What do you think?
Rate this book
Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry
From before the days of Moses up through the 1960s, slavery was a fact of life in the Middle East. Pagans, Jews, Christians, and Muslims bought and sold at the slave markets for millennia, trading the human plunder of wars and slave raids that reached from the Russian steppes to the African jungles. But if the Middle East was one of the last regions to renounce slavery, how do we account for its--and especially Islam's--image of racial harmony? How did these long years of slavery affect racial relations? In Race and Slavery in the Middle East, Bernard Lewis explores these questions and others, examining the history of slavery in law, social thought, and practice over the last two millennia.With 24 rare and intriguing full-color illustrations, this fascinating study describes the Middle East's culture of slavery and the evolution of racial prejudice. Lewis demonstrates how nineteenth century Europeans mythologized the region as a racial utopia in debating American slavery. Islam, in fact, clearly teaches non-discrimination, but Lewis shows that prejudice often won out over pious sentiments, as he examines how Africans were treated, depicted, and thought of from antiquity to the twentieth century."If my color were pink, women would love me/But the Lord has marred me with blackness," lamented a black slave poet in Arabia over a millennium ago--and Lewis deftly draws from these lines and others the nuances of racial relations over time. Islam, he finds, restricted enslavement and greatly improved the lot of slaves--who included, until the early twentieth century, some whites--while blacks occasionally rose to power and renown. But abuses ring throughout the written and visual record, from the horrors of capture to the castration and high mortality which, along with other causes, have left few blacks in many Middle Eastern lands, despite centuries of importing African slaves.Race and Slavery in the Middle East illuminates the legacy of slavery in the region where it lasted longest, from the days of warrior slaves and palace eunuchs and concubines to the final drive for abolition. Illustrated with outstanding reproductions of striking artwork, it casts a new light on this critical part of the world, and on the nature and interrelation of slavery and racial prejudice.
224 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1990
24 people are currently reading
495 people want to read
About the author
Bernard Lewis
190 books497 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Bernard Lewis was the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University and the author of many critially acclaimed and bestselling books, including two number one New York Times bestsellers: What Went Wrong? and Crisis of Islam. The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years was a National Book Critics Circle Award finalist. Internationally recognized as the greatest historian of the Middle East, he received fifteen honorary doctorates and his books have been translated into more than twenty languages.
Bernard Lewis was the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University and the author of many critially acclaimed and bestselling books, including two number one New York Times bestsellers: What Went Wrong? and Crisis of Islam. The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years was a National Book Critics Circle Award finalist. Internationally recognized as the greatest historian of the Middle East, he received fifteen honorary doctorates and his books have been translated into more than twenty languages.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
December 11, 2017
In this very short book (100 pages + lots of white space + lots of references and notes), Bernard Lewis gives a summary of the historical context of slavery as institution and the concept of race in the Middle East.
I don't like Lewis' endless nuancing and he seems to be walking on egg shells all the way through. Yet, he has a tough nut to crack. As he himself comments in the last chapter, there has been a lot of myth making regarding the notions of race and slavery in the Middle East. Mainstream notions have focused on the comparitively mild form of slavery in muslim lands. The problem with this idea is that these reports were written by (mostly) white men with an agenda. As Lewis notes, islam has been used ever since the eighteenth century by intellectuals to criticize Christianity and Western culture.
Intellectuals like Alfred von Kremer and Snouck Hurgronje wrote about slavery, but compared this to the American slavery. Western countries have a bad rep when it comes to slavery, but this seems only part of the story. The focus of the American slave trade was economic: slaves had to work for masters on plantations. In other words: free labour with all the horrors that came with it. Yet, travelers to the East remarked, in muslim lands slaves seemed to be better off: they had to work in households of muslim slave owners and even though their journey to their new owners might be dangerous, once there they were better off than the American house slaves (let alone the plantation slaves).
According to Lewis this is partly misinformed research and partly myth making. Black slaves were deemed second class citizens (even when muslims themselves) and were excluded from almost all the social positions that mattered. Muslim families didn't accept their daughters marrying black men; marriage between muslim men and black women was slightly more accepted, albeit still a taboo in general. So people like Hurgonje simply selectively overstepped the fact that there was racism and slavery in islam.
And besides, they wrote on account of very selective and biased experiences. There WERE huge swaths of land (for example Southern Iraq) where black slaves had to work in gold or salt mines. This was, looking at the environmental conditions, an even more brutal fate than the North American plantation slaves had to suffer. Lewis remarks that one of the reasons one encounters such few black muslims in modern day society, is - besides their social exclusion - the fact that the extermination rates and death tolls were immense.
To put the facts bluntly: 1.5-2 times more African (black) slaves have been acutioned off in the islamic world than the Western countries transported to the America's. The word 'slave' derives from the slavic peoples (i.e. slav people) - the first victims of muslim slave raids on European shores during the Dark Ages.
