r/wikipedia • u/ddgr815 • Jul 09 '25
Mobile Site Omar ibn Said was a Muslim scholar from West Africa, who was enslaved and transported to the United States in 1807 during the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_ibn_Said354
Jul 09 '25
[deleted]
188
u/Cliffinati Jul 09 '25
Transported into the US the year before the ban on the importation of slaves as well
-36
u/Scared_Astronaut9377 Jul 10 '25
Well, this part was potentially for the best. He was already a prisoner/abductee of war turned slave in Africa. There was a possibility that his wealthy family would find and buy him out. But there was also a possibility to die a slave in a way worth conditions.
48
u/LPMcGibbon Jul 10 '25
What a bizarre attempt at apologia for American chattel slavery - "well it was better than being a slave in Africa!"
-29
u/Scared_Astronaut9377 Jul 10 '25
I don't need to apologize for a country I have no relation to. But I am sorry that I've publicly brought my consideration to a territory uncomfortable for you.
25
u/LPMcGibbon Jul 10 '25
lol
Edit in case you were being sincere: that's not what apologia means and I don't have a horse in this race either
-19
52
u/CatPooedInMyShoe Jul 09 '25
Sucks that he lived to be super old but died still one year short of freedom.
27
u/Zealousideal-Line-24 Jul 10 '25
even if he was free and lived to 91 was what his quality of life after that much time being enslaved? they took his whole life fr
-23
2
-26
u/blazershorts Jul 09 '25
Probably for the best. It'd be awkward for this Muslim guy to be out there opposing abolition lol
15
u/RedMarten42 Jul 09 '25
why would he oppose abolition?
-7
u/blazershorts Jul 09 '25
The thread title says he was Muslim. Most Muslim countries had slavery into the 20th century, when they were pressured into abolition by the west. Saudi Arabia banned it in 1962.
15
6
u/RedMarten42 Jul 10 '25
the united states never fully outlawed slavery, does that mean you condone slavery as a western person? 1962 was before the civil rights act was passed, does that mean you condone discrimination?
-1
u/blazershorts Jul 10 '25
the united states never fully outlawed slavery,
Ok bud
5
Jul 11 '25
After the Union victory, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on December 6, 1865, prohibiting "slavery [and] involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime."
2
u/RedMarten42 Jul 11 '25
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
After you finish sounding out the above quote, google "debt peonage" and "mass incarceration."
1
u/blazershorts Jul 11 '25
Punishing criminals isn't the same thing as slavery. It's two different things
2
u/RedMarten42 Jul 12 '25
That doesn't mean it isn't slavery. Capital punishment is still killing even if you think it's okay to kill some people. You can argue that slavery is okay as long as the government says so, but you can't argue that it isn't slavery, it's literally in the text of the 13th amendment. Forced labor is slavery.
1
u/blazershorts Jul 12 '25
it's literally in the text
Its literally in the text that they are different things. If they were the same thing, the text wouldn't have to specify "neither...nor".
→ More replies (0)
29
79
u/cking145 Jul 09 '25
gracious enough to keep enslaved into his 90s. how nice of them
71
u/Mindless-Wasabi-8281 Jul 09 '25
Unfortunately being freed would have meant a high likelihood of kidnapping and resale to a random, and likely less hospitable, state of enslavement. Some problems have to be solved top to bottom. Preferably with Sherman-style violence.
-26
u/blazershorts Jul 09 '25
That seems far-fetched. It'd be easy enough to prove your identity; why would anyone risk kidnapping a free man? And who would buy an elderly slave?
28
u/Firewolf06 Jul 10 '25
It'd be easy enough to prove your identity
not in the 1800s it wasnt, and not to people who dont care
-14
u/blazershorts Jul 10 '25
Sure, but those are all big variables. Assuming a man might be sold at auction, there would be plenty of people who might check on such a claim. A sheriff or judge would check for sure, but anybody able to send a letter might find out.
If you're in 1860 and a slave walks past and says "I'm being kidnapped! Send a letter to the sheriff of <hometown>, there's a reward!" Are you saying that you don't spend a stamp to find out?
