School Paper
May. 14th, 2010 11:59 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sub_dividedReposting old content time! This is a paper I wrote for an "Islam in Africa" course taught by Professor Barbara Cooper at Rutgers. All of the references are to page numbers in this sourcebook. By the way, I still remember my grade on this paper (A-) and the reason (quoted from primary sources without identifying the time and place of the quotation, creating the impression of Islam as a unified and unchanging mass). And that I didn't agree - I do identify times and places - but I could have identified them more consistently, definitely.
***
Pre-twentieth century Islamic scholarship defended the incorporation of slavery into shari'a -- religious law -- as the means by which a necessary evil was regulated. According to this view, Islam tackled the problem of slavery "not by way of a single advance...lest this should produce a counteraction that would shake the pillars of society," but rather by following "the path of gradualism." (18) There were three ways in which Islamic religious law attempted to humanize the practice of enslavement: by reducing the ways in which a person could be legitimately enslaved; by requiring the master to care for and "perfect" the slave; and, finally, by making manumission an act of devotion or penance, thereby "opening wide the gates of freedom." (13 and 18) However, all three of the "paths of gradualism" outlined by religious scholars were contradicted by the realities of slavery within the Islamic world at various times and places.
The Qur'an -- which, together with the hadith, forms the ultimate basis for Islamic religious law -- recognized the practice of slavery and did not condemn it. "And God has granted some of you more means than others. Those who have been granted more are not about to hand over their means to [their slaves], so that they may be equal with them in this respect." (3) A straightforward interpretation of the Qur'an allowed the buying and selling of slaves, the ownership of Muslim slaves, and for a slave owner to sleep with and even have legitimate children by his female slaves. (3, 4, and 6) However, there were theoretically certain restrictions which had to be observed.
The most important of these restrictions was that only persons captured in jihad -- war against unbelievers for the purpose of conversion -- could be legitimately enslaved. Muhhammed Bayram al-Kamis wrote that slavery "was established as a punishment for unbelief... God Most High has punished them by making them the slaves of His slaves, living in degradation with the status of animals. Hence, one who is a Muslim cannot be legitimately enslaved." (16) Al-Kamis was writing in the nineteenth century against a backdrop of European abolitionism, and was therefore more eager to justify slavery than earlier writers, who presupposed the practice, had been. But his argument drew from earlier sources: "According to the shari'a, the reason why it is allowed to own is unbelief," was the ruling of the Mukhtasar, an enormously influential Egyptian law compilation from the 1300s. (24) As slavery was a "punishment" for unbelief, non-Muslims were enslaveable while Muslims were not.
The reality, however, was more complicated. The child of two slaves was also a slave, even if the child and both parents were Muslim -- for, as the Mukhtasar went on to say, "Conversion to Islam subsequent to the existence of the aforementioned condition has no effect on continued ownership." (24) Prevailing interpretations of the Qur'an allowed for the ownership of Muslim slaves. (3) Thus religion, the basis for slavery, could not be used as an indicator of a person's status as free or enslaved. Additionally, determining whether or not a person had been Muslim before capture was difficult. "Who among us can tell whether those bought here are believers or unbelievers?" al-Nasiri wrote. "No confidence can be placed in what slave-traders and dealers say, since it is well established that all sellers lie about their goods." (45)
As a matter of convenience, and also because the peoples of the regions involved were less able to defend themselves from capture, classification as either Muslim or non-Muslim became linked to a person's place of origin. "Shaykh Ahmed Baba...produced an analysis...mentioning those tribes of the Sudan who were unbelievers...he stated that it was permissible to enslave everyone who came from those tribes," al-Nasiri wrote. (46) The Mukhtasar also supported this strategy, by requiring the conscientious Muslim to ask the question, "Were those lands which we mentioned, and other similar lands of the Muslims of the Sudan, conquered and enslaved in a state of unbelief, while their conversion occurred subsequently -- hence there is no harm -- or not?" (24) Of course, not all Muslims engaged in the slave trade were as conscientious as that. But even if they were, a Muslim who found himself in the possession of another Muslim could always ease his conscience by recourse to arguments like these, which emphasized a slave's origins over his or her religious affiliation.