When Europe became more powerful (during the Middle ages), the islamic world gradually turned more and more to sub-Saharan Africa for their slaves. Nevertheless, white slaves were sold for more money than black slaves, perfectly illustrating muslim bigotry to blacks. The fate of these black slaves was horrible. If you were a man, you would be either working yourself to death in the salt mines or get your balls (and sometimes your dick) chopped off in order to guard the harem of a powerful muslim man. If you were a woman, well, we all know what the term concubine or house maid stands for...
There's more nuance than this, but this oversimplifying helps get the point across. Muslim slavery is - on scale as well as on atrocities - on a par with the European-American slave trade. The fact that even in the 1970's slavery was still an institution in islamic countries (like Mauritania), while Western countries abolished slavery in the 19th century, is illustrating to the islamic attitude towards slavery.
I think this story needs to be told more - especially in Western countries where black rights activists act like slavery is a white man's concept. Slavery has been a human insititution ever since humanity started to live in societies; Western European whites were the first one to officially abolish this institution and to actively prevent it from happening throughout the world. Lewis' book is an important argument in the fight for reason against progressive liberals, neo-marxists and other activists.
The moral of the story is told by Lewis on one of the last pages of his book:
"The myth of Islamic racial innocence was a Western creation and served a Western purpose. Not for the first time, a mythologized and idealized Islam proved a stick with which to chastise Western failings. [...] In the same way, the myth of total racial harmony in the Islamic world appears to have arisen as a reproach to the practices of white men in the Americas and in Southern Africa, beside which indeed even Islamic realities shone in contrast. [...] That the myth has survived and been taken up enthousiastically in our time is due, I think, to another factor, to what might be called nostalgia for the white man's burden. The white man's burden in Kipling's sense - the Westerner's responsibility for the peoples over whom he ruled - has long since been cast off and seized by others. But there are those who still insist on maintaining it - this time as a burden not of power but of guilt, an insistence on responsibility for the world and its ills that is as arrogant and as unjustified as the claims of our imperial predecessors." - Bernard Lewis (pp. 101-102)
Why is this important anno 2017, with all the social justice movements, third wave feminism, genderneutral politics and black rights activisms that are ransacking our Western societies? Once again, Lewis answers this perfectly:
"My point is not to set up a moral competition - to compare castration and apartheid as offenses against humanity or to argue the relative wickedness of Eastern and Western practices; it is rather to refute the claims of both exclusive virtue and exclusive vice and to point to certain COMMON FAILINGS of our COMMON HUMANITY." (p. 99) (My capslock notations)
All the above mentioned activist movements depart from the same assumption that there is one group that dominates all the others - usually it's common white men with their monopoly on power. The problem with this notion is that it is as racist to claim white men have white privilege as to claim that black people are sexually promiscuous and hence bad parents (to take just two of the more commonly used examples). 'Black lives matter' is as racist a movement as the Klu Klux Klan is. And this applies to all the above mentioned movements: contemporary feminism is more sexist than most of contemporary (white) men. The moral of the story is we should look at our common humanity instead of falling into the trap of groupthink.
I don't like Lewis' endless nuancing and he seems to be walking on egg shells all the way through. Yet, he has a tough nut to crack. As he himself comments in the last chapter, there has been a lot of myth making regarding the notions of race and slavery in the Middle East. Mainstream notions have focused on the comparitively mild form of slavery in muslim lands. The problem with this idea is that these reports were written by (mostly) white men with an agenda. As Lewis notes, islam has been used ever since the eighteenth century by intellectuals to criticize Christianity and Western culture.
Intellectuals like Alfred von Kremer and Snouck Hurgronje wrote about slavery, but compared this to the American slavery. Western countries have a bad rep when it comes to slavery, but this seems only part of the story. The focus of the American slave trade was economic: slaves had to work for masters on plantations. In other words: free labour with all the horrors that came with it. Yet, travelers to the East remarked, in muslim lands slaves seemed to be better off: they had to work in households of muslim slave owners and even though their journey to their new owners might be dangerous, once there they were better off than the American house slaves (let alone the plantation slaves).
According to Lewis this is partly misinformed research and partly myth making. Black slaves were deemed second class citizens (even when muslims themselves) and were excluded from almost all the social positions that mattered. Muslim families didn't accept their daughters marrying black men; marriage between muslim men and black women was slightly more accepted, albeit still a taboo in general. So people like Hurgonje simply selectively overstepped the fact that there was racism and slavery in islam.
And besides, they wrote on account of very selective and biased experiences. There WERE huge swaths of land (for example Southern Iraq) where black slaves had to work in gold or salt mines. This was, looking at the environmental conditions, an even more brutal fate than the North American plantation slaves had to suffer. Lewis remarks that one of the reasons one encounters such few black muslims in modern day society, is - besides their social exclusion - the fact that the extermination rates and death tolls were immense.
