Slavery and Islam

by Jonathan A.C. Brown

What happens when authorities you venerate condone something you know is wrong?

Every major religion and philosophy once condoned or approved of slavery, but in modern times nothing is seen as more evil. Americans confront this crisis of authority when they erect statues of Founding Fathers who slept with their slaves. And Muslims faced it when ISIS revived sex slavery, justifying it with verses from the Quran and the practice of Muhammad.

Exploring the moral and ultimately theological problem of slavery, Jonathan A.C. Brown traces how the Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditions have tried to reconcile modern moral certainties with the infallibility of God’s message. He lays out how Islam viewed slavery in theory, and the reality of how it was practiced across Islamic civilization. Finally, Brown carefully examines arguments put forward by Muslims for the abolition of slavery.

Genres: Islam, History, Religion, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Theology, Sociology

416 pages, Kindle Edition

Published March 5, 2020

About the author

Jonathan Andrew Cleveland Brown is an American scholar of Islamic studies. Since 2012, he has been associate professor at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. He holds the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University.

He has authored several books including Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenges and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy, Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World, Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction, and The Canonization of al-Bukhari and Muslim. He has also published articles in the fields of Hadith, Islamic law, Salafism, Sufism, and Arabic language.

Reviews

[Murtaza · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is a huge problem that should strike anyone interested in pre-Enlightenment religion and philosophy: The most important moral and ethical traditions of mankind originate in a past where life was lived completely differently. In many cases, the practical nature of these differences are not just strange but indeed horrifying. Perhaps the ultimate example of this is the phenomenon of slavery. The existence of slavery was an unremarkable constant during the vast majority of human history. Yet it is something that is so shocking as to be almost incomprehensible today. I’ve always admired Jonathan Brown’s willingness as a moral philosopher and historian to confront the most controversial subjects head on. Yet again, with this intellectually thrilling book, he does not disappoint.

As someone who is often repulsed at the observed reality of life in inegalitarian societies I am loathe to even imagine what living amid full-blown slavery would be like, or how any decent person could countenance that. I am confident that this sentiment is shared by most people today. But perhaps the only thing that can match the depth of our horror at the idea of slavery is the slim amount of time that people have felt this way.

For the vast majority of history slavery wasn’t just normal but the idea that it might not even exist was effectively unimaginable. Until the Enlightenment, every philosophical and religious tradition in human history took the existence of slavery as an unfortunate but unremarkable aspect of human society. That some people were slaves was considered analogous to the existence of poverty or disease – an affliction that one hoped to avoid but which was simply a part of the human condition. The best that a moral person could do was to regulate it and ensure that it was not unduly brutal or unfair. But that it could simply not exist had never been pondered even by our greatest moral exemplars.

Analyzing history dispassionately, it becomes clear that not all slavery in history has been equally alike. Indeed, the existence of slavery as a stable, transhistorical institutional phenomenon doesn’t seem to be well-founded. In North America there was the particularly cruel chattel slavery of Africans with which we are familiar. But this was not the sum total of what has been called slavery in all times and places. Slavery has not always been racialized and legal slaves and legal freemen have not always been locked into stable roles. Around the world and across history there have also been slave scholars, slave prophets, slave generals and even slave-rulers of empires who had the power of life and death and received taxes from their ostensible “free” subjects. How could this all be subsumed under one category?

The simple answer is that it couldn’t. While slavery was generally considered a misfortune, if we judge based on actual conditions of life without labels it seems that some technical slaves in history had more power and access to the good things of life than other people who were legally considered free. This does not mean that slavery was a neutral phenomenon. What it means was that it did not and does not exist as a consistent category. As it turns out even Spartacus, Bartolome de la Casas and the Iraqi Zanj rebels were not against slavery per se but against the injustice of their own observed conditions. (Although it is not mentioned in the book, to my recollection Toussaint le Ouverture also took slaves during the Haitian Revolution).

Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, the classical Greeks and every other other major religious and philosophical traditions of humanity urged moral reform. But somehow they also all accepted as unremarkable and even inevitable the continued existence of slavery. Great prophets implored people to be kind to slaves, encouraged their manumission and championed their spiritual equality. But for some reason none of them could imagine how slavery could simply not exist. It would be almost like saying that disease should simply not exist.

So what happened? It was once written by none other than Aristotle himself that slavery would exist until the day that “looms turned themselves.” He was more right than he could have ever imagined. It was only during the period of the Industrial Revolution and its replacement of human labor with mechanical labor that people began to consider slavery as something optional that could be not just reformed but abolished altogether. Western Enlightenment philosophy around this time began to echo the message of the machines rather than driving it. A self-reinforcing cycle of material and moral progress was set in motion which led to our present attitudes. Had the Industrial Revolution not occurred, it is likely that we would have continued seeing the moral world as we always had, with hierarchically-enforced labor, whether we called it slavery or not, as a normal part of it.

In the West, the problem of slavery has long been agonized over by Christian and Natural Law philosophers. This book is about Islam in particular and has sections on the legal debates within that tradition about slavery and abolition. For those who take a Sufi-centric view of Islam there is a preexisting understanding that guidance from the past can be spiritual rather than material and our understandings of the true power dynamics of world history might be opposite of what they seem. This book is genuinely relevant to everyone, but for those Muslims who are understandably pained over the issue of slavery in their history there will be some uniquely important insights.

So does Islam oppose slavery? The short answer (for those who urgently need one) is, yes. Muslims had slaves in the past but this was based on circumstances which no longer exist today and social mores that no longer bind us. Slavery in Islam was not mandated but in fact discouraged by incentivizing manumission wherever possible. The real credit for ending slavery belongs to technical science which made it superfluous. But for its part, once it became possible to imagine it not existing, Islam did not object to that. After some initial resistance many Muslims indeed became vocal and eloquent abolitionists alongside the rest of the world as machines began to replace manual labor. Slavery was sometimes racialized in Muslim lands but it was not specifically geared towards sub-Saharan Africans, even if many of them found themselves caught in slave trading networks. In some parts of the Muslim world slaves were predominantly Central Asian, Slavic, South Asian, Turkic or Persian. Racism and slavery are ultimately separate issues, although they have been painfully fused in many places.

Today the vast majority Muslims are viscerally opposed to slavery in all circumstances. From a religious perspective, this is what we would call communal preference, or urf. This is not preference in the way we might consider it as something light and thus malleable, but as a form of hard consensus that binds the laws of society. In addition, over the past two centuries there have been many formal legal agreements by Muslim states banning slavery. These are recognized as having the force of law. Any modern power, most recently the terrorist group the Islamic State, that tries to go against the communal consensus and against these legal agreements banning slavery thus can be said to be violating the tenets of Islam.

Understanding the historically flexible nature of slavery as a category can help us recognize many injustices that we take for granted today by assuming that “slavery” was simply abolished and no longer exists. Many technically free people today live worse than others who were legally deemed slaves in the past – a pressing reality of injustice that cries out for indignation rather than comfortable self-congratulation. Our challenge today is to abolish conditions of cruelty and unhappiness regardless of the label that they hide behind. If you are influenced by Islam or any other religious or philosophical tradition predating the Enlightenment, this book could help assuage angst over reconciling these traditions with the at-times unfathomable practices of the past. Either way, no matter what your background, this is a brave, erudite and heroically researched work worthy of your time and attention.

[عبدالرحمن عقاب · Rating 4 out of 5]

يبحث الكاتب "جوناثان براون"، وهو أميركي مسلم، في كتابه هذا عن حلّ لما يسمّيه "معضلة الرقّ".
ورغم أنّ هذه المعضلة تواجه كلّ صاحب ديانة، وكذلك ممجدّي الفلسفة والتنوير الأوروبي؛ إلا أنّ التهمة- في هذه الأيام- لا تلاحق إلا المسلمين.
تكمن معضلة الرقّ في أنّها ذات أضلاعٍ ثلاثة، إذا قبلنا بأحدها فإنّه يقودنا إلى نتيجة تعاكس الذي يليه.
هل العبودية شرّ مطلق؟ وهل العبودية جوهر واحد مهما اختلفت صوره؟ وهل يبقى للدين والفكر الذي قَبِل هذا الخطأ الأخلاقي البشع في الماضي احترام أو سلطة أخلاقية علينا حاليا؟
يمضي الكتاب في محاولة تفكيك هذه الأسئلة، والبحث عن أجوبتها في الإسلام بنصوصه الأولى أو كتابات علمائه الكلاسيكية والمعاصرة. ويقارن الكاتب بين إجاباتنا المقترحة وإجابات المسيحية والحداثوية. وينظر في كل إجابة، دارسًا تماسكها ومنطقيتها.
غير أنّه يأخذنا أيضا إلى تلك الأسئلة نفسها، باحثًا في وجاهتها ودقّتها.
كل ذلك بأسلوب ممتع، لم يخل من تكرار، وبترجمة ممتازة تستحقّ الإشادة.
يشكل الكتاب ضرورة معرفية للباحثين عن مهرب أو جواب لتهمة قبول الإسلام للرق. وهو كذلك بحث راقٍ في كيف يتلقى المفكر الأسئلة، ويبحث فيها قبل قبولها، وكيف يبني الإجابات ويخترق غمامات الأحكام.
ختاما، هل وُفّق الكاتب في إجابته؟ لست متأكدا من ذلك. لكني على ثقة أكبر بأنه وُفق في طرح أفكاره ونقد ما بين يديه من أسئلة وإجابات حاضرة.

[mohamed aljaberi · Rating 4 out of 5]

أعجبتني المعالجة الجادة للموضوع ..

في مثل هكذا مواضيع ذات طبيعة حساسة (الرق، ملك اليمين، حد الردة، التعدد، الزواج في عمر مبكر..الخ) يكثر الجدل السطحي من كل الأطراف وتغيب المعالجة المتزنة (بصرف النظر عن نتيجتها النهائية) التي تحاول أن تدرس أثر العامل السياسي والاقتصادي والاجتماعي على الموضوع المبحوث ثم في حسن تصور الموقف الشرعي من هذه القضايا، وهل هو في صورته التى استقر عليها من ضمن "الشرع المنزل أم المؤول أم المحرف" حسب تقسيم الشيخ تقي الدين ومن ثم محاولة تلمس تطابق الواقع التاريخي مع الخطاب الشرعي، هذه المعالجة ذات الطبيعة المركبة والتي تسائل الأسئلة وتفحص المقدمات المطوية وتراقب المنطلقات المضمرة فتبحث مثلا في سبب بروز هذا السؤال في هذا العصر مع أن القضية المبحوثة كانت أمرا مقبولا وغير مستشكلة إلى زمن ليس ببعيد ولماذا ثارت هذه الأسئلة في هذا العصر؟

جوهر الكتاب هو عبارة عن محاولة إبراز ثم معالجة ما يسميه الكاتب "معضلة العبودية" والتى تتركب من ثلاث افتراضات لا يمكن التوفيق بينها:
أ- العبودية شرٌ مطلقا وخطيئة أخلاقية.
ب- العبودية مرفوضة بجميع صورها وأشكالها، وأي محاولة لتجزئة هذا الموضوع يفرغ النقطة (أ) من مضمونها.
ج- لكل أمة رموز ومثل أخلاقية عليا يقتدى بهم، ولكنهم -على الأقل- تقبلوا وجود العبودية إن لم يكونوا مارسوها (من فلاسفة اليونان، إلى الأنبياء سلام الله عليهم، إلى الآباء المؤسسين لأمريكا).

