Do the children of slaves become slaves?

What is the status of children fathered by the slave owner?

Are slaves allowed to have sex with or marry each other?

If Muslim men are allowed to rape their slaves, why isn't slavery 'bred out' of the society?

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 8:42am:

Do the children of slaves become slaves?

Not necessearily. Islam encourages the freeing of slaves. If the father is a freeman, the children automatically become free.


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 8:42am:

What is the status of children fathered by the slave owner?

They are like other children. They inherit from their father. The concubine who bears a son automatically becomes a free woman when her master dies.


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 8:42am:

Are slaves allowed to have sex with or marry each other?

One of the duties of the slave owner is to arrange marriage of his slaves. This is a human right, and even slaves need to marry.


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 8:42am:

If Muslim men are allowed to rape their slaves, why isn't slavery 'bred out' of the society?

Can you demonstrate exactly where in the Quran it says Muslims are allowed to rape slaves?

Or are you lying again?

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.100:

Quote:

One of the duties of the slave owner is to arrange marriage of his slaves. This is a human right, and even slaves need to marry.

What are the guidelines for this?

If a married couple are enslaved, do they remain married? What if one of them is enslaved?

In other cases, is it typical to marry a non-Muslim female slave to a Muslim man?

If marriage is a human right, is choosing for yourself who to marry also a right? Isn't it a bit of an oxymoron to talk about the human rights of slaves?


Quote:

Can you demonstrate exactly where in the Quran it says Muslims are allowed to rape slaves?

I am going by the fact that there is no punishment for this - something neither you nor Abu disagree with. You can find the passage in the Koran that is relevant. Obviously I am not going to find it for you.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 8:42am:

Do the children of slaves become slaves? What is the status of children fathered by the slave owner? Are slaves allowed to have sex with or marry each other? If Muslim men are allowed to rape their slaves, why isn't slavery 'bred out' of the society?

I dont get why you are so wrapped up over this when out society keeps about 1000000000x more slaves than they ever could or would.

I think I already had this discussion with you yesterday and today in the other thread. I would be happy to continue it there, rather than repeating it from the beginning here. I am interested to hear your thoughts on the difference between hard choices and no choices.

Or you can start a new thread somewhere suitable if you'd prefer.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

I think I already had this discussion with you yesterday and today in the other thread..

Because it exposes your illogical fixation on Islam and slavery?

How is opposing the legalisation of slavery 'illogical'? Doesn't the fact I know so little about it imply I am not fixated?

What are the guidelines for arranging marriages for your slaves?

If a married couple are enslaved, do they remain married? What if one of them is enslaved?

In other cases, is it typical to marry a non-Muslim female slave to a Muslim man?

If marriage is a human right, is choosing for yourself who to marry also a right? Isn't it a bit of an oxymoron to talk about the human rights of slaves?

Would it be fair to say that in practice, Islam 'discourages' slavery more by breeding it out than by freeing slaves in the nominal sense?


Quote:

The concubine who bears a son automatically becomes a free woman when her master dies.

What if she only bears him a few daughters? What if she is sold to someone else first?


Quote:

This is a human right, and even slaves need to marry.

Does Islam have any other human rights, besides having your owner organise someone for you to have sex with?

Can you explain how the concept of a right to marry works in a country where men can have up to four wives? Does this imply the sharing of wives through divorce, widowing etc?


Quote:

They are like other children. They inherit from their father.

Does this mean you were lying when you said that people can only become slaves in Islam by waging war against Muslims?

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 6:08pm:

How is opposing the legalisation of slavery 'illogical'? Doesn't the fact I know so little about it imply I am not fixated?

Cut the crap fd, you've been harping on about this since 2008.

Exhibit A: Freediver making this same thread 4 years ago


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 6:08pm:

Isn't it a bit of an oxymoron to talk about the human rights of slaves?

Is it an oxymoron to talk about human rights of life prisoners in Western gaols?

Slavery is still alive in Mauritania and that  country has Islam as its official religion.

Nice article it even mentions sex with slaves.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/world/mauritania.slaverys.last.stronghold

Abu is it true that Dhimmis risk death or slavery if they violate any of the rules intended to force them into a life of humiliation?

Can children be born into slavery?

Why does another thread from four years ago where you also could not bring yourself to answer questions imply some kind of fixation? It seems I know little more than I knew then because I gave up trying to get a straight answer.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 6:57pm:

Abu is it true that Dhimmis risk death or slavery if they violate any of the rules intended to force them into a life of humiliation?

Can you show me an evidence for it? Our religion is based on evidences, not on conjectures.


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 6:57pm:

Can children be born into slavery?

No.


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 6:57pm:

Why does another thread from four years ago where you also could not bring yourself to answer questions imply some kind of fixation? It seems I know little more than I knew then because I gave up trying to get a straight answer.

The questions were answered, but that did not halt the conjecture and insinuations and outright fabrications, and so I chose to leave you to fixate on your delusions, as I'll no doubt be doing here again soon.

Quote:

Can you show me an evidence for it? Our religion is based on evidences, not on conjectures.

Sure. It is linked to in the first post in that thread you just linked to. I asked the same question back then and surprise surprise, got no answer.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/2#2

The transgression by the dhimmis of some of these obligations, abolished their protection, and threaten them with death or slavery. Dhimmis suffered many legal disabilities intended to reduce them to a condition of humiliation, segregation and discrimination.

Also, in that same thread (and many others including the 'misconceptions' thread), you claim that women no longer go onto the battlefield. Are you planning on correcting this? Or would that bring to an end your entire facade of Islam magically bringing about an end to slavery, despite legalising it?

You also claimed that only women are enslaved. Is it true that there are no male slaves in Islam? Does this pretty much guarantee that slavery should be eradicated in Islam in one generation because the slave owners would only arrange a marriage of their slaves to Muslim men?

Can you explain the apparent contradiction between only enslaving women, the historical context of these women being 'brought' to the battlefield along with wealth, and the claim that Islam only enslaved people who waged war against Muslims?

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 7:28pm:

The transgression by the dhimmis of some of these obligations, abolished their protection, and threaten them with death or slavery. Dhimmis suffered many legal disabilities intended to reduce them to a condition of humiliation, segregation and discrimination.

Yeh.. actually.. I asked for evidence, not a link to a similar dubious claim you made in another thread.


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 7:28pm:

Also, in that same thread (and many others including the 'misconceptions' thread), you claim that women no longer go onto the battlefield. Are you planning on correcting this?

Women are not brought into the battlefield as prizes, like the Arab pagans and others used to do. That's correct, nothing needs correcting in that. Unless of course you know of a culture still doing this?


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 7:28pm:

You also claimed that only women are enslaved.

I don't recall stating that, do quote me though if you think so.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 9:56pm:

Women are not brought into the battlefield as prizes, like the Arab pagans and others used to do. That's correct, nothing needs correcting in that. Unless of course you know of a culture still doing this? .

Women are treated with disgrace by Islamic culture.

2. class citizens, walk behind the husband, not allowed to university, must serve man.

See Islam would never never allow the women to serve in army as we have in my unit. Never is muslim is this allowed.

falah has already shown us the article of a little schoolgirl in the Zionist entity that was spat on by your culture for "dressing like a whore".

Not to mention the little "outhouses" Jewish women must reside in when they are "unclean".

Or the few shekels your Torah advises a rapist to pay to the father of his victim when he marries her. (My guess is you're now going to disavow any adherence to this book whatsoever, even though you've been quoting it left, right and centre as a justification for your presence in Palestine).

So I'd keep my mouth shut if I were you.

Please,, it is not Palestine.. This we have settled long time ago with every nations.

i do not follow total words of Torah and i am not Orthodox Jewish.

You know though my comments for the Islam and treatment of woman is correct,

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 10:50pm:

Please,, it is not Palestine.. This we have settled long time ago with every nations.

Yeh, just one people you forgot to ok it with, the people actually living there.


Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 10:50pm:

i do not follow total words of Torah and i am not Orthodox Jewish.

Right... just the ones that establish your ownership over someone elses land?


Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 10:50pm:

You know though my comments for the Islam and treatment of woman is correct,

No, I don't actually.

I am an observant Muslim, and I can't say I've ever treated a woman anything like you describe, nor would I ever want to.

But we both know observant Jews do indeed treat women the way I described, don't we?

It is not Jewish peoples who stone to death 13 year old girl who is raped by group of men.

It is Islamic groups who have this done,

Jewish peoples would never never do this.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 9:56pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 7:28pm: You also claimed that only women are enslaved. I don't recall stating that, do quote me though if you think so.

Here you go Abu, complete with one of your rants about me 'misrepresenting' you:


abu_rashid wrote on Feb 9^th, 2009 at 8:55pm:

I'm sick to death of your rubbish accusations of lying by omission etc. I've told you and others several times, in no uncertain terms, that only women and wealth brought into the battlefield (as was the custom of the pagan arabs) can be enslaved. That's the general rule. As the article in the common misconceptions thread states, since people don't do that anymore, then there's no circumstance in which it would occur.

hey freediver,
can you please link me too that thread we were talking about slavery on.. I cant find it.

Cheers

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332061805/42#42

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2012 at 8:38am:

Here you go Abu, complete with one of your rants about me 'misrepresenting' you: abu_rashid wrote on Feb 9th, 2009 at 8:55pm: I'm sick to death of your rubbish accusations of lying by omission etc. I've told you and others several times, in no uncertain terms, that only women and wealth brought into the battlefield (as was the custom of the pagan arabs) can be enslaved. That's the general rule. As the article in the common misconceptions thread states, since people don't do that anymore, then there's no circumstance in which it would occur.

That was specifically in response to concubines I believe, only women who are brought into the battlefield, ie. not general women. It does not state that males will not be enslaved if captured in war. Generally they would perish in the war one would assume though.

So it is not entirely true that only people who wage war against Muslims get enslaved?

Also, can you explain what this means (again, you posted this in the thread you linked to):


Quote:

Anyway if you read the slavery article in the common misconceptions thread, you'll see that the impending Caliphate would not re-institute slavery anyway, which is what I've tried to tell you all along. Unless of course people starting imitating the pagan Arabs and carrying large amounts of wealth and women into battle, to show off their courage...

I checked the common misconceptions thread and it makes the same absurd claims - that women no longer go onto the battlefield, and by implication that wars only ever take place on an open field away from women and children. It somehow leaps from this to concluding that there is no way a new Caliphate would reintroduce slavery, even though every Caliphate beforehand had legalised slavery, and both you and Falah appear to agree that Slavery is legal in Islam.

Could you perhaps rewrite the common misconceptions about slavery thing in plain English? I am sure that if you actually understood it then it would not be hard to translate.

If men can also be enslaved, how do you deduce that a new Caliphate would not reintroduce slavery? Is it because they would have a 'take no prisoners' approach to war?

Would a female soldier be treated any differently to a female 'civilian' caught during a battle?

What if the battle comes to the women, rather than the women coming to the battle? Wars are often faught in urban areas today. Usually it is because the Muslims are losing and they hide in urban areas to fire rockets etc, but obviously this would not be the case if Muslims were winning. They would not doubt come across lots of situations where they capture men, women and children during the course of a battle.

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2012 at 8:06pm:

even though every Caliphate beforehand had legalised slavery

This is false, and it highlights your distorted view of the situation. No Caliphate ever legalised slavery, since it was never illegal to begin with. Islam came, and put strong restrictions on slavery and thereby reduced it dramatically, that's the story, and one you don't like to tell, hence your narrative where you try to paint it like Islam promoted or increased slavery. You completely ignore the entire historical reality in which the Caliphate existed, as though it just existed in some bubble.

Christianity with all its claims of being benign never did anything of the kind.


freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2012 at 8:06pm:

and both you and Falah appear to agree that Slavery is legal in Islam.

Islam did not forbid it completely, no. It permitted it to persist in certain circumstances, and for specific purposes, which have been discussed.

Could you perhaps rewrite the common misconceptions about slavery thing in plain English?[/quote]

No, it is plain English, you simply don't want to accept it, and therefore want it re-written so it reflects your delusional fantasies.

Would a female soldier be treated any differently to a female 'civilian' caught during a battle?


freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2012 at 8:06pm:

Usually it is because the Muslims are losing and they hide in urban areas to fire rockets etc

Honestly, until you drop this utter nonsense, talking to you is like pouring fresh water into the ocean.

Quote:

This is false, and it highlights your distorted view of the situation. No Caliphate ever legalised slavery, since it was never illegal to begin with.

You seem to be missing the point Abu. Slavery is legal in Islam.


Quote:

Islam came, and put strong restrictions on slavery and thereby reduced it dramatically

So you say, but it never managed to ban it, did it? In fact, Islamic law actually got in the way of banning it.


Quote:

that's the story, and one you don't like to tell, hence your narrative where you try to paint it like Islam promoted or increased slavery

Abu, if this were a mere argument about how you spin history I would not care at all either way. If I cannot get you to be honest about what Islam is, how can I expect anything close to honesty to replace your absurd attempts to reqwrite history?

The reason I care is that some people want to reintroduce this nonsense. Do you understand how your spin is irrelevant in that context?


Quote:

Islam did not forbid it completely, no. It permitted it to persist in certain circumstances, and for specific purposes, which have been discussed.

Over several years I have managed to get as much out of you as I could get out of an honest person in five minutes. It's a bit of a stretch to call that a discussion.


Quote:

No, it is plain English. And your conclusions from it - like women never being on the battlefield are not exactly clarifying it either.

No, it is plain English. And your conclusions from it - like women never being on the battlefield are not exactly clarifying it either.

For example I have read this a couple of times and still have no clue what it is on about.


Quote:

A question may arise concerning the subject of captives, because some fuqaha deduced that the Khaleefah can enslave captives if he so wishes. This ayah was revealed after the Battle of Badr in the second year after Hijrah at the beginning of the war between the Messenger (SAW) and the disbelievers of Quraysh. However, the Messenger (SAW) enslaved in the Battle of Hunayn which came after the Battle of Badr. The Messenger’s (SAW) action is considered legislation as it is also considered an explanation of the verses of Allah. So how could enslaving of captives be prevented by this ayah though the Messenger enslaved after its revelation in Hunayn? The answer is that the action of the Messenger (SAW) and his speech in relation to the Qur’anic ayaat is either detailing of a mujmal (ambivalent), restricting of a mutlaq (absolute) or specifying of an ‘aam (general). The action of the Messenger (SAW) and his speech cannot be an abrogation of the Qur’an. The ayah of captives is neither mujmal such that it needs detailing, nor are its words ‘aam so as to be specified, nor mutlaq so as to be restricted. So if it was proved that the Messenger (SAW) enslaved after its revelation, his action would abrogate it and this is not permitted. In addition, the Messenger’s (SAW) enslaving of captives is individually narrated news (khabr ahad) which contradicts the ayah: “later you can release them by grace or by ransom.” When the khabr ahad contradicts the definite ayaat and ahadith the khabr ahad is rejected by its meaning.

If even you get confused by this rubbish how is anyone else supposed to make sense of it?

Abu, you also keep repeating that Islam only permits slavery in very limited circumstances. So far your only explanation of this has been that it is limited to the pagan arab tradition thing. However this does not explain why legalised slavery persisted in Islam throughout it's entire history (1400 years?), while the pagan arabs were conquered shortly after Mo died.

Can you explain what the circumstances are, or would that open it up to an interpretation that differs from your spin that it could not happen to anyone but the pagan arabs of 1400 years ago?

Was Australia's slavery of Japanese, Germans & Italians justified


Quote:

Wartime internment camps in Australia In the interests of national security the Australian Government interned thousands of men, women and children during World War I and World War II. Most of those interned were classed as 'enemy aliens', that is, nationals of countries at war with Australia. Internees were accommodated in camps around Australia, often in remote locations... ...Included in the numbers of internees accommodated in Australia were enemy aliens, mostly Germans and Japanese, from Britain, Palestine, Iran, the Straits Settlements (now Singapore and Malaysia), the Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia), New Zealand and New Caledonia. Most famous among these groups were the Germans and Italians who arrived on the Dunera from England in 1940. The overseas internees included many women and children... ...Internment camps were administered by the army and run along military lines. During World War I they were often referred to as concentration camps. Camps were established in repurposed institutions such as the old gaols at Berrima and Trial Bay in New South Wales. The largest camp during World War l was at Holsworthy (Liverpool), west of Sydney... ...Many records do not make a clear distinction between civilian internees and military prisoners of war. The terms ‘prisoner' and ‘internee' were often used for both groups. In many cases internees and prisoners of war were accommodated in the same camps... ...prisoners of war could be made to work... http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/snapshots/internment-camps/index.aspx

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2012 at 10:16pm:

Abu, you also keep repeating that Islam only permits slavery in very limited circumstances. So far your only explanation of this has been that it is limited to the pagan arab tradition thing. However this does not explain why legalised slavery persisted in Islam throughout it's entire history (1400 years?), while the pagan arabs were conquered shortly after Mo died.

Nowhere have I stated it was restricted to Pagan Arabs. I said their habit was to bring women and booty into the battlefield as a way of bolstering their determination in combat. That made those women and belongings spoils of war.

The entire Christian world also practised slavery (in a most abhorrent manner I might add), so I don't see how it was restricted only to Pagan Arabs.

Quote:

Nowhere have I stated it was restricted to Pagan Arabs.

