Egypt is collapsing!

[Ryan Ruck]

Thank God Obama is working hard to restore our reputation throughout the world!

[American Patriot]

Well, I dont see this as a BAD thing for Egypt

LOL

[BRVoice]

Violent Ramadan ahead: Egypt’s army chief says no to dialogue with Brotherhood. Assad nixes ceasefire

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report July 9, 2013, 10:14 AM (IDT)

The holy Muslim month of Ramadan beginning in the Middle East Tuesday, July 9, heralds more, rather than less, bloodshed. After at least 51 deaths in a Cairo shootout Monday, Egypt’s military chief Gen. Abdel Fattah El-Sisi rebuffed US diplomatic efforts to bring the various political forces in the country around the table for dialogue. The high military council is divided on this: One faction urges a relentless crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood and its deposed president; a second, led by Gen. El-Sisi, says they mustn’t be cowed by the backlash to Monday’s incident, but should keep the political process for a new and stable government on track
In line with this perception, Provisional President Justice Adli Mansour issued a decree Tuesday for elections to a new parliament in February 2014, followed immediately by voting for a new president. He did not fix a precise date. No one expects this decree to tranquilize the turmoil in the country or deter the Brothers from an uprising (intifada) declared against the powers that unseated them after Egyptian soldiers shot dead at least 51 of their supporters. They were accused by the army of trying to storm the Republican Guards Club in Cairo where deposed president Mohamed Morsi is held. The Brothers claimed they were just holding a peaceful sit-in.
The generals have geared up to meet this threat, which appears to have been kicked off Monday with attacks on strategic targets across Egypt - carried out, according to debkafile’s military sources, by the Brotherhood’s armed underground, Al-Gihas al-Sirri.
In parallel, the military is also deploying for a major offensive to curb the armed Salafi Bedouin rampant in Sinai and now harnessed to the Brotherhoods uprising. The generals believe this center of revolt must be nipped in the bud without delay for the sake of confining the MB uprising to mainland Egypt.
To this end, heavy military reinforcements were seen pouring into Sinai in the early hours of Tuesday. The urgency of cutting down the Brotherhood’s capabilities for making trouble was attested to by the risk the Egyptian army took by withdrawing substantial military strength from the Suez Canal towns of Port Said, Ismailia and Suez and redeploying them in Sinai. They acted on the assumption that, in the short term, the Brothers would concentrate their defiance on street protests and clashes with the army to Cairo.
Our military sources report that Maj. Gen. Ahmad Wasfi, head of the Second Army, arrived Monday in the northern Sinai town of El Arish to set up a command center for the forthcoming campaign against the Islamist opposition and its allies, the Salafist networks linked to al Qaeda and the radical Palestinian Hamas.
The outbreaks in Egypt this week overshadowed the disastrous situation in Syria.
debkafile’s military sources report that alongside thrusts on other fronts, such as Homs, the Syrian army and Hizballah are in the final stages of preparations for their big push to liquidate rebel strongholds in Aleppo and recapture Syria’s second city.
Syrian President Bashar Assad decided to go ahead with this offensive despite the onset of Ramadan, during which Muslims fast from sunup to sundown for a month.
Iran and Moscow are speeding extra military and arms supplies to aid this effort by airlift. Refusing to brook any further delays in the battle for Aleppo, Assad turned down a proposal by UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon’s and the new Syrian opposition president Ahmad Jabra to declare a bilateral ceasefire for the month of Ramadan.

[Fussy]

Hundreds dead, thousands wounded.. when will this madness stop?

http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/scores-of-.../News/30559571

[American Patriot]

Maybe when they kill each other?

Gosh, I don't know that I care any more if Muslims kill Muslims. They've killed enough Americans and Westerners and that hasn't bothered anyone.

Why should we care if they kill each other, again?

[Fussy]

Hm, well, I see it a little different in that Americans and Westerners have also killed Muslims. Also, I regard all of us as humans in the first place and then as Westerners, Asians, Africans or Muslims... it's human tragedies happening every day and I think that one shouldn't just shrug one's shoulder at that.

