sources?

Submitted by historian (United States), Dec 28, 2010 at 03:18

Exactly which primary sources say there can be no enslavement in Muslim-ruled lands? I have read many, many of the primary sources (literary papyrological etc.) of the Middle East c. 634-1300 and these sources refer often to slaves who clearly were enslaved in Muslim-ruled territory by Muslim elites. Coptic sources (History of the Patriarches of Alexandria, John of Nikiu, many papryri) especially from 640-900 AD refer to Copts, and especially Coptic children frequently being enslaved by Muslims. Sources (both Syriac and Arabic) on Mesopotamia from 680-900 refer to massive enslavement by Muslim elites there. If there was no enslavement supposedly permitted in Muslim-ruled lands why did in fact so much enslavemen take place there? Why did Shariah, which held sway in Muslim-rued lands, even make distinctions between free and slave if it did not permit enslavement there? Why were Christtians so frequentl6y enslaved in Muslim lands, and remained enslaved there?. As practical matter I find the claim that Sharia did not permit enslavement in the dar al-Islam highly misleading because it is clear from various sources that enslavement was in fact extremely common there in the perriod from 634-1300.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".