Did Arabs ENSLAVE Africans?

download the zipped file:
Read "European Crusades, Christinaisation and Colonisation"
 
 
It is riddiculous to believe that Arabs enslaved Africans.  The Kaffirs conceal the truth and speak with forked tongue.  To believe this is like believing in Father Christmas i.e. fiction.

 
The increasing incidence by those who reject faith of publically  accusing Arabs of enslaving Africans must be in response to the fact that reversions to Islam is highest amongst the African communities in America and Europe. In other words, the Kaffir's devious strategy of enslaving Africans, taking them away from Islam and Arabic - the religion and language of their enslaved ancestors; brainwashing them into cannibalism e.g. bread and wine being the flesh and blood of  Christ; and making them superstitious and backwards with mumbo jumbo superstition beliefs in Father Christmas, Easter eggs, etc has FAILED after 500 years of trying.  And what a spectacular failure!
 
If we use this stupid logic that Arabs were slave-dealers, then the first Africans the Arabs would have enslaved would have been Falashas  - the African Jews! But instead we find that the Falashas have been largely unmolested by anyone unlike their Jewish co-religionists in  Europe, which also undermines Western claims that Africa is tribalistic and barbaric and European intervention saved them from barbarism.
 
So Who did Enslave Africans ?
 
Africans are physically the strongest of all the nations / tribes on the earth. The Arabs are NOT.  SEE how the oil-rich Arab countries are totally dependent on military personnel (mercernaries) from Europe, America and Pakistan for their defence from fellow Muslims in Iraq and Iran!
 
The only people who had the strength to take on Africans and enslave Africans were Africans themselves - NOT the Arabs and NOT the Europeans.
 
The Africans who were enslaved were Muslim Africans.
 
The Africans who did the enslaving were Christian Africans. During European slavery, 'Scramble for Africa' and colonisation, Christian Ethiopia was the only African state that was left virtually untouched by European colonisation. In fact its empire doubled in size during the 'Scramble for Africa'!
 
On page 442 of 'The Triumph of the West' by J.M. Roberts, there is a map of the world showing those parts of the globe that came under Western domination by 1914.  Ethiopia stands out like a sore thumb and so does Liberia and Sierra Leonne which were Christian states created by Britain and America for the settlement of intellectually, morally and spiritually `weak' Africans who had been Christianised!
 
Africans are physically the strongest nation on earth.  The Arabs are NOT.  Famous Islamic scholar Al-Jihaz (778-868) wrote of the physical superiority of the Africans nations over all other nations.  For example, he states: "We Blacks have conquered the country of the Arabs as far as Mecca and governed them.  The desert swarm with the number of our men who married your women and who became chiefs and defended you against your enemies.  You even have sayings in your language which vaunt the deeds of our kings - deeds which you often placed above your own; this you would not have done had you not considered them superior to your own.  We defeated Dhu Nowas (Jewish ruler of Yemen) and killed all the Himyarite princes, but the Arabs and Whites (from Europe) have never conquered our country.  Our people, the Zenghs (an African race), revolted forty times in the Euphrates, driving the inhabitants from their homes...Blacks are physically stronger.  A single one of them can lift stones of great weight and carry burdens such as several whites could not lift nor carry between them.  They are brave, strong...  these good traits are the gifts of God." [Pg. 166, 2].
 
When the last Prophet (saw) was born - in the `Year of the Elephant', Abraha Al-Arsham - the self styled emporer of Ethiopia and Yemen tried to attack the Kaaba at Mecca with a force of 40,000 men, cavalry and      armoured elephants.  The Arabs could not fight the Ethiopians nor could they even defend their own territory.  The Arabs fled on their camels to the top of the mountains.  It was only through divine intervention that the Arabs were saved.  Allah (swt) sent thousands of little birds from the sea each with a stone on which was graven the name of an Ethiopian soldier to bombard the enemy.
 
SEE how millions of Arabs are unable to fight a handful of Zionists in Palestine today even though the Arabs have a numerical (population) and financial (oil wealth / petro-dollars) advantage.  So how can Arabs have enslaved a physically stronger nation when they cannot even fight and displace an occupier who is described in the Quran as people who turns their back on you i.e. cowards when it comes to fighting ?
 
SEE how the Iraqis 'fought' and surrendered in the Gulf War and compare with how the Afghans and Vietnamese fought to the death or until victory was achieved against Russia and America respectively. Yet, HIS story books tell us that Arabs are the people who enslaved Africans!  What a load of rubbish!
 