وعليه "إذا كانت العبودية شرا أخلاقيا جوهريا وفادحا؛ فإن أي شخص أثبتها أو مارسها سيكون مدانا بارتكاب جريمة أخلاقية جسيمة، ومن ثم فهو مصدرٌ غير صالح للتوجيه الأخلاقي أو القانوني اليوم"، فكيف نتعامل مع هذه المعضلة؟ والتي في حالة المسلم يكون التسليم بهذه النتيجة= خروجه عن الإسلام.

أما الكاتب فخصص الفصل الأول لمساءلة مصطلح العبودية، والفصل الثاني لبيان الموقف الشرعي من الرق، وفي الفصل الثالث حاول تجلية الممارسة التاريخية للرق، ليعرج في الفصول اللاحقة لبيان "معضلة العبودية" بنسختها الغربية/الأمريكية والإسلامية وحاول الخلوص إلى حل لها ليصل في نهاية الكتاب إلى عقدة الموضوع والمتمثل بملك اليمين والتسري.

الكتاب ممتع ومفيد وإن كان تصوري عن مقاربة الكاتب النهائية لكلا موضوعي الرق وملك اليمين أنها تحتاج إلى مزيد تأن وبسط.

-- على الهامش --:

1-شجعني هذا الكتاب على اقتناء الكتاب الذي صدر قبله النزاع على السنة؛ الإرث النبوي وتحديات التأويل واختياراته وشدني كذلك عنوان كتابه الذي سينشر آخر هذا العام Islam and Blackness والذي أرجو أن يترجم قريبا.

2- للمؤلف مقاطع عديدة في اليوتيوب يتط��ق فيها لمضمون الكتاب، لعل هذا المقطع هو أفضلها: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcrP7...

[RL · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unfortunately, and as expected, this book goes deep on slavery apologetics. Instead of a critical engagement with the history and theology, it resorts to anecdotal and pop culture references to illustrate why 'Islamic slavery wasn't so bad'. While it does raise useful questions re language (slavery vs servitude) and the difficulties with transhistorical moral assessments (ie how do we use our present-day morality to judge other moments in history?), the author has a poor grasp on the construction of race, and fails to interrogate the structures of power that emerge in the anecdotes he shares (especially between enslaved person and slave-owner).

[Abu Kamdar · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is perhaps the most important Islamic book written in 2019. The author explains in great details the history and legal rules related to slavery in Islam. He also tackles head-on the difficult questions of the moral problem of slavery and concubinage. While many people won't agree with his conclusion, I do agree with it, he offers an unapologetic and clear view of what Islam has to say about these topics.

This book is a must-read!

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over time, I have made a few friends on Goodreads that live outside of the U.S. I often find myself adding a book on a topic that I probably wouldn't have encountered otherwise, and Slavery and Islam by Jonathan A. C. Brown was one of those. I chose to pick it up now, because the topic seemed particularly relevant given the recent protests, including the pulling down of statues of individuals who don't meet today's standards of morality. Brown actually explicitly mentions these in his book, including this provocative line:

If slavery is a manifest and universal evil, why did no one seem to realize this until relatively recently, and what does that mean about our traditions of moral reasoning or divine guidance? Why do our scriptures condone slavery and why did our prophets practice it? How can we venerate people and texts-- the prophets, Founding Fathers, a scripture or founding document-- that considered slavery valid or normal? And, if we see clear and egregious moral wrongs that those people and texts so conspicuously missed, why are we venerating or honoring them in the first place?

Wow, that about sums it up. The book comments on the American struggle with slavery, because the Founding Fathers, whom we revere, practiced slavery. But the book's true focus in how Islam is trying to come to grips with its history of slavery. This issue has rocketed to the fore since the founding of ISIS, which has used the Quran and Sharia to justify the re-introduction of slavery. Brown and other Muslims are rightly concerned that this will cause a wave of Islamophobia (it has); how do we show that slavery isn't "in Islam's DNA"? This challenge is even harder for Muslims, because one of their religious tenets is that Mohammed, the founding prophet of Islam, could not sin. So you can't accuse him of a gross moral wrong-- no "he lived in a different time" excuses apply.

I found this book so particularly engaging, because as a Latter-Day Saint, our religious tradition has a similar conundrum. Unlike Islam, Latter-Day saints don't claim prophetic infallibility. But in practice, we act like we do. Even when claiming prophetic infallibility, trying to justify Joseph Smith's polygamy is playing moral gymnastics. And the recent defacing of the statue of Brigham Young on BYU campus directly overlaps with the larger discourse in the US on the legacy of slavery. How can we venerate prophets like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young when some of their faults seem so egregious?

Brown structures his book around what he refers to as the Slavery Conundrum: three axioms that contradict each other:

(1) Slavery is an intrinsic and gross moral evil. (2) Slavery is slavery. (3) Our past has moral authority over us.

Pick two, because you can't have all three. For most of history, the Islamic world-- and the West for that matter-- didn't include (1) and (2). Slavery was an accepted part of life, not a gross moral evil. The Bible doesn't address it directly, other than tangentially-- directing slaves to obey their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well. It doesn't challenge it, doesn't give it a moral dimension. The same applies to the Quran. As for (2), what has gone under the name "slavery" has varied so much from time and place, it's hard to come up with a definition that captures all types. We in America only know our "brand" of slavery defined by the Atlantic slave trade. But the system of slavery in the Islamic world, known as riqq, was a lot different, and changed from time and place. Slaves could earn their way out of bondage, and slaves weren't differentiated by their skin color. You even had very powerful slaves running countries, such as Rustem Pasha, the slave of the sultan, who served as the Grand Vizier.

Brown covers both Christian and Muslim attempts to square the slavery conundrum in modern times. Attempts to justify slavery violate (1) and (2). While many activists today choose to do away with (3), as has been shown by the toppling of statues. Brown saves his own interpretation for the end, which is rather quite jarring. As a Muslim, you cannot violate (3) without taking yourself out of the mainstream of Islam. This leads him to the following conclusions:

If it is not the faculty of human reasoning operating as a mirror for transhistorical moral truths that has led us to our passionate rejection of slavery in the modern period, then what is it? The answer is that it is more localized and contextualized moral reasoning rooted in how modern societies have prioritized various goods and bads, valued the construct of equality over that of hierarchy and favored the categories of both humanity and nation-state identity over religious confession...

To many it may seem demeaning to boil our deeply felt moral condemnation of slavery down to nothing more than 'custom'. But this reaction betrays two unusual, moral tendencies. We trivialize custom as mundane, and we conflate what we 'feel' to be wrong with absolute Moral Wrong identified as either by some perceived grasp of mankind's true nature or by indisputable reason.

The response to this objection is simple, though it may be unsatisfying to many. Simply put, the depth of feeling does not equal a true reflection of a universal morality. And custom is far more powerful than determining what type of gifts we give at weddings.

We feel disgust and revulsion at eating dog in the West. It's custom. Brown puts slavery into this category. By itself, slavery is not a moral wrong, even if you feel strongly about it.

I am assuming many reading this book will strongly disagree with Brown. In fact, when I tried putting Brown's arguments forward to my wife, her reaction was immediate. Slavery is wrong! It was always wrong! It will always be wrong!

I think Brown though is taking on a topic most of us would rather slip under the rug. How would you solve the Slavery Conundrum?

Brown asks for a type of moral humility, or intellectual humility surrounding morals. In our culture today, we are quick to condemn others who live in a different moral world than us. In fact, I couldn't help but reflect on Jonathan Haidt's explanation of different moral priorities on the left and right, the left focusing entirely on fairness and harm, while the right also prioritizes loyalty, authority, and purity. If we can have such strong different moral worlds in America-- that are becoming even more moralistic-- is it such a surprise that others have prioritized values differently that we do? Does that mean that were evil, or less "enlightened" than us? Brown doesn't think so ending on this note:

Yet it would be self-righteous and dangerous to think that we inhabit a moral sphere that has risen completely above the benighted strata of even our recent past. Those relationships and ideas that we profess ourselves too mature to fathom were commonplace for our parents, our grandparents, our presidents, our philosophers, and our prophets. We still speak their language, employ their principles, seek their guidance in their exempla and worship their gods. We value 'freedom', 'consent', 'kindness', 'justice', and 'equality' because they elaborated these ideas-- slaveowners and slaves though they were... It either leaves us in cultural and cognitive dissonance, harshly denouncing a heritage we still venerate. Or it deludes the wealthy and comfortable of the globe today into the fiction that all the darkness is in our past, letting us exploit and oppress while we forget 'that one may smile, and be a villain.'

[Rob Squires · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've admired Jonathan A.C. Brown for years due to his erudition and fair-mindedness. If nothing else, he knows how to wrestle with moral and scriptural conundrums—up, down, and sideways. This book is about much more than the issue of slavery in Islam, since it considers the entire history of human beings enslaving (with all of its various definitions) their fellow humans (and non-humans!) from ancient times to the present day. The author delves deeply into how Jews, Christians, and Muslims have tried to come to terms with the fact that their scriptures—and thus their God, prophets, and apostles—condone, tacitly or otherwise, what is widely considered in modern times to be the most evil of practices. This book actually makes me wish that there was such a thing as double-blind book reviews where the reviewers had to read several of the top books on the broad history of slavery and then rank/review them. Indeed, it would be interesting to see how this fine work would fare if readers—both right and left, believers and atheists—didn't know that it was written by a white American convert to Islam who is a professor of Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University. I'm confident that the "How dare he write about such a topic!" reviews will start showing up in due time. However, in the mean time, if you're interested in reflecting on an unsettling topic that could very well take you out of your comfort zone, then this book will very likely take you there—since it considers the moral problem of slavery from about every possible angle and demonstrates why it's not easily dismissed by those who want to be faithful advocates of scripture while maintaining at least a modicum of intellectual integrity...while trying to please the masses of the 21s century who have groundless, subjective, and even often fluid ethical views.

[Kumail Akbar · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wanted to write a long response to this book, but unfortunately life took precedence and I have waited far too long since reading it, and have thus forgotten some key things that I wanted to talk about, so forgive the rambling nature of this review – I may come back and reorganize it better later. In a nutshell, I feel that Brown has done Islamic apologetics a lot of justice, and from both an apologetics point of view, as well as that of an academic interested in exploring the subject, this book was thorough and well done – except for one glaring point which I feel somewhat undid his effort.

And that is found in this ayat of the Quran: “This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion” (Quran 5:3)

Better known as the ghadir ayat for Shias or the final khutbah ayat for Sunnis, in which Allah proclaims Islam to have been *perfected*. Any modern intellectual effort at reconstructing or reframing Islam as something other than its original 6-7th century values and practices ultimately has to grapple with this notion of finality and *perfection*, which by the way every practicing Muslim or everyone who has been raised Muslim is fully aware of, given that it is always used as the argument against any change in our societies. You cannot escape from it, unless of course if you’re safely insulated in a western academic bubble, and have a primarily academic minded and somewhat sympathetic audience. This claim of perfection is moral, ethical and legal, and thus to state any practice found within Islam up till this revelation as anything other than a part of that perfection is to not be honest with the effort. Thus narratives which suggest that ‘Islam always intended X’ must always contend with this fact. If Islam truly intended something, why would it not take place before the declaration of perfection and finality?

