Like my guy earlier said pretty much only western history.Untold? everyone on the fukking continent learn about this first before anything else.
What the fukk do they teach you lot over there? I bet you don't know about the caliphate nor arab empire either, it's impossible to teach the arab empire and not it's slavery.
and that empire was as big if not bigger than the Roman.
The Arab African slave trade the untold truth.
- Thread starter Mook
- Start date
Well they're not your masters anymore and you can mourn and do whatever you want, if they whine that has nothing to do with you.1) Entitlement? what is it we are asking for exactly? What tangibles are we demanding?
2) Acknowledging historical tragedies against said groups is not playing victim. It's a historical facts, Jews are told to get "over the Holocaust" and Japanese aren't told to get over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Furthermore Americans aren't told to get over 9/11 and still habour negativity against Muslims and Arabs because of it.....
Funny how every other race and ethnicity gets to mourn in their tragedies but as soon as the Black man wants to do suddenly it's a problem because it might make White people or Arabs feel bad......yeah like that's the LEAST of my worries mate.
3) Lastly how do YOU know what the quality of state of such individuals or their communities are? Do you know anybody on this thread personally, their economic or living conditions?
Makes sense I guess, but I learned about both. This is the age of information now, parents of today should not be failing their children. One can simply go on youtube and watch a docu with them. Zero excuses this day and age.
Exactly. They're so big on "accountability" but are quick to dish out blame to
any party they can.
HalyeeyQaran
Rookie
What is the purpose of lingering on these tragedies other than to serve the purpose of education? You're not going to get an apology or reparations. Or is it to fuel your already enormous victim complex?1) Entitlement? what is it we are asking for exactly? What tangibles are we demanding?
2) Acknowledging historical tragedies against said groups is not playing victim. It's a historical facts, Jews are NOT told to get "over the Holocaust" and the Japanese aren't told to get over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Furthermore Americans aren't told to get over 9/11 despite the fact many Americans (usually White) still harbor negative views against Muslims and Arabs because of it.....
Funny how every other race and ethnicity gets to mourn in their tragedies but as soon as the Black man wants to do suddenly it's a problem because it might make White people or Arabs feel bad......yeah like that's the LEAST of my worries mate.
3) Lastly how do YOU know what the quality of state of such individuals or their communities are? Do you know anybody on this thread personally, their economic or living conditions?
Also, you had the nerve to ask which communities I was referring to. That's just laughable. You KNOW which communities I'm referring to. The communities I'm referring are those that perform the worst in every spectrum of development in American society.
All of this victimhood and deflection of accountability is what's gotten you to the state that you're currently in. Learn your history, develop your understanding of society, build your community and invest in it. This is coming from a fellow black man who was born in Africa and seeks the advancement of his people without any signs of victimhood or cries of acceptance from other races.
HalyeeyQaran
Rookie
So, you mean to tell me, that you're now making disparaging remarks about Africans? Are you seriously insulting your own ancestors?
You know damn well the magnitude of the atrocities committed in Africa but that's a matter for another discussion. It's unbecoming of you to laud African-American achievements while demeaning Africa's development and the achievement of Africans, in general.
How can you seek the development of the African-American community when you choose to distance yourself from your own African roots?
I'm not even going to speak about the prominent role I play in the development of my people in Africa as I don't intend to share personal information on an Internet forum.
Lastly, I'm simply going to remind you that you won't see any progress in the development of African-Americans as long as you see them as inherently different from their African brethren in the motherland.