Read what I said again Abu. That is the extent of your explanation of it.


Quote:

I said their habit was to bring women and booty into the battlefield as a way of bolstering their determination in combat.

And went on to argue that because we don't do this, Islam could not reintroduce slavery.

So I ask again, can you explain any of this? They are your words:


Quote:

I've told you and others several times, in no uncertain terms, that only women and wealth brought into the battlefield (as was the custom of the pagan arabs) can be enslaved. That's the general rule. As the article in the common misconceptions thread states, since people don't do that anymore, then there's no circumstance in which it would occur

Quote:

Anyway if you read the slavery article in the common misconceptions thread, you'll see that the impending Caliphate would not re-institute slavery anyway, which is what I've tried to tell you all along. Unless of course people starting imitating the pagan Arabs and carrying large amounts of wealth and women into battle, to show off their courage...

---

Quote:

This is false, and it highlights your distorted view of the situation. No Caliphate ever legalised slavery, since it was never illegal to begin with.

It was illegal in plenty of the places conquered by Muslims. Islam legalised slavery.

---

Do children whose both parents are slaves become slaves?

Are slaves allowed to marry other slaves?

Are slaves allowed to choose for themselves who to marry?

What are the guidelines for chosing a husband for female slaves?

Is it also a human right for male slaves to have a wife, or does this right only extend to female slaves?

It has been argued by a Muslim here that many men do not deserve a wife (this was in regard to the problem of running out of women if you can have four wives and as many sex slaves as you want). How does this fit in with the 'human right' to get married?

What is the punishment for raping your slave?

Do Dhimmis risk slavery if they violate any of the rules intended to force them into a life of humiliation?

Is there such a thing as Muslim slaves in Islam?

Are men enslaved, or only women?

Is capturing people on the battlefield the only legal way to obtain slaves? Can slavery be a punishment for crime?

Why can children not be born into slavery? Is this because female slaves may only marry or have sex with Muslim men?

If it is the duty of a slave owner to find a spouse for a slave, are there any guidelines? Are slaves allowed to have sex with or marry each other? Are they allowed to choose their spouse?

If a married person is enslaved, do they remain married, and what happens to the spouse if they are not also enslaved? Or if they are?

If Muslim men are allowed to rape their slaves, why isn't slavery 'bred out' of the society? If not, what is the appropriate punishment for raping your slave?

In the other thread (and many others including the 'misconceptions' thread), you (Abu) claim that women no longer go onto the battlefield. Are you planning on correcting this? Would a female soldier be treated any differently to a female 'civilian' caught during a battle?


Quote:

Women are not brought into the battlefield as prizes

Prizes? Is it like a competition?


Quote:

It does not state that males will not be enslaved if captured in war. Generally they would perish in the war one would assume though.

Why would you assume that?

Freliar, slavery is almost non-existent in Muslim lands, except for blackmarket slavery which is at similar levels to that found in Western countries including Australia.

Slavery was rampant worldwide prior to Prophet Muhammed establishing an Islamic state. Islam encouraged the freeing of slaves until slavery was almost non-existent in Muslim lands while slavery was still widely practiced in the US, UK, Australia and other Western countries.

It is not so long ago that Australia stole Aboriginal children from their parents and trained by Christian organisations to be forced to work for white Christian families.

Australia forced foreign nationals to work as slave labor during WWI & WWII.

Slavery is still flourishing in Australia with many women forced into prostitution, and the Australian government doing little about it:


Quote:

AUSTRALIA has been named and shamed by the US State Department as a destination for human trafficking for sexual servitude and forced labor. Sign up for your free 2 month trial It said women from Asia - and to a lesser extent eastern Europe - were forced into slavery after migrating to Australia voluntarily with the intention of working legally. Women and men were coerced into "bonded labor" or "debt bondage" by organised crime gangs. The department said it had for the first time identified an Australian citizen in the US as a human trafficking victim. The victim was a woman, but no other details were revealed. The report also chided Australia for tolerating prostitution among Aboriginal girls. "Australia is a source and destination country for women subjected to trafficking in persons, specifically exploitation in forced prostitution, and, to a lesser extent, women and men in forced labor and children in commercial sexual exploitation," it said. "It is also a source country for child victims of sex trafficking. Primarily teenage girls, but also some boys, are forced into prostitution by pimps. "Some indigenous teenage girls are exploited in prostitution at rural truck stops."... ...an estimated 1200 victims of human trafficking arrived in Australia each year. Some had their passports confiscated by criminals and were forced into domestic servitude... http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/sex-trade-report-shames-australia/story-e6frf7jo-1225881175204

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

Is there such a thing as Muslim slaves in Islam?

Historically, many slaves converted to Islam, when they saw the true nature of the religion practiced by their masters, and not the kind of lies that people like you spew out.




freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

Are men enslaved, or only women?

Freeliar, out of all the societies that have ever kept slaves such as US, UK, Australia, etc. has there ever been one that kept only slaves of one gender?




freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

Is this because female slaves may only marry or have sex with Muslim men?

Freeliar, in ancient times when Muslims had slaves, they would arrange for their male slaves to be married. Who do you think they married? They would usually be married to female slaves.


freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

If it is the duty of a slave owner to find a spouse for a slave, are there any guidelines? Are slaves allowed to have sex with or marry each other? Are they allowed to choose their spouse?

In ancient times when Muslims kept slaves, they were expected to look after them, clothe them, feed them, and find spouses for them. Of course a slave could reject a proposed spouse if they wished.

A master was not allowed to have sex with a married slave.

A master who had sex with a married slave could be punished with a flogging.


freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

If a married person is enslaved, do they remain married, and what happens to the spouse if they are not also enslaved? Or if they are?

Freeliar, do you think that if two people no longer live together, that such a marriage is practical?  Historically, have any slave-owning societies such as the US recongised pre-enslavement marriages?



freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

If Muslim men are allowed to rape their slaves, why isn't slavery 'bred out' of the society? If not, what is the appropriate punishment for raping your slave?

If a man harms a woman, than an Islamic court could order many punishmentsagainst the perpetrator or in the case of a slave order he/she be freed.

An Islamic court in Mali recently ordered a man flogged for abusing his wife:



Quote:

...On Monday in Gao, one of the three biggest cities in north Mali, two men caught smoking hashish were given 30 lashes in front of the police station, according to Hama Dada Toure, a teacher in Gao. One man who had allegedly beaten his pregnant wife was given 10 lashes and ordered to pay her (compensation)... http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/02/3213582/islamists-ban-booze-uncovered.html

Quote:

Slavery was rampant worldwide prior to Prophet Muhammed establishing an Islamic state

Except of course in those places where it had been banned but Islam reintroduced it.


Quote:

Historically, many slaves converted to Islam, when they saw the true nature of the religion practiced by their masters, and not the kind of lies that people like you spew out.

You missed the point a bit Falah. Are you allowed to enslave people who are already Muslims?


Quote:

Of course a slave could reject a proposed spouse if they wished.

Could they choose their own?


Quote:

Freeliar, do you think that if two people no longer live together, that such a marriage is practical?

I have no idea how islamic slavery works (despite the 30 or so pages discussing it with Muslims here). Hence the question. Are you suggesting that a married couple, enslaved, would be separated and married off to someone else?


Quote:

If a man harms a woman, than an Islamic court could order many punishmentsagainst the perpetrator or in the case of a slave order he/she be freed.

But what about rape? Is that considered harm, given for example Abu's belief that a Muslim man has every right to have sex with his female slaves?


Quote:

An Islamic court in Mali recently ordered a man flogged for abusing his wife:

Can you find any examples of an Islamic court punishing a man for raping his wife? It is interesting too that the wife was pregnant. Would there have been a punishment if she was not pregnant?

This is a very good article on Islamic slavery. It explains why Arabs do not have more pronounced African features.


The Scourge of Slavery

THE REST OF THE STORY



Over 28 Million Africans have been enslaved over the Muslim world over the past 14 centuries
While much has been written concerning the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, surprisingly little attention has been given to the Islamic slave trade across the Sahara, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.  While the European involvement in the Trans Atlantic slave trade to the Americas lasted for just over three centuries, the Arab involvement in the slave trade has lasted fourteen centuries, and in some parts of the Muslim world is still continuing to this day.

CONTRASTS IN CAPTIVITY



A comparison of the Islamic slave trade to the American slave trade reveals some interesting contrasts.  While two out of every three slaves shipped across the Atlantic were men, the proportions were reversed in the Islamic slave trade.  Two women for every man were enslaved by the Muslims.

While the mortality rate for slaves being transported across the Atlantic was as high as 10%, the percentage of slaves dying in transit in the Trans Sahara and East African slave trade was between 80 and 90%!

While almost all the slaves shipped across the Atlantic were for agricultural work, most of the slaves destined for the Muslim Middle East were for sexual exploitation as concubines, in harems, and for military service. 

While many children were born to slaves in the Americas, and millions of their descendants are citizens in Brazil and the USA to this day, very few descendants of the slaves that ended up in the Middle East survive. 

While most slaves who went to the Americas could marry and have families, most of the male slaves destined for the Middle East were castrated, and most of the children born to the women were killed at birth.

It is estimated that possibly as many as 11 million Africans were transported across the Atlantic (95% of which went to South and Central America, mainly to Portuguese, Spanish and French possessions.  Only 5% of the slaves went to the United States). 



Slaves in Africa - in the early 20th century.
However, at least 28 million Africans were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East.  As at least 80% of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave markets, it is believed that the death toll from the 14 centuries of Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been over 112 million.  When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the Trans Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 million people. 

THE ABSENCE OF ARABIC ABOLITIONISTS



William Wilberforce led the campaign against slavery for 59 years.
While Christian Reformers spearheaded the anti-slavery abolitionist movements in Europe and North America, and Great Britain mobilised her Navy, throughout most of the 19th Century, to intercept slave ships and set the captives free, there was no comparable opposition to slavery within the Muslim world. 

Even after Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and Europe abolished the slave trade in 1815, Muslim slave traders enslaved a further 2 million Africans.  This despite vigorous British Naval activity and military intervention to limit the Islamic slave trade.  By some calculations the number of victims of the 14 centuries of Islamic slave trade could exceed 180 million.

Nearly 100 years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in America, and 130 years after all slaves within the British Empire were set free by parliamentary decree, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, in 1962, and Mauritania in 1980, begrudgingly removed legalised slavery from their statute books.  And this only after international pressure was brought to bear.  Today numerous international organisations document that slavery still continues in some Muslim countries.

THE PAGAN ORIGINS OF SLAVERY

Slavery long predated Christianity and many of the early Christians were slaves in the Roman Empire.  Without exception, the pre-Christian world accepted slavery as normal and desirable.  The Greek philosopher Aristotle claimed:  "From the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." The great civilisations of Mesopotamia, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and all the civilisations in Central America and Africa were built upon slave labour. 

People became slaves by being an insolvent debtor, or sold into slavery by their parents, or by being born to slave parents, or by being captured in war, or through kidnapping by slave raiders and pirates.  Slave dealing was an accepted way of life, fully established in all societies.  Most of these slaves were white people, or Europeans.  In fact the very word "slave", comes from the people of Eastern Europe, the Slavs. 

St. Patrick, the English missionary to the Irish, was once  a slave himself, kidnapped from his home and taken to Ireland against his will. Patrick spoke out strongly against slavery.  He wrote:  "But it is the women kept in slavery who suffer the most."



About 80% of those captured by
Muslim slave raiders died before
reaching the slave markets.
The Greeks, from whom we derive so many modern, humanistic ideas, were utterly dependent on slavery.  Even Plato's Republic was firmly based on slave labour.  Plato said that 50 or more slaves represented the possessions of a wealthy man. 

Under Roman law, when a slave owner was found murdered, all his slaves were to be executed.  In one case, when a certain Pedanius Secundas was murdered, all 400 of his slaves were put to death. 

Before the coming of Christ, the heathen nations despised manual work and confined it to slaves.  When Christ was born, half of the population of the Roman Empire were slaves.  Three quarters of the population of Athens were slaves.

Slavery was indigenous to African and Arab countries before it made its way to Europe. Slavery was widely practiced by the tribes of the American Indians long before Columbus set foot on the shores of the New World.  Ethiopia had slavery until 1942, Saudi Arabia until 1962, Peru until 1968, India until 1976 and Mauritania until 1980.  What is also seldom remembered is that many black Americans in the 19th Century owned slaves.  For example, according to the United States census of 1830, in just the one town of Charleston, South Carolina, 407 black Americans owned slaves themselves.

THE CHRISTIAN ROOTS OF LIBERTY

But Jesus revolutionised labour.  By taking up the axe, the saw, the hammer and the plane, our Lord endued labour with a new dignity.  Christianity undercut slavery by giving dignity to work.  By reforming work, Christianity transformed the entire social order. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ began His ministry in Nazareth with these words:  "The Spirit of the Lord is on Me.to proclaim freedom for the prisoners.and release to the oppressed."  Luke 4:18

When the apostle Paul wrote to Philemon, concerning his escaped slave, he urged him to welcome back Onesimus "no longer as a slave, but.as a dear brother.as a man and as a brother in the Lord."  Philemon 16.

Because of these and other Scriptural commands to love our neighbour, to be a good Samaritan and to do for others what you would want them to do for you, Christians like William Wilberforce, John Newton, William Carey, David Livingstone, Lord Shaftsbury and General Charles Gordon worked tirelessly to end the slave trade, stop child labour, and set the captives free.

From the very beginning of the Christian Church, Christians freed slaves.  During the 2nd and 3rd Centuries many tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted to Christ.  St. Melania was said to have emancipated 8000 slaves, St. Ovidius freed 5000, Chromatius freed 1400, Hermes 1200.  Many of the Christian clergy at Hippo under St. Augustine "freed their slaves as an act of piety." In AD315, the Emperor Constantine, just two years after he issued the edict of Milan, legalising Christianity, imposed the death penalty on those who stole children to bring them up as slaves.

The Emperor Justinian abolished all laws that prevented the freeing of slaves.  St. Augustine (354 - 430) saw slavery as the product of sin and as contrary to God's Divine plan (The City of God).  St. Chrysostom in the 4th Century, taught that when Christ came He annulled slavery.  He proclaimed "in Christ Jesus there is no slave.therefore it is not necessary to have a slave.buy them, and after you have taught them some skill by which they can maintain themselves, set them free."

For centuries, throughout the Middle Ages, bishops and church councils recommended the redemption of captive slaves, and for five centuries the Trinitarian monks redeemed Christian slaves from Moorish (Muslim) servitude.

In 1102AD, the London Church Council outlawed slavery and the slave trade.  By the 12th Century slaves in Europe were rare, and by the 14th Century slavery was almost unknown on the continent of Europe.



http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-thescourgeofslavery.htm

THE ISLAMIC SLAVE TRADE

However, with the birth of Islam came a rebirth of the slave trade.  As Ronald Segal in "Islam's Black Slaves" documents:  "When Islam conquered the Persian Sassanid Empire and much of the Byzantine Empire, including Syria and Egypt, in the 7th Century, it acquired immense quantities of gold.stripping churches and monasteries.either directly or by taxes, payable in gold, imposed on the clergy and looting gold from.tombs.the state encouraged the search and sanctioned the seizure, in return for a fifth of the finds."

Segal notes:  "Female slaves were required in considerable numbers for.musicians, singers and dancers.many more were bought for domestic workers.and many were in demand as concubines.  The harems of rulers could be enormous.  The harem of Abdal Rahman III (912 - 961) in Cordoba contained over 6000 concubines!  And the one in the Fatimid Palace in Cairo had twice as many."



An Arab slave raid in East Africa
1888. The death toll from 14 centuries
of the Islamic slave trade in
Africa is estimated at
over 112 million.
Islam's Black Slaves also reveals that the castration of male slaves was common place.  "The Calipha in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10th Century had 7000 black eunuchs and 4000 white eunuchs in his palace." It was noted that there were widespread "homosexual relations" as well.  Islam's Black Slaves notes that Islamic teachers throughout the centuries consistently defended slavery:  "For there must be masters and slaves." Others noted that blacks "lack self-control and steadiness of mind and they are overcome by fickleness, foolishness and ignorance.  Such are the blacks who live in the extremity of the land of Ethiopia, the Nubians, Zanj and the like."

Ibn Khaldun (1332 - 1406) the pre-eminent Islamic medieval historian and social thinker wrote:  "The Negro nations are as a rule submissive to slavery.because they have attributes that are quite similar to dumb animals."

By the Middle Ages, the Arab word "abd" was in general use to denote a black slave while the word "mamluk" referred to a white slave.  Even as late as the 19th Century, it was noted that in Mecca "there are few families.that do not keep slaves.they all keep mistresses in common with their lawful wives."

It was noted that black slaves were castrated "based on the assumption that the blacks had an ungovernable sexual appetite."

When the Fatimids came to power they slaughtered all the tens of thousands of black military slaves and raised an entirely new slave army.  Some of these slaves were conscripted into the army at age ten.  From Persia to Egypt to Morocco, slave armies from 30000 to up to 250000 became common-place. 

Even Ronald Segal, who is most sympathetic to Islam and clearly prejudiced against Christianity, admits that well over 30 million black Africans would have died at the hands of Muslim slave traders or ended up in Islamic slavery. 


