What tribes were brought over as slaves?
slavery. The relationship of unconditional servitude, that is, associated with the loss of all personal freedom, in which the servant is viewed and treated not as a person but as a thing, so that the master freely dispose of him and his property, sell it, exchange it, give it away , rent, treat at will, sometimes even kill. I. The ways in which people came into the state of S. were multiple. Nobody is a slave by nature, although Aristotle seriously asserted this among the ancients and included all barbarians, i.e. all non-Greeks, in the category of slaves, and in more recent times the North American slave owners in particular have tried to assert this reason again. Nonetheless, a historical phenomenon that is so widespread in space and time must also have widespread and deep-seated causes, and really the S. is only the extreme tip of the variously graded degrees and types of dependence and servitude into which whole classes of society in its relation to others The extreme disregard of all personal rights, which lies in the S., can develop into a kind of social institution only in the case of a great inequality of the power relations between the rulers and the servants and the helpless weakness of the subjugated must be in a high degree of violent egoism of the rulers, where such a relationship is supposed to take on a firm and persistent form. In antiquity and in the Orient up to the most recent times, a common form of origin of the S. was captivity; the townspeople who defended themselves, the warriors who resisted in battle and were captured, became slaves (Greek Andrapoda); only those who surrendered had a milder lot, and later the citizens captured in civil wars were not allowed to be made slaves, but these were proscribed. In the Middle Ages this custom was superseded in the Occident by the influence of Christianity, although it remained for a long time under the kings of the Merovingian tribe, and in the intercourse of the Christian peoples it has long since disappeared; but for three centuries it has made Africa the source of a lively trade in people who have been robbed and forced into the S. The profit that arose from owning slaves either for personal use or by selling them soon gave rise to the dishonest trade of human robbery, and so one could get into the S. through robbery. In antiquity, the Thessalians, even more the Phoenicians and, in the north, the Scandinavians, were notorious for this reason. The fact that people voluntarily handed themselves over to others as slaves probably shows originally from a milder treatment of the slaves; It happened when someone was too poor to be able to feed himself, which is why he indulged himself to a rich man, as happened often with the Jews and is still the case with some islanders of the South Seas, but without the hatefulness of a lack of rights. With the  Romans it was forbidden for freeborns to give themselves into the S.; it only happened when they had let someone else sell them in order to receive part of the purchase price themselves. In addition, someone could come to the S. because of a crime (Servitus poenae, Servus poenâ), a custom that was especially common among the Romans, since no citizen as such could be punished with the death penalty. It happened when a person had withdrawn from the census or enrollment for military service, when he was condemned to work in the mines, to animal fights, etc., when a freed man showed himself ungrateful, when free women had familiar contact with foreign slaves, etc. This S. imposed as a punishment came into use only since the imperial era. Inability to pay his debts also brought the S. to the ancient peoples. Slaves by birth (among the RomansVernae, among the Spartans, Mothakes, Mothones) were all those who were begotten by those living in the S. Contubernium 4). A peculiar use in the Orient (especially in Persia) is also to vow children in the womb to one of their saints as slaves, and a hole is pounded through the ear of such saints at birth as a sign of their servitude. The Romans also regarded foundlings as slaves. Anyone who could not come into legal possession of slaves through force, cunning or other such means received them through donation, since slaves, as things, bequeathed in wills, given in the dowry and given away, or bought themselves their.
