Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Islam's Black Slaves By Suzy Hansen
Although slavery seems like an institution from a barbaric and uncivilized past, it survives today in both Sudan and Mauritania. The horrific details of the Atlantic slave trade -- the ruthless slave traders who pillaged Africa, the millions of Africans who died on treacherous sea journeys to America, the resulting "peculiar institution" of cheap, brutalized labor that spawned the Civil War -- weigh heavily on the American conscience. Another slave trade, however, the Islamic one, remains a mysterious aspect in the history of the black diaspora. Fourteen centuries old, this version of slavery spread throughout Africa, the Middle East, Europe, India and China. It is the legacy of this trade that continues to ravage Sudan and Mauritania today.
South African-born Ronald Segal is the author of 13 books including "The Anguish of India," "The Americans" and "The Black Diaspora." In his latest book, "Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora," he offers one of the first historical accounts of the Islamic slave trade. Salon spoke with Segal by telephone from his home in London.
How did the Atlantic and Islamic slave trades differ?
The Atlantic slave trade exclusively used black slaves or agricultural labor on plantations. It started in a very small way in 1450 and ended in the middle of the 19th century. It was the basic labor supply for the plantations in the Americas since the indigenous people had been all but wiped out by a combination of imported diseases and forced labor. The number of slaves who landed alive in the Americas -- it was an important aspect in the development of capitalism, so the numbers are fairly accurate and organized by merchant banks and investors with stock market quotations -- was something like 10,600,000. Slaves became so cheap that it was more profitable to work them to death and buy new ones than to try to keep your labor supply alive. For example, some of the mortality rates in San Domingue -- which became, after the only successful slave revolution in history, Haiti -- were quite staggering.
Slaves in the Atlantic trade came to be kept and regarded as units of labor, not as people. This was almost formalized by categorizing slaves as "pieces of the Indies." A male slave, able-bodied and in the prime of his life, was defined as a "piece of the Indies," and the other slaves, the women and children, were defined as "pieces of pieces of the Indies." That gives you an idea of how the exploitation of African slaves was rationalized in the West.
But not in Islam?
The slave trade in Islam was seriously different. It began in the middle of the seventh century and survives today in Mauritania and Sudan. With the Islamic slave trade, we're talking of 14 centuries rather than four.
Whereas the gender ratio of slaves in the Atlantic trade was two males to every female, in the Islamic trade, it was two females to every male. Very large numbers of slaves were used for domestic purposes. Concubinage was for those who could afford it and there was no disrepute attached to having women as sexual objects. In fact, they married them. Some harems could be enormous. One ruler had 14,000 concubines. In one respect, women slaves were a status symbol. I hate to say it this way, but it's comparable to the way people in the West collect motorcars.
The male slaves were used for the more exacting physical jobs in homes and palaces: porters, messengers, doorkeepers. In various places, from Islamic Spain to Egypt to Libya, there were black slaves used as soldiers. In Morocco, there was a whole generation of black slaves who became the army of Morocco, in which the young boys were bought at the age of 10 or 11 and trained in horse handling and military skills of various kinds. Young female slaves were instructed in household crafts and were then provided with resources to buy a home and get married.
What about eunuchs?
Strictly speaking, in Islam, castration was against the law. I don't think it was in the Koran, I think it was a hadith -- a saying attributed to the prophets -- which says he who castrates a slave will himself be castrated. But they got around this as people do. One contrivance was to buy already castrated slaves. Another was to employ those who were not Muslims to perform the operation. But then even these contrivances came to be abandoned and dealers would perform the operation themselves along the route. The mortality rates were absolutely huge.
FYI.
the millions of Africans who died on treacherous sea journeys to America
Um, sorry, but hasn't this silly myth been debunked? Shouldn't these read "thousands"? Hasn't it been figured out that "millions" of slaves would've taken hundreds of years to transport, and so "millions dead" is an impossible number to have occurred?
Or am I not seeing some new piece of data that has come to light?
You know numbers are not really important in terms of accuracy...their importance lies (nice double entendre) in their impact!-)
Agreed. It's the Islamic angle that interests me.
