Islam and Socialism made Africa a prison continent

www.faithfreedom.org...

In his fact-filled work on the history of the Muslim Arab slave trade in Africa, Murray Gordon notes that this trade pre-dated the European Christian African slave trade by a thousand years and continued for more than a century after the Europeans had abolished the practice. Gordon estimates the number of slaves "harvested" from Black Africa over the period of the Muslim Arab slave trade at 11 million - roughly equal to the number taken by European Christians for their colonies in the New World.

Europeans almost entirely bought slaves who had already been enslaved by their fellow Africans. Islam on the other hand raided into Africa to make slaves of previously free natives (another difference is that the Muslims castrated the males as eunuchs, so there are no huge African populations in the Arabic world that we see in the Americas today as a result), this lead to the collapse of all the advanced African civilizations except Christian Ethiopia:

africanhistory.about.com...

"Under the Sonike it became a major power From the eleventh century the Almoravids (Muslim Berbers) attempted to conquer the region, and although the kingdom was never converted to Islam, it went into a decline."

Islam's fault that Ghana fell apart.

www.learner.org...

It was the largest and most powerful kingdom in medieval West Africa. The riches of the gold and salt mines drew invaders, though, and in the late sixteenth century a Moroccan army attacked the capital. The Songhai empire, already weakened by internal political struggles, went into decline.

Likewise with Songhai.

www.learner.org...

When Mali declined, Timbuktu was taken over by the Songhai. After the decline of the Songhai empire, Timbuktu was briefly occupied by Moroccan forces, then taken over by the Fulani people and later by the French. Timbuktu's history mirrors the rise and decline of civilizations in the area.

Once again trashed by Islam, and then by a native people, before the French ever got there. "Timbuktu's history mirrors the rise and decline of civilizations in the area," is just a politically correct way of saying that Islam ravaged it like Ghana and Songhai.

Thus, most Africans were left at the tribal level, and had little to trade with Europeans for manufactured goods except slaves taken in war from neighbouring tribes.

Europeans, once they had a small trading foothold like in America, often simply bought up the land from the surrounding native individuals and tribes. Other land was sometimes captured in self defense, often with a good portion of the neighbouring tribes taking the European's side. This is actually more on the up and up than the current Mexican colonization of the American southwest, where millions come in illegally every year, get free medical care and education at the expense of American taxpayers, pay no taxes, break down law and order, and send a good portion of their income back to Mexico.

In the historically short time of European rule over Africa, they introduced modern sanitation, medicine, law and order, Christianity, technology, etc. creating an living standard that allowed such a population expolsion that the West is now paradoxically blamed for African overpopulation, because the post-colonial regimes have been unable the living standard they inherited. A perfect example of this is Mugabe's Zimbabwe, in defiance of Christianity and the sacredness of property (Matthew 20:1-15), blacks were allowed to murder and rape almost all the white farmers off the land. This resulted in the collapse of the country's economy and the nation's ability to feed itself. If multiculturalism is correct, and race means nothing, then what difference does it make if most of the farms were owned by whites? (A rich elite will always control a concentration of a nation's wealth under any system, especially Communism). Now, because a government allows its citizens to get away with possibly an even sub-Islamic respect for property, law, and life, there is no way such citizens can be productive at much of anything, they have to give the place formerly occupied by the whites to the Chinese. All that starvation and poverty to change the color of the skin of the people farming the land from white to yellow:

www.guardian.co.uk...

So, do Christians, Europeans, America, or the West in general, have good reason to accept the guilt that is constantly being laid at our door? No. This especially true since most of those attempting to do so reject Christianity, and even view religion itself as an evil. If there is no God, then Darwinism is correct. And, if Darwinism is correct, there should be no morality other than survival because it gets in the way of evolution, and the weak deserve to be poor and die.


