> > >> >>Islam's black slaves >> >>By Suzy Hansen, SALON.COM >>April 5, 2001 >> >>Although slavery seems like an institution from a barbaric and uncivilized >>past, it survives today in >>both Sudan and Mauritania. The horrific details of the Atlantic slave >>trade -- the ruthless slave >>traders who pillaged Africa, the millions of Africans who died on >>treacherous sea journeys to >>America, the resulting "peculiar institution" of cheap, brutalized labor >>that spawned the Civil War >>-- weigh heavily on the American conscience. Another slave trade, however, >>the Islamic one, >>remains a mysterious aspect in the history of the black diaspora. Fourteen >>centuries old, this >>version of slavery spread throughout Africa, the Middle East, Europe, >>India and China. It is the >>legacy of this trade that continues to ravage Sudan and Mauritania today. >> >>South African-born Ronald Segal is the author of 13 books including "The >>Anguish of India," >>"The Americans" and "The Black Diaspora." In his latest book, "Islam's >>Black Slaves: The Other >>Black Diaspora," he offers one of the first historical accounts of the >>Islamic slave trade. Salon >>spoke with Segal by telephone from his home in London. >> >>How did the Atlantic and Islamic slave trades differ? >>The Atlantic slave trade exclusively used black slaves or agricultural >>labor on plantations. It >>started in a very small way in 1450 and ended in the middle of the 19th >>century. It was the basic >>labor supply for the plantations in the Americas since the indigenous >>people had been all but wiped >>out by a combination of imported diseases and forced labor. The number of >>slaves who landed >>alive in the Americas -- it was an important aspect in the development of >>capitalism, so the >>numbers are fairly accurate and organized by merchant banks and investors >>with stock market >>quotations -- was something like 10,600,000. Slaves became so cheap that >>it was more profitable >>to work them to death and buy new ones than to try to keep your labor >>supply alive. For example, >>some of the mortality rates in San Domingue -- which became, after the >>only successful slave >>revolution in history, Haiti -- were quite staggering. >>Slaves in the Atlantic trade came to be kept and regarded as units of >>labor, not as people. This was >>almost formalized by categorizing slaves as "pieces of the Indies." A male >>slave, able-bodied and in >>the prime of his life, was defined as a "piece of the Indies," and the >>other slaves, the women and >>children, were defined as "pieces of pieces of the Indies." That gives you >>an idea of how the >>exploitation of African slaves was rationalized in the West. >> >>But not in Islam? >>The slave trade in Islam was seriously different. It began in the middle >>of the seventh century and >>survives today in Mauritania and Sudan. With the Islamic slave trade, >>we're talking of 14 centuries >>rather than four. >>Whereas the gender ratio of slaves in the Atlantic trade was two males to >>every female, in the >>Islamic trade, it was two females to every male. Very large numbers of >>slaves were used for >>domestic purposes. Concubinage was for those who could afford it and there >>was no disrepute >>attached to having women as sexual objects. In fact, they married them. >>Some harems could be >>enormous. One ruler had 14,000 concubines. In one respect, women slaves >>were a status symbol. I >>hate to say it this way, but it's comparable to the way people in the West >>collect motorcars. >>The male slaves were used for the more exacting physical jobs in homes and >>palaces: porters, >>messengers, doorkeepers. In various places, from Islamic Spain to Egypt to >>Libya, there were >>black slaves used as soldiers. In Morocco, there was a whole generation of >>black slaves who >>became the army of Morocco, in which the young boys were bought at the age >>of 10 or 11 and >>trained in horse handling and military skills of various kinds. Young >>female slaves were instructed >>in household crafts and were then provided with resources to buy a home >>and get married. >> >>What about eunuchs? >>Strictly speaking, in Islam, castration was against the law. I don't think >>it was in the Koran, I think >>it was a hadith -- a saying attributed to the prophets -- which says he >>who castrates a slave will >>himself be castrated. But they got around this as people do. One >>contrivance was to buy already >>castrated slaves. Another was to employ those who were not Muslims to >>perform the operation. >>But then even these contrivances came to be abandoned and dealers would >>perform the operation >>themselves along the route. The mortality rates were absolutely huge. >>To be technical, there was a crucial difference between white eunuchs and >>black eunuchs. White >>eunuchs were made by the removal of testicles. Black eunuchs were made by >>what was called >>"level with the abdomen." Eunuchs were guardians of the harem [because] if >>they were castrated >>"level with the abdomen," there was no risk of their damaging any of the >>property in the harem. >>For reasons that