Talk:Slavery

criticism of contemporary slavery needs a reference

while the contemporary slavery section mentions that the definition of slavery has critics, it doesnt attribute a source, and after looking on the web for 3 hours I havent been able to find one outside of wikipedia. A source should be provided or the phrase should be removed. 08:30, 24 april 2007 (gmt)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.130.87 (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

So-called contemporary slavery

This section does not really relate to slavery, as it does to unfree labor. What is being discussed does not fit with the traditional definition of slavery, which is what is being discussed here. Dullfig 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to the proposal to merge the section with Unfree labor. Why not shorten the section, point out that it relates only to a broad definition of slavery, and head the section with a link to "main article Unfree labor". I'd also like to point out that "slavery" is a complex concept and is not going to respond to easy definitions. Also that a priority for the article would seem to be better sourcing. That is the best way to nip potential POV problems in the bud.Itsmejudith 12:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Another idea is to simply add Unfree labor to the Slavery disambiguation page. Nina Odell 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we eliminate the word "virtual" & change the entire sentence because it is real slavery of children & should say so: "There are millions of people throughout the world — mainly children — in conditions of virtual slavery, as well as in various forms of servitude which are in many respects similar to slavery." Sundiiiiii 02:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

slave traders

Maybe someone must write one article about this. Mongos like to Pedro Blanco or Mongo de Gallinas. Théodore Canot or Mongo Canot, John Ormond or Mongo John...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.97.173.119 (talk)

I think your edit may have been legitimate, but you really have to be careful with terminology. I for one have no clue what a Mongo is, the wikilink you use leads to a disambiguation, none of the Mongo terms described there seems to fit. One xay to solve this would be for you to write a short stub explaining the term Mongo, then link correctly from any articles you intend to use the term. Obviously assuming it's an acceptable term... Alos in future please sign talk page contributions.--Caranorn 13:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TESIS_UV/AVAILABLE/TDX-0127105-131719/garcia.pdf http://www.pdavis.nl/Gallinas.htm 212.97.173.119 14:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

modern stats

Apparently there was a claim in the UK press this weekend that the estimated number of slaves world-wide, given a broad definition, in 2006 is the highest ever in recorded history but can't verify this. Anyone?

213.152.58.77 11:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC).M.

Mongos or Slave Traders

by 212.97.173.119 14:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pedro Blanco Fernández de Trava, El Mongo de Gallinas, spaniard negrero neé in Malaga, was one of the most notorious white slave traders who established himself in the islands in the mouth of the Gallinas River, near the present Sierra Leone-Liberia border, in the early 1800’s.

Contents [ 1 Career 2 List of Ships in Gallina´s harbor 3 Sources 4 Links

Career Before investing in the slave trade, Blanco worked on a sugar mill in Cuba. Ship´s captain, son. He sailed to Africa on the Conquistador, one of his ships. He set up his slave business in 1822 with his partner Tomás Rodríguez Burón and by 1839 they controlled a network that fed Cuba’s insatiable hunger for slaves. Blanco, adding up the partner Pedro Martinez, rapidly expanded the scope of his operation by striking up a working relationship with King Shiakar Mana interchanging gunfires by slaves, provoking civil war in the realm. He eventually had agents stationed at Cape Mount, Shebar, Digby, Yougn Sestos and elsewhere. Blanco entered a partnership also with Carballo with a center of operations in Havana and other departments in Puerto Rico, Trinidad, and Texas. Later, incresing the Society with Francisco Martí y Torrens, and Pedro Juan Zulueta de Ceballos, his mercantile standing was so high, that credit bills were enthusiastically accepted in New York, London and many other well-known financial centers. In Gallinas, he built himself a private kingdom with storehouses on an island, his personal space and office on another island, and houses for his African wives on yet another island. Slaves awaiting shipment were housed on the islands of Taro and Kamasun. In 1838, Blanco left Africa for Cuba and then on to Barcelona, all the while trading slaves. He left Gallinas just before most of the Amistad's Africans reached the coast, but he left behind a network of representatives to carry on his business. It is very possible that some of them handled the Amistad's Africans. At any rate, he played a vital part in the development of the slave trade in this region, safeguarded Bioko and Annobon for Spain. His firm went under in 1848; and in 1854 he passed away in Genoa.

List of Ships in Gallina´s harbor From January to November of 1840. By english commander Joseph Denman, to Sierra Leone Gobernor.

USA, Lisa Dalvison 200 Tn. USA, Theopleidas Chan 160 Tn. USA, Alejander 200 Tn. USA, Seminole 100 Tn. USA, Crannfort 300 Tn. USA, Warbely 200 Tn. Hamburguer, Argus 100 Tn. French, Antonie Feriol 109 Tn. French, Jeune Frederike 200 Tn.