[American Patriot]

Americans have PROTECTED themselves. Muslims started it. If they want it ended, then they need to stop killing Americans and Westerners, they need to stop killing Christians and stop killing people who are non-Muslim.

If their shit continues, they will be opening themselves up for complete elimination. Every country in the world is on edge and they are about to start fighting back.

I don't think Muslims are humans. They are animals. They ACT like animals.

Now before you think I'm some kind of hatemonger, realize I didn't get this way over night. I never have said anything bad about Muslims before 9-11. Then they attacked us directly, and they had been attacking us all ALONG.

They are animals.

[Fussy]

I would be very careful with generalizations. "The Muslims" - how can you judge over a billion people just on the basis of their religion? It wasn't "they" who attacked the World Trade Center, it was a group of religious fanatics!
I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the Muslimic world wants to leave in peace, peace amongst themselves and peace with other people. There are so many religious groups and paternal structures however that they struggle to acquire a working political apparatus.
And one more thing: I guess one also needs to look back at one's own history: America has caught millions of slaves in Africa, the first settlers nearly annihilated the Native American Indians. We also have blood on our hands, and nonetheless we are human, not animals!

Am I the only one here who doesn't regard Muslims as inferior here?

[American Patriot]

I would be very careful with generalizations. "The Muslims" - how can you judge over a billion people just on the basis of their religion? It wasn't "they" who attacked the World Trade Center, it was a group of religious fanatics!

How can I judge them? By the actions of a few. Just like the blacks judge all white people by the actions of those who live a hundred or more years ago and think we're all "slave owners".

Just like the Muslims who want to kill infidels because it says so in Quran.

Just like the Liberals who call people who belong to the Tea Party and want smaller government "Tea Baggers"...

How's that for just a couple of "generalizations"?

I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the Muslimic world wants to leave in peace, peace amongst themselves and peace with other people. There are so many religious groups and paternal structures however that they struggle to acquire a working political apparatus.

You're sure based on what evidence again? Show it to me. Don't give me platitudes. If you're SURE, then show me the evidence, and I'll counter it with all the beheadings, and the stonings of women, killing of little boys who "insult islam" and all the other crimes they have committed lately - and continue today to commit.

And one more thing: I guess one also needs to look back at one's own history: America has caught millions of slaves in Africa, the first settlers nearly annihilated the Native American Indians. We also have blood on our hands, and nonetheless we are human, not animals!

One DOES need to look at one's history. Who SOLD those "Slaves" to Americans? Other blacks, pirates, and Europeans. The first settlers did NOT "nearly annihilate" the Native Americans. Read the history. They got along just fine. It was the FRENCH who came in and started the fights. It was the FRENCH who turned tribe against tribe and against white people. There were a FEW American Indians who didn't get along with whites and murdered them causing the whites to retailiate. Dunno where you're getting YOUR history from but it's wrong.

Am I the only one here who doesn't regard Muslims as inferior here?

No one regards them as "inferior"... especially not me. I've worked side by side with people in several foreign countries who happen to be Muslims.

I consider them to be "animals" when they advocate the deaths of women, children, westerners and others because they are "infidels".

When THEY stop that behavior they can go back to being human.

Not before.

[Ryan Ruck]

America has caught millions of slaves in Africa

No, those slaves fellow Africans did the catching and selling. Those sold were often the losers of various conflicts in Africa.

And before you go wringing your hands over all the poor black folks sold into slavery, let's not forget the plight of the Irish that were indentured servants and treated as second class as well:

the first settlers nearly annihilated the Native American Indians.

Now who's generalizing?

True there were many forcefully relocated and that is surely a black mark on American history but, there were also many who died due to foreign illness the settlers unwittingly spread that the natives didn't have immunity to.

Am I the only one here who doesn't regard Muslims as inferior here?

I don't think there is anyone here who regards all Muslims as inferior but there is a statistical certitude that Muslims are prone to living in conflict with their neighbors.

There is also an undeniable fact that the majority of Muslims, even those living in Western countries, strictly adhere to a rather backward religion (honor killings, stonings, lack of female equality, etc.) that has not undergone it's own "Reformation" as the Catholic church did at one point to shed itself of outdated traditions and practices.