are not altogether clear or explicit, they came to be >>used increasingly by rulers as >>counselors, advisors and tutors and, eventually, to actually run the holy >>places of Mecca and >>Medina, where they were treated with enormous respect. One can speculate >>on the motivation -- if >>they were not sexually active or preoccupied they were more likely to be >>devoted and loyal or >>given to spiritual preoccupations instead of bodily ones. >> >>Were there other types of white slaves in Islam? >>Yes. The Atlantic trade didn't deal with white slaves, but the Islamic >>trade dealt with large >>numbers of white slaves. >> >>And in Islam black slaves were never used for the same purposes that they >>were used in America? >>In the early stages of Islam, they were used in the American way. In >>southern Iraq and neighboring >>Iran they were put to work in large quantities to clear the salt crust for >>agriculture and plantation >>labor. But in the ninth century, a prophet arrived who instigated a >>rebellion among the black >>slaves, the Zanj, in the area. This rebellion was enormous. It destroyed >>much of the commercial >>shipping in the region and came close to capturing the city of Baghdad, >>then the greatest city of >>Islam. It was eventually crushed after quite a protracted period. The >>impact across Islam was >>enormous. There developed a reluctance to allow very large concentrations >>of slaves for plantation >>agriculture. That is a parenthetical reason for the overwhelmingly >>domestic nature of the Islamic >>trade. >> >>Does the Koran specify how slaves should be treated? >>The Koran is the key. The relationship between slave and master in Islam >>is a very different >>relationship from that between the American plantation laborer and owner. >>It was a much more >>personalized relationship and relatively benevolent. Everything here is >>relative -- being a slave is >>being a slave and it shouldn't be romanticized. >>The institution of slavery is sanctioned in the Koran. To say that the >>Koran is in any way opposed >>to the institution of slavery would be wrong. It is never recommended, but >>it is influentially and >>explicitly benevolent in its attitude to the poor, the orphaned and >>slaves. And there is a specific >>injunction that to free a slave is an act of piety, which has its due >>reward in the other life. >>Incidentally, what was absolutely outlawed in the Koran was to separate an >>infant or a young child >>from his mother. >> >>Which was normal in America. >>Right. There is a specific statement in the Koran that says that he who >>separates the child from his >>mother will himself be separated from his loved ones on the day of >>judgment. >>Since it was an act of piety with immeasurable reward, the incidence of >>emancipation or >>enfranchisement was enormously more widespread in Islam than it was in the >>Western form of >>slavery. There wasn't a complete separation of master from former slave. >>Usually, a patron and >>client relationship developed between slave and master. For example, in >>Mauritania today there are >>freed slaves called Haratin whose descendants still pay tribute to the >>family of the owner. >>Specifically in the Koran, the owner of a slave is enjoined to provide >>that slave with an >>opportunity to purchase his freedom. >>There would be a binding contract in which the slave would be provided >>with the opportunity to >>earn money for himself and pay in installments to his owner, which by >>practice, if not by law, >>became a gratuity. There were then two motivations for freeing your slave >>-- a reward in heaven >>and money in this world. >> >>Was slave ownership only for the rich, as it was in America? >>Slave ownership was so widespread. Even small shopkeepers owned slaves. >>Paradoxically, >>although slaves were at the bottom of the hierarchy because they weren't >>free, they still stretched >>right across the economic hierarchy. It was not rare for slaves to become >>highly prized artists. >>There were academies that existed to teach young slave girls to play >>musical instruments. Any self- >>respecting merchant house would have a chamber orchestra. >>Slaves became generals and black slaves became rulers. In the 16th >>century, a slave, Ambar, >>became first a general and then the ruler of a large Indian state. >> >>I also thought it was fascinating that the child of a master by a slave >>was free. >>Definitely. A child born fathered by his master was freed, since a child >>could not be the slave of his >>parents. >> >>The great numbers of black female slaves must have ensured a great deal of >>miscegenation. >>There's no question about that. It is the major reason for the relatively >>small size of the black >>diaspora in Islam, though there were other reasons. A number of countries >>noted a low fertility >>rate among black women slaves. And not all women slaves used for domestic >>purposes had the >>opportunity to produce children. >>The ultimate example of the distinction between the two trades is that in >>the greatest Islamic >>empire, the Ottoman Empire, after the sons of the first