A side effect -- or possibly this was what gave rise to the practice in the first place -- was that enslavement acquired an unmistakably racial dimension. The most convenient way to determine religion was by place of origin; the most convenient way to establish place of origin was by skin color; specifically, black skin color was used as an indicator of a person's suitability for enslavement. Drawing from Hamic myths and Greek geographical theories, Islamic scholars justified the "indiscriminate enslavement of the people of the Sudan" in racial terms. (44-46) Their justifications were then accepted as underlying reasons: "I found some uncouth Maghribis claiming that all Blacks without exception deserved to be slaves," al-Jarimi wrote in the late 19th century. (44) In place of the jihad -- an outmoded practice by the fourteenth century, when most of the people of interest to Arab slave traders had already been exposed to Islam -- a system institutionalizing the enslavement of blacks was established. A particularly chilling account of the business of a Tuerreg caravan was narrated to Gen E. Daumas. In this account, a slave raid was organized so that the captives could be exchanged for trade goods. Light-skinned captives -- in this case, a Fulani man -- were rejected as unsuitable, while the rest were driven across the Sahara for sale. (57-64) No attempt was made to justify the enslavement of these people on religious grounds; the motives of all involved were purely economic.
"If it happens," Ahmad Shafiq Beq wrote, that "destiny caused a man to fall into slavery, the Islamic shari'a did not abandon him...but extended over him the wing of protection and the banner of safekeeping." (13) This proclamation was ultimately rooted in several Qur'anic passages which urged slave owners to "show kindness" toward their slaves (3); one hadith urged that they be treated "like brothers." (7) "Whoever has his brother under his control should feed them and clothe them out of what he himself eats and wears, and should not impose undue labor." (7) There was an additional call for the "betterment" of slaves in one's care: "whoever owns a slave girl and educates her, and is good to her...shall have a double reward (from God)." (7) As Ahmad Shafiq Beq would have had it, the Islamic practice of slavery "taught the slave, refined him and perfected him, and raised his status and made him equal with his master. It provided a livelihood for him and then freed him." (18)
The reality was not always so picturesque. Although hard labor of the type common to New World plantations was rare in the Islamic world, conditions of enslavement varied wildly with region and master. Female slaves often faced persecution from neglected wives. (125) Some slaves were also physically abused, though perhaps not the majority. Of his time as a slave, Griga, a half-Fulani man working in Timimoun (Algeria), had a neutral impression: "I can't say I was unhappy....I was properly fed; I worked -- obviously -- but one has to work anywhere, doesn't one?" Contradicting this account was the testimony of two French observers in Fez, who explained that "As a rule, the lot attending these creatures is sad. They pass through the hands of ten or twenty masters, who make them lead the lives of cab horses, beat them at intervals, and at last sell them." (124) Because the observers were French, a great deal of bias must be expected; however, even Griga admitted the existence of "particularly harsh and brutal masters." (215)
Finally, there was the issue of manumission. According to the Qur'an, "righteous [was] he" who freed a slave. (2) There were, additionally, many irreligious acts for which the correct penance was the manumission of a slave; for instance, the killing of a believer required the freeing of a believing slave. (3) Many slaves were indeed freed; in 19th century Mecca, for example, "House servants are almost invariably set free by the age of twenty" and, what was more, "There is hardly an office or position that is unattainable to such freedman." (166) But, again, conditions varied. The two Frenchmen in Fez reported that freed slaves were "let loose on the streets of Shamboul, without the means of subsistence or the power to provide for [themselves]" and that many such freed slaves refused to leave the household. (124)
Griga's account is particularly illuminating. "Yes, we have been manumitted," he said, "but we cannot leave Timimoun despite being free." Griga explained that besides the prohibitive expense of crossing the Sahara -- Timimoun was an oasis -- it was likely that Arab or Tuarreg caravan runners would not have hesitated to "strip us of the few things we possessed, and then to sell us, either to some nomads or to slave caravans making their way to Morocco or Tripoli." (213) He related several stories of freed slaves whom he knew had suffered exactly that fate. As long as race forms the basis for enslavement, he implied, no black man can really be free. Added to this was the possibility of "debt" slavery as when, after being freed, Griga was obliged to pay his former master -- and current landlord -- four-fifths of his crop. "My fate has not changed in any sense," he said, "except on a scrap of paper." (214)
Although the original purpose of those sections of the Qur'an -- and, later, hadiths and shari'a -- which dealt with slavery was to improve an unavoidable practice, the reality of the Muslim slave trade and of the keeping of slaves by Muslims was often wildly different from those practices' theoretical, Islamic underpinnings. Many people were enslaved on the basis of racial, not religious, grounds -- in fact, Black slaves eventually became the most important commodity of trans-Saharan trade. Slavery was supposed to be an elevating experience, in which slaves were cared for, educated, and eventually freed; in reality, this was not always what happened. Slaves had little legal recourse, and were forced to rely on the piety of their masters for good treatment. Freed slaves were often free only in name. The existence of a theoretical, "pious" mode of owning slaves formed the basis of many essays by learned scholars of the 19th century in support of slavery; this allowed the practice to continue within the Islamic world long after it had been abandoned by the West.