Sources Adam Jones, From Slaves to Palm Kernels: A History of the Galinhas Country (West Africa), 1730-1890 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983)

Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997)

UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIA, DOLORES GARCÍA CANTÚS, Departamento de Historia Contemporanea. Fernando Poo: Una Aventura Colonial Española En El África Colonial (1778-1900) Servei de Publicacions 2004.

Links http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TESIS_UV/AVAILABLE/TDX-0127105-131719/garcia.pdf http://www.pdavis.nl/Gallinas.htm

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Blanco"

Mongos in West Africa http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TESIS_UV/AVAILABLE/TDX-0127105-131719/garcia.pdf 212.97.173.119 14:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedro_Blanco"

Australia

Maybe a section on slavery in Australia (Blackbirding)? Sad mouse 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Article linking and tense

In hopes of prompting people to shorten this rather long article, I will try to link various forms of slavery (sex slavery, chattel slavery, etc.) to other forms of slavery. Also, I was wondering if this article could be more readable if it was either in the past or present tense. I'm under the impression that it's both. --Umalee 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Size

I added a 'very long' template to encourage people to reduce the article size by making other articles, etc. I am new, and unsure where it is most approriate to place it. If anyone has any issues with it, please take it to my talk page. --Umalee 14:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion-Slavery

deleted "Keep in mind that slavery was a fundamental part of all societies at the time." Generic, generalised, unsupported statement. Unless anyone can define "the time" and can list proof that "all societies" had slavery as a "fundamental part"... --Chalyres 09:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This section seems to be defending religion in its role in the perpetuation of slavery. The information is not presented in an objective and unbiased manner. --jlhancock

Request Protection

Reason : High Levels of Vandalism; possible sockpuppetry - 66.226.33.19 and Skeetskeet1 Please Remove message when issue is settled . Mbralchenko 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-context info in lead

Qqzzccdd has added the same info to the lead three times now. I and another editor removed it and he replaced it. I find that the info is out-of-context and doesn't really belong in the lead. It doesn't add to the basic understanding of slavery to know that slaves have been prohibited from carrying weapons since ancient times. If this information belongs at all in the article, it isn't appropriate for the lead. I'm interested to know what other editors think of this. janejellyroll 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfree man without weapon = slave. This is more close to definition then modern definition unfree labour.Qqzzccdd 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this information? janejellyroll 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No one has sources for different point of view. Qqzzccdd 21:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have a "different point of view," you will have to source it. Editors cannot just edit articles to reflect their own opinions. janejellyroll 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"No slaves shall keep any arms whatever, nor pass, unless with written orders for his master or employer, or in his company, with arms from one place to another. Arms in possession of a slave contrary to this prohibition shall be forfeited to him who will seize them."

-A Bill Concerning Slaves, Virginia Assembly, 1779

Is this enough? Qqzzccdd 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there are many many examples of slaves that were actually allowed to carry weapons, even slave armies and slave bodyguards (consider the personal guard to the Ottoman emperor, for example), and there are many examples of free people not allowed to carry weapons. It is simply not a generally true statement, all you show is that it was but one of many laws that differentially regulated slave behaviour in Virginia in 1779. Sad mouse 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Slavery/america

Removed "Slavery has had a ubiquitous and almost universal role in nearly all ancient civilizations." as intro. unsourced, unproven statement (and ubiquitous, universal, and nearly all is pretty redundant, methinks). Besides, it's in the "slavery in america" section. America is not an ancient civilisation, last time i checked.--Chalyres 08:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

I reverted Emote's edit not because of vandalism concerns but to re-edit taking Emote's concerns into consideration (Emote had a good point) but the edit was only a deletion of sections which not only addressed the personal opinion but added new opinion. I hope the resulting reversion+edit can be seen as beneficial.--Chalyres 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I also reverted to a previous slavery/christianity version--previous versions of the paragraph have had similar "chrisianity can't be blamed" edits (this one, about the bible offering "practical solutions," was just plain didactic).