A dhow, the favourite slave carrying
vessel of Arab slave traders.

Arab traders beat their cargo into
submission on the run from the African
coast to Zanzibar.

The Islamic slave trade took place across the Sahara Desert, from the coast of the Red Sea, and from East Africa across the Indian Ocean.  The Trans Sahara trade was conducted along six major slave routes.  Just in the 19th Century, for which we have more accurate records, 1.2 million slaves were brought across the Sahara into the Middle East, 450000 down the Red Sea and 442000 from East African coastal ports.  That is a total of 2 million black slaves - just in the 1800's.  At least 8 million more were calculated to have died before reaching the Muslim slave markets. 

Islam's Black Slaves records:  "In the 1570's, a Frenchman visiting Egypt found many thousands of blacks on sale in Cairo on market days.  In 1665 Father Antonios Gonzalis, a Spanish/Belgian traveller, reported 800 - 1000 slaves on sale in the Cairo market on a single day.  In 1796, a British traveller reported a caravan of 5000 slaves departing from Darfur.  In 1838, it was estimated that 10000 to 12000 slaves were arriving in Cairo each year." Just in the Arabic plantations off the East Coast of Africa, on the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, there were 769000 black slaves.



The slave market in Zanzibar sold an average of 300 slaves every day.
In the 19th Century, the East African black slave trade included 347 000 slaves shipped to Arabia, Persia and India;  95 000 slaves were shipped to the Arab plantations in the Mascareme Islands.

Segal notes "The high death rate and low birth rate among black slaves in the Middle East and the astonishingly low birth rate amongst black slave women" in North Africa and the Middle East.  "Islamic civilisation.lagged increasingly behind the West in protecting public health.  The arithmetic of the Islamic black slave trade must also not ignore the lives of those men, women and children taken or lost during the procurement, storage and transport.the sale of a single captive for slavery might represent a loss of ten in the population  from defenders killed in attacks on villages, the deaths of women and children from related famine and the loss of children, the old and the sick, unable to keep up with their captors or killed along the way in hostile encounters, or dying of sheer misery."

One British explorer encountered over 100 human skeletons from a slave caravan en route for Tripoli.

The explorer, Heinrich Barth, recorded that a slave caravan lost 40 slaves in the course of a single night at Benghazi.

The British explorer, Richard Lander, came across a group of 30 slaves in West Africa, all of them stricken with smallpox, all bound neck to neck with twisted strips of bullock hide. 

One caravan with 3000 proceeding from the coast in East Africa, lost two thirds of its number from starvation, disease and murder.

In the Nubian desert, one slave caravan of 2000 slaves literally vanished as every slave died.

AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT

In 1818, Captain Lyon of the Royal Navy reported that the Al-Mukani in Tripoli "waged war on all its defenceless neighbours and annually carried off 4000 to 5000 slaves.a piteous spectacle!  These poor oppressed beings were, many of them, so exhausted as to be scarcely able to walk, their legs and feet were much swelled, and by their enormous size formed a striking contrast with their emaciated bodies.  They were all borne down with loads of firewood, and even poor little children, worn to skeletons by fatigue and hardships, were obliged to bear their burden, while many of their inhuman masters with dreadful whip suspended from their waist.all the traders speak of slaves as farmers do of cattle.the defenceless state of the Negro kingdoms to the southward are temptations too strong to be resisted, a force is therefore annually sent.to pillage these defenceless people, to carry them off as slaves, burn their towns, kill the aged and infants, destroy their crops and inflict on them every possible misery.all slavery is for an unlimited time.none of their owners ever moved without their whips - which were in constant use.drinking too much water, bringing too little wood or falling asleep before the cooking was finished, were considered nearly capital crimes, and it was in vain for these poor creatures to plead the excuse of being tired.  Nothing could withhold the application of the whip.  No slaves dared to be ill or unable to walk, but when the poor sufferer dies, the master suspects that there must have been something 'wrong inside' and regrets not having liberally applied their usual remedy of burning the belly with a red-hot iron."



Arab slave traders along the Ruvuma River, East Africa, 1866, axe a straggler.
Records for Morocco in 1876 show that market prices for slaves varied from £10 ($48) to £30 ($140).  Female slaves comprised the vast majority of sales with "attractive virgins" fetching between £40 to £80 ($192 - $386).  It was reported that "a considerable majority of the slaves crossing the Sahara were destined to become concubines in North Africa, the Middle East and occasionally even further afield."



http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-thescourgeofslavery.htm

CHRISTIAN SLAVES - MUSLIM MASTERS

Segal also observed that:  "White slaves from Christian Spain, Central and Eastern Europe" were also shipped into the Middle East and served in the "palaces of rulers and the establishments of the rich." He records that:  "All slavic eunuchs.are castrated in that region and the operation is performed by Jewish merchants."



Muslim slave raiders kidnapped women from Europe for harems in the Middle East.
Historian Robert Davis in his book "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters - White Slavery In the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy", estimates that North African Muslim pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780.  These white Christians were seized in a series of raids which depopulated coastal towns from Sicily to Cornwall.  Thousands of white Christians in coastal areas were seized every year to work as galley slaves, labourers and concubines for Muslim slave masters in what is today Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya.  Villages and towns on the coast of Italy, Spain, Portugal and France were the hardest hit, but the Muslim slave raiders also seized people as far afield as Britain, Ireland and Iceland.  They even captured 130 American seamen from ships they boarded in the Atlantic between 1785 and 1793. 

According to one report, 7000 English people were abducted between 1622 to 1644, many of them ship crews and passengers.  But the Corsairs also landed on unguarded beaches, often at night, to snatch the unwary.  Almost all the inhabitants of the village of Baltimore, in Ireland, were captured in 1631, and there were other raids in Devon and Cornwall.  Many of these white, Christian slaves were put to work in quarries, building sites and galleys and endured malnutrition, disease and mistreatment at the hands of their Muslim slave masters.  Many of them were used for public works such as building harbours.

Female captives were sexually abused in palace harems and others were held as hostages and bargained for ransom.  "The most unlucky ended up stuck and forgotten out in the desert, in some sleepy town such as Suez, or in Turkish Sultanate galleys, where some slaves rowed for decades without ever setting foot on shore." Professor Davis estimates that up to 1,25 million Europeans were enslaved by Muslim slave raiders between 1500 to 1800. 

THE EUROPEAN SLAVE TRADE

While Islam dominated the slave trade from the 7th to the 15th Century, between 1519 and 1815 Europe also joined in this trade in human flesh.  And it was those European nations which had suffered the most at the hands of Muslim slave raiders, and under centuries of Muslim military occupation, Spain and Portugal, who dominated the European slave trade.

It was the enemies of the Reformation who brought Europe into this disgraceful trade.  Emperor Charles V (whom Martin Luther defied with his historic "My conscience is captive to the Word of God.here I stand I can do no other." speech) of the Holy Roman Empire who first authorised Europe's involvement in the slave trade in 1519.  Because of Pope Alexander VI's Line of Demarcation Bill of 1493 which barred Spain from Africa, Spain issued Asientos (a monopoly) to other nations to supply slaves for her South American colonies.  First Portugal had this lucrative franchise, then the Dutch, then the French.  Finally, by the treaty of Utrecht 1713, the Asientos was transferred from France to Britain.  Britain's involvement in slavery was first authorised in 1631 by King Charles I (who was later executed by Parliament).  His son, Charles II, reintroduced it by Royal  Charter in 1672.

According to "The Slave Trade" by Hugh Thomas, approximately 4 million (35.4%) went to Portuguese controlled Brazil; 2,5 million (22.1%) to the Spanish nations of South and Central America; 2 million (17.7%) to the British West Indies (mostly Jamaica); 1,6 million (14.1%) to French West Indies; half a million (4.4%) to Dutch West Indies and half a million (4.4%) to North America. 

THE AMERICAN SLAVE TRADE



Slaves freed by the British Navy.
It is extraordinary that, considering that less than 5% of all the Trans Atlantic slaves ended up in North America, the vast majority of films, books and articles concerning the slave trade concentrate only on the American involvement in the slave trade, as though slavery was a uniquely American aberration.  However, the vastly greater involvement of Portugal, Spain and France seem to be largely ignored.  Even more so the far greater and longer running Islamic slave trade into the Middle East has been so ignored as to make it one of history's best-kept secrets.

We tend to focus on what happened in North America because the United States would eventually fight a war, in part over slavery, and because of the enormous and vocal American opposition to slavery.  This was in sharp contrast to the indifference that Muslims, Africans and many Europeans evidenced towards it.

THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE



A steam pinnache of HMS London puts a warning shot across the bow of a slaving dhow in 1881.
The legends of European slave raiders venturing into the jungles of Africa to capture free peoples are generally just that:  myths. 

The embarrassing fact of history, is that the Europeans did not have to use any force to obtain these slaves.  The slaves were "sold" by their black owners.  There was no need for the slave raiders to risk their lives or venture into the jungles of Africa, they simply purchased the people from African chiefs and Muslim slave traders at the coast. 

However, while the slave trade and slavery itself was always criticised vigorously in Britain and America, no comparable criticism was evident in the Muslim Middle East or amongst the African tribes which sold their own people, and neighbouring tribes, into slavery.  Almost all of the African slaves transported across the Atlantic were captured and sold by African rulers and merchants. 

Many chiefs found it more profitable to sell their enemies, criminals and debtors than to kill or imprison them.  Many were weaker neighbouring tribes conquered for the express purpose of selling their people into slavery.  The disgraceful fact is that there were three equally guilty partners in the crime of the Trans Atlantic slave trade:  pagan African chiefs, Muslim Arabs and Christian Europeans.

The Trade, as it became known, involved a triangular voyage.  Slave ships sailed from Bristol or Liverpool loaded with cloths, beads, muskets, iron bars and brandy.  This merchandise was then traded in West Africa in exchange for slaves.  Mostly African chiefs sold their own people, or engaged in wars and slave raids against neighbouring tribes to capture victims for this trade.  Often professional Arab slave traders provided the victims. 

The middle passage transported the slaves to the West Indies.  Here the slaves were sold and the ships loaded with spices, rum, molasses and sugar.  The third leg of the journey was the return to England.  The average Englishman on the street was kept in the dark as to what was actually happening on the middle passage, until, in 1785, Thomas Clarkson's landmark study "Slavery and Commerce In the Human Species" was first published at Cambridge.  According to Clarkson's research, 10% of the slaves would normally die during the middle passage.  Strong men would fetch as much as £40 while the women and children were sold in cheap batches with the sick and weak men.  In England 18 000 people were employed simply on making the goods to trade for slaves in Africa.  This trade constituted 4.4% of British exports. 

http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-thescourgeofslavery.htm

WILBERFORCE'S WAR

On Sunday 28 October 1787, William Wilberforce wrote in his diary:  "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the Reformation of society." For the rest of his life, William Wilberforce dedicated his life as a Member of Parliament to opposing the slave trade and working for the abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire. 

On 22 February 1807, twenty years after he first began his crusade, and in the middle of Britain's war with France, Wilberforce and his team's labours were rewarded with victory.  By an overwhelming 283 votes for to 16 against, the motion to abolish the slave trade was carried in the House of Commons.  The parliamentarians leapt to their feet with great cheers and gave Wilberforce the greatest ovation ever seen in British history.  William bent forward in his seat, his head in his hands, tears of gratitude streaming down his face. 

In 1809, the British government mobilised its Navy to search suspected slave ships, even foreign vessels on the high seas.  In 1810, the British Parliament declared slave trading a felony, punishable by fourteen years hard labour.  In 1814, the British representative at the Congress of Vienna insisted on the abolition of the slave trade being included in the International Treaty.  This Treaty was signed by all the European powers on 9 June 1815.  In 1825, Britain passed a bill making slave trading punishable by death. 

Finally, just three days before William Wilberforce died, by an Act of Parliament in 1833, the British abolished slavery itself - setting all 700 000 slaves in British overseas territories free.  Wilberforce's lifetime campaign of 59 years was now fully successful.  "Thank God that I've lived to witness the day in which England is willing to give 20 million pounds sterling for the abolition of slavery!" he exclaimed.  Within three days he died rejoicing.  (For the story of how slavery was abolished see the chapter on William Wilberforce - Missionary to Parliament in The Greatest Century of Missions).

The "History of European Morals" suggests that "the unweary, unostentatious and inglorious crusade of England against slavery may probably be regarded as among the three or four perfectly virtuous pages comprised in the history of nations."

The abolition of slavery was one of the great turning points in history.  And the long and vigorous crusade by the British Navy throughout the 19th Century against the slave trade ranks as one of the most extraordinary and unselfish applications of national policy ever seen in the history of nations.

".where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."     2 Cor 3:17

SET FREE TO SERVE CHRIST



Rescued from slavery by the British Navy,
Samual Crowther became the first African
bishop of the Church of England.
One of the many fruits of William Wilberforce's life long crusade against the slave trade was that Samuel Ajayi Crowther, who was born in 1807 (the year Great Britain abolished the slave trade) in Yorubaland (modern Western Nigeria) was rescued by a British naval squadron.  When Samuel was just thirteen years old, he was captured by Muslim slave traders for transport across the Atlantic, but rescued by the Navy.  Samuel received an education in Sierra Leone, where he was converted to Christ, and after further education in England he was ordained as a minister of the Church of England for service with the Church Missionary Society. 



Newly liberated slaves in Zanzibar.
Samuel participated in the expedition up the Niger River Valley to overcome the ravages of the slave industry still entrenched there.  Of the 145 Europeans on that expedition, 130 were struck down with Malaria, and 40 died.  Yet the expedition succeeded in establishing a Missionary Center at Fourah Bay for training liberated slaves to evangelise West Africa.  It was built on the very place where a slave market had once stood.  The rafters of the roof were made almost entirely from the masts of old slave ships. 

Samuel Crowther was one of the first four students to graduate from Fourah Bay's College, Sub-Saharan Africa's first university.  In 1864, Samuel Crowther was ordained as the first African Bishop of the Church of England in an overflowing Canterbury cathedral.  Today there are eighteen times more Anglicans worshipping in church every Sunday in Nigeria than there are in Great Britain.

LIVINGSTONE'S TRAVELS



Livingstone and his team free slaves from Arab slave raiders in the Shire Valley.
However, as the British Navy was defeating the slave trade in the Atlantic, the East African slave trade was increasing.  It was missionary explorer David Livingstone whose graphic descriptions brought the ravages of the East African slave trade to light.  His Missionary Travels and Narrative of an Expedition to the Zambezi exposed the horrors of the slave trade:  "Two of the women had been shot the day before for attempting to untie their thongs.  One woman had her infants brains knocked out because she could not carry her load and it; and a man was dispatched with an axe because he had broken down with fatigue.those taken out of the country are but a very small section of the sufferers.  We never realised the atrocious nature of the traffic until we saw it at the fountain head.  'There truly Satan has his seat.'  Besides those actually captured thousands are killed and die of their wounds and famine, driven from their villages by the internecine war waged for slaves with their own clansmen and neighbours, slain by the lust of gain, which is stimulated, be it remembered always, by the slave purchases of Cuba and elsewhere."

A TRADE IN HUMAN MISERY

The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society reported that most slaves were captured in the Lake Niassa area (Malawi and Mozambique), the Bahr El Ghazal region and in areas of Ethiopia.  Slaves were taken to East African markets like Zanzibar, Kilwa and Quelimane and then shipped to Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Iraq, Iran and to the islands of Pemba, Reunion and Madagascar. 

The Anti-Slavery Reporter estimated the Muslim slave trade as exporting 63000 slaves per year.  Some estimates went as high as 500000 slaves exported in a single year. One researcher, Ralph Austen calculated that between 1830 and 1861 imports of slaves to the Persian Gulf averaged 3700 to 3100 per annum.  This same researcher noted that about 8855 slaves a year were retained as slaves on the East African coast as slaves of African slave masters.



1833 - All slaves in the British Empire
are set free by Parliamentary decree.
Few authors dared describe the horrors involved in the Trans- Sahara slave trade:  kidnapping and castrating young boys to be sold as eunuchs ("the living dead") in the homes of wealthy Arab landlords and force marching young women across endless miles of scorching sand in the Sahara desert to become slave concubines, most dying in transit.  The Muslim slave trade typically dealt in the sale of castrated male slaves:  eunuchs.  Eunuchs were created by completely amputating the scrotum and penis of eight to twelve year old African boys.  Hundreds of thousands of young boys bled to death during this gory procedure.  The survival rate from this process ranged from 1 in 10 to 1 in 30.  These castrated boys brought the highest price at the slave market. 


http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-thescourgeofslavery.htm

Double post

SHARIA LAW AND SLAVERY

Islam's Black Slaves notes:  "the Quran stipulated that female slaves might lawfully be enjoyed by their masters." Mohammad himself owned many slaves, some of whom he captured in wars of conquest and some he purchased.  The names of forty slaves owned by Mohammad are recorded by Muslim chroniclers.  Islamic law (Sharia) contains elaborate regulations for slavery.  A slave had no right to be heard in court (testimony was forbidden by slaves), slaves had no right to property, could marry only with the permission of the owner, and were considered to be chattel, that is the movable property, of the slave owner.  Muslim slave owners were specifically entitled by Sharia law to sexually exploit their slaves,  including hiring them out as prostitutes.

