It seems we now have the clone of Blair, ranting about banning a muslim organisation. This country didn't ban the communist party of Great Britain at the height of the cold war, we didn't ban the IRA at the height of the murderous bombing campaigns on UK shores, we haven't banned the BNP even though there is video evidence of its members advocating violence against muslims. Yet we want to ban a muslim organisation whose views we differ with and perhaps don't like, but a group that has never used violence. Is this a colour thing ? because it seems that if you're white, you can have all sorts of views, and no one will ask you to be banned, however, if you're an asian or a muslim, then there is a limit. Not only do we have institutionalised racism we also seem to have institutionalised islamphobia. C'mon Mr Cameron, lets be sensible.

I say the government should ban any organisation that preaches hate. In my opinion, that includes the likes of Hizb and the BNP. I remember in my uni days we had our ISOC funding cut beacuase the Hizb boys were handing out flyers to muslim students advising them to stay away from Jews, etc. These hizb boys never used the ISOC facilities but the rest of us that did had to suffer the consequences. As for the BNP, Al muhajiroon, Ghuraba, etc...they are just scum and it defies beleif that they weren't banned along time ago...Also, it's a sad reflection on this country that the BNP is a political party and is allowed to spew its hatred unchecked.

Since it has been reported that mr cameron said he was a zionist,then did you expect him tell the truth and say that hizb never said go around killing jews where ever you find them.

they quoted from historical information that such things will happen to those who oppress and kill,its called reaping what you sow.

i wonder what happens to free speech when it comes to muslims,you can humiliate-slander and denigrate muslim and its called freedom of speech.

but when muslims use freedom of speech then it is incitement and who said imperialism is dead.

Abu Yusuf, you're missing the point! This isn't about your concerns about sectarianism in uni days which got the prayer room taken away, get over it. The reality is that the BNP is not banned, although it has advocated violence, and is rooted in the NF which is clearly violent. If the BNP is not banned for terrorism, there is no way HT should be banned even though there is more of a case to ban the BNP because recently 2 of their members in Nelson - Manchester got caught with rocket launchers, guns and all kinds of bomb making equipment. If we ban organisations for what we subjectively define as "hate" then we end up in a situation where banning every Salafi group, the wahabis, the MCB, MAB, ayaat of the quran, and even biographies of Muslim leaders and Muhammad (saw) is debated, these neo-cons consider all of the above a filled with "hate". And last I remember there was no law against "hate", this is about terrorism, not "hate" and it's a free country (?maybe not for long?). And be serious, HT in the context of Palestine in a leaflet translated from Palestine, meant for Arabs in the middle-east, may have said we should fight the Jews (in self defense) but they never handed out leaflets in the UK asking British Muslims "to stay away from Jews" as you claim. If that was the case it would be quoted all over the place, including in the wikipedia article about them. Your memory, needs checking, or your sectarian tendencies.

free speech and hipocrisy
David cameron has openly admitted he is a zionist and it came as no suprise that he misqoted and lied about the hizb wanting to kill jews.

I thought we were living in a democratic country which tolerates free speech and open discussion and not a brutal dictatorship which imprisons people who have different points of view. obviously i was wrong! when new labour and the conservatives try to ban non violent political parties which oppose their colonial foreign policy it means that they have lost the battle of ideas amongst the muslim population and have to resort to draconian measures to stifle debate.

This is another sign of the impending victory for the islamic ummah !!

"we didn't ban the IRA at the height of the murderous bombing campaigns on UK shores"
Um, actually, 'we' did ban them. Not only that, but political Irish republicans were voiced-over on TV. Even though they weren't saying if you see a Brit behind you, kill him. And the IRA gave warnings, with at least some pretence of economic and military targets.

"Is this a colour thing ? because it seems that if you're white, you can have all sorts of views.."

