伊斯兰来临时，世界上所实行的古代制度中，奴役的类别有许多种。他们会因破产的债务人而判处奴役：债务人一旦陷入贫困并破产，债权人便可以将其变为奴隶。他们还会因人所犯的罪行和过错而以奴役作为惩罚。他们也规定自由人可以自愿接受奴役，把自己卖给他人，条件是对方在约定的期限之后释放他。强大的部落允许自己奴役个人或弱小的部落。战争和战役总体上决定了战俘是否被奴役，如果征服了某国，还允许奴役该国的全体民众。其中一些人则将奴役限定于在战争中被俘的人，无论男女老幼。凡是在合法战争中被俘并因此被奴役的人，都被视为奴隶，其奴隶身份也得到承认。

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.

当伊斯兰到来时，它为奴隶制存在的情况规定了奴隶制之外的伊斯兰教法规则，并在战争的情形中详细阐明了此事。它还就陷入困境的负债人作出说明：债权人应当等待，直到其境况宽裕。安拉(SWT)说：

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:

它还详细阐明了对罪行的惩罚，特别是盗窃的惩罚——在此之前，盗窃的惩罚曾是奴役，而安拉（SWT）在《古兰经》中对此作了说明：

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:

伊斯兰教明确规定了盗窃的刑罚，即断手。安拉（SWT）说：

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

它使奴隶与主人之间的契约建立在获得自由之上,而非建立在为奴之上。它以决然的禁令禁止奴役自由人。先知ﷺ说:

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:

所以真主(swt)将与出卖自由人者争辩。至于战争的情形,伊斯兰对此作了详细规定,并绝对禁止奴役战俘。在希吉拉历第二年,伊斯兰明确了对战俘的处置原则:要么施恩将其无条件释放,要么以钱财赎回,或以穆斯林或归顺者(齐米)中的同类战俘进行交换,从而杜绝了对战俘的奴役。真主(swt)说:

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:

这节经文明确表达的就是这一含义：要么释放，要么赎回，绝不包含其他含义。阿拉伯语要求将俘虏的裁决限定于这两种情形之一，即释放或赎回，因为“إِمَّا”（imma）用于在两件事之间给出选择，并且用于将其限定于所提及的两件事之中。这里经文用它来表示在释放与赎回之间进行选择，并将裁决限定于这两者，经文以“إِمَّا”来表达这一点，而“إِمَّا”所表示的正是对其后所提及之事的限定。

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:

这里可能会提出一个问题，这个问题曾让一些学者感到困惑，他们由此认为哈里发可以根据自己的看法奴役战俘。问题是：在这条经文之后，先知（ﷺ）是否曾奴役过战俘？这条经文是在迁徙后第二年，即先知（ﷺ）与古莱氏不信道者开战之初降示的，而先知（ﷺ）在侯奈因战役中曾奴役战俘。先知的行为被视为立法，因为它被视为对安拉（SWT）经文的解释。那么，既然先知（ﷺ）在这条启示之后于侯奈因奴役了战俘，这条经文怎么能够阻止奴役战俘呢？ 回答是：先知（ﷺ）的行为和言语与古兰经文的关系，要么是阐明其概括性的内容，要么是限定其绝对性的内容，要么是specifying其普遍性的内容。先知的行为和言语不可能构成对古兰经的废止（naskh）。关于战俘的这条经文，既不属于需要加以阐明的概括性（mujmal）经文，其用词也不属于需要加以限定的普遍性或绝对性用词。因此，如果确认先知（ﷺ）是在这条经文降示之后才奴役战俘，那么他的行为就会成为废止该经文的依据，而这是不允许的。此外，先知奴役战俘的事例属于单传圣训（khabr ahad），而它与这条经文相矛盾。

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:

当"khabr ahad"（单传圣训）与确定性的经文和圣训相矛盾时，该单传之说的知识即被摒弃。因此，对于所传述的关于先知（愿主福安之）奴役俘虏的说法，也不予采信，因为那是在俘虏经文降示之后。实际上，侯奈因战役的情况是：妇女和儿童跟随多神教徒的战士出征，以增加他们的人数并激励其男人，所以当他们在战场上溃败时，妇女和儿童便成了俘虏，先知（愿主福安之）将她们分给穆斯林中的战士。后来关于俘虏的规定有所调整，穆斯林便自愿将他们在"萨巴雅"（sabaya，即战俘）中所拥有的权利赠予他人，并将他们的俘虏送还其族人。这表明，奴役"萨巴雅"是被允许的，所谓"萨巴雅"即是那些跟随男人出征战场、以增加人数并起激励作用的妇女和儿童。尽管如此，先知（愿主福安之）在海拜尔并未奴役跟随战士的妇女和儿童。当他（愿主福安之）进攻并征服海拜尔时，他让她们保持自由之身，并将土地留在她们手中耕种，其收成的一半归她们所有。 阿布·欧拜代（Abu Ubaidah）关于"萨巴雅"说道："伊玛目对她们有选择的权利，只要她们尚未被分配。一旦她们被分配之后，除非由获得她们的人以赠予和自愿的方式处理，否则不得再有其他途径，正如安拉的使者（愿主福安之）对侯奈因人所做的那样。"在他分配之后，没有任何一名"萨巴雅"是通过赠予和自愿以外的方式被送还的。而他并未对海拜尔人如此行事，而是让他们保持自由之身；由于她们尚未被分配，也没有人将她们赠予他人。

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.

至于战俘中的战士（俘虏），先知（愿主福安之）从未奴役过他们中的任何男子。并无可靠记载表明，他曾奴役阿拉伯人、犹太人或基督徒中的作战男子俘虏。语言中单独使用“俘虏”（aseer）一词时，指的是男性战士。至于妇女和儿童，语言中用来称呼他们的词是“孩童”（sabiyy），而非“战俘”（usra）。由此可知，伊斯兰禁止奴役作战男子俘虏，并赋予哈里发在被掳妇孺（sabaya）问题上的选择权：可以奴役，也可以释放，且对他们不收赎金。正如先知（愿主福安之）对侯奈因战役中的被掳妇孺所做的那样：他先奴役了她们，随后又予以释放；又如他对海巴尔战役中的被掳妇孺所做的那样：他让她们获得自由，而不加以奴役。这是指妇女和儿童随军参战的情况；如果她们留在家中，则不存在任何此类问题，既不构成战俘，也不构成奴隶。哈里发是否奴役被掳妇孺，应依据战争策略对敌方的处理需要而定。其目的并非奴役，而只是战争中的一项措施，此事交由哈里发裁断，他依据自己的判断以及与敌方形势的要求而行事。

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