How come is it that people claim Islam supports slavery?

[Sabour]

This looks like a heated debate on the forums recently, and not at all a new topic. But here I would like you for you to see how Islam dealt with it first before you would judge

Slavery In Islam

The first thing we must know that Islam didn’t create slavery. Slavery was already there. But why Islam didn’t stop slavery? Or did it?

Why slavery in such time? There are many reasons

This is how things were at old times

1-* Both*financial and*social security. * When their country or tribe lost the war, they also lost most or all of their money as war booty.* Being out of money and food, it becomes necessary for an individual to find the means for basic survival in life.* Living as a slave would provide this.

2-* Protection from hostile individuals. * Even under the Islamic rule, you can still find hostile individuals who violate the Law and take matters into their own hands.* An enemy family can be sometime in danger if they don't have a "protector".


3-* Widows, Orphans, and the extremely poor*of the*enemy side need the financial and social protection from a Master.* Back then, there were no governments with good social system that protects everyone.* Slavery back then was that social system in special cases.
There are probably more points I can add, but I think these are sufficient enough


First of all let us look at a scenario where stopping slavery was done. It was done by Abraham Linclon. But did that solve the problem? I don’t think because there was still hate between both sides. Linclon didn’t deal with the problem; he dealt with the result of the problem. But I am not discrediting what he did at all. Linclon should have dealt with the problem of racism, slavery is just a result.
What is he Islamic stand of racism?


First thing I want to say about the subject is that racism was the first sin committed when satan refused to bow to Adam ( or in front of him)when Allah ordered him to. It wasn’t the story of Eve telling Adam to eat from the tree.

Second, 49:13 O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.


Also The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), during his Last Sermon in Minâ, said: “O people! Your Lord is one Lord, and you all share the same father. There is no preference for Arabs over non-Arabs, nor for non-Arabs over Arabs. Neither is their preference forwhite people*over*black people, nor for black people over white people. Preference is only through righteousness.” Then he said: “Have I conveyed the message?” and the people declared that he had. [Musnad Ahmad*(22391)]

These hadith and verses are dealing with the problem, which is being racist.

Now let us look to how Islam dealt with slavery.

Remember Quraan was revealed like 1400 year ago, and imagine how things were to slaves at that time. Slaves were more like objects.

First, considering the treatment they were receiving, how did Islam approach this subject?


4:36 Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful.

76:5-9

5 Indeed, the righteous will drink from a cup [of wine] whose mixture is of Kafur, 6 A spring of which the [righteous] servants of Allah will drink; they will make it gush forth in force [and abundance].7 They [are those who] fulfill [their] vows and fear a Day whose evil will be widespread.8And they give food in spite of love for it to the needy, the orphan, and the captive,9[Saying], "We feed you only for the countenance of Allah . We wish not from you reward or gratitude.


Islam brought about a transformation in the situation. It taught that the slave was the brother of the master and that he had rights as well. The prophet commanded: “They are your brothers and relatives! Let each one provide for the brother under him with the food that he himself eats and with the clothes that he himself wears. Place not upon them any task that is overbearing for them. If you do assign them a difficult task, you must help them in its execution.” (Bukhari, Muslim)

Al-Bukhari reported that Abu Dharr and Bilal, the Abyssinian, both of whom were among the earliest Muslims, once quarreled and insulted each other. Carried away by his anger, Abu Dharr said to Bilal, "You son of a black woman!" Bilal complained about this to the Prophet (peace be on him), who turned to Abu Dharr, saying,*"Are you taunting him about his mother? There is still some influence of*jahiliyyah*in you!''*(Reported by al-Bukhari.)
(jahiliyyah means days of ignorance the arabs used to live)
Abu Dharr narrated that the Prophet (peace be on him) said to him,*"Look! You are no better than a white or black man unless you excel in the fear of Allah."


"Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:*He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or*slaps him, then expiation for it is that he should set him free.***(Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4079)"
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:*"When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke,he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share)*- (another narrator) Dawud said:" i. e. a morsel or two". 4097. **(Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)"

Second, Islam provided means for freeing slaves and encouraged it

9:60 Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler - an obligation [imposed] by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise.

