Slavery: Why does the Quran not issue a direct prohibition on slavery?

[ths]

Salaam all,

I believe that the Quran has a clear emancipatory message. Many verses talk about freeing slaves. I also don't think 'ma malakat aymanukum' refers to slaves or captives at all. However- there is no outright prohibition on slavery that I can see, and this bothers me.

In recent weeks I've listened to many mainstream Sunni sheikhs talk about this, to see if there's any dissent to the commonly held views. The standard apologist nonsense is that slavery was universal and it would've been 'too radical and disruptive' to just ban slavery outright, or that it would've upset the economy, or that it would've caused tens of thousands of freed slaves to starve because they suddenly had no one paying for their food. I find these arguments absurd. The Quran bans polytheism. That's not disruptive? It bans usury outright. It was completely disruptive and encourage disruption by giving us examples of several prophets going against their entire communities.

The only answer I can think of to this, is that the Quran's message seems to me to focus on personal responsibility. In the Quranic worldview, true believers are always the minority, forever. And the things that the Quran bans are all things that can be done by a believer who lives in any society. It's not a political or economic blueprint for society, nor a constitution. The entire message can be boiled down to: doing good deeds and believing in God and the Last Day. That's pretty much it, as far as I can see. In that sense, the constant reminders to free slaves are a message to the believers that it is not acceptable for believers to take slaves.

Would like to hear your opinions

[Emre_1974tr]

Quran abolished slavery

https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9611645.0

[ths]

Quran abolished slavery

https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9611645.0

Can you give a direct quote from the Quran where it clearly abolishes slavery?

[Emre_1974tr]

Can you give a direct quote from the Quran where it clearly abolishes slavery?

I did this, please read it.

[ths]

Salaam,

None of the verses in your article actually ban slavery. Most of the verses are calling on people not to worship any other deities besides God. The word used in these verses is 'Abd. This is not the same word used by the Quran (raqabah) when talking about freeing slaves.

The other verses you've quoted talk about the importance of freeing slaves. As I stated in my opening comment, the Quran has an emancipatory message. It instructs us to free slaves. But it never prohibits it. It never says that the taking of riqaab is unlawful. It never says it is prohibited or banned (حُرّم عليكم) as it does for many other things

Edit: I think 47:4 is the closest indication of a ban on slavery. It says to "strike at the necks (riqaab)" and then to either release them or ransom them for a reward. It doesn't give the option of taking them as slaves or turn them into mulk yameen. Nevertheless, this isn't a ban on slavery, it's an inference from the text.

[Emre_1974tr]

The Quran prohibits slavery very clearly.

The emancipation of slaves is a process that occurs especially when non-Muslims do not free their slaves. Otherwise, the Qur'an prohibits and forbids slavery from the very beginning, not in stages.

There are also verses that talk about the release of captured prisoners of war.

Slavery is forbidden.

[Anoushirvan]

Salaam,

None of the verses in your article actually ban slavery. Most of the verses are calling on people not to worship any other deities besides God. The word used in these verses is 'Abd. This is not the same word used by the Quran (raqabah) when talking about freeing slaves.

Salam,

I agree with you that Qur'an doesn't clearly ban slavery, and claims that it does, in my opinion, are inspired by a great heart, but are mere wishful thinking.

It looks like more the conditions on which people could be made into slavery that are criticized than the principle of slavery itself.

I see several reasons why Qur'an doesn't clearly ban slavery:
* At that time, 7th CE, especially in Arabia, slavery was not perceived as crime against humanity as it is today.

* Surah 2 testifies that the early muslim community was on the process to define legal rulings in the mosques, but this task might have been not achieved when Qur'an itself was frozen. By that time, it became a sacred book and could not be updated anymore.
Also they had to face troubles and war, which surely didn't help.
With more quiet conditions, it could have been possible to see clearer rulings about slavery into Qur'an.

* Also the Nessana papers discovered some years ago, and dated back from the end of the 7th CE show that in fact, when you had a work contract to work for someone, you had a status very close from slavery.
So people at that time didn't fully distinguish a work contract from slavery, let's say, because you were captured in war.
When you worked for someone, you were his / her slave.

