These people are completely dishonest and since you want to keep qting me—>

A thread on slavery in Islamic history, & debunking many of the historically erroneous claims Islamophobes like this make, when they rely on emotional rambling instead of facts and logic https://twitter.com/Halalcoholism/status/1221672789704200192

The first thing to know is that there is a huge difference in how slavery was practiced in the post-colonial secular West and slavery in general before this time, going back to the ancient Arabs, Romans and Greeks (treated like members of the family, even being adopted)

For example a worker in post-industrial England could be sent to jail for showing up late to work
Source: Eltis, David, and Stanley L. Engerman. "Dependence, servility, and coerced labor in time and space." The Cambridge world history of slavery, AD (2011), page 3

And much of post-slavery Europe still wasn't free despite them "banning slavery" they still treated those "freemen" as slaves. All that happened is that they became serfs (pretty much the same as a slave; just not property, but still bound by contracts
(Eltis, 2009, pg 6)

Meanwhile under Islam, unlike in the West, a slave could become a king if he had the merits to do so, and this happened frequently. All the intelligent ones were appointed to positions of power.
Source: Levy, Reuben. The social structure of Islam. CUP Archive, (1957). page 74

Not only were slaves often adopted, a slave under Islam has the right to, food, housing, clothing, free healthcare (something not even free American citizens get).
If their rights are violated they can complain to a judge and/or be freed.
(Levy, 1957, pg 77)

And again, unlike in the West, when a slave is freed, his master is still responsible for him, and must become his patron, and assist him in being able to live as a freeman. As opposed to the West where they were unemployed and forced into sharecropping
(Levy, 1957, pg 81)

Their lives were not very difficult due to these rights. Their skin color was not discriminated against. They owned their own shops and businesses, and the most intelligent would be sent to schools. (whereas in the west, they were denied education)
(Levy, 1957, pg 84, 87)

Their treatment was so good, that they often did not wish to be free. A European observer notes that they were treated much better as slaves, than they would be as exploited freemen in Europe.
(Levy, 1957, pg 86, 88)

In the Islamic/devsirme system, slaves could occupy any hierarchy in society even one above a freeman. A concept unthinkable to the West, where slaves only occupied the very bottom
Source: Erdem, Y. Slavery in the Ottoman Empire and its Demise 1800-1909. Springer, (1996). page 1

Many of these slaves made up the ruling class, they willingly gave up many of their rights, because they knew it was necessary for rulers to do that.
They were indeed still more powerful than a free person, despite being a slave.
(Erdem, 1996, pg 6-7)

These yeniceri slaves(Janissaries) were trained since childhood to become governors, military generals, bureaucrats, elite soldiers, etc..
They owned their own property, got married, and even owned their own slaves. Many became professional artisans
(Erdem, 1996, pg 8-9)

Their slave status was unrecognizable to the Europeans considering how many rights they had, that normal slaves in Europe did not. They could pass on their wealth to their heirs, carry weapons, and even receive payments for their services.
(Erdem, 1996, pg 10-11)

For more common slaves who worked in the fields, in addition to their rights, they would also own their land, as opposed to sharecropping in the West where they just rented it. The law was designed so the land would stay in their family.
(Erdem, 1996, pg 12-14)

It was normal for Muslim masters to help their slaves secure a future by getting them connections
Source: Kunt, Metin Ibrahim. "Ethnic-regional (cins) solidarity in the seventeenth-century Ottoman establishment." International Journal of Middle East Studies 5.3 (1974). page 233

Their masters would help them build their careers, and then those slaves would also help other slaves build their careers once they were successful.
Many of em who held government positions, reinvested back in their original homeland.
(Kunt, 1974, pg 235-236)

During the industrial revolution, these slaves were trained in high-skill jobs, such as artisans. They would earn their skills this way, be freed after a certain period of work, and due to their training they could start their own businesses as freemen.
(Erdem, 1996, pg 15-16)

Islamic slavery laws overall are designed to not only free the slaves but to properly integrate slaves into society as free men.
Whereas in the west after emancipation all you had were unemployed unskilled slaves who were just worse off than before.
(Erdem, 1996, pg 19)