Legal protection of slaves

I appreciate Chalyres's desire to retain some of the original content in this section. My concern, however, is the statement that there were "few restrictions" on slave abuse. As it stands currently, the phrasing implies that slaves were more or less unprotected by law. But the very next sentence in the article sets forth several important legal protections for slaves. They could not be murdered, raped, or cruelly punished. What warrants the statement that "there were few restrictions of the conduct of a master toward his slave"? Aren't the aforementioned protections sufficient? Emote 03:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i'm thinking that the whole section should be re-written, actually. i think what we're both working on is an over-edited section that has lost much relevance to the subject heading. to answer your question, though, they could be murdered, raped, and cruelly punished, though there were laws against it (slaves could not bring their masters to trial, and a slave's testimony held almost no judicial weight). the very original point of "christian decency" (i didn't write it, by the way, i'm new to this article) was probably meant to convey that meaning (an owner could only be prosecuted if a family member or neighbour brought allegations against them). Therefore, the "restrictions" on slave abuse were meaningful only insofar as they were written down somewhere and never used. In order to fix the obvious confusion what's left of the section might cause, i think it should be expanded into several paragraphs, one detailing laws against abuse, one detailing the impossibility of a slave using these laws to obtain justice, and then a few references of historical examples (Children of God's Fire is a gold mine for this, as soon as i get my borrowed copy back from a colleague). So, the section should eventually cover laws governing master-slave behaviour, the near-impossibility of a slave ever getting to bring any charges before a court, and examples. Does that make sense?--Chalyres 05:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point better now. I agree that the section should be rewritten (or removed -- I don't have time to rewrite it). The fact that a slave's testimony held little weight had more to do with his color than with his status as a slave. In other words, the question of legal testimony was a racial issue, not a slavery issue. R.L. Dabney states:

The slave was not permitted to testify against a white man, and this was a restriction made proper by his low grade of truthfulness, his difference of race, and the fact that he was to so great a degree subject to the will of another. But the seeming severity of this restriction was almost wholly removed, among us, by the fact that he always had, in his master, an interested and zealous patron and guardian, in all collisions with other white men. From oppression by his own master he found his sufficient protection, usually, in affection and self-interest. But in most of the abolition States, the wretched free black was equally disqualified to testify against his white oppressor; and the vast difference against him was, that he had no white master, the legal equal of his assailant, eagerly engaged by self-interest, affection, and honourable pride, to protect him. The black "citizen" was the helpless victim of the white swindler or bully.

In general, I think this particular topic is blown out of proportion in the discussion of American slavery. (I'm not accusing you of blowing anything out of proportion. I'm just saying that it tends to be unduly emphasized.) If ever slavery was humane, Christian, and beneficial to both white and black, it was in America. I would venture to say that American slaves were far safer in their homes in 1850 than school children are in the classroom today. Anyway, take all that for what it's worth. Good luck with the rewriting. Emote 06:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If those schoolchildren are dragged in chains across an ocean just to get to school, sure.--Chalyres 12:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall that any slaves were dragged across the ocean in 1850. Congress in 1808 passed a law prohibiting the importation of slaves. Emote 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Quran section should mention verses

like the Bible section.--58.104.32.70 07:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

the bit about Hadith being binding is actually incorrect - they are not binding. Hadith are related stories about the life of Muhammad, and carry weight dependant on the perceived strength of evidence the Hadith is factual.

More importantly the Qu'ran does not accept or endorse the institution of slavery. Whether or not islam does is another matter, but the Qu'ran only refers to slaves being freed. (see discussion below).

The Link for Chattel slavery links here

So im removing it

--Ggohtrin 09:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

individual rights

Slaves can certainly possess certain rights, and in many cultures, using the notion of "individual rights" is anachronistic, because no one had rights in the modern sense.. "Property of another person" is quite adequate to describe the condition. Goldfritha 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed the following links from the "Historical" subsection of the "External Links" section of the article, for the following reasons:

• The link African history by Africans is dead (no webpage could be found when I clicked on the link).
• The link Slavery in the Bible, which one might assume to connect to some reasonably scholarly webpage pertaining to slavery in Biblical times, actually links to a webpage promoting the notion that "Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are the Israelites!", by using some extremely questionable exegesis from Biblical texts.
  

If anyone has any objections to my actions, please state them.--Spurius Furius 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hallelujah! We've got Semi-protection

Well, we serious editors can breathe a little easier for the next two weeks, free of the ongoing assault from anonymous vandals. I'm just sorry I waited so long to make the request! (Something tells me I'm gonna be requesting protection all over again after it expires...) Cgingold 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Slavery in the Americas should be removed or edited

We already have a section for brief histories of slavery in various times and places. We shouldn't have a section just on slavery in the Americas.

And if we do decide to keep the section, it shouldn't place so much emphasis on slavery in North America. Less than 5% of slaves brought to the Americas were brought to North America while about 10 million slaves went to South America and Brazil.

Agree, while the North American slavery is the best known example of modern slavery it is far from the only one. As (I believe) it is stated in the article, large scale slavery has existed in the Arab world in our time and in Russia up till the 18th century.

