ISLAM = ARAB CULTURE?

Samori Toure

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
19,985
Reputation
6,251
Daps
100,164
It’s always “everybody is equal in Islam” but SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY.. Black ppl ALWAYS are the lowest social hierarchy when they’re in community with those of said Abrahamic faiths playing colorblind righteous.

What Abrahamic faith practitioners do is preach
“religious All Lives Matter”

While actively playing blind to the inherent anti-African nature
full

IMG-1276.jpg

IMG-9518.jpg

IMG-9517.jpg

IMG-9516.jpg

IMG-9515.jpg



Fools are always coming in writing about Islam and slavery, but for some reason those same fools never write about the Pope and how he sanctioned Europeans to invade the lands of the Africans and to enslave them and to take their lands and goods:​


Pope Nicolas V and the Portuguese Slave Trade​


"...during the second half of the fifteenth century, once Portuguese mariners began to return to Iberia with captives acquired in West Africa and West Central Africa. Notably, the treatment of “black Gentiles” was addressed in 1452 and 1455, when Pope Nicolas V issued a series of papal bulls that granted Portugal the right to enslave sub-Saharan Africans. Church leaders argued that slavery served as a natural deterrent and Christianizing influence to “barbarous” behavior among pagans. Using this logic, the Pope issued a mandate to the Portuguese king, Alfonso V, and instructed him:

. . . to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever …[and] to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit . . .


Though the papal bull mentions “invading” and “vanquishing” African peoples, no European nation was willing or able to put an army in western Africa until the Portuguese colonization of Angola more than a century later (and even then, Portuguese forces received extensive aid from armies of Imbangala or “Jaga” mercenaries). Early raids such as the one made by Gonçalvez and Tristão in 1441 were unusual, and may have only been possible because the Portuguese had never previously raided south of Cape Bojador. Portuguese mariners soon learned that inhabitants along the Upper Guinea coast were more than capable of defending themselves from such incursions. Not long after his 1441 voyage, Tristão and most of his crew were killed off the coast of present-day Senegal.

Prior to the colonization of Angola, Portuguese colonies and commercial hubs in Africa were generally established on islands that had previously been uninhabited. Meanwhile, feitorias on the mainland depended largely on maintaining good relations with local populations. Thus in addition to justifying the enslavement of Muslims and other non-Christian peoples—including an increasingly important population of sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants—within the Iberian world, this legislation essentially authorized Portuguese colonists and merchants overseas to acquire enslaved Africans through commerce, drawing on pre-existing markets and trade routes.

As the 1455 bull indicates, at first the Church officially limited African slave trading to Alfonso of Portugal. Regardless, other European groups soon followed. During the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, French and English mariners occasionally attempted to raid or trade with Portuguese settlements and autonomous African communities. During the War of the Castilian Succession (1475-1479), the Spanish faction supporting Isabel—future Queen Isabel of Castile—directly challenged Portuguese claims in western Africa, sending large fleets to raid the Cape Verde Islands and conduct trade near Elmina. Despite Castile’s formal recognition of Portuguese interests in western Africa, stipulated in the treaties of Alcáçovas (1479) and Tordesillas (1494), voyages organized in Andalucia and the Canary Islands continued to visit African ports.

The Papal Bull of 1455 justified the expansion of (black) African slavery within early Iberian colonies, and the acquisition of more African captives and territory, but the same decree also provided a legal framework for sub-Saharan Africans to negotiate with Iberian authorities on equal footing, and to make claims of their own, should they convert to Christianity. Perhaps the best-known example of this form of negotiation is found in the Kingdom of Kongo in West Central Africa. During the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, Kongolese political elites adopted Christianity and sent emissaries to Europe. In the 1520s, Kongo’s Christian ruler used diplomatic pressure based on his religious status to try to limit the Portuguese slave trade from Kongo.

POPE APOLOGIZES TO AFRICANS FOR SLAVERY​

 

Mugenight

B3-3vil-2-3vil
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Messages
1,689
Reputation
-535
Daps
5,502
Yes.
Doesn't matter if the 1st Muslim was a breh, cacs took it. Same as Rock and other shyt is now cac shyt.
Black people practicing that Arab culture even feel its Arab shyt so they bow to them. :scust:
chuck-berry-confused.gif


:camby: Hell nah don't disrespect the forefathers like that.
 

