Wednesday, 19 November 2008

ISLAMIC SLAVERY

In the Islamic world, the story regarding slavery is very different to that of the West. There was no organised abolitionist movement at any time within the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, in modern Turkey, the abolition of slavery is not taught in the educational curriculum.

Muslims had an even greater hand in the African slave trade than did the West. It is estimated that around 11 million slaves were deported in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, between the sixteenth and the nineteenth centuries, while Muslims are believed to have taken over 17 million Africans as slaves between the seventh and nineteenth centuries. Muslims dealing with black slaves were prone to racist attitudes that modern liberal thinkers tend to attribute exclusively to white Westerners. For example, the great Muslim thinker Ibn Khaldun (d.1406) wrote that blacks submitted willingly to slavery because they “have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals”.

Little known to the average Westerner is the history of the “hideous trade” in eunuch slaves from Africa in Muslim societies. Slaves from sub-Saharan Africa underwent dangerous and painful operations whereby their penis and testicles were completely removed. This operation often caused extensive hemorrhaging and urethral infection, and it is estimated that up to 90% of those castrated died as a result of it.

Even less well-known to the average Westerner is the enslavement of white Europeans and Americans by Arab Muslims. Between 1530 and 1780, there were at least one million white European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary coast. These white slaves were treated abysmally, often subjected to torture in order to force them to convert to Islam. One English slave, Thomas Pellow, who was captured in 1716, eventually succumbed to the intimidation after his torturer resorted to setting his flesh on fire on multiple occasions.

Interestingly, the Muslim rulers would often employ black slaves to oversee their white counterparts in their forced labour. The blacks were cruel and vicious, often beating the workers with cudgels and entertaining themselves by waking the Christian slaves at night, beating them, and forcing them to do more hard labour. These inhuman conditions were only lifted in 1816, not through Islamic reform but by British military force, with the total destruction of Algiers.

A major reason for the Islamic tolerance of slavery is that the Qur'an itself, like the Bible, takes the practice for granted. It even goes so far as to give Muslim men permission to have sex with slave girls: “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (4:24) The Prophet Muhammad himself is recorded to have owned around sixty slaves in his lifetime, and although Muslims are keen to point to a couple of examples in which he freed individual slaves, there is no evidence to suggest that he disapproved of slavery in principle. Muslims of future generations justified slavery with reference to Islamic theology, and as a result tended to take slaves from non-Muslim populations. The Muslim jurist al-Wanshirisi (d.1508), for example, said that slavery is an affliction against unbelievers, and a way of deliberately humiliating them for their infidelity.

Unlike Christianity, however, Islamic tradition never developed a pluralistic conception of the unity of mankind which could lead to the discarding of such a worldview, and the Qur'an contains a sharp distinction between believers and unbelievers that does not allow for the equal dignity and rights of all people in Muslim societies.

Thus it is not surprising that anti-slavery views did not resonate anywhere in the Islamic world until Western powers began to intervene. Slavery was not abolished in Saudi Arabia until 1962, and Yemen and Oman in 1970. Although slavery was “officially” abolished in Mauritania in 1980, it nevertheless still goes on there. Niger did not ban slavery until 2004, although these laws are largely ignored and as many as a million people remain in bondage. There has also been a recrudescence of slavery in the Sudan since 1983.

CONCLUSIONS

The double standards of African reparations groups and white liberals are clear. There is no reason for Britain to be making grovelling apologies for the slave trade, when some of its greatest citizens are responsible for bringing about the end of that degrading traffic. Britain has already done more than enough to apologise to Africans.

It is also notable how no one is asking for an apology from Muslims for the cruelty of their ancestors, whose own slave trade brought suffering to more people and lasted longer, nor for the ongoing slavery in some Muslim countries. Furthermore, no whites are demanding reparations for the way their ancestors were treated centuries ago, not only by Arab Muslims but by blacks also.

It is time for Britain to say, “enough”. We must stand up and be proud of what we did to bring about the end of slavery, rather than apologising for things that we have already apologised for in the most sacrificial way possible. We must also demand that Muslims take responsibility for the crimes of their forefathers, and work to end the trafficking of slaves in their own countries in the modern era.

If they do not, innocent people will continue to suffer.

3 comments:

James said...

It seems to me that you raise an excellent issue in suggesting that when it comes to slavery, the Islamic world has just as much to apologize for as the Christian world.

But don't you dramatically overstate the case?