II. The position and the status of the slaves among the individual peoples. With the Hebrews the slaves were (Abhadim) either born Israelites or foreigners; Israelites became slaves either through voluntary self-sale, because of impoverishment and inability to feed themselves, or through judicial sale because of inability to provide compensation for the theft committed. In addition, the father was able to sell his daughter. The sale was only allowed to Israelites, never to strangers, and after 6 years of service the slave was freed again, as was his wife, if he had brought her with him to the S.; but if the gentleman had given him a (stranger) to wife during the S., she and her children remained the property of the gentleman. In the Hall or Jubilee year all slaves were set free. When the slave was released, he received equipment from the master with small cattle, grain and drink at the beginning of the independent economy. If the slave did not accept his freedom, he declared his decision to remain in the S. before the court, whereupon the master led the slave to the door and pierced his ear with an awl; now he was obliged to perpetual p. In the case of a daughter sold by a father for marriage, it was like this: if she pleased her master, she always remained his property; if he disliked it, it could be ransomed; if he neglected her in food, clothing and accommodation because of someone else, she was released without payment. The foreign slaves were either subjugated Canaanites or the citizens of non-Canaean cities, which had submitted to war (while the men of the cities conquered by force were killed and only women and children were brought into the S.). These were servants of the state for mercy and their number was very large under David and Solomon (153,600 heads), while private individuals seem to have had few foreign slaves and these mostly only for personal service. Such pagan slaves, if they were circumcised, were treated like members of the family (those who refused circumcision had to be sold after a year), were not allowed to be sold again to pagans and received part of the sacrificial meals and Passover; yes, fatherless fathers could adopt slaves and give them their daughters into marriage. Pagan slaves, which one kept as co-sleepers, were not allowed to resell if the master no longer pleased them, but had to be released. The Israelite master had no right to the life of his slave if he had killed him or if he died as a result of the chastisement, the master was punished as a murderer. Pagan slaves could also be bought or released by the master. The Essenes and therapists rejected the S. completely as contradicting the general fraternization of the people. Cf. Mielziener, The Conditions of the Slaves in the Ancient Hebrews, Copenhagen. 1859.
In Greece the status of slaves was different in different countries. In relation to the estate, the slave was called Dulos, but in relation to the property of the master it was Andrapodôn (hence Andrapodismos, the transfer of a free person to the S.), in relation to his service Oiketes, Therapon, Pais. In the earliest period, which is described in Homer, there were a great number of slaves in the royal houses; the male slaves (Dmoes) looked after the cattle and the fields and gardening; the female (Dmoal) did the business of the house, the older ones waited and raised the children, operated the sleeping quarters, directed the younger ones to female work, supervised the supplies, etc. The thetes (sd ), free poor people who work for others. The slaves were bought less often, for example only when pirates landed in one place. In the Homeric Age, serviceable female slaves were paid at the price of 4-20 cattle; later usefulness, rarity and hobby determined the price; the craftsmen paid 3–6 mines (60–120 thalers) for a slave; You only paid for those in the herds and in the mines 1/2; at most 1 mine; on the other hand, for those who could manage an overseer on estates, in factories and mines, 8–20 mines; the blends were at the same high price, while the house slaves, which were bought with 2–6 mines, were less expensive. The situation of the slaves became more depressing later; They were not allowed to dress like free men, not shave their hair like that, not anoint themselves; those who understood some art had a better lot. If someone had bought a slave, he gave him a non-Greek name, usually according to the country from which he was bought (e.g. Lydos, Syros, etc.). The slaves were not allowed to carry weapons; they were also not  taken with them to war, exceptions were made only in the greatest need; the Athenians or the Plateans are said to have done it first in the first Persian war. Not infrequently, however, it happened here that the slaves ran over to the enemy in order to gain their