One reason why very little has been written about the Arab involvement in slavery is that traditional Islamic culture still condones slavery.  The Sharia, the codified Islamic law which is based upon the teachings and example of Mohammad, contains explicit regulations for slavery.  One of the primary principles of Islam is following the example of Mohammad.  Whatever Mohammad did, we must do, what he forbade, we must forbid, what he did not forbid, we may not forbid. As Mohammad himself traded in slaves and owned slaves, accumulating multiple wives, even marrying a six year old, and having concubines - slavery and the sexual exploitation of women is deeply ingrained in Islamic tradition.  Muslim nations had engaged in the slave trade for over 600 years before Europe became involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. 

SLAVERY TODAY



Almost 200 years after the British outlawed the slave trade in 1807, slave raids and the sale of slaves in Muslim markets continues in countries like Sudan.  The slave trade remained legal in Saudi Arabia until 1962, when under international pressure it was finally abolished.  However, there are persistent, credible reports, that slavery persists in Saudi Arabia, and even that slaves from Sudan are ending up in Saudi Arabia.

Recently, a former slave from the Nuba Mountains of Sudan, Mende Nazer, had her autobiography:  "Slave:  My True Story" published.  Mende was captured in 1992, she was first a slave to a rich Arab family in Khartoum, and then in 2002 to a Sudanese diplomat in London, from whom she escaped and sought political asylum. 

THE LAW OF LIBERTY

Although the Old Testament provided for slavery for criminals and insolvent debtors, kidnapping and enslaving law-abiding people incurred the death penalty.  "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."  Exodus 21:16 

The New Testament expressly forbids both the slave trade and slavery itself.  ".the Law is made not for the righteous but for Law breakers.for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers." 1 Timothy 1:9-10

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free.for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

"From one man He made every nation of men." Acts 17:26

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.love your neighbour as yourself." Mark 12:30-31

"Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." John 8:32

".where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." 2 Cor. 3:17

".proclaim liberty throughout the land." Leviticus 25:10

Dr. Peter Hammond is the author of Faith Under Fire In Sudan and The Greatest Century of Missions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A History of Christianity, by Kenneth Scott Latourette, Harper, 1953

Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters:  White Slavery in the Mediterranean; the Barbary Coast and Italy 1500 - 1800, by Robert Davis, Palgrave MacMillan, 2004

God's Politician, by Garth Lean, Helmers and Howard, 1987

History of Slavery, by Suzanne Everett, Chartwell, 1997

Islam's Black Slaves, by Ronald Segal, Farrar, New York, 2001

Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa, by David Livingstone, London, 1857

Narrative of an Expedition to the Zambezi, by David Livingstone, London,1865

The Greatest Century of Missions, by Peter Hammond, CLB, 2002

The Slave Trade, by Hugh Thomas, 1997

Under the Influence - How Christianity Transformed Civilization, by Alvin Schmit, Zondervan, 2001


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christian Action Magazine
PO Box 23632, Claremont, 7735, South Africa
Email: info@christianaction.org.za
Copyright © 2004 Christian Action. All rights reserved
Contact the webmaster for comments and questions about this site.

http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-thescourgeofslavery.htm

www.christianaction.org.za  is a Christian propaganda site, a reliable source of disinformation.

Perhaps you should provide some counter evidence Falah. You have already provided counterclaims for just about every claim made in those articles.

I am especially intrigued by the ratio of men to women, and why Africans are so visible in the US but not the middle east. I always assumed Muslims took female slaves to have sex with and ultimately breed with.

Refute this Falah.
It was missionary explorer David Livingstone whose graphic descriptions brought the ravages of the East African slave trade to light. His Missionary Travels and Narrative of an Expedition to the Zambezi exposed the horrors of the slave trade: "Two of the women had been shot the day before for attempting to untie their thongs. One woman had her infants brains knocked out because she could not carry her load and it; and a man was dispatched with an ax because he had broken down with fatigue those taken out of the country are but a very small section of the sufferers. We never realized the atrocious nature of the traffic until we saw it at the fountain head. 'There truly Satan has his seat.'

Adamant wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 8:52am:

Refute this Falah. It was missionary explorer David Livingstone whose graphic descriptions brought the ravages of the East African slave trade to light. His Missionary Travels and Narrative of an Expedition to the Zambezi exposed the horrors of the slave trade: "Two of the women had been shot the day before for attempting to untie their thongs. One woman had her infants brains knocked out because she could not carry her load and it; and a man was dispatched with an ax because he had broken down with fatigue those taken out of the country are but a very small section of the sufferers. We never realized the atrocious nature of the traffic until we saw it at the fountain head. 'There truly Satan has his seat.'

Not sure what this has to do with Islam. Unless you think all Arabs are Muslims. There are tens of millions of Arabs who are not Muslim. There are about 10 million Christian Arabs in Egypt alone.

Livingstone, himself says that the Arabs he saw killing people were Jews not Muslims ("Yahood" means "Jew" in Arabic)


Quote:

June, 1870...Yahood, who was leader in the other case of 40 killed, boasted before me of the deed. I said, "You were sent here not to murder, but to trade;" he replied, "We are sent to murder."... http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17024/17024-h/17024-h.htm

It is obvious that Livingstone does not realise that many of the Yemeni Arabs he is dealing with are actually Jews:


Quote:

2nd August, 1870.—An eclipse at midnight: the Moslems called loudly on Moses. Very cold.

Generally, Livingstone say many good things about the Arabs he met. Muslims Arabs were kind to him and saved his life:




Quote:

[The new year opened badly enough, and from letters he wrote subsequently concerning the illness which now attacked him, we gather that it left evils behind, from which he never quite recovered. The following entries were made after he regained sufficient strength, but we see how short they necessarily were, and what labour it was to make the jottings which relate to his progress towards the western shore of Lake Tanganyika. He was not able at any time during this seizure to continue the minute maps of the country in his pocket-books, which for the first time fail here.] 1st January, 1869.—I have been wet times without number, but the wetting of yesterday was once too often: I felt very ill, but fearing that the Lofuko might flood, I resolved to cross it. Cold up to the waist, which made me worse, but I went on for 2-1/2 hours E. 3rd January, 1869.—I marched one hour, but found I was too ill to go further. Moving is always good in fever; now I had a pain in the chest, and rust of iron sputa: my lungs, my strongest part, were thus affected. We crossed a rill and built sheds, but I lost count of the days of the week and month after this. Very ill all over. About 7th January, 1869.—Cannot walk: Pneumonia of right lung, and I cough all day and all night: sputa rust of iron and bloody: distressing weakness. Ideas flow through the mind with great rapidity and vividness, in groups of twos and threes: if I look at any piece of wood, the bark seems covered over with figures and faces of men, and they remain, though I look away and turn to the same spot again. I saw myself lying dead in the way to Ujiji... ...Mohamad Bogharib came up, and I have got a cupper, who cupped my chest. 8th and 9th January, 1869.—Mohamad Bogharib offered to carry me. I am so weak I can scarcely speak. We are in Marungu proper now—a pretty but steeply-undulating country. This is the first time in my life I have been carried in illness, but I cannot raise myself to the sitting posture. No food except a little gruel. Great distress in coughing all night long; feet swelled and sore. I am carried four hours each day on a kitanda or frame, like a cot; carried eight hours one day... ...Mohamad Bogharib is very kind to me in my extreme weakness... ...Mohamad gave me medicines; one was a sharp purgative, the others intended for the cure of the cough... 14th February, 1869.—Arrived at Tanganyika. Parra is the name of the land at the confluence of the River Lofuko: Syde bin Habib had two or three large canoes at this place, our beads were nearly done, so I sent to Syde to say that all the Arabs had served me...Thani bin Suellim by his letter was anxious to send a canoe as soon as I reached the Lake, and the only service I wanted of Syde was to inform Thani, by one of his canoes, that I was here very ill, and if I did not get to Ujiji to get proper food and medicine I should die. Thani would send a canoe as soon as he knew of my arrival I was sure: he replied that he too would serve me: and sent some flour and two fowls: he would come in two days and see what he could do as to canoes. 15th February, 1869.—The cough and chest pain diminished, and I feel thankful; my body is greatly emaciated. Syde came to-day, and is favourable to sending me up to Ujiji. Thanks to the Great Father in Heaven.

Racist Dr livingstone whor wrote of African tribe:



Quote:

They think that no punishment will reach them whatever they do: they are freemen, and need not work or do anything but beg. "English," they call themselves, and the Arabs fear them, though the eagerness with which they engaged in slave-hunting showed them to be genuine black people... 7th March, 1869.—Left at 6 P.M., and went on till two canoes ran on rocks in the way to Kasanga islet. Rounded a point of land, and made for Kasanga with a storm in our teeth; fourteen hours in all. We were received by a young Arab Muscat, who dined us sumptuously at noon...

He says Arabs kept his belongings safe for him:


Quote:

14th March, 1869.—Go past Malagarasi River, and reach Ujiji in 3-1/2 hours. Found Haji Thani's agent in charge of my remaining goods. Medicines, wine, and cheese had been left at Unyanyembé, thirteen days east of this. Milk not to be had, as the cows had not calved, but a present of Assam tea from Mr. Black, the Inspector of the Peninsular and Oriental Company's affairs, had come from Calcutta, besides my own coffee and a little sugar. I bought butter; two large pots are sold for two fathoms of blue calico, and four-year-old flour, with which we made bread. I found great benefit from the tea and coffee, and still more from flannel to the skin.

Livingstone admits that many English people wantg to own slaves

Quote:

large numbers of Englishmen are not slaveholders only because the law forbids the practice.

Livingstone say that most Arab slave traders are gentleman but some are bad like the Christian Europeans:


Quote:

This is a den of the worst kind of slave-traders; those whom I met in Urungu and Itawa were gentlemen slavers: the Ujiji slavers, like the Kilwa and Portuguese, are the vilest of the vile

Livingstone says that slaves were freed by Arabs and given important positions:


Quote:

Thani bin Suellim came from Unyanyembé on the 20th. He is a slave who has risen to freedom and influence;

Arabs leaders command that Dr livingstone be trerated with respect:


Quote:

orders had come from Syed Majid to treat me with all respect

Livingstone wishes he was in the company of Arabs:

Quote:

They are nearly all miserable Suaheli (Swahili) at Ujiji, and have neither the manners nor the sense of Arabs.

Arabs feed Livingstone:


Quote:

The cookery is of their very best, and I always get a share; I tell them that I like the cookery, but not the prayers, and it is taken in good part.

Livingstone follows an Arab ivory expedition and observes Arabs making friendship Africans and denouncing people-stealing:


Quote:

Mohamad performed the ceremony...making declarations of friendship. Moenembagg said, "Your people must not steal, we never do," which is true... "No stealing of fowls or of men," said the chief: "Catch the thief and bring him to me, one who steals a person is a pig," said Mohamad.

Arab allows Livingstone to celebrate Christmas:


Quote:

22nd, 23rd, and 24th December, 1869.—Mohamad presented a goat to be eaten on our Christmas.

Sorry Falah. should have realised it was those filthy Jews again. Do Muslims ever do anything wrong or is it only Jews and Christians?

Adamant wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 11:08am:

Sorry Falah. should have realised it was those filthy Jews again. Do Muslims ever do anything wrong or is it only Jews and Christians?

All groups do wrong and are equally bad, but atelast muslims can be honest about it unlike jews and christians who have to try and hide it, even when it becomes exposed call the apple an orange and run away to hide.

Adamant wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 8:52am:

Refute this Falah. It was missionary explorer David Livingstone whose graphic descriptions brought the ravages of the East African slave trade to light. His Missionary Travels and Narrative of an Expedition to the Zambezi exposed the horrors of the slave trade: "Two of the women had been shot the day before for attempting to untie their thongs. One woman had her infants brains knocked out because she could not carry her load and it; and a man was dispatched with an ax because he had broken down with fatigue those taken out of the country are but a very small section of the sufferers. We never realized the atrocious nature of the traffic until we saw it at the fountain head. 'There truly Satan has his seat.'

After reading Livingstones journal, I am quite sure that the massacre was not carried out by Arabs but  rather African pagans under the command of a man named Dugambe.


Quote:

Dugumbé is said to purpose going down the river to Kanagumbé River to build on the land Kanagumbé, which is a loop formed by the river, and is large. He is believed to possess great power of divination, even of killing unfaithful women... 15th July, 1871...It was a hot, sultry day, and when I went into the market I saw Adie and Manilla, and three of the men who had lately come with Dugumbé. I was surprised to see these three with their guns,...I was walking away to go out of the market, when I saw one of the fellows haggling about a fowl, and seizing hold of it. Before I had got thirty yards out, the discharge of two guns in the middle of the crowd told me that slaughter had begun: crowds dashed off from the place, and threw down their wares in confusion, and ran. At the same time that the three opened fire on the mass of people near the upper end of the marketplace volleys were discharged from a party down near the creek on the panic-stricken women, who dashed at the canoes. These, some fifty or more, were jammed in the creek, and the men forgot their paddles in the terror that seized all. The canoes were not to be got out, for the creek was too small for so many; men and women, wounded by the balls, poured into them, and leaped and scrambled into the water, shrieking. A long line of heads in the river showed that great numbers struck out for an island a full mile off: in going towards it they had to put the left shoulder to a current of about two miles an hour; if they had struck away diagonally to the opposite bank, the current would have aided them, and, though nearly three miles off, some would have gained land: as it was, the heads above water showed the long line of those that would inevitably perish... http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17024/17024-h/17024-h.htm#CHAPTER_V

It was actually a blood-feud between two groups of African pagan tribes:


Quote:

My first impulse was to pistol the murderers, but Dugumbé protested against my getting into a blood-feud, and I was thankful afterwards that I took his advice.

Does this sound like an Arab name:


Quote:

After the terrible affair in the water, the party of Tagamoio, who was the chief perpetrator, continued to fire on the people there and fire their villages

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

Adamant wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 11:08am: Sorry Falah. should have realised it was those filthy Jews again. Do Muslims ever do anything wrong or is it only Jews and Christians? All groups do wrong and are equally bad, but atelast muslims can be honest about it unlike jews and christians who have to try and hide it, even when it becomes exposed call the apple an orange and run away to hide.

Abu and Falah are hardly honest about it. There is a big difference between some people from a group doing evil and the entire group turning evil into a religion.

Attempting to rewrite history again we Falah or maybe selective quote hepl your cause did you see that the MAIN perpertrater was MUSLIM, wonder if he shouted allah akbar?



It was a hot, sultry day, and when I went into the market I saw Adie and Manilla, and three of the men who had lately come with Dugumbé. I was surprised to see these three with their guns, and felt inclined to reprove them, as one of my men did, for bringing weapons into the market, but I attributed it to their ignorance, and, it being very hot, I was walking away to go out of the market, when I saw one of the fellows haggling about a fowl, and seizing hold of it. Before I had got thirty yards out, the discharge of two guns in the middle of the crowd told me that slaughter had begun: crowds dashed off from the place, and threw down their wares in confusion, and ran. At the same time that the three opened fire on the mass of people near the upper end of the marketplace volleys were discharged from a party down near the creek on the panic-stricken women, who dashed at the canoes. These, some fifty or more, were jammed in the creek, and the men forgot their paddles in the terror that seized all. The canoes were not to be got out, for the creek was too small for so many; men and women, wounded by the balls, poured into them, and leaped and scrambled into the water, shrieking. A long line of heads in the river showed that great numbers struck out for an island a full mile off: in going towards it they had to put the left shoulder to a current of about two miles an hour; if they had struck away diagonally to the opposite bank, the current would have aided them, and, though nearly three miles off, some would have gained land: as it was, the heads

above water showed the long line of those that would inevitably perish.

Shot after shot continued to be fired on the helpless and perishing. Some of the long line of heads disappeared quietly; whilst other poor creatures threw their arms high, as if appealing to the great Father above, and sank. One canoe took in as many as it could hold, and all paddled with hands and arms: three canoes, got out in haste, picked up sinking friends, till all went down together, and disappeared. One man in a long canoe, which could have held forty or fifty, had clearly lost his head; he had been out in the stream before the massacre began, and now paddled up the river nowhere, and never looked to the drowning. By-and-bye all the heads disappeared; some had turned down stream towards the bank, and escaped. Dugumbé put people into one of the deserted vessels to save those in the water, and saved twenty-one, but one woman refused to be taken on board from thinking that she was to be made a slave of; she preferred the chance of life by swimming, to the lot of a slave: the Bagenya women are expert in the water, as they are accustomed to dive for oysters, and those who went down stream may have escaped, but the Arabs themselves estimated the loss of life at between 330 and 400 souls. The shooting-party near the canoes were so reckless, they killed two of their own people; and a Banyamwezi follower, who got into a deserted canoe to plunder, fell into the water, went down, then came up again, and down to rise no more.

My first impulse was to pistol the murderers, but Dugumbé protested against my getting into a blood-feud, and I was thankful afterwards that I took his advice.Two wretched Moslems asserted "that the firing was done by the people of the English;" I asked one of the why he lied so, and he could utter no excuse: no other falsehood came to his aid as he stood abashed, before me, and so telling him not to tell palpable falsehoods, I left him gaping.


