How many slaves did the Arabs take from Africa to Arabia etc
Baldoni
the descendents of these slaves today ?
--
Count Baldoni
In hoc signo vinces
Ishtar
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad you asked that question, as all I want is the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq4MO4qJNWY
Where are all the black faces in Arabia that logically should have
resulted from the slave trade... ?
well, by our logic......
OK, I have read that the white race were not the original instigators
of the international slave trade in recent centuries, but that the
Arabs had a lot to do with it before the whites got involved....
One comment I could make is that the Muslim religion imposes strict
social control on who you can have intercourse with..................
restraints which were absent among slave owners in Brazil and the
Confederate States of America.... so maybe there was not the same
intermarriage in Arabia, in fact none at all because of the rigid
social rules and structures.
All I want is the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq4MO4qJNWY
William Black
> One comment I could make is that the Muslim religion imposes strict
> social control on who you can have intercourse with..................
Do tell.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Ishtar
> Ishtar wrote:
> > One comment I could make is that the Muslim religion imposes strict
> > social control on who you can have intercourse with..................
>
> Do tell.
>
> --
> William Black
For a start, if a woman is seen in the company of a man to whom she is
not a close family relative, she can be flogged and jailed in Saudi
Arabia....... maybe even legally murdered.... so now do you understand
why the black slaves captured by the Arabs have no descendants in
Arabia? It's a rigidly authoritarian society, where the black African
slaves were not allowed to procreate.
Hence no dark black faces among the Sons of Hagar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I want is the truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq4MO4qJNWY
David Brewer
> How many African slaves did the Arabs take from Africa and where are the
> descendents of these slaves today ?
Broadly speaking, the Arabs who took African slaves castrated the
boys. There was no use for non-eunuch African males because it was
not permissible to breed children to be slaves - the children
would be Muslims, and free. So the Black population always
produced half-Arab children who were submerged into the general
population as part of their father's households. There was no
renewable source of local Black slaves as there was in America -
they had to keep going back to the well.
Similar conditions existed in medieval Europe, when enslaving
Christians was very much not-done. The Genoese ran the slave trade
from the Black Sea, where non-Christian Caucasians could be found
for sale. The boys were sold in Egypt to become soldiers -
Mamluks. The girls could be sold to Christians, their children
would be baptised Christians, and free.
--
David Brewer
William Black
> On Oct 24, 9:29 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ishtar wrote:
>>> One comment I could make is that the Muslim religion imposes strict
>>> social control on who you can have intercourse with..................
>> Do tell.
>>
>> --
>> William Black
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> For a start, if a woman is seen in the company of a man to whom she is
> not a close family relative, she can be flogged and jailed in Saudi
> Arabia....... maybe even legally murdered.... so now do you understand
> why the black slaves captured by the Arabs have no descendants in
> Arabia? It's a rigidly authoritarian society, where the black African
> slaves were not allowed to procreate.
Are you seriously suggesting that the current rather loopy regime in
Saudi Arabia has anything to do with intermarriage between Arabs and
their slaves over the past four hundred years?
> Hence no dark black faces among the Sons of Hagar.
Have you been to the Middle East?
Or even ever met any Arabs?
Because you sound deranged.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Oct 24, 8:50 pm, Baldoni <Baldoni...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > How many African slaves did the Arabs take from Africa and where are
> > the descendents of these slaves today ?
>
> > --
> > Count Baldoni
>
> > In hoc signo vinces
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Where are all the black faces in Arabia that logically should have
> resulted from the slave trade... ?
> well, by our logic......
>
> OK, I have read that the white race were not the original instigators
> of the international slave trade in recent centuries, but that the
> Arabs had a lot to do with it before the whites got involved....
>
> One comment I could make is that the Muslim religion imposes strict
> social control on who you can have intercourse with..................
intercourse with slaves is permitted, even if you have four wives.
there were even some cases of women who had intercourse with their
slaves, and they got away with it. of course, I don't think the
husbands
of wives would let their wives have non-castrated male slaves.
Yusuf B Gursey
> Baldoni wrote:
> > How many African slaves did the Arabs take from Africa and where are the
> > descendents of these slaves today ?
>
> Broadly speaking, the Arabs who took African slaves castrated the
> boys. There was no use for non-eunuch African males because it was
> not permissible to breed children to be slaves - the children
actually the offspring of a muslim slave - muslim slave union would
still
be a slave, but if any partner is free the offspring would be free and
have equal rights with the other children. in fact, it eventually
became a practice for royals not to marry, especially other
nobles - as this would give the noble family leverage - so they
had their heirs through concubines. but it is true that breeding
slaves through slave marriages was not the norm.