[American Patriot]

Playing for Islam against ourselves

Posted on July 31, 2013 by jcscuba




Comment byJim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.


While Obama at times appears to be an enigma at times using drones to kill al Qaeda leaders now and then.

It’s not enough that he has put them in positions on his administration but he invites other Islamic leaders to the White House as well.
That’s just his short game. In reality, as a Muslim since the beginning of the Arab Spring last year, where ever Obama’s fingerprints lie in follows the Muslim Brotherhood and subsequent Sharia Law.



The United States has a domestic enemy in the White House and a congress filled with spineless people who will do nothing about it.
Even Roosevelt didn’t invite Hitler to the White House during World War II



By Daniel Greenfield AKA Sultan Knish

WWI was caused less by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, and more by Germany and Austria Hungary’s eagerness in courting the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

Before and during WW2, England and Germany both assiduously courted Muslim support in the Middle East. The Holocaust was one of the byproducts of this rivalry, as Germany courted Muslims by appealing to the genocidal impulses of the Mufti of Jerusalem, while England reneged on its agreements, and shut the door to Jewish refugees trying to Israel. The Holocaust would have happened regardless, but the death toll would have been lower without Islamic appeasement.


After the war nothing changed except the names of the players. The competition still went on with America and Russia taking England and Germany’s seats at the table. Both sides cultivated patron Muslim countries, spent and lost huge sums of money on them, and then got a knife in the back for it, time and time again.


America made the fanatical House of Saud into its oldest partner in the region. In return the Saudi royal family nationalized American oil companies (for which the US government compensated the companies with taxpayer dollars) and then used that money to fund a global Jihad. 9/11 was only the topper on a poisonous cake that had been baking in the febrile heat of the Saudi desert for a long time, as petrodollars fed fanatical Islamic beliefs that had been growing steadily more arrogant and insane in direct proportion to the amount of wealth flowing in.


The USSR tried to export Communism, but had to settle for backing Egyptian dictator Nasser, despite his casual slaughter of domestic Communists. The heap of corruption in Cairo was considered such a great prize that both the US and the USSR competed feverishly for it.


America betrayed England and France in 1956 by backing Nasser’s seizure of the Suez Canal and forcing their withdrawal through economic blackmail; something that Eisenhower later admitted he deeply regretted. Nevertheless Nasser threw in with the USSR, which was willing to pile on the weapons exports.


After Egypt lost several wars with those same weapons, the United States finally won the bidding war for one slightly used alliance at a cost of only a few billion dollars a year and a blind eye turned to the persecution of Christian Copts.

It’s still going on now. The same old courtship that has become the mid-life crisis of the West.

A flattering speech here and there. Loose immigration policies. Turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s role in terrorism in exchange for more oil deals. The French government shaking its fist at a few rogue imams and then quieting down, hoping that the 5 million Muslims get the message, and keep the car burnings down on weekends. And then France begins promoting a Mediterranean alliance, just as Russia is promoting a Bosporus alliance– as if Muslims would allow themselves to be ruled by non-Muslims for very long.


The Muslim world has a lot of oil and a lot of people, and Western governments want the former, while keeping the latter peaceable. And so they compete for Islam’s favor with each other, with the newly resurgent Russia, which is back to its old ways of shipping weapons by the fleet, China, which is feeling its global oats and poking its head beyond its borders, and with other Western countries competing in the appeasement Olympics for a shot at lucrative oil and weapons deals, for commodities markets and sovereign wealth fund investment opportunities. And not least of all, they compete with other Muslims.


Before WW2 and during the Cold War, European nations competed with each other to win the favor of Muslim rulers, but today the remnants of the civilized world are competing for Muslims, against other Muslims. The big threat today is no longer Western, it’s Islamic and while the old competitions were about forming alliances with backward Muslim countries against our enemy of the day; today the enemy of the day is Muslim. That phantom menace we call “Islamic Extremism” if we’re feeling politically correct, and “Islam” if we’re not.


