Sources
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a site - Become an editor
Wikipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Are you an expert in this subject? Join the discussion and share your knowledge at Wikipedia.org.
Slavery and religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The issue of religion and slavery is an area of historical and theological research into the relationship between the world's major religions and the practice of slavery.
Contents |
According to historian Bernard Lewis, both the Old and the New Testaments recognize and accept the institution of slavery as allowable under certain circumstance (Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus 21:7-11).
 |
This short section requires expansion. |
The old Testament sets rules that allow slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus 21:7-11), while at the same time forbidding one to return a runaway slave (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). Hebrew slaves must be freed after six years of servitude (Exodus 21:2). Non-Hebrews were slaves for life. If a master beat his male or female slave so severely that the slave is killed immediately, the master is to be punished. If the master had beat the slave but the slave lives one or two days, the master can go unpunished (Exodus 21:21). It is also against Jewish Law to have, or permit, a sex slave. This was expanded upon in Exodus with the guidelines for Jewish soldiers who went on a quest to look at men to war in foreign lands and saw a beautiful woman who they wished to marry. She was to be in mourning for her lost parents for one month, after which the soldier was then free to marry her. The following excerpt said "Later, if you decide you no longer want her as a wife, you have to let her go free. Because you forced her into a sexual relationship with you; you are not allowed to sell her a slave." Slaves were considered money (property). If a male Hebrew slave was given a wife, his wife and children became the permanent property of the slave owner. Hebrews could sell their daughters into slavery. Forced sex with female slaves was not punished. Hebrews slaves were not to be ruled over severely, but that rule only applied to Hebrew slaves. --Hebrews did take slaves during war. Deut 20:11 "If they open the gates and surrender, they are all to become your slaves and do forced labor for you."--12 But if it does not make peace with you, and it actually makes war with you and you have to besiege it, 13 Jehovah your God also will certainly give it into your hand, and you must strike every male in it with the edge of the sword. 14 Only the women and the little children and the domestic animals and everything that happens to be in the city, all its spoil you will plunder for yourself.
Several New Testament writers admonish slaves to obey their masters (1 Peter 2:18; Ephesians 6:5-8; Titus 2:9-10; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:1), and in another place it tells slaves "to care not" for their slavery, but seek freedom if lawfully possible (1 Corinthians 7:21-23, KJV). The prophets and apostles urged kindness to slaves, with just and equal pay and brotherly acceptance being commanded (Colossians 4:1; Philemon 1:10-16). Protestant churches have differently interpreted these passages to be either anti- or pro-slavery with some regarding these passages to consist of the Bible reporting existing social customs and laws.
In regards to the Catholic Church, the early Church tolerated slavery. In The City of God, Book XIX, chapter 15, St. Augustine affirmed that "for it is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin." [1] Slavery was integrated into the official Corpus Iuris Canonici, upon the Decretum Gratiani. This became official Church law since Pope Gregory IX who reigned as Pope from 1227 to 1241. In 1454, Pope Nicholas V authorized the King of Portugal to enslave all the Saracen and pagan people his armies could capture. The position of the Church became more firmly anti-slavery in later years. In 1435 Pope Eugene IV promulgated the papal bull Sicut Dudum condemned the slavery of black natives in Canary Islands by Spanish. In 1462 Pope Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus). In 1537, Pope Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians and other people with the papal bull Sublimus Dei, while Pope Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Pope Benedict XIV in 1741. Pope Pius VII in 1815 demanded that the Congress of Vienna suppress the slave trade, and Pope Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839. In the Bull of Canonization of the St. Peter Claver, Pope Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Pope Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed an encyclical to the Brazilian bishops, In Plurimism [2] (On the Abolition of Slavery), exhorting them to banish the remnants of slavery from their country. Jesus in Luke said he had come to end slavery. Luk 4:18:
- "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the slaves, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised."
