Muhammad is a White Man?
-
Salaam
Africa was conquered, colonized, under developed, enslaved by the entire Eurpoean continant, they all had their hands in this.
To demonstrate how powerful this was, they renamed the continant that we call "Africa" today. Africa is a Greek name and it
was named after a European explorer by the name of Africanos (hopefully I spelled it right) and they renamed the
countries in Africa. They shipped Africans as slaves every where America, Brazil, West Indies, Jamaica, just to name a few.Khidr, Where are these descendants of enslaved Africans, who speak the Saudi Arabian Peninsula Arabic dialect and customs?
Examples We have descendants of African slaves speaking English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and following Christianity of those who enslaved them.
Where can we find Arabic speaking descendants of African slaves, who have adopted the language, customs and attitudes of Semetic Arabs of the Arabian peninsula?
Where is this country?
-
Peace,
Muslim truth revealed. The Black Iraqis and Black palestinans are examples of the remnants of slaves brought to Arabia. There is a tv show I watch sometimes on al-iraqiyah and there is a black iraqi who plays a leading role on that show. If you watch al-jazeerah enough you will see a number of black saudis as well. THe saudi finance minister I believe is a black guy. I've also had iraqi professors who have told me that there are a number of black iraqis in Iraq. They are remnants of the east african slave population brought to Iraq, and in particular Basrah. The scholar Al-Jahiz was a son of African slaves from the Zanj (Zanzibar coast) brought to Iraq.
As for black palestinians here is a youtube video
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0mTObxvXVQ
Black Mahra Yemenis are actually not of slave origin. They are natives to Yemen.
Al-Khidr it is unfortnate that two black people who both believe in the upliftment of the righteous and oppressed people as well as the truth being told about the extent of the black influence world wide, in the ancient and the modern world, have to fight with each other. I find you to be excessively agressive and also excessively imaginary in your conclusions about Arabs and Africans at times. Pale Arabs are not from Europe although they might have a few European ancestors brought into the area as slaves but pale Arabs are not Europeans, because they are not from Europe. Caucasian would be a better epithet because whiter Arabs have their ancestry in peoples from the Caucasus and Russia, not Europe. And the fact is that Africans did enslave themsleves. Your wording is all wrong because we are not saying that the same Africans that ended up being slaves enslaved their very selves. What I am saying is that the African empires in their expansions sold off their African enemies and competitions as slaves who usually ended up on the coast to be sold to Europeans (white only) or Arabs (light, black, red and brown).
If you think Africans are immune to greed, selfishness and evil, go to Africa today and look at the African leaders today. You may say they are being manipulated by Europeans and that is probably more fact than false but the many Africans that are accomplices to injustice in Africa and the Americas today makes it clear that Africans have and will continue to play their negative roles (as well as positive) in the world. Like every other people. Go out in the streets and look at American blacks. Even look at the nation. There are too many corrupt people in the world black, and every other ethnicity to expect a utopian community from any particular ethnicity.
To copy your style of speaking, the pale European was not able to conquer Africa until Africa had hurt itself through greed and imprudent and unregulated trade of its human resources to the point where the empires that kept the pale Europeans from stepping a foot on Africa couldn't defend themselves and were left to petty fights among struggling city-states and empires/dynasties. That is why the Europeans came in and were ablet o colonize and abuse Africa. And by that time the Europeans weren't interested in trading slaves in Africa but in conquering, pillaging, stealing and erasing and rewriting Africa's real history. That is the truth, believe it or not. Call me an uncle tom or not.
Check these videos out http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyg-djdY1MA
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KviYVVILzgDespite Africans selling other Africans into slavery they had no idea of how the Europeans would end up treating those Africans. In Africa slavery was not chattel slavery and more like indentured servitude where slaves where still human beings and also had rights. But as Samia said the Quran outlaws the making of new slaves, and encourages the freedom of current slaves. So even though Africans sold other Africans into slavery that does not absolve the Europeans from how they treated African slaves (and the children of Africans) in Europe and the Americas once recieved. Unfortunately African Muslims as traders played a big role in the enslavement of non-Muslim African ethnicities. Maybe that's where the Arab enslavement of African comes from. They were not Arabs enslaveing African but there were deal of African Muslims enslaving other non-Muslim African ethnicities. It's wrong and un-quranic but since when have Muslims been immune to corruption, evil and ignoring the book they claim to follow?
