It is ridiculous to believe that Arabs overruled and enslaved African people on a wholescale colonialist, type mission, as proposed by today's so-called Afrocentric movement.

The most popular Afrocentric perspective of Al Islam is basically the same as the Eurocentric view of man, history, and reality. The Afrocentric movement has with some degree of success, analysed, critiqued and revised the biased and most certainly racist presentation of Africa by so called European historians. However when it comes to Al Islam and the Muslims, it [the Afrocentric movement] embraces it [the Eurocentric view], wholeheartedly.

Particularly as it relates to Al Islam & it's usefulness among African Americans / Caribbean and its major role in African history. In fact, in some cases Europeans have been much fairer in their writings, analysis and projections of Islam than many of the leading advocates of Afrocentricity.

The most popular Afrocentric perspective of Al Islam is that it, like Christianity, led to the destruction of African civilization; and that Islam is a religion /way of life/philosophy created by Arabs for the advancement and edification of Arabs and their culture.

Al Islam, according to many advocates of Afrocentricity is not an indigenous African religion and therefore African people should reject it. [i.e. John Hendrik Clarke, Chancellor Williams, Dr Ben Youchannon ]


Nothing could be further from the truth.

Aside from the fact that The Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] his family, and many of his companions [pbut], were pure black Arabs of African origin, the basic principles of Islam do in fact have their roots among the ancient Africans i.e.

The unity of The Creator, Worship, Life after death, Moral [community] laws, Polygamy, Fasting, Showing respect [not worship] to our ancestors, Male and Female circumcision, Judgement day to name a few.

The Quraan came and confirmed some of these ancient practices. Because Islam [The peaceful submission to The One Creator] was and is THE religion, culture and spiritual expression of all times, taking on various forms at different times, locations, tribes, languages and environments, while fundamentally remaining the same essence.

The Quraan as revealed to the blessed Muhammad [pbuh] is the completion [final revelation] of ALL those spiritual expressions.

Yet the average Pan Africanist is so engulfed in their zealousness for countering the Eurocentric deception of Africa and it's peoples [particularly Egypt], that very little if any, research is done on equally countering the historical and ongoing deception of Islam, Arabs and Africans.

The Kaffers [disbeliveers and enemies of Al Islam] conceal the truth and are constantly engaged in mass deception.

The increasing incidence by those who accuse pale Arabs of enslaving Africans, must be in response to the fact that reversions to Islam is highest amongst the African communities in America and Europe. In other words, the Kaffir's devious strategy of enslaving Africans, taking them away from Islam and Arabic [one of the literate languages of their enslaved ancestors] has FAILED and is FAILING, after 500 years of trying. And what a spectacular failure!

ISLAM WAS SPREAD BY THE SWORD: A very popular accusation.

There is no truth to this expression. If Islam was spread by the sword, what did the non-Muslim army facing the Muslim army have in their hands? Did they have sticks or toothpicks ?

They too, must have had swords !!! The sword was the weapon of war at that time.

Is it possible that the swords Muslims had in those days were sharper than those of Africans ?

Are you suggesting that the blackman, with all his scientific knowledge and heavily melanated physique, is really just a wimp ?

And where is "the sword" of Islam in America, where the Muslims now number 6 million and 50% of them are African American ? Did Arabs Attack Brooklyn, Bronx, Detroit, Washington, Brixton, Manchester, London, Birmingham and Leeds ?



Africans are physically the strongest of all the nations / tribes on the earth when it comes to ground or one on one combat. Pale Arabs are not only physically weaker than Africans but far less numerically, both in modern and ancient times.

SEE how the oil-rich Arab countries are totally dependent on military personnel (mercenaries) from Europe, America and Pakistan for their defence from fellow Muslims in Iraq and Iran!

The only people who had the strength to take on Africans and enslave Africans were Africans themselves - NOT the Arabs and NOT the Europeans.

