Talk:History of slavery in the Muslim world/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Moreau de Charbonneau?

I moved the French WP reference to "Moreau de Charbonneau" to the talk page because I couldn't find this author or his book in library catalogues - e.g. the French National Library and catalogue collectif de France. (Moreau de Charbonneau, administrateur et explorateur français du Sénégal au XVIIe siècle: De l'origine des Nègres d'Afrique)--HJMG 06:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote "A negro steals when he is hungry....etc.." is in fact a forged hadith which has been dismissed by all hadith experts as false.

The full quotation of the hadith and why it is a forgery can be found in the book "An introduction to the science of hadith" by Suhaib Hasan.

English version of map

Hoping someone can make an English-language version of the map. Here are the words.

(Title)
Africa in the 13th century (or: 13th century Africa)

(In box)

• Hafsid Caliphate
• Ethiopia
• Arab slave trading posts
• Great Zimbabwe

• 1 Merinids
• 2 Abd El-Ouad

(On map - from bottom)

• San
• Khoi
• Feti
• Zanzibar
• Kitara
• Tundjur
• Aloa
• Kanem
• Tuareg
• Mali Empire
• Yemen
• Arabs
• Persia
• Mameluk

Ideally, perhaps Tundjur and Yemen could be a little bit easier to read? Many thanks to anyone who can take this on. --HJMG 07:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a fair representation of Islam and slavery

ibn Khaldun was ONE man, one arab, his viewpoint did not reflect upon all arab society at the time, and certainly not upon the view islam had on slavery,

Ibn Khaldun wrote racist things about arabs themselves, calling them savages and lazy (albeit the nomads), and he WaS an arab! He seems like a racist at heart, talking about blacks that way, and also his own people (the arab nomads- bedouin). So it is not fair to say arab society had the same viewpoint, the Quran specifically says all men were created equal in the eyes of god, see "religion and slaverY" article to see the true views islam had on slavery (which encouraged emancipation, good treatment etc.)

===>Okay... Just because he was a racist, that doesn't mean he was wrong about historical fact. This article is not about hypothetical or philosophical justifications for slavery or abolition in Islam; it is about the historical facts of Islam converging with African slavery. If you have an actual objection to the facts of the article, feel free to state them. There is no doubt that Islam has been used as an ideology to oppress people (and still is today) including slavery. -Justin (koavf), talk 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is simply a translation of the French original fr:Traite Musulmane. The French article has obtained this year the status of "articles de qualité", alias "good article", passing through a votation that collected 0 - yes 0 - votes against the propsal of conferring the status [1]. So only because an anon. editor doesn't like the article I won't let the tag remain.--Aldux 15:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh so you agree with Ibn Khaldun? You are a racist as well, calling his words FACT? - anyone could have written anything at the time and referred to it as historical fact.. Prove that all of the vast arab/islamic empires and people held the same racist viewpoints (which they did not, as they are completely contrary to what is in the Quran and taught by the prophet Muhammad), and then call your words FACT. The viewpoint Islam had on slavery, and the teachings Muhammad gave regarding slavery called for gracious treatment of all slaves, by far surpassing previous Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism) in setting forth an example for the just treatment of slaves. Justin (koavf)- Already you are creating a stir by talking like that, saying no doubt Islam has been used as an ideology to oppress people, which is only YOUR view, similar to those of Ibn Khaldun being just that, HIS view. What about Christianity and Judaism? The KKK call themselves christian, do their views not call for oppression (of blacks and other minorities). Justin your statements are subjective.

===>Whoa, Nelly Okay, let's think for a second. This article isn't Racism in Arab culture or Racism in Islam, so racist views are not directly relevant (although there is clear Arab anti-Semitism.) I'm not going to prove that, can't, and don't care to. You admit that Islam provides for and enculturates slavery - Christianity doesn't, and the historical origins of Christianity prove that slaves were treated well and freed by Christian masters, and that they didn't buy further slaves after conversion. All of this is also irrelevant, though, since the article isn't Christian slave trade or Jewish slave trade. Whether or not the KKK is Christian is totally irrelevant to this article. Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm not arguing for Christian supremacy, just the existence of an Islamic slave trade. -Justin (koavf), talk 12:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No.1 - The Atlantic slave trade - CHRISTIANS? were they not? english, americans, spaniards . . .clearly no one can deny that No.2 - what has arab anti-semitism got to do with the Islamic slave trade? thought you'd just throw it in there i guess, ok then. . . No.3 - no doubt, there was Islamic slave trade, i am not disputing that, but what do the narrow-minded views of one racist arab historian (Ibn Khaldun) have to do with the vast Islamic slave trade spanning Africa (including islamic africans, non-islamic africans, arabs, berbers, persians, indians, turks and other people from the caucuses/balkans, even chinese?, etc.)

===>Pointless

1. Here is what I am not saying "No Christians have ever had slaves" and "Christianity has never been used as a pretext for slavery." Here is what I am saying "There is no justification in word or deed from first-century Christian communities for owning or selling slaves" and furthermore, the New Testament does not give you guidelines on how to own slaves. Lastly, Christian slave trade is irrelevant to this article. You brought it up for some reason.
2. You brought up Arab racism, not me. To quote "prove that all of the vast arab/islamic empires and people held the same racist viewpoints." You also alleged racism on my part, which is baseless.
3. The "narrow-minded views of one racist arab (sic) historian" are relevant, as they are primary sources. That's simple to understand - he was there, and he wrote it down. -Justin (koavf), talk 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

---

> Firstly - regarding arab "anti-semitism", arabs are semitic, so arab anti-semitism is the most stupid thing i've ever heard, Jews are not the only semitic people in the world, so the biggest "anti-semitism" going on in the world right now is that of Israel against the Palestinian peoples. Also, arabs are an ethnic group, not a religious one. So linking Arab "anti-semitism" with Islamic anti-semitism is wrong! There are numerous populations of arab christians, arab jews, arab gypsies, and arab muslims.

Furthermore, there are far more cases of Christian anti-semitism (with regards to Jews) than those of arab-so called "anti-semitism". Russian pogroms, european "ghettos" for Jews only (although these existed in the Islamic world aswell), and who could forget Hitler and his Nazis!. The only arab-"anti semitism" going on is from 1948, with regards to the formation of the (illegal) state of Israel. Christian anti-semtism on the other hand goes back a long, long time. At the end of the day, ask any Jewish scholar and he will tell you that the Jews were treated much better under arab/islamic rule than under christian rule (not include times after the 1948 formation of Israel). Also if you wanted to include the crusades as being part of "anti-semitism" then those would count aswell, as Christian anti-semitism against arabs and other muslims.

And yes I did say that - Prove that all of the vast arab/islamic empires and people held the same racist viewpoints (which they did not, as they are completely contrary to what is in the Quran and taught by the prophet Muhammad), and you did not prove it, because you can't prove it, because it did not happen! History, like life, is not black and white, you can't make claims like that, especially since those views are completely contrary to what is written in their holy book - the Quran.

You wrote - "There is no justification in word or deed from first-century Christian communities for owning or selling slaves" and furthermore, the New Testament does not give you guidelines on how to own slaves.

Is it worse to have guidelines for the just treatment of slaves, or to have people abuse their slaves because there are no guidelines (as happened with the Christian run Atlantic slave trade). Slavery was an ancient institution, going back even before Christianity, and i'm sure that it existed during the start (1st century) of the Christian era aswell as at its peak in Christian run areas. You need to show that there are no justifications in word or deed, and even if this was the case, it still doesn't mean that just because there was no justification slavery still did not happen. And whenever something is inconvenient for you, it is irrelevant huh?

Lastly, you called Ibn Khalduns words historical fact, which means his words were factual to you, which makes you a racist.

I am here, and I am writing down that you, -Justin (koavf), are a tool, does that make my words true? In 100 years time people read these articles will it make my words true, or fact? will it prove that you really are a tool? It is a primary source though right? I don't think you are a tool, but do you see what i'm getting at? Don't have such tunnel-vision.

===>Whatever. Explain how this makes sense:

1. ibn-Khaldun was an Arab who was racist against Arabs.
2. Arabs can't be "anti-Semites" since Arabs are Semites.
3. Jews, who are Semites, are the biggest anti-Semites.

What? And, again, you brought up racism. The intimate ties between Arab culture and the birth and growth of Islam in the Middle East and North Africa are obvious to anyone. You are the one who conflated the European trans-Atlantic slave trade with Christianity, and those two social groups (Europeans and Christians) have much less overlap than do Arabs and Mulsims.

Christian anti-Semitism is, still and again and forever totally irrelevant to this article. I do not care to debate with you just who has hated more Jews for longer; this article is not Christian versus Islamic anti-Semitism. Hitler was an avowed anti-Christian, however. It is certainly not the case that the only Arab anti-Semitism going on is from 1948 - as I recall it was Muhammad who drove the Jews out of Arabia with the mantra there there would be only one religion (his.) Again, this is totally irrelevant though. The Crusades were instigated by Muslims, who had themselves been conquerors of those same lands against Christians years prior. Again, totally irrelevant. There are also a million good reasons for a Jewish homeland, and the State of Israel is a more free, more democratic, and altogether better place to live than anywhere else in the Middle East and North Africa, especially if you are an ethnic or religious minority. But, this, too is totally irrelevant.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean "History, like life, is not black and white" - historical events either did or did not happen; black and white. Are you telling me that it is okay according to the Quran to slaughter blacks in Darfur or blow up innocent civilians in the World Trade Center? If not, are you saying that these people aren't Muslims? As you said, life isn't black and white - people use Islam and the Quran to perpetrate atrocities the world over (beheading Christian school children in Indonesia, for instance), and there is no doubt that Islamic regimes are hostile to people inside and outside of their borders. The amazing thing about all this is that it's totally irrelevant to this article. This is about historical events, and you aren't actually offering any proof that any of the claims made in the article are false; you're just offering apologies and invectives that have some tangental similarity to the article.

Again, not defending the Atlantic slave trade, not my point. But the Atlantic slave trade happened a millenium and a half after the founding of Christianity. Muhammad himself had and continued the practice of keeping slaves. Those are two entirely different mentalities - one precludes slavery altogether, the other protects, legitimizes, and enculturates it. This has nothing to do with things being difficult for me to prove, it has everything to do with the title of the article, namely "Islamic slave trade."

You, sir, are either ignorant or lying. I said " Just because he was a racist, that doesn't mean he was wrong about historical fact." And that is true. I have no idea what ibn Khaldun wrote. I do not know if it is true or not. What I said was regardless of the feelings he had in his heart about Arab peoples, he could still say that certain things occured in real life and be correct about recording those things. This is not a subtle distinction I am making.

The fact that you call me a tool does not mean that I am one (I might be, might not be), but it means that someone who is a contemporary of mine, living at the same time and having some actual interaction with me, thinks I am. That is what makes it a source. Not all sources provide true facts; they merely record what someone at that time thought about something that occured at that time. Do you understand the difference? I'm not saying that ibn Khaldun got everything right, or even that he got anything right. I am saying he was there at the time. To prove that his is not a primary source, you need to prove that he either 1.) was not alive at the time, 2.) did not witness the events he claimed he did, and/or 3.) that he added claims that are not factual in the middle of his factual account. You haven't done any of these things; you've just called him a racist. That might be true. I don't care. All I care about is the authenticiy of his writing as a primary source, and the reliability of the claims he made about events that transpired at the time. Are you actually understanding any of what I'm writing? -Justin (koavf), talk 15:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---------->

I did make a mistake with regards to Arab jews, i meant arab Israelis, or arab israeli citizens (make up approx 20% of population of Israel). Arab Israelis maybe Muslim, or Christian, Arab Jews on the other hand probably are no longer referred to as arab, but rather Mizrahi Jews or Teimanim (as opposed to European based Ashkenazi or spanish Sephardi jews etc.). Also, there are numerous populations of muslims in Europe aswell, (turkey, albania, bosnia et)but you must also recognise that there are numerous other religions other than Islam in theMiddle East (ie. Arab Christian, Jews, Zoroastrians etc.) who are protected by Islam as they are considered "People Of the book"

===>Nothing to do with anything What in the world are you talking about? How is any of this relevant to the Islamic slave trade? Are you familiar with Palestinians that shoot up children in nurseries, or blow up teenagers in discotheques? Or the Arab countries that systematically deny them citizenship or refugee status to keep them political pawns against the Israeli Jews?

I know that many Muslims are not Arab, and some Arabs are not Muslim. Maronites do not consider themselves Arabs; Palestinian Christians do. You're the one that said the Atlantic slave trade had some relation to Christians and Christianity.

Nazis killed Catholic priests that protected Jews, and imprisoned Christians of conscience like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Hitler and the Nazis were largely neo-pagans.

The Holy Lands were taken by Muslim conquerors, and the first crusade was agitated by Muslims.

Israel is free; freer than any other Middle Eastern country. Israel has religious minorities. Israel lives under a constant state of attack, in case you weren't aware. A hostile population of about 200 million surrounds them.

Okay, so Darfur is complex; I'm not saying it isn't. What I am saying is Muslims are using Islam as a pretense for killing people. The same thing happened at the World Trade Center. Are you telling me that is not the case? If you're implying that Jews and/or Israel somehow engineered the bombings in New York City, you're an anti-Semite.

As for people using Christianity as a pretense for perpetrating atrocities - OKAY. Not relevant. You brought up all these issues - racism, Israel, Christianity, and none of them has anything to do with the article, which is still entitled "Islamic slave trade." A trade of slaves by Muslims. Get it? Do you have anything to say about the content of this article? I'd like to see some of these Buddhists extremists that you claim exist.

As for the article, it is HISTORICAL FACT that he wrote that, isn't it? So, what's the dispute exactly? No one is saying that he represents all Arabs at all times. People are saying that he is indicative of a mood fostered in Arab, Islamic culture at the time. Had that mood not existed, an Arab slave trade in Negroes would not have existed. Ibn Khaldun may not speak for all, but he speaks for enough, as their complacence allowed (and continues to allow) the slave trade of blacks in North Africa.

