#islamic slave trade

[secular-jew]

PSA: Islam is NOT a benevolent ideology. Rather, Islam IS a colonial, imperialist, intolerant, subjugating, violent, murdering, and oppressive ideology. But most especially, Islam was the greatest slave taking, slave trading, and slave raping entity ever known to mankind. More than the Roman (and other European) Empires. Slavery has been a "given" from its inception, and has been a large part of its wealth and expansion since Muhammad arrived to Yathrib (now Medina), throughout its 1,414 year history, and even continues to this very day.

The sheer quantity of slaves kidnapped out of Africa, is a big differentiator. While all empires depended on slaves to one degree or another, Islam began kidnapping slaves out of Africa CENTURIES BEFORE the European slave trade began, and lasted much longer. Not for nothing, but, a big part of Islamic slavery of Africans (and Jews and others) is a sexual component, where women were kidnapped to be sexual slaves to the militant men. The women were kidnapped in order to service the sexual whims of Islamic men, and also to breed more Muslims. We've seen this in recent years as thousands of young female Africans have been kidnapped by Boko Haram, Al Shabad, and ISIS (to name a few) from Nigeria, Sudan, and Northern Iraq (ie, Yazidi girls and women).

Why do we not learn in history courses, that Islam is the greatest slave empire of all time, dramatically eclipsing any of the others?

It's estimated that Islamic jihadi armies took over 100 million slaves out of Africa, and marched them by foot, into the Middle East. It is also estimated that more than 10% of the kidnapped Africans, died on the way, from starvation, exhaustion, dehydration, and physical abuse. The number of dead slaves is more than the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. This makes Islam a bigger killer than the Nazis.

Islam, which claims to be the "last religion" and the "Religion of Peace" is not just one of the most violent and oppressive empires on the planet, it has not only taken more land and occupies vast swaths of Arabia, Africa, and Southeast Asia (and now encompasses 56 countries), but it has also been one the largest slave traders.

In fact, slave trading in Islam still exists today.

Not only that, the world in Arabic "abeed" is an interchangeable word for slave and a slur for black people.

Far from being an ethical religion, Islam is imbued with brutality and disregard towards all men and women, not to mention, in practice, racism against blacks and all non-Muslims.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Katharine Birbalsingh: The first point is that everyone had slaves. Okay, people of all colors became slaves. For economic reasons, because of war. Because slavery, as odious as it was, was simply a normal way of life.

Arabs were extracting millions of black African slaves centuries before Christian nations did, for about 13 centuries, compared to the three centuries European nations ran the Atlantic slave trade. Arabs marched African slaves across the Sahara Desert, and as such, they died more often. It was customary to castrate them and many died from this practice. The Arabs also enslaved over 1 million white European Christians.

The term slavery in fact comes from the word Slav. The Slavs inhabited Eastern Europe and were taken by the Muslims of Spain in the ninth century. Not to mention that Africans have been enslaving each other for thousands of years.

The second point is that slavery was not about race, and it's important. It was not about race. The only reason we think it's about race is because philosophers like David Hume in the 18th century ranked human beings and put Africans at the bottom, saying that they had no souls. The Enlightenment imposed the concept of race on a practice that had been going on for centuries in order to justify that practice. And why did they have to justify it? And this is the point. Because people in the West began to question slavery's moral validity.

The fact is the people of all colors owned slaves. Both as part of the Atlantic slave trade and outside of it. In the United States and Caribbean, black people - black people - owned thousands of black slaves. And so did the Native Americans. Nearly 20,000 of the Native Americans Five Civilized tribes sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War fighting to keep slavery alive. 28% the black population who were free in New Orleans pledged their support to the Confederacy. All of the 13 southern states of the Confederacy had substantial numbers of black slave owners. There were more than 250,000 free blacks and nearly 4,000 of them were slave masters who owned more than 20,000 slaves.

The practice of slavery was legal after all. We need to remember that governments did not own slaves. Slave owners did. In fact, the US government fought a war to end slavery. How much should the descendants of the 400,000 Union soldiers, who lost their lives fighting to free the slaves, pay to the descendants of the slaves they freed?

