Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by
Independent
No, I have not suggested at any point that these practices are acceptable in Islamic law. I specifically said that I regard this as coming about because of the failings of men, not Islamic law. What we disagree about is the nature or experience of Islamic slavery (what actually happened as opposed to what was supposed to happen according to Islamic ideals).
Why is the Barbary slave trade significant here? Because it contradicts a favourable view of Islamic slavery for many reasons including:
- The slaves were obviously kidnapped, not acquired in the course of war
- There are innumerable first hand accounts of terrible suffering by the slaves (even if some slaves, in some countries, in some eras had a better experience)
- The total number of slaves acquired by Islamic states was very high, over 10 million including the sub-Saharan trade, which is not at all compatible with the idea that slavery was being phased out gradually during the Islamic period (in fact it grew exponentially)
- The trade continued for well over 1,000 years until advances in sailing by Western navies allowed gradually them to gain control over the Mediterranean Sea and eliminate the danger. The last openly operating slave market (in the Sultanate of Zanzibar) was forcibly closed by the British in 1873.
Once again, I stress that all this was a failing of men to live up to Islamic ideals, not the ideals themselves. However, the scale is too great to dismiss this. They are not isolated cases, not a few bad apples. They involved whole societies particularly in North Africa over immense periods of time. Brutality existed both for western slaves and Islamic slaves. I don't think it's right for either Western or Islamic society to deny a share in the responsibility for this awful trade.
Before coming to the conclusion of anything contradicting a favourable view of Islamic slavery, or of being a failing of men to live up to Islamic ideals, it is pertinent that we first acertain the facts from fiction. Providing a 'summary' from wikipedia does little justice to a topic that is deeply rooted in propaganda and distortion of truths.
Below is an extract from a book (with slight modifications) which provides some coverage of this topic. It is a long extract but worth the read, especially in the relevant chapters. The earlier portion provides an introduction and some background to the discussion. It has been hugely summarised hence many details and quotes have been left out. I hope it helps to clarify many points.
The Myth of Muslim Barbarism and its Aims
S. E. Al-Djazairi
THE DEPICTION OF MUSLIMS THROUGHOUT THE AGES
For more than ten centuries, Islam, the Prophet (PBUH) and Muslims have been at the centre of a systematic, unremitting campaign of slander and attacks carried by the Christian West. This ten or so century-old propaganda has depicted Muslims and their faith as barbaric, corrupt, inferior, and above all threatening, a peril to the world in general and the Christian West in particular. Although constantly based on lies and distortions, as will be amply shown in this chapter, still such depictions and attacks on Islam and Muslims have lasted from the Middle Ages to this very day, snowballing, changing slightly in form, but remaining the same in substance for more than a millennium. This relentless onslaught is the outcome of the Western inability, or unwillingness, or both, to deviate from such a line for centuries, since it has served its purpose in the war on Islam, as will be obvious from the following...
1. In the Middle Ages
Today’s Western depiction of Muslims and Islam, as already noted, was born in the Middle Ages. It has only changed in form, but in content it has remained roughly the same, with the Muslims painted as perverse, violent, heretics. The medieval perception of Islam, itself, was the result of the violent military encounters between Islam and the Christian West, with the crusades, above all, impacting crucially on such perceptions.
[...]
2. The ‘Renaissance’ (15th-17th Centuries)
Schwoebel notes how the Crusader views of Islam in the Middle Ages were carried over and perpetuated even ‘after the main lines of the medieval world view had crumbled’. [1]...
Little had changed in comparison with the medieval period, indeed, except that the Islamic fiend was now the Ottoman Turk...
Hostility towards Muslims and their faith continued to be based, as in the medieval period, on distortions and exaggerations. As Blanks points out:
‘Deliberate misrepresentations on the part of medieval writers who have access to accurate information has been an enduring issue in the historiography of pre-modern encounters between Europe and Islam.’ [2]
[...]
Christian writers not only criticised Islam for offering sensual pleasure as a reward to the virtuous in the next life, they also condemned the sexual freedom allowed in this life under Muslim law [3]. Islamic regulations governing concubinage, marriage and divorce were at once misunderstood and reviled by Western Europeans [4]. Alexander du Pont in his
Roman de Mahomet maintains that the Prophet (PBUH) permitted every Muslim to marry ten wives and every Muslim woman to marry ten times as well [5].
In the view of Western Christian polemists, the progress of Islam could only be due to sexual permissiveness combined with violence. Islam, as Vitkus notes, was defined and caricatured as:
‘A religion of violence and lust-aggressive jihad in this world, and sensual pleasure promised in the next world. But if the doctrines of Islam were so obviously worth of scorn, what could account for the widespread, rapid growth of Islam? Force of arms and successful military aggression, violent conversion by the sword – these are often cited by Christian writers in the early modern era as an explanation for the astonishing achievements of the Islamic conquests. The early Arab Muslims are described as powerful bandits and plunderers united by a voracious appetite for booty.’ [6]...
3. The 18th Century
In this supposed age of enlightenment, of better knowledge of Islam, and supposedly of better attitudes to Muslims and their faith, still, as in the previous periods, Muslim fanaticism, violence, cruelty, ignorance, cunning, deceit, sexual perversion and religious heresy take centre stage in Western depictions...
In his
Memoirs [7], Prevost holds that the Turks, Moors and corsairs do not just have a shadowy existence, and an obsession for plunder, but also express sexual pleasures and cruelty, and all at once [8]. Antoine Galland, in his travels to the East, concentrated his attention on the manifestations of violence that were supposedly intrinsic to the East. The violence of the East is often linked with sexuality [9]. This was a common theme of European travel writing: the all invasive seraglio with its crimes of passion was never far from the traveller’s mind [10]...
[...]
Concluding on such distorted depictions of Islam by Christians, Pailin observes:
'With a few exceptions, Islam is examined in order to show that it is inferior to Christianity and offers no plausible threat to the various proofs of the truth of Christian revelation. Christian apologists are not interested in establishing and stating the truth about Muslim faith and practice. They use or abuse Islam in order to support their own convictions about the perfection of Christianity and to exhort their fellow believers to a better practice of their faith.' [11]
Thus, there was little change in comparison with the past or with what was to follow in subsequent centuries.
4. The 19th and 20th Centuries
This period corresponds to the age of empire, an empire that was built on the notion of the Western ‘civilising mission’ of the Muslim lands. Westerners, indeed, sent their armies to the Muslim world, as they held, ‘not to loot, kill, and destroy Islam, but to bring progress, order, freedom, and civilisation to Muslim society.’ In order to justify such a policy, the Islamic world and Muslims had to be shown to be in the grips of a barbaric chaos resulting from their faith, Islam, deemed to be a perverse, violent, false religion, needing removal so that civilisation, at last, can take roots in Muslim society.
One of the vilest societies in Western depictions, which demanded corrective measures, was Algeria’s. Algeria, under Turkish rule, was deemed to be the hot bed of despotism and barbarism... Abbe Raynal describes the degradation and the misery brought about by ‘Islamic despotism’, noting that the Muslim ‘invaders’ destroyed Christian civilisation in North Africa:
‘By their genius for destruction and their fanaticism, and replaced it with slavery and tyranny,’ and so he calls for a Christian conquest to free Barbary from ‘a handful of barbarians’. [12]
Neighbouring Morocco, equally, was ‘much too barbaric to be left without Western enlightenment.’ Just prior to the French colonisation (in 1912), a vast literature depicted the retarding influence of Islam on Morocco, and instead on the need for France to intervene there, and bring back both Morocco and its people into the realm of modernity and progress [13]... The French review,
Bulletin, dredged up many stories in the 1890s about the violence in Morocco proving that, truly, the ‘Moors’ were uncivilised, in need of French guidance’ [14]. Robert de Caix, a journalist, took every opportunity to show Morocco as inhabited by barbarians eager for rape and pillage [15]. De Caix argued strongly that the time had come for France to restore order in the Western Maghrib [16].
[...]
Just as in the past, Islam remained in Western view a corrupt, sensual faith... Being sexually perverse apparently does not prevent Islamic society from enslaving women. In 19
th century Westerners’ eyes, women in Islam are only seen ‘in terms of subjection, enslavement and concubinage’ [17]. The Oriental men are thus:
'Cruel captors who hold women in their avaricious grasp, who use them as chattels, as trading-goods, with little reverence for them as human beings.’ [18]
In the writings and paintings of the French Romantics movement, the woman becomes for the fanaticised, brutal Muslim a prize of war and piracy: the Muslim prowling upon her, and ravaging her [19]...
This remained the overall view shared by the European and American public, including the most learned; the emphasis placed on the Muslim latent and inadequately restrained savagery, and the fanaticism unleashed against the civilising advance from the West [20]. As a result, colonisation of the Muslim world was deemed the only solution...
[...]
The following chapters will deal with more depictions and views of Islam and Muslims, What can be concluded here, though, is that today, just as centuries before, the hostile depictions of Islam and its adherents have remained based on fallacies and distortions. Summing up the Western view of Islam, Daniel holds that nonsense was accepted, and sound sense distorted [21]. Attacks on Islam, which Daniel notes, are ‘most divorced from reality, and most remote from any contact with Islam’ [22]. Bucaille, equally, has concluded that the erroneous statements made about Islam in the West are the result of systematic denigration [23]. Lueg insists that the threat of Islam often stems from a limited vision rather than reality, and that anything we hear from the Islamic world, we assume to be stated from an inferior position and in a religious context, i.e. that of Islam [24]...
CAPTIVES, SLAVES AND RACISTS
For centuries, once more, according to the established Western view, the Muslims were cruel captors of Christians, pitiless slave traders, and vindictive racists, the whole concept of Islam, in fact, said to be based on the persecution of others, and relying on slavery. The few voices amongst Western Christians such as Sir Geoffrey Fisher, a British Ambassador in Algiers, who denounced the myths of Muslim piracy and cruel treatment of Christian captives, or Davenport and Smith who denounced the myths of Muslim slave trading, were censored and ferociously rebuked. The image that has endured of Muslims is their cruelty on land and sea, to Christians and Black people alike. This image, as to be seen in the final chapter of this work, added to other negative depictions of Islam and Muslims, justified Western colonisation of the Muslim world. Colonisation, indeed, aimed ‘at ending Muslim piracy and cruel treatment of Christians, and putting an end to Muslim slave trading of Africans, besdies, of course, civilising Muslim society’.
[...]
2. The Muslim as ‘the Pitiless Slave Trader’
As with previous issues, we find abundant literature and other forms of depictions of the Muslims as cruel, mass slave traders, whilst in reality there is little to support this. Slave trading is also one of those dark pages Western history shrugs off its shoulders and conveniently lays on the Muslims.
a. Western Propaganda about Muslim Slave Trading
...Cardinal Lavigerie, who played the leading role in seeking to spread Christianity in Algeria during French colonisation of the country (1830-1962), explains that:
'The expansion of this evil (slave trade) is due initially to the traditions of the Muslims of North Africa, those of Egypt and Turks. The Mahometans cannot, for reasons of debauchery, laziness, do without slaves, who infuse them with new strength and new blood... Reducing a Negro to slavery, I was going to say, is one of their fundamental religious rules. They teach in their Qur’an that the Negro does not belong to the human race; that he is between man and the animal, even lower than the later... He (the Muslim) finds glory in reducing the blacks.' [25]
(Where the cardinal found the passages he refers to in the Qur’an is impossible to trace.)
Literary fiction of the past, just like the cinema today, abounds with the same depictions of the evil Muslim slave trader...
The ‘cruelties of the Muslim slave traders’ are caught vividly by photographs, and also by the horrific tales of their victims reported to us by Christian missionaries and other Westerners. A Catholic missionary in 1888 describes how an African slave market was crowded with slaves, joined by cords or chains in long lines, and with others, revealing signs of starvation, in the streets. Nearby was a cemetary where the dying as well as the dead were left for the hyenas [26]...
It is Christianity, we also learn, that has fervently combated this Islamic scourge. In January-February 2003, in a programme on the British Empire, the television channel, Channel 4 [27], explained that it was Christian zeal that banned slavery and even returned slaves to Africa. Ignoring all evidence to the contrary [28], and relying on the same source as Fisher above, that is Livingstone, the channel attributed the worst horrors of slave trading to the Muslims [29]. Equally, the BBC religious programme
Everyman [30], devoted a special programme to white Christian missionaries freeing Black African slaves from ‘Muslim slave traders’...
Films from Hollywood, scholarly books for children or college students, and the internet, all equally, incessantly, dwell on the Muslim slave trade of Africans and its horrors... Gradually, as the Western slave trade is removed from knowledge, instead, books of academic nature ‘correct history’, and lecture us about the real slave trade, i.e. the Muslims’, and the terrible woes it inflicted on the African continent. One of the recent works is by Murray Gordon...
[...]
Having considered the Western propaganda on Muslim slave trading, let’s now consider the reality.
b. Fallacies Uncovered: Islam and Slavery
Islam, as a faith, fought slavery, more than any other faith did. Captives, if they became Muslims, were set free; and if they retained their own faith, they were, as Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) told the followers of Islam, nonetheless their brethren [31]. The master who treated them kindly would be acceptable to God; he who abused his power would be shut out of Paradise [32]. And the Muslim master who chastised his slave without cause was bound to set him free [33]. As Segal points out:
‘To a degree unmatched by the various states of Western Christendom, for all the conflict between Protestants and Catholic, the nature of society in Islam was informed by reference to the Divine will, as communicated by the Qur’an. And the Qur’an dealt in some detail with slaves. That pretensions to piety might co-exist with disregard for the spirit and even the letter of such details did not preclude their overall influence. Slaves were to be regarded and treated as people, not simply as possessions.’ [34]
Segal adds:
‘The treatment of slaves in Islam was overall more benign, in part because the values and attitudes promoted by religion inhibited the very development of Western-style capitalism, with its subjugation of people to the priority of profit... In short, far from pursuing the development of an economic system that promoted the depersonalisation of slave labour, Islamic influence was responsible for impeding it.’ [35]
It was also Islam, Rodinson points out, which became the defender of the oppressed people of Africa [36]. In Blyden’s words:
'The introduction of Islam intro Central and Western Africa has been the most important, if not the sole, preservative against the desolation of the slave trade. Mohammedanism furnished a protection to the tribes who embraced it by effectually binding them together in one strong religious fraternity, and enabling them by their united effort to baffle the attempts of powerful pagan slave hunters. Enjoying this comparative immunity from sudden hostile incursions, industry was stimulated among them, industry diminished their poverty; and as they increased in worldly substance, they also increased in desire for knowledge. Gross superstition gradually disappeared from among them... they acquired loftier views, wider tastes, and those energetic habits which so pleasantly distinguished them from their pagan neighbours.' [37]
The Muslims, surely, during conflict, in particular, took slaves; yet the crucial difference with Westerners was in the treatment of slaves. There is nothing (except in Western Christian writing, fiction and missionary witness accounts) in the whole history of Islam which compares to the Western inhumanity in the treatment of slaves, in plantations or in mines, making them toil to their death, or skinning or mutilating them, or burning them on stakes for dissent or for the crime of escape [38]. Islam never enslaved one hundred million Africans, nor did it ruin Africa [39]. The Atlantic Slave Trade between America, Europe and Africa, did [40].
More importantly, in Islam, the emancipated slave is actually, as well as potentially, equal to a free-born citizen. Throughout the Turkish Empire, for instance, and at all periods in its history, slaves have risen repeatedly to the highest offices and have never been ashamed of their origins [41]. The Frenchman, About, notes how sultans of Constantinople and venerated chiefs of Islam are born to female slaves, and they are very proud [42]. Captain Burton mentions that the Pacha of the Syrian caravan with which he travelled to Damascus had been the slave of a slave [43]. Sebuktegin, the father of Mahmud, the founder of the Ghaznavid dynasty (10
th-11
th Century), was a slave; so was Qutb-ud-din, the conqueror and first king in Delhi, and the true founder, therefore, of Muslim India [44]. Often, again, a great lord of Egypt raises, teaches and grooms a slave child, whom he marries later to his daughter, and gives him full rights; and we come across in Cairo stories of ministers, generals, and magistrates of the highest order who were worth from a thousand to a thousand and a half francs in their early youth [45]. A dynasty of slaves, the Mamluks, ruled Egypt from 1250 until 1798, and it is said that Christians from the Caucasus were glad to be carried off as slaves to Egypt because each one felt that he might rise to be sultan [46]. Some Mamluk rulers such as Baybars and Qala’un occupy places of the first rank in Muslim history, which seems to follow a tradition centuries old. In the 9
th century, Ibn Tulun, another slave of Turkish origin rose to the position of governor of Egypt. Many slaves of Slav origin were the highest serving ministers of the last Ummayad Caliph Marwan II in Damascus (744-50) [47]. One of the most remarkable of Caliph Muawiya’s lieutenants was Zayyad ‘the son of his father’ (of unknown father). He became governor of both Kufa and Basra [48]. Zayyad, the son of his father, it was who took Bukhara for Islam [49]. Under the subsequent Abbasid dynasty, only three caliphs were born of free mothers, and all these belong to the eighth century [50]. In Andalusia, the Maghreb, and Sicily, many former slaves could be found in the army, administration and arts [51].
Finally, if the Muslims had treated the Black Africans as badly as Western apologists state, one would ask then: what made and still makes these Africans cling to the faith of their oppressors when no Muslim army ever set foot in the Black African continent?
THE AIMS BEHIND THE MYTH OF MUSLIM BARBARISM
The Muslims do not have writing and studies in which the Western Christians are painted in demonic images, as bloodthirsty murderous fanatics so as to justify attacking them, colonising them and killing them en masse. Even during the Middle Ages, when Islamic civilisation was at its zenith, and most Western nations were at a barbarian level, some even at their pre-historic level, Muslims did not use this as a justification to conquer them, slaughter them and loot their wealth. There is not one single work written by a Muslim where the Westerners are represented as sub-human barbarians who warrant sending armies to civilise them by slaying them en masse. Western Christian writing and opinion making, on the other hand, as already seen, is crammed with such writing and image-painting of their foes: thousands of books, tens of thousands of articles in learned reviews and the media, every year; conferences, seminars, films, radio and television broadcasts; hundreds of university courses and thousands of academics and researchers, all dedicated to the task of darkening Islam and Muslims, using as already seen, distortions in all forms and all sorts for the purpose...
‘Muslim Barbarism’ and Military Invasions: Some Historical Perspectives
b. Western Colonisation (18th-19th centuries)
Algeria:
The same stages and strategy are obvious in the colonisation of Algeria (1830-1962) by the French...
Algeria also needed to be conquered so as to remove ‘Muslim piracy which infested the Mediterranean’ [52]. The view that the Barbary Corsairs were slaying countless thousands of Christians was a powerful call for action against the ‘nest of pirates’ (Algeria) [53]. Admiral Nelson in 1799 hailed: ‘never let us talk of the cruelty of the African slave trade while we permit such horrid war (piracy)’. [54]
The appeal made in 1858 by Monsegnor Pavy. Bishop of Algiers, for the erection of the Cathedral de Notre Dame d’Afrique in Algiers dwelt on the horrors of ‘la piraterie Musulmane’ (Muslim piracy). Monsegnor Pavy insisted that the conquest of 1830 of Algeria had brought ‘these horrors to an end’. [55]...
Of course Algerian piracy was just a myth to justify conquest. Piracy in the 18
th century and centuries before, in its near entirety, was the work of Christian Europe [56]. The English Sea Dogs and the Maltese Knights of St John terrorised the seas [57]. Far from being a den of pirates, Algiers was a recognised port of call for English shipping in the 16
th century; and so was Tunis, a port of call for Christian shipping [58]. No less remarkable, Fisher points out, was the competition for permanent commerical concessions in those areas [59]. If there was Barbary piracy, it came as a response to the piracy of which the Muslims were victims, and which had been going on for centuries [60]. Muslim piracy, moreover, was never as destructive and as cruel as the Christian, or as depicted in history. Barbary piracy, in fact, as demonstrated by Fisher, most particularly, was one of the greatest myths of modern history to justify the colonisation of Algeria and the whole of North Africa [61]. This was a pattern established long before, the Portuguese conquest of Ceuta in 1415, for instance, was blamed on Muslim piracy, and similar justification used for Spanish attacks on Mers el-Kebir and Oran early in the following century [62]. More importantly, the French blaming Algerian piracy to justify the invasion of Algeria in 1830 rests on hardly any solid ground. Godechot notes how:
‘While the Barbary danger had disappeared on the European coast for more than a hundred years the Christian danger existed on the African shores until the end of the eighteenth century.’ [63]
Algeria had no fleet left in the 19
th century to justify the argument of piracy, this fleet having terminated its life in the 18
th century [64]. When William Shaler, the new American ambassador arrived in Algiers, in 1815, all he could see of the Algerian fleet was four frigates, five corvettes, one brig, and a galley, a total of eleven vessels [65]. These were to suffer final annihilation by Lord Exmouth’s famed bombardment of Algiers in 1816 [66]. There was no fleet and there were barely any Christian captives, either. In 1830, when the French took Algiers, the number of Christian captives in the city was a mere hundred [67]. Still, it was under such noble premise, of seeking to remove Islamic piracy that the French invasion in 1830 took place. Barbour notes how:
‘In reality, there is little doubt that the basic motive of the French Government was its desire to restore the tottering credit of the regime by a military success; and to win for the Restoration Government the credit which Napoleon had lost by the evacuation of Egypt. In the event Algiers was duly captured and the achievement inspired a number of laudatory poems throughout Europe including one in the dialect of Genoa.’ [68]
The expedition had been accompanied by propaganda to the effect that the French were coming to liberate the Algerians from their Turkish tyrants...
CONCLUSIONS
...Firstly Islam and Muslims are not barbaric fiends, to the contrary, no faith has ever led in the fight for respect for human life, tolerance, equality and humanity as much as Islam, and history is there to testify. As Jameelah writes:
‘Despite all the imperfections which are inevitable in this imperfect world, traditional Muslim society, throughout the centuries of its ascendency, was free from the curses of nationalism, imperialism, class conflicts, racial discrimination, inquisition, heresy hunts, routine torture of war and political prisoners, bloody sectarian strife... This phenomenon is no accident but a natural result of the implementation of the all-embracing divine commandments of Islam which, enjoying until the very recent past, universal reverence, proclaims the rule of Law supreme, and leaves nobody, whether he be a believer or unbeliever, outside the scope of that Law.’ [69]...
REFERENCES
[1] R. Schwoebel:
The Shadow of the Crescent: The Renaissance Image of the Turk (Nieuwkoop; 1967), p. 147
[2] D.R. Blanks: Western Views of Islam in the Pre-modern Period: A Brief History of Past Approaches; in
Western Perceptions (Blanks-Frassetto ed); pp. 11-53; at p. 22.
[3] D.J Vitkus: Early Modern Orientalism: op cit; p. 223.
[4] N. Daniel: Islam and the West, op cit; pp.135-40
[5] Ibid; p. 145.
[6] D.J Vitkus: Early Modern Orientalism: op cit; p. 217.
[7] A. Prevost:
Memoires pour servir a l’Histoire de Malte (Paris; 1741)
[8] A. Prevost:
Memoires; in A. Gunny:
Images of Islam; op cit; p. 170.
[9] R. Kabbani:
Imperial Fictions; op cit; p. 25.
[10] Ibid.
[11] D.A. Pailin:
Attitudes; op cit; p. 104
[12] Abbe Raynal:
Histoire philosophique et politique des establissements et du commerce des Europeanens dans l’Afrique; (Paris; 1826); Vol I; Pp 106 fwd and 137.
[13] Well outlined by both M. Garcia-Arenal: Historiens de l’Espagne, historiens du Maghreb au 19em siecle. Comparaison des stereotypes;
Annales; vol 54; 1999; pp 687-703. And J.J. Cook: The Maghrib through French Eyes; 1880-1929; in
Through Foreign Eyes; edited by A.A Heggoy (University Press of America; 1982), pp. 57-92.
[14] J.J. Cook: The Maghrib; op cit; p. 76
[15] Ibid; p. 83.
[16]
Bulletin: Pays Independant: Maroc; XIV 1; (January 1904); p. 23.
[17] In N. Daniel:
Islam and the West; op cit: p. 314.
[18] R. Kabbani:
Imperial Fictions, op cit; p. 78
[19] C. Grossir:
L ‘ Islam; op cit; p. 99 fwd.
[20] M. Rodinson:
Europe; op cit; p. 72
[21] N. Daniel:
Islam and the West; op cit; p. 302.
[22] N. Daniel:
The Arabs; op cit; p. 232
[23] M. Bucaille:
The Bible, the Quran and Science; (Seghers; Paris; 1993); pg. 1.
[24] A. Lueg: The Perception of Islam; op cit; pp. 28; and 21.
[25] Cardinal Lavigerie:
lettre sur l’Esclavage Africain, et l’esclavage Africain, Conferences, Paris, (St Sulpice) and Brussels (Ste Gudule).
