Misinterpretations Breed Mistreatment: Slavery in the Antebellum South and the Ottoman Empire Justified by Personal Interpretations of Religious Texts by Nouf Fahad M. Alashjaai A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah 12/08/2014 Approved Misinterpretations Breed Mistreatment: Slavery in the Antebellum South and die Ottoman Empire Justified by Personal Interpretations of Religious Texts Nouf Fahad M. Aiashjaai A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah 12/08/2014 Approved by of Dr. Hal Crimmel , Alashjaai i Misinterpretations Breed Mistreatment: Slavery in the Antebellum South and the Ottoman Empire Justified by Personal Interpretations of Religious Texts Abstract Many societies throughout history have practiced slavery; Muslim and Christian societies are no exception. This paper aims to explore and compare American institutional slavery as portrayed in Alex Haley's Roots miniseries and institutional slavery in the Ottoman Empire. This comparison will show how Muslims in the Ottoman Empire mistreated slaves and practiced slavery despite its opposition to the teachings of Islam and Mohammed, similar to how the Christians portrayed in Roots practiced slavery against the teachings of Christianity. In both contexts, slaveholders abused and exploited the precepts of their religion to justify their activities and perpetuate institutional slavery. This thesis argues that groups of Christians and Muslims used religious texts to justify and promote slavery, as a basic source of income in their societies. Slavery apologists exploited a variety of passages from holy books to argue that Semitic religions accept and promote slavery. By using some allusions and quotations from the Quran and the Bible to assert that Semitic religions promoted slavery; by claiming that prophets, including Abraham and Mohammed - Peace Be Upon All of Them - owned female slaves and had sex with them; and by treating slaves as property by buying and selling them, slavery apologists caused future generations to question the authenticity of the slaveholders' piety. By their highly selective reading of holy books and their deliberate indifference to scriptural passages that recommend Muslims and Christians free slaves, the slavery apologists further casted doubt on the authenticity of their beliefs. Finally, this thesis aims to correct , Alashjaai ii the misconception that the religious prophets condoned slavery and owned slaves themselves. Aiashjaai Dedication To the memory of people who were born into slavery, or lived as slaves in America or the Arabian Peninsula; To those who endured the worst kinds of bitterness, to curse our consciences in today's times. To the young people living today; I share this story to keep alive the memory of this dark chapter in the histories of America and the Arabian Peninsula. Alashjaai Special Thanks: Looming in my skies are always bright stars, known as my father, Dr. John Schwiebert, and my friend, Melanie Ott. If their luster dimmed for one moment, I would lose my sight. I thank them for each moment that they spent helping me to write my paper. Aiashjaai 1 Introduction The history of slavery is as old as human civilization. Living in the slaveholding society of ancient Athens, Aristotle believed that some people were destined for slavery: "From the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." During ancient times, millions of slaves were transported into the empires of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, mostly from sub-Saharan African countries (Everett). Remarkably, only in the last few decades have we seen a sharp decline in slavery worldwide. Two of the best-known systems of slavery prospered in pre-civil war America and the Ottoman Empire. The two institutions differed in important ways: for instance, the means by which people were taken into slavery and the purposes for which slaves were used. American slaves were bonded laborers whereas the majority of Arabian slaves were concubines or sex slaves (Khan, Kindle Edition). In the United States, institutional slavery ended with the Civil War while in Saudi Arabia, the practice of slavery was not made illegal until the 1960s as the result of negative international pressure (Gordon). Throughout history, proponents of human servitude quoted passages from the holy books of the Bible and the Quran to justify slavery. However, both the prophets Jesus and Mohammad expressed belief in the equality and freedom of every individual. Wrong interpretations of the holy books by a few people created the misconception that slavery was acceptable and justifiable on religious grounds. This thesis compares institutional slavery in America in the 17th to 19th centuries and institutional slavery in the Arabian Peninsula from the time of the Muslim conquests in 620 CE until 1960 CE. The history of institutional slavery is complex - too complex to be addressed fully by any single text. However, because of its historical breadth, covering American slavery Aiashjaai 2 throughout the time-span indicated, Alex Haley's Roots will provide my main text through which to view slavery in the antebellum South. My contention is that slavery apologists used a selective and personal interpretation of holy books to justify slavery as a divinely