To put the facts bluntly: 1.5-2 times more African (black) slaves have been acutioned off in the islamic world than the Western countries transported to the America's. The word 'slave' derives from the slavic peoples (i.e. slav people) - the first victims of muslim slave raids on European shores during the Dark Ages.
When Europe became more powerful (during the Middle ages), the islamic world gradually turned more and more to sub-Saharan Africa for their slaves. Nevertheless, white slaves were sold for more money than black slaves, perfectly illustrating muslim bigotry to blacks. The fate of these black slaves was horrible. If you were a man, you would be either working yourself to death in the salt mines or get your balls (and sometimes your dick) chopped off in order to guard the harem of a powerful muslim man. If you were a woman, well, we all know what the term concubine or house maid stands for...
There's more nuance than this, but this oversimplifying helps get the point across. Muslim slavery is - on scale as well as on atrocities - on a par with the European-American slave trade. The fact that even in the 1970's slavery was still an institution in islamic countries (like Mauritania), while Western countries abolished slavery in the 19th century, is illustrating to the islamic attitude towards slavery.
I think this story needs to be told more - especially in Western countries where black rights activists act like slavery is a white man's concept. Slavery has been a human insititution ever since humanity started to live in societies; Western European whites were the first one to officially abolish this institution and to actively prevent it from happening throughout the world. Lewis' book is an important argument in the fight for reason against progressive liberals, neo-marxists and other activists.
The moral of the story is told by Lewis on one of the last pages of his book:
"The myth of Islamic racial innocence was a Western creation and served a Western purpose. Not for the first time, a mythologized and idealized Islam proved a stick with which to chastise Western failings. [...] In the same way, the myth of total racial harmony in the Islamic world appears to have arisen as a reproach to the practices of white men in the Americas and in Southern Africa, beside which indeed even Islamic realities shone in contrast. [...] That the myth has survived and been taken up enthousiastically in our time is due, I think, to another factor, to what might be called nostalgia for the white man's burden. The white man's burden in Kipling's sense - the Westerner's responsibility for the peoples over whom he ruled - has long since been cast off and seized by others. But there are those who still insist on maintaining it - this time as a burden not of power but of guilt, an insistence on responsibility for the world and its ills that is as arrogant and as unjustified as the claims of our imperial predecessors." - Bernard Lewis (pp. 101-102)
Why is this important anno 2017, with all the social justice movements, third wave feminism, genderneutral politics and black rights activisms that are ransacking our Western societies? Once again, Lewis answers this perfectly:
"My point is not to set up a moral competition - to compare castration and apartheid as offenses against humanity or to argue the relative wickedness of Eastern and Western practices; it is rather to refute the claims of both exclusive virtue and exclusive vice and to point to certain COMMON FAILINGS of our COMMON HUMANITY." (p. 99) (My capslock notations)
All the above mentioned activist movements depart from the same assumption that there is one group that dominates all the others - usually it's common white men with their monopoly on power. The problem with this notion is that it is as racist to claim white men have white privilege as to claim that black people are sexually promiscuous and hence bad parents (to take just two of the more commonly used examples). 'Black lives matter' is as racist a movement as the Klu Klux Klan is. And this applies to all the above mentioned movements: contemporary feminism is more sexist than most of contemporary (white) men. The moral of the story is we should look at our common humanity instead of falling into the trap of groupthink.
August 20, 2015
let me start by saying the same thing I always say when it comes to anything that has to do with race. race is a social economic and political tool not a genetic or a biological one. with that said the people who write history and the people who read history see a vision not an actual reality.
black Americans became very supportive of Islam from the 19 fifties all the way up to the present as an alternative to the Christianity that was forced down their throats during slavery. Bernard Lewis attempts to you like history to invoke a shedding of that relationship or Trend whatever you wanna call it. the goal here was more propaganda than anything else.
the Arab world is not a homogenous place people don't look the same from city to city and to assume that there is a greater culture that practices racism and its explain form is not so smart. there's a lot of diversity some of it created as a result of slavery some of it has been in existence since antiquity.
I am in no way shape or form denying the racism and the slavery that exists even to this day what I would say is that we should look at it from an intellectual perspective a bit more graduated the scientist them in the writings of an Orientalist who only has one goal
black Americans became very supportive of Islam from the 19 fifties all the way up to the present as an alternative to the Christianity that was forced down their throats during slavery. Bernard Lewis attempts to you like history to invoke a shedding of that relationship or Trend whatever you wanna call it. the goal here was more propaganda than anything else.
the Arab world is not a homogenous place people don't look the same from city to city and to assume that there is a greater culture that practices racism and its explain form is not so smart. there's a lot of diversity some of it created as a result of slavery some of it has been in existence since antiquity.
