Muhammad and the Natural Law: Propheting in Slavery

“SLAVERY IS PART OF ISLAM," "Slavery is part of jihad." These are not the words of some Islamophobe, but the words of Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member in very good standing of the Senior Council of Clerics in Saudi Arabia.* And Al-Fawzan is right. Not only is chattel slavery part of Islam, chattel slavery is part of Muhammad.

Shaykh Saleh Ibn 'Abdullah Ibn al-Fawzan

In Islam, Muhammad, alleged to be al-insan al-kamir, the perfect model of a human being, is someone whose life ought to be imitated. To criticize any aspect of Muhammad's life is blasphemous under Islam's law, the shari'a. And yet it is an indisputable fact that Muhammad, after acquiring power and money in Medina, owned slaves, captured slaves, accepted slaves as gifts, traded slaves, enjoyed the fruits of slave labor,** and had sex with his female slaves.*** Oh, and on occasion, manumitted slaves. Ergo, under Islamic logic is not morally wrong to own slaves, trade slaves, capture slaves, or have sex with (female) slaves. It is حلال, halal, allowed. Oh, and on occasion, manumit them.

But apologists for Muhammad insist that the founder of Islam was a reformer: he prohibited the earnings of slave girls through prostitution (along with the money made by trading a dog, or money earned by soothsaying), based upon the ahadith found in Sahih Bukhari 3.36.482, 483. But lest we get too pious about Muhammad, we may want to mention that (immediately before telling his followers that they should not laugh at a Muslim which farts since every man is susceptible to farting) he suggested to his followers that he ought not to lash his wife as he would his slave, suggesting that slave lashing is something that his followers may do (as well as wife lashing, but only less severely). Sahih Bukhari 6.60.466. Muhammad also advised that coitus interruptus with a female slave was acceptable (even if she was married before capture, as her capture nullified the marriage to a nonbeliever, and made her property of the Muslim who acquired her). By approving a Muslim's coitus interruptus ('azl [عزل]) with a slave, of course, Muhammad necessarily approved of a Muslim's coitus with his slave. Sahih Muslim, 8.3383. What happen to God's commandment (which is part of the natural moral law), "Thou shalt not commit adultery"?

In his book, Zad al-Ma'ad (زاد المعاد‎, Provisions for the Hereafter) famous Sunni jurist Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (also known as Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr) (1292-1350 A.D.), identified Muhammad's male slaves:

Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, 'Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad'am, Karkara, Abu Rafi', Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu 'Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (`ship').

The same source identifies Muhammad's women slaves, two of them we know were his concubines:

Salma Um Rafi', Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa'd, Khadra, Radwa, Razina, Um Damira, Rayhana, Mary the Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war.†

Unquestionably, Muhammad had his hands deep in slavery. His hands are stained crimson with the unfortunate who suffered from his law of capture. No, by his treatment of men as if they were possessions, Muhammad showed that he is not the khairul bashar (خیرالبشر), the "best of all mankind." Not by a long shot.

Muslim Slave Traders in Yemen
(from an Arabic manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France)

Now, many of our heroes are no different than Muhammad. Washington owned slaves, and Jefferson owned them and, it is alleged, slept with one and fathered a child. The West's hands are mired in slavery, and the institution was part of ancient Greece and ancient Rome, and it took hundreds of years to erase it, only to see it come back again, and removed again. It is a historical blight on the history of our nation which was only overcome with much blood. It is also true that some of the Jewish patriarchs owned slaves. Even the Christian Scriptures make mention of it without its express condemnation. Only implicitly in the mustard seed of the Gospel may be found the seminal source for the understanding that chattel slavery is against the natural moral law. But none of those slave-owning men in our history are al-insan al-kamir. None of them have been perfect, or claimed perfection. All are sinners. Most have had feet of clay. None of them have disciples that claim their heroes perfect, the "best of all mankind," khairul bashar: none of them unable to be criticized; none of them must be slavishly followed.

There is one man that Christians slavishly follow, Jesus. And Jesus owned no slaves, and none can convict him of any sin (unless it would be blasphemy for claiming to be God incarnate, but this would be sin only if false). And the Gospel that he preached contained an implicit rejection of the underlying assumptions that justify slavery. Jesus undermined slavery's foundations. As an institution, slavery is inconsistent with St. Paul's credo in his letter to the Galatians: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male or female, for you all are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28. The Gospel's teaching was social salt indeed. And through the tutorship of the Gospel, we--all humanity, Christian or no--have learned much about our human nature and the natural law on the matter. The truth that chattel slavery is against the natural moral law is, like the right to religious freedom, one of those moral truths that we have learned over many dead bodies and ruined lives, but at least we have learned it. We know now without any doubt that the natural law condemns chattel slavery.†† Under the natural law, which is the law of God, chattel slavery is حَرَام‎, haraam, forbidden, foreclosed to any man.

But so long as a Muslim listens to Muhammad and looks to Muhammad as the perfect man, and so long as the unchanging Shari'a occupies the Muslim's mind and the Muslim's heart and trumps the natural law of reason and of God there, the Muslim will be blinded to a fundamental moral truth: we are, on account of our humanity, all brothers and all entitled to the benefit and subject to the restrictions of the natural moral law: it matters not who may be our parents, or what may be our tribe, our race, our color, or our creed. There is a fundamental law we share because we are human, and that law is a measure against which we can measure any other law, human or purportedly divine. As Tertullian put it so eloquently, all men are brothers because they have the natural law as their mother (not to mention having God as their Father).†††

In light of the natural law's condemnation of chattel slavery, and Muhammad's participation in chattel slavery, we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Muhammad was neither God's messenger, nor the seal of the prophets. He was but a man, his head perhaps in the clouds, but with feet of clay, and with a phallus between the legs of many a slave woman as he sought the joys, not the eternal joys of Paradise Allah had promised him, but the very temporal joys of sexual orgasm that apparently his Allah--against the natural moral law--had also allowed him. It is manifest that Muhammad's life was a lie.

But someone who is a good Muslim, whom I have no doubt Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan is, has become tone deaf to the universal melody of natural law. He has been taught by, and he is in thrall to, that mental slavery called Islam, a slavery that deadens the natural human sensitivity to the natural moral law. It squelches it ab initio. Islam is a system, an ideology that hides behind the skirt, or perhaps better under the burqa of the irrational when pressed by reason, and becomes stuck in a vicious circle, an infinite loop, from which there is no outage.

