Is the awrah of slave-women not like that of free women? Were they not covered except what is between the navel and the knees? In other words, were they bare chested?[1]

This is a very important and thoughtful question, and one that many students of Islamic history, law, and ethics have struggled with. Before we discuss the topic, it is highly recommended to go through these links in extensive detail [1][2][3][4].

Scholarly opinions

• Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni (d. 478 AH/1085 CE), one of the great predecessors of Imam al-Ghazali and a major Shafi’i jurist, explicitly criticized the idea that a slave woman’s awrah excludes her chest. He said:

How can it be said that the awrah of a free woman is all of her body except the face and hands, and yet the awrah of a slave girl is from the navel to the knees, while modesty and chastity are required of all women?

He argued from rational and ethical grounds, saying this opinion makes no sense in terms of haya’ (modesty) and contradicts Islamic ethics. He emphasized that modesty must be rooted in universal principles, not status.

• Imam al-Qurtubi (d. 671 AH/1273 CE), in his tafsir of Q.24:31 and Q.33:59, recorded the majority view that slave women were not obliged to wear the same hijab, but he also noted dissent. He reports that some early jurists (e.g., Imam Malik) considered that if a slave woman is attractive or feared to be desired, then she should cover more, out of public safety and modesty. This opens the door for an ethical, not class-based, understanding of modesty.

Ibn Ashur (d. 1973), in his Tafsir al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir, says:

The Qur’an does not distinguish in its commands between free and enslaved women in matters of haya’ and avoiding harm. These class-based differentiations were inherited from the customs of the time and were not mandated by the Shari’ah itself.

He calls for a return to the spirit of the Qur’an, rather than being tied to tribal or cultural traditions.

Dr. Jonathan Brown, in his book Slavery & Islam, writes:

The legal rulings that allowed more exposure for enslaved women were based not on theology but on cultural norms and practical concerns. They were not expressions of Islamic morality, but of accommodating a broken reality. Today, when those conditions no longer exist, there is no reason to preserve those rulings.

He makes clear that those legal dispensations were not ethical ideals and should not be followed today.

The Qur’anic verses and hijab: who are they addressed to?

The primary verses on hijab are Surah an-Nur (Q.24:31): “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not to show their adornment except that which [ordinarily] appears thereof…” and Surah al-Ahzab (Q.33:59): “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (jilbab) over themselves…“

Both verses clearly address believing women, which includes all Muslim women, not just free women. However, classical jurists often interpreted these rulings through the lens of their own societal context, which included slavery as a normative institution. Thus, many scholars did not apply the same hijab rulings to female slaves, not necessarily because the Qur’an excluded them, but because of how society viewed class distinctions at the time.

Umar b. al-Khattab’s (رضي الله عنه) incident: historical and social context[2]

The incident being referenced, where Umar (رضي الله عنه) rebuked a slave woman for wearing the jilbab, is indeed found in some historical reports. In 7^th-century Arabia, clothing signaled social status. Slave women were often recognized in public by their lack of full coverings.

Umar (رضي الله عنه) may have believed that a slave wearing the attire of a free woman blurred social lines, which could cause social unrest or even complicate legal matters like ownership, manumission, or public order.

But this does not mean Islam condoned humiliation or indecency. Rather, it reveals how cultural norms at the time influenced rulings. Umar’s (رضي الله عنه) action should be seen as a policy decision, not a universal Islamic injunction.

Awrah of slave women: ethical concerns

How could Islam allow slave women to have an awrah (modesty region) that excluded the chest, when modesty and dignity are fundamental Islamic values? Indeed, some jurists defined the ‘awrah of a slave woman as between the navel and knees, particularly for purposes like prayer. But this was based on social customs where slave women often performed tasks publicly (e.g., drawing water, serving), making full covering less practical, and juridical rulings influenced by existing cultural hierarchies, not necessarily based on the ideal moral standard.

The Prophetic values constantly moved toward elevating the dignity of slaves, male and female: “They are your brothers whom Allah has placed under your authority. So feed them from what you eat, clothe them with what you wear…” – Sahih al-Bukhari.

This Hadith suggests the Prophetic ideal was to erase the humiliation of slavery, not to institutionalize it.

Q.33:59 and the being known interpretation

This verse is often interpreted as saying the hijab helps free women be recognized and not harassed, implying that slave women were more vulnerable. This raises troubling implications, but consider that the verse sought to protect women in a context where street harassment was common, the phrase that they may be known and not abused was addressing a practical concern in that society, not creating a hierarchy of worth. The harassment of anyone, slave or free, was still haram (forbidden/illegal), and the Prophet (ﷺ) repeatedly emphasized the protection and kind treatment of slaves.

This verse should not be read as legitimizing unequal protection, but rather as a concession to a grim reality of the time, a step toward reform, not a final endorsement.

Islamic values of equality and justice

Islam teaches that all human beings are equal before Allah (ﷻ), regardless of race, status, or gender. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous – (Q.49:13).