two sultans, no >>sultan mounted the throne >>who had not been born of a concubine. The Ottoman ruling family did not >>marry because they >>regarded the royal family as above any alliance. Occasionally, marriage >>would be used to ensure >>the loyalty of a Turkish tribe, but overwhelmingly the fertility of the >>Ottomans was through >>concubines. >> >>Why could Islamic slaves assimilate into the surrounding society so more >>easily than American >>blacks could? >>Here we get to a further dimension of the difference between the two >>trades. Slavery in the West, >>because it was so cruel and had become so disreputable, required some kind >>of excuse or >>extenuation -- the idea of biological discrimination. Essentially, the >>concept of race developed and >>was popularized. The sort of pseudo-scientific view, in distinction from >>the pseudo-religious view, >>came about during the Victorian age, the 19th century, when you had >>Darwin's theory of >>evolution. You could irresponsibly and intellectually dishonestly >>subscribe to the idea that certain >>races were inferior. >> >>But the Koran, on the other hand, prohibits racism? >>The Koran very explicitly attacks it. According to the Prophet, Islam >>comes to do away with these >>distinctions of tribe and nation and color. There is a strong argument >>made by Patricia Crone that, >>initially, Mohammed was most influential in a political rather than a >>religious sense. He supplanted >>this intertribal rivalry by uniting a large part of the Arabian people >>into a political unit, and, of >>course, it then became an imperial power. >> >>Was there no stigma attached to being black in Islam? >>Nothing is ever quite so simple. There did develop an attitude toward >>color. There were >>distinctions in market value and general consumer appreciation between one >>sort of black slave >>and another. Some of this was aesthetic. One tends to think that anyone >>who looks like one's own >>people is more beautiful. For instance, the Ethiopians and the Nubians >>were highly favored >>because they had sharpish noses rather than flat noses and they were >>lighter colored. Clichés >>developed so that you had so-called Negro slaves for hard work and you had >>Ethiopians and >>Nubians for concubinage. >>But this was never institutionalized. This is another key to the >>difference between the two empires. >>Of course, there were Islamic pseudo scientists in the Middle Ages who >>said differences of >>character and temperament were the consequences of climate -- those who >>lived too far from the >>sun in the North had frigid temperaments, and those who were immediately >>beneath the sun were >>given to too much merriment and too little thought. >>But in the context of the development of Islam it would have been a real >>break with tradition had >>it been institutionalized in law. This is important for the assimilation >>aspect too, because once you >>were freed, there was no discrimination in law against you. >> >>They weren't confined to an underclass after they were freed? >>Many of them might have been, although the client/patron relationship was >>a sort of protection if >>you were in need -- that is, if your previous owner was a true practicing >>Muslim. And there isn't >>this history of separation. The nature of the Atlantic trade and therefore >>the survival of racism in >>the West has been one of segregation. In America, separation was the >>social clarion call and as bad >>in the Northern states as in the Southern. Generally, the geographical >>separation -- the kind of >>separation in individual churches where blacks were seated in one part of >>the congregation and >>whites in another -- produced this enormously creative black diaspora in >>America, as well as >>infinite suffering. >>There wasn't this separation in Islam. Whites didn't push blacks off the >>pavement. They didn't >>refuse to allow a black singer to sing in Constitution Hall. They didn't >>forbid restaurants to serve >>them. I don't think that there's any disputing that slavery was a more >>benevolent institution in >>Islam than it was in the West. >>Also, it is irrational to make the exclusive connection between slavery >>and color that existed in the >>West because there were white slaves in Islam in significant numbers. >> >>In comparable numbers to black slaves? >>With the enormous expansion of Islam and the conquests of huge >>territories, there were certainly >>large numbers of white slaves in the early periods. But, to be cautious, >>white slaves became >>increasingly more difficult and expensive to obtain. Black slaves became >>far more numerous than >>white ones. Certainly, when you get to the 19th century, which was the >>cruelest century, there >>were many more black slaves than white ones in Islam. >> >>Beyond the tenets of the Koran, why was this so? >>Western capitalism and the development of the attitude of viewing people >>as units of labor and not >>as people. >> >>Was America so economically powerful because it exploited its cheap slave >>labor more brutally >>than any other leading empire -- such as the