Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry (37 page)

4. See Gabriel Baer, Studies in the Social History of Modern Egypt (Chicago,
1969), pp. 161-89 (chap. 10, "Slavery and Its Abolition").

5. Snouck Hurgronje, Mekka (1931), p. I l (Mekka [18891, p. 12).

6. See B. Lewis, "Gibbon on Islam," Daedalus 105 (1976), pp. 89-101; idem,
Islam in History (London, 1975), pp. 133ff. For it modern example of such use, see
Claude Levi-Strauss, Race et histoire (Paris, 1961), pp. 47-50.

7. E. W. Blyden, Christianity, Islam, and the Negro Race (London, 1888); T. W.
Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, 3d ed. (London, 1935). pp. 356ff.

List of Documents

1. A Discussion of National Character (Late Tenth Century). Translated from Abu
Hayyan al-Tawhidi, Kitab al-Imta`wa'l-Mu'anasa, ed. Ahmad Amin and Ahmad al-
Zayn, vol. 1 (Cairo, 1939), pp. 70-80.

2. The Rights of the Slave (Late Eleventh to Early Twelfth Century). Translated from
Muhammad al-Ghazali, lhya' `Ulurn al-Din, vol. 2 (Cairo, 1387 A.H./1967), pp.
279-91.

3. A Legal Ruling (Fifteenth Century). Translated from Ahmad al-Wansharisi, Kitab
al-Mi 'ybr al-Mughrib, vol. 9 (Fes, 1313 A.H./1896), pp. 171-72.

4. Correspondence Concerning Slavery between Consul General Drummond Hay
and the Sultan of Morocco (1842). Public Record Office, London, Foreign Office
84/427.

5. Report on Slavery from the Persian Gulf (1842). Enclosures to Bombay Secret
Letters, vol. 50, India Office Records, London L/P&S/5/412.

6. Letter from the Sultan to the Vizier Mehmed Nejib Pasha, Governor of Baghdad (9
Safar 1263 A.H./January 27, 1847). Translated from Hamdi Atamer, "Zenci Ticaretinin Yasaklanmasi," in Belgelerle Turk Tarihi Dergisi 3 (1967). p. 24.

7. Draft of a Letter from the Grand Vizier Mustafa Reshid Pasha to the Governor of
Tripoli (Libya) (21 Muharrem 1266 A.H./November 28, 1849). Translated from
Hamdi Atamer, "Zenci Ticaretinin Yasaklanmasi," in Belgelerle Turk Tarihi
Dergisi 3 (1967), pp. 24-25.

8. Letters from Benghazi Concerning the Traffic in Slaves (1875). Public Record
Office, London, Foreign Office 195/1082.

9. Instructions Concerning the Trade in Slaves (1936). Translated from Umm al-Qura
(Mecca, 16 Rajab 1355 A.H./October 2, 1936).

1.
A Discussion of National Character
(Late Tenth Century)

He said: Which do you consider superior, the foreigners or the Arabs?

I said: Scholars take account of four nations: the Byzantines, the Arabs. the
Persians, and the Indians. Three of these are foreigners, and it would be hard to say
that the Arabs alone are superior to all three of them, with all that they have and all
their diversity.

He said: I just mean the Persians.

I said: Before I give my own judgment, I shall relate what was said by Ibn al-
Mugaffa',' a noble Persian and a distinguished foreigner, outstanding among men of
culture. . . . Shabib ibn Shabba said . . . We were received by Ibn al-Muqaffa', who
asked us: "Which is the wisest of nations?" We thought he meant the Persians, so we
said, trying to ingratiate ourselves with him: "Persia is the wisest of nations." "Certainly not," he said, "they cannot claim this. They are a people who were taught and
learned, who were set an example and copied it, who were given a start and followed
it, but they have neither originality nor resource." We suggested the Byzantines, and
he said, "No, it is not with them either. They have firm bodies, and they are builders
and geometers. They know nothing else, and excel in nothing else."