By the way that wanna be Arab you have on your webste is a sad site indeed. But that type of talk is all through the hadeeth. I read one that said that the prophet was the best of his family, his clan the Quraysh, and the Quraysh were the best of the Mudar (a tribe the Quraysh are included in) and the Mudar are the best of the Arabs and the Arabs are the best of mankind.
I don't agree with everything Khalid says either though. His analysis of Ka'ba is pure imagination and this attempt to make the Arabs white and European is a blanket and wrong generalization. Funnily it's the same thing the Europeans do to try to claim that the Arab civilization is really white civilization.
All of the above (from Quraysh to Ka'ba and European Arabs) is pure crap (forgive the expression). Especially compared to what the Quran and history and a little bit of observation says but atleast we know that the Hadeeth are rumor and Quranically unauthentic (except for the Mutawaatir (which would be Quranically authentic rumor) which I haven't had a chance to fully examine yet).
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Samia,
Because there was more than one "adam"
How can this be? Throughout the Quran, the man Adam is spoken of as being "one person" with one wife. Also, 7189 mentions all men and women stemming from one man/soul/self/person. So, how can there be more than one "Adam"?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Samia,
How can this be? Throughout the Quran, the man Adam is spoken of as being "one person" with one wife. Also, 7189 mentions all men and women stemming from one man/soul/self/person. So, how can there be more than one "Adam"?
Peace,
Ahmad
1528-29; 3871-72 "When your Lord said to the malaa'ika I have created a "bashar" from clay/clay of altered mud. So when I fashion him in his final shape and blow into him of my "ruu7", fall down in rostration to him". They prostrated to the result of this alteration in the bashar The insaanadam. Do you think from all the bashar in existance then, God made only one adam? And BTW, bashar is spoken of as a singular masculine. Does this mean there were no females among those bashar?
-
I personally think Adam like Bashar means Humanity. By the way Samia you might want to retranslate altered mud into black mud (hama'. Although my only issue would be accurate translation, you might make Al-Khidr go crazy for not saying black mud.
Godbless,
Anwar -
I personally think Adam like Bashar means Humanity. By the way Samia you might want to retranslate altered mud into black mud (hama'. Although my only issue would be accurate translation, you might make Al-Khidr go crazy for not saying black mud.
Godbless,
AnwarLol...I just copied the translation and only concentrated on bashar and adam. Yes, if I translated it myself I would say black mud which is more accurate, I just did not want to make belal hamad go crazy ;D
-
Assalaam Alaikum @progod
Thank you for your response.
@Progod, 'Iraqis' and 'Palestinians' are NOT 'Arabs'....by lineage or bloodline
Iraqi's can be traced back to Chaeldeans, who enslaved everyone, and by the way they were 'black'.
Reference 'Slavery In Babylonia' by Dandadev
http//palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php
The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.
'Palestinian' is also a 'mandated' term derived from the 'British Mandate of Palestine'
A "Palestinian" can mean a person who is born in the geographical area known prior to 1918 as "Palestine", or a former citizen of the British Mandate territory called Palestine, or an institution related to either of these. Using this definition, both Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews were called "Palestinians".
@Progod, Thus If you are correct, then those descendants of enslaved Africans in Iraq and Palestine were NOT enslaved by 'Arabs' but by arabic speaking descendants of Chaeldeans and Philistines who were NOT only 'Arabs', they were also NOT 'Muslims' either.
Progod, to mention some Saudi, as black, implying and suggesting that he descends from African slaves is an assumption at best.
EVERY BLACK human being does NOT descend from enslavement or oppression! Its amusing how people believe that the only way black people populated the earth is through enslavement and oppression. ;D
-
Salaam Al Khidr,
Adam, according to the Qur'an, was indeed a black man. However, theoretically, all men stemmed from Adam, and everyone on the earth is part of his progeny; this also includes the European settlers and nations. So, where do you think the racial divide came from? If all men were originally black people (Nubians), how did white people get here? Are they from another progeny outside of Adam and Eve? Although it's easy to assume that the black Nubians migrated to different parts of the world, becoming isolated from the sun and paling their skin, and developing different languages, as many scientists today claim, there are clear distinguishments between blacks and whites that far surpass the color of skin; their behaviors are completely different as well. In many cases, Nubians and Caucasians (Europeans) seem like completely different species. What do you consider to be the stem of this racial divide, and why do you think black people and white people are so different from one another?
