Does Islam Discourage Slavery?

I lived a number of years in Sudan and know firsthand that slaves are sold and bought till this day. The Muslim Arab-Negroe hybrids of North Sudan do refer to the negroes of the soon to secede South Sudan as Abeed (slaves) while the people of the South refer to the Northerners as Jallaba(slave traders).

Islam never abolished slavery, and the Muslim majority countries that do not openly trade in slaves is due to international pressures.

Hey truth,
Use your bizarre logic and justify slavery. As if you did not have enough on your plate defending evil.

Now credit where credit is due. Amani Aboul Fadl Farag is clearly rather embarrassed about slavery and concubinage, even though in his attempt to discriminate between concubinage in Islam and otherwise he actually shows that the in Islam the concubine is in a lower state (slavery) than she is in non-muslim cases - a "mistress" who will be a free woman.

I am also amused with the idea of the "gradual reform" of slavery ... so gradual that 1350+ years has not seen its end (in Sudan for example).
Compare that to the American case, just over 300 years from first incident to the amendment banning slavery.

Nice glossing about the Mamluks too. Here are a few points Farag omitted:
"Mamluks were captured [and enslaved] as children and then trained and moulded within the Islamic world to ensure their loyalty to their masters."
"The mamluk slave-troops were strangers of the lowest possible status..."
"Mamluks relied on the help of their patron for career advancements" the patron was in effect their owner and they could indeed advance to high status within the ranks of his servants.
The only time that Mamluks got the "top jobs" was when they replaced the Sultan in Egypt: though marriage (Bahri dynasty), murder (Baibars dynasty).

ARAB MUSLIMS CALL THE BLACK AFRICAN MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIAN AS AFRICACA OR AFRICAN xxxx.

Hey everyone,
lets wait for her (Amani Aboul Fadl Farag ) to read this article. I bet she will have no problem refuting ali sina. Just wait and watch. I am not finding her email address. I did google search and still no contact info about her. Does anyone knows her contact info? Inshahallah - Ali sina will be refuted soon.

Astagfirullah !!!!! This infidel Amani Aboul Fadl Farag tries to change quran !!!!!! Where are the jihadist?????

To The good atheist and others
This is in reply to Comment ID #27113
October 12, 2009 • 9:54 pm;

You stated ["Hey truth, Use your bizarre logic and justify slavery. As if you did not have enough on your plate defending evil."]

++ Islam forbids slavery. That is a fact. READ THE KORAN. If some unfortunate incidents did in fact happen, that would be because of these so called Muslims did not follow the teachings of Islam and the Koran. Many people and governments, now and in the past, engaged in anti Islamic teachings. However, that would not be considered an evidence that Islam endorses such activities and actions.

++ The prophet Mohamed never owned any slaves. He had servants. Slaves were common in those days for all nations and tribes. It was Islam that encouraged freeing of the slaves and the great reward from Allah for those who did so. Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, gave the example of this by freeing slaves and encouraging all of his followers to do the same.

Amani liar writes:
"Parallel to that process of gradual freeing — and until all slaves were freed — Allah granted slaves and concubines — who had not yet gained their liberty — many human rights that had never been given to them before."

Yeah right! Tell us another whopper!

Try feeding this garbage to the millions of Black slaves sold in Muslim countries who were brutally castrated to guard the sex-slave, right-hand possession concubines in their harems. Many of these male eunuchs died because of botched operations and infections. Many slaves were treated so cruelly that they led slave rebellions like the Zanzis in Iraq.

In contrast the North and South American and West Indies white slavers never castrated their slaves and actually encouraged their breeding as wealth and prestige were measured by the number of slaves they owned. In fact many white male slavers joined in enthusiastically to increase these numbers by sleeping with their female slaves. And they never kept harems and eunuchs as Islamic countries do. Which is why today in North and South America and the West Indies the number of ex-slaves swelled from thousands to millions of descendants of all colors and shades.

Moreover in these Western countries these slaves were freed after bitter struggles among themselves as they themselves realised the evil of slavery. Study the history of Haiti as well and read about the struggle by slaves to free themselves. The British Empire abolished slavery in all their colonies. In British South Africa the Boers led the Great Trek away from British rule as a result of insufficient compensation for their financial losses.

In contrast Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia were practising slavery right up to modern times and only stopped reluctantly because of human rights pressure groups. In fact in the Arab Middle East countries unoffical slavery still exists where foreign workers have their passports retained and their movements severely curtailed.

I am confident that very soon some glib Muslim liars who unashamedly excuse any Islamic crimes will come here falsely claming that what Muslims do and what Islam teaches are not the same. Yeah right! Tell us another! As if there is any difference. The one is the cause and the other are the symptoms. We are not as naive. Had we been we would still be Muslims.

Slave trading is the integral part of islamic history.It was the Arab muslim who raided the African villages and caught the African and sold them to European colonialists.When The Roman empire became Christianized, slave trading abolished from the Roman territory because enslaving any human being was contrary to the teaching of Christ and Church opposed it. In fact until 15th century the European did not start slave trading.When Coloumbas discover America there was need the cheap labour to cultivate the vast land belongs to Spanish,Portugese and other colonialist.So they brought slave from Africa.On those day Sub Saharan Africa was uncivillized and colonialist wrongly believe that to enslave the primitive savage people are not so great sin.Europeans never enslaved the civillised nation in Asiaor Europe. After early modern age European countries abolished the African slave trade and free the slaves.For example the British empire abolished slavery through out the empire in 1807 AD. On the other hand slave trading continued in the muslim world until early 20th century when the muslim rulers forced to abandoned it because the European power pressured them to leave it. For example Saudi Arabia abolish slavery in 1962 when king Faisal freed 400,000 slave in Saudi Arabia.However slave trading was uninterruptedly continued in the muslim society for more than 1300 years.Unlike European slave trading the muslim slave trading occured in their own bazars and streets.and in muslim slave trading no one was free from being potentially a slave whether he or she Black or white or muslim or non muslim.Slave trading was common in Arabia before Islam and after Islamic conquest it was only intensified.In fact mohammad did not set any example of freeing slave nor he banned slavery.Actually mohammad and his sahaba owned many slave so next muslim were inspired by their holy prophet.This is the fact.

Truth,

How did Mr Muhammed ( PBUH ) free the slaves if he did not own them in the first place ?? Muslim historians record that Mariya the Copt was gifted to him. Are servants gifted to others ?? Muslim historians also record that Safiya's manumission was her wedding gift from Mr Muhammed ( PBUH ). Who enslaved Safiya ?? Was it Mr Muhammed ( PBUH ) and his jolly band of Sahabas ( PBUT ) ?? Maybe

Will you run out of Truths and start telling lies or stick to your time tested tactic of telling the "Truth" ???

To All;

++ The articles on this web site are logical fallacies. The so called evidence presented in them is fabricated. Many articles have been read on this web site. Anyone checks references cited by articles presented on this web site, can see that words are manipulated in the many versus listed in the Quran. Here is an example:

++ This web site FFI (Facts Fabrications International) manipulates verse 4-11 in the Quran as follows:

—-[[Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases (’s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.]]

