Talk:Slavery/Archive1

Cats?
I added some cats to this page, but they don't show up? What's causing that? DogP  13:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Third World Sweatshops
Aren't these the current equivalent of slavery? SusanG 16:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure. My first reaction is yes, but then again, the workers aren't technically "owned," as far as I know.  They're certainly treated like slaves, but I don't know if they fit the definition exactly. --Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  16:29, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I think one needs to be careful of calling things what they are. "Slavery" means something, and it means something other than "appallingly shitty work conditions." If you start to call that which is not slavery by that name, the risk is that the word gradually loses its meaning and moral impact. PFoster 16:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Agree; I didn't say they were slavery - modern equivalent was my phrase. SusanG 16:39, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * It's just that, with actual slavery still going on, I think it's more comparable than equivalent. Still wrong, and with similar conditions, but not precisely fitting the definition --Arcan  ¡ollǝɥ  16:46, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * It's more like indentured servitude or sharecropping.  Rational Ed faith 18:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * You do realize that those sweatshops tend to pay quite a bit more than the people in them would make otherwise? It's brutal exploitation and the work ain't exactly OSHA-compliant, but let's be realistic here.  The people in those sweatshops are 'forced' by their situations, yes, but their options are the sweatshops or subsistence farming (which is even LESS OSHA-compliant), petty crime, starving to death, or prostitution.  The sweatshops allow for the next generation to have bare-bones education, basic nutrition and maybe the most rudimentary of medical care, the lack of which... ain't pretty. CorruptUser (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Capitalism
"One of the few advantages of capitalism is that it requires the participation of free labor: it may be argued that the European abolition of slavery in the nineteenth century was undertaken not in the name of compassion for the enslaved, but in order to meet the demands of new capitalist economies." If this means someone here knows of an alternative economic system that's clearly superior, or at least has more advantages, I'd love to hear about it. OneForLogic 17:28, 29 October 2008 (EDT)


 * That alternative system will soon be Socialism/Communism, where all people worldwide own all things equally, to end slavery of the masses to make a few people richer & richer & richer, & watching capitalists concentrate power & wealth to fewer & fewer people. USA forced all attempts of alternative ways to fail by teaching torture, starting 50-150 wars, & that's all I can think of now, but if I think of more I'll try to add them here. See Third World Traveler website for backup. TWT: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/index.htmlKlop789 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

True definition
It's time to define "slavery" in all it's forms, such as "a person who is controlled by someone or something," & it has very little to do with whether one gets paid or not, because that's not even listed in the definition. Controlled by machines, corporations (most of all-they're actually slave plantations), money, automobiles (can't get a job without one & can't get car until you get a job), loans, insurance, the entire education system, marriage, children, religion, & everything else. Klop789 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So what is not slavery?

Dependency? That is the norm for children who must be protected from their impulses.

Working for a living? It's a trap, but the economic equivalent of the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the reality that people need to make things to consume, protect and maintain assets, and create overall wealth that creates jobs. The problem is not so much with capitalism as it is with the amorality of capitalists who exploit people as workers and consumers. Some capitalists are better than others, and so long as one has a choice in employment and employer one isn't a serf or slave. Terms of employment in Nazi Germany, in which one could not seek employment elsewhere if a current employer did not consent, were serfdom bordering on slavery. Soviet "socialism" is practically serfdom.

Chattel slavery, the sort that existed in the New World, had a person as literal property of another person. Forced labor which has no certainty of completion of a term and involves harsh treatment is slavery, as in the Third Reich. Human trafficking is a form of slavery. Debt-bondage in which a person is obliged to toil a long term for paying off a debt that might have been comparatively small is nearly slavery and it becomes slavery if one survives the term and is in no position except to accept another loan just to survive, paying off the loan being impossible except through toil on behalf of a lender or the person to whom one's toil is sold as a 'lease'.Pbrower2a (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Long picture caption
A one-inch picture followed by three inches of caption isn't a great look. Hi Ken! If we're going into that much detail about the map, it should probably be an article section rather than an epic caption. & What was the deal with the territories (pink bits on the map) - was slavery legal there? 22:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Buggered if I know, I copied the text from the image page - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Pope Gregory XVI
condemned slavery.

