Because even a simple google search will turn up vast documentation on 2 inconvenient facts: 1.- African blacks were mostly captured by their own people (rival tribes) whom realized it was way more profitable to sell rather than imprison/kill their rivals/criminals/prisoners/whomever. 2.- Arab Muslims commanded and manned the slave trade routes, thus effectively becoming whitey's slave provider (and of their own societies whom some STILL TODAY practice slavery).
So if blacks think that Christianity is the main force that enslaved them and Islam is the main force that can liberate them, they've been bamboozled, to borrow one of Malcolm's zingers.
And if they really want reparations, their first stop should be their own people in Africa, then the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and last whitey back home.
Have fun trying to collect from the first two, or even get an apology...
The African slave trade (triangle - tobacco, rum, slaves) was a bit more sophisticated than that but yes, Africans, Arabs and Muslims (of both groups) were part of it. Obviously the slaves in these scenarios were already slaves of the Arabs/Africans (to do with as they saw fit). Of course, no one from America (or some European nations) would make the journey to the West African coast and return cargo-less so the traditional concept of catching/enslaving free Africans would also be deployed when needed.
Human slavery has existed for at least 4,000 years (and I am being very conservative in my estimate) and apparently on every habitable continent. Spartacus tried to end it in Rome 2,000 years ago. Ultimately, these Caste Systems do irreparable damage to both servant and master alike. A system/civilization built upon it will either crumble or reform (painfully). America's bloodiest war was fought over it.
It was more about a different path towards advancement. With groups like the KKK using Christianity as a reason to slaughter black people there was a quest for an alternative. They must not have known the history of slave trade and the role of the Arab muslims, but that doesn't take away from their goals and agenda.
For every action, there is always a reaction. Plain and simple. I agree. It's similar(Only in principle of course) to ANY Counter-culture. This being more important than Hippies banging each other and doing drugs but nonetheless, both shared the same enemy at the time. Out of date Traditions, Religious POVs, Politics and of course, Civil Rights, Liberties etc. I mean, the KKK using Burning Crosses as one of their Hypocritical Justifications is something that I've never understood. I'm not religious but the Understanding of such an Act is far beyond me...
And if they really want reparations, their first stop should be their own people in Africa, then the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and last whitey back home.
It annoys me when people make ignorant comments like this. I'll give you an example of how ignorant this comment is. Europe started 2 worlds wars right? Is the narrative ever said that Europeans murdered, killed and enslaved Euorpeans, does anybody ever say Europeans killed their own people?
Because even a simple google search will turn up vast documentation on 2 inconvenient facts: 1.- African blacks were mostly captured by their own people (rival tribes) whom realized it was way more profitable to sell rather than imprison/kill their rivals/criminals/prisoners/whomever. 2.- Arab Muslims commanded and manned the slave trade routes, thus effectively becoming whitey's slave provider (and of their own societies whom some STILL TODAY practice slavery).
So if blacks think that Christianity is the main force that enslaved them and Islam is the main force that can liberate them, they've been bamboozled, to borrow one of Malcolm's zingers.
And if they really want reparations, their first stop should be their own people in Africa, then the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and last whitey back home.
If the yare RIVAL TRIBES than tha tmeans they are not their OWN NPEOPLE! Second they were slavers who were prisoners of war, not just people locked up off the street. You need to do much mroe research... reply share
They are almost certain not to know that the prophet owned black slaves that he referred to as 'raisin heads'. If blacks really knew the history of Islam none would be a Muslim.
Long story short: - Islam was enslaving blacks for about 1000 years BEFORE European whites ever set foot in the continent. - Unlike in the "white devil" west, in the Middle East there never was any emancipation movement of slavery for Non-Muslim slaves (a.k.a. blacks), where slavery went well into the 20th century and was only outlawed due to Western pressure (you know, white devils imposing their imperialistic materialistic values).
So any black embracing Islam under the false pretence that Muslims were better to Africa than Europe is hopelessly deluded.
