In 1964, the media weren’t afraid to expose the brutal slavery that was widespread in the Muslim world.
Today, it’s a lot different. The enslavement of Africans you will see in this video is still being practiced in the oil-rich Gulf states, but today’s media refuse to report it because it would be “offensive to Muslims.”
I can’t quite place the voice of the narrator in this film, but it sounds like one of the famous journalists back when there were only 3 major networks. See the stories our media will not report in the links below. (Thanks to BNI)
An excerpt from Andrew Bostom’sÂ Sesquicentennial Comparisonsâ€”Black Slavery in America and Ottoman Turkey
Â I shall now explain the motives for the demand for slaves, and the reason why African slaves are so much sought after in Turkey. The slave-holding countries in the East are Turkey, the regency of Tunis, Morocco, and Persia; in these markets the demand for Negro slaves arises exclusively from Mussulmans, the Christians being seldom slaveholders. Amongst the Mussulmans, however, the use of having slaves is universal;Â with them it is just as natural to have negro slaves as it is [for non-Muslims] to have cats or dogs in the house.Â
Slave-market in Cairo
The discussion thenÂ highlightsÂ three additional features which distinguish the widespread prevalence and tenacity of slavery in late 19thÂ century Islamdom: its sanctioning by the Muslim creed, in particular the doctrine ofÂ jihad war, and derived mores of Muslim nations, notably harem slavery, as well as the inherent despotism ofÂ Sharia-basedÂ Islamic societies.
But at the same time it must be taken into account that this great demand for Negro slaves is based upon reasons far above fashion or fancy, as slavery is inherent in the religious and social system of Mohammedanism, and is congenial to the ideas and customs of Mussulman nations. This assertion that slavery is inherent in the very system of Islamism will startle many who believe in the compatibility of that antiquated system with modern civilisation. The arguments, however, which I am going to bring forward cannot fail from establishing such a fact as an axiom, putting it thus beyond the pale of controversy. I will therefore prove that slavery is inherent in the religious system; inherent in the social system; and, also, congenial to the ideas and customs of Mohammedan nations.
One of the earthly rewards which the Koran holds out to the victorious Moslem is that of reducing to bondage his foe, and of disposing of him as he chooses; his soul excepted, everything belongs to the conqueror, even his dead body. The religious and political system of Mussulmanism [Islam] being based on the principle of perpetual war, Djehad [jihad], enticements for the present and for the future life constitute an essential part of the system, and the right of possessing slaves is one amongst them. This right is of course transferable, as any other title to property is; therefore the dealer who has made the acquisition of a slave from the original proprietor, the Negro conqueror, or the Arab kidnapper, commits, legally, his right to any customer (a Mussulman of course) who may bid the highest price. According to the Koranic law, such is the hold of the master over the slave that no earthly power is allowed to interfere between them; the master is answerable only to the Almighty for the manner in wiiich he treats his slave. This un- limited power exerted over the slave is often the cause that masters take with impunity the lives of their slaves. The authorities, in such cases, either ignore or feign to ignore the event, because, legally, they have no right to interfere. According to the Koran, the only persons who may legally claim blood for blood in criminal cases are, either the nearest relations of the deceased, or (in case of a slave) his master. Now, in an instance of this sort, it is not likely that a master should present himself, asking from the tribunal justice for the blood of the slave he has himself slain. The Mussulmans, as a mass, are very tenacious of this right of holding slaves, and they will not allow that an infidel can indulge in such a luxury. As for European philanthropists, who try to put a stop to such a practice, they heartily wish them at the world’s end.
