch away the wife of his slave, and to start raping her. 

 

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

Jews were themselves present in al-Madina and Muhammad knew very well about ruling regarding captive women in Judaism. Still Muhammad neglected the Sharia (i.e. law) of Moses, and included the laws of the polytheist Arab society (which was more ignorant and crueler) into the Islamic Sharia.

Why?

The answer is simple. 

The laws of ignorant Arab culture brought more "Financial Benefits" to Muhammad, where he and his Jihadists not only got sexual pleasures by raping the captive/slave-women, but also made much more money by selling them after the rape. Yes, these extra sexual pleasures and extra money came at the cost of worst type of cruelty upon the captive/slave-women.

Please also remember that those poor captive/slave-women were totally innocent, and they had no role in the wars, but still Muhammad didn't spare them, and misused them for his own benefits. 

Conclusion is:

  • Thus, the so-called "religious morality" made the "inverse journey" (i.e. from bad to worse) in this case.
  • Alone this one fact is enough to understand that Muhammad was a false prophet.
    Remember, according to Muhammad, his Allah was 100% perfect, and free of making a single mistake. Therefore, if Allah is found of making a single mistake, then whole building of Islam is automatically destroyed. 
  • Alone this one fact is enough to know that Muhammad was making revelations in name of non-existent Allah himself. 
  • Alone this one fact is enough to leave Islam. 

2nd Problem: 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 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 (included penetration into their vaginas).

As far as those captive women were concerned, who previously had the husbands, then Allah(/Muhammad) allowed to undress them, and kiss their naked bodies, and force them to masturbate them and to provide all type 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 blood.

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
Translation:
“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
Translation:
“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 (Islamic Warriors) didn’t even leave the pregnant women alone, but they were also raped the same night (except for penetration in their vagina).

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

According to Islamic Scholars, the Fiqh (Jurisprudence) of Imam Bukhari lies in the “Headings of Chapters” of his Book.

And Imam Bukhari gives this heading in his book Sahih Bukhari (link):

Chapter: If one buys a slave woman, can then he takes her along with him in a journey without her completing her waiting period?

Under this heading, Imam Bukhari writes:

ولم ير الحسن بأسا أن يقبلها أو يباشرهاوقال ابن عمر ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ إذا وهبت الوليدة التي توطأ أو بيعت أو عتقت فليستبرأ رحمها بحيضة، ولا تستبرأ العذراءوقال عطاء لا بأس أن يصيب من جاريته الحامل ما دون الفرج.
Translation:
Hasan Basri finds nothing objectionable in kissing a woman or to having sex with her. And Ibn Umar said that such a slave woman who is given as a present, or who is sold, or who is made free, but sex had been done with her before that, then she had to undergo a waiting period. 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 Trauma of the poor captive women, when they were raped by Muslim Jihadists on the first night?

In order to understand the trauma of those captive women due to the killing of their relatives, could be seen in 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 shock it would have been for these poor women and 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?

Islam apologists come up with this excuse that perhaps this tradition of History of Tabari is weak. But they should realize that this excuse is not going to work, while it is a "Universal Truth" that after the killing of relatives in the war, all women are automatically in this state of crying and mourning. While the "2nd Universal Truth" is this that Muslims indeed raped them and forced them to provide the sex-services the very first night.

Please again remember that Bible (Jews and Christians) didn't allow this cruelty against the prisoner women, but they were human enough to provide the captive women a period of whole one month to mourn their relatives, and only after that they married them. It does not spare them for their crime of taking captives as slaves, but at least they treated the captive women much better and humanely than Allah(/Muhammad).

Waiting period for the captive/slave-women (who already have husbands) is only to become free of the first menstruation blood

The “waiting period” for captive/slave woman (who previously have husbands) is over after the first menstruation blood is over. Therefore, if she becomes free of blood in 3 days, then the new owner, or his brother or slave could start having sex with 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.

Imam Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd (who is also known as 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
Translation:
The istibrā' (waiting) period for a slave concubine who changes ownership is one menstruation. Ownership may change by selling, giving away, capture, or any other way. If the slave is a minor girl and she 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 if the previous owner had already did sex with her, then there is a waiting period of 3 months for her before new owner can have sex 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 next owner could start raping her after that.