Mo, this is typical british ignorance. Read Liz Curtis's 'The Roots of anti-Irish racism' to learn about the privileged position of the irish under british imperialism. You seem to be joining in - or is it the old colonial trick of simply anglicising the Irish? If you're not british, then forgive me - but it looks like you've at least inherited their fondness for skin-colour swatches as well as their garrison games.

so when the ira bombed the arndale centre in manchester that was a military target !

the ira was a para military organisation. The hizb is a non violent islamic political party where its members have been tortured for expressing their political views in the muslim world. Does the uk want to go down the same line. This country has invaded other countries on the pre text of spreading free speech, democracy etc to iraq and yet it is trying to deny this to its own population. Can the non muslim population not see the double standards and the hipocrisy .

It was the Arndale centre they bombed (as an economic target), not the shoppers in it. Hence the warning. The establishment actually care more about their economic infrastructure than about London commuters, dancing "slags", or any other civilian target. It was Canary Wharf that moved them, not Warrington.Sinn Fein was a political party when it was banned from the airwaves, and its members frequently banned from entering Britain. HuT hasn't been banned in the UK. I agree that if it is banned for race hate speech, so should the BNP.

The UK has already gone down the road of torture that you describe - it's interesting that you think it hasn't. I suppose you've never heard of 'Castlereagh'? Or seen the privileged white (and black, blue and red) faces of the Birmingham Six?

This country has invaded other countries for oil. It has consistently allied with the Islamic right - against the Ottomans, then against the communists. Even in Iraq the british army operates on the old 'take me to your leader' trick, and has in practice and on the ground replaced a secular dictatorship with a theocratic one.

I meant the City bombing in Bishopgate, not Canary Wharf.

HT is a well known peacefull political NON VIOLENT party. This cheap attempt by Cameron only reinforces the FACT that it is POLITICAL Islam in the form of a CALIPHATE the likes of Cameron fear. A Caliphate that will be a system of JUSTICE for the whole world, irrespective of race, colour, nationality, religiion and whatever other differences that exist.

"This country didn't ban the communist party of Great Britain at the height of the cold war, we didn't ban the IRA at the height of the murderous bombing campaigns on UK shores, we haven't banned the BNP even though there is video evidence of its members advocating violence against muslims. Yet we want to ban a muslim organisation whose views we differ with and perhaps don't like, but a group that has never used violence. Is this a colour thing ? "

no it isnt a colour thing. The communist party and the BNP have killed ZERO people, and the IRA aren't a British political party, which anyone with even a vague understanding of British politics would know, so we can't actually ban them. That would be like banning ETA from British politics. The reason Hizbut Tahrir are picked on because they radicalise muslim youngsters into radicalism, a force which has killed 52 people on July 7th, and which almost killed many more last week.

anon,

where is your evidence to prove that the hizb "radicalize" muslim youngsters to commit acts such as those on 7/7.

the hizb condemed those acts as unislamic.

it is well known around the world that the hizb is non violent. the uk reviewed the activities of the hizb and found no evidence to ban them.

i think you need to scrutinise the actions of the uk govt over the last few years. That would be enough to radicalise anyone !!

Anon - the fact that you think that the BNP should not be banned is evidence that it is a colour thing. How many civilised countries have political parties that advocate equality bassed ont he colour of a person's skin.

Prior to the invasion of afghanistan, peace deals were being struck with what many considered were terrorists. The only difference is that peace was being struck is with white terorists and innocent muslim in afghanistan and iraq were to be attacked.

Rather strange.... make peace with white terrorists and attack innocent muslims civilians.

Another anon - this is very confused. At what point did the british realise that Irish republicans were 'white terrorists'? Do you think they'll be willing to negotiate with white revert/convert jihadists? I'm honestly not up to speed with this colour thing - is bin Laden (and many other high class gulf arabs) not white? Or is what you mean by 'white' a political thing? In which case, were irish catholics 'white'? Do you seriously think anyone in power gives a toss about actual skin colour? Racism, like race, is an ideological construct that is cynically used.

You do know that they invaded Iraq for oil and hegemony, not because most of the population was muslim? And that their bombs fell on shia, sunni, and non-muslim minorities alike. They attacked Yugoslavia for economic hegemony too. They supported bin Laden and the international mujahedeen in Afghanistan for the same reason. They allied with the military right in latin america for the same reasons they have historically allied with the Islamic right. Where was the Islamic right in this country during Operation Desert Storm, when the Saudis were on board for the most murderous attack of all? Why were Iraqis 'Iraqis' then, and 'Muslims' now?

