3.6.5 Marriage Of Slaves

Slavery was an institution recognized by all people before Islam. To Islam belongs the credit of laying down principles which, if developed on the right lines, would have brought about its ultimate extinction. But it was not the work of a day, and therefore, as long as the institution remained, provision had to be made for slaves which should make them as good citizens as the free men. Before Islam, slave-girls served the purpose of either satisfying the master’s carnal passions or earning money for him through prostitution. To both these evil practices an end was put immediately, and order was given that both free men and slaves, males as well as females, should remain in a married state: “And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; … and compel not your slave-girls to prostitution when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail goods of this world’s life” (24:32,33). The order to keep the male as well as female slaves in a married state is here combined with the order which puts an end to prostitution, and thus the two evil practices of pre-Islamic Arabia, which were the result of keeping slave-girls in an unmarried state, were put an end to by the one clear injunction that they shall be married. To this order there is no exception either in the Holy Qur’an or in Hadith. The injunction could be carried out in one of the three ways: by marriage, 1. between two slaves; 2. between a free person and a slave; and 3. between the master and the slave. There is no fourth alternative. At the present day, when the institution of slavery has been abolished in the whole of the civilized world, there is no need of going into the details of the marriages of the first two classes. The third class of marrying may however be dealt with briefly, as there exists a great misunderstanding to the effect that Islam allows concubinage.

Concubinage is regular sexual connection with a female who does not hold the legal status of a wife; in other words, keeping a woman in the position of a wife without marrying her. There is a general impression that Islam gives an unlimited license to have as many concubines as one likes, so long as the concubine is a slave or a prisoner of war and not a free woman. Concubinage was undoubtedly practised in Arabia before Islam, and it may have been practised by some Muslims until the revelation of the verse quoted above. By this revelation, however, concubinage was ended. A plain injunction had been received that all male and female slaves must be married. If any master of a female slave kept her as a concubine after that, it was against the Qur’anic injunction. The Holy Qur’an does not make any exception in favour of the master; on the other hand, it lays the responsibility, of having the slaves married, on the masters. No master of a slave-girl could keep her as a concubine when the Holy Qur’an enjoined him to have her married, and if he did so keep her, his deed, whether due to his ignorance of the Qur’anic injunction or to intentional violation of it, had no validity in law.

The legality of concubinage has been inferred from certain expressions used in the Holy Qur’an. The most important of these are the following words: “And who restrain their sexual passions except in the presence of their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for such surely are not blamable” (23:5, 6; 70:29, 30). These verses are a part of a detailed description of true believers, and are preceded and followed by other verses describing the many attributes of true believers. They apply equally to men as well as women, the latter being clearly described as possessing all the good and great qualities which are possessed by men (33:35). If therefore the above description of the faithful, which occurs twice in the Holy Qur’an, and no more, can justify a man having sexual relations with his female slaves, it can also justify similar relations of a woman with her male slaves. But no one has ever drawn such an absurd conclusion from these words. The Arabic word for sexual passions as used here, is furuj, (pl. of farj) which means the part of a person which it is indecent to expose (LL.). Hifz al-farj therefore signifies not only refraining from actual sexual intercourse but also refraining from exposing certain parts of the body which it is indecent to expose. But a certain degree of freedom in this latter sense is allowed, to both men and women, in the presence of their slaves who had to wait upon them on all occasions. Ideas of decency may differ, so much so that there are people in all civilized countries who think that it is not indecent to be nude in the presence of others; on the other hand, they take pride in remaining naked even in public and sometimes try to take out processions of naked people, both men and women. Such practices are revolting to Islamic ideas of decency. But even if, for the sake of argument, the inference drawn from these words, to wit, that Muslims are allowed to have concubines, were accepted as true, that inference loses all its value when it is borne in mind that the two chapters in which this expression occurs are early Makkah revelations, when Islam had not yet introduced its reforms, and that the permission, if ever there was any, to keep concubines was taken away by the reforms introduced at Madinah, when a clear injunction was given that all female slaves should be kept in a married state. If the female slave must be married, the master certainly has no right to sexual enjoyment with her.

It must be further borne in mind that neither the Holy Qur’an nor the Hadith anywhere speaks of the right of the master to have sexual intercourse with a slave. In other words, ownership is nowhere recognized as legalizing sexual relationship. The only thing that legalizes sexual intercourse is a contract, duly witnessed, between the two parties to undertake the responsibilities accruing from that contract, with a dowry settled upon the woman, and thus marriage, whether with a free person or a slave, is the only means of legalizing sexual connection.

Evidently, then, the master could have sexual connection with his female slave under the rules laid down in the Holy Qur’an, relating to the marriage of a free man with a slave girl: “And whoever among you cannot afford to marry free believing women, (let him marry) such of your believing maidens as your right hands possess. And Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other. So marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours … This is for him among you who fears falling into evil” (4:25). The conditions of marriage, as laid down in this case, are the same as those in the case of a free woman, with one addition, viz., that the consent of the master of the slave must be obtained, in addition to the consent of the girl herself. The dowry (mahr) must be paid as in the case of the free woman, though the burden would be lighter. In 4:3 again, the taking of a slave as wife is permitted, but still it is through proper marriage that she can become a wife, as explained further on in 4:25.

