Friday, May 24, 2013

Why Mohammedanism (Islam) Is ESPECIALLY Bad For Black People

Today, at the Vast Right Wing Negrocon Zionist Conspiracy, I wish to address an issue too often ignored by apologists for Mohammedanism (aka Islam); those who oppose Mohammedanism, and the general world "community."

We have known for years that Mohammedanism is waging a world-wide campaign to force itself on the rest of Mankind; or, rather, we WOULD know this if our so-called "media" were telling the truth and if History were truly being taught. Fact is, for so many decades the story has run somewhat along these lines:

"The Muslims were peaceful and not bothering anyone when the Christian West invaded their lands with the Crusades."

"Christianity forced itself on Africa; Islam is the natural religion of black people."

"Islam freed slaves and opposes Slavery."

"Islam means peace in Arabic."

There are many other canards about Mohammedanism, and I could probably write an entire series of books in regard to them. However, those books are already written and out there; and by people who have more likely spent more time studying Mohammedanism and its history that I have. This commentary is NOT meant to do that today. Instead, I only named four of these canards, and I intend, in fact, to address only TWO of them.

Why only two of them? Because not nearly enough people have sought to the two I will seek to talk about. Those two will be the second and third that I have listed. I shall now address them as best I can.

Myth: "Christianity forced itself on Africa; Islam is the natural religion of black people."

Fact: The truth of the matter is that, according to information given in the Book of Acts in the "New Testament" of the Judaeo-Christian Bible, belief in Yeshua (Jesus Christ to Christians in the West) went to Africa soon after Pentecost. In Acts 8:26-40, Philip, a Christian with a thriving ministry in the Samaria area (once held by the northern kingdom of Israel when ten of the twelve tribes split from rule by the descendants of David and Solomon *the southern kingdom became known as Judah*), is directed by God to travel the "desert road" from Jerusalem to Gaza (yes, in those days, Jews lived throughout the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, LONG before Mohammed's birth).

On the road he meets an "Ethiopian" eunuch. The man is reading (or having read to him by a servant) the book of Isaiah from the Septuagint, indicating that he may be a convert to Judaism, or that his family converted some time before. Philip joins him and is asked by the Ethiopian to explain a passage. Philip explains that the passage refers to Yeshua's being unjustly accused, tried, and executed, and of His Resurrection, and that salvation is now available to all through that Sacrifice.

The Ethiopian asks is anything is hindering him from being baptised in the Spirit, for he believes the message Philip has brought, and they are now near water. So, the Ethiopian eunuch is baptised; Philip is suddenly "taken away," but the Ethiopian proceeds in rejoicing as he and his train continue on home toward Meroe, then capital of the kingdom of Aksum. For nearly two millenia after, the Ethiopian kingdoms of Cush, Aksum, and their successor kingdoms in the region of modern Ethiopia

The message here is that Christianity is for ALL who will believe and come, regardless of physical condition, age, sex, racial or ethnic origin, or geographical location. That the man is an Ethiopian speaks volumes, not only to us to day, but to the original readers of the book of Acts in the Greco-Roman world. For the ancient Greeks and Romans were utterly fascinated with "Ethiopians" (the word is derived from the Greek aithiops, meaning "the glowing" or "the black") as they lived on what was the edges of their known world. What this story also tells us is that Black people were among the earliest Christians, and that Mohammedanism (Islam) was NOT, in fact, the "natural" religion for black people. Even when the Europeans emerged from their home continent and arrived in Africa in noticeable numbers betwen 1450 and 1900, they did not, by and large, try to FORCE the native Africans to become Christians. Oh, yes, the Catholics and Protestants sent missionaries into the interior, but they were not under orders to force conversions. Even when the European powers nearly completely colonized Africa in the 18th-20th Centuries, there was no compulsion for the natives to become Christians. In spite of this (or perhaps BECAUSE of this), the fastest growing CHOSEN faith for Africans is not Mohammedanism, but Christianity.