sanctioned, holy, and moral institution. In contrast to this view, neither the Bible nor the Qur'an contains any concrete examples of the ancient prophets either condoning slavery or owning slaves themselves. Biblical Justifications for American Slavery The way that slavery defenders used the Bible to justify the relationship between the master and his slave was an attempt to erect a moral defense of slavery. The emphasis from slavery defenders was always upon a personal interpretation of the Bible, which they recognized as the word of God. Slavery's defenders relied on those personal interpretations of Biblical allusions in order to support their claims that slavery was moral because the passages were found in holy scripture. The first use of biblical allusion to justify slavery was the concept of divine decree, which asserted that God mandated slavery through the curse of Cain, narrated in Genesis 4. The story tells of the first murder when Cain kills his brother Abel out of jealousy. For this heinous crime, God is said to have marked and cursed Cain. Some Christians believed that: God changed the color of Cain's skin to black in order to 'mark' him. Since Cain also received a "curse," the belief that the mark was black skin caused many to believe that people of dark skin were cursed. Many used the "mark of Cain" teaching as a justification for the African slave trade and discrimination against people with black or dark skin. (Morrison 17) Aiashjaai 3 This interpretation of the mark of Cain is a textual distortion. There is no Biblical passage that makes the claim stating that the mark was dark skin. Further no passages talk about this mythical inferiority of dark-skinned or black people or that dark-skinned people are divinely cursed, or even suggest that Cain's punishment extended to anyone other than Cain himself. Another biblical allusion that slavery defenders used is Genesis 9:20-27, which narrates the story of Noah and Ham. After the flood, Noah plants a vineyard and gets drunk from the wine produced. While drunk, he also gets naked in his tent and is seen by Ham who tells his brothers, Shem and Japeth. The brothers walk backward into Noah's tent in order to cover their father without seeing him. When Noah awakens and realizes what Ham has done, he places a curse on Ham's son, Canaan. This incident came to be seen as another standard explanation for the origin of slavery: "Cursed be Canaan!" says Noah. "The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers" (Genesis 9:25). In an 1823 sermon, a South Carolinian Episcopalian clergyman named Frederick Dalcho articulated what became one popular interpretation of this biblical passage. Dalcho asserted that the inspiration for Noah's curse was divine. "The prophecy of Noah," Dalcho says, "was to be fulfilled, not in the individuals named, but nationally in their descendants. Canaan's whole race was under the malediction." Thus the descendants of Canaan, the Africans, were to be the "servants of servants," or "the lowest state of servitude, slaves," to the descendants of Shem and Japeth, the present-day Jews and Christians (Morrison 18). In addition to the biblical stories of Cain and Noah, slavery supporters also used many other passages like those that alluded to Abraham as a slaveholder. Southerners maintained their stance by the case of Hagar (Genesis 16:1-11). Abraham's wife, Sarai, Aiashjaai 4 gave her handmaiden, Hagar, to him when Sarai was unable to conceive in order for Abraham to bear children: "But when the maid became pregnant, Sarai dealt harshly with her and she fled. God sent an angel to Hagar and said. '"Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands'" (Genesis 16:1-11). Proslavery advocates used these words to argue that holding African servants as a possession was allowed by God. Hagar was seen as a woman with less status than Sarai because she was a handmaid. With the story of Abraham and Hagar, Christian slavery defenders claim Hagar was Abraham's slave and not a wife. However, the Bible itself does not directly state this: "And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife" (Genesis 16:3). This passage directly describes Hagar as a handmaid, which is different from a slave, and then calls her Abraham's wife. There is no suggestion of slavery. With these examples taken from the Bible, slave apologists used several passages to justify institutional slavery as divinely mandated. First God cursed Cain, and he became a marked (black) man, implying that black people are the lowest people in society. Second, Noah's curse on his grandson Canaan gave the slavery defenders another reason to identify black or dark-skinned people with sinfulness and to justify enslaving them. Finally, the patriarch Abraham owned a female slave, Hagar, which suggested that slavery was and remained acceptable. With these biblical passages as support, apologists attempted to place slavery on a moral high ground. The Shadow of Biblical Allusions in American Slavery as Portrayed in Roots Roots provides several examples of biblical authority being invoked to justify the enslavement of Africans. Roots illustrates that some white Christians believed "Africans Aiashjaai 5 and their descendants are destined to be servants, and should accept their status as slaves in