freedom. Later, the Macedonian Antigonos set up a slave insurance company, where everyone paid eight drachmas a year for a slave in the army and, if the slave had escaped, the sum for which he had insured the slaves was reimbursed. Escape and theft were severely punished; they were usually chastised with whips. Torture was also common in Greece, esp.if one wanted to force the slave to make a confession; If someone wanted to have a strange slave as a witness and have him tortured, he had to give a caution to the master because those who were tortured often died. The harshest punishment was condemnation to the mill. The slaves were also branded, usually on the forehead (stigmaliä), and not only as a punishment for a crime committed, but also so that they could easily be recognized in the event of an escape. A reward paid for bringing back an escaped slave was called Sostron. With the Ionian Athenians, the lot of the slaves was somewhat milder, here they could at least take refuge in the Theseion (sd) if they were mistreated too much by their masters, or if they could not do the work imposed by the master, after require the law to be sold to another. In general, however, their situation became the better, the more immoral their masters became, who they needed to serve their airs and passions. There were many slaves who worked as craftsmen and paid the master a daily fee, what they earned from it belonged to them peculiarly. They could buy their freedom through acquired money, they also received the same through bravery demonstrated in war or because of excellent devotion and loyalty to their armies, but then they still owed their former masters certain obligations and were not allowed to become patrons which they had to have as non-citizens. They were even given citizenship at times, but this was not allowed to be proclaimed at public games. In 300 BC In addition to 21,000 citizens and 10,000 fellow patrons, there were 3–400,000 slaves in Athens, more men than women. Even the poorer bourgeoisie kept a slave to look after their house; in every moderate household there were several for grinding, baking, cooking, dressing, going out, accompanying the men and women; Richer people who had to look after cattle breeding and agriculture, mining and metallurgy had 300, 600–1000; Craftsmen also kept a large number of them in their workshops, and the state owned a large number which, in addition to other public occupations, served it, especially as rowers on the ships. Incidentally, the masters did not just use their slaves for their service, but also rented them out to others for wages. The class of slaves among the Doric Spartans, who brought the inhabitants of entire cities and countries to the S. and made the indigenous inhabitants of Laconica into slaves when they immigrated, was by far more unbearable (see Heloten). About the different types and the status of the S. among the Spartans see below Lakonika (Ant.) III. A) c). The slaves in Aegina and Corinth were also extremely numerous, there the number is said to have been 470,000, here 460,000; both states needed them because of their extensive trade and their great sea power; they received their supply especially from the Black Sea. In Phocis, the keeping of slaves was previously forbidden, but it was later introduced, although not without great opposition, because it was feared that it would impair the earnings of the poorer bourgeois class. The Klarotai (Aphamiotai, s.d.) in Crete, the Korynephoroi in Sikyon, the Thessalian Penestai (s.d. a.) Also enjoyed humane treatment from their Macedonian masters, cf. I. F. Reitemeier, Geschichte u. Zustand der S. Greeks, Kassel 1789.
Slavery was most developed among the Romans; in older times the status of the slaves was less oppressive here too, they were part of the household (Familia, s.d.), and the Lord was their father's name (Father familias [s.d.], where the name comes from Familiares u. Pueri for the slaves); but later her condition became very oppressive. The slaves were considered to be human beings, but had no personal rights, the master had full property rights (Dominium) on them, he could switch with their strengths, income, body and life at will. Arbitrariness against the life of slaves was often restricted by law, but it was only under Hadrianus and especially under Antoninus Pius that the killing of a slave by his master was punished as murder, and slaves who had fled to a sanctuary because of inhuman treatment of the master , were not handed over, but the Lord had to sell them. The slave was called Hello in relation to his status; Mancipium in consideration of the property right which his master had in them; Famulus or Puer regarding the services which he had to render. S. (Servitude) could take place with two rights: a) Jure gentium, i.e. which