The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

The categories of slavery in the ancient systems that were practiced in the world when Islam came were many. They would judge with slavery for the bankrupt debtor; so the creditor, when his debtor became indigent and bankrupt, could enslave him. They would also judge with slavery of the human being as punishment of what he committed of crimes and mistakes. They also ordained for the free person to accept slavery upon himself so he could sell himself to another upon condition that he frees him after a period they agreed upon. The strong tribes allowed themselves to enslave individuals or weak tribes. Wars and battles would determine, in a general way, the enslaving of captives and allow enslaving all the people of a country if they conquered them. Some of them would limit slavery to whom they took as captives in the war of men, women and children. Whoever was taken as a captive in a legal war and was enslaved therein was considered a slave and was acknowledged in his being a slave.

When Islam came, it imposed for the situations where slavery occurred and existed Shari’ah rules other than slavery, and detailed the matter in the situation of war. It clarified in relation to the bankrupt debtor that the creditor should wait to a time of ease. Allah (swt) said:

It also clarified the punishments upon sins with details particularly the punishment of stealing whose punishment used to be slavery which Allah (swt) indicated in the Qur’an:

So Islam clarified its punishment i.e. for stealing the cutting of the hand. Allah (swt) said:

It made the contract between the slave and owner upon freedom, not upon slavery. It forbade the enslaving of free people with a decisive prohibition. He (saw) said:

So Allah (swt) will dispute with the seller of the free person. As for the situation of war, Islam detailed therein and prevented the enslaving of captives absolutely. In the second year of the Hijrah, it clarified the rule of the captive in that either they are favoured by releasing them without any exchange or either they are ransomed for money or captives like them from Muslims of dhimmis, thereby preventing the enslaving of captives. Allah (swt) said:

The ayah is explicit upon this meaning: Release or ransom, and it absolutely does not bear any other meaning. The Arabic language requires restricting the rule of the captive in one of these two matters, release or ransom because “imma” is for giving a choice between two matters and for restriction in the two things. Herein it came giving a choice between release and ransom, and restricting the rule to these two, when it came expressing that with “imma” which gives sense of the restriction in what is mentioned after it:

Here a question can be raised which was a position of confusion for some fuqaha from whom it was taken that the Khalifah can enslave captives if he so views. This question is that the Prophet (saw) did enslave after this ayah. This ayah was revealed in the second year after Hijrah at the beginning of the war between the Messenger (saw) and the Quraysh disbelievers, and the Messenger (saw) enslaved in Hunain. And the Messenger’s action is considered legislation as it considered explanation for the ayah of Allah (swt). So how could enslaving of captives be prevented by this ayah even though the Messenger (saw) enslaved after this revelation in Hunain? The response is that the action of the Messenger (saw) and his speech in relation to the Qur’anic ayat is either detailing its mujmal (aggregate), restricting its unrestricted or specifying its generality. The action of the Messenger (saw) and his speech cannot be an abrogation to the Qur’an. The ayah of prisoners of war is neither (mujmal) such that it be detailed, nor are its words the words of generality so that they be specified nor unrestricted so that they be restricted. So if it be authenticated that the Messenger (saw) enslaved after its revelation, his action would be an abrogator for it and this is not permitted. In addition, the Messenger’s enslaving captives is a khabr ahad which contradicts the ayah:

And when the (khabr ahad) contradicts the definite ayat and ahadith the knowledge of the (khabr ahad) is rejected. Accordingly, there is no consideration to what is narrated about the Messenger (saw) enslaving after the revelation of the ayah of captives. Actually what happened in the battle of Hunain is that the women and children accompanied the fighters of the polytheists to increase their numbers and incite their men, so when they were routed in the battlefield the women and children became captives and the Messenger (saw) divided them between the fighters among the Muslims. When this was revised regarding the captives, the Muslims gifted what they had of the right in the captives (sabaya) voluntarily and returned their captives (sabaya) to their people. This indicated the permissibility of enslaving (sabaya) who are the women and children who accompany the men in the battlefield to increase the numbers and for encouragement. Despite that, the Messenger (saw) did not enslave the women and children who accompanied the fighters in Khayber. When he (saw) invaded Khayber and conquered it, he left them as free persons and left the land under their hands to farm it for half its produce. Abu Ubaidah said about the captives (sabaya): ‘The Imam is given a choice about them as long as they have not been divided. Once they are divided there is no way over them except by gift and free will of those for whom they become like the action of the Messenger of Allah (saw) with the people of Hunain. None of the captives (sabaya) were returned by anyone of them except by gift and free will since he had divided them. He did not do this with the people of Khayber but rather left them as free persons nor were they gifted by anyone as division had not occurred over them.

As for other than the captives (sabaya) who are the fighters when they are captured, the Messenger (saw) never enslaved any of their men. It is not authenticated that he enslaved a prisoner of war of the fighting men from the Arabs or Jews or Christians. The word (aseer) when used unrestricted in the language relates to the male fighter. As for the woman and the child, the word used for them in the language is children (sabiyy) and not prisoner of war (usra). Accordingly this clarifies that Islam prevented enslaving captives from the male fighters, and gave the Khalifah a choice in the children (sabaya) between enslaving and liberation and there is no ransom for them. Just as the Messenger (saw) did in the sabaya of Hunain; he enslaved them then liberated them. And like he did with the sabaya of Khayber; he left them free without enslaving them. This is if women and children accompany the army in war; if they stay at home, however, there is nothing upon them, prisoner of war nor captives. The action of the Khalifah in the question of enslaving the sabaya proceeds according to what the war policy requires in dealing with the enemy. Its objective is not enslaving rather it is merely one of the war transactions whose matter is left to the Khalifah who does what he sees and what the position in relation to the enemy requires.

Accordingly this clarifies that Islam treated enslaving and prevented all situation in which enslaving occurred and left for the Khalifah the choice in the situation of sabaya in following the position in relation to the enemy. Hence it has finished enslaving particularly when it invalidated the women and children going out with the army to increase the numbers and for encouragement as in the situation in modern warfare for centuries today. There does not remain even one situation in which enslaving occurs at all. Accordingly Islam has prevented enslaving.