That said, the American and especially the North American slavery is very important precisely because it is so well known. 130.243.153.236 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It was also very different from slavery in South America. Having a section about the Americas gives the false impression that the slave experience in both North and South America was very much the same. But back to the point. The article shouldn't have such a large section devoted to the particular experiences of one group. That's what the "main article" links are for. If no one objects, then I'll be deleting the section in a few days.

By deleting the section, I trust you just mean the title/heading and not the section itself? Grant | Talk 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I mean the entire section. This is an article about slavery in general. Other pages exist and are reserved for more specific treatments. Perhaps moving the page would be better. Mc6809e 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think both of those suggestions are completely unacceptable and I don't understand why anyone would make them. Slavery in the U.S. is the best-known example of slavery in a developed country, and many people will be expecting to find it in this article. Grant | Talk 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Best-known"? So what? The point of Wikipedia isn't to tell people what they already know. Besides, if people wish to learn of the history of slavery in the United States, then they can read the perfectly fine article History of slavery in the United States. It is completely unacceptable to focus on a particular example of slavery in an article that concerns slavery in general. The History of Slavery article goes through a lot of trouble to give a thorough history without focusing on the slavery in the United States, yet you think this even more general article should focus on slavery in the United States. I can't understand what would motivate someone to support such a thing. Mc6809e 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "focus". There is nothing wrong with long articles whene required, or in duplicating material from one article to another. In fact there are part of a comprehensive approach to any subject. They are also official Wikipedia policy. See:

• http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper
• Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Articles_covering_subtopics.

Grant | Talk 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Overemphasis on American (USA) slavery

How is it that slavery in the Americas is one of the largest sections in the article, and that most of the section is about USA slavery? What about slavery among the pre-Columbian Amerindians? Also, how could John Casor become a citizen of the United States before the United States came into existence? The Treaty of Paris concluding the American Revolutionary War recognized thirteen independent countries (states)--it was only later that these nations were unified under one nation. Some of those thirteen independent nations outlawed slavery in their country (state). Should this be mentioned? Chiss Boy 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a line here: "By 1804, NJ would be the final "Northern" state to end enslavement." I think this would be a good place to have a discussion of gradual emancipiation, which is what NJ did. In gradual emancipation, no one living was freed, but their children were. This resulted in NJ being the first to end enslavement, but still having slaves (some 30 or so) when the Constitution was amended to end slavery in the US. 138.162.128.52 15:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Conversations about slavery

Is it right for me to talk to a person about slavery? Just because it's a high-school subject doesn't mean that it's wrong for me to talk about slavery. Is that right? 72.194.116.63 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 17.00 24 March 2007

Timing of repugnance, non-NPOV as biased towards American slavery

I think this sentence needs sourced or rewritten, as the worldwide repugnance towards slavery began in the late 18th century, not in the 19th century. This is why the trade was banned or outlawed early in the 19th century by many countries.

"While slavery has been a prominent feature of many civilizations throughout recorded human history, it has acquired a repugnant aura, in part as a result of the inhumane treatment within large-scale racialized slavery that developed in the nineteenth century."

KP Botany 21:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

it depends on how much repugnance you consider decisive. Also do remember that the slave trade was banned by several states, including South Carolina herself, with no overwhelming objection to slavery as such. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

None of this is the point. The point is what the sentence says! The sentence says slavery acquired a "repugnant aura" due to racialized slavery that developed in the nineteenth century. Yet the article lists the end of slavery or the slave trade in many parts of the world BEFORE this development. The point is that the sentence states that slavery "acquired a repugnant aura, in part as a result of the inhumane treatment within large-scale racialized slavery that developed in the nineteenth century." Since the slave trade was outlawed at the start of the 19th century by the northern states and in the US very early in the 19th century, was illegal in England in 1790s, and very early in the 19th century in Canada it does not seem that slavery gained its repugnant aura from actions that happened AFTER it was banned or partially abolished in ways in much of the world. The repugnance came earlier. If it didn't some explanation has to be offered in the text for why slavery was not repugnant to people but was banned all sorts of places before the large-scale racialized slavery which only "developed in the nineteenth century."

So, either the repugnant aura came earlier and contributed to its earlier abolishing in whole or in part all over the world, OR it was banned in spite of not having an aura of repugnance. If the latter, why was slavery abolished while not considered repugnant? KP Botany 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

um.....cool

sweet im editing wiki. cool!! This edit was posted by User:12.72.134.0. Please sign your posts using four tildas, like this ~~~~. And, yes, it's cool, but only if you add relevant content, because anybody can edit. KP Botany 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Roman inconsistency?

How does this:

until the 2nd century when laws protecting slaves were instituted - a master could legally kill a slave

reconcile with this:

In any event, the Cornelian Law in 82 BCE forbade masters from killing a slave

? 86.132.136.165 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gets interesting: By Roman law a master could not kill his slave, however, he could do ANYTHING (including kill) his own son.71.197.106.123 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in India?