This is a consistent argument I find with apologetics of Islam: the retroactive re framing of current outcomes as ‘always having been intended’ in the first place. It is also by far the most hollow form of reasoning as it ultimately has to explain how (as in the case of slavery) it took the several centuries for humanity to randomly stumble into anti-slavery positions given the industrial revolution and the desire of the British colonial elite (for theological political economic and ethical reasons) to stamp out slavery from the planet. This is also the argument that current believing practicing Muslims are most likely to default to.

Let us also take two other examples – the issue of prohibition of prostitution and the issue of divorce. Islam completely forbids the former, and considers the latter ‘acceptable but bad’. For Islam to be perfect in 6-7th century, these two notions were enunciated and ruled upon. Our social norms regarding both have changed over time, and so we look at the same differently today, and will look at both even more differently in a few more decades. If global international politics results in every society accepting the current western liberal ethos on both prostitution and divorce, will we see another back bending effort to claim Islam originally intended to bring us to those conclusions – despite the passage of 1400 years and social change dictated by global politics? Norms and mores related to divorce have changed in this direction already in Islamic societies, those on the former may change as well. Now replace prostitution or divorce with slavery, and especially sex with slaves captured in war, and you can clearly see how the task setup by believer academics like Brown is impossible to begin with.

Furthermore, the comment on perfection as mandated by theology is also important because the British efforts to end slavery have a basis in theology - that of Quakers. Quaker theology identified slavery as condemnable, as inconsistent with ideas of equality, etc. This is something Islam missed out on. This also weakens the entire set of arguments around “everyone was doing it, nobody imagined a future without it, until it became economically infeasible in the 18th Century”. At least one theology did manage to condemn slavery and it has a historical role in ultimately ending it.

Where then does this leave us with the book as is, and the arguments provided therein? I believe Brown has done an incredible job, his writing style is simple, he does not shy away from presenting arguments his detractors would throw at him, and does his best to counter them with examples and counterarguments. He makes readers think and contest notions they may not have before – for eg he begins with challenging the idea that what we call and condemn as slavery today is something that has historically existed, even if the word used has been the same. This is factually correct, even if not novel. Democracy meant something very different to Athens in 1000BC and the Roman Republic was nothing like a modern republic, even if we use those terms to refer to something very similar today. This is necessary given the current zeitgeist – given western ascendancy and its efforts to eradicate chattel slavery after creating it in the 17-1800s, us moderns think of slavery along those lines. A Mameluk however was also a slave, but was a part of the ruling elite of Egypt in the Middle Ages.

While this is true, I believe the strain of argument is, for lack of a better term, is pretty much beside the point. For Islam to be absolved of the ‘crime of slavery’ we need not address the post Muhammad post Rashidun eras. We also need not take into account variations in the social institution in the years and centuries after. We can take slavery for what it was even then, and still see it as vile. Brown himself stumbles into this, and ultimately is unable to reconcile himself with the notion of ‘sex with slaves captured in war’ – which would have necessarily involved not just an acceptance of rape of girls of any age range captured in war.

All arguments for the benign nature of different forms of slavery, whether or not some outlier scholars over time tried to limit or regulate slavery, pretty much become irrelevant when you realize that Islam declared itself to be complete and perfect whilst accommodating sex/rape of slave girls captured in war. Comparisons with other historical cases – such as Spartacus rising against Roman slavers but taking slaves himself are also beside the point. They serve the role of an intellectual whataboutism, and that too an inadequate one. This is because the likes of Spartacus etc. never claimed to be perfect for all times to come, and they have no role to play in the lives of billions of people today. Islam claimed perfection, and this flows through in other social and political issues as well.

All in all, this is apologetics done incredibly well, it is just sad that the effort is ultimately doomed, because you cannot reconcile your current 21st century ethos with those of the pre modern past. Brown also stumbles into accepting this in the last chapter or so, which leaves one wondering what if anything was accomplished by the book. Given some of the other reviews, it seems quite clear that Brown ends up pretty much confirming everyone’s priors with this work – those wanting to him to rest the case against Islam / slavery seem to think he has managed that, whereas those who, like me, believe the opposite, end up realizing the same.

Rating 4 of 5 stars for the effort, and for documenting and addressing valid data points and questions. Also high marks for beginning the effort with ‘I am a white Muslim academic based on the east coast’ declaration – it shows self-awareness regarding identity and modern politics without becoming self-flagellating as they often do so on social media discourse.

[Bint Euler · Rating 2 out of 5]

A good summary of this entire book is "slavery is halal and cannot be understood due to our uncritical adherence to presentism."
I expected more engagement with the fiqh or at least for Brown to present a picture of what it would have looked like. It's a good read if you want to sleep well at night knowing that Islam and slavery co-existed without violating islam's traditional views on modesty, chastity, and justice.

A good example is show towards the end of the book he covers concubinage and says "The master’s right to have sex with his female slaves is simply too discordant with modern sensibilities."

That is essentially how the entire book is written; "we don't know."

Gave it two stars because I don't believe he was equipped to write on this topic. There are many sources that have first person accounts of what slavery was like and how it was possible for people to engage with such a system. There are also many evidence's from islamic jurisprudence that could have aided him as well. But you can't expect much from a 21st century western-educated academic who has troubles translating basic arabic sentences.

[Hakim Fatehali · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first thing the reader needs to know is that this book could, in principle, be divided up in three distinct parts:

1) a description and explanation of the concept of slavery, or riqq, in Islamic theology and legal theory. This is associated with descriptions of the Prophetic antecedent of owning and manumitting slaves and religiously binding commands from the Prophet to the Muslims regarding treatment of slaves.

2) a description of the actual social, legal and economic conditions of slaves in Islamic society from the early Islamic times to the late abolition of slavery in the Ottoman Empire, Iran, Egypt, Mauritania and Saudi Arabia in the 20th century. Sensitive and controversial topics such as enslavement of fellow Muslims are discussed, as well as the role of sexual slavery in Islamic civilization.

3) the author’s attempts at various moral and intellectual arguments that serve two main purposes, namely to hammer home the idea that a) slavery as a transhistorical phenomenon lacks any unifying definition to merit a complete, outright condemnation and b) when attempting to make a moral judgment on the basis of traits of slavery such as unfreedom or inequality the author (despite repeatedly denying it) implements a bald man fallacy argument in order to invalidate arguments that slavery is a deontological/intrinsic or teleological/consequentialist wrong. This is where the book is at its weakest.

To summarize the sort of argumentation the reader will come across one can look at the author describing the pro-slavery side during the abolitionist discussions in Western Europe centuries ago. Page 166 reads: “Defenders of slavery used the difficulty of defining the term as the opening salvo of their arguments, often followed by trying to draw distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ slavery” As the reader will discover, the passage above is bizarrely self-referential and one will come to terms that this author is in fact defending slavery, or at the very least ‘the good’ kind. And surely, many of the social conditions of slaves in the Islamic world differed widely from the deplorable conditions of the people of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

The underlying problems of the author’s arguments are how he believes he has achieved the points 3a and 3b as described above. The author erroneously makes references such as at page 189 that “until the late 1600s effectively no one thought slavery was wrong” and includes among these people all foundational figures of all major religions, including, erroneously, the Buddha at page 268. He bases this off one single entry in the Encyclopedia of Buddhism written by Jonathan A. Silk where Silk describes Buddhist monks holding slaves. While these historical facts are probably true and should not merit too much consternation as Brown correctly has observed that slavery was very wide-spread in the pre-modern world, the problem lies in Brown declaring victory too early. Apannaka Sutta from Majjihima Nikaya of the Buddhist Palî canon makes clear that the Buddha very early condemned and forbade trade of slaves as it is considered a breach of the Buddhist ethic of the eightfold path. Brown makes an argument that no premodern philosopher possessed even the imagination that slavery as an institution could be wrong and uses its widespread practice as a moral defense of the practice. As can be seen, one single footnote from one of the largest Eastern traditions obliterated all old Buddhist sentiments against slavery as something unethical.

An early victory is declared in that slavery cannot be transhistorically defined and the author gives examples of researchers of this topic from different schools of thought who are involved in this definition conundrum. While many of these points are valid from an academic point of view, the reader feels that the author, once again, declares victory too early, as all avenues to a solution have not been traversed. If one lacks a coherent definition that encompasses the slavery of African-Americans, janissaries of the Ottoman Empire or the slaves of Imperial China, how about creating a criteria-based definition? A personal attempt of the reader follows below:

1) A slave is the property of a master, property being understood as a legal, social or economic institution in their society.
2) (Inflicted) restrictions that cannot be influenced by the slave without
2a) adverse effects, such as threat of violence, or
2b) making life outside the institution unlivable (many black slaves who were manumitted in Ottoman Constantinople were reduced to beggary)
3) Expectation of labor, regardless of the slave’s attitude towards this labor.
4) A degrading component which is considered insensible to the people at the time.

The minimum criteria of slavery could be fulfilled if at least 1, or 2a/2b along with 4 are fulfilled. This is a flawed criteria-system as such, but it serves to show that it could have been attempted by the author before declaring that there is no unified definition of slavery. The reader feels this to have been a too early assessment and it is difficult to look away from the fact that the author has confessional reasons to build this argument. The author points out inconsistency in the epistemological world-view of his American readers who might feel that prisoners working in jails are not doing slave labor, something the author correctly problematizes. One fails to see, however, what this or the author's hinted whataboutist narratives regarding "Western hypocrisy" has to do with the moral reality of the phenomenon.

Which brings us to the the second problem: the moral ambition of the author, which can be considered to be humble if not very unambitious. By simply displaying differences in social conditions, the ills of Islamic slavery are considered mitigated. This will not do. An ethical analysis of slavery includes the master and his/her particular moral faculties as well. One could argue that being a master who takes part in a practice promoting and perpetuating an unequivocally undesirable (even according to Islamic sources, see p. 178, 180-181) and forced state is unethical. More so when the author describes slavehood as a legal handicap similar to that of minors in that their autonomy is limited as they are part of the family of their parents. Turned around, one could ask the author if the ills of slavery would be mitigated if we avoid using the term (which the author considered highly politicized, rightfully so) and call the early slave-raids of the Muslims forced adoptions of adult people and enslavement as infliction of legal handicap to someone formerly capable. Not only is the master condoning this infliction of legal handicap to his human equals, he maintains this status by manumitting the slave only after physical and/or sexual labor has been extracted. If the author fails to see the potentially immoral effects on the slave-masters psychology living in such a society that presupposes such relationships, then it suffices to say that the author is lacking in moral imagination, maybe wilfully so.

While unique to read slavery apologetics in the 21th century, the book has a lot of good content, especially so when the author describes the theology and history of Islamic slavery. This is where the erudition of the author shines through.

[Pearl · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a meticulously researched and comprehensive Slavery and Islam, Jonathan A C Brown goes into details of the slavery that was practiced at the advent of Islam and henceforth. He doesn't mince words or gloss over as he dives onto how slavery in Islam is so much more nuanced and complex than what the Western prejudices (mostly, obviously because of American slavery) make most people believe. Clearly, one of the best books you will ever read on such delicate a subject as slavery.