If we accept such manipulation to the verse presented above, then we can see that

“if a man dies and leaves 2 daughters, his wife and his parents behind we see that Allah prescribes that the survivors should receive of the man’s possession (2/3 + 1/6 +1/6 + 1/8 = 1 1/8)”. Makes anyone wonder if Allah knows math!

++ On the other hand, the true translation of verse 4-11 in the Quran states:

[[Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only women, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases (’s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.]]

++ As a result, “if a man dies and leaves 2 daughters, his wife and his parents behind we see that Allah prescribes that the survivors should receive of the man’s possession (2/3 + 1/6 +1/6 = 1)”.

++ This is only one example of so many fabrications that are being presented on this web site. Any claim presented on this web by Ali Sinner and his supporters need to be investigated thoroughly. Many investigations have been done and it was proved over and over again that his claims are inaccurate and are manipulated.

islamic morons have an inverted view of all things normal!
Mohammad the rapist, thug, pedophile, child rapist bustard, killer, rogue, thief, narcisist, the pimp allah, child molester, daughter xxxxxx, ( phew have run out of the qualifications for this chappy) is the guide for all times to come for moslems! Wow what a leader.
No slavery in islam, no rape in islam,.Islam is peace.
Internet is anti allah. Allah has been disrobed these days.Allah and mohammad and moslem scum bags do not know what to do,where to hide and how to justify the crimes of allah, mohammad and moslems.
Qrand the terror manual has been used for wiping the back sid eafter crapping.It has been discovered that even crap can not spoil qrand

The truth.

I take it you have no problem with your prophet allocating half of the deceased property to the female child, when you sum up the number of less previlages given to women in your make-believe religion, doesn't it strike you as being pro-man, how do you feel about this statement from your prophet: Mohammed said, "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women." ref:SaHeeH Bukhari: 29, 304, 1052, 1462, 3241, 5197, 5198, 6449, 6546 (FatH Al-Bari's numbering system)

Donn't you think the number of hell-fire dwellers should be equal, half men and the other half female? why are you guys so against women when it comes to what really matters, what you need from them is only the pleasure you could get, once you get them drained, you get new ones as allowed by the book, it is a shame, wake up!

To the truth,[[Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only women, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases (’s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.]]

++ As a result, “if a man dies and leaves 2 daughters, his wife and his parents behind we see that Allah prescribes that the survivors should receive of the man’s possession (2/3 + 1/6 +1/6 = 1)”. .................................................................................................................................................................................. In Your above calculation you cleverly give up the portion of one's share between mother or father anyone.In the above verse it is clearly said [ A sixth share of the inheritance to each] There fore 1/6 FOR MOTHER and 1/6 for father.So the above calculation becomes{2/3+1/6+1/6+1/8(wife's share)}=1+1/8. It is more than the available properties.

Correction : You give up the wife's share 1/8th portion in your above calculation.thanks

to Subanallah
Truths cannot be refuted. If you are waiting on someone to save Islam, you have a dead brain.
In any case, Mrs Abo Elfadl teaches in Egypt English Literature at some university. She has 4 children. I am not sure what her email is. But she sure loves Islam and thinks its a great thing. I guess her being in Egypt, she does not hear much about the pretty much daily attacks against Christian Copts by the good Muslims out there. Maybe its juts her discusting veil is blocking hear ears and dead brain from hearing anytthing.

Peace

Here is a nice link for everyone to visit :-

http://www.examinethetruth.com/ali_sina_on_the_run.htm

Dear untruth,

Do you know your pedo prophet Mo owned sex slaves and allah allowed this according to quran?

Al-Ahzab - 33:50

O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allâh has given to you,

or this one where allah allows mooslims to own married women as sex slaves How dare you forbid what allah has ordained for mooslims?

An-Nisa - 4:24

Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess.

The Truth Comment ID #27227
Why are you cross-posting?
You have repeated this same identical comment in several threads along with your "Islam and Maths" myth.
Have you no thoughts or your own?
Is replying to the contents of an article beyond you?

Murtad:
Actually what "The Truth" is doing, I think, is to take the 2/3 share and split is between the mother and the two daughters, thus each gets 2/9 (~22%) of the inheritance.
This contradicts the 1/8 to the wife mentioned in the next verse!
Thus "The Truth"'s method makes the Koran contradict itself, oh dear oh dear!
Also his comment about "manipulation" rests on the translation of this verse. Different translations support both "daughters" (eg Y.Ali) and "women" (eg. Pickthall).

MH

I'm done reading your stupid links.I read the debate about whether or not Muhammad burnt pre-Islamic books in Arabia.Ali Sina won that debate before it even started.
According to Wikipedia,there is no detailed info on pre-Islamic Arabian material.Gee,I wonder who's responsible for that?
They further state that existing material consists primarily of written sources from OTHER traditions (such as Egyptians,Greeks,Persians,Romans,etc.) and oral traditions later recorded by Islamic scolars.

Obviously Muhammad & his thugs got rid of that material because they oppose Islam.

Why does this prostitution book called koran talk about sex slaves so many times?

An-Nisa - 4:25 (you can have mooslim sex slaves)

And whoever of you have not the means wherewith to wed free, believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess,

An-Nisa - 4:36 (What an irony that this book which prescribed slavery asks slave owners to do good to slaves? If anybody wanted to do good, why should they even make slaves in the first place?)

Worship Allâh and join none with Him in worship, and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor), the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet), and those (slaves) whom your right hands possess.

An-Nahl - 16:71 (In this verse it is clearly said that allah has made some people slaves and some slave owners and slave owners will not give away their wealth to slaves, lest they become equal in wealth to slave owners. Similarly allah won't share his greatness with anybody. This verse is about shirk and analogy used here clearly shows slavery is allowed by allah.)

And Allâh has preferred some of you above others in wealth and properties. Then, those who are preferred will by no means hand over their wealth and z,b.properties to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Do they then deny the Favour of Allâh?

Al-Mu'minun - 23:5-6 (This verse clearly shows mooslims can own sex slaves and rape them. Nowhere in ko-rand it talks about asking permission from sex slaves before having sex with them. By inference raping sex slaves is allowed in ko-rand, the mooslim book of prostitution.)

who strictly guard their private parts (Al-Mu'minun 23:5)

Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame; (Al-Mu'minun 23:6)

An-Nur - 24:31 (Mooslim women owned and can own female slaves and probably their husbands can pork them.)

.....not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islâm), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex.

Al-Ma'arij - 70:29-30 (Mooslims can have sex with their sex slaves. )

and those who guard their private parts,(Al-Ma'arij 70:29)

Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed, (Al-Ma'arij 70:30)

Islam is Slavery

After all,muslims do call themselves slaves of Allah.Also doesn't Islam mean submission.

Unbelievable Truth says:

"++ Islam forbids slavery. That is a fact. READ THE KORAN. If some unfortunate incidents did in fact happen, that would be because of these so called Muslims did not follow the teachings of Islam and the Koran. Many people and governments, now and in the past, engaged in anti Islamic teachings. However, that would not be considered an evidence that Islam endorses such activities and actions.

++ The prophet Mohamed never owned any slaves. He had servants. Slaves were common in those days for all nations and tribes. It was Islam that encouraged freeing of the slaves and the great reward from Allah for those who did so. Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, gave the example of this by freeing slaves and encouraging all of his followers to do the same."

