Thursday, September 1, 2016

The Trans-Saharan Slave trade, a Brief look

(English isn't my first language so i might make grammatical mistakes)
The Trans-Saharan trade happened from the 8th till the 16th centuries CE. In the 15th and 16th century it was composed of six major trade paths, four reached into West Africa. The West African centres (Ancient Ghana, Timbuktu, the Hausa Niger valley and Lake Chad) were based in the northern parts of the West African savannah (the Sahel region) they stretched in north-south lines across the Sahara to the southernmost parts of the Mediterranean economy (Sijilmasa and Ifriqiya, Tuwat, Ghat and Ghadames, and Murzuk)[1] Gold and salt were the main exchange of commodity[2] cowrie shells [3] but since god was scarce in north Africa females were enslaved[4]Trans-Saharan slave trade was conducted within the ambits of the trans-Saharan trade, otherwise referred to as the Arab trade. Trans-Saharan trade, conducted across the Sahara Desert, was a web of commercial interactions between the Arab world (North Africa and the Persian Gulf) and sub-Saharan Africa. The main objects of this trade were gold and salt; gold was in abundance in the western part of Africa, but scarce in North Africa. On the other hand, while salt remains indispensable to human societies, it was not producible in sub-Saharan Africa, but was abundant in North Africa. This created a rationale for trading between these two regions, separated by a vast and hostile terrain. Subsequently, there developed an intricate web of trade routes, powered by caravans of camels, between different sub-Saharan societies and the Arab world, For ages, the Sahara has been portrayed as an ‘empty-quarter’ where only nomads on their spiteful camels dare to tread. Colonial ethnographic templates reinforced perceptions about the Sahara as a ‘natural’ boundary between the North and the rest of Africa, separatinz White’ and ‘Black’ Africa and, by extension, ‘Arabs’ and ‘Berbers’ from ‘Africans’. Consequently, very few scholars have ventured into the Sahara despite the overwhelming historical evidence pointing to the interactions, interdependencies and shared histories of neighboring African countries. By transcending the artificial ‘Saharan frontier’, it is easy to see that the Sahara has always been a hybrid space of cross-cultural interactions marked by continuous flows of peoples, ideas and goods.[5]
Muslim traders mainly wanted female slaves administrative positions, military and some labour in the salt mines, Atlantic traders used slaves for labour and would take any physically capable slaves of regardless of gender (though the African preference for female slaves resulted in a 2:1 ratio of male slaves leaving for the Americas)[6]

Within the past couple of mounts including the latest video by the masked arab, I've see people using the claim that islam was both the direct and the indirect meaning that Islam more specifically the Quran and Hadith exegeses caused the muslim traders to allow slave trade, this is not a direct response to the masked arab video regarding slavery , but rather will serve as a refutation that any muslim can use to respond to such possible scenario, I did come accrose several sources that claim islam was directly or indirectly responsible for the slave trade[7], I shall look into the claim that the slave trade was conducted duo to religious rather than political and economic causes.
However, Historians have not fully addressed the specifics of the Trans-Saharan slave trade[8]
There has been also many disagreement regarding the number of slaves transported during the events[9]
the institution of slavery as it existed in Africa, and the effects of world slave-trade systems on African people and societies. As in most of the world, slavery, or involuntary human servitude, was practiced across Africa from prehistoric times to the modern era. When people today think of slavery, many envision the form in which it existed in the United States before the American Civil War (1861-1865): one racially identifiable group owning and exploiting another. However, in other parts of the world, slavery has taken many different forms. In Africa, many societies recognized slaves merely as property, but others saw them as dependents who eventually might be integrated into the families of slave owners. Still other societies allowed slaves to attain positions of military or administrative power. Most often, both slave owners and slaves were black Africans, although they were frequently of different ethnic groups. Traditionally, African slaves were bought to perform menial or domestic labor, to serve as wives or concubines, or to enhance the status of the slave owner.

Traditional African practices of slavery were altered to some extent beginning in the 7th century by two non-African groups of slave traders: Arab Muslims and Europeans. From the 7th to the 20th century, Arab Muslims raided and traded for black African slaves in West, Central, and East Africa, sending thousands of slaves each year to North Africa and parts of Asia. From the 15th to the 19th century, Europeans bought millions of slaves in West, Central, and East Africa and sent them to Europe; the Caribbean; and North, Central, and South America. These two overlapping waves of transcontinental slave trading made the slave trade central to the economies of many African states and threatened many more Africans with enslavement.[10]

Non-Muslim rule and official Authorities:
For many including ethical reasons, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the many other governments have Legitimated the slave trade this will be explained later on The have adopted military bondage in regards to the natives of other countries including Spain defeating moors in 1492[11] The Curts made the discussion that slaves are incapable of ruling themselves, and needed others more specifically Europeans to help them govern themselves, some of them where at dismay to hear and know that Africans actually ruled themselves and had their own systems and governments[12] They had the stereotype that the Africans were uncivilized and barbaric in nature, and therefore had to be ruled specifically by Europeans as part of their religious justifications[13] However, bases of such justification turned out to be unclear as the history of Africa testifies the complexity of the African independent government and civilization through its empires[14] Europeans to some degree also believed that native Americans , Indians and west Indians are unable to withstand the grueling work of the new world[15] Ever since the nineteen and fifteen century many European nations were involved in[16]
The Trans-Saharan slave trade later paved the way and the roots for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade[17] slaves were also used for domestic and labor fields as a necessary component of the world's cultivation[18]