Many of the Africans who were enslaved were Muslim Africans. [ Deeper Roots = Dr Abdullah Hakim Quick; African Muslims in the Atlantic slave trade = A.Austin ; Roots = Alex Haley; Christianity, Islam and the Negro race; E.W.Blyden; African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas; Sylviane .A.Diof ]

Many of the Africans who did the enslaving were Christian Africans who had converted to the faith after relinquishing their own tribalistic spirituality.


During the dominant European period of slave trading, the 'Scramble for Africa' and colonisation, Christian Ethiopia was the only African State that was left virtually untouched by European colonisation. In fact its empire doubled in size during the 'Scramble for Africa'!

On page 442 of 'The Triumph of the West' by J.M. Roberts, there is a map of the world showing those parts of the globe that came under Western domination by 1914. Ethiopia stands out like a sore thumb and so does Liberia and Sierra Leone who were Christian states created by Britain and America for the settlement of intellectually, morally and spiritually `weak' Africans who had been Christianized!


Famous Islamic scholar Al-Jihaz (778-868) wrote of the physical superiority of the Africans nations over all other nations. For example, he states: "We Blacks have conquered the country of the Arabs as far as Mecca and governed them. The desert swarm with the number of our men who married your women and who became chiefs and defended you against your enemies. You even have sayings in your language which vaunt the deeds of our kings - deeds which you often placed above your own; this you would not have done had you not considered them superior to your own. We defeated Dhu Nowas (Jewish ruler of Yemen) and killed all the Himyarite princes, but the Arabs and Whites (from Europe) have never conquered our country. Our people, the Zinges (an African race), revolted forty times in the Euphrates, driving the inhabitants from their homes...Blacks are physically stronger. A single one of them can lift stones of great weight and carry burdens such as several whites could not lift nor carry between them. They are brave, strong...- these good traits are the gifts of God." [Excerpt taken from the book - The Superiority of the blacks over the whites].

When the last Prophet (pbuh) was born - in the `Year of the Elephant', Abraha Al-Arsham - the self styled emperor of Ethiopia and Yemen tried to attack the Kaaba at Mecca with a force of 40,000 men, cavalry and armoured elephants. The pale Arabs could not fight the Ethiopians nor could they even defend their own territory. The Arabs fled on their camels to the top of the mountains. This is a well-documented fact in Islamic and Arabian history. There is even a prophetic tradition, which states that one of the signs of "the end of time" would be that the Abassynians [ancient word for blacks] would attack and control Mecca for a period of time. [Signs of the times = ibn Kathir ]

SEE how millions of Arabs are unable to fight a handful of Zionists in Palestine today even though the Arabs have a numerical (population) and financial (oil wealth / petrol-dollars) advantage. So how can Arabs have enslaved a physically stronger nation when they cannot even fight and displace an occupier [pale Jews] who are described in the Quran as people who turn their back on you. [I.e. cowards when it comes to fighting?]

SEE how the Iraqis 'fought' and surrendered in the Gulf War and compare with how the Afghans and Vietnamese fought to the death or until victory was achieved against Russia and America respectively. Yet, HIS storybooks tell us that pale Arabs are the people who enslaved Africans! WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH!!!


Soon after the Last Prophet (pbuh) passed away, the Arabs moved out of the Arabian Peninsula and went into Egypt to free the indigenous Egyptian population from the tyrannical rule of the Romans. In 643 AC, Abdullah the new Arab governor-general (viceroy) of Egypt, decided to go into the Heartland of Africa against Ethiopia with a larger and better-equipped army. However, the Arabs suffered a major and massive military defeat at the hands of the Ethiopians where the whole Arab army was wiped out. An Arab historian of the period felt compelled to admit that it was the most devastating defeat ever suffered by an Arab army. Thereafter, the Arabs became more cautious, changed direction and proceeded with revealing the Last Message along the North African coast, crossing into Spain in 711.

