Especially some black Muslims raise ever so often the point that:
Muhammad made it mandatory for believing Muslims to release slaves. The Bible on the other hand condems us to slavery ...
First let me point you to a different perspective from an African Christian and a report on the current situation in Africa.
Some more quotations: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]
Christianity, Islam and Slavery
A short article on Slavery and the Bible and a long series to be of articles asking: Does God condone slavery in the Bible?
Fight for the Abolition, William Wilberforce and the Fight Against Slavery, John Newton
The British fight slavery and the Arabs continue it.
Book recommendation on slavery in Islam:
Bernard Lewis Race and Slavery in the Middle East : A Historical Enquiry Oxford University Press, 1990, 184 pages, ISBN 0-19-505326-5
Though the below is not an answer that was originally addressed to Muslims, I found this on the Christian newsgroup and don't think I could say anything better in response.
Subject: Slavery in the Bible
Michael J. Bumbulis wrote:
I was recently involved in a short exchange on another board about
slavery in the Bible. I'll repost it here as some Christians might
find it useful.
Someone said:
>Now, in fairness to Christians, I must acknowledge that the
>fight in opposition to slavery in the 19th century was led,
>in large part, by Christians... and that most Christians of
>today would be as horrified by Mr. Davidson's statement (I
>think) as I am.
>
>On the other hand, the pre-Civil War *defense* of slavery
>also was led by devout Christians who used Biblical argu-
>ments such as Mr. Davidson seems to be using.
We must keep in mind that anytime an evil is to be justified,
it is often denied that it is evil and instead said to be good.
Since the Bible was considered _the_ standard of good, it is
to be expected that anyone trying to justify an evil would
appeal to certain interpretations of the Bible. If Darwinism
laid at the foundation of the zeitgeist, it would not be hard to
imagine how this would have been used to justify slavery.
The fact remains that slavery came to an end here (and elsewhere
[ie, Britain]) because many Christian leaders did not keep their
religion to themselves, but instead, spoke out forcefully. In some
cases, like John Brown, religious zealots paved the way for
the end to slavery.
BTW, I have a book which outlines the arguments made by the pro-slavery
and abolitionist religious leaders. It is interesting to see how
both groups reach different conclusions using the same texts.
There are
>things in the Bible which can be interpreted to frown on
>slavery (for example, the Golden Rule, which implies that
>you shouldn't own slaves unless you have no objection to
>being a slave) but as far as I'm aware there isn't any
>explicit, clear-cut commandment forbidding Jews and
>Christians to own other human beings and make use of their
>forced labor. Slavery is treated as a normal part of life
>in the Bible, and St. Paul directs slaves to obey their
>masters.
I'll get to Paul in a moment. But no, the Bible does not have
an explicit condemnation of slavery. This is one argument
that was used by the pro-slavery folks. Abolitionists responded
with a laundry list of other evils which are not explicitly
condemned in the Bible. We must keep in mind, however, that
contrary to the claims of some members of the so-called religious
right, the Bible is not a book of moral philosophy. It is
a book that contains the revelation of God which in turn speaks to
the heart of each and every reader. The book is not a blueprint
for making utopia. It is a revelation that, when perceived, leads
to a "new creation" - the individual who seeks conformity with
God's will. This ties in with what I will say below.
>This is one of the things which suggests to me that
>the Bible was written by fallible human beings, bound to
>the ideas and customs of their place and time, rather
>than being the inspired "word" of a morally perfect
>deity.
If the Bible said, "Thou shalt not possess slaves," I doubt
you would consider it to be anything more than the work of
human beings. What you expect from the "inspired word" is not
what I expect. Simple codes are usually the products of men.
Teachings which reach deeper, and transform from within rather
than from without, seem to me to be a more likely clue of divine
influence. Now, let's take Paul. Paul wrote a very short letter
to Philemon, a wealthy Christian who was also a slave-owner.
One of Philemon's slaves, Onesimus, was a runaway slave who later
met up with Paul and became a Christian. Paul sends Onesimus
back to Philemon, but he writes two very important things:
1. "Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order
you to do what you ought to do, yet I appeal to you on the basis
of love." [vs.8]
2. "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little
while was that you might have him back for good - no longer as a slave,
but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me
but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord."