[Wakas]

Re: 47:4

17)
fa darba al rriqabi hattaitha athkhantumoohum = so strike the necks until when you have overcome them
[47:4]

Some use "hit", "smite", "strike-off". Whilst this is the most common translation, it should be noted that it is taken by many as an idiom (e.g. Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Kathir), meaning slay or kill. This seems a plausible interpretation as in a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone. Similarly, "put forth" could also be used. Interestingly, Mustansir Mir's book mentions a similar expression "daraba raqabatahu" and renders it as "to cut off somebody's head / kill somebody".

However, upon closer examination, there is an alternative translation, which seems the most likely based on the evidence:

So, when you encounter those who have rejected/concealed, then put forth /bring about the captives (RiQaB); until when you have subdued/overcome them, then strengthen the bind. Then after either grace/favour or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That, and had God willed, surely He would have gained victory Himself from them, but He tests some of you with others. And those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

Notes for the above translation:
1) "darba" is a verbal noun, indicating the act of doing as well as the noun itself, e.g. then putting forth / bringing about the captives.
2) In a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone.
3) The root RQB and its derivatives are NEVER used to mean neck elsewhere in The Quran, as the word for neck is "unuq" (as used in 8:12 also with DRB). This specific word RiQaB is always used to mean slaves/captives.
4) If they were supposed to be beheaded, there would not be a need for an instruction regarding captives. Thus to overcome this apparent omission, many traditional commentators translate "fa shuddoo al wathaqa" as "then tie the bond" and say this refers to taking prisoners of war. However, the word "strengthen/tighten (Arabic: shuddoo)" implies a pre-existing thing to strengthen/tighten (see its usage in 38:20, 76:28, 28:35, 10:88, 20:31), but if this is true, where is it in context? It can only relate to "darba al rriqabi", and thus provides strong proof that this phrase is about bringing about captives from the enemy.
5) This translation makes sense because during open/active fighting, the captives may not be totally secure, and could only really be secured once the enemy has been subdued/overcome. Thus, this verse is implying aim to bring about captives, not necessarily kill them, which shows mercy and less aggression in such a situation, even if it means getting killed.
6) One meaning of DaRaBa found in Lane's Lexicon is "he made or caused to be or constituted" which is similar to the suggested meaning discussed above.
7) I am not aware of a Classical Arabic Dictionary which references verse 47:4 under the root entry of DRB or RQB.
47:4 refers to those mentioned in the previous verses, going by its use of connective particle "fa", then these people were not fighting or killing, thus killing them may violate the law of equivalence [2:190, 4:90, 5:8, 16:126, 42:39-43].
9) Interestingly, Traditional Tafsirs (altafsir.com) also mention this possibility along with the common understanding. Ibn 'Abbas: "...and taken them prisoners, (then making fast of bonds) keep the prisoners in captivity...". Tafsir al-Jalalayn: "...take them captive and bind firmly, the bonds (al-wathāq is what is used to bind [yūthaqu] a captive).".

As a side note, it is interesting to note the difference in phrasing of this verse compared to 8:12, giving further weight to each of them having different meanings as discussed.


From
http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html

[Bajram Hoxhaj]

fa darba al rriqabi hattaitha athkhantumoohum

47:4
 so when of (anytime in the future) meet you (pl.) the ones reject they of
 so shun the necks (war prisoners) until when of has thou defeated ye them

Lane's Lexicon, "he was turned away from, avoided, or shunned"

Salaam

[Wakas]

Peace BH,

But what do u mean by that and explain what follows.

Until then I do not understand what u mean thus cannot consider it credible

[ths]

Salaam Wakas

Re: 47:4, I believe the standard interpretation is that it is an idiom referring to war. It didn't even occur to me that some people may take this literally as an instruction to strike at the necks. If it was an instruction it would say:

فاضربوا رقابهم

But the verse switches tense. It literally says: "So when you meet those who have become kafirs, then smiting of the necks until you have subdued them..."

Personally I think it's clear from the Arabic that it's a metaphor for fighting and isn't about beheading.

Secondly, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by bringing forth the captives. The sequence doesn't make sense. When you meet the kafirs, bring forth the captives until you've subdued them? I think it's just saying to battle the kafirs and take captives and after you've won, either ransom them or set them free.