Victimhood and entitlement perfectly sums up the impression a lot of active Coli Militants give out about themselves. This isn't to undermine all the sociologists, historians, etc in the 3d world who do actually seem to have ideas grounded in reality about the 'modern black struggle', the nonsense on the coli is jus the same regurgitated bullshyt spouted by people with a clear lack of understanding of the complexity of history, coupled with the uniquely American fondness for loud and sensationalised bullshyt over the somber but more realistic alternative, see; 'woe is me the east African slave trade that happened hundreds of years today IS PROOF ALL ARABS are fukked up' 'racist Arabs and whites from centuries ago are the reason I am unhappy and unsuccessful' & 'the Egyptians were black not white that means I as a black man totally unrelated to Egypt can draw some type of ego boost from this!!!' lmao: just a very funny group of people on this site. Lack of worthwhile education from legit higher learning institutions I think plays a big part in the ignorance and anti-intellectualism on this forum.
Make unfounded conclusions about other people's self beliefs based on their stance on one particular historical event brehs.
I don't have any connections to Egypt nor am I unsuccessful. I don't know why you want us to to look at the slave trade in totality but will blame African Americans exclusively for their "lack of success". Like there hasn't been decades of deliberate sabotage from several parties. Is this an excuse for African American failure? No of course not. But the problem is you automatically assume I said " African Americans are unsuccessful because of the Arab slave trade". This type of narrative you threw the posters on this thread in really makes me wonder about you character
. Pigeonhole your opponent in a position they don't hold to make arguing easier brehs.
Furthermore you can take your " us guys accross the pond are much smarter than muricans" bullshyt and dunk it in the fukking dumpster.
I don't have any connections to Egypt nor am I unsuccessful. I don't know why you want us to to look at the slave trade in totality but will blame African Americans exclusively for their "lack of success". Like there hasn't been decades of deliberate sabotage from several parties. Is this an excuse for African American failure? No of course not. But the problem is you automatically assume I said " African Americans are unsuccessful because of the Arab slave trade". This type of narrative you threw the posters on this thread in really makes me wonder about you character
. Pigeonhole your opponent in a position they don't hold to make arguing easier brehs.Furthermore you can take your " us guys accross the pond are much smarter than muricans" bullshyt and dunk it in the fukking dumpster.
Love this
To be fair, most people think themselves more intelligent than Americans! LolMake unfounded conclusions about other people's self beliefs based on their stance on one particular historical event brehs.
I don't have any connections to Egypt nor am I unsuccessful. I don't know why you want us to to look at the slave trade in totality but will blame African Americans exclusively for their "lack of success". Like there hasn't been decades of deliberate sabotage from several parties. Is this an excuse for African American failure? No of course not. But the problem is you automatically assume I said " African Americans are unsuccessful because of the Arab slave trade". This type of narrative you threw the posters on this thread in really makes me wonder about you character
Furthermore you can take your " us guys accross the pond are much smarter than muricans" bullshyt and dunk it in the fukking dumpster.
Misreeya
Pro
This was a thread specifically on the Arab slave trade.If you want to make a thread on African involvement in the slave trade do so, but you look weak trying to derail the conversation and place blame on every one else on some "look they did it too" shyt.
LOL, we are discussing the Arab or Muslim slave trade, but you are too thick headed to reason logically or maybe you have reading comprehension problems. So which it it?
So let me break down terms for you even a grade school child in the term 2 can comprehend
He was the supplier or seller so let define these terms
The African Seller above. How wrong it was, it is definitely the facts of history which you are denial about. I don't understand why because it is illogical and almost childlike by going into tatrums.
These were the Buyers, and certainly these people most likely had slaves.
The Qaboo's of Oman in the Arabian Peninsula which did business extensively with Swahili business men and some cases women of the selling and buying human beings.
Let first define what a buyer is, since you cannot grasp certain logical concepts, which a five year old would understand.
Now these were the Arab buyer, and since they were (Qaboo's or Sultans or king) who certainly had slaves when they were alive.
Faisal bin Turki, Sultan of Muscat and Oman - Wikipedia
Turki bin Said, Sultan of Muscat and Oman - Wikipedia
Now please don't quote me, because you going to look more ridiculous by making further comments or outlandish and illogical statements. If you do quote me, please present a counter argument with facts, and make sure it is well thought out and with reputable sources.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Misreeya
Pro
You are right on here, and i noticed that when i was on LSA as well. It is no different they are two sides of the same coin, and that is why i rarely post on American forums these day. However at least the women on LSA have the ability to present well thought out counter arguments to my claims. These guys present no substantial counter argument to counter my points.
