Monday, 9 September 2013

Slavery in Islam- The Arab Culture, Melanophobia and Negrophobia

It is a very common misconception that White colonialists were responsible for enslaving Black people. In fact this lie is even repeated at our schools, poisoning the minds of our children, and distorting the truth about the History of Slavery.  It is time for us to speak up and urge readers to revisit their History lessons. 

Arab Muslims have been enslaving black people for over 900 years BEFORE slavery came to be known to whites. To this day Arabs still maintain black (and also white) slaves. The so-called "holy" Qu'ran, the book Muhammad wrote when he was having delusions of grandeur, encourages slavery. There are also several accounts of thievery and slavery recounted in the Hadiths, arising from Muhammad's violent wars of conquests. See a few below. 

You can find more Thievery and Slavery in Islam here
******************************************************
Bukhari:V5B59N512 "The captives of Khaybar were divided among the Muslims. Then the Messenger began taking the homes and property that were closest to him."


Tabari VIII:116
Ishaq:511 "So Muhammad began seizing their herds and their property bit by bit. He conquered home by home. The Messenger took some of its people captive, including Safiyah and her two cousins. The Prophet chose Safiyah for himself."


Ishaq:511 "When Dihyah protested, wanting to keep Safiyah for himself, the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims."
Qur'an 48:19 "He rewarded them with abundant spoils that they will capture. Allah has promised you much booty that you shall take, and He has made this easy for you."
Qur'an 9:103 "Take alms out of their property in order to cleanse and purify them, and invoke Allah for them; surely this is a relief for them."
******************************************************
Melanophobia and Negrophobia in Arab culture - Why Black Africa should resist Arab domination. 

The following excerpt from The Crisis of Identity in Northern Sudan: A Dilemma of a Black people with a White Culture, by Al-Baqir al-Afif Mukhtar, gives an insight into the melanophobia and negrophobia that Arab culture has reeked of since before the time of Mohammed: 
 
“The contempt towards . . . the dark skinned is expressed in a thousand ways in the documents, literature and art that have come down to us from the Islamic Middle Ages.
  ...This literature, and especially popular literature, depicts (the black man) in the form of hostile stereotypes - as a demon in fairy tales, as a savage in the stories of travel and adventure, or commonly as a lazy, stupid, evil-smelling and lecherous slave. . . . Ibn Khaldun sees the blacks as “characterized by levity and excitability and great emotionalism” and [says] that “they are everywhere described as stupid” . . . al-Dimashqi had the following to say: 
 
“The Equator is inhabited by communities of blacks who may be numbered among the savage beasts. Their complexion and hair are burnt and they are physically and morally abnormal. Their brains almost boil from the sun’s heat.”

Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadhani follows the same line of reasoning. To him . . . the zanj . . .are “overdone until they are burned so that the child comes out between black, murky, malodorous, stinking, and crinkly- haired, with uneven limbs, deficient minds, and depraved passions. . .”


The formal abolishment of slavery in Muslim countries was not enacted in all of Islam’s one thousand three hundred years or so history at the time, until the intervention of the West. Saudi Arabia finally caved in and formally abolished slavery in 1962 only upon continued Western imposition. Although slave trade was banned in Niger by French colonists a century ago, the cultural practice of slave ownership was not banned until recently in 2005! 

Although we feel we need to point out that the word "abolishment" means nothing to Arab-Muslims, for they continue to keep slaves.






Arab-Muslim doctrines on Black enslavement
 
The following excerpt [from Blasphemy Before God: The Darkness of Racism In Muslim Culture by Adam Misbah aI-Haqq, shows how and why Arabs incurably believe in enslaving blacks: “Classic Muslim thought maintained that blacks became legitimate slaves by virtue of the colour of their skin.


 The justification of the early Muslim equation of blackness with servitude was found in the Genesis story so popularly called “the curse of Ham,” in reference to one of Noah’s sons . . . .In the Arab- Muslim version, blacks are cursed to be slaves and menials, Arabs are blessed to be prophets and nobles, while Turks and Slavs are destined to be kings and tyrants. . . . 