Sunnan 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.

It was a regular practice of Muhammad's Companions to rape prepubescent slave-girls

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

Istibra is a period of sexual abstinence required till the first period of captive girl is over. This is to ensure no confusion on paternity. 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.

Please imagine the trauma of those small girls. Their fathers and brothers were killed the same day by Muslims, and then they were driven out of their houses and looted by Muslims, and then they were even separated from their mothers the same night, and then an ugly Jihadis started raping those small girls.

Muhammad didn't even grant the poor small girls the period of one month to come out of the shock of killing of their fathers and brothers (like the Jews/Christians did), before raping them. 

If any God really exists, then can He ever bring such a shame to humanity?

Unfortunately, Muslims have lost all their Humanity, and all their Shame due to the religious brainwashing. They still come out and start defending Muhammad against this ugliest crime which he committed against humanity. 

This was the practice of Companions and all Muslims of the last 1400 years, till the secular non-religious West saved humanity against these evil religious practices of slavery and raping.

2 to 5 Official Fathers of a child (due to her rape in the 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, 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 if a child was born.

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 slave-woman is in joint ownership of 2 men, then they both could have sex with her by performing double "Istabra" (i.e. becoming free of monthly blood twice)

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) father 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 Indian Sub-Continent (i.e. Pakistan/India/Bangladesh)

The owner was allowed to deny the parentage of his own child and declare him a Bastard

The Muslim owners raped the slave-woman in "temporary sexual relationship) and then sold her to another master, or gave her to his brother or to his slave too, and they raped her after she became free of monthly blood in 3 (to 7) days.

So, problems arose what to do if doubts occurred about the parentage of the child in such cases?

Mohammad came up with this solution, that the owner was allowed to deny the parentage of his own child from slave-woman, and thus declare his own child to be a BASTARD (Arabic: Walad-ul-Haram).

Even if the 2 joint-owners didn't want the parentage of the child from their common slave-women, they were also allowed to deny the parentage and declared the child a Bastard, instead of becoming the joint 2 official fathers of that child.

Sunnan Ibn Majah (link):

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).

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 son of a slave woman is attributed to the owner as long as he didn’t deny it, because she had been on a bed with him, He (i.e. prophet Muhammad) said that the son belongs to the bed, but he (the child) will be not be attributed to him if he just denied him according to us.”

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 (son) cannot be proved without the claim (from the father), the admission of performing sexual intercourse shall not suffice, if he didn’t claim paternity, he (the son) will become a slave for him. “

Next crime against the humanity was this that Islam made that innocent child to suffer in the Islamic society in name of being a Bastard. Islam came up with an Islamic Terminology (Walad-ul-Haram ولد الحرام) for this. 

  • Allah(/Muhammad) put a ban that those innocent children could not get the name of their fathers, but they should be called by the names of their mothers only, so that they could be recognised easily as Bastards in the society and could be humiliated.
  • Allah(/Muhammad) banned that those innocent children get any share in inheritance of their fathers.
  • If the child is a girl, then she is a non-Mahram for her father and step brothers and therefore could never get fatherly love, nor brotherly love from her step brothers. 
  • All the 4 Fiqh Imams (i.e. Malik, Abu Hanifa, Shafi'i and Ahmed bin Hanbal) say that it is not allowed for a bastard child to lead a congregational prayer (Reference: Biggest English Fatwa Website Islamweb.org. Link).
  • 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).

Allah/Muhammad snatched away the right from the slave to marry at his/her own, and declared such a Nikah as a fornication and null and void. 

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 the slaves?

Sharia of Islam: A slave-mother and her baby could be separated from each other and sold (in the Bazars of slavery) after baby has his second tooth (i.e. about 6 months)

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

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

ولا يفرق بين الام وولدها في البيع حتى يثغر
Translation:
A slave-mother and her baby could be separated from each other and sold (in the Bazars of slavery) after baby has his second tooth (i.e. about 6 months)

A mother could only weep the tears of blood, if her 6 months old baby is separated from her and sold in the slave market.

Even the slave-mothers of owner's own children were also not spared, and they wear also separated from their children and sold in the slave markets. 

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 ‏
Translation:
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.