"The institution of slavery is sanctioned in the Koran. To say that the Koran is in any way opposed to the institution of slavery would be wrong. It is never recommended, but it is influentially and explicitly benevolent in its attitude to the poor, the orphaned and slaves. And there is a specific injunction that to free a slave is an act of piety, which has its due reward in the other life."
The institution of slavery is sanctioned in the Koran.
Er, well, it's sanctioned in the Bible, too.
Islam (previously known as mohammadism) spread fundamentaly by war and conquest... it became a world religion by subjugating people and forcing them to either convert or die... it wasn't a matter of subtle coercion, it wasn't a matter of a fringe group doing this, it was the planned spread systematically throughout the world during mohammeds life by him in this way.... Why would anyone be shocked that a religion that had this at its core would be behaving in any other way today?
Good article. Herein is the perpetual lie of Islam and its false history of beneficience to its conquered peoples. Indeed, Islam has not learned from its Jihadic and hegemonic past and it has not learned from the hegemonic past of Christendom. That's because the Koran does not condition the Jihad and the subjugation of peoples. It is a prescriptive element in the Koran.
how is this different than Christianity... the crusades, the inquisition...?
"Jihad" as defined in the Qu'ran, does not mean what many in the West mistakenly think it to mean.
It means a "struggle against self." True, some extremists may have bent and twisted its meaning in very recent years to mean something different, but that is what it has meant for the thousands of years of the Qu'ran's existence.
Sorry that you are so blindly and hatefully prejudiced against hundreds of millions of people because of the rash and desperate acts of a relative handful.
It is hardly a handfull,that is the problem.
Why would anyone be shocked that a religion that had this at its core would be behaving in any other way today?
Noone that knows the history is shocked. That is what the difference is...those that know the history, and those that don't.
In Islam the children of the "master" and his slave woman were full brothers and sisters to his other children with a claim on the father and all rights under law. That changes the status of the mother considerably. In that way it differs from the practice of slavery in the US and slavery under Judiasm.
Hamilton, why don't you read the history of Spain under the 900 years of domination by the Moors? You will discover that you are absolutely wrong in your assumptions.
Ahhh, don't want to bring this up, but what about reparations?
The inquisition and the crusades were not the birthplace of Christianity. Jesus himself did not spread his teachings through war... while there were followers down the line who did indeed engage in holy wars, the founder of the religion himself did not use or advocate violence for its dissemination... The crusades did not happen till 14-15 centuries after the founding of the religion, the inquisition as well.
Islam was spread from day one by the religions founder through war and death, he condoned it and engaged directly in it. He believe he was ordained by allah to convert the world and slaughter the heathens... and did so.
You are attempting to equate apples and oranges.
Why don't you go research the biography and life of Mohammed and you will see indeed that I am right.
...brutalized labor that spawned the Civil War
Excuse me, Ms. Hansen, but where did you get your education, K-mart? The War of Northern Agression was not spawned over slavery.
Another myth is this quote,"Was America so economically powerful because it exploited its cheap slave labor more brutally than any other leading empire -- such as the Ottoman?". The America that received slaves from 1610 to 1810 when the slave trade was at its zenith, was South America and the Caribbean. Of the 10 million slaves exported in those 200 years, 20% didn't make it. That's 2 million. 50% went to South America, 42% went to the Caribbean, and only between 5 & 7% went to Norh America. If slavery was such a great economic deal, why are the two places were most of them ended up in the New World, so poor?
If you look at the populations of the US and the rest of the Americas, the brutality here yielded a much more numerous black population from fewer forced immigrants. Would they have thrived better back in West Africa?
Mohammed was dead before 700 AD..
If slavery was such a great economic deal, why are the two places were most of them ended up in the New World, so poor?
And, in fact, aside from about 3,000 or so slaveholders in the South who did end up with a "pretty penny" or so to spare, slavery was pretty much a bust for the average Southerner as well.
Perhaps one reason is that "cheap labor" of that sort leads to a very depressed non-slave underclass. Without honest labor to ennoble the humble worker, and provide him a way to make his start in life, there's not much to aspire to.