This is one of the largest differences between slavery in Islam, and that in the colonialist West. And a large mistake people make by generalizing the entire history of the world, with the failures of the West.
(Eltis, 2009, pg 7-8)

It's like how the West thinks prohibition doesn't work.
Just because white Europeans weren't smart enough to do it, doesn't mean nobody else can't successfully do it. Islam did it over 1000 years ago. Don't project Western incompetency onto Islam. https://twitter.com/DevonShapiro/status/1090428867133796359

And this especially shows in how despite them claiming to have "banned slavery" they in reality actually continued it under another name.
Such as in colonial British East India Company, aka "coolies", and even nowadays with convict labor.
(Eltis, 2009, pg 4-5)

Systems identical to slavery were imposed on the rest of the world. More "workers" died under the coolie system ships than in slavery. "Emancipated" slaves had to work without payment.
Source: O’Connell, D. J. "Modern Slavery: The Margins of Freedom." (2015). pages 32-33

While the West was invading other countries under the guise of "civilizing" them from slavery, the Europeans refused to let their own systems of forced labor be classified as slavery, protesting & arguing "it would violate their national sovereignty".
(O’Connell, 2015, pg 34)

The Western liberal logic back then and as it is still today, was that, as long as you gave them a single penny, they technically weren't slaves, and this meant they had "abolished slavery"
Funny cause slaves under Islamic rule got paid more money
(O’Connell, 2015, pg 37)

Free workers in Britain, had to wear collars with their employers names on it. They could be imprisoned for breaching the terms of the contract (identical to that of a master-slave relationship), and were de facto tied to their masters for life.
(O’Connell, 2015, pg 65-67)
cont.

If you were late to work you could be imprisoned for months because you "stole from your employer". Wages only covered the bare minimum needed to live.
Compare this to the rights a slave under Islam received a thousand years before this.
(O’Connell, 2015, pg 68-69)

Now you see just how misinformed these Islamophobes are, they argue against Islam using lies & slander, which ironically makes it very easy for us to refute them.
There really are no good arguments against Islam. That's why they resort to dishonesty & emotionally charged drivel.

But there always will be those uneducated Islamophobes who google something from a fake news website and then copy paste it here thinking they did something.
So I'll refute them before they even have a chance. Two of their delusions are the Zanj Rebellion, & the Barbary Pirates

In Zanj rebellion, a pretender Arab who claimed he was a prophet, gathered a group of criminals and started a revolt.
Whereas Zanj slaves actually fought against him
Source: Sibai, H. "Secularists and the Zinj revolution" Al-Maqrizi Center for Historical Studies. pages 33-35

Thanks to @AbuAliyahTmimi for translating

As for the Barbary pirates, anyone captured by them, as shown above had more rights than they did in Europe anyways.
But ironically while the Europeans cried about this back then, they were enslaving Muslims at the exact same time

At this very period the enslavement of Muslims, by the Europeans was booming; while the Europeans cried about pirates.
Source: Eltis, David, and William G. Clarence-Smith. "White Servitude." Eltis and Engerman, eds., The Cambridge World History of Slavery. (2011b). pages 139-142

And of course how they were treated. While slaves in the Ottoman Empire had the right to healthcare. Slaves under Europeans were forced to work in poisonous mines without any breaks.
European slavers were enslaved back in return by Barbary pirates.
(Etlis, 2011b, pg 143-144)

And that is it, I win. For all the Islamophobes who will start crying. Don't be sad, Muslims don't need to lie to prove our point, that's why I can cite tons of history books like that.
Meanwhile Islamophobes can only post links to fake news anti-Islam websites.

I’m also not here to defend Muslims who mistreated their slaves nor do I deny that there were such cases, but mistreatment of slaves is not an Islamic practice which is what I defended so don’t bother finding an extreme case as if it’s what I support.

P.S
Don't bother making moral claims based on illogical emotions, atheism/secularism has no objective morality.
You also won't find a single PhD historian that will back up any of your Islamophobic claims. Because they are all lies in the 1st place. https://twitter.com/TenMillionIQ/status/1206675704475201536