Slavery in World History

 

Slavery in World History

 Shrikant G. Talageri 

 

While looking at something else (actually songs) on youtube, I came across the following video, “History’s Biggest Slavers (Not Who You Think)”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hjwmZJhGII

As per the list of ten empires listed in the video (although a few others are also incidentally referred to in the course of the video), the Roman Empire stands at the top of the list at Number One. And the empires at Numbers Two, Three, Four and Five are all Islamic empires (two of them very much Indian ones) as well as one of the two jointly named at Number Ten:

Two: Mughal Empire.

Three: Abbasid Empire.

Four: Mali Empire.

Five: Sultanate of Delhi.  

Ten (jointly); Umayyad Empire.

 

On Google, I asked the question: “Was the Roman Empire an Inspiration for Islam?”

The Answer:

“Yes, the Roman Empire was a significant source of inspiration and influence for early Islamic civilization, particularly in matters of law, administration, culture, and architecture. 

While the religion of Islam developed from Abrahamic traditions (Judaism and Christianity), the subsequent Islamic empires that emerged from Roman territories integrated many aspects of the existing Roman (Byzantine) system. 

Political and Administrative Influence

The early Islamic caliphates (Umayyad and Abbasid) adopted Roman (Byzantine) and Sassanid Persian models to structure their own governance. 

·         Administration: The caliphates utilized existing Roman infrastructure and administrative practices in the newly conquered provinces of Egypt, Syria, and North Africa.

·         Succession: The Ottoman Empire, a later Islamic power, explicitly claimed the title of "Caesar of Rome" after conquering Constantinople in 1453, viewing itself as a continuation of the Roman imperial legacy. 

Legal and Cultural Influence

Roman traditions influenced specific elements of Islamic legal and cultural practices:

·         Jurisprudence: Some scholars argue that early Islamic jurisprudence, or the systematic codification of Islamic law, was modeled on the Syro-Roman Law Book.

·         Architecture: Early Islamic architecture was heavily influenced by Roman and Byzantine styles, with mosque designs often drawing inspiration from existing structures like the Hagia Sophia and the widespread use of domes, arches, and courtyard house models.

·         Public Life: Practices such as the weekly visit to public baths (hammams) were adopted from the Roman bathing culture.

·         Philosophy and Science: The Islamic Golden Age involved the translation and preservation of Greco-Roman philosophy and scientific texts, which were then synthesized into sophisticated Islamic intellectual traditions. 

Perceptions

In early Islamic history, the Romans (Byzantines) were often viewed favorably by Muslims compared to the polytheistic Persians because the Romans were "People of the Book" (Christians, an Abrahamic faith). The Quran itself features a whole chapter named "Ar-Rum" (The Romans) that discusses the Byzantine-Persian wars. 

In essence, while the religious doctrine was distinct, the practical and cultural framework of the Roman Empire served as a foundation and inspiration for the Islamic world that succeeded it in the Mediterranean and Middle East.”

 

Note carefully: “while the religious doctrine was distinct, the practical and cultural framework of the Roman Empire served as a foundation and inspiration for the Islamic world that succeeded it in the Mediterranean and Middle East.”

For the Roman Empire, slavery was not a matter of “religious doctrine”, it was a matter of “the practical and cultural framework of the Roman Empire” which served as “a foundation and inspiration for the Islamic world that succeeded it in the Mediterranean and Middle East.”

But while slavery was not intrinsic to Roman religion, was its adoption by “the Islamic world that succeeded it in the Mediterranean and Middle East” also likewise just a part of the “the practical and cultural framework of the Roman Empire” which it adopted, and not intrinsically a part of the Muslim religion which was “distinct” from the Roman religion?

So the question remains: did the Islamic world, which has the most prominent place in world history in the matter of international slave trading over hundreds of years, get its foundations from “the practical and cultural framework of the Roman Empire” which it adopted, or from its own Islamic religious heritage? The answer is: from both. 

While all human societies had master-slave aspects, slavery became truly institutionalized only through civilizational states and religious doctrines.    Christianity (and its predecessor Judaism), as religions, also allowed slavery, and especially in relation to peoples conquered by them, or to followers of religions other than their own; and their religious texts have a prodigious amount of detailed instructions on the relationship between masters and slaves and on the treatment of slaves. Islam was the third in the line of these two Abrahamic religions, and so it had its rich heritage of slavery.

As to the religious instructions about the relationship between masters and slaves and on the treatment of slaves, we have books like Jonathan A.C. Brown's “Slavery and Islam”, Bernard K. Freamon's “Possessed by the Right Hand”, and William Gervase Clarence-Smith's “Islam and the Abolition of Slavery”. I need not go into the details here. One book particularly relevant for India in this matter is the book “Muslim Slave System in medieval India” by K.S.Lal.:

https://dn790004.ca.archive.org/0/items/muslim-slave-system-in-medieval-india-k.-s.-lal/Muslim%20Slave%20System%20in%20Medieval%20India%20-%20K.%20S.%20Lal.pdf

 

I will only deal here with the usual apologetics indulged in by apologists of Islam and Islamism, who point out firstly that slavery existed everywhere in the world, including in ancient India, and secondly that Islam provides all kinds of safeguards for the well-treatment of slaves and that it also encourages the manumission or freeing of slaves as a positive virtue.