Ottoman? >>That's a valid point but there are many other reasons for the demise of >>the Ottoman Empire. >>Although opinions may differ over the extent of the relationship between >>the Atlantic trade and the >>development of industrial capitalism, it is unarguable that the Atlantic >>slave trade was immensely >>profitable. The Industrial Revolution was closely related to the Atlantic >>trade in two major >>respects. First, many of the products of early British industrialization >>were directly related to the >>slave trade. But also, the families who grew rich as a result of the slave >>trade invested their profits >>in industrialization. This was a dual fruitfulness that the slave trade >>produced for the development >>of industrial capitalism. >> >>The Islamic slave trade was not profitable? >>It was profitable for the dealers. But it was nowhere near the kind of >>sophisticated business that it >>became in the Atlantic trade. >>The Atlantic trade is a horrendous and fascinating story. Which is not to >>say that in Islam there >>weren't tremendous cruelties involved, particularly in the 19th century >>when all inhibitions were >>discarded. Of course, it must also be said that the West, for all the >>horrors for which it was >>responsible, did also engender (not always for benign reasons) the >>movement against the >>international slave trade. >> >>Was there an abolitionist movement in Islam? >>Initially, it was a source of great hostility that the West dared to >>intervene in Islamic affairs in >>contradiction to what was allowed by the Koran. But as Western influence, >>or modernism, became >>more and more [widespread], it became less fashionable as well as >>profitable in Islam to own >>slaves. And it became illegal over much of the area. The pressures against >>slavery were extremely >>great from Western powers. It was the moral issue. It became more >>scandalous because the >>conditions of procurement and transport became more and more horrendous. >> >>Was it similar to the Atlantic trade in this respect? >>Both slave trades wittingly and unwittingly encouraged warfare on a huge >>scale to provide the >>captives for the traders. In Islam, this was much less the case until the >>19th century, when it >>became quite ghastly. The worst of the slavers were not Arabs but >>Afro-Arabs -- they were as >>black as the people they were enslaving. The casualties involved in >>enslavement wars were >>absolutely unspeakable. >> >>Where were the Afro-Arabs from? >>The great dealers of the 19th century? Some of them carved empires for >>waging war and for >>providing large numbers of slaves. The point must be made that the worst, >>the most costly in their >>ravages, were the Afro-Arabs. They were themselves Africans. There is >>nothing peculiar to Africa >>about this, though -- people are corrupted by circumstances and greed. >> >>Why has slavery survived in Sudan and Mauritania? >>The resurgence of fundamentalist Islam has a lot to do with slavery in >>both countries. Both >>describe themselves as Islamic states and pursue policies of Arab-Islamic >>religious law, but they >>are essentially exercises in the maintenance of control. Sudan is an >>imperial agglomeration of two >>countries -- one part of black Africa, one part of North Africa. Involved >>in the war is a question of >>control and power. In Mauritania, the so-called white Moors represent a >>third of the population, >>another third are the Haratin -- who are the descendants of freed slaves >>and largely black -- and >>the last third are blacks still held in slavery. >>Also, it is partly a reaction to the power differentials in the world at >>large. Islam was a civilization >>that for hundreds of years was arguably the central civilization of the >>world and certainly dwarfed >>the cultures and powers of a West that is now unquestionably supreme. So >>there is a sense of >>humiliation. In such a situation you get a backlash -- a "return to the >>future through the past" sort >>of thing -- a re-Islamization. There's nothing in the Koran that says >>someone can come along and >>free your slave. >> >>What interested you in the Nation of Islam? >>I find it personally inexplicable that the adhesion to Islam within the >>Black Muslim movement is >>apparently indifferent to the survival of black slavery within Islam. >> >>Louis Farrakhan doesn't acknowledge what goes on in Sudan and Mauritania? >>Does he want them to bring him the slaves as proof? I think it's based on >>a crude self-defense >>mechanism not unrelated to those who feel it necessary to defend the >>conduct of the Israeli >>government regardless of what it does. The attitude is: "These are yours, >>you belong to them, they >>are part of your past and part of your history, and therefore how can you >>associate yourself with >>outsiders who attack them?" >>But this isn't about the survival of Islam -- that's not in question. >>You're talking about two rogue >>states, which are condemned by Islamic countries, governments, preachers, >>writers. You become >>so much more credible if you show that you are altogether sensitive to >>suffering, that