Latest / Aurangzeb: The Emperor Who Expanded and Broke the Mughal Empire — Fexingo History / Aurangzeb's Fatwa on Slavery: Islamic Law and Mughal Captives
Transcript
- Lucas: You know, we've talked a lot about Aurangzeb's policies—jizya, temple destruction, music bans. But there's one area that really shows the contradictions of his rule: his fatwa on slavery. Luna: He issued an official ruling on slavery? Lucas: He did. It was part of his massive legal compilation, the fatawa e alamgiri. This was a multi-volume code of Islamic law, mostly Hanafi jurisprudence, that he commissioned. And within it, there's a detailed section on slavery—who can be enslaved, how captives are treated, and what happens if they convert. Lucas: Now, this wasn't just theory. Aurangzeb was trying to regulate a practice that was already widespread across the Mughal Empire. Slave markets thrived in cities like Surat, where traders brought captives from the Deccan wars, from Africa via the Janjira route, and from Central Asia. Luna: So he wanted to bring it under Islamic law? Lucas: Exactly. Under Hanafi law, only certain people could be lawfully enslaved. Primarily, captives taken in a legitimate jihad against non-Muslims—or kafir—who refused to convert or pay jizya. But Aurangzeb faced a problem: many of his enemies were Muslims, like the Shia rulers of Golconda and Bijapur, or even Sunni rebels. So the fatwa had to define who was a 'true' Muslim and who could be considered an apostate or rebel. Lucas: The fatwa stated that if a Muslim rebel was captured, they could be enslaved if they had fought against the legitimate ruler. But it also said that if they repented, they should be freed. That gave Aurangzeb a lot of leeway. Luna: What about the Marathas? They were Hindus, so they were fair game? Lucas: In theory, yes. But the fatwa distinguished between 'harbi'—those actively at war with the empire—and 'zimmi', protected non-Muslims who paid jizya. Marathas were considered harbi, so capture was legal. But the fatwa also forbade enslaving people who had been given a guarantee of safety—like peasants who paid taxes. Lucas: In practice, though, the lines blurred. Niccolao Manucci, the Venetian traveler in Mughal service, wrote about slave markets in Surat where Maratha and Rajput captives were sold openly. He described women and children being paraded, and prices varying by age and skill. Luna: That's horrific. Did the fatwa try to stop that? Lucas: It tried to regulate it. For instance, it said that if a captive converted to Islam, they could not be sold to a non-Muslim. And it banned the enslavement of free Muslims—even rebels—if they hadn't been captured in battle. But enforcement was weak. The fatwa also addressed the treatment of slaves: they had to be fed, clothed, and not overworked. If a master mistreated a slave, the qazi could force a sale. Lucas: But here's the irony: by codifying these rules, Aurangzeb actually legitimized and systematized slavery. Before, it was more ad hoc. After the fatawa e alamgiri, there was a clear legal framework that justified enslavement of war captives. Luna: So his piety made it worse? Lucas: In a way, yes. The fatwa also had a big impact on the Deccan campaigns. Aurangzeb's generals would send thousands of captives to the imperial camp after victories. The maasir i alamgiri records that after the fall of Bijapur in 1686, over 20,000 people were enslaved. Many were absorbed into the army as slave soldiers, or 'ghulams', who became loyal to the emperor. Lucas: And that created a new problem. These slave soldiers had no local loyalties—they depended entirely on Aurangzeb. But they also drained the treasury, because they had to be paid and maintained. And it alienated the local population, who saw their kin taken away. Luna: That sounds like it fueled the Maratha resistance. Lucas: Absolutely. The Marathas used stories of enslavement to rally support. Their guerrilla warfare made it hard to capture them, but when they did, Aurangzeb's forces often executed or enslaved them. The fatwa didn't stop the brutality; it just gave it a legal veneer. Lucas: There's also a curious detail: the fatwa allowed a female captive to be taken as a concubine if she was unmarried, but if she was married, her marriage was considered dissolved. That created a lot of social disruption. Luna: So families were torn apart. Lucas: Yes. And it wasn't just on the battlefield. Aurangzeb also enslaved rebels from within the empire. After the Rajput rebellion in 1679, many Jodhpur nobles were captured and sold. Manucci writes that some were sent to Central Asia. Lucas: The fatwa also had a provision that if a slave escaped and reached a Muslim territory, they could claim freedom if they converted. That led to a lot of runaways seeking refuge in the Deccan sultanates, which became a point of tension. Luna: Did any Muslim scholars criticize the fatwa? Lucas: Quietly, some did. But openly, few dared. The fatwa was seen as the emperor's will. However, later Islamic scholars, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, debated its legacy. Some argued that Aurangzeb's definition of 'harbi' was too broad and violated earlier precedents. Lucas: So in the end, the fatwa on slavery shows Aurangzeb trying to balance piety with pragmatism. He wanted to be seen as a just ruler following Sharia, but the realities of empire-building meant his laws often justified cruelty. The slave markets of Surat continued to thrive, and the Deccan war dragged on for decades. Luna: It's a stark reminder that even the most devout rulers can create systems of oppression. Lucas: Exactly. And it's one of those episodes that doesn't get as much attention as temple destruction or jizya, but it really gets at the heart of how empire and religion intertwined in Aurangzeb's reign.