Labda hii ndiyo aina mbaya zaidi ya shaka ambayo wakomunisti hutumia ili kuitikisa imani ya vijana wa Kiislamu katika dini yao, Uislamu. Kama Uislamu ungefaa kwa kila kipindi cha historia ya mwanadamu, usingeruhusu utumwa kama ulivyofanya, jambo linalothibitisha wazi kwamba Uislamu ulikusudiwa kwa kipindi kifupi tu cha historia. Umekwisha kutimiza utume wake, na sasa umepitwa na wakati na umekuwa wa kizamani, kwa sababu haukubuniwa kuwa dini kwa kila zama na kila mahali.

Perhaps this is the most odious form of doubt exploited by the communists in order to shake the faith of the Muslim youth in his religion, Islam. If Islam were suited to every period of human history, it would not, as it did, approve of slavery, which proves conclusively that Islam was but meant for a limited period of history only. It has fulfilled its mission and now stands outmoded and obsolete for it was not designed to be a religion for all times and climes.

Kijana Mwislamu mwenye moyo safi pia hukumbwa na shaka kama hizo. Kwa nini Uislamu uliruhusu utumwa? Dini hii bila shaka imeteremshwa na Mungu: hakuna shaka juu ya hilo, na kwamba iliteremshwa kwa manufaa ya wanadamu wote kwa nyakati zote zijazo, lakini inawezekanaje iliruhusu utumwa? Dini iliyojengwa juu ya wazo la usawa kamili kati ya wanadamu, ikisisitiza asili yao moja ya pamoja, kisha ikafanikiwa kutafsiri dhana yake ya usawa katika maisha ya kijamii, iliwezaje kukubali utumwa kuwa sehemu ya mfumo wake wa kijamii na kutunga sheria kwa ajili yake? Je, Mungu anakusudia kwamba wanadamu wabaki milele wamegawanyika kuwa mabwana na watumwa? Je, anataka jamii ya binadamu iendelee kuwa na kundi la watu miongoni mwao wanaouzwa na kununuliwa kama mali, kama ilivyokuwa kwa watumwa, wakati Yeye mwenyewe amesema kuhusu wanadamu wote: "Na hakika Sisi tumewatukuza wana wa Adam"? Na kama Mungu hakukusudia wala kuupenda, kwa nini basi hakuukataza waziwazi katika Kitabu Chake na kuufuta kabisa, kama alivyofanya, kwa mfano, kwa kuharamisha ulevi, kamari na riba, na mambo mengine ambayo Yeye anayachukia? Kwa kifupi, kijana Mwislamu anajua kwamba Uislamu ni dini ya kweli, lakini kama Ibrahim, amechanganyikiwa na yuko katika hali ya akili inayoelezwa katika aya ya Qur'ani:

The sincere Muslim youth is also haunted by similar doubts. Why did Islam permit slavery? This religion is no doubt revealed by God: there can be no doubt about that, and that it was revealed for the good of the whole of mankind for all times to come, but how is it that it allowed slavery? How did the religion based on the notion of perfect equality among men, stressing the common origin of them all and then successfully translating its concept of equality in its social life, recognize slavery as a part of its social system and as such made laws for it'? Does God intend that human beings for ever should remain divided as masters and slaves'? Does He want that the human race should continue to have a group of people among them that is sold and bought as chattel as was the case with the slaves, when He Himself said of hum all beings:" And surely We have dignified the children of Adam,” and if God did not intend or like it, why did He not then explicitly forbid it in His Book and abolish it outright as He did, for instance, abolish drinking, gambling and usury etc., the practices which He abhors? In short the Muslim youth knows that Islam is a true religion but like Abraham he is perplexed and seems to be in a state of mind described in the Qur'anic verse:

Na Ibrahim alipomwambia: "Mola wangu, nionyeshe jinsi unavyowafufua wafu." Akasema: "Je, huamini?"

“And when Abraham said, my Lord, show me how You give life to the dead, He said:

Je! Na je, hamuamini? Akasema: Ndiyo, lakini ili moyo wangu utulie.

What! And do you not believe? He said: Yes, but that my heart may be at ease” (ii: 260).

Kinyume chake, kijana ambaye akili yake imeharibika na imani zake zimechanganyikiwa kutokana na hila za kiikolonia, hasubiri ukweli udhihirike mbele yake; badala yake anachukuliwa na tamaa zake, na bila kuwa na hamu yoyote ya kuchunguza hali halisi, anaruka hadi hitimisho kwamba Uislamu umepitwa na wakati, na kwa hiyo mwanadamu hauhitaji tena.

As against this the youth, whose reason is impaired and beliefs confused by the imperialistic machinations, does not wait for the truth to be made clear before him but is swept away by his passions and, without any inclination to inquire into the reality, jumps to the conclusion that Islam is antiquated and, hence, is no longer needed by man.

Wakomunisti, ambao huwadanganya watu kwa kudai kuwa ni wanasayansi, hufanya biashara ya mawazo waliyoazima kutoka kwa mabwana zao wa nje, ambayo wanayaonyesha kwa kiburi, wakitoa picha ya uongo kwamba wamegundua ukweli usiobadilika na wa milele, ambao uhalisi wake hauwezi kupingwa wala kukanushwa. Ukweli wanaodai kuugundua ni materialism ya kidiale (dialectical materialism), nadharia inayosema kwamba maisha ya binadamu yamegawanywa katika hatua fulani maalum za kiuchumi ambazo binadamu hawezi kuziepuka wala kuzipita, yaani kwanza ukomunisti, utumwa, ukabaila, ubepari, na ukomunisti wa pili (unaochukuliwa kuwa ukurasa wa mwisho katika kitabu cha historia). Pia wanadai kwamba dini zote, nidhamu zote, na mawazo yote yanayojulikana katika historia ya binadamu hayakuwa kitu kingine zaidi ya tafakari ya hali mbalimbali za kiuchumi au mifumo ya kiuchumi iliyotawala katika vipindi tofauti vya historia ya binadamu. Dini na imani hizo za zamani zilikuwa sahihi kwa zama zilizopita, kwa sababu zililingana kikamilifu na muundo wa kiuchumi na hali za nyakati hizo, lakini haziwezi kamwe kufaa kwa hatua za juu zinazofuata za maendeleo ya binadamu, kwa kuwa hatua hizo daima zinategemea muundo mpya kabisa na tofauti wa uchumi. Kwa hiyo, wanahitimisha, hakuna mfumo mmoja wa maisha ambao unaweza kufaa kwa nyakati zote zijazo. Sasa, Uislamu ulipokuja duniani wakati hatua ya utumwa ilikuwa inakaribia mwisho na ile ya ukabaila ndio ilikuwa inaanza, ulileta pamoja nawe sheria, imani na nidhamu ya maisha, vyote vikiwa vinalingana na hali za kiuchumi zilizokuwepo wakati huo. Ndiyo maana uliidhinisha utumwa pamoja na kuruhusu ukabaila, kwa sababu Uislamu haukuweza kutarajia hatua inayofuata ya maendeleo ya kiuchumi wala kuupa ulimwengu mfumo ambao hali za kiuchumi zake zilikuwa bado hazijakomaa, kama alivyosema Bwana Karl Marx aliyebarikiwa, kwamba jambo hilo lilikuwa haliwezekani kabisa.

The communists, who hoodwink people by claiming to be scientific, trade in ideas borrowed from their masters abroad which they arrogantly parade giving a false impression of having discovered an unalterable and eternal truth, the genuineness of which cannot be challenged, nor contradicted. The truth they claim to have discovered is dialectical materialism-the theory which states that human life is divided into certain definite economic phases such as can neither be avoided, nor passed by mankind viz. first communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and the second communism (deemed to be the last page in the book of history) and that all creeds, disciplines, and thoughts that human history knows of were in fact a mere reflection of the various economic conditions or economic systems that prevailed at different periods of human history. These past creeds and beliefs were all right for those bygone ages, for they fully coordinated with the economic structure and circumstances of those times but they can never be suitable for the next higher stages of human development as these are always based on quite a new and different pattern of economy. Hence, they conclude, there can be no single system of life such as could be suitable for all times to come. Now as Islam came to the world at a time when the stage of slavery was coming to an end and that of feudalism just beginning, it brought with itself laws, creeds and a discipline of life all of which were in concord with the prevalent circumstances of economic existence. That is why it approved of slavery as well as permitted feudalism, for Islam could not anticipate the next stage of economic development nor give any system to the world for which the economic Conditions were not yet ripe for, as the blessed Lord Karl Marx said, it was absolutely impossible.

Tunakusudia kujadili tatizo hili la utumwa katika muktadha wake wa kihistoria, kijamii na pia wa kisaikolojia, kwa akili iliyo wazi, na bila kuruhusu kudanganywa na kelele za hawa walaghai na wanaojiita wasomi wa kisayansi.

We intend to discuss this problem of slavery in its historical, social as well as Psychological Context with an open mind and without allowing ourselves to be hoodwinked by the clamors of these tricksters and so-called scientific scholars.

Mtu wa kisasa anapotazama tatizo la utumwa kwa mtazamo wa karne ya ishirini, na kwa kuzingatia uhalifu wa kutisha uliofanyika wakati wa biashara ya watumwa na matibabu ya kikatili kupindukia yaliyotolewa kwa watumwa (hasa katika Dola ya Kirumi), huona kuwa ni uhalifu wa kushtua na wa kuchukiza. Anachanganyikiwa na anaona ni vigumu sana kuelewa jinsi jambo kama hilo lingeweza kukubaliwa na dini au mfumo wa maisha. Anajiuliza: Uislamu ungeruhusuje utumwa wakati sheria zake zote nyingine na kanuni zake zinaelekeza kwenye uhuru wa binadamu kutoka kila aina na namna ya utumwa? Kisha, akishindwa na hisia ya aibu, anatamani: laiti Uislamu ungetutuliza mioyo na akili zetu kwa kuupiga marufuku utumwa kwa maneno wazi na ya dhahiri! Hebu tusimame hapa kidogo na tuone ni simulizi gani ukweli wa kihistoria unatuambia. Ukweli ni kwamba uhalifu wa kutisha uliofanywa dhidi ya watumwa katika Dola ya Kirumi ni mgeni kabisa katika historia ya Kiislamu. Tunavyo ushahidi tele kuhusu maisha waliyoishi watumwa katika ulimwengu wa Kirumi, ambao unatosha kuonyesha mabadiliko makubwa yaliyoletwa na Uislamu katika hatima yao.

When a modern man looks at the problem of slavery with his twentieth century background and in the light of the hideous crimes perpetrated during the slave trade and the abominably barbarous treatment that was meted out to slaves (especially in the Roman Empire) he discovers it as a most shocking and horrid crime. He is at a loss and finds it extremely difficult to understand as to how such a thing could be approved of by a religion or a system of life. He wonders: how could Islam allow slavery when all its other laws and principles point towards the freedom of man from all types and forms of slavery? and then overwhelmed by a sense of shame he desires: would that Islam had set our hearts and minds at ease by banning slavery in clear, explicit terms! Let us pause here awhile and see as to what story the historical facts have got to tell us. The fact is that the hideous crimes committed against the slaves in the Roman Empire are quite foreign to Islamic history. We have got ample evidence with regard to the life the slaves in the Roman world led which is quite sufficient to illustrate the great change brought about by Islam in their fate.

Mtumwa katika ulimwengu wa Kirumi alichukuliwa kuwa bidhaa tu, wala si binadamu. Hakuwa na haki yoyote kabisa, ingawa alikuwa amebebeshwa majukumu na wajibu mzito. Na hawa watumwa walitoka wapi? Walitekwa vitani, vita ambavyo havikuanzishwa kwa kanuni yoyote tukufu wala malengo ya juu, bali yalielekezwa tu na hamu ya kuwafanya watumwa watu wa mataifa mengine na kuwanyonya kwa ajili ya kujikuza binafsi. Vita hivyo vilipiganwa ili kuwawezesha watu wa Roma kujiingiza katika anasa za kupindukia na kuishi kwa neema: kuoga bafu za baridi na za moto, kuvaa mavazi ya gharama kubwa, kula vyakula vitamu na vya kila aina, na kujiburudisha katika starehe za mwili: karamu za ulevi, uasherati, ngoma, pamoja na mikusanyiko ya hadharani na sherehe. Ili kutoa starehe hizi, waliyatiisha mataifa mengine na kuyanyonya kwa ukatili mkubwa. Misri, ambayo Uislamu uliikomboa kutoka utawala wa Kirumi, haikutendewa kwa ukatili kidogo. Ilikuwa ghala la ngano kwa Dola ya Kirumi, mbali na kuipatia aina mbalimbali za rasilimali nyingine.

The slave in the Roman world was considered a mere "commodity" and not a human being. He had no rights what so ever although he was encumbered with cumbrous duties and obligations. And whence did these slaves come? They were captured in wars, which were not initiated by any noble principle or lofty ideals but were solely directed by a wish to enslave other peoples and exploit them for self-aggrandizement. These wars were waged in order to enable the Roman people indulge in licentious luxuries and live in prosperity, enjoy cold and hot baths, costly costumes, delicious and tasty foods of every kind, and revel in sensual pleasures-drinking bouts, whoredom, dancing as well as public gatherings and festivals. In order to provide for these enjoyments they subjugated other nations and exploited them most mercilessly. Egypt which was freed from the Roman over lordship by Islam was treated no less cruelly. It constituted a granary of wheat for the Roman Empire, besides furnishing various kinds of other material resources.

Ili kutosheleza tamaa hii isiyoshiba ya wakoloni wa Kiroma, watumwa walifanya kazi kwa bidii mashambani mwao. Kama ilivyotajwa hapo juu, hawakuwa na haki yoyote. Walipokuwa wakifanya kazi mashambani walifungwa minyororo mizito ya mikono ili kuzuia wasikimbie. Hawakulishwa vizuri kamwe, bali walipewa chakula kidogo tu kilichowatosha kuwaweka hai na kuwafanya wafae kwa kazi zao; na hata hili halikuwa kwa sababu waliona kuwa ni haki yao kupewa riziki, kama wanyama na miti wanavyopewa. Wakati wa kazi walichapwa viboko kwa ajili tu ya raha ya kikatili, ambayo bwana wao mkatili au wakala wake walipenda sana. Mwisho wa siku, makundi makubwa yao, kutoka watu kumi hadi hamsini kwa kundi, bado wakiwa wamefungwa minyororo yao, walikusanywa pamoja kulala katika vyumba vya giza, vyenye harufu mbaya, vilivyojaa panya na wadudu. Hawakupewa hata faraja ya zizi pana na lenye nafasi kama wanavyofurahia ng'ombe katika zizi lao.

To satisfy this greedy lust of the Roman imperialists the slaves toiled for them in the fields. As mentioned above, they enjoyed no rights. When working in the fields they were fettered in heavy manacles so as to prevent their running away. They were never fed properly but given provisions just sufficient to keep them alive and fit to do their work, and this too not because they thought it was their right to be provided for with sustenance as even the beasts and trees are. During the work they were whipped just for the savage pleasure of it which was much relished by their sadist lord or his agent. At the end of the day large groups of them-from ten to fifty men a group and still fettered in their manacles-were herded together to sleep in dark, foul-smelling cells infested with mice and insects. They were denied even the comfort of wide and spacious folds such as are enjoyed by cattle in their enclosures.

Lakini jambo baya zaidi na la kuchukiza katika mtazamo wa Waroma kuelekea watumwa hawa lilikuwa ni lile lililounda burudani yao waipendayo zaidi. Jambo hili, kwa njia, pia linaweka wazi tabia ya asili ya kikatili na isiyo ya kibinadamu ya ustaarabu wa Waroma, ustaarabu ambao katika nyakati za kisasa unawakilishwa na Ulaya ya kisasa na Marekani, pamoja na njia zote za unyonyaji wa kikoloni walizo nazo. Watumwa waliobeba panga na mikuki walipelekwa uwanjani pamoja na mabwana zao, na wakati mwingine mfalme mwenyewe akiwa ameketi kwenye viti vya heshima kuzunguka uwanja ili kuwatazama wakipigana, kwa makini kabisa, kwa ajili ya burudani yao. Watumwa walishambuliana kwa panga na mikuki, wakijikata vipande vipande bila huruma. Kilele kilifikiwa pale mmoja wa wapiganaji alipomuua mwenzake mtumwa na kumtupa chini akiwa amekufa na asiye na uhai. Kwa tendo hilo alipigiwa makofi makubwa, kelele za shangwe, mipigo ya mikono yenye nguvu na kicheko cha furaha na cha moyo.

