Fawaz Turki praises Islam for what he claims is its equal treatment of Believers — Arab and non-Arab, white and black. The evidence is overwhelmingly against both claims.
First, Arabs are considered, by other Muslims, as well as by themselves, as superior to non-Arab Muslims, for a host of reasons:
- The message of Allah was delivered to a 7th century Arab and in his language, Arabic;
- All Muslims must turn toward Mecca, in Arabia, whenever they pray;
- They must make the hajj, if financially able, again to Mecca, once in their lives;
- They must ideally read and recite the Qur’an in Arabic;
- Many non-Arab converts take Arab names;
- Some Muslims even claim false Arab lineages, as self-described “Sayyids,” signifying that they descend from the tribe of the Prophet.
All this confirms Anwar Sheikh’s lapidary description of Islam as “the vehicle for Arab supremacism.” Recent Arab mistreatment of non-Arab Muslims — ranging from the linguistic and cultural suppression of Berbers in North Africa, to the mass murder by Saddam Hussein of 182,000 Kurds in Iraq, to which no Arabs anywhere objected (as Kanan Makiya pointed out), and the deliberate “arabization” of their lands — offer further evidence of Arab supremacism.
Second, Turki offers as evidence of racial equality in Islam the single example of Bilal, the Ethiopian who became a Muslim and was designated by Muhammad to be the first muezzin. But as against that example are such Hadith as that which insists a ruler should be obeyed “even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.” And another says that “anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed.” (Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad, p.375). Then there are the racist remarks about blacks, repeatedly described as “dumb animals,” “deficient in intelligence,” “not to be regarded as humans,” naturally “fit only to be slaves” — observations offered not by tangential figures, but by the most famous Arab scholars, jurists, Qur’anic commentators, and historians, such as Ibn Khaldun, Al-Tabari, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Qutaibah, Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī, Al-Muqaddasi, and Ibn Al-Faqih.
Can Nawaz Turki explain how these comments by the most celebrated of Muslim scholars and thinkers support his claim of a total absence of racism in his faith? Does he dare to discuss the devastating passages assembled above? He can neither call into question the prestige of those who made these racist observations, nor can he plausibly argue that these passages have been misunderstood.
Islam is the most successful imperialism in world history. It has conquered many lands and many peoples. And those Muslim conquerors have converted many people to Islam, convincing them not to oppose, but to identify completely with their conquerors, and to find fault with their own pre-Islamic pasts, considered to belong to the Jahiliyya, the Time of Ignorance. Some non-Arab Muslims wanted so much to identify with the Arabs that they claimed for themselves false family histories connecting them to the tribe of the Prophet Muhammad.
For those who, unlike Fawaz Turki, are interested in the truth, they will soon discover that Islam has a long history of favoring Arabs, their culture, and their language, over non-Arabs and their (inferior) cultures. Perhaps Fawaz Turki would deign to take a look at the evidence presented above, of supremacist statements by Arabs, and the many ways in which the practice of Islam reinforces that supremacism. And far from being free of racism, as Turki claims, Islam is disturbingly replete with outrageous statements about black Africans — “dumb animals,” “scarcely human,” etc. — that would make Henrik Verwoerd blush.
Should Turki examine the evidence of both Arab supremacism and anti-black racism within Islam, he could post his reaction right here at Jihad Watch, as a comment to this very piece.
Fawaz Turki, Jihad Watch readers would be delighted to read your response. Now’s your chance to engage in a little interfaith dialogue, based on the evidence presented in the three postings, including this one, that discuss your views. We hope to hear from you soon.
mortimer says
Fawaz Turki does what Mohammed told him to do: lie.
Quote:
Chapter 31: Making Peace among People
249. Umm Kulthum bint `Uqbah (May Allah be pleased with her) reported: Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, ‘The person who (MAKES UP LIES) in order to conciliate between people is not a liar, when he conveys good or says (something) good”.
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
lebel says
How horrible! a lie to make peace! disgusting! please join me in condemning similar practices in Judaism:
“Examples of Permissible Lying
One may “change the truth” for reasons of peace.16 We derive this from a conversation between G‑d, Sarah and Abraham in Genesis.17 Sarah said to herself: “After I have withered will I get smooth skin, and my husband is old.” When G‑d repeated her comments to Abraham, he said that Sarah had said: “How can I give birth when I am old.” As Rashi18 explains, G‑d changed Sarah’s words so that Abraham would not realize that Sarah had made a denigrating remark about him.
