Freethought & Rationalism Archive

naturalist · 02-09-2007, 04:16 PM

Im sick of the black muslims and Arabs talking about the lack of racism in islam. the most absurd thing that i have ever heard in my life is that islalm is the Black mans religion. do this people not realise the 1500 slave trade that existed between arabia and africa. why would someone change from christianity to islam becasue thats the black mans religion. this claim is absurd to people who know that slavery was universal and that islam had as many slaves as christianity.

theres more from this article. which gives a biased account but is still usefull.

http://archive.salon.com/books/int/2...gal/index.html

hatsoff · 02-09-2007, 04:24 PM

I'm sure slavery wasn't absent in Islamic history, but I'm fairly sure it was a lot less common than in Christian history.

nygreenguy · 02-09-2007, 04:39 PM

The problem is the slave trade as based upon race is more of a Christian/American thing. Sure, slavery has "always" been around, but often times it was just a mix of what we call "races" it was Americans (noticeably Jefferson) who justified it by developing this concept of race (which we all know is just a social construct), to try to show that these people were deserving of slavery because of their race.

We need to remember not to confuse all slavery with racism, as often slavery wasnt based upon race.

hatsoff · 02-09-2007, 04:41 PM

Race is not a social construct.

CORRECTION EDIT: The races as they are divided may be and probably are at least somewhat defined arbitrarily, but genetic differences between groups of humans is undeniable. For example, people of purely African descent are certainly much different, both genetically and phenotypically, from those of Western European descent. I suppose the issue depends on how you define "race." So I think what NYGreenGuy said and what I initially said are both inaccurate.

nygreenguy · 02-09-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Race is not a social construct.

CORRECTION EDIT: The races as they are divided may be and probably are at least somewhat defined arbitrarily, but genetic differences between groups of humans is undeniable. For example, people of purely African descent are certainly much different, both genetically and phenotypically, from those of Western European descent. I suppose the issue depends on how you define "race." So I think what NYGreenGuy said and what I initially said are both inaccurate.

I recently seen a documentary of PBS about just this. There was a segment in a classroom where several ethnically different students were going to take a DNA test. they were asked to picked who they thought they would be a closest math to. Obviously, the asian picked the asian, the black picked the black, and the white the white. Well, when the results came back, they were surprising because they were almost random in who they were most similar to.

This is a good quote:

Quote:

In fact, genetically, we are among the most similar of all species. Only one out of every thousand nucleotides that make up our genetic code is different, one individual from another. These look-alike penguins have twice the amount of genetic difference, one from the other, than humans. And these fruit flies? Ten times more difference. Any two fruit flies may be as different genetically from each other, as a human is from a chimpanzee. So the central question for us is: of the small amount of variation between us, what if any, is mapped along what we think of as racial lines?

Because we live in a racialized society, this is not an academic question. We have a long history of searching for racial differences and attributing performance and behavior to them. For two hundred years, scientists poked and prodded, measured and mapped the human body searching for a biological basis to race. Some measured facial angle to illustrate the proximity of races to the primitive. Others calibrated skull size to identify those with superior or inferior intelligence. Measures of eye shape, hair form, even brain color were scrutinized in the hunt for the fundamental sources of racial difference.

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/00...bout-01-01.htm

Quote:

RICHARD LEWONTIN: If you put it all together, and we've now got that for proteins, for blood groups, and now with DNA sequencing, we have it for DNA sequence differences, it always comes out the same. 85% of all the variation among human beings is between any two individuals within any local population. Between individuals within Sweden, or within the Chinese, or the Kikuyus, or the Icelanders.

NARRATOR: To put it another way, of the small amount of variation in our genes, there is apt to be as much difference between Gorgeous and her teammate Christine, as there is between Gorgeous and her opponent Kaylin. Any two individuals within any so-called race may be as different from each other as they are from any individual in another so-called race.

ibid.

Casper · 02-09-2007, 07:01 PM

I think what people forget is that slavery generally applies to those who can NOT meet certain criteria, whether they be physical, ethnic or otherwise arbitrary. Its not like just anyone was exempt

But this idea of "race" being Jeffersonian; I have never heard that. Did he just popularize a prevailing opinion or was it his? Curious.

nygreenguy · 02-10-2007, 06:30 AM

His "Notes on Virginia" is what many have considered to really start it.

