Talk:Arab slave trade

Add discussion
Active discussions

Modern/US biasEdit

The map heading the article needs to be emended or removed. It belongs at Slavery in Africa and not a general treatment of all Arab/Islamic/Turkish slavery.

I know it's generally difficult for Americans to process but the black African slave trade was not the only one that existed and certainly not the only one in the Muslim world. There's no mention at all [in the map] of the trade to Constantinople, one of the major markets, or of the supply coming from the Caucasus. If we're doing the entire Middle Ages, then there would be routes coming from Spain and Sicily at the very least, as well as India and central Asia. — LlywelynII 23:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yea, you clearly have bias issues if you think a map being edited out was because Americans (because you just happen to know the exact country of the person) want to deny their history with slavery. There is multitudes of reasons it could have been removed and coming here and acting like a child over it just makes me think that you didn't get the map from a reliable source since you yourself clearly have a bias. I suggest you stop editing this page since you clearly are not going to be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.220.115 (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Woah, there. He just said there needs to be a better map covering more of that subject. I think his comments reflect something about the Western World in general: most people aren't aware of the extent of the Arab slave trade in the past centuries. There is no need to fight over a picture. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Also good job on making a different account for the sole purpose of making that comment. It's you who should stop editing altogether. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

There are several highly political reasons for US bias. There is a very strong argument that slavery persists today in the US in the form of prison labor forced and benefiting defense contractors and the like while the main predictor of being incarcerated in the US remains being black. Another worthwhile point to add is that in the US there is a significant population descended from slaves, which the policy of castration in Arab slavery obviates, leaving no descendants to keep that history alive. Xuancris (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit condescending to state that *[Americans] want to deny their history with slavery*. Approximately 6% of the slave trade to the colonies of the Western Hemisphere fetched up in what is now the United States of America. It was far from the only nation to have a population of slaves, & far from having the highest population of slaves. It is not that there were mainly British-imported slaves (slave importation to the US was banned in 1803) in the US that is the issue. It is the post-slavery attitude that is the issue. As an anecdotal example, I'm acquainted with a woman from Brazil who married an American man & who, when she came to the US, was absolutely astonished over it. She genuinely did not understand it. She said there is no such attitude in Brazil either from or regarding descendants of former slaves (slavery was not banned in Brazil, which received about 40% of the slave trade to the Western Hemisphere & thus has the largest population of slave descendants, until 1881). There are descendants of slaves in every country in the Western Hemisphere, not just in the US. American blacks dismissed her desire to understand because she was a black foreigner, married to a white man, who *wouldn't get it*, & she was attacked viciously for even asking. It seems to be a peculiarly American issue. And no one *denies* it existed. It is simply that Americans can see that the issues in the US do not exist in other countries where slavery existed, & cannot figure out why issues exist in the US & nowhere else. Slavery also exists today in Africa, despite it being officially banned....the argument about US prison labor being a form of slavery really cannot be applied to the entirety of the past 250+ yrs. I hardly think saying removal of a map as *US bias* is warranted. ScarletRibbons (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This was a really long-winded way to say that you misunderstood the original comment. 73.145.175.54 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I can agree with this statement, I came here to learn about the trade of European slaves specifically and though it lasted from 700-1500, or longer given the Barbary Pirates, it's nothing but a foot note in the article. Not only that, but there seems to be a weight on comparing it to the US trade which is completely unnecessary, that information is only appropriate under the US trade, people aren't coming here to learn about the Transatlantic trade. 2601:240:10C:F3A6:189D:D242:1AE0:7FE6 (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I came here to learn about how the trans-saharan/indian ocean slave trade connected to the transatlantic slave trade so speak for yourself. 73.145.175.54 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arab slave trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arab slave trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The confusion of this articleEdit

