The Arab African slave trade the untold truth.

[Karb]

just cause a few prominent arabasized/Muslim convert Uncle Abdis f African leaders of that era whom provided their (their own people as concubines /eunuchs to Eurasain sand cacs were tolerated when they went to Arabia to drop off another shipment of slaves to the market or on a pilgrimage to Mecca to personally pay homage to Allah's chosen ones doesn't change the fact the Islamic slave trade was every bit as predatory on Africans as the Trans Atlantic versionthe fact.black Africans made up the overwhelming majority of the victims of Islamic slave trade and only only blacks in the region carry the slave stigma today speaks for itself

so sub human a-rabs kidnapping,raping,mutilating, enslaving and racially cleansing millions of Africans for 7 plus centuries is dismissed as unfortunate business ..i take it this is Coptic fake Egyptian sand cac in you speakingnot that it matters but exploitation and degradation on blacks is much deeper than business in the arab world...it's a religion/cult:

IE.

Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African’s color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 11, p. 11


Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 21, p. 21

Al-Tabari relied heavily on "Isra'eeliyaat" (I.e. Jewish/Biblical narrations) for these statements. As a scholar, he is known for narrating such stories without commenting on their authenticity. You can't just quote from Tabari and use that to prove that he was racist or that Islam is racist. There are many such narrations in these books, but they do not have any religious weight in terms of legislation etc..

 

[Sauanaffe Tustunnagee]

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.

so your logic is cause a elite minority of Muslim African leaders from that era provided their people as slaves to Middle Eastern sheikhs in exchange for status in the Islamic world means Arabian slave raiders.owners should get a passlet's just overlook the fact it's likely most of those Bilal Al Abeed snake nikkas were indoctrinated in arab supremacist/anti black Islamic brainwashing and likely identified arabs

found a some what related video on this topic last year. and interested to have your input on the content

‫Slavery in Arabia - 1964


notice how even the socalled arab slaves in the Saudi slack market(at the 1:25 mark) are black...are these people native to Arabia or descendants of enslaved Africans ? they personally look Sudanese to me and considering the Baqt agreement it's very possible they could be... the part about a school which trains little black kids to be sex slaves for pedo diaper heads was just too much and should have been the straw that broke the camels back...If hairy arab swine enslaving black folk wasn't enough they raping and pimping out our children too...Why aren't blacks in Arabia fighting for their freedom? I suspect they have been broken by centuries of bondage and whipped into submission by Islam.

 

[Karb]

The victim-hood mentality lets talk about that.....If a Jew talks about the tragic events of the Holocaust is he victimizing himself or is he simply stating historical facts? If a black scholar decides to write about the Trans-atlantic slave trade is he being a victim or is he simply engaging in historical discussion? Why is it only black people (specifically African Americans) that get criticized for talking about the tragedies of their history why not Jews or Americans for 9/11?

I'm not one to tell an AA to simply "get over" slavery, especially given the fact that the ramifications of slavery are still being felt to this day. That's a very arrogant thing to say. I understand the struggles of the AA's very well and they have my full empathy and support. I got nothing but love for AA's.

But it seems like for many of you, your history starts and ends with slavery. After you've lambasted the transatlantic slave trade to death, now you've moved on to the Arab slave trade (which FYI, only impacted relatively few ethnic groups in Africa and by no means all Africans). You play into the tactics of white supremacists by linking "African-ness" with oppression and slavery. If we are not being enslaved or colonized by the Europeans, we are being enslaved by the Arabs or some other group. It's like you want to form a pan-African identity around one common denominator: a shared history of being at the bottom. This is not the way to combat white supremacy.

What you lack (in my humble opinion) is perspective, balance and nuance. We live under a global white supremacist system which automatically equates African-ness with weakness, backwardness, barbarity etc... You should be countering this narrative not reinforcing it.

Historically, there was no color code to slavery UNTIL the transatlantic slave trade. This color code was the result of a conception of race based on skin color which originates from Germany and reached the rest of Europe and eventually the US through the spread of German romanticism in the 17th century.

Arabs and others were enslavers, but they were equal opportunity enslavers. Practically all the "white" (as in blue-eyed, blonde haired) Arabs, Turks and Persians in the Middle East are the descendants of Georgian, Circassian, Germanic slaves.. Millions of them. Yet only Africans carry the stigma of "slavery" today.

