I suppose that most people are unable to wade into distinct contrasts between traditions (moral or textual) that animate various religious traditions. I say ‘religious’ for a distinct reason: revelation reveals ‘man’ to ‘himself’.
In other words, the concept of ‘revelation’ is a ‘revealing’ of something that was previously unknown or unknowable. In the ancient world, that ‘something’ was the human person. No one really knew what it meant to be human! There was no anthropology. Absolutely no one really understood ‘human identity’ as distinct from other creatures. Just look at the pantheon of gods that ruled the Egyptians (I point to these only from there ubiquity) or other pagan cultures, most display an odd blend of human and animal like hybrids.
Other cultures like Carthage (cousins of the Phoenicians) and Canaanites had public display of beastiality festivals summoning the apex of the creative order. Only with Christian revelation (because of political and theological reflections on the consequences of the Incarnation, where cosmos and ethos are united, for in the ancient world everything was a pastiche) is human identity as a singular unrepeatable distinct reality given! The study of this reality is called ‘the specificity of christian ethics’ in case your interested in further study, I have one such elaborate essay on this blog.
Nevertheless, Christianity reveals the content of what it means to be human. Which begs the political and cultural question regarding the moral, legal and political status of slavery over the long arch that was a Christian millennia!
One could always begin reading very early modern writers who reflected on this question: Dominican Friars (Barlotome de la Casas is one such fellow, but there are so many more throughout the Brazilian Basin and Peru, just search early Jesuit Universities throughout the region that challenged Spanish Absolutism on the status of slavery).
Nevertheless, Spanish and Portuguese Jesuit and Dominican Friar living in Hispaniola (Dominican Republic) are credited with defending the ‘imago dei’ doctrine that is the basis of human rights today. Imago dei doctrine (man is made in the image of God) is a political reflection on Genesis. I am always amazed at political science professors who begin late modern documentation of human rights from Eleanor Roosevelt’s success at the opening of the U.N. in San Francisco. Although this is correct, it ignores the long historical reality of Papal Teaching Orders throughout the new world that challenged the political and economic order that was Spain and Portugal!
If the human person is made in the likeness and image of God, then there are distinct political consequences when any human person is subject to the erosion of liberty!
The twin discoveries of consciousness and liberty were the two huge discoveries of the early modern period! It was because of these discoveries that western Europe had an Enlightenment!
All this begs the question of the status of the human person in Islam!
The answer is frightening. Islam does not acknowledge the sanctity of conscience. Nor does it acknowledge the ‘imago dei’ doctrine of Genesis.
Islam has never had a Reformation, so the content of its political arch is to remain close to its Scripture. The early Medieval period in Islam was its greatest accomplishment. Just witness the architecture throughout Costa del Sol in Spain!
Sadly, when it came to philosophical challenge to surmount the Christian infidel’s translations of Greek texts, (the very texts that were discovered and translated by Islamic scholars since they conquered North Africa) Islam sided with its religious authorities that ignored the contribution of reason (philosophy). Since 1300 A.D. Islam has suffered the ‘closing of the Islamic mind’. It no longer refers to the Ulama (educated class).
Because Islam pursues lines of thought that are purely extrinsic (similar to western positivism) it simply cannot acknowledge the intellectual patrimony of the west’s line of informed consent regarding egalitarianism. Ironically, Islam has a putative relation with egalitarian principles, for it never acknowledges the political or cultural impact that individual conscience has on the creation of civil society.
Because of the above historical outlay, Islam’s pursuit of extrinsic/juridical categories in acknowledging human person-hood provides Islam with a dangerously efficient means to legalize ‘sex-slavery’.
The west’s own philosophical and moral incoherence in pursuing legal and moral principles outside of natural law is disabling to the west as it encounters Islam, for Bernard Lewis’ ‘Clash of Civilization’ is imminent and requires the consistency that was Medieval natural law. How else could the Friars of Oxford and Cambridge unite with Paris and Bologna in their intellectual sparring with the Ulama’s of Spain and Baghdad? Just how is the West to manage its conflict with Islam when the west itself has adopted thinking primarily informed from the confusion of a flaccid pluralism?
The House of Saud, not to mention Pakistan has been pursuing the politics of radical Islam regarding the status of women as chattel slavery! This will continue unabated and unchallenged from the West.
Throughout the Near East women are viewed as ‘ghanima’ or spoil. This is a juridical term applied to property acquired by force from non-Muslims. Should we ignore that Sharia permits the sexual enslavement of infidel women? This has already dominated the political and social life of ensconced women throughout Paris and London.
Throughout Egypt and Pakistan, Christian girls are constantly being abducted and sold as sex slaves. The Philippines and Gulf States already have formal Islamic institutions that provide such ‘ghanima’. The reports throughout Pakistan are around 700 girls a year are abducted.
And why is the rule of law so inefficient? Because of the Islamic doctrine of ‘wala wa bara’, which commands Muslims to always be loyal to fellow Muslims against non-Muslims.
You don’t have to take my word for it, try the Middle East Forum and the writings of Raymond Ibrahim. He’s been documenting this for decades.
Or “Sex Slave Jihad” by Donna M. Hughes.