I've removed claims about Ottomans that do not fit this article. Whether Sultan Suleiman freed millions of slaves or open a new place to get slaves is not relevant. Ottomans were not Arabs and Anatolia was never part of the Arab world. There is also too much claims about Barbary pirates who were not Arabs. They were not only vassals of the Ottomans but they were also mostly Berbers , hence the name "Barbary" If this article can't even get basic ethnic peoples correctly then this article is not coherent. When one comes across an article named "Arab slave trade", they should expect to read about Arabs partaking in a slave trade, not Turks or Berbers. Arab is also not synonym for Muslim. I propose removing any claim about Barbary pirates. I refrained from doing so because it could be wrongly seen by some as vandalism. I'll leave this here for some time, if there is no discussion there will be removal of any claim relating to Barbary pirates. CaliphoShah (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a tricky claim. Today - and for quite a long time by now - every country in which the majority speaks Arabic as the local lingua franca and is to a large degree part of the Arab, and as a rule: Muslim culture, is considered to be part of the Arab world. The Arab-Berber struggle is a worthy issue, but the countries of the Maghreb, home to most Berbers, have not officially distanced themselves from the Arab world, rather the opposite, and are largely considered to be part of it. Whether we speak of Ifriqiya & Co., the Barbary Coast, or of the Maghreb, these lands have been under Arab Muslim rule of some kind since the 7th century CE, with the exception of the European colonial period, and are quite thoroughly culturally Arabised. Good enough a base for Wikipedia and its definition of "Arab" slave trade, I'd say. Arminden (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
There's no source posted in other articles in Wikipedia or in this one for that matter that shows the Barbary Cosairs to identify as Arabs. The Arab World is a modern term. Althought it is true that North Africa today identifies as being part of the Arab world, this has no bearing on what happened in the past during the Barbary slave trade. The articles regarding this slave trade explain that Barbary comes from the word "Berber". It seems clear and the sources added don't even state those pirates to be Arab.Restoring the deleted paragraph is not justified especially when done so as soon as you've started your first edit when the removal was not contested for close to a year. Your argument is not satisfying because it uses modern phenomena to categorize historical events. I will proceed to remove this section and restore the changes. CaliphoShah (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

For some weird reason, I've had my edits reverted. The deletions were done so the article is consistent with its sources and other wiki articles. Berbers and Ottomans were not Arabs. There's a slavery article for the slave trade each of these people practiced. The Israeli editor ought to stop doing undisclosed reverts of my edits. CaliphoShah (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree with Arminden. The Berbers are part of the Arab world. People regard them as Arabs, and most importantly, most Africans view them as such. In fact, in many African countries, they use the same noun for Arab (e.g. narr, but in their local languages) when referring to Berbers. Further, as stated by Arminden, "the countries of the Maghreb, home to most Berbers, have not officially distanced themselves from the Arab world, rather the opposite, and are largely considered to be part of it." Totally agree!Tamsier (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't matter what the opinion of a user(s) or a group of people like Africans are. I can easily counter your argument that Berbers are technically the oldest Africans as they were the first to have the name and they don't see themselves as Arab. Either way, the sources this article referred to with regards to Barbary raids and the Almohad Caliphate did not describe the slave trade as "An Arab slave trade", nor did they describe the slavers as Arab. Arminden's argument fails because Wikipedia's policy is about sources and the article is about history, it's irrelevant as to what group modern countries fall into. Hence why wikipedia editors can't just go to any article about Gaul and use French instead. CaliphoShah (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There is another user who disagrees with the changes I've introduced for a reason different from those here. The reason was about the lead of the article giving leeway to interpret wat Arab slave trade mean in whatever way the editor want. I find it to be erroneous but I'd like to mention that there was a discussion with the user on their Talk page. Even when their reason wasn't wikipedia policy and related to the article, they have decided to the regulator instead of discussing. So I'm letting editors know that any revert on my part is due to this user not wanting to discuss their position in the Talk page. CaliphoShah (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the scope of my actions and this section is or should fall under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability As the header in this page states. In other words, claims in the article should match the sources. Editing should be backed on sources and the same goes for opinions.CaliphoShah (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent additionEdit

I agree with Soupforone's revert of the IP user's addition. This was plagiarized from a blog and unreliably sourced. Furthermore, it's off-topic in the section "Arab views on African peoples". Details on early history of Arab Muslim slave trade can be added to the history section and Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum is welcome to do so based on RSs. Eperoton (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, was a bad contribution from the IP user, just asked for motivation for removal, plagiarism is indeed a good motivation. Would however suggest some more structure in the section 'History of the Arab slave trade', and some extra contextualisation on the history of the rise of the Arabian empires (The Rashidun Caliphate (632–661) – Beginning of the Islamic Empire, The Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) – Successor of the Rashidun Caliphate, The Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba in Islamic Spain (929–1031), The Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258) – Successor of the Umayyad Caliphate, Fall of Baghdad (1258), The Fatimid Caliphate (909–1171) End of the Arab Empire) and the role of slavery in those empires (just like there was slavery in the Roman empire and many others, which played a huge role in the functioning of these states).Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the article doesn't have a very clear structure. Its scope of Arab (as opposed to Islamic world) slave trade (as opposed to slavery) makes it a rather difficult one to handle, restricting our choice of sources to the ones that explicitly use those terms. History of slavery in the Muslim world is an easier article to expand. Eperoton (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
'Arab' should indeed be better defined for the scope of this article, for me it seems to be: 1. Arab empires in the middle ages (Cf. supra) 2. The kingdoms and empires on the Arabian Peninsula (from that time on), and the Arab areas that were also part of the Ottoman Empire (excluding current Turkey, Iran and all Ottoman areas in Europe) -OR- excluding all areas under Ottoman control (seems to be the most pertinent question). 3. states that were involved in the trade (as suppliers(or recipients), for instance Zanzibar, Ethiopia, and many other African states that supplied slaves for these empires). For that reason it seems that the motivation: 07:29, 11 January 2018‎ Soupforone (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,707 bytes) (-4,499)‎ . . (most of the barter was by the abyssinian empire, not arabs - only arab barter is relevant) (undo | thank), should be discussed on the talk page, before a final decision can be made. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the term is ambiguous, but I'm concerned that constructing our own definition would lead to WP:SYN. Rather, we should look at how the term is used in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove a redirectEdit