As for those religous minorities protected as People of the Book, tell it to Abdul Rahman. -Justin (koavf), talk 00:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

------------------

Why do you think that arab countries deny them citizenship or refugee status? To harbor refugees is a responsibility, if they grant them citizenship, and some form of resistance to Israel breaks out inside these refugee camps (is very often the case) Israel sends its bombs and missiles straight over the border (just ask Lebanon, or Syria). So it is not because they do not want to, but their hands are tied. The neighbouring arab countries have their own issues, both with Israel and socio-economic ones, which makes harboring refugees difficult.

Give me a break, yes I’m aware of Palestinians who shoot children, this is wrong. But I am also aware of Israeli attitude of total domination towards the Palestinians, building walls separating families for essentially ever, controlling water supplies, electricity (basic needs of the people) and using these as punishment or reward for Palestinians, blowing up cars, houses, streets, shooting children who are only throwing rocks at their tanks.

Israel lives under a constant state of attack? What about Palestinians? The maximum damage that a suicide bomber can do is measly compared to the carnage a whole Israeli gunship or missile force can do, lets not kid ourselves. Honestly, we could go on forever about Israel and Palestine.

Examples of Buddhist extremism? – Look it up for yourself. Monks setting themselves onfire (self-immolation), either alone or in a large group with the intent of dying, many do, some are permanently disfigured. Buddhist attacks on churches in Sri Lanka, and many more instances.

Apostasy in Islam is a sensitive topic. Once again it is based on Hadith of Muhammed saying if a muslim abandons his faith – kill him. But Hadith is oral tradition and so his statements vary, the credibility of Hadith are also second to the Quran. The Quran is what encourages protection of people of the book. So religious minorities in a muslim country (like Christians, Jew) are protected and allowed freedom of worship as long as they do not try to convert others.

And since you are the one who brought up atrocities in Africa (Darfur), I will bring up Uganda and the atrocities of the Lords resistance army (a Christian organization). – who kidnap and rape children, use them as sex slaves, and force them to fight for them.

You wrote

“As for the article, it is HISTORICAL FACT that he wrote that, isn't it? So, what's the dispute exactly? No one is saying that he represents all Arabs at all times. People are saying that he is indicative of a mood fostered in Arab, Islamic culture at the time. Had that mood not existed, an Arab slave trade in Negroes would not have existed. Ibn Khaldun may not speak for all, but he speaks for enough, as their complacence allowed (and continues to allow) the slave trade of blacks in North Africa”

Indeed, Ibn Khalduns words do not speak for all arabs at all times, nor for all arabs at his time. In fact they speak for a very small minority of arabs at his time, and no Muslims would agree with him, not at those times, not now, as those views are, aside from being arrogant, narrow-minded and stupid, at odds with the very fabric of the religion of Islam.

You are talking about the slave trade as if Arabs were the first ones to introduce slavery to the world, and as if they only traded specifically in blacks. Ignoring the many Africans (non-Islamic and Islamic) who traded slaves amongst themselves and with other peoples, and the long, almost ancient history of slavery which goes back way before the birth of Islam. In addition the Islamic slave trade used black slaves, white slaves (eastern europeans) and involved a whole host of nations and peoples (see above discussions).

And no, that is exactly my point, Ibn Khaldun does not speak for nearly enough people, he was ONE man with his own world view that he happened to write down - a narrow-minded fool, relying on sterotypes to classify people – ie. Sterotype of arab nomads being savage, lazy, and blacks being animistic.

“their complacence allowed (and continues to allow) the slave trade of blacks in North Africa”

What double standards! What about the Christian Atlantic Slave trade??. What about the Christian Lords Resistance Army (above)?? who kidnap children and force them into fighting and sex, this is not slavery?? And to my knowledge there is no Islamic slave trade in North Africa anymore.

Also, you did not prove any of what you said about Christian slavery, you want to turn people away from Islam on the pretense that it is a racist ideology by a racist people. Well once AGAIN I will write, because it must be known, with regards to Islam and slavery – which is what this article is meant to be about –

Islam says all men were created equal under God, and should strive to submit to the will of God, not themselves. Islam calls for gracious and decent treatment of slaves, and encourages emancipation. Ask ANY Islamic scholar and he will tell you the same, as it is written explicitly in the Quran!

ALSO, in the article it says:

“Scholarly Muslims invoked the racial supremacy of white people, based on the story of Noah's curse in the Old Testament, and interpreted this passage (Genesis IX 20-27) to mean that black people were the accursed descendants of Canaan's father Ham, who had seen Noah naked. Blacks were thus considered "inferior" and "destined" to be slaves”

Whoever wrote this is a COMPLETE tool/idiot, the holy book of Islam is the Quran, not the Old testament where this passage about Noah is, so it is Christians who hold these racist views, not muslims (see Religion and Slavery article). Why would scholarly muslims read from the Old Testament, when the most recent revealed words of God, unchanged, had been passed to them in the form of the Quran. So all that crap about “"There is no justification in word or deed from first-century Christian communities for owning or selling slaves" is crap, and everytime I ask you to prove it you never do. CHRISTIANITY CONDONES SLAVERY. Islam encourages emancipation, and good treatment, Christianity may or may not, depends which part of the book really. In some part asking for complete submission of slaves to their master, even if he is cruel.

The Bible:

Ephesians 6:5-9:"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling,”

Peter 2:18 "18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19

===>I absolutely cannot believe this Do you see the title of this article? It's not entitled "Christian versus Islamic slavery," is it? Get over it.

Arab countries turn away Palestinians to use them as political pawns against Israel, and it's disgusting. They also helped cause the refugee crisis by telling them to run during the wars that Arab nations instigated against Israel. Israelis don't want to dominate Palestinians; they'd be happy to never see them again for the most part. They'd probably really like it if they stopped killing innocent people. And honestly, we can go on forever, and it's totally irrelevant to this article.

Apostasy in Islam is sensitive; so is getting killed for the contents of your mind. If someone tells you to kill people solely because of what they believe, that's pretty abominable. You claim that religious minorities in Muslim countries are protected and allowed to freely worship, but you and I both know that this is a total sham (see, for instance, Maldives, where non-Muslims aren't even allowed citizenship, or Indonesia, where school girls are decapitated for being Christians}.

“As for the article, it is HISTORICAL FACT that he wrote that, isn't it? So, what's the dispute exactly? No one is saying that he represents all Arabs at all times. People are saying that he is indicative of a mood fostered in Arab, Islamic culture at the time. Had that mood not existed, an Arab slave trade in Negroes would not have existed. Ibn Khaldun may not speak for all, but he speaks for enough, as their complacence allowed (and continues to allow) the slave trade of blacks in North Africa”

You wrote "[Ibn Khalduns words] speak for a very small minority of arabs at his time, and no Muslims would agree with him..." You don't know that. Did you do polling date on the attitude of Arabs from a few centuries back? That's totally impossible to prove.

I'm not "talking about the slave trade as if Arabs were the first ones to introduce slavery to the world, and as if they only traded specifically in blacks." What are you talking about? This article is about Arab slave trade in Northern Africa. Of course it will focus on Arabs enslaving blacks. This article is not Arab origins of all slavery over all the world. If you have some axe to grind about other slave trades, write about it in those articles.

"And to my knowledge there is no Islamic slave trade in North Africa anymore." You're willfully ignorant. Slavery#Slavery_in_North_Africa, Here's the first hit from Yahoo! on "slavery" "Sudan"

I don't have to prove anything to you. If you want to read about early Christians writing about slavery, see here. If you seriously want to discuss it, talk about it on my talk page. I want people to turn from Islam in as much as it promotes slavery and killing people for their peaceful convictions, I suppose.

The Scriptures from Ephesians and Peter are directed to the slaves and not the slave masters. The passages directed at slaves discouraged slave revolts, rather than condoning and enunciating how to properly engage the practice. If the Quran is directed to the slave masters and encourages their behavior, that is a different category of moral culpability. -Justin (koavf), talk 01:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

--------->again

1) Ibn Khaldun WAS an arab who was racist against arabs! Read the article on him on this Wikipedia, “on the arabs” section. His specific usage of the word “arab” was directed at the Bedouin nomads, who are arabs, he called them savages and lazy.

2) 2)Ok, that is true, both arabs and jews can be “anti-semites”, with regards to eachother, so the notion of arab anti-semitism is not that stupid, but it is equivalent with the notion of jewish or Israeli anti-semitism (against arabs).

3) Yes, Jews, who are semitic speaking peoples, are for now, the biggest anti-semites because of their persecutions and killing of the Palestinians, who are arab, who are semitic. OK?

Yes there are intimate ties between arab culture and the birth of Islam. The Quran, which has remained essentially unchanged since it was written, was written in Arabic. But you maybe surprised to know that only 18% of all the worlds muslims are arabs! The rest are either African, South asian (Indian, Pakistani etc.), Asian, Non-arab middle easterns (ie. Turks, Persians, kurds). It is funny that you call me ignorant, when you are the one ignoring the millions of arab Christians (in the middle east, ie. Lebanon – Maronites), arab jews (in Israel, yes they make up a good 20% of the population of Israel), and many more arab Christians in the middle east. It is also debatable that Christians and Europeans have much less overlap than Arabs and Muslims. You think Arabia – you think Muslim! You think Europe – you think Christian, simple as that, in a religious sense anyway.

Hitler was anti-Jew, not anti-Christian, he was raised Catholic, and gave conflicting notions as to the topic of religion. As for the Nazi party they remained essentially Christian, supporting the churches, and German soldiers on the ground were all certainly Christian, taking breaks along with the allied soldiers for Christmas (and resuming fighting the next day). With regard to Muhammed driving out the Jews of Arabia, he only did so because the Jewish tribe that he was allied with in Medina betrayed him and his followers, allowing the surrounding tribes to mount an unsuccessful attack. This is in itself a controversial topic.

On the Crusades, these were wars of aggression, not only aimed at Muslims, but also resulted in the massacre of Jews and other civilians, and many other minorities, an outlet for blood-hungry Christian warriors.

“There are also a million good reasons for a Jewish homeland, and the State of Israel is a more free, more democratic, and altogether better place to live than anywhere else in the Middle East and North Africa, especially if you are an ethnic or religious minority. But, this, too is totally irrelevant.”

Israel is free? How is it free for the Palestinians killed by gunfire and helicopter ships provided by the USA to Israel, how is it free for Arab Jews, who are, even though they are Jewish, constantly conceived to be conspiring and discriminated against. Which world are you living in? There are NO religious minorities in Israel, only Jewish people, that is the whole purpose of the State of Israel.

Historical events did or did not happen – true, but the so called “facts” from historical events come from varying sources, each one different, so they are not Black or white. An event may have happened differently for each person who was there, this is also the case when dealing with the Physical world, as in science, and frames of reference in Physics (theory of relativity, Einstein).

What are you even talking about? Slaughtering blacks in Darfur? The situation in Darfur is more complicated than that, it is a conflict between Muslim nomads (who appear black anyway – and are arab origin) and a black south vying for independence from a central government. In addition there are muslims in the south (both arab, and non-arab or “black”), and non-muslims in the north, adding to the complexity and inter-tribal warfare. As for blowing up the world trade center, how typical that you bring that up. Aside from the not so far fetched conspiracy theories regarding this incident (the 4 or 5 Israeli nationals under the George Washington bridge that were arrested on the night of September 11th and conveniently “disappeared” from the limelight once blame had been quickly established to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda), and who were later revealed to be MOSSAD (intelligence agency of Israel) agents. Some would also argue that, conspiracy theories aside, much like you said the Crusades were a response to muslim aggression (which is hippocritical and ludicrous), the September 11th attacks were a “response” to continued US interference in the middle east and support for Israel and its war crimes against the Palestinians.

As for people using the Quran to perpetrate atrocities the world over, the EXACT same thing can be said regarding Christianity – crusades, pogroms, KKK, Hitler – how many times must we go through this? Extremism occurs EVERYWHERE, and can be taken to any level, there are Muslim extremists, Christian extremists, Buddhist extremists, Hindu etc. They find one verse or section in the Quran, and dispute that it means something else, often ignoring different parts of the whole, continuous text. As I said before, one thing, one sentence – may mean DIFFERENT things to different people. The same can be said regarding biblical verses and texts. And misleading people about these things is what leads to terrorism etc

Also, you did not prove any of what you said about there not being evidence of Christian slavery.

I am neither ignorant, nor lying.

And this Ibn Khaldun thing has gone on long enough, lets see whats written in the article shall we?

“These racist opinions recurred in the works of Arab historians and geographers: so in the 14th century Ibn Khaldun could write "The only people to accept slavery without any hope of return are the negroes, because of an inferior degree of humanity, their place being closer to the animal level."[5]

You say he was right about HISTORICAL FACT?

His whole sentence in there is a matter of opinion, there is nothing factual about his statement at all. And it DOES NOT, I repeat, reflect upon the views of Islam nor the general arab population on slavery or race. Islam says all men were created equal in the eyes of God, and should strive to submit to the will of God, not themselves. Islam calls for gracious and decent treatment of slaves, and encourages emancipation. Ask ANY Islamic scholar and he will tell you the same, as it is written explicitly in the Quran. As for Ibn Khaldun, he was a racist who talked shit about his own people too (see above, point 1))– so bottom line – stop trying to tarnish Islam’s image or arab peoples image as racist bigots you fools.

____________________________________

Could I just mention that this commenter doesn't understand the situation in Darfur very well, and in fact seems to confuse it with the North-South conflict in Sudan. In addition, a later commenter mentions the Ugandan Lords Resistance Army, but this article gives evidence of a Muslim influence upon that strange movement too, perhaps resulting from the support and shelter given it over the years by the Islamist government in Khartoum.--Lopakhin 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Oh, and: Aside from the well confounded, not so far fetched conspiracy theories regarding this incident (the 4 or 5dancing Israeli nationals ... - was 'confounded' what the commenter meant to say, or was it a malicious interpolation by a later editor? ;o) --Lopakhin 15:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out==========

I hate to get into this, but, I would just like to take the time to point out that Christian, jewish, muslim, buddhist, taoist, it doesen't matter. Any religion and/or organization that invites anyone and everyone to join is bound to have a few people with I.Q.'s too low for their own good. Simply put, people screw up, no matter who they are or how capable they are of doing it. We all make mistakes. In this case, this is the view of a man who felt this was one of those particular mistakes. No matter his nature, any person can make an observation. I feel that some knowledge, some observation, is better then none. With enough half tales, you'll eventually be able to piece together the truth. That's the whole concept of multiple sources right? So instead of screaming racist, I invite you to search for the truth. From there add, edit and quote. Just don't forget to mark your sources. For the better of the article right..now, always, forever. Much more productive then complaining, woulden't you agree :P. Joel

As for the picture

Why is this picture there?