 

To deal with first point, let me quote A.L.Basham in his magnum opus, “The Wonder That was India”:

“At most periods of her history India, though a cultural unit, has been torn by internecine war. In statecraft, her rulers were cunning and unscrupulous. Famine, flood and plague visited her from time to time, and killed millions of her people. Inequality of birth was given religious sanction, and the lot of the humble was generally hard. Yet our overall impression is that in no other part of the ancient world were the relations of man and man, and of man and the state, so fair and humane. In no other early civilisation were slaves so few in number, and in no other ancient lawbook are their rights so well protected as in the Arthasastra. No other ancient lawgiver proclaimed such noble ideals of fair play in battle as did Manu. In all her history of warfare Hindu India has few tales to tell of cities put to the sword or of the massacre of non-combatants…There was sporadic cruelty and oppression no doubt, but, in comparison with conditions in other early cultures, it was mild. To us the most striking feature of ancient Indian civilisation is its humanity.” (pp.8-9).

And the main thing is that there is no such thing as an authoritative single divine text in Hinduism (though many individuals, especially in modern times, have tried their best to create such a text or set of texts for Hinduism with such powers in imitation of Abrahamic religions), and nor is there any concept of strict adherence to scriptural injunctions (except perhaps in the matter of performing particular religious rites and rituals) for all time. So none of such provisions, in the matter of any references in any ancient text to slavery, are considered binding on any Hindu, unlike in the case of the Abrahamic religions and especially Islam.

 

As I said, people must read the above books for themselves to get all the textual and historical details about slavery in Islam. I will only relate here one very telling personal anecdote, in respect of the second apologetic defense of slavery in Islam mentioned above (that Islam provides all kinds of safeguards for the well-treatment of slaves and that it also encourages the manumission or freeing of slaves as a positive virtue).

In a recent article of mine, “Is Islam Collapsing?”, I had written about this incident where “Some ten or so years ago, an office colleague of a cousin of mine, a fervent Muslim (and, let me add, a very decent person as a person), for some reason, took it into his head that he would convince me about the truth of Islam, and he started meeting me and preaching this truth – he was a staunch fan of Zakir Naik. When, among other things, I told him about this Hadith he refused to believe me, and told me that I must have read some wrong source or translation. He took me to an office of Zakir Naik’s organization in the Bhendi Bazar area (Zakir Naik’s organization was not yet banned in India at the time, and he was then still going strong), where he told me we would get the correct text and translation.

The book (of Sahih Muslim ibn al Hajjaj) that he pulled out from the shelf and opened out to numbers 6620-6622 said exactly the same thing given above. He appeared a little disconcerted, but insisted that the Hadith did not say that Muslims must commit sins. I read out the exact words, and gently pointed out that it specifically said that if Muslims did not commit sins, Allah would be so angry that he would sweep the entire Muslim people “out of existence” and replace them by “another people who have committed sin, and then asked forgiveness from Allah, and He would have granted them pardon”. After a few moments thought, he took the book into a glass cabin where a senior disciple of Zakir Naik was sitting, and asked him about the Hadith. The disciple seemed equally unable to explain it. So then he came out and told me that I must attend a public hall meeting presided over by Zakir Naik himself, and put this question directly to him. Needless to say, I declined the proposal.”

But this incident encompassed not just the issue and hadith referred to in my above article, it referred to a second issue: the issue of slavery in Islam. When he told me that the One and only Allah had proclaimed the eternal rules of Islam for all time to come, I asked him whether he believed it was all right to keep slaves, since this was one of the features approved by Allah. He told me that Allah did not “approve” of slavery, but, since it was a feature common in Arabia since pre-Islamic times, he in fact insisted that slaves should be well-treated, and proclaimed that it was a great act of piety to free slaves. This period-restricted argument does not gel with the idea that Allah’s rules were for “eternity” or explain why he did not ban slavery outright; but let us ignore that and see whether indeed Islam insists that slaves should be well-treated, and proclaims that it is a great act of piety to free slaves.

I told him about some specific hadiths which dealt with the point about whether it is indeed a great act of piety to free slaves, and the extent to which this is so:

Sahih Muslim, 2183: “Jabir reported that a person from the Banu ’Udhra set a slave free after his death. This news reached the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). Upon this he said: ‘Have you any property besides this?’. He said No. Upon this he said ‘Who would buy (this slave) from me?’. Nulaim bin Abdullah bought it for eight hundred dirhams and (this amount was) brought to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who returned it to the owner and then said ‘start with your own self and spend it on yourself, and if anything is left it should be spent on your family, and if anything is left (after meeting the needs of the family) it should be spent on relatives, and if anything is left it should be spent…”  

Sahih Muslim, 2184: “Jabir reported that a person among the Ansar granted posthumous freedom to his slave who was called Ya’qub. The rest of the hadith is the same”.

Sahih Muslim, 2187: “Maimuna bint Harith reported that she set free a slave-girl during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and she made a mention of that to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he said ‘had you given her to your maternal uncles you would have a greater reward’”

In short, these hadiths make it expressly clear that while freeing slaves is or may be meritorious, it is even more meritorious to instead not set free the slave but to sell him/her (still as a slave) and spend the proceeds on one’s own self or one’s family, or to give her (i.e. if a slave-girl) as a slave-gift to one’s uncles. Since Islam permits male masters to fulfill their sexual needs with their female slaves, this latter incident illustrates both (a) whether it is indeed a great act of piety to free slaves, and the extent to which this is so, and (b) the extent of well-treatment mandatory towards slaves.

As with Hadiths 6620-6622 mentioned earlier above, both my friend as well as Zakir Naik’s disciple in the office in the Bhendi Bazaar area had no coherent defense or explanation to give on the subject.

It would have been nice, of course, if they had accepted that slavery is indeed an intrinsic aspect of Islam, and also that they feel it is an aspect which requires correction or reform.