The Religion of Humanity – Part 3

Mohammad Yaqub Khan – Imam The Woking Mosque, England 1959.

SLAVERY is yet another jogtrot and stereotyped charge which our correspondent has laid at the door of Islam. He writes: “At present if there is any country where slavery is still legally practised it is some of the Muslim States, and the authority that they quote for this ignoble and inhuman practice is, of course, the Qur’an. “The learned correspondent with all his pretentions to the knowledge of Comparative Religion, it appears, is most ignorant of what he is most assured. Bukhari has on its record the following precept of the Holy Prophet ﷺ: “Whoever frees a slave, God shall protect every one of his limbs from fire, for every limb of the slave set free.” A man came to the Prophet ﷺ and said to him: “Point out to me a deed which should bring me nearer to paradise and take farther away from fire.” The Prophet ﷺ said: “Free a slave and ransom a captive.” There is yet another tradition which enjoins that “the most beloved of all deeds with God is the freeing of a slave.”

The Prophet’s life at Makkah, for thirteen years, was a life of tyranny and oppression, when of course there was no chance of making any slaves. His own slaves he released; and his friend and follower, Abu Bakr, freed a large number of his slaves, and even purchased a good many to set them free. When the Prophet ﷺ came to Madina, and the period of aggressive warfare began against him, it was revealed unto him from One High:

مَا كَانَ لِنَبِىٍّ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُۥٓ أَسْرَىٰ حَتَّىٰ يُثْخِنَ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ تُرِيدُونَ عَرَضَ ٱلدُّنْيَا وَٱللَّهُ يُرِيدُ ٱلْـَٔاخِرَةَ وَٱللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War) 8:67

“It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed”.

Slavery of the old type was, thus, abolished in total, and war-captivity was the only kind of slavery, if it can be called slavery, which was permitted but only so long as the war lasted, as stated in the verse:

فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ فَضَرْبَ ٱلرِّقَابِ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَآ أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا۟ ٱلْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّۢا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَآءً حَتَّىٰ تَضَعَ ٱلْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا ذَٰلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَآءُ ٱللَّهُ لَٱنتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَـٰكِن لِّيَبْلُوَا۟ بَعْضَكُم بِبَعْضٍ وَٱلَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا۟ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ فَلَن يُضِلَّ أَعْمَـٰلَهُمْ

(Surah Muhammad 47:4)

“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite their necks; until when you have overcome them, then make them prisoners and then either set them free as a favour or let them ransom themselves, until the war terminates”

It is now obviously clear that a Muslim, according to the teaching of the Prophet ﷺ, is not permitted to bring any person into slavery, and that, Islam and the Qur’an give no countenance to anything like the institution of slavery  and if this “ignoble and inhuman practice”, as the learned critic has put it, should ever exist in  some Muslim State, it will be in spite of this teaching and not on account of it.

The Freethinker of England is a very well-known paper of a long standing. It believes not in Divine revelation, and forms opinions independently of the authority of any religion. We reproduce, for the information and knowledge of our learned critic, a passage from the reply which it gave to a certain article from the pen of Lord Oxford, published in the Sunday Times. It wrote.

“There are one or two scientific instances mentioned by Lord Oxford which he would have us to take as examples, direct or indirect, of the influence of Christianity. There is the case of slavery. It is admitted that progressive legislation in favour of the better treatment of the slave existed in the Roman Empire and also that the number of slaves decreased. And to that we may add the current ethical teaching that slavery was a mere political institution but was contrary to the law of nature.

Lord Oxford also points out that even after slavery had died out, or had nearly died out, in Europe it was revived in an incredibly brutal form under Christian auspices. Now here would seem a very good test of the value of the alleged beneficent influence of Christianity. From whatever causes, it is admitted that slavery had practically disappeared in Europe. Its reintroduction was entirely a Christian affair. It was reintroduced by Christian nations without anyone having the slightest notion that it was religiously wrong. The famous Sir John Hawkins received the direct support of the English Government in the traffic, and, as though to emphasize the point that there was nothing religiously objectionable about it, the Government lent him a ship with the significant name of Jesus. In 1698 every British subject was authorized to raid any African village and carry off its inhabitants. The Christian nations of the world entered into fierce competition with each other for the control of the traffic. One of the principal uses of the victories won by Marlborough was to secure to English ships the monopoly of carrying slaves to the Spanish colonies, and it was estimated that in a single century no less than three million slaves were carried into the European colonies and settlements by British vessels. In this respect England was not worse than the other Christian countries, they were all fighting for the control of the slave trade. The important point is that no one saw anything religiously wrong about it, although here and there moral objections were raised against it. The modern slave trade, more brutal more bloodthirsty, with less to excuse it than any other form of slavery the world has ever seen, was introduced by Christians, fathered by Christians, and no Christian objection was raised to it. Of what value was Christian influence?

But the most fantastic statement made by our learned critic runs in these words: “To a fair-minded observer, even Hinduism appears superior to Islam and Christianity in some respects. Both Islam and Christianity regard salvation to be only for their respective believers, but Hinduism says that all religions are different ways to the Divine.” Hinduism, it should be remembered, is a highly insular and isolated religion which refuses point blank to admit other nations to a share of God’s grace conferred upon them. Excepting themselves they consider and call the rest of the human race as malechcha, the unclean and untouchable, the rejected residuum. which has been left by Ishwara to wallow in ignorance and darkness. The Most High God, they believe, spoke only once to the Four Rishis of Aryavarta, on the day of creation some 1960 million years ago, conferring on them Divine knowledge and wisdom which it has not been the lot of any other people to be endowed and favoured with. In the face of such an illiberal and intolerant attitude it is preposterous to assert that “Hinduism says that all religions are different ways to the Divine”. Speaking of the Jewish and Christian claim to salvation the Holy Qur’an says: (2:111, 112)

وَقَالُوا۟ لَن يَدْخُلَ ٱلْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَن كَانَ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَـٰرَىٰ تِلْكَ أَمَانِيُّهُمْ قُلْ هَاتُوا۟ بُرْهَـٰنَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَـٰدِقِينَ

بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُۥ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ فَلَهُۥٓ أَجْرُهُۥ عِندَ رَبِّهِۦ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

(Al-Baqara (The Cow) 2:111,112)

“And they say; None shall enter the Garden except he who is a Jew, or the Christians. These are their vain desires. Say Bring your proof if you are truthful. Nay, whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good to others, he has his reward from his Lord, and there is no fear for such, nor shall they grieve”.

The Jews and the Christians are told in plain words that their claim that only the Jews and the Christians will be saved, is groundless. It is entire submission to the Most high God and the doing of good to His creatures that is the true source of salvation according to the Islamic teaching.

(The Light – Monday August 24, 1959)