Slaves and the Harem

The Arabic word Harem derives its original spelling and meaning from the kemetian word harim, meaning ‘women’. In Kemet, A harem was simply the place where women lived. Any middle class home would have a harem, or women's room, where unmarried female relatives and servants would sleep. One would expect the king's palace to have similar facilities. There was, of course, a difference. The king had several palaces and so he needed several harems. It took a very large number of people to keep each palace functioning smoothly and so we would expect appropriately large harems. Even a half dozen women in the harem of a private residence could easily be integrated into the social and economic system of the rest of the house, but royal harems were so large that they took on a life of their own. Each harem needed its own estate, consisting of land and peasants to produce food for everyone and enough of a surplus to pay for all of the other necessities. Such a system would require its own officials and administrators, male of course, to keep everything running smoothly, but there is no evidence to suggest and no reason to believe that any of these men were eunuchs.

With the advent of Islam, and then the Turks, certain things changed. Under Islamic law, a man can have as many wives as he can support, with the traditional number topping out at around four. However, concubines were unlimited and many harems grew into the thousands. Historically, the concubine was frequently voluntary (by the woman and/or her family's arrangement), as it provided a measure of economic security for the woman involved. The Sultan's favorites, and the rest of his concubines main function was to entertain the Sultan in the bedchamber.

An Odalisque was not a concubine of the harem, Odalisques were ranked at the bottom of the social stratification of a harem, serving not the sultan, but rather, his concubines and wives as personal chambermaids. Odalisques were usually slaves given as gifts to the sultan, although some Georgian and Caucasian families urged their daughters to enter a harem as an odalisque, hoping that they might become a palace concubine, favored slave, or wife of the sultan. Generally, an odalisque was never seen by the sultan, but instead remained under the direct supervision of his mother or chief Wife. If an odalisque was of extraordinary beauty or had exceptional talents in dancing or singing, she would be trained as a possible concubine. If selected, an odalisque trained as a concubine would serve the sultan sexually, and only after such sexual contact would she change in status, becoming thenceforth a concubine. In the Ottoman Empire, concubines encountered the sultan only once—unless she was especially skilled in dance, singing, or the sexual arts, and thus gained his attention. If a concubine's contact with the sultan resulted in the birth of a son, she would become one of his wives.

Watch this video on Islamic Slavery
The Arab Muslim Slave Trade Of Africans, The Untold Story

Slavery has been banished, yet some of us, are still adhering to mental slavery.

Slavery has been banished, yet some of us, are still adhering to mental slavery.  The African person’s hair has been and still regarded as nasty, ugly and unclean in the views of Africans and Non-African people in the world.. Although, we know that’s a lie. Hair texture has more to do with the climate that one lives in, than anything else.

Thus, if a person lives in the African savannah, body hair and European type hair signifies suffocation with certain death. There isn't anything inferior with the African physical appearance and hair texture. Those lies were made by mad scientists, religious freaks, and racist assholes to crucify African people. This has result in some African people expressing the same negative thoughts against themselves.

So why is that, some persons are still in mental bondage in this system? Black men/women are going under the knife in record proportion to reshape their nostrils, eyes and lips, just to assimilate to the standard of beauty of the people who hate Africans, just for being so.

For that reason alone, the Asian invasion has been detrimental to blacks all over the planet. From Africa, Europe and the Americas, there has been an Exodus of black men and women who are leaving their Africaness behind by means of Bleaching cream, weaves, perms, s-curl, Christianity, Islam, Hebrew, Hindu, Buddha, Judaism, Mormonism, or whatever means they can find to be less African.

A 5 year old girl doesn’t know that, her hair isn’t beautiful, until her ignorant mother/father buys her a gotdanm doll with non-Sub-Sahara African hair. Thus, begins the perpetual mental torment of self-hatred, which prolongs until that chemical eats her scalp, or she gets her brain damage from the chemical reaction of these products.. You teach her to run away from herself, you teach her that, the only way she will ever be beautiful is, to have fake horse hair on top of her head that looks like wet “mop head”.

In fact, blacks are more racist toward one another when it comes to assimilation to European/Asian standard of beauty. I have heard of brothers who won’t date a woman unless that, she has 18 inch of fake dead human hair hanging on her back. There are sisters that, I talked to, who told me that “Some black men don’t realize how much certain European men adore African women with natural hair, until they see one, in the arms of a European male “. Then, they want to call black women sell outs and other crap. Yet they would have never talked to her, because she doesn’t perm her hair, or wears Fake hair.

No doubt, this is a very sensitive issue, some have refused to deal with it, or acknowledge it for the simple fact that, people’s feelings tend to get hurt. But danm it, if I made you feel uncomfortable with the truth. I am not sentimental; there is the gospel for all that mess, just in case you want someone to understand and accept the reason why you hate yourself so much?