The biggest dream of the young man NOT of the leisure classes in the South, was to somehow get himself a slave or two. That was the only way he could "be somebody" in that semi-feudal society.
Sorry, but relatively speaking, it is. The number of "extremist" muslims who want to die for Allah and glory is very small compared to the nearly 2 Billion who practice that religion.
In fact, if Islam REALLY wanted to put the world to the sword, right now, they could do it with sheer numbers alone.
I simply hate to see us smug Americans wallowing in our bigotry regarding the nature of Islam. It is a noble religion with a noble history.
That a few people have managed to twist it to nefarious ends does not negate that, any more than the Inquisition is the summum bonum of Christianity.
FYI
From the Seventh Century A.D. until the late Fifteenth, the Jews of Spain were among the wealthiest, most industrious and enlightened people on Earth.
Suddenly, it all ended in blood and fire for them.
What happened?
Ferdinand and Isabela ejected the Moors from Spain, the Roman Catholic Church became the state religion, and the Jews were put to the Inquisition, and decimated.
Thousands were forced to convert to Christianity or die.
Ultimately, only a handful were allowed to remain and continue to observe their religion, only because Isabela saw that they would be needed as money-lenders to finance Spanish expansionism, and at that time the Church forbade any Christian to lend money at interest.
So, who is it that is "enlightened", again?
Man, you haven't been here long, have you?
That point has been proven, without doubt, until "stand watie" and the others you're calling to your aid can do nothing but sputter "lies!" and "traitor!"
Yes, the South seceded over slavery, and the Civil War was fought over secession.
Sorry, back to the classroom for you.
LOL.. The history of Spain and Portugal would suprise those who haven't done their homework. Under the Moors the Jews did thrive and prosper.. enough so that when they fled under the Catholic Inquisition many were able to invest in stock in the new Dutch West Indies Company that set about developing sugar plantations in what is now called Brazil.
What were the number of executions when the Muslims came to power in Iran? How many people were exiled from Kuwait after the Gulf war. How many Jews were expelled from Muslim countries in 1948?
The answers: 30,000 executed, 750,000 exiled, and over 1,000,000 expelled.
Yes, and your point being? Are you trying to insunate because he died before 700AD that what he historically did to spread his religion is irrellevant?
I find it personally inexplicable that the adhesion to Islam within the Black Muslim movement is apparently indifferent to the survival of black slavery within Islam.
Maybe Louis Farakkkhan is a UFO nut who doesn't really care about anyone who isn't a Muslim.
Stop lying. You know nothing about the Jihad in your little sanitized version. Here read up and quit bugging me with your phony "take" on Islam:
Jihad, the Arab Conquests and the
Position of Non-Muslim Subjects
Apologists of Islam still insist on perpetuating the myth of an
Islam which accorded equality to her non-Muslim subjects, they
talk of a time when all the various religious communities lived in
perfect harmony in the Islamic lands. The same apologists
minimize, or even excuse, the persecution, the discrimination, the
forced conversions, the massacres, the destruction of the
churches, synagogues, fire temples and other places of worship.
This rosy but totally false picture of Islam is also built up by
(1) ignoring the destruction and the massacres
during the actual process of the Arab conquests;
(2) by concentrating almost exclusively on the fate
of Jews and Christians, and consequently
dismissing the fate of idolaters (are they not
human?), Zoroastrians, Hindus and Buddhists
(3) by relying on Muslim sources, as though they
are bound to be less biased!
(4) by ignoring, or excusing the appalling behaviour
of the Prophet towards the Jews;
(5) by ignoring the intolerant, hostile, anti- Jewish,
anti-Christian, and above all, anti-pagan sentiments
expressed in the Koran which were the source of
much intolerant, fanatical and violent behaviour
throughout the history of Islam against all
non-Muslims.
