Islam and the Abolition of Slavery: A Reading of Texts and Practices

From time to time, voices are raised accusing Arabs and Muslims of practicing slavery and the subjugation of peoples, relying on certain servile practices that existed during particular periods of Islamic history. Some go even further, accusing Islam itself of fostering and legalizing slavery, citing Quranic verses and Hadiths that they distort and read out of context in order to link servitude to Islam and its followers.

Recently, the Burkinabè President Ibrahim Traoré joined these voices, accusing Arabs and Muslims of having enslaved Africa for a thousand years. These recurring accusations compel us to pause and examine objectively the relationship between Islam—as a religion—and slavery or servitude: Did its teachings entrench and legitimize slavery, or were they pioneering in their call for human freedom and dignity?

In this article, we propose to discuss the phenomenon of slavery and subjugation from an Islamic perspective, interrogating texts that deal with servitude and placing them back into their historical context, in alignment with the higher objectives of Islamic law (maqāsid) that Islam came to fulfill—chief among which is freedom, a legal objective and a finality that Islam intended to materialize.

Our study is structured around two central comparisons. The first consists of observing the phenomenon of subjugation and the deep-seated root of slavery in its multiple manifestations across numerous civilizations and religions, which legalized it through religious texts or positive laws, both before and after the advent of Islam.

The second part of the comparison examines Islam's role in the fight against slavery. However, it will not be possible to fully grasp the mechanisms deployed by Islam to combat it—owing to their complex nature and multifaceted approaches—without understanding the historical context of legislation and the objective of achieving freedom. Freedom was conceived as a strategy whose effectiveness and operational results stemmed from a policy of gradualness (tadarruj) in eliminating the practice of slavery—a policy that produced a remarkable transformation in eradicating slavery within early Islamic societies.

Humanity encountered slavery very early in its history: it is as ancient as injustice, greed, and exploitation. Most nations and peoples practiced it, and it formed a fundamental pillar of the economic structure of ancient and modern civilizations, as slaves and captives were mobilized to build ramparts and fortresses, dig canals, cultivate fields, and perform other arduous tasks.

To ensure the permanence of this exploitation and the submission of slaves to their masters' service, iniquitous laws were enacted to legalize this unjust practice. This began with the Code of Hammurabi, which codified enslavement as a punishment for certain crimes or for the settlement of debts, passing through the Greek and Roman civilizations, which legalized it as a right of the victor in times of war, up to the Western empires of recent centuries, which contributed to the spread of this phenomenon. They promulgated laws to legitimize the subjugation of peoples on the one hand, and to consolidate it while deterring any slaves who might dare to resist or flee from their masters on the other. Among the most famous and odious of these texts is the "Code Noir," enacted by King Louis XIV of France in 1685, which classified slaves as "movable property" that could be bought and sold, going so far as to codify corporal punishments of extreme brutality: Article 38 of this code stipulates that a fugitive slave at large for one month "shall have his ears cut off and be branded with a fleur-de-lis on one shoulder; for the second offense, his hamstring shall be cut; and for the third offense, he shall be punished by death." This code remained in force in a country whose motto is "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" until early 2026, when the French National Assembly, under pressure from anti-slavery organizations, initiated procedures to repeal it.

By a painful irony, the practice of subjugation was not limited to Western civilizations alone; certain African civilizations, kingdoms, and tribes also practiced it throughout history. Furthermore, some of their kings and sultans played the role of intermediaries in the slave trade. Regrettably, the aftermath of slavery persists to this day in the form of a discriminatory social hierarchy between nobility and servile castes, as well as through oppression and marginalization in certain African countries.

As for ancient religions, they adopted varied stances toward slavery. Judaism, for example, clearly legalized it: Leviticus (25:44–46) states that Israelites may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations around them (such as the Canaanites). In Deuteronomy (20:10–11), it is written: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people inside shall be subjected to forced labor and shall work for you."

As for Christianity, it did not explicitly call for slavery in its beginnings, but it did not forbid it either; thus, it sought neither to abolish nor to restrict it. Its position changed later, however, under Pope Nicholas V, who issued the papal bull Romanus Pontifex on January 8, 1455, legalizing for the Kingdom of Portugal the colonization and enslavement of peoples. Most of the popes who succeeded him—Calixtus III, Sixtus IV, Leo X—approved the enslavement of Africans and the slave trade. To justify these bulls and legislations, they relied on certain biblical texts, such as the account in Genesis (9:25): "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers," believing that this curse justified the enslavement of Africans, as descendants of Ham, son of Noah! Some popes went so far as to consider that their enslavement fulfilled the divine will.

An irony that confirms this conviction among certain European Christians is that the first ship used in the 16th century to kidnap and transport slaves from Africa to the Americas bore the name "Jesus Ship".