After the terrible affair in the water, the party of Tagamoio, who was the chief perpetrator, continued to fire on the people there and fire their villages. As I write I hear the loud wails on the left bank over those who are there slain, ignorant of their many friends now in the depths of Lualaba. Oh, let Thy kingdom come! No one will ever know the exact loss on this bright sultry summer morning, it gave me the impression of being in Hell. All the slaves in the camp rushed at the fugitives on land, and plundered them: women were for hours collecting and carrying loads of what had been thrown down in terror.

Some escaped to me, and were protected: Dugumbé saved twenty-one, and of his own accord liberated them, they were brought to me, and remained over night near my house. One woman of the saved had a musket-ball through the thigh, another in the arm. I sent men with our flag to save some, for without a flag they might have been victims, for Tagamoio's people were shooting right and left like fiends. I counted twelve villages burning this morning. I asked the question of Dugumbé and others, "Now for what is all this murder?" All blamed Manilla as its cause, and in one sense he was the cause; but it is hardly credible that they repeat it is in order to be avenged on Manilla for making friends with headmen, he being a slave. I cannot believe it fully. The wish to make an impression in the country as to the importance and greatness of the new comers was the most potent motive; but it was terrible that the murdering of so many should be contemplated at all. It made me sick at heart. Who could accompany the people of Dugumbé and Tagamoio to Lomamé and be free from blood-guiltiness?

I proposed to Dugumbé to catch the murderers, and hang them up in the marketplace, as our protest against the bloody deeds before the Manyuema. If, as he and others added, the massacre was committed by Manilla's people, he would have consented; but it was done by

Tagamoio's people, and others of this party, headed by Dugumbé. This slaughter was peculiarly atrocious, inasmuch as we have always heard that women coming to or from market have never been known to be molested: even when two districts are engaged in actual hostilities, "the women," say they, "pass among us to market unmolested," nor has one ever been known to be plundered by the men. These black person Moslems are inferior to the Manyuema in justice and right. The people under Hassani began the superwickedness of capture and pillage of all indiscriminately. Dugumbé promised to send over men to order Tagamoio's men to cease firing and burning villages; they remained over among the ruins, feasting on goats and fowls all night, and next day (16th) continued their infamous work till twenty-seven villages were destroyed.

Why not try to tell the truth in future.

More Slavery for your information Falah

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSU News Research Archive
Search an archive of past research stories.
Coverage of OSU Research

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
Reports on national news coverage of university research.
Reporting on Cancer
A reporter's guide to the disease.
Science Communications Staff
Who we are and what we do.
 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Last updated 3/8/04)


WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES: RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHITE SLAVERY WAS MUCH MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED
COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.


Robert Davis
In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.

Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.

Davis’s new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”

Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis.

“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”

During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves.

“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.

Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.

Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.

Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.

Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one’s agenda to discuss what happened.

The enslavement of Europeans doesn’t fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as “evil colonialists” and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.

Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time – both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners – did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.

So Davis developed a new methodology to come up with reasonable estimates of the number of slaves along the Barbary Coast. Davis found the best records available indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time. He then estimated how many new slaves it would take to replace slaves as they died, escaped or were ransomed.

“The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down – figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level,” he said. “It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available.”

Putting together such sources of attrition as deaths, escapes, ransomings, and conversions, Davis calculated that about one-fourth of slaves had to be replaced each year to keep the slave population stable, as it apparently was between 1580 and 1680. That meant about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period. Using the same methodology, Davis has estimated as many as 475,000 additional slaves were taken in the previous and following centuries.

The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.

Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America.

“As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” he said.

While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European Christian slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally – in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys themselves.

Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.

“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.”

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm

1 million based on some dodgy guesswork.



Quote:

In the absence of detailed written records...and calculate how many new slaves were needed to replace those who died, escaped or were freed. Prof Davis conceded his methodology was not ideal but Ian Blanchard, professor of economic history at the University of Edinburgh and an authority on trade in Africa, said yesterday that..."We are talking about statistics which are not real, all the figures are estimates..." ...David Earle, author of The Corsairs of Malta and Barbary and The Pirate Wars, said that Prof Davis may have erred in extrapolating from 1580-1680 because that was the most intense slaving period: "His figures sound a bit dodgy and I think he may be exaggerating."

Perhaps the Europeans should have concentrated on protecting themselves instead of sending 12 million African slaves to the Americas.

If you read Livingstone's story you will see that he is a both a racist and a liar.

Livingstone often talks about black people in a disparaging way and refers to them as 'n!ggers'.


Livingstone's story has a lot contradiction in it.



Let's just look at a few of the strange claims that Livingstone makes:

*Arab Muslims praying to Moses
*Arab Muslims named "Yahud" (Arabic for "Jew")
*African Muslims with strange unheard of names.
*African Muslims who practice sorcery (which is totally against the main principle of Islam)


It is fairly obvious that Livingstone is a pathetic liar.

falah wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 10:34am:

If you read Livingstone's story you will see that he is a both a racist and a liar.

That is strange, mohammad, your only prophet called Black Africans "raisin heads". Does this make the imperfect man a racist?

He treated many Africans for a myriad of diseases, was apalled at the treatment of slaves by muslims. I dont think he was racist!


falah wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 10:34am:

*Arab Muslims praying to Moses*Arab Muslims named "Yahud" (Arabic for "Jew")*African Muslims with strange unheard of names.*African Muslims who practice sorcery (which is totally against the main principle of Islam)

I find that perfectly acceptable and perceived no lies in it!

You have been to Hajj which is Pagan in origin, practiced centuries before the meccans demanded that it be bought into islam. You wandered to the pillars and threw stones at rocks to cast out the devil. Abraham was supposed to have built the kaaba ( Which is not the oldest temple of God, Solomon's is). In truth Abraham did not exist so could not have been there. If you accept that he did exist he was never in Saudi Arabia.

You can see how a bit of mumbo jumbo muddled together with a stash of hoochie coochie turned out to be a pack of lies can't you falah, muslim lies.

Why is it that when you cannot argue any further with the truth, everything becomes a lie about islam?

Quote:

That is strange, mohammad, your only prophet called Black Africans "raisin heads".

Can you give the source please?

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 5:59pm:

Quote: That is strange, mohammad, your only prophet called Black Africans "raisin heads". Can you give the source please?

"Mohammed referred to Blacks as "raisin heads". (Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 1, no. 662 and vol. 9, no. 256). In another Hadith, Mohammed is quoted as saying that Blacks are, "pug-nosed slaves". (Sahih Moslem vol. 9, p. 46-47)."

In Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 1 no. 63, we read "while we were sitting with the Prophet, a man came and said, "who amongst you is Mohammed?" We replied, "this white man reclining on his arm..."

In volume 2 Hadith no. 122 refers to Mohammed as a "white person" and in vol. 2 Hadith no. 141 we are told that when Mohammed raised his arms, "the whiteness of his armpits became visible."


http://www.islamreview.com/articles/neitherblacknorafrican.shtml

http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2/Was_Muhammad_Racist.html

The latter site explains the comments away quit easily but it is not to be trusted as it is muslim.

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 5:59pm:

Quote: That is strange, mohammad, your only prophet called Black Africans "raisin heads". Can you give the source please?

This is no source because it didn't happen.

Falah, can you give an alternative translation? Is raisin a euphemism for something else, like 'rat raisins'?

http://www.youtube.com/user/singlemuslimltd?v=hFkG71Hu55I&feature=pyv&ad=8732774294&kw=islam

What's with the hair?? Hers is covered. His is just fvckin' everywhere??

What's with that?

I'd hate to see their bathroom - smacking short and curlies everywhere!!

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2012 at 9:21pm:

Falah, can you give an alternative translation? Is raisin a euphemism for something else, like 'rat raisins'?

The phrase has nothing to do with black people, it regards how people should not be judged by their socio-economic status or their physical appearance.

falah wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 12:16am:

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2012 at 9:21pm: Falah, can you give an alternative translation? Is raisin a euphemism for something else, like 'rat raisins'? The phrase has nothing to do with black people, it regards how people should not be judged by their socio-economic status or their physical appearance.

So referring to them as pug nosed slaves and rasin heads "regards" how people should not be judged for the colour of their skin?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 9:26am:

falah wrote on Jun 9th, 2012 at 12:16am: freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2012 at 9:21pm: Falah, can you give an alternative translation? Is raisin a euphemism for something else, like 'rat raisins'? The phrase has nothing to do with black people, it regards how people should not be judged by their socio-economic status or their physical appearance. So referring to them as pug nosed slaves and rasin heads "regards" how people should not be judged for the colour of their skin?

Who is "them"? It was not a general reference to a group of people. It is a reference to one particular person - the leader.

If he says the leader should be obeyed even if he is black and poor? Is that racist?

Somehow you think that if someone says that the leader should be obeyed even if he is black and ugly, that somehow means that all black people are ugly.



The meaning is that anyone who is the leader is to be obeyed.

It is an anti-racist message but you are too stupid to get.

It is an anti-elite message but you are too stupid to get it.

It is a message to not judge people by their appearance but you are to stupid to get it.


The black leader is used as an example because of the low soci-economic status that newly-freed slaves had in Arabia.



Apart from the obvious message of the importance of loyalty and obedience to the leader of the Islamic state, the message is don't judge people by their appearance, and don't judge people by their socio-economic status.

Only a retard would interpret this to mean that black people have heads that look like raisins.

You freediver are that retard.

The term is being used purely in a descriptive manner, there is nothing disparaging about it.

In the fact the reference he's claiming to use, commands Muslims to obey their ruler if he is an Abyssinian. Only a twisted liar like you fd would see that as an opportunity to attack Islam.

falah wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 11:23am:

It was not a general reference to a group of people. It is a reference to one particular person - the leader.

You sure about that? What is the name of this particular person?

He just said it refers to a particular category of person, ie. the leader.

And then you ask the name?

Are you listening or just plain daft?

Quote:

He just said it refers to a particular category of person

Are you sure that's what he actually said Abu?

Re-read what he said you goose.

Also since I know the reference in question, yes I know full well it means a leader in general, and not a particular individual.

Anyway, enough of this juvenile tom foolery.

Were you referring to me in particular, or to anyone?

Two other threads on slavery:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224988796

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330835332


True Colours wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 1:55am:

Unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam does not promote slavery.

So why did it require western interference in the Muslim world to finally end slavery there?


True Colours wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 1:55am:

Judaism and Christianity encourage the willy-nilly taking of slaves:

Can you clarify how Muhammed's taking of slaves was not "willy-nilly"? Was it because he made his way in an orderly fashion across the Arabian peninsula gatthering, booty, sex slaves, land and "willing" converts?


True Colours wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 1:55am:

Prophet Muhammed came into a world full of slavery.

Muhammed came into a world were slavery had previously been abolished in many nearby places. He industrialised slavery. He turned it into an empire building machine. Muhammed only forbade slavery where the Islamic empire and Muslims benefitted. Where it benefitted them to take more slaves, Muhammed permitted it, but "required" Muslims to go on a rape and pillage rampage in order to get slaves.


Quote:

In modern day Australia, the people are slaves to the banks.

;D

Says the guy who supports real slavery.

freediver wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:51am:

Quote: They work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in gruelling conditions, and are paid a pittance - most of which they send to their families back home. That's an odd thing for a slave to do. [quote]There is no concept of workers rights, unions are banned, and striking is illegal. Can you tell me any meaningful difference between this and "real" slavery?

Choice. They can choose whether to enter the country. They can choose whether to send most of their earnings back home. It might be a tough choice, but it is not the same as slavery. Not having western standards of employee protection law does not equate to slavery.


Quote:

I'm not sure why you scoff at this - I mean you were not shy to point out the UAE's primitiveness - yet somehow you are not prepared to call a spade a spade in regards to modern day slavery.

Actually, many of them do have genuine slaves. But I think it is illegal.


Quote:

Is it because it sits uncomfortably with your rosy world view of western countries causing their client states to turn away from slavery?

It doesn't "sit uncomfortably" at all. I'm just calling it as I see it. I still think they are primitive and that their treatment of these people is evidence of that. However the Muslim leaders have for example pointed out that these people are not slaves and thus the employers do not have a "right" to have sex with them whenever they want.[/quote]


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 3:30pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:51am: That's an odd thing for a slave to do I agree. Traditionally, slaves are treated much much better - particularly the slaves in Muhammad's time. freediver wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:51am: It doesn't "sit uncomfortably" at all. I'm just calling it as I see it. I still think they are primitive and that their treatment of these people is evidence of that. However the Muslim leaders have for example pointed out that these people are not slaves and thus the employers do not have a "right" to have sex with them whenever they want. No, they just beat and abuse them, and attempt to kill them - and when they defend themselves, get executed by the state (see recent case of Indonesian maid in Saudi Arabia).

So it was traditional for Muhammed's slaves to send money back home? Was it also traditional for Muslim leaders to insist it was not the owner's "right" to have sex with their slave? Was it traditional for them to work less than six days a week? Was it unheard of for them to get executed by the state, or is the only difference that you would blame the slave for defending themselves, like when Muhammed executed 700 POWs? Muslim men beat their women, are you suggesting that they did not beat their slaves? Were slaves higher on the social ladder than women?

How exactly were they treated better?

Muhammad's slaves were not abused. Their slave owners were encouraged to free them. These modern slaves can only be freed after paying off an impossible amount for their visa. Yes they had the choice to go their in the first place, but I'm pretty sure they weren't aware of what they were getting themselves into.

Also Muhammad's slave women were not compelled to have sex. I know its a waste of time me arguing this point, but seeing you did ask for my clarification.

The important point is that in a world that was full of slavery, Islam restricted the source of slavery to only those people who fought against the Islamic state - and even then only the worst of the worst most treacherous hostile of enemies were enslaved.

There is little incentive in Islam for the government to designate a conquered enemy as slaves, and it is only a last resort for dealing with treacherous hostile people who cannot be absorbed into the state.

The obvious choice for dealing with vanquished enemies in Islam is to incorporate them into the society as free and productive taxpaying citizens. This is borne out through Islamic history, where Islamic governments rarely designated enemies as slaves, rather, the default was to offer conquered enemies a peaceful surrender and entry into the Islamic state as law-abiding, taxpaying citizens.

Quote:

Muhammad's slaves were not abused.

How many slaves did he have? Were they treated better than his wives?


Quote:

Their slave owners were encouraged to free them.

That's nice. I know it's uncharacteristic of Islam to actually ban something.


Quote:

These modern slaves can only be freed after paying off an impossible amount for their visa. Yes they had the choice to go their in the first place, but I'm pretty sure they weren't aware of what they were getting themselves into.

Can you elaborate? Are you suggesting there is a state sponsored program of tricking asians into indentured servitude?


Quote:

Also Muhammad's slave women were not compelled to have sex. I know its a waste of time me arguing this point, but seeing you did ask for my clarification.

It is a waste of time because all you offer is meaningless platitudes. For example, I have asked you many times how the concept of consent works in the context of slavery, or when men consider it their "right" to have sex with the sex slaves they own. You are yet to even attempt an explanation. Usually you trip over yourself to offer excuses.


Quote:

The important point is that in a world that was full of slavery

Except it was not actually "full" was it? Many places had already banned slavery prior to Muhammed's time. Actually banning it (rather than merely pretending to as Muslims do) was by no means unheard of. Yet Islam has been the greatest barrier to the eradication of slavery from Muhammed's time right up till today. If it wasn't for the western interference Muslims always whine about, they would still be trading slaves. Mostly female ones of course.


Quote:

Islam restricted the source of slavery to only those people who fought against the Islamic stat

;D You mean they encouraged Muslims to go to war to capture sex slaves? Islam industrialised the slave trade for the purpose of empire building.


Quote:

and even then only the worst of the worst most treacherous hostile of enemies were enslaved.

Actually, the "worst" had their head's chopped off, like when Muhammed executed 700 POWs. Slavery was saved for the slightly less treacherous women and children, like the women Muhammed took for his own pleasure. I like it when Muslims explain how Muhammed could chop a man's head off one day, then convince his wife to have sex with him the next. Bit of a lady' man eh?


Quote:

There is little incentive in Islam for the government to designate a conquered enemy as slaves, and it is only a last resort for dealing with treacherous hostile people who cannot be absorbed into the state.

So what about beheading? Is that the second last resort?


Quote:

The obvious choice for dealing with vanquished enemies in Islam is to incorporate them into the society as free and productive taxpaying citizens.

There is also the option of ethnic cleansing and forced mass migration. But you are right, Muslims have also chosen to extort money off them, like when they generously "allowed" them to continue working their own land, provided they pay a 50% jizya tax. It is nearly always better for your enemy to give up without a fight, but you can only expect this if you give them a choice (ie death or taxes). Offering this choice does not make you a moral person, just a pragmatic warmonger.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

Except it was not actually "full" was it? Many places had already banned slavery prior to Muhammed's time.

Really? Such as?

This article gives three examples from before Muhammed, and many from after - I got up to the American examples and still had not seen a single Muslim example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

There were others discussed here recently also.

This verse appears to put women above slaves on the social ladder. Presumably you are allowed to have sex with your slaves after beating them.


Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 4:27pm:

Quote: The prophet said- None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day. www.sunnah.com/bukhari/67/138

;D ;D of course you would interpret it that way FD.

How would you interpret it Gandalf?