Muhammad, his life, and his law are best. How do we know?

They are the best because الله ورسوله أعلم, Allah and his messenger know best.

How do we know that Allah and his messenger know best?

We know they know best because Allah and his messenger know best that they know best:

الله ورسوله أعلم لأن الله ورسوله أعلم.

And how do we know that Allah and his messenger know best that they know best?

Because Allah and his messenger know best that Allah and his messenger know best that Allah and his messenger know best:

الله ورسوله أعلم لأن الله ورسوله أعلم لأن الله ورسوله أعلم.

You see where we're going?
_______________________________
*See "Author of Saudi Curriculums Advocates Slavery," in Saudi Information Agency's web page. See http://www.arabianews.org/english/article.cfm?qid=132&sid=2.
**From the many instances that could be cited, one might observe that he had a wooden bench or pulpit made by one. Sahih Bukhari 1.8.439. He had a slave he nicknamed "ship" because he could carry such a load. He had slaves as household servants. Sahih Bukhari 3.43.648. He had a slave that was his tailor. Sahih Bukhari 7.65.345. He had one slave named Anjashah which drove his camels. Sahih Bukhari 8.73.221. He personally took slaves captive, and gave them away as gifts. Sahih Bukhari 1.8.367 and 4.53.373. He bought and sold slaves. Muslim 10.3901. Many other examples could be cited.
***Both Muhammad and his followers were allowed to have sex with women captives, even if the women had been married before capture. This divine permission revealed in the Qur'an.
†The information can be found in Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars: Slavery. I have not been able to confirm the quote or its historical accuracy regarding the identity of slaves owned by Muhammad. But whether historically accurate or not, the ownership of slaves by Muhammad--irrespective of their names or number--is historical fact.
††We have addressed this issue in prior postings. See especially Leo XIII's In Plurimis: Natural Law and Slavery, Part 1, Leo XIII's In Plurimis: Natural Law and Slavery, Part 2, and Leo XIII's In Plurimis: Natural Law and Slavery, Part 3.
†††Tertulian, Apol., 39, 1 PL 471 ("Fratres autem vestri sumus, iure naturae matris unius . . . At quanto dignius qui unum patrem Deum agnoverunt."

Muhammad and the Natural Law: Sex with Slaves

MUHAMMAD's MARITAL MORAL TRAVESTIES are legion, and include polygamy, incest, pedophilia, concubinage, temporary marriage (nikah al-Mut‘ah or نكاح المتعة‎), and divorce. In prior postings we have focused on Muhammad's multiple sexual partners, on his sexual relationship with his aunt Khaula, and on his marriage and conjugal visitation of nine-year-old Aisha and desires for further young brides as he approached his sixth decade of life. In this posting, we shall focus on Muhammad's relationships with his slave-women, his concubines.

Under any ordinary moral standard, sex with concubines is considered adultery and not consonant with the ends of marriage. Under Muhammadan logic, sex with concubines is right because Allah revealed it to be so and because his messenger had sex with concubines. Allah locutus, causa finita est. Mahometus fecit, causa finita est.* (They are the same thing.)

Muhammad's treatment of women alone should disabuse any human of finding this man to have a legitimate prophetic bone in his body, much less a legitimate claim to being the "seal of the prophets," the خاتم اﻟﻨﺒﻴﻴﻦ, or Khatamun Nabiyyin. Muhammad's rank disregard of natural moral law is proof positive that his message is inauthentic. His inability to control his sexual faculties makes Muhammad more a prophet of Priapus than a prophet of the Most High God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus. As man, Muhammad is not exempt from the natural moral law. The judgment of practical reason condemns Muhammad; that is one reason Muslims are so suspicious of practical reason and why they cannot brook any opposition or criticism to their alleged prophet. The moment natural moral law steps into the picture, the entirety of Islam falls like a deck of cards that it is. Islam is founded entirely upon sheer positivism: the positivism of Allah and the positivism of Muhammad's actions.

In assessing Muhammad's activities with his concubines, we start, of course, with that part of the Qur'an, the Surat Al-Ahzab, known as "The Confederates," or "The Allies," specifically, the fiftieth ayah, which was so generous and accommodating to the sexual life of this pseudo-prophet: "O Prophet! Verily, We have made lawful to you . . . those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses--whom Allah has given to you." These are the ma malakat aymanukum (ما ملكت أيمانکم). Qur'an 33:50. Ah, but this privilege was not reserved for Muhammad alone: all Muslim men, in imitatio Muhammedi, enjoy the privileges associated with those whom their right hand possess. So we find in the Sūrat An-Nisa' that Muslim men in general enjoy the sexual benefits of those women whom their right hand possess. Qur'an 4:4. Naturally, the Muhammadan bias against women is reflected here: while men can have sex at will with women concubines, women are not allowed to have sex with men concubines.

The Name Muhammad in Arabic Calligraphy

And Muhammad's right hand possessed many such female concubines, and his penis exercised his rights over some, the prophet pounding his throbbing Muslim member into Mariyah or Raihanah, respectively, his Christian and Jewish concubines. The former, to the consternation of his legal wives, even gave him a child, whom Muhammad called Ibrahim (Abraham), but who died young.

At the outset, so that we are not accused of slighting Muhammad and accusing him of sex with concubines when he was innocent of that moral lapse,** we might quote from the popular Islamic biography of Muhammad, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar) by Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri (translated by Issam Diab):

Besides these [Muhammad's wives], he had two concubines. The first was Mariyah, the Coptic (an Egyptian Christian), a present gift from Al-Muqauqis, vicegerent of Egypt — she gave birth to his son Ibrâhim, who died in Madinah [Medina] while still a little child, on the 28th or 29th of Shawwal in the year 10 A.H., i.e. 27th January, 632 A.D. The second one was Raihanah bint Zaid An-Nadriyah or Quraziyah, a captive from Bani Quraiza. Some people say she was one of his wives. However, Ibn Al-Qaiyim gives more weight to the first version. Abu ‘Ubaidah spoke of two more concubines, Jameelah, a captive, and another one, a bondwoman granted to him by Zainab bint Jahsh. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 1/29]

Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, 312.