Peace,
Ahmad
As Salaamu Alaykum Ahmad Bilal
Yes definitely Adam according to the Qur?aan was a Black man. There are a lot of people who would like to deny this but yet they cannot dispute the clear and evident proof in the Qur?aan that Allah made Adam Black including the original race which you and I know that science has proven this especially with the scientific study/analysis of the DNA.
In the verse below Allah revealed that all races came from one man (Adam) and the scientific evidence of the DNA also have confirmed this verse in Al Qur?aan
Qur?aan 14
O people, Observe your Sustainer who created you from one being, and created from it its mate, then spread from the two many men and women. You shall regard Allah, by whom you swear, and regard the parents. Allah is watching over you.So all races/mankind came from one human being (Adam) again who was Black and this includes the white race. The Nubian race traveled to the 4 corners of the globe before any other race came into existence through this dominant gene of the Nubian (African) race. And it is true that Europeans were the last to come into existence, thus even Nubians traveled to Europe and developed civilization long before the Europeans came existence. Europeans have what you call the recessive gene which is the weakest gene and the African or Black race have the dominant gene which is the dominant or strongest gene from which all others came from and this is why Adam had to have been Black. And this verse refers to Adam and his immediate descendants as listed in this verse and there was definitely no European blood in this progeny here, they were purely Nubian (Black)
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch3verses3334progeny.jpg
Now one of your questions was how did they evolve or came into existence. You have presented the following
?Although it's easy to assume that the black Nubians migrated to different parts of the world, becoming isolated from the sun and paling their skin, and developing different languages, as many scientists today claim?
I believe what you presented here has a lot of truth and is a piece of the puzzle. There are a lot of factors involved here including the DNA. Check out this video by National Geographic and this video will also complete part of the puzzle to help answer this question. I do not believe this video presence the complete answers but it definitely adds scientific data that definitely helps in us completing this puzzle for the answers
The Search For Adam Special DNA Mysteries
http//www.guba.com/watch/3000114671?there are clear distinguishments between blacks and whites that far surpass the color of skin; their behaviors are completely different as well. In many cases, Nubians and Caucasians (Europeans) seem like completely different species. What do you consider to be the stem of this racial divide, and why do you think black people and white people are so different from one another??
I agree with you here there is something different about their behavior and ways which definitely sets them a part from all people of color. The Egyptians who are originally Nubians/Kushites/Kamites were so advanced that they developed ships and even traveled to America thousands of years before this Johnny-come-lately (Colombus) and the Egyptians (Nubians) did not come to America and enslave the native Indians, they were friends, they were family; the Nubians helped spread Islaam in America among them and you can also find pyramids and hieroglyphics that are practically identical to the ones in Africa (Nubia/Egypt). But when the Europeans evolved to the point where they can travel and when they came to America what did they do to the native Indians? When they traveled to Asia, Africa, India what did they do to the people of color? They did what we see them doing today and that is invade, conquer, colonize and enslave. I wonder why, it is only the white race that is trying to dominate this entire planet?
Brother, please forgive me if I have not answered all elements of your questions but hopefully I have provided some substance. Please download the pdf document entitled JINN and this piece of work of mines will also add some further dimensions to these questions and more
http//kushite.webs.com/jinn.htm
-
1528-29; 3871-72 "When your Lord said to the malaa'ika I have created a "bashar" from clay/clay of altered mud. So when I fashion him in his final shape and blow into him of my "ruu7", fall down in rostration to him". They prostrated to the result of this alteration in the bashar The insaanadam. Do you think from all the bashar in existance then, God made only one adam? And BTW, bashar is spoken of as a singular masculine. Does this mean there were no females among those bashar?
Salaam Samia and Progod
Samia when I read your post, it did sound like you were implying that there were more than one Adam. The verses that you quoted are in reference to only one Adam. Allah clearly states in the Qur?aan that He created all from ONE person/being (the Adam)
Qur?aan 14
O people, Observe your Sustainer who created you from ONE being, and created from it its mate, then spread from the two many men and women. You shall regard Allah, by whom you swear, and regard the parents. Allah is watching over you.And in this verse Allah used the word Waahid which means ONE.