Of course the practice of kidnapping slaves in the trans-saharan region diminished through time but was revived later by the British, a captain named Jodo Fernandes, under the explicit orders of Prince Henry, initiated the practice of the Portuguese buying rather than kidnapping slaves
Ever since slaves were no longer being captured without any price, the European explorers started to negotiate the price of African slaves from the African rulers[19]
In early Trans-Atlantic slave trade to America only few African slaves boarded the ships, instead the European explorer Christopher Columbus, the natives that Columbus encountered in his exploration as he found out that they were not strong enough to withstand the voyage from the newly discovered west and east and could not endure the harsh labor required to them[20]
Before boarding, the Europeans will literally examine the flesh of their cargo with hot iron tools[21] they could also receive more than one branding depending on how many times they were sold[22] the slaves underwent a procedure that became standard in which their captors grossly injured, maimed, tortured, and otherwise killed the African slaves to force them to submit. Slave traders used this part of the journey to ensure the submission of the slaves before they reached the auction blocks of North America[23]. There is one method categorized by Alex Haley epic, and that is slave amputation, in which if a slaver trader caught a slave running away for his freedom, he will amputate parts of the slave limps[24] Slaves also had endure excessive poor conditions[25]
The international community approved slave trade and made it an official governmental operation[26]

The Islamic rule in the Trans-Saharan/Atlantic slave trade:
, Abd al-Raḥman III of Cordova, , considered himself blond for an Arab caliph, and changed his hair color, for that instant racism didn't just effect skin color see Bernard Lewis, Race and color in Islam (New York: Harper and Row, 1971).5

Aḥmad Baba al-Tinbuktī was one of the greatest islamologists and scholars of premodern western Africa have argued that blacks are not slaves in nature for more details on his arguments read his works Miʿrāj al-ṣuʿud Muslims in 19th century in Mali and Mauritania participated in the slave exchange Abū Mu­ammad ‘Abdullah ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī and Khalīl ibn Is­āq al-Jundī all have documented legal tradition in regards to slave trade[27]
The 19th century was also marked by the emergence of Muslim state-builders such as A­mad Lobbo, al-pājj ‘Umar Tāl and Samori Turé.[28] Traders, imported goods like firearms needed to resist European encroachment and establish their respective territory, these revolutionary leaders engaged in raids that generated large numbers of enslaved Africans as currency.[29] The sufi leader Ahmadu have caused rise in African enslavement in order to trade for goods and and demanded assistance to rescue his family members[30]
In Al-Maghrib, male slaves were serveing as guards and soldiers to the sultan, as well as the wealthy chiefs, and female slaves performed as domestics and concubines[31]
Despite the nature of slavery justification being based on jihad on non-muslim lands, several scholars have pointed out that manumission was recommended[32] many scholars have been debating regarding the rules of slavery in islamic law, for example 15th century Egyptian jurist from Hanafi school of thought wrote to the traders who to carefully purchase slaves and inspect them[33]
But as stated before, the best fatwa and legal opinion regarding enslavement of Africans in west Africa was written by the great scholar Ahmed Baba[34] who opposed it, it was a reply to a Maghribi of Tuwāt, who was arguing the non-Muslims subject to lawful enslavement titled “The Ladder of Ascent Towards Grasping the Law Concerning Transported Blacks.” Of which in his reply he consider it's not possible beyond the muslim world to enslave[35]
His legal opinions held a lot of respect of muslim scholars from Morocco to Hausaland[36]
Also scholars like Ahmad ibn Khālid Al-NāÑirī have questioned the legal legitimacy in enslaving Africans[37]
The main two sources used by the traders according to the maliki school of thought that follows malik bin anas were “The Treatise” (al-Risāla), was written by Abū Mu­ammad ‘Abdallah ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī who lived in 10th  century Tunisia[38] The second was “The Compendium of Jurisprudence of Imām Mālik’s Legal Doctrine” (MukhtaÑar fī al-fiqh ‘alā maŸhab al-Imām Mālik) by Khalīl ibn Is­āq al-Jundī, a 14th  century Egyptian scholar[39] The MukhtaÑar was the most popular legal source the Muwta’ (or “The Well-Trodden Path”), a collection of Prophetic sayings compiled in 8th century Medina, was the first source of reference[40]

based on the above references and sources we see that the juris opinions regarding slaves were directly influenced by political motivations, islam might have provided the frame work in which slavery was conducted, but islam as a core religion was not the Core direct and indirect reason behind it

Recommended Readings:
1-Patricia M. Muhammad Esq  "The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade: A Forgoten Crime Against Humanity as Defned by International Law" 2003 American University International Law Review
3- Marta GARCÍA NOVO "Islamic law and slavery in premodern West Africa" November 2011 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
4- ChoukI EL Hamel "Black Morocco a History of Slavery, Race, and Islam" 2013 Cambridge University press
5- Mitchel Joffe Hunter "The Trans-Saharan trade played a key role in preparing West Africa to participate in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade?"

