While the gradual abolition thesis gained popularity, as demonstrated in the previous essay, it was by no means universally accepted. Scholars such as Ḥusayn al-Jisr (d. 1327/1909) and Yūsuf al-Nabahānī (d. 1932) argued that abolition was a modern innovation and a form of theological corruption.[1] In a bid to preserve classical rulings on slavery, they claimed that slavery was part of a divine order, hierarchy is a natural occurrence, and abolition could potentially harm the individuals it sought to liberate.[2] They did not deny emancipatory rulings in classical Islamic law; rather, they rejected the leap that emancipation naturally led to abolition. In doing so, there was an attempt to preserve continuity with legal rulings of the past and protect long standing structures from what was seen as ‘external’ reform.
In his treaty al-Risāla al-Ḥamdiyya, Jisr overtly challenges the claim that slavery is incompatible with Islam. He contends that, given the protections and rights afforded to slaves within Islam, the institution of slavery should not be regarded as inherently problematic.[3] In his view, slavery in the Muslim world completely differed from forms of slavery practiced in the West, in which slaves were treated poorly, were seldom freed, and were abused due to racism.[4] In contrast, within the Muslim world, there were no differences between people based on color, emancipation was consistently encouraged, and slaves were treated as part of the family.[5]
Jisr observes that slaves were legitimate inheritors of their master’s estate, and “many of them, due to this inheritance, became richer than the progeny of the master. Many slaves, once freed, would marry the daughters of their masters…In other cases, slaves went on to become rulers and leaders.”[6] He highlighted the case of the Mamlūks in Egypt and other instances in which slaves achieved lofty stations in the Muslim world.[7] He makes special reference to slaves who became judges, muftīs and important scholars such as the early jurist ‘Aṭā’ Ibn Abī Rabāḥ (d. 114/732) to demonstrate the upward mobility accessible to slaves in the Muslim world. Jisr argues
If they had not entered Islam through the medium of slavery, they would have remained in their uncivilized nations in their difficult conditions. After all of this, it is still said that Islamic Law does not consider slaves as human beings and does not attribute to them rights? May God protect us from such slander![8]
Jisr employs a unique form of argument in his defense of slavery. He does not deny that slaves are occasionally abused in the Muslim world; however, he argues that such abuse does not constitute sufficient proof to undermine slavery as an institution.[9] By way of analogy, he questions whether Muslims should also stop having children, as there are instances in which children are neglected and abused by parents. He writes,
It is said that we find some followers of Islam treating slaves in a cruel manner. Yes, occasionally imbeciles can be found who do not follow the rulings of the merciful sharī’a and also mistreat their children in a manner uncompliant with the law. These people are rare, but should it now be said that due to their cruelty that the majority of Muslims treat their children with such malevolence? And should the result of such be that that Muslims should stop having children?[10]
Therefore, he refutes any arguments that slavery within an Islamic framework is inhumane and cruel. He proceeds to establish the religious legitimacy of slavery as an institution within the Abrahamic traditions, claiming that Moses took slaves and the Torah attests to such.[11] Similarly, Christianity also legislated the continuation of slavery, as did Islam.[12] Thus, for Jisr, it is irrefutable that the institution of slavery is sanctified by scripture.[13]
As a final point, Jisr argues that the permissibility of slavery should not be seen as a position that is considered “the lesser of two evils” as it is sometimes argued. Rather, “it is a rational principle that lends consideration to aspects of compassion, mercy and humanity wherever it is possible…every writer and affirmer of revelation and the revealed law cannot present an objection [to slavery] following this clarification.”[14]
This sentiment was also echoed by the Shāfi’ī scholar al-Nabahānī. Nabahānī claims that slavery was part of a natural hierarchy that helped establish balance in the world. He states, “God has created people and given them stations, the rich and the poor, the strong and the weak…each of these groups enjoys blessings that the other does not.”[15] This also encompasses slaves and their masters, according to Nabahānī. He argues that an incapacitated rich man is unable to benefit from his wealth and must be assisted by an aide to help him with his affairs. As such, God has permitted him to buy a slave to assist him. In the same way the rich may need slaves, slaves also need guardians, and God has commanded masters to treat them kindly.[16]