-it is from 19th century, which is past the Islamic slave trade and more probably Atlantic Slave trade

- in the caption of the picture it says "probably" slaves - "probably" is not acceptable, they could be CRIMINALS

- "probably" east Africa?? Could be west africa, and hence part of Atlantic slave trade.

- Could be East Africans part of the Atlantic slave trade.

"Probably" is NOT Acceptable.

I can't vouch for the picture, but the 19th century was assuredly not 'past the Islamic slave trade'. To take one instance, the British Royal Navy spent a fair bit of its time in that century trying to eradicate the slave trade in Zanzibar. See here. And slavery in Saudi Arabia was only abolished in 1962. see here.

--Lopakhin 20:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the title?

The opening makes clear that "The slave-traders were not exclusively Muslim, nor exclusively Arab", so why is "Islamic" in the title of this? If no-one can come up with a good reason, I propose to move and retitle. --Vjam 16:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no better name. For some time I thought naming it Trans-Saharan slave trade, but it's clear it was not the only way slaves arrived in the Islamic territories, as they came also by the Ocean Indian sea route, and the also the Mediterrenean. At the French version Oriental slave trade was proposed, but it would have been a terribly eurocentric name. So Islamic slave trade was chosen, referring to the word in the sense of the slavery practiced in the countries governed by Muslim leaders, the Dar al-Islam, "a term used to refer to those lands under Muslim government(s)." To be clear this is an article on the practice of the slavery in the Islamic countries, not the question if this or that religion more friendly to slavery; these issues are not treated here but at Religion and slavery; there's a section there on Islam and slavery.--Aldux 17:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Oriental slave trade Eurocentric? I don't get that.

In the talk page of the French version, it isn't clear that "Islamic" was chosen by consenus - it was strongly contested in a discussion that just fizzled out.

If you Google "Oriental slave trade" versus "Islamic slave trade" and just look at the top results, you get reputable sources (Stanford, Yale, Amazon etc) for the former. For the latter, you get pretty much exclusively results from extreme right and otherwise partisan sites (with the exception of this Wikipedia article). If you go to the top hit and then its homepage, the first line is "Europe is in danger of falling to Islam". Then you get an African anti-Arab site, then Wikipedia, then just a map whose provenance I can't work out, then a page from something called "Agressive Christianity", then something from Salon magazine (not too bad, but highly a POV interview with an author), then something which briefly discusses whether "Islamic slave trade" is a useful term, then a South African/Zimbabwean far-right site.

It seems to me than, in using this title for something which it doesn't proprly describe, the article is unwittingly part of a racist, revisionist agenda. --Vjam 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a full right to promote a move, but I'm a bit surprised by your action. I would have expected you would have at least waited my awnser, especially since I was ready to propose to hear the opinion of a regional admin., so that we could heard a third opinion. The fact that you get some rightist stuff (you have been higly selective in the articles you mentioned) in 939 hits shouldn't surprise anybody; but I can't help noting that you forgot to mention that Oriental slave trade has only 17 hits, two of which are from this wikipedia article and a duplicate article. As for Arab slave trade, which is really the most commonly used in scholarship and common usage, the hits are 12,800. We're not hear to invent new terms, or prefer terms hardly ever used. Also, I have trust in the judgement of the French wikipedian community that under that title (or, more exactly, Traite musulmane) gave the article featured status; or are we going to say that the French-speaking wikipedian community is a cove of seething racists?. The fact that eurocenric nature of the term Oriental slave trade isn't immediately perceived is only a proof of how strongly embedded it is; come on, do you think an Indian, a Japanese, an Australian would call it Oriental slave trade? It's "Oriental" only observed from the west, and I thought we were making a universal wikipedia.--Aldux 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I already promoted a move in my earlier post.

I've not been selective in the Google returns I quoted - I quoted the whole first page. The type of results returned in the second page was similar, but I didn't look further than that.

I left off the quotes when I googled oriental - my error. But "Islamic" hear is clearly in minority use and has an agenda. I can't see any reasonable defence of it. It does look like you have a point with "Arab".

The French Wikipedians debated the term (admittedly without conclusion), so I don't think this can really be relied on as an authority. In any case, you can't use one wiki to back up another wiki in that way.

I think an Indian or an Australian (or a Japanese person or anyone else) speaking English would use "oriental" in this context. It's a word used universally in English (and other European languages) with a universally understood meaning. In the same way, occidental (or even "Western") does not imply an Eastern-centered standpoint. However, this is kind of academic if Arab is going to be preferred. --Vjam 19:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Saharan and East African slave trade were very different in character, in time frame, and in location. The Western bias might not be the name, but rather in the fact that scholars have lumped these two different trades together simply because they were non-western and largely Muslim. Perhaps we should split this page into separate Trans-Saharan slave trade and Indian Ocean slave trade articles. This would parallel the geographically named Atlantic slave trade. - SimonP 20:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Could I just mention that the only issue I have with any of these suggestions is that to my (British) mind, the first association brought up by the word 'Oriental' is of the Far East. I know there's Edward Said's 'Orientalism', but maybe that hasn't seeped its way into the popular consciousness enough yet. So I agree with Aldux, and I guess I'd plump for what SimonP says.--Lopakhin 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Think three templates on the front page is a bit much. --Vjam 19:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

SimonP's point has a rationale, but is a bit problematic; for me at least. This is mainly because this article has opted on treating the phenomenon as a whole, and by dividing we risk to ruin it, a question much more important than that of the name of the article. Also, the separation is not so radical to warrant this separation; after all the time frame isn't much different, and in important markets like Egypt, Arabia and (less) Syria there was a strong tendency to overlap. Honestly, I'd have difficulties in splitting the article. Regards the name of the article, should we rename it for now Arab slave trade? It appears to be considerably more common than Islamic slave trade, let alone Oriental slave trade.--Aldux 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article would only be ruined by splitting it if this is objectively the wrong thing to do. The question, for me, is whether SimonP is correct in saying that "The Saharan and East African slave trade were very different in character, in time frame, and in location". I can appreciate the argument that this could prove disruptive to the existing article, but we should prefer the best way over the easier way. Apologies if I've opened up a can of worms here. But in answer to your question, I'd say, for a number of reasons, "Arab slave trade" is preferable to "Islamic slave trade". At the moment, though I'm also siding with a geographic split, but not being an expert on the history I'd defer to a consensus that what SimonP says is inaccurate. --Vjam 11:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Jjfad, as a rule I don't awnser messages that contain insinuations or personal attacks; so I will ignore your messages until you learn to adress others with civility.

As for Vjam, I must admit that neither I am exactly an expert on the whole argument, even if I know a few things regards the Saharan slave trade. I highly respect SimonP's as a veteran editor; but maybe we should pass through a RfC, to hear some other views, and if there is a majority for the split, some advices on the modalities. What do you think?--Aldux 13:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

--What insinuations?

I never insinuated anything, and never personally attacked anyone, i am merely giving my opinion. "civility"?, am I too “uncivilized” or arab to be part of this discussion? A genuine Ibn Khaldun you are.

With regards to the title, I agree with vjam and simon that the article can be split accordingly, but “eastern slave trade” is also suitable. I don’t think “arab slave trade” is suitable, it says at the very start of the article that those involved were not exculsively arab, so how can it be called “arab slave trade” then? black Africans sold and bought/acquired slaves, arabs did the same. It is ignoring the significant involvement of non-arab africans, persians, indians, turks, and to an equal or lesser extent europeans, chinese and other east asians , this was a big trade spanning 3 continents, so it should be named accordingly.

Article title

As I said before, no mentions of any racism was brought up in the Atlantic slave trade article, and there were many racist view on Africans during this time by Europeans, so why put in a few irrelevant comments by an arab historian, racism occurred atall times, and by all people, even blacks have been racist towards other races. The point is to try and show the commonly-held view at the time, and seeing as Islam by nature and philosophy is not racist, its not fair you put these things in under a title named “Islamic slave trade”.

The slave traders were not exclusively arab, there were black , white, Persian, Indian , asian etc. involved aswell, and they were not exclusively muslim, By using the word “Islamic”, and putting in those racist comments by one or 2 arabs, you are implying that Islam is racist, which is totally untrue, It is clear you are trying to manipulate the article to suit your own propaganda.

Even the section “Aims of the slave trade”, has nothing to do with Ibn Khaldun’s views, his comments have nothing to do with the “aims” of slavery at all, if anything it is “views on the slave trade”, and even then his attitude was not widespread, as Islam says with regards to race, that all men are equal and should treat eachother equally under God, and with regards to slavery that slaves should be treated well and encourages emancipation. SO Why put it in? It is not a “racism in society” , or “racism and slavery” article.

What you have done with the title is equivalent to changing the Atlantic Slave trade article to “Christian–European slave trade”, regardless of whether or not the slave traders were “Christian” by morals or values.

How about “eastern slave trade", or "Pre-trans atlantic slave trade”?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjfad (talk • contribs) 13:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)‎

Aims of the slave trade and slavery

This is not biased and factual, the fact that islam allows slavery, and that that Mohammad had people enslaved in wars he fought for islam benifit are both FACTS. That this trade mostly involved arab traders with the Hub of this trade in arabia is also a fact.Hypnosadist 01:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Seeing as my previous account is no longer useable, i feel that someone in this wikipedia has real problems Aldux.

Seeing as you say that sockpuppetry will get one in trouble, how about meat puppetry? which is what you are doing. As for the articles neutrality, i have said time and time again that it is not neutral, and given my justified opinion, enough to warrant a neutrality tag. We have 4 options here:

1) We can leave the neutrality tags up there, or come to some sort of negotiation, I am willing to only put a neutrality tag on the "Aims of slavery" section for now.

2) I will delete the entire Ibn Khalduns comments, and other racist sections of the page, and the picture, leaving you to justify why they should be left in (ie. why that content should even be in the article) and why they should not be moved to an entirely new article (ie. called "arab racism" or "slavery and racism")

3) We can split the article, something which you said you were in favour of, and i would not mind, or re-name it by its geographical roots, ie. trans-saharan slave, eastern slave trade, oriental slave trade, in which case i would still object to the racist comments.

4) We can continue deleting/adding this neutrality tag which would break the 3 Revert rule, in which case i will take this matter to an admin or someone else in a position of authority.

In addition i would just like to add - i dont know whether there is any rule of reciprocity between articles, but there is a rule of neutral POV, or neutrality, and this article certainly is not neutral in its treatment of the subject at hand, especially the "Aims of slavery" section - which as i said, contains an unverified picture, goes on about racist comments made by 2 arabs, but 2 out of how many? maybe 2 or 3 million.

And these two (ibn khaldun + al abshibi) were writers, and not directly involved in the trade at all, so they do not reflect the whole view on how slaves really were treated during the time, or their treatment by their prospective owners once they reached their destinations - which was generally good, and much better than the conditions experienced in the trans-atlantic trade.

Additionally, the section does not state that these comments are certainly un-Islamic, does not state the entire facts, or represent the Arab side fairly. Such as the FACT that the Quran called for gracious treatment of all slaves and says all men are created equal under god, a fact which no one can dispute, and a fact that would have an enormous impact on how slaves were treated, as Islam was the religion of the lands where this slavery took place, and reinforced daily in the culture of its people. Most people in these areas, whether it was the slaves, slave-traders or households which purchased the slaves were muslims. It also does not state the fact that arab slaves were used in black African kingdoms as well, or the fact that many of the slaves themselves were muslims.

Jjfad

Please do not make personal attacks, Jjfad. Aldux did not hack your account to prevent you from using Wikipedia. I have placed a warning on your talk page. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jjfad? (1) Enslavement, not matter how prevalent, is unethical, with the consequence that a few Qu'ranic passages concerning leniency are irrelevent in a moral context. (It'd be like my holy book authorizing me to steal from you, but recommending that I be polite while lifting your wallet and raiding your storehouses.) Their inclusion essentially represents a moral-equivalence logical fallacy, since all the pronouncements of leniency mean nothing in the face of the "FACT" that slavery was not only permitted, but authorized. (2) Obviously "all men are..." NOT "...created equal under god" if the Qu'ran authorizes some men the privilege of enslaving others; i.e., your argument is straight out the Animal Farm constitution. (3)"Islam was the religion of the lands where this slavery took place" because Islam was a conquering force which offered the conquered four choices: conversion, dhimmitude, slavery, or death. It was never just accidental happenstance; and when the Saudi Arabian of this, last, and next week's news is caught keeping an Indonesian foreign worker maid as a slave, it's just more of the same-old,-same-old going back a thousand years.--Mike18xx 04:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike18: Listen man, Islam is a system, not only a religion. It recognized slavery as an ancient institution, and also recognized it can not be stamped out just like that. It was quite necessary in those times to have slaves for the sustenance of the community and the society, for all people, including the slaves themselves. This was not the atlantic slave trade, and most slaves were taken as servants rather than labourers. Many slaves of people in high authority became muslim (converted) but remained slaves and later would go on to maintain high positions in the household and community. Haha also, would you rather be pickpocketed, or be assaulted on the street to get your wallet from you? probably neither, but i know which one i would prefer (the pickpocket). Even though this is not whats its about. Isn't western capitalist society, a slave to money and consumerism? In Islam, people are all slaves in the end, slaves of God. No matter what religion you are, we are all slaves of circumstance right, to an extent anyway.

Gmflash

THIS ARTICLE IS BIASSED: Picture of slaves in chains:: under "Aims", and Ibn Khalduns words

Objections to picture:

Why is this picture there?