However, Ethiopia remained the only Christian State in Africa until the arrival of the European colonialists. Read 'The Destruction of Black Civilization' by Chancellor Williams, Third World Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1976.

By the time slavery had started in the 1400s, the Arabs had become significantly weakened as a military force by the time of the Western Crusades (1095-1250s) and the Eastern Crusades, namely the Christian-backed Mongol invasion that culminated in the sacking of Baghdad in 1258. Their military response to these successive invasions can best be described as pathetic. The Arabs were 'saved' only by the intervention of non-Arab Muslims e.g. Sala udin Ayubi - from Kurdistan, the Mamelukes (Muslim kinsmen to the non-Muslim Mongols and Tartars) and then the Ottomans who took over the Caliphate. The Arabs were in no position to enslave other people after suffering such bruising attacks from Central Asia.


When Islamic rule was at the height of its splendour in India, there was a considerable influx of African Muslims from east Africa. Coming as traders and mercenaries, and settling in the Deccan (east of Bombay) and Bengal region (Barbek Shah, Malik Amber, Malik Andeel, Mawla, Admiral Sambal, Admirals Masud and Ali Kasam; Generals Kafur, Abudullah, Rahim Khan, Abdul Rahman, Battla, Belal, Forts, Hillol, Ibrahim Khan, Jauhar, Johar, Kasim Sabaun, Sambal, Sat, and the eminent military commander, Yakut Khan. Ekhaz Khan was a noted Sultan.

In time they emerged from the mass to form the backbone of armies and became, great military and naval commanders, hereditary admirals, and in several instances, Sultans [Prime Ministers]. [African presence in ancient Asia = Dr Ivan Van Sertima]

Under their own commanders, they eventually became the source of central power. Their presence brought them into conflict with the Afghan, Turkish and Mughal rulers of North, Central and East India. The Afghans, who have a fiercesome reputation for fighting, being the only Muslim country to have successfully fought off colonialism by beating Britain an imperial power three times and then a perceived superpower, Russia . However, even Afghan chiefs were unable to beat the African Muslims in south India and Bengal, even when they outnumbered them four-to-one. [Ibid.].


Relatively speaking European and American armies are physically weak and cowards, and are totally dependent on heavy protection (armour plating, helmets, bulletproof equipment, chemical weapons, stealth bombers etc) because they FEAR death and their hypocritical chattering classes FEAR body bags. Their soldiers even have to get drunk just to pluck up enough courage to chat up loose woman in a bar!


They don't like fighting man-to-man in a field and away from built-up areas and so resort to attacking civilian infrastructure such as roads, bridges, power stations, women, children (collateral damage) because these `targets' can't and don't hit back. Their technology is 'stand-off' where they can fire projectiles without even seeing the enemies' eyes.


Whenever there is TV / video footage of an American / British policemen beating up an Afro-American / Afro-Caribbean - the African is always outnumbered by his attackers because his attackers are too scared to take him on - man-to-man / on a one-to-one basis. [Remember Joy Gardener, Steven Lawrence, Duane Douglas, Rodney King e.t.c.]


Some of the cities, in which Africans have a large presence in America and Europe, are known as NO GO AREAS because the indigenous population FEARS them. So if white man FEARS walking through his own land, how could he have travelled to the DARK CONTINENT to enslave Africans, having only just discovered the world is not flat and monsters do not inhabit the sea?


Britain could not fight the Chinese and so introduced opium as a way of weakening them. In order to rule and maintain its empire, Britain created the two million strong British Indian army - the largest all volunteer army ever created in the history of mankind. Consisting of the so-called martial races of South Asia. This army was deployed against the Muslims of Africa, the Ottomans, even fellow Asians - the Chinese in the Opium Wars.

In World War 1, Britain had to resort to conscription because not enough men came forward to fight, whilst in its colonies, the natives of India VOLUNTEERED. Now they are recruiting women to fight on the front-line.