ReasonableMatic

................................
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
16,327
Reputation
6,368
Daps
101,385

Fools are always coming in writing about Islam and slavery, but for some reason those same fools never write about the Pope and how he sanctioned Europeans to invade the lands of the Africans and to enslave them and to take their lands and goods:​


Pope Nicolas V and the Portuguese Slave Trade​


"...during the second half of the fifteenth century, once Portuguese mariners began to return to Iberia with captives acquired in West Africa and West Central Africa. Notably, the treatment of “black Gentiles” was addressed in 1452 and 1455, when Pope Nicolas V issued a series of papal bulls that granted Portugal the right to enslave sub-Saharan Africans. Church leaders argued that slavery served as a natural deterrent and Christianizing influence to “barbarous” behavior among pagans. Using this logic, the Pope issued a mandate to the Portuguese king, Alfonso V, and instructed him:

. . . to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever …[and] to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit . . .


Though the papal bull mentions “invading” and “vanquishing” African peoples, no European nation was willing or able to put an army in western Africa until the Portuguese colonization of Angola more than a century later (and even then, Portuguese forces received extensive aid from armies of Imbangala or “Jaga” mercenaries). Early raids such as the one made by Gonçalvez and Tristão in 1441 were unusual, and may have only been possible because the Portuguese had never previously raided south of Cape Bojador. Portuguese mariners soon learned that inhabitants along the Upper Guinea coast were more than capable of defending themselves from such incursions. Not long after his 1441 voyage, Tristão and most of his crew were killed off the coast of present-day Senegal.

Prior to the colonization of Angola, Portuguese colonies and commercial hubs in Africa were generally established on islands that had previously been uninhabited. Meanwhile, feitorias on the mainland depended largely on maintaining good relations with local populations. Thus in addition to justifying the enslavement of Muslims and other non-Christian peoples—including an increasingly important population of sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants—within the Iberian world, this legislation essentially authorized Portuguese colonists and merchants overseas to acquire enslaved Africans through commerce, drawing on pre-existing markets and trade routes.

As the 1455 bull indicates, at first the Church officially limited African slave trading to Alfonso of Portugal. Regardless, other European groups soon followed. During the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, French and English mariners occasionally attempted to raid or trade with Portuguese settlements and autonomous African communities. During the War of the Castilian Succession (1475-1479), the Spanish faction supporting Isabel—future Queen Isabel of Castile—directly challenged Portuguese claims in western Africa, sending large fleets to raid the Cape Verde Islands and conduct trade near Elmina. Despite Castile’s formal recognition of Portuguese interests in western Africa, stipulated in the treaties of Alcáçovas (1479) and Tordesillas (1494), voyages organized in Andalucia and the Canary Islands continued to visit African ports.

The Papal Bull of 1455 justified the expansion of (black) African slavery within early Iberian colonies, and the acquisition of more African captives and territory, but the same decree also provided a legal framework for sub-Saharan Africans to negotiate with Iberian authorities on equal footing, and to make claims of their own, should they convert to Christianity. Perhaps the best-known example of this form of negotiation is found in the Kingdom of Kongo in West Central Africa. During the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, Kongolese political elites adopted Christianity and sent emissaries to Europe. In the 1520s, Kongo’s Christian ruler used diplomatic pressure based on his religious status to try to limit the Portuguese slave trade from Kongo.

POPE APOLOGIZES TO AFRICANS FOR SLAVERY​

The post literally said “Abrahamic Faiths” all do this, yet you got all sensitive like Christianity ain’t a part of the point I made.

Reading comprehension is very hard for you nikkas.
That’s what Abrahamic faiths bank on
to thrive :sas2:
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
369
Reputation
447
Daps
1,525
Reppin
Botz
It’s always “everybody is equal in Islam” but SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY.. Black ppl ALWAYS are the lowest social hierarchy when they’re in community with those of said Abrahamic faiths playing colorblind righteous.

Most Muslim black people lived in the Sahel, where they also purchased slaves from different parts of the world. How were they the lowest? Was Mansa Musa the lowest? What about Sonni Ali or Idris Alooma? West African rulers at the time only used Islam in order to have access to the global Muslim trade routes...So how were people living in Africa, among other Africans, and controlling huge amounts of wealth(Gold and salt were some of the most valuable resources and the Sahel was full of both). So how were black Muslims the lowest?



