Message to one diktator re another

Thursday, 10 March 2011

Cassius Clay, A Slave Name?

From here.

Just listening to BBC Radio 7 as am not required to listen to their Israelophobic news broadcasts and anti-Semitic "comedy" programmes.
A piece came on about the boxer Mohammed Ali. The presenter said:
"He changed his name from his slave name, Cassius Clay to Mohammed Ali"
I had to laugh! The original enslaver of Black Africans are still and always have been the mozlems! Whereas Black American slaves have been freed for over one hundred years, Black African mozlem slaves are still there, chained up, starved, beaten, raped, tortured, in Sudan, Mauretania, Saudi Arabia.
Poor Cassius Clay: he has returned to his ancestors slave-name. He might as well have stayed in Africa if that is how he feels!!
Here is a Website entitled: Black Peoples of America,
"Slavery was not new to Africa. Traditionally, slavery was used as a punishment for serious crimes. However, although slavery was a punishment for criminals, they were, in the main, treated fairly well by their masters.
This was not the case once trading in slaves became 'big business'.   
From about 1510, Europeans had begun capturing slaves and taking them to work in the Americas. They were easily able to do this because their weapons were much more powerful than the Africans' traditional spears and shields. 
As the demand for slaves grew, the demand for slaves by Europeans grew. They exchanged guns for slaves and African chiefs, eager to possess guns which would give them power over rival chiefs, began inventing new crimes for which the punishment was slavery.  
At the same time, coastal Africans were using guns to raid inland villages for the slaves that the Europeans wanted. Those who resisted capture were killed."
"Slavery was originally used as a "punishment"?? What a load of total rubbish!! So what about the men, women and children, sold into slavery by Arabs and mozlems, whom they had never encountered before?? What "crimes" had they committed? Conveniently no answer! The slaves are being blamed, by these modern day black dhimmis, for becoming slaves because they were criminals?
Firstly, no Europeans "captured" any slaves: Arabs did it themselves as they knew the territory only too well! They created markets for the Black slaves that the Europeans visited. So it was so much better to be a slave of an Arab than a European? No mention of it being better NOT to have been forced into slavery in the first place, thereby avoiding sale to Europeans.
FROM WIKIPEDIA, MODERN SLAVERYA system exists now by which Arab mozlems -- the bidanes—own black slaves, the haratines. An estimated 90,000 black Mauritanians remain essentially enslaved to Arab/Berberowners. The ruling bidanes (the name means literally white-skinned people) are descendants of the Sanhaja Berbers and Beni Hassan Arab tribes who emigrated to northwest Africaand present-day Western Sahara and Mauritania during the Middle Ages. According to some estimates, up to 600,000 black Mauritanians, or 20% of the population, are still enslaved, many of them used as bonded labour. Slavery in Mauritania was criminalized in August 2007. Malouma Messoud, a former Muslim slave has explained her enslavement to a religious leader:
"We didn't learn this history in school; we simply grew up within this social hierarchy and lived it. Slaves believe that if they do not obey their masters, they will not go to paradise. They are raised in a social and religious system that everyday reinforces this idea."
In Mauritania, despite slave ownership having been banned by law in 1981, hereditary slavery continues. Moreover, according to Amnesty International:
"Not only has the government denied the existence of slavery and failed to respond to cases brought to its attention, it has hampered the activities of organisations which are working on the issue, including by refusing to grant them official recognition".Imam El Hassan Ould Benyamin of Tayarat in 1997 expressed his views about earlier proclamations ending slavery in his country as follows:
"[it] is contrary to the teachings of the fundamental text of Islamic law, the Quran ... [and] amounts to the expropriation from Muslims of their goods; goods that were acquired legally. The state, if it is Islamic, does not have the right to seize my house, my wife or my slave."[1More here
More on slavery here .


No comments:

Post a Comment