Islom kelgan paytda dunyoda amal qilinayotgan qadimgi tizimlardagi qullikning turlari ko'p edi. Ular bankrot qarzdor uchun qullik bilan hukm qilardilar: shunday qilib, qarzdori muhtoj va bankrot bo'lib qolganda, qarz beruvchi uni qulga aylantirishi mumkin edi. Ular, shuningdek, inson qilgan jinoyat va xatolari uchun jazo sifatida uni qullik bilan hukm qilardilar. Ular erkin odamga ma'lum muddatdan keyin ozod qilish sharti bilan o'zini boshqaga sotishi uchun qullikni qabul qilishni ham joiz deb bilardilar. Kuchli qabilalar ayrim shaxslarni yoki zaif qabilalarni qulga aylantirishga ruxsat berar edilar. Urushlar va janglar umumiy tarzda asirlarni qulga aylantirishni belgilar edi va agar ular biror mamlakatni zabt etsalar, o'sha mamlakat aholisining hammasini qulga aylantirishga ruxsat berar edi. Ba'zilari qullikni urushda asir olingan erkaklar, ayollar va bolalar bilan cheklar edilar. Qonuniy urushda asir olingan va shu yerda qulga aylantirilgan har bir kishi qul hisoblanar va uning qul ekanligi tan olinar edi.

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

Islom kelganida, qullik mavjud bo‘lgan va uchragan holatlar uchun qullikdan tashqari shariat hukmlarini joriy qildi hamda urush holatida bu masalani batafsil bayon qildi. Qarzdor bankrot bo‘lgan taqdirda, qarz beruvchi qulaylik vaqti kelguncha kutishi lozimligini aniqladi. Alloh (SWT) shunday deydi:

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

U'sha, shuningdek, gunohlar uchun jazolarni batafsil bayon qildi, xususan, qadimda qullikka aylantirish bo'lgan o'g'irlik jazosini — buni Alloh (SWT) Qur'onda ko'rsatgan.

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

Islom o‘g‘rilik uchun jazoni aniq belgilab bergan, ya’ni qo‘lni kesish. Alloh (SWT) shunday degan:

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

U'ni ozodlik shartiga ko'ra shartnoma qilgan bo'lib, qullik shartiga ko'ra emas. U erkin odamlarni qul qilishni qat'iy taqiq bilan man etdi. Payg'ambar ﷺ aytdilar:

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

Demak, Alloh (SWT) ozod odamni sotgan kishi bilan bahslashadi. Urush holatiga kelsak, Islom bu borada batafsil ko'rsatma bergan va asirlarni qul qilishni mutlaqo taqiqlagan. Hijratning ikkinchi yilida u asirlar haqidagi hukmni aniqlab berdi: ularga hech qanday almashuvsiz marhamat ko'rsatib ozod qilinishi yoki pul evaziga, yoxud musulmonlar yoki zimmiylar orasidagi o'zlariga o'xshash asirlar evaziga fidya to'lanib ozod etilishi mumkin. Shu tariqa asirlarni qul qilish oldi olindi. Alloh (SWT) shunday deydi:

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

Oyat bu ma'noni aniq ifodalaydi: ozod qilish yoki fidya olish, boshqa hech qanday ma'noni bermaydi. Arab tili asirning hukmini ushbu ikki masaladan biri, ya'ni ozod qilish yoki fidya olish bilan cheklashni talab qiladi, chunki "imma" ikki narsa o'rtasida tanlov berish uchun va ushbu ikki narsada cheklash uchun keladi. Bu yerda "imma" bilan ifodalangan tanlov ozod qilish va fidya olish o'rtasida berilgan hamda hukm faqat shu ikkisi bilan cheklangan, chunki u "imma" bilan, ya'ni undan keyin zikr qilingan narsani cheklash ma'nosini beradigan so'z bilan ifodalangan.