I am in no way shape or form denying the racism and the slavery that exists even to this day what I would say is that we should look at it from an intellectual perspective a bit more graduated the scientist them in the writings of an Orientalist who only has one goal
August 19, 2020
De auteur van dit boek is de Brits-Amerikaanse historicus en oriëntalist Bernard Lewis (1916-2018). Hij was gespecialiseerd in het Midden-Oosten, het Ottomaanse Rijk en de islam. Dit boek is een bewerking en uitbreiding van een eerder boek van hem, 'Race and Colour in Islam' (1971). Naar aanleiding van een Franse vertaling hiervan later vond hij dat enkele correcties nodig waren, evenals uitbreidingen omdat hij begreep dat het thema 'racisme en huidskleur' het best kon onderzocht worden m.b.t. de kwestie van de slavernij. Zijn onderzoek leverde dan dit boek uit 1990 op.
Zoals bekend hebben slavenhandel en slavernij in de islamitische wereld bestaan van voor de Transatlantische slavenhandel tot lang na de afschaffing van slavernij in de westelijke wereld. In de tijd van Mohammed was slavernij een gewone zaak, zoals elders in de ons gekende wereld. Het verwondert dan ook niet dat de koran slavernij niet als problematisch behandelt. Wel zou in de pre-islamitische tijd en in de tijd van Mohammed geen negatieve connotatie bestaan i.v.m. een donkere huidskleur. Het was niet ongewoon dat Afrikaanse vrouwen, in het bijzonder uit Ethiopië, huwden met Arabieren. Volgens de koran is er geen reden tot discriminatie op dat vlak omdat iedereen gelijk was 'in de ogen van Allah'.
Maar er is een groot verschil tussen theorie en praktijk. Bernard Lewis onderzocht talrijke teksten die tot ons gekomen zijn sinds het begin van de islam. Hij stelt zo vast dat er wel degelijk een negatieve connotatie gehecht werd aan een donkere huidskleur en dat zwarten gediscrimineerd werden. Op het vlak van slavenhandel werd er zowel in blanke als zwarte slaven gehandeld. Blanken werden bijvoorbeeld in het Ottomaanse rijk verhandeld, zij waren meestal door Tataren uit de Krim gekidnapt uit (het huidige) Oekraïne. Daarnaast was er de handel in zwarte slaven uit Afrika, die meestal over land aangevoerd werden. Dat betekende in de praktijk karavanen die vele dagen of weken lang doorheen onder meer woestijnen trokken. Door een gebrekkige bevoorrading aan water en voedsel overleefden velen deze uitputtende tocht niet. De handel in blanke slaven viel zo goed als stil nadat de Russen de Krim veroverden. De handel in de zwarte slaven ging door tot in de twintigste eeuw.
Uit documenten en verslagen vernemen we dat blanke slaven meestal meer geld waard waren dan zwarten. Zwarten werden in vele documenten als lelijk en inferieur bestempeld. Een bijzondere kwestie is het verhaal van de eunuchen: dezen werden op jonge leeftijd (8 à 12 jaar) gevangen genomen en ontdaan van testikels en penis. Deze operatie verliep uiteraard niet op medisch verantwoorde manier. Sommigen stierven dan ook ten gevolge van de operatie. De overlevenden waren meer geld waard dan andere slaven, ze werden ingezet als bewaker van harems. Er bestonden zowel blanke als zwarte eunuchen.
Uit vele documenten blijkt dat de slavenhandel vele slachtoffers maakte door de uitputtende reizen. Eens de slaven hun bestemming bereikten, werden ze - alles in acht genomen - menselijk behandeld, zeker als ze een huishoudelijke taak kregen. Blijkbaar behandelden Turken hun slaven beter dan Arabieren. De sharia bevat naar verluidt ook wetgeving die tot in zekere mate slaven beschermt, maar zoals gezegd : er is een verschil tussen theorie en praktijk. Moslims mochten hun slaven niet mishandelen, daarom werd de praktijk van bijvoorbeeld de eunuch-operatie uitgevoerd door derden, niet door moslims. Maar deze mishandeling gebeurde wel op vraag van moslims. Moslims zelf mochten niet tot slaaf gemaakt worden door andere moslims, maar in de praktijk werden soms zwarte Afrikanen die zich tot de islam bekeerd hadden, toch in de slavernij gebracht.
Sinds de negentiende eeuw heeft de Arabische en Turkse slavernij het aureool van "een goede behandeling" gekregen en ontstond het beeld van raciale gelijkheid in de islam. Dat komt omdat een aantal verslagen van reizigers het vergelijk maakten met de mensonterende praktijken en het racisme in Noord- en Zuid-Amerika. Daar werd de slavernij dan wel in de negentiende eeuw afgeschaft, maar bleven zwarten zo goed als rechteloze en achtergestelde burgers. Bernard Lewis concludeert wel dat deze positieve kijk op de slavernij en de zogenaamde raciale gelijkheid in het Midden-Oosten grotendeels een mythe is.