There are numerous sayings of the prophet which encourage the freeing of slaves. “If anyone sets free a believing slave, each of his body parts will be set free from Hell so much so that it will be the hand for a hand, the leg for a right up to the sexual organ for the sexual organ.” (Bukhari, Muslim)

In addition, setting a captive free was something muslims must do in some cases

4:92And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake - then the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation payment presented to the deceased's family [is required] unless they give [up their right as] charity. But if the deceased was from a people at war with you and he was a believer - then [only] the freeing of a believing slave; and if he was from a people with whom you have a treaty - then a compensation payment presented to his family and the freeing of a believing slave. And whoever does not find [one or cannot afford to buy one] - then [instead], a fast for two months consecutively, [seeking] acceptance of repentance from Allah . And Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.


58:3 And those who pronounce thihar from their wives and then [wish to] go back on what they said - then [there must be] the freeing of a slave before they touch one another. That is what you are admonished thereby; and Allah is Acquainted with what you do.

5:89 Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people from the average of that which you feed your [own] families or clothing them or the freeing of a slave. But whoever cannot find [or afford it] - then a fast of three days [is required]. That is the expiation for oaths when you have sworn. But guard your oaths. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be grateful.


90: 10-13

10 And have shown him the two ways? 11 But he has not broken through the difficult pass.12 And what can make you know what is [breaking through] the difficult pass? 13 It is the freeing of a slave 14 Or feeding on a day of severe hunger 15An orphan of near relationship 16 Or a needy person in misery

So let us get the whole picture now.

Islam approach is first to direct people how they must treat their slaves. It is as if they were brothers. So there will be no harsh feeling towards each other. Second, Islam has made it clear that setting a slave free is among the good deeds and sometimes a must do. So muslims were basically going to slave markets and buying slaves so that they would set them free. Instant buying, and instant freeing. Fourth, Islam only took war captives when the enemy is taking war captives only.

So Islam dealt with the problem slowly and wisely. Besides, has Islam set the slaves free all at once it would have not been fair to some people. At that time, slaves were assets that anyone would invest in. It was normal. In addition, freeing them after such a horrible treatment was in place wouldn't be a good decision to take. Although slavery would have stopped, but there would also be tension and hate between the two sides given the treatment they were receiving prior to Islam.

So Islam didn't stand for slavery, it just dealt with the problem that was embedded deep in the society gradually, just like it dealt with other problems.

So my question is, how come that people still say Islam stood for slavery?

 

[Aquitaine]

Saving a spot for when I log back on later.

 

[Shad]

So my question is, how come that people still say Islam stood for slavery?

1. The excuse that time and place restricts such changes in society while Islam did effect other changes without issue.

2. The increase of slavery and active expansion of the African Trade routes by Muslims as their own power expanded contradicts the notion that slavery was to be reduced.

3. A general reading of actual history of slavery in the area.

4. Treating slaves well does not mean a reduction in slavery. Treating these slaves well makes sense since they had access not only to the master in question but were functionaries in daily life of the master, household and interaction with external sources. Many slaves functioned as body-servants. In upper nobility body-servants had extraordinary influence especially if functioning as head of a noble's household, apartments or living quarters, as many controlled direct access to a noble outside of public events and functions.

 

[Augustus]

So Islam didn't stand for slavery, it just dealt with the problem that was embedded deep in the society gradually, just like it dealt with other problems.

So my question is, how come that people still say Islam stood for slavery?

While it is true that the act of manumission was seen as a good thing, the Quran, hadith and sirah are not clear in their aim of gradually phasing out slavery.

History shows that the Arab conquests and subsequent prot-Islamic and Islamic regimes didn't seem to have much of a desire to gradually phase out slavery and classical jurisprudence maintained the right to retain slavery in society.

As you note, they were simply following the same morality that existed all over the world at this time, so this didn't make the Islamic Empire stand out as being 'worse' than any other society.

Religious traditions of all kinds are open to multiple interpretations. Islamic teachings can be interpreted in a way that allows slavery, but they can also be interpreted in a way that is against slavery. If freeing a slave is a moral act, then prohibiting slavery must also be a moral act.

Why people think that Islam must be pro-slavery is their idea that it is a reified set of commands that were fixed in the 7th C and must remain unchanged for evermore.

History shows this to be completely untrue, and Islam has been evolving and adapting to society since the beginning.