Pemicx - you are right you are confused if you think that racism is an ideological construct that is cynically used without saying whose ideological construct it is and whom it is supposedly cynically used by.

White christianity may give you a clue.

'another', it's a construct of capitalism and imperialism, and it is used ultimately to maximise profit. I agree that religion - and european christianity in particular - has played a major role in constructing and underwriting racism as an ideology and a reality.

Hope that's cleared things up...perhaps you could answer my questions now?

@Pemicx:

You have not mentioned race.

Who are the capitialists and who are the imperialists? Whose profit is to be maximised and at whose expense?

You mention european christianity but have not mentioned race or do you mean white european christianity as a whole in your view is prepared to maximise its profit at the expense of other races and religions?

dear another anon, it is actually "race" and racism that I’m talking about! I was suggesting that race is an illusion. Believe me, tribalism is a waste of time and humanity, but if you must - the indigenous peoples of Europe are usually described as "white", ranging from the pigmentally challenged in the north to olive and light-brown skinned people who live around the Mediterranean. The ruling elite (political and religious) among the latter were I suppose the first european imperialists (Greek, Roman, Byzantine, spanish), with the pasty-faces only taking over later; there was of course also Persian (Achaemenid) imperialism, and the phenomenon of Arab (Islamic) imperialism, but the latter is no longer significant since the collapse of the last caliphate. Pushing a revanchist historical imperialism - as HuT does - is no way to fight modern euro-american imperialism.

The monotheistic religions all have a superiority complex, and their clerical and political elites naturally pushed for the spread of the one true religion among the tax-paying masses and the booty-laden non-believers. Some of the biggest unbelievers and hypocrites have been the ruling classes of each religion: faith is for the masses. The gap between the ruling classes and the working classes in any empire is a wide one, but history suggests that religions – as well as their obvious role in imperialism - have also lent themselves in practice to racism and prejudice.

Hence, freedom of speech is a sham. So in conclusion - there is no freedom of speech, until its all for the government, against Islam and anything to do with Islam. No, Don't agree with banning Hizb even if I dislike how they do things and they are 99% a right turn off.

This is I feel double standards and by the way - don't think Tony is gone that we're allright with brown. He is the worse and one heck of a hypocrite and a supporter for Bush in a very, very big way.

so "abuyusuf"
on your basis i assume you would also ban TB for his fake wmd, and cameron for his hatred of the sharia !
I assume you are muslim, what makes you believe the unbelievers claims, and side with proven kafir killers, against muslims that simply support the peaceful return of Caliphate?

salaam

i disagree with hizbies on nearly everythihing. Some of their members, used to really annoy me at MY Uni days but recently i have found alot of their brothers Are very pious. ( if you really have a sincere discussion with them, and not a discussion where you're goal is to prove them wrong. )

I think if the government bans them, then they can ban any group. They will ban mine, mpac, maybe even the tabliqis one day.

They've allowed MCB Bunglawala to get smashed on newsnight perhaps because MCB does have some opinions that are not to the government's liking. But what can we do? If we keep selling off chunks of islam to the kaffirs, we will have nothing left in no time.

We need to take a stand, and unite on common grounds. Any bickering over minor issues, should be kept private and not public as it will cause Fitnah and confusion amongst the already confused ummah here in UK.

The repeated vituperative use of the word "kaffir" is intolerant and offensive, and reflects the spirit of HuT. It is not surprising that a former BNP boot-boy like John Ord finds himself at home in HuT. The most venomous jihadists are white converts ('reverts'?) - around a quarter of Omar Bakri's disciples were white. They are scary people. They can carry on ranting about 'the Jews', with less risk of prosecution.I have an old HuT leaflet, and I quote: "In origin, no one likes the Jews except the Jews. ....The American people do not like the Jews nor do the Europeans, because the Jews by their very nature do not like anyone else. ...The Jews themselves are known for their cowardice and desire for life...The Jews are cowards, they are a people of money and not a people of fighting".