The goal of the Qur’an and the Sunnah was always to abolish oppression and restore dignity. While the early Islamic legal system did not outlaw slavery immediately, the Prophetic model pushed society toward emancipation and freeing slaves was one of the greatest acts of worship. The Prophet (ﷺ) married freed slaves, treated them as equals, and forbade humiliating treatment. The Qur’an placed gradual constraints that ultimately led Muslim societies to phase out slavery over time.[3]

Classical Position	Ethical Reassessment Today
Slave women had a different standard of hijab due to societal norms	This distinction was contextual, not eternal; Islam’s moral spirit is toward dignity for all
Umar’s action was based on preserving social order	It was not a religious mandate, and not binding in a society that no longer has slavery
Awrah distinctions were legal norms of the time	The core Islamic principle of haya’ (modesty) applies equally to all humans
The Qur’an spoke to a world with slavery	But it implanted the seeds for its abolition, and we are to live by that higher moral trajectory

Were the scholars mistaken when they said the awrah of a slave woman is between the navel and the knees?

In an absolute sense of Islamic values, they were limited by their context. Classical jurists (like the early fuqaha) often ruled based on the realities of their societies, where slavery was normalized, and public labor by slave women was common. They said the awrah (for prayer and public spaces) for slave women was only between navel and knees based on analogy with free men (who also have that awrah), and the practical visibility of working women (e.g., in markets, fields). However, this was a contextual ruling, not a moral ideal.

The Qur’an and Sunnah constantly call believers to haya (modesty), dignity, and honor for all people. A woman’s chest (and more) is clearly part of her awrah in the general principle of modesty, no matter her social status.

O children of Adam! I have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as adornment. But the clothing of righteousness – that is best (Q.7:26).

Thus, while some scholars issued a legal fatwa based on their time, the higher Islamic spirit calls for dignified covering for every Muslim woman, free or enslaved.

Was hijab functioning more as a social marker than a universal modesty symbol?

Yes, in practice during early Islam, hijab had a dual function:

• Modesty and taqwa: This is the main, Qur’anic purpose – to protect and honor women.
• Social distinction: Sadly, societal customs made hijab also a symbol of class (free vs. slave).

But this social class function was not the Islamic ideal; it was a historical reality Islam had to work within, slowly reforming hearts rather than instantly eradicating social structures. Islam’s overall project was to abolish slavery gradually, not to affirm distinctions forever.

The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) personally treated slave women with great honor and dignity, pushing society toward equality, even when laws lagged behind the full ideal.

The Hadith of Safiyyah (رضي الله عنها) and hijab

This is an important Hadith: If the Prophet screens her (i.e., orders her to observe hijab), then she is one of the Mothers of the Believers. If he does not, then she is a slave girl. This clearly shows that hijab in that society signaled social status; free noble wife vs. slave girl.

However, the Prophet (ﷺ) did have Safiyyah (رضي الله عنها) observe hijab; he elevated her status by marriage and full honor, rejecting the idea that she should remain merely a possession. Thus, the Prophetic Sunnah points to the direction of full dignity and full modesty, not class-based clothing.

Could a slave woman choose to cover more if she wanted?

From the Sunnah, absolutely yes!

The idea that a Muslim woman, even a slave, would be forbidden from covering properly would contradict the fundamental Islamic values of haya (modesty), dignity, and honoring all believers. No Hadith of the Prophet (ﷺ) forbids a slave woman from wearing a jilbab. The reports about Umar (رضي الله عنه) rebuking a slave woman are policy matters, not universal Shari‘ah laws. Preventing someone from practicing modesty would itself be incorrect today in our context, based on the overall Qur’anic guidance.

Thus, the belief that every Muslim woman, regardless of her status, should be allowed (and even encouraged) to cover her chest and body with dignity is much closer to the spirit of Islam.

Indeed, Allah (ﷻ) knows best.

---

References and footnotes:

[1] Nafe’e narrated that whenever Ibn Umar wanted to buy a slave-girl, he would inspect her by analyzing her legs and placing his hands between her breasts and on her buttocks” Sunan al-Kubra, volume 5, page 329.

‘Nafee reported that when ibn Umar wanted to buy a slave-girl he placed his hand on buttocks, between her thighs, and may uncover her legs’ Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 4, page 289, tradition 20241.

Mujahid said: ‘I was walking with ibn Umar in a slave market, then we saw some slave dealers gathered around one slave-girl and they were kissing her, when they saw ibn Umar, they stopped and said: ‘Ibn Umar has arrived’. Then ibn Umar came closer to the slave-girl, he touched some parts of her body and then said: ‘Who is the master of this slave-girl, she is just a commodity!’ Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 4, page 289, tradition 20240.

The questions asked are as follows:

Do slaves have awrah? If a slave-girl can be touched and inspected before buying her how does it make sense that others beside the master can’t after buying her? There are Hadiths which condemn adultery or fornication perpetrated by and towards slave-girls so that means there’s a restriction i.e. only the masters can have relations with them right? But if there was no restriction before how can there still be a restriction after that? For this to make sense there should’ve been a restriction in the first place. No one is allowed to touch a slave girl unless he owns her. It’s like in the case of marrying your daughter to someone. Of course, you can’t allow the man to touch her without him asking you for her hand first because there is awrah. After consummation no one else besides him is allowed to touch her.