-it is from 19th century, which is past the Islamic slave trade and more probably Atlantic Slave trade

- in the caption of the picture it says "probably" slaves - "probably" is not acceptable, they could be CRIMINALS

- "probably" east Africa?? Could be west africa, and hence part of Atlantic slave trade.

- Could be East Africans part of the Atlantic slave trade.

"Probably" is NOT Acceptable.

THIS ARTICLE IS BIASSED

Ibn Khalduns comments are irrelevant as he was biassed, and so were his comments. To put these in the article you must prove these beliefs were widespread, which they WEREN'T, as they were against the religion of Islam which is what this article is ABOUT.

This article is simply a translation of the French original fr:Traite Musulmane. The French article has obtained this year the status of "articles de qualité", alias "good article", passing through a votation that collected 0 - yes 0 - votes against the propsal of conferring the status [2]. So only because a biased newbie doesn't like the article I won't let this article be hijacked. Some don't seem to understand what is simply obvious; this isn't an article about Islam, the religion, but simply about slavery in the Dar al-Islam, so that Muhammed said this or that is hardly relevant, and doesn't mean a judgement on the religion, as the trans-atlantic slave trade does not mean a judgement on Christianity. --Aldux 15:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

On the picture's suitability, please see my comments further down the page.--Lopakhin 14:05, 6 September 2006 (U

The article is laughable. He quotes a saying "a negro steals when he is hungry" This quote is not from the individual he claims it is from (although it is from a French translation so it's a questionable source anyhow) but from a well known forged hadith! It has been universally dismissed as a forgery (see the book "hadith literature")

The other point "The sultan of Cairo sending out slave raiders on villages of Dafur" when exactly? Seems this writer of the article has been watching too much CNN. If he is talking about the eary middle ages (Fatimad and Ayyubid times) The "Sultan of Cairo" would have had to get past the King of Nubia first! somehow I doubt that the rulers of Nubia would have allowed Arab slave raiders to go marauding around their territory. By the 15th century Nubia was converted to Islam anyway!

This article has some very suspect sections, where images and selective text are used to trick the reader into a certain mindset. Mansa Musa is put in the section of collaborators, yet there is no references. So what r people suppose to think? the terms to label African people is very derogatory, black Africans, blacks, black slaves. they dont say People were enslaved, no the blacks slaves. Africans are not born slaves, they have to be enslaved.--Halaqah 10:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge "Islam and Slavery" and "Arab slave trade"

I'm not seeing anything different over there; it should be folded in and replaced with a redirect.--Mike18xx 04:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; this article is not on religion, but on a form of slave trade. The merge you propose would be as merging Christianity and Slavery and Atlantic slave trade.--Aldux 11:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree per Aldux --The Brain 16:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I add to the disagreement, Islam is not Arab. Many trading in Africans were not Muslim, Just like European doesnt mean Christian Arab doesnt mean Muslim. Before Islam Arabs had slavery.--Halaqah 13:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I really dont like the images and statements on this site, it is so misleading: look at this heading People playing a part in the Arab slave trade" I smell something strange---Halaqah 13:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

controversial POV have been removed, they have ZERO references are have a very racist overtone---Halaqah 02:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

PLease do not revert edits i have made without discussion

The entire section on African who helped the Arab slave trade is a POV. It has ZERO references it is clearly written with an agenda. The picture of Mansa Musa serves no purpose. It is a distortion of African history and facts. Lies come in many forms and to make these kind of statement which attack African history are libelous. And will not be tolerated. YOu have sourced Nothing and yet these claims which are so strong are put here as fact. The title alone is incorrect as it gives the notion of some conspiracy. All over Africa people were sold into slavery, it was a system for dealing with "problem people" it was not exclusively Muslim as this section clearly is stating. And the degree or extent is rumor and opinion. Imagine going into the bio of every King and Queen in Europe and putting a big section on their slaving past, True as it is no one would tolerate it. But people come here and defile the legends of Africa. yes they would have traded in enslaved Africans, there werent prisons in Africa. But how this section is written is pure perversion. Please do not attempt to reinstate it as it will just be reverted. Let the discussion happen here and bring your sources. And drop the POV. I mean the black slaves, what kind of language is that? They werent black in the eyes of the empires that captured them, they were enemies, indebt, criminals. For centuries Europe has taken advantage of the lack of Knowledge African people have on Africa, but we now know our history, because we are no longer slaves and can access our own records from our own sources. look at the racist terminology, look at the mindset. the same madness from 200 years ago---Halaqah 10:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed fortress

I removed the image of the Moroccan fortress. It is an anonymous village. There is no source that this place was implied in the slave trade. It is therefore gratuitous. S710 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I support, someone is putting many unassociated images on this page to implicate people, places in slaving--Halaqah 16:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's slaves

Lets talk about whether it should be added to this articles see also section. I think it should be there as Muhammeds slave ownership is the reason for/evidence of the acceptability of slavery to Islam, which as a the dominant religion in the area for over a thousand years. This is why slavery was never banned by an arab government until the pressure from britain.Hypnosadist 02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Halaqah

Thank God someone with an actually sane mind has come to this discussion, thank you Halaqah for speaking the truth.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmflash (talk • contribs) 07:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this article need a name change?

Reading through this article, it is clearly about the Eastern Slave Trade in general, not just Arab Slave Trade. I think a name change needs to be considered for this article, the best option would be to change it to Oriental slave trade or Eastern slave trade. -- Parsiwan 06:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

- I agree , Eastern slave trade sounds more suitable with a re-direct for "arab slave trade". Although, the title is not so much as important, or of concern as is the content and POV. Gmflash

Nope, I disagree; we should use the most commonnly used name, and Eastern Slave Trade is far from common.--Aldux 11:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision made on January 13 -- some apparent problems in displaying graphics

There are now some missing graphics. Delldot made a Revision as of 17:33, 13 January 2007 to delete vandalism and there may have been some typos that made unintentional changes.

Line 12, Sources and historiography of the slave trade,

Changed to Line 10

Did not seem to work out. Malangthon 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I went into the text and cleaned it up but the ogg file implant does not look at all right. I can not play it so I do not know what it is. Malangthon 23:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It was leftover vandalism. I have removed it. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Malangthon 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

POV and rhetorical devices that should be addressed--point by point comments

1. Reference section: The Islamic world

• While basically acknowledging that slaves were taken, the text then describes the legal and apparently benevolent treatment of slaves based solely on the single quote from the Koran. In the text prior to this, the article writers have shown an attempt at balance yet here the approach of symmetry in contradictory view points is dropped—the one quote and the lack of POVs disputing it marks this clearly as a distinct POV.

2. Reference section: Legacy of Arab slave trade

(a) “Islam like Christianity became the context for the cultural prevalence of Arab culture,”

• This is a rhetorical device to mitigate what may be appalling by framing the topic (in this case a culture) in in a larger group.

• This is mirrored in the History of slavery article: Reference section: Slavery in Arabia, the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East:

“The Arab world has traded in slaves like many other cultures of the region.”

• Again while the statement may be accurate it is a glaring counterpoint to the earlier phrases in that same article when referring to western slavery, to wit, the section: “Tudor, Stuart and Hanoverian England” and “Pre-industrial Europe.” In neither case is the practice of slavery couched in an historical context and is thereby not mitigated. In other words, they were acting in isolation, as it were and were distinctly different in the crimes committed. Again, a very definite POV is being projected not only in this article but elsewhere in Wikipedia amongst those topics that deal with slavery amongst the Arab countries or simply countries not of the western traditions, and dare I say it, Christian traditions.

(b) With regard to the sentence clause: “those who adopted Islam automatically adopted Arab culture in an attempt to become more Islamic.”

• Automatically? Surely you jest! The statement is simply naïve.

(c) With regard to the sentence: “The Afro-Arab relationship was riddled with complexities lined in a cultural nexus.”

• Whatever does this mean? A nexus is usually seen as a point, so how can a point in space or time line anything? Whatever. Maybe I am being pedantic but the phrasing is vacuous and needs a rethink.

(What was it that Churchill said `A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma'. (Winston S. Churchill, October 1, 1939 on a BBC broadcast unless I am mistaken). He at least had style.)

(d) With regard to the sentences, “Some Arabs were Arab linguistically but racially African (see definition of Arab. Thus, the Arab trade in enslaved Africans was not only conducted by Asiatic and Caucasian Arabs, but also African Arabs:”

• This is now referring to a Wikipedia, article “Arabs,” which makes statements which are marked “This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.”

(e) With regard to the sentence, “Focus on the Arab slavery is previously been low due to the fact that most descendants of enslaved people are as a result of the Transatlantic slave trade for this reason the impact of the Arab trade on people of the Americas is neglegiable.”

• Beside employing fractured punctuation and spelling, the POV is made in the clearest terms! Serious need for evidence here. Who has advanced this and where can it be accessed? I vote this be either deleted or supported.

(f) With regard to the sentence, “Another reason is the legacy of the Arab Slave Trade is far less impacting than the European trade in enslaved Africans, as there are no ghettos or prison complexes in Arabian lands overflowing with African people. The African Diaspora in Arab lands has almost disappeared through inter-marriage. The resurgence of Islamaphobia some argue has brought this aspect of history to the foreground.[12].”

• Besides just being poorly written, this section is more of the same. Anyone here familiar with the story of Robert Angel (University of South Carolina) and the phrase, “Japan bashing” will recognise this ad homenim attack on anyone who disagrees with the writer’s POV. This is a very transparent attempt at stifling other POVs that would be needed to balance this account.

Note: For those who do not know, R. Angel came up with the phrase “Japan bashing” (see article here on Wikipedia which is accurate) while president and chief executive officer of the Japan Economic Institute in Washington, D.C. The ploy was specifically an ad hominem for anyone who posed questions or made accusations that the JEI could not counter. In other words, if they had no case they abused the plaintiff. Malangthon 00:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In total agreement with Malangthon.Hypnosadist 01:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Eliminated "Aims of the Slavery ..." section title

Sounds too much like the slave trade was some big organized project. --BoogaLouie 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over Al-Abshibi and alleged observation

In the same period, the Egyptian scholar Al-Abshibi wrote, "When he (a black man) is hungry, he steals, and when he is sated, he fornicates".[14]

Someone added:

"(This is however a forged hadith which has been universally dismissed by hadith experts as false. See the book "An introduction to the science of Hadith" by Suhaib Hasan for further details of this quote)"

It sound like al-Abshibi was expressing his own opinion not relating ahadith of the Prophet. I will attempt to find this book by Hasan and check--BoogaLouie 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

----> Reverted edits, took out propaganda

No.1 -

Recurred? – this is bias, twice is not sufficient to be described as ‘recurred’, it is obvious you are trying to slander arab and muslim ppl. out of all the slander you are trying to impose on arabs and you could only come up with 2 examples, both of which have been rebuked as false and taken out of context. This is not ‘recurred’, pls come back with at least 20 more false, lying, propaganda sources before you use the words ‘recurr’ OK home-page?

No.2 - Also why you deleted my Muqadimmah source, that quote I put in is from The Muqaddimah, the same book as the quote you put in. It is Ibn Khalduns most famous work, on history, geog etc. So, why you deleted it? Obviously to replace it with a less confronting and less insulting view of arabs so as to make the negro quote appear more insulting than the arab one. A brief review of the Muqadimmah, will reveal that Ibn Khaldun showed more insults and racism to arabs, Bedouins, etc. than to any black ppl. His works are filled with many insults to arabs, but only a few references to blacks. So, in the interest of neutrality, if you want that quote (of negroes) by Ibn Khaldun to be in the article, then my quote, also of Ibn Khaldun, and sourced from the same source as you – The Muqadimmah – his most famous work, will remain also. Don’t attempt to remove it as it will just be reverted.

No.3 -

“the Bedouin nomads, whom he called arabs" - No – he didnt call them arabs, they WERE/are arabs, Bedouin arabs , the nomads, are infact the most arab of arabs, they have been sticking to their nomadic way of life for thousands of yrs.

No.4 -

“ In addition, there are more contempoprary instances of strong opinons of racial superiority among Arab peoples - though not necessarily connected to slave trading. “

- firstly , if it is not connected to arab slave trading, it doesn’t belong in article

- secondly, Taking one very dodgy article from the guardian newspaper, with an agenda, which very well could have been fabricated, does not provide any evidence whatsoever to vilifying a whole race of 300 million arab people as racial supremacists.

Gmflash 05:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The boast of the Blacks

Should be added to show some balance and highlight the opinion about African poeple in Arab lands.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Some treatment of Islam and slavery is apt

Otherwise is like saying the the islamic treatment of slavery had no influence on the dynamic of the development of this trade within and outside the boundaries of the Arab and Islamic worlds. Any debate about it, really?DavidYork71 17:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Islamic slave trade?

Our current introduction says that the phrase "Islamic slave trade" is not accepted because "religion was hardly the point of the slavery."

My understanding, which appears borne out by the section on jurisprudence of slavery from the Islam and slavery article, was that religion was the point of the slavery, in that it was considered improper to enslave Muslims but OK to enslave anybody else of any race. Whatever racist (and arguably un-Qu'ranic) attitudes some Muslim slaveholders may have invoked to help justify slavery, Muslim jurisprudence still did not allow the enslavement of black Muslims. In that sense, Muslim slavery was different from slavery as practiced by Christians in Europe and the Americas, who eventually started enslaving even their fellow Christians, provided that the victims were black.