In fact, if one were to compare the Bible and the Mohammedan "holy" book, the Quran, one would find that the Bible, though often mentioning "Cushites" (a Hebrew appelation for black peoples, as descended from Ham's son Cush), does NOT impart any special status of inferiority to the Cushites/Ethiopians. In the Quran, however, Mohammed and Allah seem to have a special hatred for dark-skinned peoples. There are numerous passages in the Quran that are entirely derogatory to black people. Mohammed even goes so far as to tell his adherents that if they wanted to see Satan they should look at black people, and one in particular, by the name of Nabtal.

We can see from this that, though Jews and Christians have found themselves looking down on Africans at times, it is not inherent to their faith; nor does Yahweh/Yeshua command such. In fact, in the books of history in the Old Testament, the Cushites/Ethiopians are as often allies and friendly toward the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews as they may be inimical to. *Something Jew-hating black folks MIGHT want to give serious thought to before embracing the lies that Mohammedan apologists like Louis Farrakhan and others are touting.*

Myth: "Islam freed slaves and opposes Slavery."

Fact: Although Slavery has existed almost as long as humankind, throughout most of human history it did NOT have a definitive racialist attitude. In fact, most slaves in the Ancient World of Greece and Rome were NOT of African origin. Most slaves held by Romans were of the peoples of Western and Southern Europe, as many of the Roman conquests took place in these areas. There were Africans who were slaves in the Greek and the Roman empires, of course. There were also, in the Roman world at least, many Africans who were not slaves, and some were, in fact, Roman citizens. (Roman citizenship was not entirely dependent on origin; many soldiers of the "auxiliaries" to the Roman legions (cavalry from Numidia, Gallia and Germania; slingers from the Balearic Islands; spearmen from Nubia and Egypt, and other non-Roman formations *most Romans in the legions tended to be infantry*) became Roman citizens when their terms of service were ended.) Also, in the Roman world, slavery was not necessarily a life sentence. Household slaves often became freedmen, as did successful gladiators. Many even moved up to become wealthy men and women in their own right, and even accorded the status of Roman citizen.

There was also slavery in the Judaic and early Christian world (from the time of Avram *Abraham* to the 2nd Century AD); here, too, there wasn't a definitive racial or ethnic element to it. It was simply a person's misfortune to have been born or made a slave. In fact, as the Roman Empire waned in the West and the Eastern Roman empire became known as the Byzantine empire, slavery died off somewhat in the West. Part of it was that the economy had become such that holding and maintaining slaves to do the work was impossible, and part due to an emerging ethos among Christians that men should not be enslaved. 

Enter Mohammedanism; enter Mohammed. The Quran, Sira, and Hadiths are replete with the doings of the "prophet" Mohammed. They tell how Mohammed, after his teachings were rejected by the Meccans, left Mecca, went to Yathrib (today's Medina) and began to attack Meccan caravans, loot Jewish tribes, and enslave those captured in raids. There are passages in which Mohammed manumits a slave or two when they  become followers of his personality cult cum political ideology posing as a "religion;" however, by and large, Mohammed funds his new "religion" by raiding caravans and trading slaves. 

Also, Mohammed is very often quoted as speaking entirely derogatorily of Black people. He calls blacks "raisin heads," among other epithets. Further, his followers have enslaved many millions more Africans than did all the "Westerners" from the time of the Romans to the ending of Slavery in Brazil in the 1880s. Yet, the Americas, to where there were fewer Africans taken over a 360-year period stretching from around 1450 to 1810 than the tens of millions of Africans marched off to the Mohammedan world over 1400 years, has a greater proportion of its population descended from said Africans than does the Mohammedan world, and in far and away a better economic and health condition. Though the Christian West is not guiltless in the slave trade and the enslavement of Africans, the Christian and Post-Christian West HAS struggled mightily to overcome the racialist legacy of such. No such self-searching occurs in the Mohammedan world; in fact, the Arabic word for "black" and the Arabic word for "slave" are one and the same.