> would be Muslims, and free. So the Black population always
> produced half-Arab children who were submerged into the general
> population as part of their father's households. There was no
> renewable source of local Black slaves as there was in America -
> they had to keep going back to the well.
>
> Similar conditions existed in medieval Europe, when enslaving
> Christians was very much not-done. The Genoese ran the slave trade
> from the Black Sea, where non-Christian Caucasians could be found
before the Circassians (and other Caucasian peoplesthere were Kypchak
Turks (the Turkic people of the Russian Steppe), but when these
became
Muslim, they turned to Circassians.
Yusuf B Gursey
> > How many African slaves did the Arabs take from Africa and where are the
> > descendents of these slaves today ?
>
> Broadly speaking, the Arabs who took African slaves castrated the
incidentally, castration is forbidden in Islam, so the dirty work was
done by Christians, frequently Copts from Egypt
SolomonW
> actually the offspring of a muslim slave - muslim slave union would
> still
> be a slave, but if any partner is free the offspring would be free and
> have equal rights with the other children.
Bernard Lewis claims one of the major reasons for the lack of growth of the
slave population in Islam was because of this and also many slaves were
released by their masters for religious reasons.
Yusuf B Gursey
yes.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Oct 24, 9:29 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:> Ishtar wrote:
> > > One comment I could make is that the Muslim religion imposes strict
> > > social control on who you can have intercourse with..................
>
> > Do tell.
>
> > --
> > William Black
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> For a start, if a woman is seen in the company of a man to whom she is
> not a close family relative, she can be flogged and jailed in Saudi
> Arabia....... maybe even legally murdered.... so now do you understand
> why the black slaves captured by the Arabs have no descendants in
> Arabia? It's a rigidly authoritarian society, where the black African
> slaves were not allowed to procreate.
>
> Hence no dark black faces among the Sons of Hagar.
there are many arabs of african origin, in fact even the Janjawid
of Sudan are just as black as the non-arab muslim Sudanese
they oppress. there was even an incident of the non-arab rebels
possing as Janjawid and commiting an atrocity in their name.
so in many arab countries it is difficult to tell if those of african
origin are of slave origin or not, they may be offspring of free
immigrants from africa. but yes, breeding of slaves was not the
norm. but some actually occured. I ran accross in Turkey a
woman of african origin speaking turkish. and near Izmir,
I read there is a whole village of descendants of manumated
slaves of african origin, siad to be settled there by Abdulhamid II.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bryce
> For a start, if a woman is seen in the company of a man to whom she is
> not a close family relative, she can be flogged and jailed in Saudi
> Arabia....... maybe even legally murdered.... so now do you understand
> why the black slaves captured by the Arabs have no descendants in
> Arabia? It's a rigidly authoritarian society, where the black African
> slaves were not allowed to procreate.
>
> Hence no dark black faces among the Sons of Hagar.
Two things
Back in those days, Arabia was a thriving civilisation and we were the ones
in the dark ages being run by religious nutters.
In any case, this doesn't stop Arabian men from doing it with black girls.
Steve Walker
> Back in those days, Arabia was a thriving civilisation and we were the
> ones in the dark ages being run by religious nutters.
Another century and we'll be back there again....
Yusuf B Gursey
wrote:
the rules are defined in Qur'an iv (Chapter of "the Women") 3 :
(Yusuf Ali's translation)
<<
...
Marry women of your choice
Two, three or four;
But if you fear that ye shall not
Be able to deal justly (with them),
Then only one, or (a captive)
That your right hands posses.
...
>>
so (acc. to the canonical intepretation) one
may have up to four wives and have relations
with as many of one's slaves as one wished.
but the prefered concubines in the middle ages were
Turks (while they were still pagan) and Circassians.
the practice of circassian concubines continued in
the Ottoman Empire. the use of Circassians might be
problematic when many formally converted to Islam,
but the concensus was that their conversion was not
sincere and superficial. at any rate Circassians themselves
practiced slavery / serfdom among themselves until modern
times.
Yusuf B Gursey
there was large scale use of african slaves for agriculturen in
Iraq during Abbasid times, but this led to revolts, the last and
most widespread one being in the late 9th. cent. CE.
Eric Stevens
The way its heading at the moment, it will be nutter vs nutter.
Eric Stevens
Special Care
Testament."