It is fair to acknowledge that classical Islamic jurisprudence accepted the role of slavery in society. But it is also fair to acknowledge that it is not 'unIslamic' to be against slavery, and that there is a case to be made that Islam can be interpreted to support the prohibition of slavery.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Religious traditions of all kinds are open to multiple interpretations. Islamic teachings can be interpreted in a way that allows slavery, but they can also be interpreted in a way that is against slavery. If freeing a slave is a moral act, then prohibiting slavery must also be a moral act.

Why people think that Islam must be pro-slavery is their idea that it is a reified set of commands that were fixed in the 7th C and must remain unchanged for evermore.

History shows this to be completely untrue, and Islam has been evolving and adapting to society since the beginning.

It is fair to acknowledge that classical Islamic jurisprudence accepted the role of slavery in society. But it is also fair to acknowledge that it is not 'unIslamic' to be against slavery, and that there is a case to be made that Islam can be interpreted to support the prohibition of slavery.

Good post.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

We've been here before

I still contend that Christianity and Islam have historically tended to slow down progress from barbarism to modernity. These religions tend not to lead the way, they tend to have to be dragged forward. I would agree that exceptions to this tendency exist.

 

[Augustus]

Hey Augustus,

We've been here before

I still contend that Christianity and Islam have historically tended to slow down progress from barbarism to modernity. These religions tend not to lead the way, they tend to have to be dragged forward. I would agree that exceptions to this tendency exist.

Not sure what this has to do with my post really, but you know I like this topic anyway.

You probably also know that I consider your teleological view of history to be a product of Christianity though (as is your Secular Humanism). Inevitable incremental melioristic progress is very much teleological, and pre-Christian beliefs tended to (correctly) view history as cyclical and capricious.

We probably wouldn't have your 'modernity' if it wasn't for Christianity, so I'm not sure how it slowed down progress.

I specifically highlight Christianity as this is the root of modern Western Humanism, although there are other influences. Jews like Spinoza were important, Greek philosophy - much of which we have to thank the 'translation movement' in the Islamic Caliphate for, Abbasid 'Golden Age' philosophy, etc. This is also not to say that a similar belief could not have emerged from other philosophies, but from the history we have, we know where it did come from. Assuming that something similar emerging was inevitable goes back to your (post-Christian) teleology.

To bring it back on topic, the Greeks and the Romans, who are the fathers of the 'Western Civilisation', saw slavery as part of existence. A world without slaves was practically incomprehensible.

Why then should it be assumed that the monotheisms delayed progress such as abolitionism?

 

[Sabour]

The excuse that time and place restricts such changes in society while Islam did effect other changes without issue.

Some issues are different from other issues. You are talking as if they were all the same.

Instead of talking generally, when Linclon tried to solve the slavery thing, did that end the problem between races? Isn't that supposed to be a lesson

The increase of slavery and active expansion of the African Trade routes by Muslims as their own power expanded contradicts the notion that slavery was to be reduced.

Let us not focus on history because that would be pointless and endless. I simply don't agree on that, and you will simply insist on that.

Treating slaves well does not mean a reduction in slavery. Treating these slaves well makes sense since they had access not only to the master in question but were functionaries in daily life of the master, household and interaction with external sources. Many slaves functioned as body-servants. In upper nobility body-servants had extraordinary influence especially if functioning as head of a noble's household, apartments or living quarters, as many controlled direct access to a noble outside of public events and functions.

Treating slaves well is the first step to do that given the terrible treatment they received which was not the case as you are trying to imply.

The second step would be giving rewards to people who free slaves.

Islam did both steps

 

[Sabour]

As you note, they were simply following the same morality that existed all over the world at this time, so this didn't make the Islamic Empire stand out as being 'worse' than any other society.

Actually not quite. Treatment to slaves back than was horrible and it was Islam which gave them rights and special treatment.

Religious traditions of all kinds are open to multiple interpretations. Islamic teachings can be interpreted in a way that allows slavery, but they can also be interpreted in a way that is against slavery. If freeing a slave is a moral act, then prohibiting slavery must also be a moral act.

There are some explicit statements that are clear in meaning and they cant be saying something else no matter what interpreters try to say.

Additionally, there are many sets of "rules" if I may say in Islam. Islam is considered a complete way of life, one thing cant be interpreted as to contradict some other rules in Islam.

