Re: African American proclaims Somali Heritage
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:09 am
bareento wrote:Aliyyi Oromada wrote:abdisamad3 wrote:bareento who sold the oromos as slaves?
and why didnt they fight againste the slavetraders?
It wasn't a matter of fighting against slave traders. That's not how it worked. The institution existed for many reasons but predominantly because of war. If you were a nation which had wars prior to 'modern days' then there would have been captives taken from you & sold into slavery. That's how it worked in those days. So for example if the invasion of Somalia happened in 1806, rather than 2006, there would have been a market afterwards like any other war. And when you take a captive, you grab them by the ear and sell them in the market to merchants who specialize in the trade. Any region there is war, the markets nearby have slaves. Men, women and children. Christian or Muslim, white or brown, king or peasant. No exceptions.
Wat depresses me is that there were/are no anti slavery mouvement in the Muslim world;
That the only two "Islamic" countries in Africa openly practice slavery (sudan and mauritania)
I think we Muslims need a kind of CULTURAL REVOLUTION...
Freeing slaves was always considered an act of worship in Islam, so all that would be required is an Islamic revolution. First I should say there is a difference between an Islamic country and a Muslim country. Sudan and Mauritania are not Islamic countries because they don't rule by Islamic laws. They are both muslim countries living under military dictators.
Anyways, every movement is born out of certain imposed conditions. Although Islam repeatedly encourages Muslims to free slaves (in Quran and Sunnah), the reason there was no strong movement to abolish it completely was predominantly because a slave in the Muslim world had different conditions than in other parts of the world. For example they had access to legal rights, if he or she had a complaint against the owner or anybody, he or she can go to the Qaadi and prosecute them. They also lived in the same conditions as their owner as far as food, clothing and shelter were concerned (and many times they wouldn't have that security living freely on their own). In those societies it was difficult to tell the difference between the slave and the owner. Also a slave can more easily free oneself and live as a free person in the society. It's not usual to hear people go through generations and generations of slavery. The legal and social practices not only allowed that to happen more easily, but throughout history it's common to see slaves rise to a high status in the muslim world. Many of the most prominent names in islamic history come from slave backgrounds ie. the senior sahabi and 1st mu'adhin Bilal ra. One of the greatest Islamic scholars, Hassan al Basri, was the son of a persian slave. Tariq Ibn Ziyad, the conqueror of Spain was a berber slave. Sayf ad-Din Qutuz, the most powerful man in Islam at one time, was a Turkish slave. In Egypt there was a dynasty of slaves which ruled for centuries (mamluuk), and I can go on. There were exceptions, but I'm speaking of the norm.
On the other hand, the abolition of slavery movement grew in the west predominantly because all the conditions there were contrary to what I listed above. Slaves had no rights to speak of. And in those societies, once you were a slave you and your descendants would remain that way indefinitely, and there was virtually no way out. Slavery was entirely based on race. In the European colonies in the carribean for example all the indigenous people were enslaved and placed in conditions that led to their extinction. When the indigenous people were extinct they started bringing in the black slaves. These slaves eventually rebelled and defeated the european armies. The army of Napoleon was defeated in Haiti long before it was defeated in Europe. In America, slave masters were getting killed on a regular. It wasn't necessarily that simple, but I can sum it up in one sentence. Slavery ended not through any cultural revolution but rather when it became more costly, than profitable.
But again, freeing the slave was always considered an act of Ibaada in Islam and was usually encouraged, such as this example which occurred 1300 years ago:
http://islamicpoint.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... basri.html