Giving people lump sums of money does not work. Economists often point the Georgia Land Lottery of 1832, in which parcels of land were distributed randomly. What happened to the descendants of those who were lucky enough to be given this land? Are they the richest families in Georgia? No. In fact, within one generation after the distribution of the Georgia land, one could not distinguish between those who had been given land and those who hadn't.

Certainly my own direct experiences of working for 20-plus years in the inner city with families on welfare demonstrates this time and time again. Rather than give a man a fish, it is always better to teach him how to fish. All giving the fish does is make the giver feel better.

Reparations might relieve white people of their guilt, but it will do little else.

So back to my initial question. Why are we only discussing whether the West should pay reparations for slavery? Because while slavery was common to all civilizations, only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in its history. Western civilization. Not even the leading moralists in other civilizations rejected slavery at all.

Rather than be ashamed as Westerners we should stand proud for having led the world out of a mentality where slavery was the norm, and we should vote against this motion.

[ Full debate: https://youtu.be/HboI2t5_M4I ]

==

No one ever talks about "reparations" from Arabs. The reasons are both multiple and obvious.

[timaeuslover001]

Don't try and address slavery without addressing the WORLDS place in slavery as well. No one was an "innocent party".

[caitlinjohns77]

[former-leftist-jew]

And Hamas has received a tremendous amount of political support, weapons and money from some of the major colonizing forces of the Middle Eastern world.

In fact, the Islamic Dictatorship Republic of Iran has personally bankrolled many armed terrorist forces in the MIddle East, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen.

That is, when Iran's morality police aren't arresting, torturing, and murdering Iranian women (such as for such crimes as... wearing their hijabs wrong. The late dictator of Iran was known as "The Butcher of Tehran" for a reason.

So if you're going to judge Israel based on its Western allies, you better also take a good hard look at Hamas' allies.

Comparing the state of Israel, which has received tremendous amount of political support, weapons and money from some of the major colonizing forces of the current world, to the people those same forces literally enslaved and continue to treat like second class citizens across the western world AND the global south, is insane.

It's honestly not that much of a stretch for those who know jack-rabbit about Arab Islamic history...

Its violent lineage of religious colonial expansionism...

And how this led to Pan-Arabism, the idea that not just the entire Middle East but North Africa and Western Asia are "part of the Arab world," and thus should be under one giant Arab Islamic empire, despite said continents being outside the Arabian peninsula.

Is that fair to the ethnicities and cultures of people who lived these regions before Arab Islamic conquerors made them part of the Arab world against their will?

So if you're going to hold the West's colonizing history against them, I have some news about Islamic Arab colonizing history...

I believe in religious freedom and freedom of movement for everyone, none of which require colonization, apartheid, expulsion or genocide of another people.

Is now a good time to mention how ethnic and religious minorities were and are treated in Muslim-majority countries? Including Arab Muslim countries?

You've heard of The Pact of Umar, right? The Caliph Umar, who conquered Judea-turned-Syria-Palestina under Islam in the 660's, created a strict set of segregationist or "apartheid" rules for Christians and Jews living in the land he conquered for Islam.

That's not to say that all Muslims or all Islamic nations acted like that. As many a fair-minded historian has said, how much Umar's dhimmi rules were applied or enforced in future Islamic societies depended largely on the Islamic leader, region, and time period.

But I'd argue the Pact of Umar set a precedent for how non-Muslims (particularly Jews) were treated in Muslim majority societies, just like how early chattel slavery laws set a precedent for how African Americans were treated in Southern American states.

Speaking of chattel slavery...

You've heard of the Trans-Saharan "Arab" Slave Trade and how it devastated most of Northern and eastern Africa, and contributed to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, right?

And how said history of Arabs enslaving ethnic Africans contributed to the current ethnic cleansing of ethnic blacks at the hands of Arab extremists in Sudan today, right?

We would never apply the logic of zionism with any other political minority. This was only allowed to happen because of western interests in the Middle East.

There's so much to unpack here.