[jkhan]

I do appreciate Brother Waqas's explanation above and I almost agree and am mostly in line with it..
But I would like to present my comprehensive understanding of verse 47:4 ... Before that the word AlRiqab needs to be explained .. Captive and Slave are AlRiqab in Arabic in my understanding.. But as you are aware Captive and Slave are not totally identical with time.. Captives are meant and subjected to be freed in a short period of time but slaves may get rehabilitated by society and with legal instructions and with an agreement only could be emancipated.. I don't know how far you would agree with my stance.. anyway let me get back to the verse 47:4
It's not war but the aftermath of the war.. Yes after the war or after some time when the war is over and one side overcame...

47:4 So, when you encountered those who disbelieved, deliver/submit/offer (Dharaba) the captives eventually when you have conquered them. Then strengthen the agreement, so either a grace period afterward or a ransom until restores/reestablishes the consequences of the war......."

The rest of the verse is identical to what Brother Waqas presented..

So, the total scenario here is what to do with the captives.. War has come to an end and it seems those who have captives overcome and now intentionally encountered the losers i.e those disbelievers and come to an agreement to deliver the captives since they are not allowed to keep war captives especially the Prophet.

This is a manifest instruction by Allah after the war with captives... and also after war normalcy should be brought in and the consequences of war should not continue from bad to worse but it should be restored and normal people should be able to live with peace ...

[Bajram Hoxhaj]

Peace BH,

But what do u mean by that and explain what follows.

Until then I do not understand what u mean thus cannot consider it credible

Salaam,

It's similar to the phrase 'take no prisoners,' meaning to act ruthlessly, as in a military context where soldiers kill rather than capture enemies.

Actually, 'put forth' above is nonsensical and not credible, and likewise, 'and cites ye them' in 4:34 is also nonsensical, whereas 'and shuns (with alif, i.e., repetitively) ye them (f)' makes perfect sense.

[Fusion]

Peace every one,
The discussion appears to be shifting towards an understanding of verse 47:4.
I wanted to share my thoughts on Chapter Muhammad (47:4), which pretty much line up with what GA Pervez translated. I think this verse gives clear guidance on how to handle conflict and what to do after the battle is over, with the main aim being to bring about peace.

Before the Battle
First off, the verse seems to come from a situation where conflict is unavoidable. It is not about starting fights, but about what to do when you are already forced into one.

During the Battle
When the verse says "strike their necks," I believe it means to engage strongly and effectively in battle. It is similar to saying "take no prisoners," which means to fight decisively. The goal is to break the enemy's strength in the heat of battle, not necessarily to behead them literally [THS emphasizes that the phrase is metaphorical rather than literal].

After the Battle
Once the enemy is subdued, the verse tells us to take prisoners. This means handling the situation humanely after the fight. The captives can either be released as an act of kindness or exchanged for ransom, depending on what makes sense at the time. This shows mercy and fairness, even towards those who were just your enemies.

The Big Picture: Restoring Peace
The main objective here is to stop further conflict and bring back peace and order. The idea is to stabilize things after the fight so that society can return to normal and peaceful living. This aligns with the broader Islamic principles of justice and mercy.

In short, my understanding of this verse is that it guides us to act decisively during unavoidable conflict, treat captives humanely afterward, and work towards peace.

Updated:
We are all discussing the Quran and the rules of warfare, but honestly, lets take a look around us today. The nature of warfare has changed drastically. Advanced nations now use weapons that leave hardly any prisoners, essentially wiping out entire areas, and face-to-face combat is almost obsolete with the use of drones. So, when we view this Quranic verse, it should be seen as a metaphor. Whatever the current rules of warfare are, one must always be mindful of the intent behind 47:4, which is to ensure justice, mercy, and ultimately, the restoration of peace.

Also, in todays time, I dont see a clear party that God is addressing in 47:4. There isnt a "party of God" fighting for divine purposes; instead, most conflicts are driven by other motives.


Question:
How do you take the understanding of the following verses [though again I could not find any one fitting as addresse of this verse in today's time]
Verse 8:60
وَأَعِدُّواْ لَهُم مَّا ٱسۡتَطَعۡتُم مِّن قُوَّةٖ وَمِن رِّبَاطِ ٱلۡخَيۡلِ تُرۡهِبُونَ بِهِۦ عَدُوَّ ٱللَّهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمۡ وَءَاخَرِينَ مِن دُونِهِمۡ لَا تَعۡلَمُونَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ يَعۡلَمُهُمۡۚ وَمَا تُنفِقُواْ مِن شَيۡءٖ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ يُوَفَّ إِلَيۡكُمۡ وَأَنتُمۡ لَا تُظۡلَمُونَ

In this verse the word l-khayli translates to horses. So how can this be applied in todays time? So Personally I think verse 47:4, it is a metaphor for fighting and isn't about beheading.