Aaron the High Priest would employ this method when he would try to make peace between quarrelling spouses and friends. He would approach one party and tell him that the other party really is sorry and wants to reconcile. When the person would hear this, he would express an interest in resolving the dispute. Aaron would then go to the other party and tell him this fact. At which point, everybody would make up.19 The Rif20 says that it’s actually a mitzvah to lie in this way in order to maintain peace.
Other examples of permitted white lies include:
Changing the truth in order to practice humility. For example, one may claim ignorance of a certain talmudic tractate even if one does actually know it.21
Changing the truth in order to maintain modesty.22
Changing the truth in order to protect someone else from harm or inconvenience. For example, if a host was very gracious, and one is asked about this, one should not tell all about his magnanimity as this may cause too many guests to flock to him.23
On a similar vein, if a person has an incurable illness, and informing him of this will be detrimental to his health, it may be proper to withhold this information from him.24
A white lie said in order to protect someone from embarrassment. An example of this is that one may say that a bride is beautiful and gracious, even if she isn’t particularly beautiful or gracious.25
Using exaggerated expressions if it is clear that it’s an exaggeration.26 For example: “You look white like a sheet.”
There are some circumstances under which one is allowed to be deceptive in order to recoup losses that are owed to him. Our patriarch Jacob employed this method to protect his lawfully earned gains from being defrauded him by his father-in-law, Laban.27 The details of this matter are beyond the scope of this article.28
If someone does something for himself, but another understands that it was done to honor him, one does not have to correct this misunderstanding. The Talmud29 relates that several rabbis were traveling from one city to another. A rabbi who approached them thought that they had come to greet him. In such a case, the Talmud concludes, it is not necessary to correct the mistake.30″
source: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1049008/jewish/Telling-the-Truth-and-When-It-Is-Permissible-to-Be-Less-Than-Honest.htm
Oh wait I forgot that it’s only bad when Muslims do it!
Dennis says
What I believe is interesting about your comment, is that nowhere in your claim that Judaism seems to support taking some liberties with the truth, is there any comment in Judaism that presents that liberty in favor of violence with what is referred to in Islam that involves untruthful statements that support Jihad (violence). Therefore, I respectfully believe that trying to compare the speaking conduct of Judaism to the speaking expectation of Islam leaves me with the conclusion that you are comparing apples and oranges. Islam supports liberties with the truth to support acts of violence, while Judaism does not do that as history has established. If you cannot see that, you must be deaf, dumb and blind.
lebel says
You’ve noticed that I am answering Mortimer’s evidence? if you have other evidence bring it forth because I don’t know what you are referring to.
Geoffrey Britain says
leben’s response indicates that he’s willfully deaf, dumb and blind…
gravenimage says
Of course lebel knows what Dennis is referring to–the same thing that I referred to yesterday below.
Here is just one example:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 36
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.”…
How had Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf “hurt” the “Prophet”? By writing poetry lamenting Muhammed having slaughtered his victims.
gravenimage says
Does lebel have a similar problem when the “Prophet” told Muslims they could lie in order to get close enough to peaceful people who had been cheeky about Islam in order to murder them? I really doubt it…
keya says
This Turki guy is only creating a smokescreen
Paul N Silas says
True the Arabs/Muslims did okay on the battlefield until they met the Crusaders, Polish, IDF, and ( God Love’m) THE UNITED STATES MARINE AND ARMY! Yoooo rah!!!!
Paul N Silas says
Let’s not forget the French at Tours, the Spanish and Greeks who kicked the creeps out of their countries.
On another note, the Dude in the pic looks like Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty, I;m certain Phil could kikk his butt too.
lebel says
“Then there are the racist remarks about blacks, repeatedly described as “dumb animals,” “deficient in intelligence,” “not to be regarded as humans,” naturally “fit only to be slaves” — observations offered not by tangential figures, but by the most famous Arab scholars, jurists, Qur’anic commentators, and historians, such as Ibn Khaldun, Al-Tabari, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Qutaibah, Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī, Al-Muqaddasi, and Ibn Al-Faqih.”