There is only one more verse of the Holy Qur’an which has a bearing on this subject. It runs thus: “O Prophet, We have made lawful to thee thy wives whom thou hast given their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesses, out of those whom Allah has given thee as prisoners of war … specially for thee, not for the rest of the believers. We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess” (33:50). Here it is stated that all his wives and all those whom his right hand possessed, out of the prisoners of war, were made lawful to the Holy Prophet specially. These words must be read along with 4:3, which lays down that the permission of plurality of wives was limited to four. Those of the believers who had more than four wives were thus required to divorce the excess number, but a special permission was given to the Holy Prophet to retain all his wives, and those whom his right hand possessed, out of the prisoners of war, though their number was more than four. This phrase ma malakat aimanu-ka (what thy right hand possesses) is the same as ma malakat aimanu-kum (what your hands possess), the former speaking of one person and the latter of many. Now the question is, who were the women that fell in the category of “what thy right hand possesses?” Were they women to whom the Holy Prophet had gone in simply because they had fallen into his hands as captives of war? In other words, were these concubines with whom sexual relations were legalized because of the right of ownership? There was none such in the Holy Prophet’s household. The Holy Prophet had taken only two women as wives out of the prisoners of war, viz., Safiyyah from among the Jews, and Juwairiyah from among the Bani Mustalaq. They were not concubines but lawfully married wives, taken as wives in as honourable a manner as any of the others. If there was any difference, it was this that their freedom was considered as their dowry (mahr). This verse, read along with the history of the Holy Prophet’s life, sets at rest the question as to the meaning of ma malakat aimanu-kum (what your right hands possess) in the Holy Qur’an. Such women were from among the prisoners of war, but they were lawfully married wives. Hence the only difference between azwaj (wives) and ma malakat yaminuka (those whom thy right hand possesses) is that the former were free women at the time of marriage while the latter were captives, but both were lawfully married.

In the same verse, the words ma malakat aimanu-kum have again been used regarding the believers generally: “We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess.” It shows that there already existed some ordinance in the Holy Qur’an both as regards wives and as regards those “whom your right hands possess.” Now the ordinance as regards wives is contained in 4:3 and elsewhere, but the only ordinance as regards ma malakat aimanu-kum is that contained in 4:25, where conditions are laid down, under which prisoners of war can be taken in marriage. There is no ordinance with regard to them anywhere else in the Holy Qur’an except of course that contained in 24:32, which lays an obligation upon all owners of slaves or prisoners of war to have them married. Therefore prisoners of war or slaves could only be taken in marriage, and no other form of sexual relations was permitted.

The case of the master of a female slave who would himself have sexual relations with her differs only in one respect, viz., that he, being himself her master, does not stand in need of permission from anybody else. But there must still be a legal marriage. The Holy Prophet’s example, however, shows that when a prisoner of war was elevated to the dignity of wife-hood, she was also set free. It was in this manner that he took two ladies, who were prisoners of war, as wives. He set an example in this matter, and the faithful were enjoined to take him for an exemplar (33:21) and imitate him. His acting in this manner was undoubtedly based on his interpretation of the Qur’anic revelation, and that interpretation, of which the proof exists in his act, must be followed by all Muslims. He was divinely guided to act in this manner, and a Muslim who does not follow his example follows his own desire, instead of following the Divine guidance. But more than this, the Holy Prophet most emphatically laid it down that the master of a slave-girl should educate her, set her free and marry her: “The Holy Prophet said, There are three people for whom there is a double reward; a person belonging to the Ahl al-Kitab who believes in his own prophet and believes in Muhammad, and the slave owned by another when he performs his obligations towards Allah and his obligations towards his master, and the man who has a slave-girl with him, then he teaches her good manners and instructs her well in polite accomplishment, and he educates her and gives her a good education, then he sets her free and marries her; he has a double reward” (Bu.3:31; 49:14,16; 56:145; 60:48; 67:13; M.16:14; AD.12:5. etc.). This hadith which is repeated in the Bukhari no less than six times, and is accepted by all the six reliable collections of Hadith, claims a very high degree of reliability. If its words were only recommendatory, they would still show what reform the Holy Prophet desired to bring about, and combined with his own practice they lead to certain conclusion that his ultimate object was to raise slave-girls to a status of perfect equality with free women. But the recommendation is really of an imperative nature. It is not meant that the man who believes in his own prophet may reject Holy Prophet Muhammad, nor that the slave who performs his obligations towards his master may not care for his obligations towards God. The double reward is rather due to the fact that he overcomes a great temptation. A man who believes in one prophet thinks that it is sufficient for him, but this is not actually the case; a belief in the Holy Prophet Muhammad is a greater necessity, as the man who believes in him believes in other prophets as well. Similarly, it is not sufficient for the slave to do his duty to his master; to bear in mind his obligations towards the Great Master is a greater necessity still. And thus, even if the master treats his slave-girl well, and gives her the best of education, it is not sufficient; he must set her free and raise her to the status of a wife, if he desires to have sexual relations with her.

The Holy Qur’an, the Holy Prophet’s practice and Hadith are thus all agreed that slave-girls must be married: there is no exception to that rule whether her husband is a slave or a free man or the master himself. It is only in Jurisprudence (fiqh) that the rule has been laid down that a master may have sexual relations with his slave-girl simply because of the right of ownership which he has in her. But even fiqh maintains that cohabitation with a slave-girl is only allowed if all those conditions are fulfilled which must be fulfilled if she were to be taken in marriage as a wife. For instance, it is necessary that such a slave-girl should be either a Muslim or one following a revealed religion, and that she is not already married. Both these are also necessary conditions of marriage. Again, just as a man cannot have two sisters as wives at one and the same time, a master, according to fiqh, cannot cohabit with two slave-girls who are sisters or who stand to each other in such relationship that their being taken as wives together is prohibited. This shows that even the fiqh, though allowing cohabitation on the ground of ownership, recognizes such cohabitation as the equivalent of marriage.