Slavery in Islamic Law: Difference between revisions

'''Slave markets'''

In his book "Slavery & Islam", Jonathan Brown writes, "Despite the objection of some Muslim scholars like Shayrazi (d. 1193-4), it seems to have been routine in Islamic civilization for buyers at slave markets to press on the buttocks and breasts of potential ''jariyas'' [slave girls]. Sometimes buyers even examined the genitals of male or' female slaves, though papyri of sale contracts from the 800s to 900s frequently include boiler-plate language suggesting they were not. Ultimately, slave women were sexually vulnerable and at the mercy of their masters."<ref>Jonathan Brown, ''Slavery & Islam'', Oneworld publications, 2019, p. 132</ref>

In Islamic law, the 'awrah of a woman are the areas of her body which must be covered in the presence of non-mahrams (men other than close relatives). Jurists did not require slave-women to be covered like free Muslim women based on their interpretation of {{Quran|33|59}}, allowing a slave's hair, arms and part of her legs to be uncovered. Many even considered a slave woman's 'awrah to be only from her navel to her knees. Khaled Abou El Fadl covers the detailed opinions in his book, ''Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women''.<ref>Khaled Abou el Fadl, ''Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women'', 2001, pp. 525-526 and endnotes 123-129</ref> Oliver Leaman and Kecia Ali summarise the situation: "Khaled Abou El Fadl points out that jurists disagreed as to whether enslaved women's breasts constituted''' 'awrah''' and had to be covered in public."<ref>Oliver Leaman and Kecia Ali, ''Islam: The Key Concepts", 2010, London: Routledge, p. 14</ref>

'''Harems and eunuchs'''

Beginning with the Umayyads, muslim caliphs were often famed for the very large numbers of concubines at their disposal, which also required the use of eunuch slaves who could be trusted not to engage sexually with them. In his book ''Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines in Islamic History'', El-Azhari Taef El-Azhari notes that "Like his father [Caliph Abd al-Malik, d. 705 CE], Caliph al-Walid owned a large number of concubines". Furthermore he writes, "Other Umayyad governors followed the pattern of their caliphs in their use of eunuchs. Ibn Qutn, the governor of Andalusia in 733; he owned some 700 female slaves and a number of eunuchs. Clearly, the larger the harem became, the more eunuchs were employed for their service and protection." in the Abbasid era, Caliph al-Mutawakkil (d. 861) "owned 4,000 concubines" and Al-Muqtadir (d. 932) had in his court vast numbers of eunuchs, "as well as thousands of other ''jawari'' and concubines", the cost of which depleted the state treasury."<ref>El-Azhari Taef El-Azhari, ''Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines in Islamic History'', Edinburgh University Press, 2019, pp. 70-71, 158-9</ref>

El-Azhari Taef El-Azhari writes, "Eunuchs were used in the Umayyad dynasty from the first to the last caliph in different numbers and capacities. We know that the Prophet had one eunuch, although we do not know if he was a castrated eunuch or a ''majbub'' (the difference is significant as the first type is still capable of copulation, as will be analysed later." He goes on to explain the utility of eunuchs when there is a harem in servicing parts of the palaces where males were not allowed. This was common also in other civilizations including the Byzantines. He adds, "Although castration was forbidden in Islam, as the Prophet rejected the concept of resisting desire, as already mentioned, it was not prohibited to own one or more eunuchs. The act of castration was carried out mainly in early Islamic history in Spain and Byzantium from where white eunuchs were imported, and also Abyssinia and Taykur, Africa, from where black eunuchs were bought. This savage, inhumane practice was not condemned by Muslim laws at any age or time, which is surprising, given that it was an act of alteration to God's creation; the Quran had emphasised that the human being was created to best stature (mould) (Q. 95:4). The prophet's approval of female genital cutting, as mentioned earlier, may be compared here to approval to mutilate the human body permanently, resulting in dire psychophysical consequences."<ref>El-Azhari Taef El-Azhari, ''Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines in Islamic History'', pp. 68-69</ref>