Millions of Europeans were being sold into slavery just a few centuries ago. There were huge slave markets in places like Venice and parts of France. At one point in time, 2/3rds of the people on the British islands were slaves. Yet Europeans have effectively erased this history from their past, why? Because it goes against the white supremacist notion of the indomitable "Caucasian" who is intellectually, physically and culturally superior to all other races.

Bruh, they were castrating European slaves and using European women as sex slaves. In fact, for the longest (until relatively recently), white, fair maidens were the face of sex-slavery. The stereotype of a submissive sex slave in Europe and America was the image of the "Caucasian" sex slaves of Turkey and Arabia.

White supremacist ideologues practically deleted this "shameful" chapter from their history though. Ask yourself why that is. And why they keep reinforcing the image of Africans as an inherently slave-like race.

And then ask yourself what you are doing to counter that image. Images are powerful bruh, they form our reality.

 

[Karb]

OK if THAT's the case then your prophet is confused because on one hand he's talking racial harmony and equality and in the other he is insulting black people and enslaving them. It's this kind of duplicity you see from Muslims today which causes people to distrust them...

I have never claimed to be a know it all but trust me I have the full story pretty much figured out it's not complex or needs to be treated with care, it's very clean cut, the way Black Africans are treated in the Middle East TODAY should provide a big clue as to what went down all those centuries ago.

I posted an ISLAMIC scholar from Africa called John Allembillah Azumah who has written an entire book dedicated to the topic and HE says the worst most inhumane and diabolical institution of slavery was perpetuated by the Muslim ARABS and aided by their black stooges.

The problem is that you lack the accurate historical context. The prophet (pbuh) was not confused and his actions are consistent with his anti-supremacist statements. Maybe, just maybe, your understanding of the sources that you posted is limited? And there is nothing wrong with that by the way. You should just refrain from making blatant statements.

I agree, the East African slave trade was horrendous. But as I already demonstrated in my first post, it was not islamically sanctioned. It was the action of some greedy sultans and caliphs and has nothing to do with Islam or the Prophet (pbuh). Please read my earlier post on this.

 

[Karb]

The reason why the Arabs despised the Ethiopians before the advent of Islam was because the Ethiopians had invaded the Arabian peninsula and occupied it. They had also destroyed the "holy shrines" of the pagan Arabs and tried to force the Jewish Yemenies to convert to Christianity.

Abyssinia had the upper hand against the Arabs, who were disunited and did not have an organized state. Consider the fact that the Quraysh (most powerful tribe in Arabia) had to go beg the Abyssinian Negus to stop protecting the Muslim refugees and hand them back over to them. The very fact that the early Muslims sought refuge in Abyssinia is prove that the Abyssinians were militarily more advanced than the Arabs at that time. There is of course also the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) stated that the Negus was a just man who would protect the weak.

After the Abyssinians eventually left Arabia, those who were captured by the Arabs were enslaved. The Ethiopian slaves in Arabia at that time were captives of war.

That's one theory. Another theory is that they were people who had been captured by Abyssinians during their many expansionist wars in Africa and sold as slaves to Arabia. There is nothing dubious about this as this was pretty much international law at that time. War captives automatically became slaves.

 

[Karb]

so your logic is cause a elite minority of Muslim African leaders from that era provided their people as slaves to Middle Eastern diaper heads in exchange for status in the Islamic world means their was no racial connotation to the trade

I know it's hard to understand for someone who cannot look past the cultural baggage of contemporary society, but for a Swahili or a black Arab, a Bantu or nilotic slave was not considered as "one of his people". The concept of "blackness" or "pan-Africanism" (and even white supremacy) is a modern concept. Even today, you will have a hard time convincing a Somali and an Amhara that they are the same race. People do not think like that in most parts of the world. It's a purely Western thing.

Especially back in those days, you had European selling other Europeans, Africans selling captives from enemy tribes etc.. As far as they were concerned, those people could've been aliens from another galaxy.

 

[OD-MELA]

The concept of "blackness" or "pan-Africanism" (and even white supremacy) is a modern concept. Even today, you will have a hard time convincing a Somali and an Amhara that they are the same race. People do not think like that in most parts of the world. It's a purely Western thing.

.

Tell them.

