“Where there is a will, there is a way.” The Western world successfully abolished slavery despite fighting two World Wars. Yet Islam not only failed to abolish slavery — it actively stripped slaves of basic human rights that could have been granted with minimal effort.

Muslim apologists usually offer this defense:

“Look at what happened to the freed Black slaves in America after the 13th Amendment. Many suffered and some even died. Islam could not abolish slavery because the freed slaves would have faced the same fate. Moreover, every war brought new slaves, and Muslims could not abolish it unilaterally while non-Muslims continued to enslave Muslims. The entire economy was also dependent on slavery.”

Response to This Excuse

First, the comparison with African-American slaves is misleading. Slavery was abolished across Europe and in all British colonies worldwide without the widespread collapse or mass suffering that apologists claim. The real cause of post-emancipation hardship in America was racial prejudice by white supremacists — not the act of abolition itself. The question arises: Did the Sahaba (companions of Muhammad) harbor such extreme racial hatred toward slaves that Allah/Muhammad feared granting them freedom?

Second, and most importantly, even if complete abolition was difficult during wartime, Allah/Muhammad could have easily granted slaves basic human rights to reduce their suffering. They failed miserably in this regard.

Ashoka the Great of India, for example, could not completely eradicate slavery due to ongoing wars, yet he successfully banned the slave trade and slave markets within his empire.

Here is a list of basic human rights that Allah/Muhammad could have granted to slaves without causing rebellion among the companions or collapsing the economy of the Islamic state:

1. Captive women could have been given real choices: (a) freedom to return to their families (as they were innocent), (b) permission to marry any Muslim man with consent, or (c) at minimum, a rule that if a Muslim desired a captive woman, he must marry her instead of using her for temporary sexual relations and then selling her. The Bible required marriage before relations with captives and prohibited selling them afterward. Islam allowed repeated rape of captive women without consent and their resale to other men.
2. Rape of virgin and young girls on the first night could have been prohibited. Jews and Christians (Muhammad’s neighbors) followed the Biblical rule of giving captive women a full month to mourn before any relations. Why was this impossible for Allah/Muhammad?
3. Slave women could have been allowed to wear hijab and cover their breasts when not working. This has nothing to do with economics. Instead, Islam moved in the opposite direction — their breasts were kept exposed, and they were beaten if they tried to cover themselves.
4. Slaves could have been allowed to testify in court. This also has no economic impact. Yet Islam stripped slaves (and even non-Muslims) of the right to testify against free Muslims, making it nearly impossible for raped slave women to seek justice.
5. Elderly male prisoners could have been spared execution. Sparing old men would not have destroyed the Islamic economy.
6. The life of a slave could have been given equal value to that of a free person, with Qisas (retaliation) or physical punishment for owners who beat or killed their slaves.
7. Slaves could have been allowed to fall in love and marry partners of their choice.
8. Owners could have been prohibited from taking the wife of their male slave for their own lust.
9. Owners could have been forbidden from denying parentage of their own children born to slave women.
10. The cruel institution of “Slavery by Birth” (children of slaves automatically born as slaves) could have been ended.
11. Separating infants (after they grew two teeth at around 6 months) from their slave mothers and selling them in slave markets could have been banned.
12. Fleeing slaves could have been spared execution. Wanting freedom is not a crime deserving death.
13. Private ownership of slaves could have been replaced with state ownership (as some ancient laws attempted).
14. Slave markets, where half-naked slave women were paraded and buyers were allowed to touch their bodies, could have been shut down. Ashoka the Great ended slave trade 800 years before Islam.
15. The trade of slaves (including Muslim, Jewish, and Christian women) to polytheists could have been prohibited.
16. The entire institution of slave trading, which became a major source of income for the Muslim community, could have been phased out.
17. Slavery could have been replaced with serfdom, giving slaves basic rights (as some Buddhist governments did in the 13th century).

As the saying goes: “Where there is a will, there is a way.” Muhammad and later powerful Muslim rulers had both the authority and economic stability to abolish slavery or at least grant these basic rights. They simply lacked the will.

Even if complete abolition was difficult, basic protections could have been given. Instead, in many cases, Islam actively increased the suffering of slaves — such as allowing repeated rape in temporary sexual relationships and the resale of women to multiple masters.

While Muhammad’s Jewish and Christian neighbors followed Biblical rules that at least required marriage before relations and prohibited resale after sex, Islam permitted far worse practices.

Conclusion

The excuse that slavery could not be abolished due to wars is weak. Even without full abolition, basic human dignity and rights could have been granted. The failure to do so — and the active worsening of slaves’ conditions — reveals that the system was designed to protect the sexual and economic privileges of free Muslim men far more than the humanity of the enslaved.