However, the overall impression is that when they won a battle against
the Ammonites or Philistines, they would murder all male survivors,
including male children, as they might grow up to be enemy soldiers,
and take the women home, as slaves or concubines.
That explains how King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines,
.... which Jesus and John the Baptist were masturbating about and
anxious to emulate 2,000 years ago.......
....only it didn't work out the way they
planned.......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE BIBLE:
1 Kings 11
1 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women: the daughter of Pharaoh,
and Moabite, Ammonite, E'domite, Sido'nian, and Hittite women, 2 from
the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the people of
Israel, "You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall
they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their
gods"; Solomon clung to these in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives,
princesses, and three hundred concubines;
J Antero
"Yusuf B Gursey" <y...@theworld.com> wrote in message
news:d9b61598-1f07-4d06...@u13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 5:56 pm, Ishtar <ishtar.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 9:29 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:>
> Ishtar wrote:
> > > One comment I could make is that the Muslim religion imposes strict
> > > social control on who you can have intercourse with..................
>
> > Do tell.
>
> > --
> > William Black
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> For a start, if a woman is seen in the company of a man to whom she is
> not a close family relative, she can be flogged and jailed in Saudi
> Arabia....... maybe even legally murdered.... so now do you understand
> why the black slaves captured by the Arabs have no descendants in
> Arabia? It's a rigidly authoritarian society, where the black African
> slaves were not allowed to procreate.
>
> Hence no dark black faces among the Sons of Hagar.
==
there are many arabs of african origin, in fact even the Janjawid
of Sudan are just as black as the non-arab muslim Sudanese
they oppress. there was even an incident of the non-arab rebels
possing as Janjawid and commiting an atrocity in their name.
===
Exactly. A lot of Saudi Arabians have facial features that look more African
than Arab.
Prince Bandar, fomer ambassador to the US and Bush family friend looks
generally similar to Jesse Jackson.
As for flogging of women seen with strange men, that poster should be made
aware that slave/master interbreeding isn't like dating game - in present
times there are many complaints of rape and abuse of immigrant household
servants.
Yusuf B Gursey
> "Yusuf B Gursey" <y...@theworld.com> wrote in messagenews:d9b61598-1f07-4d06...@u13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 24, 5:56 pm, Ishtar <ishtar.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 9:29 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:>
> > Ishtar wrote:
> > > > One comment I could make is that the Muslim religion imposes strict
> > > > social control on who you can have intercourse with..................
>
> > > Do tell.
>
> > > --
> > > William Black
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > For a start, if a woman is seen in the company of a man to whom she is
> > not a close family relative, she can be flogged and jailed in Saudi
> > Arabia....... maybe even legally murdered.... so now do you understand
> > why the black slaves captured by the Arabs have no descendants in
> > Arabia? It's a rigidly authoritarian society, where the black African
> > slaves were not allowed to procreate.
>
> > Hence no dark black faces among the Sons of Hagar.
>
> ==
> there are many arabs of african origin, in fact even the Janjawid
> of Sudan are just as black as the non-arab muslim Sudanese
> they oppress. there was even an incident of the non-arab rebels
> possing as Janjawid and commiting an atrocity in their name.
> ===
>
> Exactly. A lot of Saudi Arabians have facial features that look more African
> than Arab.
>
in pre-islamic times, the hero of arab chivalry, the semi-legendary
poet-warrior
Antara (he has the role of King Arthur as the model of chivalry in
Arab lore) was
born from a slave african mother. it took some time for his father to
acknowledge
paternity, and thus obtain his freedom, and the point of the romance
is against
acknowledging paternity from concubines. in early Islam, one has Bilal
al-Habashi,
an ethiopian slave emancipated by Muhammad, who became Islam's first
caller
to prayer (mu'adhdhin).
> Prince Bandar, fomer ambassador to the US and Bush family friend looks
> generally similar to Jesse Jackson.
>
> As for flogging of women seen with strange men, that poster should be made
> aware that slave/master interbreeding isn't like dating game - in present
> times there are many complaints of rape and abuse of immigrant household
> servants.
true, but among royal households in the middle ages the concubine
through
her sexual attractiveness and cunning could aspire to be the son of
the heir,
and finally the highest position of all, the mother of the ruler. at
the end of
the Ayyubid dynasty their was no male heir and a Turkish concubine who
had
become the wife of the deceased ruler became the actual ruler. her
reign was very
short lived as the aristocracy and petty subordinate rulers couldn't
stand being
ruled by a woman and she married another former slave who became
ruler, and
the Mamelukes were born.