The leaflet talks about world conquest, dominion, rule, against the will of the unbelievers. By no stretch of the imagination is it 'peaceful'.

A person who is not a muslim is a kaffir,a person who is not british is a foreigner.
a person who is not a smoker is a non smoker.
if we go by your standards then we better ban nearly half the words in our vocabulary.
if you do not like being called a kaffir then accept islam and be called a muslim.

Take it from an unbeliever that it is offensive. It is a word that is used with varying degrees of contempt. We do not need to know its etymological origins (to refer to non-Muslim black Africans sold as slaves), or that the south africans adapted it, to understand that. You understand that. I'm sure John Ord and his ilk understand too.

If i understand correctly what you are saying is that because racists in south africa used that word as a insult to black people it is offensive.

then you open up a can of worms,since the british and english flag is offensive to hundreds of millions as it reminds them of oppression and himilation should we ban the british or english flag.

I think it is best we not go down that road.

@Pemicx

You have not answered my question

Who are the capitialists and who are the imperialists? Whose profit is to be maximised and at whose expense?

You want to create the impression that race and racism to be an illusion as it would provide a smoke screen for the racists and as mentioned the white christians.

Your desire and search for the moral equivalence of the BNP amongst white reverts is sheer venom aimed as covering up your own racism. Racism is forbiden in Islam but christianity cannot say the same.

If you would answer my question maybe we could get somewhere.

another anon - I have answered your questions, even though you have not had the courtesy to answer mine. It is sad that you seek out people from another tribe ('white christians') for macho confrontation - is this posturing all your faith means to you?

In my view there is no major world religion that forbids racism.

The use of the word 'kaffir' is offensive primarily because it is used to express contempt and even hatred. This hatred is reinforced by the penalties with which Islamists threaten apostates. It is not accidental that 'kaffir' has its origins in the Arab slave trade, and was picked up by apartheid south africa. I also find the references in the ahadith to Black slaves with heads like raisins rather offensive - and indeed the presumption of slavery on the part of all the Abrahamic religions.

The British flag ... I think i've lived in more fear of the Butcher's Apron than you, dear ROB. Try something else if you want a good old "put 'em up" rather than a reasonable debate.

The word kafir is from the Quran. The creator of this universe describes the believers as muslims and the non-believers as kafirs. A kafir is a person who hides the truth ( ie about the creator and creation ). Admitedly, in recent times this term has been misused ( pimarily by the western media & politicians) to mean infidel. This is in order to create hatred and divisions between muslims and non-muslims. We are all friends whether muslim or kafir, Lets not fall into the trap.

hi Mo, nice to be spoken to by someone who doesn't just want a fight! This is what happens, IMHO, when faith is contaminated with politics - even identity politics...

I disagree with you of course - and came in on the point that you were wrong about the IRA not being banned, or being otherwise privileged as a 'white' group. If anything, the media and the forces of the state are relatively restrained now. Internment, torture, state-sponsored death squads, all on British soil. No peaceful republicans round at No.10 for tea and scones, or nice coppers saying the birmingham bombers were of no nationality - just headlines about "Irish bastards" and cartoons of grotesque ape-savage creatures with huge jaws, helpfully labelled as "the Irish". This led on naturally to observations on the ideological construction of 'race' - and the subsequent intelligent debate with Mr another anon.

@Pemicx

You don't want to answer my question as you are uncomfortable with the answer that racism of white christian countries the us, uk, australia, canda, germany etc.... is responsible for most of the ills of the world today (whether we agree with it or not it is happening) and always has been throughout history. This isn't being macho but factual.

I agree that the ruling classes of generally 'white', generally christian, countries are responsible for most of the ills of the world today - though most ordinary white christians are not responsible for global inequalities and profiteering wars of aggression, so i don't find tribal identification very useful (compared to, say, class, or humanity). Bush and Blair apart, i'm not sure any of them have really been all that christian though (just as many of the corrupt caliphs weren't particularly muslim).

Actually, i'm fond of referring anyone who goes on about the imaginary global Jewish conspiracy, to the real global WASP conspiracy! But as we all know, you have to be careful about using general terms to describe specific evils.