No true African/Indian is a true Muslim or Christian

By NAIWU OSAHON

The patriotic, intelligent, enlightened, sophisticated, reliable, upwardly-mobile, proudly African, particularly the young and young at heart, is a Ma’at. It is probably too late to reform our over 40, 50 or so years old already too deeply captured by our oppressors’ lies and brainwashing and serving as the master’s megaphones, preachers, promoters and agents in our midst.

No true African is a Christian or Muslim. It is a contradiction in terms to link a legitimate African born, with Christianity or Islam. The idea is simply absurd, an abnormality, to say the least. These religions were the tools used to suppress and enslave our ancestors, and exploit and condemn us to our current state of wretchedness as a people, through ruthless brainwashing. A real African would have to be insane to identify with the religions the slavers used to obliterate his/her name, language, self-esteem, family, industries, history and intellectual, spiritual and material contributions to modern civilization. They are insane, because they rejoice the most over Yahweh’s ten plague attacks on our ancestors in Egypt. They compose songs, dance and make-merry over the idea, until they run out of strength and sleep off only to wake up the following morning and begin the shindig all over again over our adversities.

Of course, many would argue that there are some genuine Africans who are Christians or Muslims. Such arguments are usually based on the empty surface value of skin colour. The truth is that not every one that is Black or African on the outside is African inside. That is why after fifty years of flag independence, they are still hanging on to some mundane, outmoded, barbaric, narrow-minded, false, senseless, racist, alien spiritual pre-occupations, imposed by our selfish, de-humanizing slave masters. Typical African Christians and Muslims, call African cultures, traditions, values, and works of arts: primitive, savage and pagan. They smugly try to speak and carry themselves like the slave masters; insanely bleach to sore point to try to pass for White; arrogantly claim to be Christians and Muslims first, and due to their helpless, unappreciated freak of nature, Africans second. They are our Pastors and Imams, political leaders, school teachers, business tycoons and merchants, importing European excrements into our climes as fertilizers, because they believe, European excrement is superior to ours. They are usually the first to claim to be the authentic Africans only to be kneeling or hitting their heads on the floor the next minute, before images of their White and Arab gods, (Jesus, Muhammad, Yahweh-Allah), who they call their messiahs, husbands, fathers, saviours.

After the middle of the 17th century, the demand for Atlantic slave trade became insatiable and peaked in the 18th century. Each year, seven times as many slaves were leaving Western African coasts. For 500 years, from (1441-1870-1960 CE), with the Bible in one hand and the gun in the other, they unleashed a devastating, unprecedented, unrelenting, and un-godly, tyranny of hate, torture, enslavement, and colonization, on Africans. Africa was doubly disadvantaged; it was excluded from the economic flow engendered by the supposed ‘discoveries,’ and was bled dry by the exportation of humans in their dynamic ages, destined to replace the American Indians decimated by their European incursions. Progress on the continent came to a stop.

Many of the slave ships had Christian names, such as the ships of the slaver, Sir John Hawkins, licensed by Queen Elizabeth, named Jesus, Angel and Grace of God. Quite often, the captains of the slave ships were Christian clerics or priests. John Newton was one such captain of a slave-trading vessel. He read the Bible daily on board the ship while hundreds of human souls were in his ship’s hold. Pursued his studies for his ministry and held prayer services on deck twice daily. He wrote a hymn: “How Sweet the name of Jesus sounds.” Here is a White writer’s description of what happened on those ships: “Below the deck…sometimes more than five feet high and sometimes less; and this height is divided towards the middle, for the slaves lie in two rows, one above the other, on each side of the ship, close to each other like books upon a shelf…so close that the shelf would not easily contain any more. The poor creatures, thus cramped, are likewise in irons for the most part, which makes it difficult for them to turn or move or attempt to rise or lie down without hurting themselves or each other. Every morning, more instances than one are found of the living and the dead fastened together.”

To break and humble Africans, some of the most brutal and inhuman treatment in the history of mankind were practiced against them by Whites, on board those slave ships. Some captains, at the start of a journey would chop a number of slaves to bits, and force the others to watch and to eat the flesh. Torture and dismemberment were used to deter rebellion. White laws sanctioned the punishment meted out to Blacks by categorizing Africans as chattels, which like horses and cattle, could be bought, sold, mortgaged, borrowed, rented, bartered, etc. Christianity made slavery divine, arguing that the Africans were the children of Ham, who bore the curse of darkness from God. Missionaries often forced slaves to promise not to seek freedom, as a condition for being baptized. Women were routinely severely raped, and men were regularly castrated, their sex organs severed.