This is not aimed at arguing "who's worse"; I think we can all agree that slavery is equally horrible whatever the excuse is. I'm just aiming at an article that explains the facts best, and the facts appear to me to be that Arab slavery was more of a religiously-based thing whereas European/American slavery was more of a racially-based thing. Pirate Dan 21:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

also, a title "Islamic slave trade" does not imply that "religion was the point", it merely extends the scope beyond ethnic Arabs to Persian and Ottoman slave trade: we might just as well say that "ethnicity was not the point", hence the title "Arab" is flawed. Islam and slavery has the section "History of slavery under Muslim rule", and a subsection to that is called "Oriental slave trade", which gives this article as its {{main}}. The ToC is broken: it is not clear why "Slavery in the contemporary Muslim world" should not fall under "Arab slave trade". Since the two articles do not have clearly defined scopes, it may be better to merge them and try to come up with a ToC that makes more sense. dab (𒁳) 12:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oriental slave trade may be a more inclusive title. This is obviously not just about ethnic Arabs trading in slaves. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose merging Islam and slavery, which is meant to be about religious law, ethical treatment of slaves, rights and obligations, etc. I do not object to renaming this Oriental slave trade, as long as that terminology is used in the history books. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not insist on merging. the point is that the respective scope of the articles needs to be made clear. Islam and slavery is not just on laws etc., it also has a history section. It appears that this article is the "main" article of that history section. This should be made clear, and material should be distributed accordingly. dab (𒁳) 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Islamic slave trade is a more precise term

The turks({Muslims) were the biggest slavers, not the Arabs, so the proper title should be Islamic slave trade. Much like Ancient Egypt, the Religion of Islam, and the culture of the Arabs and Turks are inextricably linked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Filiusvita (talk • contribs)

Not sure it makes sense to merge this article with Islam and slavery. The latter focuses mainly on ethical and religious questions and attitudes to slavery while this article is mostly concerned with the history of slavery in a specific region of the world. As for the title, I also feel that "religion was hardly the point of the slavery" is an odd sentence that seems beyond the point. It almost seems as though the intended sentence was "slavery (or the slave trade) was hardly the point of Islam"! The problem with the term "Islamic slave trade" is that it introduces a link between the Islamic faith and slavery whereas the practice obviously predates the birth of the Islamic faith. In any case, there's got to be enough scholarly work on the subject to figure out which term is most in use today. Pascal.Tesson 21:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pascal you miss the point, this article was originally entitled "Islamic slave trade". It was renamed to appease Muslims who complained to high hell protesting that Arabs were the slavers, and Muslims gave the slaves "rights". The Islamic world plague is a big fan of every from of oppression and tyranny. The refusal to identify Islam and slavery, is characteristic of a great many leftists, who hate themselves and all truth.(And are thus the apologists for Islam, lol). I am all for a separate Arab and Islamic slave trade sections, the point is, it wasnt permitted, for obvious appeasatory reasons.

• oppose merge this article is not just about slavery as a whole. It covers slavery by arabs only. They are different topics.--Sefringle^Talk 04:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• oppose merge I also think the name should be changed to Middle Eastern Slave Trade. Berbers are not Arabs. I think these casual relationships need to be challenged, and this lumping is very racist, where is the Slavery In Christianity? Where is European Slave Trade in all of this. why is the target Islam? or Arabs? and today the two seem to be the same thing. It is foolish to say Turks were Muslims, 1/5th of the world is Muslim. Imagine in every aspect of history overstating peoples religion, the British are Christian and so is the USA, so why not say 'Christians bombed Hiroshima, or Christians holocausted the native Americans'?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 13:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Page moving without consensus

Somebody moved this page to Eastern Slave trade. This was a very inappropate move, especially since there was no consensus or discussion to make this move.--Sefringle^Talk 23:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just came here (per link from Atlantic slave trade) to question that move. The Atlantic slave trade isn't called so to avoid the "ethnic" term European, but because this title would be extremely misleading and contrary to the broadly-accepted term. "Eastern slave trade" is ambiguous for the same reason. In German the exact translation of Eastern slavery ("Ostsklaverei") is sometimes used in medieval studies literature to describe the enslavement of slavs at the eastern borderlands of the Holy Roman empire, and the word might have other meanings in English, too. More important, Arab slave trade is a generally-accepted term in history and should thus be used on Wikipedia too. Malc82 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the whole deal occurred because of that troll editor Filiusvita and his desire to change this to "Islamic" slave trade. He is indef'd now so there is really no issue here. The Behnam 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On merging article on 'Arab slave trade' to 'Islam and slavery'

The article on 'Arab slave trade' should be referenced under 'Islam and slavery', but not merged obviously because most muslims are not Arabs. Both are important articles that should be referenced under 'Slavery' along with many others, for instance 'Ottoman', 'Sale of Russian serfs', 'Indentured servitude' and twentieth century human traffic crimes.

137.148.104.69 18:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

One user mistakenly thought this proposal was to merge this article with Islam rather than with Islam and slavery. He suggested this was equivalent to merging Christianity with Atlantic slave trade. Rather, it would be equivalent to merging Christianity and slavery with Atlantic slave trade. Pirate Dan 14:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Arab slave trade and Europe

I had to change the edit that said the Arab slave trade referred to the practice of slavery in Europe. Yes, Arabs practiced slavery in Spain, Portugal, Sicily, and other parts of Europe they formerly controlled. But as it was, the edit would have included Greek and Roman slavery, Scandinavian thralldom, the limited use of African slaves in Northern Europe, etc., as belonging to the "Arab slave trade." Pirate Dan 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

ibn khaldun

just some more facts about ibn khaldun:

- His parents were from yemen and settled in spain. he grew up and lived in spain, largely away from arab culture.

- he distanced himself from arab culture, and he thought of himself as a european/spanish, rather than an actual arab, although he was really an arab. (Islam and science, religious orthodoxy and the battle for rationality - Pervez Hoodbhoy).

- He faced criticism and rejection from the majority of arab/islamic scholars and ulema, and ruling elite for a number of reasons (islam and science - pervez hoodbhoy.

1 - a lot of his views were un-islamic

2 - he grew up away from arab lands and culture, but yet held hostile attitudes towards them, his works often contained derogatory references to the crude behaviour of arabs. ie. he called them "savages and lazy" , a "savage nation with a propensity to plunder and destroy", (islam and science - Pervez Hoodbhoy)

3 - he was not seen as a pious or religious figure at all, and was often seen to be merely masquerading as a muslim.

- Taha Hussein, a modernist Egyptian scholar, describes Ibn Khaldun as "a man with an obnoxiously inflated ego and a dishonest rationalist who merely masqueraded as a muslim." (islam and science - pervez hoodbhoy)

Gmflash

In the midevil era Spain was as much a part of the Arab world as N. Africa, largely because it was largely in the N. African cultural sphere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

mistakes

the muslim world didn't extend to eastern China but western China. Eastern China is near Japan and Taiwan, western China is part of central Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.154.174 (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hui Muslim Chinese Minority was/is in Eastern China, but more important I think is that the Arab trade was with Chinese markets, and not just Muslim Chinese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should remain independent of both "Slavery" and "Islam." The Arab slave trade is a subject unto itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.166.100 (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Slavs?

Ok, about the Slavs, it says: "So many Slavs were enslaved that the very name 'slave' was derived from their name; not only in English, but in other European languages and Arabic as well."

In Wikipedia entry for "slave", it says: The word slave, in the English language, originates from the Middle English sclave, the Old French esclave, the Medieval Latin sclavus and ultimately from the early Greek sklabos (from sklabenoi) meaning "Slavic people".[12][13] The term originally referred to various peoples from Eastern and Central Europe, as many slavic and other people from these areas were captured and sold as slaves by a Holy Roman Emperor, Otto I (912–973), and his successors.

So. One of the articles should be changed. If the cause of the word 'slave' is Holy Roman Emperor, then then this thing about Slavonic people has no place in this article.

195.174.102.189 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the word slave ( as esclave )derived from the word slav ( slave ie. the slave people ) not the contrary.

So the sentence in the article isn't wrong, its just the structure which is confusing. I will change "the very name slave" to "the word slave"

-----------

"Arab countries turn away Palestinians to use them as political pawns against Israel, and it's disgusting. They also helped cause the refugee crisis by telling them to run during the wars that Arab nations instigated against Israel."

First you say that they are used as political pawns and not given refugee status and then in your very NEXT sentence you contradict this by saying that they they are made refugees and told to run (which means they will be harboured by neighbouring countries), which one is it?? Proves you just like to provoke and talk nonsense . . .

Israelis have been, continue to, and strive to DOMINATE Palestine and the entire Middle East region, it is why this puppet empire of the United States was created. You think Israel isn't culpible for WarCrimes or terrorist activity? Read up on IRGUN on this wikipedia, the Israeli terrorist organisation which murdered innocent Palestinians, performed calculated terrorist activities (ie. DEIR YASSIN - killing off an entire village of Palestinian people who had been there for centuries before them) and whose leaders are probably running israel right now (NO joke). Or the Stern gang, another jewish terrorist organisation who contacted Nazi Germany to aid them in the "evacuation of jews to their historical homeland" - proof of the sham of the holocaust.

You wrote:

"You claim that religious minorities in Muslim countries are protected and allowed to freely worship, but you and I both know that this is a total sham (see, for instance, Maldives, where non-Muslims aren't even allowed citizenship, or Indonesia, where school girls are decapitated for being Christians}."

You are a fool, this was ONE incident, occurring on October 29, 2005, 3 Christian schoolgirls were beheaded. It was a CRIMINAL act and those who were accountable were brought to justice. There is a long history of fighting between Christian and Muslim communities in Indonesia, especially areas like Poso, where the beheadings occurred. The beheadings were the tragic result of CIVIL TENSIONS between the islamic and christian communities of Poso, you are speaking as though it was government sponsored actions, which is totally untrue. The Christian community has also been known to flare up violence and certainly is not all innocent either. Indonesia is the worlds most populous muslim country, don't you think if the government wanted to kill all Christian Indonesians it would have done so by now? But it is actively pursuing peace in the regions where there are tensions, because this is the Islamic way. Funny how you completely avoid the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda though, as if it never even happened, as if it never was even brought up, but instead try to pin up propaganda about school girls being decapitated (which as i stated, was ONE incident, in a region filled with constant flare ups of tension and fighting).

You wrote:

"[Ibn Khalduns words] speak for a very small minority of arabs at his time, and no Muslims would agree with him..." You don't know that. Did you do polling date on the attitude of Arabs from a few centuries back? That's totally impossible to prove."

I wrote,

- Indeed, Ibn Khalduns words do not speak for all arabs at all times, nor for all arabs at his time. In fact they speak for a very small minority of arabs at his time, and no Muslims would agree with him, not at those times, not now, as those views are, aside from being arrogant, narrow-minded and stupid, at odds with the very fabric of the religion of Islam."

Am i talking egyptian to you? a martian would have understood me by now. What part of ISLAM IS NOT RACIST dont you understand? I am saying that a Muslim, whose holy book is the Quran, which explicitly states that all men were created equal, and shows no correlation between race and slavery, would not agree with Ibn Khaldun, because his views were totally un-Islamic. I am saying that although Ibn Khaldun might have like to call himself a muslim, or was vaguely familiar with Islamic concepts, he was not a muslim, because his beliefs contradicted with Islam. In reality, he was a racist arab who stereotyped people based on their ethnicity (ie. Sterotype of arab nomads being savage, lazy, and blacks being animistic).

And no i didn't do a poll on the attitude of arabs, and neither did you, nor anyone else, and until you DO or find out some other way to prove that these attitudes were widespread ( WHICH AS I SAID, they WEREN't, as they are completely UN-ISLAMIC.) or any of the other crap you've been saying, back off and stop trying to pin labels on people, and blame arabs or muslims for all the worlds problems.

You are the ignorant one, of course there is still slavery going on in Africa, and North Africa, whether this be slavery for trade, child-labour, war-slaves, sex-slaves(ie. what the Lords Resistance Army is doing in Uganda), but i am saying there is no longer a vast, systematic slave trade spanning the North Africa as there was before. Can you see the difference?

I'm not a muslim but I've always been told that in Islam God was the only one qualified to judge who is muslim or not. So who are you guys to say that Ibn Khaldun was not a muslim? Besides, the man is considered by many historians as one of the best sources on the classical muslim world. Moreover, "racism" as we see it today is a very modern concept. Most of peolple of those days would be labelled "fascists" by modern standards. As far as I'm concerned, I don't make such a big deal about admitting that Arabs on those days were very racist against black people. I come from the Comoros Islands which are very influenced by arab culture and racism let by the ancient arabs is very present on our culture.Mitch1981 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Facts about Sudan

first of all you must be specific if you want your page to be better you can fix some things such as, they took 200,000 Black south sudanese slaves (mostly from the dinka tribe) they were sold by the sudanese arabs of the north and another thing, you said "slav derived from the word slavic, its the same in english and many other foreign language aswell as arabic" this is once more faulty information. hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musliman08 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Another obstacle to a history of the Arab slave trade is the limitations of extant sources.

I'm sure the 700,000 ancient manuscripts in Timbuktu written in this period would be incredibly useful if anyone bothered to preserve or use them.58.178.57.185 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of Arab slave trade?

Our introduction has been changed from saying that the Arab slave trade began in the 9th century to saying it began in the 7th century. Both statements appear dubious to me.

The 7th-century origin statement appears to be an attempt to temporally link the beginning of Arab trade in slaves to the rise of Islam, without any evidence cited.

I would certainly expect that Arabs traded in slaves before the 7th century, as Arabia had been closely linked with the Roman world, and thus with Rome's thriving slave market, centuries before Muhammed. Christianity and Judaism came to the Arabian peninsula via the Roman Empire, and it would be very strange if slavery did not come with them. But I have no specific source to cite at the moment, so I don't feel comfortable changing the present article by myself.

Pirate Dan 14:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Slavery did indeed exist before that, several centuries before. It might be worth noting that slavery in Arabia was not confined to Africans, as a matter of fact, most slaves you read about in Arab history books are not African - at least up to tenth or eleventh century - they were mostly European and Turkic, with Persians to a less degree. That, of course, does not mean that African slaves did not exist.

I have a lot of reservations on this article, it is clearly biased and it seems that the whole subject is so biased that you can not even depend on the sources. Too much information is contradicting and much information seems highly unlikely. --Maha Odeh 09:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A late update: I found a reference showing that Ghassanid Arabs in the 6th century sold thousands of Palestinian rebels into slavery. So the Arab slave trade did indeed arise before the 7th century and before Islam; the Ghassanid Arabs were largely Christian. I have edited the article accordingly.Pirate Dan (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ibn Battuta

Some editors seem content with spreading sloppy scholarship. One example being slapping and pasting quotes stripped of their context to align them with other passages that convey different points in different settings. One was a use of Ibn Battuta, attributing to him something that he did not say.