 

[mbewane]

I know it's hard to understand for someone who cannot look past the cultural baggage of contemporary society, but for a Swahili or a black Arab, a Bantu or nilotic slave was not considered as "one of his people". The concept of "blackness" or "pan-Africanism" (and even white supremacy) is a modern concept. Even today, you will have a hard time convincing a Somali and an Amhara that they are the same race. People do not think like that in most parts of the world. It's a purely Western thing.

Especially back in those days, you had European selling other Europeans, Africans selling captives from enemy tribes etc.. As far as they were concerned, those people could've been aliens from another galaxy.

Breh I read something about this (in french tho) just a couple weeks ago, makes much more "sense" when you understand that.

Concerning pan-africanism, it's telling that to my knowledge it really was born in the diaspora, in the US and Caribeean, and by Africans who were studying abroad. Only after did it gain traction on the continent, but like you said local differences and whatnot tend to be overlooked in pan-africanism.

 

[Sauanaffe Tustunnagee]

I know it's hard to understand for someone who cannot look past the cultural baggage of contemporary society, but for a Swahili or a black Arab, a Bantu or nilotic slave was not considered as "one of his people". The concept of "blackness" or "pan-Africanism" (and even white supremacy) is a modern concept. Even today, you will have a hard time convincing a Somali and an Amhara that they are the same race. People do not think like that in most parts of the world. It's a purely Western thing.

Especially back in those days, you had European selling other Europeans, Africans selling captives from enemy tribes etc.. As far as they were concerned, those people could've been aliens from another galaxy.

but the thing is black Muslim(arab identified) Swahili and other negro sub arabs of Africa whom like to think of their peers whom stayed true to their African roots as an different inferior slave race claim racial solidarity with white arabs of Arabia(and the Levant) while yet i'm really supposed to these c00ns are unfamiliar with or don't believe with world racial politics/white supremacyyou give the contemporary Western society much credit..


maybe u missed it but .i've already posted multiple ancient Islamic scripture which sand cac Islamic scholars repeatedly mention different to races of the world while repeatedly degrading blacksfurthermore Kushytes,Kemites,Ethiopians Sudanese,etc are just a few black racial labels given to African peoples by themselves or the people of the Near East Asias long before the West was a factor

weak comparison consider you will never in history find any non black creed of people selling their own people to outsiders on the scale of AfricanMuslim c00ns

 

[OD-MELA]

You see other races like Whites, Arabs etc have always seen Blacks as one group which is why you hear so many stories about Arabs in the Middle East abusing Africans no matter what part of Africa they come from. None of that makes a difference to them. Africans are the only people who want to continue seeing themselves as different to each other. The Arabs KNOW what a Black person is......

Oh dear.

All this paragraph screams out to me, once again, is inferiority complex.

Firstly, Africans are quite obviously not the only people that see themselves as different to each other. That is complete and utter nonsense. With all due respect.

Are you yourself African? No? Ever been to or lived in Africa? I'm guessing also no? So let me just quickly school you lol.
People all over the world differentiate themselves according to an obviously large and diverse range of markers/ethnic identifiers etc. In your mind, warped as it is by western cultural subjugation, the many ways African people have developed incredibly diverse ethnic and cultural identifiers, be they tribal, clan based, ethnicity, etc etc, all of this must essentially count for nothing because the outsiders, (you only mention 'Arabs and whites') 'KNOW' better what a black man is? Don't you realise how this comes across? You're basically saying hundreds of years of history that makes a Tutsi man proud to rep his tribe, counts for nothing because some Arab thinks of him as 'abed'... Totally ridiculous train of thought that almost suggests you have an underlying view of Africans as totally lacking in agency and/or determination in framing their own identities and stories in a way that is anything but defensive or reactionary to the Whites/Arabs actions!

 

[theworldismine13]

To all the posters putting these Islamist/Arab apologizers in their place

 

[Cryptocurrency Scarface]

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

these so called arabs in Sudan are still black they are just c00ns with a sense of superiority because their hair is a little less kinky

And believe me it's not just Sudan

Mauretania too.

 

[Cryptocurrency Scarface]

 

[OD-MELA]

You're basing your conclusion on an incorrect assumption; if Arabs were so united as an ethnic monolith, the Arab spring clearly wouldn't have happened. And your point about indians, east Asians all being unified 'when the time comes' again rests on the assumption that everyone but 'Blacks' can form large unified bonds along ethnic lines, which clearly flies in the face of reality and is another one of the points you make rooted entirely in baseless assumptions.

I can't really be bothered to carry this back and forth on now so its whatever.