1. I have never read the Koran, I will admit that. Most people 1400 years ago could not read, therefore the Koran was never meant to be read by the masses. Even Mohammad never read the Koran. (obviously).
2. The excerpts that I did read shows the Koran to be a horrible evil book. Even a Mickey Mouse cartoon has more knowledge in it.
3. People who have read the Koran do not agree to its interpretations. eg. you say Mo never had slaves, while other Muslims say he did have slaves. That makes the Koran as good as used toilet paper.

If anyone can prove to me Islam is everything you say I would become a Muslim today.

The truth is the whites didnot just enslave us. I am a Nigerian Black. It was our tribal chiefs who co-operated withthe colonialists to take many blacks away. The whites offered them gin, mirror, beads and some otherthings. Oh God! Our forefathers did not just do the right thing. It is true the Whites conquered the West Coast but what I like is that they didnot enforce Christianity they just introduced it and built a few churches around and brought in missionaries. I repeat much of the salve trade was not due to the exploitative tendencies of the whites on our foolish forefathers.

To: jonc

The [un]Truth has run out of ideas. He continues to post same msg on most threads on this website. I asked him to describe his allah as an existent. He hasn't answered yet.

In answer to Shafee Al-Zindig, post 27211

Thank you so much for vanquishing that disingenuous claim by The Truth and many other Muslims about slavery and thank you so much for comparing the bad actions of whites and muslims, as Murtad and before FFI also did. It was great! You are so good to have as a warrior for freedom.

I wanted to react to your last paragraph:
Yes, we hear Muslims claim here all the time; Do not blame Islam for what Muslims do. Apparently according to many Muslims there is a distinction between True Muslims and Muslims-in-name-only. And consequently in Truly Islamic states and Islamic states-in-name-only or something like that.

Now we know that Islam & Democracy do not seem to be compatible. We see that in Islamic countries except a few now. Most Muslims seem to be against democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and the presence of the Western armies there in favor of democracy. So the True Muslims just like the Muslims-in-name-only strive for non-democratic Islamic states worldwide; saying they prefer a divine system over a manmade one.

Now, Muslims themselves admit that many Muslims are not true Muslims and really cannot be influenced well by Islam, and not controlled and trusted by the other Muslims. Why can’t they understand that for us, the followers of other beliefs, it is virtually impossible to trust any Muslims with power in a non-democratic state? As we cannot see or smell the difference between True Muslims and Muslims-in-name-only?

Why can’t they understand that much of our vehement criticism-shaming-ridiculing is caused by lack of trust? Even if the Muslims have or manage to start a non-democratic Islamic state, even then the True Muslims very probably won’t be able to control the Muslims-in-name-only. And as it is shown countless times, these will in part behave detrimentally to mankind, if not properly democratically controlled. EVEN IF it is shown & proved that Islam was not responsible for the crimes of Muslims-in-name-only, even then they would still carry them out a lot under total Islamic power.

Why can’t the true Muslims see that? And seeing that, why can’t they concede that Democracy is the only viable option for all of us? (As an intention for the future). And so ally themselves with all democratic people in the world, against all theocratically minded Muslims? And if they refuse to do that, don't they understand that THEY are causing themselves our protests???

To All;

++ The Qur'an unambiguously states that no man no matter how high a status he may occupy, be that status of a direct recipient of Divine messages even (Nabuwah) ,no human being has the right to enslave any other human or group of humans, says the Qur’an:

"It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and 'Nabuwah' (prophethood), then he should say to men: Be my slaves rather than Allah's; but rather (he would say): Be sustenance providers (Rabaniyoon) because of your teaching the Book and your studying (it yourselves)."[3:79]

++ The above clarifies the basic teaching of the Qur'an in stating that obedience is not due to any human or group of humans’ man made laws but according to the Quran, obedience and subservience is due to Allah alone, which is implemented in human affairs by following his Book (see 6:114) and instances where man subjects man, are described in the Quran as a great injustice. (Ref: Narration of enslavement of Children of Israel by Pharoah and his forces.)

++ From above and many other verses it is very clear that the Qur'an has abolished and forbid slavery, and not upheld it. If their remain certain verses were slaves are mentioned then these are those which were already existing in society from days of ignorance and about whom the Qur’an enjoined a gradual elevation in status leading to their freedom and abolishment of any future enslavement.

++ Furthermore it is the Quran which is the final authority for all matter of Islam and its verdict is final and absolute. No other Book carries more weight or reliability than the Quran in matters of Islam.

Demsci:
I reckon we can tell the difference between the "true Moslems" and the "moslems-in-name-only" (mino).
If by "true moslems" we mean what I call "traditional moslems" (ie those that believe in Koran-Hadith-Sunnah-Sharia) then the discrimination is easy.
The minos are the ones who AREN'T carrying out/supporting terror attacks or promulgating hatred, anti-semitism, violent Jihad etc. They aren't in the mosques enough to get islamisised (oops, I mean "radicalised" now don't I?).
Only trouble is, SJS (sudden Jihad syndrome) can strike at any time and convert a mino into a 'true believer' if the trad moslems gets hold of him/her.
BTW I've seen this happen.

So I guess I'm on the opposite side of this particular argument. I regard the "true moslems" (traditional moslems who, I suggest, are actually a majority amongst all moslems) as the threat and the minos as non-threatening.

"Don't blame Islam for what Moslems do."
Well now, in principle this is true. There are always going to be people "on the fringe" who mis-understand the teachings of any faith and act in a contra-indicated way.
But, how do we decide if this is "fringe" or "core" behaviour?
One answer might be to apply a sort of democracy to it: if 51% of believers either support or condone an action or idea then in practice, and irrespective of what the faith may actually teach, said action/idea IS part of the faith.
A second idea what be to look at what the teachers of the faith teach. (A bit obvious really!) If an action/idea is widely taught in "the mainstream" (another problem with definitions looms I know) then again the action/idea is part of the faith.
A third idea would be to look for opposition to the idea/action within the faith's teachers. If that is not generally found, then the idea/action is clearly tolerated or supported. (Sort of proof by negation.)

To All;

Someone has stated that the Quran is full of contradictions and stated the following:

["Much has been written about CLOT believers
21.30 & 24.45 says from water
19.67 Says from nothing
3.59 & 35.11 says from clay
15.26 Says from mud
16.3 & 75.37 Says from a thickened liquid

SO WHICH PART OF THE QURAN IS RIGHT? WRONG"]

++ 21.30 – This verse does not talk about creation. It says that every living creature needs water to survive.
++ 24.45 – This verse states that Allah created only animals from water.
++ 19.67 – This verse does not talk about creation. It says that man was created some time ago.
++ 03.59 – This verse says that Adam was created from clay.
++ 35.11 – This verse says that man is created from clay.
++ 15.26 – This verse says that man is created from clay.
++ 16.03 – This verse talks about the stages of man being in the womb.
++ 75-37 – This verse describes the stages of man being in the womb.

++ There is no contradiction here what so ever. FFI (Facts Fabrications International) is using wrongly translated books of the Quran to justify its manipulated arguments.