Did you have the same conclusions about Judaism when you read Maimonides on blacks?
Of course not. But then it’s not the same is it? there are two standards aren’t there? The whole jihadwatch edifice is based on this hypocrisy.
gravenimage says
Firstly, of course, Maimonides was citing his own views, and not those of Judaism–there is nothing like this in the Torah.
Secondly and of even more importance, no Jews are enslaving Black people today.
Muslims certainly are, though, as lebel well knows.
lebel says
All those Muslims Fitzgerald is referring to are citing their own views as well. There is nothing like this in the Quran.
b.a. freeman says
the article on white lies to which U refer above on chabad dot org is troubling, but this is the kind of trouble into which humans get when they try to extend divine law. we’re pretty good at discerning virtuous behavior when it’s closely-related to the 10 commandments, but when we get off into the weeds, we trip up. that was a good catch … not! i still don’t see the evidence that proves that rabbinic judaism supports *killing* non-jews under any and all circumstances, though, or even lying so that a jew can get close enough to a gentile to kill him. care to point those out?
as for the issue at hand, all those muslims were *not* just “citing their own views;” although some were, they based their views on islamic scripture, and most were, in fact, important jurists developing sharia during the time of ijtihad. islamic scripture is more than just the quran; it includes the kutub alsittah and the sira. the latter 2 are not as “holy” as the quran, which is the actual word of allah, but they are still scripture, and still very important (e.g., without them, the 5 pillars would be undefined). mr. fitzgerald quoted sahih ahadith, and highly esteemed islamic scholars and jurists reasoning from same, and they were *not* off in the weeds. the supremacy of of arabs over non-arabs is undisputed (for example, see https://islamicvirtues.com/2013/12/12/superiority-of-the-race-of-arabs-over-non-arabs/, which also quotes sahih ahadith), as is the suitability of black people for nothing but slavery.
nice try, lebel; U’re getting better at smearing innocents, but truth still trumps libel.
gravenimage says
Pretending that the Hadith are not canonical texts of Islam is, of course, absurd.
And does lebel have any problem with Muslims enslaving Africans to this day? Not so he says…
Norger says
@ lebel
“there are two standards aren’t there? The whole jihadwatch edifice is based on this hypocrisy.”
I actually thought you had a point in saying that other religions permit the telling of “white lies” and that it’s unfair to condemn Islam on this basis. Fair enough.
But there are not “two standards” here for judging Islam vs. Judaism or Christianity. You are making a false equivalence between Judaic theology and Islam here. (I’m an atheist, I have no inherent preference for either religion).
The question is what has to happen (a “successful” nuclear terror attack in a major US city?) before people like you are willing to even consider the role that Islamic theology plays in motivating/inspiring terror attacks; and to ponder the implications of religiously mandated terror (I.e. jihad). You know of course that apart from religiously sanctioned lying ( and jihad) Islam has many, many other ugly theological elements that are morally indefensible; e.g. death penalty for blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, adultery; no freedom of speech, second class citizenship for women and non-Muslims etc., etc. etc. Do you deny this? Your attempt to posit that there is some sort of equivalence between Jewish theology and Islam TODAY is just complete bullshit. For sure there are ugly regressive elements in Jewish scripture. However, in modern Judaism those elements (stoning adulterers) are a dead letter. Not so in Islam, as we see on a daily basis.
One of the things that struck me about this site from the beginning is the extent to which Spencer (and the other writers) quote/cite authoritative Islamic sources. The reader can’t help but notice that the terrorists themselves often (proudly and confidently) cite these same sources. One of the things that readers of this site learn is that, in fact, ISIS, Al Quaeda, the Taliban etc. all have an entirely plausible interpretation of the Islamic faith. I’m NOT saying that all Muslims hold these beliefs, but that the reality is that Islamic theology provides a great deal of motivation/support for terrorism, and that there are, at minimum, tens of millions of Muslims who adhere to these beliefs TODAY. There is no parallel to this in modern Judaism or Christianity, full stop.