They were attempts to scientifically justify racism. Its really quite interesting and im still learning about it, so I really shouldnt say too much.

naturalist · 02-11-2007, 08:19 PM

arab slavery also had racism in it. the common word for blacks today is "abd" which means slave. The majority of the slaves in the middle east were black and the islamic world had more slaves transported to it then the new world. you have to also consider that many of them died in the sahara or during the journey through the athlantic ocean. Im not looking for who is worse, im just pointing out the absurdity of black converts yapping about how christianity is the slavery religion when the religion that they are converting to is just as bad. Im sick of hearing that islam was not racial, it did not have other muslims as slaves, who gives a shit, slavery is evil period. slavery became the moral question in the west but this was not much of an issue from non western socities where slavery was questioned. the west made the infriority of blacks the reason for whites owning them and this has lead to the evil bigotry of the west. islamic societies are just as equal in their contempt of blacks and never hide their beliefs. i dont think the author of the book knows what hes talking about when he says that being black was not a stigma.

premjan · 02-12-2007, 09:17 AM

Arabs are pretty racist not just against blacks but against south asians. For that matter, blacks are sometimes racist against South Asians. And South Asians may be racist against blacks. They used to be racist against whites too, but then they were ruled by whites and that had to change.

Clivedurdle · 02-12-2007, 09:27 AM

Is the article biased? I have Segal and I can't see a problem.

Islam is not a religion of peace and understanding.

02-09-2007, 04:16 PM	#1
naturalist Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: los angeles Posts: 63	Islam and Black Slavery Im sick of the black muslims and Arabs talking about the lack of racism in islam. the most absurd thing that i have ever heard in my life is that islalm is the Black mans religion. do this people not realise the 1500 slave trade that existed between arabia and africa. why would someone change from christianity to islam becasue thats the black mans religion. this claim is absurd to people who know that slavery was universal and that islam had as many slaves as christianity. theres more from this article. which gives a biased account but is still usefull. http://archive.salon.com/books/int/2...gal/index.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-09-2007, 04:24 PM	#2
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	I'm sure slavery wasn't absent in Islamic history, but I'm fairly sure it was a lot less common than in Christian history.

02-09-2007, 04:39 PM	#3
nygreenguy Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Syracuse, NY Posts: 1,292	The problem is the slave trade as based upon race is more of a Christian/American thing. Sure, slavery has "always" been around, but often times it was just a mix of what we call "races" it was Americans (noticeably Jefferson) who justified it by developing this concept of race (which we all know is just a social construct), to try to show that these people were deserving of slavery because of their race. We need to remember not to confuse all slavery with racism, as often slavery wasnt based upon race.

02-09-2007, 04:41 PM	#4
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	Race is not a social construct. CORRECTION EDIT: The races as they are divided may be and probably are at least somewhat defined arbitrarily, but genetic differences between groups of humans is undeniable. For example, people of purely African descent are certainly much different, both genetically and phenotypically, from those of Western European descent. I suppose the issue depends on how you define "race." So I think what NYGreenGuy said and what I initially said are both inaccurate.

02-09-2007, 07:01 PM	#6
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	I think what people forget is that slavery generally applies to those who can NOT meet certain criteria, whether they be physical, ethnic or otherwise arbitrary. Its not like just anyone was exempt But this idea of "race" being Jeffersonian; I have never heard that. Did he just popularize a prevailing opinion or was it his? Curious.

02-10-2007, 06:30 AM	#7
nygreenguy Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Syracuse, NY Posts: 1,292	His "Notes on Virginia" is what many have considered to really start it. They were attempts to scientifically justify racism. Its really quite interesting and im still learning about it, so I really shouldnt say too much.

02-11-2007, 08:19 PM	#8
naturalist Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: los angeles Posts: 63	arab slavery also had racism in it. the common word for blacks today is "abd" which means slave. The majority of the slaves in the middle east were black and the islamic world had more slaves transported to it then the new world. you have to also consider that many of them died in the sahara or during the journey through the athlantic ocean. Im not looking for who is worse, im just pointing out the absurdity of black converts yapping about how christianity is the slavery religion when the religion that they are converting to is just as bad. Im sick of hearing that islam was not racial, it did not have other muslims as slaves, who gives a shit, slavery is evil period. slavery became the moral question in the west but this was not much of an issue from non western socities where slavery was questioned. the west made the infriority of blacks the reason for whites owning them and this has lead to the evil bigotry of the west. islamic societies are just as equal in their contempt of blacks and never hide their beliefs. i dont think the author of the book knows what hes talking about when he says that being black was not a stigma.

02-12-2007, 09:17 AM	#9
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	Arabs are pretty racist not just against blacks but against south asians. For that matter, blacks are sometimes racist against South Asians. And South Asians may be racist against blacks. They used to be racist against whites too, but then they were ruled by whites and that had to change.

02-12-2007, 09:27 AM	#10
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is the article biased? I have Segal and I can't see a problem. Islam is not a religion of peace and understanding.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.