Zoals bekend hebben slavenhandel en slavernij in de islamitische wereld bestaan van voor de Transatlantische slavenhandel tot lang na de afschaffing van slavernij in de westelijke wereld. In de tijd van Mohammed was slavernij een gewone zaak, zoals elders in de ons gekende wereld. Het verwondert dan ook niet dat de koran slavernij niet als problematisch behandelt. Wel zou in de pre-islamitische tijd en in de tijd van Mohammed geen negatieve connotatie bestaan i.v.m. een donkere huidskleur. Het was niet ongewoon dat Afrikaanse vrouwen, in het bijzonder uit Ethiopië, huwden met Arabieren. Volgens de koran is er geen reden tot discriminatie op dat vlak omdat iedereen gelijk was 'in de ogen van Allah'.
Maar er is een groot verschil tussen theorie en praktijk. Bernard Lewis onderzocht talrijke teksten die tot ons gekomen zijn sinds het begin van de islam. Hij stelt zo vast dat er wel degelijk een negatieve connotatie gehecht werd aan een donkere huidskleur en dat zwarten gediscrimineerd werden. Op het vlak van slavenhandel werd er zowel in blanke als zwarte slaven gehandeld. Blanken werden bijvoorbeeld in het Ottomaanse rijk verhandeld, zij waren meestal door Tataren uit de Krim gekidnapt uit (het huidige) Oekraïne. Daarnaast was er de handel in zwarte slaven uit Afrika, die meestal over land aangevoerd werden. Dat betekende in de praktijk karavanen die vele dagen of weken lang doorheen onder meer woestijnen trokken. Door een gebrekkige bevoorrading aan water en voedsel overleefden velen deze uitputtende tocht niet. De handel in blanke slaven viel zo goed als stil nadat de Russen de Krim veroverden. De handel in de zwarte slaven ging door tot in de twintigste eeuw.
Uit documenten en verslagen vernemen we dat blanke slaven meestal meer geld waard waren dan zwarten. Zwarten werden in vele documenten als lelijk en inferieur bestempeld. Een bijzondere kwestie is het verhaal van de eunuchen: dezen werden op jonge leeftijd (8 à 12 jaar) gevangen genomen en ontdaan van testikels en penis. Deze operatie verliep uiteraard niet op medisch verantwoorde manier. Sommigen stierven dan ook ten gevolge van de operatie. De overlevenden waren meer geld waard dan andere slaven, ze werden ingezet als bewaker van harems. Er bestonden zowel blanke als zwarte eunuchen.
Uit vele documenten blijkt dat de slavenhandel vele slachtoffers maakte door de uitputtende reizen. Eens de slaven hun bestemming bereikten, werden ze - alles in acht genomen - menselijk behandeld, zeker als ze een huishoudelijke taak kregen. Blijkbaar behandelden Turken hun slaven beter dan Arabieren. De sharia bevat naar verluidt ook wetgeving die tot in zekere mate slaven beschermt, maar zoals gezegd : er is een verschil tussen theorie en praktijk. Moslims mochten hun slaven niet mishandelen, daarom werd de praktijk van bijvoorbeeld de eunuch-operatie uitgevoerd door derden, niet door moslims. Maar deze mishandeling gebeurde wel op vraag van moslims. Moslims zelf mochten niet tot slaaf gemaakt worden door andere moslims, maar in de praktijk werden soms zwarte Afrikanen die zich tot de islam bekeerd hadden, toch in de slavernij gebracht.
Sinds de negentiende eeuw heeft de Arabische en Turkse slavernij het aureool van "een goede behandeling" gekregen en ontstond het beeld van raciale gelijkheid in de islam. Dat komt omdat een aantal verslagen van reizigers het vergelijk maakten met de mensonterende praktijken en het racisme in Noord- en Zuid-Amerika. Daar werd de slavernij dan wel in de negentiende eeuw afgeschaft, maar bleven zwarten zo goed als rechteloze en achtergestelde burgers. Bernard Lewis concludeert wel dat deze positieve kijk op de slavernij en de zogenaamde raciale gelijkheid in het Midden-Oosten grotendeels een mythe is.
August 18, 2013
An interesting discussion of the place of race and slavery in the middle east that despite my reservations about the author seemed fair and relatively even handed. The book charts from the beginning of Islam the development of ideas around race and the religious protections that were afforded slaves in the middle east. one point that this book drove home for me personally was how multi-cultural, for a lack of better words, Islam was from its founding which is something we are not generally lead to understand in the West. Another thing which I found interesting in this discussion was the relative ease, certainly compared to american slavery as the prime example, with which a slave could escape their situation if they were seen to embrace Islam.