Things in Islam are much clearer than one imagines. It is just that most of the time it is taken out of context. Besides bits and pieces are taken out of their own thinking that they are not related. This is where the confusion is created

 

[Shad]

Some issues are different from other issues. You are talking as if they were all the same.

So God could get people to give up pork, alcohol, change social contracts for inheritance, stop solitary, etc within the Muslim community but slavery was far to much for God to change. Your God is either weak or inept.

Instead of talking generally, when Linclon tried to solve the slavery thing, did that end the problem between races? Isn't that supposed to be a lesson

Slavery was being abolished in other places in the world by law before Lincoln was born. No one claimed ending slavery would end racism only to usurer in a age of equality the next day. Linclon was a man working within a human system; government. Allah is not a man, Allah is not limited by what limits man.

Let us not focus on history because that would be pointless and endless. I simply don't agree on that, and you will simply insist on that.

You want to ignore history as it is a direct contradiction to your claims. It also shows that Muslims in the past had a different view regarding if slavery was acceptable or not while also showing your view is a modern one only.

Treating slaves well is the first step to do that given the terrible treatment they received which was not the case as you are trying to imply.

Treating a slave well does not make them any less of a slave.

The second step would be giving rewards to people who free slaves.

The rewards only for the benefit of those people while not benefiting the slave themselves nor showing that slavery as a system is wrong. I guess Allah needs to bribe this followers to do the right thing. Amusing.

Islam did both steps

Yet advanced and continued the systems of slavery in areas Muslims came to dominate for centuries. I am impressed...

 

[Sabour]

So God could get people to give up pork, alcohol, change social contracts for inheritance, stop solitary, etc within the Muslim community but slavery was far to much for God to change. Your God is either weak or inept.

Alcohol was done into steps too because it was heavily stuck in society and people were heavy drinkers.

I repeat not all issues are the same.

Slavery was being abolished in other places in the world by law before Lincoln was born. No one claimed ending slavery would end racism only to usurer in a age of equality the next day. Linclon was a man working within a human system; government. Allah is not a man, Allah is not limited by what limits man.

Such things are done by men by the guidance of Allah. Things are not done magically for you to put forwards this argument. It's not like for instance the birth of Jesus peace be upon him when He says be, and it is.

This is a process that will be conducted at the hands of men.

You want to ignore history as it is a direct contradiction to your claims. It also shows that Muslims in the past had a different view regarding if slavery was acceptable or not while also showing your view is a modern one only.

These things that are thrown at Islam such as "slavery" and "terrorism" are new topics. No body asked these questions centuries back.

My view is not a modern one, unlike the "islam supporting slavery and terrorism"

Treating a slave well does not make them any less of a slave.

Are you suggesting we should treat them bad? I clearly said that this should be the first step

I guess Allah needs to bribe this followers to do the right thing. Amusing.

So, for your job, the boss is bribing you for conducting his work? or giving you a reward that you would deserve because of your hard work??

 

[Shad]

Alcohol was done into steps too because it was heavily stuck in society and people were heavy drinkers.

Show that there was social and legal acceptance that alcohol consumption on the religious and imperial levels.

I repeat not all issues are the same.

No but your god remains the same. Apparently God is limited by human systems and inept to make changes to these systems.

Such things are done by men by the guidance of Allah. Things are not done magically for you to put forwards this argument. It's not like for instance the birth of Jesus peace be upon him when He says be, and it is.

No they do it for their benefit for brownie points with Allah not because slavery is wrong, or for the benefit of the slave. Your reward is a bribe by any other name. Typical carrot on a stick argument

This is a process that will be conducted at the hands of men.

Hstory shows that this is not the case. It also shows your views are modern.

These things that are thrown at Islam such as "slavery" and "terrorism" are new topics. No body asked these questions centuries back.

These are only new topics as many people are clueless outside their rose-tinted view of their religion and it's history. Nobody had these questions centuries ago as they knew Muslims, just like other people, were involved in the slave trade and it's corresponding support systems.

My view is not a modern one, unlike the "islam supporting slavery and terrorism"

Yes it is as history contradicts your views.

Are you suggesting we should treat them bad? I clearly said that this should be the first step

A useless first step. A real first step is to stop the practice then hand the resulting issues after. Not tie-toe to the issus for 1400 years then later declared after the West crippled the slave trade that it was your plan all along.

