31. The case of slavery in Islam | Is there only one correct approach to interpreting the Quran? | Part 2

Can it so happen that an interpretation of the Quran that is so far universally accepted by all scholars of all denominations from all places, be just a temporary truth as of now but could be reviewed and reformed later? 

YES! Since interpretations are dependent on the reader’s social-economic-political- cultural background that influences the mindset and methodologies of the reader; and hence there could emerge multiple correct approaches to interpreting the Quran (as I’ve argued in my previous article). To further elaborate the case, take the example of slavery and sex slaves.

Taking of war captives as slaves, and buying and selling of slaves in the market, for labour as well as for pleasure (sex with slaves/’concubines’) was rampant in the pre-Islamic world. Morally and ethically, the world at large viewed it as something fine. People didn’t find it abhorrent. It wasn’t considered a big deal! Rather, it was an indispensable socio-economic reality prior to the era of widespread deployment of machines that started only with the industrial revolution of 18th century England. Before that, agricultural and industrial labour was predominantly manual and everything that was ever built was done by the cheap manual labour of millions of slaves who flooded the market! (See: Slavery in Islam | Dr. Jonathan Brown & Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi)

In this socio-economic-cultural-ethical backdrop, Muslims interpreted the relevant Quranic verses accordingly. As explained and discussed below.

Surah Muhammad (ch. 47), verse 4 tells the Muslims of Madinah who were about to get into a war with the Meccans to demolish their Meccan opponents completely and only then take captives/prisoners. That is, they were commanded to fight with the intention of annihilating the might of the enemy, rather than fighting for the sake of taking captives and deriving worldly benefits out of it.

How to deal with the captives? : The verse then gives the Muslims two options for dealing with the captives (if any): Either confer favour/bestow grace or generosity upon them, or ransom them (that is, take some payment/’fidya’ for their release).

How long would this practice continue? : The verse then goes on to state that the practice is to be continued until the war (not just the battle) gets over.

What the scholars understood from this verse: All the traditionalist (non-modernist) scholars through the 1400 years of Islamic history have taken two practically implementable meanings from the phrase ‘confer favour upon them’:

Either release them without any ransom, or keep them honorably as slaves (indentured servants).

Note: I’m using the term ‘indentured servants’ to describe ‘slaves’ here since the ‘slavery’ as described by the Quran (and the Prophetic Sunnah) is starkly different from what was practiced prior to the Quran. See: (PDF) Reinterpreting Slavery in Islam: A Quranic and Prophetic Framework for Abolition

But how does the second meaning of keeping the captives as servants come about? Does the language used in the verse permit that? No; according to Javed Ahmad Ghamidi who asserts that the verse is explicitly clear in its meaning that captives cannot be taken as slaves; they are supposed to be released, with or without ransom. And, according to him, all the major classical exegetes/commentators of the Quran, like Tabari, Zamakhshari, Ibn Kathir, etc., took this same meaning of the verse. (Ghulami Ka Khatama aur Tafseeri Riwayat – Javed Ahmed Ghamidi)

So then, how did the traditionalists permit taking of war captives as slaves as one of the ways of dealing with them?   

They interpreted the Quran to permit both treatments in light of the narrations on the practices of the sahaba (companions of Muhammad). (Although scholars like Javed Ahmad Ghamidi say that no slaves were taken in the battles of Badr, Uhud, Ahzab, Hunain! (Why did Islam not Abolish Slavery | Javed Ahmad Ghamidi | 4:26). But that doesn’t prove anything as it’s already a given that taking slaves was one of the options, not the only option.)

And then the part of the verse that says the practice is to continue for only as long as the war continues, the traditionalists interpreted it to mean not just the wars that Muhammad fought but also the wars to be fought by Muslims indefinitely (in the name of ‘jihad’) even after the Muhammadan era! Why? Because, as Javed Ahmad Ghamidi says, the scholars considered the directives of 47:4 to have been abrogated by the verses of surah Taubah which came much later than surah Muhammad and issued fresh directives regarding war with the non-Muslims. (Ghulami Ka Khatama aur Tafseeri Riwayat – Javed Ahmed Ghamidi)

But why did the scholars consider the directives of surah Taubah to have abrogated/replaced/ruled out all previous directives regarding war with non-Muslims?

Again, this too is based upon the reported practices of the sahaba! Because that’s what is implied by the practices of the sahaba recorded in the ahadith that report the taking of war captives as slaves for labour as well as for pleasure! The sahaba being the best generation of Muslims must have understood the Quran much better than us! And their practices couldn’t have gone against the Quran.

Therefore, if they took slaves from war then that’s what the Quran must have meant by its verses on the subject. Hence their practices explain the meaning of the Quran and hence adopted by the scholars of Islamic law (‘fiqh’) throughout the 1400 years of the Muslim world. Thus, as long as the wars with non-Muslims continued even after the Muhammadan generation, Muslims continued to take war captives as slaves (as one of the ways of dealing with POWs)!