you are >>hostile to injustice across the board. If you become so selective that you >>can ignore outrages of >>this kind, well, how can you blame other people for ignoring outrages to >>you and your >>community? >>Farrakhan is a very paradoxical thinker because he's very, very >>intelligent, yet he makes statements >>that are so obviously stupid. It is incomprehensible that he doesn't know >>that they are stupid. He >>knows how to manipulate the media. He does it on the basis of short-term >>gain, without realizing >>that it is long-term loss. You don't build anything lasting on that basis. >> >>Do Black Muslims hold to the classic tenets of Islam? >>They break from the Koran immediately -- if we're talking functionally >>about their crude and open >>anti-Semitism. That is in complete conflict with the special relationship >>that Islam established, >>while the Prophet was alive, with Judaism and Christianity. There has been >>no long historical >>conflict between Jew and Muslim, though there has been a conflict since >>the crusades between >>Christian and Muslim. >>There are exceptions, but overall Islam proved most hospitable, and >>certainly a great deal more so >>than Christianity, to the Jews. When the Jewish population was expelled in >>1492 from Spain, Islam >>took in those Jews who couldn't find havens in Christian countries. This >>isn't to say there haven't >>been tensions from time to time, but overall there is no comparison >>between the way Islam has >>behaved to Jews and the way Christianity has behaved to Jews. >> >>On what basis does the Black Muslim movement usually attack Jews? >>What I find most outrageous is that the leadership of the Black Muslim >>movement has judged it >>necessary and defensible to attack Jews on the basis -- for which there is >>no historical foundation >>whatsoever -- that they masterminded the slave trade, by which I think >>they mean specifically the >>Atlantic trade. And that is -- not to put to fine a point on it or to be >>excessively elegant -- >>unmistakable crap. Anyone who knows anything about the Atlantic trade >>knows that this is >>nonsense. >> >>So why do you think they keep on about this? >>I think that they are resentful -- and I understand the resentment but not >>the form it has taken -- >>that a great deal of fuss, an enormous amount of moral attention, is now >>paid to the Holocaust. >>And in my view, rightly so. The slave trade was the only comparable >>historical experience to the >>Holocaust -- comparable but not identical. No one seems to pay remotely >>the same attention to or >>have the same sense of guilt about the slave trade as about the >>combination of racism in the >>Holocaust. >>Now, that is a point that ought to be made. But you do not aggrandize one >>by belittling the other. >>On the contrary, you end up denying the importance of one by denying the >>importance of the >>other. Certainly you add nothing to your case by basing it on assertions >>that are so easy to >>confront and contradict. >> >>Do you think the Nation of Islam came out of pure despair with America or >>from a loss of faith in >>Christianity? >>They were explicably attracted by a sense or knowledge that there was no >>such history of >>specifically anti-black racism in Islam, as so conspicuously had existed >>for blacks in the West and, >>in particular, in the United States. Those who wished to believe in God or >>practiced some form of >>religion and were, as Louis Farrakhan was, disenchanted with Christianity >>were easily captivated >>by a religious alternative not all that far apart but distinctly different >>from Christianity. >> >>Do you think the Nation of Islam has helped American blacks? >>I have traveled widely in the United States and have visited communities >>in Michigan and Illinois. >>Secular black academics testify that in Black Muslim schools the emphasis >>placed on the history >>and dignity of blacks in Africa has had a marked effect on the reading >>ability of black children, >>who no longer feel disparaged and demoralized. >>There is a great deal of truth in a man like Farrakhan's indictment of >>some of the black middle >>class who flee the ghettos, for understandable reasons, but in the process >>think that they can turn >>their backs on those who are unable to buy new homes in these middle-class >>suburbs. There is a >>smugness there, and then there is the phenomenon of the black >>conservative, such as Clarence >>Thomas. >>It is outrageous that American democracy doesn't function for the >>objectives that it is almost >>perpetually enunciating. If you start looking at statistics on the >>disproportionate numbers of blacks >>executed, of young blacks in prison -- all these undeniable abuses of the >>system make people very >>angry. The problem occurs when this anger becomes irrational. Because it >>is such an obvious >>series of abuses, the anger doesn't need to be irrational. In fact, the >>only way it can be effectual is >>to be rational. >> >> >> > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask] if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------