[edit on 4-2-2006 by Paul of Nisbis]

right, i'm relatively new to this website, but here goes...

with respect, i could not actually disagree with you more. i am not trying to defend the fact that arabs raided africa for slaves, because to my knowledge, they certainly did. however, colonialism is a topic that you clearly do not understand.

it's easy to be philosophical about the trade-off's that colonialism brought many African countries, but at what price?

Europeans did introduce modern sanitation, medicine, law and order, Christianity, technology, etc. to their African colonies. They were introduced as a means to extort cheap labour. Europe raped the African continent, and used it's own people to do the dirty work. You don't belive me?

Well i live in South Africa. I am the product of a colonial legacy. I lived under a literary racist government. A staunchly Christian government that spread institutionalized racism.

If an African girl or boy benefits from the continents colonial past in any way, trust me, this was not the intentions of the colonialists. Not one coloniser did it for the land they colonised, they did it for themselves. Any benefit to the locals was a fortunate but unintentioned biproduct.

If you would like facts backing up my argument, you may request them, and i shall post. Oh, and one final thing, Robert Mugabe is a practicing Christian. Also, property and plants are regarded as untouchable in othordox Islamic persuations, particularly in the conduct of warfare.

In closing, the "west" is just as responsible and guilty as anyone else, but certainly no less. In fact, the general consensus amongst south african acedemics at a collegiate level is that Christianity and Capitalism were the two major players in Africa's problems.


Get your facts straight.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by zapatista]

Originally posted by zapatista
Oh, and one final thing, Robert Mugabe is a practicing Christian.

Please, just like Bush is supposedly a "practicing Christian" but is really a, at least, third generation occultist.

Originally posted by zapatistaAlso, property and plants are regarded as untouchable in othordox Islamic persuations, particularly in the conduct of warfare.

Ha, ha, ha.

Originally posted by zapatistaIn fact, the general consensus amongst south african acedemics at a collegiate level is that Christianity and Capitalism were the two major players in Africa's problems.

Indeed, and that's why South Africa is going down the same Socialistic path as Zimbabwe blazed.

on what do you base south africa is heading down the same path as zimabwe. it's laughable how little you know.

south africa has a growing free-market economy where small business is encouraged. south africa has a constitution that protects every citizen equally. south africa has a democratically elected government.

do a simple google search...south africa, cape town, south african economy...

where do you see the similarity between south africa and zimbabwe?

is it because bothe have black governments are in africa and are thus doomed? such bold statements you make with no credible backing

South Africa is a very interesting country, indeed the whole continent is as such. My Uncle and Aunt live in South Africa and I went to visit them a few years ago.

My Uncle is rich and white (he deserves it, I don't know anyone who works harder than him) but on the way to his house the amount of townships I saw with poor housing and wire fences made me wonder. I know the Apartheid is over but for me I think there are still issues to address.

Again what I saw was a few very rich white people and a lot of poor black people. That for me doesn't bode well because all you need is somone like Mugabe to take advantage of people who have nothing. Having said that people know the mess he's made of what was once called "the bread basket of Africa" and guy is completely insane.

At the same time. South Africa is developing fast and I could tell that things were changing. I am an optimist and like to think that Blacks and Whites can live together as equals.

As for the whole Islamic thing and the rape of Africa. I do not agree with you. Yes the Muslims did some very bad things in Africa but so did we. It doesn't matter if you take slaves who were prisoners from other tribes or capture them in war. Its still wrong!

The problems Africa faces now are as a result of the cold war policies of both the superpowers. We in the west flooded the whole place with guns and supported some very nasty people (Just look at the ammount of AK's in Africa). We also gave African countries loans we knew they couldn't pay back.

There is also the issue of Capitalism. We in the West encourage African peasants to grow cash crops such as coffee so they can make some money. This is fine in theory but is in practice bad. African peasants should be concentrating on growing food to feed their family. If they grow one crop when the price drops its game over. Africa needs to learn self sufficiency. The West should stop meddling and Africa will sort itself out.