[Ahmed · Rating 5 out of 5]

مش هكون ببالغ لو قلت إني كان نفسي أصادف كتاب مشابه لدا من أكتر من عشر سنين. الكتاب دا جميل جدا و صعب التلخيص بالذات في موضوع صعب زي العبودية، و بالتأكيد هحطه في لستة الكتب اللي عايز أقراها تاني.
هدفي من قراية الكتاب مكانش محاولة الإجابة عن سؤال : هو الإسلام بيقول ايه عن العبودية؟ إجابة السؤال دا _ النظرية _ أدعي إني عارفها بدرجة معقولة من التفصيل من أيام إعدادي أو ثانوي . السؤال الأهم بالنسبالي كان : تاريخيا، ايه كان وضع العبيد في بلاد المسلمين عبر التاريخ؟ بشكل مختلف : ايه العلاقة بين النظرية و التطبيق فيما يتعلق بالعبودية ؟

الحقيقة الكتاب بيحاول يجاوب على السؤال دا بشكل كويس جدا، و بيفرق بين تلت حاجات مهمين : (١) الإسلام كنصوص بيقول ايه ؟ (٢) الفقهاء و المدارس الفقهية عبر الزمن بيقولوا ايه وازاي اتأثروا بنصوص الإسلام و ازاي اتأثروا بالأعراف السائدة في العالم و (٣) التطبيق العملي كان ايه موقعه من النقطتين السابقتين . الكتاب بيعرض تقارير تاريخية مختلفة مثيرة للتأمل _ سلبا و إيجابا _ من أماكن كتير، منها أحكام قضاة في قضايا عينية و منها آراء مذاهب و منها قصص مروية و منها أحداث سياسية ( واحدة من المعلومات اللي أدهشتني إن في بعض حقب الدولة العثمانية كان الصدر الأعظم - تاني أهم شخص في الامبراطورية و أحد أغنى الناس في العالم - من الرقيق. شبيه لدا كان حقبة المماليك كلها في مصر)
غير كده طبعا الكتاب بيتطرق لتاريخ و صور العبودية عبر الثقافات و الأديان و الأزمان المختلفة ، في الصين و الهند و اوروبا و امريكا، عند الرومان و عند اليونان، في تاريخ اليهود و المسيحيين و الوثنيين و الماديين عبر الزمن و حتى العصر الحديث. بيناقش الفرق بين عادات عدد من المجتمعات المعاصرة لانطلاق الإسلام فيما يخص الرق و بين موقف الشريعة. ايه التشابهات و ايه الاختلافات؟ بيناقش برضو مسألة تعريف مصطلح العبودية بشكل فلسفي و بشكل عملي ، هل العبودية تتجزأ؟ هل يصح أخلاقيا الحديث عن عبودية أسوأ و عبودية أفضل؟ ولا دا يعتبر تصرف حقير يهدف للتقليل من وحشية العبودية عموما؟ هل كل صور العبودية عبر التاريخ كانت بنفس قسوة استعباد الرجل الأبيض للأفارقة السود؟ بيناقش مسألة النسبية الأخلاقية، بيناقش مسألة ملك اليمين و وضع ال"كونست" في علاقة زي دي. بيناقش تجارة الرقيق في منطقة البحر المتوسط وبيناقش تاريخ إنهاء العبودية بالتفصيل (و بالتواريخ) في البلاد المختلفة في العصر الحديث .. بيتكلم عن داعش و محاولاتها لإحياء العبودية في بعض المناطق اللي سيطرت عليها، بيناقش سؤال : هل المسلمين جادين فعلا في ادعاء رغبتهم في إنهاء الرق ولا هم مجرد مستسلمين للأمر الواقع ؟ بيناقش آراء كتير من آراء العلماء المسلمين منذ بداية العصر الحديث و لحد دلوقتي و بيوصل لناس زي القرضاوي و الألباني .. بيتساءل ايه بالظبط اللي حصل في العالم فجأة خلى العالم يلغي العبودية ؟ ليه الناس صحيت فجأة في العصر الحديث؟ هل إنسان العصر الحديث تطور على المستوى الأخلاقي بشكل مكانش موجود عند أسلافه ؟ ولا فيه متغيرات خارجية تسببت في دا ؟ الكاتب بيختار الاختيار التاني، و بيتبنى فرضية إن العامل الخارجي الأساسي كان الثورة الصناعية.

حاولت مكونش بلخص الكتاب ولا بقول رأيي و في نفس الوقت أوضح الخطوط العامة اللي الكاتب بيتكلم فيها عشان لو حد مهتم بالموضوع.
دي تاني قراية ليا لجوناثان براون و إن شاء الله مش هتكون الأخيرة. لا أملك غير الإعجاب الشديد بالمجهود الشديد المبذول في تجميع المعلومات في الكتاب

[Amjed Oudah · Rating 5 out of 5]

كل مسلم عرضت عليه شبهة الرق في الإسلام او حدث نفسه بها من غير ان يفصح عنها اظن ان هذا الكتاب له بالذات، لن يقتنع غير المسلم بالدين بدحض معضلة واحدة الا انها بالنسبة لنا كمؤمنين معاصرين مهمة ايما أهمية، والسبب يشير اليه الكاتب عدة مرات في طيات بحثه الممتع .
ما يميز هذا الكتاب عن باقي الكتب او المقالات التي قرأتها لكتاب مسلمون ان البحث يسرد بصورة صريحة الى ابعد الحدود ومتزنة وغير انتقائية كل ما يجول بخاطر المؤمن والمشكك من احداث تاريخية و مسائل فقهية واراء مذهبية قد يظن من يقرأها لاول مرة انها هجومية وليست دفاعية للسردية الاسلامية. الا ان المفكر المنصف والباحث العلمي لا يبالي بمثل هذه التحزبات العقائدية لدى رجال الدين في طرح مشكلة تاريخية جدالية كهذه على بساط التشريح العلمي الدقيق. وهذا ما تعودناه من المفكرين المتزنين الملمين بما يقولون من غير تخندق او غلو في طرح المسائل للنقاش.
ما يحاجج به المؤلف في بحثه ويركز عليه هو الفهم العام للمبادئ الاخلاقية وهل ان احكامنا التاريخية الحديثة عابرة للزمان والمكان ونستطيع ان نطبقها دون تحرج على اي مجتمع وفي اي عصر نريد.
ويشير ايضا الى مشكلة التعريف وهل من الممكن تعريف العبودية تعريفا جامعا مانعا لا يفشل في وصف كل حالات العبودية عبر التاريخ ويقارن العبودية بمشكلة تعريف مصطلح الارهاب الحديث وكيف انه مصطلح فضفاض وتعريفه معضل.
ثم ياخذنا الكاتب برحلة ممتعة الى الماضي بمحطات مختلفة لكي يكشف لنا التوهم الحاصل من تعميم فكرة وجعلها كونية تحت كل الظروف ومدى اختلاف كلمة عبد في الحضارات و الازمان المختلفة.
لا ينكر الكاتب ما للبحث في العبودية من حساسية محرجة لكل من يحاول ان يضيف فهما له فنحن نعرف معرفة اليقين الذي لا شك فيه دناءة العبودية وعدم مقبوليتها بالاطلاق ولكن يتسائل هنا هل عجز اجدادنا عن رؤية هذا الشر الواضح الجلي.
ان النظام الاخلاقي الذي يقودنا في حياتنا المعاصرة هو بالتاكيد محصلة تقاليدنا التاريخية الفكرية المكتسبة ممن سبقونا من الانبياء والفلاسفة والمفكرين فهل عجز هؤلاء عن ملاحظة الخطأ الفادح والشر المطلق الموصوف بالعبودية ام ان هناك فهم اخر للموضوع, هذا ما يحاول المؤلف ان يجيب عنه الكاتب في كتابه الكبير نسبيا واظنه قد وفق الى حد كبير في توضيح ملابسات ومغالطات عند المسلمون وغيرهم يجب ان ننتبه عليها عند وصف ودراسة الامور التاريخية.
تبقى لي ملاحظة احسبها مهمة لي ولاقراني من القراء المسلمين لا وهي دراسة التاريخ الاسلامي وما تعرض له من تشويه وتزييف ككل تواريخ الامم من قبل اصحاب الحكم والسلطة الا اننا في تعاملنا معه فريق من اثنان اما مقدس له ومزيف او مشوه له حد الغلو والطريقان يسدان علينا النفع من دراسته وتمحيصه, واعتقد ان هذه النقطة بالذات هي التي ساعدت في ظهور الشبهات حول الدين وزعزعت ايمان الناس وبالذات الشباب منهم.
الكتاب ثري بالمعلومات ومتشعب ولا غنى عن قراءته لمن اراد ان يتوسع بالموضوع المعني.

[Moo · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is mainly defending Islamic slavery, by misleading claims that slavery in Islam was great and conditions of slave were very nice.
The biased author focuses on some good stories about Islamic slavery ignoring or quickly passing through the horrible aspects of slaves' lifes

[Jurij Fedorov · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pro

It's actually a very handy historical intro to many small positive historical stories about Islamic slavery. Lots of very positive and feel-good stories about how some slaves lived good lives and liked their place in life. Mixed in are harsh realities of primitive life. It's a nice take on such a gloom topic. It's like watching The Great Escape after watching Schindler's List. A refreshing take on the time period and not just negative depictions of the human spirit.

It's also well-written and well-studied. There are a lot of great stories here and great summaries of historical Muslim claims. Slavery was a major part of Islam and is supported by Islam's holy texts and the Quran. The fact that the Quran supports it is why he says that he, as a Muslim, can't attack the practice. And frankly I somewhat accept this endeavour as he doesn't seem to have any evil need or want. It's all just a defense of Islam and no other religion is attacked. Islam does have Jewish and Christian proffets so it makes sense he doesn't have a bone to pick with these religious either. He, as a Muslim, says he needs to defend the Quran. It is what it is. I'm not a fan of such subjective books but I accept them once in a while.

There were many of vastly different slaves in Muslim countries. The slaves themselves could only be non-Muslims and should be captured in battles but these rules were obviously not followed at all times. And the author really tries to depict slavery as something that was needed in pre-modern societies. Slaves did have some protection according to the law. But even that was of course not always followed. Life was not easy or safe even though he tries to make it seem that way at most times. All the negative claims about Muslim slavery are always followed up by positive retellings. It's good that he presents the negative parts but very silly that he never dares to explore them fully without constantly attacking them. When you read a negative claim you can expect the story to stop a few sentences later and be replaced by an overly long subjective claim defending slavery and Islam. His claims are often longer than what they respond to. But it does feel like he dares to present these negative claims. So it's not a book that just hides evidence.

One of his positive claims is that slaves could buy their freedom and as slaves often didn't look much different from the population overall you couldn't just keep slaves in many generations. They seemed to dissipate into the overall population a bit like slaves in Brazil did. And Muslims mostly couldn't be taken as slaves. All of this made slavery extra appealing to Muslims. It's part of their culture but is disappearing today.

Overall it's a very impressive study of Islamic slavery. And even though it's only one single very positive viewpoint it's still impressive how much info there is in this book. Very impressive! These religious scholars study their own history and texts with an extreme passion. And this American academic brings a Western style to it where historical claims are critically looked into. I didn't observe him claiming anything factually wrong. But he had a very strong opinion on everything.

Now, while the Western style is what makes this a stellar historical book it's unfortunately also what makes it fail as a book and not recommended unless you really want to read it.