established a natural consideration among all peoples, this is where slaves belonged by captivity and by birth, the latter were called slaves Vernae;b) Jure civili, i.e. According to Roman law, free-born Romans could also come to such a place if they withdrew from their duties to the state, if someone did not pay his creditor and the latter sold him, because of certain crimes, if someone fraudulently sold himself as a slave, for part to have the profit. The slaves were either Servi publiciwhich belonged to the state or a commun, or Servi privatiwhich were private property. The Servi publici were those who had come to the S. through a crime or as a share of the state in the spoils of war; they helped Accensi or Apparitores the magistrates or. took care of these services themselves; others did the temple services and performed the minor services for the victims; others administered as caste servants (Aerarii) the community treasury, or supervised buildings, worked in mines, quarries, etc. They received housing and food from the state or  the commun and its savings were their property (Peculium), which they could use for ransom. If they remained slaves, the state or the commun inherited their peculium. The lot was much more oppressive Servi privati. They were excluded from public religious acts, could not freely over the property acquired in the S. (Peculium) dispose (which belonged to the master when they died, although benevolent masters allowed their loyal slaves to make a kind of will and they were allowed to buy the freedom with their acquisition), had no actual marriage (Connubium), but the coexistence permitted by the Lord (Contubernium) with a slave or free woman was without legal consequences; had no name as which the Lord gave them (this was chosen according to their country of birth, e.g. Thrax, Phryx, or borrowed from old heroes, e.g. Achilles, Hector etc.); could not give testimony in court, were unable to do military service (exceptions were only made in the Punic Wars and later under the emperors); Accusations against them were never brought before the people, but before them Triumviri rerum capitalium brought, also seldom allowed the slaves an appeal. If a Roman's slave had been mistreated by another, the master could go after the Lex Aquilia sue for damages for themselves. On the other hand, the master was also responsible for his slaves and had to pay compensation for everything that the slave had done. Some rented their slaves to others. The price of the slaves was very different, while for the meanest ones and those for which the traders would not say well, only a few thalers were paid, so educated ones were bought with several hundred thalers. The number of slaves was immense in some rich people, especially Lucullus is said to have had so many that he did not even know their number; In general, it was part of the Ostentation not only to have many slaves, but also to have slaves of all nations and colors. The slaves were divided according to whether they were employed in the country or in the city Servi ex familia rustica, these had the hardest work and were very often tied up (Servi compediti, vincti servientes), they worked in quarries, gardens, fields, etc .; u. in Servi ex familia urbana, & these were back either Servi ordinarii, the more distinguished ones, to whom certain and more important domestic affairs were dependent and who are often deputies (Vicarii, also Servi peculiaresbecause they are from the slaves of theirs Peculium held) held; or Servi vulgares, who performed common services in the house; or Servi mediastiniwhich had no particular business, but were needed for what it was necessary to do. Because everything in the houses of distinguished Romans was done by slaves, and indeed every single task was done by special slaves, their names were very different; they were divided into different decuria, and the register of them was usually read to the Lord every morning. The individual Decuria had their overseers, under whom the others stood (Subservi). They were at the entrance to every house Ostiarii or Janitores, usually chained; the Atriensis supervised the atrium (s.d.) with the Adults, the paintings, the tableware, the surroundings of the Lord were made by them Cubicularii from, a kind of valet, usually the confidante of the gentleman, who also announced the visitors and generally had a good position and great influence; lower slaves were that Tonsor u. Cinerarius (Cinisto), who took care of the beard cleaning and hair curling; dressing was up to him Vestiarius whether he had to wait in the bathroom Balneator. The Arcarius had the cloakroom under himself. The greatest number of slaves belonged to the kitchen and the table (Ministri); here they were Coqui, Cooks, Pistores, Baker that Opsonatoreswho did the