[jkhan]

Question:
How do you take the understanding of the following verses [though again I could not find any one fitting as addresse of this verse in today's time]
Verse 8:60
وَأَعِدُّواْ لَهُم مَّا ٱسۡتَطَعۡتُم مِّن قُوَّةٖ وَمِن رِّبَاطِ ٱلۡخَيۡلِ تُرۡهِبُونَ بِهِۦ عَدُوَّ ٱللَّهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمۡ وَءَاخَرِينَ مِن دُونِهِمۡ لَا تَعۡلَمُونَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ يَعۡلَمُهُمۡۚ وَمَا تُنفِقُواْ مِن شَيۡءٖ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ يُوَفَّ إِلَيۡكُمۡ وَأَنتُمۡ لَا تُظۡلَمُونَ

In this verse the word l-khayli translates to horses. So how can this be applied in todays time? So Personally I think verse 47:4, it is a metaphor for fighting and isn't about beheading.

First of all brother Fusion this Quran was revealed to a community and found solutions to their heated issues and at the same time this Quran is guidance whoever seeks.. Keep that in mind and let's proceed..
All wars as a leader of the community, the Prophet led were triggered by disbelievers since they didn't like the revelation of the Quran.. That's my understanding.. Their main issue was the Quran.. But Allah has to deliver the Quran and their attack against it cannot be a reason to leave the Quran undelivered. Even if they suffocated believers, the main reason is they said "Our Lord is Allah".. All these are based on Quran.. So enemies' hatred is against the 'SYSTEM/ISLAM' being established over their Deen..
we can't compare any of these instructions with today's wars and they are not at all connected with the core reason of delivering and establishing Allah's law in that community as mercy.. That's Allah's will.. Allah established successful community with his laws being implemented like he did in the past... Now there is no nation that practices Allah's law and there is no such leaders who follow Allah's law ... But the Quran is a guide individually... Collective community life is far from possible since there is no authority who surrenders to Allah's law genuinely.. hope you got me..

Regarding horses in verse.. lol.. it is not horses..

'Ribath Al Khail' means 'Steadfast exaggeration' in simple language visible war trajectories or war tactics and not concealed to terrify the opposition in confusion thus they are petrified even before war begins.. It's a ploy against the enemy.. it is like showing off their strengths and letting the enemies know to be ready to face.. it gives a moral victory leaving the enemy to think the opposition is mightier than them..

Thank you..

[Wakas]

peace all,

Strange responses you all have. I recommend re-reading what I wrote.


THS

It is your sequence that seems off. You said "I think it's just saying to battle the kafirs and take captives and after you've won, either ransom them or set them free." but Quran's sequence is:

1) drb al riqab
2) until when you have subdued them (i.e. keep doing (1) until this happens)
3) THEN strengthen the bind
4) THEN either favour or ransom
5) until war lays down its burdens (i.e. keep doing (4) until this happens)

For "take captives" you seem to be relying on the phrase "shuddu al wathaqa" but I dont see how that translation works.

Also you, like others, seemed to have skipped the important finding on "shuddu" which means "strengthen" and obviously must refer to a pre-existing thing to strengthen, but according to your translation, and others, it is non-existent in the context.

By "bring forth the captives" I take "bring forth" to mean the same I do for mathal/example. When an example is put forth, or shown forth, or propounded, or cited, or brought about, it is brought from non-existence to existence or from non-attention to attention.
In other words captives are brought about, or more simply, as you put it "take captives".
Hence why I said, quote: "One meaning of DaRaBa found in Lane's Lexicon is "he made or caused to be or constituted" which is similar to the suggested meaning discussed above."

#####

BH

Your translation results in a contradiction. If it means "take no prisoners" then it contradicts next part where it talks about prisoners!

Rather than claiming things are nonsensical in your opinion please provide actual evidence.

#####

Fusion

Same problem as above. And also you will end up with a strange translation of "shuddu al wathaqa" to mean "take prisoners". Something so important and Quran talks about it in a roundabout way?