Con

While the pro part of the book is awesome the con part of the book is unfortunately what brings it down by itself. It's not that the pro part is bad. It's that the book is not just good history. The other half of the book are very loosely made arguments on a very low argument level. Basically your average high school level claims without much to them. That's half of the book! Most of it is just fine and while it's pretty much a waste of my time to read these low level arguments and they often seemed misguided I didn't hate most of them. They didn't seem completely unwarranted. It's fine enough to argue that slavery has a good side to it or that slave concubines may theoretically have had good lives, as Muhammad's slave concubine likely did. It's hazy and opinionated but still fine even though he should have cut 100 pages from the book by getting to the case a tad faster. But unfortunately he takes a step further and makes some claims that are completely unsupported by any data or even clear examples. It's just a very few claims but it's enough to make me rate this book ⅖ instead of ⅘ or even 5/5.

It's because the claims are the very reason the book exists. It's not a history book even though the history in it is great. It's a single book-length argument. And the argument is lousy and something I completely disagree with as he doesn't even make it. He just claims it is so.

His main argument starts with him saying that it's conclusively true that supposedly white people need to pay reparations to black people and American Indians in USA. On the question of Muslims needing to repay for their slavery he says it's not the book to answer that question.

This is the main statement to keep in mind while reading the book. It's his main argument. Slavery in the West was horrible torture and white people, author included, need to pay black people and American Indians for it today. While, according to him, Islamic slavery is complicated and doesn't really warrant any great critique. Even though Muslims also had race slavery it wasn't their main focus so it's not as bad at all.

I don't mind a Muslim defending Islamic slavery. He's fairly transparent about this bias. Where his argument crashes and burns is how he depicts 2 different kinds of slaveries to make a point. One outside and one inside Islam. One evil, one good. That's his argument. Yet while he spends a lot of time going over the positive things of Islamic slavery he never in any way explains Western slavery or why it's bad. He just assumes it's a horrible hell on Earth. But if his main argument is a comparison where one side easily wins out then not presenting the other side means that he doesn't even have an argument here. He wants to have one but he goes nowhere as it's based on nothing at all.

This is unfortunately the constructivist academic debate style. He never feels the need to logically make a case for anything concrete. It's all based on emotional, ideological, progressive arguments. He says Western slavery is horrible without telling us why and we just need to just believe him as he really feels it strongly. Yet Western slavery varied as much as Muslim slavery so it's not clear why it loses this battle. After the Middle Ages Western slavery at its worst was not nearly as bad as the worst Muslim slavery. He of course largely ignores this horrible Muslim slavery while just assuming that the worst things in the West are much worse than depicted in any history book. He constantly attacks USA and Western culture this way. I don't hate the attacks themselves. They are pointless and biased, but not cruel. It's just that it completely destroys his very own argument. Him just ignoring the West would have won me over to his side easily. But if he has a need to use it to make a big claim then deceiving the reader is not the way to do it. You can't freely pick when and how you are critical of claims. You can't assume the out-group is evil without making a case for it. Instead he should have just said Islamic slavery or slavery overall is not that bad and then not made it a competition where he needed to deceive to win it.

Let's go over the constructivism argument. As he starts taking about Muslim slavery his defense is how varied it was. So his main defense is an overly long intro to constructivism and how all words and ideas are cultural constructions.

For example, the book tries to "defend" terrorism by claiming that all term definitions are constructed so we don't actually know what terrorism is. Hence it's just a concept we invented. An example of the made up term of slavery is that a son may be more slavelike than an Islamic slave as the son cannot buy his freedom as some slaves can. I get where he is going with this. Full idea: slavery can mean many things. But spending over 100 pages explaining this by applying modern semi-academic tricks to do so is a waste of the reader's time. I've read such basic constructivism intros 100 times before, I didn't need a huge one yet again. He could have been historically focused and not made any comparisons to Western slavery or constructivism whole saying things directly and I'd agree with him. Slavery can be many things, I know. He shouldn't have used ideological progressive tools to make this point and made it the main argument. Because he doesn't fully explain these logical assumptions so the whole book fails.

For example, the first 3:15 hours of the audiobook have more clear opinions on American slavery than Islamic slavery and neither is explained via examples but mainly via his biased opinions. That's insane. That part has maybe 15 minutes of good info in Islamic slavery which is completely unacceptable for any book with such a title. The book is not a historical overview of Islamic slavery. It's a moral attack on American slavery and a defense of Islamic slavery at the very same time!?! Basically, the first 3:15 hours is mainly a vague social constructivism intro and how it applies to Islamic slavery. A dog is a dog because we define the word. Slavery is horrible as we know it's horrible. But Islamic slavery is not horrible because what does the word slavery even mean? It has no meaning! Gotcha!

Anyone thinking this is a good argument must be very ignorant indeed. It's just him picking whatever point of view he needs to make a claim. It's easy to win all your arguments when you state things you agree with as pure factual claims but then also tell the reader that Islamic slavery is not even as thing as it's a constructed term.

But despite his big failure the idea that Islamic slavery can be non-awful is very much clear and detailed. I don't think readers will disagree with that. His conclusion is very much correct and easy to agree with after just 10 historical pages. It's just his way to his claim that's so perplexing and maddening that it's nonsensical. It's like if I told you that 2+2 is 4 because four has one more letter than two and therefore somehow must be the answer.

Conclusion

Ufffff… so damn close to being a great book. So close. Just remove 15 horrible pages from the book and the rating may even improve 2 full stars. Unfortunately he himself has picked his poison. He himself has a need to make some fine historical claims but then center them around an argument that's not even horrible. It's one step below that. It's not even a clear argument as he doesn't present the other side of the comparison.

It's not rare that I pan a book for a few horrible pages in it. But it rarely happens that the whole book goes from great to bad because of that alone. I've had this experience with some social science textbooks too. Great intro to psychology suddenly ruined by some completely stupid pet theory the author had the need to present while depicting all the counter-evidence, the actual science, as pseudoscience. It's hard to defend a book I know will lead readers to the wrong conclusions.

Besides the main argument I also did think the hundreds of pages about constructivism and the vague moral arguments were pointless and a waste of time. But maybe some high schoolers would need such a step-by-step basic moral argument intro where all his claims need several pages each.

The history in the book is good even though it's very one-sided. It's not really a book about Islamic slavery. For that you'd need to find another book. But it still needs to contain this stuff to support the main claim and it makes it 70% good. I did learn a ton about the topic. And now I'm very eager to learn much more.

If you want a truly magnificent intro to Islamic slavery I very strongly suggest, Skeletons on the Zahara. It's just one story but it's so clear and direct that I learned more from it than from this book. Then there are good documentaries too. I need to seek out specific books Islam now. There are very few English ones it seems, unless it's badly written religious teachings.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...

[Miss Susan]

i gotta say i'm nervous about this one; the last i saw of j. brown speaking on this topic slid into slavery apologetics but i did like misquoting muhammad so. maybe he'll be better in long form!

[مؤرخ · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب موجه -في المقام الأول- لغير المسلمين في الغرب، إلا أنه يمكن أن يفيد أيضا المسلمين ذوي الثقافة الغربية

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

You won't like everything this book stands for and, if you're anything like the average modern person with normative, everyday sensibilities, parts of this book will make you hyperventilate. But if you're a serious reader who cares about moral reasoning and who prefers to struggle through the structural, ethical quandaries of modern life, then this might be a good book for you.

Brown is a professor of Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University and a prominent Muslim figure in North America. He also doesn't shy away from addressing the clear gaps between Islamic ethics and today's accepted liberal norms. The controversies are familiar: women's rights, the usage of violence, or a host of political and gender issues, much of which Brown has addressed in his other writings.

But THIS latest book takes an axe to the root, so to speak, as Brown tackles head-on what ought to be the biggest elephant in the room: Islam's perspective on slavery.

Essentially, Brown formulates the core problem as what he calls the "Slavery Conundrum," a moral quandary that arises out of a simple yet disturbing and disorienting reality: that different forms of slavery and human-ownership have existed as a basic human norm throughout what's probably close to 80% of human civilization and history. In fact, just about every major moral figure, along with every tyrant, has treated slavery (in its myriad forms across space/time) as a normal fact of life, period (until about the early 1600s). This includes the Islamic Revelations and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), who had a modified take on the institution of slavery (which Brown analyzes at length), but who also took numerous slaves as well as slave-concubines.

This easily demonstrated fact throws the conundrum into major relief: If all slavery is utterly and trans-historically horrific—a clearly uncrossable moral redline for any decent and thinking human being—then how can any individual (or Muslim) afford to uphold the moral authority/legacy of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, and just about every other major historical and moral figure in history, from Aristotle to Jesus Christ? (If God is Just and all souls are created equal, then How can one person own another person? Why didn't God or Allah simply ban slavery?)

Brown points out that given the sheer severity placed by our modern conscience on slavery as a moral monstrosity, it's totally inadequate for us to explain away the acceptance (or tolerance) of such a huge injustice by history's most luminous figures (figures who remain the fountainheads of sweeping moral traditions) as a minor (re: negligible) mistake that's easily outweighed and overshadowed by their much larger, more venerable achievements. The severity of an ethical blind-spot or sin as ACCEPTING SLAVERY should be enough to sink these figures' legacies and projects, most of which have animated huge swathes of mankind for centuries, if not millennia.

It's an absolutely fascinating body of questions and quandaries, and Brown doesn't disappoint as he dissects each subject with a steady, scholarly scalpel. Some conclusions are more satisfying than others, while some leave you a little winded.

Brown's comprehensive research takes the reader through the Islamic tradition's treatment of slavery (riqq), as well as slavery's panoramic existence throughout Islamic history. Then he delves into the depths of the Slavery Conundrum. His ultimate conclusions are, in short (and I'm erring in generalities here), that slavery can't be boxed into an undifferentiated trans-historical mass, that Islam instituted rules on slavery that prohibited cruel treatment, that the West shouldn't pat itself on the back too much for "coming up with abolition," and that, ultimately, the Quran aimed towards emancipation.

(Incidentally the most thrilling part of the book for me wasn't Brown's systemic unravelling of the Conundrum per se, but his treatment or summary of why the West finally gave up slavery or the slave trade—a discussion where Brown pokes at comforting notions of natural moral progress and other post-Enlightenment assumptions associated with the West's ever-progressing forms of liberal democracy, usually in contrast to other backward peoples/civilizations...a treatment that many intellectual history aficionados should appreciate)

Dramatically, Brown *ends* the book (literally in its final pages) with his *most controversial and potentially upsetting* arguments, which hone in on Islam's prescriptions for how masters should handle sexual access to female slave concubines (a major point of discussion in the public square since 2014, when ISIS took over Mosul, Iraq). A section usually reserved for soft landings and moderate summaries that facilitate the reader's parting is, in Brown's hands, just enough space for a final blitzkrieg on perhaps the most controversial aspect of all of Islamic slavery.

Agree or disagree, the book makes its case forcefully/clearly, asks all the right questions and, from a layman's perspective anyway, seems to back it all up with large bodies of sources and evidence. The book requires that readers know a bit about Islam's basic parameters. It's also replete with Arabic names and historical facts re: Islamic civilization, so I can't say it's totally devoid of academic language or discourse. But it's just about the right kind of book for the thinking layman (particularly the Western Muslim) who wants to sharpen his moral common sense via addressing major issues that, when rescued from superficial conformity and truisms, reveal themselves to be huge masses of human and ethical ambiguity.