[vs.16]
Many powerful points come to light. First, Christians read vs.8
not only as the words of Paul, but also as the words of God.
Thus, God, through Paul, could have order Philemon to treat
Onesimus as a man and brother rather than a slave, but instead,
he appealed to him. Thus, Philemon was challenged by his faith
to transform from within, rather than simply adhere to a new
command. *THIS* is the essense of Christian transformation!
Through the light of faith and love, to see God's will rather
than simply adhere to a new order.
This, in my opinion, is the divine response to slavery (and so
much else). The Quaker and Mennonite approach to slavery
captured this beautifully. Rather than cite certain "proof-texts"
for their beliefs, they based their life on the basic biblical values
so that their thinking and behavior and way of life was at odds with
slavery.
As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, slavery declined.
Now I would not claim this was primarily due to Christianity, but
we should not forget that Christianity was a religion shared by
many slaves and slaveowners. With such shared faith, it would
harder and harder for slaveowners to see their slaves as mere
"property." This attitude even continued into the Middle Ages.
My ol' college history text puts it like this:
"Since ancient times, it had been a universally accepted practice
to enslave conquered peoples. The church had long taught that all
baptized Christians were brothers in Christ and that all Christians
belonged to one "international" community. Although the church never
issued a blanket condemnation of slavery, it vigorously opposed
the enslaving of Christians. In attacking the enslavement of Christians
and in criticizing the reduction of pagans and infidels to slavery,
the church made a contribution to the development of human liberty."
While I can understand why you would want an explicit biblical
condemnation of slavery, I see things differently. I see the
implicit condemnation that goes hand-in-hand with an inner
transformation that is more real, and also entails a communion
between the person and his/her Creator. Always remember that
Christianity is not a religion which teaches that evil was defeated
with angelic armies. It was defeated instead by the suffering of
the Son of God. That is, Christians believe God entered Creation to
defeat evil from within by involving us and history.
Of course, I don't expect any nonchristian to be convinced by these
words (and not just because I have not fully developed the thesis).
Instead, I'm simply explaining what I believe and why it is that
I do not find the lack of explicit condemnation to be of great
signficance.
In my original reply, I failed to speak about something that
is relevant. The original author said:
>Slavery is treated as a normal part of life in the Bible, and
>Paul directs slaves to obey their masters.
I think there is much more to it that this. I already brought
up the passages in Philemon which are _very_ relevant (for here
Paul writes to a slave-owner about one of his slaves). But
there is more.
First, it is true that Paul directs slaves to obey their masters.
And a simple reading of such commands, divorced of the general
context of the Bible, certainly makes it seem as if the New Testament
condones slavery. But is it really that clear? Recall that Jesus
taught that a Christian should "turn the cheek" when struck.
Is Jesus condoning violence? I think not. Instead, Jesus is
instructing the Christian on the type of attitude one should
have when victimized by evil. In fact, Paul picks up on this theme:
"Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right
in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends
on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge ... do not
be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." [Rom. 12:17-21]
The Christian reads Paul's instructions to slaves in THIS light.
The Christian does not read Paul's instructions to slaves divorced
of this context. Thus, Paul is no more condoning slavery than
Jesus condoned physical assault. Instead, Paul is teaching slaves
how they are to respond to this evil AS CHRISTIANS. And there is
a sublime element to is all. Y'see, when Paul instructs slaves to
"obey their masters," he goes much further than this. He tells
them to serve as if they were serving Christ. They then become
a witness for the Lord, and that witness will become far more
important than adhering to some moralistic principle. In fact,
Paul "let's the cat out of the bag" in Titus 2:10. Paul instructs
slaves to "go the extra mile" in being obedient and trustworthy so
"that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior
attractive."
Think about it. What if Paul had said, "Slaves, rebel against your
masters. They are instruments of evil that must be defeated?"