If the old rivalries at least provided some rational justification for this gamesmanship, today we’re holding up a sign reading, “We’re nice. Please don’t kill us.” In theory we’re competing to uphold “moderate” Muslim regimes against the Islamists who would otherwise take over by winning over Muslim rulers and populations. Somehow this evolved into supporting any Islamists willing to run for public office as a hedge against the really bad Islamists who won’t even stop shooting long enough to rig an election.
Our foreign policy is a debate between the realists who want appeasement, and the lunatics who think the natural outcome of every revolution is socialism, and even when it isn’t (as in the case of Iran) they’ll pretend it is anyway to avoid looking as stupid as they should feel. Of course there’s always a third option. Stop competing. Stop feeding the sense of entitlement of an ideology that still thinks non-Muslims should always defer to Muslims. Stop bowing and scraping to them. Stop giving them weapons, visas and then wondering what happens when the bombs go off.

Once upon a time we competed against each other, today we’re courting one side of the Muslim world’s schizophrenic split personality, against the other side.

We approach the two-headed hound of Islam, and then argue over which head we should pat first, to keep the beast from biting us. It’s all one beast. And feeding scraps to one head or the other won’t win us anything except more bites. The thing to do is to stop feeding the beast and stop believing there’s more than one hound. It’s all one animal. And it hates us. And it will go on hating us. And it will go on biting us as long as we let it.


We are no longer bidding for the Muslim world as an ally. We are bidding to prevent it from being our enemy. But the very people we are bidding for, already see us as the enemy. We are not going to change that with free weapons and speeches praising their enlightenment. By competing for their favor, we are only bidding against ourselves, and paying out to our enemies. By competing for their favor, we are only undercutting ourselves.


Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

[American Patriot]

And before you go wringing your hands over all the poor black folks sold into slavery, let's not forget the plight of the Irish that were indentured servants and treated as second class as well:

This American being one of those descendants of those Irish indentured servants, and "criminals" run out of England.

It really pisses me off the people who point to slavery of the past and use it as a bludgeon on those around them in the present.

Who has slaves now? No one... except MUSLIMS.

[vector7]

The Arab Muslim Slave Trade Of Africans, The Untold Story



Uploaded on Oct 11, 2009
Muslim Arabs hunted, enslaved, tortured and killed ethnic Africans for a millennium. Middle Eastern Muslim Arabs have a history of over 1400 years of human slavery, which even continues today in the Middle East. Arab Muslims controlled, maintained, initiated slavery of ethnic Africans. Islams Arab prophet Muhammad himself brought, kept and sold African slaves.

Sahih Muslim Book 10 Number 3901
Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledg- ed allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).




I don’t blame white people for slavery – I blame blacks and Muslims for slavery!

Posted by The Right Scoop on July 12th, 2010 in Politics | 31 Comments

Ted Hayes contends that the real villains when it comes to slavery were the Blacks and the Muslims in Africa, not the white man. He says that the slave trade was going on long before Britain and subsequently America got involved. In fact, he credits America for abolishing slavery and says that the civil war was the “high water mark of humanity.”

Wow! I love this guy!