SolomonW
> On Oct 24, 6:59�pm, David Brewer <davidbre...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Baldoni wrote:
>>> How many African slaves did the Arabs take from Africa and where are the
>>> descendents of these slaves today ?
>>
>> Broadly speaking, the Arabs who took African slaves castrated the
>
> incidentally, castration is forbidden in Islam, so the dirty work was
> done by Christians, frequently Copts from Egypt
This sounds a bit too pat.
I wonder how many times were these laws obeyed even in medieval Egypt. For
example today in Mauritania, slaves are castrated by Muslims.
Jack Linthicum
If you remember the Mamelukes were white, bought as slaves in Turkey
and IIRC of literal Caucasian origin. The Sultanate of Oman held sway
over Zanzibar, the island slave trade market location. Even today the
CIA figures for Oman's population mention African as one of the ethnic
groups. Saudi has a 10% share for "African and Asian".
Yusuf B Gursey
at least it was true of the Ottoman Empire, where the religious
prohibition
was taken seriously. but it is true that the religious prohibition was
not
always enforced.
Jack Linthicum
They were for it before they were against it
Yusuf B Gursey
wrote:
> On Oct 26, 8:25 am, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > > On Oct 24, 6:59 pm, David Brewer <davidbre...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> Baldoni wrote:
> > >>> How many African slaves did the Arabs take from Africa and where are the
> > >>> descendents of these slaves today ?
>
> > >> Broadly speaking, the Arabs who took African slaves castrated the
>
> > > incidentally, castration is forbidden in Islam, so the dirty work was
> > > done by Christians, frequently Copts from Egypt
>
> > This sounds a bit too pat.
>
> > I wonder how many times were these laws obeyed even in medieval Egypt. For
the Mamlukes were not castrated, they were slave-soldiers, not
eunuchs. but there were white eunuchs as well. the black eunuchs
had higher prestige, they were more trusted as keeping care of the
concubines, at least in the Ottoman Empire. the idea being that
just in case the operation went wrong, one coudl tell by the color
of the offspring ... well, you get the idea.
> > example today in Mauritania, slaves are castrated by Muslims.
>
> If you remember the Mamelukes were white, bought as slaves in Turkey
the original Mamlukes were of Kypchak Turkic origin, the Turkic people
of the Russian Steppe. They were sold by the Golden Horde Tatars,
themsleves turkified Mongols (eventually the Mongol the rulers became
Turkic speaking as well), frequently by Genoese or Venetian
intermediaries.
so Baybars, was a Kypchak Turk, and this is well known. the official
name
of the Mamluke Empire was al-dawlat al-turkiyyah (or more accurately
ad-dawlatu~t-turkiyya(t)) meaning the Turkish State (Empire), and
before
the rise of the Ottomans was commonly known by euroeans as "Turkey".
but the Kypchak Turks eventually became muslim, so the next "dynasty"
was of Circassian origin from the Caucasus (although the tradition of
Turkic
was kept up for a while), perhaps other Caucasian peoples were also
included. when the Mamluke state was put to an end, the local power
of the Mamelukes continued until the 19th century, and Circassian
slaves continued to be brought in. there are still people of
Circassian
origin in Egypt and some continue to speak Circassian (a government
minister in the 1990's was such a person).
Yusuf B Gursey
wrote:
no. the religious prohibition dates from the early days of Islam.
but it was not always enforced.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Oct 24, 4:19 pm, Ishtar <ishtar.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 8:50 pm, Baldoni <Baldoni...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > How many African slaves did the Arabs take from Africa and where are
> > > the descendents of these slaves today ?
>
> > > --
> > > Count Baldoni
>
> > > In hoc signo vinces
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > I'm glad you asked that question, as all I want is the truth.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq4MO4qJNWY
>
> > Where are all the black faces in Arabia that logically should have
> > resulted from the slave trade... ?
> > well, by our logic......
>
> > OK, I have read that the white race were not the original instigators
> > of the international slave trade in recent centuries, but that the
> > Arabs had a lot to do with it before the whites got involved....
>
> > One comment I could make is that the Muslim religion imposes strict
> > social control on who you can have intercourse with..................
>
> intercourse with slaves is permitted, even if you have four wives.
>
> there were even some cases of women who had intercourse with their
> slaves, and they got away with it. of course, I don't think the
this deserves a reference, which I have been unable to locate again.