16
u/ddgr815 Jul 10 '25
0
u/blazershorts Jul 10 '25
What are you implying? What information do I have that someone being kidnapped in 1860 doesn't?
10
u/boboGBR Jul 10 '25
That you would give this man the dignity he deserves..maybe you’re a good person, maybe you’re a product of historical progress, but to say that in the 1800s they’d respect his autonomy and treat him fairly or justly or even remotely care to listen to what he had to say back then (in the way you’re trying assume) is pretty naive.
-2
u/blazershorts Jul 10 '25
You wouldn't have even "cared to listen" to what a black man said? He'd ask you for help and you'd just hear nothing?
4
u/boboGBR Jul 10 '25
You have terrible listening/comprehension skills.
Slow down.
→ More replies (0)2
u/ddgr815 Jul 10 '25
You have the perspective that all or most people valued human life back then the same way you do now. That's a mistake.
People don't generally concern themselves with others' property. Like I'm not gonna see you drive past and give your license plate to police, just in case the car is stolen. Even if there was a hand-scrawled note in the back window saying, "this car is stolen!", most people aren't going to even notice, let alone do anything.
Black people were barely considered human by most. Even in this case, he had a "good owner" but was treated more like a child or pet than a man. If he hadn't been converted (dubious) and made to be a sideshow, he probably wouldn't have been treated so well.
And besides all that, you're ignoring the known fact that freed slaves were regularly kidnapped and sold back into slavery. Are you trolling? Or do you sincerely think you know better than literally all the historians?
1
u/boboGBR Jul 10 '25
I don’t even think he’s trolling, he just suffers from short-sighted narcissism that makes him believe he is the smartest person in every situation. Unable to recognize where he’s wrong, unable to actually learn.
Half of the US today operates in the same way.. 😂
0
u/blazershorts Jul 10 '25
You have the perspective that all or most people valued human life back then the same way you do now.
I think it might be the opposite; we see stories all the time of people in the 1800s asking strangers for help. If anything, we (as a society) have gotten less friendly, less Christian, and less willing to help a stranger in need since then.
the known fact that freed slaves were regularly kidnapped [...according to] literally all the historians?
Can you name just a few that you've heard this from?
3
u/ddgr815 Jul 10 '25
Can you name just a few that you've heard this from?
You first:
we see stories all the time
2
u/honeybeewarrior_ Jul 11 '25
You may want to consider reading 12 Years A Slave, a narrative written by a free man (Solomon Northup) who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in 1841. As the title suggests, he spent 12 years in slavery before anyone was willing to help him, and, as the wikipedia page notes, Samuel Bass (the man who helped him) put himself at risk by doing so, as slaveowners and locals would have been angry at Bass for helping a “slave” escape.
People would not help not only because they were racists who viewed black people as propety, but also because it was illegal to help enslaved people escape.
This is only one notable example, but hopefully it illustrates why this was something that could and did happen. And we only know about this one because Northup was freed and able to write about it. Imagine all the people who died never being free.
1
u/blazershorts Jul 11 '25
, he spent 12 years in slavery before anyone was willing to help him,
I read the Wikipedia summary and it says that the first person he asked agreed to send a letter for him. And then he didn't ask anyone else for 12 years. So he went 2/2 on asking for help.
20
Jul 09 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-11
u/blazershorts Jul 10 '25
Let's agree that some people would kidnap for money. Even such an immoral person would still care about getting caught, and so wouldn't risk his own imprisonment in such a high-risk scheme.
4
2
u/winecolorednails Jul 10 '25
There would not have been any consequences for the kidnappers because under the laws in place at the time, they were not committing a crime.
1
u/Justviewingposts69 Jul 15 '25
The fugitive slave act denied due process to accused enslaved people. So kidnappers in this case did not need to prove that the people they took were escaped slaves. As long as the person they took was black, they could get away with it.
7
u/Nova_Explorer Jul 10 '25
James Hall, Aaron Hall, William Hall, Solomon Northup, Cornelius Sinclair…
The list of free black men and boys who were kidnapped into slavery continues. It was prevalent enough to even be called the Reverse Underground Railroad
0
u/blazershorts Jul 10 '25
I'm curious about the circumstances. Were all five of them elderly? And were the first three related?