And no, I don't support Islam or any other religion. I just want to understand your logic. Assuming you're not posting just out of lack of knowledge mixed with inferiority complex...Let's think for a moment, most black Muslims were living in their kingdoms in Africa, and Islam reached the Sahel through trade, not conquest. So why the judgement of their encounter with Islam is not based on the black Muslim states that existed but based on the few that lived outside of Africa? This logic is never applied to any group.

What Abrahamic faith practitioners do is preach
“religious All Lives Matter”

While actively playing blind to the inherent anti-African nature
full

IMG-1276.jpg

IMG-9518.jpg

IMG-9517.jpg

IMG-9516.jpg

IMG-9515.jpg




Just to clarify...

1 - Arab slave trade existed but, most of the slaves were Central Europeans and Eurasia. Historically, Arabs have controlled more European lands than African lands. In fact, only huge areas Arabs conquered in Africa were in North Africa.

Logistically, it wouldn't make sense to have most of the slaves coming from black Africa...Since you had a huge distance between black Africa and Arabic kingdoms, plus there was also a huge desert there to separate the regions. Now, Europe is smaller than Africa and way closer to the Mediterranean sea, where Arab kingdoms were located.

Just think...I control parts of a huge and densely populated region, but I will get most slaves from an area that I don't control and is below a huge desert? Some of you are easily to manipulate because it seems like "slave or slavery" instantly triggers your emotions and clouds your judgement.

2 - Do you care about the Arab and non-black slaves that were bought by West and East African rulers?

3 - The castration part makes zero sense(when analyzing the majority) since Afro-Arabs are like 5-10% of the Arabic population now. Plus, most are Afro-Arabs will tell you that they are descendants of traders and travelers.

4 - Liberty Mukomo doesn't even exist. "Lecturer from University Of Nairobi" that was never registered in the university lmao. You can research yourself...

5 - The Arab slave trade propaganda, with black Africans being the main faces of it, started when black people started pointing out the depravities Europeans committed in the new world against Afro-descendants.

When you look at the maps of Arab and Ottoman conquests, they always show European and North African regions but not black African regions...Europe is easier to navigate and transport people than black Africa that was below a vast desert...







Your last post is about ransom in modern Libya...That happens to every group of people passing by and looking to cross the sea to Europe...Black people are the only group that are analyzed with timeline jumps and compression of history. How does this even feel right to some of you?

Is this below also about race and slavery to you?

 
Last edited:

Samori Toure

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
19,985
Reputation
6,251
Daps
100,164
The post literally said “Abrahamic Faiths” all do this, yet you got all sensitive like Christianity ain’t a part of the point I made.

Reading comprehension is very hard for you nikkas.
That’s what Abrahamic faiths bank on
to thrive :sas2:
LOL you literally only highlighted Arabs, when the White Catholic Christians that you love, worship and adore were actually much, much worse. Hell the White Christians were so terrible that they not only took Africans to the Americas and made them slaves, they even stole the lands of Africans and made those Black people slaves in their own lands. They called it colonialism. :sas1:

That ain't stopped negros in Africa from worshipping the Pope. :sas2:

Vatican Apologizes for the Church’s Historical Role in Justifying European Colonialism​


 
Last edited:

DoubleClutch

Superstar
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
16,494
Reputation
-2,220
Daps
29,891
Reppin
NULL
Before islam arabs were polytheistic tribes trading with rome, jews, persians and christians.

They were also mercenaries working for them

Not to mention scholars and scribes poets and artists studying with them

But the Quran will tell you they were all religionless, uncivilized illiterate savages :yeshrug:
 

Mowgli

Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
103,060
Reputation
13,348
Daps
243,137
They were also mercenaries working for them

Not to mention scholars and scribes poets and artists studying with them

But the Quran will tell you they were all religionless, uncivilized illiterate savages :yeshrug:
They had enough exposure to established kingdoms for that not to be true. I imagine they were warring alot because resources were probably slim among the individual tribes.

Muhammed wasnt some bum ass dude either. He was a Merchant who made the money and also married into a rich family
 
Top