It takes a nation to protect the nation
As I suspected (see bold text below), despite the higher number of black Africans taken slaves, there is virtually no trace of their offspring in the muslim states because they were castrated. In the US, the descendants of slaves are 12% of the population.
The fastest-growing sector of Muslims in the United States is among African-Americans. African-Americans have been receptive to Islam, which they see as an anti-White and anti-Christian religion. The Nation of Islam was founded in the 1930’s by a white silk merchant Wallace Fard, who urged African-Americans to dress like Arab Muslims and buy his robes and apparel. Islam became the “lost-found nation of Islam in the wilderness of North America.” Today, many African-Americans are lured into Islam while in prison after learning that Allah’s laws reject those “man-made” laws that got them into prison in the first place. There is no clearer and sadder case in history of the exploitation of a group of uninformed people in the name of Islam than the Black Muslim movement in America.
Islam and Slavery
While slavery was common throughout the world until the 19th Century, but the legacy of Black slavery is much older and persist in Islamic countries to this day. Islam’s imprint on Black slavery is extremely deep and indelible. Two comprehensive books on this subject are “The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa” by Professor John Alembillah Azumah and “Slavery, Terrorism and Islam” by Dr. Peter Hammond. This YouTube video gives a glimpse of Dr. Azumah’s findings on Islamic slavery of Black Africans:
Here are the principal “talking points” about Islam’s ties with slavery, which should be particularly repulsive to African-Americans:
More Reasons Why Islam Should Be Repulsive to African-Americans
Islam is not a Black African Religion: Islam is often promoted to African-Americans as a Black, African religion. It is neither. Islam originated in Saudi Arabia, which is part of the Middle East, not Africa. Arabs are of the Semitic race, distinct from Black Africans.
There are no Civil Rights in Sharia Law: African-Americans value the civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and the several Amendments ensuring the right to vote. Sharia Law preserves no rights for individuals, but rather obligates individuals to actions and abstentions mandated by Allah in the Quran and by Muhammad in the hadith. The Quran is quite clear about this: “Therefore give judgment among men according to Allah’s revelations and do not yield to their fancies or swerve from the truth made known to you… Is it pagan laws that they wish to be judged by? Who is a better judge than Allah for men whose faith is firm?” (Surah 5:48-50)
Parental Responsibility is Diminished in Islam: One of the issues African-Americans struggle with today isparental responsibility. Seventy-two percent of African-American children grow up in single parent homes. Parental responsibility in Islam is one of the lowest of any culture, which, sadly, may make it attractive to some African-American men. A husband may have up to four wives and an unlimited number of temporary wives or concubines. A husband (but not a wife) can divorce his spouse just by saying, even texting, “I divorce you” three times. There are no joint property rights in Sharia Law, and parental custody and child support laws are non-existent. If a Muslim wife disputes a requirement of Sharia Law, she would be committing an act of apostasy, punishable by death. (See Reliance of the Traveler, Section f1.3, and Section n.)
Islam is a Racist Ideology: Sharia Law says Black Muslims (as well other races) are unsuitable mates for Arab women, because “Allah has chosen the Arabs above others. [Reliance of the Traveler, Section m4.2(1).]
Note: The principal source document for Sharia Law in the United States is The Reliance of the Traveller(‘Umdat al-Salik) written by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368). This volume, translated into English by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, is called the Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, and it was approved by Al-Azhar University in Cairo in 1991 and the U.S. International Institute of Islamic Thought in 1990 to provide “a sound understanding of Sacred Law.” While this volume represents Shafi’i school of Islamic law, it is identical with 75 percent of the provisions of the other three Sunni schools of Islamic law. The references above are to the provisions of this document. The manual can be read on-line.
slavery was abolished in the United States in 1963 primarily due to the recognition that all people are equal
That must have been put there to test the readers :-) Slavery was ended by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation after winning the Civil War, in 1863, then formally abolished by the 13th Amendment in 1865.
I think "1963" is a typo of "1863".
Yes, but I'm surprised its managed to stay there on islam-watch.org :-)
On the other hand, any Ideology, or Culture, or Group, or Religion, or Policy, which is based on ethnic or racial Issues, is racist.
Therefore, not only Arabo islamicity is racist, but several other ethnic Ideologies/Religions/Policies, are [racist].
And soon or later, the Fruits of Racism get collected by Humanity [as a whole - even modern Phisics admits that, in the end, we are all connected].