Unfortunately some of his other activities were less beneficial to the Catholic Church. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

At that point, the abolitionist movement was in full force. On the other hand, Pope Nicholas V specifically sanctions slavery in the bull Dum Diversas four centuries earlier. Mcc1789 (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany
It is worth remembering that Nazi Germany established a slave system.
 * It is. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 01:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Debt slavery today
Why isn't ALL debt slavery considered slavery, like in USA? I'm a slave, we're all slaves. It really is slavery & illegal, because USA's capitalist system is slavery & illegal! Klop789 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 16:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Equal wealth
Actually there shouldn't be any unequal wealth, anywhere, at any time. Unequal wealth is slavery & illegal. We should demand a re-distribution of wealth worldwide. But many people worry about what if no one will work if not forced to, for a tiny wage, what if the whole human race refuses to work & the whole human race dies, they ask. I don't care if the whole human race dies, even me. I'd die laughing, literally. Because it's stupid to worry about that. How could a perfect world ever be imperfect?? Unequal wealth stops progress, because there aren't enough doctors & scientists to find cures because they're starving! Every person worldwide should be a doctor & scientist. Eliminate schools/colleges because, not only do they not teach people how to end world poverty, they cause poverty .....with debt slavery. Klop789 (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

black african slave trade
So irrational as i am i was arguing with a bunch of white supremacists on youtube yesterday (...yeah, i know) and the argument drifted to slavery. first they went all-out denialist, and after realising the futility of arguing against evidence they cornered in on the argument that black africans participated in the slave triangle, selling off their own kind, suggesting that would count as a vindication for the whole system or at least as an alleviation of white european guilt. now my question: do we wanna add a debunking of that in the article? if so i got a couple of bullets that i used against my napkin hoodied pals: -africa is not a country nor a single ethnicity. africans were not selling “their own”, they were selling tribal enemies - comparable to grecoroman slave history. they were no more selling “their own” than, for instance, "europeans" were killing "their own" during the holocaust. -most african countries did not sell slaves but some fought against it. since europeans controlled the arms supply there was not a whole lot africans could do to stop it. -the sheer magnitude of transatlantic slave trade involving corporate-style administration upstaged slave trade by african elites. -the transantlantic slave trade had a solid racist underpinning: african slave traders did not capture and sell off other africans because they regarded them as subhuman due to their skin colour. that angle explains why slavery in the carribean and north america had arguably the most cruel track record. -tu quoque full disclosure: henry louis gates jr. discusses this topic, eloquently, in the context of reparations http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/opinion/23gates.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. note though, i don't postule anything about raparations. i was taking on the notion that europeans and euro-americans can evade any blame through this argument. EauDeCologne (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Most African countries"? I don't think there were that many "countries" in Africa in the 18th century. Also, while not all sub-Saharan African tribes/groups/peoples/nations participated in the actual slave trade, most of them (especially the agriculturally-based ones) probably had some practices of their own that could be regarded as "slavery". And of course the preference for African slaves in the America was due to their skin colour and foreigness. If you'd have to sell someone into slavery or enslave someone, you most likely wouldn't sell/enslave your neighbour but prefer someone more distant to your culture and place of living. It is debatable if this is "racism" as such, or just common human behaviour.


 * One should also note that the slave trade conducted by the Arabs and Ottomans was much more institutionalized and longer-lasting (it is in fact still going on) than the "corporate-style" slave trade conducted by the Europeans you described. Estimates vary, but some say that even 20-30 million people were enslaved by the Middle-Eastern slavers compared to the ca. 10 million Africans brought to the Americas. In fact, only about half a million slaves ended up in the U.S., the rest went to the Spanish and Portuguese colonies. Funny fact: One million Europeans are estimated to have been enslaved by the Ottoman empire.