There is, in fact, a rather humorous story involving (naturally) the jealousies of the wives arising from Muhammad's enjoyment of the "honey" given to him by Mariya the Copt. It can be found in the Sahih Bukhari 3.43.648. The event is corroborated in the Sahi Muslim 9.3511 and Sahih Bukhar 7.62.119. It seems that the pseudo-prophet's foresight was rather limited, or was perhaps limited by lust. He could not hear Allah while he was trying to achieve orgasm. In one of his first flings with Mariya was at the home of one of his wives, Hafsa. Muhammad found a pretense to send Hafsa to her father's house, and then bedded Mariyah. But the perfect man is found out by Hafsa who unexpectedly returns to her home when she finds that her father did not seek her. She catches the pseudo-prophet in flagrante delicto with Mariyah the Copt.

Hafsa is unfuriated, but Muhammad, as is his bent, finds fault with everyone but himself. He gets Hafsa to shut up by promising not to sleep with his maid servant anymore, but on the condition that she keep this moral failure between herself and him. But Hafsa tells Aisha, and soon Muhammad's whole harem learns of the mess. Muhammad's response is to do two things. First, he punishes his wives by depriving him of his sexual services for a month.*** But this overreaction presented the sex-starved Muhammad with a problem: where would he get his sexual satisfaction? He had promised Hafsa no longer to have sex with Mariya. He had promised no longer to have sex with his wives for a month.

Where Muhammad has a need, Allah conveniently provides. Behold, a new revelation! Recite! God in the eternal Qur'an threatens Muhammad's wives with divorce (as if they did something wrong). Moreover, Allah releases Muhammad of his oath to Hafsa so that he can enter into Mariyah to his heart's content while he punishes his wives with his sexual absence! After all, Allah would not let such a small thing as marriage or promises get in the way of Muhammad's ejaculations.

O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which Allāh has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allāh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Allāh has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths. And Allāh is your Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.) and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise.

And (remember) when the Prophet (SAW) disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. 'Aishah), and Allāh made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: "Who told you this?" He said: "The All-Knower, the All-Aware (Allāh) has told me."

If you two (wives of the Prophet SAW, namely 'Aishah and Hafsah) turn in repentance to Allāh, (it will be better for you), your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet SAW likes), but if you help one another against him (Muhammad SAW), then verily, Allāh is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers.

It may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you, Muslims (who submit to Allāh), believers, obedient to Allāh, turning to Allāh in repentance, worshiping Allāh sincerely, fasting or emigrants (for Allāh's sake), previously married and virgins.

Qur'an 66:1-5.

Muhammad's relationship with Mariya the Copt is morally inexcusable. Muhammad's utter insensitivity and disregard for the natural moral law brands him a moral decrepit. In light of Muhammad's polygamy, incest, concubinage, divorce, pedophilia, and other sexual sins, it becomes harder and harder to say without rank hypocrisy, calculated blindness, or the murder of conscience, what the Muslims always say, الله ورسوله أعلم, Allah and his messenger know best, the natural law notwithstanding.

____________________________________________
*Latin: God has spoken, the case is closed. Muhammad has done it, the case is closed.
**Some Muslim sources deny the concubinage relationship between Mariya the Copt and Muhammad. For example, Ibn Kathir (700AH/1301AD-774AH/1373AD) wrote that Mariya and Muhammad married. The majority would seem to regard Mariyah as a concubine. Sources suggest that Muhammad had between four and eleven concubines. The number is not particularly relevant. Just one concubine disqualifies Muhammad as a prophet since just one concubine offends against the natural law of marriage and is adultery by definition. Muhammad was thus an adulterer.
***This, of course, is the second level of punishments advised by Allah in the treatment of wives who misbehave. The first is to admonish them. The second level is to refuse to share their bends. The third level is to beat them. Qur'an 4:34. Presumably, if all else fails: divorce.

Leo XIII's In Plurimis: Natural Law and Slavery, Part 3

WE CONCLUDE THIS THREE-PART SERIES on Pope Leo XIII's encyclical In plurimis. From a practical standpoint, the Church made some significant effort to provide practical remedies against slavery: she imposed canonical penalties, even excommunication; she allowed slaves sanctuary; those slaves that came into the possession of her bishops and religious, "according to times and places," she required bishops to divest themselves of after the slaves showed themselves capable of self-government; she put pressure on civil authorities to ameliorate, if not banish slavery. Through her efforts, the only institution of any size siding with the slaves, the slavery was "nearly blotted out from among Christian nations."

Unfortunately, the Church was to confront the Old World slavery's atavism in the New World and in the colonization--in America, Africa, and Asia--that followed, and she found herself at the forefront of confronting the effort revive the plague. Rome "took the greatest care that the evil germs of such depravity should nowhere revive." IP, 15. Pius II (r. 1458-64), Leo X (r. 1513-21), Paul III (r. 1534-49), Urban VIII (r. 1623-44), Benedict XIV (r. 1740-58), and Pius VII (r. 1800-23), Gregory XVI (1831-46) all showed themselves in one way or other concerned with slavery and the slave trade, condemning one or both for their part. Unfortunately, the cries and warnings of the Popes went unheeded, and slavery's ugly mien rose again and reigned for centuries. But, eventually, the Church's "long-continued and most just complaints of nature and religion," were to obtain remedy, at least in the Christian countries. IP, 17.

Not so the rest of the world, especially that part of the world governed by Islam, "it having been perversely laid down by the Mohammedans that Ethiopians and men of similar nations are very little superior to brute beasts." The African natives are likewise brutally treated by Muslims and by colonialists.

We open Our arms to them, how ardently We desire to be able to afford them every alleviation and support, with the hope, that, having cast off the slavery of superstition as well as the slavery of man, they may at length serve the one true God under the gentle yoke of Christ, partakers with Us of the divine inheritance. Would that all who hold high positions in authority and power, or who desire the rights of nations and of humanity to be held sacred, or who earnestly devote themselves to the interests of the Catholic religion, would all, everywhere acting on Our exhortations and wishes, strive together to repress, forbid, and put an end to that kind of traffic, than which nothing is more base and wicked.

IP, 19.