I agree that christianity has been perveted by some white people for their own gains of immortality in history or for profit on behalf of other white christians, but that doesn't mean that I agree that white christian countries and hence white christians (whether agreeing with it or not) haven't benefitted from racism and mass suffering of others through imperilistic gains over the centuries. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I also disagree that no major religion prohibts racism. Islam does prohibit racism and is one of the few monotheistic religions that is not elitist whereas as the justification of white christians for their racism and imposition on other races has always been about elititism and being of the superior race.

christians have certainly by far outdone any other religion in recent history - but as regards the religions as such, I understood that Canaan being cursed to be a slave was common to all the Abrahamic religions? The derogatory references to black slaves in the ahadith isn't a minor point, but a symptom of a larger malaise - the Arab slave trade from sub-Saharan Africa that became a Muslim trade, and which is a given in the Qur'an. Blackness was associated with degradation, sin and damnation, and the 'blackened' peoples of Africa were seen as natural slaves, punished for the sins of Ham. The "Zanj" were likened to animals and apes by some medieval Islamic writers.

Obviously you have the same kind of nonsense (and then some) in Hinduism as well - but it was rich Muslims, and then rich Christians, who ran the slaves from Africa. Thousands were used to work the salt mines around Basra - and thousands rose up against the landowners and the caliphate. That should be our inspiration, not the corrupt caliphates of the past. I have also heard plenty of comments about racial pecking-orders from south Asians who have come back from Saudi Arabia....basically I think triumphalism and tribalism are intrinsic to major world religions - if anything, you should be proud that your religion has had its day in that arena, not want to bring it back. Support the trade unions in Iraq, and the remnants of the anti-occupation left that Saddam, the CIA, and the kaffir-killers haven't liquidated.

pemicx you may have point about folowers of religions thinking they are superior than others.

but when it comes to slavery there is a diffrecne between individauls doing something and states.

waht european christians did was state sponsored industrialised slavery which killed and enslaved tens of million if you read european records or hundred of millions if you go by african records.

this is one thing that cannot be excused by saying rich muslims or rich christians did this.

@Pemicx:

You do not state where you have got your references from and why you want to tar all religions with the same brush and so try and rewrite history.

Islam over 1400 years ago established rules in those times relating to slavery that were followed to the letter by muslims all over the world and as a result the black man was emancipated and even rose to the highest positions within Islam.

You also interpret slavery to mean the same as uour understanding of modern slavery where the black man was brought to europe and wider by white christians in the most horrific and inhuman conditions. The black man was brought to arabia from africa by pagan arabs and not by muslims.

I would also like your evidence that the black man was brought from africa to arabia by muslims once Islam had become established in arabia and throughout the world.

But in the case of the Arab slave trade it *was* the state - the caliphate that HuT are keen to resurrect. In the case of the basra salt mines, i think it was the abbasids, but they all used the slave trade. The caliph himself frequently accounted for huge numbers of 'concubines' (basically sex slaves). The Atlantic slave trade was certainly much crueller, but the Arab/Muslim slave trade was no picnic either, involved a lot more women, and lasted much longer.

As for sources, I read "Islam's Black Slaves" a while back (there are other books at africabookcentre dot com) and the ahadith were by Anas ibn Malik (can't recall what collection) who is generally well regarded by Sunnis - he frequently mentions black slaves, including those belonging to Muhammad, identifies Muhammad as a "white man", and makes mocking references to the black slaves having heads like raisins. I also recall Qur'anic references to blackened faces (of the damned?) on the last day. There is no condemnation of slavery in the Qur'an any more than there is in the bible - both books are addressed to the mercantile and land-owning classes, set certain tribes up as better than others, and assume you have slaves - the best that can be said is that in the Qur'an you earn extra spiritual points if you free one now and again. To me that's wrong.