[May Kosba · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a well-written and well-researched topic. Brown convincingly makes some hard and bold arguments here. Brown clearly writes, as he also admits, from a place of privilege. As a white American Muslim convert male scholar, only he, or someone with his stature, could write and navigate those arguments, histories, traditions the way he did. The author's way of writing is accessible and easy to follow. The issue is more about the content, the histories he unravels, the abstracting of the concept of slavery, the interpretations he makes, and the painful conclusions he reaches as a result of his honest scholarship. I admire his pedagogical strategy in the gradual laying out of the arguments, questions, the level of articulating all the possible questions one might ask, and how he demonstrates his awareness of the complexity of the issues and what's at stake. The book is written intelligently and bravely. Brown risks, if not aims, to provide an exhaustive argumentation on the history of the concept of slavery to a maddening point. If you're a Muslim, be prepared to be taken on a tumultuous journey into an unlearned past that informs our present, and complicates our ideas of who we are as a people in a "post abolition" and a "post-colonial" world. Prepare to be angry, frustrated, and challenged to the core. The most important virtue required for this book is patience and reading with an open heart and mind. Also, one way to prepare for this book is listening to some of the lectures the author gave on the book. That was definitely my experience. Enjoy!

[عبد الله القصير · Rating 4 out of 5]

هذا ثاني كتاب لجونثان براون أقرأه، الأول كان تاريخ السنة. مهما كان رأيك بالكتاب إلا أنك تحفظ للمؤلف سعة اطلاعه وقدرته على جذب القارئ (على الأقل جذبني أنا) . هنا المؤلف يناقش مسألة العبودية فيالإسلام وكيف تعامل معها النبي عليه السلام من قبل ثم كيف تعامل معها العلماء المسلمين.
الجدل الأساسي في ههذا الكتاب هو أن تعريف العبودية يختلف من زمان لزمان ومن مكان لمكان فالمؤلف يقول أن رفضنا للعبودية في الوقت الحاضر مبني على عمال السخرة والعبودية الشرسة التي كانت منتشرة في الغرب في بدايات عصر النهضة. ولكن مع أن العبودية كانت منتشرة من قديم الزمان لم تكن شرسة طول الوقت ولم تكن دموية أيضا، حتى أن بعض العبيد يستطيع أن يعتق نفسه أو يتملك ولكنه مقيد الحرية ولا يستطيع التوريث.

[Laila Al-Arian · Rating 1 out of 5]

Another book on slavery by a white piece of shit who doesn't believe slavery is horrible.

[wajiha · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Yet it would be self-righteous and dangerous to think that we inhabit a moral sphere that has risen completely above the benighted strata of even our recent past. Those relationships and ideas that we profess ourselves too mature to fathom were commonplace for our parents, our grandparents, our presidents, our philosophers and our prophets. We still speak their language, employ their principles, seek guidance in their exempla and worship their gods. We value 'freedom,' 'consent, Kindness, justice and 'equality because they elaborated these ideas - slave owners and slaves though they were. How we value and prioritize these goods has changed with our advances in economy and technology, but to pretend that we have transcended our past is naive. It either leaves us in cultural and cognitive dissonance, harshly denouncing a heritage we still venerate. Or it deludes the wealthy and comfortable of the globe today into the fiction that all the darkness is in our past, letting us exploit and oppress while we forget that one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.”

[Isa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably the one book you ever need to read on slavery in Islamic scripture & the Islamic world. Johnathon Brown has obviously done a lot of research to bring us this comprehensive look into the world of slavery over the past 1500 years.

It just misses out on 5 stars due to the overly apologetic stance Brown seems to adopt when talking about slavery within Islam.

[Muhammad Farooq]

Living in 21st century it's hard pill to swallow.

[Ali · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Echoes of Bondage: Slavery and Islam Through the Eyes of an Ancient Soul"

I am the spirit of a forgotten slave, wandering through the annals of time, my voice a whisper carried by the winds of history. My body was once bound by chains, my soul tethered to the will of masters who saw me as little more than a tool. I was one of countless souls, my name erased by the passage of years, yet my essence remains—a testament to the unyielding human spirit.

In the beginning, my existence was shrouded in darkness. I was born into a world where the strong ruled over the weak, where the iron of my shackles defined the limits of my life. My days were filled with toil, my nights with the cold emptiness of despair. I was a mere shadow, moving through a world that saw me as nothing more than property, my humanity buried beneath the weight of my servitude.

But then, in the midst of this darkness, a new light began to shine. It was the light of a faith that spoke of mercy, justice, and the inherent dignity of every human being, even those like me who were bound by chains. This faith, which spread across the sands of ancient lands, brought with it a new kind of master—a master who, despite the power he held over me, was bound by a higher law.

Islam, the faith of my new masters, was like a beacon in the night, illuminating the path to a different kind of existence. It did not immediately break my chains, but it whispered of something more—a recognition of my soul, a promise that my suffering was not in vain. My master was no longer free to treat me as he wished; he was bound by a code that demanded he acknowledge my humanity. I was still a slave, but in the eyes of this new faith, I was also a soul—a soul deserving of dignity, of kindness, of justice.

In this faith, the seeds of something remarkable were sown—the seeds of my eventual liberation. Islam did not just see me as a slave; it saw me as a human being, worthy of compassion and mercy. And so, within the hearts of its followers, the idea took root that slavery was not an eternal condition, that there was a higher moral calling to which they must aspire.

Over the centuries, I watched as this seed grew, nurtured by the teachings of compassion and justice that flowed from the very heart of Islam. Slowly, the consciousness of the Muslim world began to shift. The chains that had once bound me and countless others began to loosen, as more and more masters chose to free their slaves in acts of piety, seeking the favor of the Divine. The very faith that had once permitted my bondage now became the force that questioned it, challenged it, and ultimately sought to end it.

My chains were heavy, but the hope that Islam brought was a light in my darkness. It promised that my condition was not eternal, that the spark of my humanity could not be extinguished by the bonds of slavery. And so, through the centuries, as the teachings of Islam spread and deepened, the practice of slavery began to fade, driven by the growing realization that every human soul deserved freedom.

I speak to you now, not just as a relic of history, but as a symbol of the enduring struggle for human dignity. My story is one of hope and transformation, a story that echoes through the ages, reminding us all that the path to justice and freedom is long, but it begins with the seeds of compassion and the courage to nurture them. I was once a slave, but through the teachings of Islam, I became a symbol of the human spirit's unbreakable desire for freedom. My story is a myth, a legend, a tale told through the ages, reminding us all that the fight for justice and dignity is never truly over.

[Khalillaher]

In the wake of carnage left by ISIS there were a number of questions being asked by Muslims as to where and how their (supposed) fellow believers in faith carried out some of the worst atrocities in the name of the same religion they called their own. One such example was the question of slavery, in particular of Yazidi women and children, which ISIS claimed was sanctioned by divine law. Muslims couldn't help but admit that Islam did not really condemn slavery and even the Prophet ﷺ kept slaves and concubines, so where did that leave them in terms of the moral outrage that we felt? If our religion, the basis of our morality and life structure condoned behaviour that we find abhorrent, where does that leave us?

Dr Brown discusses and analyses the Islamic position on slavery across different time periods and cultures, as well as make clear the orthodox positions and rulings on keeping slaves. But what he does best is ask epistemological questions on how do we define morality. Who defines it and how? Do morals and ethics change over time, is there such a thing as universal morality, and if so where does that leave historical figures who we look up to and yet engaged in activities we find universally immoral today? He also discusses at length the problems with grouping a wide selection of social structures collectively known as slavery under one word. Some of the things in this book will shock Muslims who have never looked into the subject matter. For some, this only confirms and reiterates things we already knew. But what I like about it is Doc Brown doesn't pull any punches, he tells it like it is and makes clear the positions held by Muslims in the past on things that make us feel uncomfortable today, but then also asks us to reflect on how did we come to our conclusions on what is good and right, and why do we feel disgust at things people in the past didn't bat an eyelid over?

A certain scholar on social media has taken to perpetuating our modern ideas of morals and secularised rationality onto Islamic history, theology and law, and has gathered a large online following of young people looking for answers on how to reconcile their modern sensibilities with their faith. I once made the mistake of getting involved in a discussion. Needless to say there are people who feel their sense of morality applies to Islam in all space and time. To answer people like that works like this are needed. Otherwise we will end up putting our heads in the sand of what our predecessors did in the past and people think they are left with no choice to either leave the faith or adapt a "progressive Muslim" position and eradicate divine law to suit their own whims and sensibilities.

[Zaifa Nafimee · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book discussed the history of the practice of slavery and what were the major religions’ position on slavery.

Make no mistakes… the history of all major religions including Judaism and Christianity DID involve a practice of slavery. Our prophets including Prophet Abraham, Prophet Moses, Prophet Jesus and Prophet Muhammad did own slaves and they did NOT explicitly prohibit the practice of slavery. But in Islam, manumission or the freeing of slaves was very much encouraged in the society but again, there was no explicit or absolute prohibition against slavery.

So this raised a lot of questions about the moral and theological problems of slavery… why didn’t our noble Prophets prohibit slavery at that time? Again, this is not only a moral and theological question in Islam but also in all the major religions of the world, be it Abrahamic religions or non-Abrahamic religions like Hindu and Buddhism. All religions had in one way or another condone the practice of slavery or at least, they did not explicitly prohibit slavery.

So, this book gives me a lot of information on the historical contexts and nuances about slavery that I never knew before. For example, the term ‘slave’ itself means differently in practice depending on where you look. The horror of the slavery system in the US plantations in the 1600s to 1800s was not practiced in many other places in the world. You could not find similar horrific treatment of slaves in other places. The treatment of slaves vary from affectionate and mild to severe.

The book explores the idea that slavery may NOT always be an INTRINSIC moral wrong ACROSS SPACE AND TIME. This book asks us, why did essentially EVERYONE in 500 CE think slavery is morally acceptable? This books explores the concept that maybe…just like any other practices – eg business practice, medical practice, legal practice – slavery could be right and wrong based on the way you treat your slaves.

In the ancient civilization, slavery was as much a part of life as poverty, disease and war. The existence of slavery was just a fact of life. And just like anything that is a fact of life, things are only right and wrong in the details of how it was practiced.

When you think about it, do we really know how slavery was practiced back then and why all major religions in the world never explicitly condemned the practice? I mean seriously… what exactly do we know about slavery back then? Are we really saying that intelligent, morally upright people back then like Aristotle, Socrates, all the Prophets of the Abrahamic religions, all the outstanding leaders in the past like Augustine, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington…are we saying they are all less morally developed than us?

We must be missing something here! Were slaves of the ancient past were as badly treated as the slaves in the US plantation? Because if that was the case, we could not compute how our noble Prophets did not say outright that slavery was wrong!

After reading this book, I understood now why slavery back then was not as problematic as the kind of slavery we understood in this modern age.

For example, I was quite surprised to find out that a slave could rise to the position of an army general and could command the actions of other people who were born free. In fact, some slaves were powerful and wealthy and they themselves had their own slaves. Imagine that! So slaves were not necessarily ostracized and segregated from the society. In fact, they were integrated well into the society and they mixed with other free people who may be poorer than them and less influential than them. Amazing, huh? I certainly did not know that before reading this book.