But the worst and most revolting feature of the Roman attitude towards these slaves was represented by what formed their best-loved diversion Which, by the way, also brings into light the innate, barbarous and inhuman character of the Roman civilizationthe civilization which is in modern times represented by modern Europe and America with all the means of imperialistic exploitation at their disposal. The slaves carrying swords and lances were led out into the arenas with their masters and occasionally the emperor himself seated around exalted seats in order to watch them fight, in dead earnest, for their diversion. The slaves fell upon one another with their swords and spears, recklessly hacking themselves to pieces. The climax was reached when someone of the fighters killed a fellow-slave and threw him cold and lifeless on the ground. At this he was lustily applauded with loud hurrahs, vigorous hand clapping and joyous, hearty laughter.

Hivi ndivyo watumwa walivyokuwa wakiishi katika ulimwengu wa Kirumi. Hatuhitaji kukaa sana juu ya nafasi yao ya kisheria katika mfumo huo: mmiliki alikuwa na haki kamili ya kuua, kuadhibu au kuwatumikisha kikatili bila haki yoyote kwao, hata ya kulalamika, na bila kutarajia msaada wowote wa kimaadili kutoka upande wowote; kwani jambo hilo lingeongeza kidogo tu maarifa yetu, baada ya kupitia yote tuliyoyaeleza kwa ufupi hapo juu.

This was how the slaves fared in the Roman world. We need not dwell upon their legal position in this set-up: the absolute right of the master to kill, punish or exploit them mercilessly without any right on their part, to complain even, and without expecting any moral support whatever from any quarter, as it would add little to our knowledge after going over all that we have in brief described above.

Mtumwa hakuwa katika hali bora zaidi kuliko hii nchini Persia, India na nchi nyinginezo. Licha ya tofauti zao ndogo ndogo, hatima ya mtumwa ilibaki ile ile miongoni mwa mataifa haya yote:

The slave was no better off than this in Persia, India and other countries. Despite all their minor differences the fate of the slave remained the same among all these nations:

Maisha yake hayakuwa na thamani, mauaji hayakuwa na kisasi, alibebeshwa majukumu mazito yaliyoambatana na haki chache au zisizokuwepo kabisa kama malipo. Mifumo iliyoenea katika nchi hizi haikutofautiana kwa nia wala kwa maudhui mabaya kuhusu watumwa; ilitofautiana tu kwa kiwango au ukali wa ukatili na uovu walioonyesha katika mitazamo yao kwa watumwa.

his life had no worth, is murder no retaliation, he was burdened with cumbersome obligations carrying with them little or no rights in return. The systems prevalent in these countries differed neither in intent nor ill Content with regard to the slaves: they differed merely in the degree or intensity of their cruelty and hideousness which they betrayed in their attitudes towards slaves.

Hizi zilikuwa hali za maisha zilizokuwepo wakati Uislamu ulipojitokeza. Kuja kwake kulibashiria kurejeshwa kwa utu wa binadamu kwa watumwa hawa. Uliwaambia mabwana kuhusu watumwa wao:

Such were the conditions of life that obtained when Islam arrived on the scene. Its advent heralded the restoration of human dignity to these slaves. It told the masters as to their slaves:

"Aliwaumba ninyi kutokana na nafsi moja na kutokana nayo akamuumba mkewe, na akaeneza kutoka kwao wanaume wengi na wanawake" (Qur'ani 4:1)? Hapana, hapa kuna aya nyingine. Tafsiri halisi ya nukuu hii ni: "Ninyi mmeumbwa kutoka kwa nafsi moja, na mkewe akaumbwa kutoka kwake" (sura ya 4, aya ya 1). Ilitangaza kwamba: "Yeyote anayemuua mtumwa wake, nasi tutamuua; anayemkata pua yake, nasi tutamkata pua yake; na anayemtenga mtumwa wetu, nasi tutamtenga," ill return1. Ilitambua asili ya pamoja, makazi ya pamoja pamoja na marejeo kwa watu wote, bwana na mtumwa sawasawa, ikisema: "Ninyi nyote ni watoto wa Adam, na Adam aliumbwa kutokana na udongo,"2 na ikasisitiza kwamba hakuna ubora wa bwana juu ya mtumwa wake kwa sababu tu ya kuwa bwana. Ubora wowote uliokuwepo ulitegemea uchamungu: "Hakuna ubora wa Mwarabu, wala wa mtu mweusi juu ya mwekundu, wala wa mwekundu juu ya mtu mweusi, isipokuwa kwa uchamungu."1

“You are (sprung) the one from the other" (iv: 25). It proclaimed that: “He who kills his slave, we shall kill him; who mutilates his nose, we shall cut his nose; and who gelds our slave, We shall get him gelded ill return"1. It recognized a common, descent abode as well as return for all men, master and slave alike, saying “You are all sons of Adam and Adam was created from dust,2" and stressed that there was no superiority for a master over his slave merely because of his being a master: whatever superiority there was, it rested on piety: "There is no superiority for an Arab, nor for a black man over a red one, nor for a red over a black man save due to piety”.1

Uislamu ulikuja na kuwaambia mabwana kwamba wanapaswa kuwa wenye haki na wema katika mwenendo wao kwa watumwa: "Na mfanyie wema wazazi wawili, na jamaa, na mayatima, na masikini, na jirani wa karibu, na jirani wa mbali, na rafiki wa safarini, na msafiri, na wale ambao mikono yenu ya kulia inawamiliki; hakika Mwenyezi Mungu hampendi mwenye kujivuna, mwenye kujisifu" (Surat An-Nisa: 36). Uislamu ulisisitiza kwamba uhusiano halisi kati ya bwana na mtumwa wake haukuwa wa utumwa na utawala wa juu, wala wa kutiishwa au kupingwa, bali wa undugu na udugu wa kindugu. Hivyo, mabwana waliruhusiwa kuwaoa wajakazi waliokuwa wamewamiliki: "……Waoeni wanawake waumini waliomilikiwa na mikono yenu ya kulia. Mwenyezi Mungu anajua zaidi kuhusu imani yenu. Ninyi ni sehemu moja kutoka sehemu nyingine. Basi waoeni kwa idhini ya watu wao, na wapeni mahari yao kwa wema" (Surat An-Nisa: 25).

Islam came and told the masters that they should be fair and good in their dealings with the slaves: "And be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy neighbor of (your) kill and the alien neighbor and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hand possesses; surely Allah does not love him who is proud, boastful" (iv: 36). It stressed the fact that the true relationship between the master and his slave was not one of slavery and over-lordship, nor of subjection or objection but that of kinship and brotherhood. Thus the masters were permitted to marry the slave-girls they had in their possession: "……Let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. Allah knoweth best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another.. so wed them by permission of their folk, and give unto them their portions in kindness" (iv: 25).

Hivyo ndivyo mabwana walivyoelezwa kuwa ndugu wa watumwa wao: “Watumwa wenu ni ndugu zenu... basi yule ambaye ana ndugu chini yake amlishe na amvishe kama yeye mwenyewe anavyokula na kuvaa; msiwaamrishe mambo yaliyo nje ya uwezo wao, na mkiwaamrisha mambo kama hayo basi wasaidieni.”2

Thus the masters were described as brothers to their slaves: “Your slaves are your brothers..so he who has a brother under him should feed him and clothe him as he himself feeds and dresses; do not ask them to do things which are beyond their power and if you do ask them to do such things then help them".2

Kwa kuonyesha heshima kwa hisia za watumwa, Mtume Muhammad ﷺ aliongeza: "Mmoja wenu asiseme: huyu ni mtumwa wangu na huyu ni mjakazi wangu; badala yake aseme: huyu ni mwanaume wangu na huyu ni mwanamke wangu."³ Kwa mamlaka haya, Abu Huraira, alipomwona mtu aliyepanda farasi huku mtumwa wake akitembea kwa miguu nyuma yake, alimwambia yule mtu: "Mpandishe awe amekaa juu ya farasi nyuma yako, kwani hakika yeye ni ndugu yako, na nafsi yake ni sawa na yako."

With a mark of deference to the feelings of the slaves the Holy Prophet added: “None of you should say: this is my slave and this is my slave-girl: he should rather say: This is my man and this is my maiden".3 It was on this authority that Abu Huraira, on seeing a man riding a horse and his slave trudging along after him, said to the man: "Get him seated on the horse behind you, for, surely he is your brother, and his soul is similar to yours".

Hata hivyo, haikuwa hivyo tu ambavyo Uislamu uliwafanyia watumwa, lakini kabla ya kuendelea na uchunguzi wetu, tungependa kwanza kufupisha maendeleo makubwa ambayo, kwa sababu ya Uislamu, yalitokea katika hali ya mtumwa katika hatua hii ya awali.

This was, however, not all that Islam did for the slaves, but before proceeding with our inquiry, we would first like to sum up the great advance that, thanks to Islam, came about in the position of the slave at this preliminary stage.

Mtumwa hakuonekana tena kuwa bidhaa tu, yaani kitu cha kuuzwa na kununuliwa, bali alitazamwa kama binadamu mwenye nafsi inayofanana na ya bwana wake. Hapo awali alichukuliwa kuwa kiumbe tofauti kabisa na bwana wake, aliyeumbwa kutumikia kama mtumwa, na anayestahili kudhalilishwa kwa kila namna. Ni kwa sababu ya fikra hii ambapo dhamiri zao hazikuwahi kuwasuta walipokuwa wakiwaua, kuwaadhibu, kuwachoma kwa chuma cha moto, au kuwalazimisha watumwa wao kufanya kazi chafu na nzito. Uislamu uliwatoa watu hao kutoka hali hii ya utumwa wa kudhalilisha na kuwapandisha hadhi tukufu ya undugu sawa na watu huru. Mafanikio haya ya Uislamu hayakuwa madai matupu, bali ni ukweli unaoshuhudiwa na historia. Hata waandishi wenye chuki wa Ulaya wanakiri kwamba katika kipindi cha mwanzo cha Uislamu, mtumwa alipandishwa hadhi ya ubinadamu tukufu kiasi ambacho hakijawahi kushuhudiwa mahali pengine popote duniani. Walipata hadhi yenye heshima ndani ya jamii ya Kiislamu kiasi kwamba watumwa walioachwa huru walichukia kuwasaliti mabwana zao wa zamani, ijapokuwa sasa hawakuwa na haja wala hofu nao, na walikuwa huru kama wao. Sababu ya hili ni kwamba walijiona kuwa ni wanafamilia wa mabwana zao wa zamani, wameunganishwa nao kwa uhusiano unaofanana na wa damu.

The slave was now no longer regarded just a commodity-a merchandize-but was looked Upon as a human being with a soul similar to that of his master, whereas in the past be was regarded as a being quite different from his master, and created to serve as a slave in every way fit to suffer humiliation, It was because of this notion that their conscience never twinged them when murdering, punishing, cauterizing, or making their slaves perform loathsome and burdensome jobs.4 Islam them from this state of abject slavery to the exalted status of brotherhood with free men. These achievements of Islam were not mere professions but a fact to which history bears witness. Even the prejudiced writers of Europe too admit that in the early period of Islam the slave was exalted to such a noble state of humanity as was never before witnessed in any other part of the world, They won so dignified a status within the Muslim community as made the freed slaves abhor betraying their erstwhile masters although now they stood in no need or fear of them and were now as free as they, The reason for this lay in the fact that they considered themselves to be members of the family of their previous masters and linked to them with ties akin to those of blood.

Pia mtumwa alikuja kuchukuliwa kuwa binadamu ambaye usalama wake binafsi ulihakikishwa na sheria, ambayo haikuruhusu kufanywa kwake uovu wowote kwa maneno au kwa vitendo. Kwa upande wa maneno, Mtume ﷺ aliwakataza Waislamu kuwaita watumwa wao kwa jina la utumwa, badala yake aliwaamuru kuwasemesha kwa namna itakayowafanya wajione kuwa wanachama wa familia zao, na kuondoa kutoka kwenye nafsi zao unyanyapaa wa utumwa. Kwa lengo hilo alisema: "Hakika Mwenyezi Mungu amewafanya kuwa mabwana wao; na kama angelitaka, angeliwafanya nyinyi kuwa watumwa chini ya milki yao."¹ Hii ina maana kwamba hali na mazingira mahsusi ndiyo yaliyowafanya kuwa watumwa, vinginevyo walikuwa sawa na mabwana zao. Kwa njia hii Uislamu ulipunguza kiasi kiburi kilichovimba cha mabwana, pamoja na kuinua hadhi ya watumwa ili wote waunganishwe katika uhusiano safi wa kibinadamu. Ulivileta karibu na kuzua upendo baina yao, ukiwaambia kwamba upendo, na si kitu kingine chochote, ndio unaopaswa kuwa msingi wa mahusiano yao yote ya pamoja. Katika kesi ya madhara ya kimwili au majeraha, adhabu ya aina moja iliwekwa wazi kwa wote wawili. "Atakayemuua mtumwa wake, tutamuua," ni kanuni iliyo wazi sana katika maana zake pana, ambazo zote zinaonyesha kwamba hali ya usawa kamili ilitawala baina ya mtumwa na bwana wake, kama baina ya mtu na mtu mwingine, na pia kuwahakikishia wote wawili haki ya kuishi kama binadamu. Hivyo Uislamu ulifanya wazi kwamba hali iliyokuwepo ya utumwa haikuwazuia kupata haki zao kama binadamu. Dhamana hizi hazikuwa tu za kutosha kumpa mtumwa usalama na ulinzi wa maisha yake, bali pia zilikuwa za ukarimu na utukufu wa kiwango ambacho hakuna mfano wake katika historia yote ya sheria za watumwa, kabla au baada ya kuja kwa Uislamu. Katika jambo hili, Uislamu ulifikia kiwango cha kumkataza hata bwana kumpiga kofi mtumwa wake, isipokuwa kwa madhumuni ya kumrekebisha (ambalo lina mipaka yake iliyowekwa, ambayo haiwezi kupitwa wala kupuuzwa chini ya hali yoyote; adhabu inayotolewa ikiwa sawa na adhabu ambayo bwana anaweza kuwapa watoto wake mwenyewe wanapofanya makosa). Hili pia lilitoa uhalali wa kisheria wa kuwaachilia huru watumwa. Na kwa hili tunapita kwenye hatua inayofuata, hatua ya ukombozi halisi.

Also the slave now came to be regarded as a human being whose personal safety was guaranteed by law not permitting the commission of any transgression against him through word or act. As to the word, the Prophet forbade the Muslims to talk of their slaves as such and instead commanded them to address them in a manner that should make them think of themselves as members of their family, and blot out from their persons the stigma of slavery. With this in view he said: “Sure/y God has made you their masters: and if He had willed He could have likewise given you in their possession as slaves".1 This means that it was the particular conditions and circumstances that had made them slaves, otherwise they were as good as their masters. In this way Islam deflated a little the swollen pride of the masters along with raising the status of slaves so as to connect them all in a purely human relationship. It brought them closer and fostered love among them telling them that love and nothing else should form the basis of all their mutual relationships. In the case of physical harm or injury, for both of them a kindred punishment was explicitly laid down. “He who Slavs his slave we shall put him to death," is a principle very clear in its vast implications, all of which go to show that a state of perfect equality prevailed between the slave and his master as between one man and another, besides guaranteeing to both of them the right to live as human beings. Thus Islam made it clear that the present situation slavery-did not preclude them from their rights as human beings, These guarantees were not only quite sufficient to grant a slave his safety and security of life but were also so generous and noble that no other parallel in the whole history of slave laws exists at all either before or after the advent of Islam. In this respect Islam went to such an extent that it forbade the master to even slap his slave, except for the purpose of correction (which has its own prescribed limits that may neither be passed by nor overlooked under any circumstances, the punishment given being, however, similar to the punishment the master may award his own children on their mischief). This also provided a legal justification for setting the slaves at liberty. And with this we pass on to the next stage-the stage of actual enfranchisement.