Bottom line. The West is mainly blame for Africa's current problems. Not the Muslims, though I will not deny they certainly played their part.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by enslaved83]

Originally posted by zapatista
on what do you base south africa is heading down the same path as zimabwe. it's laughable how little you know.

south africa has a growing free-market economy where small business is encouraged. south africa has a constitution that protects every citizen equally. south africa has a democratically elected government.

do a simple google search...south africa, cape town, south african economy...

where do you see the similarity between south africa and zimbabwe?

Are you serious? Yes, do a google search. You haven't heard all the praise for Mugabe and how your leaders want to follow his example? Are you just feigning ignorance?

www.cfr.org...

There is support for Mugabe from African countries, especially neighboring South Africa. President Thabo Mbeki is one of Mugabe's most vocal supporters.

And:

www.publiuspundit.com...

The government in South Africa has always been making attempts at "racial justice," but it has been generally by market means. They want to have at least 30% of the land tranferred to black farmers by 2014, though only an estimated 5% has switched hands fairly. So what happens when the market just doesn't work out the way you want it to? You use the government, of course! And with only ten years to meet that socialist quota, drastic measures must of course be taken.

[...]

For forced land redistribution:

"We want this process to begin immediately," said Mangaliso Kubheka, national organisor for the Landless People's Movement. "We're waiting to see if the pledge will be implemented. The people have spoken. We need to see if the government will listen."


Against forced land redistribution:

"These people who claim the land, do they use it or do they just leave it lying there?" said Chris Jordaan, property rights manager for the Transvaal Agricultural Union South Africa (TAU SA).

"Are these guys commercial farmers? The big worry is food security. Almost every other country in Africa needs food aid."

"We don't say there must be no black commercial farmers," said Jordaan. "But this land reform is a form of socialistic economic policy. It has not fed people elsewhere in Africa and it has not sustained commercial agriculture."

And:

www.pbs.org...

But the divisive land seizures in neighboring Zimbabwe have increased pressure on South African leaders to make visible progress in their own land redistribution program. Political leaders have been hesitant to directly condemn the actions of Zimbabwe's President Mugabe, who many in the public view as a radical trailblazer for the rights of the black and landless.

"There is a kind of emotional, gut-level reaction among South Africans that Mugabe is doing the right thing," Ben Cousins, a professor at the University of the Western Cape in Bellville, told The New York Times in January.

And:

www.thezimbabwean.co.uk...

Most SA analysts took the view that Mbeki wanted the elections to take place at all costs, so that even if they were rigged, the SA government could indicate that the results were "the will of the Zimbabwean people" - which is exactly what Mbeki said afterwards.

And:

www.hsf.org.za...

Both domestic and international observers waited for Mbeki to react: how could he continue to preach the African Renaissance if he did not take a stand in favour of the rule of law, against the straightforward suppression of both civil and property rights and the open resort to violence?

[...]

The business community was stupefied. The markets were thoroughly alarmed by Zimbabwe's policy of expropriation without compensation and the spectacle of a ruling African nationalist party making it clear that it would use all manner of violence rather than allow a democratic alternation in power. [underline]If Mbeki failed to take a strong and public stand against this, the conclusion could only be that, faced with a major electoral challenge, South Africa's ruling African National Congress (ANC) might behave in the same way.[/underline]

And:

www.zmag.org...

With Mbeki sounding more and more like a belligerent Robert Mugabe, whose tirades against supposed enemies of the State, like the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDM), white commercial farmers, and outside interference in the coming elections in March, has become legend, what does the future hold for South Africa?

[...]

That was also the fateful year GEAR (the 'Growth, Employment and Redistribution Strategy'), was unleashed onto an unsuspecting South African public by the new Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel.

The results? There is increased social dislocation, continuing violence and gangsterism, due to increased poverty levels inside the country caused by GEAR, South Africa's own home-grown neo-liberal strategy for growth and employment. Petrol (fuel) prices, transport costs and food prices are set to rise, giving rise to speculation of Argentina-style food-riots and its resultant political turmoil!