Since everything was taken from one book, this was a fairly straightforward paper to write.
***
Pre-twentieth century Islamic scholarship defended the incorporation of slavery into shari'a -- religious law -- as the means by which a necessary evil was regulated. According to this view, Islam tackled the problem of slavery "not by way of a single advance...lest this should produce a counteraction that would shake the pillars of society," but rather by following "the path of gradualism." (18) There were three ways in which Islamic religious law attempted to humanize the practice of enslavement: by reducing the ways in which a person could be legitimately enslaved; by requiring the master to care for and "perfect" the slave; and, finally, by making manumission an act of devotion or penance, thereby "opening wide the gates of freedom." (13 and 18) However, all three of the "paths of gradualism" outlined by religious scholars were contradicted by the realities of slavery within the Islamic world at various times and places.
The Qur'an -- which, together with the hadith, forms the ultimate basis for Islamic religious law -- recognized the practice of slavery and did not condemn it. "And God has granted some of you more means than others. Those who have been granted more are not about to hand over their means to [their slaves], so that they may be equal with them in this respect." (3) A straightforward interpretation of the Qur'an allowed the buying and selling of slaves, the ownership of Muslim slaves, and for a slave owner to sleep with and even have legitimate children by his female slaves. (3, 4, and 6) However, there were theoretically certain restrictions which had to be observed.
The most important of these restrictions was that only persons captured in jihad -- war against unbelievers for the purpose of conversion -- could be legitimately enslaved. Muhhammed Bayram al-Kamis wrote that slavery "was established as a punishment for unbelief... God Most High has punished them by making them the slaves of His slaves, living in degradation with the status of animals. Hence, one who is a Muslim cannot be legitimately enslaved." (16) Al-Kamis was writing in the nineteenth century against a backdrop of European abolitionism, and was therefore more eager to justify slavery than earlier writers, who presupposed the practice, had been. But his argument drew from earlier sources: "According to the shari'a, the reason why it is allowed to own is unbelief," was the ruling of the Mukhtasar, an enormously influential Egyptian law compilation from the 1300s. (24) As slavery was a "punishment" for unbelief, non-Muslims were enslaveable while Muslims were not.
The reality, however, was more complicated. The child of two slaves was also a slave, even if the child and both parents were Muslim -- for, as the Mukhtasar went on to say, "Conversion to Islam subsequent to the existence of the aforementioned condition has no effect on continued ownership." (24) Prevailing interpretations of the Qur'an allowed for the ownership of Muslim slaves. (3) Thus religion, the basis for slavery, could not be used as an indicator of a person's status as free or enslaved. Additionally, determining whether or not a person had been Muslim before capture was difficult. "Who among us can tell whether those bought here are believers or unbelievers?" al-Nasiri wrote. "No confidence can be placed in what slave-traders and dealers say, since it is well established that all sellers lie about their goods." (45)
As a matter of convenience, and also because the peoples of the regions involved were less able to defend themselves from capture, classification as either Muslim or non-Muslim became linked to a person's place of origin. "Shaykh Ahmed Baba...produced an analysis...mentioning those tribes of the Sudan who were unbelievers...he stated that it was permissible to enslave everyone who came from those tribes," al-Nasiri wrote. (46) The Mukhtasar also supported this strategy, by requiring the conscientious Muslim to ask the question, "Were those lands which we mentioned, and other similar lands of the Muslims of the Sudan, conquered and enslaved in a state of unbelief, while their conversion occurred subsequently -- hence there is no harm -- or not?" (24) Of course, not all Muslims engaged in the slave trade were as conscientious as that. But even if they were, a Muslim who found himself in the possession of another Muslim could always ease his conscience by recourse to arguments like these, which emphasized a slave's origins over his or her religious affiliation.
A side effect -- or possibly this was what gave rise to the practice in the first place -- was that enslavement acquired an unmistakably racial dimension. The most convenient way to determine religion was by place of origin; the most convenient way to establish place of origin was by skin color; specifically, black skin color was used as an indicator of a person's suitability for enslavement. Drawing from Hamic myths and Greek geographical theories, Islamic scholars justified the "indiscriminate enslavement of the people of the Sudan" in racial terms. (44-46) Their justifications were then accepted as underlying reasons: "I found some uncouth Maghribis claiming that all Blacks without exception deserved to be slaves," al-Jarimi wrote in the late 19th century. (44) In place of the jihad -- an outmoded practice by the fourteenth century, when most of the people of interest to Arab slave traders had already been exposed to Islam -- a system institutionalizing the enslavement of blacks was established. A particularly chilling account of the business of a Tuerreg caravan was narrated to Gen E. Daumas. In this account, a slave raid was organized so that the captives could be exchanged for trade goods. Light-skinned captives -- in this case, a Fulani man -- were rejected as unsuitable, while the rest were driven across the Sahara for sale. (57-64) No attempt was made to justify the enslavement of these people on religious grounds; the motives of all involved were purely economic.