Katika hatua ya kwanza Uislamu ulitoa uhuru wa kiroho kwa watumwa. Uliwarejeshea utu wao, na ukafundisha kwamba, kwa kuzingatia asili yao moja, walikuwa na hadhi sawa na ile ya mabwana zao, na kwamba ni mazingira ya nje peke yake yaliyowanyima uhuru wao, hivyo kuwazuia kushiriki moja kwa moja katika maisha ya kijamii ya jamii. Lakini isipokuwa tofauti hii moja, hakukuwa na tofauti nyingine yoyote kati ya watumwa na mabwana kwa kadiri ya haki zao kama binadamu.

In the first stage Islam gave spiritual enfranchisement to slaves. It gave them back their humanity and taught that from the stand point of a common origin they enjoyed a status similar to that of their masters and that it was the external circumstances alone that had deprived them of their freedom, preventing them thereby from participating directly in the social life of the community. But for this only point of different, there was no other difference between slaves and masters as far as their rights as human beings were concerned.

Lakini Uislamu haukuishia hapo, kwani kanuni yake kuu ya msingi ni kufikia usawa kamili miongoni mwa watu wote, ukiwafanya kila mmoja wao awe huru kwa usawa.

But Islam did not stop short there as the great fundamental principle of it is the achievement of perfect equality among all men making everyone of them equally free.

Kwa hiyo ilianza kuleta uhuru halisi wa watumwa kwa njia mbili muhimu: (1) kuachiwa huru kwa hiari na mabwana (Al Itq) na (2) kuandikiana uhuru (Mukatabah). (1) Kuhusu la kwanza (yaani Al Itq), lilikuwa tendo la hiari la bwana kumwacha huru mtumwa. Desturi hii ilihimizwa sana na Uislamu, na Mtume ﷺ mwenyewe alitoa mfano bora kwa wafuasi wake katika jambo hili pia. Aliwaachia huru watumwa wote aliokuwa nao. Masahaba zake walifuata mfano wake, hasa Abu Bakr, aliyetumia fedha nyingi kuwanunua watumwa kutoka kwa viongozi washirikina wa Quraish ili kuwaweka huru baadaye. Zaidi ya hayo, watumwa pia walinunuliwa kutoka Hazina ya Umma kila ilipokuwapo fedha ya ziada kwa kusudi hilo, ili waachiwe huru. Yahya bin Saeed anasema: "Umar bin Abdul Aziz alinituma kukusanya zaka kutoka Afrika. Nilikusanya zaka kisha nikawatafuta maskini ili kuwagawia, lakini sikumpata hata mmoja, wala sikumpata mtu yeyote ambaye angeipokea kutoka kwangu, kwa sababu Umar bin Abdul Aziz alikuwa amewatajirisha watu. Hivyo nilimnunua mtumwa kwa fedha hizo kisha nikamwacha huru." Mtume ﷺ alikuwa akimwachia huru mtumwa aliyewafundisha kusoma na kuandika Waislamu kumi, au aliyetoa huduma nyingine yoyote inayofanana na hiyo kwa Jumuiya ya Waislamu. Qur'ani iliamuru kwamba kafara ya baadhi ya dhambi ilikuwa ni kuwaachia huru watumwa, na Mtume ﷺ pia aliwahimiza watu kufanya hivyo ili kufidia dhambi nyingine yoyote mtu angeitenda. Hili lilichangia kuliko kitu chochote kingine katika kuleta uhuru kwa idadi kubwa zaidi ya watumwa, kwa sababu hakuna mtu aliyeweza kutumaini kuwa huru kabisa kutokana na dhambi, kama alivyosema Mtume ﷺ: "Wana wote wa Adam ni wakosaji." Inafaa hapa kutaja mojawapo ya kafara zilizowekwa na Uislamu kwa dhambi, kwa sababu inaonyesha hasa msimamo wa Uislamu kuhusu utumwa. Uislamu umeweka kuwa fidia ya kumuua mwamini kwa kosa ni kumwachia huru mtumwa mwamini na kulipa diyah kwa watu wake: "Na yeyote atakayemuua mwamini kwa kosa, basi amwachie huru mtumwa mwamini, na diyah ilipwe kwa watu wake" (Qur'an 4:92). Mtu aliyeuawa kwa kosa alikuwa binadamu ambaye huduma zake zilinyimwa watu wake pamoja na jamii bila sababu ya kisheria, na ndiyo maana Uislamu uliweka fidia ipelekwe kwa pande zote mbili: watu wake wapate diyah ya haki, na jamii ipate mtu mwingine wa kutumikia mahali pake, yaani mtumwa mwamini aliyeachiwa huru hivi karibuni. Hivyo kumwachia huru mtumwa kulimaanisha kumrudisha uhai binadamu mmoja kama fidia kwa yule aliyepotea kwa sababu ya kuuawa kwa kosa. Kwa hivyo ni wazi kuwa Uislamu unaiona utumwa kuwa kifo, au hali inayofanana sana nacho, licha ya dhamana zote ambazo uliwapa watumwa. Ndiyo sababu uliharakia kila fursa ya kuwafufua watu hawa wanyonge kwa kuwarejeshea uhuru wao.

Therefore it proceeded to bring about the actual freedom of the slaves by two important means: (1) voluntary emancipation by the masters (Al Itq) and (2) writing of their freedom (Mukatabah), (1) As to the first of these (i.e. Al Itq) it was a voluntary act on the part of the master to set a slave at liberty. The practice was greatly encouraged by Islam and the Holy Prophet himself in this regard too provided the best example for-his followers. He freed all the slaves he had. His companions followed his example, Abu Bakr in Particular, spending large sums of money on buying off slaves from the idolatrous chiefs of Quraish to set them free later on. Besides this the slaves were also bought out of the Public Exchequer whenever there was some money to spare for this purpose so as to set them free. Yahya bin Saeed says: "Umar bin Abdul Aziz sent me to collect alms from Africa. I collected the alms and then looked for the poor to distribute the alms among them but I found none, nor I found anyone who might have accepted these from me, for Umar bin Abdul Aziz had enriched the people. So I bought a slave with the money and then set him free". The Holy Prophet used to free a slave who would teach reading and writing to ten Muslims or render any other kindred service to the Muslim Community. The Qur'an enjoined that atonement for some of the sins consisted in freeing of slaves as also the Holy Prophet encouraged it for the reparation of any other sin one might commit. This contributed more than anything to bring liberty to the greatest number of slaves, for no man could hope to be wholly free from sin as the Holy Prophet said: “All sons of Adam are sinners". It may be well to point out here one of the atonements prescribed by Islam for sins, as it in particular illustrates the stand point of Islam with regard to slavery. Islam prescribed that redemption for the killing of a believer by mistake was the freeing of a believing slave and paying blood money to his people: “And whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood money should be paid to his people” (iv : 92). The murdered man killed by mistake was a human being of whose services his people as well as the community were deprived without any legal justification, for which reason Islam prescribed that a compensation should be made to both parties his people and the society: his people getting a just blood money and the society another man to serve it in his place i.e., the newly freed believing slave. Thus the freeing of a slave meant bringing back to life a human being as a compensation for the one who was lost due to his being killed by mistake. As is clear from this, Islam views slavery as death or a state very much similar to it notwithstanding all those securities that it did provide for a slave. That is why it eagerly snatched every opportunity to resuscitate this wretched class of human beings by restoring to them their liberty.

Historia inatuambia kwamba idadi kubwa ya watumwa walipata uhuru wao kupitia huu ukombozi wa hiari (Al Itq) katika Uislamu, ambao hauna mfano wowote katika historia ya taifa lolote jingine, kabla ya Uislamu na baada yake hadi nyakati za kisasa. Zaidi ya hayo, sababu zilizochangia ukombozi huu zilikuwa za kibinadamu kabisa, zikitokana na hamu ya dhati ya Waislamu ya kujipatia radhi za Mungu wao kwa kuwaacha huru watumwa waliokuwa nao.

History tells us that such large numbers of slaves achieved their freedom through this voluntary emancipation (Al Itq) in Islam as have no other parallel in the history of any other nation, before or after Islam till modern times, besides the fact that the factors that contributed towards this emancipation were purely humane springing up from Muslims' sincerest wish to win their God's pleasure by freeing the slaves they possessed.

(2) Njia ya pili ambayo Uislamu uliwaletea watumwa uhuru ni ile ya Mukatabah, yaani kuandikiwa uhuru kwa mtumwa pale anapoomba hivyo kutoka kwa bwana wake, kwa malipo ya kiasi fulani cha fedha kilichokubaliwa na pande zote mbili. Katika hali kama hiyo, bwana hakuwa na haki ya kukataa wala kuchelewesha kumwacha huru mtumwa aliye tayari kulipa fidia ili apate uhuru wake.

(2) The second means whereby Islam brought freedom to slaves was that of Mukatabah i.e. the writing of freedom to a slave on his asking for it by the master in return for a certain amount of money agreed upon by both of them. The master could in such a case neither refuse nor delay the freeing of a slave ready to ransom his freedom:

Anapaswa kumwacha huru mtumwa huyo mara atakapopokea fidia. Vinginevyo, mtumwa anaweza kuiomba mahakama itoe amri ya kumfanya huru.

he needs must set him at liberty on the receipt of the ransom. Otherwise the slave could move the court to decree his enfranchisement.

Kwa kuanzishwa kwa taasisi hii ya Mukatabah, Uislamu ulitengeneza njia ya kuwakomboa watumwa wote waliotaka uhuru wao, badala ya kusubiri kwa utulivu wema au uchamungu wa mabwana zao ili kuwaweka huru wakati wao wenyewe ukiwafaa.

By this institution of Mukatabah, Islam paved the way for the freedom of all those slaves who happened to desire their freedom and not passively wait for their masters' good will or piety to set them at liberty at their own convenience.

Tangu wakati mtumwa anapotoa ombi la kujikomboa, bwana wake hana haki ya kulikataa, wala mtumwa huyo hahitaji kuhofia madhara yoyote, kwa kuwa Serikali ya Kiislamu inahakikisha kwamba kuanzia hapo ataendelea kufanya kazi kwa bwana wake kwa malipo maalum, au itapanga afanye kazi nje kwa mtu mwingine yeyote kwa ujira, hadi atakapoweza kukusanya fedha zinazohitajika kwa ajili ya kujikomboa.

From the moment a slave offered to ransom his freedom, not only his master could not turn down the offer, but there was also no need for him to fear any repercussions, for the Islamic Government guaranteed that he would henceforth work for his master in return for a fixed payment, or it would make arrangements for him to work outside for anyone else on hire till the time he is able to collect the money needed for the winning back of his freedom.

Hili lilitokea Ulaya baadaye katika karne ya kumi na nne, yaani takriban karne saba baada ya Uislamu kulitekeleza tayari katika eneo lake. Sifa kuu ya kipekee ya Uislamu ambayo haiwezi kupatikana kwingine kwa urahisi, ni msaada wa kifedha ambao Serikali ya Kiislamu ilitoa kwa watumwa wa aina ambayo ingehitaji kuandikwa kwa uhuru wao kutoka Hazina ya Umma. Hii ilikuwa dhihirisho wazi la nia kubwa ambayo Uislamu ulikuwa nayo katika kuwaacha huru watumwa kwa hiari bila kutarajia faida yoyote ya kimali kama malipo, kwa lengo la kupata radhi za Mungu na kutimiza wajibu wa mtu kama mtumwa kwake Yeye. Aya ya Qur'ani inayoeleza matumizi ya zaka (Az-Zakat) inasema:

This was what happened in Europe afterwards in the fourteenth century, that is Some seven centuries after Islam had already enforced it in its domain, The great distinguishing feature of Islam that can hardly be looked for anywhere else, was the financial aid the Islamic Government advanced to slaves such as would demand the writing of their freedom out of the Public Exchequer. This was a clear manifestation of the great interest Islam had in the voluntary emancipation of slaves without expecting any material gains in return, merely with a view to securing God's pleasure and fulfilling one's obligations as a slave towards Him, The Qur'anic verse describing the uses of poor-rate (Az-Zakat) says:

“Sadaka ni kwa ajili ya maskini na wahitaji tu, na kwa wale waliopewa kazi juu yao…, na kwa ajili ya (kukomboa) mateka” (ix: 60). Hivyo, Qur'ani iliweka wazi kuwa zaka (Az-Zakat) itumike kununua uhuru wa watumwa wale ambao hawakuweza kujikomboa wenyewe kwa mapato yao binafsi.

“Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them….,and the (ransoming of) captives" (ix : 60). Thus the Qur'an laid it down that the poor-rate (Az-Zakat) should be spent for purchasing the freedom of such slaves as were unable to work out their own liberty with the help of their personal earnings.

Taasisi hizi mbili katika Uislamu zilidhihirisha maendeleo makubwa ya vitendo ambayo Uislamu uliyafikia katika historia ya utumwa. Zilizuia mwendo wa kawaida wa maendeleo ya binadamu kwa angalau karne saba, na pia zilikuwa na mambo mapya kabisa ya maendeleo, kama vile ulinzi ambao dola ilimpa mtumwa, jambo ambalo lilikuwa nadra katika historia ya binadamu hadi nyakati za kisasa, na mengine ambayo binadamu bado yuko mbali sana kuyatambua, yaani kumtendea mtumwa kwa heshima na ukarimu, au kumwachia uhuru kwa hiari ya mtu mwenyewe bila shinikizo lolote la nje la maendeleo ya kiuchumi au kisiasa, kama yale yaliyolazimisha hatimaye watu wa Ulaya kuwapa watumwa uhuru.

These two institutions in Islam signified a great practical advancement achieved by Islam in the history of slavery, It forestalled the normal historical advancement of mankind by at least seven centuries besides featuring Some quite new ingredients of advancement such as security afforded by the state to the slave-something rare in the history of mankind till modern times-and others which mankind is far from having yet realized i.e. the noble and generous treatment of slaves, or freeing them of one's own free will without any external pressure of economic or political developments such as at last forced the peoples of Europe to grant freedom to slaves.

Haya mawili haya yanatosha kuvunja madai ya uongo ya wakomunisti, ambao wanadai kwamba mifumo yote, ikiwemo Uislamu, inawakilisha tu hatua fulani ya maendeleo ya kiuchumi ya wanadamu. Kwa mujibu wa sheria ya uyakinishaji wa kimaada wa kidayalektiki (dialectical materialism), Uislamu nao pamoja na imani na mitazamo yake yote ulikuja wakati ulioufaa zaidi, ukionyesha hali ya kiuchumi na kimaada ya kipindi hicho, kwa kuwa, kwa mujibu wao, mfumo unaweza tu kuakisi maisha ya kiuchumi lakini hauwezi kabisa kutabiri hatua ya kiuchumi ya baadaye. Wanasisitiza kwamba nadharia hii haiwezi kuwa ya uongo kwa kuwa imethibitishwa na akili ya Yule ambaye "hawezi kushawishiwa na uongo kutoka juu wala chini" - akili ya Karl Marx, Yule aliye Mtukufu na Mbarikiwa kabisa! Lakini msingi wa uongo huu unavunjwa na Uislamu - ushahidi wa kudumu dhidi ya upuuzi wote huu wa Kimarx, kwa kuwa haukuenea kwa namna ile Marx aliyoieleza, ndani ya rasi ya Kiarabu wala nje yake duniani kote. Na hili ni kweli si tu kuhusu maisha ya watumwa chini ya Uislamu, bali pia lina nguvu sawa katika namna ya kugawa mali, katika kuamua uhusiano baina ya mtawala na anayetawaliwa, na baina ya bwana na mwajiriwa wake.1 Kwa upande mwingine, Uislamu uliweka juu ya msingi wa utii wa hiari muundo wake wote wa kijamii na kiuchumi, wa aina ambayo kwa njia nyingi bado haijapitwa wala kulinganishwa katika historia ya mifumo ya kijamii.