Sitting Bull, the Leader of the Teton Sioux, c.1831 to 1890 said: "We have now to deal with another race - small and feeble when our fathers first met them, but now great and overbearing...” The Americans could not fight the Native American Indians man-to-man, and so fought them indirectly by wiping out the buffalo, which the Red Indians were totally dependent on for food / meat, clothing, milk, transport, trade, etc. Another tactic was the use of germ warfare i.e. deliberately infecting the Native Americans with European diseases.


The debacle in Vietnam and Somalia is further evidence of their weakness and cowardice. In fact when stooges like Martin Luther King came on the scene it was at a time when the war in Vietnam was stepping up and men were needed to fight in Vietnam. They wanted African-Americans to fight their war in Vietnam because they themselves are cowards. People like Clinton fled to Europe to avoid the call-up or as he says because of his conscience towards the war, though his conscious does not extend to bombing defenceless Muslims in Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan. Thus the head of the American armed forces is a coward. Stooges like Martin Luther King wanted equality for Afro-Americans and once achieved, they could then go and fight in Vietnam as equal citizens of America! But African-American Muslims like Muhammad Ali - the famous boxer saw through this trick.


As to the Gulf War - the Arabs are not a formidable fighting force today and hence their reliance on mercenaries. Indeed they are so desperate they even rely on cowardly Kaffer mercenaries for their protection! Some of these Kaffer armies have to recruit women to fight on the front-line because their own men don't want to fight. [Women on the frontline; article TIME magazine Sept. 1993]


It took hundreds of years for mechanized European armies to colonise the whole of Africa. For example, in the Ashanti wars of the early nineteenth century, the British tried to occupy the hinterland of the Gold Coast (now called Ghana). There were eleven major wars in this conflict. The Ashanti won ALL of them, except the last. In these wars, Ashanti generals - and we should call them generals, because they were more than equal to the British generals who failed to conquer them - stopped the inland encroachment of the British was. In 1896 the British exiled the Ashanti King Prempeh, but still were not able to take over completely the hinterland of the Gold Coast. The British still did not give up their desire to establish their authority in the interior of the country and avenge the many defeats they had suffered at the hands of Ashanti. It took the British nearly a century of fighting with the Ashanti before they gained total control of the region.

So if mechanized British troops had so much difficulty colonising a coastal region, how did Arabs manage to enslave millions of Africans and sell them into slavery?


When Britain colonized Egypt they began fighting with Muhammad Ahmad ('Mahdi' of Sudan) - an African Muslim. The British organized three mechanized armies against the Muhammad Ahmad, namely the Anglo-Egyptian Army, the British Indian Army and the Ottoman Army. Muhammad Ahmad and his followers were only armed with swords and spears. In one encounter, Muhammad Ahmad and the African Muslims massacred all 10,000 Arabs of the Anglo-Egyptian Army. One of Britain's best generals, a coward by the name of Charles Gordon was killed. Britain then had to send another one of its elite generals of the British Army (a sodomite called Kitchener) to destroy the Sudanese Muslims. It took a MECHANIZED army to destroy Muhammad Ahmad and his followers. Winston Churchill was a reporter at the time and his despatches describe the sheer bravery of the African Muslims who fought to the death against the might of combined modern armies from Egypt, Britain and India, without fear or cowardice. Read 'Scramble for Africa', and The White Nile =A.Moorehead .


When America, a perceived superpower went into Somalia in 1993, for so called peacekeeping duties, young African Somalis forced their military out. American soldiers armed to the teeth with all their sophisticated weaponry could not 'take on' the African boys.

So whoever enslaved Africans had to be physically strong. Otherwise, as Mike Tyson has recently shown an angry African can easily bite your ear off!

What about the Maroons of the Carribean? And the countless slave revolts in North and South America?

When Britain fought against the 'Mad Mullah' in Somalia, 10,000 Christians from Ethiopia joined them.

