A Child As Barter For Female Slave Freedom
السلام علیکم I remember someone else asking the same thing here. Where did you get this information? First of all, I think we need to clarify how deep the social stigma against slaves was at the time. Maybe the example of Zaid bin Haritha and Zainab bint Jahsh will do. Despite the fact that Zaid had been freed by the Prophet and that the Prophet himself had adopted him, him being called Zaid bin Muhammad, despite having married at the request of the Prophet himself, Zainab could not let go of the fact that he was a freed slave! Zaid then divorced her because he could not bear the insult he felt when she talked to him. Someone as pious as Zainab bint Jahsh whom the Prophet then married. This was the depth of the social stigma associated with freed slaves, you cannot imagine the stigma associated with those who were still enslaved. So, matters weren’t as simple as people assume nowadays due to lack of context. Also, the title “slave” was removed. The Prophet had ordered that the tile of lad, lass, or boy be used instead of slave and the title of chief be used instead of lord or master. These are the very titles one would use for any “free” person (lad, lass and boy) and for anyone higher in authority (chief). So, no one was supposed to call them slaves anymore. I’m sorry I don’t know where you get the rest of your information from because I don’t remember anything like that in the Quran. Also, the Quranic way for a slave (male or female) to earn his or her freedom is believed to be مكاتبة, that is, that the enslaved (also, remember that these were not made slaves in the Islamic revival by the Prophet, but rather inherited by the Muslim community from their ancestors. No new slaves were supposed to be made!), the enslaved would earn an amount mutually decided upon by them and their “owners” and pay it and be free. The Muslims were supposed to help them in this and spend on them as a means of earning God’s favour. Also, they were supposed to free a slave when they had committed a grave sin. In your post, you make it seem like he was the one who was going to be giving his inheritance. I can’t see how a man who has passed away could himself give inheritance to her. Whatever happens after him is not in his control. But then again, scholars like Abdul Karim Athari say that the bondwoman will get inheritance as a wife of the man, so there’s that. Also, you write “if she dares ask for her… freedom…” Freedom to do what? Not even the title “slave” remained. She was almost “free” to do whatever she wants. You see the Prophet was present in those times. There are reports, I do not know whether they are sound or not, maybe the moderators can help us there, that the people were hesitant when dealing with women when the Prophet was in their midst because they thought that if they, the women, complained to the Prophet, God would immediately send down revelation for their support. There are reports, for example, that a slave-“owner” was beating up the lad and suddenly heard the Prophet say that God had more power over the man than the man had over the lad. Terrified, the man immediately set the lad free, upon which the Prophet told him that if he hadn’t set him free, he would have burnt in Hell! There are reports that any slave-girl in Medina could take the Prophet by his hand wherever she wished until the Prophet fulfilled her requests. In those circumstances, no one could dare wrong any slave, boy or girl. If they did, they would set them free as recompense for their iniquity. However, this barter stuff, can you please tell me where you heard or read this stuff?
“There are reports that any slave-girl in Medina could take the Prophet by his hand wherever she wished until the Prophet fulfilled her requests.” What kind of requests were these?