It was stated that Ibn Battuta wrote this in respect to the "Mali inhabitants", that he "was long astonished at their feeble intellect and their respect for mean things"..

^^This doesn't even make sense and is an example of both a bad translation and contextomy..

I have the primary source here from Said Hamdun's "Ibn Battuta in Black Africa" [full translation of Ibn Battuta's travels through the Bilad al-Sudan).. On page 45, this is what Ibn Battuta writes:

"When I went [back to my lodgings] a hospitality gift was sent to me and it was directed to the house of the qadi. He sent it with his men to the house of ibn al-Faqih. The latter came out of his house in a hurry with bare feet. He entered my house and said, 'stand up, the sultan's stuff and his present have come for you.' I stood up, thinking they were robes of honour and things of value. But behold--they were three circular pieces of bread, a piece of beef fried in gharti, and a calabash of sour milk. When I saw them, I laughed and wondered a lot at their weakness of mind and their magnifying of the insignificant." - Ibn Battuta

^So pray tell, how could anyone ever conclude from this that he was referring to the "Mali inhabitants"?? And what does "mean things" have to do with this particular account? He is clearly referring to those said royal servants, who he "saw", "laughed at", and "wondered on" due to their unusual take on hospitality.

This doesn't seem to be a subtle case either. A few editors seem hell bent on citing/promoting the most vile aspects of such claims while obscuring that which refutes these notions, another being Al-Jahiz.. It would be great if the people editing this article actually had some knowledge of the subject.Taharqa (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The point of the 'Arabic views on black people' section of the Arab slave trade article is not to show how wonderful the Arabs of yore thought blacks were, but to show in a neutral fashion, warts and all, how they really viewed blacks. The fact that the Arab slave trade, which dealt principally and overwhelmingly in the barter of blacks, literally dwarfed all other slave trades and lasted not years but centuries should be enough to indicate how the former really regarded the latter. You have removed reliable sources for no other reason than what they assert makes you uncomfortable. The problem with that is that on Wikipedia, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." You've also replaced the aforementioned reliable sources with unreliable personal websites such as that ColorQ page. That as well won't do since personal websites are self-published sources, and as such, are also unreliable. As for Ibn Battuta, you should be thankful we included in the article only the more temperate things he has said about blacks cause he (along with the bulk of other Arabs of the past) has gone on record uttering much more cutting things. Incidentally, with regard to the ruler of Mali whom Battuta was allegedly impressed by (Battuta wrote of the former that he "loved white people and did them favors"), consider this:

"The ruler of Mali at the time of Ibn Battuta's visit to that realm in the 1350s was black, but perceived himself as white, evinced disdain for his subjects on grounds of their colour and characterized his kingdom as 'a white spot on a black cow-hide' -- meaning that is was an oasis of civilization surrounded by savagery." (Humankind, Felipe Fernández-Armesto, p.72)

I find it doesn't help to live in a fantasy world, even if therapeutic, especially when doing so involves misleading readers. Soupforone (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, save me your rants in your bitter battle against "Afrocentrism" and Black people. Save it. While you're so preoccupied with your snide remarks you forgot altogether to address Ibn Battuta who said no such thing as was attributed to him. Forget a mistranslated source, I'm citing THE source, via SAID Hamdun. Your sources are superseded and the ColorQ article was already cited to reinforce the racist quotes. I only added info from it that was omitted. I don't think anyone buys this whole, I'm gonna emphasize the negative and obscure the positive perceptions of a certain group under some fake guise of neutrality. We are discussing completely random sources that are misinterpreted and proven false by more reliable sources (primary). You force neutrality with false and offensive information.

And LMAO @ Mansa Suleyman considering himself Nordic European ["white"], bidan (which in Arabic, isn't even equivalent to "white person", but goodness of character).. Give me a primary reference. Who did the author cite? I bet no one. As a matter of fact, I know no one since I checked. It's made up. This is UFO material, lol.. A Mandinka for crying out loud! White.. One of the groups who African-Americans descend from. You and your crackpot sources are amusing, but if you actually want information on Mali, then read D.T. Niane, Hunwick, etc.. You post fringe nonsense that wouldn't be accepted anywhere.. What does this prove anyway? That a white Mande king was stingy? LOL! I think you'd be better served taking these arguments to stormfront instead of an encyclopedia. Peace..Taharqa (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My, my. Quite the personal attacks there. I'll have you know that that's a big no no on Wikipedia, and your "word" isn't worth a damn here either. What is are reliable sources. And reliable sources fully back up every single quote attributed to Ibn Battuta that's already in the article. What isn't acceptable are personal websites such as ColorQ, which you've added and the removal of sources i.e. article blanking vandalism. I'll also have you know that Battuta didn't write in English but in Arabic. His work therefore exists in not one but several English translations. Don't get upset if you're obviously abridged edition doesn't contain what you personally assure us it doesn't (or more probably, what you wish it didn't). Soupforone (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks?? You're the one accusing me of fantasy merely due to my audacity in believing that Africans aren't vile, stupid, lazy and violent.. What I believe is irrelevant. This is about reliable sources and accurate reporting. Is there a policy against hypocrisy? Hiding behind these wiki policies does little in the way of mitigating my above post.

In addition, I know what language he wrote in, and I'm referencing the Arabic translation via SAID Hamdun and Noel King! Pay attention. Believe me, I'm not upset. You personally attacking me and attributing emotions to me that aren't there, says more about you than me. Peace.Taharqa (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Modern/US bias

The map heading the article needs to be emended or removed. It belongs at Slavery in Africa and not a general treatment of all Arab/Islamic/Turkish slavery.

I know it's generally difficult for Americans to process but the black African slave trade was not the only one that existed and certainly not the only one in the Muslim world. There's no mention at all [in the map] of the trade to Constantinople, one of the major markets, or of the supply coming from the Caucasus. If we're doing the entire Middle Ages, then there would be routes coming from Spain and Sicily at the very least, as well as India and central Asia. — LlywelynII 23:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yea, you clearly have bias issues if you think a map being edited out was because Americans (because you just happen to know the exact country of the person) want to deny their history with slavery. There is multitudes of reasons it could have been removed and coming here and acting like a child over it just makes me think that you didn't get the map from a reliable source since you yourself clearly have a bias. I suggest you stop editing this page since you clearly are not going to be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.220.115 (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Woah, there. He just said there needs to be a better map covering more of that subject. I think his comments reflect something about the Western World in general: most people aren't aware of the extent of the Arab slave trade in the past centuries. There is no need to fight over a picture. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Also good job on making a different account for the sole purpose of making that comment. It's you who should stop editing altogether. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

There are several highly political reasons for US bias. There is a very strong argument that slavery persists today in the US in the form of prison labor forced and benefiting defense contractors and the like while the main predictor of being incarcerated in the US remains being black. Another worthwhile point to add is that in the US there is a significant population descended from slaves, which the policy of castration in Arab slavery obviates, leaving no descendants to keep that history alive. Xuancris (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit condescending to state that *[Americans] want to deny their history with slavery*. Approximately 6% of the slave trade to the colonies of the Western Hemisphere fetched up in what is now the United States of America. It was far from the only nation to have a population of slaves, & far from having the highest population of slaves. It is not that there were mainly British-imported slaves (slave importation to the US was banned in 1803) in the US that is the issue. It is the post-slavery attitude that is the issue. As an anecdotal example, I'm acquainted with a woman from Brazil who married an American man & who, when she came to the US, was absolutely astonished over it. She genuinely did not understand it. She said there is no such attitude in Brazil either from or regarding descendants of former slaves (slavery was not banned in Brazil, which received about 40% of the slave trade to the Western Hemisphere & thus has the largest population of slave descendants, until 1881). There are descendants of slaves in every country in the Western Hemisphere, not just in the US. American blacks dismissed her desire to understand because she was a black foreigner, married to a white man, who *wouldn't get it*, & she was attacked viciously for even asking. It seems to be a peculiarly American issue. And no one *denies* it existed. It is simply that Americans can see that the issues in the US do not exist in other countries where slavery existed, & cannot figure out why issues exist in the US & nowhere else. Slavery also exists today in Africa, despite it being officially banned....the argument about US prison labor being a form of slavery really cannot be applied to the entirety of the past 250+ yrs. I hardly think saying removal of a map as *US bias* is warranted. ScarletRibbons (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This was a really long-winded way to say that you misunderstood the original comment. 73.145.175.54 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I can agree with this statement, I came here to learn about the trade of European slaves specifically and though it lasted from 700-1500, or longer given the Barbary Pirates, it's nothing but a foot note in the article. Not only that, but there seems to be a weight on comparing it to the US trade which is completely unnecessary, that information is only appropriate under the US trade, people aren't coming here to learn about the Transatlantic trade. 2601:240:10C:F3A6:189D:D242:1AE0:7FE6 (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I came here to learn about how the trans-saharan/indian ocean slave trade connected to the transatlantic slave trade so speak for yourself. 73.145.175.54 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arab slave trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/9912/easterntrade.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016024128/http://www.cal.org/co/bantu/somali_bantu.pdf to http://www.cal.org/co/bantu/somali_bantu.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.geocities.com/goldenmaggot.t21%40btinternet.com/zanzibar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arab slave trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/9912/easterntrade.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.circassiancanada.com/tr/arastirma/osmanli_imparatorlugunda_kolelik.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920121119/http://chi.gospelcom.net/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps111.shtml to http://chi.gospelcom.net/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps111.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.geocities.com/goldenmaggot.t21@btinternet.com/zanzibar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The confusion of this article

I've removed claims about Ottomans that do not fit this article. Whether Sultan Suleiman freed millions of slaves or open a new place to get slaves is not relevant. Ottomans were not Arabs and Anatolia was never part of the Arab world. There is also too much claims about Barbary pirates who were not Arabs. They were not only vassals of the Ottomans but they were also mostly Berbers , hence the name "Barbary" If this article can't even get basic ethnic peoples correctly then this article is not coherent. When one comes across an article named "Arab slave trade", they should expect to read about Arabs partaking in a slave trade, not Turks or Berbers. Arab is also not synonym for Muslim. I propose removing any claim about Barbary pirates. I refrained from doing so because it could be wrongly seen by some as vandalism. I'll leave this here for some time, if there is no discussion there will be removal of any claim relating to Barbary pirates. CaliphoShah (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a tricky claim. Today - and for quite a long time by now - every country in which the majority speaks Arabic as the local lingua franca and is to a large degree part of the Arab, and as a rule: Muslim culture, is considered to be part of the Arab world. The Arab-Berber struggle is a worthy issue, but the countries of the Maghreb, home to most Berbers, have not officially distanced themselves from the Arab world, rather the opposite, and are largely considered to be part of it. Whether we speak of Ifriqiya & Co., the Barbary Coast, or of the Maghreb, these lands have been under Arab Muslim rule of some kind since the 7th century CE, with the exception of the European colonial period, and are quite thoroughly culturally Arabised. Good enough a base for Wikipedia and its definition of "Arab" slave trade, I'd say. Arminden (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no source posted in other articles in Wikipedia or in this one for that matter that shows the Barbary Cosairs to identify as Arabs. The Arab World is a modern term. Althought it is true that North Africa today identifies as being part of the Arab world, this has no bearing on what happened in the past during the Barbary slave trade. The articles regarding this slave trade explain that Barbary comes from the word "Berber". It seems clear and the sources added don't even state those pirates to be Arab.Restoring the deleted paragraph is not justified especially when done so as soon as you've started your first edit when the removal was not contested for close to a year. Your argument is not satisfying because it uses modern phenomena to categorize historical events. I will proceed to remove this section and restore the changes. CaliphoShah (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

For some weird reason, I've had my edits reverted. The deletions were done so the article is consistent with its sources and other wiki articles. Berbers and Ottomans were not Arabs. There's a slavery article for the slave trade each of these people practiced. The Israeli editor ought to stop doing undisclosed reverts of my edits. CaliphoShah (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree with Arminden. The Berbers are part of the Arab world. People regard them as Arabs, and most importantly, most Africans view them as such. In fact, in many African countries, they use the same noun for Arab (e.g. narr, but in their local languages) when referring to Berbers. Further, as stated by Arminden, "the countries of the Maghreb, home to most Berbers, have not officially distanced themselves from the Arab world, rather the opposite, and are largely considered to be part of it." Totally agree!Tamsier (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't matter what the opinion of a user(s) or a group of people like Africans are. I can easily counter your argument that Berbers are technically the oldest Africans as they were the first to have the name and they don't see themselves as Arab. Either way, the sources this article referred to with regards to Barbary raids and the Almohad Caliphate did not describe the slave trade as "An Arab slave trade", nor did they describe the slavers as Arab. Arminden's argument fails because Wikipedia's policy is about sources and the article is about history, it's irrelevant as to what group modern countries fall into. Hence why wikipedia editors can't just go to any article about Gaul and use French instead. CaliphoShah (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There is another user who disagrees with the changes I've introduced for a reason different from those here. The reason was about the lead of the article giving leeway to interpret wat Arab slave trade mean in whatever way the editor want. I find it to be erroneous but I'd like to mention that there was a discussion with the user on their Talk page. Even when their reason wasn't wikipedia policy and related to the article, they have decided to the regulator instead of discussing. So I'm letting editors know that any revert on my part is due to this user not wanting to discuss their position in the Talk page. CaliphoShah (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the scope of my actions and this section is or should fall under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability As the header in this page states. In other words, claims in the article should match the sources. Editing should be backed on sources and the same goes for opinions.CaliphoShah (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent addition