The Europeans who brought enslaved Africans to the Americas did not castrate the men, nor did they actually do much raping of women, Oh, some rape of the enslaved African women DID occur, but by and large it was not standard practice. This is not true in the Mohammedan world. Most of the enslaved African men were castrated so that they could NOT reproduce, or so they could be sold to serve in the women's quarters of palaces as eunuch guards. Most of those castrated did NOT survive the march to the slave markets. The women were often raped by the Arab slavers, and repeatedly. Those women who did survive were used as sex slaves or for household duties. The difference in the general treatment of the enslaved Africans by "Christian" Europeans vis-a-vis Mohammedan Arabs and Persians is most visibly seen in the proportions of population that the descendants of the enslaved make up of the Americas vis-a-vis Mohammedan world.

In addition, the Europeans got into the "Slavery" game rather late, and got out of it sooner. In fact, in the West, the idea of Slavery had always had both proponents and detractors. Many in the West came to see it as an institution that ran counter to the Judaeo-Christian ethos. This is particularly so among the Protestants of Britain and their American colonies, thirteen of which would become the original Thirteen of a new republic named The United States Of America. The concern about Slavery and whether it should continue unhindered, be gradually phased out, or ended "cold turkey" shows up from the very first. In the drafts of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson had even added a direct reference to the enslavement of Africans as a crime of which the British Crown were guilty. However, it was removed in order to get the Southern colonies (South Carolina and Georgia, in particular) to agree to the Declaration. The failure to directly oppose Slavery engendered the British wit *and inveterate opponent of slavery*, Dr. Samuel Johnson, to comment wryly and derogatorily on it.

Further, as the United States Constitution was being written and hammered out, there was written in a "sunset clause" on the importation of slaves. It was to be ended by 1808, a year after the British Parliament had set for the slave trade an end year of 1807. Also, the notorious "Three-Fifths" compromise, which many have interpreted to mean that the Founders saw Blacks and American Indians as being worth only 3/5 of a human being, was actually put forth because the Southern states wanted their entire population (many to most of whom consisted of enslaved Africans, and American Indians) to count for representation in Congress, but without their actually being free and able to vote. The Northern and Middle States objected, and felt that only free persons should be counted for representational purposes in Congress. The idea behind the compromise was that 3/5 of the enslaved black populations and of the Indians would be allowed to count for representation. Try as they might, the Founders could not see a way clear to bringing to its death an institution that most of them understood ran counter to their belief in Liberty. The end came as a result of Civil War, but even this is a testament to the Western ethos of personal liberty in that war would be fought to bring it about. This is something not seen in the Mohammedan world ethos.

Thus, when the "race card" players and Mohammedan apologists claim that Mohammedanism (Islam) is a good thing, and the "natural" religion for black people, understand that they are either woefully ill-informed or outright LYING! The worst thing that could happen to a people once enslaved *a people who fought to be free to choose how they will get on with living* is to willingly acquiesce to be enslaved once more; or to NOT fight those who would re-enslave them to the death. If you do not agree, look at Nigeria; see Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Mali, and a host of other black African nations on the borders of the Mohammedan world. In Mauretania, 20% of the population (all Black) are enslaved by their Arab Mohammedan "compatriots." Sudan is now divided into Sudan and South Sudan because blacks in Sudan were subjected to rape, enslavement, castration and murder for so long by the Arab Mohammedans in the north that they rebelled and fought for nigh-on twenty YEARS, and gained an independent nation only a few years ago. Already, that new nation has had to fight off incursions by the Arab Mohammedans. Mohammedanism IS the most virulent form of hatred the world has ever seen; and its hatred of Black people is second ONLY to its hatred of Jews. *if you ask me, being hated by Mohammedanism puts us Black folks in good company, as it also hates Jews, Christians, and former Mohammedans who got sensible and got out of it.*

Many Africans know this, and if they do not already abhor, despise, and reject Mohammedanism, are very wary of its expansion. It can only hold on in Africa, indeed, anywhere on Earth where men and women think for themselves, by the sword, the gun, the bomb, and by rape.


Post a Comment

<< Home