Jihad watch is built on the “edifice” that in assessing the terrorists’ repeated claims that they are acting in the name of Islam, one needs to take an unflinching look at what Islam actually teaches. The MSM won’t touch this subject with the proverbial ten foot pole.
lebel says
“Then there are the racist remarks about blacks, repeatedly described as “dumb animals,” “deficient in intelligence,” “not to be regarded as humans,” naturally “fit only to be slaves” — observations offered not by tangential figures, but by the most famous Arab scholars, jurists, Qur’anic commentators, and historians, such as Ibn Khaldun, Al-Tabari, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Qutaibah, Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī, Al-Muqaddasi, and Ibn Al-Faqih.”
It’s their opinion, that is all. Why should the opinion of Ibn Khaldun on race be important just because he was a founder of sociology (among other things)? Do Muslims imitate Ibn Khaldun? Strange that the best you could do is cherry pick from 2 hadiths and then tell us that some Muslims said racist things in the past. You would NEVER EVER use the same bullshit methodology in your analysis of other religions, particularly Judaism (you would probably say that it is anti-semitic to even suggest undertaking such an analysis).
FYI says
muhammed is recorded as being the owner,buyer and seller of black AFRICAN SLAVES
Sahih Muslim 3901:sold at the following exchange rate
“..and he{muhammed} sold him{another slave} for TWO OF THE BLACKS”
These are YOUR teachings…
lebel says
He had also had Arab slaves, was he anti-Arab?
Kerry Wade says
Its the retard lebel again. Why does anyone bother with this dimwit?
b.a. freeman says
no, but he encouraged muslims to release their arab slaves if they were muslims. of course, if they were *not* muslims, then they were either christians, jews, or polytheists, and only the former 2 could be allowed to live. furthermore, is was never good to release a christian or jewish slave. thus, in answer to your question, muhammed *was* anti-arab if the arab refused to become muslim.
FYI says
“The prophet muhammed was WHITE”
Ok{in fact from islamic sources it is emphasised that he was..}
“The prophet muhammed was BROWN”
Ok
“The prophet muhammed was CHINESE”
haha.Definitely not..
“The prophet muhammed was BLACK”
YOU DIE!!
“Whoever says the prophet is BLACK is KILLED.The prophet was NOT BLACK”
ASH SHIFA
Why?
What is so terrible about muhammed{APFhs,allah prays for his salvation}being BLACK?
To the white Arab supremacists BLACK= the devil,slaves
So the WORST INSULT possible,an insult so terrible that it merited automatic execution..
was to say that muhammed was..
A BLACK man
in islam,satan is a BLACK MAN
In islam.someday the kaba will be destroyed by an Ethiopian*:a BLACK MAN
in islam,the WORST INSULT to muhammed was to say he was a BLACK MAN
*Called “RAISIN HEADS” In the hadith..islam is such a tolerant creed isn’t it?
DHazard says
Radical Islam requires extreme, unrelenting hatred. This takes a toll on the people who have decided that hating non-Muslims is not just a duty but also an identity. The religion of rage can consume a person from the inside out. Muslims often leave bad first impressions, and then go on to confirm the impression.
gravenimage says
Fawaz Turki in Gulf News: does he dare to look at the evidence? (Part 3)
………………………
Yes–Islam is Arab supremacist.
Chand says
Hugh says: “Islam is the most successful imperialism in world history.”
But I thought the Europeans, who happened to be Christians, were the most successful. Aren’t the two Americas, Australia and New Zealand larger than the Muslim lands stretching from North Africa to India (including some southern Balkan areas and southern Spain, in the past)? Not to mention all the colonized lands of Africa and Asia that were Christianized and are now independent?
Chand says
All these Arab scholars quoted by Hugh are a thousand years old. Now if one researches comments by the Europeans of those days (Christians) on Africans and non-whites, which I haven’t done, one would surely come across equally terrible descriptions.
All races, nations, tribes, people bear a burden of racism and xenophobia, from their past. Even those from the same religion or culture. So does Islam and in that sense Fawaz Turki is concealing the whole truth. And I agree that Islam is basically Arab-centric. But that is due to geography. Muhammad was Arab. Like Hinduism is India-centric, using a lot of Sanskrit symbols and mantras, although it has spread globally. And ancient Hindu texts too have terrible things to say about the lower castes.
lebel says
“All these Arab scholars quoted by Hugh are a thousand years old. Now if one researches comments by the Europeans of those days (Christians) on Africans and non-whites, which I haven’t done, one would surely come across equally terrible descriptions.”