This article format has been changed to make it easier to read

[1] Lovejoy, P. E., 2012. Transformations in Slavery. 3rd ed. Cape Town: Cambridge University Press, p. 25.
[2] Fage, J. D., 1969. Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Context of West African History. Journal of African History, X(3), pp. 398.
[3] Manning, P., 2006. Slavery & Slave Trade in West Africa 1450-1930. In: E. K. Akyeampong, ed. Themes in West African History. Accra New Town: Woeli Publishin Services, pp. 100.
[4] (Lovejoy, 2012, p. 21)
[5] Writing Trans-Saharan History: Methods, Sources and Interpretations Across the African Divide GHISLAINE LYDON page.1
[6] (Lovejoy, 2012, p. 21)
[7] "Shirley Madany "
[8] See Eltis & Richardson, supra note 3, at 1 (suggesting that "despite a major research effort in the last few decades, less is known about the movement of African peoples to the New World than the much smaller movement of their European counterparts before the mid-nineteenth century.").
[9] See Colin A. Palmer, The Middle Passage, in CAPTIVE PASSAGE: THE TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE AND THE MAKING OF THE AMERICAS 53, 54 (Beverly C. McMillan ed., 2002) (declaring that although the exact number of slaves who endured the Middle Passage will never be known, historians estimate that between eleven and thirteen million people survived). This estimated number does not include those people who died while transported overseas or soon after they arrived in the Americas. Id.
[11] DAVID COLEMAN, CREATING CHRISTIAN GRANADA: SOCIETY AND RELIGIOUS CULTURE IN AN OLD-WORLD FRONTIER CITY, 1492-1600, at 2-3 (2003)(suggesting that Spain's stature as an international power and territorial empire culminated in 1492). The conquest of Granada served as the last step in a ten-year military campaign by Christians to re-conquer Muslim Spain. Id. at 3.
[12] E. W. BOVILL, THE GOLDEN TRADE OF THE MOORS 95 (1958 (recounting the disgust of Ibn Battuta, a fourteenth century Muslim traveler to Mali, when he realized that the blacks, whom he had previously known only as slaves, were masters in their own country)
[13] HUGH THOMAS, THE SLAVE TRADE: THE STORY OF THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE: 1440 - 1870, at 147 (1997) (quoting Fray Francisco de la Cruz, a Dominican friar, as telling "the Inquisition in Lima, that an angel had told him that 'the blacks are justly captives by reason of the sins of their forefathers, and that because of that sin God gave them that color').
[14] Illustrating the sophistication of the African people through their use of currency; breeding of animals; smelting of iron, steel, and copper; and establishment of cities as large as thirty thousand. In fact, Africans were more advanced than the natives that the Spaniards and Portuguese met in the New World, for more read Encyclopedia of African Religion edited by Molefi Kete Asante, Ama Mazama
[15] Edward Reynolds, Human Commerce, in CAPTIVE PASSAGE: THE TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND THE MAKING OF THE AMERICAS, supra note 12, at 13, 14(stating that "the punishing work in mines, a form of toil previously unknown to Amerindians, took an often deadly physical toll."). Spanish settlers began advocating the use of African slaves instead of Amerindians, "reporting that in mining operations the work of one African was equal to that of four to eight Indians."
[16] JOHANNES POTSMA, THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE 3 (2003) (explaining the fluctuation of slaves from slave hood into society based on territorial expansion, but noting that slave markets thrived in many European societies); see also THOMAS, supra note 18, at 112-13 (stating that the institution of slavery was not limited to Portugal and Spain, rather slavery also flourished in Italy and Provence).
[17]THOMAS, supra note 18, at 145 (describing the battle of Tondibi and subsequent disputes, which created a daily increase in available slaves in Africa's interior). See generally HERBERT S. KLEIN, THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE 103-05(1999) (arguing that an internal and international slave trade existed in Africa before the arrival of the Europeans, and that often European trading simply deepened pre-existing markets and networks).
[18] W. E. BURGHARDT DuBois, THE SUPPRESSION OF THE AFRICAN SLAVE-TRADE To THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1638 - 1870, at 8 (Dover Publications Inc. 1970) (1896) (recounting the argument of the English agent for Georgia settlers in support of slavery, who insisted that "[in Spight of all Endeavors to disguise this Point, it is as clear as Light itself, that Negroes are as essentially necessary to the Cultivation of Georgia, as Axes, Hoes, or any other Utensil of Agriculture."); see also 1 WILLIAM BACON STEVENS, A HISTORY OF GEORGIA, FROM ITS FIRST DISCOVERY BY EUROPEANS TO THE ADOPTION OF THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION IN MDCCXCVIII 310 (1847) (recounting the vigorous assertion of one South Carolina plantation owner on the success of his plantation through his use of slaves: "Georgia never can or will be a flourishing province without negroes are allowed.")
[19] in 1458, Prince Henry sent Diogo Gomes to negotiate treaties with the Africans. Gomes assured rulers that the Portuguese would not steal slaves or anything else, but would barter for these commodities.
[20] See Thomas. at 137 (explaining that although the Indians served the Portuguese well as soldiers, the Africans were far more effective in the cane fields); see also supra notes 20-21 and accompanying text (revealing the European perception that African slaves were more resistant to disease and more capable to perform hard labor than the natives transported east from the New World).
[21] See 1 THE HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD SLAVERY 98 (Junius P. Rodriguez ed., 1997) (reporting that slave traders often branded slaves to indicate ownership and/or to punish them for misbehavior); see also THOMAS, supra note 18, at 396 (describing how in Arguin in the 1440s, the Portuguese began the practice of the carimbo, or branding of a slave with a hot iron, which left a red mark on the slave's body to make it evident that he or she was the King of Portugal's property).
[22] See 1 THE HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD SLAVERY, supra note 57, at 98-99. "Slave traders and trading companies often branded slaves to indicate ownership, but as the slave changed hands among agents and shippers, others might add additional brands for various reasons." Id.