The Origins of the African Slave Trade

Back to History | by Piero Scaruffi

In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before. The civil rights movement of the 1960's have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts. Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn's The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading. What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own subjects. (Of course, this neither condones the white traders who bought the slaves nor deny that many white traders still committed atrocities to maximize their business). This explains why slavery became "black". Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes). In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery (of course, Western powers retained countless "civilized" ways to enslave their citizens, but that's another story), whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade. Therefore, only colored people could be slaves, and that is how the stereotype for African-American slavery was born. It was not based on an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact that blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling people of their own race. (To be precise, Christians were also selling Muslim slaves captured in war, and Muslims were selling Christian slaves captured in war, but neither the Christians of Europe nor the Muslims of Africa and the Middle East were selling their own people). Then the Muslim the trade of African slaves declined rapidly when Arab domination was reduced by the emerging European powers. (Note: Arabs continued to capture and sell slaves, but mostly in the Mediterranean. In fact, Robert Davis estimates that 1.25 million European Christians were enslaved by the "barbary states" of northern Africa. As late as 1801 the USA bombed Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli precisely to stop that Arab slave trade of Christians. The rate of mortality of those Christian slaves in the Islamic world was roughly the same as the mortality rate in the Atlantic slave trade of the same period.) Christians took over in black Africa, though. The first ones were the Portuguese, who, applying an idea that originally developed in Italian seatrading cities, and often using Italian venture capital, started exploiting sub-Saharan slaves in the 1440s to support the economy of the sugar plantations (mainly for their own African colonies of Sao Tome and Madeira). The Dutch were the first, apparently, to import black slaves into North America, but black slaves had already been employed all over the world, including South and Central America. We tend to focus on what happened in North America because the United States would eventually fight a war over slavery (and it's in the U.S. that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and most Europeans showed for it). Even after Europeans began transporting black slaves to America, most trade was just that: "trade". In most instances, the Europeans did not need to use any force to get those slaves. The slaves were "sold" more or less legally by their (black) owners. Scholars estimate that about 12,000,000 Africans were sold by Africans to Europeans (most of them before 1776, when the USA wasn't yet born) and 17,000,000 were sold to Arabs. The legends of European mercenaries capturing free people in the jungle are mostly just that: legends. A few mercenaries certainly stormed peaceful tribes and committed terrible crimes, but that was not the rule. There was no need to risk their lives, so most of them didn't: they simply purchased people. As an African-American scholar (Nathan Huggins) has written, the "identity" of black Africans is largely a white invention: sub-Saharan Africans never felt like they were one people, they felt (and still feel) that they belonged to different tribes. The distinctions of tribe were far stronger than the distinctions of race. Everything else is true: millions of slaves died on ships and of diseases, millions of blacks worked for free to allow the Western economies to prosper, and the economic interests in slavery became so strong that the southern states of the United States opposed repealing it. But those millions of slaves were just one of the many instances of mass exploitation: the industrial revolution was exported to the USA by enterpreuners exploiting millions of poor immigrants from Europe. The fate of those immigrants was not much better than the fate of the slaves in the South. As a matter of fact, many slaves enjoyed far better living conditions in the southern plantations than European immigrants in the industrial cities (which were sometimes comparable to concentration camps). It is not a coincidence that slavery was abolished at a time when millions of European and Chinese immigrants provided the same kind of cheap labor. It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves. Moral opposition to slavery was widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our time. One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdoms until this day: what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason or another) eventually decided to outlaw slavery. When, in the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of slavery resurfaced. And countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint. Given the evidence that this kind of slavery was practiced by some Africans before it was practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the moment they could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo? The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese, it was mostly run by western Europeans, and it was conducted with the full cooperation of many African kings. The USA fostered free criticism of the phenomenon: no such criticism was allowed in the Muslim and Christian nations that started trading goods for slaves, and no such criticism was allowed in the African nations that started selling their own people (and, even today, no such criticism is allowed within the Arab world). Today it is politically correct to blame some European empires and the USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since prehistoric times). But I rarely read the other side of the story: that the nations who were the first to develop a repulsion for slavery and eventually abolish slavery were precisely those countries (especially Britain and the USA). In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in England: it was the first society anywhere in the world opposed to slavery. In 1792 English prime minister William Pitt called publicly for the end of the slave trade: it was the first time in history (anywhere in the world) that the ruler of a country had called for the abolition of slavery. No African king and emperor had ever done so. As Dinesh D'Souza wrote, "What is uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement to abolish slavery". To be completely fair, what was also unique about the western slave trade is the scale (the millions shipped to another continent in a relatively short period of time), and, of course, that it eventually became a racist affair, discriminating blacks, whereas previous slave trades had not discriminated based on the color of the skin. What is unique about the USA, in particular, is the unfair treatment that blacks received AFTER emancipation, which is, after all, the real source of the whole controversy, because, otherwise, just about everybody on this planet could claim to be the descendant of an ancient slave). That does not mean that western slave traders were justified in what they did, but placing all the blame on them is a way to absolve all the others. Also, it is worth noting that the death rate among the white crews of the slave ships (20-25%) was higher than the rate among black slaves (15%) because slaves were more valuable than sailors but nobody has written books and filmed epics about those sailors (often unwillingly enrolled or even kidnapped in ports around Europe when they were drunk). To this day, too many Africans, Arabs and Europeans believe that the African slave trade was an USA aberration, not their own invention. By the time the slave trade was abolished in the West, there were many more slaves in Africa (black slaves of black owners) than in the Americas.