If you doubt that, answer this: where are blacks, on average, better off today? Here's a tip: it ain't in any Muslim-majority country...
You realize none of your sources are academic right? The first is an Islamaphobic website that spreads lies and propaganda, and the second is Wikipedia. No one is going to take your post seriously.
Unfortunately you’re projecting your own unwarranted and irrelevant political views onto scientific research, which means your comment has no credibility at all.
Every intelligent person agrees with him, not you.
There is no such thing as "Islamaphobia", Iran invented it to stifle critics!
Wikipedia is far better that the Marxist cretins that infest universities. They must have taught you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4KMOfN0Oeo
Summary: The Hadith, the traditions and sayings according to Muhammed are the 2nd most revered source of religious law and moral guidance according to Islam.
According to the Hadith, Muhammed traded, sold and owned black slaves. Black slaves were worth less than Arab ones in the eyes of Muhammed. Slaves were the equivalent to animals.
The Hadiths are notoriously contradictory and are not considered the true word of God. Anyway, it’s not like the Hadiths actually condone slavery either. When you consider the fact that plenty of Christians masters owned slaves in the Bible, then it’s dumb to pigeonhole Islam.
Also that video isn’t a fair and balanced, or reliable source.
He is literally quoting from a Saudi Arabian book of the Hadith. Him being a Christian apologist is irrelevant. I don´t doubt the Hadiths are contradictory but Muhammed is still considered the perfect example for all Muslims.
Also, the treatment of slaves in the Hadiths and the Bible are night and day. Muhammed equates them to animals. The God of the Bible has no partiality between slave and master, (Ephesians 6:9) since both have the same master in heaven. Paul encourages slaves to seek their freedom. (1 Corinthians 7:21).
The Hadiths are not the word of Muhammad. They are the equivalent of Chinese whispers collected decades, even centuries after his death. If you want the true word on slavery then you would be best looking at the Quran. Numerous quotes make reference to freeing slaves who believe in Allah, and allowing owners to free their slaves (Q 2.177, 4.92; 58.3, and 24.33). There is never a moment in the Quran where Muhammad "equates slaves to animals." That is just something you made up.
Also the Bible easily condones and promotes owning slaves. For one, it is recommended that slave-owners beat their slaves (Exodus 21:10-21 & Luke 12:47-48), and for : “Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5).
The title of the chapter is "Selling animals for animals of different amounts or quality" and black slaves are featured in this chapter. I think that´s pretty clear. The bulk of Sharia law is based on the Hadiths so whether they are the word of Muhammad or not is irrelevant since almost all Islamic nations are proponents of and govern with Sharia law.
Saying the Bible condones beating/owning slaves is a clear misrepresentation of scripture.
Luke 12:47-48 is a parable of end times.
Exodus 21 is a summary of how slaves are to be compensated and even liberated if they are mistreated and experience serious injury. Exodus 21:2 says a slave can´t be owned for more than 6 years. Exodus 21:12 says anyone deliberately striking a fatal blow on a slave is to be put to death. I would hardly call that "a recommendation to beat slaves"
No, it's not "pretty clear." Considering that Muhammad was already dead long after that was written, so it's not his words. You're going to say only Islam had a bunch of racist asshats writing scripture? Nice joke. Anyway, no Islamic nation actually practices slavery, other than one or maybe two, and plenty of "secular" countries do as well. So I don't see your point. Saying it's part of Sharia Law is a non-sequitur.
It's also pretty ironic that you would say it's "misrepresenting scripture" when that's exactly what you've been doing this whole time. The Exodus 21:12 clearly says that if the slave manages to "survive for a day or two" after being beaten with a rod then no punishment is given "for the slave is his money." That clearly condones beating slaves. So really, the only reason the Slave-owner would be punished would be for destruction of property. Not exactly a humane law.
The point is that slavery was common in all cultures and pigeonholing one as being worse than the other in this regard is just wrong.
