What is the response to the objection that "Islam liberates slaves," so how can it permit a slave to remain the property of his master?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : But regarding captives and slaves and the like, some people say that Islam liberates slaves, so how can it permit a slave to remain in the bondage of his master?
The Shaykh : May Allah forgive these people who are taken in by the propaganda of the disbelievers and their attacks on Islam. It is not strange that a disbeliever does not distinguish between the enslavement of disbelievers by Islam and the enslavement of Muslims by disbelievers. It is not strange that a disbeliever, or disbelievers, do not distinguish between the enslavement of disbelievers by Muslims and the enslavement of Muslims by disbelievers. But what is strange, and very strange, is that one is swept along with this thing, which is not surprising to come from disbelievers, when the same thing comes from the Muslims themselves. They do not distinguish between the enslavement of disbelievers by Islam and the enslavement of Muslims by disbelievers. Therefore, they are drawn in and swept along with them in what they call for, which is the abolition of slavery, and they say that Islam only permitted slavery by way of reciprocity. Since the disbelievers at that time were enslaving Muslims, it is very reasonable that Muslims should enslave disbelievers by way of retaliation.
So we say: No, it is not the same. There is a vast difference between the two matters. If a disbeliever enslaves a Muslim and makes him a slave, and at least forces him to live in the lands of disbelief, what is the fate of this captive and this slave? He will deviate over time and become a disbeliever. We see this tangibly, not through direct military enslavement, but through what they call today by another name: that so-and-so emigrated to America. When was the migration from the lands of Islam to the lands of disbelief?
The student: Allahu Akbar.
The Shaykh : Emigrants in America. These emigrants in America now have children who have become Christians over time. So you find, for example, George, son of Ahmad, son of Muhammad. Why? His father was a Muslim by inheritance, but he became a disbeliever influenced by the environment. This is the effect of the disbeliever enslaving the Muslim. So what is the effect of the Muslim enslaving the disbeliever? As for the textual evidence, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) pointed to the effect of Muslims enslaving disbelievers with a wonderful phrase, where he said: They are the captives. They are transferred from the lands of disbelief to the lands of Islam, and they become acquainted with Islam, its rulings, its manners, and its morals, closely and intimately. They enter the religion of Allah in large numbers, without any pressure and without any coercion. The Messenger (peace be upon him) pointed to this, which later became a reality. Among the great scholars, for example, Abu Hanifah; his father was a captive among the captives. Sometimes some Islamic writers come and say, since they have declared the abolition of slavery, we must respond to them. This is not in our interest as Muslims, because the abolition of slavery means... transferring disbelievers to the lands of Islam and their entering this path, as happened previously in history. History repeats itself. We would prevent that from happening, and this is what should happen, especially since Islam has studied rulings linking it to what? To manumission. For example, to free...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, so it is a grave error to relinquish our belief in what Allah has legislated for us regarding the enslavement of disbelievers, because the disbelievers have abolished what? Slavery. But is this correct? Yes, they have abolished slavery as individuals. But as nations, they enslave them all and do not care, committing the most heinous crimes in the way of this collective enslavement.
So our affair with these people is like that of the ostrich when it sees the hunter lying in wait for it. Its foolishness is that it puts its head in the sand, imagining that since it does not see the hunter, the hunter does not see it. And this hunter is right in front of it, and it knows this.
The Shaykh : In summary: This is a grave error in the present age in which some Islamic preachers have become entangled. They agreed to the abolition of slavery because they are disbelievers.
Glory be to Allah. If it were the opposite, and the Muslims were to be a model for the disbelievers, and the Muslims were not to be a burden to the disbelievers.
Yes
The Shaykh : May Allah forgive these people who are taken in by the propaganda of the disbelievers and their attacks on Islam. It is not strange that a disbeliever does not distinguish between the enslavement of disbelievers by Islam and the enslavement of Muslims by disbelievers. It is not strange that a disbeliever, or disbelievers, do not distinguish between the enslavement of disbelievers by Muslims and the enslavement of Muslims by disbelievers. But what is strange, and very strange, is that one is swept along with this thing, which is not surprising to come from disbelievers, when the same thing comes from the Muslims themselves. They do not distinguish between the enslavement of disbelievers by Islam and the enslavement of Muslims by disbelievers. Therefore, they are drawn in and swept along with them in what they call for, which is the abolition of slavery, and they say that Islam only permitted slavery by way of reciprocity. Since the disbelievers at that time were enslaving Muslims, it is very reasonable that Muslims should enslave disbelievers by way of retaliation.
So we say: No, it is not the same. There is a vast difference between the two matters. If a disbeliever enslaves a Muslim and makes him a slave, and at least forces him to live in the lands of disbelief, what is the fate of this captive and this slave? He will deviate over time and become a disbeliever. We see this tangibly, not through direct military enslavement, but through what they call today by another name: that so-and-so emigrated to America. When was the migration from the lands of Islam to the lands of disbelief?
The student: Allahu Akbar.
The Shaykh : Emigrants in America. These emigrants in America now have children who have become Christians over time. So you find, for example, George, son of Ahmad, son of Muhammad. Why? His father was a Muslim by inheritance, but he became a disbeliever influenced by the environment. This is the effect of the disbeliever enslaving the Muslim. So what is the effect of the Muslim enslaving the disbeliever? As for the textual evidence, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) pointed to the effect of Muslims enslaving disbelievers with a wonderful phrase, where he said:
Indeed, your Lord is amazed at a group of people who are dragged to Paradise in chains.
إن ربك ليعجب من أقوام يجرون إلى الجنة في السلاسلThe student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, so it is a grave error to relinquish our belief in what Allah has legislated for us regarding the enslavement of disbelievers, because the disbelievers have abolished what? Slavery. But is this correct? Yes, they have abolished slavery as individuals. But as nations, they enslave them all and do not care, committing the most heinous crimes in the way of this collective enslavement.
So our affair with these people is like that of the ostrich when it sees the hunter lying in wait for it. Its foolishness is that it puts its head in the sand, imagining that since it does not see the hunter, the hunter does not see it. And this hunter is right in front of it, and it knows this.
The Shaykh : In summary: This is a grave error in the present age in which some Islamic preachers have become entangled. They agreed to the abolition of slavery because they are disbelievers.
Glory be to Allah. If it were the opposite, and the Muslims were to be a model for the disbelievers, and the Muslims were not to be a burden to the disbelievers.
Yes