[23] Tameka Norris, The History of Slave Trade from Africa to Europe America (asserting that even "[t]he Africans that remained healthy [after the voyage] were put on display at public auctions and examined in a ridiculous and humiliating manner."), at (last visited Mar. 2, 2004)
[24] See ALEX HALEY, ROOTS 150 (Doubleday & Co., Inc. 1976) (exposing the fury with which slave overseers lashed their whips at slaves after one slave beat several overseers to death). The overseers also forced the slaves to watch as they whipped the headless body of the rebellious slave
[25] See Letter from James L. Bradley (1835), in SLAVE TESTIMONY: TWO CENTURIES OF LETTERS, SPEECHES, INTERVIEWS, AND AUTOBIOGRAPHIES, supra note 87, at 686, 687 (portraying the extensive hours that masters required their slaves to work in the field). "1 was always obliged to be in the field by sunrise, and I labored till dark, stopping only at noon long enough to eat dinner."
[26] See, e.g., Treaty of Utrecht, supra note 136, at 328-29 (bestowing onto Britain the assiento to import slaves)
[27] These are available as Ibn Abī Zayd, La Risâla ou Epître sur les éléments du dogme et de la loi de l’Islâm selon le rite mâlikite (texte et traduction), Léon Bercher, ed. (Alger, 1968), hereafter Ibn Abī Zayd; and Al-MukhtaÑar‘ala maŸhab al-Imām Mālik Anas li-Khalīl ibn Is­āq ibn Ya‘f­b al-mālikī (Paris, 1855), hereafter Khalīl. The latter publication is preceded by a note about Khalīl ibn Is­āq by the well-known scholar A­mad Bābā of Timbuktu. Also see the translation by G. H. Bousquet, Abrégé de la loi musulmane selon le rite de l’Imâm Mâlek (Algiers, 1958).
[28] D. Robinson, The Holy War of Umar Tal. The Western Sudan in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Oxford, 1985); Y. Person, Samori. Une Révolution Dyula, Tomes I, II, III, IV(Dakar, 1968-1975).
[29] In 1276/1859-60, a caravan from Tīshīt sold 2000 salt bars, half of them in slaves, to al-pājj ‘Umar. That year, according to the Chronicle of Wal­ta, the price of salt dropped to ten millet mudds of Tagānt (approx. 35 kgs). It is likely that such salt would have been used in turn as currency to purchase all kinds of military supplies, including firearms and horses. P. Marty, “Les Chroniques de Oualata et de Néma,” Revue des Etudes Islamiques, Cahier III (1927), 367. An early twentieth century correspondence between the French colonial administration and the trading community of St. Louis, expressing concern for their commercial activities, makes clear that the exchange of slaves for firearms was ongoing. “Rapport du délégué du Gouverneur Général en Pays Maures (Xavier Coppolani) à Monsieur le Gouverneur Général de l’A.O.F. sur la mission d’organisation du Tagant, Saint-Louis 1er juillet 1904,” Mauritanie, Vol IV (1902-1904), Centre D’Archives d’Outre-mer (CAOM). See also Klein, Slavery, chapter 2; Robinson, Holy War. L. C. Faidherbe, the French governor of Senegal, went so far as to categorize Samori as a “marchand d’esclaves pour maures du Sahara.” Le Sénégal (Paris, 1889), 318.
[30] Family archives of Shaykh b. Ibrāhīm al-Khalīl (Tīshīt), IK1 (N.B. the codification of sources used throughout are from Lydon’s archival photographic collection). The letter, written sometime in the late 1860s or early 1870s, clearly indicated that Shaykh b. Ibrāhīm al-Khalīl had been a good friend of al-pajj ‘Umar. This letter is discussed in detail in Lydon, “Muslim Contests over Property Rights in Slaves in Nineteenth Century Mauritania,” International Journal of African Historical Studies, forthcoming.
[31] Ennaji, Soldats
[32] Moulavi Cherágh Ali claims that “it is a false accusation against the Koran that it allows enslavement of captives of war. A Critical Exposition of the Popular “Jihád” (Pakistan, 1977), 193 and especially Appendix B, 193-223. While not going quite so far, Ulrike Mitter explains how manumission was institutionalized in early Islam. See his “Unconditional manumission of slaves in early Islamic law: a­ādīth analysis,” in W.B. Hallaq, ed. The Formation of Islamic Law, (Burlington, VT, 2004). William Gervase Clarence-Smith Islam and the Abolition of Slavery, forthcoming, addresses this very question.
[33] Mahma­d ibn A­mad al-‘Ayntābī al-AmshāÓī (d. 1492), which can be translated as “The Correct Statement on the Selection of Slave-Girls and Male Slaves.” Risāla Nādira fī Sharī wa Taqlīb al-‘Abīd: Al-Qawl al-Sadīd fī Ikhtiyār al-Imā’ wa’l ‘Abīd , text edited and introduced by Mu­ammad ‘Ysa 6āl­iya (Beirut, 1997).
[34] Ahmad Bāba ibn A­mad ibn ‘Umar ibn Mu­ammad Aqit alTumb­kti on slavery in western and northern Africa is transcribed and translated in Mi’raj al-Su’ud ila nayl hukm mujallab al-Sud (Ahmed Baba’s Replies on Slavery), J. Hunwick and F. Harrak, trans. and eds. (Rabat, 2000), hereafter Mi’raj. See also Hunwick’s note “A­mad Bābā on Slavery.” Sudanic Africa, 11 (2000), 131-139. For a biography, see the Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden, 1999), I: 279b.
[35] Mi’raj, 52 (English translation), 85 (Arabic text).
[36] Mi’raj, 7 (English translation), 55 (Arabic text); and Hunwick, “A­mād Bābā on Slavery,” 135.
[37] Hunwick, “Islamic Law.
[38] Ibn Abī Zayd, La Risāla ou Epître sur les éléments du dogme et de la loi de l’Islām selon le rite mālikite (texte et traduction), Léon Bercher, ed. (Alger, 1968), hereafter Ibn Abī Zayd. Note that sometimes West African jurists refer to this work as “the author of the Risāla” or simply “Ab­ Mu­ammad.”
[39] Al-MukhtaÑar‘ala maŸhab al-Imām Mālik ibn Anas li-Khalīl ibn Is­āq ibn Ya‘f­b al-mālikī (Paris, 1855). This is one of the best transcriptions and it is preceded by a note about the author by the hand of the celebrated Ahmad Bābā of Timbuktu, hereafter Khalīl. Also see the translation by G. H. Bousquet, Abrégé de la loi musulmane selon le rite de l’Imâm Mâlek (Algiers, 1956). Note that in West African texts, Khālil is sometimes referred to as “Sīdī Khālil.”
[40] The MuwāÓÓa was complied in the course of forty years. See W. B. Hallaq, “On Dating the Muwatta,” UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law1, 1 (2001), 23-45. For a general history of Islamic legal thought see Hallaq’s A History of Islamic Legal Theories (Cambridge, 1997). Another useful guide is Mohamed Hashim Kamali’s Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (Cambridge, 2003).