Slaveowners would have responded by cracking down on Christian faith
among their slaves. Thus, nothing would have come of such a command
expect strife, violence, and self-righteousness. But by instructing
slaves to be obedient, even extra-obedient, the Gospel would become
attractive to slaveowners. And what happened when slaveowners became
Christians? They learned of God's grace and love. They learned from
Paul that in Christ, there is no distinction between slave and free man.
Paul even instructed them in the same breath he instructed slaves.
He told them that they too have a Master and there is no favortism
with Him. He told them to provide their slaves with what is "right
and fair," and this itself was revolutionary at the time. In short,
the distinction between slaveowner and slave would erode away as
both would serve a common Master as 'brothers.' Once this
approach was instituted, it was only a matter of time before
slavery would cease to exist, as God had planted a seed which
would grow and strangle the very basis upon which slavery was
founded.
So while the Bible may not contain an explicit condemnation of slavery,
it contains something far more powerful - a way of thinking and a way
of relating that would undermine the very source that fueled slavery.
And in my opinion, this is a far better indicator of divine origin
than a simple commmandment.
***************************************************************************
jarrod@breeze.seas.ucla.edu (Jarrod J. Williamson) wrote on this subject
in the same thread:
Subject: Re: Slavery in the Bible
The following is an excerpt from a dialoge I had over
email. The general theme of this discussion was slavery, and
the slavery of black Africans by Europeans in general. I have
deleted the name of the person I was speaking with, but am now
substituting "John" for his name.
jarrod
***************************************************************************
[ ...]
[John]
> The difference between slavery in other instances
> and the genocidal type practiced by Europeans is
> that never before was race the determining factor.
[Me]
[Note: I put my references below, at the end of
this letter.]
Genocide and slavery are two entirely different
things. Genocide, by definition, is the deliberate
attempt to murder an entire group of people while
slavery, again by definition, is to keep people as
property in order to do work for you. In effect,
slavery is to treat human beings as beasts of
burden, as animals, rather than as created in the
image of God with inalienable, God-given rights.
What happened in Auschwitz and Rwanda was genocide.
What happened in America, Brazil, China, Rome was
slavery. If what happened in the U.S. was
genocidal there would have been no blacks kept as
beasts of burden. I don't say this to make slavery
any less evil than it is, but to call what was
slavery "genocidal" is to make genocide less
terrible. It does a disservice both to that
measure of humanity that have been treated as
animals (slaves) and those who have been
exterminated (genocide). As truly evil as slavery
was (is) any Jew or Rwandan would have desperately
prayed to have exchanged places with any slave.
It is interesting that in Portuguese-colonized
Brazil the total number of imported black slaves
was much higher than in North America (i.e. the
U.S.) and was almost entirely male. The reason for
this is that it was much easier for nearby Brazil
to easily travel to Africa for more slaves while in
the U.S. it was much more difficult to do that. In
Brazil the beating of a slave to death was much
more common for economic reasons, i.e. new slaves
were easy to get in Brazil. In the U.S. slaves
were not beaten to death nearly as often for simple
economic reasons. The number of slaves imported to
the U.S. was far less than in Brazil, however, the
total number of black slaves in the U.S. was far
greater than in Brazil. The reason for this is
simple, as black slaves were too difficult to get
from Africa, they were simply allowed to reproduce
in the U.S., rather than go to Africa to get them.
The mentality toward slaves was certainly quite
different here in the U.S. than in Brazil and other
Portuguese controlled colonies. Portuguese and Spanish
thought at the time espoused no view of equality
among all peoples. Hence, it was no moral trouble
to get and own slaves because, in effect, they were
the bottom of the totem pole, the lowest class of
humanity, and it was okay to enslave them and kill
them. Hence, while they did attach slavery to a
particular race, there was no moral compunction to
deny their humanity. The dilemma was different in
the U.S. American thought did espouse the equality
of all men in the sight of God, yet they still held
slaves. The only rational for them to hold slaves
(i.e. own people) and still at least maintain a
facade of this idea was simple ... deny the
essential humanity of black Africans. All sorts of
rationales were used to justify this, often
religious, e.g. the split between Southern Baptists
(who held slavery) and other sorts of Baptists (who,
like most Protestants, were often moral abolitionists)
was over just this issue.