fulfillment of biblical prophecy" (Evans). Their misinterpretation is based in Christian ideology. As indicated above, those Christians believed that Ham was the father of black people because of his sin against Noah and the curse Noah placed on his son and his descendants to be slaves. Roots follows several generations of slaves - from Kunta Kinte, the main protagonist who was caught in South Africa, to Chicken George, Kinte's grandson - all of whom experience different levels of injustice and harassment at the hands of their masters. As a major television event in a medium that was mostly white, Roots highlighted issues of slavery and racism and provided illustrations of Biblical distortions by white Christians (Tucker & Shah 325). The first major protagonist of Roots, the young defiant slave, Kunta Kinte, acts as the introduction of native Africans to the systematic oppression of slavery. Taken from his homeland in Africa, where he has been taught that the sky is "the only thing greater than [himself]," Kunta is shamed and humiliated by cramped conditions on the slave ship. Kunta and his people have dark skin, which makes white Christians relate them to Cain's marked skin, since they interpreted "marked" to mean "black", allowing white Christians to identify Africans with the accused figure of Cain. In this association, Kunta's oppressors felt religiously justified in enslaving him and other Africans. White Christians in Roots attempted to teach slaves to accept their inferiority status. If slaves failed to accept their inferior status, that meant they were rebelling against God and deserved punishment. Perhaps the most effective example of this is seen when Kunta is forced to accept his new slave name (Carter 57). Kunta's master, Ames, changes his African name to the Anglicized "Toby." After being dragged by chains by a Aiashjaai 6 slaver on a horse, Kunta is stripped and tied up by Ames, who is getting ready to beat and whip Kunta in front of the other slaves to make an example of him: "Your name is Toby!" shouts Ames. Kunta, however, defiantly replies "Kunta Kinte," hoping to keep his very identity in the face of such dehumanizing behavior (Vereb 31). Ames replies, trying to reframe this new name as a gift, "Toby is a good name" (Roots, Ames). Kunta's continued refrain of his name then becomes the most coherent and concerted effort to defy the tyrant of slavery. However, Ames tortures him and shouts him down: "When the master gives you something, you take it" (Roots, Ames). Kunta eventually relents and accepts the name "Toby." With this display being performed out in front of the other slaves, the lesson is meant for all of them as well; white slavers want to show they can tame even the most defiant slave (Vereb 39). This white master demands that Kunta either change his name or be punished by scarring marks on his back just as God punished Cain with a mark. Further, Toby's name was a permanent mark inflicted to change his very identify and the way others identified him, like Cain's dark skin was a mark identifying him and his sin. Roots successfully shows how whites used "the mark of Cain" and the story of Ham and Canaan as justification for discrimination and punishment against people with dark skin. Some white Christians portrayed in Roots used the story of Cain to enforce their superiority and to make slaves accept their inferiority as "the will of God." The rape of Kunta's daughter, Kizzy Reynolds, by her master Tom Moore is an exploitation of the biblical passages telling the story of Abraham and Hagar. After she is sold for helping her boyfriend Noah escape, Tom Moore approaches her in her cabin at night, calling her his property and stating, "I'm gonna get my money's worth right now." Aiashjaai 7 He gives Kizzy to himself just as Sarai gives Hagar to Abraham. Because Abraham implicitly has sexual relations with Hagar - whom some Christians believed was Abraham's slave - Southerners justified their right to have sex with their female slaves with this story but inserted ideas that are not actually present in the Biblical text: Now Sarai Abram's wife bore him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. (Genesis 16:1-4) The biblical account shows that there was no attempt to commit adultery. Rather, it shows that Sarai gives Hagar as a second wife not as a concubine or female slave. The verse shows that Abraham practiced polygamy. This misinterpretation or personal interpretation by some Christians built up the misconceptions among some groups that later became an ingrained part of society: it was biblically justified to sleep with a female slave. Roots shows the complicated ways in which white masters exploited biblical passages to assert domination over their slaves. In their selective and self-justifying readings, they ignored pertinent biblical passages such as Romans 12, in which Paul proclaims that all people are members of the "one body" of Christ without distinction of Aiashjaai 8 class, culture, or race. In addition, they ignored the warning included in the book of James, which announces divine judgment against all people who do make such distinctions and instructs good Christians to "Love your neighbor as yourself' (James 2:8-9). Thus. Americans who defended slavery "had to be selective about what