This is the 1400 years of history of Islam. That history, in which hundreds and thousands of babies were separated from their slave-mothers, and sold in the 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 you don't feel the pain of these prisoner/slave mothers after reading it, then you have no mercy and no humanity left in you.

Allah/Muhammad made it Halal for Muslim men to buy child slave-girls from the markets, and then rape them

Imam Ibn Abi Zayd (known as younger Imam Malik), wrote in his book "THE RISĀLA" (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 istibrā' (waiting) period for a slave concubine who changes ownership is one menstruation. Ownership may change by selling, giving away, capture, or any other way. If the slave-girl is minor and thus menstruates after she has been bought by the new master, then she does not have to go through a period of istibrā' (and the new master could have sex with her directly). But if previous master had already intercourse with the minor slave-girl, and afterwards she is sold, then her istibrā (waiting period) is three months, and also for an old woman who no longer menstruates, is three months [after her sale]. There is no istibrā' [for a minor] who has not yet had intercourse.

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”.

Just imagine the calamity of these child slave-girls, and you will start shivering:

  • First Allah/Muhammad separated the small child slave-girl from her mother, and sold her in the Bazars of Slavery.
  • Now this young child girl is alone in the new house of her new owner, and she is completely at the mercy of her owner.
  • And when the new owner starts raping her, then what a trauma it is for this little girl.
  • And if this new owner is a psychopath too, and he also tortures this child girl along with rape, then parents of that girl are also not present there to ever help her and to protect her against this torture.

Whole family of slave was at the mercy of owner:

In Islam:

  • Slaves were not allowed to marry on their own in order to form a family. They were totally dependent upon the mercy of their owner.

  • If any slave man or woman married without the consent of owner, then it was considered a fornication, for which they were punished.

  • Even if an owner showed mercy and married one of his slave women to his slave man, still owner got the full right to break the family of his slave at any time, and to take his wife back for himself to have sex with her.

  • Even if a slave mother had a baby, the owner could still destroy this family too, and separate the baby and sell him/her in the slave market at the age of about 6 months (i.e. after the baby gets his second tooth).

  • And the owner was allowed to sell the slave-father even before the birth of the baby. Poor slave-father didn’t even have the right to see his baby once.

  • Normally owners used to marry their slave women only to a healthy and young slave man, so that a healthy baby was born, and they could sell the baby at good price in the slave market.
    Have you seen this practice on the cattle farm, when one healthy Bull is given the chance to mate with all the cows, so that a healthy baby calf could be born?
    Islam used exactly the same concept, where slave women were mated only with a healthy slave man, so that healthy babies were born, who could be later sold for good price.
    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 benefits, due to which Muhammad neglected the Moses law, and followed the laws of uncivilized Arab society, and made them the part of Islamic Sharia.

The Evil of "Slavery by Birth" in Islam

Please do imagine the series of cruelties of Allah/Muhammad upon the women and small children.

These women and small children were totally innocent, and they had no role in the wars.

But still Allah/Muhammad snatched away all their belongings and tied them in chains of slavery for whole of their lives.

But this cruelty didn't end here, but it continued, and in the next step Allah/Muhammad tied up their upcoming next generations too in the chains of slavery in name of "slavery by birth" (i.e. the child born to slave men and women will automatically become a slave)

And this cruelty of Allah/Muhammad continues, and not only the child automatically becomes a slave after his/her birth, but after 6 months (when he/she gets 2 teeth) then Allah/Muhammad allowed to separate the child from his/her mother and to sell him/her or the mother in the slave market.

And what about the slave father? Then Allah/Muhammad didn't even give the slave father this chance or right to even see his child once, and he could be sold even before the birth of the child.  

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.

Slave men and women didn't even have the right to "Love" and to form their families

It is Human Nature that a boy and a girl will indulge in love.

And it is also a Human Nature to wish for own family and children.

But Allah/Muhammad went against the Human Nature, and Islam snatched away the right to Love and wish of having a family/children from a slave men and woman.

How could then Islam apologists still claim that Islam is a religion of nature?