Bronze Statue of St. Peter Claver, Cartegena, Colombia

In another encyclical, Libertas praestantissimum, Pope Leo XIII summarized the Church's role in the slavery question thus:

It is sufficient to recall the fact that slavery, that old reproach of the heathen nations, was mainly abolished by the beneficent efforts of the Church. The impartiality of law and the true brotherhood of man were first asserted by Jesus Christ; and His apostles re-echoed His voice when they declared that in future there was to be neither Jew, nor Gentile, nor barbarian, nor Scythian, but all were brothers in Christ. So powerful, so conspicuous, in this respect is the influence of the Church that experience abundantly testifies how savage customs are no longer possible in any land where she has once set her foot; but that gentleness speedily takes the place of cruelty, and the light of truth quickly dispels the darkness of barbarism.

LP, 12.

The model that is required to overcome this evil was the Jesuit St. Peter Claver, patron saint of slaves:

Let them look at him who for fully forty years gave himself up to minister with the greatest constancy in his labors, to a most miserable assembly of Moorish slaves; truly he ought to be called the apostle of those whose constant servant he professed himself and gave himself up to be. If they endeavor to take to themselves and reflect the charity and patience of such a man, they will shine indeed as worthy ministers of salvation, authors of consolation, messengers of peace, who, by God's help, may turn solicitude, desolation, and fierceness into the most joyful fertility of religion and civilization.

IP, 20.

The extirpation of slavery de jure must also be accomplished de facto, but in removing slavery and its badges and remnants "let all be done lawfully, temperately, and in a Christian manner."

It is, however, chiefly to be wished that this may be prosperously accomplished, which all desire, that slavery may be banished and blotted out without any injury to divine or human rights, with no political agitation, and so with the solid benefit of the slaves themselves, for whose sake it is undertaken.

IP, 21.

Finally, Pope Leo XIII turns to the newly-freed slave, and renders this advice, which is the advice that ought to be given and received by any true free man:

Let them, then, endeavor piously and constantly to retain grateful memory and feeling towards those by whose council and exertion they were set at liberty. Let them never show themselves unworthy of so great a gift nor ever confound liberty with licence; but let them use it as becomes well ordered citizens for the industry of an active life, for the benefit and advantage both of their family and of the State. To respect and increase the dignity of their princes, to obey the magistrates, to be obedient to the laws, these and similar duties let them diligently fulfill, under the influence, not so much of fear as of religion; let them also restrain and keep in subjection envy of another's wealth or position, which unfortunately daily distresses so many of those in inferior positions, and present so many incitements of rebellion against security of order and peace. Content with their state and lot, let them think nothing dearer, let them desire nothing more ardently than the good things of the heavenly kingdom by whose grace they have been brought to the light and redeemed by Christ; let them feel piously towards God who is their Lord and Liberator; let them love Him, with all their power; let them keep His commandments with all their might; let them rejoice in being sons of His spouse, the Holy Church; let them labor to be as good as possible, and as much as they can let them carefully return His love.

Ergo illi memoriam et voluntatem gratam pie ad eos servare diligenterque profiteri studeant, quorum consilio quam prasbeant indignos, nec umquam libertatem cum licentia cupidilatum permisceant; ea vero utantur quo modo cives decet bene moratos, ad industriam vitae actuosas, et commoda et ornamenta quum familias tum civitatis. Vereri et colere majestatem principum, parere magistratibus, legibus obtemperare haec officia et similia, non tam metu adducti quam religione assidue exsequantur: etiam cohibeant arceantque alienae copiae et prestantiae invidiam, quae dolendum quam multos ex tenuioribus quotidie torqueat et quam multa ministret nequitiae plena instrumenta adversus ordinum securitatem et pacem. Re sua et statu contenti, nihil carius cogitent, nihil appetant cupidius quam bona regni caelestis, quorum gratia in lucem editi sunt et a Christo redempti: de Deo eodemque Domino ac Liberatore suo cum pietate sentiant, eum totis viribus diligant, ejus mandata omni cura custodiant. Sponsae ejus Ecclesiae sanctae, se filios esse gaudeant, esse optimos laborent, et quam possint amoris vicem sedulo reddant.

IP, 22.

Leo XIII's In Plurimis: Natural Law and Slavery, Part 1

LEO XIII ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF chattel slavery in his encyclical In plurimis dated May 5, 1888. The occasion for the encyclical was the abolition of slavery by Brazil. Brazil was the last nation in the Western World to abolish slavery, an act which was accomplished by the passage of the Lei Áurea (Portuguese for "Golden Law"), adopted on May 13, 1888.* The Lei Áurea is remarkable for its simplicity, as it had only two articles:

Article 1: From this date, slavery is declared abolished in Brazil.
Article 2: All dispositions to the contrary are revoked.

The Lei Áurea was sponsored by the Brazilian Senator Rodrigo A. da Silva. It passed both houses of the National Assembly (Assembléia Geral), and received official sanction by the Princess Imperial of Brazil, Isabel (1846–1921), acting as regent for her father, Emperor Dom Pedro II, who was then in Europe. Ironically, the uproar the law caused among Brazilian slave owners and upper classes to rebel against the monarchy, resulting in a military coup in 1889, the toppling of the monarchy, and the eventual establishing of a republic.

The Lei Áurea

Pope Leo XIII was clearly elated by the Brazilian emancipation of slaves, as he saw the institution of chattel slavery as one that arose as a result of sin, was against the law of God and the natural law, and was against the original intent of God:

In the presence of so much suffering, the condition of slavery, in which a considerable part of the great human family has been sunk in squalor and affliction now for many centuries, is deeply to be deplored; for the system is one which is wholly opposed to that which was originally ordained by God and by nature. The Supreme Author of all things so decreed that man should exercise a sort of royal dominion over beasts and cattle and fish and fowl, but never that men should exercise a like dominion over their fellow men

Jamvero tot inter miserias, graviter deplorandum videtur de servitute, cui pars non exigua humanae familiae abhinc multis saeculis est obnoxia, in squalore jacens est sordibus, idque omnino contra quam a Deo et natura erat primitus institutum. Sic enim ille rerum conditor summus decreverat, ut homo in bestiis et agrestibus et natantibus et volucribus regium quemdam dominatum teneret, non item ut in similes sui homines dominaretur.

IP, 3.

The human inheritance of slavery is the result of sin, a sin that blinded man to the fundamental equality among men, an equality arising from their common nature, their common dignity, and the common image of God in which they share. It is a tendency that is altogether prevalent, but for all that not less to be deplored, where some men believe that other men exist for others.