Islamic Slavery and Racism

April 2, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield 78 Comments
Print This Post



When Tuaregs and Islamists swarmed in to seize Northern Mali, one of the old grievances animating their campaign was slavery. The Tuaregs were not former slaves, they were, and in some cases still are, slaveholders.

The French invasion of Northern Mali, liberating towns and villages under Islamist rule, was a historical echo of the original French emancipation of Tuareg slaves back in the colonial period. Despite French efforts, the Tuareg did their best to hang on to their slaves and Muslim Tuareg still continue to hold thousands of slaves in Northern Mali.

Mali is not unique. The Sudanese genocide was given theological and political force by the attitude that Arabs and Muslims had the natural right to a superior position over African Animists and Christians. And today Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the Butcher of Sudan, continues to enjoy the support of the Muslim world despite being indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Court.

The supporters of the Muslim world’s campaign to displace the indigenous Jewish population of Israel in favor of the Arab colonists and settlers casually accuse Israel of apartheid. Every year Israeli Apartheid Week is held on college campuses in an attempt to compare Israel’s refusal to allow Hamas terrorists access to its territory with racial discrimination.

But racial Apartheid is very much a reality in the Muslim world. The same Muslim students who show up to denounce Israel as an apartheid state often come from countries where there is true apartheid when it comes to black skin.

In North Africa, the Haratin, a Berber word meaning dark skin, are the remnants of the indigenous African population. Many are still enslaved. Others live apart from mainstream society, forced into degrading or difficult occupations.

Mauritania is the country with the world’s largest proportion of slaves. There hundreds of thousands of Haratin serve the Bidhan, the so-called “White Moors”. The Bidhan pass on the Haratin as property from generation to generation. And even those who are not legally property face a grim life.

In the 80s, Mauritania ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Africans from its territory. Even Human Rights Watch stated, “It is fair to say that the Mauritanian government practices undeclared apartheid and severely discriminates on the basis of race.”

The best kept secrets of the Muslim world include large populations of former African slaves in places like Pakistan, Iraq and Turkey.

While Africans in Israel are not descended from slaves, Afro-Arabs, Afro-Turks and African-Pakistanis are living reminders of a Muslim slave trade that sometimes still lingers on.

The site of the world’s greatest slave rebellion was in Basra, Iraq, where half-a-million African slaves rose against the might of the Arab Abbasid Empire.

The Zanj rebellion was brutally suppressed, but its legacy lives on in the modern day city of Basra where hundreds of thousands of Afro-Iraqis live as a despised minority taunted with the slur “Abd” or Slave. That same Arabic word is often widely applied to black people in the Middle East.

While Muslim propagandists have exploited the legacy of slavery in the United States to win black converts, slavery in the Muslim world began long before the United States and ended a century later.

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. By contrast, Saudi Arabia only abolished slavery in 1962.

That same year Yemen abolished slavery and the United Arab Emirates abolished slavery a year later.

Saudi Arabia’s ruling family did not embark on this course out of the goodness of their hearts, but under pressure from President Kennedy, at a time when the House of Saud did not yet have the United States economy and its foreign policy in a headlock. The abolition of slavery was a compromise. Kennedy had wanted representative government and civil rights. He had to settle for a belated emancipation.

Slavery has been officially abolished; unofficially it lingers on. There is still a silent unofficial slave trade that is carried on and leading Saudi clerics have insisted that slavery is a part of Islam. Saudis living abroad are often discovered to have domestic workers who live like slaves leading to criminal cases.