#####

The verse is self-explanatory based on my understanding. The verse talks about freeing/ransoming certain people, and it just so happens to use "riqab" - which means captives/slaves - so I guess you all think that's just a big coincidence?!

As I said I recommend re-reading what I wrote, as it provides multiple evidences.

[good logic]

Peace All.

I have issues with defining slavery. I do not find it straight forward , nor do  I take it as just "having a slave-owned human - doing our dirty chores/..."

So what can I expect Qoran to tell me ? Or rather which of the many acts that are enslaving our fellow humans, taking their GOD given rights away throughout the ages/generations and come in different types/ways and in many situations are disguised slavery?

Well let us list few that are happening during our generation:
- Paying next to nothing for workers by some businesses and treating them badly.
- Giving zero hours contracts  and breaking their original /mutual agreed contract.
- Making people fulfill obligations they have not agreed to.  Enforcing made up human rules that infringe on their freedom/right.
- Monopolising the wealth and strangling the weak/vulnerable  small business to hold people hostage to their greedy way.
-  Various oppression of men, women and children that is leading to extreme poverty and deep division /racism
- ...etc.

So what can one expect Qoran to say to them exactly?
Is Qoran not giving us a clear and detailed way of life to follow? The straight path!

Can one really keep slaves , oppress people and take away their freedom if they follow Qoran? How?

Qoran is going further than just asking us to refrain form all things wrong and wicked. Qoran is instructing us clearly to "Ittabihu Ahsana Ma Unzila Ilaykum Min Rabbikum"- Follow the best path Unzila/brought to you/ indicated/instructed to you from your Lord-
What is this best path?
To keep slaves or even acquire them in the first place? Not to free them if you had them  before you came across Qoran?

Sometimes we want to ignore using our faculty and expect to see answers to every question about any subject- even if it screams" Use your faculties/common sense"- in Qoran!

Anyway, short of GOD and the Angels appearing for the humans to show them every detail and every answer to any question about any subject, the humans are going to use all sorts of reasonings from the sublime to the ridiculous to tackle things in this life.
And whatever GOD forbids or we think He has forbidden or not forbidden, one is free to reason how they  see fit.
Like one can follow Qoran how they see fit or ignore .
GOD bless you all.
Peace.

[jkhan]

Peace All.

I have issues with defining slavery. I do not find it straight forward , nor do  I take it as just "having a slave-owned human - doing our dirty chores/..."

So what can I expect Qoran to tell me ? Or rather which of the many acts that are enslaving our fellow humans, taking their GOD given rights away throughout the ages/generations and come in different types/ways and in many situations are disguised slavery?

Well let us list few that are happening during our generation:
- Paying next to nothing for workers by some businesses and treating them badly.
- Giving zero hours contracts  and breaking their original /mutual agreed contract.
- Making people fulfill obligations they have not agreed to.  Enforcing made up human rules that infringe on their freedom/right.
- Monopolising the wealth and strangling the weak/vulnerable  small business to hold people hostage to their greedy way.
-  Various oppression of men, women and children that is leading to extreme poverty and deep division /racism
- ...etc.

So what can one expect Qoran to say to them exactly?
Is Qoran not giving us a clear and detailed way of life to follow? The straight path!

Can one really keep slaves , oppress people and take away their freedom if they follow Qoran? How?

Qoran is going further than just asking us to refrain form all things wrong and wicked. Qoran is instructing us clearly to "Ittabihu Ahsana Ma Unzila Ilaykum Min Rabbikum"- Follow the best path Unzila/brought to you/ indicated/instructed to you from your Lord-
What is this best path?
To keep slaves or even acquire them in the first place? Not to free them if you had them  before you came across Qoran?

Sometimes we want to ignore using our faculty and expect to see answers to every question about any subject- even if it screams" Use your faculties/common sense"- in Qoran!

Anyway, short of GOD and the Angels appearing for the humans to show them every detail and every answer to any question about any subject, the humans are going to use all sorts of reasonings from the sublime to the ridiculous to tackle things in this life.
And whatever GOD forbids or we think He has forbidden or not forbidden, one is free to reason how they  see fit.
Like one can follow Qoran how they see fit or ignore .
GOD bless you all.
Peace.