First of all: How did the West gain control of the Middle East to begin with? Answer: they won the territories after WWI by defeating the Ottoman Turks, who were themselves colonial powers who controlled the region for centuries, who won said territory from the Malmuk Egyptians. (And so on and so forth.)

Secondly, you could say that about most small Islamic nation-states created in the 20th century Middle East. While Britain and France both promised to make one unified Arab kingdom after the Arabs helped them defeat the Ottomans in WWI, both Britain and France went back on their word and divvied the land up, creating many small nation-states to serve their own interests.

But they didn't JUST do it with Jews in Israel.

They also created Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq.

In the aftermath of World War I and the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, France was granted a “mandate” for the Ottomans’ Syrian provinces (other than Palestine). Notionally, France was supposed to oversee those territories’ preparation for future independence, but it treated them much like any other colonial possession. A basic tool of French imperial rule was to patronize certain religious minorities... In certain parts of Syria, for example, France made a point of recruiting Alawites and Druze into its mandate armies. Lebanon and the Maronite constituencies who were the biggest proponents of Lebanese particularism represent another path that religious minorities took to stake a claim in the political landscape of the post-Ottoman Middle East. Rather than a trans-religious pan-Arab or Syrian nationalism, they opted for a national identity rooted much more closely in ethno-religious affiliation. In fact, Lebanon institutionalized religious difference as an official legal status in a particularly notable way. Despite the leading role of its Christian communities, Lebanon was and is highly diverse, with a mixed population of Christians, Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and Druze.

Notice that France created Lebandon specifically to give Christian religious minorities living in the Arab Muslim-majority Middle East a small nation-state of their own--albeit for their own colonial interests.

Rather than honoring the Arab Muslim majority's desire for one big Arab Islamic kingdom (ethnic and religious minorities be damned), one could argue France also applied Western Enlightenment values of "universal rights of self-determination and self-government" (that Hamas appeals to in their 2017 Charter), for some minority religions to have some political self-determination in the Middle, if just the Christian-majority Lebanon and Jewish-majority Israel.

... At least, it was a Christian-majority country. Now it's not, and it was far from a peaceful transition. (I had many Muslim friends in high school and college, and many non-Muslim friends from Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East. This tracks.)

But anyway, back to the formation of small Arab nation-states.

While the Arabs grumbled about getting many small Arab nation-states rather than one big Arab Islamic kingdom, they were mostly willing to live with it... UNTIL the prospect of a JEWISH nation-state was put on the table. Gee, wonder why?

So again, if you're not picketing Lebanon as being inherently intolerant because it was ostensibly created for an "ethno-religious minority" in the Middle East, but ONLY give Irasel guff for that, then your motives are antisemetic.

Same with the partisan of Pakistan and India by the British.

Earnest policies against discrimination start at home, not by sending people in the thousands somewhere else and forcing them to homogenize their cultures and languages.

Again, see Arab Islamic colonial history.

By that logic, most Pan-Arab Islamist movements in the Middle East were and are very selfish for trying to push for only Arab Islamic sovereignty for the Arab Muslim majority--ethnic and religious minorities be hanged.

In fact, I'd argue that by ignoring and blaming all of the Middle East's problems on the "influence of the western" ONLY when it comes to "white Zionists creating Israel," you're basically giving the Arab world the Noble Savage treatment.

I'm going to end with a quote from an article sent to me by a religious studies professor, written by one of his colleagues.

"I have been lucky to survive the Iraq-Iran War, the Lebanese Civil War and many rounds of war between Israel and different Palestinians and Lebanese armed factions.

Wars have repeatedly displaced my family.

We lost one house after another and fled.

We also lost real estate to confiscation and forgery.

Family savings repeatedly lost value due to hyperinflation or got wiped out in various economic collapses and consequent bank bankruptcies.

Each time, we picked up our pieces and silently rebuilt from scratch."

(Note: Mass displacement, home and savings losses still happen very frequently in the middle east to many different people, for different reasons. It happens in many countries that have NO TIES WHATSOEVER to Israel.)