++ Before anyone considers the truthfulness of any FFI (Facts Fabrications International) arguments, one must check first if the verses in the Quran have been translated accurately and without manipulation. Yet, none of the mentioned translated versus on this web site and others like it have been proven to be accurate translations. Thus, no arguments presented on this web site and others like it to prove Islam is wrong must be accepted.

The unTruth

His "Islamic logic" in action:

If any translated Quranic verses show Islam in a good light, then they are correct.
If any translated Quranic verses show Islam in a bad light, then they are just bad translations.

Strange how his Allah chose such a difficult language as Arabic, especially an obscure defunct Qureishi dialect that nobody speaks today and that only scholars barely understand and even disagree about, to spread his universal message to the whole wide world. Maybe his Allah did so on purpose as he is the "Great Deceiver" after all, who seeks to fill his fiendish sadistic hell with his deluded victims who foolishly relied on "bad" translations.

The question and dilemma now is, "Which translations can average Muslims and non-Muslims rely on?" Gosh Allah surely is devious and confusing! Whichever translation you choose could get you nailed and damned for eternity. Double jeopardy!

Each article of Ali Sina is a gem and needs to be savoured. FFI has become a treasure for all those who want to enligtened and save the world. Alas, thanks to Islam, saving the world theme ain't hypothetical at all. Again Ali Sina thanx a lot.

The Truth Comment ID #27354 you wrote:" no human being has the right to enslave any other human or group of humans, says the Qur’an, If their remain certain [Koran] verses w[h]ere slaves are mentioned then these are those which were already existing in society from days of ignorance and about whom the Qur’an enjoined a gradual elevation in status leading to their freedom and abolishment of any future enslavement."

Well, that is clear then. Obviously being a slave to a Muslim is a great boon.
It makes you able to live, as a young woman, for 1350 years or more, or 1000 years as a man.wa
(Actually I take that back, being the sex-slave of a succession of muslims for 1350 years probably isn't great!)
I say this since it is known that slavery was practised throughout the history of Islam (eg Mamluks) and is still practised in (eg) Sudan, and since (according to Truth) the Koran has forbidden slave-taking from its time (mid 650s), then these slaves must be "those which were already existing in society from days of ignorance" as the "Truth" says.

Or is my logic flawed?

Hi, Jonc, thanks a lot for your reaction,

I agreed with your assessment who were the True-Muslims (TM's) and the Muslims In Name Only, MINO's. Handy abbreviation by the way.

But I wanted to address the following common excuse made by Muslims and their Western defenders, when FFI and others confront them with detrimental actions perpetrated by Muslims:

Denial that the detrimental actions of MINO's had something to do with (correct) Islamic teachings.
(And we in FFI and elsewhere are showing as much real detrimental actions by all Muslims, those in power especially, as we can, and we back it up by good proof & logic.)

Now for a possible reaction: OK, for arguments sake, we accept that Islam was not the cause of the detrimental actions done by MINO's, then this means by TM’s own admission that:
- a lot of MINO's aren't stopped in their detrimental actions by Islam, which is thus shown very ineffective, so:
- a lot of MINO's cannot be trusted even by TM's, so cannot ever be given undemocratic uncontrolled power anywhere. In fact no Muslims can be given that, because the MINO-ones can’t be reliably distinquished from the TM-ones.

It follows from this that TM's who admit that MINO's cannot be trusted, can no longer strive for undemocratic uncontrolled power for Islam or Muslims anywhere, not in future in democratic countries, nor even in theocratic or dictatorial nations that exist now.

If TM's who admit that MINO's cannot be trusted no longer can strive for theocratic or dictatorial states with uncontrolled power for Muslims, then they should be neutral or on aggregate clearly support all democratic leaders over all theocratic or dictatorial leaders, irrespective if they are Islamic or not.

“It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and ‘Nabuwah’ (prophethood), then he should say to men: Be my slaves rather than Allah’s; but rather (he would say): Be sustenance providers (Rabaniyoon) because of your teaching the Book and your studying (it yourselves).”[3:79]

++ From above and many other verses it is very clear that the Qur’an has abolished and forbid slavery, and not upheld it.

Shameless Liar (UNTRUTH),

This is what the verse really says.

thenoblequran.com/sps/nbq/

It is not (possible) for any human being to whom Allâh has given the Book and Al-Hukma (the knowledge and understanding of the laws of religion, etc.) and Prophethood to say to the people: "Be my worshippers rather than Allâh's." On the contrary (he would say): "Be you Rabbaniyun (learned men of religion who practise what they know and also preach others), because you are teaching the Book, and you are studying it." (Aali Imran 3:79)

Tafsir Ibn Kathir

tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8599

No Prophet Ever Called People to Worship him or to Worship Other Than Allah

This Ayah [3:79] means, it is not for a person whom Allah has given the Book, knowledge in the Law and prophethood to proclaim to the people, "Worship me instead of Allah,'' meaning, along with Allah. If this is not the right of a Prophet or a Messenger, then indeed, it is not the right of anyone else to issue such a claim.

altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=79&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

Tafsir al-Jalalayn

When the Christians of Najrān claimed that Jesus had commanded them to take him as a Divinity, and some Muslims asked that they should be permitted to prostrate themselves before him, the Prophet (s), the following was revealed: It belongs not to any mortal that God should give him the Book, the Judgement, the understanding of the Divine Law, prophethood, then that he should say to men, ‘Be servants to me instead of God.’ Rather, he should say, ‘Be masters, scholars, labouring (rabbāniyyūn, ‘those of the Lord’, is derived from rabb, ‘lord’, with the extra alif and nūn, as a superlative [of rabbiyyūn]), by virtue of what you know (ta‘lamūn, also read as tu‘allimūn, ‘you teach’) of the Book and in what you study’, that is, on account of the fact that you used to do this, for its benefit is that you engage in action.

altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=79&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi

(It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture…) [3:79]. Al-Dahhak and Muqatil said: “This was revealed about the Christians of Najran due to their worship of Jesus. His saying (…for any human being…) refers to Jesus and (…had given the Scripture…) refers to the Gospel”. And according to the narration of al-Kalbi and ‘Ata’, Ibn ‘Abbas said: “Abu Rafi‘ the Jew and the head of the Christians of Najran said: ‘O Muhammad! Do you want us to worship you and take you as our Lord?’ The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: ‘Allah forbid that other than Allah Himself be worshipped or that we be commanded to worship other than Allah. This is not what Allah has sent me for nor did He command me with this’. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Said al-Hasan: “I heard that a man said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! [Is it enough that] we greet you as we greet each other? Should we not prostrate to you?’ He said: ‘One ought not to prostrate to anyone besides Allah. Rather, do honour your Prophet, and give people their due’. Allah, exalted is He, then revealed this verse”.

The verse is talking about being worshipers of allah and NOT about slavery shameless untruth.

If their remain certain verses were slaves are mentioned then these are those which were already existing in society from days of ignorance and about whom the Qur’an enjoined a gradual elevation in status leading to their freedom and abolishment of any future enslavement.

Your lies are exposed from the mouths iof Islamic scholars that the verse is talking about worship of allah and DOES NOT forbid slavery at all.