I agree with Soupforone's revert of the IP user's addition. This was plagiarized from a blog and unreliably sourced. Furthermore, it's off-topic in the section "Arab views on African peoples". Details on early history of Arab Muslim slave trade can be added to the history section and Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum is welcome to do so based on RSs. Eperoton (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, was a bad contribution from the IP user, just asked for motivation for removal, plagiarism is indeed a good motivation. Would however suggest some more structure in the section 'History of the Arab slave trade', and some extra contextualisation on the history of the rise of the Arabian empires (The Rashidun Caliphate (632–661) – Beginning of the Islamic Empire, The Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) – Successor of the Rashidun Caliphate, The Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba in Islamic Spain (929–1031), The Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258) – Successor of the Umayyad Caliphate, Fall of Baghdad (1258), The Fatimid Caliphate (909–1171) End of the Arab Empire) and the role of slavery in those empires (just like there was slavery in the Roman empire and many others, which played a huge role in the functioning of these states).Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the article doesn't have a very clear structure. Its scope of Arab (as opposed to Islamic world) slave trade (as opposed to slavery) makes it a rather difficult one to handle, restricting our choice of sources to the ones that explicitly use those terms. History of slavery in the Muslim world is an easier article to expand. Eperoton (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

'Arab' should indeed be better defined for the scope of this article, for me it seems to be: 1. Arab empires in the middle ages (Cf. supra) 2. The kingdoms and empires on the Arabian Peninsula (from that time on), and the Arab areas that were also part of the Ottoman Empire (excluding current Turkey, Iran and all Ottoman areas in Europe) -OR- excluding all areas under Ottoman control (seems to be the most pertinent question). 3. states that were involved in the trade (as suppliers(or recipients), for instance Zanzibar, Ethiopia, and many other African states that supplied slaves for these empires). For that reason it seems that the motivation: 07:29, 11 January 2018‎ Soupforone (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,707 bytes) (-4,499)‎ . . (most of the barter was by the abyssinian empire, not arabs - only arab barter is relevant) (undo | thank), should be discussed on the talk page, before a final decision can be made. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the term is ambiguous, but I'm concerned that constructing our own definition would lead to WP:SYN. Rather, we should look at how the term is used in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove a redirect

Muslim slave trade redirects here. It should not, obviously. As there is clearly a difference between Arabs and Muslims. At this moment, I do not know how to remove that redirect. All I am stating here is that the redirect should be removed from the English Wikipedia here. InterestingCircle (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi InterestingCircle, you are right, I redirected Muslim slave trade to History of slavery in the Muslim world, although slave trade is about the economics of slavery (the trade of slaves), which is a subsection of slavery, for now it would be more accurate so it seems. You can change the redirect on the page of Muslim slave trade. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for Consensus: Article Claim

Recommend review and possible deletion of the claim, "Nonetheless, slavery during this period was not racialized, dissimilar to the chattel slavery of the transatlantic slave trade, and primarily constituted domestic and military servitude.[6][7]"

Historians, please examine. The claim itself may be accurate, but the sources cited do not seem to support it.

The first source is an article on new approaches to studying the transformation in meaning that occurs in developing translations. The second is a book by Arthur Toynbee published in 1948, a dated and admittedly biased source. (Contemporaries reviewing this source identified an ideological bent: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/civilization-on-trial-by-arnold-j-toynbee/). While Toynbee does claim that Islam purged itself of racial awareness with respect to religion being a unifying feature within culture, he does not specifically state that it applied to the slave trade in his book. Contributor451 (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe there is a debate being that Africans were NOT the only people enslaved in the Muslim slave trade, far from, so the argument is made that it wasn't racial. However, the different treatment of the slaves and the selling prices does imply a racial context. The issue is that it can be argued either way, particularly that slaves generally couldn't be Muslim and thus the trade was open to all races, however the value and treatment were based on race. This all means that the rationalization of the slave trade is all in the eye of the beholder and how they categorize and define the racial element. That being the case, since it is open to debate, the most appropriate action to take would be to ignore the claims of both sides. 2601:240:10C:F3A6:189D:D242:1AE0:7FE6 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That argument is merely ruse. As stated by the IP, the value and treatment not to mention the gravity and harshness seems to disagree with that view. It was common practice for Arab-Muslim slavers to cut the private parts of African slaves.Tamsier (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

First claim in article does not match the source

I took a good look at the book cited in the first sentence of this article and interestingly enough it doesn't define "Arab world" nor does it even mention it. The book is fairly interesting as it mentions Arabia, but not Arab world (i.e what is today seen as both North Africa and much of the Middle East). Page ix, which is what is cited, mentions Arabia and makes a distinction between that region and North Africa without including them to be part of the so called "Arab world". It does mention the "Indian Ocean World" but that's not what this article is about. Arab slave trade should be defined as a slave trade done by Arabs. There is a Muslim slave trade or slave trade done in many regions, but this idea of an "Arab slave trade" is rarely used by academics and when it is, it's often, erroneously, used as a synonym for the Muslim slave trade when Arabs predate Islam. I've included a source that talks about Britain's attempt to abolish this slave trade which was directed at rulers and inhabitants of parts of the Arabian peninsula. CaliphoShah (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Somalis where not slaves nor did they ever enslave each other

Somalis never enslaved each other. Even when tribes fought each other, the prisoners of war were not to be enslaved nor Somalis ever used each other as concubines. This was all forbidden thanks to our Xeer system which pre-date Islam. it needs to be removed please i have to historic sources confirmin my postion

[3] 

this proving that slaves came from the enterior of africa and somalis where not amongst them

Second source it was punishable to enslave a somali

Reliable sources say otherwise.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

provide them then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hash23as (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC) my sources are reliable they come from historic sources

{https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LR8A4tEYZUAC&pg=PA52&dq=the+Somalis+being+warlike+and+close+racially+to+the+arabs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9zOiwy7TfAhXAVRUIHc8nDioQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=the%20Somalis%20being%20warlike%20and%20close%20racially%20to%20the%20arabs&f=false}

--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Catherine Lowe Besteman, Unraveling Somalia: Race, Class, and the Legacy of Slavery, (University of Pennsylvania Press: 1999), p. 116. 

youre first source is talking about nilototic and oromo slaves not somalis can

On an individual basis, Oromo subjects were not viewed as racially jareer by their Somali captors.[3] The Oromo captives also mostly consisted of young children and women, both of whom were taken into the families of their abductors; men were usually killed during the raids. Oromo boys and girls were adopted by their Somali patrons as their own children. Prized for their beauty and viewed as legitimate sexual partners, many Oromo women became either wives or concubines of their Somali captors, while others became domestic servants.[2][19] In some cases, entire Oromo clans were assimilated on a client basis into the Somali clan system.[2]

have a look please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hash23as (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC) can someone correct this misleading information thank you youre second and other sources state somali bantus where slaves not somalis somali bantus are a minority group and belong to the bantu peoples somalis belong to the cushitic peoples they are not the same.

i have corrected the article , the source that was provided was about nilotic and bantu slaves not local somali slaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datch71s (talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Grossscherif

Sorry, confusing typo in my edit description. Moroccan sherifs were sometimes called "Grossscherif", and of course Meccan sherifs were too. Eperoton (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot more it in this article. Eperoton (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Arab Islamic World

@User:Wikiemirati you recently reverted my edit on the article saying not all Arabs are Muslims. I do know that fact however reading the vast majority of the sources this article cites it becomes clear that the terms Arab and Muslim are used interchangeably. And considering the fact that Islam was the official religion of the various empires in the arab lands at that time, it becomes difficult to divorce Islam completely from the arab identities of those slave masters. Regards Balolay (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Your reasoning is pure WP:OR and seems like WP:SYNTH. In truth, there is no such a thing as "Arab Islamic World". It's purely a name you've came up with and has no place to be added in Wikipedia, and even if there is, it is not the WP:COMMONNAME of the Arab world and does not merit any change. Your edit is unhelpful. Regards Wikiemirati (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bablolay: Well. we use the most common names here per WP:COMMONNAME. Most reliable source says "Slavery in the Arab world" not "Slavery in the Arab Islamic world" for example see 209 results in Google scholar for Arab world and and only 12 results for Arab Islamic world google books gives 495 results for "Slavery in the Arab Islamic world" and almost 6000 results for "Slavery in the Arab world" this is a very huge numbers that you cant dismiss, Finally dont just say thanks for pointing that out and then return after 7 days saying I have waited for your reply as you did in Slavery article--SharabSalam (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Disputed content

@CaliphoShah and Dharmalion76: CaliphoShah has asked me for an opinion about the current dispute. I'd like to understand the arguments being made on both sides before commenting, and it looks like they've been made on personal talk pages and partly archived. Would you mind summarizing them here? Eperoton (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Arab views on African peoples

This section is dishonest (trying to paint good relationships betwenn Africans & Arabs) and does not reflect the accurate picture. Tagging for world. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Is your opinion based on reliable sources or that's just your opinion?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Not my opinion, based on facts. Hence why this article in the first place. Tell me. How do Arabs refer to Black/Africans (i.e. Sub-Saharan Africans)? Answer: Abeed (slave). Must we go on and on? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I am an Arab. I don't call Africans Abeed. Listen, we rely on what reliable sources say. We have highly reliable scholar sources in that section. We don't take what you say seriously.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

As you rightly noted, we don't take each other's word for it. So let's play the sourcing game. Africans and Arabs have never gotten along. They hate each other to the core, because Arabs have never respected African humanity. I mean how can you respect the humanity of another when you don't even see them as humans in the first place? They don't even value African Muslims never mind African Christians. And God help us if you are a follower of any of the Traditional African religions. Woof! Let's play this sourcing gave shall we?

In Qatar, the Arabic word abid (which means 'a male slave') was applied to black people of African descent. In Arabic, a female slave is called yasyr. In Iraq, Thawra Youssef (2004), an Iraqi of African descent states that she is called abid ("a slave") even today due to her physiognomy. Although she is not a slave, the terminology has been retained to describe a negroid person. (Source: Uncovering the History of Africans in Asia by Shihan de Silva Jayasuriya, Jean-Pierre Angeno, pp. 13-14).

[...], Afett Mosbah discussles blacknless in Tunisia and its indleliblle scars on Black Tunisians and Sub-Saharan Africans. "In Tunisia, blacks are neither a problem nor a taboo. At the most, a secret minority; a social sub-category, which, faced with insults, suppress its rebellion like a scandal is hidden in silence and shame. However, when Tunisians speak of an Ivorian or a Malian, they refer to him as an "African." Aren't we ourselves Africans? What is the meaning of this self-exclusion by this verb? [...] Mosbah records the widespread habit of calling Black Arabs "oussif" or "abid," Arabic for "slave." These references are still common behind closed doors in the Arab world." (Source: Multiculturalism and Democracy in North Africa: Aftermath of the Arab Spring by Moha Ennaji, p. 143).

[...] Sudanese "abid" or slave to their faces, the fact that there has been intermariage for years is ignored.

Tuma (200) argues that Arab racism towards Africans has for long been a taboo subject, considering that it is politically incorrect to voice out the obvious. That Arabs, who are mostly Muslims, are racists to boot and consider Africans, Muslim or Christians, as inferior. Arab philosophers carefully tilled the ground in order to make racism towards Africans and all blacks by their kin a proud cultural heritage. According to him, Ibn Sina (Avicenne 980-1037), Arab's most famous and influential philosopher/scientist in Islam, describe blacks as "people who are by their very nature slaves." "He wrote: "All African women are prostitutes, and whole race of African men is abeed (slave) stock." (Source: Hatred for Black People by Shehu Sani, pp. 168-9)

Let's not play the BS game. We all know what the Arabs thinks of Africans going back centuries. Let's not cover up facts for our own agendas or simply because revealing the facts offense our sensibilites. This section is a very important aspect of this article, but it is dishonest. Thererfore, for the sake of the readership, it should be neutral per sources and per weight. We can't go and cherry pick sources because it suits us. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why are you so angry and why that flame baiting comment. None of the sources support most of the comments you have made like Africans and Arabs have never gotten along. They hate each other to the core, because Arabs have never respected African humanity. That's not support by any of the sources. That's generalisation. "Racists" exist in every nation and your comment proves that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No, no, no. Let's not play taqiya. You asked for sources regarding my original comment (abeed/abid). The sources proved the case. Besides proving it, they go further. This abid thing is just a small part of Arab views of Africans as the sources show. I am surprised you are having a debate about ths with me at all. Now either you are playing ruse or you don't know your history. I refuse to believe that you don't know your history -as even today, Arab views of Africans haven't changed and they still see them as slaves as demonstrated in one of the sources. That's why some Arab nations still practice slavery. Therefore, I think you are playing ruse—trying to derail the issue so not to include things in the article, thereby giving a false picture of Arab—African relationships. I don't think you are going to be respecting the humanity of people you view as slaves. Do you? Although the Arab slave and the Transe Atlantic slave trade are equally evil, it can be argued that the Arab slave trade is the worst. 1) it is longer, going back centuries and still practiced today in some Arab countries; 2) the Arabs used to castrate their African slaves. Many of their slaves couldn't produce. At least in the trans Atlantic slave trade, the African slaves went on to have descendants. 3) Almost all notations involved in the translatic slave trade have made some form of apologhy for their involvement. Now one can debate whether some of these apologies are genuine or meaningless, but at least it is a form of apology. Name me one Arab nation - other than Ghadafi himself - who only apologise because he wanted other African on his side in order to colonise Africa and be the king of the continent, but that aside, let's take his apology at face value. Other than him, name me one Arab nation that have apologised for their part in the Arab slave trade. Name me one. How can they apologise for centuries old practice when some of these Arab nations are still practicing slavery? Common let's let the cat out of the bag, even these Arab royal families still keep slaves using the politically correct term "servants". This section is dishonest (like many parts of this article) and you know it yourself. Since you appear to have a stake in this article, you either fix it or I will fix it. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The above editor has been blocked for personal attacks, including calling editors white supremacists and saying that "The SPLC is perhaps right on one thing, that Wiki has truly been infiltrated by white supremist. I don't give a fuck. You can take your block and Wiki and shove it where the fucking sun don't shine.". Doug Weller talk 13:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Continuing discussion from talk page

@Grayfell: The IP edits you were referring to were not me. And on the contrary, in light of your claim, which could most charitably be construed as ignorant, that "Nothing about Walter Rodney indicates he is or was fringe." "speculations", as you call them, about his ideology/activities are completely appropriate. As I've demonstrated, he clearly was. Your comments about "modern ideology" can, again, at best be construed as hypocritical in light of the fact that your history shows you clearly have no problem discussing the political leanings of figures, and this clearly affects, in your eyes, their suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. (NB, I'm sure you wouldn't argue something as ridiculous as suggesting that "scholarship" is separable from the ideology of the author.) In any event, this is about scholarship, and about standard Wikipedia policy. For the umpteenth time, the content as it stands is clearly pushing, and giving undue weight to, a fringe position, not backed up by other, reputable sources, which, even if this sort of alternate history was in any way accurate, does not belong in this article. I stand by my edits and am prepared to take this further if need be. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time? You haven't even made "umpteen" edits. If you think this is undue weight... sure. Let's discuss it. Since this has been challenged and restored now by three separate editors, the burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes. Your comments show an understanding of both WP:NPOV and WP:RS that is very different from mine. I am not interested in taking your word for it that this person is "fringe". You will need to do some more work to demonstrate this. The only reason, so far, you have said he is fringe is that he was a Communist 'Black Power' activist. Grayfell (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Views of Walter Rodney

(See also previous section) As far as I know, Walter Rodney is more innovative than mainstream. He is certainly not fringe. So his views should be included in the article. But I think - as the article is now - they are given undue weight. To have a more balanced article, I'd suggest: Remove Rodney from the lede. Give some context to him (calling him e.g. "Afrocentrist historian" or "Black Panther activist and historian" - but not "communist"). Rsk6400 (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

East African slave trade

I'm looking for sources on "Arab slave trade" yet many of the sources are coming up for "Indian Ocean slave trade" or "East African slave trade". Do reliable sources treat Indian Ocean/East African slavery much differently than slavery in Morocco (which is Arab but far from the Indian Ocean)? VR _talk 16:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Why the specific focus on Africa specifically?

