Slavery in Islam Explained By Dr. Jonathan Brown

In the past few weeks, I saw heated conversations on social media, especially on Twitter, regarding the issue of slavery in Islam. The essence is where Islam stands regarding the practice of slavery and whether Islam absolutely permits it, even though Islam places such great emphasis on universal equality. The two parties exchanging ideas each took an anachronistic point of view which did not fit the picture and context of that era. Therefore, I will try to discuss this matter as fairly as possible.

What I have written has probably been well-reviewed by Dr. Jonathan Brown in his book Slavery in Islam. If you want to learn more about this, please review it because I only provide a brief review.

Therefore, it is something that we must ask what is the meaning of slavery itself. Dr. Brown points out the difficulty of determining the meaning of complete servitude because the image of this practice varies in different cultures across religions. For example, the term serfdom can now be defined to refer to the practice of authorizing the buying and selling of individuals through one-way contracts. In other words, individuals who are made slaves cannot enjoy basic rights like other humans and their level is only commensurate with property.

On the surface, this term is enough to explain the essence of slavery very well. However, this term develops its meaning in different contexts, which clearly cannot describe cross-cultural differences. As a student in the field of world history and culture, understanding that practices on this earth are often different even though they still use the same terms is something that is very important.

The context in which our people currently understand the practice of slavery is the practice of slavery in the United States. In slavery to the tribes of the African continent, men and women were kidnapped from slave traders, torn from the comfort of their own homes, stuffed like oxen in the bellies of ships, then auctioned off and sold to landowners who every day did not hesitate to use whips to carve wounds on their bodies. If people ask, this is the picture that will come out if we ask what slavery is, then the puppet picture of Kunta Kinte will be displayed.

This picture emerges from the frequency with which this culture is exposed in everyday life in pop culture, as well as from how cruel the practices of white Americans are. However, as I have explained above, the practice of slavery is an image that is not the same in every group.

In fact, there are also practices that are closer to slavery but are not called slavery if we take the definition of "forced labor" in the meaning of serfdom. For example, the practice of serfdom during medieval Europe; they were free to buy and sell, eat, and so on, but their labor efforts were tied to the land provided by the Landlord. Everything is monitored by the Landlord in various ways. Apart from that, debt labor (this practice is also called serfdom in the Malay world: debt slave) means that if a person cannot pay a debt, then his soul will be tied to the debt giver. These practices are rarely discussed as slavery, but it still makes sense for us to call them slavery. We can look at the image of slavery itself.

So, what is different about the practice of slavery in Islam? What is recommended in Islam, the practice of slavery must also emphasize human rights. The owner of the servant must not arbitrarily serve the servant with violence and is still subject to Sharia if there is a complaint from the servant. The owner of the servant must also provide food and drink to his servant, apart from pocket money. In fact, freeing a servant is a very noble deed and the servant can buy it back

own freedom with the amount of pocket money collected. It should be remembered that this practice of slavery is not something new that came from Islam but is a remnant of the practice of the Arab Jahiliah era at that time. Islam changed it and even eased this practice, aiming to eliminate it little by little because of its still large contribution to the Muslim economy at that time. This is the ideal situation, what the Sharia wants to achieve regarding serfdom, or in short, it is justified but prevented.

This practice can be seen in the life of the Ottoman Prime Minister, Sokullu Mehmet Pasha. He was one of the great Prime Ministers of the Ottoman chronicles, serving under three Caliphs; Sulaiman Kanuni, Salim II, and Murad III. His projects were widespread in the Ottoman Empire, most of them specially designed by the great architect Mimar Sinan. In essence, he was just a servant of the Caliph who was worth 80 million gold ducats (or USD 12 billion). Taken from childhood through the Devshirme system, received a Janissary education, and was finally appointed as senior officer of the palace. His life is an example that a servant, according to Sharia, can still own property, receive rank, and marry as usual (he married the Caliph's daughter). Only his life needs to be in the solemnity of the Caliph. This is the image being discussed, that the practice of slavery is different in each culture.

But there was a time in Muslim history when the laws laid down by Sharia regarding serfdom were violated by the government. In around 800 AD, the Abbasid government ordered that the southern region of Iraq be cultivated to increase food output which could stimulate the economy of the Abbasid kingdom. Rich nobles began to send their servants to the area, working hard to clear the area for crops. However, they were not directly managed by the nobles but were appointed by mandur-mandur. This mandur abused these servants cruelly, they were not given food or drink, and they were not even given clothes. Their bed is more appropriately called a blind area than a cubicle. Obscenity and death began to increase among the servants. As Dr. said. Alexandre Popovic in his doctoral study, the condition of the servant servant is very strange in the history of Muslim service to servants. This situation increased the feelings of dissatisfaction among these servants, and finally, the Zanj Resistance occurred in 869 AD. Led by Ali ibn Muhammad, they organized their movements and succeeded in defeating the Abbasid army. This incident had a big impact on the Abbasid kingdom, reducing the state treasury. In fact, in the Islamic world, this practice of serfdom no longer continues and Sharia laws regarding serfdom are adhered to by most governments.

We see that an anachronistic point of view is not appropriate to use in explaining historical matters, especially regarding slavery. Now, we have more or less understood why the original article of the practice of slavery is justified in Islam (even though there are many laws that need to be obeyed). However, this is not to say that slavery is 'appropriate' to be carried out again, Islam has also outlined that this practice is justified but still discouraged.

Since when slavery is forbidden in Islam? In 1846, with the discussion of Ulama and Faqih, the Tunisian Ottoman government, Ahmad Bey, issued a decree (along with a decree) prohibiting slavery. In line with the beginning of the modern era in the early 19th century, this view was carried out on the basis that the need to have slaves was no longer something that was necessary and would even result in abuse. This word was the first word made in Islamic history and even succeeded in influencing the citizens of the United States through the news conveyed by the American ambassador in Tunis, Samuel Daniel Heap, to President James K. Polk.

As final words, slavery in Islam is not the same as Western slavery. However, the permissibility of slavery in Islam has the goal of ending it, and if this is not achieved, human rights still need to be protected. The conversation that moved me to write this also teaches us, namely that the science of history and civilization is complicated and needs to be considered from various points of view. Their reluctance to stop for a moment and see which part of knowledge is not enough only reveals their arrogance towards knowledge, but instead shows that they are talking not with the aim of reaching the truth but to satisfy each other's hearts.