So, for your job, the boss is bribing you for conducting his work? or giving you a reward that you would deserve because of your hard work??

A boss does not own me. I can quit without any repercussions dictated by a former boss unlike Allah. Work is also a contract in which payment is part of said contract while freeing a slave in Islam is optional.

 

[Sabour]

Show that there was social and legal acceptance that alcohol consumption on the religious and imperial levels.

There is no point of that as it is not related to the subject discussed. The important thing is that it was done in steps.

No but your god remains the same. Apparently God is limited by human systems and inept to make changes to these systems.

God is not limited by human systems. God gave us to freedom to choose and implement as long as it is withing our capability. God gives us commandments to follow and we have the freedom to choose if we want to follow or not and everyone is responsible for his actions

No they do it for their benefit for brownie points with Allah not because slavery is wrong, or for the benefit of the slave. Your reward is a bribe by any other name. Typical carrot on a stick argument

You don't reward someone on something he did if it was evil and wrong. That is well established. When we get a reward for doing something, the point behind that is clear.

Hstory shows that this is not the case. It also shows your views are modern.

Wrong assumption.

These are only new topics as many people are clueless outside their rose-tinted view of their religion and it's history. Nobody had these questions centuries ago as they knew Muslims, just like other people, were involved in the slave trade and it's corresponding support systems.

Huh? are you claiming it is only recent that people knew slavery is wrong? and thought all of a sudden that Islam supports slavery ?

A useless first step. A real first step is to stop the practice then hand the resulting issues after. Not tie-toe to the issus for 1400 years then later declared after the West crippled the slave trade that it was your plan all along.

Logically, the first step is not useless at all. Give your reasons why you think it is useless. Basically you are saying leave the relation bad between people and let the problem escalate later.

A boss does not own me. I can quit without any repercussions dictated by a former boss unlike Allah. Work is also a contract in which payment is part of said contract while freeing a slave in Islam is optional.

Not all the people have the means to free the slaves. Let us establish that muslims were freeing slaves from non islamic masters so they had to pay them the amount of money they would ask for.

You should also understand that having slaves was normal, so if you had 100 slaves as assets that you invested in, it wouldn't be fair for you for the slavery to stop suddenly.

Besides there are people who can't afford to live and chose to be slaves by their will. Lets keep that in mind

 

[Shad]

There is no point of that as it is not related to the subject discussed. The important thing is that it was done in steps.

It wasn't done it steps and you have yet to demonstrate it was. You are making empty statements nothing more.

God is not limited by human systems. God gave us to freedom to choose and implement as long as it is withing our capability. God gives us commandments to follow and we have the freedom to choose if we want to follow or not and everyone is responsible for his actions

Yet god couldn't get the first Muslims to abolish slavery due to human social conditions. Hence God is limited by a human social and economic system(s)

You don't reward someone on something he did if it was evil and wrong. That is well established. When we get a reward for doing something, the point behind that is clear.

Why do people require a reward for doing the right thing? This is not a job in which payment is part of the contract but commands from god.

Wrong assumption.

Except history does show an increase in slavery under Muslim Empires. So no the point was correct.

Huh? are you claiming it is only recent that people knew slavery is wrong? and thought all of a sudden that Islam supports slavery ?

I am claiming your view and interpretation is modern.

Logically, the first step is not useless at all. Give your reasons why you think it is useless. Basically you are saying leave the relation bad between people and let the problem escalate later.

It is a useless first step as other cultures took this step and resolved nothing. Just as history shows treatment of slaves did nothing to abolish slavery in Muslim nations for most of Islam existence

Not all the people have the means to free the slaves.

If a master has food for a slave then he has resource to either use as payment or trade for a resource to use as payment. If the master has a room for the slave then there is room for a free person

Let us establish that muslims were freeing slaves from non islamic masters so they had to pay them the amount of money they would ask for.

Empty statement backed by nothing.

You should also understand that having slaves was normal, so if you had 100 slaves as assets that you invested in, it wouldn't be fair for you for the slavery to stop suddenly.

You do realize that a supposed divine source following human constructs is evidence of human authorship.

