Should a muslim nation colonize America, where would they get their slaves from?

There's some alternate history novel where a Muslim kingdom discovers the Americas prior to the Crusades, iirc (i haven't read it or anything). Then they import Christian slaves from Europe by buying them from the Norse.

Don't know realistically plausible that is. Not my field of expertise. Seems like a pretty deliberately stretched "turn the tables" conceit, but who knows.
 

Flubber

Banned
If i recall correctly, they have that "people of the book" stuff, so they wouldn't go on slaving christians, right?


Wrong. Some vague religious prohibition isn't going prevent slavery, just ask the Barbary pirate states.

They wouldn't be able to do with the natives because, IIRC, the portuguese tried it but the natives knew the "jungle routes" so they escaped en masse.

Wrong. The natives "escaped" primarily by dying.

And... They wouldn't be able to do it with West Africa (where, IIRC, most american slaves come from) because they are muslims too, so... Where'd they go? Congo? Wouldn't that be too long of a way?

Wrong. West Africa wasn't and still isn't predominately Muslim, not that religious issues are going to matter much, and the many reasons why Africans had little problem supplying the salve trade haven't change one whit. As for the Congo/Angola, thanks to the prevailing wind it was actually easier to sail there than into the Bight of Benin.

I'm going to ask the question everyone else has neglected to ask: Why are you assuming Al-Andalus or some other Muslim power is going to have the same labor needs in this ATL Americas that the OTL Europeans did? Are the Muslims going to setup sugar plantations across the Caribbean too?
 

katchen

Banned
That is a VERY good question. It's not as though Dar Al Islam is short of sugar. Plenty of suga is grown in Egypt, for instance. Long fibered cotton too. If an Al Andalus explorer discovered the New World, he would probably be unimpressed with it--until and unless he stumbled upon Yucatan or Mexico. At which point, if he found the Westerlies to get back home, he'd bring a raiding party and then set up as a Sultan in Tenochtitlan, assuming he was able to conquer it. The Muslim conquest of the New World would likely follow the pattern of the Muslim conquest of places like North Africa--relatively unobtrusive overlordship for a few generations while the ruled learned Arabic and slowly adopted Islam to avoid paying the Jizan.

Only the whole thing would become complicated by the smallpox epidemics that would start sweeping the population, At that point, the transplanted Moors would get very interested in bringing in slaves--from anywhere they could. From Western Europe. From Russia. From Africa. From elsewhere in the Americas. And having gone that far, they would likely sail across the Pacific as well, reaching the East Indies, where among other things, slavery is also accepted.
 

whitecrow

Banned
If i recall correctly, they have that "people of the book" stuff, so they wouldn't go on slaving christians, right?
You should have told that to the Ottomans, the Golden Horde and the Crimean Khanate. Maybe they would have stopped the Eastern European slave trade :p
 
I'm going to ask the question everyone else has neglected to ask: Why are you assuming Al-Andalus or some other Muslim power is going to have the same labor needs in this ATL Americas that the OTL Europeans did? Are the Muslims going to setup sugar plantations across the Caribbean too?

A good point, There are numerous things Al-Andalus could set up in the region and a plantation economy is only an option.
 
Only the whole thing would become complicated by the smallpox epidemics that would start sweeping the population, At that point, the transplanted Moors would get very interested in bringing in slaves--from anywhere they could. From Western Europe. From Russia. From Africa. From elsewhere in the Americas. And having gone that far, they would likely sail across the Pacific as well, reaching the East Indies, where among other things, slavery is also accepted.

Why would they do that? That is not how it ended up working in most of Mexico and the Yucatan where enough natives survived to act as a menial labor force for them.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
It ultimately depends on where they settle. If it's in a region where malaria is endemic (as seems likely), then they'll be getting their slaves from Africa, not only because it is convenient, but because everyone else will be dying off en masse due malaria and yellow fever.

If a substantial native population survives, that will do, but I still expect the African slave trade to continue and contribute to the Muslim colonization of the "new world."

I *don't* expect them to enslave European Christians, mainly because far too few of them would survive to be worthwhile, and they just aren't as accessible.
 

Incognito

Banned
There's some alternate history novel where a Muslim kingdom discovers the Americas prior to the Crusades, iirc (i haven't read it or anything). Then they import Christian slaves from Europe by buying them from the Norse.

Don't know realistically plausible that is. Not my field of expertise. Seems like a pretty deliberately stretched "turn the tables" conceit, but who knows.
Is this it?

I read it and liked it.
At that point, the transplanted Moors would get very interested in bringing in slaves--from anywhere they could. From Western Europe. From Russia. From Africa. From elsewhere in the Americas. And having gone that far, they would likely sail across the Pacific as well, reaching the East Indies, where among other things, slavery is also accepted.
Wait what? What would entice them to circumnavigate the globe at that point?
 
I don't think the Christians would serve well in the tropical malarial area as economic slaves. But I could envision a Janissary like situation where Christian Slaves serve in the Andalusian army in the conquest of Yucatan, Peru, and Mexico.

