Shaykh ‘Abd al-Djalil was a powerful chieftain who dominated the Fezzan from Murzuk during the nineteenth-century struggle over the trans-Saharan slave trade. In 1842 he agreed to abolish the trade in the territory under his influence, but was murdered soon afterward, leaving the durability of the agreement uncertain.
Continue exploring
The Story
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Djalil controlled the Fezzan from his stronghold at Murzuk, a position that gave him influence over an important hinterland connected to the trans-Saharan slave trade. The excerpt presents him as one of the local authorities whose consent was necessary before abolition could become effective in Tripoli’s hinterland.
In 1842, he agreed to abolish the trade. The decision occurred amid pressure on the neighbouring regencies and within a political environment in which local chieftains could obstruct or enable wider Ottoman and European policies. His agreement therefore represented a significant but vulnerable local commitment.
The arrangement did not endure as a stable political settlement. Shaykh ‘Abd al-Djalil was murdered, and the passage uses his fate to illustrate the obstacles confronting abolition in regions where control over trade routes and middlemen remained tied to local power.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Djalil was a powerful chieftain who dominated the Fezzan from Murzuk during the nineteenth-century struggle over the trans-Saharan slave trade. In 1842 he agreed to abolish the trade in the territory under his influence, but was murdered soon afterward, leaving the durability of the agreement uncertain.
Continue exploring
The Story
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Djalil controlled the Fezzan from his stronghold at Murzuk, a position that gave him influence over an important hinterland connected to the trans-Saharan slave trade. The excerpt presents him as one of the local authorities whose consent was necessary before abolition could become effective in Tripoli’s hinterland.
In 1842, he agreed to abolish the trade. The decision occurred amid pressure on the neighbouring regencies and within a political environment in which local chieftains could obstruct or enable wider Ottoman and European policies. His agreement therefore represented a significant but vulnerable local commitment.
The arrangement did not endure as a stable political settlement. Shaykh ‘Abd al-Djalil was murdered, and the passage uses his fate to illustrate the obstacles confronting abolition in regions where control over trade routes and middlemen remained tied to local power.
Continue the journey
Other paths related to this story.