Oh so I can argue to god about fairness now? I can barter with god over the profits from a system you claim is to be abolish and is immoral so I do not lose my investment? I am picturing Al Capone arguing with god over his crimes and rackets since these were common in his time...

Besides there are people who can't afford to live and chose to be slaves by their will. Lets keep that in mind

You mean after they were robbed by Muslim conquerors? Nice system you have there. Create a situation in which one is forced to be a slave then benefits from their enslavement after benefiting from looting them. Impressive.

 

[gnostic]

Islam don't prevent slavery.

It only stated that Muslim should not buy or sell Muslims as slaves, but it allow buying or selling non-Muslims.

Just because it only Islam prevent selling one group of people being sold to slavery (eg Muslims), but not others (non-Muslims), doesn't mean Islam is against slavery.

Even Muhammad took a slave after the battle of Badr; he only freed her so he could marry her.

The Qur'an even encouraged slavery for the following reasons:

1. To profit from it. (Muhammad gained money for men and weapons, so that he can fight larger battles. Beside the spoil of plunders, slavery is another mean of plunder.)
2. To encourage the number of conversions to Islam as the price for freedom (compulsion).

 

[Sabour]

The Qur'an even encouraged slavery for the following reasons:

so the OP was a waste of time ........

 

[gnostic]

Islam didn't abolish slavery.

Islam didn't invent manumission. Freeing slaves didn't stop the slave trades; if anything the slave trade were thriving after Muhammad's death and during successive caliphates.

Slave trades didn't officially stop in Saudi Arabia and other Arabic nations until the late 1970s, when the UN placed diplomatic pressures them, to have slavery made illegal.

Treating slaves better doesn't mean Islam forbid a person from acquiring more slaves.

What is meaningless, is you quoting the Qur'an. Through the caliphates, slave trades continued unabated. If Islam cannot stop slavery, then what's the bloody use of the Qur'an?

 

[Sabour]

The title of the thread is clear. I didn't claim that Islam abolished slavery. I am showing that Islam found a solution to slavery and muslims were freeing slaves all over the place.

Not Saudi Arabia nor any other country represents what Islam stands for. Only the Quraan and the life of the prophet does.

 

[YmirGF]

I think the main problem for Muslims in regards to the issue of slavery is that the propet of Islam, Muhammad, had slaves up to his dying breath. This was well after his place in history was secure and he could have freed whomever he wished.

 

[Sabour]

Prophet Muhammad had 4 women slaves, who were freed and married three of them (they became his wives) and the other he gave away. Here is a list:
Safiyyah bint Huyayy: Safiyya was captured during the seize of Bani Nadir Safiyya was a Jew who later converted to Islam [1] She had been previously divorced and widowed a the time of her conversion to Islam. The Prophet later set her free and married her as this hadith says:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba,' Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah's Apostle married her. Hais (i.e. an 'Arabian dish) was prepared on a small leather mat. Then the Prophet said to me, "I invite the people around you." So that was the marriage banquet of the Prophet and Safiya. Then we proceeded towards Medina, and I saw the Prophet, making for her a kind of cushion with his cloak behind him (on his camel). He then sat beside his camel and put his knee for Safiya to put her foot on, in order to ride (on the camel). (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 522)
Narrated Anas: The Prophet stayed for three rights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. .. (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 524)

Maria-al-Qibtiyya: Was a Coptic slave sent to Prophet Muhamamd by the patriarch of Alexandria. Prophet Muhammad freed and married her around 629-630 C.E. She later converted to Islam. [2]
Sirin: Was Maria's sister. Sirin was also sent by the Patriarch of Alexandria to the Prophet as a gift. Prophet Muhammad gave her to the poet Hassan Ibn Thabit , and she was later freed and married by Hassan. [3]
Rayhana: Was a captive from the Banu Qurayza. She was later freed and married by Prophet Muhammad. [4]
So Prophet Muhammad freed and married his women slaves, they immediately became his wives. Prophet Muhamamd died a poor man and died without any men or women slaves. This can be proven by the following hadith:
Narrated 'Amir bin Al-Harith: Allah's Apostle (Prophet Muhammad) did not leave a Dinar or a Dirham (Arab form of currency or money) or a male or a female slave. He left only his white mule on which he used to ride, and his weapons, and a piece of land which he gave in charity for the needy travelers. (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 738)