As for Islam, it found slavery widespread across the Arabian Peninsula and in all civilizations and nations; it was a reality it could neither deny nor change with the stroke of a pen. It did not prohibit it outright, but neither did it encourage it or call for its practice. Proof of this lies in the fact that there is no text in the Quran or the Sunnah urging or encouraging Muslims to enslave people. On the contrary, Islam encouraged emancipation, the liberation of slaves, and equality among human beings. This is undoubtedly why slaves were among the first to join Islam, as it calls for human dignity. God says: "We have honored the children of Adam" (Quran, 17:70)—an honor addressed to all the children of Adam without exception. To realize this principle on the ground, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) freed all his slaves, imitated by Abū Bakr al-Siddīq (may God be pleased with him), who purchased slaves and freed them for the sake of God. These measures aroused the ire of the feudal lords and polytheist merchants of Quraysh, who fought the Islamic religion because they were unprepared to accept equality with slaves. Furthermore, the encouragement of emancipation deprived them of the economic benefits they derived from the uncompensated exploitation of slaves.

Thus, addressing Islam's stance on the liberation of slaves requires us first to understand the concept of gradualness (tadarruj) as an effective approach in its treatment of slavery. Islam strove to eliminate its causes by establishing strict legislation that restricted subjugation and dried up its sources. Concurrently, it broadened the avenues of emancipation by linking the liberation of slaves to expiations (kaffārāt): it made emancipation a means to expiate a great number of offenses, such as manslaughter, perjury, sexual relations during daytime in Ramadan, or zihār (an archaic form of repudiation equating a wife to one's mother). It then opened another door to emancipation—that of encouragement (targhīb)—by making the liberation of slaves one of the most meritorious deeds to draw closer to God and a cause of salvation from Hellfire, ensuring positive adherence to the call for freedom.

Despite the multiplicity of avenues available to eradicate slavery, the mukātaba (a contract of emancipation through ransom) constituted a decisive mechanism. It established a precedent and a general rule capable of permanently eliminating slavery: after the legislation of mukātaba, remaining in servitude was no longer possible unless one explicitly consented to it. The mukātaba obliged the master to free his slave in exchange for a sum of money. God says: "And those who seek a contract [of emancipation] from among those whom your right hands possess—make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of God which He has given you" (Quran, 24:33). To ensure that financial inability did not deprive slaves of freedom, Islam tasked the State with paying the necessary sums for freedom and made contributing to emancipation one of the eligible categories for zakāt expenditure.

After laying the foundation for emancipation, attention turned to integrating freed individuals into society and eliminating the difficulties inherent in this process, which became a top priority. Freedom without civil rights or equality in rights and duties with others holds little value. What happened to African Americans serves as the clearest example: slavery was abolished in the mid-19th century, yet they did not obtain their civil rights until the mid-20th century. Hence, Islam ensured that freed slaves suffered neither racism nor discrimination by proclaiming the principle of human equality and establishing piety and righteous action as the sole criterion of superiority among human beings—not birth, lineage, race, or color. God says: "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you. Indeed, God is Knowing and Acquainted" (Quran, 49:13).

Consequently, Islam prohibited racist expressions that demean human dignity, such as the designations "slave" (ʿabd or amah) that carry humiliation; it replaced them with noble terms signifying respect and consideration, such as fatā / fatāh (young man / young woman) or mawlā (ally/protector). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "None of you should say, 'My slave' or 'My bondwoman'" (reported by al-Bukhārī and Muslim).

The teachings of Islam encouraged social integration and made faith the primary criterion for marriage, not lineage. God says: "Do not marry polytheistic women until they believe. A believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might attract you" (Quran, 2:221). Such is the rule established by Islam: marry the believing slave, and do not marry the polytheist Arab or disbeliever. Thus, some freedmen married the most noble Arab women, such as the marriage of Zayd ibn Hārithah to Zaynab bint Jahsh, the cousin of the Prophet, or that of Bilāl al-Habashī to the sister of ʿAbd al-Rahmān ibn ʿAwf, from the Banū Zuhrah, the maternal uncles of the Prophet.

Since education is one of the most fundamental individual rights and one of the finest means of integration and attainment of an eminent rank in society, the Prophet and the Rightly Guided Caliphs ensured that education was made available to freedmen (mawālī). Among them emerged great Imams in the sciences of the Quran, jurisprudence, and Hadith, such as al-Ḥasan al-Basrī, ʿIkrimah, Nāfiʿ, Muhammad ibn Sīrīn, ʿAtāʾ ibn Abī Rabāh, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, and others.

Regarding civil and political rights, Islam affirmed that humans are equal like the teeth of a comb. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) declared: "There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, nor of a White person over a Black person, nor of a Black person over a White person, except by piety. Mankind is all from Adam, and Adam was created from dust" (reported by Ahmad). Consequently, freed slaves could access the highest offices of state, including command over Muslims. The Prophet prepared the Arabs to accept this reality by calling on them to hear and obey even if an Abyssinian slave were appointed over them. To embody this truth, the Prophet appointed Usāmah ibn Zayd—a freedman—as commander of the last army he dispatched, under whose command served Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, and ʿAlī (may God be pleased with them all), who were the greatest companions of the Prophet.