 * I've never heard that the track record of Caribbean and U.S. slavery was particularly "cruel", as you say. There's stories of slaves that were released and became slave-owners themselves. Not something that happened in the Latin America. And especially not something that happened in the Middle-East. By the way, Middle-Eastern countries are ethnically very homogeneous today, not many Afro-Turks or Afro-Syrians or Afro-Saudis walking around. That should give you a hint how the slaves were treated there.


 * Not that I'm trying alleviate the European guilt here, but the Atlantic slave trade, and especially the deep-south-cotton-plantation-slavery, is just a grace note in the terrible history of the slavery. 94.101.2.146 (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "but the Atlantic slave trade, and especially the deep-south-cotton-plantation-slavery, is just a grace note in the terrible history of the slavery." That, alongside the Arab/Atlantic comparison is an understatement.
 * First, because it ignores that the 10 million figure excludes the high death tolls en route by only counting those who actually made it across the pond.
 * Secondly, because it compares a relatively short but intensive Atlantic slave trade with a less intensive but longer lasting Arab one. This is a problem because losing a million people over a decade is far more of a drain on a society that losing two or three million over a century. Such effects are especially relevant for the Atlantic slave trade since about half the slaves brought to the Americas during a single century (the 18th), with something on the order of a quarter to a third added in the 19th century. Add to this the destructive conflicts in Africa fuelled by the triangular trade's thirst for slaves and deliveries of guns and powder.
 * An indication of the scale of this impact on Africa(ns) is the, based on long-term UN estimates of world population, which indicates that during the most intense Atlantic slave trade (1750-1800), population growth in Africa was brought to a virtual standstill (the only other world region with no population growth was Oceania).
 * Thus the Transatlantic slave trade did make a clear impact on Africa, even if the larger tale of enslavement of Africans needs to include the Arab slave trade and local African slavers and traders too. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the OP, I think it's useful to do a point by point rundown
 * "africa is not a country nor a single ethnicity. africans were not selling “their own”, they were selling tribal enemies - comparable to grecoroman slave history. they were no more selling “their own” than, for instance, "europeans" were killing "their own" during the holocaust." — Yes, but since we're talking ethnicity and this is at least in large part a social, rather than biological category, I'm not sure why the "our own" argument works. German Jews were German (who just happened to be Jewish), so in that sense they were "our own" from one German perspective, but the Nazis simply redefined "our own" to exclude Jews. Also, Greeks and Romans did enslave their own as husbands could, for instance, sell their children into slavery. True, the largest share of Greco-Roman slaves were prisoners of war (probably followed by slave raiding piracy as a distant second), but this doesn't mean that there were any taboo against enslaving "your own" in Greece and Rome (unlike the medieval Christian taboo against enslavement of other Christians - see my response to point 4).
 * "most african countries did not sell slaves but some fought against it. since europeans controlled the arms supply there was not a whole lot africans could do to stop it." — Most? Sure the coastal African "countries" (states, whatever we want to call them) were the ones doing the end sale to the Europeans, but how do you arrive at "most" African "countries" actively fighting against slavery? It certainly needs solid documentation if you want to make this claim.
 * "the sheer magnitude of transatlantic slave trade involving corporate-style administration upstaged slave trade by african elites." — I get the point about the intensity as I mentioned in my earlier post. However, I don't get the point about "corporate-style administration" at all. Is this supposed to make the Transatlantic slave trade particularly bad?
 * "the transantlantic slave trade had a solid racist underpinning: african slave traders did not capture and sell off other africans because they regarded them as subhuman due to their skin colour." — No, I don't think this claim sticks. It certainly doesn't if you refer to the kind of "scientific racism" which was used as an argument in favour of imperialism, since that (interestingly enough) postdated slavery. At best you could claim that European thought themselves culturally superior (mainly due to their Christianity as opposed to African "Paganism"). The reason Africa was targeted was first the long-standing European prohibition on enslavement of fellow Christians and the geographical location of Africa which made it the logical place to purchase slaves for export to the New World.
 * "that [racist] angle explains why slavery in the carribean and north america had arguably the most cruel track record." — I agree with the BoN above that this needs both a clear source and a definition of "the most cruel track record." What was particularly cruel about Caribbean and North American slavery? I'd argue that the silver mines of Peru were at least if not more cruel. As the BoN correctly pointed out, the largest single recipient of slaves were Portuguese America (read: Brazil). The Caribbean, however, does deserve special emphasis since it was its sugar economy which fuelled the demand for slaves during the 18th century heyday of the Transatlantic slave trade. In that sense Southern U.S. slavery was proportionally less important, though it drove much of the final demand for slaves in the 19th century with the shift in emphasis from slave-based sugar to slave-based cotton production.
 * In sum, while there are some merit to some of the points raised, they are far from clear-cut "gotcha" "end of discussion" ones. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This website has an anti White anti Christian POV so don't expect any fair presentation of the issue eg. Arab slave trade. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 203.226.201.22 / talk 11:55, 5 February 2015‎