These two things are sufficient to confute the false assertions of the communists, who claim that all systems including Islam represent but a particular stage in the economic development of mankind. Faithful to the law of dialectical materialism thus Islam too with all its beliefs and views came at a time best suited for it, reflecting the economic and material conditions of the period, for a system may, according to them only reflect the economic life but can by no means anticipate a future economic stage. They insist that this theory cannot be false as it has been testified by the Reason of the One who "can neither be influenced with falsehood from above nor from below"-the Reason of Karl Marx, the most Exalted and Blessed one! But the bottom is knocked out of this falsehood by Islam- standing refutation of all this Marxist humbug, for it did not work up its way in the manner Marx prescribed, inside the Arabian peninsula, nor outside it all the world over, And this is true not only with regard to the life of slaves under Islam but is equally tenable in its manner of distributing wealth, in determining the mutual relationship of the ruler and the ruled, and of a master's to his hireling.1 On the other hand, Islam raised its whole social and economic superstructure on voluntary obedience of such a style as in many ways still remains unsurpassed and unmatched in the history of social systems.

Hapa kuna swali linaloweza kuwasumbua baadhi ya watu: Kwa nini Uislamu, ambao ni bingwa mkubwa wa kuwaacha huru watumwa na ambao ulichukua hatua kali sana kuelekea lengo hilo kwa hiari yake yenyewe, bila shinikizo wala kulazimishwa kutoka nje, mbele ya dunia nzima, haukuchukua hatua ya mwisho na ya uamuzi ya kuifuta kabisa taasisi hiyo mara moja kwa wote? Kama ungefanya hivyo, ungeweza kunufaisha sana wanadamu, na pia ungethibitisha kwamba ulikuwa mfumo kamili kabisa, na kwa kweli uliteremshwa na Mungu, aliyewatukuza wana wa Adamu juu ya viumbe wake wengi.

Here a very perplexing question may haunt some persons: Why is it that Islam-so great a champion of slave emancipation and taking such radical steps towards that end voluntarily and without any outside pressure or coercion before all the world did not also take the final and decisive step, and abolish it once for all, as it might have in that way immensely benefited mankind besides proving thereby that it was really a system most perfect and in effect revealed by God, Who dignified the sons of Adam over many of His creations?

Ili kujibu swali hili tunapaswa kuchunguza matatizo yanayohusiana ya kijamii, kisaikolojia na kisiasa ya utumwa, yaani sababu zilizofanya Uislamu uchelewe kuukomesha kabisa, jambo ambalo lilitarajiwa. Katika uchunguzi huu tunapaswa pia kukumbuka kwamba kukomeshwa kwa utumwa kulichelewa zaidi kuliko Uislamu ungependa au ungeruhusu kama ungeendelea kufanya kazi ipasavyo katika usafi wake wa asili, bila kuchanganywa na vitu vya nje vilivyosababisha upotovu.

For an answer to this question we need must inquire into the allied social, psychological and political problems of slavery-the reasons due to which Islam delayed its much expected and outright abolition. We must also during this inquiry bear in mind that actually the abolition of slavery was rather delayed more than Islam would have desired or allowed it if it had continued functioning properly in its pristine purity, unadulterated by extraneous ingredients of deviation.

Kwanza, ni lazima ieleweke kwamba Uislamu ulipokuja, utumwa ulikuwa umeenea duniani kote kama jambo linalokubalika la muundo wa kijamii na kiuchumi. Halikuwepo karibu mtu hata mmoja aliyeuchukia, wala aliyehisi haja yoyote ya mabadiliko. Kwa hiyo kubadilisha au kuondoa kabisa utumwa kulihitaji mchakato wa taratibu uliochukua kipindi kirefu cha wakati. Hivyo ndivyo tunavyoona kwamba katazo la pombe halikutekelezwa mara moja, bali baada ya miaka ya maandalizi, ingawa kwanza kabisa pombe ilikuwa tabia ya mtu binafsi tu, licha ya kuwa pia ilikuwa na athari nyingi za kijamii, na licha ya ukweli kwamba baadhi ya Waarabu walijiepusha nayo hata katika zama za ujinga, wakiamini kwamba ni tabia mbaya inayomdhalilisha mtu mtukufu kweli. Lakini utumwa kwao ulionekana kuwa jambo tofauti kabisa. Ulikuwa umejikita kwa kina katika muundo wa jamii wa wakati huo pamoja na saikolojia ya watu binafsi; ulikuwa na athari za kibinafsi, za kijamii na za kiuchumi, na, kama tulivyoona hapo juu, hakuna aliyeona kuwepo kwake kama jambo lisilotakiwa. Ndiyo maana kuondolewa kwake kulihitaji kipindi cha muda mrefu zaidi kuliko maisha ya Mtume Mtukufu ﷺ, kipindi ambacho kililingana na kipindi cha wahyi wa Mwenyezi Mungu kupitia yeye ﷺ. Mungu, Mjuzi Zaidi wa yote aliyoyaumba, alijua kwamba katazo kamili la divai lingepatikana baada ya miaka michache kwa amri tu.

In the first place then it must be recorded that when Islam came, slavery was prevalent throughout the world as an acknowledged fact of socio-economic existence, There was hardly a man to be met with who was repelled by it, or who felt any need for a change. As such the changing or the total discarding of it required a gradual process stretched over a long period of time. Thus we see that prohibition of liquor was effected not immediately but after years of preparation although it before all other things constituted a mere individual habit, not withstanding the fact that it carried so many social implications as well and that some of the Arabs practiced abstinence even in the days of ignorance believing it a vice degrading for a truly noble man. But slavery was looked upon by them as something quite different. It was deep-rooted in the social structure of the time as well as the psychology of the individuals, it entailed individual as well as social and economical implications and, as we observed above, nobody regarded its existence as something undesirable, That is why its abolition required a period of time far longer than the life of the Holy Prophet, the period which coincided with the period of Divine revelation through him. God, the Best Knower of all that He created, knew that the total prohibition of wine would be achieved after a few years by a mere commandment.

Kwa hivyo, Yeye aliamuru kukatazwa kwake wakati ulipofika. Vivyo hivyo, lau hali za maisha zingekuwa zile ambazo agizo tu lingetosha kuondoa uovu wa utumwa, Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu angeukataza waziwazi mara moja kwa wote bila kuchelewa zaidi.

So He did command its prohibition when such time came. Similarly, if the conditions of life had been such as a mere direction were to suffice to suppress the evil of slavery, God Almighty would have expressly forbidden it once for all without any further delay.

Tunaposema kwamba Uislamu ni dini kwa binadamu wote na kwa nyakati zote, na kwamba unajumuisha ndani yake vipengele vyote vyenye afya vinavyohitajika kwa kuwepo na kuendelea kwa maisha mema, hatumaanishi hata kidogo kwamba umeweka mara moja kwa wote kanuni zote za kina kwa nyakati zote na mazingira yote. Hapana, si hivyo, kwani umetoa maelekezo ya kina kama hayo tu kuhusu yale matatizo ya msingi ya kibinadamu yanayobaki bila kubadilika katika mabadiliko yote tofauti ya historia, kwa kuwa mizizi ya matatizo haya imo ndani kabisa katika chemchemi zisizobadilika za asili ya binadamu. Kuhusu hali za maisha zinazobadilika daima, Uislamu umeridhika kuweka kanuni fulani za jumla kwazo ili kueleza mwelekeo wa maendeleo yao ya baadaye. Hiki ndicho hasa ulichofanya kuhusiana na tatizo la utumwa. Uliweka msingi imara wa kuwaweka huru watumwa kwa kuwaachia uhuru kwa hiari au kwa kukomboa uhuru wao, pamoja na kuonyesha njia ya kutatua kwa kudumu tatizo hili la zamani na tata katika siku zijazo.

When we say that Islam is a religion for all mankind and for all times, and that it embraces in itself all the healthy elements necessary for the existence and continuance of good life, we do not at all mean that it has once for all laid down all the detailed rules for all times and climes. No, that is not so, for it has given such detailed directions only with regard to those basic human problems that remain unaltered through all the different vicissitudes of history, for the roots of these problems lie deep in the unchangeable, instinctive headsprings of human nature. As to the ever-changing conditions of life, Islam is content with laying down some general principles for them so as to outline their future course of development. This is precisely what it did with respect to the problem of slavery. It laid down a sound basis for the freeing of slaves through voluntary enfranchisement or by the ransoming of their freedom besides pointing out the course to a permanent resolution of this old and complicated problem in future.

Uislamu haukukusudia kubadilisha asili ya binadamu. Badala yake ulitaka kuistaarabisha, ukizingatia mapungufu yake yasiyoepukika, ili uisaidie kupanda hadi daraja za juu kabisa za ukamilifu inavyowezekana, bila kutumia ukandamizaji wala kuzuia kwa nguvu. Uliweza kufanikiwa kwa njia ya kimiujiza katika kubadilisha baadhi ya watu. Kwa upande wa jamii ya binadamu kwa ujumla, mafanikio yake yalikuwa makubwa vilevile: hayana mfano wowote na hakuna kitu kingine kilichowahi kupatikana katika historia ya binadamu. Lakini licha ya haya yote, haukulenga kumgeuza binadamu kufikia kiwango cha ukamilifu ambacho ni nadra na pia hakiwezekani katika maisha ya kila siku ya binadamu, pamoja na mapungufu yake ya kibinadamu ya sasa. Kwa maana, kama Mwenyezi Mungu angekusudia hilo, angewaumba watu tangu mwanzo kama malaika na kuwaamuru kubeba mizigo ambayo malaika pekee wanaweza kuibeba, ambao kuhusu wao imesemwa: "Hawamwasi Mwenyezi Mungu katika yale anayowaamuru, na hufanya wanayoamrishwa" (Qur'an 66:6). Mwenyezi Mungu hakukusudia kuwageuza watu kuwa malaika wa aina hii. Badala yake aliwafanya kuwa binadamu, na kama binadamu anajua uwezo wao na muda unaohitajika kwa kustawi kwao, ili waweze kufuata na kutekeleza amri kwa mafanikio. Hata hivyo, inatosha kwa Uislamu kuwa wa kwanza kuanzisha harakati ya ukombozi ambayo dunia ilichukua karibu karne saba kuikubali na kuitekeleza. Ukweli ni kwamba, Uislamu baada ya muda mfupi ulikuwa umeshaukomesha utumwa kivitendo katika Rasi ya Arabia, na kama si kuwepo kwa chanzo kipya cha utumwa, ambacho kwa sababu yake utumwa uliendelea kuwepo kila mahali duniani, Uislamu ungeweza kwa dhati kuufuta kabisa katika ulimwengu wote wa Kiislamu. Mbele ya chanzo hiki kipya cha utumwa, haikuwezekana kwa Uislamu kuukomesha moja kwa moja, kwa kuwa kilihusu si Waislamu pekee bali pia wapinzani wao, ambao Uislamu haukuwa na udhibiti wala mamlaka juu yao. Chanzo ambacho kwa hivyo kilizuia kufutika kabisa kwa utumwa kilikuwa ni vita, chanzo chenye tija zaidi cha utumwa wakati huo. Tutalijadili kwa kina kidogo hivi karibuni.

Islam did not mean to change human nature. It rather sought to civilize it making due allowance for its inevitable limitations so as to help it ascend the highest possible planes of perfection without any recourse to suppression or repression. It recorded a miraculous success in transforming some individuals. As regards human society as a whole its success was no less glorious: it bears no analogy to anything else ever achieved in the domain of human history. But despite all this it did not aim at transmuting human beings to a degree of perfection both rare as well as impossible in the practical life of human beings with all their present human limitations. For, if God had intended that, He would have from the very first created men like angels and as such ordered them to bear burdens that can be borne by angels only, of whom it is said that: "They do not disobey God in all that He orders them: and they do what they are commanded to” (Ixvi : 6). God did not intend to transmute men into angels such as these. He rather made them men and as such He knows their potentialities and the time necessary for their flourishing so as to enable them to follow and successfully execute an order. However it is quite sufficient for Islam to be the first to initiate the emancipation movement which took the world some seven centuries to adopt and enforce. The fact nonetheless is that Islam had before long practically put an end to slavery in the Arabian peninsula and but for the presence of a new headspring of slavery due to which slavery lingered on everywhere in the world, it was quite capable of undertaking in earnest its similar effacement in the whole world of Islam. In the presence of this new cause of servitude it was not possible for Islam to abolish it outright, for it concerned not only the Muslims but their opponents as well on whom Islam exercised no control or power. The source that thus prevented the total effacement of slavery was war, the most fruitful source of slavery at the time. We would discuss it shortly in some detail.

Katika kuwatendea mema watumwa na kuwarudishia hadhi yao ya kibinadamu, Uislamu umeacha mifano ya ajabu na ya kupendeza kabisa. Miongoni mwa hiyo tumekwisha kutaja baadhi ya aya za Qur'ani na Hadithi za Mtume ﷺ. Hapa tutatoa kwa ufupi mifano zaidi kutoka maisha ya vitendo ya kipindi cha mwanzo. Alipokuwa Madina, Mtume ﷺ alianzisha udugu baina ya baadhi ya viongozi wa Waarabu na baadhi ya watumwa walioachwa huru. Hivyo alimfanya ndugu Bilal mwana wa Rabah na Khalid mwana wa Ru-waihata Al-Khas'ami; Zaid, mtumwa aliyeachwa huru wa Mtume ﷺ, na Hamza, mjomba wa Mtume ﷺ; na Kharijah mwana wa Zaid na Abu Bakr. Uhusiano huu wa udugu ulikuwa ni dhamana halisi, sawa na uhusiano wa damu, kiasi kwamba hao watu waliofanywa ndugu walirithiana, kama vile ni jamaa wa damu tu ndio wanavyorithiana sasa.

In treating slaves well and restoring their human status Islam has left behind some most wonderful and admirable examples. Of these we have already referred to some of the Qur'anic verses and traditions of the Holy Prophet, Here we would in brief take some more examples from practical life in the early period. When in Madina, the Holy Prophet established brotherhood between some Arab chiefs and some freed slaves. Thus he joined as brothers Bilal son of Rabah and Khalid son of Ru-waihata Al-Khas'ami; Zaid, the treed slave of the Prophet, and Hamza, the uncle of the Prophet; and Kharijah son of Zaid and Abu Bakr. This relationship of brotherhood was a real bond akin to blood-relationship, so much so that the two persons thus made brothers inherited from each other just as only the blood relations now do.

Lakini Uislamu haukuishia hapo. Ulienda hatua moja zaidi. Hivyo Mtume ﷺ alimwoza binamu yake Zainab, binti Jahsh, kwa mtumwa wake wa zamani Zaid. Lakini ndoa hugusa kipengele nyeti sana cha maisha ya mtu, hasa cha mwanamke. Kwa hiyo, ingawa Zainab alikubali kuolewa na mwanaume aliyekuwa chini sana kwake kwa hadhi ya kijamii, hakuweza kujipatanisha na kuwa mke wa mtu ambaye hakutoka katika familia tukufu kama yake, wala hakuwa na mali. Lakini Mtume Mtukufu ﷺ kwa kitendo hiki aliweka mfano wa kuonyesha kwamba mtumwa anaweza kufikia kiwango cha juu kabisa cha kiongozi wa Kiquraishi kutoka katika shimo la fedheha ambalo alitupwa na wanadamu wenzake wakatili. Lakini bado hili halikuridhisha Uislamu.

But Islam did not stop at that. It went a step farther. Thus the Prophet married away his cousin Zainab, daughter of Jahsh, to his ex-slave Zaid. But marriage touches a very delicate aspect of a person's life especially in that of a woman. Therefore, although Zainab accepted a man far below her in social status, she could not reconcile herself to be the wife of one who did not come of a noble family like her, nor possessed wealth, But the Holy Prophet did by this act set an example to show that a slave could attain to the highest level of a Qureishite chief from out of the abyss of ignominy into which he was hurled by his cruel fellow human beings. But still this did not satisfy Islam.