"The Chinese," we said. "People of furnishings and handicrafts", he replied, "with
neither thought nor reflection." "The Turks," we said. "Wild beasts for the fray," he
replied. "The Indians," we said. "People of fantasy," he said, "of legerdemain and
conjuring and tricks." The Zanj." we said. "Feckless cattle, he replied.

So we turned the question back to him; and he said: "The Arabs," at which we
exchanged glances and whispers. This made him angry with us. He turned pale and
said: "You seem to suspect me of trying to flatter you. By God, I dearly wish that you
did not have this privilege; but even if I have lost this privilege, I would disdain to lose
the truth as well. . . . The Arabs are the wisest of nations because of their sound
character, balanced physique, precise thought, and keen understanding."

He said: How well Ibn al-Muqaffa' spoke, and how well you relate it. And now give
as your own version, both what you have heard and what you have thought of yourself.

I said: What [Ibn al-Muqaffa'] said is sufficient. To add to it would be superfluous,
to repeat it useless.

He said: . . . This question-I mean the relative merits of nations-is one of the
main topics about which people contend and argue and on which they never reach
agreement.

I said: Inevitably, since it is not in the nature or custom or innate qualities of the
Persian to admit the merit of the Arab, nor is it in the character or usage of the Arab to
affirm the merits of the Persian, and likewise the Indian, the Byzantine, the Turk, the
Daylami, and the rest. Recognition of merit and honor depends on two things: one is
that which distinguishes one people in its prime from others, in the choice between
good and evil and in sound or faulty judgn ent and in study from beginning to end. On
this basis, every nation has merits and defects; and every people has committed good
and evil deeds: and every community of men, in its works and in its doing and its
undoing, has both perfection and shortcoming. In consequence, good and had qualities
are spread among the whole of mankind and implanted in all of them.

The Persians have statecraft, civility, rules, and etiquette; the Byzantines have
science and wisdom; the Indians have thought and reflection and nimbleness and
magic and perseverance; the Turks have courage and impetuosity; the Zanj have
patience and toil and merriment; the Arabs are intrepid, hospitable, loyal, gallant.
generous, protective, eloquent, and cogent.

These qualities are not found in every individual of these nations but are widespread among them. Some, however, may be bereft of all these qualities or even
marked by their opposite. Thus there are Persians who are ignorant of statecraft,
lacking in civility-ruffians and rabble; there are Arabs who are cowardly, boorish,
fickle, miserly, and tongue-tied; and likewise with the Indians, the Byzantines, and the
others. And so, if the people of merit and excellence among the Byzantines are
compared with those among the Persians, they meet on the Straight Path and differ
only in the dimensions of merit and extent of excellence; and this does not distinguish
but unites them. Likewise, if the flawed and vicious of one nation are compared with
the flawed and base of another, they meet on one track; and they differ only in the
magnitude and scope of their defects. . . . It is clear that all nations have their share of
merits and defects, by both innate compulsion and intellectual choice. The rest is mere
argument among people, according to their places of origin, their inherited customs,
and their aroused passions.

There is another point, of prime importance, which we cannot omit from this
discussion.

Every nation has a time when it prevails over its rivals. This becomes clear if you
direct your imagination to Greece and to Alexander, who conquered and governed
and reigned and led and ripped apart and joined together and prescribed and disposed
and aroused and restrained and erased and recorded. And if you consider the story of
Chrosroes Anushirvan,3 you will find precisely the same circumstance.... When Abu
Muslim . . . was asked: Which people do you find the bravest? he replied: "All people
are brave when their power is rising." He spoke truth, for every nation at the beginning of its felicity is worthier, bolder, braver, more glorious, more generous, more
munificent, more eloquent, more articulate, more judicious, and more veracious: and
this derives from something that is common to all nations ... and shows the abounding generosity of Almighty God to all His creatures.