Hi,

I thought it might be interesting to add a section about slavery in India. There's a little bit there, but nothing about India from 1000 BC - 500 AD. That's a big hole! Anyway, I might draft up something and insert it. Good idea?

Dubrovnik first to outlaw slavery

Please, add to the article that Republic of Dubrovnik was the first state in Europe to outlaw slavery (1416) [1]. --89.172.125.188 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That would require a better and more detailed source than Dubrovnik's rourist bureau. For example, not selling slaves to the Turk would be meritorious, but not the same thing as outlawing slavery. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The serfdom in the Russian Empire is improperly defined as the type of slavery in which only a part of serf's work output belonged to the landlord. Actually, serfs themselves were property of their lord and could be bought and sold just like black slaves in America.i like potTOES

Sounder

Shouldn't Sounder be added to See also/Films —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.224.239.145 (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Sounder is about sharecroppers, not slaves. MJFiorello 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

While I understand the need to have links to other websites that give more information on slavery both contemporary and historical, the number of external links now provided is absolutely excessive. Do we really need 54 links, 26 of which are to the BBC alone? Any thoughts on pruning some of these? Thanks--Spurius Furius 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam came to Abolish and eradicate slavery

First of All you did not mention that Kafour Al-Ikhshedi who was a Black Nubian slave …was an (Egyptian Ruler too)..! Plus Mamluki does not mean White Slave at all...Very strange to see a whole State in Egypt was ruled by Slaves as leaders of that country.

You can have one odd Occasion in Roman History that slave could be Gladiator or an Army leader. But a whole State governing and ruleing a key Pivotal country... Egypt .. that was ruled by Slaves as MASTERS Rulers or leaders taking Zakat alms ..declaring wars...and making peace !!

Only Happened in Arab History .

But that is not the Issue...The Issue is Islam and Slavery.

Let's Start that we are "All born Free pure Muslims"..without Sins.

Set your face firmly toward the Religion, as a pure natural believer, God’s natural pattern on which He made humanity. (30, 30)

Then let's go to Some of your assertions and quotations briefly to answer them and to Show how Islam Abolished slavery.

In Islam the reward of emancipation of a slave, is Salvation from sins being committed ..e.g'...[090:012] and what shall teach thee what is the steep?...'[090:013] (It is) the setting free of a slave… see Verse 90:10-16..and in many many verses in Quran.

You have said {In Islam, the Qur'an accepts and endorses the institution of slavery}.

"Zakat alms " which is a "State" institutionlized compulsory Paying tax must be used to free Slaves:-

Quran [9:060] In fact, the ‘zakat/’alms is meant for the needy and the poor, as well as for those appointed to collect and distribute it,to win hearts over (to Islam), to free slaves and those in debt, (to wage a struggle) for the sake of Allah, and to help the wayfarer. It is an obligation imposed by Allah; and Allah is well aware, the Wisest.

The State must Collect the "Zakat alms" to free the slaves Muslims and non Muslims....and those in debt

just imagine if that happen today.. how many people from individual level to nations worldwide will be freed from "the banking global slavery system"?

Specially when you know that taking Interest(usury ) is "totally" prohibited in Islam to all people Muslims and non Muslims alike

Unlike the bible which allows an Israelite to take usury from Gentiles because God bless that Deuteronomy 23:20•!

You have said {The slavery endorsed by the Qur'an limited the source of slaves to those captured in war and those born of two slave parents}.

What do you call Community services ..to misdemeanor criminals is ?

Captives were taken from the blood-thirsty and hostile enemies combatants from the battlefields,but they were also given the right to get their freedom when ever they want.

Verse 24:33 ". And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you.

In this Verse, we see that if a slave requests his freedom from his Muslim master, then his master not only must help him earn his freedom, but also pay him money so the slave can have a good start in his free life.

For those born of two slave parents,before Islam came in...Islam urged to give them freedom and put it as way to cleanse sins....and the STATE must free them using the Zakat Tax as in verse [9:060]state

In Regard to Concubines relationship. Quran tells Muslims men whom have concubines in the past to pay them back compensation for human dignity OR to marry them which verse 4:25 that is with the permission of their family, to put the end of Concubines relationship.

You have also said that the prophet Muhammad according to a “Haddith” had slaves

"The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"

This Hadith also corporate with the the Quran that says

"It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is [righteousness] to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask,[ and for the ransom of slaves; ]to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing. (Quran, 2:177)"

I can not Imagine That the prophet Who is the embodiment of Quran was keeping slaves for himself, and on the same time Quran asked to free slaves.