And - before you say the faces of the damned are only 'black' because of hellfire - i think incinerating human beings is wrong too! That's why I opposed the bombing of Iraq, because those incinerated Iraqis were fellow human beings; so are the shi'a (other tribe) civilians in the market-places.

pemicx i wanted to get your real views and now i know were you are coming from.

never in africa did any muslim khalifa send any army to catch people and enslave them,the way christian nations went out of their way to do this.

people who were enslaved during the khalifa time were captured in battles and they had a get out which was some one could ranmsome them or they would use thier skills to buy freedom.

the proof is in the pudding if you say muslim khalifas did for longer then from historical records not fiction books show us how during 1300 years of khilafa african nations were attacked solely to get slaves.

Lastly muhammed did not have any black slaves he had a companion by the name of bilal whom had been freed after his master a non muslim had been paid for him.

Bilal was given the highest position in islam as the person who called muslims to come and pray,even today people who call others to praye are highly respected and looked at.

you can twist and turn reality as much as you want but for every crime you try to put at the door of islam 100 will be put back at the door of christianity so it is better we do not go down that road,as many have tried and failed.

islam tretas black-white-brown-yellow equally,it is not the colour but the actions which are looked at in islam.

@Pemicx -


It is a simple question

I would like your evidence that the black man was brought from africa to arabia by muslims once Islam had become established in arabia and throughout the world.

@Pemicx:

I think you must be really hurting that white christainity cannot lay claim to much except the enslavement, oppression, and mass suffering including illegal invasions and bombing and as you say incinerating innocent muslims civilians. So much for spreading the message of jesus.

ROB, why do you justify slavery? Do you think it is good when they are captured in battles and can be ransomed? Or that it's ok because christianity is worse (something i've already agreed)? If you read the ahadith, you'll find that muhammed had many black slaves, not just bilal. In the Qur'an the phrase Ma malakat aymanukum refers to human beings - often children and women - taken in war as booty, whether for labour or sex. Would you really like evidence that "the black man was brought from africa to arabia by muslims once Islam had become established"? Or have you already decided you won't accept it? I gave you an african books source - go there and *please* get one of the books if you really do want the evidence. The main routes were trans-Saharan overland, and sea routes to east Africa via the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Traders brought Africans from Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia and Sudan, to various parts of the Muslim world (i've already mentioned the basra salt mining). The trade lasted a thousand years - and there is still slavery in Mauretania and the Sudan.

Of course it hurts me that "white christianity cannot lay claim to much except the enslavement, oppression, and mass suffering including illegal invasions and bombing and as you say incinerating innocent muslims civilians". It hurts me as a human being, not as a member of a tribe. It hurts me that something of our humanity seems to get lost when we start projecting ourselves onto an eternal canvas and forget that we are ephemeral - we end up not caring unless we can see people as 'our own'. It really hurts, but not in the vain, ego-crazed way that you seem to promote, dear another anon. It is liberating to think outside stereotypes - and to have debates that aren't pi55ing contests. OK, it does hurt just a teeny bit that you keep calling me a christian (i'm really really not a cross-worshipper), and that you therefore haven't really read much of what i've been saying here - but i can get over that.

Islam's black slaves - is that the book that disusses how increasing number of black african slaves became attracted and converted to islam.

Why would slaves do that? Even more so, if they were slaves ...why would they be allowed to do that?

and no! it would not give me the evidence that the black man was brought from africa to arabia once Islam had become established in the midle east and throughout the world. If it would have happened in earnest then there would be more than a single book about it.

As I have said before your interpretation of slavery as relating to Islam (the capture of those in war) is different to slavery relating to modern day white christianity.

You should really start looking at things impartially and accept all the good Islam has brought to the world. I mean why would you want to buy a book called Islam's black slaves unless you were really searching for some material that you could use to denigrate Islam.

pemixc i said give me proof that khalifas attacked african countries to get slaves,i did not talk about individuals who traded in bonded slavery which is still being caried out all over the world including europe.

i am talking about state sanctioned acts of slavery,before modern times all nations had ways of dealing with prisoners some nations slaughtered them others imprisoned them forever,in islam the ruler had the option of freeing them in the name of Allah-ransoming them or using their skills and freeing them.

as the conditions of warfare today are diffrent,so the rules are diffrent nowadays prisoners are repatriated after war ends.

i still wait for you proof that khalifas sent armies into africa to enslave people in the tens of millions.