 * Ah yes, the mandatory "It's all about persecuting those poor, underprivileged, white Christians"-rant - for that, random drive-by BoN (yawn)... ScepticWombat (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the mindless name calling of the anti White he must resort to since he can't rationally justify only criticising Whites. The irony of you calling me a "hyporitical bigot" is pathetic. 203.226.200.70 (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "only criticising Whites"??? Tell me, have you actually checked out RW? The ridiculousness of your remark is illustrated by this thread alone (for instance, the Arab slave trade has already been mentioned several times, but also put in context of the Transatlantic slave trade). That's what merited such a snarky remark - alongside the rather laughable resort to blaming "an anti White anti Christian POV"; as if pointing out the scale and intensity of the Transatlantic slave trade is somehow an unfair targeting whites and/or Christians. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Forget it Jake, they're a "anti-racist is a code word for anti-white" type. Ikanreed (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Arab slave trade was mentioned on the talk page so you've covered it? You are anti White scum and you should be put up against a wall and shot. 203.226.200.174 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So you support extrajudicial killings, hmm? The population you represent must be so morally superior. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I could not say that I support anything that prevents anti-White genocidal maniacs and their foolish idiots in the bought academic establishment, if I thought that, because that would be illegal. I can say that you should be put up against a wall and shot, after a fair trial under a new govenment, of course. 125.61.100.2 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many things you might or mightn't say, legalities and other things considered, though that's rather irrelevant to the question whether or not what you're saying is morally reprehensible. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whereas your question is so very relevant to the fact this article only mentions White slavery. The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you. 203.226.200.163 (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just out of (a rather morbid) curiosity, .100.2, who do you think it is who has "bought" the "academic establishment"? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Ah, I think that one answered my question. I reverted the earlier deletion of the immediately preceding comment by our constantly changing bunch of numbers (I'm pretty sure they're all the same person - not 141.134.75.236, of course (s)he's a well-regarded contributor), so that it's obvious what kind of racist troll we're dealing with here. Anyway, I think we just about got a bingo prize. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You understand that calling someone a "racist troll" or even a "poopy face" doesn't counter what they are saying? This article only exists to demonise Whites. You ought to be ashamed and you are the fucking racist bigot. 203.226.200.153 (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely hilarious, BoN. Tell me, does this kind of "I'm rubber, you're glue"-comeback often impress your interlocutors? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If your problem is that the article is too America/West-centric, of course it is. Most of the wiki is America/West-centric because most of the contributors are American or European. If you happen to know of any experts on slavery in ancient and pre-modern cultures, you're free to point them to this article so they can add some paragraphs to the article. That said, I think it's pretty clear that you don't know any reliable experts in historical matters; else you wouldn't be spouting all this oh-noes-whites-are-being-persecuted gibberish. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I missed a few logical steps between "you complained this article demonises Whites" and "you don't know anything about history". Could it be you are just engaging in more empty name calling? 210.94.81.38 (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW great call blocking my IP then pretending to have some kind of rebuttal to my points. You must be very self confident in your superiority. You disgusting arrogant evil fucking asshole. 210.94.81.38 (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, you've done nothing but assert that the article and those of us who have bothered to engage with you are "anti-white" - a claim for which you've provided no evidence apart from your personal opinion that more emphasis should be placed on the Arab slave trade and 141.134.75.236 has already explained the reason for the current emphasis. You have now just completely ignored this explanation in favour of a variant of the martyr gambit in which you assert that you must be right because you were blocked for trolling, supplemented by a nice reversal of the burden of proof by demanding that everyone else should disprove your claims of reverse racism, when you've done nothing to prove your claim but simply re-asserted it. Those tactics, as well as your previous anti-Semitic remarks (which were completely off-topic to the debate, btw), are why you were blocked and quite fairly and accurately described as a "racist troll". Also, please note that the block came from neither me, nor 141.134.75.236, so it wasn't frustration with not having a rebuttal to your non-existent points (a claim is not a point).
 * Likewise, I find it quite ...interesting that you've now twice complained about slurs, when the only one who has resorted to "empty name calling" so far is you. You being called a "racist troll" is not a slur, but simply an accurate description of your behaviour and the content of your posts so far.
 * If you have some constructive criticism, actual feedback on the content of the article, or suggestions for changes to or expansions of the article, please raise them. But if you can't come up with anything more substantial and concrete than the generic wishy-washy "You're just anti-white and anti-Christian"-shtick you've produced so far, you'll probably simply be ignored and/or blocked for unfunny and repetitive trolling, and possibly such trolling and repetitive posts will be removed. Please note that this is not a threat (I'm not about to block you for such relatively harmless low-level obnoxious behaviour - nor am I going to delete your posts, since the they constitute excellent evidence of your racist trolling), but simply what I think is likely to happen if your current behaviour continues. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Crimean Slave Trade
Do you think we should add in the Crimean Slave Trade? Its effect on Eastern Europe can't be understated.