[...]

Clothes, household products and books have all increased in recent weeks. Coupled with the collapse of the currency, the Rand, it spells disaster for poor households, who consume most of their disponibel income, almost two-thirds, on basic household necessities.

The price of bread is set to increase by 30 cents a loaf. Interest rates are set to go up, in the usual "monetarist" answer to the deepening economic crisis. Needless to say, wages are not set to go up, as the government is urging the populace to "tighten their belts". On top of all this, another water price hike is expected, a 45 percent increase in the Durban region alone. In July the government introduced its free basic water system, designed to give each family 6 000 litres of free water each month. However, serious outbreaks of cholera and sanitation-related diseases were reported both last year and this year, particularly in rural KwaZulu-Natal.

Also, there has been a huge capital flight through the de-nationalization of big conglomerates such as De Beers/Anglo American, Old Mutual and South African Breweries, who are now listed on the London Stock-Exchange. This means that their profits need not be repatriated back to South Africa. The massive devaluation of the currency, two-thirds over a ten year period, i.e. the cheapening of the currency, the Rand, seems to only favour the export-industry and the rampant tourist industry.

[...]

Also, the Mbeki family has emerged as a key player in the nepotistic allocation of contracts and through illegal procurements procedures, in the now notorious Rands 60 billion arms deal. Some family members, like younger brother Moeletsi, have allegedly gained economic advantage from this "deal of the century".

His father Govan, Nelson Mandela's firm comrade and a staunch and sincere communist till his recent death, would turn in his grave had he knowledge of these goings on. The ANC is today displaying all the negative traits that one has seen before in Zaire under Mobuto and Zimbabwe under Mugabe and many other 3rd Word dictatorships.

And:

www.christianaction.org.za...

Every year over 20 000 people are murdered in South Africa and our justice system is failing to protect the citizens of this land. Most of the murderers who terrorise our people escape being bought to justice. In fact our laws now seem to favour the rights of the criminals, and all too often criminalise the victims.

[...]

Our cities have become breeding grounds for criminals and our homes have been changed into locked fortresses. The freedom of movement of most citizens has been curtailed by the ever present threat of vicious and senseless attack. Instead of decisive action against the criminals, the government seems more concerned to remove security barriers set up to protect crime ridden suburbs, and to deny licences for firearm applications, for self defence purposes, for the long suffering population of this country.

Anyone who advocates socialism, or any of the other humanist policies, as the answer for South Africa, should seriously consider the disastrous consequences of socialism and humanism for the Soviet Union, Red China, East Germany, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. In each of these countries, and in every other secular state, socialism failed to build the just, prosperous and free society that the humanist leaders had so confidently promised.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by Paul of Nisbis]

Originally posted by enslaved83

We in the west flooded the whole place with guns and supported some very nasty people (Just look at the ammount of AK's in Africa). We also gave African

--snip-

Bottom line. The West is mainly blame for Africa's current problems. Not the Muslims, though I will not deny they certainly played their part.

The West is not the only one supplying arms to Africa.
A lot of rebel forces in Africa are armed and trained by muslim nations.

Africa's insurgencies: Training on demand from Libya

The Mathaba Guerilla Training camp in Libya, North Africa remains active even today churning out classes of trained insurgents who have made a long-term lucrative profession of fueling Africa’s civil wars.

It is a sad commentary that conflict-ridden Africa has these insurgents to thank for unleashing untold catastrophic humanitarian toll and wanton violations of international laws in the name of revolution. The Libyan government, by extension continues to support and train these insurgents at Mathaba.

BBC

Sankoh trained in the guerrilla camps of Muammar Gaddafi's Libya where his companions included Charles Taylor, now the embattled president of neighbouring Liberia.

After training in Libya, Sankoh returned with his comrades to Liberia where he took part in the early stages of the rebellion in 1990 that was to bring Mr Taylor to power.

For many years now we've all been told that the west is to blame for most of the world's troubles but we do not deserve all of the blame as some people try to do.