The famous Al-Tabari, for example, cites no less than six Prophetic traditions which seek to support this story. One tradition reads: Ham begat all those who are black and curly- haired, while Japheth begat those who are full faced with small eyes, and Shem begat everyone who is handsome of face (Arabs of course) with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow past their ears, and wherever his descendants met the children of Shem, the latter would enslave them.
  Ahmad Ibn Hanbal reported a saying attributed to the (fake) Prophet which in effect states that God created the white race (dhurriyyah bayd) from the right shoulder of Adam and created the black race (dhurriyyah sawd) from Adam’s left shoulder. Those of Adam’s right shoulder would enter Paradise and those of the left, Perdition. Other equally racist sayings have been attributed to the (fake) Prophet in the traditions.

Contradicting this spirit, there are the sayings of the (fake) Prophet which equate the value of a person to his "God-consciousness" (taqwa), and to their piety without any regard to the tribal or ethnocentric concerns of a racist purport. Such [egalitarian] reports [were overshadowed by] the more deeply rooted tradition of racial bigotry . . . [emphasized by] Muslim geographers and travellers who ventured into Africa. . . . Al-Maqdisi wrote, “ . . . As for the Zanji, they are people of black colour, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence.” . . . Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406CE) added that blacks are “only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings.” . . Even such luminaries as Ibn Sina considered blacks to be “people who are by their very nature slaves.”
 
The creation or resurgence of the mythology of Ham also made dark skinned people synonymous with servitude in light-skinned Muslim thinking.

Muhammad said that Allah has ‘made war booty legal‘ for the Muslim, and that Muslim men are allowed to do as they please with their female war captives including having sexual relations with them against their will, i.e. RAPE. 

It's therefore a lie to say Islam does not permit men to rape their captives, and there is absolutely no limit to the number of female sex-slaves a Muslim male is allowed to keep. 
In obedience to Allah’s set principles in the Quran, many Sultans who ruled over conquered territories had harems bursting with concubines in the thousands. Moulay Ismail had 4,000, Akhbar had 5,000, and the harem of And al-Rahman III (d.961) in Cordoba contained over 6,000 concubines, to name a few. 

Concubinage was sealed into the DNA of Islamic culture. Prior to these Sultans, leading Muslim men during Muhammad’s time kept numerous sized concubines – women acquired as ‘booty’ from jihadi onslaughts. Muhammad never dissuaded them from such practice. Islam is pretty clear on whether or not slavery is lawful. It is lawful. Islam only "forbids" the enslavement of born Muslims, but as we will see below, even that is not enforced, for many Muslim children are enslaved, and chained in Madrassas, forced to memorize the Qu'ran. Is this not slavery of Muslim children?
 
Clearly, the advent of Islam did not regulate slavery, it took slavery to unprecedented heights and made people even more barbaric than they previously may have been. During the Western colonial era, Muslim slave trading routes were interrupted. Many of the previous slave-destined Muslim regions also became Western protectorates thus had to do away with some of the practices they were accustomed to. Slavery, however, exists till this very day in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. Its indigenous black populace have been specially targeted by the government and prosecuted for their Animist religions. Their indigenous languages have been banned at schools and instead they are mandated to learn the language of the Quran – Arabic.

Many Muslims seek to deny that slavery was permitted in Islam, but these are apologists who have no credibility whatsoever before the truthful facts of History.

We have also previously written about Sudan, Slavery and Islam here, Pakistan Christians' sex slaves, proof that Islam condones slavery and Muslims in US appealing for slaves among Blacks.

Allowing Islam to have a foothold in your country means you will one day either be forced to convert or be held as a slave in an evil, backwards and extremely racist society.  
Just look around you. Muslims have been forcefully taking over several countries in Africa, Middle East, and now Europe. All this because our societies are too afraid to sound racist or anti-cultural. 
Rape is not cultural. It's violence.
Slavery is not cultural. It's violence.
Amputations, child marriages, honour killings, misogyny, murders, child abuse, all these things are not cultural. It's violence, pure and simple.

Islam is a cult created based on violence, and dictatorship. It is not a religion, or peaceful. Muslims use 'Taqqiya' (Lies and deceit) to advance their cult and force it down our throats, and this is why it is imperative that we stand up to them without fear of being called racists.  Islam is not a race. Muslims are not part of any particular ethnic group. There is nothing racist in resisting Islam.