How do you feel about Muhammed imposing slavery on the middle east and beyond for over a thousand years, when it had already been abolished in places prior to his reign?

it was abolished, then reinstituted in China - ie the other side of the world - about 500 years before Muhammad was born.

Name one place where slavery was outlawed at the time of the prophet in the 7th century.

Australia

Really? It was outlawed in 7th century aboriginal culture? All of them? There were hundreds of them you know. Presumably you can show me the aboriginal law that stated that slavery was outlawed? This should be interesting seeing they didn't have writing.

Not really sure what the point is here Gandalf. You appear to be conceding that some societies had already banned slavery before, during and after Muhammed's time.

Muhammed left the middle east with a "divine right" to trade in slaves until the west eventually intervened. Islam was (and still is in places) one of the last great barriers to the eradication of slavery.

freediver wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

Not really sure what the point is here Gandalf. You appear to be conceding that some societies had already banned slavery before, during and after Muhammed's time.

During? Show me which societies banned slavery during Muhammad;s time. You stated earlier that "Many places had already banned slavery prior to Muhammed's time." Which seems to imply that the islamic state during Muhammad's time was surrounded by enlightened places that had a standing ban on slavery - and that presumably Muhammad was the stick-in-the-mud for holding his society back. My point is that according to your abolition list, the "many places" amounts to a single place - China, where a very brief ban was tried twice -  - once in 3rd century BC, an again in the 1st century BC. Both lasted only a few years, and slavery was back in full swing thereafter. Not a single known society had a ban on slavery at the time of Muhammad.

What the prophet did do was introduce new laws on the treatment of slaves, and encouraged his followers to "better themselves" by freeing slaves. Clearly the act of freeing slaves was promoted as something to strive for. And yes, I agree it was unfortunate that the prophet's clear intent of phasing out slavery was not followed up on by his followers in the generations after.

Quote:

During? Show me which societies banned slavery during Muhammad;s time.

I just gave you an example.


Quote:

You stated earlier that "Many places had already banned slavery prior to Muhammed's time." Which seems to imply that the islamic state during Muhammad's time was surrounded by enlightened places that had a standing ban on slavery

It does not "seem to imply" that at all. If I wanted to say that there were bans on slavery elsewhere while Muhammed was building an empire through slavery, I would have said so. In fact I did. You should be able to tell the difference.


Quote:

My point is that according to your abolition list, the "many places" amounts to a single place - China, where a very brief ban was tried twice -  - once in 3rd century BC, an again in the 1st century BC.

The wikipedia article gives three examples prior to Muhammed, and is limited to places that had experienced slavery and then "officially" banned it - ie not places where slavery was simply not practiced due to custom, taboo, tribal law etc.


Quote:

And yes, I agree it was unfortunate that the prophet's clear intent of phasing out slavery was not followed up on by his followers in the generations after.

Why is that intent so clear? To me the intent seems to be more about harnessing slavery for the purpose of empire building. The rules regarding the capturing of women, slaves, property, land etc, and even the offspring of your sex slaves, are all designed to facilitate and encourage militant expansionism. Muhammed never predicted or requested the complete abolition of slavery, except perhaps implicitly in the context of the whole world falling under Islam's yoke. He did however demonstrate how to build, expand and consolidate an empire and clearly expected his followers to continue that.

Australia has a massive slaving history:

Quote:

Some 55,000 to 62,500 South Sea Islanders were taken to Australia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbirding

Of course they were later kicked out under the White Australia policy.


Kanaka slaves working on Queensland cane fields:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Nla.pic-an24494586_south_sea_islanders.jpg

Aborigines were used as slaves for most of the Christian white settlement of Australia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1525000/images/_1525825_chainsbbc300.jpg

Initially, Aborigines were forced off their land, and herded on to mission. They were then forced to work in exchange for food, that they were no longer allowed to hunt on their own lands.


http://1deadlynation.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/chains.jpg?w=604&h=378


Later Aborigines were forced to work for slave wages.


Stolen wages (Western Australia)

Under past legislation, such as the Aborigines Act 1905 and the Native Welfare Act 1963, employers, including the State Government, held money and property belonging to Aboriginal people from 1905 to 1972 in a complex network of trust accounts administered by the then Department of Native Welfare.

The control of wages was permitted under legislation which gave the Department the power to hold up to 75 per cent of earnings in a departmental trust account.  There is little or no evidence that these wages were returned...


http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/en/Stolen-Wages/

Well done TC. I think you have figured out what the topic is.

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

I just gave you an example.

you did? Sorry I mus have missed it.


freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

If I wanted to say that there were bans on slavery elsewhere while Muhammed was building an empire through slavery, I would have said so. In fact I did.

So where else were there bans on slavery during Muhammad's time?


freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

The wikipedia article gives three examples prior to Muhammed

No it gives two FD - both in China, both lasted just a few years. Please read the article again, and see if you can understand the difference between banning a slave trade and banning slavery altogether.


freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

places where slavery was simply not practiced due to custom, taboo, tribal law etc.

Do you know of any such places at the time of Muhammad? Or more relevantly, do you know of any societies that had such a custom/taboo etc that were in the surrounding arab area and/or had direct contact with Muhammad's islamic state?


freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

The rules regarding the capturing of women, slaves, property, land etc, and even the offspring of your sex slaves, are all designed to facilitate and encourage militant expansionism.

And encouraging the freeing of them? Where does that fit in?

Quote:

No it gives two FD - both in China, both lasted just a few years. Please read the article again, and see if you can understand the difference between banning a slave trade and banning slavery altogether.

Fair enough. The one in India did not completely ban slavery, but did ban the slave trade, which is a lot further than Muhammed went.


Quote:

Do you know of any such places at the time of Muhammad? Or more relevantly, do you know of any societies that had such a custom/taboo etc that were in the surrounding arab area and/or had direct contact with Muhammad's islamic state?

I already gave you an example.


Quote:

And encouraging the freeing of them? Where does that fit in?

Apparently a slave woman can earn her freedom by bearing the owner a male child - who as far as I can tell is to be raised as a Muslim. It is not exactly a pleasant situation for her to be in, but it does help fuel the war machine.

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 10:14pm:

Fair enough. The one in India did not completely ban slavery, but did ban the slave trade, which is a lot further than Muhammed went.

Actually, Muhammad and his companions used the slave trade to purchase slaves for the specific purpose of freeing them.


freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 10:14pm:

I already gave you an example.

No you didn't. You gave Australia, which is neither in the arabian region, nor had any contact with Muhammad and his state.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:

Actually, Muhammad and his companions used the slave trade to purchase slaves for the specific purpose of freeing them.

How do we know this is
fact?

It is a fact that Muhammad purchased many slaves for the express purpose of freeing them. He also ordered his companions to do the same.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 12:19am:

Posted by: gandalf    Posted on: Today at 12:19am It is a fact that Muhammad purchased many slaves for the express purpose of freeing them. He also ordered his companions to do the same.

Muhammad called Black Africans Gollywogs, Livingstone wrote in his journal on Africa that areas had been "denuded" of people due to the slave trade by muslims.

I think you must live in a drug induced utopia, for some of the stuff you write beggars belief!

Adamant wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

Muhammad called Black Africans Gollywogs

Of course he did - even though the term gollywog was a 19th century invention  ::)

I really can't be bothered with you adamant. Every single time I have gone to the effort with your posts I have exposed every one of your claims as blatant fabrications. Yet you just keep coming back for more, and then when you have no credibility left, you just resort to personal abuse.


Adamant wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

I think you must live in a drug induced utopia, for some of the stuff you write beggars belief!

Sadly, the stuff you write is depressingly predictable.

Adamant wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

Livingstone wrote in his journal on Africa that areas had been "denuded" of people due to the slave trade by muslims.

Yeah, Livingstone has ben exposed as fairly confused individual who couldn't even tell the difference between a Jew and a Muslim.

If you read Livingstone's story you will see that he is a both a racist and a liar.

Livingstone often talks about black people in a disparaging way and refers to them as 'n!ggers'.


Livingstone's story has a lot contradiction in it.


Livingstones describes 'Muslim' slavetraders as

* praying to Moses
*having Un-Islamic names like "Yahud" (Arabic for "Jew")
*being practitioners of sorcery (which is totally against the main monotheistic principle of Islam)

I wouldn't take Livingstone's word too seriously.

1/.A muslim lie: Muhammad was an Abolitionist. He Purchased the Freedom of Slaves

2/.The truth: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave.  Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me.  And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man) (Sahih Muslim 3901).

muhammad “purchased” the slave by trading two black slaves, this certainly is not emancipation. muhammad merely owned and traded African slaves. 

As a wealthy businessman, muhammad could have liberated all three slaves, but instead he chose to sell the two Africans into an uncertain future.

Secondly, it is obvious from the passage that Muhammad felt he had been conned into liberating the slave who had come to him, since he was not told of his status as a slave.  Because, of this, Muhammad decided that he would not be duped again.  In the future, he would always ask first about whether a man was free or not before deciding whether to accept allegiance.


Source

True Colours wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:43am:

If you read Livingstone's story you will see that he is a both a racist and a liar.

But hey, he has it in for muslims - therefore he's a friend of adamant's.

Its particularly relevant bringing up this 19th century British missionary in a discussion about Muhammad's attitudes towards slavery. Apparently.  :P

Notice adamant's sophisticated train of argument:

-"hey Gandalf, Muhammad didn't really buy slaves to free them right?"

- "well yes he did actually"

- "err, but.. but... um Livingstone said some bad stuff about muslims in the 19th century - so there!!"

If he's true to form, his next post will be a hail of personal abuse.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 12:19am:

It is a fact that Muhammad purchased many slaves for the express purpose of freeing them. He also ordered his companions to do the same.

It is also a fact Mohammad sold women and children into slavery so he could get money for weapons and horses.

www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Slavery

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 12:19am: It is a fact that Muhammad purchased many slaves for the express purpose of freeing them. He also ordered his companions to do the same. It is also a fact Mohammad sold women and children into slavery so he could get money for weapons and horses. www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Slavery

Is this a case of Freediver's sock puppet quoting Freediver's dodgy wiki? ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

Adamant wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 11:04am: Muhammad called Black Africans Gollywogs Of course he did - even though the term gollywog was a 19th century invention  ::) I really can't be bothered with you adamant. Every single time I have gone to the effort with your posts I have exposed every one of your claims as blatant fabrications. Yet you just keep coming back for more, and then when you have no credibility left, you just resort to personal abuse. Adamant wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 11:04am: I think you must live in a drug induced utopia, for some of the stuff you write beggars belief! Sadly, the stuff you write is depressingly predictable.

Why will you not check out what I have stated, is it because that you might find it TRUE?

Adamant wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 11:42am: Adamant wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 11:04am: Muhammad called Black Africans Gollywogs Of course he did - even though the term gollywog was a 19th century invention  ::) I really can't be bothered with you adamant. Every single time I have gone to the effort with your posts I have exposed every one of your claims as blatant fabrications. Yet you just keep coming back for more, and then when you have no credibility left, you just resort to personal abuse. Adamant wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 11:04am: I think you must live in a drug induced utopia, for some of the stuff you write beggars belief! Sadly, the stuff you write is depressingly predictable. Why will you not check out what I have stated, is it because that you might find it TRUE?

Perhaps you should quote the relevant Hadith where Muhammed discusses gollywogs, Adamant. This would give your argument some credibility.

Is this true Gandalf?


moses wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:49am:

1/.A muslim lie: Muhammad was an Abolitionist. He Purchased the Freedom of Slaves 2/.The truth: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave.  Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me.  And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man) (Sahih Muslim 3901). muhammad “purchased” the slave by trading two black slaves, this certainly is not emancipation. muhammad merely owned and traded African slaves.  As a wealthy businessman, muhammad could have liberated all three slaves, but instead he chose to sell the two Africans into an uncertain future. Secondly, it is obvious from the passage that Muhammad felt he had been conned into liberating the slave who had come to him, since he was not told of his status as a slave.  Because, of this, Muhammad decided that he would not be duped again.  In the future, he would always ask first about whether a man was free or not before deciding whether to accept allegiance. Source

Quote:

Is this a case of Freediver's sock puppet quoting Freediver's dodgy wiki?

As usual, you are confused TC.

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 4:47pm:

Perhaps you should quote the relevant Hadith

I did have teeth some time ago, now tho I seem to have lost them!

Shurely shome mishtake, eh?

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:32am:

Shurely shome mishtake, eh?

Sorry Kernel the had teeth as requested Hadith vol.1:662, vol.9:256

PS he called them Raison Heads not gollywogs, grosser than a donkey Surah 9:61 big difference I suppose if you are muslim.

True Colours wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:43am:

Yeah, Livingstone has ben exposed as fairly confused individual who couldn't even tell the difference between a Jew and a Muslim.

Really? Who exposed him?

True Colours wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:43am:

If you read Livingstone's story you will see that he is a both a racist and a liar

You of course being a muslim would know all about racists and liars, for is it not fact that Saudi Arabia is one of the most racist countries in the world. The old adage "All men are created equal but some are more equal than others" certainly rings true in racist muslim lands.

freediver wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 8:37pm:

Is this true Gandalf? moses wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 11:49am: 1/.A muslim lie: Muhammad was an Abolitionist. He Purchased the Freedom of Slaves 2/.The truth: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave.  Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me.  And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man) (Sahih Muslim 3901). muhammad “purchased” the slave by trading two black slaves, this certainly is not emancipation. muhammad merely owned and traded African slaves.  As a wealthy businessman, muhammad could have liberated all three slaves, but instead he chose to sell the two Africans into an uncertain future. Secondly, it is obvious from the passage that Muhammad felt he had been conned into liberating the slave who had come to him, since he was not told of his status as a slave.  Because, of this, Muhammad decided that he would not be duped again.  In the future, he would always ask first about whether a man was free or not before deciding whether to accept allegiance. Source

Gandalf, do you have an explanation for this one as well?

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 2:01pm:

As a wealthy businessman

He was not wealthy. He lived in near poverty, and spent his money or gave it to the needy as soon as he got any.


When the prophet passed away, Amir bin Al-Harith narrated that: "God's Messenger (Prophet Muhammad) did not leave a Dinar or a Dirham (Arab form of currency or money)  or a male or a female slave. He left only his white mule on which he used to ride, and his weapons, and a piece of land which he gave in charity for the needy travellers."
- Bukhari




freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 2:01pm:

Secondly, it is obvious from the passage that Muhammad felt he had been conned into liberating the slave who had come to him, since he was not told of his status as a slave.  Because, of this, Muhammad decided that he would not be duped again.  In the future, he would always ask first about whether a man was free or not before deciding whether to accept allegiance.

The prophet could not unlawfully deprive people of their property.

The prophet, however did free thousands of slaves during his life. Most were unallocated slaves who belonged to the state. But there were also scores of slaves that he liberated by purchasing their freedom. He encouraged the people around him to also liberate slaves, and they did so mostly by purchasing their freedom. For example, his wives purchased the freedom of scores of slaves as well.

Many of the pre-eminent people in Madinah at the time the of the Prophet were people whose freedom he had purchased.

The Prophet called on people to free slaves:


"Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity." 
- Bukhari


Set free the captives and accept invitations
- Bukhari


Asma narrated: "No doubt the Prophet ordered people to manumit slaves during the solar eclipse. 
- Bukhari


The Quran even tells slave owners to free slaves:



Quote:

And those who seek a writ  [of emancipation] from among whom your right hand possess - then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and enrich them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you. - an-Noor, v.33

Quote:

He was not wealthy. He lived in near poverty, and spent his money or gave it to the needy as soon as he got any.

Muhammed supported about a dozen wives. That makes him wealthy.

Do the slaves count as needy? Why did he not simply abolish slavery when it would have cost him nothing, when he was ruling over all of Arabia? Was it because slavery was a cornerstone of his strategy for spreading Islam by the sword?


Quote:

The prophet could not unlawfully deprive people of their property.

;D We are talking about slaves right? Isn't this the guy who made his own laws and killed everyone who disagreed?

How come muslims have to defend themselves against slavery when slavery doesn't even exist anymore?

So there was no slavery in Christianity or Judaism?

There was also slavery according to the bible,

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."  (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)


Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.   (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Quote:

How come muslims have to defend themselves against slavery when slavery doesn't even exist anymore?

Slavery does exist, thanks mostly to Islam. It was only western interference (that Muslims whine about constantly) that saw it nearly eradicated in the Muslim world. Many Muslims want to introduce a legal system that industrialises slavery as an empire building tool.

They are not defending themselves. They are defending Islam. No-one is forcing them to do this.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 9:26am:

Quote: How come muslims have to defend themselves against slavery when slavery doesn't even exist anymore? Slavery does exist, thanks mostly to Islam. It was only western interference (that Muslims whine about constantly) that saw it nearly eradicated in the Muslim world. Many Muslims want to introduce a legal system that industrialises slavery as an empire building tool. They are not defending themselves. They are defending Islam. No-one is forcing them to do this.

Where does it exist?

Most of the muslim countries have abolished slavery.

Tunia, Egypt, yemen, saudia, uae, oman all abolished slavery.

