Egyptian intellectuals defended Islamic slavery as inherently milder than Western slavery.

Evidence

Shafïk stipulated that, while Islam “did not directly condemn slavery,” it did not accept it in the form in which the prophet Muhammad found it, and thus the Prophet had tried to “attenuate its effects.” Because of this, slavery within Islam was inherently different and intrinsically gentler than that prac- ticed in Christian lands. Islamic law actually protected the rights of slaves, and European abolitionists needed to erase from their eyes the clichéd images of slavery and look anew at its different aspects under Islam. Muslims, for example, did not enslave other Muslims, and as soon as the “fetishists” of Africa converted to Islam, the practice would die out altogether. — Eve M. Troutt Powell, A Different Shade of Colonialism_…, 678

Categorization

Category: Factual Claims

  • XREF: Connects to the book’s broader Egyptian-vs-Sudanese colonial comparison; the contrast of mild domestic slavery vs. the slave trade from Sudan runs through Powell.
  • DEFINE: Does not directly define a term, but lays out the apologetic argument Egyptian elite used to distinguish Islamic domestic slavery from transatlantic chattel slavery.

Broader Connections