Some slaves were more beloved to the owner than his/her own family members. Just like how much we love our pets and think of our pets as part of the family and we shelter them and nourish them and find all their antics delightful… slaves were also cared for and pampered by their owners. As I mentioned before, some slaves had their own slaves!

Some slaves cried when they were manumitted (freed) because they would be deprived of the gentle love and care that they had enjoyed all these while when they were in the household of their owners. So, manumission is not necessarily the aim and the ultimate dream of all slaves back then. Imagine that! Before reading this book, I had thought that all slaves wanted to be free no matter how easy their lives might be under the household of their owners. So, I had thought wrong, guys!

Some slaves were entrusted to conduct business transaction on behalf of their owners at market places. These slaves would freely haggle, argue and bargain with other customers who were born free. A slave of a powerful person was more powerful than a free person who was poor. Just like children of powerful people possess all kinds of privileges and perks, slaves of powerful people also enjoyed all kinds of privileges and perks that far surpassed the privileges and perks of free people. Again… these are some of the nuances that I never really knew or thought of before.

And there were socioeconomic reasons behind the need for slavery back then. Back when there was no technology, no industrial revolution, and there was great socioeconomic RELIANCE on slave labour, NOBODY, no matter how ethically upstanding they were, had ever talked about abolishing slavery. The condition back then had made slavery too pervasive and too ingrained in the culture of the people WORLDWIDE to be easily abolished.

Again, slavery was just a fact of life like poverty and war and sickness. None of those things are ideal… but they happen to us, anyway! And just like in any undesirable things that happen in our life, religion guides us in how to manage the undesirable circumstance ethically. How to treat your slaves, how to care for their well-being, what are the laws governing the interaction that you have with slaves, what are the rewards you will gain when you free your slaves, what are the punishment you will get for mistreating your slaves etc etc. According to this book, in Islam, a slave could go to court and complained to the judge against his/her owner and the judge could sentence the owner to prison! Just like a child can complain that he/she is abused by her parents and the parents can be put in prison for abusing their child. This aspect of the law on the practice of slavery was not something we were taught of in our history lessons, was it? Because we were so convinced that all practice of slavery everywhere was the same as how slavery was practiced in the US plantations. So we thought of slavery as a black-or-white issues... not the grey issues that they were once upon a time.

This book is 430 pages thick altogether. But the actual content of the book is around 307 pages only. The rest of the 123 pages further are just bibliography and index, guys! It does reflect how extensive the research was in the writing of this book, doesn’t it?

I gave this book 1 star for content (facts are discussed thoroughly, counter-ideas and counter narratives are discussed in enough details, contents are quite scholarly), 1 star for clarity of thoughts (powerful and persuasive thought processes are evident) 1 star for language (I had learned a lot of scholarly and academic historical terms while reading this book), ¾ star for credibility of author (he is a top scholar with extensive working experience in the subject matter), ¾ star for subjective enjoyment (entertaining and engaging; deserve a place of honour on my bookshelf!) So altogether, this book has earned 4.5 solid stars! And because I enjoyed it so much, I round it up to 5 stars.

[Baher Soliman · Rating 4 out of 5]

يبدأ جوناثان براون كتابه «الإسلام والرق» من حيث لا يتوقع القارئ، ليس من النصوص الشرعية ولا من الوقائع التاريخية، بل من الكلمة نفسها: «الرق» أو العبودية كما في الأصل الإنجليزي. حيث يضعنا أمام مأزق المفهوم قبل مأزق الحكم. يستدعي مشاهد من السينما العالمية، من لورنس العرب إلى الماتريكس، ومن بن هور إلى فايت كلوب، ليبيّن لنا أن كلمة «العبودية» لم تكن يومًا مصطلحًا بريئًا، بل حمّالة معانٍ، يُستعمل أحيانًا للتنديد بالاستغلال وأحيانًا للولاء والطاعة. وفي كل مرة تحمل الكلمة قوةً تتجاوز الواقع لتصبح أداة إدانة أو وسام انتماء.

هنا يطرح براون فكرته المركزية: لا وجود لتعريف جامع للعبودية يعبر كل الأزمنة والمجتمعات. فما يعتبره الرومان عبودية قد لا يشبه ما مارسه العثمانيون، وما عاشه الأفارقة في مزارع الكاريبي ليس هو ما اختبره جندي مملوكي في القاهرة. إنّنا- كما يقول- نسقط تصنيفًا حديثًا تشكّل في خضم معركة إلغاء الرق في الغرب على تجارب شديدة التنوع. ومن ثم فإن إطلاق كلمة «عبودية» اليوم هو فعل سياسي وأخلاقي في آن، لأنه يحدد أي نوع من المعاناة يستحق وصمة "الشر المطلق"، وأيها يُترك بلا تسمية أو يُغلف بمصطلحات أخرى.

ينتقل براون ساحة النصوص والمعايير. يبدأ بالقرآن، الذي لم يقدّم مؤسسة الرق كتشريع مبتكر بل كواقع قائم، ثم نسج حوله شبكة من التوجيهات: الإقرار بحقوق المملوك، التحريض المتكرر على العتق، وفتح أبواب التحرير عبر الكفارات والصدقات. ثم يستحضر السنة النبوية التي حوّلت معاملة الرقيق إلى مقياس إيماني، حتى ورد أن من لطم عبده فعتقه كفارة لما بدر منه.

وفي لوحة بانورامية واسعة تمتد من صحارى المغرب إلى جزر إندونيسيا، ومن قصور بغداد إلى أسواق تمبكتو. هنا يغادر المؤلف النصوص إلى الواقع، ليتتبع كيف عاشت المؤسسة عبر قرون طويلة. نرى العبيد وقد صاروا جنداً مقاتلين، كجيوش المماليك والإنكشارية، أو قادة بارزين مثل مالك عمبر في الهند. ونراهم موظفين في دواوين الحكم، أو موسيقيين في الحواضر، أو خدماً في البيوت. في المقابل، نجد صور الاستغلال القاسي: أعمال المناجم الشاقة، والسخرة الزراعية في مزارع سلطنة صكتو بأفريقيا، وبعض أشكال الاستغلال الجنسي التي ظلّت بقعة مظلمة في تاريخ الرق.

لكن براون يحرص على إظهار التناقضات: ففي الوقت الذي اندمج فيه كثير من الرقيق في نسيج المجتمع حتى فضّل بعضهم البقاء في وضعهم لما وفره من أمان، حاول آخرون الفرار أو التمرد كما حدث في ثورات الزنج. واللافت أن الرق في العالم الإسلامي لم يعرف المزارع الصناعية الضخمة كتلك التي ازدهرت في أمريكا أو روما، وهو ما جعل صورة العبد في الإسلام أكثر تنوعًا وأقل تجانسًا، وأحيانًا أقل بؤسًا. الرق في العالم الإسلامي لم يكن وجهًا واحدًا من البؤس، ولا فردوساً مندمجًا، بل عالمًا متناقضًا تتجاور فيه فرص الاندماج مع احتمالات الاستغلال.

أحياناً يظهر براون وكأنه يسعى لتقديم الرق الإسلامي في صورة “أقل سوءًا” من غيره. صحيح أنه لا يبرر الرق، لكنه يقترب من نبرة (اعتذارية) حين يكثر من إبراز المنافذ نحو العتق والإمكانات الإيجابية. هذا قد يوحي في واقع الأمر بتخفيف حدّة المشكلة الأخلاقية. فجوهر القضية أن الرق- كحرمان إنسان من حريته- يبقى مشكلة أخلاقية كبرى مهما كانت أشكاله.

في الواقع يضع جوناثان براون السؤال الأكثر حساسية في العبودية موضع المناقشة: كيف يمكن للإنسان المسلم المعاصر أن يتعامل مع ماضٍ ديني وحضاري مليء بالرق، بينما بديهيتنا الأخلاقية الحديثة تعتبره شراً مطلقاً؟ يصوغ براون هذه المعضلة في صورة ثلاث بدهيات متناقضة، الأولى العبودية شرّ مطلق، الثانية العبودية هي العبودية (أي أنها حقيقة واحدة يمكن مقارنتها عبر التاريخ). الثالثة الماضي -نصوصه ورجاله وتجربته- له سلطة أخلاقية علينا اليوم. و النتيجة: لا يمكن الجمع بين هذه البدهيات دون تناقض. فمن يتمسك بها معًا سيصطدم بحائط صلد: إما أن يدين تراثه بأكمله، أو يخفف من إدانته للرق، أو يعيد صياغة معنى الرق.

والمعضلة ليست "مسألة تاريخية بعيدة"، بل قضية حاضرة في صلب السياسات والهويات الدينية. مثلًا الجدل الأميركي حول تماثيل قادة امتلكوا عبيدًا (مثل تماثيل الكونفدرالية)، حيث يتصارع المجتمع بين إدانة الماضي والحفاظ على رموزه. ومن ناحية صعود داعش وإحياؤها لممارسات الاسترقاق الجنسي، الأمر الذي أجبر المسلمين على مواجهة الأسئلة الأخلاقية من جديد.

لكن، وهذا هو السؤال المهم، إذا كانت العبودية دومًا "شرًا مطلقًا"، فكيف نفسر قبول أديان كبرى لها، ووجود شخصيات عظيمة في الإسلام والمسيحية واليهودية امتلكوا عبيدًا دون استنكار؟ يرى براون أن الحل يكمن في إعادة تعريف الرق، لا باعتباره حقيقة واحدة بل طيفًا من الممارسات. هذا يفتح الباب للتفريق بين صور أقل قسوة وأخرى بالغة الوحشية، وكذا تعدد دلالات الخطأ، قد يكون الفعل مقبولًا في سياقه التاريخي لكنه مدان اليوم، لأن الأخلاقيات ليست مطلقة بل نسبية زمنيًا. ومع ذلك يمكن توجيه سؤال لبراون أليس اعتبار الأخلاق نسبية زمنيًا قد يُستخدم كذريعة لتمرير أي ممارسة تاريخية! .

ينقلنا المؤلف إلى قلب الجدل الإسلامي الحديث حول العبودية، حيث يتشابك النص الديني مع الضغوط الأخلاقية والسياسية لعصر الاستعمار وما بعده. يبدأ براون بسرد أصوات مفكرين إسلاميين ثوريين مثل علي شريعتي وسيد قطب، اللذين قدّما الإسلام باعتباره رسالة تحريرية، جاءت لتكسر قيود الاستبداد الاجتماعي والاقتصادي، ولتحرر الإنسان من عبودية الإنسان إلى عبودية الله وحده .

ويبرز سؤال هل كان الضغط الغربي على المسلمين لإلغاء العبودية مشروعًا أخلاقيًا أم مجرد أداة للهيمنة؟ براون لا يكتفي بالتحليل الفقهي أو التاريخي، بل يسلط الضوء على المعضلة الأخلاقية الكبرى: كيف يمكن للمسلمين اليوم أن يواجهوا حقيقة أن القرآن والحديث تضمّنا تنظيما للرق في حين أنهم متيقنون في وجدانهم أن العبودية شر مطلق؟ هذا التوتر بين الماضي المقدس والحاضر الأخلاقي هو لبّ ما يسمّيه المؤلف معضلة الرق الإسلامي.