I’ve read from somewhere that the above hadiths refer to a jariya which the author understood to mean that she was a child. He means to say that a child has no comprehension of awrah. The word ‘jariya’ can either refer to a mature or immature young girl but we’ll accept his explanation nonetheless. However, the word used for breasts is ثدييها which is only associated with a mature lady. How can we accept that he (r) did it when she was still immature?

Response: None of the reports quoted are authenticated by major Hadith scholars as sahih (authentic); many of them are mursal (missing link), muʿḍal (two missing links), and unsourced opinions or undocumented actions.

Did the early Muslims accept this practice as morally acceptable?

No. In fact, many scholars condemned touching or looking at slave women in a lustful or excessive way, even if they were for sale. For example, Imam Malik said: one may … not touch her intimately, and Imam Abu Hanifa said: the buyer cannot look between the navel and knees without purchase, let alone touch.

Even in a society that allowed slavery, most scholars placed limits, touching the breasts, buttocks, or between the thighs would have violated norms of haya’ even then.

About the term jariya, it can mean either a young girl (minor) or a young adult woman, depending on the context. The use of the word “ثدييها” (her breasts) indicates a mature, physically developed woman, not a child. However, the report itself is questionable. Touching a woman’s chest or buttocks, even a slave girl, is not morally acceptable without marriage or purchase having been completed. Even then, the Prophet (ﷺ) taught us to treat all people, even slaves, with modesty and gentleness, never as mere objects:

They are your brothers under your authority. So feed them from what you eat, clothe them as you clothe yourself… – Sahih al-Bukhari.

The questionable report of Ibn ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) referring to her as a commodity contradicts the very spirit of that Prophetic teaching. Could Ibn ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) have done this?

It is highly unlikely:

• Ibn ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) was known for extreme adherence to the Prophet’s (ﷺ) Sunnah and taqwa.
• He was among the most modest and spiritually careful of the Sahabah.
• There are no similar authentic actions like this from the Prophet (ﷺ) or other righteous companions.

Thus, it is more likely that the report is fabricated, weak, or distorted, or the chain is unreliable. The narrator may have misattributed the act to Ibn ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) or added commentary (e.g. she is just a commodity) that he never said.

Moral framework from the Prophet (ﷺ)

If something attributed to even a Companion conflicts with the clear message of the Prophet (ﷺ), it is set aside, not accepted blindly. Modesty (haya) is part of faith – Sahih Muslim, and whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him not harm his neighbor (or fellow human) – Sahih Bukhari.

This piece is a must read.

[2] The incident of Umar b. al-Khattab (رضي الله عنه) rebuking or striking a slave woman for wearing the jilbab is reported in some historical sources, but its authenticity is debated.

[3] Sudden elimination of slavery did not make sense, not just in 7^th-century Arabia, but in any society historically dependent on it, because such a system was deeply embedded in the economic, social, and military structures of the time. Abolishing slavery overnight, without building alternative frameworks for labor, income, and protection, would often harm the very individuals meant to be liberated, leaving them vulnerable to poverty, exploitation, or social collapse.

A powerful fictional illustration of this comes from Game of Thrones, where Daenerys Targaryen abolished slavery in one sweeping move across Meereen and neighboring cities. While well-intentioned, her immediate emancipation led to chaos, unemployment, and rebellion, and tragically, some of the newly freed slaves begged to return to slavery because they had no source of income, housing, or protection. They had been freed in name but not empowered in practice.

Islam took a gradual and ethically guided approach to abolishing slavery, one that emphasized justice, dignity, and long-term empowerment. The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) instructed that slaves be treated as equals in food, clothing, and dignity:

They are your brothers under your authority. So whoever has his brother under his authority should feed him what he eats and clothe him what he wears. Do not burden them with what they cannot bear… (Sahih Bukhari, 30:1).

He also promoted vocational training, as found in the Hadith:

Whoever has a slave girl and teaches her good manners and educates her, then sets her free and marries her, will have a double reward (Sahih al-Bukhari, 97:36; Sahih Muslim).

This shows that freedom without preparation is incomplete. Teaching a slave skills, manners, and education was part of the moral obligation, ensuring that when freed, they could stand on their own feet and live with dignity.

Moreover, the Qur’an institutionalized contractual freedom through mukataba:

And those who seek a contract [for eventual freedom] from among those whom your right hands possess, then make a contract with them if you know there is good in them. And give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you… (Q.24:33).

This verse gives the slave the right to initiate their own freedom once capable, not waiting for their master’s initiative, and commands the owner to assist financially in their transition to independence.

Islam did not abolish slavery suddenly because doing so would have disrupted society and harmed the slaves themselves. Instead, it strategically undermined slavery’s foundations, reformed its practice, and empowered slaves through education, rights, and contracts, leading to a sustainable path toward abolition, unlike abrupt attempts (even in fiction) that led to disorder and suffering.