Having read one of Bernard Lewis' more recent works which was smothered in Orientalist discourse this I have to say was a lot better and did not seem to rely on romanticised views of the middle east or Islam to communicate its central argument. At the end of the book Lewis also points out that the book is not intending as a demonstration of how middle eastern slavery was better or more enlightened compared to European slavery simply that it aims to show the differences in attitude and opinion between both types.
I would happily recommend this to anyone interested in the history of slavery and in particular the role that the middle east played in the slave trade throughout history as this book does effectively chart the development and evolution of slavery in this region of the world.
Having read one of Bernard Lewis' more recent works which was smothered in Orientalist discourse this I have to say was a lot better and did not seem to rely on romanticised views of the middle east or Islam to communicate its central argument. At the end of the book Lewis also points out that the book is not intending as a demonstration of how middle eastern slavery was better or more enlightened compared to European slavery simply that it aims to show the differences in attitude and opinion between both types.
I would happily recommend this to anyone interested in the history of slavery and in particular the role that the middle east played in the slave trade throughout history as this book does effectively chart the development and evolution of slavery in this region of the world.
February 10, 2021
erudite but dated.
November 13, 2022
We read that "In ancient Arabia, as elsewhere in antiquity, racism--in the modern sense of the word--was unknown... (Today) It is no longer applied to national, ethnic, or cultural entities, such as English or the Irish, the Germans of the Slaves, or even the Japanese." Dividing peoples by outward color and/or appearance seems to have only served to typecast and stereotype virtually everyone into a category for potential hatred.
Whether it was slave transport across the Sahara or upon the Nile, the market flourished prolifically for the Arab/Muslim world for millennia. One thousand years of reported Arab slavers in Africa, followed by 1400 years (after adherence to Islam) certainly curtailed the advancement of the African peoples and opened a second door, next to the Cross-Saharan slave trade, to the Transatlantic market and the western world.
Professor Lewis's work remains aa an interesting source for anyone researching the miliniel of the Mohammedan empire's extensive slave trade. One must also bear in mind that it was predominantly the wealthy, the elite, and the empires who possessed other humans as slaves. "To the Muslims--as to people of every other civilization known to history--the civilized world meant themselves."
Though slavery was abolished in Saudi Arabia and Yemen in 1962, the UAE in 1964, Oman in 1970, and Mauritania in 1980, "There are persistent reports that despite these legal measures, slavery... continues in several countries." 2400 years of Trans-Sahara slave trade, 1400 years under the Islamic slavers' banner, this enterprise is reportedly the largest slaving endeavor in modern world history.
Because something is recorded throughout history does not necessarily mean that it is condoned.
Many find it difficult to envision the 'normalcies' of past civilizations throughout history wearing the discolored glasses of today's world.
Other works that may be of interest:
-Slavery in the Islamic World by Mary Ann Fay
-Slavery and Abolition in the Ottoman Middle East by Ehud Toledano
-Women and Slavery in the Late Ottoman Empire by Madeline Zilfi
-Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam by Kecia Ali
-Race and Slavery in the Middle East by Terence Walz & Kenneth Cuno
-Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, The Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 - by R. Davis
-The Natashas: The Horrific Inside Story of Slavery, Rape, and Murder in the Global Sex Trade
-Tell This in My Memory: Stories of Enslavement from Egypt, Sudan, and the Ottoman Empire by Eve M. Trout Powell
-The Man-Eaters of Tsavo by John Henry Patterson
Also: The mention of servant slaves throughout the Muslim controlled Mediterranean is casually mentioned in the diaries of the early pioneers of seafaring global exploration.
Whether it was slave transport across the Sahara or upon the Nile, the market flourished prolifically for the Arab/Muslim world for millennia. One thousand years of reported Arab slavers in Africa, followed by 1400 years (after adherence to Islam) certainly curtailed the advancement of the African peoples and opened a second door, next to the Cross-Saharan slave trade, to the Transatlantic market and the western world.
Professor Lewis's work remains aa an interesting source for anyone researching the miliniel of the Mohammedan empire's extensive slave trade. One must also bear in mind that it was predominantly the wealthy, the elite, and the empires who possessed other humans as slaves. "To the Muslims--as to people of every other civilization known to history--the civilized world meant themselves."
Though slavery was abolished in Saudi Arabia and Yemen in 1962, the UAE in 1964, Oman in 1970, and Mauritania in 1980, "There are persistent reports that despite these legal measures, slavery... continues in several countries." 2400 years of Trans-Sahara slave trade, 1400 years under the Islamic slavers' banner, this enterprise is reportedly the largest slaving endeavor in modern world history.
Because something is recorded throughout history does not necessarily mean that it is condoned.
Many find it difficult to envision the 'normalcies' of past civilizations throughout history wearing the discolored glasses of today's world.