Bible verses to use to establish a theological basis to justify slavery and perpetuate the inferiority myth" (Evans) and ignore the passages that directly decried slavery. History of Slavery in the Arabian Peninsula Institutional slavery was not unique to American history or to white Christians. Slavery was also practiced in the Arabian Peninsula by the Ottoman Empire and was justified by Muslims quoting the Quran. In the seventh century, when the prophet Mohammad brought the message of God to his followers, institutional slavery was already deeply rooted and accepted from the times of the old great civilizations in the Arabian Peninsula. Different from Christianity and American slavery, the Quran and Prophet Mohammad never stated slavery was against the religion because of the place it held in their culture and because it helped the Islamic society's economy at the point when it was newly established. When Prophet Mohammad conquered some parts of the world, it was a chance to acquire slaves after the Jihad and then sell them in order to strengthen the economy of Islamic society (Lewis, Arab in History, Kindle Edition). However, he himself used to free the slaves that he received from the bounty of war in order to teach his followers that even though it was not prohibited in Islam, it was better to free them. Between 1299 and 1922 CE in the Muslim world, the main source of slaves was the holy war, known as Jihad. From the prophet's time, 620 CE, until the end of the Aiashjaai 9 Ottoman Empire in 1922 CE, Mecca was "the center of slave-trade in the world" (Azumak, Kindle Edition). In the slave market in Mecca, slave women and men were treated as goods and were bought from and sold to hajjis - Muslims traveling to Mecca on their holy pilgrimage (Peters 267). Ottomans used the Meccan market to buy and sell their slaves as well. Although slaves were always on the bottom-most rung of society, under the Ottoman Empire, certain slaves actually enjoyed greater privileges and power than many other members of the society. Yet the Ottoman ruler, Orhan (1324-60 CE), altered the Islamic law of bounty in order to allow himself, the sultan, to take one-fifth of the spoils of war that his soldiers collected in battle. Bounty usually meant material things. Orhan's innovation was to consider human captives a part of that bounty. Male slaves who were thus captured became known as the Janissaries, who were members of the Turkish infantry that formed the Sultan's guard between the 14th and 20th centuries (Khan, Kindle Edition). Orhan was succeeded by his son, Murad I, who reigned from 1362-89 CE. Ruling during a time of peace, Murad had to find other ways to obtain bounty. Looking for another way to strengthen up his troops, he devised a plan to train children to become slaves. Rather than taking Muslim children from his own empire, whom he believed "would remain loyal to their own families" (Korku), he sought to kidnap Christian children from conquered territories and train them as Janissaries. After conversion to Islam and receiving intensive military training, these children would become loyal slave- soldiers. Sultan Murad I believed that these converted and trained children would grow to be faithful to him: The system he devised was known as devsirme (Korku). If the sultan Aiashjaai 10 of the Ottoman Empire wanted to obtain Janissary, he would turn to one of his conquered territories - such as Albania, Greece, Austria, or Serbia - in order to take captive young Christian boys, under the ages of eighteen. The children thus taken had to meet strict criteria. For example, a child had to be strong yet untrained. Orphans were not accepted, nor were the kidnapped boys who spoke Turkish as their native language. Even if the boy met all Janissary requirements, he was not selected unless he was handsome. The boys who met these criteria were transported to Istanbul to be trained for a period of three to seven years. They were prepared in order to convert to Islam and then taught to speak Turkish because the sultans wanted them to learn everything directly from them, including language. The best trainees were enlisted to serve at the sultan's palace and received intensive education "in math, theology, law, horsemanship, and military strategy" (Korku). The other children were assigned to serve government officials in Muslim society. Regardless of their positions, the trainees remained slaves and often were recruited back to the sultan's palace. This slave system allowed for significant upward mobility. As a result, many Muslim parents actually volunteered to offer their children up as slaves to the Sultan in order to enjoy better lives than they would have otherwise. Some Christians even attempted to bribe officials to accept their sons into Janissary corps (Lewis, Race and Slavery, Kindle Edition). The Janissaries were educated in language and religious instruction, and some of them would be placed with the military. Some of them were eunuchs because they served at the sultan's court, including Caucasian in the Ottoman palace until 1582 when Sultan Murad III ruled the Empire. The sultan castrated the Janissaries in order to prevent them from having a sexual relationship with the sultan's female slaves or his wives. When the Aiashjaai 11 African slave