"Ever since I became politically active in college, many decades ago, I have lost family in wars and friends to assassinations.

In 2019, I enjoyed a breakfast meal in Tunis with my two dear friends: Iraqi Hisham Hashimi and Lebanese Lokman Slim.

Pro-Iran militias in Iraq killed Hisham in July 2020.

Hezbollah killed Lokman in February 2021...

Washington [D.C.] relied on the Lebanese judiciary, under the thumb of the Hezbollah assassins themselves, to hold Hezbollah killers of Lokman accountable.

I silently wept.

Each and every one of the miseries my family, friends and I faced was blamed on Israel.

Once we eliminate Israel and liberate Palestine, life will become rosy.

This has been the justification for our bloody world since before my parents were born.

This has been the excuse in the Arab world since I was born.

I refuse to pass this excuse on to my children.

The Palestine nonsense, its victimhood and its liberation, have to end and have to end now."

Antisemitism vs. anti-Zionism: Jewish students are at the forefront of P...

[ausetkmt]

https://x.com/Joe__Bassey/status/1701860296493547847?t=z8gLfv41GiIWPQq83c58Ng&s=09

Image: a Moor on sale after the beginning of their fall in Spain. The last expelled Moor was in 1492 CE

THE 'CHURCH' WAS THE DRIVING FORCE OF TRANS-ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE AS MUCH AS ISLAM WAS AT THE HEART OF ARAB SLAVE TRADE

IN 1455 CE, Pope Nicholas V. wrote a Roman bull(romanus pontifex) declaring that all Moors, Saracens and all non-christian blacks were to be sentenced to perpetual slavery and Charged as heretics during the early stages of the 'Inquisitions'. By 1492 CE, the Moors (African Maghrebs and some Arabs) surrendered their castles in Iberian peninsula with Spain claiming most of the Moorish territories and persons of black-skin became the 'property' of Spain. Some escaped back to Africa.

In 1493 CE, another declaration was made by Pope Alexander VI(inter caetera), known as 'doctrine of discovery' which gave rise to the idea of 'discovery' as a concept in Europe. What followed this was noted by Karl Marx thus; "what was good for the europeans was obtained on the expense of untold suffering by the Africans and American Indians... the discovery of gold in the America, the extra patient enslavement and the entombment of the minds of the aboriginal population... the turning of Africa into a commercial warrant for the hunting of black skins, signaled the rosy dawn of the capitalist production". Little wonder, Rev. Richard Furman, President of the S. Carolina Baptist convention in 1823 CE, stated that, " the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the holy scriptures, both by precepts and by example ". He was a slave owner. "I draw my warrant from the Scripture of the old and new testaments to hold slaves in bondage" -Rev. Thomas Witherspoon of the Presbyterian church of Alabama, in a letter to 'the emancipator' in 1839 CE. These 'justifications' were stated by many churchmen and women, drawing from the Judeo-Christian Bible.

The revered book of the Mohammedans, the Qur'an, which was written in the 8th/9th century CE, by those who took over from the Nabataean, also indicated in many verses that slavery was 'just'. But in this case, it was often Stated that the followers of the Islamic ideology were to by loving and gentle among themselves but to "fight them[non-followers of the ideology] and allah will punish him by your hands" (Quran 9:14, 15) and that "allah will strike terror unto the unbelievers(Q. 8:60)... and until they pay gizya(Q. 9:29). 'Gizya' was supposed to be an Islamic tax, targeted at the non-followers of the ideology, even if they are not enslaved but if their lands are taken over by followers of the Islamic ideology.

Following several injunctions in the Arabian Quran, the Mohammedans in Iberia had sought to control the situation: "anyone who is known to be from those lands which are known to be lands of Islam should be let go and should be adjudged free. This is the ruling of the jurist of Andalusia "-( Al Umari, 14th cen. Arab historian. But for all else, slavery was allowed.

This was the ugly web that Africa was caught in, in the 7th cen. CE and the 15th cen. CE. And in this way, many Africans became Mohammedans for convenience, especially the Garamantes(an ancient black skinned people with kinky hair), of north Africa, who joined forces with the Islamizing Arabs, whom together went in and took over Iberia in 711CE.