There is no slaves in lebanon, turkey, Syria,palestian and Jordan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Present_day

The Islamic republic of Mauritania only abolished slavery in 1981 and criminalised it in 2007. It is estimated that around 20% of the population is still enslaved.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 9:26am:

Slavery does exist, thanks mostly to Islam

Care to explain this statement - given that not one of the places mentioned in your link where current slavery exists is muslim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Present_day

The Islamic republic of Mauritania only abolished slavery in 1981 and criminalised it in 2007. It is estimated that around 20% of the population is still enslaved.

Nothing to do with Islam at all eh Gandalf?

Didn't you just finish telling us in another thread that Turkey and Malaysia are Muslim countries and their laws reflect Islam?

What is the population of Mauritania FD? We are talking about current day slavery being "thanks mostly to islam" - your words, remember? Dear me I never realised mighty Mauritania  - 3.3 million population - had such an influence on international slavery.

40 million caste slaves in India, chinese/SE asian sex slave trafficking, North Korean slave labour - all down to little Mauritania - yes?

Muslim Statistics (Slavery)

Islam's disturbing legacy of slavery

Islamic Slavery and Racism

ISLAM AND SLAVERY

Slavery in Muslim-Majority Countries: A Survey

True Colours wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 4:08pm:

The prophet, however did free thousands of slaves during his life. Most were unallocated slaves who belonged to the state.

Is this your way of saying that they were free up until they tried to stop Muhammed and his merry band of warmongers from slaughtering them, stealing all their land and property and and raping the women? Like the people Muhammed generously set free and allowed to work the land they previously owned (now owned by Muhammed and his warmongers) provided they gave half of what they grew to the Muslims?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 24^th, 2020 at 9:39pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2020 at 7:13pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 24th, 2020 at 2:29pm: freediver wrote on Jan 7th, 2020 at 3:33pm: Quote: Nevermind FD - perhaps if Muhammad was intervening to end slavery all would be forgiven. He was murdering innocent people to line his own pockets, and built a religion around it to justify it that has plagued humanity with similar acts ever since - including slavery, right up till today and no doubt into the future. So when western countries marched into muslim countries and ended slavery - do you think the purpose of the intervention was to end slavery, or to "line their own pockets"? Take some time on that. Are you asking me to reduce a war to a singular cause? The west has intervened in the Muslim world many times over many centuries to end slavery, most recently in the case of ISIS. All Muslims can do in response is the "hey, look over there" trick. No no, FD, just the times you said Whitey ended slavery in Arabia. You do have a link, no? I'm guesssing Jihadwatch. You?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world#19th_and_20th_centuries


Quote:

Appalling loss of life and hardships often resulted from the processes of acquisition and transportation of slaves to Muslim lands and this drew the attention of European opponents of slavery. The continuing pressure from European countries eventually overcame the strong resistance of religious conservatives who were holding that forbidding what God permits is just as great an offence as to permit what God forbids. Slavery, in their eyes, was "authorized and regulated by the holy law".

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2020 at 10:04pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 24th, 2020 at 9:39pm: freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2020 at 7:13pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 24th, 2020 at 2:29pm: freediver wrote on Jan 7th, 2020 at 3:33pm: Quote: Nevermind FD - perhaps if Muhammad was intervening to end slavery all would be forgiven. He was murdering innocent people to line his own pockets, and built a religion around it to justify it that has plagued humanity with similar acts ever since - including slavery, right up till today and no doubt into the future. So when western countries marched into muslim countries and ended slavery - do you think the purpose of the intervention was to end slavery, or to "line their own pockets"? Take some time on that. Are you asking me to reduce a war to a singular cause? The west has intervened in the Muslim world many times over many centuries to end slavery, most recently in the case of ISIS. All Muslims can do in response is the "hey, look over there" trick. No no, FD, just the times you said Whitey ended slavery in Arabia. You do have a link, no? I'm guesssing Jihadwatch. You? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world#19th_and_20th_centuries [quote]Appalling loss of life and hardships often resulted from the processes of acquisition and transportation of slaves to Muslim lands and this drew the attention of European opponents of slavery. The continuing pressure from European countries eventually overcame the strong resistance of religious conservatives who were holding that forbidding what God permits is just as great an offence as to permit what God forbids. Slavery, in their eyes, was "authorized and regulated by the holy law".

[/quote]

I've already replied to this one, dear. You've ignored G's post above.

A simple mishtake to make, no?

Are you satisfied that I have given you a link to "Whitey ending slavery in Arabia"?

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2020 at 12:33pm:

Are you satisfied that I have given you a link to "Whitey ending slavery in Arabia"?

No, dear, we most certainly are not satisfied.

Why don't you just tell us?

Brownies across the desert learned Slavery from the Blacks down in West Africa. The Bantu created Slavery, as surely as the Indian created Racism.

Now the Bantu's of Niger, Nigeria, etc are now building a giant Barrier of Trees to keep the Sand from their Vaginas.  :D

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 6:08pm: How is opposing the legalisation of slavery 'illogical'? Doesn't the fact I know so little about it imply I am not fixated? Cut the crap fd, you've been harping on about this since 2008. Exhibit A: Freediver making this same thread 4 years ago freediver wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 6:08pm: Isn't it a bit of an oxymoron to talk about the human rights of slaves? Is it an oxymoron to talk about human rights of life prisoners in Western gaols?

strange response to a question about slaves?


Does abu claim that under Islamic law, slaves are considered to be criminals?

FD's annoying habit of shifting replies between multiple threads will not be tolerated. Last post moved back to where it belongs.

PZ547 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2020 at 8:22am:

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 6:25pm: freediver wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 6:08pm: How is opposing the legalisation of slavery 'illogical'? Doesn't the fact I know so little about it imply I am not fixated? Cut the crap fd, you've been harping on about this since 2008. Exhibit A: Freediver making this same thread 4 years ago freediver wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 6:08pm: Isn't it a bit of an oxymoron to talk about the human rights of slaves? Is it an oxymoron to talk about human rights of life prisoners in Western gaols? strange response to a question about slaves? Does abu claim that under Islamic law, slaves are considered to be criminals?

Muslims are practicing slavery in Western countries they have been taken in by:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TynJHwRdjSU

Great to see an old Abu-busting thread from 2008, when FD "changed his mind".

Abu told FD he was sick of his questions and to read his "popular misconceptions on Islam" thread. Strangely though, it's disappeared. "Unable to access".

How diabolically cunning of Abu to pull that trick. How Muslim of him.

There's FD, asking sincere questions, and there's Abu, having the nerve to tell him to check a thread that doesn't exist anymore.

So we'll need you to answer FD's questions, G. FD hasn't heard anything back in the last 12 years. He's still curious.

Could you please tell FD how Whitey liberated the Muslims from slavery?

Come on Karnal.  We can rely on you for transparency

"Does abu claim that under Islamic law, slaves are considered to be criminals?"


Abu likened slaves of Islam to prisoners in Western prisons

which naturally leads to the question:

Does Abu claim that under Islamic law, slaves are considered to be criminals?


So what's your take, Karnal?


and ---

are slaves of Islam 'criminals' prior to being enslaved?

or

does being a slave of Islam automatically confer the description upon them of 'criminals'?

give us some clarification please

PZ547 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2020 at 2:43pm:

Come on Karnal.  We can rely on you for transparency "Does abu claim that under Islamic law, slaves are considered to be criminals?" Abu likened slaves of Islam to prisoners in Western prisons which naturally leads to the question: Does Abu claim that under Islamic law, slaves are considered to be criminals? So what's your take, Karnal? and --- are slaves of Islam 'criminals' prior to being enslaved? or does being a slave of Islam automatically confer the description upon them of 'criminals'? give us some clarification please

Good question, Alphabet, but we must ask a Muslim for the answer.

G, do you agree with Abu that all Muslims support the enslavement of Whitey?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for allah alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides allah), then certainly, allah is all-seer of what they do.

Nobody is allowed to think for themselves, islam is enforced by pain of death.

Sounds like slavery to me

Gandalf do you agree with this statement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world

The continuing pressure from European countries eventually overcame the strong resistance of religious conservatives who were holding that forbidding what God permits is just as great an offence as to permit what God forbids.

FD, do you agree with this statement?


Quote:

There were also many pious Muslims who refused to have slaves and persuaded others to do so.[82] Eventually, the Ottoman Empire's orders against the traffic of slaves were issued and put into effect.[78] According to Brockopp, in the 19th century, "Some authorities made blanket pronouncements against slavery, arguing that it violated the Qurʾānic ideals of equality and freedom. The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality."[23]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world

You may have missed it. It comes just after your quote, dear.

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 1^st, 2020 at 11:06am:

FD, do you agree with this statement? Quote: There were also many pious Muslims who refused to have slaves and persuaded others to do so.[82] Eventually, the Ottoman Empire's orders against the traffic of slaves were issued and put into effect.[78] According to Brockopp, in the 19th century, "Some authorities made blanket pronouncements against slavery, arguing that it violated the Qurʾānic ideals of equality and freedom. The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality."[23] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world You may have missed it. It comes just after your quote, dear.

Islam is a religion and a political doctrine of world conquest.

The Ottoman Empire (an awful lot of padded footrests there, btw) embodied it at its height in the late middle ages but not in its dying days in the 18-20th centuries ( a long decline).

Iran today is a good approximation of what Islam is about. As is Saudi, Brunei, Pakilandistan, Auburn,  Islamic State and the like. That secular political powers rule in Muslim countries is a sore point for Islamists.

Islam is fundamentally and unalterably hierarchical about the worth of human beings. Are you with us, sons of Mohammed, or are you with the enemy, the kuffar.  The Bush doctrine was pinched from Islam.

Frank wrote on Feb 1^st, 2020 at 6:43pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 11:06am: FD, do you agree with this statement? Quote: There were also many pious Muslims who refused to have slaves and persuaded others to do so.[82] Eventually, the Ottoman Empire's orders against the traffic of slaves were issued and put into effect.[78] According to Brockopp, in the 19th century, "Some authorities made blanket pronouncements against slavery, arguing that it violated the Qurʾānic ideals of equality and freedom. The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality."[23] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world You may have missed it. It comes just after your quote, dear. Islam is a religion and a political doctrine of world conquest. The Ottoman Empire (an awful lot of padded footrests there, btw) embodied it at its height in the late middle ages but not in its dying days in the 18-20th centuries ( a long decline). Iran today is a good approximation of what Islam is about. As is Saudi, Brunei, Pakilandistan, Auburn,  Islamic State and the like. That secular political powers rule in Muslim countries is a sore point for Islamists. Islam is fundamentally and unalterably hierarchical about the worth of human beings. Are you with us, sons of Mohammed, or are you with the enemy, the kuffar.  The Bush doctrine was pinched from Islam.

Please don't try to change the topic, old boy. FD wants us to stick to the facts in his Wikipedia article.

This is a most serious subject. FD's been saying this for 12 years now. We're finally unpacking the evidence.

FD?

Islam is Islam. It's  not altered, in any way, by man-made legislation.
Mohammed fkd them all up, good and proper, for eternity.

No rejection of his 'revelation'  :D :D, no alteration, no revision, no nuffin'.

Locked into mindless literalist supremacist psychosis. That, or apostasy.

It's the joke of the millennia.

moh told them to stay in the dark barbaric past, islam was perfected for them 1400 odd years ago.

Oh well the men all squat to pee and play with their dicks afterwards, so I suppose it's not all bad.

Stop trying to change the subject. FD wants to discuss his evidence.

FD?

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 1^st, 2020 at 8:23pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 6:43pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 11:06am: FD, do you agree with this statement? Quote: There were also many pious Muslims who refused to have slaves and persuaded others to do so.[82] Eventually, the Ottoman Empire's orders against the traffic of slaves were issued and put into effect.[78] According to Brockopp, in the 19th century, "Some authorities made blanket pronouncements against slavery, arguing that it violated the Qurʾānic ideals of equality and freedom. The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality."[23] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world You may have missed it. It comes just after your quote, dear. Islam is a religion and a political doctrine of world conquest. The Ottoman Empire (an awful lot of padded footrests there, btw) embodied it at its height in the late middle ages but not in its dying days in the 18-20th centuries ( a long decline). Iran today is a good approximation of what Islam is about. As is Saudi, Brunei, Pakilandistan, Auburn,  Islamic State and the like. That secular political powers rule in Muslim countries is a sore point for Islamists. Islam is fundamentally and unalterably hierarchical about the worth of human beings. Are you with us, sons of Mohammed, or are you with the enemy, the kuffar.  The Bush doctrine was pinched from Islam. Please don't try to change the topic, old boy. FD wants us to stick to the facts in his Wikipedia article. This is a most serious subject. FD's been saying this for 12 years now. We're finally unpacking the evidence. FD?

We are on topic.

There is no Islamic, Koranic, Musulman basis for ending slavery.

That some Westernised backsliding Muslims went along with the humane Western doctrines for abolishing slavery does NOT mean that they have found Islamic/Koranic/Musulman reasons for doing so - because there aren't any.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2020 at 9:11am:

Gandalf do you agree with this statement? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world The continuing pressure from European countries eventually overcame the strong resistance of religious conservatives who were holding that forbidding what God permits is just as great an offence as to permit what God forbids.

Oh look, FD's asking me a question I've already answered - but with an extra twist of asking me in a different thread. What a novelty! Here's the answer that so evavded FD that he had to ask me the same question again - twice, in two separate threads.

Here's the answer I provided the first time he asked:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28^th, 2020 at 10:48pm:

Its impossible for any objective person to agree or disagree with it - because it is so vague that it is neither here nor there. What "pressure" exactly? What activity did this involve? What does it mean by "overcome"? Not even you can explain it. On top of that there isn't even any source for the claim. So yes, of course I "fall back on my own ignorance" - because neither you or the article gives us anything to form an informed opinion on the matter. Sure, I could go and do my own independent research on the topic, but thats not the point. The point is, it is your claim which you are attempting to substantiate to us, and the one piece of evidence you provide is entirely inadequate.

Frank wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2020 at 8:53pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 8:23pm: Frank wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 6:43pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 11:06am: FD, do you agree with this statement? Quote: There were also many pious Muslims who refused to have slaves and persuaded others to do so.[82] Eventually, the Ottoman Empire's orders against the traffic of slaves were issued and put into effect.[78] According to Brockopp, in the 19th century, "Some authorities made blanket pronouncements against slavery, arguing that it violated the Qurʾānic ideals of equality and freedom. The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality."[23] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world You may have missed it. It comes just after your quote, dear. Islam is a religion and a political doctrine of world conquest. The Ottoman Empire (an awful lot of padded footrests there, btw) embodied it at its height in the late middle ages but not in its dying days in the 18-20th centuries ( a long decline). Iran today is a good approximation of what Islam is about. As is Saudi, Brunei, Pakilandistan, Auburn,  Islamic State and the like. That secular political powers rule in Muslim countries is a sore point for Islamists. Islam is fundamentally and unalterably hierarchical about the worth of human beings. Are you with us, sons of Mohammed, or are you with the enemy, the kuffar.  The Bush doctrine was pinched from Islam. Please don't try to change the topic, old boy. FD wants us to stick to the facts in his Wikipedia article. This is a most serious subject. FD's been saying this for 12 years now. We're finally unpacking the evidence. FD? We are on topic. There is no Islamic, Koranic, Musulman basis for ending slavery. That some Westernised backsliding Muslims went along with the humane Western doctrines for abolishing slavery does NOT mean that they have found Islamic/Koranic/Musulman reasons for doing so - because there aren't any.

Oh? And you know that because...

Always absolutely never ever.

Now you stop dismissing FD's sources, old boy. You don't want him asking you questions.

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2020 at 11:26pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 2nd, 2020 at 8:53pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 8:23pm: Frank wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 6:43pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 11:06am: FD, do you agree with this statement? Quote: There were also many pious Muslims who refused to have slaves and persuaded others to do so.[82] Eventually, the Ottoman Empire's orders against the traffic of slaves were issued and put into effect.[78] According to Brockopp, in the 19th century, "Some authorities made blanket pronouncements against slavery, arguing that it violated the Qurʾānic ideals of equality and freedom. The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality."[23] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world You may have missed it. It comes just after your quote, dear. Islam is a religion and a political doctrine of world conquest. The Ottoman Empire (an awful lot of padded footrests there, btw) embodied it at its height in the late middle ages but not in its dying days in the 18-20th centuries ( a long decline). Iran today is a good approximation of what Islam is about. As is Saudi, Brunei, Pakilandistan, Auburn,  Islamic State and the like. That secular political powers rule in Muslim countries is a sore point for Islamists. Islam is fundamentally and unalterably hierarchical about the worth of human beings. Are you with us, sons of Mohammed, or are you with the enemy, the kuffar.  The Bush doctrine was pinched from Islam. Please don't try to change the topic, old boy. FD wants us to stick to the facts in his Wikipedia article. This is a most serious subject. FD's been saying this for 12 years now. We're finally unpacking the evidence. FD? We are on topic. There is no Islamic, Koranic, Musulman basis for ending slavery. That some Westernised backsliding Muslims went along with the humane Western doctrines for abolishing slavery does NOT mean that they have found Islamic/Koranic/Musulman reasons for doing so - because there aren't any. Oh? And you know that because... Always absolutely never ever. Now you stop dismissing FD's sources, old boy. You don't want him asking you questions.

I know it because everyone knows it.

Something called Submission is not a liberationist 'religion', is it? How could it be??