If their remain certain verses were slaves are mentioned then these are those which were already existing in society

Please explain how allah allowing pedo muhammad to own slaves is a remnant of past.

Al-Ahzab – 33:50

O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses – whom Allâh has given to you,

We are much indebted to Shafee Al Zindig and Continuum who are more able than most of us to expose the "fabrications" of The Truth! Which he is accusing FFI of all the time. Great, thanks a lot! It felt like FFI was vindicated!

Demsci , There are Few Intellectuals post in this site (continuum, Shafee Al Zindig,Jonc,Kem??Z and of course - Dr.Sina) They are very good in presenting their argument . But ,...... . it is not enough to Make some Islamic Brain Dead people to to wakeup and realize the truth. ALLAH(PIMP) is really great.

Demsci Comment ID #27492:
Am I correct to take it that you are referring to the defence by muslim spokespersons etc that the terrorists, hate-preachers, etc are not true moslems?
This is an amusing defence (where the matter not so serious that is), given the way that Muslims of a given stripe often regard all those of a different stripe as "not true moslems".
(To be fair this attitude has bedevilled - deliberate word choice here - other religions too.)
I recall a Hadith and comment to the effect that Moslems would split into 77 sects; and that each sect would regard itself only as the "true moslems". (Sorry I can't find the reference to it.)
On a macro-scale we see this in effect in the 1300+ year tradition of Sunni-Shia fratricide.

Now, I agree with your point about the "common excuse made by Muslims and their Western defenders" that these apologists make the claim that "the detrimental actions perpetrated by Muslims" are unrelated to "true Islam" and that these people are 'misguided' or 'mistaken' or 'corrupted' in their beliefs.
I also agree with the logic of your argument.

However, the one thing that is clear about all the terrorists, hate-preachers etc is that the LAST thing they are is Minos. The terrorists etc have a rabid religious fanaticism. They believe most of all that they, the "mujheddin" are "true Moslems" and that they "fight in the way of allah" etc. They believe themselves to be muslims-through-and-through (MUTTs).

Now I consider the Minos to be secular moslems - people who will say "I am Muslim" (and we know why they will continue to say this) even though they no longer believe.
So the MINOs about as far from the MUTTS as it is possible to be.

Arp, comment #27530:
You are quite right. Given the nature of Islam which strongly discourages the individual from thinking for themselves (the "gates of ijtihad" -independent interpretation- were "closed" in the 10th century according to Sunni fiqh), it is very difficult to convince moslems of error in any form.
"Faith" often provides a very strong bulwark against anyting that is contra to the belief system.
the corollary of this is that once this bulwark is breached, a complete collapse in the belief system often results.

In a system that discourages individual thinking about itself the difficulties are greater, a person who has been taught to simply accept what they are told on a subject unconditionally is quite able to perform Orwellian feats of "double-think" (holding two mutually-contradictory propositions as both true) without even realising that they do so.

However, the numbers of ex-muslims here and elsewhere shows the results when muslims break this "conditioning" and start to think rationally about their own faith.

Touchy subject FFI! Never one to tread tip-toe around subjects!

Heres what i've learned -

Qur'an urges, without commanding, kindness to the slave[18] and recommends, their liberation by purchase or manumission. The freeing of slaves is recommended both for the expiation of sins[19] and as an act of simple benevolence.[20] It exhorts masters to allow slaves to earn or purchase their own freedom (wiki)

Qur'anic legislation brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects: presumption of freedom, and the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances. (wiki)

Bilal, an Ethopian emancipated slave was of key importance in Islam. He was the first mezzon i.e prayer caller and allegedy coined the infamous term "allah akbar!"

Comparing Islam to Judaism and Christianity (Catholism) notebly you see a scarcity of blacks amongst the hierachy. All trougout the middle east you see brown and dark skinned people in postions of power. In the west you do see so but there is always that snide 'blacks are a lower class of people' atmosphere.

I've also noticed that not a single man of significance in the bible was a man of color.

ASUS 4 CHRIST
GLAD TO HEARD BLACK AFRICANS TELL THE TRUTH.

DAGGER

WHERE ARE BLACK AFRICANS TOPS IN ISLAM WHERE ARABS ARE CONCERN. PRINCE BANDER WAS A BLACK ARAB BUT CRAP IN HIS HOME OF SAUDIA BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK AND HIS MOTHER WAS A SLAVE TO SULTAN PRINCE.

CHRISTIANITY FREE BLACKS, ISLAM SOLD THEM AND STILL SELL BLACKS TO THIS DAY.

ISLAM AND MUSLIMS CANNOT LIE ANYMORE. i KNOW SLAVES FROM AFRICA ENSLAVED BY MUSLIMS ARABS SO STOP LYING YOU WICKED SON OF ALLAH THE GREATEST LIAR SURA 3:54

Hi, Jonc,

Thanks for your patience with me. But for me this IS a vital issue. I agree completely with YOUR assessment but I was trying to view things from the viewpoint of Muslims who were reacting to FFI when it reported all sorts of crimes against humanity, big or small, in past and present, and connected them with Islamic teachings, saying the deeds were inspired by the teachings.

If you want I propose: We monitor and report about the "crimes" of all Muslims a lot. Then the Muslims have the problem that some "criminals" themselves say they are Muslims. THAT is then really their problem.

So now we can indulge them by saying: OK, the identified "criminals", who call themselves Muslims, may be termed "Malafide Muslims". So we do not anymore link their "crimes" to the Islamic teachings.

But: This means that Bonafide Muslims admit that there ARE Malafide Muslims. The bonafides also admit that they cannot control, direct or TRUST the malafides. Moreover that the Malafides are very hard to distinquish from the Bonafides.

So maintaining or striving for a non-democratic caliphate or theocratic or dictatorial states is now very problematic for bonafide Muslims. Because then malafide Muslims could easily abuse any power, that is uncontrolled. and in dictatorial states there is always an elite with uncontrolled power.

So let the bonafide Muslims strive only for democratic states in the long run!

Bonafide and malafide moslems , both equally need to be nullifed for the world to survive!
Both are bearded and both wear skull cpas and that is ( skull cap) a brain barrier that prevents rational thoughts entering the brain.
Bonafide or malafide both have malafide intentions.The malafide dont hide and the bonafide carefully hide those malafie intentions.
Its th stupidity of kafirs that for 1400 years( since the birth of that satan mohammad ( piss,puss, crap and garbage be upon him) that they never realised the malafide intentions of these moslems

PK, I was laughing intermittetly all day when I read and thought about your very funny reaction!!!

And it might be that you are absolutely right. It is only my intention to answer those Muslims that secretly or openly support dictatorial and theocratic states and want such states also in Western countries and India. Because in sharia law it says that the will of Allah has to be followed! Instead of manmade laws it says.

But I hope that some young Muslim(a)s will see that if followers of other beliefs understand this, that it is then very logical that they oppose and criticize-ridicule-shame Islam as much as they can!!!! Because if Muslims really want to implement allah's law everywhere it would mean big loss of freedom and power for the other belief-followers! So these are then really fighting for their freedom and power!!!