shopping of fish, meat etc. for the kitchen; Cellariiwho supervised the kitchen and cellar; Lectisterniatoreswho took care of the dining ophas; Structoreswho covered the table; Diribitoresoccupying the bowls; Carptoreswho carved; Praegustatoreswho tasted the dishes, whether they were properly prepared, and presented them to the guests, in front of whose eyes they tasted them again, in order to avoid suspicion of poisoning; Pocillatoreswho poured the wine and much more. a. Also belong here Servi from argento potoriothe drinking utensils, u. Servi from argento escatoriocleaning & picking up the silver dinnerware. In the immediate vicinity of the Lord there were those who took care of the health, Medici, Chirurgi, Unctores, Ocularii Etc.; they were used for his entertainment Anagnostae or Lectores, Mimi, Symphoniaci, Gladiatores (s.d.a.); when going out the Pedissequiwho followed him Anteambuloneswhich preceded Nomenclatores (monitores), which the people he met called him by name, Lecticariiwho carried him in the litter, etc. Besides these, there were a number of other slaves in the household; the Dispensatores, Procuratores, Rationarii, Actores (s.d.a.) kept the accounts of income and expenses, the cash register, supervision of the villa; Calendariiwho have favourited Debt Books. Those who supervised the buildings belonging to the Lord were called Servi insulares (see. Insula 3); the Topiary worked in the gardens and took care of their decoration; who were sent out Servi a pedibus etc. Furthermore, special slaves were kept for copying and stapling the books (Librarii, Glutinatores), to supervise the library (Servi a bibliotheca), to manage correspondence (, Amanuenses, Notarii, Servi ab epistolis); The upbringing and teaching of the children was also in the hands of the slaves (Nutritii u. Paedagogi). Scholarly Romans also sometimes occupied themselves with young, talented slaves and gave them a good education, according to Atticus. The estates (praedia) also required a large number of slaves; was the name of the Hofmeister, who was in charge of the whole thing Villicus, under him stood the Aratores (Plowman), Occatores (Egger), Horrearii (Thresher), Opiliones (Sheepmen), Muliones (which the mules took care of), Vindemiatores (in the vineyards) etc. The women also had a lot of slaves to serve them; they were solely at their disposal Servi receptitii (S. dotales), which the woman brought from her father's house and kept in her property. A great number of the slaves named here did not know the old simple times, but only later under the emperors they were kept, partly for the sake of luxury, partly also out of fear and distrust, and their services so isolated and strictly separated. The punishments with which offenses committed by the slaves were punished were usually lashes (which were often called lashes Verberones, Mastigiae); they were also given pieces of woodFurcae) hung around their necks or they were locked in workhouses, allowed to turn mills etc. Usually only those who escaped were branded (Servi fugitivi) and were recaptured; usually the letter became to themF. (Fugitivus) or F. H. E....., i.e. Fugitivus hic est.... (this is the escaped etc.), with the addition of the name of the person from whom they escaped, branded; But Constantinus forbade this, and since then the refugees have been put on neck irons or the inscription has been hung around their necks on a plaque. The usual death penalty was crucifixion; Constantine forbade it after the Lex Petronia (from the time of the first emperors) forbidden to reproach slaves to wild animals and Hadrianus and Antoninus Mus forbade the killing of slaves; it was often imposed over several (in the case of the murder of Pedianus Secundus under Nero over 400) if a master in his house had been murdered by a slave or another and the perpetrator could not be found. According to the Twelve Tablets, every theft of a slave was punishable by death, furthermore if the slave revealed his master and in general all crimes for which a suitor was deported; for which, however, the condemnation to the mining service was often preferred in order to still draw a profit from them. VediusPollio had slaves thrown into his fish pond and fed the morays with them. The sad consequences of excessive shepherding were more outrages by the slaves (see slave wars). The slaves in Rome did not wear any special clothing, only theirs was simpler, worse, and darker in color than that of the free ones; but they were not allowed to wear hats or sandals, and they had to leave their beards and hair unscathed. The slaves received something to support themselves, usually 4–5 a month ModiiGrain, then some figs, olives, wine and vinegar. At certain times they also enjoyed great freedom, e.g. on the Saturnalia (see 1) and the Idus in August.
