Reform or Revisionism

How Modern Muslims Try to Erase Islam’s Legacy of Slavery

And Why Their Reinterpretations Collapse Under the Weight of History, Text, and Logic

“Islam abolished slavery!”
“Sex with captives was humane and consensual!”
“The Prophet’s concubines were actually wives!”

These are some of the go-to lines you’ll hear from modern Muslims — especially those engaging in interfaith dialogue, Western da’wah, or public relations damage control.

But is there any textual, historical, or logical basis for these claims?

Let’s unpack how reformers today are trying to clean up Islam’s deeply embedded slavery laws — and whether their justifications stand up to scrutiny.

---

🔧 Common Reformist Tactics (and Their Flaws)

---

🔹 1. “Islam came to abolish slavery gradually.”

The Claim:

Islam didn’t abolish slavery outright — it laid the groundwork for a slow, humane phase-out.

The Problem:

• No verse or hadith condemns slavery as immoral.

• The Qur’an permits, regulates, and sanctifies slavery repeatedly (e.g., 4:24, 33:50, 23:6).

• Muhammad owned slaves, had concubines, and never freed his captives en masse.

• All four Sunni madhhabs and the Ja'fari Shi’a school legalized concubinage and slave markets for 1,300 years.

If abolition was the goal, it was forgotten by every Islamic scholar for 13 centuries.

---

🔹 2. “Those verses only applied to 7th-century Arabia.”

The Claim:

Verses permitting slavery were time-bound, not meant for all ages.

The Problem:

• This directly contradicts Qur’an 33:21:

  “Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have a beautiful pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah…”

• If Muhammad’s practice isn’t universal, the Qur’an’s claim of timeless example collapses.

• Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) unanimously treated slavery as valid until the Day of Judgment.

• Reformers cannot pick and choose when eternality applies.

Either the Qur’an is timeless, or it’s historically bound — it cannot be both.

---

🔹 3. “Concubinage was with consent.”

The Claim:

Slave women had rights, and sex with them was consensual or even beneficial.

The Problem:

• By definition, a slave cannot consent. She is property.

• Classical scholars explicitly stated that consent was not required:

  • Hanafi and Maliki fiqh: “A man may have intercourse with his slave even against her will.”

• The Qur’an never mandates consent for sex with ma malakat aymanukum (those your right hands possess).

Recasting rape as consent doesn’t reform the text — it just whitewashes abuse.

---

🔹 4. “Concubines were elevated, not degraded.”

The Claim:

Concubines were treated well, often became wives, and had status.

The Problem:

• This is PR spin, not legal reality.

• Most concubines were war captives, acquired during invasion and slaughter (e.g., Safiyya, Rayhana).

• They could be:

  • Bought and sold,

  • Beaten,

  • Raped without consent,

  • Prevented from marrying others,

  • Inherited or gifted.

A woman can’t be “elevated” when she’s denied basic bodily autonomy.

---

🔹 5. “Muhammad’s concubines were actually wives.”

The Claim:

Safiyya, Maria, and others were married, not slaves.

The Problem:

• Sources are clear:

  • Maria al-Qibtiyya: No marriage contract; never freed; considered property.

    “He had intercourse with her by right of ownership.” — Al-Tabari

  • Rayhana: Refused marriage; kept as concubine.

  • Safiyya: First a slave, then married after initial intercourse (possibly same day as capture).

This is a post-hoc attempt to elevate their status, but early Islamic sources make no such distinction.

---

📚 Why Reformers Are Forced to Try This

1. Modern sensibilities reject slavery as inherently immoral.
   → Reformers feel pressure to align Islam with this view.

2. Muslim-majority countries today rely on international law, not Sharia, for abolition.
   → The claim of “Islamic abolition” is retroactively inserted.

3. Western education and secular human rights expose these contradictions.
   → Muslims attempting da’wah to non-Muslims must downplay what the sources say.

But...

This forces them into intellectual dishonesty:
They must redefine terms, distort sources, or cherry-pick minority opinions that contradict 1,300 years of consensus.

---

🧠 Logical Breakdown of Reformist Arguments

Claim	Fails Because…
“Islam abolished slavery gradually”	No Qur’anic condemnation of slavery or plan to end it
“Concubines gave consent”	A slave by definition cannot consent
“It was humane”	Rape + coercion is never humane
“It was cultural, not divine”	Qur’an frames it as divine permission (4:24, 33:50)
“Prophet didn’t enjoy it”	He kept multiple concubines and received divine sanction
“Those verses were context-bound”	Qur’an claims to be universal (16:89, 33:21)

---

🚨 Final Verdict: Reinterpretation Is Not Reform — It’s Denial

If you must reinterpret, redefine, or hide core verses to make your religion moral in the 21st century, your religion was never moral to begin with.

Slavery and concubinage are not marginal issues:

• They were part of Islamic empires for over 1,300 years.

• They were practiced by the Prophet himself.

• They are sanctioned in unabrogated Qur’anic verses.

Reform is impossible unless one is willing to discard revelation — which then collapses the doctrine of divine perfection.

---

📚 Source References:

• Qur’an: 4:24, 33:50, 23:6, 16:89, 33:21

• Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim

• Al-Tabari – Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk

• Ibn Sa’d – Tabaqat al-Kubra

• Kecia Ali – Sexual Ethics and Islam

• Jonathan A.C. Brown – Slavery and Islam

• W. Montgomery Watt – Muhammad at Medina