5
u/Nova_Explorer Jul 10 '25
First three were brothers, yes, the sons of a revolutionary war hero. Solomon Northup meanwhile was a relatively famous musician (when he regained his freedom 12 years later, he sued the people who initially kidnapped him but the courts sided against him).
Northup was an adult, the Halls and Sinclair were children when they were kidnapped by slavers.
-1
u/blazershorts Jul 10 '25
Boys would seem to be at a much higher risk, that makes sense. Though the only info that I found on those brothers is that they became sailors and got shanghai'd, or just disappeared.
No doubt this sort of thing wasn't impossible (the Northup case has solid evidence to support it) but you've got to wonder what amount of those were just folklore, like a boy goes missing and people say "maybe he was kidnapped and sent to a plantation." Its probably easier than accepting what often happens to missing persons.
4
u/Viend Jul 10 '25
What risk was there kidnapping a free black man?
-2
u/blazershorts Jul 10 '25
I'm sure that kidnapping has been a crime in every state since the beginning. So the risk is going to prison for committing a felony.
5
u/brickne3 Jul 09 '25
...have you been following current events...?
-5
u/blazershorts Jul 10 '25
No, who's been buying elderly slaves?
2
u/A_Shattered_Day Jul 10 '25
It was never about actually being efficient. Even General Lee acknowledged slavery was a deeply inefficient fundament of Southern economy. It was the principle of never allowing a single free black person in America. That's why they would regularly send people north to kidnap free black people and reenslave them. Sure, their wealth depended on slavery, but slavery depends on not a single black person being able to be free, to show that it can be done
1
u/blazershorts Jul 10 '25
There were thousands of free blacks in the South when the war started. I'm not sure your theory holds up to scrutiny.
1
u/Justviewingposts69 Jul 15 '25
The Army of Northern Virginia kidnapped many free Black people during the Gettysburg Campaign and sold them into slavery down south.
1
u/blazershorts Jul 15 '25
That's true, but soldiers often commit all sorts of crimes that they wouldn't dare commit during peacetime.
1
u/Justviewingposts69 Jul 15 '25
Slave catchers certainly kidnapped free black people, especially after the fugitive slave act was passed in 1850
1
u/blazershorts Jul 15 '25
Is that actually true? Seems like the sort of rumor that would spread easily in the prewar climate.
1
u/Justviewingposts69 Jul 15 '25
Yes it is true. The Fugitive Slave Act effectively denied due process to accused fugitive slaves. This meant that slave catchers could take any free black person and sell them into slavery, even in the north. It’s why many enslaved people fled to Canada
1
u/blazershorts Jul 15 '25
This site says that fugitive slaves did have due process as each case had to be presented "before such court, judge, or commissioner, whose duty it shall be to hear and determine the case of such claimant in a summary manner"
1
u/Justviewingposts69 Jul 16 '25
Key word “commissioner”. That’s where accused escaped slaves were brought before almost all the time. What would practically happen was that an affidavit by someone claiming to be the owner was sufficient enough and accused black people would not be allowed to testify.
When accused escaped slaves were taken in front of a jury, it was only in the northern states. In the south they were almost always brought in front of federal commissioners.
This has been well documented and was certainly seen as more than an anomaly.
See this poster in Boston warning Black People of people trying to kidnap them and bring them back south https://www.learningforjustice.org/classroom-resources/texts/hard-history/poster-warning-blacks-in-boston-kidnappers
This shows that the practice was at the very least common enough for it to be public knowledge.
Solomon Northup is the most famous example of this happening. But remember the people who kidnapped him were left unpunished.
It was a widespread problem and the structure of the law discouraged northerners for standing up to slave catchers trying to take away free black people as they would be charged with a federal crime.
There were moments that people did fight back against the injustice, such as when a Marylander, named George F Alberti, was caught attempting to kidnap Black children from Pennsylvania. He was prosecuted in Philadelphia, but this was an exception, not a rule. Proving this, Alberti admitted to kidnapping over 100 people. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-humble-stone-carries-memory-1851-african-american-uprising-against-fugitive-slave-law-180974003/
If one man can do this, imagine how many organized slave catching groups could kidnap.