C.L.R. James in, (The Black Jacobins), tells us about some of the things that happened to our kith and kin on the sugar plantations in the Americas. “The whip was not always an ordinary cane or woven cord…sometimes it was replaced by a thick thong of cow hide, or by the lianes, a local growth of reeds, supple and pliant like whale bone…The slaves received the whip with more certainty and regularity than they received their food. It was the incentive to work and the guardian for discipline. But there was no ingenuity that fear of a depraved imagination could devise which was not employed to break their spirits and satisfy the lusts and resentment of their owners and guardians. Irons on the hands and feet, blocks of weed that the slaves had to drag behind them wherever they went, the tin-plate mask designed to prevent the slaves eating sugar cane, the iron collar. Whipping was interrupted in order to pass a piece of hot wood on the buttocks of the victims; salt, pepper, citron, cinders, aloes, and hot ashes were poured on the bleeding wounds. Mutilations were common, limbs, ears, and sometimes the private parts, to deprive them of the pleasure which they could indulge in without expense. Their masters poured burning wax on their arms and hands and shoulders, emptied the boiling sugar over their heads, burned them alive, roasted them on slow fires, filled them with gun power and blew them up with a match (this was called 'to burn a little powder in the ass of a nigger'); buried them up to their necks and smeared their heads with sugar that the flies might devour them, fastened them near to nests of ants or wasps; made then eat their excrement, drink their urine and lick the saliva of other slaves.”

Sir Han Sloane, an obvious sadist, who visited the British Islands in 1688, didn’t think the punishment he described (and quoted here), were harsh enough: “The slaves are punished…by nailing them down on the ground, and with crooked sticks on every limb, and their applying the fire by degrees from feet and hands, burning them gradually up to the head, whereby their pains are extravagant…by gelding (cutting off the balls) or chopping off half of the foot with an axe. Their punishment are suffered till they are raw; some (masters) put on their (slaves’) skins, pepper and salt to make them smart, at other times their masters will drop melted wax on their slaves’ skins and use several very exquisite torments…” In 1759 CE, F. Voltaire, who had all his life asserted that Africans were naturally inferior to Whites, published ‘Candide,’ a sting on religionists’ slavery of Africans. In 1772 CE, Rev. T. Thompson of the USA wrote that “the trade in Negro slaves on the African coast is in accordance with human principles and the laws of revealed religions.” In 1852 CE, Rev. Josiah, published a Bible defence of Black slavery in America, and in 1863 CE, ‘The London Times, with blazing headline, thundered that the Bible justifies Africans being sold and bought. It advised African slaves to ignore their freedom. Legal abolition of slavery was promptly replaced with colonization from 1880 for the next 80 years. The Berlin Conference to consolidate colonialism took place from Nov. 1884 to Feb. 1885. Charles Carrol published his “Biblical and scientific proof that the Negro is not a member of the human race, in 1900 CE.” Christianity and Islam create dichotomy between ‘Gods’ and humans to foster the master or select elite syndrome, to numb followers, to raise a loyal tribe of mindless servants, useful as idiots.

Islam de-humanizes Africans. Arabs are the most implacable and rabid Black haters on earth. Arabs call Africans abd (abeed), meaning, their ordained slaves. Islam, is their camouflage instrument of coercion, a comprehensive, abeed numbing, brainwashing, entrapping, mass breeding, lethally intoxicating concoction.

The Qur'an distinguishes between races by discriminating against Africans. There is a strong legacy of racism against Africans from early Arab-Islam because the language, traditions, and customs of the Arabs, support the down grading of the African race. Arabs’ attitude to Blacks derives from Genesis’ racist fiction about Noah’s sons. Arabs claim that “the accursed Ham was the progenitor of the Black race; that Japheth begat the full-faced, small eyes Europeans, and that Shem fathered the handsome of face with beautiful hair Arabs.” Arabs conveniently forget that they were produced by the mixture between their most advanced and superior race, the Kushites (Blacks), and the low-class, primitive White tribes that invaded Arabia land of the Blacks from 1550 BCE.

After conquering Egypt, Arabs began demanding Nubian slaves. From as early as 6 CE, they had developed slavery supply networks out of Africa, from the Sahara to the Red Sea, to Ethiopia, Somalia, and East Africa, to feed demands for slaves all over the Islamic world and the Indian Ocean region. The African male slaves were castrated and used as domestic servants, or to work the Sahara salt deposits, or on farms all over the Islamic world. The African female servants were continuously raped before being sold to households to be used as sex labour. This Arab trade in African slaves went on uninterrupted from the 6th century CE, to the 19th century CE, softening Africa militarily, culturally, economically, socially and politically, for the joint European and Arab onslaught on African people and economy, from the 15th century CE. Arabs, not only pioneered African slavery, they were also the principal raiders and middle men for the Atlantic slave trade that decimated populations in West African. Arabs in 1400 years enslaved and killed twenty times more Africans than the Whites did in 400 years. In the late 18th century CE, with most of the slave trade along the West African coast dominated by Christians, the bulk of the Arab slave trade shifted to Zanzibar, conquered then by Omani Arabs.

