The Red Sea is not the Atlantic Ocean–
Qur’an and Slavery
Modern history has done Islam an injustice by assigning every activity of every Turk and Arab to the discredit of the Islamic faith. So the racist writings of any Arab, anywhere, Islamic or non-Islamic, are used as testimony against Islam. Regardless of if Islam is the best attribute to describe these people.  They have become the “official” representatives of Islam just by being of Islamic heritage or living in the Islamic world.
The same thing happens with Jewish history (further confused because “being Jewish” also include even atheist in their definition, while Muslims do not) . So the perception of an Islamic monolith is a reoccurring theme in Western history. So we see “Islamic invasion”, etc. And a few reasons exist for this historical set-up. 1. Islam is considered “the other,” and just like with Africa , it is easy to understand it by compressing it into a single entity, which acts with a single mind-set as if from a single leader. This is not only true for Europeans writing history; it is true across the board. Because anyone writing their own history has a more complex story about themselves than about “the other.” Muslims writing about the West do the same thing, the West becomes monolithic. 2.
The most threatening force to Europe’s domination was Islam. European powers have always tried to demonize Islam, even before the crusades. Muslim countries have large oil deposits, as well as posing a serious military and political threat to Western markets. Muslims historically have been an impasse, the greatest impasse, to total Western domination. (see Libya and historically the Ottoman Empire and the trade routes to the East)
While Islam and the history of Arab slavery are collapsed for biased political reasons, and therefore debatable as it assumes a causal relationship between the religion and the politics of Arab people (a minority group in Islam).(Patrick Manning) It can be said that with the coming of Islam it allowed for greater polities among what would have been antagonistic Arab clans.
UNUCHS OF THE ARAB SLAVE TRADE
Eunuch to serve ArabsEunuch to serve Arabs
The most expensive enslaved group in Arabian societies were the eunuchs who were castrated men drawn from Europe but also Darfur, Abyssinia, Korodofan and other African nations. Ironically because of their lack of sexual function they obtained great privileges while African female slaves privileges were due to their sexuality. Eunuchs were generally made by Coptic priests in Egypt but also a group of Arabs know as the Chamba. Young boys, victims from raids and wars were subjected to the horrid monstrous inhumane process of castration without anesthesia which had a 60% mortality.
To stop the bleeding hot coals were cast into the naked wound, which was followed by the most blood curdling alien scream a human could make. If the child survived this brutal act there was to be a life of influence and luxury; silk garments, Arabian thoroughbreds, jewels, were bestowed on them to reflect the wealth of their masters.(Hunwick) Strangely eunuchs were both distinguished and greatly revered as elites in Arab society, despite being enslaved. They served as guards and caretakers of mosques as well as administrators. Clearly slave did not mean exclusively downtrodden and oppressed. The actual word slave was far from taboo as the most pious people were self-professed “slaves of Allah.”
Islam gave the Arabs a national identity, which allowed them to expand their geopolitical domination in a way previously impossible. The same way it gave power to the emerging powers in West Africa in the 11th century allowing for large unified polities such as Songhai. Arabs did not enslave Africans because of a religious edict (fatwa), they did so for their own greed and nationalistic interest–like everyone else, including other African nations.
The power technology gave Europe allowed them to be successful in exploiting Africa, in the same way the power of an Islamic polity created the power for Arab exploitation, and later Ottoman exploitation. We cannot blame the invention of naval technology because it was used to transport enslaved Africans, we cannot blame a scientist for discovering the power of the atom for Hiroshima; yes there is a correlation, but not a direct causation.
As Karenga states, they had the power to destroy but lacked the moral capacity not to. Any error within the Islamic faith must be discussed within these conditions, the error within Arab, African or European culture must also be discussed within its ambit of influence. As well as the fallacy of human nature—which is usually universally defined by greed and intolerance.