From the first sin came all evils, and specially this perversity that there were men who, forgetful of the original brotherhood of the race, instead of seeking, as they should naturally have done, to promote mutual kindness and mutual respect, following their evil desires began to think of other men as their inferiors, and to hold them as cattle born for the yoke. In this way, through an absolute forgetfulness of our common nature, and of human dignity, and the likeness of God stamped upon us all, it came to pass that in the contentions and wars which then broke out, those who were the stronger reduced the conquered into slavery; so that mankind, though of the same race, became divided into two sections, the conquered slaves and their victorious masters. The history of the ancient world presents us with this miserable spectacle down to the time of the coming of our Lord, when the calamity of slavery had fallen heavily upon all the peoples, and the number of freemen had become so reduced that the poet was able to put this atrocious phrase into the mouth of Caesar: "The human race exists for the sake of a few."**

Ex primi contagione peccati et cetera mala omnia et ista erupit monstruosa perversitas, ut homines fuerint, qui memoria fraternae ab origine conjunctionis rejecta, non jam duce natura mutuam inter se benevolentiam mutuamque observantiam colerent, sed cupiditatibus obedientes suis, homines alios infra se putare coeperint, et perinde habere ac nata jugo jumenta. Hoc modo, nulla ratione habita neque communis naturae, neque dignitatis humanae, neque divinae expressae similitudinis, consecutum est ut, per certationes et bella quae deinde exarserunt, qui vi existerent superiores, ii victos sibi subjicerent, atque ita multitudo ejusdem generis individua sensim in duasabscesserit partes, sub victoribus dominis vieta mancipia. Cujus rei luctuosum quasi theatrum memoria priscorum temporum explicat, ad tempora usque Domini servatoris, quum calamitas servitutis populos omnes late pervaserat, rariorque erat numerus ingenuorum, ut Caesarem poeta ille atrociter dicentem induxerit: «Humanum paucis vivit genus».

IP, 4.

The institution of slavery persisted not only among the primitive peoples, but it flourished even among the civilized Greeks and Romans, where slaves were regarded "as so many chattels--not as persons, but as things," quam bona, non personae sed res." IP, 5. Carved to be outside the pale of the law by a perverse positive law, blinding philosophers and jurists alike, the abuse that infected slavery went far beyond the evil of the institution itself, which was evil enough. The institution itself engendered moral confusion, moral perturbation, which allowed "men to sell their slaves, to give them in exchange, to dispose of them by will, to beat them, to kill them, to abuse them by forcing them to serve for the gratification of evil passions and cruel superstitions; these things could be done, legally, with impunity, and in the light of heaven." IP, 5. And the justifications raised to justify this moral enormity--that slavery was a natural institution because of its prevalence, that slaves were naturally inferior to their owners, that they were things without reason, etc.--were abhorrent. The institution is dehumanizing to both the slave and the master:

Such inhuman and wicked doctrines are to be specially detested; for, when once they are accepted, there is no form of oppression so wicked but that it will defend itself beneath some color of legality and justice.

Ejusmodi delestanda maxime tum inhumanitas tum iniquitas; qua semel accepta, nulla jam sit oppressio hominum barbara et nefanda, quae non sese in legis quadam jurisve specie impudentissime tueatur.

IP, 5.

(continued)

____________________________________
*The entire text (in Portuguese) is as follows:
Declara extinta a escravidão no Brasil:

A Princesa Imperial Regente, em nome de Sua Majestade o Imperador, o Senhor D. Pedro II, faz saber a todos os súditos do Império que a Assembleia Geral decretou e ela sancionou a lei seguinte:

Art. 1.º: É declarada extinta desde a data desta lei a escravidão no Brasil.
Art. 2.º: Revogam-se as disposições em contrário.

Manda, portanto, a todas as autoridades, a quem o conhecimento e execução da referida Lei pertencer, que a cumpram, e façam cumprir e guardar tão inteiramente como nela se contém.

O secretário de Estado dos Negócios da Agricultura, Comércio e Obras Públicas e interino dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Bacharel Rodrigo Augusto da Silva, do Conselho de Sua Majestade o Imperador, o faça imprimir, publicar e correr.
Dada no Palácio do Rio de Janeiro, em 13 de maio de 1888, 67.º da Independência e do Império.

Princesa Imperial Regente.
Rodrigo Augusto da Silva

Carta de lei, pela qual Vossa Alteza Imperial manda executar o Decreto da Assembleia Geral, que houve por bem sancionar, declarando extinta a escravidão no Brasil, como nela se declara. Para Vossa Alteza Imperial ver. Chancelaria-mor do Império - Antônio Ferreira Viana.

Transitou em 13 de maio de 1888.- José Júlio de Albuquerque.

**The quotation--humanum paucis vivit genus--is to Lucan's Pharsalia V.343 (also known as the De bello civili (On the Civil War)). It is a Roman epic poem by the Roman poet Lucan about the civil war between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great and the Battle of Pharsalus.

The Disfigured Face: The War of the Philosophers: St. Thomas on Slavery

THE SCHOOL OF SALAMANCA was the work of the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria. He has been hailed as the "Father of International Law." He was not trapped by a Spanish parochialism or jingoism; his philosophy, and his Faith, allowed him to overcome many of those nationalistic hindrances that bound the ordinary Spaniard to his belief in superiority or exceptionalism of his nation. It was these sorts of intellectual chains that bound up the intellect of that advocate of natural slavery, Sepúlveda, and made him, in an ironical way, a slave to them. Spain in the early 16th century was the glory of the earth. Headed by the Emperor Charles V, Spain was the world power. It was firmly planted in two continents. It took a great man to seek that there was a part of Spain, its earthly glory withal, that was not glorious in heaven. But Vitoria's merits were largely a reflection of his teacher, St. Thomas Aquinas.

Portrait of Emperor Charles V by Titian

It was his appointment to the University of Salamanca, and his promotion of Thomism there, that was Vitoria's greatest, and lasting work. Unusually, he did not publish any work during his lifetime, and the majority of what we have from him are as a result of notes taken from his lectures. Perhaps his most important, certainly the most frequently read, are his Relectio de indis recenter inventis, his lectures on the status of the recently-discovered Amerindians. Many of these notes, at least those on other topics, unfortunately, remain unpublished.

In his Relectio de Indis, Vitoria addressed the issue of whether Spain was justified in conquering the Americas because of the lapse of reason, the "rational insufficiency," of the Amerindians. Despite their social sins and cultural enormities (e.g., human sacrifice, idolatry), were the Amerindians capable of self-government, self-determination? Or were their cultural enormities, the product of the failure of the natural law and reason, justifications for just war and warrant for conquest? It is clear that Aristotle's authority and stature was the biggest impediment to answering the question. Specifically, the Aristotelian doctrine (found in his Politics and in his Nicomachean Ethics) that there were men who were barbarian, who were by nature slaves, and were naturally lacking in the right over themselves and their possessions. Slavery was rampant in the ancient Greek world, and Aristotle addressed the issue of whether it was a natural institution, or rather one that was conventional. Aristotle believed that slavery was a natural institution, that there were some men, who, by reason of their superiority, were naturally masters, and other men, who, by reason of their inferiority, naturally slaves.

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? This is the question: but it is interesting that he feels the need to ask it. There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

Politics, I, 2, 1254a. Vitoria was, as may be expected, conservative, and he struggled to find a way around the Aristotelian doctrine without repudiating it. "Aristotle certainly did not mean to say that such men thereby belong by nature to others and have no rights of ownership over their own bodies and possession (dominium sui et rerum). Such slavery is a civil and legal condition, to which no man can belong by nature." Aristotle "certainly did not mean by this that such men had a legal right to arrogate power to themselves over others on the grounds of their superior intelligence, but merely that they are fitted by nature to be princes and guides." Granting, arguendo, that the American Indians were "foolish and slow-witted as people say they are," Vitoria's conclusions were that it was "still wrong to use this as grounds to deny their true dominion (dominium); nor can they be counted among the slaves." Cortest, 37 (quoting Francisco de Vitoria, Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 233.)

Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas by Félix Parra

Vitoria's effort to circumvent Aristotle without outright repudiation has been criticized by scholars, and probably rightly so. To give to Aristotle such a slant was outside the range of probability of Aristotle's intendment.

On the other hand, Las Casas was much less deferential to the Aristotelian "natural slavery" doctrine. Cortest, 38. Las Casas maintained that there was but one human race, "una denique sola species creaturae rationalis, quae in individuis suis per universum mundum erat dispersa," "besides, there is only one species of rational creature, which is dispersed through the entire world in his individuality." (So in his De unico vocationis modo.) Though there may be differing levels of cultural achievements and though they may be laboring under social or cultural impediments, the Indians remained children of God, redeemed of Christ, and fellow brothers with the Spaniards:

Again, if we want to be sons of Christ and followers of the truth of the gospel, we should consider that, even though these peoples may be completely barbaric, they are nevertheless created in God's image. They are not so forsaken by divine providence that they are incapable of attaining Christ's kingdom. They are our brothers, redeemed by Christ's most precious blood, no less than the wisest and most learned men in the whole world.

Cortest, 41 (quoting Las Casas's In Defense of the Indians) Can one imagine Aristotle, the proud Greek, saying of the Persians or the lesser peoples, "They are our brothers"? Manifestly no. Christianity injected something precious, something magnificent, into the world, a comfort to the poor and downtrodden, and a humbling medicine, perhaps bitter in taste, to the rich and the proud. Oh let us praise the Lord God in unison with Mary for the entry into the world of this thing!

Magnificat anima mea Dominum,
et exsultavit spiritus meus in Deo salvatore meo . . . .
Fecit potentiam in brachio suo,
dispersit superbos mente cordis sui;
deposuit potentes de sede,
et exaltavit humiles;
esurientes implevit bonis,
et divites dimisit inanes.

Others also addressed the issue of the Amerindians' status as "natural slaves," and weighed in against Sepúlveda. Among these, Cortest cites and discusses the Jesuit José de Acosta, the so-called "Pliny of the New World," who detailed the natural and moral history of the Indies. He discusses the Dominican Domingo Bañez, the proeclarissimum jubar, the "brightest light" of Spain, and confessor to St. Theresa of Avila. He also briefly addresses the view of the Dominican Melchor Cano, that zealous prosecutor of Carranza and author of the famous De Locis Theologicis. But the real focus of his sights is Francisco Suárez, and the teacher of them all, St. Thomas Aquinas.

In his De triplici virtute theologica, fide, spe & charitate, Suárez explicitly confronts the position of Sepúlveda on Spain's right of conquest over the pagan American Indians. The three arguments commonly given were that such conquest was justified by reason of the Indian practice of human sacrifice, which warranted intervention to defend the innocent. The second argument commonly given was that such conquest was legitimated by the cultural benefits that the pagan society would receive from its conquerors' superior civilization. The third argument (which is the one that Cortest in his discussion of Suárez focuses on) is the argument that the Amerindians were, by nature, slaves, and therefore could be compelled to obedience to their superiors. Cortest, 40.

Aztec Human Sacrifice: Did it Warrant Conquest?

In addressing the last argument, Suárez doubted that, in fact, there could be peoples that were so barbarous and uncivilized "that they were neither united in a civil society, nor capable of exercising government." In other words, the capacity to live in common and provide for self-determination and self-government is so intrinsic to humanity, that one ventures into the land of theory to suggest that a people have lost this capacity. In practice, Suárez maintains, such a barbarous people with an absolute inability to self-govern have never been found.

The fact is that all of these men: Vitoria, Las Casas, de Acosta, Bañez, Cano, Suárez, and literally hundreds of others who are lesser lights but remain within the constellation of the School of Salamanca were schooled by St. Thomas Aquinas. "[T]he reason these writers share a common view concerning the doctrine of natural servitude is that Thomas himself rejected this doctrine." Cortest, 42. It is St. Thomas, steeped in the law and teachings of the Gospel, who overcame the Aristotelian "some men are by nature slaves" blight.

Cortest focuses on St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae. Thomas's commentary on Aristotle's Politics is problematic in that it is difficult to tell when St. Thomas is citing Aristotle's text with approval, and when he is not. Moreover, the commentary was never completed. The Summa, though also not fully completed, presents clearly enough St. Thomas's own view on the matter of the institution of slavery. The heart of the Thomistic analysis is Question 57, article 3 of the second part of the second part (IaIIae):

From the bare nature of the case there is no reason for this man rather than that man being a slave. It is only when it is looked at pragmatically in its results that, as Aristotle says, it is expedient for him to be ruled by a wiser man whom he serves. Servitude, which is part of the ius gentium, is natural then in the second sense of our explanation, not the first.

[H]unc hominem esse servum, absolute considerando, magis quam alium, non habet rationem naturalem, sed solum secundum aliquam utilitatem consequentem, inquantum utile est huic quod regatur a sapientiori, et illi quod ab hoc iuvetur, ut dicitur in I Polit. Et ideo servitus pertinens ad ius gentium est naturalis secundo modo, sed non primo [modo].

S.T., IIaIIae, q. 57 a. 3, ad 3. St. Thomas appears, then, to reject the Aristotelian notion that some men, are by nature inferior to others. However, he does not enter into the intellectually vacuous and indefensible territory of those who hold that men are in all things equal. Such a view is, as a matter of empirical fact, untenable. (In fact, in practice, such a belief can cause untold suffering, perhaps even more than the suffering imposed by slavery. One need only look at the sufferings of those under Communism. Wasn't it Gilles Dauvé who said, "Communism believes in equality through force"? Slavery is inequality through force. Communism is equality through force. Both are social and moral evils.) What St. Thomas suggests is that though slavery is not a natural institution, it is natural that some men should be subordinate, but not enslaved, to others, namely, the wiser.

This view is confirmed in another part of the Summa (dealing with the relationship between man and wife). Here, St. Thomas distinguishes between the subordination which is only for the advantage of the master (slavery), and subordination which is for the benefit of the subject (right order):

Subjection is of two kinds; one is that of slavery, in which the ruler manages the subject for his own advantage, and this sort of subjection came in after sin. But the other kind of subjection is domestic or civil, in which the ruler manages his subjects for their advantage and benefit. And this sort of subjection would have obtained even before sin. For the human group would have lacked the benefit of order had some of its members not been governed by others who were wiser.

Ad secundum dicendum quod duplex est subiectio. Una servilis, secundum quam praesidens utitur subiecto ad sui ipsius utilitatem et talis subiectio introducta est post peccatum. Est autem alia subiectio oeconomica vel civilis, secundum quam praesidens utitur subiectis ad eorum utilitatem et bonum. Et ista subiectio fuisset etiam ante peccatum, defuisset enim bonum ordinis in humana multitudine, si quidam per alios sapientiores gubernati non fuissent. . . .

S.T., Ia q. 92 a. 1 ad 3. Slavery, though perhaps prevalent among men, is not a natural institution. It entered the world by reason of man's original sin, and, where it becomes institutionalized, as it did in Ancient Greece, or as it did in Africa, Islam (Islam has the added problem that slavery is justified in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, Mohammed having participated, nay, benefited, nay even relished in orgasmic shudder in the institution, as he had sex with his women slaves. Thus it would appear that slavery, which is against the natural law, has the sanction of Allah, if Muhammad and his Qur'an is to be believed.), or the West during the era of the slave trade and chattel slavery, it is the product of sin: indeed, it is a punishment for having sinned. Slavery does not insinuate itself into a society unless it has compromised the natural moral law:

The difference between a slave and a free man is that a free man is because of himself, as it says at the beginning of the Metaphysics; whereas a slave is geared to the benefit of another. So someone lords over another as a slave when he simply uses him for his own, that is the lord's purposes. And because everyone naturally values his own good, and consequently finds it grievous to surrender entirely to another the good that ought to be his own, it follows that lordship of this kind cannot but be punitive to those subjected to it. For this reason man cannot have lorded over man in the sate of innocence in that sort of way.

Cuius ratio est, quia servus in hoc differt a libero, quod liber est causa sui, ut dicitur in principio Metaphys.; servus autem ordinatur ad alium. Tunc ergo aliquis dominatur alicui ut servo, quando eum cui dominatur ad propriam utilitatem sui, scilicet dominantis, refert. Et quia unicuique est appetibile proprium bonum, et per consequens contristabile est unicuique quod illud bonum quod deberet esse suum, cedat alteri tantum; ideo tale dominium non potest esse sine poena subiectorum. Propter quod, in statu innocentiae non fuisset tale dominium hominis ad hominem.

Ia q. 96 a. 4 ad arg. There is a predisposition in man toward slavery. This is the result not only of the Fall, but also of the natural convenience, the pragmatic benefits to the master from this institution. It is sometimes so entrenched that the removal of it can cause more harm than the tolerance of it. Analogously, it is sometimes better to live, at least for a time, with a tumor, if to remove it would result in certain death. Thus, slavery is something that, though not in accord with nature, is frequently found among human societies. This is because something can be said to be natural in two ways, actively, because nature requires it, and passively, because nature does not appear to forbid the contrary.

You speak of something being according to natural right in two ways. The first is because nature is set that way; thus the command that no harm should be done another. The second is because nature does not bid the contrary; thus we might say that it is of the natural law for man to be naked, for nature does not give him clothes; these he has to make by art. In this way common ownership and universal liberty are said to be of natural law, because private property and slavery existence by human contrivance for the convenience of social life, and not by natural law. . . .

[Q]uod aliquid dicitur esse de iure naturali dupliciter. Uno modo, quia ad hoc natura inclinat, sicut non esse iniuriam alteri faciendam. Alio modo, quia natura non induxit contrarium, sicut possemus dicere quod hominem esse nudum est de iure naturali, quia natura non dedit ei vestitum, sed ars adinvenit. Et hoc modo communis omnium possessio, et omnium una libertas, dicitur esse de iure naturali, quia scilicet distinctio possessionum et servitus non sunt inductae a natura, sed per hominum rationem, ad utilitatem humanae vitae.

IaIIae q. 94 a. 5 ad 3. Thus, slavery was not a natural institution, but one of human origin. It has no divine or natural pedigree. It is one imposed by positive law, by custom, and has entered the world as a result of sin. Though men are, by accidents of birth, culture, education, inheritance unequal, all men are by nature equal, omnes homines natura sunt pares. S.T., IIaIIae q. 104 a. 5 co.

And so it is that this chapter turns to a close:

The philosophical debate concerning the nature of the native peoples of the New World was an important component in the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of the wars of conquest. The legal theory that grew out of this controversy would have a long history. The juridical treatises produced by the members of the School of Salamanca were primary sources for Hugo Grotius and, as such, had a major impact on the development of modern international law. More importantly, the participants in the debate reveal two distinctly different views concerning the dignity of the human person. One one hand, the [strict] Aristotelians (lead by Sepúlveda) defended a hierarchical notion of human worth . . . On the other hand, the strict Thomists defended the idea that no one is a natural slave; all people are children of God and thus, foreign peoples, even if they believe in different gods, are human beings created by God who live in legitimate societies.

Cortest, 47.

From here, Cortest turns to the philosophy of natural right. Specifically, Cortest traces its origin to the 16th century, and, after exploring the origin of modern human rights, will compare it to the classic, specifically Thomist, theory of natural law.

The Disfigured Face: The War of the Philosophers: Sepúlveda v. Las Casas

IN A FAIR FIGHT, JUDGED BY MEN OF GOOD WILL, the natural law will win over error. So it would appear is the verdict of history of the famous "Juntas de Valladolid," the debate between fellow Dominicans Fray Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (1489–1573) and Fray Bartolomé de las Casas (1484-1566). Were the Amerindians, as a result of their lack of Christian faith, capable of self-government, self-determination? What right, if any, did the Spanish kings have to conquer the Amerindians for violations of the natural law, such as their human sacrifices or their pagan customs? Were the Amerindians "natural slaves" referred to by Aristotle, or were they human beings of equal dignity with their Spanish masters? These were the sorts of matters that were debated between these two redoubtable opponents.


Sepúlveda was a formidable adversary. Born in the town of Pozoblanco, near the city of Córdoba, Sepúlveda received his education at the University of Alcalá, and then later in Bologna, Italy. He was a famous commentator and translator of Aristotle, and a correspondent with the famous Erasmus of Rotterdam. At the age of forty-five, he became chaplain and chronicler to the emperor Charles V (as a result writing a thirty volume work on the emperor's doings, the de rebus gestis Caroli Quinti). Sepúlveda fashioned distinct ideas regarding the Amerindians and the Spanish right of conquest under the doctrine of just war. These arguments were gathered into a volume entitled Democrates, secundus sive de justus belli causis, and a subsequent revision, entitled Democrates alter de justis belli causis apud Indios.

From a scholarly perspective, Las Casas may not have had the laurels of Sepúlveda. But what he lacked in intellect, he made up for in heart and in zeal. Born in Seville, Las Casas's life straddled the discovery of the New World. He witnessed Christopher Columbus's return to Seville after the latter's first voyage. Las Casas's father, Pedro, accompanied Columbus on his second voyage, bringing his son a native Taíno native boy named Juanico. Las Casas spent much of his life in the New World and witnessed the brutal treatment of the native American population. All his life, it seems, he was the advocate of the native Americans against the Spanish colonists. He was the first resident bishop of Chiapas, Mexico. Witnessing first-hand the abuse of the natives by the Spanish colonists, he took it upon himself to intercede on their behalf to Charles V. At first, he sought to ameliorate the plight of the Indians by importation of black slaves from Africa; but he soon recanted this position, and became an advocate for the Africans as well. His natural solicitude for the plight of the Indians reached a climax and resolution after he heard the preaching of Fray Antonio de Montesinos. He resolved to divest himself of any holdings that relied on slave labor and gave up his own slaves. Convinced that the Spaniards had committed an act of great injustice against the native people of the Americas, he pushed for, and obtained in limited fashion, laws and institutional reforms. Since these views were not popular, particular with the rich and influential colonists, Las Casas required tremendous courage and persistence.

The debate at Valladolid was inconclusive at the time, but the passage of time has allowed the conventions of the time to change, and from our vantage point and the vantage point of history, it is now plain that Las Casas was the white knight, Sepúlveda the advocatus diaboli.

Neither man was ever proclaimed the winner at Valladolid, but if history is any indication fo the outcome, Las Casas was the clear winner and Sepúlveda a miserable failure.

Cortest, 36.

Las Casas's views were deeply influenced by his personal experience, his missionary spirit, and the preaching of Montesinos. Yet the Thomistic doctrines of the School of Salamanca were also deep influences on him. Cortest, 36. In his work advancing his views, the Democrates alter, Sepúlveda writes in the form a dialogue between Leopoldo (the interrogator) and Democrates (who advances Sepúlveda's position). Leopold asks Democrates:

Leopoldo: Do you realldy believe that anyone could be condemned by nature to live in slavery? . . . Do you think that the jurists, who (so many times) follow the rule of reason, are speaking in jest when they proclaim that all men are born free and that slavery was introduced afterwards by law?

Democrates: On the contrary, I believe that the jurists speak and act seriously and state their teachings with great prudence . . .

(quoted in Cortest, 33). The jurists and canonists referred to by Sepúlveda are those of the School of Salamanca, among them Francisco Vitoria, Domingo de Soto, and Las Casas.

One may here turn Domingo de Soto's De iustitia et iure, specifically book 4, question 2, article 2:

No law can repeal the law of nature: by natural law all men are born free . . . .slavery is that by which someone is subjected to the rule of another against nature . . . . Slavery is contrary to nature, that is to say, contrary to the firt intention of nature, which would desire that all men live zealously in accord with reason. But when this first intention is lost, punishment follows, in accord with corrupted nature. And one form of punishment is legal slavery.

Nullum ius potest naturalis derogare: naturali autem omnes homines nascuntur liberi . . . servitus sit qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam subiicitur . . . . Servitutem esse contra naturam: nempe contra primam naturae intentionem, qua cupit omnes homines secundum rationem studiosos esse. At tamen ailla deficiente intentione, ex culpa subsequuta est poena, quae est conformis naturae corruptae. Atque inter poenarum genera unum est legalis servitus.

Cortest, 35. The prevalence of slavery and its seeming naturalness, then, was a result of the Fall and the result of personal and communal sin. Under the natural law, under the law of reason, it cannot be justified. It is only blindness that makes us adopt it. It is indeed a form of punishment. If Plato is to be followed (Gorgias, 469b), since slavery involves such injustice, at least in the moral dimension, it is a worse punishment for the slave owner than the slave, who suffers physical evil but is innocent of the moral evil. (One would think, by a sort of analogy, that the prevalence of contraception, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage [serial polygamy], and abortion in our country might likewise be forms of punishment for our personal and social sins. Certainly, none of these are signs of authentic human flourishing.)