The release (Manumissio) was associated with many formalities; it happened: a) M. per censum (M. censu), if the name of the person to be released has been entered in the Censor's list of citizens with the approval of his master; b) M. per vindictam (M. vindictâ), the most solemn when the slave of his master appeared before the consul or praetor, in the provinces before the governor, and a third party (Assertor), later usually a lictor, a chopstick (Vindicta, Virga, Festuca [therefore Festucâ liber, such a freedman]) put on the slave's head and said: Hunc ego hominem liberum eat ajo!Then the master took the slave by the (right) hand or another part of the body, turned him around in a circle with the words: Hunc hominem liberum esse volo! & then let go of him. Thereupon the magistrate actually pronounced the release and those present congratulated the released man; afterwards the freedman (Libertinein relation to his class and his position in the state, so called in contrast to the freeborn citizen; Libertus but in relation to the previous master and now patron) led to the temple of Feronia, where he took the hat (Pileus), received as a sign of freedom, then had his head shaved and put on a toja; c) M. per testamentum (M. testamento), if the Lord gave him freedom in his last will, either unconditionally or simply expressed as a wish to the heir (Manumissio fideicommissaria), in which latter case the heir received the patronage right over him. This came about since Constantine the Greatd) a release in church, where the release certificate issued by the Lord and signed by a clergyman was read aloud. Unceremonious types of release were: e) M. per epistolam, the release of a slave staying elsewhere by means of a letter signed by at least five witnesses: f) M. inter amicoswhen the master assured the slave of freedom in the presence of some (at least five) friends as witnesses; G) M. per mensamif the slave was drawn to a special banquet, which was considered an indirect declaration of freedom. The freedmen received, allegedly through Servius Tullius, at the same time civic rights (civil rights, cf. Claudia Lex); but belonged to the (lesser) Tribus urbanae, were only used in the worst case of war and (except at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire) honorary posts could not be obtained. Centenarius libertus since Augustus was the name of a freedman who had 100,000 sestertia in property; after such a death, if he left fewer than three children, his patron or his male descendants inherited an equal share with the other heirs, the testator may or may not have tested; but he left three or more children, nothing. Did the freedman not have 100,000 Sestertien (Libertus non centenarius), so he could test at will; However, if he had no children and died without a will, the patron was a universal heir. Against the freer (Manumissor) had the freedmen (Manumissi) still liabilities, e.g. their clients remained, also took on the first and surnames of the same, for which they, instead of their family name (Cognomen) used theirs as an epithet, e.g. Laurea, the freedman of M. TulliusCicero, was called M. Tull. Laurea; yes they were, if they wanted to evade those duties, or were otherwise ungrateful, severely punished by the judge. Although every slavejure gentium had the ability to be free, and every gentleman who sui juris was to have the right to release his slave, nevertheless, because of the frequent abuse of the release right, in the course of time various restrictions of this right of masters and that ability of the slaves came into being. Through the Lex Aelia Sentia from the year 5 AD it was  decreed that no slave who had suffered a dishonorable punishment should be given complete freedom and thereby civility, but only to the status of the Peregrini dediticii should arrive; that every freedman under 30 years of age can only become civic under certain conditions, otherwise only as Latinus should apply; that, as a rule, the freewheeler had to be at least 20 years old. The greater restriction put the Lex Furia Canina dated 9 AD the Manumissio per testamentum in that, depending on the proportion of the number of slaves, only a part of them could ever be released. The number of the other types of release remained unlimited. The state, too, often granted freedom to slaves who had somehow rendered a service to the public good; the shape observed was either vindicta or censu and their cognomen were even adopted by the magistrate through whom freedom was given to them. Those released by the forms mentioned above e) -g) did not acquire any justa libertas, but only a factual freedom and remained ex jure QuiritiumSlaves, the manumissor could not revoke their release. The proportion of those freed in this way regulated them Lex Junia Norbana from I. 18 ADaccording to which all who were released without solemnity, merely by the will of their master, did not receive civil rights, but a right similar to the Latin colonies, whereby the state of the Latini, Juniani (s.d.) was created. It was also possible for someone who had been released in an unceremonious manner to be released solemnly later, what Iteration was called. On the Roman slaves see Burigny in the 35th vol Mémoires de l'Académie des inscriptions, and about the freedmen in the 27th vol. of the same Mémoires; Pignorius, De servis, Amst. 1674; T. Popma, De operis servorum, ibid. 1672; also the writings of Walch, Ölrichs, Hurter and others