Was NOT he righteous enough to free his slaves as the Quran commanded ,and Quran say

[002:285] The Apostle believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, ...., and we obey: ." ?

Quran say [3:064] Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That (1)we worship none but GOD; that (2) we associate no partners with him;that (3)we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we are Muslims.

Number (3)..... that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons (word used is Arbaban) ...not to make People Lords on others to control them.

Verse 9:60 and 3:064 eradicate and put end to all forms of Slavery that is (Body, Mind , and Spiritual) slavery that was and still exist today world wide and in a larger scale.

There are inserted Hadiths and false Stories ( about the prophet) that contradict the QURAN(which the Kernel of Islamic Sharia Laws) and other Prophetic Hadith that corporate the Quranic texts.

These False Hadiths or Stories, made later by “alleged scholars” to justify slavery in Islam, and to keep it going, also by some to demonize the values of Islam, and The prophet.

Answer is by looking back to the Quran.

Islam came in a time that Slavery was a way of life, but made it to be a gradual dismantling of the slavery system.

However If Arabs or muslims Not Abolished Slavery..Muslims today use(Usuary/Interest)..THIS is the Problem of the MUSLIMS ,and Arabs...NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM.

If the secular west claim that they free slaves, ISLAM after defining all forms of slavery,shows the way and the method to end slavery.

That if you believe that slavery is abolished by the west..which is not...Slavery exist today..blessed...in global scale and in all three forms (MIND, BODY, and SPIRIT).

81.153.70.71 21:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• • And?

58.106.3.57 15:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Sorry for the anon, I can't log in where I am. Looking at the religion section there is a clear disparity. The section on old testiment slavery is apologetic,while the same type of material in the Quran is presented as condoning slavery. However...

exodus 20:20-21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." (just one of many many examples)

Quran 4:92 "4.92] And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a convenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing, Wise." (not actually that many references to slaves, but sufficient to quash any idea that they didn't have any.)

In both these verses we see that they both kept slaves and they both had laws regulating them. Any chance someone could fix this, assuming anyone is interested.

Hi all

I start with the qoute {Any chance someone could fix this, assuming anyone is interested?}

Yes I do...please

Now Question Slavery existed before the coming of Prophet Muhammad, ...true or false?

Answer is TRUE ...they were slaves before Prophet Muhammad but when Prophet Muhammad message arrived, Islam started to Abolish it,as it is explained by 81.153.70.71 .

Not only that but also Islam came to eradicate slavery. The STATE must eradicate slavery(for Muslims or non-muslims)as well as poverty using the Zakat Tax "alssadaqat". Verse [9:060] clearly state it as an obligation imposed by God .

Now let us talk about Verse 4:92

Then you said (not actually that many references to slaves, but sufficient to quash any idea that they didn't have any.)

Yes but please notice that.. the verse did not specify or say free the believer slave whom is owned by Muslims...okay !

Verse 4:92 talks about the "penalty measurement" when a Muslim kill his Muslim brother by mistake even if the one who was killed from non Muslims nation that has peace or in Hostility with Muslims.

The First thing a Muslim should do in this Case is to free a Believer Slave..anywhere in the world ..even in Bermuda triangle or cuba.

But he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing

The Verse talking about the penalty when a Muslim kill a Muslim by mistake ..Freeing Slaves.. Not talking..about taking slaves, beating slaves or keeping slaves

The Verse is NOT even saying.. free slaves [only] when a Muslim kill Muslim by mistake, nor it is saying that these believer slaves whom to be freed are from the ones whom owned by muslims, so to falsely accused that Islam meant to keep slaves !

Therefore your remark and I quote {In both these verses we see that they both kept slaves and they both had laws regulating them. }.......Is wrong.. coz I do NOT read in the Verse 4:92 the word... Keep slave , Take Slave, beat Slaves ,or Banana ...these are your own assumption or planted assertion not in the TEXT.

Lord Jealous is a free thinker 12:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• • back again. still can't log in, but hopefully this doesn't cause too much confusion. I don't interprate the text as "take slaves, beat slaves etc" either. I am talking about whether or not the texts support the idea that their respective people had slaves. The condition of them is neither here nor there (but possibly the source of another topic). This quote, from your good self,

"Verse 24:33 ". And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you."

tells us that people who followed these scriptures had slaves. Its in the first line. I'm not going to make assumptions about what happens if the slave owner has any slaves that don't have any good in them, or what was the status of those people who didn't have the money to earn their freedom. The fact is that is tells us that they had slaves. That is all.