Muslim slave trade redirects here. It should not, obviously. As there is clearly a difference between Arabs and Muslims. At this moment, I do not know how to remove that redirect. All I am stating here is that the redirect should be removed from the English Wikipedia here. InterestingCircle (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi InterestingCircle, you are right, I redirected Muslim slave trade to History of slavery in the Muslim world, although slave trade is about the economics of slavery (the trade of slaves), which is a subsection of slavery, for now it would be more accurate so it seems. You can change the redirect on the page of Muslim slave trade. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for Consensus: Article ClaimEdit

Recommend review and possible deletion of the claim, "Nonetheless, slavery during this period was not racialized, dissimilar to the chattel slavery of the transatlantic slave trade, and primarily constituted domestic and military servitude.[6][7]"

Historians, please examine. The claim itself may be accurate, but the sources cited do not seem to support it.

The first source is an article on new approaches to studying the transformation in meaning that occurs in developing translations. The second is a book by Arthur Toynbee published in 1948, a dated and admittedly biased source. (Contemporaries reviewing this source identified an ideological bent: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/civilization-on-trial-by-arnold-j-toynbee/). While Toynbee does claim that Islam purged itself of racial awareness with respect to religion being a unifying feature within culture, he does not specifically state that it applied to the slave trade in his book. Contributor451 (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe there is a debate being that Africans were NOT the only people enslaved in the Muslim slave trade, far from, so the argument is made that it wasn't racial. However, the different treatment of the slaves and the selling prices does imply a racial context. The issue is that it can be argued either way, particularly that slaves generally couldn't be Muslim and thus the trade was open to all races, however the value and treatment were based on race. This all means that the rationalization of the slave trade is all in the eye of the beholder and how they categorize and define the racial element. That being the case, since it is open to debate, the most appropriate action to take would be to ignore the claims of both sides. 2601:240:10C:F3A6:189D:D242:1AE0:7FE6 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That argument is merely ruse. As stated by the IP, the value and treatment not to mention the gravity and harshness seems to disagree with that view. It was common practice for Arab-Muslim slavers to cut the private parts of African slaves.Tamsier (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

First claim in article does not match the sourceEdit

I took a good look at the book cited in the first sentence of this article and interestingly enough it doesn't define "Arab world" nor does it even mention it. The book is fairly interesting as it mentions Arabia, but not Arab world (i.e what is today seen as both North Africa and much of the Middle East). Page ix, which is what is cited, mentions Arabia and makes a distinction between that region and North Africa without including them to be part of the so called "Arab world". It does mention the "Indian Ocean World" but that's not what this article is about. Arab slave trade should be defined as a slave trade done by Arabs. There is a Muslim slave trade or slave trade done in many regions, but this idea of an "Arab slave trade" is rarely used by academics and when it is, it's often, erroneously, used as a synonym for the Muslim slave trade when Arabs predate Islam. I've included a source that talks about Britain's attempt to abolish this slave trade which was directed at rulers and inhabitants of parts of the Arabian peninsula. CaliphoShah (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Somalis where not slaves nor did they ever enslave each otherEdit

Somalis never enslaved each other. Even when tribes fought each other, the prisoners of war were not to be enslaved nor Somalis ever used each other as concubines. This was all forbidden thanks to our Xeer system which pre-date Islam. it needs to be removed please i have to historic sources confirmin my postion

[1] 

this proving that slaves came from the enterior of africa and somalis where not amongst them

Second source it was punishable to enslave a somali

Reliable sources say otherwise.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

provide them then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hash23as (talkcontribs) 00:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC) my sources are reliable they come from historic sources

{https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LR8A4tEYZUAC&pg=PA52&dq=the+Somalis+being+warlike+and+close+racially+to+the+arabs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9zOiwy7TfAhXAVRUIHc8nDioQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=the%20Somalis%20being%20warlike%20and%20close%20racially%20to%20the%20arabs&f=false}
[1][2][3][4]--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Catherine Lowe Besteman, Unraveling Somalia: Race, Class, and the Legacy of Slavery, (University of Pennsylvania Press: 1999), p. 116. 