do not answer the question with another question as trained to do so.

i've already cited the example of the Baghdad caliphate importing slaves from Africa to basra, to desalinate the land (it also imported plenty from imperial campaigns in asia). I also directed you to books available at africabookcentre dot com - look in the slavery section, under "Islam and Slavery". I mentioned the one because that's the one i've read. Your question as to why I'd want to buy a book (borrowed it from library actually) called "Islam's black slaves" is stupendous! Why read anything? I've read about the Atlantic slave trade too - is that because i just want to denigrate the british? Or because we have a human duty to know about man's inhumanity to man? All empires deserve to be denigrated - and that includes Arab imperialism, HuT's glorious Khalifah.

If fully referenced books aren't good enough, 'evidence' is traditionally summarised in peer-reviewed journal articles. Try searching some African Studies journals, like The International Journal of African Historical Studies. If you can't be bothered reading books or papers, just look up 'Arab slave trade' in wiki - bits like "The Sultan of Cairo sent slave traffickers on raids against the villages of Darfur" (sound familiar? janjaweed?) - and check out the references at the bottom. And 'Islam and Slavery'. Zanzibar was the hub of the trade, even in the 18th century, under the Sultan of Oman. I honestly can't believe you're not at least familiar with the vast Ottoman harems - it's not just an orientalist myth, you know! Slavery may well have been worse in jahiliyah arabia, and Islam allowed slaves much greater mobility and mixing than was ever possible in the atlantic trade, but its validation in the Qur'an and ahadith ensured that it lasted for far too many centuries.

ROB, are you saying that the eternal Qur'an's provisions for 'what your right hands own' should be changed because "the rules are different nowadays"? And that the ahadith are wrong about Muhammad owning black slaves? His companions continued to barter in slaves - wasn't the second ('rightly guided') caliph Umar, a companion of the prophet, killed by one of his own slaves? Don't the wahhabi sheikhs still say slavery is Islamic (hence all those south asian camel jockeys in Saudi)?

Sorry, I forgot to add positive comments re the Golden Age. I'm a big fan of what i've seen of the poetry of Al-Ma'arri (whom i've discovered only recently) and Omar Khayyám, and the scientist/philosophers like ar Razi, Ibn Rushd and Ali Sina (Avicenna). It's actually quite hard to get hold of their stuff though.

Thanks for clarifying that you have read about pagan "arab imperialism" and not muslim imperialism. As I have said once Islam became established even the pagan arabs who converted followed Islam to the letter and there are no cases of african slaves being imported by muslims into arabia.

There may also be a difference in what constitutues a slave and slavery.

When you say black slaves were imported into say basra, was that into a muslim nation or pagan arab nation? How long before these black slaves converted to Islam?

It is also islamic etiquette (although I know you are not a muslim) to provide a reference point for any hadith or quranic verse should you want it to be accepted as part of any debate or discussion so that it may be authenticated.

Oh dear. think about it, anon: mesopotamia (and everywhere outside the peninsula) only became 'Arab' subsequent to the Muslim conquest - so Basra being 'pagan Arab' is a contradiction in terms. As for the african slaves converting to Islam - well, what do you think? How long did animistic beliefs last in the christian plantations?

You can find a typical Anas ibn Malik reference to "a black slave of Allah’s Apostle" at the usc compendium of Muslim texts, at 006.060.435 in the complete translated Sahih Bukhari (urls are removed here, so trust you can find it yourself); and the reference to Muhammad being a "white man" is in the same collection, at Volume 1, Book 3, Number 63. There is a reference to "the display of black slaves in the Mosque" in Volume 2, Book 15.

You know, I was at the rallies and demonstrations in 1991 against the butchery that was Operation Desert Storm. And you know what? The Islamic right was nowhere to be seen (at a time when they were raking in government recognition for hounding rushdie). Every oil-rich state on the arabian peninsula was a partner in the 1991 slaughter, so the Iraqi civilians and conscripts were 'Iraqis'. It was only after the Saudis jumped ship, and after 9/11, that they became 'Muslims', and the Islamic right started to 'care' about them. It was trade unionists and socialists from middle eastern countries who spoke at the 1991 rallies. Now they're completely excluded. Hell, even Tariq Ali was booed by the Islamic right at the 2 million demo a few years back.