EARLY ATTITUDES: Muhammad and the Koran
The Koran has been divided into early and late Suras, the
Meccan and Medinan Suras respectively. Most of the tolerant
sentiments of Muhammad are to be found in the early, Meccan
Suras:
cix "Recite: O Unbelievers, I worship not what you
worship, and you do not worship what I worship. I
shall never worship what you worship. Neither will
you worship what I worship. To you your religion,
to me my religion l.45 "We well know what the
infidels say: but you are not to compel them."
xliii. 88,89 "And [Muhammad] says, "O Lord,
these are people who do not believe." Bear with
them and wish them 'Peace '. In the end they shall
know their folly."
The exceptions are to be found in Sura ii, which is usually
considered Medinan i.e. late:
ii.256 "There is no compulsion in religion";
ii.62"Those who believe [i.e.Muslims] and those
who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Christians
and the Sabians, and who believe in God and the
Last Day and work righteousness, shall have their
reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear,
nor shall they grieve."
Unfortunately, as he gained in confidence and increased his
political and military power, Muhammad turned from being a
"persuader to being a legislator and warrior, dictating
obedience." The Medinan chapters such as Suras ix, v, iv, xxii,
xlvii, viii, and ii reveal Muhammad at his most belligerent,
dogmatic and intolerant.
Muslim theologians are unanimous in declaring that no religious
toleration was extended to the idolaters of Arabia at the time of
Muhammad. The only choice given them was death or the
acceptance of Islam. This total intolerance never seems to be
taken into consideration by the apologists of Islam when they lay
claims to Islamic tolerance. Unbelievers in general are shown no
mercy in the Koran which is full of lurid descriptions of the
punishments awaiting them. xxii.9:"As for the unbelievers for
them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over
their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels
and skins shall be dissolved and they will be punished with
hooked iron- rods. The Koran also enjoins all Muslims to fight
and kill non-believers: xlvii.4: "When you meet the unbelievers,
strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter
among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives."
CHRISTIANS AND JEWS IN THE KORAN
Christians are marginally better regarded than the Jews, but the
Koran still accuses them of falsifying the scriptures.
v.75:" They surely are infidels who say, "God is the
third of three"; for there is but one God; and if they
do not refrain from what they say, a severe
punishment shall light on those who are
unbelievers."
They are also accused of worshipping Jesus as the son of God,
and like the Jews, they have been led astray and must be brought
back to the true religion, that is, Islam.
According to the Koran, Jews have intense hatred of all true
Muslims, and as a punishments for their sins, some of them had,
in the past, been changed into apes and swine (Sura v.63), and
others will have their hands tied to their necks and be cast into
the Fire on Judgment day. The attitude enjoined upon the
Muslims towards the Jews can only be described as
anti-Semitic, and certainly was not conducive to a better
understanding, tolerance or co- existence.
v.51: Believers, do not take Jews or Christians as
friends They are but one another's friends. If
anyone of you takes them for his friends, then he is
surely one of them. God will not guide evil-doers."
v.56_64: O Believers, do not take as your friends
the infidels or those who received the Scriptures
before you [Jews and Christians] and who scoff
and jest at your religion, but fear God if you are
believers. Nor those who when you call them to
Institute for the Secularisation of Islaic Society
JIHAD - PAST AND PRESENT
The word Jihad comes from the Arabic word jahada, which as Lane in his celebrated Arabic –English Lexicon points out, means "He strove, laboured, or toiled; exerted himself or his power or efforts or endeavours or ability" Jihad, continues Lane, "properly signifies using or exerting, one's utmost power, efforts, endeavours, or ability, in contending with an object of disapprobation, and this of three kinds, namely, a visible enemy, the devil, and one’s self; all of which are included in the Koran sura xxii.78. …Jihad came to be used by the Muslims to signify generally he fought, warred, or waged war, against unbelievers and the like ."[1] [Emphasis added]
As Tyan in his article in the EI˛ (Djihad, I.538 ff.) makes clear, "in law, according to general doctrine and in historical tradition, the jihad consists of military action with the object of the expansion of Islam and, if need be, of its defence"[emphasis added]. Tyan expressly rules out the thesis of a wholly apologetic character, according to which Islam relies on peaceful expansion, and that jihad is only authorized in cases of self-defence. This thesis ignores entirely the doctrines developed by Muslim theologians, the historical tradition, as well as texts of the Koran and sunna. Another scholar, Rudolph Peters [2], also emphasizes that Classical Muslim Koran interpretation regarded the Sword Verses of the Koran (see below), with uncoditional command to fight the unbelievers,as having abrogated all previous verses concerning relations with non-Muslims.