Thus, three main things determined the interpretation of the early and the current traditionalist Muslim scholars on the issue of taking war captives as slaves.

First, their mindset, colored by the then morality/ethics that considered slavery to be fine. Their mindset was also a product of the socio-economic reality of the pre-industrial age that had slave labour as one of its indispensable components. Coupled with their methodology of interpreting the Quran in light of the ahadith (wherein they found their basis in the practices of the sahaba). And also their adherence to the disputed theory of abrogation. All three combined, led them to permit taking of war captives as slaves.

The modernist interpretation: On the other hand, several modern scholars, including Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, have interpreted ‘confer favour upon them (the captives)’ in 47:4 as releasing them without any payment. That is, the captives had to be released, with or without payment. Keeping them as servants/slaves was not an option that can be extracted from the verse because as Ghamidi sahib says, the verse is explicitly clear in its meaning that captives cannot be taken as slaves. They are to be released, with or without ransom. And, according to him, all the classical exegetes/commentators of the Quran, like Tabari, Zamakhshari, Ibn Kathir, etc.; took this same meaning of the verse, as already mentioned above.

More so because he doesn’t subscribe to the theory of abrogation, hence the directives of surah Muhammad couldn’t have been abrogated by surah Taubah (moreover, he also argues that the directives of surah Taubah were meant only for the era of Muhammad, not the era after him). Thus, these scholars take 47:4 as showing the Quran’s intent for an eventual abolishment of slavery! Because if no slaves are taken even in war, the main source of slaves would be choked and slavery would die a slow death.

He also says the ahadith that mention the sahaba taking slaves are unreliable. Moreover, he doesn’t explain the Quran through the lens of history/ahadith, but in his methodology, the Quran explains the Quran, while the ahadith are understood and interpreted in the light of the Quran, not vice versa (while the traditionalist scholars understood and interpreted the Quran in the light of the ahadith, as mentioned above). Thus he rejects anything that contradicts the clear apparent meanings of the Quran.

Note that there are sound ahadith on the sahaba taking slaves from the war captives of the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraizah. But these cannot be taken as an example in favour of the traditionalist interpretation of the issue, because the Banu Quraizah were dealt with according to Mosaic law, not Quranic law. Saad bin Muadh was chosen as a judge upon the Jews of Banu Quraizah and he ruled as per the Torah that the men who were past puberty be killed, and the women and children be taken as captives (Jangi Qaidion ko Ghulam Banana – Prisoners of War, Captives or Slaves ? Javed Ahmed Ghamidi).

Another modernist scholar of the Quran, Nabeel Alkhalidy, says that most of the ahadith mentioning the sahaba and the Prophet taking war captives as slaves were fabricated in the Umayyad era, therefore unreliable in contrast to the Quran. Yet the same have been adopted by the jurists (‘fuqaha’) of Islam, thereby legitimizing what the Umayyads wanted, that is, to take slaves for labour and pleasure, from wars and from markets!

Here too, three main things play a decisive role in determining the modern interpretation of verse 47:4 of the Quran. First, the mindset/sensibilities of the modernist scholars, colored by the modern disgust against slavery. Coupled with their methodology of interpreting the Quran through the Quran, not through the ahadith (that is, the Quran explains the Quran, while the ahadith are understood and interpreted in the light of the Quran, not vice versa). And their rejection of the theory of abrogation.

Proving my point: That in an era when it was normal or economically necessary to do so, the mindset of the scholars was in tune with the ethics and needs of that era and hence allowed them to interpret the sources to support taking of war captives as slaves. While today, when it’s outlawed and people’s sensibilities abhor it, the mindset of the modernist scholars is attuned accordingly and hence they are confidently interpreting the sources against slavery! Plus the influence of different approaches/methods of interpreting the Quran (through ahadith or without it; with abrogation or without it; etc.). Thus, a combination of one’s mindset and methods, determines one’s interpretation of the Quran. And none can be considered to be the only correct way since there’s no objective and universal criteria to do so!

Done with the example of taking war captives as slaves, I’ll move on to a related example, of concubinage in Islam!  

The traditionalist interpretation: The Quran says that if a Muslim man is unable to marry free believing women, then he could marry slave girls (4:25). If it’s one’s own slave girl, then free her and marry her. If it’s someone else’s slave girl, then take the owner’s permission and marry her so she becomes your wife while she continues to be a servant to her original owner/master.

23:5-6 then says that no sex is allowed except with one’s wives or with ‘maa malakat aymaanuhum’ (slave girls kept as concubines). Thus slaves (kept as concubines) are a second category of women (below the wives in rank) with whom sex is allowed.