  1. Salam akhi, what are some arguments for the existence of Allah

    1. Walikum alsalam
      Depends on what arguments you use and are they acceptable to the other side ?

    2. What arguments wouls you use to convince yourself and of others that god exists

    3. it's not an easy task as it required long discussions, and requires to clear up misconception about god
      first i was convinced when misconceptions about god was cleared up for me, then i presented what form of arguments will convince me, then if i was meet with these arguments in a logical rational matter i might be convinced

      keep in mind, some people will pretend that they can be convinced to change their mind but in reality they won't even if they are presented with counter argument

      personally, philosophical reasoning works for me

    4. anyways, what are your thoughts on this article?

  2. Sorry man I'm facing a crisis. Have you heard of russels teapot and how it is our claim for the claimer to prove his claim.

    What do you think of ibn sina's proof of god

    1. We Why is Why is it our claim ? Why is it our burden?

    2. What crisis are you facing if i may ask?

    3. I`m facing the crisis of whether or not god exists. All this time I`ve been trying to defend islam, but then when someone asked me for proof of god. I just don`t know.

    4. And why would they ask you to prove god in the first place? If they claim god doesn't exist then there is burden on them just as much burden on you when you say god exist

    5. I urge you to look into the anthropic principles....Read Luke Barnes who gives a neutral perspective of them. Basically there are 6 factors that are a must in order for life to exist in any conditions. If either of these constants are different life in any form would cease to exist. Now once these factors have been met and according to atheist by chance non-living organisms become living organisms we still have the dilemma of evolution. How exactly is it that non living material became living and what is the possibility of such complex beings like us coming into existence by sheer chance. To deal with the impossibility of these arguments atheists come up with the multiverse which means that there are infinite number of universes and ours just happens to be the only one we know so far with life on it. Furthermore the human body contains a system whereby everything just happens to know how to function. You have the red blood cells and white blood cells. You have proteins and most importantly you have DNA which is so complex that to even imagine anything coming into existence by chance/luck requires a strong faith. We all go though these things in our life time that's exactly how Allah tests us. Keep every possibility open and you find out that the knowledge to gain the truth is there. I'm no expert but just ask yourself what started life since based on the atheistic principle non-living material became living by randomness. But see as someone who's mom has a masters in physics and is a practicing Muslim you have to question whether science makes the case against God or for God. For example people used to believe that if pieces of rotten meat or fruit were left out it would lead to rats and flies aka living organisms coming out of it. Today we know spontaneous generation is not true since the so called flies and worms that would come out of meat and fruit would be due to the larvae carried by mosquitoes and flies and left on those specific food items. Science makes the case against spontaneous generation by proving how its not random and some outside force in our scenario the flies and mosquitoes have to contribute to the worms existence. Just don't give up on your Salah no matter how bad of a muslim you might feel. I could go on and on but im no expert so I will let you do the research...take the initiative and let Allah guide you.


      check out what would happen if the Sun was closer or farther from earth as it is right now....this is not even part of the factors required for life to exist but it just shows you the impossibility of everything happening by just chance/luck. Also if anyone says panspermia played a role in our existence then u ask them where the aliens came from.

      Keep in mind this doesn't mean that life on other planets doesn't just means that we should be more focused on ourselves and our planet than to worry about who else God created for what purpose. I might be wrong but in the Quran it mentions how when God was creating Adam the angels questioned God and asked why you would want to create someone like him when all they would do is create mischief and chaos. This could be a hint that other beings did exit or do exist but are none of our concern.

    7. Lastly there is nothing wrong with listening to Muslims as well as non Muslims and deists regarding the existence of God since our belief in God is there and we don't believe in the bull shit idea that things just came by chance. Its when it comes to Islam that you got to be careful who you are talking to as a non Muslim could potentially misrepresent or distort the true meaning. I have listened to William Lane Craig sometimes and also visited Jewish websites which talk about existence of God and Im not a perfect but still a proud muslim.


  3. If I make a claim that God exists, then it is my burden to prove his existence. The atheist doesn't have to disprove god. Rather I have to provide evidence for his existence.

    So what philsophical arguments do you use for the existence of god

  4. That all relies on your opponent, depends if he accepted it or not, so if I use philosophical arguments that god exist the opponents might not accept it and seek different type of argument is

    Mine is external and internal
    External as for 'aqil i.e intellectual and sensational and legislated, i.e based on sharia
    Internal is based on natural disposition i.e fitrah

    The only argument you could find against the existence of an omnipotent god like allah is the problem of evil
    I would recommend the book, the problem of evil by Peter van inwagen
    You have many sides here, first the opponent must disprove the existence of freewill , and second the opponents must prove that out of every bad accident no benefits or lessons are made

    Since he claim that there is so much evil, he must prove this above premises
    I would also recommend asadullah Ali al andalusi blog regarding this topic

  5. t was narrated from Abu Hurairah that:
    The Prophet said: “When Allah decrees a matter in heaven, the angels beat their wings in submission to his decree (with a sound) like a chain beating a rock. Then “When fear is banished from their hearts, they say: ‘What is it that your Lord has said?’ They say: ‘The truth. And He is The Most High, The Most Great.” He said: ‘Then the eavesdroppers (from among the jinn) listen out for that, one above the other, so (one of them) hears the words and passes it on to the one beneath him. The Shihab (shooting star) may strike him before he can pass it on to the one beneath him and the latter can pass it on to the soothsayer or sorcerer, or it may not strike him until he has passed it on. And he ads one hundred lies to it, and only that word which was overheard from the heavens is true.” (Ibn Majah)

