Article 4

This article is designed to secure the abolition of slavery and all forms of servitude, wherever they might still persist.
The historical treatment of the institution of slavery does not pertain to our present thesis. But it is necessary, for the proper appreciation of the attitude of Islam towards slavery, to cast a cursory glance at the incidence of this ancient institution as it flourished in pre-Islamic Arabia, and then to consider to what degree Islam sought to eliminate, modify or reform it.

In pre-Islamic Arabia slavery flourished unchecked and the lot of the slave was miserable in the extreme. The master possessed and exercised the power of life and death over the slave. That this was so everywhere did not make it any more endurable for those who were subjected to its rigours.

One source of recruitment into the ranks of those held in bondage was capture in war or in tribal raids. Prisoners of war were in no better case. Those who were not exchanged or ransomed were generally put to the sword, but if spared, were held in slavery.

Islam prohibited slave-driving raids altogether, made aggressive war unlawful, improved out of recognition the lot of prisoners of war taken in defensive fighting by instituting regulations which should secure not only humane but civilized and liberal treatment of them, and set up values and standards which, if they had been persisted in, would have secured the abolition of the institution of slavery within a comparatively short period.

The Prophet’s own attitude towards slavery is well-known. After his marriage with Khadeejah, who was wealthy in her own right, while the Prophet (the event took place fifteen years before he received the Divine call) owned practically nothing at all, she placed all that she owned at his disposal. He distributed the greater part of her property to the poor and freed all her slaves. One young man, Zaid, chose voluntarily to stay with him and to serve him. After a time his father and uncle tracked him to Mecca and offered to purchase his freedom. The Prophet explained that Zaid was free and could go with them if he so wished, and that there was no question of any payment. Zaid, however, refused to go with them pointing out to them that he was much happier where he was than he would be at home with his parents.

Later, the Prophet procured the hand of his first cousin Zainab b. Jahsh, for Zaid, though the marriage did not prove lasting and ended in divorce. Zaid, however, continued to be a devoted follower of the Prophet and suffered martyrdom like so many others in the cause of Islam. After Zaid’s death the Prophet continued to bestow deep affection on his son, Usamah. During the time of ‘Umar, the second Khalifah, his son, Abdullah, once asked his father why the latter had rated Usamah higher than Abdullah in a particular case, despite the fact that he had served Islam with greater distinction than had Usamah. “For the reason, son, that Usamah’s father and Usamah were dearer to the Prophet than thy father and thee,” was the reply of ‘Umar!

Throughout his life the Prophet never owned any slave, as the institution of slavery and anything savouring of it were repugnant to him.

But the conditions of contemporary life (it was the beginning of the seventh century after Christ) did not permit a total elimination of the exercise of control by one human being over another, though the degree and incidence of such control were so regulated by Islam as to render it very light and easily endurable, if not entirely beneficent in all cases. In view of the deterioration that subsequently set in, it may not be without profit to examine somewhat more closely the changes and regulations instituted by Islam.

It may be broadly stated that in Islam such control had its origin in war.

During the Meccan period (610-622), the Prophet and his small band of devoted followers had borne the contempt and scorn of the Quraish, and later, cruel and sustained persecution at the hands of the latter, with dignified and steadfast fortitude. Under every kind of provocation they maintained their role and attitude of peaceful and lawabiding citizens, under the rule of a sort of oligarchy composed of the heads of the principal families of the Quraish. When the Prophet was forced to leave Mecca and moved to Medina (the majority of his male followers having already arrived there) his advent (622) was acclaimed not only by the Muslims (both those who had arrived from Mecca and those who were residents of Medina) but also by the non-Muslim Arabs and the Jews. They soon agreed to accept him as Chief of Medina, and a charter was drawn up which made provision for the regulation of the affairs of the city.
But peace was denied to the Prophet and the Muslims even in Medina. The Meccans first demanded that he should be returned to them, and when this demand was turned down they started preparations for leading a strong force against Medina to compel his surrender.

It was in this contingency that the Muslims were accorded Divine permission to take up arms in defence of freedom of conscience.

“Permission to fight is granted to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged-and Allah indeed has power to help them-those who have been driven out of their homes unjustly only because they said ‘Our Lord is Allah’. If Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated, Allah will surely help him who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty. This permission has been granted to those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin equity and forbid evil. With Allah rests the final issue of all affairs” (22:40-42).

Thus fighting is permissible only to repel or halt aggression; but even in the course of such fighting, Muslims are not permitted to adopt unduly aggressive measures. “Fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors” (2:191). “Persecution is worse than killing” (2:192), for it seeks to destroy the soul, therefore “fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is freely professed for the sake of Allah; but if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors” (2:194).