And for justice done in the Islamic countries, where atheists and Christians and other belief-followers are heavily disadvantaged vis-a-vis Islam, where apostates from Islam to Christianity and Atheism are not allowed while the reverse IS allowed in Democratic countries. How is it possible that bonafide Muslims acquiesce in this hypocritical travesty?!

And this while Muslims cannot prove their religion ever performed better than other religions. - because FFI, IW, Jihad Watch and many others show countless times that so-called malafide Muslims commit many crimes, often even claiming them in the name of Islam. So Islam just could never stop this!!!

And if young Muslim(a)'s then realise that in an Islamic ideal state or in all dictatorial states of today time and again so-called "Malafide Muslims" commit all sorts of crimes, because there is nobody to control and punish them, then they too should conclude that democracy is the best available option to all, including Muslims, including in Islamic countries.

And they should try to follow Allah's will under democratic law only, thereby peacefully and reasonably resolving their disagreement with followers of other beliefs (us).

But as things stand now? They should be prepared for an avalanche of criticism-ridicule and shaming!

Raisin Head can you kindly take off caps lock when you write it is most annoying these forum is about constructive argument not silly childish ranting.

I am a kaffir like rest of you but I can tell you that despite many things I see Islam as tolerant to blacks, as they are towards any color.

Saudi, Qater, Bahrain, Yemen, Emirates amongst others are full of colored brothers living and working in peace, there are no ghettos in these countries, crack babies or teenage single mothers. Islam for what its worth is a color blind religion. Why does Muhammed have no face? Whilst every prophet in the bible is pale skinned?

Yes there are massive problems in black African muslim countries, in particular Somalia & Sudan. Somalia is an uninhabitabal anarchist state where being a Pirate is one of the few genuine career prospects and Sudan is a country where woman are not allowed to wear trousers (pants) and one can be stonned for naming a teddy bear Muhammed.

But one thing you do have an almost zero aids rate, whislt a tragically embarrasing 70% of the rest of East and southern Africa are HIV infected.

My point is, although I am a kaffir I can see that Islam does have its benifits and will always be here. When religion is mixed with politics e.g. Sharia Law is when it starts to go wrong.

Dagger

Dagger:

Saudi, Qater, Bahrain, Yemen, Emirates amongst others are full of colored brothers living and working in peace, there are no ghettos in these countries, crack babies or teenage single mothers. Islam for what its worth is a color blind religion. Why does Muhammed have no face? Whilst every prophet in the bible is pale skinned?

I say:

Yeah but they are treated like sh*t by their Saudi employers.

Every prophet being depicted as pale skinned began hundreds of years ago in Europe. I doubt the prophets had pale skin.

Racism in Islam: Allah’s White Faces

by Abul Kasem

06 Dec, 2008

From FrontPageMagazine.com on December 04, 2008.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam. He was a contributor to the book Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam. His latest contribution is in Why We Left Islam published by WND Books.

FP: Abul Kasem, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Kasem: Thank you Jamie.

FP: I would like to talk to you today about the racial apartheid that exists in Islam. How is the best way for us to begin this discussion?

Kasem: Jamie, let’s begin with the incredible hypocrisy and double standard that exists on the issue of racism in general. Islamists living in the West often portray Islam as a religion free of racism. They never fail to criticize western countries of its racist attitude and contempt for people who are not of white complexion. It is quite perplexing that these Islamists never look at their own backyard, of blatant, naked racism enmeshed in the Islamic doctrine.

Any non-Arab, non-white, who has been to a Middle East Arab country will tell the story of absolute racism practiced there. It is no secret that in rich Arab countries, (such as Saudi Arabia) people of dark complexion, such those from Africa, South Asia (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh) receive much lower pay than a white person from the western country would. There is strict, unspoken, racial apartheid practiced in the rich Arab countries.

FP: And the lefties that are confronted with this reality immediately say how this has nothing to do with Islam and that it is “cultural.”

Kasem: For sure, and they are completely wrong. The racism practiced in the Arab countries is solidly founded in the very doctrine of Islam.

FP: Tell us about it.

Kasem: Blatant Islamic racism is permeated in the founts of Islam, the Qur’an, ahadith, Sunna, and Sharia.

Let us start the beginning with the end in mind. What I mean is the Islamic Resurrection day.

It is an Islamic day of black and white.

Allah promises in verse 3:185 that life in this world is an illusion, that every person shall die, and every person will receive his judgment on the resurrection day. In verse 5:26, Allah vouches that all that is on earth will perish. Allah says in verse 10:26 that He will reward the doers of good with paradise and much more; their faces will be radiant-stained. They will never be humiliated.

Ibn Kathir says that there will be no blackness or darkness on their faces. In contrast, the faces of the non-believers will be stained with dust, blackness, and darkness. On the Resurrection Day Allah will remove His veil and show His face to the dwellers of paradise. He will make the believers’ faces white.

Where are all the radical leftist scholars deconstructing these texts in the way they have done to Western literature?

The Islamic texts clearly reveal that Allah is a white supremacist; He does not like black faces; He likes white faces.

It is clear from the exegesis of these verses that Allah likes white people and dislikes the black people, so much so, in fact, that even when a Black Muslim is entitled to enter Islamic Paradise, he will not enter it until Allah has turned him into a white person. Verse 20:102 says that on the day the trumpet is sounded (resurrection day), the sinners will be gathered together with blue eyes and black faces. A hadith in Mishkat says that on judgment day, Muslims will have white faces, white arms, and white legs (Mishkat al-Masabih, Ibn Abdullah Tabrizi, Sheikh Wali-ud-Din Muahmmad, Tr. Abdul Hameed Siddiqui, Kitab Bhavan, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daraya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, India.1990, p.1.168).

Allah’s preference for light-skinned people and His disdain for dark-skinned people is repeated in verse 7:46. Ibn Abbas writes that this verse tells the joy of the believers when they know those who enter hell by their darkened faces and blue eyes and those who enter Paradise by their lightened faces: at once handsome and radiant.

Allah says in verse 86:8-9 that He will bring back life for Muhammad to commence judgment. According to ibn Kathir, on resurrection day, a banner will be raised for every deceitful person from his anus; the size of this banner will depend on the size of the perpetrator’s calumny. Thus, Muhammad will have no trouble sifting the believers from the non-believers. All Muslims will be of white complexion, and all infidels will be of black complexion, with a banner on his/her anus.

In verse 18:29 Allah says that He does not care whether people believe or disbelieve in Islam. The disbelievers (non-Muslims) and the wrongdoers will be surrounded by the tent of fire; they will be given water (acid) like molten brass to shower and to scald their faces. Ibn Kathir says that this verse means the water of Hell is black, and it itself is black and its people are black.

In verse 3:107 Allah emphatically pronounces that white faces on the judgment day will receive His mercy. Jalalyn writes that, on judgment day, Muslims’ faces will be white.

In Mishkat (ibid, p.1.76) we read humans were emitted as white ants from Adam; paradise is for the whites, hell is for the blacks.

Islamic Paradise will offer its white male residents unlimited, unbridled, uninterrupted sex with houris of exquisite beauty. These houris will also be of fair (read white), radiant complexion (44:54, 55:70) quite similar to the Hollywood movie actresses. Even the wine-serving boys will be white, like pearls (52:24, 76:19).

FP: How do you explain this kind of racism in Islam?