NO ONE BUT AFRICANS COULD HAVE ENSLAVED AFRICANS, and it was Christians Africans who were taking Muslim Africans captives and selling them to the Europeans at the coast.

There was a crusade / Jihad taking place between African Muslims and African Christians. It is unbelievable and illogical to believe that Muslims would sell prisoners of war to their enemies, particularly as the enemies are Christians from Europe who had recently ended the 700 year old Moorish civilization in Spain, and are now conquering Muslim North and West Africa.

Moreover, in a Jihad [struggle, Holy war], prisoners of war and their property are considered as lawful war booty and the property of the Amir and the Islamic State which the Amir distributes to enhance the power of the Islamic State and reward those who have given their resources and lives in Jihad. This is the Sunnah [practice] of the Prophet (pbuh). And if you do a little research you will find that this was the practice of warring African tribes, prior to the arrival of Europeans.

Did the Prophet (pbuh) ever sell the war booty to his enemies, thereby weakening his power and strengthening the enemies' power ? NO. Prisoners of war are valuable because there is reward for converting them to Islam, as marital partners, as servants, as ransom, etc. In each case the quantity and strength of Muslims increases.



Recently there has been a lot of media speculation about alledged slavey in Sudan.

Sudan, formally known as Kush in ancient times, represents the African microcosm in all respects: ethnic, cultural and even in respect to its former colonial powers. Like almost every other African country, not only was Sudan bequeathed an ethnic problem, the problem was itself created and nursed during the colonial period and the conflict seems to have become so dear to its creators that they would not allow the Sudanese to come to any mutual agreement.


Historically the northern Sudanese are descendants of the ancient Egyptians and Nubians of the Nile Valley. Over different periods of time people of various ethnic origins [Greeks, Romans, Turks and Arabs both black and pale skinned] has populated the Nile Valley. These migrations have resulted in a small part of the population in the north having a hybrid or mixed appearance. But for the most part, the majority of the Nubians have retained their African features and customs. [ Chaik Anta Diop = The African Origin of Civilisation ].

By the time Islam had become the dominant culture in Sudan [north, west and east], the ancient Kushitic civilization had long since declined. There was also a large presence of black Arabs who had migrated from southern Arabia and had intermarried with the local inhabitants. [History of the Sudan = Dr Abdullah Tarik al Mansour].

The people embraced Islam [not forced on them as you silly Pan Africanists advocate] and Arabic became the language of trade, commerce and communication in the north. The south remained animist and distant from the changes in the north. Later on it would embrace Christianity through the European missionaries although still up until this day, there still remains a large percentage of animists.

In the past, race, ethnicity, identity and difference were limited problems, which were resolved in a civil manner. Even the wars they had with each other did not reach the heights of barbarism that we see today in Africa [i.e. Rwanda, Sierra Leon, Burundi, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Liberia].

Sudan has been facing such a problem for the past 15 years, although to their credit there has been no reports of tribal massacres or ethnic cleansing. It is guerrilla warfare, which is currently taken place there between a small band of southerners [between 2-4 thousand] and the government forces, [which includes southern tribes who are against the southern rebel army]. It is not a full-scale north Vs south war as the media would have you believe. If you were to travel to the Sudanese capital Khartoum, you will see hundreds of thousands of southern tribes living, working, marrying and generally living at ease with the Nubian [northern] tribes.

The western press have used terms such as Muslim Vs Christians or worse still Arabs Vs Africans and the Afrocentric movement who at one point accuse the western press of distorting news or history, but hypocritically support the press on their tirade against the Sudanese government. Another point to consider is that the rebels in the south have been joined by Muslims from the north who are composed of the main opposition parties in Sudan. So basically it is political problem as well as ethnical and religious. It is black Vs black just as in the rest of Africa, and The Caribbean, where there is conflict and strife. But the Afrocentrist doesn't want to see it that way. Why? Because Muslims are involved and we know you don't like Islam.