We, in case of wiling to be fair, honest and just [equanimous], should denounce any Instance of Racism, or Ethnicism [they are often tied to an Ideology, be it religious or political, and often tied to a Book, be it considered holy/revealed or philosophically/economically inspired].
Moreover, Racism/Ethnicism turns eventually into Classism [where usually a, so considered, elected Group keeps a number of Priviledges for itself, leaving others in Indigence or more Indigence].
I don't know, whether Ideologies were born on Ethnicism [and later, Classism], or wheter the latters were born on the formers.
Though, let's have a look to the History of Slavery [which is not a matter of the Past - it is still practiced, and the Victims are weaker and indigent People from all over the World <-- were maybe interesting to know who are the so called Landlords]:
What is modern slavery?
Millions of men, women and children around the world are forced to lead lives as slaves. Although this exploitation is often not called slavery, the conditions are the same. People are sold like objects, forced to work for little or no pay and are at the mercy of their 'employers'.
Slavery exists today despite the fact that it is banned in most of the countries where it is practised. It is also prohibited by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1956 UN Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. Women from eastern Europe are bonded into prostitution, children are trafficked between West African countries and men are forced to work as slaves on Brazilian agricultural estates. Contemporary slavery takes various forms and affects people of all ages, sex and race.
Common characteristics distinguish slavery from other human rights violations. A slave is:
- forced to work -- through mental or physical threat;
- owned or controlled by an 'employer', usually through mental or physical abuse or threatened abuse;
- dehumanised, treated as a commodity or bought and sold as 'property';
- physically constrained or has restrictions placed on his/her freedom of movement.
What types of slavery exist today?
Bonded labour affects millions of people around the world. People become bonded labourers by taking or being tricked into taking a loan for as little as the cost of medicine for a sick child. To repay the debt, many are forced to work long hours, seven days a week, up to 365 days a year. They receive basic food and shelter as 'payment' for their work, but may never pay off the loan, which can be passed down for generations.
Early and forced marriage affects women and girls who are married without choice and are forced into lives of servitude often accompanied by physical violence.
Forced labour affects people who are illegally recruited by individuals, governments or political parties and forced to work -- usually under threat of violence or other penalties.
Slavery by descent is where people are either born into a slave class or are from a 'group' that society views as suited to being used as slave labour.
Trafficking involves the transport and/or trade of people -- women, children and men -- from one area to another for the purpose of forcing them into slavery conditions.
Worst forms of child labour affects an estimated 126 million** children around the world in work that is harmful to their health and welfare.
In antiquity, Jewish society allowed slavery. Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Jewish household. It is impossible for scholars to quantify the number of slaves that were owned by Jews in ancient Jewish society, or what percentage of households owned slaves, but it is possible to analyze social, legal, and economic impacts of slavery.
The Jewish Bible contains two sets of rules governing slaves: one set for Jewish slaves (Lev 25:39-43) and a second set for Canaanite slaves (Lev 25:45-46). The main source of non-Jewish slaves were prisoners of war. Jewish slaves, in contrast to non-Jewish slaves, became slaves either because of extreme poverty (in which case they could sell themselves to a Jewish owner) or because of inability to pay a debt.
In biblical times, non-Jewish slaves were drawn primarily from the neighboring Canaanite nations, and the Jewish Bible provided religious justification for the enslavement of these neighbors: the rules governing Canaanites was based on a curse aimed at Canaan, a son of Ham, but in later eras the Canaanite slavery laws were stretched to apply to all non-Jewish slaves.
The laws governing non-Jewish slaves were more harsh than those governing Jewish slaves: non-Jewish slaves could be owned permanently, and bequeathed to the owner's children, whereas Jewish slaves were treated as servants, and were released after 7 years of service. One scholar suggests that the distinction was due to the fact that non-Jewish slaves were subject to the curse of Canaan, whereas God did not want Jews to be slaves because he freed them from Egyptian enslavement.
The laws governing Jewish slaves were more lenient than laws governing non-Jewish slaves, but a single Hebrew word, ebed (meaning slave or servant) is used for both situations. In English translations of the Bible, the distinction is sometimes emphasized by translating the word as "slave" in the context of non-Jewish slaves, and "servant" or "bondman" for Jewish slaves.