This has been the prevalent traditionalist interpretation of these verses since the beginning of Islam. And this interpretation is made in light of the historical reports (ahadith) that mention the sahaba (companions of the Prophet), the scholars, the warriors and rulers, all having engaged in sex with:

War captives taken as slaves and turned into concubines,

and/or slaves purchased from slave markets and turned into concubines,

and/or with slave women gifted to one another; for example the Prophet himself is reported to have (allegedly) fathered a child with his concubine/slave girl, Maria the Copt, gifted to him by Maqawqis, the ruler of Egypt, according to the vast majority of scholars of Islam!

Another thing that made/makes this interpretation possible is the absence of any Quranic verse explicitly and categorically banning the buying and selling of slaves for labor or for pleasure, a practice that was then globally widespread. While the Quran allowed taking of slaves only from prisoners of war (POWs) (according to the traditionalists, as discussed above), it didn’t explicitly forbid the buying and selling of those who were already into the slave market. What the Quran did was only to regulate the system and expunge it of its cruelty and inhumanity. It humanized the system by enjoining the Muslims to feed and clothe and treat their slaves well. And to free their slaves as acts of piety and expiation of sins.

Thus, according to the traditionalist interpreters of the Quran, a benevolent form of indentured labour and concubinage was/has been accommodated by the Quran.

But then what about the current socio-economic-cultural context? Wherein the system of slavery has been formally outlawed and it’s considered morally wrong and distasteful. Let’s take as a case study the opinion of a contemporary scholar of the Quran, Nabeel Alkhalidy.

The modernist interpretation: Nabeel and other scholars like him say that most of the ahadith mentioning the sahaba and the Prophet taking war captives as slaves or buying slaves from the market and keeping them as concubines were fabricated in the Umayyad era, therefore unreliable in contrast to the Quran.

Coming to the Quran, Nabeel asserts that 23:5-6 cannot be understood in isolation from 4:25 (that instructs us to marry slave girls). Especially due to the particle ‘aw’ (‘or’) instead of ‘wa’ (‘and’). ((PDF) Reinterpreting Slavery in Islam: A Quranic and Prophetic Framework for Abolition) 

He understands the particle ‘aw’ to indicate the verse is addressing or talking to two distinct categories of men with whom two distinct categories of married women are associated, that is, there’s no unmarried sex slaves in the picture here!

The first category of men being the one’s who have married free believing women who are labelled as their ‘azwaaj’/spouses.

And the other category being those men who couldn’t afford to marry free believing women and thus they married slave women (belonging to others) who continue to remain as slaves under their original masters/owners hence tagged as ‘those whom your right hands possess’ (‘maa malakat aymaanuhum’).

Thus, according to Nabeel’s interpretation, 23:5-6 isn’t telling us that ‘those whom your right hands possess’/‘maa malakat aymaanuhum’ are a separate category of women (besides wives) with whom their masters can have sex without marriage! Rather, it’s talking about those slave women who continue to remain slaves under their original masters but have been married (with their master’s permission) to men who couldn’t afford to marry free women.

Let’s unpack his understanding with a practical fictional scenario

Suppose Ahmed has a wife Zainab and a slave girl Mariah. Ahmed cannot have sex with Mariah, unless he frees her and then marries her as his second wife. Mariah can remain in Ahmed’s house only as a servant, nothing more than that.

Now there’s Umar, a poor friend of Ahmed, so poor that he cannot afford to marry and keep a free woman as his wife, so he decides to marry Ahmed’s slave girl Mariah. He gets Ahmed’s permission and Ahmed arranges for Umar’s marriage with Mariah but even after the marriage she continues to remain a servant/slave in Ahmed’s household. Thus Umar and Mariah can have sexual intimacy now that they are married to each other.

This is the ‘aw maa malakat aymaanuhum’ scenario that the Quran is talking about in 23:5-6! It’s talking about men like Umar who (according to the directive of 4:25) have married slave girls like Mariah who continue to remain as servants/slaves to their original masters (like Ahmed). And of course also the usual scenario of husbands and wives like Ahmed and Zainab whom 23:5-6 is addressing as ‘illaa a’laa azwaajihim’ (‘except with their wives’). 23:5-6 is not saying that Ahmed can have sex with his slave girl Mariah!

Nabeel also asserts that there are no authentic (’sahih’) historical reports (‘ahadith’) to establish the Prophet had sex with any slave girl without first marrying her. The reports on Maria the Copt are weak and discredited.

Moreover, in the modern family system that is largely monogamous and nuclear, sex with indentured household servants/slave girls would have devastating effects on family and hence go squarely against the objectives and principles of the Quran that emphasises upon strong family ties built upon trust, fidelity, and love between husbands and wives.