The situation is worst in North Africa where Arab colonization largely displaced and suppressed the indigenous peoples, like the Nubians in Egypt. Ethnically cleansed to make way for the Lake Nasser project, Egyptian Nubians have, like so many other North African indigenous peoples, been reduced to a persecuted minority within their own land.

Some may argue that Islamic slavery, like Islamic terrorism, has nothing to do with Islam, and yet the rationale for racial slavery can be found in the Koran and the Hadiths which discuss Mohammed’s trade in black slaves.

Al-Tabari wrote that, “Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them.” This theological justification provided a religious manifest destiny for the Arab conquests and acts of ethnic cleansing in Africa.

The great Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun justified slavery by relegating black people to the rank of animals, writing, “The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage.”

The legacy of Islam makes the permanent abolition of slavery and racism impossible. Egypt and its Mamaluk slave empire fell in the 19^th century and British attempts to abolish slavery appeared to have done the job, but the new Muslim Brotherhood constitution dropped the old ban on slavery. Mauritania officially outlawed slavery numerous times, but it still widely persists. Saudi Arabia abolished slavery, but its elite families, of whom the Hadiths say, Allah chose the Arabs above all others and chose the Quraysh above the Arabs, still fall back into their old habits even in the West.

The oil-rich tyrannies at the heart of the Islamic Gulf are maintained by armies of slave laborers with few rights. The skyscrapers of Dubai and Doha are built with the blood of thousands of foreign workers who are paid a pittance and are only allowed to leave with the approval of their masters.

Ali al-Ahmed, a leading Saudi scholar and the director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, put it bluntly in Foreign Policy magazine.

“Blacks, who make up around 10 percent of the population, are banned from judgeships — as are women and Muslims who observe a different version of the faith — because the monarchy’s religious tradition still views blacks as slaves, other Muslims as heretics, and women as half human. There is only one word to describe such a system: Apartheid.”

While Saudi money goes to sponsor propaganda that accuses Israel of Apartheid for fighting Saudi-backed terrorist groups, the brutal kingdom continues an ancient policy of slavery and repression.

And in North Africa, African migrants look to the West to escape racism in lands colonized by Islam. “Arabs hate black people. And that is not from today, it is in their blood,” a young African man named Aboubakr says. “Blacks have no rights here.”

To watch a video of Islam’s institution of slavery in Sudan today, see below:

[American Patriot]

Maybe a bunch of American White Guys with Guns ought to go in there and free the slaves?

Wouldn't that piss off some people?

[Ryan Ruck]

Informative post vector!

[American Patriot]

We just had a "Saudi Princess" arrested for holding "slaves" in her home here in America.

And someone is whining about Americans keep slaves over 100 years ago???

Give me a break.

Saudi princess appears in O.C. court in slave labor case

• 
• Comments
  84
  

• Email

  Share 0

  
  
  

By Paloma Esquivel and Richard Winton July 11, 2013, 12:25 p.m.

Dressed in a jail-issued blue jumpsuit, a woman described by authorities as a Saudi royal princess appeared in an Orange County courtroom Thursday to face human trafficking charges that accuse her of forcing a Kenyan woman to work as a domestic servant.
Meshael Alayban, who stood in a gated section of the courtroom and had her hair pulled straight back, uttered “Yes your honor” several times during the brief appearance in the Santa Ana courtroom. An Arabic-speaking interpreter translated the proceedings for the woman.
Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas made a rare appearance in court to represent the prosecution. The woman's arraignment was continued until July 29.

• Saudi princess may have kept four other women as slaves, police say
• Fund for Ohio kidnapping victims raises more than $1 million
• Woman kidnapped outside Canoga Park mall, sexually assaulted
• Opinion: Why Saudi princesses keep slaves

Alayban was arrested early Wednesday by police at her Irvine home in a gated community where they say she forced the woman to work 16 hours a day, seven days a week, for only $220 a month. She was unable to leave because Alayban kept the woman's passport and documents, police say.


In court Thursday, the judge approved a protective order that would prohibit Alayban from contacting the alleged victim or people close to her. The servant has only been identified in court as Jane Doe.