youre first source is talking about nilototic and oromo slaves not somalis can

On an individual basis, Oromo subjects were not viewed as racially jareer by their Somali captors.[3] The Oromo captives also mostly consisted of young children and women, both of whom were taken into the families of their abductors; men were usually killed during the raids. Oromo boys and girls were adopted by their Somali patrons as their own children. Prized for their beauty and viewed as legitimate sexual partners, many Oromo women became either wives or concubines of their Somali captors, while others became domestic servants.[2][19] In some cases, entire Oromo clans were assimilated on a client basis into the Somali clan system.[2]

have a look please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hash23as (talkcontribs) 01:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC) can someone correct this misleading information thank you youre second and other sources state somali bantus where slaves not somalis somali bantus are a minority group and belong to the bantu peoples somalis belong to the cushitic peoples they are not the same.

i have corrected the article , the source that was provided was about nilotic and bantu slaves not local somali slaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datch71s (talkcontribs) 02:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bridget Anderson, World Directory of Minorities, (Minority Rights Group International: 1997), p. 456.
  2. ^ Catherine Lowe Besteman, Unraveling Somalia: Race, Class, and the Legacy of Slavery, (University of Pennsylvania Press: 1999), p. 116.
  3. ^ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. "Refugees Vol. 3, No. 128, 2002 UNHCR Publication Refugees about the Somali Bantu" (PDF). Unhcr.org. Retrieved 18 October 2011.
  4. ^ "The Somali Bantu: Their History and Culture" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 October 2011. Retrieved 18 October 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

GrossscherifEdit

Sorry, confusing typo in my edit description. Moroccan sherifs were sometimes called "Grossscherif", and of course Meccan sherifs were too. Eperoton (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot more it in this article. Eperoton (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Arab Islamic WorldEdit

@User:Wikiemirati you recently reverted my edit on the article saying not all Arabs are Muslims. I do know that fact however reading the vast majority of the sources this article cites it becomes clear that the terms Arab and Muslim are used interchangeably.[1][2][3] And considering the fact that Islam was the official religion of the various empires in the arab lands at that time, it becomes difficult to divorce Islam completely from the arab identities of those slave masters. Regards Balolay (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Your reasoning is pure WP:OR and seems like WP:SYNTH. In truth, there is no such a thing as "Arab Islamic World". It's purely a name you've came up with and has no place to be added in Wikipedia, and even if there is, it is not the WP:COMMONNAME of the Arab world and does not merit any change. Your edit is unhelpful. Regards Wikiemirati (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bablolay: Well. we use the most common names here per WP:COMMONNAME. Most reliable source says "Slavery in the Arab world" not "Slavery in the Arab Islamic world" for example see 209 results in Google scholar for Arab world and and only 12 results for Arab Islamic world google books gives 495 results for "Slavery in the Arab Islamic world" and almost 6000 results for "Slavery in the Arab world" this is a very huge numbers that you cant dismiss, Finally dont just say thanks for pointing that out and then return after 7 days saying I have waited for your reply as you did in Slavery article--SharabSalam (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Robert C. Davis (December 2003). Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800. London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 45. ISBN 978-0333719664. Retrieved 15 May 2015.
  2. ^ Jeff Grabmeier (8 March 2004). "When Europeans Were Slaves: Research Suggest White Slavery Was Much More Common Than Previously Believed". researchnews.osu.edu. Columbus, Ohio: OSU News Research Archive. Archived from the original on 25 July 2011. Retrieved 15 May 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20170525101036/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1523100.stm

Disputed contentEdit

@CaliphoShah and Dharmalion76: CaliphoShah has asked me for an opinion about the current dispute. I'd like to understand the arguments being made on both sides before commenting, and it looks like they've been made on personal talk pages and partly archived. Would you mind summarizing them here? Eperoton (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Arab views on African peoplesEdit