That is a very compelling point you raised..
Modern-day slaves are never noticed.. The worst I have ever experienced was in corporate life. The worst scenario for me in my entire corporate life was when the Boss called us we were instant and respected him like a King and his command but whenever we wanted to meet him or talk to him to get something done waiting like gatekeepers for ages and no instant reply at all and mostly negligence or prolonged interrogations.. That's a real slave... I am really happy I am not working in a corporate environment anymore even though I am jobless to date.. The second worst in corporate life is treating the subordinates who are less in positions as genuine slaves and no respect is given at all while they look for all the respect from the employees who are holding positions that are paid fewer salaries to them.. This atmosphere is naturally created and I think it has a long history as a result of the King and peasant mentality..

So during working hours, this obvious slavery treatment is ever present.. That's just a little out of stacks of instances..

Thank God You took me away from my job and made me free from the hypertension of the environment where I was a concealed slave... I don't see any difference between the modern-day slaves and the ancient unless one finds remarkably pleasant working environment where there is no such treatment and I am afraid you seldom find such places..

[Bajram Hoxhaj]

BH

Your translation results in a contradiction. If it means "take no prisoners" then it contradicts next part where it talks about prisoners!

Rather than claiming things are nonsensical in your opinion please provide actual evidence.

No, you're missreading 2: they become prisoners.

47:4 Fa'idhā Laqītumu Al-Ladhīna Kafarū
so when of meet you (pl.) the ones reject they of

1. Fađarba Ar-Riqābi (so shun the necks i.e., take no prisoners)

2. Ĥattá 'Idhā 'Athkhantumūhum until when of has thou routed ye them
(once routed or they are forced to surrender, they become prisoners).

Likewise, "so cites/puts forward" the necks (captives) above is nonsensical.

Likewise, 4:34 "and cites/puts forward ye them (f)" is an incomplete thought.

Salaam

[Wakas]

(once routed or they are forced to surrender, they become prisoners).

Still seems contradictory. For your view to hold:

1) drb al riqab is an unevidenced/baseless idiom
2) seems to contradict
3) requires an unusual translation of "shuddu al wathaq"
4) seemingly ignores cross-reference of shuddu which requires a pre-existing thing to strengthen

No thanks. I'll stick with my understanding.

[Bajram Hoxhaj]

Still seems contradictory. For your view to hold:

1) drb al riqab is an unevidenced/baseless idiom
2) seems to contradict
3) requires an unusual translation of "shuddu al wathaq"
4) seemingly ignores cross-reference of shuddu which requires a pre-existing thing to strengthen

No thanks. I'll stick with my understanding.

1. Put forth the necks (?)
Good luck with that explanation.

Salaam

[Wakas]

peace,

1. Put forth the necks (?)
Good luck with that explanation.

Not sure why you translate it as necks when in your own translation you take it as "prisoners". Necks in your translation would make yours even worse.

In any case as I have already mentioned above it doesn't mean necks in Quran.

And explained above also:

By "bring forth the captives" I take "bring forth" to mean the same I do for mathal/example. When an example is put forth, or shown forth, or propounded, or cited, or brought about, it is brought from non-existence to existence or from non-attention to attention.
In other words captives are brought about, or more simply, as you put it "take captives".
Hence why I said, quote: "One meaning of DaRaBa found in Lane's Lexicon is "he made or caused to be or constituted" which is similar to the suggested meaning discussed above."

[Bajram Hoxhaj]

By "bring forth the captives" I take "bring forth" to mean the same I do for mathal/example. When an example is put forth, or shown forth, or propounded, or cited, or brought about, it is brought from non-existence to existence or from non-attention to attention.
In other words captives are brought about, or more simply, as you put it "take captives".
Hence why I said, quote: "One meaning of DaRaBa found in Lane's Lexicon is "he made or caused to be or constituted" which is similar to the suggested meaning discussed above."

Salaam,

How to bring forth "the captives", not bind them?
Back then a single captive could take 1-2 guards.