I have watched that video before. He offers some interesting information.
Speedkillz I've been posting on this forum a couple years, and lurking since it started. I never used to care much about the opinions of people on this site, but my current attitude towards Coli posters is a response to the ridiculous level of racism, much of it held up by bad and lazy historical research, that goes on on this website.
I have qualified my position countless times by saying I understand that due to the African American historical experience, a certain level of anti white/arab/'other' feeling can be accepted. Its just that this forum, echo chamber that it is, takes it to the extreme and most of you seem unable to see any error in your ways.
Speedkillz I've been posting on this forum a couple years, and lurking since it started. I never used to care much about the opinions of people on this site, but my current attitude towards Coli posters is a response to the ridiculous level of racism, much of it held up by bad and lazy historical research, that goes on on this website.
I have qualified my position countless times by saying I understand that due to the African American historical experience, a certain level of anti white/arab/'other' feeling can be accepted. Its just that this forum, echo chamber that it is, takes it to the extreme and most of you seem unable to see any error in your ways.
Lmao didn't read. Stick this up your ass you called me an idiot and negged me but continue to message me. You must be lonely.LOL, we are discussing the Arab or Muslim slave trade, but you are too thick headed to reason logically or maybe you have reading comprehension problems. So which it it?
So let me break down terms for you even a grade school child in the term 2 can comprehend
He was the supplier or seller so let define these terms
The African Seller above. How wrong it was, it is definitely the facts of history which you are denial about. I don't understand why because it is illogical and almost childlike by going into tatrums.
These were the Buyers, and certainly these people most likely had slaves.
The Qaboo's of Oman in the Arabian Peninsula which did business extensively with Swahili business men and some cases women of the selling and buying human beings.
Let first define what a buyer is, since you cannot grasp certain logical concepts, which a five year old would understand.
Now these were the Arab buyer, and since they were (Qaboo's or Sultans or king) who certainly had slaves when they were alive.
Faisal bin Turki, Sultan of Muscat and Oman - Wikipedia
Turki bin Said, Sultan of Muscat and Oman - Wikipedia
Now please don't quote me, because you going to look more ridiculous by making further comments or outlandish and illogical statements. If you do quote me, please present a counter argument with facts, and make sure it is well thought out and with reputable sources.
Cheers.
This is going to be somewhat long.
The problem with these discussions is that they tend to be full of exaggerations, emotionalism and propaganda. Almost none of them are nuanced and sober. Take the claim that "Islam is oppressive to the black man and caused slavery". There is so much overly simplistic BS wrapped into that one statement that deconstructing it requires a lot of energy.
1)When discussing the subject of slavery of Islam, it is necessary to make two very important distinctions:
For the above reasons, modern legal scholars have deduced from the legal texts that the objective of the Shar'iah was to phase out slavery entirely. They see the fact that the institution of slavery no longer exists (at least not in the same form as before and not as prevalent) as a blessing and they argue that re-instituting that system is against the objectives of the Shari'ah.
Also, maiming of human beings is strictly forbidden as a general rule and that includes slaves. Castrating slaves, branding them with iron, cutting off their limbs etc is strictly forbidden.
Now, what I've mentioned so far is how slavery was originally practised by the early Muslims. They followed the legal texts more closely.
However, in the later centuries of the Islamic civilization, certain rulers (Ottomans, Omani and Yemeni sultanates mostly) began adopting certain practises that were illegal from an Islamic perspective. Pay close attention to this: just because rulers did something, this does not mean that it was sanctioned by or justifiable according to the religion! This is a very important point. The practise of raiding certain countries specifically for the purpose of acquiring slaves is strictly forbidden and there is no debate about this, as is the practise of castrating male slaves (this practise seems to have been introduced to the Ottomans through contact with the Italians by the way).