Having briefly explained the theory of slavery as it is established by the Koran and understood by its followers, I will now come to the second point, and show how slavery is a social necessity amongst Mussulmans; to be convinced of this, one must bear in mind that in Mohammed’s system, religious tenets and social laws are twisted and impasted together, forming, of the whole concern, a thorough gordian knot. It is on account of these difficulties, of a technical as well as of a practical nature, that the action of modern ideas always meets in the Mussulman element with an inert mass which never yields to persuasion, but only recoils before pressure. And what other explanation can be given of the great obstacles Sir Samuel Baker avows to have met with in the execution of his scheme for the suppression of slavery? According to Lord Houghton’s statement, made before the Royal Geographical Society, “the Egyptians did not seem to be disposed to support any such undertaking of Sir Samuel Baker’s as the suppression of slavery, for the very simple reason that it is through the slave trade that they obtain a constant supply of domestics for their households.” The discovery is a good one; but if this is so far true for the Egyptians, it is the same for the Turks, the Persians, and all other nations who live under the same system. Yes, this avowal of Sir Samuel Baker’s discloses the secret of the demand for Negro slaves: a supply of domestics is required to keep up the harems of the high and middle classes of Mussulman society, and Negritia [black Africa] must pour forth a constant supply of slaves. And this, because slaves are as much an essential part of the harem system, as the harem itself is of the religious and social system of Islam. The seclusion of women is for the Mussulman what one of the ten commandments is for the Christian; but how can that seclusion be enforced, if all the members of the harem are not submitted to the pressure of the same bondage? One or two women cannot, evidently, be kept tightly under lock, while their maids and attendants are free. Slavery is the natural consequence of seclusion. The Mussulman religion once adopted, its system must be carried through; there is no alternative. If the Mussulman is to remain a Mussulman (I mean even of a medium standard, and not merely a bigoted one) he must protect the sacredness of the conjugal tie by shutting up his wife or wives in the best manner he can. Wives are, therefore, cut off from the outside world by all sorts of contrivances, amongst which is that of having slaves instead of free-born servants, who could serve as mediums to dangerous ideas and still more dangerous customs. It is evident that if the attendants of the harem were such, not only the hold of the master over them would be of little efficacy, but the outer world might become acquainted with scandals of all sorts. To employ slaves is by far more convenient. For this end, the prudent Turk takes good care that the slave he buys should have his eyes tied up, a phrase which means that the first quality which a slave must possess is to be blind to the tricks and disorders of his master. Once in the harem, the white or Negro slave is submitted to the same system of seclusion as her mistress or mistresses are. A circumstance which renders the use of slaves indispensable, and forms an obstacle to the employment of free-born female attendants, is the formal in-junction of the Koran to the effect that, not only the face, but the hands also, of a free-born Mussulman woman are to be concealed from strangers.(The Sherihat [Sharia] orders that the upper part of the hand is to remain concealed. As for the inside, a woman can show it; otherwise she could not even beg alms for her relief.) Is it possible that a servant maid could serve about the harem, day and night, thus muffled up, fearing lest the master of the house should let his eyes fail upon her face or hands? Even if the maid happened to be not very particular on this point, custom, the fear of comments, and the disapprobation of her relatives, would pre? vent her from violating ostensibly the laws of Mussulman religion. It is easy to understand, then, how people should object to employ girls wrapped up like so many bogies in white veils and sheets. The employment of Christian women has been thought of, as their religion would remove the inconvenience above stated, but the Mussulmans strongly object to it on grounds of self-preservation against the encroachments of the Christian element. The few Pashas who have employed Christian servant girls, adopted this course from motives of policy with the object, I mean, of gaining in the eyes of Europeans.
Having so far shown that slavery is inherent in the religion and social system of Islam, it remains to be seen how slavery is congenial to the ideas and customs of Mussulman nations. It is one of the characteristics of Orientals to lean towards despotism, whether it be actively or passively. The same annals which record the names of the despots who have crushed the East under their feet, testify to the servility of their subjects. Slavery has never had very repugnant features in the eyes of Orientals. The Turk is far from being an exception to the general rule: by instinct, in his own limited sphere, he must be either a despot, or the servant of a despot stronger than himself. Nothing can better satisfy the vanity of a Turk than to look upon himself as the master of some human being; as he con- templates two or three slaves standing silent and with folded arms before him, the Turk rises infinitely greater in his own estimation. This feature of the Turkish mind is tangible, and can be traced not only in the customs of the people but in their very idiom, common sayings, and proverbs. For instance, if, during the course of familiar conversation, a Turk wishes to say something in the shape of good omen, he will say, “Kull kiolleh shaibih olah” which means that the person in question may be lucky enough to become the master of numerous slaves. From the cradle, vaticinations of this sort are constantly made by mothers and nurses to their babies, while singing them to sleep; one of those verses ends in this way, “Kull alaik hep bundah,” the meaning of which is, “Male slaves, female slaves, all will belong to him.” Another remarkable thing of this sort is, that the phrase,Â “your servant,” votre serviteur, is never employed by the Turks, but “your slave,” “the most abject of your slaves,” etc. In all such phrases, the word slave is employed instead of servant. On the strength of such evidences, I do not hesitate to assert that the slave holding passion has its roots in the very heart of the Turks, and that it is congenial to them as well as to the other Mussulman nations.
Next the presentationÂ describedÂ how black African slaves reached Ottoman Turkey, and their living conditions under Turkish servitude.