For instance, the transatlantic and trans-Saharan slave trades were roughly equal in magnitude. The latter is estimated to have been slightly larger, but also to have taken place mostly earlier, in a less enlightened era when Europeans were busy enslaving fellow Christians. Can you really say that today, one religion bears more responsibility for the past than the other?

You also raise the issue that Muslims enslaved white Christians. This is true, but of course, white Christians frequently enslaved other white Christians. (You may know that the English word "slave" comes from "Slav," since the Slavic peoples were commonly enslaved.)

You make much of the fact that the Koran endorses slavery, but you acknowledge that the Christian Bible does so, as well.

You note that the Islamic world didn't renounce slavery until the West intervened. This is true, but it's true of all parts of the world, and the Muslim world had largely forsaken the practice of slavery before the West's influence was felt.

Why, then, not simply say that the Muslim world, too, could apologize for the sins of its past? On what basis can you conclude that what the West has done goes too far?

If you believe that the West had, in effect, apologized for its slaving by stopping that evil practice two centuries ago, and needn't apologize now, isn't that a separate issue? How does the equal guilt of the Islamic world change this?

You end by saying that "We must stand up and be proud of what we did to bring about the end of slavery, rather than apologising for things that we have already apologised for ...."

Why shouldn't Britain be proud of its history, including its role in ending slavery, while still acknowledging the evils of its past? How can any society continue to be proud of the good in its history, without also remembering the shameful parts of that history?

Ben said...

James,

Just for balance and completeness' sake, you may want to read the other half of my essay on slavery, dealing with the Western half of the coin, here: http://raceandculture.blogspot.com/2008/11/slavery-in-west.html

I would not go as far as to say that one side of history is "worse" than the other. But my major point throughout these posts has been to emphasise the hypocrisy of our own elites, who always concentrate on British and Western roles in slavery while never demanding apologies for Islamic slavery (and let's not forget the fact that African reparations groups are also completely ignoring the role of their own people in fomenting and maintaining the slave trade that made them victims). This is particularly important given that slavery still goes on in Muslim countries today, and no one on the Western Left really seems outraged at all.

I do not believe Britain should still be apologising and offering reparations to Africans in the twenty-first century, after all we have already done for them. Their priorities are misplaced, and should be directed at the people who have yet to apologise in any meaningful way - Muslims. If we had to do it, so do they. After all, unwillingness to apologise is a surefire sign that they are also unwilling to stop the trafficking of slaves in their own countries in the modern day.

Cheers
Ben

James said...

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment, Ben.

I'm still not sure why you believe it's hypocrisy to focus on our own society's history and present-day legacy.

Advocates for acknowledging and addressing the legacy of slavery certainly talk about the sins of other societies. (You seem to focus on the Islamic world, for some reason.) And I don't know anyone who wouldn't want those societies to acknowledge and address their own pasts--and, in fact, they often do just that. Shouldn't we in the West focus on our own societies, and how our legacy of slavery affects the present?

When you speak of "African reparations groups," do you mean Westerners of African descent, or do you mean those in Africa? Groups in Africa generally seek compensation for colonialism, and acknowledge that their societies were full participants in the slave trade. If, though, you mean those in the West who are descendants of slavery, it was hardly "their own people" who played a role in this history; their ancestors were the victims, and did not belong to the societies that did the enslaving and the trading.

I do not believe Britain should still be apologising and offering reparations to Africans in the twenty-first century, after all we have already done for them.

This is interesting, Ben. I'm not sure that most people see that there's been so much apologizing from Britain, and the other nations involved in the slave trade. Certainly, there have never been comprehensive reparations for the descendants of the slaves, either.

Just how much do you think the West has done to compensate for the slave trade and Western slavery? It did eventually end these practices, after centuries. There have been partial acknowledgments and attempts to improve things, but hardly anything that has set things right.

You keep coming back to Muslims, don't you? Historically, Muslim societies did engage in plenty of slavery, but so did lots of other societies. Why pick on them? The argument for Westerners to focus on their own societies is at clear, whether or not you agree with it.

My major objection to your post on slavery in the West, as you might guess, is your belief that the West atoned for the millions of lives lost, and the suffering of many millions more over the centuries of Western slavery, by eventually ceasing to cause more suffering.

If a thief offers to stop stealing, but does nothing to return what he has already stolen or to otherwise atone for his crimes, do we say that he has done more than enough?