The Answer

They had slaves prior to the actual reviled verse.The verses instruct Muslims as to deal with the slave they "already possessed". In relation to verses quoted shows that any slave who asked or requested to be freed must be given this rights unless he /she was known to be plotting for mischief. The master not only must help him earn his freedom, but also pay him money so the slave can have a good start in his free life

{what was the status of those people who didn't have the money to earn their freedom?}

People do not buy their Freedom The State must collect Alms to free them an obligation imposed by Allah.

[9:060] The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and for those employed in connections therewith, and for those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and for the freeing of slaves, and for those in debt, and for the cause of ALLAH, and for the wayfarer - an ordinance from ALLAH. And ALLAH is All-Knowing, Wise.

Thus the State must collect Alms to abolish all kind of slavery (bondage, Poverty, and people in debts)- an ordinance from ALLAH.

Lord Jealous is a free Thinker86.151.155.3 02:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • me again. Now that actually makes sense. So what you're saying is that muslims did have slaves but islamic obligations required them to give them the option for freedom. The deed for payment mentioned in 24:33 could be used to apply for alms as covered by 9:60. I think this is the core misunderstanding between us. It is clear that some mulsims had slaves. But Islam actively discourages the keeping of slaves if you are to be considered a good man.

If you could find me a passage that expressly forbids the keeping of slaves that would be better, but for now we can't say that the quran does not allow slaves unless you can find a passage that expressly forbids the keeping of slaves. What we can say, however, is that the Quran does not condone slavery in any way, and actively encourages its people to free them wherever possible. 
What makes things difficult is that it constantly refers to believing slaves and slaves of good character as being the ones who should be freed. In no way does it suggest universal emancipation. But I will agree with your conclusion that islam does not condone the keeping of slaves.

ETA:"In Islam, the Qur'an accepts and endorses the institution of slavery" this line is demonstably false.

Hi again

Points need to be explained and not to be repeated again.

• First of all Freeing any Slave from the Alms is not a matter of Choice or an option it is an “Obligation imposed by Allah himself” (Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ) strongly state that in verse 9:60 , just like any other obligation duty imposed by Allah ( Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ) be it.. Establishing prayer, Fasting Ramadan , and making Hajj. It does Not only forbid taking or keeping slaves,but also by NOT freeing them is a SIN that defy Allah’s commandment.

That verse alone abolished and forbidden slavery, as well as abolishing other kind slavery be it poverty and debt which enslaves most of mankind today.

• Why they had to know any good in them before freeing them in verse 24:33 ? In the past (before Islam) some Slaves were captured from wars. They were war combatants’ captives (Asrra) been taken as slaves. Therefore to prevent them from plotting for mischief or to take revenge or harm his capturer the State itself then would take the obligation of freeing him instead of the Owner. Coz they are included in verse 9:60 as being labeled as “a salve” . Notice also that 24:33 did not even say to keep them if they show hostility.

• Verse 24:33 talk about freeing slaves on individual bases, while verse 9:60 talk about Freeing slave in a Universal level, which is done by the STATE that collect the Tax (Alms) for many purposes one of them is to free slaves regardless their Faith, race, Colour, and how been captured, plus it consider also that poverty and dept are equal to slavery needed to be abolished.

• LINGUSTICLY the frequent word used for slaves in the Quran is the "word مما ملكت ايمانكم ma MalakatAymanikom" For anyone who has even a basic understanding of the Arabic language would know that it is exclusively refer to something that happened in the past. people whom took slaves before the advent of Islam and kept them .

THIS ISSUES ALONGSIDE OTHER MISCONCEPTINS HELD ABOUT ISLAM IS BEING FULLY ADDRESSED IN A BOOK, HIGHLITING THE QURAN SUPERLATIVE STANDARDS. FOR THIS REASON I CAN NOT GO IN TO ANY FURTHER LINGUSTIC OR TECHNICAL DETAILS ON THE ISSUE.

In Nutshell

Verse 9:60 puts an end to slavery in general which is an obligation responsibility for the Muslim STATE to do. Just by NOT Freeing Slave, let alone keeping them is a SIN against Allah’s commandment.

Lord jealous is a free thinker.86.151.155.3 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • "In Islam, the Qur'an accepts and endorses the institution of slavery" Clearlly this is not true. A simple look at the Qu'ran reveals this. Quite how this passage has remained in the article I don't know.

Whether or not any slaves were kept, in terms of referencing is a bit more difficult. There are sources that claim that muslims did have slaves. Find a better reference to say they didn't and the problem goes away.
In the meantime, I am personally happy to accept that the freeing of slaves is a requirement by the alms. Forget all the other stuff you said, this bit: "Freeing any Slave from the Alms is not a matter of Choice or an option it is an “Obligation imposed by Allah himself” (Fareedatn min Allah  فريضة من الله  )" is all I need. To be entered into the article it would ideally need a reference of some sort. 
As I said, I can't log in and this is a protected article. I'm really sorry, but this means I can't make the changes. No one else has offered an opinion on this discussion. I'd imagine that may change if the article is edited, but then they can explain why they feel the Qu'ran endorses slavery here. So if you believe in this so strongly, what are you doing about it?