According to Allah/Muhammad:

  • Slave men and women didn't have the right to indulge in love and then to marry with each other and to start the family life with children.
  • But Islam converted the slave-girl into a "Sex Objects", who was raped and sold again and again by multiple Muslim men whole of her life due to the temporary sexual relationship.
  • What to talk about having the right of a permanent partner whom she loved, a slave-girl was not even allowed to wish to have a child of her own. No, but her owner raped her, and then he practiced al-'Azl i.e. withdrawing the penis from the vagina and to ejaculate outside, so that the slave girl didn't get pregnant, and thus she kept on providing his owner full sexual services, or the owners could get good money after selling her to another man.
  • And even sometimes owner showed mercy upon his slave man, and married him to his slave-woman, still Allah/Muhammad allowed the owner that he could at any time destroy the family of the slave man, and separate his wife and his children from him, and then sell them in the slave market, or to start raping his wife himself. 

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

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, but it went further, as Islam also allowed the owner to present her as a “gift” to any of his brother 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 has gifted me to you, then that person could 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 for fornication. We will read in detail about it later in this article.

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

Allah/Muhammad didn’t even consider slaves as human enough to give their testimony in the court.

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

وقال مالك وأبو حنيفة والشافعي وجمهور العلماء لا تجوز شهادة العبد

Translation: 
Imam Malik, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi'i and majority of the Islamic scholars say that witness of a slave is not accepted. 

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 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. Testimony of free Muslim woman’s testimony is considered “half testimony” as compared to free Muslim male. And that testimony was also limited only to the “financial” cases. This means that Free Muslim women are not allowed to give testimony in the cases of “Hudud” cases (like Rape of woman, killing, stealing, robbery) in an Islamic State. 

  2. But the testimony of Slaves was absolutely not accepted in any case (It was not even counted as half testimony, but Zero testimony). For example, if a free man beats the slave man, then the testimony of that slave man (or other slaves who witnessed that crime) was not acceptable.

  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 woman while rape came under “Hudud” cases.

  4. Same is the case with the 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 by this.

Note:

There is one incident where Prophet Muhammad accepted the testimony of a slave woman, who testified in case of breast milk feeding to a baby. But according to Salaf Islamic Fiqh Imams, these were minor “exceptions”, where testimonies of one woman, or slave women could be accepted in minor cases like those cases which involve the private body of the woman. For example, if a slave woman testify that she has become free of her menses blood, then her testimony could be accepted in this case, and her new owner can start having sex with her.

Therefore, except for this one exceptional case, there are one million other Ahadith and Quranic verses, but none of them tell any incident where slaves were allowed to testify. This is in itself a proof enough that Islam does not accept the testimony of the slaves.

Forcing slave women for 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 object too, and the owners used it as a source of income for them. The origin of this practice also lies in Islam.

There were people who used to force their slave-girls into prostitution.

When those slave-girls complaint Muhammad, then he didn't punish their owners for compelling them for fornication

But why didn't he punish them?

Answer is, while the witness of those slave-girls was not admissible in Islamic courts. 

This incident is present in the Quran itself.

Quran 24:33:

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

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

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

Therefore:

  • Islam not only allowed the owner to rape the slave-girl, but also allowed the owner to present her as a gift to any other person, who could then rape the slave-girl too against her consent.

  • And no “Witness” was needed in Islam for having sex with the slave woman (please see the reference above, if a slave woman comes to any person and tells him that her master has gifted me to you, then that person could trust that slave-girl and have sex with her).

  • And the “witness” of a slave-woman (or slave-man) is not accepted in Islamic court. Actually, slaves are absolutely not allowed to go to court against their owners. (We have already written in detail about the “witness” of slaves above).

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

That is why, the writer of the Quran (i.e. Muhammad), at maximum, only recommended the owners to not to force the slave-women for fornication, but he was unable to punish the owners for forcing their slave-girls for 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 Tafsir (interpretation) of this verse, Islamic Scholars like Abu Malik, Abu Saleh, Muawiyyah, Hassan, Siddi and Mujahid all wrote that women of al-Madina city used to go out of their houses in evening to the toilets etc. And men (i.e. Companions of Muhammad) sat at the edges of the streets and, they used to sexually molest those women. Upon that, this verse of Hijab was revealed, so that the free Muslim women cover themselves in the Jilbab (big sheet of garment), so that the companions could differentiate between the free women and the slave women, and then they spared the free Muslim women from the 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.