Yes but then we use a different methodology. It’s all about double standards at jihadwatch because it’s a hate site.
b.a. freeman says
All races, nations, tribes, people bear a burden of racism and xenophobia, from their past.
—
good point, Chand. it is doubtful that a single human exists who does not have an ancestor who was a slave; some of us just have to go further back. therefore, when the time comes to pay reparations, we’ll have to decide which peoples/races/religions are more deserving than others. i’m sure *THAT* decision process will end well.
OTOH, islam is *more* than arab-centric; it *demands* that muslims believe that arabs *ARE* better than all other humans, although it does grant that since this information is not widespread (hmm … wonder why?), a muslim who knows it needs to point it out to muslims who don’t believe it, rather than just killing them outright, which is the penalty for many other sins, one of these latter being to call muhammed a black man. also, much of islam is based upon the “traditions” of the “prophet,” the kutub alsittah; since muhammed is the perfect man (al-insan al-kamil), what he did in virtually every circumstance has been recorded in hadith collections (specifically, the kutub alsittah, although there are other, less-respected hadith collections). this is where we learn that muhammed owned black slaves, and didn’t think too highly of them. and since muhammed is also the perfect model of conduct for muslims (uswa hasana) – i.e., they should do what muhammed did – a pious muslim will also strive to own slaves, sex slaves, and black slaves. finally, perish the thought of the arab race being polluted by black people; thus, most, if not all, black men who survived attacks and were enslaved were castrated first. since 7th century medicine was about at witch doctor level in almost all societies, about 70% to 80% of such victims bled to death before becoming slaves. it was mostly their sons who survived, to become eunuchs who could never have children, even if they became muslim. only non-black slaves were worthy of being allowed to reproduce. pious muslims believe that today; no sign of racism there.
all in all, islam is a really great and peaceful religion ([/sarcasm]), and truly is an important part of history; the part it plays, however, is pretty much that played by the 3rd reich, except far worse. it is quite likely that pious muslims have murdered more people than the 3rd reich, the USSR, mao zedong, and pol pot all put together. we’ll never be able to put an exact number on the number of murder victims, but i will note that the first muslims to invade the indian subcontinent made piles of heads over which a man on horseback was unable to see – many, many times. and they were *proud* of their murders, because they were doing *exactly* what muhammed and allah had ordered them to do. they were not just “killing a _____ for allah;” they were killing because their scriptures *ORDERED* them to kill. and those poisonous scriptures have not changed, nor has the behavior of pious muslims (as opposed to “moderate” muslims, whom muhammed called hypocrites, and said that they were more hated than kuffar).
translations of the quran, the kutub alsittah, and the sira (biographies of muhammed, the most respected of which is “sirat rasul allah,” by ibn ishaq) are readily available in english, or the language of your choice. i strongly encourage U to study them for yourself, rather than just taking my word for it. after all, if muslims really are being unjustly put upon, shouldn’t *U* take the time to learn enough of their religion to be able to refute me, or better yet, mr. fitzgerald?
gravenimage says
Chand is, of course, hoping we haven’t noticed that Muslims continue to enslave victims to this day, and that Muslim scholars continue to condone it.
lebel says
“But I thought the Europeans, who happened to be Christians, were the most successful. Aren’t the two Americas, Australia and New Zealand larger than the Muslim lands stretching from North Africa to India (including some southern Balkan areas and southern Spain, in the past)? Not to mention all the colonized lands of Africa and Asia that were Christianized and are now independent?”
Well it’s different when non-Muslims do it because they are better and they’ve also recently apologized. The most successful empire was probably the British but somehow when they invaded countries it wasn’t so bad.
Chand says
Yup, all good!
How could it be bad? We are conversing in English here, aren’t we? And not Arabic.
Cheerio! Anyone for tea and biscuits?