Religion and Slavery

It is incorrect to write "The position of Cristian churches became firmly anti-slavery only in the 1800s", we don't forget the papal bull of Pope Eugene IV, enacted in January 13, 1435, at Florence, called "Sicut Dudum" about the enslaving by Spanish slave trader of black natives from the Canary Islands. The Pope wrote: ".... These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money"... But the Spanish didn't listen the Pope and asserted that the black natives weren't men but a sort of animals. Luiclemens 22:30, 14 April 2007

Hi

".... These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money"

It will be better if the Pope Eugene IV, consolidate this noble phrase with a Biblical text.

It must have Signature in the bible ,since the bible is the highest authority because it is the WORD of GOD,other wise his speech has no bases. Why then not to take the word of his holiness the Dalai Lama instead?, because it is not from the bible?

please find out if Pope Eugene IV did !

Thanx

Ferju 00:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Dear Ferju, the papal bull Sicut Dudum is an historical document promulgated by Pope Eugene IV 57 years before of American discovery. If you want, go to read the papal bull in english where you can find the condemn of slavery!

Luiclemens 12:00 15 April 2007

Hi

Dear Luiclemens I do believe Sicut Dudum exist I am not doubting that, what I say is that it's better if he quoted what he believed from a “Holy biblical text” because Bible can not be changed.

please find out if the Pope Eugene IV did bringSicut Dudum teachings from a "Holy biblical text", not just things been said out by himself that reflect only his own point oview not based from the Bible, and with proof please.

Thanx.

Ferju 11:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed European to Atlantic slave trade

The old title was misleading in various ways: The usual name for the slave trade in question is Atlantic slave trade. European could also refer to the capturing and trading of Slavic people by mostly Germanic people in the Middle Ages, as well as to Ancient Greek and Roman slavery. Malc82 12:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rubber boom

The following statement shouldn't be in the Atlantic (formerly European) slave trade section, but doesn't really fit elsewhere. Does anybody have a suggestion where to put it?

During the period from late 19th and early 20th centuries, demand for the labor-intensive harvesting of rubber drove frontier expansion and slavery in both Latin America and Africa. The personal monarchy of Belgian King Leopold II in the Congo Free State saw mass killings and slavery to extract rubber (Adam Hochschild, King Leopold's Ghost). Meanwhile, indigenous people were enslaved as part of the rubber boom in Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, and Brazil (Michael Edward Stanfield , Red Rubber, Bleeding Trees: Violence, Slavery, and Empire in Northwest Amazonia, 1850-1933). In Central America, rubber tappers participated in the enslavement of the indigenous Guatuso-Maleku people for domestic service (Mark Edelman, "A Central American Genocide: Rubber, Slavery, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Guatusos-Malekus," Comparative Studies in Society and History (1998), 40: 356-390.). Malc82 12:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

List of known slaves

There is a list of slaves in this article. It should be merged with the List of known slaves. Sarcelles 11:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please allow a link to be added to my new educational (non commercial) site, www.slaverysite.com . The scope of my site is the Atlantic Slave Trade and Slavery in America. As time goes by I may wish to contribute content to the page on my specific topics, however I'm not familiar with how I can do this on a protected page. Thank you.

This page is only semiprotected; no administrator assistance is required. CMummert · talk 14:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Famous Films

I think will be good to ad A Escrava Isaura in the list of Famous Films of Slavery. This can be called the only series en Latin America to include directly the slavery.

Who is "Alexander"?

Footnotes 8 and 9 refer to "Alexander, 49" and "Alexander, 50". But there is no work listed as by an "Alexander" in the reference section. In fact, the word "Alexander" isn't mentioned at all outside these two footnotes. This needs urgent fixing. 81.159.58.43 22:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in China?

I think someone with an account might want to create a slavery in China article. I'm mainly saying this because I just found this article, and I seem to recall a lot of stories of slavery in China in modern times. However, it would be nice to have an article on the subject that can more properly separate fact from fiction.--58.110.246.243 15:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Substinance isn't a word

Last word under the Etymology section. I think you want either sustenance or subsistence. 202.248.254.113 17:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Irish

Why does this page not cover the Black Irish role in pre-African slavery in the Carribean? 70.5.85.136 20:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the color of a person's hair is irrelevant to the topic? If you mean the oftenly-Irish indentured servants, look at that article, indentured servitude is not the same as slavery. Malc82 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)