I never said slavery is part of Sharia law. I said the bulk of Sharia law is based on the Hadiths. As much as you want Islam to distance itself from the supposedly fake Hadiths( I wonder why), the Hadiths are integral to the Islamic faith as well as to how Islamic countries govern themselves.
Also you pick the one verse, that MIGHT condone slavery but the rest of the verses make it very clear that mistreating slaves is wrong. If you even knock out a slave´s tooth he must be liberated. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says "if a slave has escaped and taken refuge, let them live wherever they like and do not oppress them". That sounds pretty humane to me. Your argument is based on pure cherry-picking and ignoring everything that might be unfavourable to your argument.
Again, no Islamic countries practice slavery as an institution like you say, except for maybe one outlier. I don't know why you're trying to conflate slavery with Sharia Law when you clearly said one has nothing to do with the other. What exactly is the point of that paragraph?
Also no, I didn't just pick one verse that DEFINITELY condones beating slaves. There were others like Luke 12:47-48. In fact, the Apostle Paul was a big promoter of slavery. Frankly, it's all over both the Old and New Testament if you open your eyes.
Your argument is based on pure cherry-picking and ignoring everything that might be unfavourable to your argument.
Ahhh, pot meet kettle. Feel good to be a hypocrite? I'm not the one trying to argue slavery doesn't exist in a specific set of scripture here.
reply share
I am not trying to conflate slavery with Sharia. I am trying to make you realise that it doesn´t matter whether you dismiss the Hadiths as fake and not written by Muhammad, (ie undermine their significance to Muslims) when even if that were true, the Hadiths are integral to Islam and how Islamic countries govern themselves, since Sharia Law is based largely on the writings in the Hadiths.
You saying the Hadiths are fake, is akin to me saying the Old Testament is fake and therefore whatever is written in it doesn´t count even though modern Western society is based on Judeo-Christian law from the Old Testament.
The Luke 12:47-48 verse is totally irrelevant and a massive cherry pick since its a parable (if you even know what a parable is) about end times and absolutely has nothing to do with condoning slavery, but I wouldn´t expect you to know that, since its obvious you have never read nor studied the Bible. Google searches don´t count unfortunately.
I never said the Hadiths are "fake," I said they're unreliable when trying to understand Muhammad as a historical figure. Because they were written centuries after his death. Big difference.
since Sharia Law is based largely on the writings in the Hadiths.
Okay, what does this have to do with slavery?
The Luke 12:47-48 verse is totally irrelevant and a massive cherry pick since its a parable
It's a parable about condoning the beating of slaves. You can try to spin it or extrapolate it any which way you want through various contortions, but at the end of the day it says what it says. Being in denial isn't going to help you. Saying that "it's a metaphor" is a copout. Either the religion is meant to be taken seriously or it isn't.
Besides which, the rest of the Bible condones slavery as well. Leviticus 25:44, 1 Timothy 6:1, 1 Petter 2:18, Ephesians 6:5 and the entirety of Exodus 21 are not parables.
since its obvious you have never read
Yeah, reading the literal text in front of me that visibly condones beating slaves sure is hard. For you maybe.
reply share
Also you’re missing the obvious route to take in this, and point out that Jesus was a prophet in Islam and by mocking Jesus I’m attacking Islam as well. That would be a much better argument for you to use.
So you're criticizing me for pointing out that religious scripture is unreliable? Do you have any idea how stupid of an argument that is? ALL religious scripture is unreliable, as I deftly showed when I eviscerated your precious black book.
Nah, you're better off sticking with the argument I already gave you. Go on cupcake.
Nope. Most don't know anything about Islam beyond the tripe the media tells them, like saying it's the religion of peace, and showing off the artwork and sanitized crap in documentaries/history books. They also have never been taught anything outside the twisted narrative that only white people in America kept black slaves, and that's that. They think that's all they need to know about the history of their ancestors being enslaved.