Watumwa walipandishwa hadi nafasi za makamanda wa jeshi na viongozi. Kwa hiyo, Mtume Mtukufu ﷺ alipotuma jeshi lililojumuisha Masahaba walio karibu naye zaidi, Waliohama na Wanusura, viongozi waliotambuliwa wa Waarabu, alimkabidhi Zaid, aliyekuwa mtumwa, uongozi wa jeshi hilo. Baada ya kifo cha Zaid, Mtume ﷺ alimteua mwanawe, Osama, kuwa kamanda wa jeshi lililojumuisha watu mashuhuri kama Abu Bakr na Omar, mawaziri wake wawili wakuu na baadaye warithi wake. Hivyo watumwa hawakupewa tu hadhi sawa na nyinginezo, bali pia walipandishwa hadi nafasi za juu za kuongoza majeshi ya watu huru. Katika jambo hili, Mtume ﷺ alienda mbali sana hadi inaripotiwa kwamba aliwaamuru waumini:

Slaves were exalted to the position of military commanders and leaders. Thus when the Holy Prophet sent out an army which consisted of the closest of the Companions- Emigrants and the Helpers, the acknowledged leaders of the Arabs-he entrusted Zaid, the slave, with the generalship of the army. After the death of Zaid the Holy Prophet appointed his son, Osma as the commander of the army consisting of such illustrious men as Abu Bakr and Omar, his two principal ministers and afterwards successors. Thus slaves were given not only a status equal and similar to others but were at the same time raised to the exalted positions of heading the armies of free men. In this regard the Holy Prophet went to such a great length that he is reported to have commanded the believers:

"Sikilizeni na mtii (maagizo ya viongozi wenu), hata kama mtu aliyewekwa juu yenu kuwa kiongozi wenu ni mtumwa mweusi mwenye kichwa kama zabibu kavu, mradi tu aendelee kutekeleza sheria ya Mungu miongoni mwenu".1 Hivyo hata mtumwa angeweza kutamani cheo cha juu kabisa katika dola ya Kiislamu. Alipokabiliwa na tatizo la kumteua mrithi wake, Omar alisema: "Kama Salim, mtumwa wa Abi Huzaifa, angekuwa hai, ningemteua kuwa khalifa". Hili lilikuwa ni mwendelezo tu wa mapokeo yaliyoanzishwa na Mtume Muhammad ﷺ.

"Hear and obey (the orders of your leaders) although the man appointed above you as your leader be a negro slave with a raisin-like head so long as he continues to enforce among you God's law".1 Thus even a slave could aspire to the highest office in the Islamic state. When faced with the problem of appointing his successor, Omar said: "Had Salim, the slave of Abi Huzaifa been alive, I would have appointed him caliph". This was just a continuation of the tradition founded by the Holy Prophet.

Maisha ya Omar yanatoa mfano mwingine wa kupendeza unaohusu heshima ambayo watumwa walikuwa nayo katika jamii ya Kiislamu. Alipopingwa vikali na Bilal, mwana wa Rabah, aliyekuwa mtumwa wa zamani, kuhusu suala la Fay (ardhi zilizoshindwa), Omar, akikata tamaa ya njia nyingine zote za kunyamazisha upinzani wake, alimwomba Mungu: "Ee Mungu wangu! Nilipize kisasi kupitia Bilal na wenzake!" Ni mwitikio wa ajabu kwa khalifa mbele ya upinzani kutoka kwa mmoja wa watu wake waliokuwa watumwa wa zamani.

Omar's life affords yet another admirable instance bearing upon the respect enjoyed by slaves in the Muslim society. When he was vehemently opposed by Bilal, son of Rabah, an ex-slave, concerning the problem of Fay (conquered lands) Omar despairing of all other means of silencing his opposition prayed to God: "My God! Requite me with Bilal and his comrades!" What a reaction for a caliph in the face of opposition by one of ex-slaves from among his subjects.

Ubora mkubwa wa Uislamu kuhusu utumwa unadhihirika katika vipengele mbalimbali. Ulilenga kuwaweka huru watumwa kwa nje na pia kwa ndani, lakini ili kufikia lengo hilo haukutegemea tu matakwa mema, kama alivyofanya Abraham Lincoln alipotoa amri bila kuwaandaa watumwa kiakili. Hili linaonyesha uelewa wa kina wa Uislamu kuhusu asili ya binadamu, na jinsi ulivyotumia njia zote zilizowezekana kufikia lengo lake. Haukuwarudishia uhuru watu hawa kwa ukarimu tu, bali pia uliwafundisha ili waulinde na kubeba majukumu yanayotokana nao. Uliingiza roho ya upendo na ushirikiano katika jamii nzima. Haukungoja hadi migogoro itokee ndani ya jamii kuhusu haki hizo, kama ilivyotokea Ulaya, ambako iliacha urithi wa chuki kali na uadui uliokausha chemchemi zote za kiroho moyoni mwa binadamu. Hatimaye, sasa tuchunguze msingi mkuu ambao Uislamu ulitumia kufikia ukombozi kamili baada ya mchakato wa kutosha wa kuinua hadhi ya kiroho ya watumwa.

The great superiority of Islam with regard to slavery is manifest in various aspects. It aimed at freeing slaves externally as well as internally but to achieve that end it did not merely rely upon the pious wishes as Abraham Lincoln had done by issuing an order without preparing slaves mentally. This demonstrates Islam's deep understanding of the human nature and how it employed all possible means to achieve its objective. It not only liberally restored these people's liberty but also trained them so as to safeguard it and bear responsibilities flowing from it. It infused a spirit of love and cooperation throughout the society. It did not wait till conflicts should break out within the society over these rights as had happened in Europe leaving behind them an odious legacy of bitter malice and hatred and sapping all the spiritual headsprings in human heart. In the end, let us now take up the main basis on which Islam worked out the final emancipation after a due process of spiritual elevation of slaves.

Tumeshaeleza kwamba Uislamu ulifanikiwa kuondoa vyanzo vyote vya kale vilivyozaa utumwa, isipokuwa kimoja ambacho ilikuwa karibu haiwezekani kukiondoa, nacho ni vita; kikiwa ndicho chanzo pekee chenye ufanisi cha uovu huu kilichobaki baada ya jihadi ya Uislamu dhidi yake. Tunakusudia kulizungumzia suala hili kwa urefu.

We have already pointed out that Islam successfully put an end to all those old sources whence slavery sprang up save one, which it was virtually impossible for it to do away with, and that was war, the only effective source of this evil left behind after the crusade of Islam against it. We propose to deal with it at some length.

Mazoea makuu yaliyoanzia zamani za mbali kabisa na yaliyoenea wakati huo ni kwamba mateka wa vita walifanywa watumwa au kuuawa.1 Ilikuwa ni mazoea ambayo, kadiri muda ulivyopita, yalikuwa yamekuja kuwa sharti la lazima la kuwepo kwa binadamu katika enzi hizo za kale.

The principal practice that dated back to the remotest past and was prevalent at the time was that prisoners of war were either enslaved or put to death.1 It was a practice such as had with the passage of time come to stay as a necessary condition of human existence in those past ages.

Ilikuwa dhidi ya mandhari hii ya kijamii ambapo Uislamu ulifunuliwa kwa wanadamu. Vita nyingi zilipiganwa kati ya majeshi ya Uislamu na wapinzani wake. Waislamu waliotekwa katika vita hivyo walifanywa watumwa na wale waliowateka. Uhuru wao ulipotea.

It was against this social background that Islam was revealed to mankind. Many battles took place between the forces of Islam and its opponents. The Muslims taken prisoners in these wars were made slaves by their captors. Their liberties were forfeited.

Wanaume walikabiliwa na dhuluma na mateso yote hayo ambayo mara nyingi yalikuwa hatima ya mtumwa wakati huo. Heshima ya mwanamke ilikiukwa kwa njia ya wazi kabisa; wanaume kadhaa, baba, wana na marafiki, walimshiriki pamoja mwanamke mmoja mateka bila kujali kanuni yoyote wala sheria, wala kuheshimu utu wake wa kike, wala kuzingatia chochote kuhusu kama alikuwa msichana bikira au mwanamke aliyeolewa. Zaidi ya hayo, watoto, iwapo walitekwa, walilelewa katika utumwa wa kuchukiza na wa kudhalilisha kabisa.

Men were exposed to oppression and all those miseries that were commonly the lot of a slave at the time, The honor of woman was violated in a most flagrant manner; several men-fathers, sons and friends-all jointly shared a single captive woman with no regard whatever to any rule or law, or respect for her womanhood, or any consideration whatever about her being a virgin maid or a married Woman. Besides this, the children, if captured, were brought up in a most odious and abject servitude.

Chini ya hali zilivyokuwa, haikuwezekana kwa Uislamu kuwaachia huru mara moja wafungwa wote waliotekwa kutoka kambini mwao, kwa sababu hilo lisingekuwa tu sera mbaya, bali pia lingekuwa kama kuwahimiza maadui zake. Hasa kwa vile Waislamu pamoja na jamaa zao wa karibu waliotekwa vitani walikuwa wakifanywa watumwa na maadui na kuwekwa wazi kwa aina mbalimbali za mateso, unyama na udhalilishaji. Katika mazingira kama hayo, njia bora na pekee iliyobaki wazi kwa Uislamu ilikuwa kuwatendea kama mateka, kama wao walivyowatendea Waislamu. Utumwa wa wafungwa wa vita haukuweza kufutwa na Uislamu peke yake pale maadui walipong'ang'ania kuendelea nao. Hivyo, desturi hiyo ilivumiliwa tu kwa muda mrefu kama hakukuwepo mbadala wake, na hadi pale mataifa yote duniani yatakapokubaliana wenyewe kwa wenyewe juu ya msingi mwingine tofauti na utumwa katika kushughulikia wafungwa wao wa vita. Hatupaswi pia kusahau tofauti kubwa kati ya Uislamu na dini nyingine katika vita zao, pamoja na matibabu ya wafungwa waliotekwa katika vita hivyo.

As the conditions stood, it was not possible for Islam to forth with set at liberty all the prisoners falling in its hands from the camp, for it would have not only been a piece of bad policy but would have also implied a virtual encouragement to its enemies especially as the Muslims as well as their dear and near ones captured in war were being made slaves by the enemies and exposed to all sorts of tortures, atrocities and humiliations. In such circumstances, the best and the only course left Open to Islam was to treat them as captives as they treated the Muslims, The enslaving of the prisoners of war could not be abolished unilaterally by Islam when the enemies insisted on its continuance. So the practice was tolerated just so long as there did exist no alternative to it and till the time the peoples all the world over should agree among themselves Upon a basis other than that of slavery in dealing with their prisoners of war. We must not also overlook the great difference between Islam and other religions in their wars or the treatment of the prisoners captured in these wars.

Vita vimekuwa na bado vinaendelea kuwa mchanganyiko wa hila, mshangao, na ukatili; na utumwa wa taifa moja kwa jingine kutokana na nia zake za upanuzi na tamaa ya unyonyaji ili kufikia malengo yake ya ubinafsi. Vita kama hizi ni, na zimekuwa, matokeo ya tamaa binafsi, kiburi, majivuno, au hamu ya kulipiza kisasi ya mfalme au kamanda wa kijeshi. Kwa kuwa vita hivi vilichochewa na malengo duni ya kidunia, watu waliotekwa humo walifanywa watumwa si kwa sababu ya imani yao au itikadi yao, wala kwa sababu walikuwa duni katika uwezo wao wa kimwili, kisaikolojia, au kiakili kuliko watekaji wao, bali kwa sababu tu walishindwa vitani na walikuwa wa upande ulioshindwa.

Wars have been aud still are a melee of treachery, surprise, violence; and the enslavement of one nation to another due to its expansionist designs and the lust for exploitation in order to advance its own selfish ends. Such wars are and have been the outcome of personal ambition, pride, vanity or a wish for vengeance of a king or a military commander. Motivated as these wars were by low earthly designs, the people captured therein were made slaves not because of their creed or ideal, nor because they were inferior in their physical, psychological or Intellectual equipment to that of their captors, but simply because they had lost the battle and belonged to the vanquished party.

Zaidi ya hayo, hakukuwa na chochote kingeweza, wakati wa vita, kuzuia upande ulioshinda kuwadhalilisha watu waliotekwa na kuwatweza, kukiuka heshima yao, kuteketeza miji yenye amani hadi ardhini, na kuwaua kwa upanga wanawake, watoto pamoja na wazee, jambo ambalo ni matokeo ya kawaida ya kukosa itikadi, kanuni au imani tukufu ya kuwaongoza.

Moreover, there was nothing that could in the event of war, prevent a victorious party to subject the conquered people to humiliation and disgrace, violate their honor, raze peaceful cities to the ground and put women, children as well as old men to sword,-a logical sequence to lack of a lofty ideal, principle or creed to guide them.

Pamoja na kuja kwa Uislamu, desturi hizi zote zilifutwa. Uislamu ulikataza vita vyote isipokuwa vile vinavyopiganwa katika njia ya Mwenyezi Mungu; ili kuzuia ukatili na dhuluma dhidi ya Waislamu; kumwangamiza dhalimu mwenye mabavu anayetumia nguvu na ghasia ili kuwazuia watu wasiukubali dini ya kweli; au kuondoa mdanganyifu mwenye nguvu lakini dhalimu anayesimama kati ya watu na Mola wao, akiwazuia kuona au kusikia na kuifuata kweli kwa kujitegemea. Hivyo ndivyo Qur'ani Tukufu ilivyotangaza: "Piganeni katika njia ya Allah dhidi ya wale wanaopigana nanyi, lakini msianzishe uadui. Hakika Allah hawapendi wafanyao uchokozi" (ii: 190), na, "Pigeni vita nao mpaka fitina isiwepo tena, na dini iwe yote ni ya Allah" (viii: 39).

With the advent of Islam all these practices were abolished. It prohibited all wars save the one fought in the way of God; to avert cruelty and injustice to Muslims; crush a tyrannous oppressor resorting to force and violence to prevent people from embracing true religion; or to remove a powerful but iniquitous impostor interposing between men and their God incapacitating them to see or hear and follow the truth independently. Thus the Holy Qur'an declared: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors" (ii: 190) and, "Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah" (viii: 39).

Hivyo ujumbe wa Uislamu unakuwa ujumbe wa amani, ambao hakuna anayethubutu kuupuuza:

The message of Islam thus becomes a message of peace, which none can dare ignore:

"Hakuna kulazimishwa katika dini. Uongofu sasa umejitofautisha wazi na upotovu" (ii: 256). Kwamba hata leo kuna Wakristo na Mayahudi katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu wanaofuata dini zao kwa uhuru bila kuzuiliwa ni ushahidi wa ukweli usiopingika kwamba Uislamu hauidhinishi matumizi ya nguvu katika kuwageuza watu kuukubali mtazamo wake.1

"There is no compulsion in religion. The right (direction) is henceforth distinct from error" (ii : 256). That there are even today Christians and Jews in the Muslim world who follow their respective religions unchecked bears testimony to the irrefutable fact that Islam does not approve of using force in converting men to its own viewpoint.1

Ikiwa watu watakubali ujumbe huu wa Uislamu na kukubali kufuata haki, uadui kati yao na Waislamu unakoma mara moja. Wao wanakuwa sehemu ya jamii ya Kiislamu, wala hawatawekwa chini ya utumwa wala udhalilishaji. Wanafurahia haki zinazofanana na zile wanazofurahia Waislamu wengine, kwani hakuna tofauti inayoruhusiwa kati ya Mwislamu mmoja na mwingine, wala Mwarabu hakuwa na ubora wowote juu ya asiye Mwarabu isipokuwa kwa sababu ya uchaji Mungu wake.

If people accept this message of Islam and agree to follow the truth, the hostilities between them and the Muslims cease forthwith. They become part of the Muslim community and are not to be put to subjection or humiliation. They enjoy rights similar to those enjoyed by other Muslims, for no distinction is permissible between one Muslim and the other, nor had any Arab any superiority over a non-Arab except due to his piety.

Katika kesi ya watu waliokataa kuikubali Uislamu kama dini yao lakini walitaka kuishi chini ya ulinzi wake wakiwa na dini yao wenyewe, Uislamu haukuwalazimisha kukubali imani yake, bali ulikubali kwa furaha kuwalinda kwa kulipwa kodi maalum (Jizyah), kwa makubaliano kwamba kodi zote hizo zitarudishwa kwao endapo Waislamu watashindwa kuwalinda dhidi ya uvamizi wa nje. Hii ni licha ya imani ya Uislamu kwamba ni imani bora zaidi na yenye ubora kuliko ile ambayo ulikubali kuilinda. Lakini ikiwa watu fulani wana ubora katika utajiri wa mali na silaha, ndipo tu na dhidi ya watu hao ndipo vita hutangazwa. Hata hivyo, vita kama hivyo haianzishwi bila tamko rasmi au onyo la mwisho, kama juhudi ya mwisho ya kuzuia umwagaji damu iwapo inawezekana, na kueneza amani duniani kote: “Na wakiegemea amani, nawe pia uegemee kwake, na mtegemee Mwenyezi Mungu” (viii: 61).