Therefore, for Nabahānī, slavery includes an important paternal aspect, as God has forbidden mistreatment, and encouraged masters to view their slaves as they would their own children. As a result, “many of the slaves did not want to be separated from their masters, as a noble master is a blessing upon the slave, as the slave is a blessing upon the master. Each of them benefits from the other, and each enjoys rights upon the other.”[17] Indeed, Nabahānī argues that the balance of rights and responsibilities ultimately led to a mutually beneficial relationship between master and slave; those attempting to abolish slavery were only undermining this propitious relationship.[18] Additionally, however, abolitionists were also falling into the schemes of European colonialists, who were only promoting abolition “in order to make themselves more attractive to the disbelievers of the Sudan,” as this would “facilitate their capture of the country, despite knowing that these people need slavery and it is a blessing upon both the masters and the slaves.”[19]
Nabahānī argues that slavery can be hugely beneficial for slaves, and those supporting the eradication of slavery were overlooking the positives of bondage. He claims,
If you saw the slaves that have been left behind who disbelieve in God, and they are ignorant of the affairs of this world and the afterlife, they are distressed and fatigued, and the extreme hardship they face in life. Then, if you see them after their enslavement and their entry into Islam, and their comfortable lives with their masters, and their knowledge of the affairs of religion and the world which they could not have dreamt of, you would come to know that their happiness in this life and the afterlife has stemmed from their enslavement.[20]
As with Jisr, Nabahānī highlights that slaves in the Muslim world became rulers and kings. He compares their success to those freed through compulsion who have no masters to care for them will be required to live “a life not befitting even dogs.”[21] As well as the clear religious mandate for slavery established within the religious tradition of Islam, Nabahānī provoked those calling for abolition, arguing that if the overall concern of abolitionists was the wellbeing of slaves, abolition may in fact be undermining this objective and making the lives of slaves considerably worse.
Neither Nabahānī nor Jisr discuss that slaves may in fact support the abolition of slavery, nor do they reference any link between abolition and the emphasis on emancipation found within the Islamic tradition. For both, slavery was firmly established within the religious tradition and played an important function within the Muslim world. There was simply no need to re-assess and reform understandings of the institution.
Both Jisr and Nabahānī understood slavery as a protective institution, an avenue for social mobility, and a mechanism compatible with divine justice. For them, the leap from emancipation to abolition was not inevitable; rather, it was an innovative intervention with potentially destabilizing consequences. Their arguments illustrate that Islamic law contains multiple interpretive traditions moving in different directions, each capable of being deployed for a variety of moral, social, and legal ends.
Interestingly, claims similar to those advanced by Jisr and Nabahānī continue to surface in contemporary Islamic discourse. Some Muslim scholars maintain that slavery, when conducted in accordance with the dictates of Islamic law, is neither exploitative nor immoral.[22] To what extent such arguments have actively provided ideological justification for the continuation of slavery remains a provocative question, particularly in regions where the practice persists.
Notes:
[1] Bashir, Slavery, Abolition and Islam (Oxford University Press, 2025), 135.
[2] Bashir, Slavery, Abolition and Islam,135.
[3] Ḥusayn al-Jisr, al-Risālah al-Ḥamdiyya (Majlis Maʻārif Wilāyat Beirut, 1887), 414.
[4] al-Jisr, al-Risālah al-Ḥamdiyya, 414.
[5] Jisr, Risāla, 416–21.
[6] Jisr, Risāla, 416–21.
[7] Jisr, Risāla, 416–21.
[8] Jisr, Risāla, 422.
[9] Jisr, Risāla, 422.
[10] Jisr, Risāla, 422.
[11] Jisr, Risāla, 423.
[12] Jisr, Risāla, 426.
[13] Jisr, Risāla, 426.
[14] Jisr, Risāla, 426.
[15] Yūsuf b. Ismā’īl al-Nabahānī, Sa’ādat al-anām fī ittbāʿ dīn al-Islām, ed. Muḥammad Ramaḍān Yūsuf (al-Dār al-Shāmiyya, 2015), 58.
[16] Nabahānī, Sa’ādat, 59.
[17] Nabahānī, Sa’ādat, 59.
[18] Nabahānī, Sa’ādat, 60.
[19] Nabahānī, Sa’ādat, 60.
[20] Nabahānī, Sa’ādat, 60.
[21] Nabahānī, Sa’ādat, 60.
[22] Bashir, Slavery, Abolition and Islam, 147–57.
Suggested Bluebook citation: Haroon Bashir, Preserving the Past: Slavery, Tradition and Legal Authority, Islamic L. Blog (May 21, 2026), https://islamiclaw.blog/2026/05/21/preserving-the-past-slavery-tradition-and-legal-authority/.
Suggested Chicago citation: Haroon Bashir, “Preserving the Past: Slavery, Tradition and Legal Authority” Islamic Law Blog, May 21, 2026, https://islamiclaw.blog/2026/05/21/preserving-the-past-slavery-tradition-and-legal-authority/.