Dr. Azumah in his book, The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa, provides several examples of Islam’s hatred of Blacks. There is the hadith example in which an Ethiopian woman laments her racial inferiority to Muhammad, who consoles her by saying, "In Paradise, the whiteness of the Ethiopian will be seen over the stretch of a thousand years." Another hadith quotes Muhammad thus: "Do not bring black into your pedigree." In fact, the Arabic word for slave, “Abd,” became equated with Blacks with the advent of Islam. Osama Bin Laden, in a discussion with the Sudanese-American novelist, Kola Boof, in Morocco in 1996 said: “When next you meet an Arab, you should ask what the Arabic word is for slave; you’ll discover that the words are the same “abeed.” Which is why, when an Arab looks at a black African, what he sees is a slave.”

Muhammad owned and sold Black slaves. He ordered and built the pulpit of his mosque with African slave labour. The Qur'an encourages sex with female slaves in several places. Classical Islamic law allows a light-skinned Muslim man to marry a Black woman, but a Black Muslim man is restricted from marrying a light-skinned woman. As their literature puts it: "Only a whore, prefers blacks, the good woman will welcome death rather than being touched by a black man.” So interwoven is slavery with Islam that Islam’s holiest city, Mecca (site of the Hajj pilgrimage), was a slave trading capital. Quoting Azumah again, up until the 20th century, Mecca served as the gateway to the Muslim world for slaves brought out of Africa. "It became a custom for pilgrims to take slaves for sale in Mecca or buy one or two while on Hajj, as souvenirs to be kept, sold, or given as gifts, back home.” The African male slaves were castrated and the African female slaves were continuously raped. Off-spring of the illicit encounters were largely destroyed as unworthy to live. Between 650 CE and 1905 CE, over 20, 000,000 African slaves had been delivered through the Tans-Sahara route alone to the Islamic world. Dr. John Alembellah Azumah in, ‘The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa,’ estimates that over 80 million more died en-route.

A text from Dr. Azumah’s book provides this quote from a Zanzibar observer about the travails of African slaves’ en-route to slave markets around the Arabic world. “As they filed past, we noticed many chained together by the neck... The women, who were as numerous as the men, carried babies on their backs in addition to a tusk of ivory or other burden on their heads... It is difficult to adequately describe the filthy state of their bodies; in many instances not only scarred by [the whip], but feet and shoulders were a mass of open sores... half-starved ill-treated creatures who, weary and friendless, must have longed for death.” A Muslim herdsman, in Dr. Azumah’s book described the fate of those who became too ill or too weak to continue the journey as follows: “We speared them at once! For, if we did not, others would pretend they are ill, in order to avoid carrying their loads. No! We never leave them alive on the road; they all know this custom.” When asked who carries the ivory when a mother gets too tired to carry both her baby and the ivory, the herdsman replied, "She does! We cannot leave valuable ivory on the road. We spear the child and make her burden lighter.”

Arab and Persian literature depicts Blacks as "stupid, untruthful, vicious, sexually unbridled, ugly and distorted, excessively merry and easily affected by music and drink.” Nasir al-Din Tusi, a Muslim scholar said of Blacks: "The ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro.” Ibn Khaldun, an early Muslim thinker and scholar, writes that Blacks are "only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings." To Ibn Khaldum, “Blacks are characterized by levity and excitability and great emotionalism,” and added that “they are every where described as stupid.” Ibn Sina (Avicenna 980–1037), Arab’s most famous and influential philosopher/scientist in Islam, described Blacks as “people who are by their very nature slaves.” He wrote: “All African women are prostitutes, and the whole race of African men, are abeed (slave) stock.” He equated Black people with “rats plaguing the earth.” Al-Dimashqi, an Arab pseudo scientist wrote, “the Equator is inhabited by communities of blacks who may be numbered among the savage beasts. Their complexion and hair are burnt and they are physically and morally abnormal. Their brains almost boil from the sun’s heat…..” Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadhani painted this no less horrid picture of Black people, “…..the zanj (the blacks) are overdone until they are burned, so that the child comes out between black, murky, malodorous, stinking, and crinkly-haired, with uneven limbs, deficient minds, and depraved passions…..”