Other works that may be of interest:
-Slavery in the Islamic World by Mary Ann Fay
-Slavery and Abolition in the Ottoman Middle East by Ehud Toledano
-Women and Slavery in the Late Ottoman Empire by Madeline Zilfi
-Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam by Kecia Ali
-Race and Slavery in the Middle East by Terence Walz & Kenneth Cuno
-Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, The Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 - by R. Davis
-The Natashas: The Horrific Inside Story of Slavery, Rape, and Murder in the Global Sex Trade
-Tell This in My Memory: Stories of Enslavement from Egypt, Sudan, and the Ottoman Empire by Eve M. Trout Powell
-The Man-Eaters of Tsavo by John Henry Patterson
Also: The mention of servant slaves throughout the Muslim controlled Mediterranean is casually mentioned in the diaries of the early pioneers of seafaring global exploration.
March 12, 2025
In a way, I'm conflicted. From my understanding, when Bernard Lewis first wrote "Race and Color in Islam" in 1971, he was a trailblazer in that regard. There was little Anglophone scholarship on Middle Eastern slavery at that time, and his work was pioneering. He produced preliminary research that could serve as guidance for other subsequent scholarship and literature.
However, two decades later, with the 1990 publication of "Race and Slavery in the Middle East : A Historical Enquiry”, one would expect more rigorous, exploratory, and expanded scholarship. This expectation is reasonable, especially considering that in previously neglected areas, such as Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa, material had been produced. Material that could be used for comparative purposes, as Orlando Patterson does in "Slavery and Social Death” (coincidentally enough Orlando Patterson cited Bernard Lewis)
What we get, however, is a sort of preliminary exploration that, while stimulating, ultimately lacks rigor. The 103 pages of text (excluding citations and notes) could delve much deeper. Nonetheless, it remains incredibly stimulating and serves as a great introductory text, though it does have its faults, which have been noted by other Middle Eastern scholars.
Simply put it is not comprehensive enough!
However, two decades later, with the 1990 publication of "Race and Slavery in the Middle East : A Historical Enquiry”, one would expect more rigorous, exploratory, and expanded scholarship. This expectation is reasonable, especially considering that in previously neglected areas, such as Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa, material had been produced. Material that could be used for comparative purposes, as Orlando Patterson does in "Slavery and Social Death” (coincidentally enough Orlando Patterson cited Bernard Lewis)
What we get, however, is a sort of preliminary exploration that, while stimulating, ultimately lacks rigor. The 103 pages of text (excluding citations and notes) could delve much deeper. Nonetheless, it remains incredibly stimulating and serves as a great introductory text, though it does have its faults, which have been noted by other Middle Eastern scholars.
Simply put it is not comprehensive enough!
June 30, 2021
Excellent book, but too short and presumes a familiarity with the history of the Middle East (the Muslim world) that most readers will not have.
The quick take is that Muslim slaves were (for the most part) treated better than American slaves though the journey from Africa was probably as horrible (dying in the desert, castration). The racism that developed in America for the most part did not appear in the Middle East. Islam allowed slaves from non-Islamic counties. These at first were white slaves from Europe especially Eastern Europe. As that source dried up, they took more African slaves. Slaves were mostly domestics. And they could be freed and in time their descendants who converted to Islam would be part of society. Slavery lasts much longer (in pockets).
The quick take is that Muslim slaves were (for the most part) treated better than American slaves though the journey from Africa was probably as horrible (dying in the desert, castration). The racism that developed in America for the most part did not appear in the Middle East. Islam allowed slaves from non-Islamic counties. These at first were white slaves from Europe especially Eastern Europe. As that source dried up, they took more African slaves. Slaves were mostly domestics. And they could be freed and in time their descendants who converted to Islam would be part of society. Slavery lasts much longer (in pockets).
December 20, 2019
Extensive and detailed. Colossal effort by Lewis to detail slavery and stereotypes in the Islamic world, from antiquity until 1968, in an even handed manner that hitherto has been difficult to find. Lewis' other works might have detractors; but in this particular book he's done an admirable job of detailing the extent of middle eastern slavery (both black and white), without falling into the trap of comparing it to its Western counterpart for the sake of moral chastisement, as Western scholars typically do.
October 15, 2025
Dang. I did think that apart from Jihad that throughout its history, Islam has been a peaceful and accepting religion. Little did I know. Castration, loosely religiously and highly socially based (and common acceptance of) racism, concubines, darkness being equivalent to evil, and routine “holy” Jihad wars that killed and abducted anyone non-Muslim to enslave and sell. Horrible.
Read this for my APSU Early World History class’s second book report.
Read this for my APSU Early World History class’s second book report.
February 26, 2023
Ölçülü atılmış bir tokat.
December 11, 2025
Lot of issues in the book, especially it’s overarching analysis. But still worth reading
October 21, 2010
One might ask themselves, is Lewis really approaching this book as an objective historian just simply providing us with the facts? Or what motives would an American born Jewish scholar and supporter of the Zionist movement have in deconstructing the myth of Arab and Islamic colorblindness?