There is nothing stopping us from putting an end to Islamic advancement in our societies and our countries. We must take a firm stance and work with an iron fist if we are to defeat a people that represent the very enemy of mankind, nature and of animals. 

We in the JDL do not recognize Islam as a religion. We despise their beliefs and everything they stand for. We believe Islam is a cancer and a plague upon humanity and nature. 

There is no excuse for people to support a cult that idolizes violence against non-Muslims. There is absolutely no justification for any civilized person to even tolerate this extremely vicious ideology under the guise of "faith".

This article was written in an attempt to encourage Black people to learn the true History of Islam and how these savages have been enslaving the black population of Africa for many centuries before the white man even came into the picture. If you want to propagate your "Black Power", then show your true power and defeat Islam. Push the Arab conquerors out of your lands and take back your countries, your religions and your customs!  

If you are a Black Muslim, the first best thing you can do is to leave Islam and turn to humanity and to the wonderful culture you once abandoned; for your culture is far more enlightened than that of these savage barbarians, who to this day, still live in the 7th century.





JDL UK Team


When the Far Left and the Far Right Fuse on the Jews




Introduction



It could be argued, logically, that this fusion of the Far Left and the Far Right on the subject of the Jews and Israel may simply display the fact that when some things are true, then all sorts of people will believe and propagate them; just as Conservatives, Liberals, socialists, etc. all believe in human rights and just as just about everyone denies that the world is flat.


I argue otherwise.


I argue that the Far Left and the Far Right fuse on the Jews because they fuse on so much else. Fusing on the Jews is a consequence of their fusing on much else.


They fuse on their commitment to totalitarianism, iliberalism, ‘lying for justice’, the acceptance of political violence/terrorism on any scale and for any purpose in line with their ideologies and aims, in their black-and-white world-versions and on so much more. But what really unites and fuses them is their penchant for conspiracy theories. And which social or ethnic group has become the favourite subject for political conspiracy theories? That’s right! The Jews!


Conspiratorial thinking is almost the very essence of the Far Left and the Far Right. Think of the many bogymen of the conspiritorialists and see if you can recognise if they are the favourites of the Far Left or the Far Right – or both! Take this list: neo-cons, neo-liberals, the Jewish Lobby (or ‘Cabal’), the Israel Lobby, the Zionist Lobby, the Jewish media (or just the plain Platonic Media), finance capitalists, bankers, corporatists, capitalists (generally), das System, Freemasons (sometimes in cahoots with Jews) and so on.




Not only Anti-Semitic Fusions



It’s not just anti-Semitism which unites - and united - the Far Left with the Far Right. For example, the socialism of National Socialism united the Nazis with, well, (left-wing) socialists. We have Adolph Hitler on that. He once wrote:


‘We did not defend Germany against Bolshevism back then because we were not intending to do anything like conserve a bourgeois world or go so far as to freshen it up. Had Communism really intended nothing more than a certain purification by eliminating isolated rotten elements from among the ranks of our so-called “upper ten thousand”… one could have sat back quietly and looked on for a while.’


Clearly, the difference highlighted here was deemed to be between internationalist socialism and Hitler’s own nationalist socialism. But that doesn’t work either because the Soviet Union, as well as Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc. were also fiercely nationalist communist regimes.


Even in 1969, fascists were still stressing their socialist credentials (as they do today, with or without the word ‘socialism’). Leon Degrelle cried out for


‘the people, worn down with long hours of work, miserably paid, inadequately protected against accidents at work, illnesses, or old age, waited full of impatience and anguish to be treated at last with humanity.’


And, in the end, only fascism could save them. Only fascism has a ‘respect for ordinary people and a desire for social justice’.


It is not surprising, then, by way of an example, that when communism, and Leftism generally, ‘took to the streets’ in 1960s America (just like our own ‘anti-Zionists’ today), the fusion of Leftism with Nazism became all too apparent.


Peter Berger, a Jewish refugee from Austria, peace activist and sociologist, wrote that 
when ‘observing the [American] radicals in action, I was repeatedly reminded of the storm troopers that marched through my childhood in Europe.’


Why are Some Leftist Jews Anti-Semitic?


So what’s going on with these Jewish far-leftist anti-Semites? How’s the circle squared exactly?