NAIWU OSAHON Hon. Khu Mkuu (Leader) World Pan-African Movement); Ameer Spiritual (Spiritual Prince) of the African race; MSc. (Salford); Dip.M.S; G.I.P.M; Dip.I.A (Liv.); D. Inst. M; G. Inst. M; G.I.W.M; A.M.N.I.M. Poet, Author of the magnum opus: ‘The end of knowledge’. One of the world’s leading authors of children’s books; Awarded; key to the city of Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Honourary Councilmanship, Memphis City Council; Honourary Citizenship, County of Shelby; Honourary Commissionership, County of Shelby, Tennessee; and a silver shield trophy by Morehouse College, USA, for activities to unite and uplift the African race.

Naiwu Osahon: the Sage of the New World Order, renowned author, philosopher of science, mystique, leader of the world Pan-African Movement.

African Princess in Topsfield

Buried in the family lot of Albert Austin Conant, in Pine Grove Cemetery, lies the body of an African princess. It was a strange mis-adventure that brought this girl from far away Africa to Topsfield, where she lived for a number of years in the home of Major Nathaniel Conant at the corner of Main and Haverhill streets. It happened that Mrs. Conant’s brother, Captain Austin Dodge, of Beverly was owner of the barque Magdala, and made voyages to Africa. In 1844, while on one of these voyages, he was traveling inland near Sierra Leone, and came across a tribal war being fought there. In order to escape its cruelties many of the women and children were fleeing toward the coast, when some, from fatigue, dropped behind and became separated from the others.

A slave dealer, Don de Mer, just then came driving his slaves under the lash and, with a short raw hide whip, forced some of these stragglers to come along with his slaves. He was a passenger on board Captain Dodge’s return trip and brought on board with him three of the last acquired captives. The sailors made clothes for them, as they were naked, but one of these, a child about eight years of age, had a string of beads around her waist which was thought to mark her as an African princess.

Don de Mer died on the passage and the girl, who gave her name as Sarah Baro Colcher, was given to Captain Dodge, who brought her home to his sister, Mrs. Elisabeth Dodge Conant, in Topsfield, who brought her up and gave her an excellent education. She proved trustworthy and grateful and developed into a fine woman. When she became of age she went into domestic service and was for many years cook in the home of Mrs. Gordon Dexter of Boston and Beverly Farms. While she was living there she was taken ill and Mrs. Kilham of Beverly, the niece of Captain Kilham, had her brought to her home and cared for until she recovered. It was for a time the care of Miss Henrietta Kilham, then a child, to read aloud to her every afternoon, and she remembers being told that in spite of all the intervening years she (Sarah) was never able to forget the lash.

The Society is fortunate to have in its collection a small mahogany box that once belonged to Sarah.

American Holocaust

For four hundred years--from the first Spanish assaults against the Arawak people of Hispaniola in the 1490s to the U.S. Army's massacre of Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee in the 1890s--the indigenous inhabitants of North and South America endured an unending firestorm of violence. During that time the native population of the Western Hemisphere declined by as many as 100 million people.

Indeed, as historian David E. Stannard argues in this stunning new book, the European and white American destruction of the native peoples of the Americas was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.Stannard begins with a portrait of the enormous richness and diversity of life in the Americas prior to Columbus's fateful voyage in 1492. He then follows the path of genocide from the Indies to Mexico and Central and South America, then north to Florida, Virginia, and New England, and finally out across the Great Plains and Southwest to California and the North Pacific Coast. Stannard reveals that wherever Europeans or white Americans went, the native people were caught between imported plagues and barbarous atrocities, typically resulting in the annihilation of 95 percent of their populations. What kind of people, he asks, do such horrendous things to others? His highly provocative answer: Christians. Digging deeply into ancient European and Christian attitudes toward sex, race, and war, he finds the cultural ground well prepared by the end of the Middle Ages for the centuries-long genocide campaign that Europeans and their descendants launched--and in places continue to wage--against the New World's original inhabitants. Advancing a thesis that is sure to create much controversy, Stannard contends that the perpetrators of the American Holocaust drew on the same ideological wellspring as did the later architects of the Nazi Holocaust. It is an ideology that remains dangerously alive today, he adds, and one that in recent years has surfaced in American justifications for large-scale military intervention in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.At once sweeping in scope and meticulously detailed, American Holocaust is a work of impassioned scholarship that is certain to ignite intense historical and moral debate.

Courtesy:

American Holocaust

also see:

http://indiantribescouncil.blogspot.in/2012/12/the-transatlantic-slave-trade.html

http://indiantribescouncil.blogspot.in/2012/11/battle-of-blacks-in-usa.html

http://indiantribescouncil.blogspot.in/2012/11/african-princess-in-topsfield.html 

The myths of Islam

The myth; Islam is Opposed to Slavery

Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings. The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist.

The Truth: There is not the least bit of intolerance for slavery anywhere in the Quran.

In fact, the “holy” book of Islam explicitly gives slave-owners the freedom to sexually exploit their slaves – not just in one place, but in at least four separate Suras. Islamic law is littered with rules concerning the treatment of slaves, some of which are relatively humane, but none that prohibit the actual practice by any stretch.

