I don't dispute that there are economic reasons behind it. I'm not saying that enslaving people is done without reason in islamic countries.
The problem is those same economic reasons exist in the west. Yet slavery is not practised here. Why not ? Simple : the population would never allow it (not even in dictatorships). Yet the population in the middle east does allow it (or at least, they won't fight to abolish it). What is the difference ?
Note that the origin of difference goes back all the way to the later days of the Roman Empire. What changed was not that the middle east started to accept slavery as normal, what changed was that the west stopped accepting it. Why ? Well, simple : because of the rise of Christianity. Once slavery was gone, it re-appeared in the west twice (not counting slavery in, for example, Al-Andalus). Both times it was eradicated from within, and outlawed (after a while). Both times slavery reappeared because of trade contacts with muslim countries. In the middle east/asia/africa the reverse happened. Slavery was normal, the vast majority of the time, but every 300 years or so the slaves would successfully revolt, which generally lead to a decade-long abolishment of slavery (sometimes a once-off freeing of every slaves, sometimes 50 years of no slaves), but it would always return.
What is the difference ? I'm not claiming islam changes populations to accept slavery. Rather, I'm claiming Christianity changes populations to stop accepting slavery. And of course, I'm claiming that were Christianity/"post"-christian values lose sway, for example to islam, slavery returns.
This does not just apply to slavery, but equality in general as well.
The problem is those same economic reasons exist in the west. Yet slavery is not practised here. Why not ? Simple : the population would never allow it (not even in dictatorships). Yet the population in the middle east does allow it (or at least, they won't fight to abolish it). What is the difference ?
Note that the origin of difference goes back all the way to the later days of the Roman Empire. What changed was not that the middle east started to accept slavery as normal, what changed was that the west stopped accepting it. Why ? Well, simple : because of the rise of Christianity. Once slavery was gone, it re-appeared in the west twice (not counting slavery in, for example, Al-Andalus). Both times it was eradicated from within, and outlawed (after a while). Both times slavery reappeared because of trade contacts with muslim countries. In the middle east/asia/africa the reverse happened. Slavery was normal, the vast majority of the time, but every 300 years or so the slaves would successfully revolt, which generally lead to a decade-long abolishment of slavery (sometimes a once-off freeing of every slaves, sometimes 50 years of no slaves), but it would always return.
What is the difference ? I'm not claiming islam changes populations to accept slavery. Rather, I'm claiming Christianity changes populations to stop accepting slavery. And of course, I'm claiming that were Christianity/"post"-christian values lose sway, for example to islam, slavery returns.
This does not just apply to slavery, but equality in general as well.