We can start by saying that Jewish leftists are only Jews on their ‘parents side’, as someone once joked. They are only Jews in terms of their race, DNA or blood! These leftist Jews don’t believe in Judaism or even Jewish culture. They certainly don’t practice such things. And they are also often ashamed of (most of) Jewish history too – especially what can be found in the holy books. More importantly, they completely reject the existence of the state of Israel.


For a start, these Jewish leftists are materialists and atheists. They are, well, communists of various kinds. They are only racial Jews. And that very same far left frequently tells the rest of us that ‘race doesn’t matter’ when it comes to such things.


Archie Brown, in his excellent book The Rise and Fall of Communism, also (sort of) puts the same point. He writes:


‘… since the individuals concerned [Jewish communists in the early days of the Soviet Union] had broken with Jewish traditions, it is hard to discern what difference their [Jewish] origin made on their ideas.’


Brown writes elsewhere that ‘joining the Communist Party meant distancing themselves not only from Judaism but also from distinctive Jewish customs.’


Another writer makes a similar point. He writes that


‘the involvement of [Jewish] individuals in this radical movement [Communism] was in most cases an act of rebellion against the traditional world of their [Jewish] parents or against the concern with particularistic Jewish issues as expressed by movements such as Zionism…’


Even Nazis admitted that many Communist Jews were not really Jews at all. For example, the Nazi apologist, Ernst Nolte, writing in 1987, wrote that ‘a conspicuous number of Jews took part in the Russian Revolution, most of them no longer saw themselves as Jews anyway.’


Despite that, these very same Jews, and many others, were ‘deprived of their rights [by the Soviet regime] and driven into immigration’.


Not only all that. Nolte goes on to say that no ‘other group was affected so much as Jewish communists by Stalin’s Great Purge’.


Again, these early Communists, like Chomsky today, stripped themselves bare of all Jewishness. The only thing that remained was their Jewish blood – but, again, that doesn’t count for anything, as Chomsky himself would argue (though perhaps not in this precise context).

 Noam Chomsky - Kapo 



It should not be a surprise that many Jewish Communists could be even more rabid than, say, Finkelstein.

 Norman Finkelstein - Kapo



Take the Jewish Communist, Ruth Fischer, writing in 1920s Germany:


‘Whoever cries out against Jewish capitalists is already a class warrior… Kick down the Jewish capitalists, hang them from the lampposts, and stamp upon them.’


After this psychotic communist outburst, the Soviet regime soon realised that ‘Marxist-Leninist ideology could not be twisted to such an extent as to embrace overt anti-Semitism…’


How was that problem overcome? Yes, you guessed it:


‘… when [anti-Semitism] was deployed as a weapon in the Soviet Union, it was in the guise of attacking cosmopolitanism or Zionism.’


Thus we got:


anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism


After all, in the Soviet Union, at this time, the Jews were rather cleverly turned from being a race, or a people, into being a nationality – and this was before 1948. And Stalin didn’t like any nationality in the Union causing him problems (real or imagined), least of all a nationality made up of Jews!




This tradition of Communist anti-Semitism reached its end in the Soviet purges of the 1940s and 50s. More bizarrely, for example, even the Communist regime of Poland, as late as 1968, carried out its own campaign against ‘Zionism’. Of course hatred of the Jews in this part of the world not only proceeded the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, but even proceeded the birth of Zionism in the second half of the 19th century – by hundreds of years!


It is only natural, then, that in the 21st century that Chomsky, Finkelstein and the rest should carry on this Communist tradition of anti-Semitism, which they have done with a kind of aplomb.


The Far Left and the Far Right find common ground against the Jews



We all love to hear the Far Left criticise Israel. Take Chomsky. He says that Israel is the ‘worst terrorist rogue state on earth’ (139). Actually, these aren’t the words of Chomsky. They are the words of the former leader of the American Nazi Party, as well as former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, David Duke.


Chomsky did say, however, that what ‘Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people…. Such a policy violated international law…’


I’m lying again. That was the far right Pat Buchanan, the former anti-Semite and now a fulltime anti-Zionist.


You can suppose, prima facie, that both David Duke and Pat Buchanan go much further in their anti-Semitism… their anti-Zionism. For example, Pat Buchanan has expressed doubts about whether Jews were gassed at Treblinka. In addition, John Bemjanjuk, who was convicted of being Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka, a death camp in Poland in which some 870,000 Jews were murdered, was classed, by Buchanan, as being ‘the victim of an American Dreyfus case’.