According to Dr. Josef Ben Jochannan, " Africa took-in both the hook, the line and sinker" and that had stretched to this very day. Africans born into this just 'follow the followers', sometimes, even somewhat blindfolded.

[y0ur-maj3sty]

The Arabic Slave Trade is something that is rarely spoken about and often goes unheard of. When we speak of the enslavement of Africans, many of us like to connect it with Europeans, which is fine, but we should never forget they were not the only ones. For over 900 years, Africans were enslaved by Arabic slave traders. They would take Africans from all over the continent including West, East, and North Africa forcing them to march thousands of miles to Slave Markets. The Men, Women, and Children were bound together by the waist and neck so that if one died the rest could drag him or her along. These walks became known as the “Death Marches” and an estimated 20 million Africans died on these walks alone. The Arabs believed it was God’s wish to see Africans enslaved and believed they were uncivilized animals. Sound Familiar? Slaves were beaten and abused regularly although claims have been made that they were not supposed to. Many African Women, young Girls, and Boys would be used as Sex slaves for their owners. Islamic Slave holders would stick their swords and other weapons into the Vagina’s of Black Women and cut off the penis of African Men. This was done because they believed Africans had an uncontrollable sex drive.

Many Africans would be forced to convert to Islam believing if they shared the same religion, it would stop the abuse. Muslim slave traders would also promise them Freedom after conversion. This did not stop the abuse nor did it gain them their freedom. In Fact, one can argue it made them even more enslaved. When Europeans entered the slave industry, Muslim Slave traders would use the religion to exploit Islamic Africans to bring them other Africans. These Africans would then be sold to Europeans. Slavery in the holy city of Mecca would remain until 1966 and in all other Arabic countries until 1990. The Islamic Slave Trade began almost 500 years before the Europeans would come to Africa. It would be a catalyst for the dismantling of the continent and the massive expansion of the Religion. Had it not been for Islam, European Chattel Slavery may never have occurred. History is quite a teacher and once again as the late Dr. John Henrik Clarke once said, “Africa has no friends. If you want a friend, look in the mirror.”

[go-ro]

Pretty damning account of slavery in Mauritania. How can you free people who do not realize they are enslaved? How to reconcile purported equality under the law with servility?

From: Social Currents in North Africa

[former-leftist-jew]

I don't know, how does the Arab League maintain Arab Muslim ethno-supremacy?

Slavery? Massacres? Genocide?

Why not all three?!

i believe that the jewish people have a right to self determination in their ancestral homeland, also known as israel.

[secular-jew]

Found in a Gaza home: Map of Italy with a Jihadi Islamic ISIS flag: "We will conquer Rome just like we conquered Constantinople".

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

The Hidden Truth Behind The End Of Slavery - Thomas Sowell

Slavery was destroyed within the United States at staggering costs in blood and treasure, but the struggle was over within a few ghastly years of warfare. Nevertheless, the Civil War was the bloodiest war ever fought in the Western Hemisphere, and more Americans were killed in that war than in any other war in the country’s history. But this was a highly atypical—indeed, unique—way to end slavery. In most of the rest of the world, unremitting efforts to destroy the institution of slavery went on for more than a century, on a thousand shifting fronts, and in the face of determined and ingenious efforts to continue the trade in human beings.

Within the British Empire, the abolition of slavery was accompanied by the payment of compensation to slave owners for what was legally the confiscation of their property. This cost the British government £20 million—a huge sum in the nineteenth century, about 5 percent of the nation’s annual output.38 A similar plan to have the federal government of the United States buy up the slaves and then set them free was proposed in Congress, but was never implemented. The costs of emancipating the millions of slaves in the United States would have been more than half the annual national output—but still less than the economic costs of the Civil War,39 quite aside from the cost in blood and lives, and a legacy of lasting bitterness in the South, growing out of its defeat and the widespread destruction it suffered during that conflict.