Most slaves owned by Jews were non-Jewish, and scholars are not certain what percentage of slaves were Jewish: one scholar says that Jews rarely owned Jewish slaves after the Maccabean era, although it is certain that Jews owned Jewish slaves during the time of the Babylonian exile. Another scholar suggests that Jews continued to own Jewish slaves through the Middle Ages, but that the Biblical rules were ignored, and Jewish slaves were treated the same as non-Jews.
Scholars are not certain how faithfully Jews obeyed the slavery laws. Jeremiah 34:8-22 describes, in very forceful terms, how God punished the Israelites for not properly following the laws on slavery, and that suggests that the laws were not followed very strictly.
[WikiPedia and Documents in other Languages - not English, will tell more about the Problem, which has been and still be a Problem].
Good and beautiful, enlightened and lightful, Day [and Life] to every Mother, [Son/Daughters and Father] belonging to everz Race, and adhering to every Religion/Policy.
The jewish Bible is a series of documents concerning the lives of people who lived 3500 years ago.
Slavery may well have died out in the west over 1,000 years ago, if islam had not been invented as a counter-reformation against judaism and christianity (both of which were reformations of judaism occurring over 2000 years ago).
I am fairly confident in asserting that european civilisation was toxically corroded by the invention/subjugation to islam. It may well be that in those parts of asia that were corrupted by the influence of islam, that slavery there would have died out earlier than it did (I know in Thailand slavery was not made illegal until the end of the 19th century).
In the islamic world there was never an internal critique that sought to end slavery. It only ended through violence/persuasion from the christian west. In the christian west there were moves to end slavery before islam even began. There were 4 church councils that progressively tried to restrict slavery as it applied to christians between 441AD and 633AD. http://4freedoms.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:117138
Probably most of later christian involvement in the slave trade came about as a result of a) the demand for slaves by muslims (even Viking raids on northern europe appear to have been performed to feed into the demand for slaves by muslims), b) moral contamination from proximity/domination by islam. For example, if we want to condemn those christians and jews in Andalusia who prepared slaves for muslims by castrating the slaves, we should be equally prepared to condemn those jews who were Kapos in the Nazis concentration camps (in both cases, the perpetrators were subjugated peoples working for others whose immorality corrupted their own morals). Certainly I know a minority of jews who have contempt for the Kapos, but most insist that the Kapos should receive no criticism or blame.
Considering the imprint that islam had on countries as wide afar as Ireland and Nigeria, and Hungary and Afghanistan and Indonesia, over a period of 1300 years, I think we do history a disservice if we do not consider what would have happened if islam had never existed.
The article is an excellent summary. I have taken several uni courses (years ago!) on slavery and not once was the slave trade and slavery institutions or theological underpinnings of slavery from the Arab/Muslim world mentioned. Not once. I was robbed!
Ibn Warraq speaks of this issue and says in the West we are self critical in a way that Islam is not; and also that we must recognise that Christianity played a part in turning the tide against slavery in the West.
re 1963 that was the year that the United Arab Emirates abolished slavery.
Thanks for the info, Indo. I agree that slavery is widespread and in many forms, especially with the modern upsurge in trafficking. But lets make sure we don't let Muslims do their standard trick (like with the Crusades) where they try make us focus on our smaller and accidental infractions, so that our guilt (which they never feel) stops us pressing them on their major and ideologically mandated attrocities.
I think we also have to be careful not to dilute the vocabulary (you didn't do this, but I'm just tossing in an extra point generally). One could argue that women working for a pittance in Chinese factories are under a form of slavery, which would be slavery co-erced by economic forces. But if we let the word be used for that, then we aren't really doing justice to the Christians in Sudan who are physically taken even now, chained, forced to sleep with the animals and never paid and barely fed - that is what I feel we should reserve the word slavery for, just to keep things clear for everyone.
At the end of the day, Muslims trafficked more slaves than the Christian countries, but you never hear a word of blame affixed to them. Their slaves have mostly gone because they castrated them all, but you never hear a word about that, for fear of offending them. They were the last to get rid of slavery, and that only as a result of pressure from the West. And, we are missing a book here, but I feel that many of the darker sides of Western culture, like the Sicilian mafia, the messed up Bulgaria, and slavery itself, were the result of contamination by contact with Islam.
I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It is the most important book on islam I've ever read (in fact, I think it is probably the most important book that anyone in the west could read right now).
The Epilogue is where Emmet Scott spells out the historical and civilisational significance for a true understanding of what he has argued in the rest of the book.
I really think we should all buy a copy of it (and buy it from the New English Review, as they went to the trouble of publishing it).