Salaam Progod
The Arabic word Bashar means man, a complete man and the Arabic word Al Insaan is a plural because it is in reference to a race, mankind. Note in Qur?aan 1528 Allah is referring to ONE individual and that is why he used bashar in this verse below
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch15v28hamaa.jpg
And in Qur?aan 1526 Allah used the Arabic word Al Insaan because He was telling the world that He created the human race our of Black Mud and below is the Arabic break down for this verse
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch15v26Arabicbreakdown.jpg
So in Qur?aan 1528 it is referring to one man and in Qur?aan 1526 it is referring to human race (which is a plural or collective); and we
don't see evidence that in Al Qur'aan that Allah created more than one Adam. -
Asalaam Aalaikum
Brotha Khidr
Where can we find the descendants of the the enslaved Africans taken by Arabs from the Arab Peninsula, speaking the Arabiyyan Saudi?
As we know, language is a clear indicator as to whether one was enslaved and brought from another land and assimilated with their oppressors language and customs.
Where can we make this determination regarding descendants of the enslaved Africans, country and language.
Salaam
They are all over, thus, the Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew, Amharic language started in Africa. The original Arabs are Black (African) and they live in Saudi Arabia to this very day; you can find Nubians (Africans) in Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Morrocco, Ethiopia who Speak Arabic and are Muslims, just to name a few places.
-
Peace,
Al-Khidr, thanks for the three posts but I'll have to beg to differ. Basharun can be one human being or the collective for all human beings. Same with Insaan. You can say 'Al-khidr huwa insaanun, lahu kullul-huqooq mustihaqqatun li ayi basharin aakharin'
That is Al-Khidr is a human being, and he has all of the rights that any other human being is entitled to.
So basharun (indefinite) is one person or some group of people, same goes for insaanun. When you put al in front of it that makes it humanity in general. Both of these words can be used in an individual and collective way. In the Quran you will aslo find insun, used as a collective only. And inseeyun used individually only.
I know you'll be hardpressed to accept that but just do the research, that way it won't become personal argument of my word against yours.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam
They are all over, thus, the Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew, Amharic language started in Africa. The original Arabs are Black (African) and they live in Saudi Arabia to this very day; you can find Nubians (Africans) in Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Morrocco, Ethiopia who Speak Arabic and are Muslims, just to name a few places.
Brotha Khidr, with all due respect 'They are all over' is NOT a valid response to the question I raised.
There are 80+ different dialects of Arabic.....
Gulf Arabic, Bahrani Arabic, Najdi Arabic, Hejazi Arabic, Sharqi Arabic, Yemeni Arabic Hadhrami Arabic, Dhofari Arabic, Omani Arabic, Shihhi Arabic, Ancient North Arabian (Safaitic, Lihyanitic, Thamudic, Hasaitic),Classical Arabic, Moroccan Arabic, Algerian Arabic, Tunisian Arabic, Andalusian Arabic, Libyan Arabic, Jebli Arabic, Jijel Arabic, Saharan Arabic, Hassnya, Maltese language, Siculo-Arabic, Lebanese Arabic, Syrian Arabic, North Syrian Arabic, Palestinian Arabic, Bedawi Arabic, Cypriot Maronite Arabic, Iraqi Arabic (Baghdad Arabic), North Mesopotamian Arabic, Egyptian Arabic, Sa'idi Arabic, Sudanese Arabic, Nigerian Arabic, Chadian Arabic, Khuzestani Arabic, Shirvani Arabic, Tajiki Arabic Uzbeki Arabic, Judeo-Moroccan Arabic, Judeo-Yemeni Arabic, Judeo-Iraqi Arabic (Baghdad Arabic (Jewish)), Judeo-Tripolitanian Arabic, Judeo-Tunisian Arabic, Nubi language, Babalia Creole Arabic, Juba Arabic
Speaking Arabic does NOT imply that a country was once enslaved and oppressed by 'Arabs'.
My question was relevant to the existence of descendants of slaves who have adopted the language, culture and practices of Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula. Where is the 'Arab' country, that these descendants of African slaves inhabit?
If you cannot identify these African slave descendants and the country that they inhabit and the language, culture and religious practices of their enslavers, then as Cheikh Anta Diop states?.
?The Arab conquests dear to sociologists are necessary to their theories but did not exist in reality. To this day NO reliable historical documents substantiate such theories?
-
Assalaam Alaikum @progod
Wa 'alaikumus-salaamu,
Thank you for your response.
@Progod, 'Iraqis' and 'Palestinians' are NOT 'Arabs'....by lineage or bloodline
I agree with you generally but that is not 100 percent true. Some of them are Arabs by bloodline. Just as some sudanese are Arabs by blood line as well, although they can be associated with other African tribes in their matrilineal lines. But i don't find any issues with that statement, outside of Arabia proper most "Arabs" are really Arabicized ethnicities that existed in those areas before the Arabs invaded them.