Koran VIII.60
Here are some hadith from Bukhari, Muslim and other traditionists:
Bukhari [3] LI.1: "Verily Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for theirs (in return) is Paradise.They fight in His cause, so they kill (others) and are killed…"[using forms of the verb " qatala" = to kill]
Bukhari:[4] LI.2 "Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah’s Messenger saying, "The example of a Mujahid in Allah’s cause – and Allah knows better who really strives in His cause – is like a person who fasts and prays continuously.Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty."
Bukhari: [5] LI. 6 Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, ‘Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah …would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom,would like to come back to the world and get killed again."
Bukhari: [6] LI.22.Narrated Al-Mughira bin Shu’ba:: Our Prophet told us about the message of our Lord that "… whoever amongst us is killed will go to Paradise" ‘Umar asked the Prophet, ‘Is it not true that our men who are killed will go to Paradise and theirs will go to the fire?’ The Prophet said ‘Yes ’.
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Abi Aufa, Allah’s Messenger said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords." [meaning « under the protection of swords."]
Bukhari: [7] Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger said, "Allah welcomes two men with a smile; one whom kills the other and both of them enter Paradise. One fights in Allah’s cause and gets killed. Later on Allah forgives the killer who also gets martyred (in Allah’s cause)."
Bukhari [8]: Narrated as-Sa’b bin Jaththama: The Prophet passed by me at a place called al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They are from them." [i.e. the women and children are also pagans, hence it is permissible to kill them. However there are other hadith which do forbid the killing of women and children.]
Even a cursory glance at the chapter on Jihad (Vol.IV, pp. 34-199) in Bukhari is enough to show that real battles, deaths, wounds, horses, swords, arrows, prisoners of war, looting, booty, burning and destruction are being referred to. Hadith after hadith recount in horrible details as to how the Jihad against infidels was to be carried out; no they do not talk of metaphorical battles, or allegorical, spiritual struggles, but bloody war.
Sunan Abu Dawud,[9] Kitab al –Jihad:
(2632) Ayas b.Salamah reported on the authority of his father: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed Abu Bakr our commander and we fought with some people who were polytheists, and we attacked them at night, killing them. Our war-cry that night was ‘ put to death; put to death’. Salamah said: "I killed that night with my hand polytheists belonging to seven houses." (2664) Samurah b. Jundub reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: « Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children."[10] Sahih Muslim [11] (4292); The Messenger of Allah made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water.He killed those who fought and imprisoned the others.
Sahih Muslim: (4294) If they (the enemy) refuse to accept Islam, demand from the Jizya; If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.
Averroes [12]: "Scholars agree that jihad is collective not a personal obligation.... According to the majority of scholars, the compulsory nature of the jihad is founded on sura 2:216 ‘Prescribed for you is fighting, though it be hateful to you.’ … Scholars agree that al polytheists should be fought. This is founded on sura 8:39 ‘Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely."
Averroes: Par. 3. The Damage Allowed to be inflicted Upon the Different Categories of Enemies. Damage inflicted upon the enemy may consist in damage to his property, injury to his person or violation of his personal liberty, i.e. that he is made a slave and is appropriated. This may be done, according to the Consensus (ijma') to all polytheists: men, women, young and old, important and unimportant. Only with regard to monks do opinions vary; for some take it that they must be left in peace and that they must not be captured, but allowed to go unscathed and that they may not be enslaved. In support of their opinion they bring forward the words of the Prophet: 'Leave them in peace and also that to which they have dedicated them-selves, as well as the practice of Abu Bakr.