Similarly, the Commander of the Faithful ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb considered designating a freedman as his successor, stating: "If Sālim, the freedman of Abū Hudhayfah, were alive, I would not have left the succession to a consultative council"—meaning he would have appointed him directly as Caliph. Islamic history demonstrates that the only civilization in history where rulers were former slaves is Islamic civilization. Thus, Kāfūr al-Ikhshīdī ruled Egypt and vast regions of Bilād al-Shām and southern Syria, including Damascus, the capital of the Umayyad Caliphate, for twenty-three years. Later, the Mamluks—who were slaves—ruled Egypt and Bilād al-Shām for two hundred and sixty-seven years.

Islam and the Enslavement of Africans

When Muslims conquered Egypt, the gateway to Africa, and before advancing toward the conquest of its north, a famous incident occurred: the son of the governor ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀs struck the son of a Coptic Egyptian (a non-Muslim) after being beaten in a race. The Copt brought a complaint to the Caliph ʿUmar (may God be pleased with him), who addressed to the governor these words worthy of being written in letters of gold: "Since when have you enslaved people when their mothers bore them free?" He then ordered the Copt to strike the governor's son in retaliation. Caliph ʿUmar sought to teach Muslim governors a fundamental lesson: to treat their non-Muslim subjects with justice.

It is an established fact that Islam did not enter West Africa through conquest and jihad, but gradually, starting in the 9th century CE (3rd century AH), through caravans, merchants, and Muslim preachers. Their moral character and fair dealings influenced African peoples, who opened their hearts to them and entered the religion of God in crowds.

Thanks to Islam, academic institutions were established that contributed to the dissemination of knowledge. Libraries and scientific institutions in several African countries still bear witness today to Islam's positive role in spreading knowledge across numerous cities, such as Timbuktu, Gao, and Sokoto, which became beacons of learning frequented by students from all regions, and whose universities trained judges, jurists, physicians, and engineers.

The Relationship of Arabs and Muslims to the Enslavement of Africans

It is a recognized fact that Arabs, prior to Islam, imported slaves from Africa, particularly from Abyssinia and its surroundings, but in very small numbers. This phenomenon expanded during the Umayyad era and reached its peak under the Abbasids, driven by geographical expansion and the financial prosperity experienced by the Caliphate. Commercial exchanges took place across the Sahara or by sea via the Indian Ocean. Sultans, kings, local brokers, as well as Arab, Berber, and Jewish merchants participated in importing slaves for the Abbasid Caliphate.

It should be emphasized here that the State that truly represents Islam is the one that began during the prophetic era and includes exclusively the period of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs—Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, and ʿAlī (may God be pleased with them all). The proof lies in the Prophet's saying: "Adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs who come after me" (reported by Abū Dāwūd and al-Tirmidhī). As for the rulers and amirs of the Umayyad, Abbasid, Ottoman, and other dynasties, their actions do not constitute religious authority upon which legal rulings can be founded; they are subject to the Quran and the Sunnah: if they conform to them, they are accepted; otherwise, they are rejected. Their actions do not, therefore, represent Islamic legislation.

The same applies to jurists and scholars: their opinions do not represent Islam, but rather personal interpretations subject to error and correctness, and are not religiously binding. Thus, the legal opinions (fatāwā) issued by certain jurists regarding the buying and selling of slaves—some of whom showed excessive permissiveness out of ignorance of the higher objectives (maqāsid) of the Islamic religion, chief among which is the liberation of slaves—can also be explained by the absence of critical reading among certain jurists of secondary branches (fuqahāʾ al-furūʿ), who merely repeated previous opinions without subjecting them to critical re-evaluation in light of the Quran and the Sunnah.

It follows from the above that the importation of slaves, particularly from Africa, was in no way linked to Islam as a religion, contrary to what some seek to suggest. Rather, it was linked to certain Arab and Berber merchants, as well as African kings and brokers, who imported slaves from Africa to sell them in certain Muslim countries such as the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates. These states were Muslim, but they do not represent Islamic legislation.

One cannot, therefore, equate the trade practiced by certain Muslims during the aforementioned periods with the Transatlantic Slave Trade, which deported millions of Africans and cost the lives of millions of others along the way, under the direct supervision of the Church and European monarchs. It is thus unjust and dishonest to attempt to establish a comparison between them, or to use it as a tool to distort or rewrite history in order to mitigate the historical and moral responsibility of Europeans by falsifying history and reshaping African memory.

Indeed, it is strange that Europeans still refuse today to condemn the crime of the slave trade: member states of the European Union and the United Kingdom abstained from voting on the historic United Nations resolution drafted by Ghana in March 2026, which condemns the Atlantic trade and characterizes it as the worst crime against humanity. By an irony of fate, all Arab countries voted in favor of this resolution, while the United States, Israel, and Argentina voted against it. It would have been more judicious for President Ibrahim Traoré and other African elites to denounce the refusal of European countries rather than falsely accusing Arabs and Muslims of having enslaved them.

Dr. Muhammad al-Hajj Mahmûd al-Tâlib

President of the Râʾid Center for Strategic Studies and Development