    So are muslims suppose to believe that shooting stars are chasing away jinm

    1. what you are looking at is an addition a translation and NOT the word directly in it's meaning in Arabic, second of all how do you know this is literal?
      Quran 3:7
      "He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical"
      NVM i shall address your question

      it's not the Stars THEMSELVES shoot at the jinns, but rather a flaming fire shoots out of it, this is a common misconception made here

      وقيل : إن الضمير راجع إلى المصابيح على أن الرجم من أنفس الكواكب ، ولا يسقط الكوكب نفسه إنما ينفصل منه شيء يرجم به ، من غير أن ينقص ضوءه ولا صورته "

      the pronoun that is in regards to the shooting stars that it shoots out from itself, and not the star itself, but rather a part of it separate and thrown at without losing any of it's light or image
      Al-Jami' Liahkam Al-Quran (18 / 210-211)by al-qurtubi

      also ibn kathir said
      " عاد الضمير في قوله : ( وَجَعَلْنَاهَا ) على جنس المصابيح لا على عينها ؛ لأنه لا يرمي بالكواكب التي في السماء ، بل بشهب من دونها ، وقد تكون مستمدة منها ، والله أعلم "
      the pronoun in his words {we made it} in regards to part of the shooting stars not themselves, because the star itself is not thrown, but something out of it disconnect, and it might be from it, and god knows best
      tafsir ibn kathir (8 / 177)

      there are more sources i could cite for you

  6. So there is stuff that is emmited from meteors which is shot at jinns

    1. i haven't spent alot on this nonsense, so i can't say for sure, but it appears that the most predominant and important scholars seams to say so, not meteors persay, but stars, like a flame shooting from the star, not the star itself

    2. So like solar flares

    3. That's a possibility yes, but I will assume it's more likely plasma charges than solar flares

  7. So all the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe are made to be shot at jinns.

    Isn't our sun enough to shoot flames at jinn.

    1. And how do you know that ? How do you know all these stars were made for such? And how do you know this verse is literal?

  8. And We have certainly beautified the nearest heaven with stars and have made [from] them what is thrown at the devils and have prepared for them the punishment of the Blaze.

    Here the verse talks about the purpose of stars being to repel the jinn. So why are the stars so far fact there are billions of stars we can't even see beyond our milky way. So why bother creating all of those stars. How do those really far stars repel the jinn.

    1. Nearest heaven? So it's singular ? What is meant by heaven here? A solar system? A galaxy? Or a multiverse?

      I think you committed a strawman fallacy, this verse as we can see was not speaking of all heavens

  9. Are you gonna responed to TMA's new video, i would say its very critical and raises a lot of questions that need to be answered

    1. You have not answered my question, why I'm i forced or have to respond? What's is so critical about it? Answer why does these questions need to be answered? Or are you trying to push me like how you and his fans do in reddit?

      I will make a blog about the masked arab eventually might be a final one , but it's not yet worthy

    2. Sorry if you think i'm trying to push you. I personally think he makes some good points and raises up good questions like why is islam so brutal? why are methods of excution of islam so violent? there are many other methods that arnt so harsh. why was the child in surat al khaf killed so violently? i mean he was a child for God's sake! surly allah could've never created him in the first place. And arent isis just using the same forms of excuation that muhammad and the early muslims used?

    3. I haven't watched his video regarding brutality, here is why I'm delaying my responses, he is making 15 episode series, so if I respond to two of them which I already have them planned which are the video regarding beheadings and mutilations, and execution of prisoners of war (maybe this one) and announce that I'm finally done with him people will then ask me to make more replies to his new videos, so better delay them or make them gradually slow in progress than keep making them, i could reply to each and every one of them now, but ill explain later why i wouldn't, also it will be crazy to keep replying to him over and over and over not only it will make me look like I'm oppsessed with him, but will also put a shame to my blog as it's only dedicated to him, also replying to him is time consuming, a blog usually take 3 days of preparation and research into each claim he make, and it's energy consuming, take a look at his video regarding killing innocenr civilance and look at the likes and the views and see why responded to it, I'm also thinking about stopping my blog permanently 

      Now regarding him raising good points, i never said he could never rise good points, but so far I haven't seen them
      Now here is a very easy refutation to your questions, are the methods of islam in execution brutal? How brutal are they? Let's compare beheadings to air bombing, please mr.anonymous answer this, are beheadings more brutal, that aid bombs? If you lose your head is if more brutal than having your entire body mutilated to hundreds of priced or lose complete limbs, or burning? Are they more brutal than your american or russia air strike? I don't know about you but I see air strikes more disgusting and brutal

      Now why are they this brutal, the methods are not to punish victims, it's to deter them away from the crime so they won't do it, if I tell you I'll cut of your head if you kill , or if I tell you I'll put you in prison if you kill, tell me which will will push you away from committing crimes?

      The child according to many commentaries was actually a threat to his parents

      And? Your point regarding isis 

      Just to let you know, i know know who you are , I've seen you in a couple of reddit posts made by masked arab fans regarding my blog (yes I'm aware of those threads made about me and my blog attacking me directly)

    4. Sir, i dont even have a reddit account and i've never made a reddit post criticizing you or anybody else for that matter. perphaps you're confusing me for someone else. Just in case you're confused about who i am. I am a muslim but a Im also a skeptic who cares about the truth. Ive criticized
      the masked arab on some of his videos and many other islamic critics.