While the British could simply abolish slavery in their Western Hemisphere colonies, they faced a more daunting and longer-lasting task of patrolling the Atlantic off the coast of Africa, in order to prevent slave ships of various nationalities from continuing to supply slaves illegally. Even during the Napoleonic wars, Britain continued to keep some of its warships on patrol off West Africa. Moreover, such patrols likewise tried to interdict the shipments of slaves from East Africa through the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf. Brazil capitulated to British demands that it end its slave trade, after being publicly humiliated by British warships that seized and destroyed slave ships within Brazil’s own waters. In 1873, two British cruisers appeared off the coast of Zanzibar and threatened to blockade the island unless the slave market there shut down. It was shut down.

It would be hard to think of any other crusade pursued so relentlessly for so long by any nation, at such mounting costs, without any economic or other tangible benefit to itself. These costs included bribes paid to Spain and Portugal to get their cooperation with the effort to stop the international slave trade and the costs of maintaining naval patrols and of resettling freed slaves, not to mention dangerous frictions with France and the United States, among other countries.40 Captains of British warships who detained vessels suspected of carrying slaves were legally liable if those vessels turned out to have no slaves on board. The human costs were also large.

[..]

None of this means that the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade should be ignored, downplayed, or excused. Nor have they been. A vast literature has detailed the vile conditions under which slaves from Africa lived—and died—during their voyages to the Western Hemisphere. But the much less publicized slave trade to the Islamic countries had even higher mortality rates en route, as well as involving larger numbers of people over the centuries, even though the Atlantic slave trade had higher peaks while it lasted. By a variety of accounts, most of the slaves who were marched across the Sahara toward the Mediterranean died on the way.53 While these were mostly women and girls, the males faced a special danger—castration to produce the eunuchs in demand as harem attendants in the Islamic world.

[..]

On the issue of slavery, it was essentially Western civilization against the world. At the time, Western civilization had the power to prevail against all other civilizations. That is how and why slavery was destroyed as an institution in almost the whole world. But it did not happen all at once or even within a few decades. When the British finally stamped out slavery in Tanganyika in 1922 it was more than half a century after the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States, and vestiges of slavery still survived in parts of Africa into the twenty-first century.

==

This video pairs visual elements with Sowell's audiobook reading of his own book, "Black Rednecks and White Liberals."

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

The Blockade of Africa began in 1808 after the United Kingdom outlawed the Atlantic slave trade, making it illegal for British ships to transport slaves. The Royal Navy immediately established a presence off Africa to enforce the ban, called the West Africa Squadron. Although the ban initially applied only to British ships, Britain negotiated treaties with other countries to give the Royal Navy the right to intercept and search their ships for slaves.

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

The West Africa Squadron, also known as the Preventative Squadron, was a squadron of the British Royal Navy whose goal was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa. Formed in 1808 after the British Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act 1807 and based out of Portsmouth, England, it remained an independent command until 1856 and then again from 1866 to 1867.

[balkanradfem]

So... I'm about to write something messed up, that I learned today and I'm freaking out. If you're from balkan and you knew this please message me and explain how.

I was on wikipedia, reading the page 'Human' because I was curious what it said, and honestly that article is unhinged and sounds copied from an alien textbook. It goes over the history of human development and at one point starts going over slavery and I accidentally clicked on 'atlantic slave trade'. Since the page was open, I thought, why not learn more about this, always good to know about history of slavery since it set the world up into what it is today.

So I am reading, and it explains how big empires relied on slaves to produce sugar, cotton, and other commodities, and at first trafficked and sold people from Africa for this, but then also incorporated religion as a judgment of who can be a slave. So they weren't supposed to enslave people of their own religion, but could enslave someone they believed to be a heretic. Catholics were enslaving orthodox christians and muslims could enslave shia muslims.

I am reading this and thinking how religion is even more evil than I originally thought and this is disgusting and then I read the words 'balkan slave trade' and I'm just ????. Like what do you mean. I know I havent paid attention in history but come on. That I would surely remember?