trade was banned in the Persian Gulf in 1847, the slave market in Istanbul was also declared illegal. Ten years later, importation of black slaves was legally banned throughout the Ottoman Empire. Although the eunuchs in the Ottoman palace were freed, those slaves who were already enjoying the palace life elected to remain there. Just as the sultan of the Ottoman Empire created the system of training male slaves in order to guard him, he also acquired female slaves for his own entertainment and pleasure. Beautiful girls were sent to the sultan's palace as gifts from the governors of conquered territories, such as Circassia, Georgia, and Abkhasia. Girls were kidnapped as children and bought in the slave market or sometimes even sold by their parents. Just as some parents wished their boys to become Janissary troops, a number of Georgian and Circassian families pushed their daughters to enter concubinage through slavery because they would have a life of leisure and comfort. Those concubines learned to dance, recite poetry, play musical instruments, and master the erotic arts in order to entertain the sultans (Korku). Mistreatment of Slaves was Against Islamic Teachings Aside from advantages afforded to male slaves, such as education and the salary paid to them, being a Janissary had a darker side, including castration. The soldiers were castrated purposely in order to destroy their ability to procreate because the Sultan let some of them live inside his court where females also lived (Khan, Kindle Edition). The sultans did not want to have to worry about a sexual relationship between the Janissary and his wives or female slaves. Muslim masters assumed the right to castrate slaves. However, castrating male slaves is against Islamic teachings. Aiashjaai 12 Islam forbids castration of those who were sold or owned as slaves by the Ottomans. Samurah bin Jundab, one of the authentic narrators of prophet Mohammad's hadiths - Prophet Mohammad's Islamic teachings, words, and actions - narrated that the Messenger of Allah had said, "Whoever kills his slave we shall kill him, and whoever cuts the nose of his slave we shall cut off his nose, and whoever castrates his slave we shall castrate him," as narrated by Ahmad bin Hanbal, a great Islamic leader (780-855). Muslim defenders of castration claimed that the job was invariably carried out at an earlier age by Christians before the Ottomans bought the castrated slaves. During the Ottoman Empire, the lives of female slaves were radically different from the lives of male slaves, including polygamy and concubinage. The following Qur'anic verse, called An-Nisa - the women -, talks about the rights of wives and female slaves: And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice.] (The Quran, An-Nisa 3:3) While An-Nisa limits the number of a man's wives to four, it never mentions a maximum number of female slaves that a man can own, which slavery apologists used to justify owning as many female slaves as they desired. Rich people, like sultans, started to buy and get as many slaves as they could by means of the jihad. Another verse that slavery defenders and the sultans of the Ottoman Empire used to justify owning a large number of female slaves reads: Aiashjaai 13 O prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee (The Quran, Al-Ahzab 33:50) This Qur'anic verse clearly shows that taking slaves - those whom the right hand possesses - in war was a right given from God. Although slavery was permitted, certain Muslims like sultans distorted the words of the Quran to allow them to have an extreme number of slaves. The fact is that the Quran does not indicate a specific number of slaves, so they took advantage of this lack of specification and took as many slaves as they could. Muslims have to ask prisoners after wars to convert to Islam, and if the prisoners refused to convert to Islam, then Muslims could divide prisoners of war among Muslims who participated in the holy war. The given bounty to the participant depended on his situation and needs. As a rule, each of the participants got just one slave or some money, and the rest of the slaves and the money were used to strengthen the Islamic economy. In the case of the sultans of the Ottoman Empire they altered the meaning of bounty in order to take one-fifth of the spoils of war. Usually the sultans took more female slaves and money than what was customary. Another provision of the Quran that slaveholders ignored was a passage that forbids men from having sexual relations with women other than their wives by marriage: And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing. (The Quran, An-Nur 24:32) Aiashjaai 14 Although certain elements are lost in translation, this passage can be paraphrased as follows: God promises to enrich men, even if they are poor, provided that they marry their female slaves and marry whomever they want, as long as the women are Muslims. In the original context of this passage, "to many" meant "to marry unmarried female slaves." As Islam and the Arabic language evolved, the term became more commonly accepted to mean sexual intercourse. Using this change in meaning, many men began using their slaves for sexual gratification. The sultans even created a new term, harem, to refer to the women's quarter in a