Around the world the slave trade was conducted
by merchant peoples, such as Venetians, Greeks, and
Jews in Europe [1], the overseas Chinese in
Southeast Asia [2], or by the Arabs who played both
the merchant and marauder roles in Africa [3],
though even here the same individual seldom handled
the slave from initial capture to final sale [4].
When Italian merchants began displacing Jewish
merchants in the eastern Mediterranean and the
Black Sea in medieval times, they also began
displacing Jews in the Black Sea slave trade [5].
Another great merchant people -- Gujaratis from
India -- often financed the African slave trade,
though they did not usually conduct it [6]. The
Yao, a Central African tribe noted for being the
leading traders of ivory in their region, likewise
became the leading traders of slaves in that region
[7]. Neither a national policy nor a racial
ideology was necessary for the enslavement to take
place. All that was necessary was the existence of
vulnerable people, whoever and wherever they might
be -- and regardless of whether they were racially
similar or different from those who victimized
them.
People regularly subjected to slave raids might
indeed be despised and treated with contempt both
during their enslavement and after their
emancipation, but that was not what caused them to
be enslaved in the first place. Although there was
no religious basis for racism in the Islamic world
(as opposed to the non-Muslim religion, the Nation
of Islam) the massive enslavement of sub-Saharan
Africans by Arabs and other Muslims was followed by
a racial disdain toward black people in the Middle
East -- but this racial disdain followed, rather
than preceded, the enslavement of black Africans,
and had not been apparent in the Arabs' previous
dealings with the Ethiopians [8]. In the West as
well, racism was promoted by slavery, rather than
vice versa. Both in North America and in South
Africa, racist rationales for slavery were resorted
to only after religious rationales were tried and
found wanting [9]. But that is not to say that
either rational was in fact the reason for the
enslavement. In many other societies, no rational
was considered necessary.
Africa remained prey to other nations, long after
mass enslavement was no longer viable in many other
parts of the world, because it remained vulnerable
longer. Africa was, and is, the least urbanized
continent and long contained many smaller, weaker,
and more isolated peoples, who were prey to more
powerful African tribes, such as the Ashanti and
the Yao, as well as to Arab slave raiders. Many of
the peoples victimized by the Arabs in Central
Africa had lived isolated from the outside world
and were easy prey for marauders with firearms, who
seized their goods and such people as they wished,
leaving behind famine brought on by looted
granaries and diseases spread by caravans [10].
Europeans became mass traders of African slaves
largely by purchasing from Africa's more powerful
tribes and empires. A particularly high cost
prevented most Europeans (the Portuguese being an
exception) from capturing Africans directly -- the
extreme vulnerability or Europeans to African
diseases during the era of slavery. Before the use
of quinine became widespread, the average life
expectancy of a European in the interior or sub-
Saharan Africa was less than one year [11]. Most
European slave traders therefore purchased Africans
who had already been captured by others, typically
by other Africans.
After lasting thousands of years, slavery was
destroyed over most of the planet in a period of
about one century, and over virtually all of the
planet within two centuries. The destruction of
this ancient and worldwide institution was all the
more remarkable because it was accomplished in the
face of determined opposition and cunning evasion
at every level, from the individual slaveholders
to the heads of nations and empires. Moreover, the
impetus for the destruction of slavery came not
from any of the objective, material, or economic
factors so often assumed to be dominant in
history, but from a moral revulsion against
slavery which began in the late eighteenth century
in the country which was the largest slave-trading
nation of its day, with highly profitable slave-
plantation colonies -- Great Britain. Slavery was
so deeply entrenched and seemingly impregnable when
the anti-slavery political crusade began among
evangelical Christians in the eighteenth-century
Britain that the most fervent crusaders among them
hoped only to stop the continued enslavement and
international trading of human beings. Any though
that the very institution of slavery itself could
be abolished was considered Utopian. Yet the
mobilization of public opinion in Britain against
the slave trade produced such powerful and
enduring political pressures that successive
generations of British governments found
themselves forced to push the anti-slavery effort
further and further toward its logical conclusion -
- first to abolish the international slave trade,
then to abolish slavery throughout the British
Empire, and finally to pressure, bribe, and
coerce other nations into abolishing slavery as
well.