So I click it, and find out. In 14th century, balkans were pagans, and there was also 'Bogomilism' religion which meant 'dear to god' and it was anti church, gnostic practice that went against christian hierarchy. Since balkan was on the religious borders of christianity and islam, they were allowed to be taken slaves and were trafficked via port in Dubrovnik. The pagan religion of balkan was the confirmation of their slave status, and Bosnians were most aggressively targeted. Women were trafficked to be house help in Italy, while males were turned Egyptian soldiers. The practice stopped when Ottoman empire claimed balkan in 15th century at which point the slave trade was absorbed into the ottoman slave trade.

I've never even heard of any of that before. I'be been mad about destructiom of pagan religion for years but they actually enslaved and trafficked pagans? I didn't know. 

Then I wondered why I didn't know, and asked wikipedia to show me the same article in croatian language. It didn't exist. In fact, the article only existed in english language. I then googled 'balkan slave trade' in croatian. Zero results. Nothing. It wasn't that I didn't pay attention, there are no sources about this written in my language!

We just DON'T TALK ABOUT THIS??!!

Was the only way for me to find out a miniscule chance I stumble on it accidentally on wikipedia? I need more info. Who knew about this and why is it hidden. I need to know everything. I want to understand why things are the way they are. 

[former-leftist-jew]

I really don't think you should be trusting Hama's history at face value.

a) But I should be trusting Hamas' word about Jews, Israelis, and the current war that they started at face value?

b) Oh, don't worry. I get my history from many different sources, and most of the ones that aren't from pro-Islam propaganda corroborate Hamas and other Islamists' boast that "Islam was spread by the sword."

Historical Analysis shows that the spread of Islam did not equate to the spread of Arabian people.

a) So that makes it better? The Islamic Arabic language, culture, and religion being the dominant ones across the entire Middle East and North Africa following the 150 years of violent colonial conquest of native peoples from medieval Arab caliphs, officers, and nobles...

And it's fine because "most of them aren't ethnic arabs--just the descendants of culturally assimilated native peoples and cultures under the Islamic Arab banner"?

b) You've clearly never heard of the 1400+ year Trans-Sahara or "Arab" Slave Trade, have you?

The 1400+ year racial slave trade that makes the 400-year Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade look tame by comparison predominantly perpetuated by ethnic Arabs and Middle Eastern people against ethnic black Africans in their own home continent and beyond.

You know Islam is the predominant religion in North africa for the same reason Christianity is the predominant religion in South Africa, right? Colonialism.

In fact, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was a brief off-shoot of the Arab Slave Trade. Reason being: European Slavers never went too far far into the African mainland until the 1800's (hence why they didn't colonize African land until the 1800's Imperialsim, when European powers suddenly saw how rich the continent was in raw materials and resources, after the centuries-long slave trade ended), yet European Christian slavers' reach extended well into the African mainland.

Why was that? Partly because traveling caravans of Arab slave traders, who were more-than-happy to add to their already booming industry of kidnapping pagan ethnic blacks, carting them all the way across the continent, and selling them to the highest bidders near the coasts of Africa.

In fact, enslavement and marginalization of ethnic blacks in the Arab world was so ubiquitous that, to this day, Arabic word for black people is also the word for "slave," and the two are often used interchangeably.

In North Sudan, the terms "Abeed" and "Abid" are commonly used to refer to South Sudanese people (mostly Dinka and Nuer), who are considered by many North Sudanese as a "slave tribe" due to their enslavement during the trans-Saharan slave trade. Usage of the terms in North Sudan is considered derogatory in nature and has fallen into relative disuse in recent decades

This is the same Sudan where the Darfur Genocide is happening RIGHT NOW; ethnic black Africans being rounded upo and killed by ethnic Arabs and Middle Easterners.

The Rapid Support Forces (RSF), an independent military force, and its allies, primarily Arab militias, are responsible for a campaign of ethnic cleansing, targeting the Massalit people and other non-Arab communities in West Darfur’s capital, El Geneina. The apparent objective was to permanently remove them from the city.