> husbands
> of wives would let their wives have non-castrated male slaves.
which would otherwise violate their vows of obedinece to their
husbands
>
>
>
> > restraints which were absent among slave owners in Brazil and the
> > Confederate States of America.... so maybe there was not the same
> > intermarriage in Arabia, in fact none at all because of the rigid
> > social rules and structures.
>
> > All I want is the truth.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq4MO4qJNWY- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
webreader
> How many African slaves did the Arabs take from Africa and where are
> the descendents of these slaves today ?
>
> --
> Count Baldoni
>
> In hoc signo vinces
Checking back in my diary, I believe the figure to be 22,389.
The descendents now live in Southall.
WSR
SolomonW
Not much of a prohibition if all a slave trader had to do is get a
non-Muslims to do the operation.
I remember reading about this operation and then it gave me the creeps. A
male would have his balls cut off awake because there were not anesthetics.
Then the victim's wound would be burnt to cauterize it. The victim would be
screaming. Most died during the operation.
William Black
> I remember reading about this operation and then it gave me the creeps. A
> male would have his balls cut off awake because there were not anesthetics.
> Then the victim's wound would be burnt to cauterize it. The victim would be
> screaming. Most died during the operation.
>
Which doesn't seem terribly cost effective.
I'm starting to think a lot of this stuff is folklore.
SolomonW
> SolomonW wrote:
>
>> I remember reading about this operation and then it gave me the creeps. A
>> male would have his balls cut off awake because there were not anesthetics.
>> Then the victim's wound would be burnt to cauterize it. The victim would be
>> screaming. Most died during the operation.
>>
>
> Which doesn't seem terribly cost effective.
Why do you think eunuchs were so expensive?
>
> I'm starting to think a lot of this stuff is folklore.
Think again, how do you make a eunuch in an age before anesthetics and an
anesthesiologist?
William Black
I just don't think they made that many.
I mean, how many eunuchs do you need?
Yusuf B Gursey
I agree.
>
> I remember reading about this operation and then it gave me the creeps. A
> male would have his balls cut off awake because there were not anesthetics.
> Then the victim's wound would be burnt to cauterize it. The victim would be
> screaming. Most died during the operation.- Hide quoted text -
Yusuf B Gursey
Enc. of Islam I (1913) under << `ABD, slave, servant has:
{a pro-slavery polemic by a german who visited the Hijaz}
<<
... says C. Snouk Hurgronje (Ueber meine Reise nach Mekka,
in the Verhandle. d. Gesellsch. fu"r Erdk. zu Berlin, xiv (1887),
150 et seq. ...
"The concubines, especially Abyssinian ones", says Snouk
Hurgronje (Ueber meine Reisse, loc ct.) "are for several reasons
more highly esteemed by the Meccans than their free wives;
the relation is completely recognized by both religion and custom".
As mother of one or more Meccans she [viz. the *umm walad*]
belongs to society in Mecca practically as a free member, although
her serfdom continues nominally. Theoretically [her] children are in
every way equal to those born of a free mother; as a fact they are
more often favored by the father than neglected by him. In general
it may be said that in every well to do family sons of both classes
of mothers, free women and slaves, are represented; neither in
appearance, nor in their mutual behavior can the starnger mark
the difference".
>>
umm walad means "mother of a child" and denotes the status of
a concubine that has a child from the master. she has certain
privilages over other slaves and is automatically manumated after
the master's death.
at any rate, the passage attests to interbreeding among arab men and
african slave women in the Hijaz (the region where Mekkah is)
SolomonW
> SolomonW wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:50:10 +0000, William Black wrote:
>>
>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>
>>>> I remember reading about this operation and then it gave me the creeps. A
>>>> male would have his balls cut off awake because there were not anesthetics.
>>>> Then the victim's wound would be burnt to cauterize it. The victim would be
>>>> screaming. Most died during the operation.
>>>>
>>> Which doesn't seem terribly cost effective.
>>
>> Why do you think eunuchs were so expensive?
>>
>>> I'm starting to think a lot of this stuff is folklore.
>>
>> Think again, how do you make a eunuch in an age before anesthetics and an
>> anesthesiologist?
>>
>
> I just don't think they made that many.
>
> I mean, how many eunuchs do you need?
What makes Islamic slavery different to Western slavery is that the
majority of the slaves were women.
Part of the reason is I am sure because only about half the males survived
the operation.