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

Why?

Answer lies in the fact that Allah/Muhammad usurped the right of 'testimony' from the slave women. 

They are not even allowed to go 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. 

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

Prophet Muhammad ordered to kill all the old people of the enemy, even if they belonged to the civilian population, and even if they had no role in the war. It was due to the fact that those old captives were not able to work as slaves, and money could not be generated by selling them, and they would have only been a financial burden upon the owner.

Sunnan Tirmidhi, Book of Battles (link):

عن سمرة بن جندب أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال اقتلوا شيوخ المشركين واستحيوا شرخهم والشرخ الغلمان الذين لم ينبتوا
Prophet Muhammad said: Kill the old people of the polytheists, but let their younger children to live.
This hadith is authentic (Sahih). Link.

Humanity in you could still hear the cries of those old people, while they were being slaughtered.

PS: Islam apologists try to deny it, but indeed the reality is this that Allah/Muhammad gave Full permission to Jihadits to kill not only the old captives, but if they wished, then they could have killed ALL the captive men, including 12 years old male children too (Remember the incident of Banu Qurayzah?)

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 ancient society, there were harsh punishments for the slaves, if they tried to flee due to the cruelty of their owners.

But the cruelty and oppression that was showed by Islam, it was unmatched.

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

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

  2. Second System:
    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 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 the throat of his slave as punishment of 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.

There was no punishment upon the owner, even if he killed his slave through beating

Mercy!!! Mercy!!!

  1. All 4 Fiqh Imams are unanimous upon this that an owner could not be punished even if he killed his slave through beating. There is absolutely no Qisas (i.e. killing the owner 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 other person, still the killer could not be killed in Qisas (i.e. equal retaliation in Islamic Sharia), while Islamic Sharia does not consider free Muslim and a slave at the same human status.
    According to Islam, the punishment is this that 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 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 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 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) acted upon.

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)

Non-Muslim slaves could not be set free as 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."

Question for Muslims: Why didn't Allah/Muhammad set the captive women/children free as they were innocents and had no role in the wars?

Women and small children had no role in the wars, and they were totally innocent of any crime. But still Allah/Muhammad made these innocents slaves, and that too for whole of their lives. 

Why?

Upon that Muslim excuse is this that Islam wanted to give "protection" to those women and small children, that is why they were made slaves instead of setting them free. 

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

Look:

  • Captive women wanted protection against their rape.

  • They wanted protection that no one sold them in the slave market by making their breasts naked.

  • They wanted protection that multiple men don’t use them as sex object by having temporary sexual relationship with them.

  • Captive women wanted the protection that no one makes them slaves for whole of their lives.

  • Captive women wanted the protection that no one compel them to do forced labour work for them.

  • 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 are not automatically born as slaves.

But problem is this that Islam is itself committing exactly "all these crimes" against the captive women in 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 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 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”?

Muslim Excuse: Situation of that Era didn't allow Muhammad to abolish the slavery

Answer:

It is not only about "abolishing" of slavery, but the question is also about "Giving the Basic Human Rights" to the slaves", where Allah/Muhammad failed miserably despite being in full position in doing it.

For example:

  1. Allah/Muhammad could have easily given the orders like Bible i.e. no captive woman could be raped the first night after her father, husband, brother and sons had been killed the same day. If Jews and Christians could follow this law of Bible for thousands of years, why then Sahaba (companions) would have rebelled against Allah/Muhammad for doing that?

  2. And Allah/Muhammad could have ordered if any one desired for the captive woman, then he should marry her, and should not further sell her to another man after temporary sexual relationship. If Jews/Christians were able to practice for thousands of years, what then stopped Allah/Muhammad for 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 name of temporary sexual relationship.

  3. Had Prophet Muhammad wished, then he could have allowed the slave women to cover their naked breasts, and Sahaba (companions) would have not rebelled against Muhammad for this. It has nothing to do with the 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 by sticks if they ever wished to cover their bodies.

  4. Allah/Muhammad could have accepted the testimony of slaves in the court, and Sahaba would have not 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 Muslim 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 to give witness against the rapist who raped them, or against their own owners if they forced them for the 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 Sahaba, but only differentiated the free women from the slave through the use of Jilbab, so that Sahaba didn't then molest the free women. 

