We have some confusion regarding the rulings on slavery in Islam, so it would be desirable if you could clarify the rulings on slavery in a way that removes this confusion.

The questioner : We have some confusion regarding the rulings on slavery in Islam, so it would be desirable if you could clarify the rulings on slavery for us in a way that removes this confusion.

The Shaykh : I wish the rulings on slavery would return to the lands of Islam, if we do not find among you a bachelor. Many people today claim that there is no slavery in Islam. This is a deviation that has affected some Muslim writers. Slavery in Islam is not a light matter, and it is not permissible to abolish it, because of the council of the disbelievers and those who support them.
Slavery in Islam is a prescribed matter, and it has not been abrogated, nor will it be abrogated, especially when the people are... the council of disbelief, the council that fights the Muslims in all lands of Islam. This is the first point. Second, the confirmation by the Wise Lawgiver of slavery is not on the basis of obligation, but on the basis of permissibility. This is because if a Muslim ruler wages war against a group of disbelievers and takes women and men from them as captives, he has the choice to apply one of four rulings to these captives. Two of these rulings are explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an in the saying of the Exalted: This verse is clear in meaning: that this Muslim ruler should either set them free, or exchange them. Today, this is the system of prisoner exchange. These are two of the four rulings. The other two are taken from the practical Sunnah, which was the practice of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the righteous predecessors. One is the killing of captives, and the other is enslaving them. This was the practice of the predecessors until recently, when Islamic jihad had a real existence between the Muslims and the disbelievers, up to the end of the Ottoman state. Then, this enslaving that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted includes all peoples and tribes; it is not specific to non-Arabs, as is the view of some jurists, both past and present. Listen, my brother, you and he. There is a statement by some jurists that enslaving does not apply to Arabs, and this is incorrect, because more than one Arab was enslaved, and their names are known in the books of hadith and Sunnah. In the continuation of this ruling, there is benefit for both the enslavers and the enslaved at the same time. As for the enslavers, there is no doubt that these persons are like their wealth, which is made lawful for them; they are a wealth for the Muslim community. The wealth, the rich wealth, is the wealth of the disbelievers that is taken from them by the force of the sword, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the authentic hadith: , meaning these are the moneys that the mujahideen gain from the disbelievers, and they are war spoils that have a known system in Islam. This is a material strength for the Muslims, by which they are strengthened against all enemies of the religion. Likewise, the taking of captives and enslaving of men and women among them, whether old or young, is also a strength and protection for the Muslims. So this is in their interest. I said, and it is also, or this enslaving is in the interest of the enslaved disbelievers as well. This is what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) indicated in the authentic hadith when he said: He (peace and blessings be upon him) is referring to those captives who are dragged, against their wills, from the lands of disbelief, shirk, and misguidance to the lands of light and guidance, the lands of Islam. They are captives bound in shackles, dragged against their wills, and they live as slaves, enslaved by their Muslim masters. They mix with them and become acquainted with their morals, their truthfulness, and their good treatment. So these captives, while they are still in their disbelief and misguidance, find that over time they adopt the morals of the Muslims and embrace their religion. Thus, their captivity becomes a good thing for them in this world and the Hereafter. Therefore, we find in Islamic history, and among the heads of the Tabi'un, that many of these captives were either brought directly to the lands of Islam as captives, or their fathers were, and their descendants came and lived, and their sons lived in the lands of Islam as Muslims. So the saying of the noble Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was true: Therefore, it is not permissible for a Muslim who knows this legal reality to agree with the disbelievers in their statement that they have abolished slavery. The reality is that they did not abolish slavery; they abolished the enslaving of individuals, but they enslave peoples and nations. What they did recently to the people, and their colonization of their lands, and their enslaving and making lawful of their wealth, and so on, is the greatest proof of their lack of sincerity in their abolition of slavery, which they openly declare. There is a poem here; does anyone of you remember it? It says that killing one person is considered an aggression, but enslaving a whole people? Is there not one of you who remembers it? The point is, they abolished the slavery of individuals and enslaved nations by the thousands. Therefore, slavery in Islam is a stable legal ruling, but its matter returns to the Muslim ruler. To summarize what has preceded:
He either sets them free, or ransoms them, or kills them, or enslaves them. He has the choice, meaning he assesses the interest of the Muslim army and the Muslim community. If he sees the interest in their enslavement, he says to them, as narrated in the Seerah, and it is not an authentic hadith: Or he exchanges them. Or he kills them, and this is for the disbelievers who have power and cause harm to the Muslims, so the interest in these is that they be killed. Or he enslaves them, so that this becomes an aid and strength for the Muslims. This is sufficient, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.