Muslim household. In truth, the harems were more like brothels. In the harem, the female slaves were divided into different levels based upon the sultans' preferences. The Sultan's favorite women were called Kadins. Ottoman tradition set the maximum number of Kadins to four. Kadins were equivalent in rank to legal wives, and they were given their own slaves, a ward and eunuchs. Those Sultans and Muslim slavery defenders interpreted those Quran verses to justify their own interests and they even overrode Islamic teaching and changed Islamic culture. Going against what the Quran actually taught led the Ottoman Empire to collapse, as in the Quran, God says: And when We intend to destroy a city, We command its affluent but they defiantly disobey therein; so the word comes into'effect upon it, and We destroy it with [complete] destruction. And how many have We destroyed from the generations after Noah. And sufficient is your Lord, concerning the sins of His servants, as Acquainted and Seeing. (The Quran, Al-Isra 17:16). Aiashjaai 15 God calls for a study of ancient nations' affairs to learn how those great nations misinterpreted and come against His orders, which led those great nations to collapse. As these traditions lasted for centuries and were condoned not only by royalty and society but also by the families of slave sold or given as gifts to sultans, slavery became an ingrained and accepted part of Islamic culture. Further, the origins of slavery were justified by religious texts and stories of Prophet Mohammed, and these justifications became just as valid as the economic purpose behind institutional slavery in the Arabian Peninsula. Justification for Slavery in the Arabian Peninsula Throughout history in the Arabian Peninsula, Muslims, including sultans of the Ottoman Empire, cited Prophet Mohammad's hadiths and Qur'anic verses in order to justify the mistreatment of slaves and the very number of slaves. Citations to Qur'anic verses on chattel slavery at first glance seem acceptable, like other religious texts, because certain proponents of slavery twisted the words to seem to accept the existence of slavery as a fact of life. Based on a variety of Shariah - Islamic law - Muslim slavery defenders invented a false theological justification for practicing slavery. Some Muslim slavery defenders sought to remove Islamic jurisprudence from universal consensus by citing the Qur'anic verses and Prophet Mohammad's actions and Hadiths that recognize the existence of chattel slavery. Islam addresses the issue of slavery from a logical perspective to preserve the economy and social foundations which were built on slavery. The methodology of Islam in prohibiting habits that people adopted from old civilizations is reflected in different Aiashjaai 16 contexts. One justification was to not suddenly abolish slavery because if it were removed suddenly, it would destroy economic and social foundations. One of the strongest justifications that slavery apologists used is that the Quran includes multiple references to slaves and twenty nine references to "those your right hand possesses," which specifically meant female slaves. However, these verses do not mention retaining possession of slaves or inheriting them as property. Slavery was used to convert non-Muslims to Islam. Many verses in the Quran and Hadith - the records of the Islamic prophet's words and deeds - validated the practice of slavery and encouraged Muslims to free slaves. Unfortunately Muslims took and applied what they liked and neglected the verses that they disliked. Slavery defenders also justified slavery by contending that Mohammad kept slaves (Khan, Kindle Edition). Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, a Muslim leader and writer, states that Mohammad had four slave girls, but he fails to mention that Mohammad also freed these slaves. What the slavery advocate ignored was the fact that Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) freed all of his slaves no sooner than he obtained them. Prophet Mohammad wanted to teach his companions and followers that freeing slaves was better than owning them, even if the Quran does not contain verses that specifically prohibit slavery. The Prophet's actions are enough to teach the generations that freeing slaves meant that God granted you rewards. One of the justifications from Mohammad's actions that the slavery apologists used is in the story of the capturing Safiyyah bint Huyayy, a Jewish woman who had been recently widowed but who later became Mohammad's wife. As Anas bin Malik Narrates the Hadith: Aiashjaai 17 We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the beauty of Safiyah bint Huyai bin Akhtaq whose husband had been killed while she was a bride, was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself, and set out with her, and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba,' Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah's Apostle married her. Hais (i.e. an 'Arabian dish) was prepared on a small leather mat. Then the Prophet said to me, "I invite the people around you." So that was the marriage banquet of the Prophet and Safiya. Then we proceeded towards Medina, and I saw the Prophet, making for her a kind of cushion with his cloak behind him (on his camel). He then sat