On Languages

We have heard many languages (even if we did not understand them) of all nations,
such as the languages of our friends the Persians, Indians, Turks, Khwarezmians.
Slavs, Andalusians, and Zanj; and we have found nothing in these languages like the
limpidity of Arabic.... This will he recognized by any healthy person who is free
from passion or tribal bigotry and who is devoted to equity and to fairness... .
Indeed, I would be astonished if any man of wide knowledge, sound mind, and extensive culture, would disagree with what I say.

Reply to al-Jayhani

I am greatly astonished by al-Jayh5ni,4 who in his hook abuses the Arabs and says that
they eat jerboas and lizards and rats and snakes, denounce and attack each other, and
excite and commit obscenities with each other, as if they had cast off the qualities of
humanity and donned the hides of swine. That, he said, is why Chosroes used to call
the king of the Arabs Saganshah,' that is to say, the king of the dogs. . . . He (al Jayhani) did not realize that if every Chosroes who was in Persia, and every Caesar
who was in Rome . . . and every Khaqan who was among the Turks came into this
desert and desolation and emptiness, they would not have acted otherwise, since he
who is hungry eats what he finds and drinks what he can in order to survive. If
Anushirvan had found himself in the deserts of the Banu Asad . . . the rocks of 1iba,
the sands of Yabrin, or the wastes of Habir and if he were hungry and thirsty and
naked, then would not he, too, eat jerboas and rats'? Would not he, too, drink camel's
urine and well water? Would not he, too, wear rough and tattered garments'? ... To
say such things is ignorance, to repeat them injustice, because the Arabs are the finest
of mankind.

Notes

1. Ibn al-Mugaffa' (ca. 720-ca. 756), a Persian convert to Islam, an adviser to the caliphs.
and one of the founders of classical Arabic prose literature.

2. Reading hahd'im hdmila, as suggested by the editors of the text. The ms. reads ha'ila,
"fearsome," which does not accord with bahima (pl. bahd'im), a term normally used of cattle or
domestic animals.

3. Chosroes Anushirvan (531-79 A.D.), a Sasanid emperor of Iran. Because of his celebrity,
his name, in the Arabized form Kisra, was used in Islamic literature as the title of the sovereign of
Persia, the equivalent of Caesar in Rome and Byzantium.

4. Presumably one of a well-known family of viziers and scholars of that name, in the service
of the Samanid princes who reigned in eastern Iran and Central Asia. See Eh suppl. s.v.,
Djayhani" (by C. Pellat).

5. From the Persian sag, "dog." The epithet is a mocking parody of the Persian imperial title
shahanshah, "king of kings."

2.
The Rights of the Slave
(Late Eleventh to Early Twelfth Century)

Know that the rights of ownership by marriage have already been treated above in
the section on marriage. As for ownership by slavery, this too entails rights in social
relations which must be respected. Among the final injunctions of the Prophet of God,
may God bless and preserve him, he said: "Fear God concerning those whom you own
[literally, 'those whom your right hands possess']. Feed them with what you eat and
cover them with what you wear, and do not set them tasks which they cannot perform.
Those whom you like, keep; and those whom you dislike, sell. Do not torment God's
creatures. God made you their owner; and had He wished, He could have made them
your owners."

He also said, may God bless and save him: "The slave is entitled to his food and
clothing, as is appropriate; and he should not be set tasks which he cannot perform."

'Ahdallah, the son of 'Umar, may God he pleased with them both, said: "A man
came to the Prophet of God and said: 'O Prophet of God, how many times shall we
pardon a slave?' And the Prophet was silent, and then he said: 'Forgive him seventy
times every day.'

'Umar, may God be pleased with him, used to go to al-Awali every Saturday; and
when he saw a slave with a task beyond his power, he would lighten his task. It is
related on the authority of Abu Hurayra, may God be pleased with him, that he saw a
man riding a steed and his slave running behind him; and he said to the man: "Slave of
God, mount him behind you, for he is your brother and his soul is as your soul."