This section is dishonest (trying to paint good relationships betwenn Africans & Arabs) and does not reflect the accurate picture. Tagging for world. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Is your opinion based on reliable sources or that's just your opinion?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Not my opinion, based on facts. Hence why this article in the first place. Tell me. How do Arabs refer to Black/Africans (i.e. Sub-Saharan Africans)? Answer: Abeed (slave). Must we go on and on? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I am an Arab. I don't call Africans Abeed. Listen, we rely on what reliable sources say. We have highly reliable scholar sources in that section. We don't take what you say seriously.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
As you rightly noted, we don't take each other's word for it. So let's play the sourcing game. Africans and Arabs have never gotten along. They hate each other to the core, because Arabs have never respected African humanity. I mean how can you respect the humanity of another when you don't even see them as humans in the first place? They don't even value African Muslims never mind African Christians. And God help us if you are a follower of any of the Traditional African religions. Woof! Let's play this sourcing gave shall we?
In Qatar, the Arabic word abid (which means 'a male slave') was applied to black people of African descent. In Arabic, a female slave is called yasyr. In Iraq, Thawra Youssef (2004), an Iraqi of African descent states that she is called abid ("a slave") even today due to her physiognomy. Although she is not a slave, the terminology has been retained to describe a negroid person. (Source: Uncovering the History of Africans in Asia by Shihan de Silva Jayasuriya, Jean-Pierre Angeno, pp. 13-14).
[...], Afett Mosbah discussles blacknless in Tunisia and its indleliblle scars on Black Tunisians and Sub-Saharan Africans. "In Tunisia, blacks are neither a problem nor a taboo. At the most, a secret minority; a social sub-category, which, faced with insults, suppress its rebellion like a scandal is hidden in silence and shame. However, when Tunisians speak of an Ivorian or a Malian, they refer to him as an "African." Aren't we ourselves Africans? What is the meaning of this self-exclusion by this verb? [...] Mosbah records the widespread habit of calling Black Arabs "oussif" or "abid," Arabic for "slave." These references are still common behind closed doors in the Arab world." (Source: Multiculturalism and Democracy in North Africa: Aftermath of the Arab Spring by Moha Ennaji, p. 143).
[...] Sudanese "abid" or slave to their faces, the fact that there has been intermariage for years is ignored.
Tuma (200) argues that Arab racism towards Africans has for long been a taboo subject, considering that it is politically incorrect to voice out the obvious. That Arabs, who are mostly Muslims, are racists to boot and consider Africans, Muslim or Christians, as inferior. Arab philosophers carefully tilled the ground in order to make racism towards Africans and all blacks by their kin a proud cultural heritage. According to him, Ibn Sina (Avicenne 980-1037), Arab's most famous and influential philosopher/scientist in Islam, describe blacks as "people who are by their very nature slaves." "He wrote: "All African women are prostitutes, and whole race of African men is abeed (slave) stock." (Source: Hatred for Black People by Shehu Sani, pp. 168-9)
Let's not play the BS game. We all know what the Arabs thinks of Africans going back centuries. Let's not cover up facts for our own agendas or simply because revealing the facts offense our sensibilites. This section is a very important aspect of this article, but it is dishonest. Thererfore, for the sake of the readership, it should be neutral per sources and per weight. We can't go and cherry pick sources because it suits us. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure why are you so angry and why that flame baiting comment. None of the sources support most of the comments you have made like Africans and Arabs have never gotten along. They hate each other to the core, because Arabs have never respected African humanity. That's not support by any of the sources. That's generalisation. "Racists" exist in every nation and your comment proves that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
No, no, no. Let's not play taqiya. You asked for sources regarding my original comment (abeed/abid). The sources proved the case. Besides proving it, they go further. This abid thing is just a small part of Arab views of Africans as the sources show. I am surprised you are having a debate about ths with me at all. Now either you are playing ruse or you don't know your history. I refuse to believe that you don't know your history -as even today, Arab views of Africans haven't changed and they still see them as slaves as demonstrated in one of the sources. That's why some Arab nations still practice slavery. Therefore, I think you are playing ruse—trying to derail the issue so not to include things in the article, thereby giving a false picture of Arab—African relationships. I don't think you are going to be respecting the humanity of people you view as slaves. Do you? Although the Arab slave and the Transe Atlantic slave trade are equally evil, it can be argued that the Arab slave trade is the worst. 1) it is longer, going back centuries and still practiced today in some Arab countries; 2) the Arabs used to castrate their African slaves. Many of their slaves couldn't produce. At least in the trans Atlantic slave trade, the African slaves went on to have descendants. 3) Almost all notations involved in the translatic slave trade have made some form of apologhy for their involvement. Now one can debate whether some of these apologies are genuine or meaningless, but at least it is a form of apology. Name me one Arab nation - other than Ghadafi himself - who only apologise because he wanted other African on his side in order to colonise Africa and be the king of the continent, but that aside, let's take his apology at face value. Other than him, name me one Arab nation that have apologised for their part in the Arab slave trade. Name me one. How can they apologise for centuries old practice when some of these Arab nations are still practicing slavery? Common let's let the cat out of the bag, even these Arab royal families still keep slaves using the politically correct term "servants". This section is dishonest (like many parts of this article) and you know it yourself. Since you appear to have a stake in this article, you either fix it or I will fix it. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The above editor has been blocked for personal attacks, including calling editors white supremacists and saying that "The SPLC is perhaps right on one thing, that Wiki has truly been infiltrated by white supremist. I don't give a fuck. You can take your block and Wiki and shove it where the fucking sun don't shine.". Doug Weller talk 13:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Continuing discussion from talk pageEdit