But then, why did all pre modern scholars and almost all of the current scholars understand the issue of concubinage contrary to this?!!?

The answer again lies in the differing cultural contexts and associated mindset of the people, and the differing methods of interpreting the Quran.

The traditionalist interpretation was colored by: the then prevalent ethics of the world at large, that concubinage was fine, dictated by the then social-cultural context. And the absence of any verse explicitly banning the buying and selling of slaves and taking them as concubines while on the contrary the ahadith mention the sahaba’s and even the Prophet’s practice of keeping concubines. Thus, interpreting the Quran in light of the ahadith, with the prior mindset that concubinage was fine, caused all to interpret the two sets of relevant verses (4:25, 23:5-6) in favour of keeping sex slaves/concubines.

While Nabeel’s interpretation seems to be perfectly in tune with the modern times wherein the context of concubinage as a socially acceptable institution is non-existent; hence the prior mindset of people at large is tuned against it. Coupled with his method of explaining the Quran with the Quran, disallowing any historical accounts that are questionable/disputable (in terms of their integrity and truth value) to play any role in the interpretation of the indisputable Quran (whose integrity and truth value are unquestionable and established in the eyes of every Muslim). 

Coming to the modern world, we still have many Muslims who consider the Islamic practice of sex slavery to be applicable in current times also! Why this disagreement with Nabeel’s interpretation even today when the practice is globally outlawed?!!?

The answer again lies in the differing methods of interpreting the Quran. While Nabeel’s approach is Quran centric, that is, the Quran explaining the Quran, and taking the relevant verses together as one whole and then extracting the meaning(s).

While others are viewing the Quran against the backdrop of the lived experiences of the early Muslims (the ‘salaf’, especially the sahaba). Historical reports/ahadith explaining the Quran. And that is causing the two verses to be taken in isolation from each other.

Both methods are valid in their respective frames! Since there is no objective criteria that can tell which method is wrong!

Does the Quran mandate that the system of slavery that persisted in the Muslim lands from 600 to 1900 CE be revived again?

No. According to those who hold that the Quran had an unsaid/implicit intent to eventually abolish slavery (as discussed under verse 47:4). Once that has been achieved, reviving slavery would go against the objective of the Quran.

Yes. According to those who assert that the Quran’s intent wasn’t abolitionist, but only regulatory. Because, if the intent was to ultimately abolish slavery, why didn’t the Quran mention it explicitly?!!?

So finally, who’s correct?

Both are correct in their respective contexts/frames.

Which one should you choose?

The one that suits your mindset/tastes/preferences and/or makes your life easier! What?!!? Can we do that?!!? YES. Read this!

A third possible interpretation on concubinage

In light of the reality that existed from 600 to 1900 CE, as per the traditionalist interpretation, Islam allowed sexual relations with categories of women (‘maa malakat aymaanuhum’) below the rank of ‘wives’ (‘azwaj’), as a disliked but necessary ground reality.

Even today, especially in deeply patriarchal societies wherein polygyny is prevalent, it’s common to see a socially and economically weak woman working as a servant bound to a man’s household, engaging in consensual, responsible, and transparent sexual relationship (the wives knowing what’s up) with the head of the household, the man, who’s her caretaker. That’s not something very strange or unfeasible.

What’s to become of such women? They are not full fledged wives. But these are not even fleetingly random one night casual affairs. So, what was ‘concubines’ then could be girlfriends/mistresses today. Women who are neither into full marriages nor into completely casual flings. They have fewer commitments hence have less rights than full wives. All societies throughout human history have had such women in large numbers. So the Quran couldn’t have ignored the reality of such women! Thus the Quran seems to have actually acknowledged this ground reality and in order to safeguard such women, to protect their honor and to cement their rights, gave it a regulated legal package, that is, granted a legal status to such women whom it termed as ‘maa malakat aymaanuhum’ or those that your right hands possess of women below the rank of wives (as sex slaves/concubines/mistresses/ girlfriends), albeit as an undesirable, yet a necessary evil! Akin to its acknowledgement and regulation of polygamy I would argue.   

But will such a relationship not be equivalent to fornication or adultery? Not really, if the relationship is:

(i) consensual and contractual (no exploitation). 

(ii) transparent (no cheating), that is, the partners involved know what’s going on, and

(iii) responsible (ensuring the paternity of children born, if any).

(iv) And also that it shouldn’t involve incest, hence the relations expressly forbidden in 4:23-24 must be strictly adhered to.

Now, this might sound too much to be accepted by Muslim scholars, traditionalists and modernists alike! But then, why not?!!? If many/some of them could accept sex slaves, mutah and misyar, then why not girlfriends/mistresses?!!? But that’s a topic for another article as it involves exploring and unraveling the very definition(s) of the term ‘marriage’!