Kasem: We might wonder why Allah is such a racist—white supremacist, even on Islamic resurrection day. The answer is Muhammad was a white man. Here are a few examples:

Muhammad was white. (Sunaan Abu Dawud, 1.486)

Let us read one hadith from Sahih Bukhari (1.3.63) Narrated Anas bin Malik:

While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said: "Who amongst you is Muhammad?" At that time the Prophet was sitting amongst us (his companions) leaning on his arm. We replied, "This white man reclining on his arm." The man then addressed him, "O Son of 'Abdul Muttalib.”

Tabari writes that Muhammad was of white complexion, reddish tinge, deep-black large eyes, long eyelashes. His breast hair was thin and he had thick beard. He had no hair in his armpit. The perspiration on his face was pearl-like (al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir, History of al-Tabari, Translated by Ismail K. Poonwala. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1990, p.ix.157).

In Ash-Shifa, Allah, through Sharia, expresses a great disdain for the black people in this manner:

Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed. (Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad. Ash-Shifa. Tr. Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley. Medina Press, P.O. Box 5531, Inverness IV5 7YA, Scotland, UK, fifth print 2004, p.375)

FP: So who is Allah then?

Kasem: Allah is a white Arab supremacist. Allah dearly loves the Arabs. He chose them over all other races, making them the best pedigree in the human race.

Does Allah look like an Arab, especially an Arab from Saudi Arabia and from the Quraysh stock? Let us read from ibn Sa’d, the famous biographer of Muhammad:

…Abu Damarah al–Madani Anas Ibn ‘Iyad al–Laythi informed us; he said: Ja’far Ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali informed us on the authority of his father, Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali ibn Husayn Ibn “Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who said: Verily the Prophet said: God divided the earth in two halves and placed (me) in the better of the two, then He divided the half in three parts, and I was in the best of them, then He chose the Arabs from among the people, then He chose the Quraysh from among the Arabs, then He chose the children of ‘Abd al–Muttalib from among the Banu Hashim, then he chose me from among the children of ‘Abd al–Muttalib (Ibn Sa’d, Abu Abd Allah Muhammad. Kitab al-Tabaqat, vol i. Translated in English by S. Moinul Haq, Kitab Bhavan, 1784, Kalan Mahal, Daraya Ganj, New Delhi, India, 1972, p1.2).

According to ibn Sa’d, Allah favours Arab racism—prophet is to be of Quraysh stock and of white complexion (ibid, p1. 95-96).

Here is a hadith from Sahih Muslim which declares Allah’s special love for the white Quraysh Arabs.

Book 020, Number 4483

It has been narrated on the authority of Amir b. Sa'd b. Abu Waqqas who said: I wrote (a letter) to Jabir b. Samura and sent it to him through my servant Nafi', asking him to inform me of something he had heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He wrote to me (in reply): I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say on Friday evening, the day on which al-Aslami was stoned to death (for committing adultery): The Islamic religion will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled over by twelve Caliphs, all of them being from the Quraish. also heard him say: A small force of the Muslims will capture the white palace, the police of the Persian Emperor or his descendants. I also heard him say: Before the Day of Judgment there will appear (a number of) impostors. You are to guard against them. I also heard him say: When God grants wealth to any one of you, he should first spend it on himself and his family (and then give it in charity to the poor). I heard him (also) say: I will be your forerunner at the Cistern (expecting your arrival).

FP: So Arabs must rule the world?

Kasem: Yes. The ultimate goal of the Islamists is the creation of a Pan Islamic world, which must be ruled by a caliph (the Islamists call it the Khilafat movement) who will be responsible to enforce Islamic laws (Sharia) globally.

FP: What are the requirements to be a caliph?

Kasem: According to Islamic law, (Reliance of the Traveller, published by Amana Publications, Bettsville, Maryland, 1999, pp.640-642, law number o25.3) the mandatory qualifications of an Islamic caliph are:

1. must be a Muslim

2. must be a male

3. must be from the Quraysh tribe of the Arabs

4. must be a freeman (i.e., not a slave)

5. must be of sound mind.

This provision of Islamic law means that the world—the Pan Islamic world must be ruled by an Arab (from the Quraysh stock, probably from Saudi Arabia or Jordan) and no one else.

FP: All this racism must involve rules about marriage I assume.

Kasem: Of course.

A non-Arab Muslim cannot marry an Arab woman

Let us refer to another law of Sharia. This law enforces the supremacy of the white Quraysh Arabs to subjugate all people on earth to their rule. The Sharia law (ibid) cited here stipulates that no other men, even when Muslims, could marry any Arab women. In some Arab countries, this is the law and there is severe punishment if a man from another Islamic country (such as a Muslim man from Bangladesh) marries a Saudi Arabian woman. If he commits such a grave crime (marrying an Arab woman) he might be subjected to harsh punishment and immediate deportation.

Let us read this racist law of Allah:

Law m4.2 The following are not suitable matches for one another:

(1) A non-Arab man for an Arab woman (O: because of the hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “Allah has chosen the Arabs above others”). (ibid)

Quite akin to the Nazism of Hitler, this Islamic law firmly establishes Allah’s racism. Islamic law is heavily biased to establish the supremacy of the white Arabs much like the idea of Hitler’s of the pure Aryan Germans, which he deemed the most supreme race on earth.

Allah made the white Quraysh Arabs the best of His creation.

Allah is adamant that they (the Arabs) are the purest, the truest, the best and the most superior of all races.

FP: Some more on Allah’s racism?

Kasem: Well, Ibn Sa’d said: Abd al–wahhab Ibn ‘Ata al–‘Ijli informed us on the authority of Sai’d Ibn Abi ‘Aribiah, he on the authority of Qatadh: he said: It has been mentioned to us that the Prophet said: When God wants to raise a prophet He chooses the best tribe of the people and then He chooses the best man (Ibn Sa’d, p.1.8).

Sahih Bukhari (4.56.704) confirms that Allah has chosen the Quraysh Arabs as His agent to rule the world (Islamic Caliphate).

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 704:

Narrated Muhammad bin Jubair bin Mut'im:

That while he was with a delegation from Quraish to Muawiya, the latter heard the news that 'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As said that there would be a king from the tribe of Qahtan. On that Muawiya became angry, got up and then praised Allah as He deserved, and said, "Now then, I have heard that some men amongst you narrate things which are neither in the Holy Book, nor have been told by Allah's Apostle. Those men are the ignorant amongst you. Beware of such hopes as make the people go astray, for I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'Authority of ruling will remain with Quraish, and whoever bears hostility to them, Allah will destroy him as long as they abide by the laws of the religion.'"

FP: How about some historical evidence of Islam’s disdain for black people?

Kasem: Abd. Rahman b. Awf called Bilal the son of a black woman (Tabari, vii.59).

Umar had a profound dislike for black people (Tabari, xii.11).

Tabari writes:

Among them, with Muawiyah b. Hudhayl, were young men of black complexion and straight hair. ‘Umar turned his face away from them several times until it was said to him: “Do you have anything against these people.” He said: “I am perplexed with regard to them. No Arab tribe more hateful to me than these has ever passed by me.” He then let them go, but he frequently mentioned them with hatred, and people were puzzled by ‘Umar’s view.