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

Bu yerda shunday savol tug'iladi, u ba'zi fuqahoning chalkashligi o'rni bo'lgan, ulardan naql qilinishicha, xalifa asirlarni xohlasa qul qilishi mumkin. Bu savol shuki, Nabiy (saw) bu oyatdan keyin qul qilgan. Bu oyat Hijratdan keyingi ikkinchi yilda, Rasulullah (saw) bilan Quraysh kofirlari o'rtasidagi urush boshlanishida nozil bo'lgan, Rasulullah (saw) esa Hunaynda qul qilgan. Rasulullahning (saw) ishi esa Alloh (swt) oyatlari uchun bayon sifatida qonun hisoblanadi. Unda asirlarni qul qilishni bu oyat qanday qilib man qila oladi, Rasulullah (saw) uning nozil bo'lganidan keyin Hunaynda qul qilgan bo'lsa? Javob shuki, Rasulullahning (saw) ishi va so'zi Qur'on oyatlariga nisbatan uning mujmal (umumiy) qismini tafsillashi, mutlaq qismini cheklashi yoki umumiyligini tahsis qilishi bo'ladi. Rasulullahning (saw) ishi va so'zi Qur'onni mansux qiluvchi bo'la olmaydi. Asirlar haqidagi oyat na mujmal bo'lib, tafsilga muhtoj, na uning so'zlari umumiy ma'noli bo'lib, tahsisga muhtoj, na mutlaq bo'lib, cheklanishga muhtoj. Shunday ekan, agar Rasulullah (saw) uning nozil bo'lganidan keyin qul qilgani isbotlansa, uning ishi bu oyatni mansux qiluvchi bo'lar edi, bu esa joiz emas. Bundan tashqari, Rasulullahning asirlarni qul qilishi xabari vohid bo'lib, oyatga zid keladi.

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

Va khabar ahad definite oyatlar va hadislarga zid kelsa, khabar ahadning bilimi rad etiladi. Shunga ko'ra, payg'ambar (saw) asirlar haqidagi oyat nozil bo'lganidan keyin qullikka olganligi haqida rivoyat qilinganiga e'tibor berilmaydi. Aslida Hunayn jangida sodir bo'lgan voqea shundan iboratki, ayollar va bolalar mushriklarning jangchilariga ularning sonini ko'paytirish va erkaklarini ruhlantirish uchun hamroh bo'lgan edi. Shuning uchun ular jang maydonida tor-mor etilganda, ayollar va bolalar asirga tushdi va payg'ambar (saw) ularni musulmon jangchilari o'rtasida taqsimladi. Asirlar haqidagi bu hukm qayta ko'rib chiqilganda, musulmonlar asirlar (sabaya) ustidagi o'z huquqlarini ixtiyoriy ravishda hadya qildilar va asirlar (sabaya)ni o'z qavmlariga qaytardilar. Bu jang maydonida erkaklarga sonni ko'paytirish va ruhlantirish uchun hamroh bo'lgan ayollar va bolalarni (sabaya) qullikka olish mumkinligini ko'rsatdi. Shunday bo'lsa-da, payg'ambar (saw) Xaybarda jangchilarga hamroh bo'lgan ayollar va bolalarni qullikka olmadi. U (saw) Xaybarga hujum qilib, uni zabt etganida, ularni ozod odamlar sifatida qoldirdi va hosilning yarmi evaziga yerni ularning qo'lida ekin ekishga qoldirdi. Abu Ubayda asirlar (sabaya) haqida shunday degan: "Ular taqsimlanmagunlaricha, ular ustida imomga tanlov berilgan. Ular taqsimlangach, ular ustidan, ular ustidagi huquqqa ega bo'lganlarning ixtiyoriy ravishda hadya qilishidan boshqa yo'l yo'q, xuddi Hunayn ahli bilan Allohning Rasuli (saw) qilgan ishi kabi." Asirlarning (sabaya) hech biri, ular taqsimlangani uchun, ixtiyoriy hadyadan boshqa yo'l bilan hech kim tomonidan qaytarilmagan. Bu ishni u Xaybar ahli bilan qilmadi, balki ularni ozod odamlar sifatida qoldirdi va ular ustida taqsimot bo'lmagani uchun hech kim tomonidan hadya qilinmadilar.

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