Long story short, in part as a result of the Atlantic Slave Trade (the trans-Saharan Slave Trade ended), the Ottoman Empire suffered a shortage of slaves for the farms and mines. So they turned to the Crimean Tatars, who kidnapped about 2 million Eastern Europeans for slavery. Oh, and they castrated all the males they caught. The result was a massive depopulation of Poland and the Ukraine, preventing those areas from developing. In the late 18th Century Russia responded by committing genocide against the Crimean Tatars, which cut off the slave route to the Ottomans. It should be noted that around this time the Ottomans began to decline as their economy was dependent upon slave labor. But anyway, it allowed for quite a bit of westward expansion by Russia, a bunch more population transfers (Russia's SOP for conquered territories was to deport EVERYONE to some other person's backyard, so the people were too busy hating each other to hate Russia, and since no one was on their homeland there was no "CRAPISTAN FOR THE CRAPISTANIS!") CorruptUser (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * By all means add something on the Crimean slave trade, but I really doubt it had anything to do with the Atlantic one, nor that it ended the Trans-Saharan one. Furthermore, that would still leave the large source coming in from East Africa by ship or overland through the Sudan. Essentially, the Europeans and Ottomans drew on different sources for their slaves. The Ottoman demand for slaves long pre-dated the Atlantic slave trade and its sources of slaves were always more diversified, but at least three main conduits existed: The Barbary corsairs, East Africa, and Crimea.
 * However, I really doubt that the slave raiding in Eastern Europe was massive enough to cause "a massive depopulation of Poland and the Ukraine, preventing those areas from developing." Sure, there was plenty of raiding, but not with depopulation as a result - otherwise, the Tartars couldn't have continued to raid the same areas over and over. What was at least as, if not more, destructive was the series of conflicts between Poland-Lithuania and Russia, as well as such events as the . Also, the plundering by the Tartars was probably at least as much of a problem, population-wise, as slave raiding. A total 2 million people enslaved from Poland-Lithuania and Russia combined over a period of 200 years (1500-1700) is actually not a huge toll, amounting to an average of 10,000 persons enslaved per year. For comparison, the Grand Duchy of Muscovy had an estimated 8 million inhabitants in 1500 while Poland-Lithuania's population was on the order 5-8 million. Thus, 2 million over 200 years from a combined base starting population of 16 million (though it might have been as low as 12 million as estimates are very rough) is not anywhere close to depopulation. Indeed, Poland-Lithuania's population has been estimated to have grown from about 5-7.5 million in 1500 to 10-11 million in 1648. Over the same 150 years, Russia's population has been estimated to have grown from about 6 million to 13-15 million (the majority of this growth was probably due to conquests, but on the negative side the also needs to be factored in). Compare with the source used by Wikipedia estimates the scale of the Crimean slave trade in 1578 (which was during a "boom era") to have been "17,502 slaves per year" which is hardly a large toll, even if we were to apply a similar death toll as on the Atlantic and essentially double the number to get the total population loss inflicted. For a final comparison, just the  probably caused as large a population loss to Russia alone as the Crimean Tatars managed to enslave over the entire 1500-1700 period from Russia and Poland-Lithuania.