In the case of a people who refused to adopt Islam as their religion but were desirous to live under its protection with their own religion, Islam did not compel them to adopt its creed but gladly undertook to protect them in return for a special tax (Jizyah) with the understanding that all such taxes would be paid back to them in the event of Muslims proving unable to defend them against outside aggression.2 And that despite the belief of Islam that its was a creed far superior to and better than the one it had undertaken to protect. But if a people their superiority in material wealth and arms. Only then and against these people it is that war is declared. But even such a war is not plunged in without a formal ultimatum or declaration as a last effort to prevent bloodshed if possible and spread peace the world over: “ And if they incline to peace incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah" (viii: 61).

Hivyo ndivyo ilivyo simulizi ya vita za Uislamu, ambazo zilitokana na hamu yake ya kuwaelekeza wanadamu kwenye njia iliyo sahihi endapo njia zote za amani kuelekea lengo hilo zingeshindwa kuzaa matunda.

Such then is the story of the wars of Islam which sprang out of its wish to direct mankind to the right path if all peaceful means towards that end should prove ineffective.

Hazikuwa zikiongozwa na tamaa yoyote ya kuwanyonya au kuwashinda watu wowote kwa upande wa kamanda yeyote wa kijeshi, kwani zilikuwa, kwa neno moja, vita zilizopiganwa katika njia ya Mwenyezi Mungu. Sio hivyo tu, bali pia amri wazi na kanuni ziliwekwa kwa ajili ya mwenendo wa vita hivi. Mtume Mtukufu ﷺ akiwaonya Waislamu alisema: "Nendeni kwa jina la Mwenyezi Mungu kupigana katika njia ya Mwenyezi Mungu; muueni yeye anayekataa Mwenyezi Mungu; piganeni lakini msifanye hiyana, wala msiwakatakate, wala msimuue mtoto".1 Pia hakuna mtu isipokuwa yule aliyebeba silaha dhidi ya jeshi la Kiislamu ndiye aliyepaswa kuuawa. Hakuna kitu kilichopaswa kuharibiwa au kuangamizwa, wala heshima ya mtu yeyote kuvunjwa. Hakuna uovu wala fitina iliyopaswa kuhimizwa, kwani "Hakika Mwenyezi Mungu hawapendi wafanyao fitina".

They were not motivated by any ambition to exploit or vanquish a people by any military commander, for they were, in a word, wars waged in the way of God. Not only this but clear injunctions and rules were also laid down for the conduct of these wars. The Holy Prophet admonishing the Muslims said: "Go in the name of God to fight in the way of God; kill him who rejects God; fight but do not commit a perfidy, nor mutilate, nor kill a child".1 Also no man except he who carried arms against the Muslim army was to be killed. Nothing was to be destroyed or ruined, nor anybody's honor violated. No mischief or evil was to be encouraged, for “Surely God does not love the mischief-makers".

Historia inashuhudia kwamba Waislamu walishika mapokeo haya yote matukufu katika vita vyao dhidi ya maadui zao, ikiwa ni pamoja hata na wale waliopaswa kupigana nao dhidi ya wapinzani wao wasaliti, Wakristo wa Vita vya Msalaba. Wakristo walipokuwa wameimiliki Yerusalemu walifanya kila aina ya uovu na uvunjaji wa mipaka dhidi ya Waislamu waliokuwa wakiishi mjini humo. Waliwadhalilisha heshima zao na kuwaua kwa upanga bila kujali. Hata msikiti mkubwa uliopo huko haukuepuka uvunjaji wao wa mipaka. Lakini Waislamu walipoukomboa mji huo, hawakujaribu kulipiza kisasi dhidi yao, ingawa Mwenyezi Mungu aliwaruhusu kuwalipa wakosaji kwa sarafu yao wenyewe: “Na anayekushambulia, mshambulieni kwa namna hiyo hiyo aliyokushambulia” (Al-Baqarah 2:94). Badala yake, walichagua njia ambayo hadi leo haijapitwa katika ukarimu na utukufu.

History bears witness that the Muslims upheld all these noble traditions in their wars against their enemies, including even those they had to fight against their treacherous opponents, the Crusaders. The Christians when in possession of Jerusalem committed all sorts of iniquity and transgression against the Muslims living in the city. They violated their honor and recklessly put them to sword. Even the great mosque there did not escape from their transgression. But when the Muslims captured the city, they did not try to seek revenge against them although they were permitted by God to pay the transgressors back in their own coins: “And one who attacked you, attack him in like manner, as he attacked you" (ii: 94). Instead, they chose a course such as to this day remains unsurpassed in generosity and nobility.

Hii ndiyo ilikuwa tofauti kuu ya msingi kati ya Waislamu na wasiokuwa Waislamu kuhusu malengo yao ya vita na mila zao. Uislamu ungeweza kwa urahisi kabisa kuchukua msimamo kwamba wale wote waliong'ang'ania ibada yao ya kuchukiza ya masanamu na kupigana kwa bidii dhidi ya Haki na Nuru ni nusu-binadamu, hivyo wanastahili kushikiliwa utumwani tu. Kwani watu wasio na kasoro katika muundo wao wa akili au wa kibinadamu wangekataaje Nuru na Haki? Na kwa hiyo, hawakustahili heshima, wala uhuru ambao ni haki ya binadamu peke yao.

This constituted the great fundamental distinguishing mark as to their war-aims and traditions between the Muslims and non Muslims. Islam could very easily adopt the view that all those who insisted on their despicable idol-worship and actively fought against Truth and Light were half-human and thus fit for being held in bondage only, for how could a people not defective in their intellectual or human make-up refuse Light and Truth? And that, therefore, they neither deserved respect, nor the freedom which is the privilege of human beings only.

Lakini Uislamu haukufuata njia hii. Haukuruhusu kuwachukua wafungwa wa vita kuwa watumwa kwa kisingizio kwamba ni viumbe duni kuliko binadamu. Walichukuliwa kuwa watumwa kwa sababu tu watu wao nao walikuwa wakiwatendea Waislamu waliotekwa kama watumwa wao. Tatizo la utumwa hivyo liliachwa na Uislamu bila kuamuliwa, hadi pande zote zinazopigana zitakapokubaliana kanuni nyingine, tofauti na ya utumwa, katika kushughulikia wafungwa wao wa vita. Kwa kuwa hali ilivyokuwa, hii ndiyo ilikuwa dhamana pekee dhidi ya wasiokuwa Waislamu kuwatendea vibaya wafungwa wao Waislamu au kuwaweka katika taabu na udhalilifu bila hofu yoyote ya kulipizwa kisasi.

But Islam did not adopt this course. It did not allow taking prisoners of war in servitude on the plea that they were sub-humans. They were taken slaves just because their people too treated the captured Muslims as their slaves, The problem of slavery was thus left by Islam undecided till all the belligerents should agree to a principle other than that of slavery in dealing with their prisoners of war, for, as the conditions stood, this was the only guarantee against the non-Muslims' ill-treatment of their Muslim prisoners or Subjecting them to misery and humiliation without any fear of retaliation.

Kwa bei hii ni lazima pia kutajwa kwa kupita kwamba aya pekee ya Qur'ani inayogusia hatima ya wafungwa wa vita inasema: "Kisha baadaye waachilieni kwa hisani au wakomboe (nafsi zao) mpaka vita viweke silaha zake chini" (xlvii:

At this price it must also be mentioned in passing that the only Qur'anic verse touching upon the fate of prisoners of war says that: "And afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war lays down its weapons” (xlvii:

Haijataja kwenye Qur'ani kuhusu kutumikisha kama watumwa wafungwa wa vita, hivyo haijaiweka kama kanuni ya kudumu ya vita. Kile ilichoweka wazi ni kukomboa au kuwaachia huru kwa wema, kwa kuwa hizi mbili ndizo ambazo Qur'ani iliziagiza kama sheria ya kudumu ya vita. Kwa hiyo, ikiwa Waislamu walikuwa wakiwashikilia wafungwa wa vita kama watumwa, ilikuwa ni jambo la sera tu lililoamuriwa na nguvu ya hali zilizokuwepo. Haihusu kanuni ya msingi ya sheria ya Kiislamu.

4), It does not mention the enslaving of prisoners, which would have enforced it as a permanent rule of war, What it explicitly laid down is rather the ransoming or setting them free as a favor, for it is these two that the Qur'an prescribed as a permanent law of war, Thus if the Muslims held the prisoners of war in slavery it was purely an act of policy dictated by the force of circumstances. It does not form intrinsic principle of the Islamic law.

Lakini licha ya hayo, desturi iliyofuatwa kwa ujumla katika Uislamu haikulazimisha kuwachukua wafungwa wa vita kuwa watumwa. Amani ilipopatikana, hawakuwahi kufanywa watumwa. Mtume ﷺ aliwaachia huru baadhi ya wafungwa wa Kiquraishi waliotekwa katika vita vya Badr, kwa malipo ya fidia, huku akiwaachia huru wengine kama ishara ya upendeleo. Vivyo hivyo, alikubali Jizyah kutoka kwa ujumbe wa Wakristo wa Najran, na akawarudishia wafungwa wao. Matendo haya yote mazuri yalikusudiwa kuwa mifano kwa wanadamu, wakati utakapofika ambapo wangeweza kujikwamua na urithi mbaya wa zamani zao na kuwa tayari kuwatendea wafungwa wa vita kama binadamu.

But despite this the practice generally followed in Islam did not insist on taking prisoners of war as slaves. If peace was restored, they were never made slaves. The Holy Prophet set at liberty some of the Meccan prisoners captured in the battle of Badr, in return for a redemption, while he freed the others as a mark of favor. Similarly, he accepted Jizyah from the Christian deputation of Najran and returned their prisoners over to them. All these noble deeds were meant to serve as precedents for mankind when once it should be able to shake off the odious legacy of its past and be ready to treat the prisoners of war as human beings.

Tunaweza pia kuongeza kwamba wafungwa walioanguka mikononi mwa Waislamu katika vita hawakuwahi kutendewa vibaya, kuteswa wala kudhalilishwa kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu. Badala yake, walipewa nafasi ya kuchagua njia ya kupata uhuru, pamoja na sharti kwamba walikuwa tayari kubeba majukumu yanayoambatana na uhuru. Waliposhika masharti haya, waliachiwa huru, ingawa wengi wao walikuwa watumwa kabla ya kuangukia mikononi mwa Waislamu. Walikuwa miongoni mwa watumwa waliokamatwa na Waajemi na Warumi, kisha wakatumwa kupigana dhidi ya Waislamu.

We may also add that the prisoners fallen in the hands of Muslims in wars were never ill-treated, tortured or subjected to the humiliation such as described above, They, on the, other hand, found that if they chose the way to freedom lay open before them provided also that they were ready to bear the responsibilities that go with freedom, If they fulfilled these conditions they were set free, although most of them were bondsmen before falling into the hands of the Muslims, and comprised to those slaves who were seized by Persians and Romans, and packed off to fight against the Muslims.

Kwa upande wa wanawake, Uislamu uliwaheshimu hata wakiwa utumwani, hata kama walichukuliwa mateka kutoka nchi za maadui wa kigeni. Hakuna aliyeruhusiwa kuvunja heshima yao au kuwatendea kama sehemu tu ya ngawira iliyonyakuliwa vitani. Hawakupaswa tena kutendewa kama mali ya pamoja ya wote, huku kila mwanaume akiwa na uhuru wa kuwafikia ili kutosheleza tamaa zake za kimwili. Tangu wakati huo walipaswa kuwa mali ya mabwana zao peke yao. Hakuna mwingine aliyeruhusiwa kuanzisha uhusiano wa kimapenzi nao. Zaidi ya hayo, kama wanaume, walipewa haki ya kujikomboa kupitia Mukatabah, pamoja na kuwekwa sharti kwamba mjakazi angekuwa huru mara tu atakapomzalia mtoto mmiliki wake.

As far as the women were concerned, Islam respected them even in their captivity even if they were taken prisoners from foreign enemy lands. No one was allowed to violate their honor or treat them merely as a part of booty captured in war. They were no longer to be treated as a common property of all with every man having free access to them to gratify his animal passions. They were hence forth to belong to their masters alone. None else could establish sexual relations with them. Moreover, they were, like men, granted the right to work out their freedom through Mukatabah, besides providing that a slave-maid would be free the moment she gave birth to a child by her master.

Mbali na mama, mtoto pia angehesabiwa kuwa huru. Matibabu waliyopewa na Uislamu kwa ujumla wakati wa utumwa wao yalikuwa ya heshima na ukarimu vilevile.

Besides the mother, the child would also be deemed free. The treatment given them by Islam on the whole during their captivity was equally noble and generous.

Hivyo ndivyo ilivyokuwa historia ya utumwa katika Uislamu, historia ambayo ni miongoni mwa kurasa zenye mwangaza zaidi katika historia ya binadamu. Uislamu haukuwahi kuidhinisha utumwa kwa kanuni, kwani ulijitahidi kwa bidii kwa njia zote zilizokuwa mikononi mwake kuondoa utumwa kabisa. Uliuvumilia kuwepo kwake kwa wakati huo kwa sababu tu haukuwa na njia nyingine mbadala, kwa kuwa jambo hilo halikuwahusu Waislamu pekee, bali pia watu wale ambao hawakuwa chini ya udhibiti wake wa moja kwa moja. Watu hao waliwaweka Waislamu utumwani, wakiwafanyia aina mbaya zaidi za udhalilishaji na mateso, jambo lililowasukuma Waislamu kuchukua mwenendo wa kuwatendea watu hao kwa namna hiyo hiyo, angalau katika kuwatendea wafungwa wao wa vita kama watumwa, ingawa si katika miamala yao halisi na watumwa hao baadaye.

Such is the story of slavery in Islam-a story which constitutes one of the brightest pages of human history. Islam never approved of slavery in principle as it strove hard with all the different means at its disposal to eliminate slavery once for all. It tolerated its existence for the time being just because it had no other alternative for it concerned not only Muslims but those people as well who were not under its direct control. They held the Muslims in servitude making them suffer the worst possible forms of humiliation and miseries which drove the Muslims to adopt with respect to these people a Course of like treatment, at least in treating their prisoners of war as slaves though not in their actual transactions with these slaves afterwards.

Uislamu haukuweza kuondoa utumwa kwa muda wote ambao dunia haikukubaliana kukomesha chanzo pekee cha utumwa, yaani kuwafanya wafungwa wa vita kuwa watumwa. Kwa hiyo, makubaliano hayo yalipofikiwa, Uislamu uliyakaribisha, kwa kuwa yaliunda kanuni ya msingi isiyobadilika ya mfumo wake wa kijamii: uhuru kwa wote, usawa kwa wote.

Islam could not effect the abolition of slavery so long as the world did not agree to put an end to the only source of slavery enslavement of prisoners of war. So when that concord was achieved Islam welcomed it as it formed the unalterable fundamental principle of its polity: liberty for all, equality for all.

Kuhusu matukio ya utumwa, biashara ya watumwa, na kukamatwa na kuuzwa kwa Waislamu yaliyoonekana katika baadhi ya vipindi vya baadaye vya historia ya Kiislamu bila kuwepo kwa vita vya kidini vya kawaida, hayana uhusiano wowote na Uislamu. Hayawezi kuhusishwa na Uislamu kwa haki wala ukweli zaidi ya jinsi uovu na hatia ya kikatili inavyofanywa na baadhi ya watawala Waislamu kwa jina la Uislamu katika nyakati za sasa.

As to the instances of slavery, slave-traffic, seizure and sale of Muslims met with in some latter periods of Islamic history without any regular religious Wars having taken place, they have no relation whatsoever to Islam. They can with no more justification and truth be imputed to Islam than the vicious crimes and guilt that are perpetrated by some Muslim rulers in the name of Islam at the present times.

