If Islam, through the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, aimed to elevate humanity and promote justice, a key question arises: Why did the Prophet not prohibit the slave trade with non-Muslim regions?

Islamic slave markets flourished for centuries, supplied by captives taken from distant lands including Africa, Europe, and Asia. Women and girls were paraded, inspected, and sold as property in these markets.

Boys and young men often suffered even more brutal fates. Many were castrated to serve as eunuchs, a mutilation performed to increase their market value. Historical sources do not record the Prophet forbidding this practice; the trade in castrated slaves continued under early Islamic rule.

One of the most troubling episodes involves the aftermath of the conflict with the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah. After the execution of the adult men, the women and children were taken as captives. Rather than freeing them or integrating them with compassion, historical accounts state that the Prophet sent a group of these women and children to the polytheist tribes in Najd in exchange for horses and weapons.

History of al-Tabari, Volume 8, p. 39 (on the Banu Qurayzah incident): “Then the Messenger of God sent Sa‘d b. Zayd al-Ansari… with some of the captives from Banu Qurayzah to Najd, and in exchange for them he purchased horses and arms.”

Horses and weapons became the price paid for these women and children. Their faith, their suffering, and their humanity appear to have held no weight in the transaction. This event set a precedent: captives from war could be traded as commodities, a practice that helped sustain the slave trade across much of Islamic history.

These historical reports raise difficult questions about the treatment of captives and the long persistence of slavery in Muslim societies. While some later scholars and rulers took steps to limit or discourage the trade, the early precedent—including the Prophet’s own reported actions—allowed it to continue for centuries.