- See also: Muhammad's slaves
In certain circumstances, Islam allows for slavery. Such slaves may in in some cases be able to purchase or acquire their freedom in various ways. The prophet Muhammad owned several slaves himself. One of them bore him a son, who died as an infant.[3] The slavery endorsed by the Qur'an limited the source of slaves to the children of two slave parents and non-Muslims captured in war. The Qur'an provides for emancipation of a slave as a means (or in one case, a requirement of) demonstrating remorse for the commission of certain sins. Proclamations of emancipation and repudiations of participation in slave trafficking did not occur in Muslim lands until after the Christian-European Colonial era - as late as 1962 in Saudi Arabia, 1970 in Oman and Yemen, and 1981 in Mauritania. Islamic slavery in the fashion multigenerational hereditary slavery (in Mauritania) is still evident today. In Chad, child enslavement with the aspect of forced conversion to Islam has been documented.[citation needed]
The Caste system in India has often been compared to slavery or slave-like practices. In ancient and medieval times, lower caste Hindus (dubbed "Untouchables" or, more recently Dalits) have had reduced social statuses similar to slaves. Lower Caste Hindus' lives incorporated rigid segregation and bonded labor practices. Justification for such acts was often provided through the use of careful selection of scripture from the vast plethora of Hindu religious literature. However, mainstream Hinduism never condoned or accepted outright slavery.
The purported slavery-like status of the lower Castes, while distinct from others as in ownership - nonetheless permitted freedom for them. Hindus and scholars debate whether the caste system is an integral part of Hinduism sanctioned by the scriptures or an outdated social custom.[4][5] The most ancient scriptures place little importance on caste and indicate social mobility (Rig Veda 9.112.3), while later scriptures such as the non sacred Manusmriti state that the four varnas are created by God, implying immutability. Manusmriti, (dated between 200 BCE and 100 CE), contains laws that codified the caste system, reducing the flexibility of social mobility and excluding the untouchables from society, yet this system was originally non-heritable (Manu Smriti X:65). It is uncertain when the caste system become heritable and akin to slavery.
British colonialists, in the 19th century, exploited these divisions by mistranslating scriptures in Hinduism (such as the Manusmriti) and attaching undue weight to its importance over other more normative religious scripture in the religion in order to foster sectarian divisions among Hindus as part of the Divide and rule strategy employed by the crown. Nonetheless, a large number of Hindu reform movements in the 19th century metamorphosed the landscape of Hindu thought. Hindu reformers aggressively campaigned against any slavery of the lower castes and rendered the idea abhorrent to most mainstream Hindus.
In contemporary times, allegations of apartheid are often drawn against Hindus by partisan political activists. These charge are debunked by academics and scholars, given India's commitment to affirmative action. Substantial improvements have taken place in the rights of Dalits (former "Untouchables") enshrined in the Constitution of India (primarily written by a Dalit, Ambedkar), which is the principal object of article 17 in the Constitution as implemented by the Protection of Civil rights Act, 1955 [6] and the fact that India has had a Dalit, K.R. Narayanan, for a president, as well as the disappearance of the practice in urban public life[7].Thus, mainstream sociologists such as Kevin Reilly, Stephen Kaufman, Angela Bodino, while being critical of Casteism, conclude that modern India does not practice any "apartheid" since there is no state sanctioned discrimination.[8]They write that Casteism in India is presently "not apartheid. In fact, untouchables, as well as tribal people and members of the lowest castes in India benefit from broad affirmative action programs and are enjoying greater political power."[8]
- ^ http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120119.htm
- ^ http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_le13ip.htm
- ^ Montgomery Watt, Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961, page 226.
- ^ Alex Michaels, Hinduism: Past and Present 188-97 (Princeton 2004) ISBN 0-691-08953-1
- ^ Caste System View of Scholars
- ^ The Constitution of India by P.M. Bakshi, Universal Law Publishing Co, ISBN 8175345004
- ^ Mendelsohn, Oliver & Vicziany, Maria, "The Untouchables, Subordination, Poverty and the State in Modern India", Cambridge University Press, 1998
- ^ a b Kevin Reilly, Stephen Kaufman, Angela Bodino, Racism: A Global Reader P21, M.E. Sharpe, 2003 ISBN 0765610604.