After doing a net search, I found this.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=4OZ_YXi7c4IC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=eunuchs+slaves&source=bl&ots=6qZJlXiTYM&sig=JsmqO9U8CJwJ7G26RGrFC5OgM8w&hl=en&ei=YgLoSuzDGoby6gPM6tXwBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=eunuchs%20slaves&f=false
Eunuchs comprised in this sample about 10-20% of all slaves. These were
males.
You could probably double it before the operation.
So I would say most of the males were subjected to it.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:35:52 +0000, William Black wrote:
> > SolomonW wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:50:10 +0000, William Black wrote:
>
> >>> SolomonW wrote:
>
> >>>> I remember reading about this operation and then it gave me the creeps. A
> >>>> male would have his balls cut off awake because there were not anesthetics.
> >>>> Then the victim's wound would be burnt to cauterize it. The victim would be
> >>>> screaming. Most died during the operation.
>
> >>> Which doesn't seem terribly cost effective.
>
> >> Why do you think eunuchs were so expensive?
>
> >>> I'm starting to think a lot of this stuff is folklore.
>
> >> Think again, how do you make a eunuch in an age before anesthetics and an
> >> anesthesiologist?
>
> > I just don't think they made that many.
>
> > I mean, how many eunuchs do you need?
>
> What makes Islamic slavery different to Western slavery is that the
> majority of the slaves were women.
>
> Part of the reason is I am sure because only about half the males survived
> the operation.
>
>
> Eunuchs comprised in this sample about 10-20% of all slaves. These were
> males.
>
> You could probably double it before the operation.
>
> So I would say most of the males were subjected to it
there was also military slaves (men), bu that lapsed by the 17th-18th
centuries.
William Black
Janissaries went on a lot longer than that.
Yusuf B Gursey
but the practice of taking Christian (frequently slavic)
slaves for them lapsed before the corps was abolished
in the first half of the 19th cent. . free muslims or sons of
Janissaries came to be admitted to the corps.
Yusuf B Gursey
the bedouin seem to be more racist:
form the same article by Juynboll
<<
Black slaves, male and female are found in great numbers
in the desert, says J. L. Burkhardt ( ...) ; they are kindly
treated, as severe treatment might turn them into flight.
After a certain lapse of time they are aways set free.
The life of the Bedouins is similar to that of the Negro
slaves in their own country, They soon become fond
of the Bedouins and they are soon as if naturalized
in the tribe. Slaves and their offspring, however, can
only marry among themselves; no free Bedouin ever
marries a black girl. ...
sandy dollar
> On Oct 24, 9:29 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:> Ishtar wrote:
> > > One comment I could make is that the Muslim religion imposes strict
> > > social control on who you can have intercourse with..................
>
> > Do tell.
>
> > --
> > William Black
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> For a start, if a woman is seen in the company of a man to whom she is
> not a close family relative, she can be flogged and jailed in Saudi
> Arabia....... maybe even legally murdered.... so now do you understand
> why the black slaves captured by the Arabs have no descendants in
> Arabia? It's a rigidly authoritarian society, where the black African
> slaves were not allowed to procreate.
>
> Hence no dark black faces among the Sons of Hagar.
> All I want is the truth:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq4MO4qJNWY
************************************************************************************************************
Just because the law says you can not do something, doesn't
mean it was never done. I think there is no such thing as pure with
any peoples. We are all mixtures of different races. Might want to
check your DNA.
Sandy Dollar
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Oct 24, 3:56 pm, Ishtar <ishtar.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 9:29 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:> Ishtar wrote:
> > > > One comment I could make is that the Muslim religion imposes strict
> > > > social control on who you can have intercourse with..................
>
> > > Do tell.
>
> > > --
> > > William Black
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > For a start, if a woman is seen in the company of a man to whom she is
> > not a close family relative, she can be flogged and jailed in Saudi
> > Arabia....... maybe even legally murdered.... so now do you understand
> > why the black slaves captured by the Arabs have no descendants in
> > Arabia? It's a rigidly authoritarian society, where the black African
> > slaves were not allowed to procreate.
>
> > Hence no dark black faces among the Sons of Hagar.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > All I want is the truth:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq4MO4qJNWY
>
> Just because the law says you can not do something, doesn't
> mean it was never done. I think there is no such thing as pure with
> any peoples. We are all mixtures of different races. Might want to
> check your DNA.
> Sandy Dollar
but thereis no Islamic law that prevents sex with concubines, and no
religious
law that prevents marriage (or intercourse with concubines) of people
from a
different "race" to begin with.