"If it happens," Ahmad Shafiq Beq wrote, that "destiny caused a man to fall into slavery, the Islamic shari'a did not abandon him...but extended over him the wing of protection and the banner of safekeeping." (13) This proclamation was ultimately rooted in several Qur'anic passages which urged slave owners to "show kindness" toward their slaves (3); one hadith urged that they be treated "like brothers." (7) "Whoever has his brother under his control should feed them and clothe them out of what he himself eats and wears, and should not impose undue labor." (7) There was an additional call for the "betterment" of slaves in one's care: "whoever owns a slave girl and educates her, and is good to her...shall have a double reward (from God)." (7) As Ahmad Shafiq Beq would have had it, the Islamic practice of slavery "taught the slave, refined him and perfected him, and raised his status and made him equal with his master. It provided a livelihood for him and then freed him." (18)
The reality was not always so picturesque. Although hard labor of the type common to New World plantations was rare in the Islamic world, conditions of enslavement varied wildly with region and master. Female slaves often faced persecution from neglected wives. (125) Some slaves were also physically abused, though perhaps not the majority. Of his time as a slave, Griga, a half-Fulani man working in Timimoun (Algeria), had a neutral impression: "I can't say I was unhappy....I was properly fed; I worked -- obviously -- but one has to work anywhere, doesn't one?" Contradicting this account was the testimony of two French observers in Fez, who explained that "As a rule, the lot attending these creatures is sad. They pass through the hands of ten or twenty masters, who make them lead the lives of cab horses, beat them at intervals, and at last sell them." (124) Because the observers were French, a great deal of bias must be expected; however, even Griga admitted the existence of "particularly harsh and brutal masters." (215)
Finally, there was the issue of manumission. According to the Qur'an, "righteous [was] he" who freed a slave. (2) There were, additionally, many irreligious acts for which the correct penance was the manumission of a slave; for instance, the killing of a believer required the freeing of a believing slave. (3) Many slaves were indeed freed; in 19th century Mecca, for example, "House servants are almost invariably set free by the age of twenty" and, what was more, "There is hardly an office or position that is unattainable to such freedman." (166) But, again, conditions varied. The two Frenchmen in Fez reported that freed slaves were "let loose on the streets of Shamboul, without the means of subsistence or the power to provide for [themselves]" and that many such freed slaves refused to leave the household. (124)
Griga's account is particularly illuminating. "Yes, we have been manumitted," he said, "but we cannot leave Timimoun despite being free." Griga explained that besides the prohibitive expense of crossing the Sahara -- Timimoun was an oasis -- it was likely that Arab or Tuarreg caravan runners would not have hesitated to "strip us of the few things we possessed, and then to sell us, either to some nomads or to slave caravans making their way to Morocco or Tripoli." (213) He related several stories of freed slaves whom he knew had suffered exactly that fate. As long as race forms the basis for enslavement, he implied, no black man can really be free. Added to this was the possibility of "debt" slavery as when, after being freed, Griga was obliged to pay his former master -- and current landlord -- four-fifths of his crop. "My fate has not changed in any sense," he said, "except on a scrap of paper." (214)
Although the original purpose of those sections of the Qur'an -- and, later, hadiths and shari'a -- which dealt with slavery was to improve an unavoidable practice, the reality of the Muslim slave trade and of the keeping of slaves by Muslims was often wildly different from those practices' theoretical, Islamic underpinnings. Many people were enslaved on the basis of racial, not religious, grounds -- in fact, Black slaves eventually became the most important commodity of trans-Saharan trade. Slavery was supposed to be an elevating experience, in which slaves were cared for, educated, and eventually freed; in reality, this was not always what happened. Slaves had little legal recourse, and were forced to rely on the piety of their masters for good treatment. Freed slaves were often free only in name. The existence of a theoretical, "pious" mode of owning slaves formed the basis of many essays by learned scholars of the 19th century in support of slavery; this allowed the practice to continue within the Islamic world long after it had been abandoned by the West.
Since everything was taken from one book, this was a fairly straightforward paper to write.