Log in

View Full Version : slaves castrated in arabia



mzalendo
10th April 2006, 06:35
a strong defender of the arab savagely visited upon the africans is at it again check out what proffessor ali mazrui had to say:

The history of slavery in Africa, according to press reports, is once again being debated.

One of the tantalising questions is why there is not a major African Diaspora in the Middle East as compared with more than a 100m people of African ancestry in Brazil, the United States, the Caribbean, Spanish America, and elsewhere in the Western world.

The Arab slave trade was much older than the Trans Atlantic slave system. Why then is there not as extensive an African presence in the Middle East as there is in the Americas?

What has happened to the descendants of enslaved Africans in the Middle East?

Some scholars believe in the eunuch explanation. According to this theory, Arab slavers turned their African captives into eunuchs who could not reproduce themselves. But this theory makes no economic sense. Why would a slave system make it impossible for its slaves to procreate the next generation of slaves?

The children of slaves would after all be additional slaves. So why would an Arab slave owner make it impossible for his male slaves to procreate the next generation of slaves? It would have been economically absurd to sabotage the natural increase of slaves.

The eunuch explanation for the absence of an African Diaspora in the Middle East is further weakened by failure to explain female slaves. Since African women slaves were not made infertile, why did they not reproduce an African Diaspora? After all, more than 60 per cent of African-Americans are descended from white males mating with Black females. So why was not an African Diaspora in the Middle East created by Arab males mating with Black females?

The smallness of the African Diaspora in the Arab world is due to the fact that the descendants of African slaves were permitted to become Arabs by the lineage system.

Two of the Presidents of Egypt since the Egyptian revolution of 1952 had Black mothers: Presidents Muhammad Naguib and Anwar Sadat.

President Sadat, especially, was criticised for many things, but almost never because he was half- Black.

More recently, the Prime Minister of Kuwait also had a Black mother, but he was never compromised for being half-Black.

Contrast this with African-Americans like W.E.B. DuBois and Malcolm X who would never have been accepted as white in America although in appearance they were more white than Black. We are still waiting for a Black President of a Western country, or a Black Prime Minister.

The most influential Arab diplomat in Washington DC for several decades has been the Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan, whose mother is Black and who looks Black. He seems to be a close friend of the Bush family. Reportedly, he is the only person permitted by the US First Lady, to smoke in her home.

According to the Arab lineage system, any person whose father is Arab is himself, or herself, Arab regardless of the race of the mother. The child is co-opted upwards to a more privileged status.

In contrast, American racial classifications used to prescribe that anybody who was even one-eighth Black was himself, or herself, Black. In the American lineage system, children of racial mixture moved downwards to the status of the less privileged parent.

In Arab culture, as we indicated, a child of mixed parentage became Arab if his or her father was indeed Arabic. There was upward racial mobility in Arab kinship culture.

As for the sub-culture of the eunuch in Muslim societies, it started more than a hundred years after the Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632 AD. Historians have traced the eunuch tradition in Islam to about the year 750 AD.

Was it a peculiar product of the culture of the harem (secluded Muslim women?) In reality castration was more Mediterranean than Islamic. It was certainly practiced in the Roman and Christian Byzantine empires long before the Muslim Ottoman Empire. And the Italians practiced castration of boys for artistic reasons, in order to train boys as soprano singers (castrati). It was Pope Leo XIII who banned this practice of castration in Italy as recently as 1878.

In Christianity, castration was sometimes self-inflicted as a method of conquering sexual temptation. Christian self-castration goes back to at least the theologian Origen (AD 185-254).

In early Christianity, there were even sects that deliberately practiced self-castration... In the third century of the Christian era, the Valesi Sect not only castrated themselves but also their guests.

In short, the practice of castration — though widely practiced in Muslim slave systems on males entrusted with guarding the harem of women — was in fact a product of Mediterranean traditions long before Islam. Within Muslim culture, as we have indicated, the eunuch did not become a factor until more than a century after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. Christian self-castration was practiced long before Islam.

But were enslaved African males castrated under the rule of the Ottoman Empire? The answer is yes, but only those male slaves who were entrusted with guarding the women of the ruling class. Other male slaves were encouraged to get married and procreate new generations of slaves.

Islamic law prohibited castration, but Muslim rulers permitted it selectively. Yet the number of eunuchs was too small to be the explanation for the limited African Diaspora in the Arab world.

Why is the African Diaspora in the Middle East so much smaller than the Diaspora in the Americas?

There were three main reasons. Firstly, the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the capitalist era was much larger in scale, and used much bigger ships, than the Arab slave trade.

Secondly, European racial attitudes in the Americas were more resistant to racial intermarriage and racial integration than were the attitudes of Arabs and Turks.