@Grayfell: The IP edits you were referring to were not me. And on the contrary, in light of your claim, which could most charitably be construed as ignorant, that "Nothing about Walter Rodney indicates he is or was fringe." "speculations", as you call them, about his ideology/activities are completely appropriate. As I've demonstrated, he clearly was. Your comments about "modern ideology" can, again, at best be construed as hypocritical in light of the fact that your history shows you clearly have no problem discussing the political leanings of figures, and this clearly affects, in your eyes, their suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. (NB, I'm sure you wouldn't argue something as ridiculous as suggesting that "scholarship" is separable from the ideology of the author.) In any event, this is about scholarship, and about standard Wikipedia policy. For the umpteenth time, the content as it stands is clearly pushing, and giving undue weight to, a fringe position, not backed up by other, reputable sources, which, even if this sort of alternate history was in any way accurate, does not belong in this article. I stand by my edits and am prepared to take this further if need be. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time? You haven't even made "umpteen" edits. If you think this is undue weight... sure. Let's discuss it. Since this has been challenged and restored now by three separate editors, the burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes. Your comments show an understanding of both WP:NPOV and WP:RS that is very different from mine. I am not interested in taking your word for it that this person is "fringe". You will need to do some more work to demonstrate this. The only reason, so far, you have said he is fringe is that he was a Communist 'Black Power' activist. Grayfell (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Views of Walter RodneyEdit

(See also previous section) As far as I know, Walter Rodney is more innovative than mainstream. He is certainly not fringe. So his views should be included in the article. But I think - as the article is now - they are given undue weight. To have a more balanced article, I'd suggest: Remove Rodney from the lede. Give some context to him (calling him e.g. "Afrocentrist historian" or "Black Panther activist and historian" - but not "communist"). Rsk6400 (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

East African slave tradeEdit

I'm looking for sources on "Arab slave trade" yet many of the sources are coming up for "Indian Ocean slave trade" or "East African slave trade". Do reliable sources treat Indian Ocean/East African slavery much differently than slavery in Morocco (which is Arab but far from the Indian Ocean)? VR talk 16:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Why the specific focus on Africa specifically?Edit

Ah seems rather odd to complete ignore every other regions effected by Slavery in the Islamic world WILLIAMSRD33 (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The hyper Focus on AfricaEdit

Why the ultra focus on Africa it fills up most this article why? WILLIAMSRD33 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The article covers this. It also spends plenty of space discussing other locations. Try reading the article before spamming the talk page. 73.145.175.54 (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

about articelEdit

There is a lot of Western bias and hypocrisy par excellence. Arab slave trade is a real thing, because all civilizations practiced slavery, but there is a lot of exaggeration in the numbers and status of slaves. An African has chances of being a slave among Arabs better than Americans. Just being a Muslim is free, unlike Christianity, which encourages black slavery, "the curse of Ham." Americans, whose history is full of terrorism, massacres, racism and slavery, are trying to exonerate themselves.The actual number of slaves transferred from Sub-Saharan may not exceed 100,000. Because very few ethnic groups of slave origin, unlike Afro-Americans,You must put neutral sources, not an American racist, hostile to Muslims, he wants to tell us that the whites have not committed any massacre or genocide in their history, unlike the Muslim barbarians who enslaved a billion Africans and slaughtered a billion Hindus. Uryon988 (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Contributions made here should focus on improving the article. So, please don't make unsourced claims (like Christianity in general encouraging black slavery), and be more specific about which source you think to be not neutral. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

List of useful refsEdit

Bookku (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Splitting up the "Arab slave trade" to the "Trans-Saharan slave trade" or "East African/Indian Ocean slave trade"Edit

In many slavery-related articles, such as slavery in Africa, usually use the term "Arab slave trade" to describe the "Trans-Saharan slave trade" or "East African/Indian Ocean slave trade". I think it would be better to split up the "Arab slave trade" by geographic scope, someone already mentioned this above. I have already created an article on both slave trades, so wouldn't it be better to make this re-organization? Ibrahim5361 (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Searching for "trans-Saharan slave trade" in "title items" at JSTOR produces 20 results, searching for "Arab slave trade" only 3 results, and "Indian Ocean slave trade" produces 7 results. So, this might mean that we should really split the article and change this article into a disambiguation page. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
It would, especially since many articles frequently mention the Arab slave trade without actually mentioning Arabs, like they would go on to talk about Romans, Turks, Persians, Indians and sometimes even Europeans. Ibrahim5361 (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

While European slave trade is described as "Trans-Atlantic slave trade" why should this one should be described by ethnicity not geography.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Even the article itself points out the misuse of the term "Arab slave trade".