These are basic and fundamental directives. There is a host of other directions in the Quran with regard to the prosecution of war, but they are all subject to the conditions here laid down, and must be so construed.

Prisoners could only be taken in actual fighting during the course of a justified war. Tribal raids were not permitted, nor could prisoners be taken in scouting skirmishes or chance encounters. “It does not behove a Prophet that he should have captives until he engages in regular fighting in the land. You desire the goods of this world, while Allah desires for you the Hereafter. Allah is Mighty Wise” (8:68).

No regular forces were maintained during the time of the Prophet. Whenever the need arose an ad hoc force was assembled and everyone who joined had to provide everything for himself-mount, food, water, arms, etc. No payment was made, except by way of compensation out of spoils gained on the field of battle, e.g. arms, armour, camels, horses and the ransom paid for prisoners of war. Those not exchanged or ransomed were allotted to those who had taken part in the fighting or who were otherwise entitled to compensation, and were put to work. In many cases prisoners of war were released without exchange or ransom as a matter of favour (47:5). Ransom could be very light. After the battle of Badr, it was announced that the ransom of a literate prisoner would be that he should teach the alphabet to ten Muslim children.1

Those who could be put to work were entitled to be set at large to work on there own, if they so desired, and to ransom themselves out of their earnings. They could obtain a writing to that effect and were to be helped in carrying out the obligation thus undertaken (24:34).

Those who were fit for marriage were free to marry. “If they be poor, Allah will grant them means out of His bounty. Allah is Bountiful, All-Knowing. Those who find no means of marriage should keep themselves chaste until Allah grants them means out of His bounty” (24:33-34).

Out of the proceeds of the Zakat, charitable funds and the income of charitable endowments, provision should be made for ransoming captives and the relief of debtors (9:60).

All these provisions and devices were designed to facilitate the progressive setting at large of prisoners held in captivity in consequence of their participation in one of the gravest and most heinous moral crimes, namely the attempt, by the use of force, to deprive others of their most precious freedom, the freedom of conscience. They had sought to enslave the souls of others; their just recompense was a partial restriction of their physical liberty, for a term that might prove to be long or short, depending on circumstances and contingencies. During that term, the conditions under which they were held were not too severe. The Prophet had admonished: “These are your brethren over whom Allah has granted you authority, then he who has a brother under his authority should feed him on what he eats himself, should clothe him as he clothes himself, should not set him a task beyond his capacity, and if he is assigned something heavy or difficult, should help him in carrying it out.”2

On one occasion he observed while passing along, that a man had raised his arm to strike another who was in his custody. “What art thou about?” called out the Prophet. “Knowest not that Allah has more authority over thee than thou hast over this creature of His?” The man had not been aware that the Prophet was anywhere near, but hastened to respond:

“Messenger of Allah, I set him free.” “Thou dost well,” rejoined the Prophet, … else thou wouldst have put thyself within reach of the Fire.”3

The testimony of such prisoners themselves is available that, on occasion, their captors went hungry so that the prisoners might be fed, or that the former walked so that the latter might ride.4

When, during the time of ‘Umar, the second Khalifah, Jerusalem offered to surrended on condition that the Khalifah should come in person to settle the terms and to take over the city, ‘Umar proceeded on the journey from Medina to Jerusalem, accompanied by one such prisoner and taking only one camel, which also carried their meagre food supplies. ‘Umar arranged that out of consideration for the animal they should ride it stage by stage by turns. For the last stage it was the tum of the prisoner to ride. He offered to forego his tum, but ‘Umar insisted that the arrangement must be adhered to. Thus they arrived in Jerusalem, where the notables and the population were assembled to welcome the great Khalifah, and saw the Khalifah leading the solitary camel ridden by his “slave”!5

It will thus be seen that Islam aimed at the elimination of slavery and bondage, and instituted regulations and means towards the achievement of that purpose. With the firm establishment of freedom of conscience for everybody the major source of conflict would be removed, and war, which Islam regards as an abnormal and destructive activity, to which recourse should be had only in the last resort, would be abolished. The Quran describes war as a conflagration, and declares that it is God’s purpose to put out such a conflagration whenever it erupts. “Whenever they kindle a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it. They strive to create disorder in the earth, and Allah loves not those who create disorder” (5:65). With the abolition of war the only source of such bondage as Islam countenanced would become obsolete and even that mild form of bondage would disappear.

History took a different course. To that we shall revert later. Suffice it to affirm here that the spirit and purpose of Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are in accord with the Islamic objective. In fact, throughout the largest part of the Islamic world the institution of slavery has been progressively abolished; its last vestiges, where they have persisted, are on the way out and it has no chance of being revived anywhere.