براون لا يقول إن الإسلام "أخطأ" في تنظيم الرق، ولا يقول إن المسلمين اليوم يمكنهم "إحياءه"، بل يذهب إلى أن الإسلام وضع بذور التحرر، وأن أفضل فهم للشريعة في الحاضر هو أن مقصدها الأعلى ينسجم مع الإلغاء الكامل للعبودية. ومن ثم حاول براون أن يقدّم إطارًا تفسيريًا يجعل وجود الرق في الإسلام مفهومًا ضمن سياقه التاريخي والفكري. لذلك، فالمقارنة لا ينبغي أن تكون بين الإسلام و"قيمنا الحديثة"، بل بين الإسلام وبقية النظم في عصره؛ وهنا يقدّم الإسلام نموذجًا أكثر إنسانية.

يمكن القول إن براون يقدّم "جسرًا" بين النصوص القديمة والضمير الحديث، لكنه جسرٌ قد يراه البعض هشًّا لأنه يقوم على إعادة تأويل لا على نصوص قطعية، مثلًا القول بأن الإسلام "كان يقود حتمًا إلى الإلغاء" فيه شيء من الإسقاط اللاحق؛ فالنصوص نفسها لا تعلن نهاية الرق صراحة، بل تنظمه وتحث على العتق.

وبالتالي إذا كان الاسلام لم يلغي الرق لأنه سياسة عالمية بل قام بتنظيمها وجعلها أقل قسوة، هذا يفتح الباب للسؤال، ولماذا لم يفعل ذلك الإسلام مع أشياء أخرى مثل " الخمر" وقد كان هو الآخر سياسة عالمية!

بتصوري هناك بُعد إيماني وغاية شرعية جعلها الإسلام في استرقاق غير المسلمين من المحاربين، وهذا البُعد الإيماني لا تلتفت له الكتابات الأكاديمية، وهو سماعهم لكلام الله ومخالطتهم للمسلمين، ومن ثم دخولهم في الإسلام كما في الحديث " عجب ربك لقوم يُقادون إلى الجنة في السلاسل"، وهذا لا يمنع أن الممارسات الواقعية قد بعدت عن المقصد الشرعي، ولا يمنع ذلك أنه أيضًا- أي الاسلام- فتح طرق متعددة لتحرير العبيد.

يرى براون أن داعش حالة شاذة، حيث حاولت عودة الرق مرة أخرى، فهي لا تعبر عن الإسلام أو تراثه الفقهي، يعتبر أن استدلال داعش بالنصوص لإحياء الرق انتقائي ومفصول عن الإجماع الإسلامي الحديث، الذي اتجه بصدق نحو رفض العبودية. فهي تُظهر خطورة استغلال النصوص خارج سياقها.

في نهاية الكتاب، براون يواجه أعمق وأثقل جوانب الرق في الإسلام: مسألة ملك اليمين والعلاقة الجنسية بين السيد والجارية. هذه النقطة هي الأكثر صدامًا مع الحسّ الأخلاقي الحديث، لأنها ترتبط مباشرة بمفهوم الرضا الجنسي الذي أصبح أساسًا للشرعية الأخلاقية في أي علاقة في عصرنا. النصوص الشرعية (القرآن والحديث) تقرّ حق السيد في معاشرة جاريته. لكن لم يُشترط الرضا بالمعنى الذي نفهمه اليوم.

إجابته على هذه الإشكالية كانت على ثلاثة مستويات، (تاريخيًا) هذا كان طبيعيًا في عالم لم يعرف مفهوم "الرضا" الجنسي كما نعرفه اليوم، (فقهيًا): قاعدة "لا ضرر ولا ضرار" تعني أن أي علاقة تُلحق ضررًا تُعتبر محرمة. وبما أن وعينا المعاصر يرى الجنس بلا رضا ضررًا بحد ذاته، فإن العلاقة مع الجارية بلا رضا تصبح ممنوعة شرعًا اليوم. (في الوقت الحاضر): بما أن مؤسسة الرق نفسها لم يعد لها وجود شرعي أو اجتماعي في الإسلام الحديث، فإن موضوع ملك اليمين وعلاقاته الجنسية انتهى عمليًا.

الكتاب من أقوى وأجرأ ما كُتب بالإنجليزية عن الرق في الإسلام، ينجح في بناء جسر بين الماضي والضمير الأخلاقي الحديث، لكن هذا الجسر مبني على تأويل معاصر قد لا يرضي التقليديين ولا النقاد الأشداء. وتبقى ترجمة عمرو بسيوني وجهده في الترجمة واضح كالشمس، مما يستحق الشكر والثناء .

[‪Akrum Homoud · Rating 5 out of 5]

العبودية والإسلام ... لجوناثان أ.ك براون
لِمَ لم يحرّم الإسلام العبودية بما أننا ننظر إليها الآن كواحدة من أسوأ الظواهر في تاريخ البشرية الكلي؟ كيف كانت نظرة التشريع الإسلامي والمجتمعات المسلمة لظاهرة العبودية منذ نشأة الإسلام؟ كيف يمكن لنا كمسلمين أن ننظر في القرن الحادي والعشرين للعبودية من منظور شرعي؟ لم انطلقت حركة إلغاء العبودية من الغرب المسيحي -متأخرا جدا أيضا- ولم تنطلق من العالم الإسلامي، خصوصا مع المحاججة المعاصرة أن تحرير العبيد كان مقاصد الشريعة؟ كيف لنا أن ننظر لامتلاك الأنبياء ومنهم نبي الإسلام والصحابة والتابعين للعبيد؟ كيف لنا أن ننظر بالذات لمسألة المعاشرة الجنسية لـ"ملك اليمين"؟
يسلط الكاتب الضوء على "معضلة العبودية" من منظور أمريكي وإسلامي، بالذات بعد كارثة إحياء داعش للعبودية في العراق وسوريا وسبيها للعديد من أطفال ونساء الأيزيديين خلال فترة حكمها، إضافة إلى فوز ترمب في 2016 وصعود أصوات اليمين المسيحي المتطرف.
هذا كتاب مهم ومهم جدا، بل على الأغلب سيكون مرجعا رئيسيا في قادم السنين، يسبر فيه الكاتب بكل صرامة ما سماه "معضلة العبودية" في تاريخ الإسلام بشكل خاص والأديان الإبراهيمية بشكل عام. يقدم فيه تأصيلا نادرا لكافة الآراء الشرعية المتعلقة بالعبيد وحالتهم القانونية وأحوالهم المعيشية وأوضاعهم الاجتماعية، ويقارن ذلك بأوضاع العبيد على أرض الواقع في العديد من بلاد الإسلام.
القراءة كانت ثقيلة على القلب في فصول كاملة من الكتاب. موضوع صعب ومغث للنفس إلا أن الكاتب الفذ تمكن من تقديم واحد من أنفس الكتب التي عالجت هذا الموضوع.
"ولقد كرمنا بني آدم"

[Fyzala · Rating 4 out of 5]

Appreciation and congratulations for writing an excellent book on slavery a very sensitive topic. It provides me with a lot of new information which I was unaware of before. This book provides how the notion of slavery differed across time and place. The conclusion you reached on abolishment and consent of concubines provided a realistic portrayal of history with its norms and customs. Nonetheless, in my view (though I am not a scholar) the early Muslims should have done more. I would like to put some of my thoughts as follows:



Even though Riqq has been conducted within the limits/boundaries and stipulations of sharia still there are negative consequences that would arise.


1) The child born out of a slave mother and slave father would be a slave (including Muslims). One could justify if the parents were prisoners of war, they deserved to be slaves, but a child born out of the marriage, just because he or she was born out of slavery he/she must live as a slave. Islam doesn’t support the notion of original sin but if the child born out of that situation would still be a slave. That’s harmful. One could argue that’s the need for the economy and customary norms, but I don’t know how much weight that argument could carry. A child will lose its freedom in his or her birth itself. Some Hanafi scholars considered slavery as equal to “legal death”, as the riqq practiced in Muslim lands was not benign. Therefore, manumission was considered as saving a life. And as the book clearly points out Islamic riqq truly consumed the masses. No issues with enslaving prisoners of the wars (armed people) as this was the norm. But children born out of the slave mother and father would naturally become slaves. That's something which would deprive the birth right of freedom to a newborn.




2) The routine way female slaves were purchased was as if in a narration about Ibn Umar (ra). This book has quoted other manuals which say that women from the household of the slaver should accompany him, but the former one was the routine way. Muslims give great priority to head scarf , modesty especially for women. The Quran emphasizes the importance of modesty. But in the slave market the exact opposite had happened. She might be a pow or she is a slave by birth. I don't think in this place Muslims emphasized the importance of modesty. The early Muslims preferred different dress codes for slave women and free women. For ex: Caliph Umar (ra) asked female slaves to uncover heads as this was the norm to differentiate free and slave, but the way the slave markets functioned was quite contrary to the model of modesty set by Islam. And the way the slave market functions I mean pressing the buttocks, belly, and breast before buying a slave that seems something extreme. Muslims label the modern-day bikini beauty shows as meat inspection in meat markets. If we are brutally honest to ourselves then we must admit that the same had happened in the slave markets.



3) And the early Muslims reversed the slave concubinage trend in the near middle east and took it to the maxims. This book has pointed out that the child born out of concubine had equal status (If this had been followed in US children of Sally Hemmings would have reached the top echelon of US ). Years ago, in one of the author's tweets the author said slave women also have sexual desires, so the master must satisfy that. That’s a logical argument . But even for the medieval Jews and Christians the sexual relationship Muslims had with concubines was something outrageous, even by the medieval standard even though slavery was not controversial for them. Ronald Segal talks about the 2:1 ratio of female slaves exported to Eastern Muslim lands. I think the book avoided quoting his book. He was an anti -apartheid activist from South Africa. He wrote a book called Islam’s black slaves. I don't think it is anything other than exploitation. And I don’t think the argument that elite slavery is good carries much weight though the book didn’t say this explicitly.



Another point is it is sure that the Muslims of the past wouldn’t have followed the proper stipulations of shariah all the time. Need not to explain the Arab chauvinism and racism. Wansharisi talks about castration of slaves by masters to keep the price of the slaves high. But I think the author didn’t mention this in this book. I am a believer, and the Quran emphasized the importance of manumission and nowhere it says go, raid and enslave others. However, we could criticize the early tradition and Muslims that they should have done more, and the tradition is not infallible. I believe traditional Islam is the orthodox Islam (progressive liberal Islam is a tradition without soul and spirit of Islam) but it is not infallible. I would say Muslims should have done more as human suffering is a big moral issue. As the author clearly says how the Quran was obsessed with freeing slaves in the early Meccan period - the verses which are preaching the highest standard of human ethics. The term “obsession” has been used by the author and mentioned about reviewing that spirit. The author preferred this argument above the other two reasons such as public welfare and norm. So, the author’s conclusion emphasized the importance of moral reading of the scripture. And the Prophet himself freed all his slaves before his death. I do think the very primary goal or the structure of the Islamic (Quranic) riqq is to deal with the pows and integrate them into Muslim society and free them.



The Quran says



“and what shall teach thee what is the steep; Freeing a neck”











As a believer I could say my scripture and sunnah never said go, raid, enslave, put them in the market and press their body parts. But I think we could criticize the Muslims that they should have done more, and the tradition is not infallible.



"What does a man gain from his wisdom if he pines not at others' pain as his own"?

- Thirukkural, an ancient humanistic literature, couplet number 315