Katika suala hili tutafanya vyema kuzingatia yafuatayo:- (1) Serikali katika hatua za mwisho za historia zilihimiza na kuvumilia utumwa kwa njia kadhaa bila haja yoyote ya kweli. Zilisukumwa na tamaa yao ya madaraka na ushindi, taifa moja au tabaka moja la watu likiwatawala taifa jingine au tabaka jingine la watu kwa utiifu. Aina nyingine za utumwa zilizuka kutokana na sababu kama umaskini, kuzaliwa ndani ya tabaka fulani linalochukuliwa kuwa la chini, na ukweli kwamba mtu alifanya kazi kama mpangaji kwenye kipande fulani cha ardhi. Uislamu ulisimama kwa ajili ya kuondoa aina hizi zote za utumwa isipokuwa ile moja, na aina pekee ya utumwa ambayo, kutokana na hali zisizofaa, haukuweza kuidhibiti kwa ufanisi. Utumwa ulivumiliwa hadi wakati ambapo hali zingeiva na kupendelea kukomeshwa kwake.

In this respect we would do well to bear the following in mind:- (1) The governments in the latter stages of history encouraged and tolerated slavery in several ways without any genuine need. They were motivated by their lust for power and conquest, one nation or class of people holding another nation or class of people in subjection. The other forms of slavery sprang up from causes such as poverty, birth into a certain class held as inferior and the fact that a man worked as a tenant on a Particular tract of land. Islam stood for the abolition of all these forms of slavery except that one and the only form of it, which, due to the unfavorable circumstances, it could not effectively check. Slavery was tolerated till such time as the circumstances should grow ripe and favor its abolition.

(2) Licha ya ukweli kwamba huko Ulaya utumwa ulienea katika aina nyingi bila hitaji lolote la kweli, Waulaya kwa kweli hawakuwahi kuukomesha hata pale hatimaye walipojishusha kuupiga marufuku. Waandishi wa Kiulaya wenyewe wanakiri kwamba utumwa huko Ulaya ulikoma tu pale, kutokana na matatizo yao ya kiuchumi, kukosa nia ya kujitahidi na kutokuwa na uwezo wa kufanya kazi, watumwa walipokuwa mzigo wa kiuchumi badala ya mali kwa mabwana zao. Bwana alilazimika kutumia fedha nyingi zaidi kwa ajili ya riziki na usimamizi wa watumwa wake kuliko faida walizorejeshewa kutokana na juhudi zao. Kwa hiyo ilikuwa ni sababu ya kiuchumi tupu, jambo la faida na hasara, ndilo lililosaidia kuleta ukombozi wa watumwa hawa wa Kiulaya, na kwa hiyo halina mfanano wowote na lengo tukufu lililomheshimu kila mtu kwa ubinadamu wake, na ambalo likichochewa na dhana hiyo tukufu ya ubinadamu lilimrudishia mtumwa uhuru wake. Uhuru ambao mtumwa aliupata huko Ulaya unapoteza umuhimu wake unapotazamwa katika muktadha wa mapinduzi mfululizo yaliyozuka huko kutokana na msukosuko miongoni mwa watumwa, ambayo mwishowe yaliwafanya mabwana wao washindwe kuendelea kuwadhibiti.

(2) Despite the fact that in Europe slavery prevailed in so many forms without any genuine need, the Europeans in fact did never abolish it even when they at last condescended to ban it. European writers themselves confess that in fact slavery in Europe came to an end only when due to their economic difficulties, lack of will to exert themselves and their incapacity to work, the slaves became more of an economic liability than an asset to their masters. The master had to spend far larger amounts of money on the sustenance and supervision of their slaves than the profits they got back as a result of their exertion. It was thus a Purely economic factor just a matter of profit and loss-that helped in bringing about the liberation of these European slaves and as such it bears no analogy to the lofty ideal that respected every man for his humanity and which inspired by that lofty concept of humanity restored to the slave his freedom. The freedom thus Won by the slave in Europe sinks into insignificance when viewed in the context of those successive revolutions that broke out there as a result of the restlessness among slaves and which in the end made it impossible for their masters to hold them any longer in subjection.

Ya yote haya mfululizo wa mapinduzi hayakuweza, hata hivyo, kuwasaidia watumwa kurejesha uhuru wao. Badala yake, kutokana na mapinduzi haya walifungwa zaidi kwa nguvu zaidi, kwa sababu tangu wakati huo walishikiliwa katika hali ya utumwa wa kimwinyi, wakifungwa kwenye ardhi waliyolima, na walibadilisha mabwana kwa kuuzwa au kuhamishwa kwa ardhi. Mtumwa hakuweza kuiacha ardhi hiyo; akifanya hivyo, alitangazwa na sheria kuwa mkimbizi, akafungwa minyororo, akachomwa kwa moto, na kurudishwa kwa bwana wake. Aina hii ya utumwa iliendelea kuwepo barani Ulaya hadi ilipofagiliwa mbali kabisa na Mapinduzi ya Ufaransa katika karne ya kumi na nane, yaani, takriban miaka elfu moja na mia moja baada ya Uislamu kuwa tayari umeweka wazi kanuni ya ukombozi.

All these series of revolutions could not, however, help the slaves in winning back their liberty. They were rather as a result of these revolutions bound all the more securely, for henceforth they were held in serf hood bound to the soil they tilled and changed masters on the sale pr transfer of land. The slave could not leave the soil which, if he did, he was declared a fugitive by law, bound in chains, cauterized with fire and returned to his master, This form of slavery continued to exist in Europe till it was finally swept away by the French Revolution in the eighteenth century that is, some eleven hundred years after Islam had already enunciated the principle of emancipation.

Tusidanganyike na majina mazuri. Mapinduzi ya Ufaransa barani Ulaya na Lincoln huko Amerika yalikomesha utumwa pamoja na makubaliano ya watu wa dunia nzima ya kuukandamiza katika aina zake zote, lakini haya yote yalikuwa majina tu, mazuri bila shaka. Je, utumwa umekomeshwa kweli? Je, udhalimu bado haujatembea kwa kujigamba duniani kote katika maumbo tofauti? Inaitwaje hiyo ambayo Wafaransa walifanya huko Algeria? Tunaweza kuelezeaje kwa maneno mengine uhalifu mweusi wa Wamarekani dhidi ya watu weusi huko, na makosa ya Waingereza dhidi ya watu wenye rangi nchini Afrika Kusini? Je, utumwa kwa kweli si kuitiisha taifa moja kwa jingine na kuwanyima kundi la watu haki wanazofurahia watu wengine kama wao? Ina maana hiyo tu na si kitu kingine. Basi kwa nini tusiite jembe kuwa jembe? Kwa nini tuyapotoshe majina ya aina hizi tofauti za utumwa kuwa uhuru, udugu na usawa? Kwa hakika, mapambo ya juu juu hayana thamani kubwa pale ambapo uhalifu uliofanyika chini yake ni wa aina ya kikatili na ya kuchukiza kabisa ambayo wanadamu hawajawahi kuiona katika historia yao ndefu duniani.

We should not be taken in by beautiful names. The French Revolution in Europe and Lincoln in America abolished slavery along with the understanding among the peoples the world over to suppress it in all its forms hut all these were mere names, beautiful ones, of course, for, has slavery been abolished in reality? Isn't tyranny still strutting all the world over in different guises? What is called that which the French did in Algeria? In what other terms can we describe the black crimes of the Americans towards the negroes there, and the felonies of the English against the colored people of South Africa? Is not slavery in effect the subjection of a nation to another and the deprivation of a class of people of the rights enjoyed by other men like themselves? It means just that and nothing else. Why should we not then call a spade a spade? Why misname these different forms of slavery as liberty, fraternity, and equality? For, surely the surface decoration is of little value where the crimes perpetrated underneath are of the most monstrous and hideous nature yet witnessed by mankind during their long career on the earth.

Uislamu ulikuwa wazi sana na wa moja kwa moja kuhusu msimamo wake na yale uliyoyatetea. Uliwaeleza watu kwa njia ya moja kwa moja, kwa maneno yaliyo wazi na yasiyo na shaka, kuhusu mtazamo wake juu ya utumwa: kwamba hiki ndicho chanzo halisi cha utumwa, kwamba hii ndiyo njia ya kutoka humo kuelekea uhuru, na kwamba hii ndiyo njia ya kuukomesha kabisa. Hatua hiyo haikuzuiwa kwa wakati ule kutokana na kutokubaliana kwa mataifa ya dunia kuhusu jinsi ya kuwatendea wafungwa wao wa vita.

Islam was very frank and explicit on what it stood for and advocated. It told the people in a straightforward manner, in clear and unequivocal terms as to what it thought of slavery, that such and such was the real cause of it, this is the way out of it to freedom; and that this is the way to its outright abolition...the way that was for the time being not checked due to the disagreement among the peoples of the world as to the treatment of their prisoners of war.

Lakini ustaarabu wa kimaada wa nyakati za kisasa si wa wazi wala wa moja kwa moja kuhusu malengo yake halisi na mbinu zake. Unafanikiwa katika jambo moja tu: kupaka nje yake rangi angavu kabisa, nje ukiwa mzuri wa kuvutia lakini ndani ukiwa mweusi na wa huzuni. Uliua maelfu kwa maelfu ya watu huko Tunisia, Algeria na Morocco kwa sababu tu walidai uhuru wao na utu wao; uhuru wa kuishi katika nchi zao wenyewe bila kuingiliwa kutoka nje; uhuru wa kuzungumza lugha yao wenyewe, kufuata imani na dini yao, na kuwa na nchi huru pamoja na sehemu ya moja kwa moja katika kuamua mahusiano yao ya kisiasa na kiuchumi na dunia nyingine. Uliwaua watu hawa wasio na hatia, ukawatupa katika shimo za kuchukiza bila chakula wala maji, ukavunja heshima yao, ukawabaka wanawake wao... ukawaua na kuchana matumbo yao ukibet kama mtoto waliyembeba ni wa kiume au wa kike. Uhalifu huu wa kutisha unatendeka, lakini ustaarabu wa karne ya ishirini wa unafiki unauelezea kama kueneza kanuni za uhuru, udugu na usawa, ilhali matibabu ya Uislamu ya hiari, bora, ya heshima na ukarimu kwa watumwa miaka elfu moja mia tatu iliyopita, na tamko lake kwamba utumwa haukuwa hali ya kudumu ya maisha bali ni wa muda tu, vinaitwa kurudi nyuma, msimamo wa kurejea nyuma na ushenzi! Vivyo hivyo, ustaarabu huu wa kinafiki hauoni chochote cha kushtua pale Wamarekani wanapoweka kwenye hoteli zao na sehemu za umma matangazo yanayotangaza: "Kwa Wazungu pekee"; "Weusi na mbwa hawaruhusiwi"; na pale kundi la Wamarekani weupe "wastaarabu" wanapomuua kikatili mtu mweusi kwa kumpiga chini na kumkanyaga kwa buti zao hadi afe, kwa sababu yeye, licha ya kuwa mweusi, alithubutu kushawishika na tamaa ya kuwa na mahusiano na msichana Mmarekani mweupe, ingawa mpango ulitoka kwake yeye na si kwa mwanaume huyo, wakati wote huu polisi wanasimama pembeni bila kufanya kitu kuwazuia au kumwokoa mmoja wa raia wenzao walioungana nao kwa vifungo vya lugha, dini na ubinadamu. Wanatenda uhalifu wote huu wa kutisha, bado wanabaki "wastaarabu" kama kawaida, na taifa lao linachukuliwa kuwa kilele cha ustaarabu na maendeleo ya kisasa!! Kinyume chake, tunaona kwamba mtumwa Mparsi alipomtishia Omar kwa mauaji, akakataa Uislamu na pia akakataa kulipa Jizyah kwa dola ya Kiislamu, walitendewa kama wapinzani halisi waliokuwa wakiendelea kwa ukaidi na uadui dhidi ya Uislamu na kukataa ofa yake ya makubaliano ya amani. Hao ndio waliojichukulia jukumu la kuzuia kuenea kwa Ukweli na Nuru, wakitumia bila huruma kila kitu. Omar hakumwambia chochote yule mtumwa ingawa alielewa maana ya tishio hilo. Mtumwa huyo hakufungwa, wala hakufukuzwa nchini, wala Omar hakuamuru auawe kwa kisingizio kwamba alikuwa wa jamii duni isiyo ya kibinadamu ambayo, kwa sababu ya chuki tupu na kiburi, ilisisitiza kuabudu uongo hata baada ya kuona kwa macho yake mwenyewe ukweli na nuru.

But the meretricious civilization of modern times is neither so frank nor straightforward with regard to its real aims and methods. It excels in one thing only: in painting its exterior in the brightest of colors, elegant outwardly but dark and gloomy from within. It killed hundreds of thousands of people in Tunis, Algeria and Morocco just because they demanded their freedom and human dignity; freedom to live in their respective homelands without any intrusion from abroad; the freedom to speak their own tongue, to follow their creed and religion, and to have a free homeland and a direct share in determining their political and economic relations with the rest of the world. They killed these innocent people, hauled them into loathsome dungeons without food or water, violated their honor, raped their womenfolk....killed them and ripped up their bellies wagering if the child they carried was a male or a female. These monstrous crimes are committed, but the twentieth century hypocritical civilization describes them as the propagation of the principles of liberty, fraternity and equality, whereas Islam's voluntary, ideal, respectful and generous treatment of slaves thirteen centuries ago, and its declaration that slavery was not a permanent condition of life but only a temporary one, are called backwardness, reactionarism and barbarism! Similarly, this hypocritical civilization finds nothing shocking if the Americans put on their hotels and public places the notices announcing' "For the Whites only"; "The Black and Dogs not allowed"; and when a crowd of "civilized" white Americans mercilessly lynch a colored man throwing him on the ground and kicking him round with their boots till he is dead, for he despite being colored had dared succumb to the temptation of having relations with a white American girl, with the initiative, however, coming from her and not from him, while during all this the policemen stand around passively and do nothing to stop them or save one of their compatriots united to them through common bonds of language, religion as well as humanity. They perpetrate all these monstrous crimes and still they remain as "civilized" as ever, and their nation is looked upon as a pinnacle of modern civilization and progress!! As against this we see that when a Parsee slave threatened Omar with assassination, refused Islam as well as denied to pay the Jizyah to the Islamic state, they were treated as real antagonists obstinately continuing their hostilities against Islam and turning down its offer for a peaceful agreement. They were the people who took upon themselves to arrest the spread of Truth and Light ruthlessly employing all Omar did not say anything to the slave although he understood what the threat implied. The slave was neither imprisoned, nor banished from the country, nor did Omar order his execution on the plea that he belonged to a sub-human species who out of sheer prejudice and insolence insisted on worshipping falsehood even after he had with his own eyes seen the truth and the light.

Jinsi alivyokuwa mchafu, na dharau yake kwa mtumwa kama mwanadamu ilivyokuwa kubwa, pale alipovumilia tishio hilo na kusema badala yake: "Mtumwa ametishia kunidhuru", kisha akaendelea na njia yake bila kuzuia uhuru wake kwa namna yoyote. Alishtakiwa kwa mauaji ya Khalifa baada tu ya kutenda kitendo hicho cha kinyama.

How vulgar of him and how contemptuous his attitude towards the slave as a man when he on hearing the threat said instead: "The slave has threatened me", and then went his way without in any way curtailing his freedom. He was charged with the assassination of the Caliph only after he did actually commit the heinous crime.

Kwa upande mwingine, tunaona kwamba watu wenye ngozi za rangi ya Afrika wananyanyaswa, wanauawa au, kama magazeti ya Kiingereza yanavyoeleza, wanawindwa; na haki zao za kibinadamu zinanyimwa kwa sababu wamethubutu kutambua utu wao na kudai uhuru wao kutoka kwa watu wa Kiingereza. Hii ndiyo haki ya Kiingereza katika kilele chake na ustaarabu wa kibinadamu katika ubora wake!! Na hizi ndizo hasa kanuni za maadili "tukufu" na "za utukufu" ambazo Ulaya inadai ukuu na utawala juu ya dunia nzima. Lakini kwa upande wa Uislamu, ni wa kishenzi sana na wa kipumbavu, kwa sababu kwa kufuata mwenendo wa kutendewa kwa namna kama hiyo maadui zake, uliruhusu kuwafanya watumwa wafungwa wa vita kwa muda, bila hata hivyo kukubali utumwa kwa kanuni. Pia ni wa nyuma sana, kwani haukuruhusu kamwe "uwindaji wa binadamu," wala haukujihusisha na kuwaua watu kwa sababu ya kuwa na ngozi nyeusi. Mbali na hayo, msimamo wake wa kihafidhina ulifikia kiwango cha kutangaza: "Sikiliza na tii hata kama aliyekuwekwa juu yako ni mtumwa mweusi mwenye kichwa kama zabibu kavu".