Why is it that this particular thread appears to be a RESPONSE to another thread?
This is becoming a disturbing trend, I think, as I have seen it occur more than just a couple times in the last week or so.
Stop it. Reply to threads within the threads.
Stop it. Stop it, or there will be no love or candy thrown your way.
Also, think of what happens to the cute little kittens of the world every time something like this happens.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Why is it that this particular thread appears to be a RESPONSE to another thread?
This is becoming a disturbing trend, I think, as I have seen it occur more than just a couple times in the last week or so.
Stop it. Reply to threads within the threads.
Stop it. Stop it, or there will be no love or candy thrown your way.
Also, think of what happens to the cute little kittens of the world every time something like this happens.

It wasn't a mere response, it was a entire thesis that can stand on its own.



[edit on 4-2-2006 by Paul of Nisbis]



[edit on 4-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

Ace of Base don't get me wrong I agree with you. My point was more to do with the original post which seems to place the blame solely on the actions of Muslims while exonerating the colonial area and the recent actions of the West in Africa.

It is my opinion that everyone is to blame and the from a moral point of view it is right that we in the west feel guilty about what has been done in Africa. If Muslims nations/people choose not to it just means we are better than them from a moral point of view.

Specifically this is what we should feel most guilty or at least try and take action to stop:

www.oxfam.org.uk...

The bit I found most interesting:

External Source

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council – France, Russia, China, the UK, and the USA – together account for 88 per cent of the world’s conventional arms exports; and these exports contribute regularly to gross abuses of human rights.

The last thing Africa needs is more weapons

[edit on 4-2-2006 by enslaved83]

Originally posted by enslaved83
The last thing Africa needs is more weapons

That's true but the US and Western Europe send very little weapons to Africa.
Those that they do send are often sent to South Africa.
It's really Russia, China and other non-western European nations that are sending weapons to Africa.

africaarmstransfers9hl.jpg

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1997-2004 (pdf)

[edit on 4-2-2006 by AceOfBase]

Originally posted by enslaved83

The last thing Africa needs is more weapons

I agree. Btw, check this out. Russia is about to sell lots of arms to Algeria. "Its largest post-Soviet defense export deal"...

Soj: Cry Havoc And Let Slip the Dogs of War!

02.02.06


From the Moscow Times:

Russia is set to sell 4 billion dollars worth of arms to Algeria, in what would be its largest post-Soviet defense export deal

[---more---]

Algeria also has a few bones to pick with its neighbor Morocco, in their long-running dispute over Western Sahara.

[---more---]

And as we all know, an arms race in Africa is just what everyone needs and wants.

Click the link to read the full version...

Originally posted by Paul of Nisbis

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Why is it that this particular thread appears to be a RESPONSE to another thread?
This is becoming a disturbing trend, I think, as I have seen it occur more than just a couple times in the last week or so.
Stop it. Reply to threads within the threads.
Stop it. Stop it, or there will be no love or candy thrown your way.
Also, think of what happens to the cute little kittens of the world every time something like this happens.

It wasn't a mere response, it was a entire thesis that can stand on its own.



[edit on 4-2-2006 by Paul of Nisbis]



[edit on 4-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

That can be said about anyrthing, if you want. However, this is where it should have been put.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

while you are at it, would you mind telling me how this is current events? Sociology maybe, or religions

[edit on 4-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

Originally posted by enslaved83
The bit I found most interesting:

External Source

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council – France, Russia, China, the UK, and the USA – together account for 88 per cent of the world’s conventional arms exports; and these exports contribute regularly to gross abuses of human rights.

The last thing Africa needs is more weapons

[edit on 4-2-2006 by enslaved83]

Without doing the research, I'm going to guess that the five permanent members also manufacture approx. 88 per cent of the world's arms. And a lot of their sales are to their allies.

If someone has the desire for weapons and has the currrency, there will always be someone that will sell them to them.