Iraqi's can be traced back to Chaeldeans, who enslaved everyone, and by the way they were 'black'.
Again, this is not true for all Iraqis and by the 800's AD they were already mixed enough to not be considered black anymore, like the Egyptians, who started off black but ended up not so black. But there were African slaves brought in while Iraq was under Arab rule, as well as the Black palestinians in the video who were brought from Sudan and ethiopia in the 1800's. So the ruling Arabs had those blacks brought into the Palestinian and Iraqi territories.
Reference 'Slavery In Babylonia' by Dandadev
http//palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php
The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.
'Palestinian' is also a 'mandated' term derived from the 'British Mandate of Palestine'
A "Palestinian" can mean a person who is born in the geographical area known prior to 1918 as "Palestine", or a former citizen of the British Mandate territory called Palestine, or an institution related to either of these. Using this definition, both Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews were called "Palestinians".
Thanks for the definition of Palestine, although it wasn't really necessasry. Actually much of Palestine was co-ruled by the Ghassanid Arab tribes when the Byzantines were in power pre-Islamically. The Arabs were not the dominant peoples in numbers but Arabs had settled in that area pre-Islam. The same goes for southern Iraq and the Lakhmid Arab tribes.
@Progod, Thus If you are correct, then those descendants of enslaved Africans in Iraq and Palestine were NOT enslaved by 'Arabs' but by arabic speaking descendants of Chaeldeans and Philistines who were NOT only 'Arabs', they were also NOT 'Muslims' either.
Again they were brought in the by the ruling Arab classes of the Arab/Islamic empires. The Umayyad and the following Arab empires.
Progod, to mention some Saudi, as black, implying and suggesting that he descends from African slaves is an assumption at best.
That's true and I wasn't assuming that although i can admit it sounds like that. However there are plenty of examples of Africans being brought to Saudi Arabia as slaves. But as I said there are also native black Arabs like the Mahra who were never brought into Arabia as slaves but are natives. They are in even greater numbers on the island of Soqotra which is also apart of Yemen. I even provided an Al-Jazeerah special on them on youtube.
A good website on the topic of Arab slavery is http//www.arabslavetrade.com/
EVERY BLACK human being does NOT descend from enslavement or oppression! Its amusing how people believe that the only way black people populated the earth is through enslavement and oppression. Grin
Of course. You are perfectly right, I am not sayng that that is the only way black people got to most places that they are now in the world. I believe that different blacks (Congoid, Capoid, Veddoid, Australoid, Melanesiod, Negritoid and the typical Bangladeshi/Dravidian blacks) who all originally came from a single stock of blacks, but diverged into subgroups of the black race ruled all of Africa, Arabia, and southern and southeast Asia in very ancient times and eventually mixed in with Caucasian and Asiatic invaders from the North giving us the general mixed looking populations of North Africa, Arabia and South and Southeast Asia. Mansa Musa of Mali sent Africans to the Americas before Columbus as a matter of fact. But the fact that Africans were again brought to the middle east and the Indian Subcontinent (and the Americas) through slavery is a fact, although it is completely wrong and ludicrous to make equal the Arab involvement in the trading of African slaves with the European involvement. But as the website clarifies the amount of Africans coming from Africa to Arab territories as slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries caused the word 'abd itself to be equated with blacks. Whereas the word mamluk has pretty much dissapeared from everyday usage of colloquial Arabics. The one thing that I will say was horrid about Arab slavery was the practice of making Eunuchs. Although if they survived they lived lavishly and in high positions afterwards, that is the most inhumane thing you can do to a man, without anesthesia.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Assalaam Aalaikum
You lost me, Chaeldeans nor Palestinians are 'Arabs' by any way shape of form. You seem to be confusing merchant and immigration patterns with some perceived idea that Africans were brought 'en'masse' as slaves to Iraq and Palestine.
Im still confused as to where these invasions of 'Arabs' occurred in Africa, without any documented account of any Arab invasions in Africa, then somehow returning to Iraq and Palestine, again without any documented account of these slaves imported from Africa.
Progod, with all due respect, much of what you have stated regarding Iraqi and Palestinian African slaves cannot and has not been supported by any accountable documentation.