The Battle of Firaz. Khalid ibn al-Waleed wipes out an army 10x his size.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj4KpbVyNn8

Likewise Lane's (ضرب)

... And ضَرَبْتُ عُنُقَهُ [I smote his neck, meaning I beheaded him]; and الأَعْنَاقَ ↓ ضَرَّبْتُ [I smote the necks, meaning I struck off the heads]; the teshdeed denoting muchness [of the action] or multiplicity [of the objects]: AZ says that, when the object is one, the Arabs use only the former verb, without teshdeed; but when there is a plurality of objects, either of the verbs; (Msb;) [so that] one says, ضَرَبُوا أَعْنَاقَهُمْ [They smote their necks, or beheaded them], and أَمَرَ الرِّقَابِ ↓ بِتَضْرِيبِ [He gave the order to smite the necks, or to strike off the heads]: (A:) فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ in the Kur xlvii. 4 is originally فَاضْرِبُوا الرِّقَابَ ضَرْبًا [meaning Then do ye smite the necks, i. e. strike off the heads]; (Bd;) the inf. n. being here put for its verb. (Jel.) [Respecting the phrase هُوَ الْيَضْرِبُكَ, see 1 in art. جدع.]
...

ضَرَبَ عَنْهُ (assumed tropical:) He turned away a person or thing from him [or it]; as also ↓ اضرب : (TA:) [or] عنه ↓ اضرب signifies, (S, Msb,) or signifies also, (TA,) and (Msb, TA) so does ضَرَبَ عنه, (Msb, K, TA,) [the latter app. for ضَرَبَ نَفْسَهُ عَنْهُ,] (assumed tropical:) He turned away from, avoided, shunned, or left, him, or it; (S * Msb, K * TA; *) namely, a person, (TA,) or a thing. (Msb.) أَفَنَضْرِبُ عَنْكُمُ الذِّكْرَ صَفْحًا, in the Kur [xliii. 4], is said to mean (assumed tropical:) Shall we then neglect you, and not teach you what is incumbent on you? the phrase being taken from a rider's striking his beast with his stick when he desires to turn him from the course that he is pursuing: or the meaning is, (assumed tropical:) shall we then turn away the Kuran from you, and not invite you thereby to the faith, turning away ourselves from you? (TA.) One says also, ضَرَبْتُ عَنْهُ صَفْحًا meaning (assumed tropical:) I turned away from him and left him.
...

ضَرَبَ مَثَلًا (S, A, O, &c.) (tropical:) He rehearsed, propounded, or declared, a parable, a similitude, an example, or a proverb; said of God [and of a man]: (S, * O, * Msb, TA:) or he mentioned, or set forth, a parable, &c.: or he framed a parable: thus expl., the verb has but one objective complement: or the phrase signifies he made [such a thing] an example, or the subject of a parable or similitude &c.; and so has two objective complements: in the saying in the Kur [xxxvi. 12] وَاضْرِبْ لَهُمْ مَثَلًا أَصْحَابَ الْقَرْيَةِ (assumed tropical:) [And propound thou to them a parable, the people of the town] i. e., the story of the people of the town, [or make thou to them a parable, or similitude, or an example, the people of the town;] مثلا may be in the accus. case as an objective complement, اضحاب القرية being a substitute for مثلا; or اصحاب القرية may be regarded as a second objective complement [i. e. second in the order of the words, but first in the order of the sense]: the phrase is differently expl. on account of the different meanings of the verb ضَرَبَ; which signifies he described, or rehearsed; and he declared, propounded, or explained; and he made, caused to be, or constituted; &c.; accord. to some, it is taken from the phrase ضَرَبَ الدِرْهَمَ [q. v.]; because of the impression which a parable or the like makes upon the mind: accord. to some, from ضَرِيبٌ signifying " a like; " because the first thing is made like the second: accord. to some, from ضَرَبَ الطِّينَ عَلَى الجِدَارِ [q. v.; because the mud, applied as a plaster, conforms to the shape of the wall]: and accord. to some, from ضَرَبَ الخَاتَمَ [q. v.]; because of the correspondence between a parable or the like and the object to which it is applied, and the correspondence between the signet and its impression. (TA, from the M and L &c.) يَضْرِبُ اللّٰهُ الْحَقَّ وَالْباطِلَ, in the Kur [xiii. 18], means (assumed tropical:) God likeneth, or compareth, truth and falsity. (TA.) One says also, ضَرَبَ بِهِ مَثَلًا (assumed tropical:) [He made him, or it, a subject of a parable, a similitude, an example, or a proverb; he propounded, or framed, a parable, &c., respecting him, or it].
...

اضرب signifies also (tropical:) He was silent; he spoke not: or he lowered his eyes, looking towards the ground