  5. Allah/Muhammad could have easily declared that life of 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 to not to slap them was not enough, and there should have 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 would have declared the blood of slaves equal to their owners? 

  6. He could have allowed the slaves to indulge in love, and to marry the woman of their choice. Did giving such basic human right to the slave would have really destroyed the Economy of the mighty Islamic State? 

  7. 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 effect the Economy of the Islamic State? 

  8. He could have ordered to end the institution of “Descent-based Slavery” (i.e. children of slaves are automatically born as slaves in Islam). Did that really destroy the Economy of the mighty Islamic State? 

  9. 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 State had the right to own the slaves, and thus no one could kill any slave without being punished for this crime (link).

  10. 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 could have ended the Bazaars of Slavery 1000 years before Islam, why then Muhammad (or powerful Muslim rulers like Umar Ibn Khattab) were unable to end these Bazaars of slavery?

  11. 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 slaves women to the Polytheists, who raped those women (although those slave women believed in God). History of Tabari, vol. 2, 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.

  12. 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.

  13. He could have replaced the institution of slavery with the institution of Serfdom (like the Buddhist Governments of 13th century did for the sake of humanity, and to give basic human rights to the slaves (Link). If normal Buddhist States were able to do it, why then Muhammad or later coming powerful Muslim rulers were not able to do it? As the wise people say: “Where there is a will, there is a way”. But Allah/Muhammad were unable to find the ways to end the 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 the slavery completely.

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

 

  1. Muslim Excuse: Islam didn't abolish slavery while conditions were not suitable for it
  2. Allah/Muhammad not only allowed the owner to rape the slave-girl, but also to hand her over to other men to rape her one by one in a "temporary sexual relationship" 
  3. Even Judaism/Christianity dealt with slave women much better than Islam
  4. The “Inverse Journey” of “Religious Morality” (from bad to worse)
  5. Why Muhammad left the laws of Moses, and followed the laws of ignorant polytheist Arab society?
  6. 2nd Problem: 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
  7. The Trauma of the poor captive women, when they were raped by Muslim Jihadists on the first night?
  8. Waiting period for the captive/slave-women (who already have husbands) is only to become free of the first menstruation blood
  9. It was a regular practice of Muhammad's Companions to rape prepubescent slave-girls
  10. 2 to 5 Official Fathers of a child (due to her rape in the temporary sexual relationship)
  11. The owner was allowed to deny the parentage of his own child and declare him a Bastard
  12. Allah/Muhammad snatched away the right from the slave to marry at his/her own, and declared such a Nikah as a fornication and null and void. 
  13. Sharia of Islam: A slave-mother and her baby could be separated from each other and sold (in the Bazars of slavery) after baby has his second tooth (i.e. about 6 months)
  14. Allah/Muhammad made it Halal for Muslim men to buy child slave-girls from the markets, and then rape them
  15. Whole family of slave was at the mercy of owner:
  16. The Evil of "Slavery by Birth" in Islam
  17. Slave men and women didn't even have the right to "Love" and to form their families
  18. No “Witness” was needed for having sex with the slave-girl (even if one is doing sex with the slave-girl of another person)
  19. Slaves are not human enough to “testify” in the court according to Allah(/Muhammad)
  20. Forcing slave women for Prostitution, as a source of Income by the owners
  21. Slave women were sexually Molested by Sahaba, but Allah/Muhammad neither stopped it nor punished them. Why?
  22. Muhammad ordered to kill all the Old Captives, while they were unable to work as slaves
  23. Allah(/Muhammad) allowed the master to slaughter his slave, if he dared to flee in order to avoid the cruelty of his master
  24. There was no punishment upon the owner, even if he killed his slave through beating
  25. Absolutely no Qisas punishment for the owner for CASTRATING the slave-boy and cutting his nose:
  26. Non-Muslim slaves could not be set free as atonement (kaffara) of sins:
    1. Question for Muslims: Why didn't Allah/Muhammad set the captive women/children free as they were innocents and had no role in the wars?
  27. Muslim Excuse: Situation of that Era didn't allow Muhammad to abolish the slavery
  28. Ibn Battuta: How Muslim Rulers took Hindu Princesses as slaves and raped them