This thread started with absolutely abysmal and shameless ignorance about Ireland, where the struggle did not involve 'Muslims'. You have a duty to inform yourself as Brits about ALL places where your country interferes - but you don't seem to know or care about anything beyond your current parochial identification. You even - astoundingly - have the same willful ignorance when it comes to the imperial history of the caliphate you want to restore. Ignorance is no sin - but there is no excuse for not informing yourself. Intensity without knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Pemicx

Can you really hear yourself? Do you think only your idea of knowledgeable people should say anything. Perhaps we could narow it down to only history professor's should be allowed to have an opinion because you do not like someone saying that peace was being made with white terrorists whilst the innocent civilians of iraq and palestine were being attacked.

Calling mesopotamia basra doesn't really make it basra just because you or some one who has written a book has decided that it should be called basra and not mesopotamia.

You really should learn to question what you read and hear alot more and we haven't even got round to to agreeing what constitues a slave and slavery yet.

You have not mentioned any specific hadeeth or quranic verse to back up what you are saying and expect me to go and find out.

You just can't bear to think why a black african would want to covnert to Islam can you? and yes we can all read books and believe in what we would like to believe which is why some are often attracted to material that they deem to be anti-islamic.

you quote a typical Anas ibn Malik reference to "a black slave of Allah’s Apostle" at the usc compendium of Muslim texts, at 006.060.435.

Then we will decide if it says what you think it says or even if it says what you want it to say.

Pemicx

I have spent all of 10 seconds (waste of time) finding out about an accepted inaccurate account (by the author) of a revolt of black slaves in the 9th century in mespotamia who were descendants of black slaves imported by pagan arabs prior to the establishment of Islamic rule.

Still doesn't seem like a justification for a crusade.

And so we return to where we began (and never got any answers): at what point did the british suddenly realise that Irish republicans were nice 'white terrorists'? Do you think they'll be willing to negotiate with white revert/convert jihadists? Is it a crusade or a race war? Do they treat non-muslim non-'whites' more favourably? Isn't bin Laden physically white? Do you understand the way they construct 'race' - and that the Irish were historically and politically not regarded as "white"? Have you read Curtis's 'The Roots of anti-Irish racism' to check this out - or do you just want to join in? To me you don't sound much different from your average right-wing white british christian - same prejudices, same mind closed to discussion by basically the same collection of myths, compelled to think in stereotypes.

If you don't understand imperialism in the real world, you're left with childish oppositional thinking: you decide i cannot possibly be critical of past arab/islamic imperialism and the arab slave trade for any reason other than to "justify a crusade" (in spite of what i've said against imperialistic interventions across the world) because you can't be bothered reading what i write, never mind the references i give you. This is just a waste of time. History doesn't belong to professors - it belongs to all of us. Go find out stuff - if you keep your mind open you will discover a wider, truly inclusive brotherhood. Salaam.

Pemicx

Are you saying that peace was not made with white christian terrorists or do you just want to be in denial about the exitence of racism and pretend we live in a world where only the ruling classes (sorry elitist white european classes) that fit in with your eurological thinking exist. See we're back to that elitism against that doesn't exist in islam, but does in other monotheistic religions!!!!

Still at least you now know the difference between pagan arab imperialism and Islam and that you now agree that pagan arab and muslim arab are two different things.

The notion of the irish as a political non white race was just that a theory.
An intellectual proposition, but you don't get that and think it was fact. A theory does not change a fact and can never do so. Just like all the other anti-muslim theories that you use and which you read to support you theories and notions about your anti-muslim stance.

As for childish opposition you really should try to to win the argument on intellect alone. If you are not constructed enough in your own mind as to the history of justification and denial of racism by white christianity then you really should read up on what Islam said about racism in the 7th century.

The hadeeth and quranic verses and even the final and other sermons of the prophet mohammed (peace be upon him )are historically preserved fact but you would rather not go there. I wonder why?