Historian and Black Power activist Walter Rodney has criticised the "Arab Slave Trade" label as a misnomer, as it obscures the extent to which it was also a European slave trade. He argues that by the 18th and 19th centuries, the East African slave trade network came to be dominated by European colonialists. Most East African slaves during the 18th and 19th centuries ended up in European-owned plantation economies around the Indian Ocean region, such as Mauritius, Réunion, Seychelles, and the Cape of Good Hope, in addition to many taken to the Americas. The East African slave trade reached its peak during this period, as a result of the European capitalist plantation slavery system. This in turn increased demand for slave-grown products in some Arab countries which adopted the European capitalist plantation slavery system, such as Zanzibar.[2]

Ibrahim5361 (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Rsk6400 and Ibrahim5361 into turning this into a disambig page once all the useful material on this page has been moved.VR talk 01:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Great, lets see what Eperoton thinks about this. Ibrahim5361 (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I agree with the proposal to split this article and turn it into a dab. Trans-Saharan slave trade, East African slave trade and Indian Ocean slave trade all seem to be categories widely used in RSs, including in book titles, while Arab slave trade now seems to be used mainly in passing to refer to one of these, rather than as an umbrella term. It's been an uphill struggle over the years to keep this article free of WP:SYNTH and prune tangential content, and I think the split will help us keep the topic(s) well sourced. Eperoton (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I have some serious concerns about this. "Arab Slave Trade" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and the term used in nearly all scholarship on the subject. It's a definite and singular concept with over a century of research and discussion about it. The terms "Indian Ocean slave trade" and "Trans-Saharan Slave Trade" are not commonly used, and might even be called something of a neologism, as these are not scholarly concepts. A few of the sources use the term simply to describe aspects of the Arab slave trade, in passing. This essentially makes an article about them WP:OR, as the introductions to these newly created article treat them as terms of common usage with currency as major scholarly concepts. Eperoton and Vice regent, you're both seasoned editors. I would think that you would both recognize that this is a major violation of foundational policies. Additionally, I'm almost positive that I've seen one of these articles proposed before as a rejected AfC draft in the past, with it being rejected because the concept was novel and not supported by the sources. If necessary, I'll take to the appropriate noticeboard(s), but I thought I would raise this issue here and have a discussion before doing so. The sole basis for Ibrahim5361's proposal, and Sa.vakilian's assent is not supported by policy, whatsoever. Select sources criticizing the term is likewise not a reason for turning this into a disambiguation to articles on essentially non-existent concepts/subjects. Ibrahim's basis for creating these articles is summed up thus: "While European slave trade is described as "Trans-Atlantic slave trade" why should this one should be described by ethnicity not geography." This is OR, and is using and the articles are essentially neologisms. The "Transatlantic Slave Trade" is the WP:COMMONNAME for that concept. None of these others are actual concepts referred to in reliable sources, but are in fact novel terms. If these are WP:COMMONNAME, please demonstrate this. Being used in a book title or being something referred to in passing is woefully insufficient, if they are not terms used in scholarship to refer to a subject of study, per GNG. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This has the form of a valid concern, but I'm just not seeing evidence in RSs to support it. What makes you say that Arab slave trade is the WP:COMMONNAME? I, and I think other editors in this discussion, have looked at RSs and came to a different conclusion. For example, here is the relevant entry from Oxford Bibliographies. The publicly available introductory discussion uses the terms Indian Ocean/Middle Eastern/trans-Saharan/East African slave trade, but not Arab slave trade. This is in line with what I saw browsing search results from JSTOR and Google Books. Eperoton (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Eperoton, thank you for taking the time to respond. It's not just the "form" of a valid concern; one may obviously disagree on certain finer points or bespoke generalities, but given your experience, I think you know this isn't simply a matter of differing points of view. I'm assuming this is a gloss of a bibliography that you're showing me, since it's coming from Oxford Bibliographies Online. There are eight entries. I'm currently preparing a bibliography myself, for eventual publication, and I likewise have to essentially use a term not commonly found in academia due to it being a subject that's not been examined to any great length in the manner in which I'm presenting the information. I'm collating nearly a hundred entries, though. For the record, I share the same concerns the proposer does; I don't care for the term, either. But we can't pretend this hasn't been the term that's been used for over a century, and continues to be used in nearly all of the relevant scholarship (even two entries on the bibliography I looked up to be thorough). While there are people that study particular geographic regions or cultures connected to this particular slave trade, they aren't actually discrete areas of study with terminology in common usage. We can't break up a primary topic into a simple disambiguation page, with essentially invented subjects. What we can do is have the main article, and break it into geographic, ethnographic, and historical divisions, and eventually expand these into valid articles if there's enough material addressing it as a specific topic, and using that terminology. Otherwise, this is pure OR, and synthesis. You're an experienced editor whose contributions I respect; I've been