human rights
Islam is often praised for its historic tolerance of religious difference and the rights it afforded to marginalized groups like enslaved people and orphans. But how true is this notion of a uniquely progressive and merciful religion?
Contrary to popular belief, Islam did not abolish slavery; instead, it formalized and regulated it. Captives from early Islamic conquests were often taken as enslaved peoples, and the Prophet Muhammad himself was a slaveholder. Three enslaved women—Maria al-Qibtiyya, Rayhana bint Zayd, and Safiyya bint Huyayy—eventually became the Prophet’s concubines.
The Qur’an sets out rules for how enslaved people should be treated, but never calls for an end to the practice. Many Muslim theologians argue that banning slavery outright would have been too controversial or economically disruptive in 7th-century Arabia, and that maintaining it was a practical decision to support the spread of Islam. But this raises an important question: if Allah is truly all-powerful and all-knowing, why would divine revelation be constrained by political or economic concerns of the time? The decision to preserve slavery looks far more like a human calculation than an act of divine justice.
Islamic doctrine makes it clear that enslave people are property in every sense of the word. Qur’an 4:3 explicitly permits believers to have sex with as many enslaved people as they possess. One of the few concessions to enslaved people’s rights appears in Qur’an 24:33, which advises slave owners not to force enslaved women into prostitution—if they do not desire it.
Qur’an 2:177 includes freeing enslaved individuals as one among several righteous acts, alongside prayer, charity, and fulfilling one’s obligations. However, explicit commands to free enslaved people occur only as penalties, such as for accidental murder (4:92), unjustly rebuking one’s wife (58:3), or breaking an oath (5:89). None of these actions reflect a genuine intent to abolish slavery; freeing enslaved people is presented more as a recommendation than a requirement.
Qur’an 2:256 famously states, “There is no compulsion in religion,” suggesting a tolerant view of individual belief. But this message is difficult to reconcile with other verses that threaten severe punishment for disbelief and apostasy. Qur’an 2:217 warns of eternal fire for those who leave Islam without repentance, while 16:106 promises “a great punishment” for those who deny the faith. Qur’an 9:5 goes even further, instructing that polytheists be killed if they refuse to submit. A striking example is Muhammad’s own uncle, Abu Lahab, who rejected Islam and is condemned to “flaming Fire” in Qur’an 111:1-5.
The Hadith literature reinforces this stance, reporting that the Prophet Muhammad ordered the execution of apostates. As a result, all four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence prescribe death for leaving Islam. This punishment is often justified by framing apostasy as an act of treason or as a threat to the integrity of the faith.
Furthermore, Islam relied on militaristic means for its early expansion, both during and after the Prophet’s life. Conquest supplied enslaved peoples, land, and material resources that facilitated the propagation of Muhammad’s teachings. After the death of the Prophet, the early caliphates accomplished the Islamicization of much of the Middle East and North Africa via military expansion, and the Islamic form of government financially and socially penalized nonbelievers. Rather than offering Islam to the people of these regions with “no compulsion,” the Prophet and the caliphs chose a more coercive course of action.
This raises a fundamental question: if Allah is truly all-powerful and promises judgment in the afterlife, why would He need human agents to carry out executions and conquests on His behalf? The reliance on earthly violence to enforce belief undercuts both the idea of divine mercy and the claim of religious freedom in Islam.
In many Muslim-majority countries, homosexual behavior is punished severely, with imprisonment, flogging, or even death. All four major schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence insist on punishing homosexuality, most often with execution.
A common religious justification for penalizing homosexuality is that same-sex relationships do not lead to procreation. However, Islamic doctrine explicitly permits non-procreative sex between a husband and wife, and even allows sexual relations with enslaved women, who are legally considered property and have no right to refuse. Clearly, the objection isn’t about reproduction alone. What emerges instead is a selective moral standard shaped more by control and gender norms than by consistent ethical logic.
The Qur’an presents Allah as “the Most Merciful,” yet it largely adopts—and then enshrines—the same corporal punishments already common in neighboring legal traditions. The Code of Hammurabi, certain Mosaic laws, and Sasanian statutes all punished theft with mutilation or amputation and adultery with lashes. As a result, Qur’an 5:38 and 24:2 simply codified the prevailing norm rather than offering a higher moral standard.
The Qur’an also vacillates between severity and mercy. Immediately after prescribing amputation for theft, Qur’an 5:39 says that a repentant thief can receive Allah’s forgiveness. Such contradictions empower rulers and clerics to cherry-pick whichever verse serves their purpose, which opens the door to selective enforcement and abuse of power.
Further, granting afterlives of pure torture to Islam’s enemies seems incompatible with the idea of mercy, but the Qur’an is vividly descriptive in its conception of Hell. Qur’an 22:19-22, for example, describes how disbelievers will be made to wear “garments of fire,” have their skin melted off, and be struck with maces of iron. Qur’an 4:56 says unbelievers will have their skin repeatedly burned off and numerous verses, like 18:29 and 14:16-17, describe the drink of Hell as a fetid, scalding-hot water.
Finally, Qur’an 111 singles out Muhammad’s uncle, Abu Lahab, who opposed Muhammad and clung to pre-Islamic polytheism: “He will be plunged in flaming Fire, and his wife, the wood-carrier, will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre.” This is a very personal vendetta for a holy book that purports to be timeless. Allah’s divine wrath appears less like objective justice and more like human retribution.