The very presence of these rules condones and legitimizes the institution of slavery. Adding to this is the fact that Muhammad was an avid slave trader. After providing ample evidence of his activities according to the most reliable Muslim biographers, the Center of the Study of Political Islam summarizes its findings as such:

Muhammad captured slaves, sold slaves, bought slaves as gifts of pleasure, received slaves as gifts, and used slaves for work. The Sira is exquisitely clear on the issue of slavery. (Muhammad and the Unbelievers: a Political Life)  Even the very pulpit from which Muhammad preached Islam was built by slave labor on his command!

91 verses in the Quran tell Muslims to emulate the example of Muhammad. As such, the deeply dehumanizing horror of slavery has been a ubiquitous tradition of Islam for 14 centuries, including the modern plight of non-Muslim slaves in the Sudan, Mali, Niger, Mauritania, and other parts of the Muslim world.

There has never been an abolitionary movement within Islam (just as the religion produces no organized resistance to present-day enslavement). The abolition of slavery was imposed on the Islamic world by European countries, along with other political pressures that were entirely unrelated to Islamic law.

Although horrible abuses of slaves in the Muslim world were recorded, there has been little inclination toward the documentation and earnest contrition that one finds in the West. The absence of a guilty Muslim conscience often leads to the mistaken impression that slavery was not as bad under Islam - when it is actually indicative of the explicit tolerance the religion has for the practice

So narcissistic is the effect of Islam on the devoted, that to this day many Muslims believe in their hearts that the women and children carried off in battle, along with their surviving men folk, were actually done a favor by the Muslim warriors who plucked them from their fields and homes and relegated them to lives of demeaning servitude.

Shame and apology, no matter how appropriate, are almost never to be found in Dar al-Islam. Caliphs, the religious equivalent of popes, maintained harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women captured from lands as far away as Europe and consigned to sexual slavery. Hungarians were hunted like animals by the Turks, who carried 3 million into slavery over a 150 year period in the 1500-1600's. In India, 200,000 Hindus were captured and transported to Iranian slave markets in just a two year span (1619-1620) by one of the kinder Muslim rulers.

African slaves were often castrated by their Muslim masters. Few survived to reproduce, which is why there are not many people of African descent living in the Middle East, even though more slaves were taken out of Africa in the 1300 years of Arab slave trading than in the 300 years of European slavery. The 400,000 slaves brought to America, for example, have now become a community of 30 million, with a much higher standard of living than their African peers.

There is no William Wilberforce or Bartoleme de las Casas in Islamic history as there is in Christianity. When asked to produce the name of a Muslim abolitionist, apologists sometimes meekly suggest Muhammad himself. But, if a slave owner and trader, who commanded the capture and sexual exploitation of slaves, and left a 13-century legacy of divinely-sanctioned slavery, is the best that Islam can offer in the way of an abolitionist, then no amount of sophistry will be enough to convince any but the most ignorant.

Further Reading:

Slavery in Islam (TROP)
Slavery in Islam (Answering Islam site)

The myth; Islam is Completely Incompatible with Terrorism. Islam is completely incompatible with acts of terrorism. It is against Islam to kill innocent people.

The Truth: Islam does prohibit killing innocent people. Unfortunately, you don't qualify.

Even though many Muslims earnestly believe that their religion prohibits the killing of innocent people by acts of terrorism, the truth is certainly more complicated. This is why Muslims on both sides of the terror debate accuse the other of hijacking Islam while insisting that they are the true believers. It is also why organizations that commit horrible atrocities in the name of Allah, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, receive a significant amount of moral and financial support from the mainstream.

In fact, the definition of "terrorism" in Islam is ambiguous at best. And the definition of an “innocent person” in Islam isn't something that Muslim apologists advertise when they say that such persons aren't to be harmed. The reason for this is that anyone who rejects Muhammad is not considered to be innocent according to Islamic teaching.

Consider that a great deal of the Quran is devoted to describing the horrible punishment that awaits those who refuse to become Muslim. How can Muslims say that the subjects of such divine wrath are innocent persons?

The most protected and respected of all non-Muslims are the dhimma, the “people of the book.” Specifically , these would be Jews and Christians who agree to Islamic rule and pay the jizya (tribute to Muslims). Yet, the word “dhimmi” is derived from an Arabic root that means “guilt” or "blame." ["...the dhimmi parent and sister words mean both 'to blame' as well as safeguards that can be extended to protect the blameworthy" Amitav Ghosh, "In an Antique Land"].

So, if even the dhimma have a measure of guilt attached to their status (by virtue of having rejected Allah’s full truth), how can non-Muslims who oppose Islamic rule or refuse to pay the jizya be considered “innocent?”