 * As for the Russian conquest of the Crimea, it did not involve a general population transfer, let alone genocide. That would only come in the 19th century, and this source draws a distinction between the fate of the Crimean Tatars and the exodus from Circassia, the conquest of which is a far better fit for the term genocide (and certainly ethnic cleansing) than the Crimean conquest. By contrast, here the the Crimean Tatars are described as having suffered ethnic cleansing under the Tsars. In any case, Tsarist Russia only rarely involved itself in mass deportations - the ethnic cleansing in Circassia and/or Crimea being the glaring exception(s). Contrast with Stalin's USSR which used masse deportation to a degree probably unseen since the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
 * Also, the Ottoman economy was not "dependent upon slave labor." Most of it was based on an agrarian system not unlike that found in medieval Europe. Major destinations for slaves were thus the armed forces and the households, businesses and estates of the Ottoman magnates. In that sense slavery was far more important to the Ottoman elite than to the Ottoman economy as a whole. As put by the aforementioned Wikipedia-source: "We tried to show that the need for control of labor in Ottoman society varied in degree depending on the requirements of different segments of the society and economy. Slave in its classical sense, a person legally reduced to the nature of thing and subject to absolute possession and use by its owner, was something urgently needed in this traditional society in such enterprises as required large-scale, sustained and regular manpower -- not only for an imperial army and navy, colossal construction works, the elevation of large number of transport animals or large-scale agricultural production for the army or palace, but also in certain crafts, large estates and extended households in the society at large. However, even in these segments which, as a whole, constituted a limited area within the general socio-economic setup of the Empire, servile labor, with the exception of the konak (the extended household), and the large estates, disappeared over time especially from the end of the sixteenth century on when imperial laws were discarded and centralized power declined." [...] "The basic Ottoman organization of agricultural production rested upon the re'aya -- ciftlik system, that is to say, agricultural production was organized on the basis of small agricultural units (ciftliks) on the state owned lands placed in the possession of free peasant families (re'aya) -- Muslim or non-Muslimwho were under the sole obligation to cultivate it and pay taxes regulated by the state laws (kanun). They were free as defined by Islamic Law. No other person could force them to work or surrender the fruits of their labor without compensation." ScepticWombat (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait...
Wasn't slavery condemned in the bible? (Exodus 21:16) 13:29, 21 May 2015‎
 * Nope, is about (illegal) slave raiding: "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
 * This is just like the -2 passage which is also used (erroneously) as an example of the NT condemning slavery. Holding slaves and acquiring them by slave trading, as war booty, or through debt slavery is perfectly compatible with either biblical passage.
 * Indeed, the fact that only such a narrow section of slavery is condemned strongly indicates that all other types were sanctioned, especially as it would be perfectly feasibly to have formulated a general ban on slavery, e.g. "And he that stealeth enslaveth a man, holdeth him in bondage, or and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." ScepticWombat (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)