On the other hand, we see that the colored people of Africa are oppressed, killed or, as the English papers put it, are hunted down; and their human rights withheld from them as they have dared realize their human dignity and so demand of the English people their freedom. This is the English justice at its highest and the human civilization at its best!! And these precisely arc the "sublime" and "glorious" moral principles on the basis of which Europe claims precedence and dominance over the whole of the world. But so far as Islam is concerned it is extremely barbarous and frivolous, for adopting the course of a like-treatment towards its enemies, it allowed the enslaving of prisoners of war temporarily without, however, approving of slavery in principle. It is also very backward, for it never allowed 'man-hunting,' nor did it indulge in the killing of men because of their having a black skin. Far from that, its reactionarism advanced to such an extent that it declared: "Hear and obey even if the one appointed over you be a negro slave with a raisin-like head".

Kwa upande wa wanawake watumwa, walikuwa tatizo tofauti kabisa.

As far as women-slaves were concerned, they constituted a quite different problem.

Uislamu uliruhusu kwa bwana kuwa na idadi ya wanawake watumwa waliotekwa vitani, na uliamuru kwamba yeye peke yake ndiye awe na mahusiano ya kimapenzi nao, na kwamba, akitaka, aweze kumwoa yeyote kati yao. Ulaya inachukizwa na sheria hii, lakini wakati huo huo inakubali kwa furaha aina hii ya chukizo kabisa ya kinyama, ambapo mwanamume anaweza kuwa na mahusiano haramu na msichana yeyote anayekutana naye njiani ili kutimiza tamaa zake za kinyama, bila kujali sheria yoyote wala utu wa binadamu. Kosa la Uislamu kwa kweli ni kwamba haukukubali zinaa. Ndiyo sababu Wazungu wanaonekana kuwa na hasira sana nao.

Islam made it lawful for a master to have a number of slave-women captured in wars and enjoined that he alone may have sexual relations with them and that he might, if he wished, marry anyone of them. Europe abhors this law but at the same time gladly allows that most odious form of animalism according to which a man may have illicit relations with any girl coming across him on his way to gratify his animal passions without any consideration whatsoever to any law or human dignity. The guilt of Islam in reality is that it did not countenance adultery. That is why the Europeans seem so wroth with it.

Wanawake waliotekwa vitani, miongoni mwa mataifa mengine, walilazimishwa kuishi maisha ya aibu na ya kuchukiza ya ukahaba, kwa kuwa hawakuwa na yeyote wa kuwatunza au kuwasimamia. Heshima ya mabwana zao haikuwa ikidhuriwa mara kwa mara na mwenendo wao wa kiovu. Mbali na hilo, mabwana hao mara nyingi walipendelea kuwalazimisha kufanya hivyo kwa faida yao wenyewe ya kimali. Lakini Uislamu, "Uislamu wenye msimamo wa kurudi nyuma na wa kishenzi", haukuwahi kuruhusu uzinzi; badala yake ulijitahidi kuiweka jamii safi dhidi ya uchafu huu wa kimaadili wa kuchukiza. Kwa hiyo, uliamuru kwamba wanawake hawa watumwa wawe wa mabwana zao peke yao; walipaswa kuwapa riziki, kuwalisha na kuwalinda wasianguke mawindoni mwa uovu huo, wakitimiza haja zao za kimwili pamoja na kutimiza zao wenyewe kwa njia safi na yenye heshima.

The women captured in wars were among other nations forced to lead a shameful and vile life of prostitution, for they had none to take care of or look after them and as their masters' sense of honor was seldom injured by their pursuing such a wicked course of life. Far from it, the masters would often rather force them to it for their own material gains. But Islam, "the reactionary and backward Islam", never countenanced adultery; it rather made efforts to keep society clean of this hideous moral taint. Therefore, it enjoined that these slave women would belong to their masters only; they were to provide for their maintenance, feed and safeguard them from falling a prey to such a depravation, gratifying their sexual needs along with satisfying their own in a clean, respectable manner.

Lakini Ulaya "yenye dhamiri" haiwezi kuvumilia ukatili huu wa kiwanyama.

But the "conscientious" Europe cannot bring itself to countenance this animalism.

Ndiyo maana inaruhusu uzinzi, ikiupa msaada wote na ulinzi wa sheria, na zaidi ya hapo, bila kuridhika na hilo, huueneza ibada yake kote duniani popote tamaa zake za kikoloni zinapoipeleka. Majina yamebadilika lakini hali halisi iliyo nyuma yake haijabadilika: mwanamke bado ni mtumwa wa tamaa za wanaume kama alivyokuwa zamani. Je, kahaba wa kisasa, licha ya uhuru wake unaotangazwa sana, ni huru kweli kukataa wateja wake? Wateja ambao hawana nia naye isipokuwa kama chombo cha kutimiza msisimko wao wa kimnyama? Je, yeye ni mwanamke huru kweli? Hakuna chochote kinachofanana kati ya biashara hii chafu na ya kuchukiza ya miili ya binadamu na ule uhusiano safi na wa kiroho unaomfunga mjakazi kwa bwana wake katika Uislamu.

That is why it approves of adultery extending it all possible support and protection of law and then, not content with that, spreads its cult throughout the world wherever its imperialistic designs would lead it. The names have changed but the reality behind them remains unchanged: the woman is as slave to the lust of men as ever she was, for is a modern prostitute, despite all her much publicized freedom, really free to reject her customers the customers who have no interest in her save as a means to achieve the gratification of their own animal urge? Is she really a free woman? There is nothing common between this filthy, abominable trade of human bodies and that clean and spiritual bond that ties a maid to her master in Islam.

Ikilinganishwa na Uislamu, ustaarabu wa kisasa hauna uthabiti wala uwazi wa mtazamo. Kwa mfano, unakubali kwamba ukahaba ni taasisi ya utumwa, lakini bado unasisitiza kuendelea kwake kwa madai kwamba ni "hitaji la kijamii".

As against Islam, modern civilization lacks definiteness and clarity of vision. It does, for instance, recognize that prostitution is an institution of slavery, but still insists on its continuance on the plea that it is a "social necessity".

Ni swali la kutoka kwa mtumiaji, hivyo nitalitafsiri tu kama ulivyoomba: Na kwa nini Wazungu wanaona ukahaba kuwa "hitaji la kijamii"?

And why do Europeans consider prostitution a "social necessity"?

Ukahaba umekuja kubaki kama hitaji la kijamii katika ustaarabu wa Ulaya kwa sababu Mzungu "aliyestaarabika" hataki kujitwika mzigo wa kumtegemeza mtu yeyote, mke au watoto. Anataka kupata starehe bila majukumu ambayo kwa kawaida huambatana nayo. Kwa hiyo anachotafuta ni mwanamke, awe nani, au awe anamfikiria nini yeye au yeye anamfikiria nini, kwa ajili ya kutimiza hamu yake ya kimwili. Anataka mwili wake tu na si kitu kingine. Kwa hivyo hana mapenzi ya kweli kwa mwanamke yeyote mahususi, kwani anaweza kutosheleza tamaa yake ya kinyama na mwanamke yeyote anayepita barabarani.

Prostitution has come to stay as a social necessity in European civilization because a "civilized" European does not want to burden himself by supporting anyone, a wife or children. He wants to have pleasure without the responsibilities that it generally carries with it. Therefore what he seeks is a woman, no matter who she is, or what she thinks of him or he of her, for the gratification of his sexual instinct. He wants her body and nothing else. As such he is far from being attached to any particular woman, for he may satisfy his animal passion with any woman walking in the street.

Hii ndiyo sababu ya kijamii ambayo kwayo utumwa wa wanawake katika zama za kisasa unahalalishwa. Hata hivyo, hii si chochote zaidi ya udanganyifu mtupu, kwani hukoma kuwepo mara tu mwanaume wa Kiulaya atakapoondoa kiburi chake na tamaa zake za kinyama na kukubali kupanda hadi ngazi ya juu zaidi ya ubinadamu.

This is the social necessity on the basis of which slavery of women in the modern epoch is justified. However, it is no more than a mere bluff, for it ceases to exist the moment the European man should get rid of his vanity and animal passions and agree to ascend to a higher plane of humanity.

Inaweza pia kutajwa hapa kwamba serikali za nchi za Magharibi zilizostaarabika, ambazo hatimaye zilipiga marufuku ukahaba, hazikufanya hivyo kwa heshima yoyote kwa hadhi ya kibinadamu ya kahaba kama mtu, wala hazikuonyesha kwa namna yoyote kuinuka kwao kimaadili, kisaikolojia na kiroho kulikowafanya kuwa kinga dhidi ya uhalifu huu. Badala yake, ilitokana na ukweli kwamba makahaba hao walikuwa wamepoteza umuhimu wao wote, nafasi yao ikiwa imechukuliwa na wasichana wa kawaida wa kijamii wenye anasa. Uhalifu huo haukuonekana tena kama uhalifu. Na serikali hazikuona haja yoyote ya kuingilia uhuru wa raia wao.

It may also be mentioned here that the civilized western governments, which at last prohibited prostitution, did not act so out of any respect for the human status of a prostitute as such, nor did they in any way manifest their moral, psychological and spiritual elevation rendering them immune to this crime. It rather sprang out of the fact that these prostitutes had lost all their usefulness, their place having been taken by the common sybaritic society girls. The crime was no longer regarded as a crime. And the governments just did not feel any need to interfere with the freedom of its citizens.

Lakini bado Wazungu wana ujasiri wa kulaumu Uislamu kwa suluhisho lake la tatizo la wanawake mateka miaka elfu moja mia tatu iliyopita, wakitamka kwamba ilikuwa ni utaratibu wa muda tu na haukukusudiwa kudumu milele. Na licha ya ukweli kwamba mfumo ambao Uislamu ulisimamia ulikuwa bora zaidi na safi zaidi kuliko ule unaowakilishwa na ustaarabu wao wa kisasa wa karne ya ishirini, mfumo wa asili na kamilifu zaidi kwa mujibu wao, ambao hakuna anayethubutu kuukataa wala hata kufikiria kuubadilisha, kwa kuwa ndio kilele cha ustaarabu wa binadamu na hivyo umekusudiwa kudumu milele.

But still the Europeans have the audacity to blame Islam for its solution of the problem of captive women thirteen hundred years ago declaring that it was just a temporary arrangement and was not meant to perpetuate for ever and notwithstanding the fact that the system Islam stood for was far more superior and cleaner to that represented by their twentieth century modern civilization, the natural and the most perfect one, according to them that none may dare disown or even think of changing, it being the pinnacle of human civilization and as such destined to last for ever.

Hatupaswi kudanganyika na uhuru wa kujionyesha ambao wasichana hawa wa kisasa wa jamii ya anasa wanajitoa kwa wengine, na kudhani kwamba wao ni huru, kwa kuwa tunajua kwamba daima kumekuwepo kundi la watumwa ambao walifurahi kujitoa uhuru wao na kupendelea utumwa kuliko uhuru. Hilo ndilo ustaarabu wa Ulaya umelifanikisha. Unahimiza zinaa na uharibifu wa maadili, iwe kwa njia ya ukahaba wa kimapokeo au kuwepo kwa wasichana wa jamii ya anasa wanaojitoa kwa hiari kwa wanaume.

We must not be taken in by the ostensible freedom with which these sybaritic modern society girls surrender themselves to others and think that they are free, for we know that there has always been a group of slaves who were glad to surrender their freedom and willingly prefer servitude to freedom. That is what European civilization has, in fact, accomplished. It encourages adultery and moral corruption be it in the form of traditional prostitution or the presence of the sybarite society girls who willingly surrender themselves to men.

Hii, kwa ufupi, ndiyo hadithi ya utumwa barani Ulaya hadi karne hii ya ishirini:

This, in short, is the story of slavery in Europe right up to this twentieth century:

utumwa wa wanaume, wanawake, na mataifa mazima na tabaka zake. Ulikuwa ni utumwa uliozuka kutoka vyanzo na sababu mbalimbali mpya; utumwa uliodumishwa bila hitaji lolote la kweli na la kiasili la kijamii, kama lile lililowalazimisha Uislamu miaka elfu moja mia tatu iliyopita kuuvumilia na kuukubali kama aina isiyoepukika yake. Ulianzishwa katika uovu wa ustaarabu wa Ulaya na tabia yake ya asili isiyo ya kibinadamu.

slavery of men, women, of whole nations and classes. It was a slavery that sprang up from various new sources and causes; a slavery that was sustained without any real and genuine social need such as thirteen hundred years ago forced Islam to tolerate one and an inevitable form of it. It was founded in the vileness of European civilization and its innate inhuman character.

Tunaweza pia kuongeza neno kuhusu utumwa unaowaelemea watu wa nchi za kikomunisti. Serikali ndiyo bwana pekee katika nchi hizi, na watu wengine wote ni watumwa wake tu, daima tayari kutii amri. Wanaume na wanawake hawana hata uhuru wa kuchagua kazi yao au mahali wanapopenda kufanya kazi. Hawa si zaidi ya watumwa. Hali kama hiyo inatawala katika nchi za kibepari za Magharibi, ambako wenye mabepari wakubwa ndio mabwana halisi wanaoshika mamlaka ya kweli. Tabaka la wafanyakazi lina nguvu kidogo na linategemea kabisa wao.

We may add a word about slavery under which the peoples of the communist countries are groaning. The government is the only master in these countries, all the other people being just slaves to it ever ready to obey orders. Men and Women do not even have the freedom to choose their job or the place they would like to work in. They are not more than slaves. A similar situation prevails in the capitalist countries of the West where big capitalists are the virtual masters who wield real power. The working classes are helpless and completely dependent upon them.

Msomaji anaweza kukutana na wafuasi na wanaounga mkono mojawapo ya mifumo hii, lakini kamwe asidanganyike na madai yao makubwa, ikiwa atakumbuka tu yote tuliyoyaeleza kwa ufupi hapo juu. Kwa njia hii anaweza kwa urahisi kujihukumu mwenyewe kama mifumo hii miwili, ubepari na ukomunisti, ina lolote zaidi ya kuendelea kwa aina zile za utumwa za karne nyingi zilizowekwa juu ya watu kwa jina la ustaarabu na maendeleo ya kijamii. Pia anaweza kuona kama wanadamu katika karne kumi na nne zilizopita wamekuwa wakisonga mbele mfululizo kwenye njia ya maendeleo na utukufu kwa kupuuza mwongozo wa Uislamu, au badala yake wamekuwa wakizama chini zaidi na zaidi, jambo linaloonyesha jinsi wanavyohitaji sana mwongozo wa Uislamu ili kuwasaidia kutoka gizani ambamo kwa muda mrefu wamezama, hadi wakubali kwa hiari hali yao ya awali ya utumwa. Lakini utayari huo wa baadhi ya watu watumwa kuacha hadhi yao ya kibinadamu huru hauhalalishi kuendeleza utumwa wao kwa mujibu wa Uislamu, wala dini au falsafa nyingine yoyote ya maisha. Jambo hili, hata hivyo, ni tafakari ya kusikitisha sana juu ya mfumo wa maisha unaozalisha hali za kiuchumi, kijamii, kisiasa, kifalsafa na kiroho ambazo chini yake watu...

The reader may come across the votaries and supporters of one or the other of these systems but he should never be taken in by their loud professions if he would but keep in mind all that we have briefly sketched above. From this he can easily judge for himself if both these systems-capitalism and communism-are anything more than the continuance of all those centuries-old forms of slavery that have been imposed on the people in the name of civilization and social development. He can also see whether mankind during the last fourteen centuries has continually moved ahead on the path of progress and glory by ignoring the guidance of Islam or has it in stead been steadily sinking low going down and down showing there by how desperately it stands in need of the guidance of Islam to help it get out of the darkness it has long since been plunged in willingly accept their former state of servitude. But such readiness on the part of certain slavish individuals to forego their free human status is no justification to perpetuate their servitude according to Islam as well as any other religion or philosophy of life. This phenomenon is, however, a very sad reflection on the system of life that creates economic, social, political, philosophical and spiritual conditions under which people.