Who cares? He says he's a Muslim.
Reader comment on article: Louis Farrakhan Is Not a Muslim
in response to reader comment: Muslims never traded slaves?

Submitted by Bob (United States), Feb 7, 2007 at 19:20

This is like different sects of Christendom claiming that certain or all other sects of Christendom are not "real" Christians.

What is the attraction of Mohammedanism (the real name of the religion - they are not true to any god but the black meteorite in Mecca) to blacks? Mohammedans have a long record as the most abusive of slavers - worse than the Spaniards and Portuguese in the Caribbean and South America, where 90% of slaves brought to the Americas were taken.

Christendom wrangled with slavery for a thousand years before abolishing it one country after another. Mohammedanism has never had any problem with slavery - except how to kidnap more slaves.

There are relatively few descendants of black slaves in Mohammedan countries. There are millions in South America, and millions in North America. Why? Mohammedans practiced the extermination of most black men in the places they raided, saving only those they thought they could sell on the west coast of Africa. Women and girls were (and are) saved to be raped for sport. Boys were (and are) saved to be laborers and even to be raised to be soldiers. Most through history were subjected to "radical" castration, the removal of not only the testicles but the entire penis. Fatality rates from bleeding and infection are estimated at from 90 to 97%. Some castrators were more skilled, taking more care to prevent bleeding but the danger of infection remained great in the pre-antiseptic era. Opening the scrotum and removing only the testicles rather than slicing the entire scrotum off reduced the fatality rate, as the scrotal skin could be stitched into place to cover the gaping wound of the removal of the penis clear back into the groin.

White European slaves were not as radically castrated as they were emasculated by more skilled mohels (Jewish circumcisors) who were better surgeons than the slavers in Africa. They removed only the glans of the penis, leaving a stump, which was much less trouble to stop bleeding as it did not cut into the erection blood chambers of the penis. The purpose of removing the glans was to eliminate sexual sensitivity, which was unnecessary to preserve in a slave eunuch.

Blacks, still want to be Moslems?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments.