I presume that Meccan authorities don't recognize a slave owner's "property rights" in a slave.

[Boojatta]

In other words, I presume that, today, if a slave owner were so careless as to travel to Mecca with the slave, then:

1. the slave could seek and obtain sanctuary
2. if the owner tried to enforce his or her "property rights" in the slave, then the owner would face a real risk of prosecution for some crime or crimes recognized under the Meccan legal jurisdiction, depending on how much evidence the authorities can gather. For example, the crimes might be called "assault and battery", "uttering threats", or "conspiracy to kidnap", or other names but similar concepts.

Now, my questions are:

First, ignoring historical records and opinions about the past, is it reasonable to postulate a possible connection between what I will call "the unknown truth about the past" and the religion associated with Mecca? If at all times from 1700 to 2008 a presumption as described above was correct, then Mecca compared favorably not only with America, but also with Canada. Unless I'm mistaken, legislation abolishing slavery in Canada didn't come into force until August 1st, 1834 (Technical historical note: what is today called "Canada" was probably called something else in 1834, such as "British North America.")

Second, am I right in making the presumption stated at the beginning of this message?