Stating that Islam caused the East African slave trade is thus categorically false since the actual legal texts of Islam forbid what took place in the EA slave trade (raiding villages for the purpose of acquiring slaves; maiming slaves, etc).
2) The statement that Islam is "anti-black" is categorically false. The primary texts as well as all the major schools of thought are unequivocally anti-racism and anti-tribalism. Were there certain latter scholars that made some problematic statements? Of course. Are we supposed to follow them blindly like sheep? Absolutely not.
Allah says about mankind in the Qur'an:
Human diversity is one of God's Signs:
The Prophet pbuh stated:
The Prophet PBUH reinforced this massage:
The primary texts categorically state that there is no preference for white skin over black skin and vice versa. God does not look at the shapes and colors of humanity, He looks at their hearts and their actions. This is stated in another narration by the Prophet PBUH.
However, this does not mean that there is no racism amongst Muslims. Anyone who makes such a statement is an idiot, there clearly is. And although slavery was not based on a color code historically, in modern times the stigma of "slavery" has been attached to "blackness", thanks to modern Western conceptions of race.
The problem with these discussions is that they tend to be full of exaggerations, emotionalism and propaganda. Almost none of them are nuanced and sober. Take the claim that "Islam is oppressive to the black man and caused slavery". There is so much overly simplistic BS wrapped into that one statement that deconstructing it requires a lot of energy.
1)When discussing the subject of slavery of Islam, it is necessary to make two very important distinctions:
- Slavery as it is regulated in the actual legal texts
- Slavery as it was practised by the Omani/Yemeni sultanates that raided the East African coast.
For the above reasons, modern legal scholars have deduced from the legal texts that the objective of the Shar'iah was to phase out slavery entirely. They see the fact that the institution of slavery no longer exists (at least not in the same form as before and not as prevalent) as a blessing and they argue that re-instituting that system is against the objectives of the Shari'ah.
Also, maiming of human beings is strictly forbidden as a general rule and that includes slaves. Castrating slaves, branding them with iron, cutting off their limbs etc is strictly forbidden.
Now, what I've mentioned so far is how slavery was originally practised by the early Muslims. They followed the legal texts more closely.
However, in the later centuries of the Islamic civilization, certain rulers (Ottomans, Omani and Yemeni sultanates mostly) began adopting certain practises that were illegal from an Islamic perspective. Pay close attention to this: just because rulers did something, this does not mean that it was sanctioned by or justifiable according to the religion! This is a very important point. The practise of raiding certain countries specifically for the purpose of acquiring slaves is strictly forbidden and there is no debate about this, as is the practise of castrating male slaves (this practise seems to have been introduced to the Ottomans through contact with the Italians by the way).
Stating that Islam caused the East African slave trade is thus categorically false since the actual legal texts of Islam forbid what took place in the EA slave trade (raiding villages for the purpose of acquiring slaves; maiming slaves, etc).
2) The statement that Islam is "anti-black" is categorically false. The primary texts as well as all the major schools of thought are unequivocally anti-racism and anti-tribalism. Were there certain latter scholars that made some problematic statements? Of course. Are we supposed to follow them blindly like sheep? Absolutely not.
Allah says about mankind in the Qur'an:
Human diversity is one of God's Signs:
The Prophet pbuh stated:
The Prophet PBUH reinforced this massage:
The primary texts categorically state that there is no preference for white skin over black skin and vice versa. God does not look at the shapes and colors of humanity, He looks at their hearts and their actions. This is stated in another narration by the Prophet PBUH.
However, this does not mean that there is no racism amongst Muslims. Anyone who makes such a statement is an idiot, there clearly is. And although slavery was not based on a color code historically, in modern times the stigma of "slavery" has been attached to "blackness", thanks to modern Western conceptions of race.