The ancient Teutons had no slaves in the Roman sense, about the unfree with them see below Germany, p. 8. and Scandinavia, p. 158. In Asia, the S. is still very common; Prisoners of war, robbed people, those brought to the S. as punishment, even those sold by their poor parents as children, make up the slaves there. In some places their lot is not sad. Her main occupation is to do housework and field work and to work in the manufactories. Rarely and perhaps only in China one finds the custom, which already prevailed in ancient Rome, of mutilating slaves and then moving around with them and begging. A very despised type of slaves in India are those who serve in the pagodas, as police officers and executioners. Such are usually those pardoned for a crime worthy of death. As far as Islam rules, i.e. also in Turkey in Europe, the principle applies according to the Koran that the S. is an actual and necessary institution which belongs to the well-being of the free and in which the unfree do not have independence and have to fulfill the will of their master unconditionally, but are to be regarded as members of the house and receive benevolent care. The slaves form such an important part of the population in the Mohammedan states that a special section of civil law deals with the doctrine of the treaties on the acquisition, treatment, use and release of the same. Slaves can legally only be acquired by capturing them in a war against unbelievers (hence their name, Jesir, i.e. Prisoners of war). In addition to all non-Muslims, these infidels also include the Shiites among the Sunnis and vice versa. From the prey is first 1/5 retired for the government, the rest 4/5 are divided among the winners according to rank. The recipients can sell what they don't want to keep. Slaves (Turkish Kul, Persian End) and slaves (Chalaïk, i.e. Creatures) then become the children from the marriage between slaves or from the intercourse between slaves without the permission of the master, and such children belong to the master of the mother. In the Turkish Empire not only free Muslim women can own slaves, but also Christians and Jews, but if the slaves of the latter two convert to Islam, their masters must sell them to devout Muslim women if a buyer can be found. After the religious wars on the part of the Turks had recently ceased, the real source of slave acquisition dried up, but blacks from East and Inner Africa were sold by slave traders and whites, especially women from the Caucasus countries, by voluntarily selling their relatives and although the public slave trade has been forbidden since 1855 (see below, p. 178), it is still carried out privately and every free person in Turkey can buy and rent, sell and rent slaves by will and purchase and donation to others. Regardless of their treatment and use, they belong to the house cooperative, they have the right to food, clothing and education like house children; but master and mistress can use them for any work or occupation; what the slaves acquire belongs to the mastery; They cannot inherit anything, cannot become guardians, and cannot enter into any debt obligations without the permission of their masters; they pay no taxes and, although they are Muslim, are not obliged to make a pilgrimage to Mecca; The rule has the right to chastise the slave for disobedience, but should be careful to injure his eyes or other limbs; Because of cruel and unnatural treatment, the slave, if he has witnesses, is free to take legal action against the rulers, and the authorities should punish the rulers in the event of a transfer and buy the slave, if he is a Muslim, free from funds from mild foundations. As a rule, the testimony of the slaves in court is not valid. When slaves are sued, the rulership must stand up for repentance. The rule does not have the right to life and death of the slaves. If someone else has killed a slave unintentionally, he pays a blood price to the owner. The Turks usually become loyal slaves
- Have you ever read someone's secret diary?
- How do intelligent water meters work
- How can a computer catch fire?
- Psychopaths sociopaths cry when they are angry
- What are careers in engineering
- Successful IITians study coaching
- How has ethics evolved?
- When was eBay going public?
- Is a course from IFBI profitable
- Will PHP still be relevant
- How do you deal with testicular pain
- What are the types of plantation crops
- How is goodwill calculated
- Who sells the best hamburger in Oklahoma
- What are the best watercolor brands
- What is the Karewa formation
- What size is Ed Sheeran's guitar
- Can interns refer someone to work there?
- How do I find secondary value
- Are Shopify websites good looking
- How do I put two pictures together
- Do satellites stop working
- All hackers do drugs
- Will Jon Snow draw a Lady Stone Heart