Ah seems rather odd to complete ignore every other regions effected by Slavery in the Islamic world WILLIAMSRD33 (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The hyper Focus on Africa

Why the ultra focus on Africa it fills up most this article why? WILLIAMSRD33 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The article covers this. It also spends plenty of space discussing other locations. Try reading the article before spamming the talk page. 73.145.175.54 (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

about articel

There is a lot of Western bias and hypocrisy par excellence. Arab slave trade is a real thing, because all civilizations practiced slavery, but there is a lot of exaggeration in the numbers and status of slaves. An African has chances of being a slave among Arabs better than Americans. Just being a Muslim is free, unlike Christianity, which encourages black slavery, "the curse of Ham." Americans, whose history is full of terrorism, massacres, racism and slavery, are trying to exonerate themselves.The actual number of slaves transferred from Sub-Saharan may not exceed 100,000. Because very few ethnic groups of slave origin, unlike Afro-Americans,You must put neutral sources, not an American racist, hostile to Muslims, he wants to tell us that the whites have not committed any massacre or genocide in their history, unlike the Muslim barbarians who enslaved a billion Africans and slaughtered a billion Hindus. Uryon988 (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Contributions made here should focus on improving the article. So, please don't make unsourced claims (like Christianity in general encouraging black slavery), and be more specific about which source you think to be not neutral. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

List of useful refs

• depiction of ottoman slavery&f=false The Economics of the Indian Ocean Slave Trade in the Nineteenth Century By William Gervase Clarence-Smith
• An Example of Distortion in Turkish Social Studies and History Textbooks: Slavery

Bookku (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Splitting up the "Arab slave trade" to the "Trans-Saharan slave trade" or "East African/Indian Ocean slave trade"

In many slavery-related articles, such as slavery in Africa, usually use the term "Arab slave trade" to describe the "Trans-Saharan slave trade" or "East African/Indian Ocean slave trade". I think it would be better to split up the "Arab slave trade" by geographic scope, someone already mentioned this above. I have already created an article on both slave trades, so wouldn't it be better to make this re-organization? Ibrahim5361 (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Searching for "trans-Saharan slave trade" in "title items" at JSTOR produces 20 results, searching for "Arab slave trade" only 3 results, and "Indian Ocean slave trade" produces 7 results. So, this might mean that we should really split the article and change this article into a disambiguation page. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It would, especially since many articles frequently mention the Arab slave trade without actually mentioning Arabs, like they would go on to talk about Romans, Turks, Persians, Indians and sometimes even Europeans. Ibrahim5361 (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

While European slave trade is described as "Trans-Atlantic slave trade" why should this one should be described by ethnicity not geography.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Even the article itself points out the misuse of the term "Arab slave trade".

Historian and Black Power activist Walter Rodney has criticised the "Arab Slave Trade" label as a misnomer, as it obscures the extent to which it was also a European slave trade. He argues that by the 18th and 19th centuries, the East African slave trade network came to be dominated by European colonialists. Most East African slaves during the 18th and 19th centuries ended up in European-owned plantation economies around the Indian Ocean region, such as Mauritius, Réunion, Seychelles, and the Cape of Good Hope, in addition to many taken to the Americas. The East African slave trade reached its peak during this period, as a result of the European capitalist plantation slavery system. This in turn increased demand for slave-grown products in some Arab countries which adopted the European capitalist plantation slavery system, such as Zanzibar.[2]

Ibrahim5361 (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging 2 new users @Vice regent: and @Eperoton:: I saw your discussions in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eperoton#Brown's_book, what do you think about the above? Ibrahim5361 (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Rsk6400 and Ibrahim5361 into turning this into a disambig page once all the useful material on this page has been moved.VR _talk 01:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, lets see what Eperoton thinks about this. Ibrahim5361 (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree with the proposal to split this article and turn it into a dab. Trans-Saharan slave trade, East African slave trade and Indian Ocean slave trade all seem to be categories widely used in RSs, including in book titles, while Arab slave trade now seems to be used mainly in passing to refer to one of these, rather than as an umbrella term. It's been an uphill struggle over the years to keep this article free of WP:SYNTH and prune tangential content, and I think the split will help us keep the topic(s) well sourced. Eperoton (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have some serious concerns about this. "Arab Slave Trade" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and the term used in nearly all scholarship on the subject. It's a definite and singular concept with over a century of research and discussion about it. The terms "Indian Ocean slave trade" and "Trans-Saharan Slave Trade" are not commonly used, and might even be called something of a neologism, as these are not scholarly concepts. A few of the sources use the term simply to describe aspects of the Arab slave trade, in passing. This essentially makes an article about them WP:OR, as the introductions to these newly created article treat them as terms of common usage with currency as major scholarly concepts. Eperoton and Vice regent, you're both seasoned editors. I would think that you would both recognize that this is a major violation of foundational policies. Additionally, I'm almost positive that I've seen one of these articles proposed before as a rejected AfC draft in the past, with it being rejected because the concept was novel and not supported by the sources. If necessary, I'll take to the appropriate noticeboard(s), but I thought I would raise this issue here and have a discussion before doing so. The sole basis for Ibrahim5361's proposal, and Sa.vakilian's assent is not supported by policy, whatsoever. Select sources criticizing the term is likewise not a reason for turning this into a disambiguation to articles on essentially non-existent concepts/subjects. Ibrahim's basis for creating these articles is summed up thus: "While European slave trade is described as "Trans-Atlantic slave trade" why should this one should be described by ethnicity not geography." This is OR, and is using and the articles are essentially neologisms. The "Transatlantic Slave Trade" is the WP:COMMONNAME for that concept. None of these others are actual concepts referred to in reliable sources, but are in fact novel terms. If these are WP:COMMONNAME, please demonstrate this. Being used in a book title or being something referred to in passing is woefully insufficient, if they are not terms used in scholarship to refer to a subject of study, per GNG. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This has the form of a valid concern, but I'm just not seeing evidence in RSs to support it. What makes you say that Arab slave trade is the WP:COMMONNAME? I, and I think other editors in this discussion, have looked at RSs and came to a different conclusion. For example, here is the relevant entry from Oxford Bibliographies. The publicly available introductory discussion uses the terms Indian Ocean/Middle Eastern/trans-Saharan/East African slave trade, but not Arab slave trade. This is in line with what I saw browsing search results from JSTOR and Google Books. Eperoton (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Eperoton, thank you for taking the time to respond. It's not just the "form" of a valid concern; one may obviously disagree on certain finer points or bespoke generalities, but given your experience, I think you know this isn't simply a matter of differing points of view. I'm assuming this is a gloss of a bibliography that you're showing me, since it's coming from Oxford Bibliographies Online. There are eight entries. I'm currently preparing a bibliography myself, for eventual publication, and I likewise have to essentially use a term not commonly found in academia due to it being a subject that's not been examined to any great length in the manner in which I'm presenting the information. I'm collating nearly a hundred entries, though. For the record, I share the same concerns the proposer does; I don't care for the term, either. But we can't pretend this hasn't been the term that's been used for over a century, and continues to be used in nearly all of the relevant scholarship (even two entries on the bibliography I looked up to be thorough). While there are people that study particular geographic regions or cultures connected to this particular slave trade, they aren't actually discrete areas of study with terminology in common usage. We can't break up a primary topic into a simple disambiguation page, with essentially invented subjects. What we can do is have the main article, and break it into geographic, ethnographic, and historical divisions, and eventually expand these into valid articles if there's enough material addressing it as a specific topic, and using that terminology. Otherwise, this is pure OR, and synthesis. You're an experienced editor whose contributions I respect; I've been around here long enough to see your name pop up on my watchlist countless times. But this is pretty cut and dried. We don't invent new subjects for articles like this. I realize this likely wasn't intentional, and had good intentions (as the proposer made clear in their reasoning), but this change violates several core policies, prima facie. We can't rationalize this sort of editorializing, especially with things like this bibliography. That's the title of the bibliography. This is a case of "maybe one day". I think using an ethnic identifier as the common name is outmoded, and I wouldn't mind seeing generalized terms and these become more narrowly focused sub-fields with discrete terminology. But that's not the case now. This is editorializing, and "RGW". I won't link you since you're familiar with what I'm saying. These changes should be reverted, and like I said, we can organize the article in a more neutral way if coat-racking is a concern, as you stated. But we can't ignore the general scholarship and their usage, nor play fast-and-loose with our policies on this. While it's for a good reason, sweeping changes like this also hurt the credibility of the encyclopedia. This isn't something that can be done by fiat, or even with a local RfC. I sympathize with the sentiment, but it's a bit silly that I even have to actually spell this out. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem to be seeing a pattern of usage in the body of RSs that you've consulted that's entirely different from what the other participants in this thread have seen. I think the rest of us have mentioned what sources we've consulted or the sites and methods we've used to come to our conclusion. If you'd like to convince us that you're making a correct assessment of usage in RSs, and ours is incorrect, you need to give us more specifics on how you, I, or someone else would go about establishing that the term Arab slave trade "continues to be used in nearly all of the relevant scholarship (even two entries on the bibliography I looked up to be thorough)". What are these two entries? How did you assess and quantify the usage of the term in modern scholarship? If you provide me with enough information to convince myself that your assessment of the RSs is accurate and ours is not, I will support your objection. Otherwise, I have to go with my own, publicly explained, assessment of RSs, imperfect though it may be. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I should perhaps make a bit more explicit the criterion of usage I'm using for this. I'm looking for usage that is analogous to a Wikipedia article title: title of book, title of encyclopedic entry, title of journal article, or as generic term for the subject in question when it's mentioned in running text on another subject. I'm seeing evidence of these usages in RSs for the titles of articles into which this article was split, using methods I mentioned above. While the term "Arab slave trade" does continue to be used in RSs, I'm not seeing evidence of its prominent usage in these title-like ways. Eperoton (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Another point is that WP:COMMONNAME isn't really relevant for this dispute, which is not about the choice of name for the article Arab slave trade, but rather about what kind of article it should be. I'm seeing the term being predominantly used to refer to one of the topics corresponding to the newly created articles, but not a generic category encompassing all of them, and that's precisely what dabs are for: term X can refer to the subject A or subject B or etc. If RSs don't discuss X as a general subject, encompassing A, B, etc, then we can't do it either without violating WP:SYNTH, which has been a perennial problem in this article. Eperoton (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, I first raised the concern about 6 months ago. I noticed that none of the sources cited by the article before it became disambig was entitled any variant of "Arab slave trade". I couldn't find a single book with that title. Instead there are many scholarly books titled The Trans-Saharan slave trade, The East African Slave Trade, The Economics of the Indian Ocean Slave Trade in the Nineteenth Century, Slave Trade Profiteers in the Western Indian Ocean, European Slave Trading in the Indian Ocean, 1500–1850. JSTOR search by Rsk6400 and bibliography Eperoton further demonstrate my point. Modern scholarship prefers terms like "East African slave trade", "Indian Ocean slave trade" and one reason is the fact that it has found plenty of non-Arab participation. For example, this book on Indian Ocean slave trade documents participation by not only Arabs but also Turks, French, Indians, and Africans themselves. Sources do treat slavery in Muslim world as a unified topic and for that we already have History of slavery in the Muslim world.VR _talk 06:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent and Eperoton, apologies for my ridiculously late response. Life got "in the way" and I was only editing sporadically for awhile. It appears that you're correct here, and I was (at least partially) in error. I did an exhaustive search at the time I read your comments of everything I could find on Google Scholar, and a cursory search on JSTOR using a variety of search strings. "Arab Slave Trade" is indeed a dated term, not used much past the 1980s, except occasionally in the prose of academic publications; it almost never appears in the titles of peer-reviewed publications post-1990. That being said, a few of the "regional" terms do appear to be invented terms based on the naming schemes of legitimate and established replacements for "Arab slave trade", as amply demonstrated per the discussion here and my search of the scholarly literature. But that's something to tackle another time, and I'm perfecltly content to accept the wholesale changes here and just deal with the few tiny issues piecemeal later. Mea culpa; I accept that I was wrong, and relying on my personal library of more or less outdated literature here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus no apologies necessary as I'm just seeing this now myself! Anyway, thanks for following up and I more or less agree with you.VR _talk 08:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The title should be changed

How is it an “Arab slave trade” when countless of different Muslim ethnic groups were involved 83.249.222.83 (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)