I found this book to be a refreshing breath of air after reading Malcolm X and studying both Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam. The concept of Islam being non-racist is a grave mistake that many intelligent people have made. It is an error promulgated by those in power within the Islamic world to point fingers out European colonizers in Africa, blaming them for all oppression and the introduction of slavery. But, as Lewis points out, oppression in Africa has existed long before the coming of white Europeans through the slave-taking by Arab Saifs. The difference between Arab "racism" (if we can even call it that) and European racism is that the Arab concept is based primarily on a tribal identity and less on color or birth.
I was happy to see Lewis point out these objections which are commonly ignored by most, but I still wonder if there is prejudice to be found in the selection and experiences he chooses to use in constructing Race & Slavery
I found this book to be a refreshing breath of air after reading Malcolm X and studying both Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam. The concept of Islam being non-racist is a grave mistake that many intelligent people have made. It is an error promulgated by those in power within the Islamic world to point fingers out European colonizers in Africa, blaming them for all oppression and the introduction of slavery. But, as Lewis points out, oppression in Africa has existed long before the coming of white Europeans through the slave-taking by Arab Saifs. The difference between Arab "racism" (if we can even call it that) and European racism is that the Arab concept is based primarily on a tribal identity and less on color or birth.
I was happy to see Lewis point out these objections which are commonly ignored by most, but I still wonder if there is prejudice to be found in the selection and experiences he chooses to use in constructing Race & Slavery
September 22, 2014
I came across this book about half a year ago, as one of the reference works for something else I was reading, and got the impression that this book was about the extent of slavery in the Islamic world - through the ages. So... that was a bit wrong, something the title *could* have told me, hadn't I been so fixated in my expectations. So I didn't find exactly what I expected, but it was interesting enough all the same. I would have prefered a bit broader scope, so that I would have learned more about slavery in this part of the world, but I have other books too and can always go look it up, I guess.
It was about as could have been expected. There's no "happy happy joy realm" free of racism and prejudice, and has never been either. The issue of "race" has changed in time and in space, but there's no shangri-la to be found. Why expect that from ancient history? I don't understand it. In short, the treatment of dark-skinned slaves was a tad worse than the treatment of lighter-skinned slaves. It wasn't heaven, it wasn't hell (as far as slavery goes, obviously). Lewis' conclusion about the myth of a non-racist shangri-la is pretty good, but probably also unpopular, since "nice myth" usually is to prefer over "difficult reality".
So it goes.
It was about as could have been expected. There's no "happy happy joy realm" free of racism and prejudice, and has never been either. The issue of "race" has changed in time and in space, but there's no shangri-la to be found. Why expect that from ancient history? I don't understand it. In short, the treatment of dark-skinned slaves was a tad worse than the treatment of lighter-skinned slaves. It wasn't heaven, it wasn't hell (as far as slavery goes, obviously). Lewis' conclusion about the myth of a non-racist shangri-la is pretty good, but probably also unpopular, since "nice myth" usually is to prefer over "difficult reality".
So it goes.
November 28, 2012
Sometimes you just want to despair about the human race. I thought this book was excellent, though of course the subject matter is basically man's inhumanity to man. Learning about how Islam dealt with slavery and its co-religionists was fascinating, as was seeing the interplay between a rising religion and established prejudices.
It was also marvelous to read first hand sources. In the last part of the book, seeing various British ambassadors' letters as they tried to cajole local leaders into ending slavery--and then into not just saying they were ending it, but actually putting some teeth into the prohibition--was invaluable. It was, frankly, surprising to me to see how strongly the British pursued ending slavery once they decided to do so. I'm not talking about trying for ten years to wipe out something they didn't like. Herein are ambassadors traveling long distances and doing detective work thirty and forty and seventy years after the Empire outlawed slavery.
It was also marvelous to read first hand sources. In the last part of the book, seeing various British ambassadors' letters as they tried to cajole local leaders into ending slavery--and then into not just saying they were ending it, but actually putting some teeth into the prohibition--was invaluable. It was, frankly, surprising to me to see how strongly the British pursued ending slavery once they decided to do so. I'm not talking about trying for ten years to wipe out something they didn't like. Herein are ambassadors traveling long distances and doing detective work thirty and forty and seventy years after the Empire outlawed slavery.
January 3, 2015
A fascinating look at the particularities of slavery in the Middle East, showing its differences from European slavery. In some ways slaves were a lot better off in the east, but Lewis shows how the ways slavery intersected with race were complex and changed over time.
It left me wondering if racism is an inevitable development of empire.
It left me wondering if racism is an inevitable development of empire.
July 7, 2012
Excellent book, well researched and presented. Highly recommended
March 17, 2013
Excellent! Review TK.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews