Slavery: UNtangling the BONDS

As Ehud R. Toledano states in his chapter on “Understanding Enslavement as a Human Bond,” “understanding why slavery was so natural in so many societies does not lead to condoning it.”  This quote reflects the core of Toledano’s argument against slavery.  He also says that no writer may claim “the moral high ground” hereby attacking the good treatment argument.  The good treatment argument refers to the treatment of the slaves being better than the treatment of many of the sultan’s free subjects.  Toledano’s position on enslavement can be compared to the position presented by Linda S. Northrup.  Northup seems to arguing that slavery has more good than bad while Toledano believes that the abolition of legal bondage, regardless of severity, was a positive step toward true human freedom. 

            Toledano’s discussion of slavery is large and encompassing.  It considers enslavement of African peoples, enslaved women, and enslaved men.  However, Northrup discusses enslavement specifically of the Mamluks.  As David Ayalon states, the Mamluks were the determining factor when it came to defining military boundaries as they helped to expand Islamic territory.  The literal meaning of Mamluk is “owned” and refers to a slave who was trained to be apart of the military and of high status.  Northrup includes a long quote by Ibn Khaldun who discusses the “divine blessing that is slavery.”  He says that “by means of slavery, they learn glory and blessing and are exposed to divine providence.”  He goes on to say that they enter the Muslim religion as a result of slavery and are cured.  Hence slavery is very beneficial-not only does it benefit or cure the slave who accepts Islam but “Islam rejoices in the benefit which it gains throughout them” and the kingdom flourishes. 

            Toledano seems to disagree with the idea of slavery being a “cure” or a “blessing.”  He sees human freedom as a “better fit.”  Toledano provides a view of the slaves themselves in which he reveals that many of them did not warmly embrace slavery.  There was a “natural desire for freedom” referred to in government and official documents.  It may be true that there were varying degrees of slavery, some more severe than other forms of slavery.  But, as Toledano hints, “slavery is slavery.”  People, slaves, would prefer to be free-bottom line.  The Islamic world was bent upon justifying enslavement even by saying that their society has slaves but it is not a slave society.  In reference to the Mamluks, it does seem that they were treated well and it is interesting that there was such a strong sense of loyalty between slave and master.  These slaves would become masters.  Great, right?  Well, did the men want to leave their homes and families at such a young age and be trained to be a Mamluk?  Was this better for them?  Who is to say?

            The questions posed are the source of comparison between the sources.  It seems that there is this idea of the beneficial aspect of enslavement-the good-and then the desire for freedom.  Is there a right answer to this debate? In my opinion, having freedom and the ability to make a decision makes all the difference.  Leave it up to the individual.  Slavery is slavery, enslavement is enslavement regardless of the culture in which it exists.  Therefore, I agree with Toledano when he states that no one can claim any “moral high ground” when it comes to the issue of enslavement.