      And just like you, I am an iraqi
      انا عراقي مثلك
      so i dont support america or drones. but i do support killing isis because there the ones who destroyed our great country even after america messed it up.

    5. If so then I apologise, I've seen someone with the profile of Mr. Anonymous in reddit posts made against, me

      However if you are a skeptic you'll admit that the masked arab is not the go to youtube scholar of islam as his fans claim he is

    6. somebody named mr. anonymous on reddit...intresting. also, i've changed my username many times so i guess its bound that somewhere in cyber space, someone happens to have the same username as i.

      and ive never said that "the masked arab is the go to youtube scholar of islam"

  10. In his video on killing the prisoners,he gives banu Qurayza as an example and quotes Ibn Kathir who says "majority of scholars say prisoners of war can be killed if necessary", so can you tell me how TMA can be wrong about that? if you claim islam does NOT permit that,then this means Muhammad was wrong,scholars are wrong.Should you now say "I didnt say islam does not permit that", then what do you mean by "responding him"? Islam permits killing POWS and the whole video of TMA aims to prove that,so there is nothing to respond or refute here. TMA is right. You can try to justify what Muhammad did to banu Qurayza,but this is irrelevant here, that does not disprove the main point; ISLAM PERMITS KILLING POWS. Thus,when ISIS does that,they are doing nothing wrong according to islam.

    Also you said above "beheading is not brutal than bombing",here you accept that islam permits beheading. So,again,how can TMA be wrong when he says the same? You accept what he says but still say you can refute his video on the issue which is all about "beheading is permitted", so, what will you refute then?

    You are trying to give the impression that you can refute all his videos but its not worth. Please dont. If you have something to say,just say it,as you did to his previous videos, so that we can see how he is wrong and you can refute him. If not,then please stop strawmanning. That's not fair.What if I say "well,Salam's articles are all wrong and I can refute them but I wont"?

    You wrote several articles before debunking his arguments and saw no problem here.You even said "everyone thinks muslims cant debunk his claims,which inspired me to write rebuttals to him". However now,it turnt out that you dont want to waste your time with him and fill this blog with rebuttals to him.WHY?? What has changed now? Everyone still thinks the same thing and you can still debunk his arguments.Why did you suddenly feel its not worth anymore? Can I think its because you have nothing to say? If not,why are you avoiding dealing with him? What happened to your "inspiration" ? I assume you that people still think he is raising good points with good evidence which are hard to disprove,so you can keep responding him instead of throwing random disdains and accusations. That mustnt be a big trouble for you since you are defending islam against anti-islamic claims and TMA is considered to be very good at that.

    Or else,dont expect us to take your non-existent counter-arguments seriously.If there is a claim backed up with evidence and no response to that,you can guess what people will credit

    1. my reply to your comment was too long to be posted, so here is the link

    2. I dont wanna start pointless discussions but you are forcing me. Really,why are you acting like you dont understand my points? You cherry pick from my post and address them instead of trying to comprehend what I said. You pretend not to understand me and ask nonsense questions

      "first i already dealt breafly with banu qurayza, so for the sake of bravity i'll ignore this"

      As I said above (but you ignored): the problem here is NOT whether or not that execution was justified.The point is Muhammad himself killed POWS, so its permitted,under some conditions yes,but the point is: ITS PERMITTED ANYWAY. TMA was saying the same and you agree,so he is right and there is nothing to refute here. Why is that so hard to understand?

      Same for beheading,ok you were talking about brutality but it does not matter,again the point; is it permitted? YES! Muhammad himself beheaded people,whether justified or not,he did that. Then TMA is right when saying "beheading is islamic" in his video,so what will you respond or refute? If you accept its permitted,then there is nothing to refute.

      "because i saw no points in arguing with him or his fans for that matter, after all the evidence i presented, after all the sources i provided, non of them admitted that he even could possibly be wrong about just one thing, he even attacked me himself on reddit"

      So what? You dont have to convince him. Other people are reading your posts here and you see,they are convinced if you have presented good refutations.

      ""I'm not "defending" islam""

      Yes you are.Thats exactly what you do on this blog.

      ""Or else,dont expect us to take your non-existent counter-arguments seriously."
      is that supposed to be a threat?"

      How did you take this as a threat? Just wow. Im saying if you have something to say,just say it,or else we cant take you seriously when you say "well I can refute all what he says but I wont,just know that in fact I can. and his videos are all nonsense"

      """If there is a claim backed up with evidence and no response to that,you can guess what people will credit"
      and i already backed mine with sources""

      You know I was talking about his new videos which you say you ignore and wont respond to.He is offering evidence for his claims and there is no counter-argument, then ofcourse we will credit him.

      ""Pay attention to what I say""

      Completely agree!

  11. Do you realize you posted the same text TWICE??

    1. Im talking abt this very article above. You posted the same text twice. Look at it

      Dont you even read ur own articles

  12. i see it, done fixed, it seams blogger website has messed up my text

  13. Moulavi Cherágh Ali claims that “it is a false accusation against the Koran that it allows enslavement of captives of war. A Critical Exposition of the Popular “Jihád” (Pakistan, 1977), 193 and especially Appendix B, 193-223

    This is definitely wrong. Even Muhammad&Sahaba enslaved prisoners of war.How does quran NOT permit that? It permits. And there is ijmaa on this.

    1. I'm not sure why you are accusing me of things I never said, please point out to me where did i said islam doesnt allow slavery?

    2. I didnt say you said that.Im not accusing you

      The person you quoted,Moulavi Ali says so. Im saying this is definitely wrong and nonsense.