By the way, the territory of "Palestine" is not immune. The word "Abeed" also makes a grand appearance in t Palestininian territories:

The practice of owning slaves by Arabs in [British] Mandatory Palestine and Jordan was observed at least until the 1930s, many of these slaves were from African descent and as a result many of today's Afro-Palestinians are themselves of African descent. The legacy of this practice is still evident in today's Palestinian territories: The term "Abeed" (slave) is used as a slur against dark-skinned Palestinians. Moreover, Afro-Palestinian also face several aspects of de facto segregation: They are limited in who they can marry and have limited employment options. They also live in separate neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are often referred to using the Abeed slur. For example, in the Gaza city district of Al-Jalla, the Afro-Palestinians live in a neighborhood called Al-Abeed [or "children of slaves" or in Jericho, Afro-Palestinian's neighborhood is still called the "slaves of Duyuk."

So, yeah.

Now that we've established that ethnic Arab/Middle Easter

While Arabian's migrated in small numbers to conquered parts of the Caliphates, mostly as offices, officers, nobles and such, the Native peoples remined in their place for the most part.

Kind of like what the British did to the Irish?

My goodness, do you hear yourself??

You're practically making my point for me:

Medieval Arab warlords, caliphs, officers, and nobles violently conquered Native peoples across the Middle East and North Africa, reduced them to second-class citizens in their own homelands, and slowly phased out the native languages, religions, and cultures and assimilated them to Arab supremacy.

In fact, let's take this moment to learn two new terms:

Pan-Arabism: a pan-nationalist ideology that espouses the unification of all Arab people in a single nation-state, consisting of all Arab countries of West Asia and North Africa from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Sea, which is referred to as the Arab world.

Not to be confused with Arab nationalism:

A political ideology asserting that Arabs constitute a single nation. As a traditional nationalist ideology, it promotes Arab culture and civilization, celebrates Arab history, the Arabic language and Arabic literature. It often also calls for unification of Arab society. It bases itself on the premise that the people of the Arab world—from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Sea—constitute one nation bound together by a common identity: ethnicity, language, culture, history, geography, and politics.

Soooo... where does that leave non-Arab Native populations who might not be interested in living under the Islamic Arab banner?

Like Kurds, Druze, Sikhs, Hindus, and other non-Muslims being driven out of Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East right now? Not to mention the "separate-and-inferior" status of dhimmi (non-Muslims) in Muslim-majority countries?

The Arabs refer to a group of related preexisting cultures who were united during the Islamic Golden age/Middle Ages, identified primarily by the use of Arabic as a first language. Arab =/= Arabian =/= Muslim.

AKA groups of pre-existing cultures they violently conquered, colonized, and assimilated.

b) You know the "Golden Age of Islam" has been largely debunked, right?

Long story short, the term "Islamic Golden Age" was coined by an Irish journalist in the 1880's, and mostly purported by post-20th century Islamist retroactively taking credit for millennia of scientific camplishments made by the peoples the Arabs conquered. (Mostly from the Islamisized Persian Empire and Jews with Arabic-sounding names in Islam-majority countries.)

I could honestly go on and on, but tumblr keeps glitching out, so I'm just going to post this here.

[caitlinjohns77]

[etz-ashashiyot]

you always seem to have such a good grasp of what you're talking about. can i ask you for talking points on why the magen david is not a hate symbol? i know it isn't of course (i'm not insane) but i struggle to put into words why. no worries if you don't feel like it or whatever, i just thought i'd ask :) sorry if this is badly worded, i'm not great with words (hence my problem!)

If the Islamic star and crescent isn't a hate symbol despite coming into popular use because it was the symbol of the Ottoman Empire and currently appearing on the flags of multiple countries accused of human rights abuses past and present;

If the Christian cross is not a hate symbol despite being the primary symbol of the religion that drove so many atrocities, wars, and human rights abuses that they are too numerous to name in this simple response, but include the colonialisation of the West and the transatlantic slave trade;

Then then the only real reason anyone might see the Magen David as a symbol of hate specifically because of Israel, despite it being a symbol for Jews going back thousands of years is just straight up antisemitism.