beside his camel and put his knee for Safiya to put her foot on, in order to ride (on the camel). (Kammuna). Slavery defenders focused on the action of Prophet Mohammad in accepting female slaves to fit their preferences, but they ignored the rest of the story because it did not satisfy their personal interests. Muslim slavery defenders continued supporting slavery by citing various isolated actions of Prophet Mohammad as justification without placing those actions within their larger contexts. For example, they said that during Mohammad's jihad on the Jews of Khaybar - a small region in Medina City where Jews lived - he chose Safiyah for himself simply because she was beautiful. They also claimed that Prophet Mohammad took Safiyah hours after he had her husband, Kinana, tortured to death. This justification misleads the reader because it mixes the truth with allusion. Safiyah was not a slave of Prophet Mohammad but she was one of his wives (Shamouns). Muslim slavery defenders Aiashjaai 18 misinterpreted the prophet's actions and purposely used Prophet Mohammad's actions to defend slavery. From Safiyah's story, non-Muslims accuse Islam of violating human rights to acquire female slaves and say Prophet Muhammad had Safiyah's family killed in order to take her. The use of Safyah's story is meant to mislead Muslims and non-Muslims to justify slavery and the violation attached to slavery in order to keep continuing the practice of slavery through misinterpretations of stories in the Quran about Prophet Mohammed. Justifications against Institutional Slavery on the Arabian Peninsula Prophet Mohammed did not look upon slavery as a part of the natural order of things. His approach was to improve living conditions for slaves and to encourage people to free slaves. Wars and Jihad and the right to acquire slaves through those means were rooted in previous civilizations, but throughout his action and hadith, Mohammed recommended people free slaves after they were taken in war, such as he did with Saflyah. Prophet Mohammad did not take Safiyah as a slave; instead he only took her after she was widowed and then immediately married her. If Prophet Mohammad took Safiyah as a permanent slave and not a wife, he would not have had a large dinner and invited people to celebrate their union. Mohammad freed four female slaves that were, given to him, including Safyiah. The second woman whom Prophet Mohammad freed and then married is Maria-al- Qibtiyya. She was a Coptic slave sent to Prophet Muhammad, and as soon as he received her, he freed and then married her around 629-630 C.E. The third woman was Sirin, Maria's sister. The ruler of Alexandria sent her as a gift. Muhammad gave her to his Aiashjaai 19 friend Hassan Ibn Thabit, a famous Arabic and Muslim poet, who later freed Sirin and married her as well. The fourth woman is Rayhana, whom was captured during the Banu Qurayza conquest. Mohammad freed and married her. Besides female slaves, Mohammed also freed male slaves. When the mother of Anes bin Malek gave her son as a slave to Prophet Mohammad, Mohammad never treated him as a slave. Instead he treated him as his son and taught him how to be a true Muslim. Thus, through his actions the Prophet Muhammad defined himself as opponent of slavery. When Prophet Muhammad died, he was poor and owned nothing, including slaves: Narrated 'Amir bin Al-Harith: Allah's Apostle (Prophet Muhammad) did not leave a Dinar or a Dirham (Arab form of currency or money) or a male or a female slave. He left only his white mule on which he used to ride, and his weapons, and a piece of land which he gave in charity for the needy travelers. (Eshaykh. Staff) Thus, all Hadiths show that Prophet Muhammad neither had any slaves during his life nor slaves when he died. He only had wives but never a female slave or a captive. Prophet Mohammad's life was simple and afforded all men and women the right to their own lives. He encouraged his companions, including Abu Bakr Asadiq, the first man who converted to Islam, to buy slaves in order to free them. His opposition to slavery can also be seen in the lives of Ali and Fatima, the wife of Ali and daughter of Prophet Mohammed: Aiashjaai 20 Ali was poor and he and Fatima were tired from their duties. Ali came back one day saying, "Oh my back, it's sore from carrying all that heavy water" and Fatima said, "Oh from my hands" so he said to her "I heard that the Prophet got a group of slaves, why don't we go and ask him for a slave?" They went and asked the Prophet for a slave, he said "no by Allah, these slaves I will sell them and use the money to help those who are in need more than you - the People of Suffah (very poor)." So they returned home, and the Prophet then came knocking on the door. Ali opened up while Fatima was still laying in her bed, she quickly tried to get up, the Prophet said "stay in your place," and he came and sat between them on their bed. He said to them, "shall I not direct you to that which is better than a slave, if you get into your bed say subhanallah 33 times, and alhamdullilah 33 times and Allahu Akbar 34 times, Allah will suffice you from needing a slave." Ali says, "by Allah after saying it Allah increased us in strength so we did not need a slave." (Eshaykh.Staff) From the previous Hadiths, readers