What the Hadith Actually Say About Muhammad and Slavery
Full research done by Kareem, an Ex-Muslim
One of the most common defenses Muslims offer when the topic of slavery comes up is that Islam regulated the institution and set it on a trajectory toward abolition. What that argument rarely engages with is what Islam's own most authoritative sources actually record about Muhammad's personal conduct. The hadith collections graded sahih — authenticated — are the standard Muslims themselves appeal to when establishing the Prophet's example. Applying that same standard consistently produces results that the regulation argument cannot easily absorb.
The hadiths examined below are not disputed narrations from weak chains of transmission. They come from Sahih al-Bukhari and Sunan an-Nasa'i — collections at the top of Islamic hadith scholarship. If the hadith tradition is reliable, these records deserve honest engagement.
Muhammad Owned Black Slaves by Name
The hadith literature does not speak about slavery in the abstract. It records specific enslaved individuals in Muhammad's household, identified by name and by race.
Sahih al-Bukhari 7263 records the following: "I came and behold, Allah's Messenger was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Messenger was at the top of its stairs. I said to him, 'Tell the Prophet that here is Umar bin Al-Khattab asking for permission to enter.' Then he admitted me."
A Black slave is stationed at the entrance to the Prophet's quarters, identified explicitly as personal property. The narration records this without any moral commentary.
Sahih al-Bukhari 6161 records another: "Allah's Messenger was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels. Allah's Messenger said, 'Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly the camels with the glass vessels (women).'"
Anjasha is identified as Muhammad's slave, driving his camels on a journey. The hadith is typically cited for the phrase about women, but embedded in it without editorial comment is the fact that an enslaved Black man is traveling in the Prophet's personal service.
Sunan an-Nasa'i 3827 records a third: "A man from Banu Ad-Dubaib, who was called Rifa'ah bin Zaid, gave the Messenger of Allah a black slave who was called Mid'am. The Messenger of Allah set out for Wadi Al-Qura. When we were in Wadi Al-Qura, while Mid'am was unloading the luggage of the Messenger of Allah, an arrow came and killed him."
Mid'am is given to Muhammad as a gift and accepted. He is unloading the Prophet's luggage when he is killed. Three authenticated hadiths. Three Black slaves. All personally owned by Muhammad, recorded by name, without rebuke or reflection in the narration itself.
The Exchange Rate
The sharpest piece of evidence in this discussion is Sunan an-Nasa'i 4621: "A slave came and gave his pledge to the Messenger of Allah to emigrate, and the Prophet did not realize that he was a slave. Then his master came looking for him. The Prophet said: 'Sell him to me.' So he bought him for two black slaves, then he did not accept until he had asked: 'Is he a slave?'"
Muhammad purchases one slave by trading two Black slaves for him. The ratio is the point — one slave is valued at two Black slaves. Muhammad himself conducts this transaction. The hadith records no moral objection to the pricing and no rebuke. It is simply what happened, preserved in one of Islam's most authoritative collections.
This is not a theological argument about what Islam teaches in principle. It is a transaction, recorded as fact, in which the Prophet of Islam assigns a lower market value to Black enslaved people and trades on that basis.
Answering the Common Objections
"Islam regulated slavery and worked toward abolition." Regulating an institution is not the same as rejecting it. The hadiths above show Muhammad owning, receiving, and trading enslaved people with no indication that he viewed the institution as wrong in principle. A prophet who considered slavery fundamentally unjust would not accept an enslaved man as a gift and put him to work unloading luggage. The regulation argument also does not account for the exchange rate recorded in Nasa'i 4621, which reflects active participation in the slave market, not movement away from it.
"He freed slaves too." The historical record does include instances of Muhammad freeing enslaved people. But freeing some slaves while owning, receiving, and trading others is not an abolitionist position — it is participation in the institution with occasional manumission, which was standard practice among slaveholders throughout history, including those no serious historian would describe as opponents of slavery.
"The Bible has slavery too." That is a separate conversation worth having on its own terms. But it is not a defense of Muhammad. The question here is what Islam's own authenticated sources say about its founder's conduct. Pointing to another tradition's record does not change what the hadith record says.
Why This Matters
Islam holds Muhammad to be al-insan al-kamil — the perfect man, the final and complete example of human conduct. Muslims are instructed to emulate him in the details of daily life on precisely that basis. If that claim is true, then his conduct regarding slavery is not a historical footnote to be contextualized away. It is part of the moral template.
The hadiths are not ambiguous. They are authenticated by the standards Islamic scholarship itself has established. They record Muhammad owning Black slaves by name, accepting an enslaved man as a gift, and trading Black slaves at a ratio that assigned them a lower market value than other enslaved people. These facts do not come from hostile external sources. They come from the collections Muslims consider the most reliable records of the Prophet's life.
That is a standard worth applying consistently.
For more research and content from Apologetics Unchained, visit apologeticsunchained.com
Sources: Sahih al-Bukhari 7263, 6161; Sunan an-Nasa'i 3827, 4621. All hadith available at sunnah.com.