"We're gravely concerned about her personal safety and that of her family," said attorney Steve Baric, who represents the Kenyan woman. "My client was a slave to this woman."


Rackauckas, who represented the prosecution in court, said he expects that Alayban will post bail quickly. She will have to wear a GPS monitoring unit and will not be allowed to leave Orange County without approval of the court.


The alleged victim came to the U.S. with Alayban and her family in May. Both had temporary visas, Rackauckas said. The alleged victim had previously lived with the family in Saudi Arabia for about one year.


The woman left the complex Tuesday, carrying a suitcase and a U.S. State Department pamphlet on human trafficking, officials said. The pamphlet had been given to her at a U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, where she was issued a travel visa.


A woman on the bus noticed she was upset and began talking to her, authorities said. That woman eventually helped her contact police.


In addition to the Kenyan woman, police said officers found four other workers being held under similar circumstances at Alayban's resident. Their passports had been locked up in a safe deposit box along with the alleged victim's, Rackauckas said. No charges have been filed in relation to the four other women but Rackauckas said further charges are possible.


Orange County prosecutors identified Alayban as one of the wives of Saudi Prince Abdulrahman bin Nasser bin Abdulaziz al Saud. She could not be reached for comment, but in a statement to the Los Angeles Times, her attorney, Paul S. Meyer, said there was no physical abuse, no physical restraint and that the complaints were about hours worked and wages paid.


"We intend to fully investigate this matter, and expect that the truth will resolve it," he said.


Residents at the sprawling, luxury residential complex where Alayban lived described it as ethnically diverse and home to a large and wealthy Middle Eastern community. Some said that residents sometimes come in for summers and a valet at the Astoria towers – more of the sections in the Central Park West complex -- said there are a lot of Saudis and residents from Qatar living there.

[Fussy]

Okay guys, I couldn't read all of that, apologies.

And maybe you are right and I am not as familiar with the history of slave trade and the settlement of America as you are.

I just had (and still have) a problem with the statement "Muslims are animals". Though I agree that they keep alive laws and behaviors that belong in the Middle ages (execution by stoning, heavy paternal structures etc) I highly doubt that they all want to keep these laws and rules. The younger generations especially want a more western-oriented change, there were thousand of blogs, facebook messages and so on during the Arab spring about people who wished nothing but a peaceful ending of the bloodshed.

[American Patriot]

Couldn't read it all? Something wrong with the text or the posts? We can fix it.

If you have "a problem with the statement 'Muslims are animals'" then perhaps you ought to be asking your Muslim friends who follow Sharia law, try to push it on others, and all the things they do to innocents under that system, and under some misconceived idealism of Islam why they ACT like they act....

Unless and until the GENERAL Muslim population revolts against that crap, they are all in the same boat.

And how ever offended YOU might be at what I said, I'm MORE offended at these animals cutting off people's heads.

[American Patriot]

By the way:

The younger generations especially want a more western-oriented change, there were thousand of blogs, facebook messages and so on during the Arab spring about people who wished nothing but a peaceful ending of the bloodshed.

I agree with you here and no, I really don't lump all Muslims together, it's my way of trying to bring attention to the problem. It is no different from the Liberals in America who point to me and say "American Patriot? You're a gun owner, so you're a child murderer" or "Patriots and those who believe in the Constitution of the United States are terrorists."

So when the Left, the Muslims and the Anti-Americans FIX their own attitudes, I'll fix mine. Not before.

It's called "Fighting Fire with Fire".

[Fussy]

Couldn't read it all? Something wrong with the text or the posts? We can fix it.

No worries dude, it was just so much text and information and I simply didn't have the time to read it all

I understand your point of view and I agree with you in many points. The only problem I have -as I mentioned - is the generalization "Muslims are animals". "They" -there is no such thing as "they" - it may be a group of people or the majority - but you can't judge a billion people. Not every msulim is a hardliner. It's like saying that every German was a nazi back in world War II - there were also people who didn't agree with the system.

I am far from wanting to begin an argument here, and as I said, I totally understand your position -I am just no friend of generalizations since we are all individuals