Like Chomsky, Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, and numerous other lesser leftists, Buchanan cries genuine tears in response to the ‘gratuitous brutality against Palestinian women, teenagers and children’.


Yes, but surely Chomsky is far from being a Nazi… surely. Maybe. However, it is now well known to all whom are not monomaniacal anti-Zionist Leftists that Chomsky has praised and championed the French writer, Robert Faurisson. Faurisson has, like many others, and not just Nazis and Muslims, denied the Holocaust. Not only that. He repeats the refrain that Israel is inflicting a ‘Holocaust’ on the Palestinians.


So what about Chomsky himself?


Chomsky has written that Robert Faurisson is a ‘relatively apolitical liberal’, despite him saying that the gas chambers are a ‘hoax’ and a ‘fraud’. Nevertheless, according to Chomsky, Faurisson has done ‘extensive historical research’, all of which backed up his ‘findings’.


Unbelievably, or perhaps not so unbelievably if you have the measure of this American academic, Chomsky has said that there is not even a ‘hint of anti-Semitic implications’ about Faurisson’s claims about the Holocaust.


Chomsky continues by saying that ‘nobody believes there is an anti-Semitic connotation to the denial of the Holocaust.’


Take Alexander Cockburn too. This guy has a column in the American Nation, as well as having his own far-left online journal, CounterPunch. He also champions the work of his fellow Far Leftists, Chomsky and Finkelstein – especially when they are talking about the Jews and Israel.


But let’s get down to business.


Cockburn was once asked whether or not he believed the stories about Israel had a hand in the 9/11 slaughter, as well as in the anthrax attacks. He answered:


‘I don’t know there’s enough exterior evidence to determine whether they are true or not.’


But of course Chomsky, Finkelstein and the rest can’t be anti-Semites because they are Jews.


If that is the case, then Marx (a Jew) wasn’t an anti-Semite either. Was then  Marx, who wrote the following, an anti-Semite? –


‘Marx talked of ‘the chimerical nationality of the Jews’. He also wrote the following:


             'What is the profane basis of Judaism?

             Practical need, self-interest.

             What is the world cult of the Jews?

             Huckstering.

             What is his worldly god?

             Money.'


Not only all that. Mark’s also wrote of ‘niggerlike Jews’ (two racisms for the price of one) and the ‘dirty Jews’.


What about Chomsky? He can’t be an anti-Semite. –


‘The Jews do not merit a ‘second homeland’ because they already have New York [despite the fact that 8500,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab-Muslim countries before and during 1948]… Jewish-run media, a Jewish mayor, and domination of cultural and economic life [Jews ‘dominate cultural and economic life?].’


Now I know that Finkelstein is an academic (is he an academic?) Bad Boy; or, better still, an academic exhibitionist. Surely he keeps his anti-Semitism under wraps.


Not quite:


‘Who profits [from the film Schindler’s List]?… American Jews…


‘In 1978, NBC produced the series Holocaust. Do you believe it was a coincidence, 1978? Just at this time, when peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt took place in Camp David.’


Elsewhere Finkelstein exhibits his Bad Boy’s big bollocks with these words:


‘Should people like Abraham Foxman, Edgar Bronfman, and Rabbi Israel Singer get a free ride because they resemble stereotypes straight out of Des Sturmer?’


This man even rejected his own (Jewish) mother when he noted that there was something very Jewish about the way she pushed into queues and other such "Jewish crimes".

Social corruption is our society is now ingrained. Whereas once the left had the reputation of fighting for human rights, now they are famous for: Turning a blind eye to human rights abuse, their blatant anti-Semitism and for their Islamic appeasement. Hence they gave birth to the NEW ANTISEMITISM.

We quote from the link:

"New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism has developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, emanating simultaneously from the far-left, radical Islam, and the far-right, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies, is, in fact, tantamount to demonization, and that, together with an alleged international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols, and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.
Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel, or double standards applied to its conduct, may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate."

We must therefore learn how to recognize the signs from individuals and groups that expose their New Antisemitism, and campaign to ban them, for such attitude is nothing more than a disease, a cancer in our societies.