    3. " Moulavi Cherágh Ali claims that “it is a false accusation against the Koran that it allows enslavement of captives of war. A Critical Exposition of the Popular “Jihád” (Pakistan, 1977), 193 and especially Appendix B, 193-223. While not going quite so far, Ulrike Mitter explains how manumission was institutionalized in early Islam. See his “Unconditional manumission of slaves in early Islamic law: a­ādīth analysis,” in W.B. Hallaq, ed. The Formation of Islamic Law, (Burlington, VT, 2004). William Gervase Clarence-Smith Islam and the Abolition of Slavery, forthcoming, addresses this very question."

      i think you misunderstood what he is saying, he is not saying the idea of slavery on it's on interpretation of modern day is not predominant in the quran, what i suppose he is saying is that slavery of captives during quranic times, is not equivalent to today slavery, two different types, i suppose this is what he is saying

      i don't think he was stating that the main universal idea of slavery is not allowed

      i suppose aswell is that he was speaking about manumission in broader sense

    4. No. I looked at the online version of his book. He totally rejects any kind of slavery,he says islam does not permit enslavement of female prisoners and noone was enslaved during Muhammad's wars.

    5. the page is blocked and couldn't load it

    6. however i do have access to the PDF
      he state the following
      "female captives are made concubines on field of battle"
      so no he is not rejecting the idea of slavery or captivity on it's on, he is simply stating that they change from being captives to concubines
      he also state
      "slaves are mentioned in the Koran Defacto, but not dejure, the koran took several measures to abolish slavery"
      he also state
      "legally the slaves were to be emancipated on their agreeing to pay ransom"
      "they were to be set at liberty as a penalty for culpable homicide"

      and so one, you can read more in appendix B 1-2

      so he does acknowldge slavery exist, but not the modern day slavery that we have today

  14. Do you agree that womens and children of deafeted warriors can be made slaves ?
    What about muslims raids on european coasts to capture them, forcing priest to buy them back ?
    (Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800)

    1. of defeated warriors or of defeated nations?
      if a woman or a child engage you in battle you have the right to defend yourself, only in that instant does islamic law permit killing women and children and that applies to banu qurayza
      as for slaves you can take them as war captives but not as slaves necessarily now day, since it's not needed anymore, islamic law adapts to the enviurment and conditions it's set upon
      "What about muslims raids on european coasts to capture them, forcing priest to buy them back ?"
      citation and context needed

    2. I dont have the book, it should be mentionned it it, i read it on wikipedia. If i understand correctly, womens/childs of the man who you defeated can be take as slave ? (i know it is not compulsory) And defeated nations's also ?

    3. "If i understand correctly, womens/childs of the man who you defeated can be take as slave ?"
      not necessarily a slave, slave is a strong word, but they can be taken as captives and used as servants untill they are replacced by a deal with the enemy forces if they have captured some of your own people, they can also gain their own freedom by two concepts i explained before, istis'af where if they are unable to pay for their freedom they will perform a job and if necessary the owner will help them with it, and kitab where they buy their freedom

      Note back in 7th century a slave is always always a captive of war, you can't pick a woman from street and make her your slave not a single islamic rulling condone such act

    4. But you can buy them from slave markets. islam permits buying and selling slaves

    5. Just to be sure, even if the womens /child didn't participate in battle you can still capture them ?
      But if they fight they become legitimate targets ?

    6. buying slaves yes, so long as they are original enemy participant in war, if they are innocent people who didn't participate in warfare you Can't make them slaves and you Can't buy them at all, every ruling in islam is to deter people away from acts, turning enemy combatants who were captured to slaves is an act to teach enemies on other nations not to participate in warfare as a deterant

    7. they have to be combatant, if you capture them you capture them, if you can't you defend yourself from them, a kid with a pistol is still a dangerous kid

  15. A simple case : muslims defeat an army and pentrate into a ennemy village with no protection, can they enslave the women and child who live here ? What if the village gave money to help building the ennemy army ?

    1. No, they can't, captives have to be engaging combatants or individuals assisting enemy combatants, civilians on the other hand who had no hand in combat can't be taken as slaves since they are not charged with any crime.

    2. Wrong. All women&children are seen as "property of warriors" and they are taken as war booty after defeat,whether they are active or passive. You dont go around asking each one if they fought actively

      The mujaahideen take possession of slave women as they take possession of the spoils of war. It is permissible for the one who gains possession of male or female slaves to sell them

    3. Remember in the case of banu qurayza,women and children having no pubic hair were enslaved,not killed since they werent warriors

    4. "Wrong. All women&children are seen as "property of warriors" and they are taken as war booty after defeat"
      your link doesn't provide any reference nor does it provide any evidence for that statement

      infact they confirmed what i said
      "Islam limited the sources of slaves which existed before the mission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to just one source, namely slavery resulting from capturing prisoners from among the kuffaar, including women and children. "

      "Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason why a person may be taken as a slave is his being a kaafir and waging war against Allaah and His Messenger. If Allaah enables the Muslims who are striving and sacrificing their lives and their wealth and all that Allaah has given them to make the word of Allaah supreme over the kaafirs, then He allows them to enslave the kuffaar when they capture them, unless the ruler chooses to free them or to ransom them, if that serves the interests of the Muslims. "

      please read your source carefully and don't cite sources that destroys your argument, you just strawmanned what they say

  16. "including women and children"

    How does this destroy my argument? Thats what im saying. After the war women and children are taken as slaves. This happened in banu quraiza.

    1. "After the war women and children are taken as slaves. This happened in banu quraiza."
      women and children who Participate in warfare not some randome women and children

      Your own source say that
      "Islam limited the sources of slaves which existed before the mission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to just one source, namely slavery resulting from capturing prisoners from among the kuffaar, including women and children.

      Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason why a person may be taken as a slave is his being a kaafir and waging war against Allaah and His Messenger. "

      "The reason why a person may be taken as a slave is his being a kaafir and waging war against Allaah and His Messenger. "

      you cut the rest of their arguments to suit your agenda