-
If the below is what you think I said then it's no wonder your confused, because I didn't say that at all. As for Palestine and southern Iraq, not only were Arab tribes in these areas pre-Islam, the post-Islamic Arabs who came to fully rule the areas were the ones who brought in African slaves (as well as slaves from other ethnicities and races). So I agree with you that the majority of the population in Palestine and southern Iraq were not Arab, but it was the Arabs who came to rule these areas that brought in the slaves. Again those slaves came from Africa, Europe and Asia, but there most definitely were slaves from East Africa. It was the AFrican slaves from the Zanzibar called the Zanj who led the Basrah revolt in the 800's and ruled Basrah and the surrounding area for a number of years.
Iraqis and Palestinians are now Arabs mainly because of the fact that they have been Arabized. But Arab patrilineal heritage makes you Arab as well. Which is the main reason why Arab has never been and never will be a race. Because your matrinlineal line could be composed of races from around the world but if you have an Arab in your patrilineal line and you are apart of a society that speaks Arabic or some evolved colloquial Arabic dialect then you are an Arab, whether your matrilineal line was chaldean, philstine, nubian, berber or all of those combined. Or you could have no tie to any tribal Arab but can effectively fake it until you make it like those people with names like Bukhari (from Bukhara in Tajikistan I believe) and Sijistani (from sijistan in persia). You get me now? ON the most part I agree with you I just beg to differ on some of the specifics.
As it concerns the invasions of Arabs. They invaded Iraq, Syria, Palestine, upper Jordan, Lebanon, Persia, western India, Egypt and north Africa. In all of these cases although there were battles the conditions favored the Arabs over the rulers at the time Persia, Byzantine and Rome. In many cases from what I know the Arabs actually had help from the natives in order to oust Byzantine, Rome and Persia from certain lands because they were cruel and crumbling empires. And it was only through forming alliances with other berbers that they were able to conquer North Africa and with Copts and other Nubians that they were able to conquer Egypt and Northern Sudan. And when I say conquer and invade I DON'T mean slaughter and replace. So I would say the only true Arab invasions of pure Arab might were limited to the middle East proper itself. Even to conquer the parts of india that they did they needed help from the local populations of persians. They also cooperated with Berber tribes to conquer Ghana in Mauritania/Senegal and even Spain was for the most part a Berber invasion with Arab co-leadership.
So I am not saying that the Arabs had a slave endeavor in Africa equal to that of the Europeans, not at all. And it is known to all that the Arabs traded in slaves from all the ethnicities available, even their own. All i am saying is that Arabs certainly did trade in African slaves, mainly on the east coast of Africa and remnants of the descendents of those African slaves can still be found in the territories that the Arabs ruled (even if they weren't the majority of the population, or the native population). Also the linguistic remnant of Black African slavery being a significant phenomona in Arabized territories in the Middle East atleast after the 1800's after the Portugese became active on the East Coast of Africa (and incidently with the onset of European Colonization), as well as in North Africa is the use of the word 'abid. But in Basrah and Palestine Arabs were present in significant numbers since before Islam. The Ghassanids and the Lakhmids are proof of that. If you don't believe me you can look that up yourself, or we can just leave it at that.
A good deal (not all) of the Black presence in Baluchistan and the Sidis in India is also from this trading of East Coast Africans who were employed in Arab armies and settled in India and Baluchistan afterwards in significant numbers so that there are communities of them.
But please don't try to say that I am assuming that any black presence in the Middle East, North Africa and India and lower Persia is from slave trading. I DO NOT THINK THAT. But you can't ignore the fact that this is part of the reason for the persisting black presence in these areas, along with the malicious racism against Blacks brought to these areas by European colonists, which has impeded their mixing in with the non-black populations in a negative way. Note non-black here does not mean that they do not have Black admixture.
Godbless,
AnwarAssalaam Aalaikum
You lost me, Chaeldeans nor Palestinians are 'Arabs' by any way shape of form. You seem to be confusing merchant and immigration patterns with some perceived idea that Africans were brought 'en'masse' as slaves to Iraq and Palestine.
Im still confused as to where these invasions of 'Arabs' occurred in Africa, without any documented account of any Arab invasions in Africa, then somehow returning to Iraq and Palestine, again without any documented account of these slaves imported from Africa.
Progod, with all due respect, much of what you have stated regarding Iraqi and Palestinian African slaves cannot and has not been supported by any accountable documentation.