can see that even the little daughter of Prophet Mohammad could not have a slave to serve her because her father recommender her to do her own housework without help. Muslim slavery defenders took supportive Qur'anic verses and the prophetic actions that supported slavery and ignored the Qur'anic references that tell how Mohammad taught freeing slaves was the best deed that a Muslim could ever do. Mohammad's approach was not to forbid something that was not prohibited in the holy Quran, but in the case of his daughter Fatima and her husband Ali since they were Aiashjaai 21 members of his family, he would not allow them to own a slave when they asked his permission. Mohammad knew that they would respect his opinion and would not go against his commands. He knew that his actions and sayings were recorded, so he wanted his followers to imitate his actions. The last words of the prophet when he was met by death were recommendations to his family, companions, and followers to treat slaves very well and to free them. Conclusion Although defenders of slavery in the antebellum South and in the Arabian Peninsula cited Holy Scriptures (the Bible and the Quran respectively) to justify institutional slavery, their arguments were based on skewed reads of those scriptures. The Bible and the Quran alike assert the freedom and equality of all men. Technically, there is not one single verse suggesting that the practice of slavery is justified or should continue. Moreover, neither the Bible nor the Quran make any mention of institutional slavery, and both scriptures repeatedly exhort believers to free their slaves as a demonstration of piety and faith. Roots successfully portrays the misinterpretations of the Bible that some Christians applied to Africans. It shows how biblical references - the curse of Cain, Noah's curses on Canaan, and Hagar and Abraham's story - were used by some white Christians in order to justify the practice of slavery. In addition, the Ottoman Empire's history shows how the Muslim slavery defenders and sultans use the actions of Prophet Mohammad to justify their interest. Thus, both early Americans and the sultans of the Ottoman Empire willfully distorted passages in the Bible and Qur'anic verses to establish theological justifications for slavery and to perpetuate the myth of racial inferiority. Aiashjaai 22 Even though slavery has largely vanished, it remains a controversial issue. Tensions among races remain strong in America, and contemporary Muslims still argue over verses in the Quran that address the issue of slavery. One point, however, is clear: slavery has been institutionalized by human beings and not by God. If slavery defenders used sacred scriptures to justify their slavery, God also sent prophets to teach people, as God says in the Bible, "Love your neighbor as yourself," (Mark 12:30-31) and in the Quran, "We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures" (The Quran, Al-Anbya 21: 107). Aiashjaai 23 Works Cited Azumah, John Alembillah. The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa. London: One World. Kindle file. Carter, Richard G. "How Roots and Black. White. Broke Racial TV Ground." Television Quarterly 37.1 (2006): 55-60. Eshaykh.Staff. "As-Sunnah Foundation of America." 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2014. Evans, Tony. "Are Black People Cursed? The Curse of Ham." EPMEternal Perspective Ministries. 18 Jan. 2010. Web. 13 Oct. 2014. Everett, Suzanne, Histoiy of Slavery. Christian Action. New York. 1997. Print. Gordon, Murray. Slavery in the Arab World. The United States of America: New Amsterdam, 1992. Kindle AZW file. Gulam, Enteshaam. "Prophet Mohammad and Wealth: Did Mohammad make up Islam for Wealth and Money." Answering Christian Claims. Web. 22 Nov. 2014. The Holy Bible. Wheaton: Crossway-Good News, 2003. Print. Eng. Standard Vers. The Holy Qur'an. Istanbul: Ilmi Nesriyat, .1996. Print. Kammuna, Ibn. "How Muhammad Married Enslaved Safiya Bint Huyay." Islam Watch. Muslim Apostates, 26 August 2010. < http://www.islam-watch.org/home/59- kammuna/524-how-muhammad-mamed-enslaved-safiya-bint-huyay.html> Khan, M. A. Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slaveiy. New York: Bloomington, 2009. Kindle file. Lewis, Bernard. Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry. Oxford University: Oxford, 1990. Kindle file. Aiashjaai 24 Lewis, Bernard. The Arab in Histoiy. Oxford University: the United States, 1993. Kindle file. Morrison, Larry R. "The Religious Defense of American Slavery Before 1830." Journal of Religious Thought 37 (1980): 16-29. Ozgen, Korku. The Ottomans Org. 2002. Web. 11. Nov. 2014. Peters, Francis E. Mecca: A Literaiy History of the Muslim Holy Land. Princeton University, Press, 1994. Print. Roots. Prod. Pro. Stan Margulies. Haley Alex. 2011. DVD. Tucker, Lauren R., and Hemant Shah. "Race and the transformation of culture: The making of Vereb, Agenes. African American Cultural Clash on the Basis of Alex Haley's Roots: The American System of Slavery from an Outsider's Point of View. VDM Verlag: Lexington, KY, 22 August. 2014. Print. Watson, Adam. "Muhammad the Abolitionist: Slavery in The Qur'an". Insightbb. 2002. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://home.insightbb.com/~adamwatson/showcase/quranslaverv.html&gt