Even within the Islamic community there is a category of Muslims who are also said to bear guilt – greater, even, than the average non-believer. These are the hypocrites, or “Munafiqin,” whom Muhammad referred to in the most derogatory terms. A hypocrite is considered to be a Muslim in name only. They are distinguished from true Muslims, according to the 9th Sura, by an unwillingness to wage (v.81, 86) or fund (v.121) holy war. True believers fight and are harsh to unbelievers (v.123).

The Muslim terrorists who frequently kill Muslims in the name of Allah do so believing that their victims are Munafiqin or kafir (unbelievers). This is a part of Sharia known as takfir, in which a Muslim can be declared an apostate and then executed for their role in hindering the expansion of Islamic authority. (A true Muslim would go to paradise anyway, in which case he or she could hardly be expected to nurse a grudge amidst the orgy of sex and wine).

In addition to the murky definition of innocence, there is also the problem of distinguishing terrorism from holy war. Islamic terrorists rarely refer to themselves as terrorists, but usually say that they are holy warriors (Mujahideen, Shahid, or Fedayeen). They consider their acts to be a form of Jihad.

Holy war is commanded in the Quran and Hadith. In Sura 9:29, he establishes the principle that unbelievers should be fought until they either convert to Islam or accept a state of humiliation under Islamic subjugation. This is confirmed in the Hadith by both Sahih Muslim and Bukhari.

In many places, the prophet of Islam says that Jihad is the ideal path for a Muslim, and that believers should “fight in the way of Allah.” There are dozens of open-ended passages in the Quran that exhort killing and fighting – far more than there are of peace and tolerance. It is somewhat naïve to think that their inclusion in this "eternal discourse between God and Man" was of historical value only and not intended to be relevant to present-day believers, particularly when there is little to nothing within the text to distinguish them in such fashion.

Combine the Quran's exhortation to holy war with the ambiguity of innocence and a monumental problem develops that cannot be patched over with mere semantics. Not only is there a deep tolerance for violence in Islam, but also a sharp disagreement and lack of clarity over the conditions that justify this violence - and just whom the targets may be.

Even many of those Muslims who claim to be against terrorism still support the “insurgency” in Iraq, for example, and often entertain the allegation that there is a broader “war against Islam.” Although American troops in Iraq are trying to protect innocent life and help the country rebuild, Muslims around the world and in the West believe that it is legitimate for true believers to try and kill them.

Enjoying the sanction of holy war, the Mujahid thus reasons that it is permissible to attack fellow Iraqis – the ones helping the Americans - even if they are part of a democratically-elected Iraqi government. These non-combatants and combatants alike are believed to be the “Munafiqin” or "Takfir" assisting the enemy “Crusaders.”

Although we use Iraq as an example here, this is the same rationale that is ultimately behind all Islamic terror, from the Philippines to Thailand. Wherever the Muslim religion is a minority, there are always radicals who believe that violence is justified in bringing Islam to dominance - just as Muhammad taught by example in Mecca and other places, such as the land of al-Harith.

And what of the so-called “innocents” who suffer from the bombings and shootings? Even in Muhammad’s time they were unavoidable. The much-touted hadith in which Muhammad forbade the killing of women, for example, also indicates that there were such casualties in his attacks on other tribes.

If there is any doubt that he believed that the forbidden is sometimes necessary, it should be put to rest by an incident in which Muhammad's men warned him that a planned night raid against an enemy camp would mean that women and children would be killed. He merely replied “they are of them,” meaning the men.

This is the slippery slope opened by the sanction of holy war. What starts out as the perception of a noble cause of self-defense against a supposed threat gradually devolves into a "let Allah sort them out" campaign through a series of logical steps that are ultimately justified by the sublime goal of Islamic rule.

Islam is not intended to co-exist as an equal with other religions.  It is to be the dominant religion with Sharia as the supreme law. Islamic rule is to be extended to the ends of the earth and resistance is to be dealt with by any means necessary.

Apologists in the West often shrug off the Quran's many verses of violence by saying that they are relevant only in a “time of war.”

To this, Islamic terrorists would agree. They are at war.

The myth; Islam is a Democracy. Islam is compatible with democratic principles. The religion itself is a democracy.

The Truth:

A democracy is a system in which all people are judged as equals before the law, regardless of race, religion or gender. The vote of every individual counts as much as the vote of any other. The collective will of the people then determines the rules of society.

Under Islamic law, only Muslim males are entitled to full rights. The standing of a woman is often half that of a man's - sometimes even less. Non-Muslims have no standing with a Muslim. In fact, a Muslim can never be put to death for killing an unbeliever.