The Quakers were the first organized religious
group in Britain to repudiate the institution of
slavery and to impose on their members a
requirement that they not hold any slaves. But
the larger political effort to get the slave trade
banned by government was led by others inspired by
the Quaker 's example. This worldwide political
revolution against slavery began with a small and
rather conservative group of evangelicals within
the Church of England, staid people who distanced
themselves from the emotionalism of the Methodists
and whose principal leader, William Wilberforce,
was such a relentless opponent of the radical ideas
arising from the French Revolution that he sought
to have those ideas stamped out in England by
government censorship. Among the other members of
the inner C"Clapham Sect" that began the crusade
against the slave trade was the very reserved and
dignified Henry Thornton, wealthy banker and a
landmark figure in the development of monetary
economics. Yet these were the leaders of a
movement whose achievement was one of the most
revolutionary in the history of the human race.
Seldom was there a group of revolutionaries that so
defied stereotypes, in a crusade that defied the
odds.
Repeatedly and resoundingly defeated in
Parliament on bills to abolish the slave trade,
Wilberforce, Thornton, and their supporters
persisted for 20 years, until finally -- of
February 27, 1807 -- the House of Commons passed
such a bill, 283 to 16 [12]. It was a remarkable
victory from a mass mobilization of public opinion
-- and, once mobilized, this public opinion proved
so strong, so tenacious, so enduring, and
ultimately so irresistible, that the anti-slavery
crusade was swept along beyond its original goals
of stopping the international trade in human
beings to abolishing slavery itself throughout the
British Empire, and eventually throughout the
world. Once the moral issue seized the public 's
imagination in Britain, its support spread far
beyond the particular religious group that
initiated the antislavery drive. Socially, it
extended across class lines from the rich to the
poor, from the working class to the titled
nobility [13]. In an age before mass
communications, mass transit, or mass movements,
people were astonished to see petitions arrive
in Parliament with tens of thousands of signatures,
demanding an end to the slave trade. At one point,
Parliament received more than 800 petitions within
a month, containing a total of 700,000 signatures [14].
(Wilberforce also appropriated a section of land
in Africa, now called Sierra Leone, for the
repatriation of black who wanted to go back. Take
a look at early postage stamps in Sierra Leone,
they bear the likeness of Wilberforce.)
The anti-slavery movement proved to be as
unrelenting as it was widespread. British
missionaries fueled the public' s outrage with their
reports from Africa itself, reports widely
disseminated by a powerful missionary lobby in
London. Not all government officials favored the
anti-slavery cause by any means, and some in both
the civil and military establishments resented the
extra burdens put upon them by this cause, as well
as the complications that the anti-slavery crusade
made in British foreign relations. But the
political pressures forced successive British
governments to continue their worldwide opposition
to slavery. Though slavery did not exist in
Britain itself, it became such a factor in British
domestic politics that candidates for political
office felt a need to declare where they stood on
the issue. By the mid-1820 s, being pro- slavery
was considered a political liability [15].
British warships were sent on patrol off West
Africa, boarding not only British ships to inspect
them for slaves, but also boarding the ships of
some other nations who had "voluntarily" granted
them this right. By the early 1840s, Britain began
to urge the Ottoman Empire to abolish the slave
trade within its own dominions. The initial
reposes of the Ottoman sultan was described by the
British ambassador:
... I have been heard with extreme astonishment
accompanied with a smile at a proposition for
destroying an institution closely inter-woven
with the frame of society in this country, and
intimately connected with the law and with habits
and even the religion of all classes, from the
Sultan himself on down to the lowest peasant [16].