[26] R.W. Beachey: The Slave Trade of Eastern Africa; (London; Rex Collings; 1976); p. 187.
[27] Seen on S4C; 18 February 2003; 12.10am.
[28] See R.B. Smith:
Mohammed; op cit; pp. 350-2.
[29] Seen on S4C; 18 February 2003; 12.10am.
[30] BBC1 on 29 January 2001.
[31] R.B. Smith:
Mohammed; op cit; p. 244.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid; p. 245.
[34] R. Segal:
Islam’s Black Slaves; (Atlantic Books; London; 2001); p. 5.
[35] Ibid; pp. 5; 6.
[36] Louis Massignon: l’Influence de l’Islam au Moyen Age sur la formation de l’essor des banques Juives;
Bulletin d’Etudes Orientales (Institut Fr de Damas) Vol 1; year 1931: pp 3-12. p.12.
[37] Blyden: Islam and Race Distinction, in N. Daniel:
Islam, Europe and Empire; op cit; p. 313.
[38] See, for instance, R. Garaudy:
Comment l’Homme: op cit.
[39] Ibid; p. 275.
[40] E. Williams:
Capitalism and Slavery; (North Carolina; 1944).
[41] R.B. Smith:
Mohammed; op cit; p. 250.
[42] G. Le Bon:
La Civilisation des Arabes, op cit; p. 293.
[43] Burton: Pilgrimage, I.p.89 in R.B. Smith:
Mohammed; p. 251; note 1.
[44] See Elphinstone’s India; p. 320; 363; 370; in R.B. Smith:
Mohammed: p. 251.
[45] G. Le Bon:
La Civilisation des Arabes, op cit; p. 293.
[46] J.J. Dollinger; p. 32 in R.B. Smith:
Mohammed; op cit; p. 250.
[47] M. Esperonnier: Les Echanges commerciaux entre le Monde Musulman et les pays Slaves d’apres les sources Musulmanes medievales pp 17-27;
Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale vol 23. p.26.
[48] J. Glubb:
A Short History; op cit; p. 70.
[49] Ibid.
[50] G.E. Von Grunebaum:
Medieval Islam, op cit; p.202.
[51] M. Esperonnier: Les Echanges commerciaux; op cit; p.26.
[52] P. Earle:
Corsairs of Malta and Barbary; op cit; p.10.
[53] A. Thomson:
Barbary; op cit; p.10
[54] Quoted by Perkins and Douglas Morris:
Gunfire and Barbary; (Havant; 1982); p.37.
[55] In
Revue Africaine; Vol 2 (1858); pp 337-52.
[56] See:
F. Braudel:
Grammaire des Civilisations; (Flammarion, 1987); p. 89 fwd..
M.L. de Mas Latrie:
Traites de paix; op cit.
[57] A. Thomson:
Barbary; op cit; final Chapter: Towards Conquest.
[58] In G. Fisher:
Barbary Legend; op cit; pp. 123-4
[59] Ibid.
[60] A. Mieli:
La Science Arabe; op cit; p. 45.
[61] G. Fisher:
Barbary Legend; op cit; L. Valensi:
North Africa; op cit;
[62] G. Fisher:
Barbary Legend; p. 24.
[63] Godechot; la Course Maltaise: Revue Africaine: 1952 in N. Barbour:
A Survey; op cit; p. 38.
[64] See for instance:
L. Valensi:
Le Maghreb avant la Prise d’Alger; (Paris; 1969).
J. Mathiex: Trafic et prix de l’Homme en Mediterranee au 17 et 18 Siecles;
ANNALES: Economies, Societes, Civilisations: Vol 9: pp. 157-64.
F. Braudel:
Civilisation materielle.; 15-18em siecle; Vol 3; (Paris; 1979).
[65] A. Hollingsworth Miller: One man’s view: William Shaler and Algiers; in
Through Foreign Eyes; (ed A.A. Heggoy), op cit; pp. 7-55; at p. 18.
[66] C. Lloyd:
English Corsairs on the Barbary Coast, op cit; pp. 163-4.
[67] N. Barbour:
A Survey; op cit; p. 36.
[68]
A Spedizion d’Arge; (Genoa; 1834).
[69] M. Jameelah:
Islam and Orientalism; M.Y. Khan and Sons; (Lahore; 1990); pp. 49-50.