Soon after the Last Prophet (saw) passed away, the Arabs broke out of the Arabian Peninsula and went into Egypt to free the indigenous Egyptian population from the tyranical rule of the Romans.  In 643 A.C., Abdullah the new Arab governor-general (viceroy) of Egypt, decided to go into the Heartland of Africa against Ethiopia with a larger and better equipped army.  However, the Arabs suffered a major and massive military defeat at the hands of the Ethiopians where the  whole Arab army was wiped out. An Arab historian of the period felt compelled to admit that it was the most devastating defeat ever suffered by an Arab army. [Pg.150-153, 40].  Thereafter, the Arabs became more cautious, changed direction and proceeded with revealing the Last Message along the North African coast, crossing into Spain in 711 A.C.  However, Ethiopia remained the ONLY christian state in Africa until the arrival of the European colonialists.  Read 'The Destruction of Black Civilisation' by Chancellor Williams, Third World Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1976.
 
By the time slavery had started in the 1400s, the Arabs had become significantly weakened as a military force by the time of the Western Crusades (1095-1250s) and the Eastern Crusades, namely the Christian-backed Mongol invasion that culminated in the sacking of Baghdad in 1258.  Their military response to these successive invasions can best be described as pathetic.  The Arabs were 'saved' only by the intervention non-arab muslims e.g. Saladin Ayubi - from Kurdistan, the Mamelukes (Muslim kinsmen to the non-muslim Mongols and Tartars) and then the Ottomans who TOOK over the Caliphate.  The Arabs were in no position to enslave other people after suffering such bruising attacks from Central Asia.
 
When Islamic rule was at the height of its splendour in India there was a considerable influx of African Muslims from east Africa, coming as traders and mercenaries, and settling in the Deccan (east of Bombay) and Bengal region (Barbek Shah, Malik Amber, Malik Andeel, Mawla, Admiral Sambal, Admirals Masud and Ali Kasam; Generals Kafur, Abudullah, Rahim Khan, Abdul Rahman, Battla, Belal, Forts, Hillol, Ibrahim Khan, Jauhar, Johar, Kasim Sabaun, Sambal, Sat, and the eminent military commander, Yakut Khan. Ekhaz Khan was a noted prime minister).  In time they emerged from the mass to form the backbone of armies and become: prime ministers, great military and naval  commanders, hereditary admirals, and in several instances, sultans. Under their own commanders, they eventually became the source of central power. Their presence brought them into conflict with the Afghan, Turkish and Mughal rulers of North, Central and East India.  The Afghans, who have a fiercesome reputation for fighting, being the only Muslim country to have successfully fought off colonialism by beating Britain an imperial power three times and then a perceived superpower, Russia - the first time Russia steps outside the Warsaw  Pact.  However, even Afghan chiefs were unable to beat the African Muslims in south India and Bengal, even when they outnumbered them four-to-one.  [2].
 
 
Did Europeans Enslave Africans?
 
Relatively speaking European and American armies are physically weak and cowards, and are totally depedent on heavy protection (armour-plating, helmets, bullet-proof equipment, etc) because they FEAR death and their hypocritical chattering classes FEAR body-bags.  Their soldiers even have to get drunk just to pluck up enough courage to chat up loose woman in a bar.
 
They don't like fighting man-to-man in a field and away from built-up areas and so resort to attacking civilian infrastructure such as roads, bridges, power stations, women, children (collateral damage) because these `targets' can't and don't hit back. Their technology is 'stand-off' where they can fire projectiles without even seeing the enemies' eyes.
 
Whenever there is TV / video footage of an American / British policemen beating up an Afro-American / Afro-Caribbean - the African is always outnumbered by his attackers because his attackers are too scared to take him on - man-to-man / on a one-to-one basis.
 
Some of the cities in which Africans have a large prescence in America and Europe, are known as NO GO AREAS because the indigenous population FEAR them.  So if white man FEARS walking through his own land, how could he have travelled to the DARK CONTINENT to enslave Africans, having only just discovered the world is not flat and monsters do not inhabit the sea ?
 
Britain could not fight the Chinese and so introduced opium as a way  of weakening them.  In order to rule and maintain its empire, Britain created the two million strong British Indian army - the largest all volunteer army ever created in the history of mankind consisting of the so called martial races of South Asia.  This army was deployed against the Muslims of Africa, the Ottomans, even fellow Asians - the Chinese in the Opium Wars.  In World War I, Britain had to resort to conscription because not enough men came foward to fight, whilst in its colonies, the natives of India VOLUNTEERED.  Now they are recruiting women to fight on the front-line.
 