As far as the allegations of slavery are concerned, it can not be denied that individuals have taken advantage of the situation and this is a shame on African people and the Muslims and those who are participating in this inhumane practice need to be condemned [I could say worse]. However the situation has been definitely blown up out of proportion and we should be wary of white Christian groups such as Red Cross or Christian Solidarity International, who are at the forefront of the slavery propaganda machine.

It is not just the "selling" of Africans that should be our prior commitment, equally so we should be concerned about the "trade" taking place in our communities right on our doorstep i.e.

The selling of drugs within our communities by Africans

The selling of fast-food within our communities

The selling of degenerate music within our communities by Africans

The selling of negative movies within our communities acted and promoted by Africans

The selling of so called designer clothing within our communities designed by whites, sold and worn by Africans

The selling of indecent clothing for our women designed and worn by Africans

African men and women selling their bodies on the streets

Informants within the community who will spy on organisations and sell them to the authority

Recording artists who sell their soul to the Devil and then sell millions of records to African youth

The selling of dangerous cosmetics such as bleaching cream, hair perms and fake hair weaves. Made by whites, sold and used by Africans

The selling of silly tabloid newspapers such as The voiceless Voice, The few New Nation and The joke Journal, which continue to give African people useless and trivial information

The selling of our children from 9-5pm, to day-care nurseries and poorly run ethnic majority populated schools

The selling of guns within our communities, made by whites, sold to blacks who in turn sell to and kill other blacks

The selling of glossy Negro magazines which are full of black wannabe's [Ebony, Essence, Black Beauty.]

The selling of poorly written Afrocentric history books which contain contradictory information, a lack of sufficient evidence, poor sentence and grammar construction and last but not least are confusing as to which direction they are going. This does not include eminent scholars, the likes of Dr Ivan Van Sertima, William Preston, J.A Rogers, John Hendrik Clarke [?], Runuko Rashidi, W.E.deBoise, Edward Wilmont Blyden, Chaik Anta Diop, and Wayne Chandler, of whom I don't agree 100% but they stand head and shoulders above most of the emotional drivel that is currently saturating the market of our historical knowledge. This was partly addressed in a book entitled "THE SCIENCE OF MELANIN: DESPELLING THE MYTHS = T.Owens. Moore"

Now you tell me which one is worse. Physical slavery or mental slavery? Or are they as bad as each other ?


So, it was Africans who made the slave trade possible through ignorance, greed and envy. And yes all were involved [Animists, Christians and Muslims]. It is a sad and painful truth but a reality we have to contend with if we are to become the people we are supposed to be. The romanticizing about Africa and its peoples has to stop. There has always been a negative element amongst us from way back. Their descendants are amongst us today reaping havoc and hell in our communities, countries, organisations and leadership.

If you are sincerely seeking the truth about Al Islam then you should go to the primary source, which is The Quraan. If you are going to judge Islam by the Muslims then you will find fault because people often do not reflect their beliefs in the prescribed way, which in turn breeds hypocrisy.

Even We the conscious African aware advocates, have our own individual shortcomings. We are all [humans] here [on earth], striving on the path of knowledge, truth and enlightenment. But it is not an easy path, what you may say and do today can easily change tomorrow, but the true and sincere believers know that ALLAH'S [GOD] TRUTH is infinite and with it there is no confusion.

In conclusion I leave you with this beautiful narration from The Beloved Messenger of ALLAH, The Unseen Source of ALL Creation:

"The Believers in their mutual love, compassion and sympathy are like one body

When one of it's parts suffers from some illness, the rest of the body shares its

Suffering with sleeplessness and fever" [ Sahih Al Bukhari vol. 1]

article was written by i Abdul Kareem Ibraheem al Salih.
All responses should be to


-back to top-
. Copyright 1999 Afrocentricnews
Web Site