Recently Indian politician Shashi Tharoor demanded compensation from Britain in a speech in Oxford for all the harm done to India. He estimates 15-30 million deaths during their rule just from man-induced famines during their rule. In his speech he quoted Winston Churchill who said: “….the starvation of anyway underfed Bengalis mattered much less than that of sturdy Greeks”. This was during the terrible Bengal Famine during WW II when essential supplies were diverted from Bengali civilians to Europe as reserve stockpile, on Churchill’s written orders.
Churchill added on the margin of his file: “….why hasn’t (Mahatma) Gandhi died yet?”
But the British alive today are not responsible for the actions of the colonizers of the past. Don’t think India’ll get a penny in compensation. The British ‘gifted’ them the railways, roads and the English language, didn’t they?
Don’t think she’ll get a “sorry” anytime soon either.
Chand says
Btw, 4 million Bengalis died in that famine.
b.a. freeman says
BTW, muslims killed anywhere from 200 000 to 2 million hindus in the separation of india and pakistan in 1947-48. the lowest estimate for the number of people killed during the muslim raj was about 180 million, with a top estimate of 270 million. since the dead didn’t really matter to the muslims, they didn’t bother keeping records, but if they had thought that their pious descendants would be embarrassed by the count, they would have made more effort to erase the archaeological record, as IS did in iraq, and as “palestinians” do at the temple mount in jerusalem. in fact, most of the estimates of the number of murders in india come from the archaeological record, which shows a very significant population decrease.
oh, wait, i forgot that the *BRITISH* did that … no, wait, it was the *AMERICANS*!!! Lord knows that we are at fault for *EVERYTHING*, have killed more people than anybody else, have enslaved the entire world, and shoot anybody who dares to say otherwise. the u.s. is worse than the 3rd reich, right?
what a crock of s**t.
gravenimage says
Chand does not, of course, have to comment here in English. Why does he consider this necessary?
OLD GUY says
Why must Islam invade anywhere? Islam has tried this before with a negative effect on its followers, so why try to invade other countries? If Islam is so great why not stay in the Islamic countries and make them into the paradise they promise their believers and fighters. Most of the Islamic ruled countries seam to be in horrible condition economically, socially and infrastructure. If they are worried about their citizens being exposed to other religions they can close their borders both directions and isolate themselves from the rest of the world.
b.a. freeman says
actually, (fellow) OLD GUY, muhammed’s islamic sock puppet, allah, as well as muhammed, commanded muslims to take over the entire world. they will *N*E*V*E*R* stay in their own countries, unless they are convinced that they will be unable to murder, loot, and rape in some non-islamic country. their strategy is to make war on non-muslims, lying to them as much as possible (*NOT* a sin, so long as islam is advanced) so as to keep them off guard. they *used* to stay in their countries, because they were defeated on 1683-09-11 (see the significance of THAT date?) at vienna, and were consistently defeated thereafter until after WWII. they only started leaving because europe had killed off much of 2 generations of males in 2 major wars, and needed laborers after WWII. almost no westerners understand islam, so they didn’t see the danger in it. too bad the folks from 1683 couldn’t talk to present-day leftists; some folks might actually change their minds.
lebel says
“the lowest estimate for the number of people killed during the muslim raj was about 180 million, with a top estimate of 270 million”
You mean those bullshit “estimates” by Bill Warner? As I understand we’re up to 1 billion now! They could say 2 billion and you would believe it.
gravenimage says
Historian Will Durant estimates 80 million Indians slaughtered by Muslims.
John Allembillah Azumah–who is *pro-Islam* and author of “The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue” estimates “… a minumum of 28 Million African were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Millions.”
The global figure is estimated at about 270 million.
No one should be surprised that the appalling lebel is sneering at all the victims of Jihad.
lebel says
“The global figure is estimated at about 270 million.
No one should be surprised that the appalling lebel is sneering at all the victims of Jihad.”
Questioning shoddy methodology is sneering at victims of jihad while for you whatever confirms or strengthens your pre-existing prejudices is good research. This nonsense has no scientific basis, it is essentially estimates with no sources extrapolated across time. It is bad research but you CANT see that because it confirms your pre-existing prejudices.
But yes, DONT question methodology! DON’T ask for evidence or sources! this is jihadwatch.