around here long enough to see your name pop up on my watchlist countless times. But this is pretty cut and dried. We don't invent new subjects for articles like this. I realize this likely wasn't intentional, and had good intentions (as the proposer made clear in their reasoning), but this change violates several core policies, prima facie. We can't rationalize this sort of editorializing, especially with things like this bibliography. That's the title of the bibliography. This is a case of "maybe one day". I think using an ethnic identifier as the common name is outmoded, and I wouldn't mind seeing generalized terms and these become more narrowly focused sub-fields with discrete terminology. But that's not the case now. This is editorializing, and "RGW". I won't link you since you're familiar with what I'm saying. These changes should be reverted, and like I said, we can organize the article in a more neutral way if coat-racking is a concern, as you stated. But we can't ignore the general scholarship and their usage, nor play fast-and-loose with our policies on this. While it's for a good reason, sweeping changes like this also hurt the credibility of the encyclopedia. This isn't something that can be done by fiat, or even with a local RfC. I sympathize with the sentiment, but it's a bit silly that I even have to actually spell this out. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you seem to be seeing a pattern of usage in the body of RSs that you've consulted that's entirely different from what the other participants in this thread have seen. I think the rest of us have mentioned what sources we've consulted or the sites and methods we've used to come to our conclusion. If you'd like to convince us that you're making a correct assessment of usage in RSs, and ours is incorrect, you need to give us more specifics on how you, I, or someone else would go about establishing that the term Arab slave trade "continues to be used in nearly all of the relevant scholarship (even two entries on the bibliography I looked up to be thorough)". What are these two entries? How did you assess and quantify the usage of the term in modern scholarship? If you provide me with enough information to convince myself that your assessment of the RSs is accurate and ours is not, I will support your objection. Otherwise, I have to go with my own, publicly explained, assessment of RSs, imperfect though it may be. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
P.S. I should perhaps make a bit more explicit the criterion of usage I'm using for this. I'm looking for usage that is analogous to a Wikipedia article title: title of book, title of encyclopedic entry, title of journal article, or as generic term for the subject in question when it's mentioned in running text on another subject. I'm seeing evidence of these usages in RSs for the titles of articles into which this article was split, using methods I mentioned above. While the term "Arab slave trade" does continue to be used in RSs, I'm not seeing evidence of its prominent usage in these title-like ways. Eperoton (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Another point is that WP:COMMONNAME isn't really relevant for this dispute, which is not about the choice of name for the article Arab slave trade, but rather about what kind of article it should be. I'm seeing the term being predominantly used to refer to one of the topics corresponding to the newly created articles, but not a generic category encompassing all of them, and that's precisely what dabs are for: term X can refer to the subject A or subject B or etc. If RSs don't discuss X as a general subject, encompassing A, B, etc, then we can't do it either without violating WP:SYNTH, which has been a perennial problem in this article. Eperoton (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Symmachus Auxiliarus, I first raised the concern about 6 months ago. I noticed that none of the sources cited by the article before it became disambig was entitled any variant of "Arab slave trade". I couldn't find a single book with that title. Instead there are many scholarly books titled The Trans-Saharan slave trade, The East African Slave Trade, The Economics of the Indian Ocean Slave Trade in the Nineteenth Century, Slave Trade Profiteers in the Western Indian Ocean, European Slave Trading in the Indian Ocean, 1500–1850. JSTOR search by Rsk6400 and bibliography Eperoton further demonstrate my point. Modern scholarship prefers terms like "East African slave trade", "Indian Ocean slave trade" and one reason is the fact that it has found plenty of non-Arab participation. For example, this book on Indian Ocean slave trade documents participation by not only Arabs but also Turks, French, Indians, and Africans themselves. Sources do treat slavery in Muslim world as a unified topic and for that we already have History of slavery in the Muslim world.VR talk 06:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Vice regent and Eperoton, apologies for my ridiculously late response. Life got "in the way" and I was only editing sporadically for awhile. It appears that you're correct here, and I was (at least partially) in error. I did an exhaustive search at the time I read your comments of everything I could find on Google Scholar, and a cursory search on JSTOR using a variety of search strings. "Arab Slave Trade" is indeed a dated term, not used much past the 1980s, except occasionally in the prose of academic publications; it almost never appears in the titles of peer-reviewed publications post-1990. That being said, a few of the "regional" terms do appear to be invented terms based on the naming schemes of legitimate and established replacements for "Arab slave trade", as amply demonstrated per the discussion here and my search of the scholarly literature. But that's something to tackle another time, and I'm perfecltly content to accept the wholesale changes here and just deal with the few tiny issues piecemeal later. Mea culpa; I accept that I was wrong, and relying on my personal library of more or less outdated literature here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Symmachus Auxiliarus no apologies necessary as I'm just seeing this now myself! Anyway, thanks for following up and I more or less agree with you.VR talk 08:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)