Also there is more to the wealth of the New World than Sugar and Cotton (both of which would still be as profitable to the Andalusians as to the OTL Spanish). There's also Indigo, Cochineal, Coca, Coffee, and Tobacco not to mention the transfer of food crops like tomatoes, peppers, maize and potatoes would help the Andalusians a great deal as well.
 
Wrong. Some vague religious prohibition isn't going prevent slavery, just ask the Barbary pirate states.

What, seriously? Damn, i had no idea. They teached me some "sharia does not allow slavery" thing on high school, so i'm guessing my teacher got his things wrong.

Wrong. The natives "escaped" primarily by dying.

Well, guess the 'jungle routes' thing is also a myth.

Flubber said:
As for the Congo/Angola, thanks to the prevailing wind it was actually easier to sail there than into the Bight of Benin.

Yeah, but wouldn't it be a longer route?

Flubber said:
I'm going to ask the question everyone else has neglected to ask: Why are you assuming Al-Andalus or some other Muslim power is going to have the same labor needs in this ATL Americas that the OTL Europeans did? Are the Muslims going to setup sugar plantations across the Caribbean too?

Well, does it need to be sugar? They could set up plantations of something else that'd be profitable, preferrably a new world product... Even though they could just plant it on their own lands, like the potato plantations on Ireland. So i guess you're right again.

eliphas8 said:
Off the top of my head they can easily end up way stations for the Andalusi navy to defend their shipping between Mexico and the mainland.

Something like the portuguese feitorias? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_(trading_post)
 
Last edited:

Leo Caesius

Banned
What, seriously? Damn, i had no idea. They teached me some "sharia does not allow slavery" thing on high school, so i'm guessing my teacher got his things wrong.
Shariah does allow slavery.

It does not, however, allow the enslavement of Muslims and protected peoples (ahl al-dhimma) within lands ruled by Muslims.

The only way that such people (Christians, Jews, "Sabians") could be enslaved is if they were captured as "prisoners of war," which was the case with the trans-Mediterranean slave "trade."

It's worth noting that the Europeans gave as good as they got, in this regard.

Effectively, this means that if they were to become established in the New World, their subjects could escape slavery by converting to Islam, just as many Europeans did once enslaved.
 
Shariah does allow slavery.
It does not, however, allow the enslavement of Muslims and protected peoples (ahl al-dhimma) within lands ruled by Muslims.
The only way that such people (Christians, Jews, "Sabians") could be enslaved is if they were captured as "prisoners of war," which was the case with the trans-Mediterranean slave "trade."
It's worth noting that the Europeans gave as good as they got, in this regard.
Effectively, this means that if they were to become established in the New World, their subjects could escape slavery by converting to Islam, just as many Europeans did once enslaved.

So the "solution" would still be west africans, right?
 

scholar

Banned
And... They wouldn't be able to do it with West Africa (where, IIRC, most american slaves come from) because they are muslims too, so... Where'd they go? Congo? Wouldn't that be too long of a way?
Well, West Africa wasn't universally Muslim. Most of it wasn't, in fact, along the coastal areas. Further, Europeans (Spanish and Portuguese) took slaves from Angola to West Africa before any significant settlement occurred. Another point is that the slaves were sold from the coasts by Africans; all they needed was a boat to get there and they would be able to attain the slaves provided they had something to trade for them.
 
Probably, although you may have an entirely different treatment of slaves given how Islam already had a system in place for widespread slavery.

The Portuguese and the Spaniards also had systems for widespread Slavery. Many of the first slaves brought to the Carribean were moriscos from Seville.
 

Flubber

Banned
What, seriously? Damn, i had no idea. They teached me some "sharia does not allow slavery" thing on high school, so i'm guessing my teacher got his things wrong.

Yes, seriously. There was an east African slave trade which lasted far longer than the west African/Atlantic trade and moved far more people. That trade was entirely in the hands of Muslims and the colonial powers which suppressed it were obstructed by Muslims.

As for sharia not allowing the enslavement of Muslims, I'll point you to the current day nation of Mauritania.

All religions are human constructs and as such are as replete with as much hypocrisy as all other human constructs. When you make something up, you also make up loopholes, exceptions, and "work-arounds".

Well, guess the 'jungle routes' thing is also a myth.
More hyperbole than myth. Certain populations were able to escape general enslavement/serfdom thanks to the extreme terrains they lived in.

Yeah, but wouldn't it be a longer route?
Longer in distance, not in time. Remember, we're dealing with sailing ships which depend on wind. Wind conditions are going to make some places harder to reach by sail.

Well, does it need to be sugar?
Sugar is what drove the demand for slaves in the OTL because it was already known in Europe and the demand for it was essentially infinite.

They could set up plantations of something else that'd be profitable, preferrably a new world product...
The trouble with a New World product is that it first needs to be identified and then a market for it developed. Tobacco, for example, wasn't a slam dunk. Raleigh and the others didn't bring back samples which immediately sparked widespread demand. It will take decades or longer for a previously unknown New World product to become accepted in Europe.

Even though they could just plant it on their own lands, like the potato plantations on Ireland. So i guess you're right again.
Potatoes weren't a slam dunk either. IIRC, as late as the mid-1700s Frederick the Great had to eat a dish of them in public to convince his people they weren't poisonous.
 
Top