69 million page views

sources?

Reader comment on item: Modern-day Versions of Military Slavery
in response to reader comment: Islamic apologia by Encyclopedia of Orient

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.

Submitting....

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".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (20) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Mamelukes [29 words]AlbertE.Jan 19, 2017 19:46235581
Changes In Islamic Slavery Reflect Cultural Decline [62 words]DaveJan 19, 2017 15:28235568
Q for D. Pipes re Muslim juridical sources on slavery [117 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
medieval historianJan 4, 2011 16:25181547
Offended by a cartoon ?... or... Offended by the abuse of [y]our children ? [54 words]Rochelle MichaelsApr 23, 2008 09:32126568
1What did you expect ! [90 words]dfwhite18438Apr 23, 2008 02:00126541
1What faith is this [61 words]LynnApr 22, 2008 10:35126479
1Pakistan's Mock Devshirme [119 words]BobJul 1, 2006 23:1848694
Slavery allowed in Koran [165 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
MargaretJun 18, 2006 10:3247856
Muslim? [24 words]AlbertE.Jan 19, 2017 19:4947856
Not mere slavery... [18 words]Kevin MJun 17, 2006 09:2847828
Slavery is widespread [248 words]Abdul Rahman ReijerinkJun 17, 2006 06:1047818
1Pakistan's Mock Devshirme [119 words]steven LJun 16, 2006 17:0947788
Further on Devshirmes [139 words]Ali KoknarJun 16, 2006 14:4747773
1Further on Devshirmes [62 words]T H LaneJun 16, 2006 23:5047773
Pakistan's Mock Devshirme [151 words]Jack BergerJun 16, 2006 13:1447769
Islamic apologia by Encyclopedia of Orient [127 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
VijayJun 16, 2006 05:2747752
1Concept of slavery was different in Islam from what we understand today [618 words]BilalJun 17, 2006 15:3947752
2Yes, it was much worse [45 words]Alain Jean-MairetJun 18, 2006 01:0647752
Slavery can indeed be understood many ways, and Bilal is correct in that. [119 words]SamirDec 26, 2010 16:3647752
1sources? [189 words]historianDec 28, 2010 03:1847752

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)