Sitting Bull, the Leader of the Teton Sioux, c.1831 to 1890 said: "We have now to deal with another race - small and feeble when our fathers first met them, but now great and overbearing...".  The Americans could not fight the Native American Indians man-to-man, and so fought them indirectly by wiping out the buffalo which the Red Indians were totally dependent on for food / meat, clothing, milk, transport, trade, etc.  Another tactic was the use of germ warfare i.e. deliberately infecting the Native Americans with European diseases.
 
The debacle in Vietnam and Somalia is further evidence of their weakness and cowardice.  In fact when stooges like Martin Luther King came on the scene it was at a time when the war in Vietnam was stepping up and men were needed to fight in Vietnam.  They wanted Afro-Americans to fight their war in Vietnam because they themselves are cowards.  People like Clinton fled to Europe to avoid the call-up or as he says because of his conscience towards the war, though his conscious does not extend to bombing defenceless Muslims in Iraq.   Thus the head of the American armed forces is a coward.  Stooges like Martin Luther King wanted equality for Afro-Americans and once achieved, they could then go and fight in Vietnam as equal citizens of America!  Those Afro-American Muslims like Muhammed Ali - the famous boxer saw through this trick.
 
As to the Gulf War - the Arabs are not a formidable fighting force today and hence their reliance on mercernaries. Indeed they are so desperate they even rely on cowardly Kaffir mercernaries for their protection!  Some of these kaffir armies are having to recruit women to fight on the front-line because their own men don't want to fight.
 
It took hundreds of years for mechanised European armies to colonise the whole of Africa.  For example, in the Ashanti wars of the early nineteenth century, the British tried to occupy the hinterland of the Gold Coast (now called Ghana).  There were eleven major wars in this conflict.  The Ashanti won ALL of them, except the last.  In these wars, Ashanti generals - and we should call them generals, because they were more than equal to the British generals who failed to conquer them - stopped the inland encroachment of the British.  In 1896 the British exiled the Ashanti King Prempeh, but still were not able to take over completely the hinterland of the Gold Coast.  The British still did not give up their desire to establish their authority in the interior of the country and avenge the many defeats they had suffered at the hands of Ashanti.  It took the British nearly a century of fighting with the Ashanti before they gained total control of the region. [Pg. xiii-xxiv, 2].
 
So if mechanised British troops had so much difficulty colonising a coastal region, how did Arabs manage to enslave millions of Africans and sell them into slavery ?
 
When Britain colonised Egypt they began fighting with Muhammad Ahmad ('Mahdi' of Sudan) - an African Muslim.  The British organised three mechanised armies against the M. Ahmad, namely the Anglo-Egytian Army, the British Indian Army and the Ottoman Army. M. Ahmad and his followers were only armed with swords and spears.  In one ecounter, M. Ahmad and the African Muslims massacred all 10,000 Arabs of the Anglo-Egyptian Army.  One of Britain's best generals, a coward by the name of Charles Gordon was killed. Britain then had to send another one of its elite generals of the British Army (a sodomite called Kitchner) to destroy the Sudanese Muslims. It took a MECHANISED army to destroy M.Ahmad and his followers.  Winston Churchill was a reporter at the time and his despatches describe the sheer bravery of the African Muslims who fought to the death against the might of combined modern armies from Egypt, Britain and India, without fear or   cowardice.  Read 'Scramble for Africa'.
 
When America, a perceived superpower went into Somalia for so called peace-keeping duties, their military were forced out by young African Somalis. American soldiers armed to the teeth with all their sophisticated weaponary could not 'take on' African boys. So whoever enslaved Africans had to be physically strong. Otherwise, as Mike Tyson has recently shown an angry African can easily bite your ear off!
 
When Britain fought against the 'Mad Mullah' in Somalia, they were joined by 10,000 Christians from Ethiopia.
 
No-one but Africans could have enslaved Africans and it was Christians Africans who were taking Muslim Africans captives and selling them to the Europeans at the coast.
 
There was a crusade / Jihad taking place between African Muslims and African Christians.  It is unbelievable and illogical to believe that Muslims would sell prisoners of war to their enemies, particulary as the enemies are Christians from Europe who had recently ended the 700 year old Moorish civilisation in Spain, and are now conquering Muslim North and West Africa.
 
Moreover, in a Jihad, prisoners of war and their property are considered as lawful war booty and the property of the Amir and the Islamic State which the Amir distributes to enhance the power of the Islamic State and reward those who have given their resources and lives in Jihad.  This is the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).  Did the Prophet (saw) ever sell the war booty to his enemies, thereby weakening his power and strengthening the enemies' power ? NO.  Prisoners of war are valuable because there is reward for converting them to Islam, as marital partners, as servants, as ransom, etc. In each case the quantity and strength of Muslims increases.
 
 
by Nassim Awan