Thirdly, Arab lineage systems enabled children of Black mothers to be full Arabs if the father was an Arab. The concept of ‘half-caste’ or ‘mulatto’ is still alien to Arab culture if the father is Arab.

mzalendo
10th April 2006, 06:49
Prof Ali Mazrui is a renowned scholar, but he continually whitewashes the Arab slave trade, blaming it as much as possible on others.

Africans shipped by the millions to Arab countries deserve the right of reply.

Mazrui admits the Arab-African slave trade lasted much longer than the European one, so far less slaves, he maintains, were taken from Africa by Arab slavers.

Simple computations show this to be wrong. The Arab trade lasted 1,300 years, and the European one only 320. If only 6,000 African slaves from the whole continent a year were taken by Arabs (a very conservative estimate), that would add up to 7.8 million. Yet in 1838 it was estimated that the Cairo slave market alone traded in 12,000 Africans annually.

The Sultan of Morocco had an entire army of 250,000 African slaves.

Most scholars place the minimum number of African-Arab slave trade at between 30 and 50m and the Atlantic slave trade at a lesser ten million Africans.

Mazrui concedes that Arabs used to castrate African male slaves, but argues the numbers were few and that Sharia law forbids castration. This is misleading.

In the 10th Century one Caliph of Baghdad alone had 7,000 black castrated black eunuchs in his palace.

True, Sharia law forbids Muslims to castrate, but non-Muslim surgeons operated, thus not breaking the law.

One may agree with Mazrui that slaves in Arab hands were often better treated than in Western ones and had some limited rights. But in the slave trader wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, the entire system broke down and unspeakable atrocities and slaughters were visited on Africans.

Some say the wars in South Sudan and Darfur are echoes of these times.

We cannot judge history by today’s morality, but what amazes one is that Mazrui piece seems unapologetic about Arab and Islamic slavery, to the point of almost defending it.

Yet, we all know it was the West that was the first to outlaw slavery, and Arab countries agreed much later, mostly at gunpoint. Both Western and Arab civilisations should remember slavery with equal shame and remorse.

leftist manson
10th April 2006, 07:20
very insightful piece mzlando.

[QUOTE]Both Western and Arab civilisations should remember slavery with equal shame and remorse
very true.

Black Dagger
10th April 2006, 11:32
True, Sharia law forbids Muslims to castrate, but non-Muslim surgeons operated, thus not breaking the law.

On the issue of castration, from an essay i wrote on the Islamic slave system:

"As men generally are not born eunuchs, and the mutilation of slaves was apparently unlawful (at least within Islamic territory), eunuchs ‘to-be’, who were imported from outside the empire were more often than not, "manufactured" at the frontier (Lewis 1990, p10)"

The Islamic slave system operated in a real 'dont ask don't tell' kinda way, although many things that happened during the slave era were regarded as unlawful under Shariah, they were nevertheless widely practiced. Things like treating your slaves 'with care' or setting them free were always 'commended' but never commanded in law. Although the Qur'an acknolweges the inequalities inherent in the slave system, its underlying premise is still to legitimise and justify the practice.


but what amazes one is that Mazrui piece seems unapologetic about Arab and Islamic slavery, to the point of almost defending it.

That article was pretty disgusting, i would go further, he's not 'almost' defending it, he IS defending it! He's making excuses and trying to shift the blame, that's disgusting.

As to a reason why the Islamic slave system did not develop a huge African underclass, some ideas from my essay again:

"Unlike slave systems in other parts of the world, the Islamic slave system did not facilitate the widespread growth of ‘slave families’, or indeed a great slave underclass centered on the family unit. This is in clear contrast with the conditions in the New World, where the slave population increased very rapidly into a sizeable (and later, ‘problematic’) underclass (Lewis 1990, p10) .

In a demographic context, the gender balance in Islamic slavery challenges normative definitions of the institution, as slaves are seen as predominantly male, due to their capacity for physical labour. However, two-thirds of those involved in the Muslim slave trade were female, were as in contrast, two-thirds of the slaves transported across the Atlantic to the New World were male (Miller 2002, Online).

Finally, in a ‘racial’ context, Islamic forms of slavery crossed nearly all ethnic lines, whites from Europe and the Eurasian steppes, black peoples from Africa (particularly North), and even Asian peoples from as far-east as China, were all used in Islamic forms of slavery. In the Atlantic slave trade for example, the sole source of slaves was Africa, and this often frames peoples’ perceptions of slavery and indeed often defines the institution, mainly due to their extensive scholarship on the New World system and its contemporary relevance for western countries such as the United States (Lewis 1990, p11)."

Basically the huge gender inbalance (2/3's of slaves were wimmin), combined with the castration of African male slaves and the fact that the Islamic slave system drew on multiple sources for slaves, not just Africa, all play against the development of an African slave underclass.