Most scholars are agreed that, in his dealings with captives, various policies are open to the Imam [head of the Islamic state, caliph]. He may pardon them, enslave them, kill them, or release them either on ransom or as dhimmi [non-Moslem subject of the Islamic state], in which latter case the released captive is obliged to pay poll-tax (jizya). Some scholars, however, have taught that captives may never be slain. According to al-Hasan Ibn Muhammad al-Tarri-1m71,11 this was even the Consensus ijma‘of the Sahaba [contemporaries of Mohammed that have known him]. This controversy has arisen because, firstly, the Koran-verses contradict each other in this respect; secondly, practice [of the Prophet and the first caliphs] was inconsistent; and lastly, the obvious interpretation of the Koran is at variance with the Prophet's deeds. The obvious interpretation of [47:41: 'When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds" is that the Imam is only entitled to pardon captives or to release them on ransom. On the other hand, 18:671: 'It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter in the land, as well as the occasion when this verse was revealed [viz. the captives of Badr] would go to prove that it is better to slay captives than to enslave them. The Prophet himself would in some cases slay captives outside the field of battle, while he would pardon them in others. Women he used to enslave. Abu Ubayd has related that the Prophet never enslaved male Arabs.
Ibn Khaldun [13]: In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody either by persuasion or by force.
The totalitarian nature of Islam is no where more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth - there is no possibility of salvation outside it. It is the sacred duty - an incumbent religious duty established in the Koran and the Traditions - of all Muslims to bring it to all humanity. Jihad is a divine institution, enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam. Muslims must strive, fight and kill in the name of God:
Here is a sight from Hindus. They know all about the brutality of Islam. Put away your elementary school education.
Anwar Shaikh: What is Islam all about?
What isISLAMall about? |
| Islam
is
the most violent and intolerant faith that has ever been presented to
mankind.
Those,
who hold this view usually quote, The Disputer, LVIII: 20, which
declares
that non-Muslims are Satan's party but the Muslims are God's party.
Thus,
it is the most sacred duty of the Muslims to annihilate the non-Muslims
or at least reduce them to the status of
tributaries.
On the contrary, the enlightened Muslims protest against this non-Muslim attitude: they quote Sufism to prove that Islam is an international ambassador of love. Of course, there is some truth in it, but who deserves the credit - Islam or Hinduism? Basing his judgement on the historical and scriptural evidence, Anwar Shaikh concludes that what is called Sufism or Tasawwuf, collides with the basic principles of Islam, but it does conform to the Vedic doctrines. Therefore, Sufism, broadly speaking, is an offshoot of Hindutva. Then, why is it considered an extension or Islam? Mysticism or Sufism is an international faith, which is deeply rooted in the vedic philosophy. It is a pity that the people of India have forgotten all about their ancestral glory. |
|
|
CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 11 | Top | Last ]
Lent, I ask you again to please lead the fight to keep these heinous Muslims out of our country (the United States). You have proven their evilness. Will you please lead this righteous fight? We must keep them from coming in, and must get those who are here out, before it is too late. I'm begging you. Your (?) country needs you.
Tell us what happened to the Jews in Granada in the 11th century. Tell us about the Jews under the Ottoman Empire. It became very bad indeed for them. The canard here though is to suggest the Jews did better under Islam than Christendom. The fact of the matter, is that the Jews alternatively did well (as long as they were good little dhimmis) and did very poorly. For example under Murad III (1574-95) he enforced the discriminatory regulations against the Jews and threatened to slaughter them, eventually extorting a bribe out of them. By then end of the 18th century the Jews were impoverished and holding services in private homes in the Ottoman Empire and the Islamic states.
Here is the point though. Modern day Islam has not learned from the hegemonic sins of Christendom nor from its own sins. It continues, in many places, to perpetuate its oppressive religious practices.
Nice bit of research.
Fight on AM, fight on. As long as the oppressed are not shut out. This one thing I'll say. In Southern France the mosques now outnumber the churches and there has been an increase of attacks on Jewish synagogues. And guess what? The attacks are not by white supremacists.
Well, I knew you'd do it. So will you be writing your congressmen that for the good of the U.S. Islamic immigration must stop? And that something must be done about the Islam Problem before it is too late? This might entail deportations of current Islamic populations before the US succumbs to the problems you have so diligently researched. Again, I claim to know little about Islam and am basing my conclusions upon your work.
Not sanctioned, merely mentioned as existing.