Britain was far in advance of most of the rest of
the world in its opposition to slavery. However,
its example inspire abolitionists in the United
States, and the French government later abolished
slavery in its own empire and then sent its navy on
patrol in the Atlantic to help intercept slave-
trading ships. Eventually, opposition to slavery
would spread throughout Western civilization, even
to despotic governments like that of czarist
Russia, which stamped out slavery among its Central
Asian subjects. The European-offshoot societies of
the Western Hemisphere all abolished slavery before
the end of the nineteenth century, and the spread
of Western imperialism to Asia and Africa brought
slavery under pressure around the world. Outside
of Western civilization, the anti-slavery effort
was opposed and evaded, especially in the Islamic
world. Repeated pressure on the Ottoman Empire led
its government to decree a ban on the slave trade
within its domains in 1847, even though this ban
led -- as expected -- to discontent and revolt
among Ottoman subjects. However, mindful of the
opposition within, Ottoman authorities were not
very active at trying to stamp out the slave trade.
Eventually, the British government threatened to
begin boarding Ottoman ship in the Mediterranean to
search for slaves, unless the Ottomans themselves
began enforcing the ban on the forbidden slave
trade [17]. Nor was the Ottoman Empire the only
foreign government to feel the pressure of British
anti-slavery policy. In 1873, British warships
anchored off Zanzibar and threatened to blockade
the island unless the slave market there closed
down [18]. It closed.
A sharp distinction is apparent between the
ending of slavery in Western civilization and in
non-Western regions. By 1888, slavery had been
abolished throughout the Western Hemisphere. Yet
the struggle to end slavery, or even the slave
trade, continued on into the twentieth century in
Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. The British
added naval patrols in the Indian Ocean and the
Persian Gulf after the Ottoman Empire s formal ban
on slave trading provided the legal cover for such
intervention. Yet slave trading continued on the
land until after European imperialism took control
of most of the African continent. Only then could
the attempt be made to stamp out slavery itself.
The difference between the Western and Eastern
worlds as regards the ending of slavery is perhaps
epitomized in the words used to described the
process -- "emancipation," a once-and-for-all
process in the Western hemisphere, and "the
decline of slavery" in Africa, Asia, and the Middle
East, where it was a more protracted process that
lasted well into the twentieth century. Even after
Western hegemony extended into many nations of
Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, slavery
continued in remote regions of Borneo, Burma,
Cambodia, and other parts of Southeast Asia [19].
Among the Islamic nations of North Africa and the
Middle East, the abolition of slavery came
especially late, with Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, and
the Sudan continuing to hold slaves on past the
middle of the twentieth century [20]. Mauritania
officially abolished slavery on July 5, 1980 --
though its own officials admitted that the practice
continued after the ban [21].
> Slavery was usually it was the result of a war
> between groups of people, not arrogant and
> erroneous assumptions of racial superiority.
Correct, until one party kept their position of
superiority for an extended length of time, then
the slavery became linked to their race. Both the
Aztecs and the Mayas did this to the peoples around
them. The Egyptians certainly linked their slavery
to their superiority over the peoples around them
as did the Japanese ... which sense of superiority
still continues to this day. Check the
connotations of the word "gaijin" which means
essentially foreigner/barbarian.
Historically what has happened is that stronger
groups of people would enslave the weaker to do
their work. Over time if the stronger peoples were
able to keep conquering the same group the slavery
then came to be connected to race. Historically
this was no more prevalent among Europeans and
anyone else. Check out the history of the Incas,
Mayas, Babylonians, Celts, Zulu s, Chinese (incl.
the Xia and Chou dynasties), Koreans, Japanese,
etc. I defy you to find a culture that did not at
one time or another practice chattel slavery and
eventually link it to race.
[...]
End of relevant discussion.
[1] Bernard Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe;
Daniel Evans, Slave Coast of Europe
[2] I am too tired to type in the rest of the references.
If you wish, email me and I will send them privately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And I asked him for these references which was met with;
Jochen:
On Thu, 23 May 1996, Jochen Katz wrote:
> Yes, I am interested in the rest of there references to your
> article.
Actually, that part about including the references upon request
was part of the original email exchange that I had with "John." I
excerpted much of my information from Thomas Sowell's "Race and
Culture." Sowell is an excellent scholar and I recomment any of his
works, including "Race and Culture," "Marxism," and "The Economics and
Poltics of Race." Sowell is a senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
jarrod
Questions & Answers
Answering Islam Home Page