The Islamic racism is alive and well even today. Even notice the recent news report of Al Qaeda calling Obama a ‘house negro’.

FP: So what do we conclude them?

Kasem: Islamic racism is endemic. It emanates straight from the Qur’an, Sunna, and Sharia. It cannot be eliminated so long the Muslims are enthused by these Holy Scriptures. The Muslims of black complexion will never be equal with the white Arabs. The concept of Islamic ummah, regardless of color and ethnic origin is simply not true.

National Post: Racism in Islam, Pakistan and Bangladesh
By Eeyore | May 7, 2009
Tarek Fatah, National Post

Published: Tuesday, April 28, 2009

chadian-woman
The following is an edited excerpt of a speech delivered last week at the Durban Review Conference (Durban II) in Geneva, Switzerland.

As I speak to you, I am deeply disappointed that my colleague Milly Nsekalije, a survivor of the 1994 massacre of Rwandan Tutsis, could not share her story with all of you. The reason: In the eyes of some, she cannot have been a victim of the genocide since she is not 100% Tutsi.

What does it say about the state of racism in our world when the victims of a genocide practise exclusion on the basis of the so-called purity of blood lines and ethnicity?

Worse than her exclusion from to-day’s event is the fact that it has happened at a conference meant to combat racism. As this shows, we have turned the concept of racism upside down.

Racism operates not just as a black/ white divide, but also as a cancer that affects relations between people of colour — people who often share the same religion, but have different shades of brown or black skin.

This internalized racism, which devours the people of the developing world in Asia and Africa from within, is too often left out of the discussion of racism.

This afternoon, I would like to shed some light on two genocides — one happened in 1970-71 in what is now Bangladesh; and the other that continues as I speak in the Darfur region of Sudan. In both instances, the root of the problem lay with one group of Muslims feeling they were racially superior to their victims, who also happened to be Muslim. In both cases, the doctrine of racial superiority and the practice of institutional racism went unchallenged, even after the horrible consequences of such racism were evident and for all to see.

In 1970, my country of birth, Pakistan, was divided in two: an eastern part that is today known as Bangladesh and the western rump, which survived a subsequent war with India as the state we now know as Pakistan.

East Pakistan was inhabited by the darker-skinned Bengali people who happened to be the majority community of Pakistan, but found themselves ruled by a lighter-skinned minority from what was known as West Pakistan.

In the first 25 years of the country’s history, the racist depiction of the darker-skinned Bengalis as an inferior and incapable people became the unquestioned dogma among the ruling minority. The darker-skinned Bengalis’ culture was portrayed as un-Islamic and influenced by Hinduism. Their music, cuisine and attire were mocked, and their language was banned, leading to widespread protests and deaths in 1952.

In 1970, after suffering under the minority rule of West Pakistan for 25 years, the people of East Pakistan voted to elect a party based in their region, and gained a clear majority in the country’s national parliament.

However, the racist view that Bengali people were incapable of ruling the country, or that they were traitors to the fair-skinned minority of West Pakistan, led to a military intervention and widespread massacres over a 10-month period.

The killing of the Bengali people by the West Pakistan army stopped only when India intervened and defeated the Pakistan Armed Forces, but not before hundreds of Bengali intellectuals, professors, poets, authors, musicians and painters were rounded up and massacred.

All told, one million Muslims were murdered by fellow Muslims in an orgy of hate that defied the teachings of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, whose religious authority was being invoked by the Pakistan army.

One would have hoped that this genocide would have served as a cautionary tale. But the sad fact is that racism in the Islamic world has remained ubiquitous in the years that followed. Yet there is near universal denial about it, not just among the governments of Muslim nations, but also among many NGOs and civil society groups.

In Sudan, the Arab janjaweed militia and the Arab government in Khartoum have caused the murder of 500,000 Darfuri Muslims whose only fault is that they are black and thus considered inferior to the ruling classes of that country.

The mistreatment of black Muslims by those who feel they are superior because of their lighter skin colour has gone on throughout history. Only in the Middle East can one get away with addressing a black man as Ya Abdi, which translates as “Oh you slave.”

Only the Arab League would choose to embrace Sudan’s President, a man charged by the International Criminal Court for his murderous campaign in Darfur.

It is time that the medieval belief in the inferiority of non-Arab Muslims to Arab Muslims is laid to rest. Arab countries and leaders of Arab NGOs must denounce this doctrine, which has led to discrimination against darker-skinned Muslims by Arab governments in countries as far apart as Dubai and Darfur.

If we cannot allow a woman to speak here because she is of mixed blood, then all I can say is that in the words of Robert Frost, we have miles to go before we sleep. – Tarek Fatah is the author of the recent book Chasing Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State.
This entry was posted in Islam, Pakistan. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Speaking of Racism, a few months somebody posted here that they live in Harlem and told Raisin Head how the Black American Muslims are fighting African Muslim immigrants about who is more Arab.

I would also like to mention there is also racism amongst the black community.

Even though Raisin Head cannot construct an intelligent argument she is right in regards to racism in Islam.

Hey Marie,

Thanks for your in depth posts they were very informative some of which I must pass on to my black muslim friends.

Your observations however on the word 'dark skinned' in the Koran could simply be interprated by muslims as meaning a 'bad person in his life' as the way the english langauge usues the word 'black' to descibe bad without neccesarilly being racist towards black people e.g. black day, black markert, black sheep of the family, the black list etc as opposed to white knight, white christmas, white wash, white lie, white hope etc

Racism and xenophobia are a negative human conditions examplified in most religions and most cultures. To give them credit Christianity and Islam have shown the most strides in acccepting all for one.

I'm going to make a bold observation and say that most black muslims in the middle east have a better standard of living or at least better feelings of self worth and esteem than blacks in europe and the americas.

Why? Whether you like it or not dark skinned people are still seen as undesirable, under-development, criminal-minded and in many extreme cases uncivilised by many a backward people. We all know about India and their backwards caste system but few of us know that Ghandi in his 20s marched AGAINST multicultrilism in South Africa?

There are few cries of foul towards the Sri Lankans who are doing a great job of cleansing the northern Tamils. There are few cries of foul towards the Kremlin who turn a blind eye to the hate mobs who murder 100s of non-Russian students a year in Moscow alone. And I hav'nt began to mention the embarrasment felt by the Aborigines of Australia. South Africa will host the soccer World Cup next year and becuase it is a black sport in SA the Afrikaans people have their fingers crossed that it will be a catastrope to prove their point that multicultrilism doesnt work.

Yes the middle east may be full of pompus Arabs but if your a black man then the middle east is probably the safest part of the world for you. Idi Amin one of the worlds most brutal warlords lived safely in the middle east why? Becuase he was muslim. Louis Farrakhan routinely gets 'loans' from Gadaffi why? Becuase he is muslim. Sudan's President is wanted for war crimes but is going nowhere and has the backing of most Arab states. Why? Take a wild guess.

I am a black man but cannot embrace Islam becuase I have learnt and cannot condone much of the treachery associated with it. I also do not believe in sheep mentality and see Islam as just another tribe. I can however understand why most black people especially black men flock to islam and see islam as colour friendly religion.

Dagger