Frank wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2020 at 6:24pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 2nd, 2020 at 11:26pm: Frank wrote on Feb 2nd, 2020 at 8:53pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 8:23pm: Frank wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 6:43pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 11:06am: FD, do you agree with this statement? Quote: There were also many pious Muslims who refused to have slaves and persuaded others to do so.[82] Eventually, the Ottoman Empire's orders against the traffic of slaves were issued and put into effect.[78] According to Brockopp, in the 19th century, "Some authorities made blanket pronouncements against slavery, arguing that it violated the Qurʾānic ideals of equality and freedom. The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality."[23] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world You may have missed it. It comes just after your quote, dear. Islam is a religion and a political doctrine of world conquest. The Ottoman Empire (an awful lot of padded footrests there, btw) embodied it at its height in the late middle ages but not in its dying days in the 18-20th centuries ( a long decline). Iran today is a good approximation of what Islam is about. As is Saudi, Brunei, Pakilandistan, Auburn,  Islamic State and the like. That secular political powers rule in Muslim countries is a sore point for Islamists. Islam is fundamentally and unalterably hierarchical about the worth of human beings. Are you with us, sons of Mohammed, or are you with the enemy, the kuffar.  The Bush doctrine was pinched from Islam. Please don't try to change the topic, old boy. FD wants us to stick to the facts in his Wikipedia article. This is a most serious subject. FD's been saying this for 12 years now. We're finally unpacking the evidence. FD? We are on topic. There is no Islamic, Koranic, Musulman basis for ending slavery. That some Westernised backsliding Muslims went along with the humane Western doctrines for abolishing slavery does NOT mean that they have found Islamic/Koranic/Musulman reasons for doing so - because there aren't any. . Oh? And you know that because... Always absolutely never ever. Now you stop dismissing FD's sources, old boy. You don't want him asking you questions. I know it because everyone knows it. Something called Submission is not a liberationist 'religion', is it? How could it be??

He's doing it again, FD. He's now discussing his vile S&M practices.

On a public board if you please. Women and children.

We don't want types like this getting away with it. Question him, please.

A slave has no free will, he / she is bound by every whim of his / her owner.

islam is slavery in every sense of the word.

muslims are forbidden to think for themselves, they cannot query the depravity of the qur'an, they are told who they may and may not befriend, they cannot have any other belief (enforced by the threat of death), they are told what they can and can't eat, children are forced to marry much older men, the list is almost endless.

islam and slavery are one and the same.

Err, bit of a problem there, Moses, old chap.  Muslims aren't "owned" by anybody.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 4^th, 2020 at 4:41pm:

Err, bit of a problem there, Moses, old chap.  Muslims aren't "owned" by anybody.  ::) ::)

Except by Allah, of course.  Muslims all submit to him, you know, unquestioningly. What is your concept of Allah, Bwian?   Do you grasp what they are submitting to unquestioningly?

Frank wrote on Feb 4^th, 2020 at 6:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 4th, 2020 at 4:41pm: Err, bit of a problem there, Moses, old chap.  Muslims aren't "owned" by anybody.  ::) ::) Except by Allah, of course.  Muslims all submit to him, you know, unquestioningly. What is your concept of Allah, Bwian?   Do you grasp what they are submitting to unquestioningly?

An intelligent question instead of mud throwing.  Certainly makes a change for you as well.

What is my concept of Allah?   Allah is god.  It is omniscient and omnipotent. Sometimes it is firm in it's discipline, sometimes harsh, sometimes lenient. Generally it is the equivalent of Yahweh, the Judeo-Christian "God".   What is your concept, Soren?

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 4^th, 2020 at 8:30pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 4th, 2020 at 6:49pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 4th, 2020 at 4:41pm: Err, bit of a problem there, Moses, old chap.  Muslims aren't "owned" by anybody.  ::) ::) Except by Allah, of course.  Muslims all submit to him, you know, unquestioningly. What is your concept of Allah, Bwian?   Do you grasp what they are submitting to unquestioningly? An intelligent question instead of mud throwing.  Certainly makes a change for you as well. What is my concept of Allah?   Allah is god.  It is omniscient and omnipotent. Sometimes it is firm in it's discipline, sometimes harsh, sometimes lenient. Generally it is the equivalent of Yahweh, the Judeo-Christian "God".   What is your concept, Soren?

It is most decidedly NOT the equivalent of the Judeo-Christian god.   That non-equivalence is the most important difference between Islam and Judeo-Christianity. The whole of Judeo-Christianity is about the various mediated and unmediated personal relationships believers have with god. There is NO relationship with Allah, no matter how much you believe in it.

You are an ignorant, semi-literate idiot, Bwian, you know nothing about Christianity, Judaism, Islam or anything else.  You played cymbals in the army band and that's about it. Oh, and have a mail order cockamamie vanity 'degree' as an attempt to paper over your gaping ignorance.



You are a phoney and idiot and an ignorant phoney idiot at that.   Prove me wrong, Bwian.i

Frank wrote on Feb 4^th, 2020 at 8:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 4th, 2020 at 8:30pm: Frank wrote on Feb 4th, 2020 at 6:49pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 4th, 2020 at 4:41pm: Err, bit of a problem there, Moses, old chap.  Muslims aren't "owned" by anybody.  ::) ::) Except by Allah, of course.  Muslims all submit to him, you know, unquestioningly. What is your concept of Allah, Bwian?   Do you grasp what they are submitting to unquestioningly? An intelligent question instead of mud throwing.  Certainly makes a change for you as well. What is my concept of Allah?   Allah is god.  It is omniscient and omnipotent. Sometimes it is firm in it's discipline, sometimes harsh, sometimes lenient. Generally it is the equivalent of Yahweh, the Judeo-Christian "God".   What is your concept, Soren? It is most decidedly NOT the equivalent of the Judeo-Christian god.   That non-equivalence is the most important difference between Islam and Judeo-Christianity. The whole of Judeo-Christianity is about the various mediated and unmediated personal relationships believers have with god. There is NO relationship with Allah, no matter how much you believe in it.

That runs counter to everything I have read about Islam, Soren.  You're talking Islamophobic nonsense.  There is a direct relationship between the believer and Allah, with no interceding priests.  Mullahs/Imans run counter to that of course and only arose when people were unable to understand written Arabic.


Quote:

You are an ignorant, semi-literate idiot, Bwian, you know nothing about Christianity, Judaism, Islam or anything else.  You played cymbals in the army band and that's about it. Oh, and have a mail order cockamamie vanity 'degree' as an attempt to paper over your gaping ignorance. You are a phoney and idiot and an ignorant phoney idiot at that.   Prove me wrong, Bwian.

Oh, dearier, dearie me.  Back to playing in the mud again, Soren?  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

https://media.tenor.com/images/29a06e5bc4ae642f8a32f70e39beaafe/tenor.gif

Frank wrote on Feb 4^th, 2020 at 8:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 4th, 2020 at 8:30pm: Frank wrote on Feb 4th, 2020 at 6:49pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 4th, 2020 at 4:41pm: Err, bit of a problem there, Moses, old chap.  Muslims aren't "owned" by anybody.  ::) ::) Except by Allah, of course.  Muslims all submit to him, you know, unquestioningly. What is your concept of Allah, Bwian?   Do you grasp what they are submitting to unquestioningly? An intelligent question instead of mud throwing.  Certainly makes a change for you as well. What is my concept of Allah?   Allah is god.  It is omniscient and omnipotent. Sometimes it is firm in it's discipline, sometimes harsh, sometimes lenient. Generally it is the equivalent of Yahweh, the Judeo-Christian "God".   What is your concept, Soren? It is most decidedly NOT the equivalent of the Judeo-Christian god.   That non-equivalence is the most important difference between Islam and Judeo-Christianity. The whole of Judeo-Christianity is about the various mediated and unmediated personal relationships believers have with god. There is NO relationship with Allah, no matter how much you believe in it. You are an ignorant, semi-literate idiot, Bwian, you know nothing about Christianity, Judaism, Islam or anything else.  You played cymbals in the army band and that's about it. Oh, and have a mail order cockamamie vanity 'degree' as an attempt to paper over your gaping ignorance. You are a phoney and idiot and an ignorant phoney idiot at that.   Prove me wrong, Bwian.

Oh, old boy. To think of the fun you could have had with that.

Brian gave you a gift. If only you weren't half soaked. If only you didn't have the imagination of the Kraut.

If only my uncle was my auntie, ja?

In 1400 odd years islam has achieved exactly nothing.

People are waking up slowly but surely, there is no good in islam, every where it exists there are huge problems of human rights atrocities committed by devout muslims.

Despite the efforts of the loony left, eventually truth will win the day.

islam is on the slippery slope of self destruction, the lunatic left and the *moderates* are all slithering around looking for excuses, but the faithful devotees of the pure words of allah are bring them down with their fanatical devotion to the death cult.

In ~2020 odd years Christianity has achieved exactly nothing.

People are waking up slowly but surely, there is no good in Christianity as practised by the likes of Moses.  Every where it exists there are huge problems of human rights atrocities committed by devout Christians.

Despite the efforts of the loony Right, eventually truth will win the day.

Christianity is on the slippery slope of self destruction, the lunatic Right and the *moderates* are all slithering around looking for excuses, but the faithful devotees of the pure words of Christ are bring them down with their fanatical devotion to the death cult.   ::) ::)

It's funny how pure evil works.

Black men flock to islam to pursue their hatred of the whiteman.

According to John Laffin, black slaves were generally castrated ‘based on the

assumption that the blacks had an ungovernable sexual appetite.’847 From India to Africa, eunuchs were

specifically engaged in guarding the royal harems. They kept tab on the passage of men and women in and out

of the seraglio and spied for the ruler on the harem women about their behaviour, infidelity in particular.

Eunuchs were needed in their thousands to look after huge harems, probably the largest royal department in

medieval Islamic kingdoms

Secondly, the castrated men, with no hope of a family or offspring to look forward to in their old age,

were likely to show greater fidelity and devotion to the master in order to earn their favor and support

when they grew old. The castrated slaves, devoid of sexual distractions, could also devote themselves

exclusively to work relatively easily in the usually sexually-charged Islamic culture.

The third reason for the high demand for eunuchs was homosexual infatuation of many Muslim

rulers, generals and nobles. Eunuchs, kept for carnal indulgence, also called ghilman, used to

be handsome young boys. They used to wear ‘rich and attractive uniforms and often beautified and perfumed

their bodies in effeminate fashion.’ The concept of ghilman comes from the following verses of the Quran,

which describes heavenly male attendants (ghilman) in paradise:

◾‘Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them, young male servants (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded.’

[Quran 52:24]
◾‘There wait on them immortal youths, with bowls and ewers and a cup from a pure spring.’ [Quran 56:17–18]

it becomes evident that the overwhelming majority of the black slaves of the Islamic world were
castrated;

Quran 76:19
round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered Pearls.

After reading the above it defies logic that any black person would lower themselves and grovel before islam.

A staggering 80 % (or about 112 million) of black slaves died under the muslim slave trade barbarity.  While most slaves who went to the Americas could marry and have families, most of the male slaves destined for the Middle East were castrated (with the majority of them dying from the trauma) and most of the children born to the women were killed at birth.

Yet hatred of the whiteman over rides logic, the black men grovel before the very people who did this to them.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2020 at 9:29pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 9:11am: Gandalf do you agree with this statement? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world The continuing pressure from European countries eventually overcame the strong resistance of religious conservatives who were holding that forbidding what God permits is just as great an offence as to permit what God forbids. Oh look, FD's asking me a question I've already answered - but with an extra twist of asking me in a different thread. What a novelty! Here's the answer that so evavded FD that he had to ask me the same question again - twice, in two separate threads. Here's the answer I provided the first time he asked: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28th, 2020 at 10:48pm: Its impossible for any objective person to agree or disagree with it - because it is so vague that it is neither here nor there. What "pressure" exactly? What activity did this involve? What does it mean by "overcome"? Not even you can explain it. On top of that there isn't even any source for the claim. So yes, of course I "fall back on my own ignorance" - because neither you or the article gives us anything to form an informed opinion on the matter. Sure, I could go and do my own independent research on the topic, but thats not the point. The point is, it is your claim which you are attempting to substantiate to us, and the one piece of evidence you provide is entirely inadequate.

Seems pretty specific to me Gandalf. Are you really using your own ignorance of the topic as an argument?

Was there continuing pressure from European countries to end slavery in the middle east?

Were there religious conservatives who were holding that forbidding what God permits is just as great an offence as to permit what God forbids?

Did the pressure from European countries eventually overcome this resistance?

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2020 at 8:23am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 2nd, 2020 at 9:29pm: freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 2020 at 9:11am: Gandalf do you agree with this statement? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world The continuing pressure from European countries eventually overcame the strong resistance of religious conservatives who were holding that forbidding what God permits is just as great an offence as to permit what God forbids. Oh look, FD's asking me a question I've already answered - but with an extra twist of asking me in a different thread. What a novelty! Here's the answer that so evavded FD that he had to ask me the same question again - twice, in two separate threads. Here's the answer I provided the first time he asked: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28th, 2020 at 10:48pm: Its impossible for any objective person to agree or disagree with it - because it is so vague that it is neither here nor there. What "pressure" exactly? What activity did this involve? What does it mean by "overcome"? Not even you can explain it. On top of that there isn't even any source for the claim. So yes, of course I "fall back on my own ignorance" - because neither you or the article gives us anything to form an informed opinion on the matter. Sure, I could go and do my own independent research on the topic, but thats not the point. The point is, it is your claim which you are attempting to substantiate to us, and the one piece of evidence you provide is entirely inadequate. Seems pretty specific to me Gandalf. Are you really using your own ignorance of the topic as an argument? Was there continuing pressure from European countries to end slavery in the middle east? Were there religious conservatives who were holding that forbidding what God permits is just as great an offence as to permit what God forbids? Did the pressure from European countries eventually overcome this resistance?

What was the European pressure, FD?

You haven't said.

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2020 at 8:23am:

Seems pretty specific to me Gandalf.

You are wrong then. There is nothing at all specific in the waffling statement "The continuing pressure from European countries eventually overcame the strong resistance of religious conservatives who were holding that forbidding what God permits is just as great an offence as to permit what God forbids."

What "pressure" exactly? Define "overcame". Does it mean that Europe single-handedly ended slavery in the muslim world? If it does, then your beloved article directly contradicts itself in the paragraphs that follow. You know the paragraphs that you run a mile from whenever me or K bring them up? So if you prefer to give the article the benefit of the doubt and conclude it wasn't saying in an unsourced claim that European influence was the be-all and end-all in ending muslim slavery - the obvious question becomes "what the hell does "overcame" mean"? Can you explain it FD? And try for once explaining it with reference to the subsequent paragraphs  where it directly cites evidence that muslims played a part. 


freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2020 at 8:23am:

Did the pressure from European countries eventually overcome this resistance?

Well, if its stated in an unsourced claim in a wiki article that could have been written by literally anyone - then sure. Gospel truth I guess.  :D

That's why I included the link Gandalf. You know those little numbers are the sources for the "unsourced" claims right? Do I need to tell you how they work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world

slavery was gradually outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.[17]

Among the last states to abolish slavery were Saudi Arabia and Yemen, which abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain; Oman in 1970; and Mauritania in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007.[19]

The continuing pressure from European countries eventually overcame the strong resistance of religious conservatives who were holding that forbidding what God permits is just as great an offence as to permit what God forbids. Slavery, in their eyes, was "authorized and regulated by the holy law".[79]

In 1962,[111] under pressure from the US and Great Britain,[112] Saudi Arabia abolished slavery officially; however, unofficial slavery is rumored to exist.[113][114][115]

So what was the pressure, FD? You still haven't said.

Would you like me to draw you a Venn diagram?

The founder of Islam was a slave trader who had sex with his coptic christian slave called Maria despite the objections of his wives. Of course his sock puppet called Allah was always there to help Muhammad with a revelation.


Quote:

The Book of the Kind Treatment of Women It was narrated from Anas,that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse,but 'Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed:"O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you. https://sunnah.com/nasai/36/21

That gives the context of this verse in the Quran.

Quote:

O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from]what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful https://quran.com/66/1

How can anyone respect this Charlatan who claimed his sock puppet in the sky made it lawful for him to have sex with his slave against the wishes of his wives?

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 20^th, 2020 at 9:33pm:

So what was the pressure, FD? You still haven't said. Would you like me to draw you a Venn diagram?

Perhaps you can draw one with your finger in the air for me?
We can call it the Karnal Venn aerial diagram.

Setanta wrote on Feb 21^st, 2020 at 12:04am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 20th, 2020 at 9:33pm: So what was the pressure, FD? You still haven't said. Would you like me to draw you a Venn diagram? Perhaps you can draw one with your finger in the air for me? We can call it the Karnal Venn aerial diagram.

What do you think the pressure was, Setanta? FD's been arguing this for 13 years now, based on this Wikipedia article. But none of us can figure out what it means.

So I'm curious. We'll have to do this one as a multiple choice. What pressure did Mother put on the Muselman to stop his devious trade in slaves?

Mother:

A. Asked Sir Reggie at the Turkish embassy to invite them to high tea.

B. Sent some missionaries over to read them the Bible.

C. Cured them of their racist diseases.

D. Threatened to stop selling them weapons.

E. Stopped buying their slaves.