The Islamic state is guided by Islamic law, derived from the Quran and Sunnah. A body of clerics interprets the law and applies it to all circumstances social, cultural and political. The people are never to be placed above the Quran and Sunnah any more than man should be above Allah.

It is somewhat debatable as to whether there are any states in the Muslim world that qualify as actual democracies. There is no denying, however, that the tiny handful that are often held up as democratic nations are ones in which deep tension exists between the government and religious leaders, as the latter often complain that democracy is an idolatrous system imposed on them. Islam does not facilitate democracy.

The Legacy of Islamic Imperialism

Muhammad died of a fever in 632 at the age of 63, with his violent religion spread over most of Arabia. His method of forcing others to convert under duress had several negative consequences, beginning with the civil wars that were immediately engaged in following his death. Many tribes wanted out of Islam and had to be kept in the empire via horrific violence.

Abu Sufyan, the Meccan leader who was literally forced to "embrace" Islam at the point of a sword actually had the last laugh. He skillfully worked his own family into the line of succession and his son, Muawiya, became the heir to Muhammad's empire at the expense of the prophet's own family. In fact, Abu Sufyan almost lived to see his son and grandson actually kill off Muhammad's own grandchildren under the banner of Islam.

Muhammad's failure to leave a clear successor resulted in a deep schism that quickly devolved into violence and persists to this day as the Sunni/Shia conflict. His own family fell apart and literally went to war with each other in the first few years. Thousands of Muslims were killed fighting each other in a battle between Muhammad's favorite wife, Aisha, and his adopted son, Ali.

The real losers, however, were the infidels. Through Muhammad's teachings and example, his followers viewed worldly life as a constant physical battle between the House of Peace (Dar al-Salaam) and the House of War (Dar al-Harb). Muslims are instructed to invite their enemies to either embrace Islam, pay jizya (protection money), or die.

Over the next fourteen centuries, the bloody legacy of this extraordinary individual would be a constant challenge to those living on the borders of the Islam’s political power. The violence that Muslim armies would visit on people across North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe and into Asia as far as the Indian subcontinent is a tribute to a founder who condoned subjugation, rape, murder and forced conversion in the cause of spreading the rule of his religion.

An estimated 270 Million people died at the hands of Muslims, which continues to this very day.

In Muhammad's words: "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them..." (Bukhari 8:387)

It is certainly the basis not just for modern day terror campaigns against Western infidels (and Hindus and Buddhists) but also the broad apathy that Muslims across the world have to the violence, which is an obvious enabler.

As Indonesian cleric, Abu Bakar Bashir recently put it:  "If the West wants to have peace, then they have to accept Islamic rule.

http://www.arabslavetrade.com/

Arab slaves

Tribes-the mother of humanity

Science has shown the African women to be the scientific orgin of mankind, yet this knowledge has not changed African behavior about the biblical account of humanity, neither the koranic version or any other account of human origin. The Af

rican mother of humanity, predates the bible and koran more than 190 thousand years. And contrary to man being created first, science shows that infact it was a woman.

Read the discovery of these findings and ask why we have not revisited the accuracy of religion.

In 1987, a group of genet­icists published a surprising study in the journal Nature.­ The­ researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today's major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.

­Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve.

­The researchers got the idea for this project based on a discovery another geneticist made in 1980. Dr. Wesley Brown noticed that when you compare the mtDNA of two humans, th­e samples are much more similar than when the mtDNA of two other primates -- for example, two chimpanzees -- is compared. Brown found, in fact, that the mtDNA of two humans has only about half as many differences as the mtDNA of two other primates within the same species [source: Cann]. This suggests that humans share a much more recent common ancestor than other primates do, an idea tantalizing enough to launch the Nature investigation.

The study's lead author, Rebecca Cann, called her colleagues' and her choice to use Eve as the name "a playful misnomer," and pointed out that the study wasn't implying that the Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived [source: Cann]. Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. In other words, there were many women who came before her and many women who came after, but her life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity's family tree grew.

When the researchers in the 1987 study looked at samples taken from 147 different people and fetuses, they found 133 distinct sequences of mtDNA. A few of the people sampled, it turned out, were recently related. After comparing the number of differences among the mtDNA samples within races, they found that Africans have the most diversity (that is, the most number of differences) of any single racial group. This would suggest that the mtDNA found in Africans is the oldest: Since it has had the most mutations, a process which takes time, it must be the oldest of lineages around today.

The two distinct branches they discovered contained the mtDNA found in the five main populations on the planet: African, Asian, European, Australian and New Guinean. Researchers found that in the branch that was not exclusively African, racial populations often had more than one lineage. For example, one New Guinean lineage finds its closest relative in a lineage present in Asia, not New Guinea. All of the lineages and both of the two branches, however, can all be traced back to one theorized point: Mitochondrial Eve.