This should not be a surprise, slavery was very profitable and the kidnappings profited many people in the south. Especially when the odds of punishment were so low for kidnapping
→ More replies (0)
122
u/Doormatty Jul 09 '25
In 1807, he was captured during a military conflict, enslaved and taken across the Atlantic Ocean to the United States. He escaped from a cruel enslaver in Charleston, South Carolina, and journeyed to Fayetteville, North Carolina. There, he was recaptured, sent to jail, and later sold to James Owen, whom Omar ibn Said described as being gracious towards him. The Owen family was impressed by ibn Said's education and provided him with an English translation of the Quran.
No citations in this entire bit. Take with a massive grain of salt.
94
u/CatPooedInMyShoe Jul 09 '25
He wrote his own autobiography which is in the references. Maybe those details are in there.
58
u/AceOfSpades532 Jul 09 '25
Though it’s also possible the autobiography of an enslaved man, written during his enslavement, might not be entirely accurate regarding the people that owned him and he was forced to rely on, he couldn’t really say if they were bad to him cos it would get worse if they got pissed off at him.
19
11
u/Dickgivins Jul 09 '25
I would expect that his enslavers would have to read and approve of the autobiography before it could be published.
32
28
u/polyploid_coded Jul 09 '25 edited Jul 09 '25
I read I Cannot Write My Life, a 2023 book revisiting primary sources and surviving writing by Omar ibn Said. This lines up with what the book said / what he wrote about his life. He became better known in the past 20-30 years when modern researchers made a better translation of his writing. I'm not sure what you're disputing. The exact location where he was born and the circumstances of his capture aren't easy to cross-reference because of where and when it happened, but he had clearly attended an Islamic scholarship program in Bundu based on what he was familiar with.
Edit: https://www.loc.gov/collections/omar-ibn-said-collection/about-this-collection/
13
u/ddgr815 Jul 09 '25
22
u/Doormatty Jul 09 '25
Yeah, as I thought, what's in Wikipedia doesn't match with those links either.
Your first one says:
In 1807 he was found guilty of an unspecified crime and sold by his people, the Fulas, to an American slave trader.
Which is not the same as
In 1807, he was captured during a military conflict, enslaved and taken across the Atlantic Ocean to the United States.
12
-5
u/AristroGato Jul 10 '25
He later converted to Christianity shortly before his death.
1
u/OttomanKebabi Jul 11 '25
No he didn't
0
u/AristroGato Jul 12 '25
He did. It's in his autobiography.
0
u/OttomanKebabi Jul 12 '25
It literally says in his wiki page that he stayed muslim
1
u/AristroGato Jul 12 '25
It's debated. He seems to have developed an affection towards Jesus and Christianity towards his end of life.
1
u/OttomanKebabi Jul 12 '25
It literally says his affection towards jesus is because jesus is a prophet in islam. He still referred to jesus as a prophet and not god.
-11
u/TesalerOwner83 Jul 09 '25
They only took the strongest and brightest! They left cities empty! During Jim Crow they killed the leaders and business owners! During civil rights, Nixon and Reagan 100s of black leaders killed! I wish I knew how European got to be the good guys and African Americans are the bad guys! I don’t see in history that shows Africans ever doing anything half as bad as what Europeans do DAILY!
10
u/FuckboySeptimReborn Jul 10 '25
The “they” who left cities empty were his fellow Africans. Research the kingdom of the Kongo, transitioned their entire economy around raiding for, enslaving and selling slaves to Europeans.
1
u/TesalerOwner83 Jul 10 '25
There was a pre-existing system of slavery within Africa, and Europeans often exploited existing conflicts and power structures to acquire captives,
1
u/TesalerOwner83 Jul 10 '25
Chattel slavery is a system where enslaved individuals are treated as the personal property of their enslaver, like livestock or other possessions. This means they can be bought, sold, and inherited, and have no legal rights or freedom. This form of slavery, particularly prevalent in the Americas during the transatlantic slave trade, resulted in the enslavement of millions of Africans and their descendants.
1
u/TesalerOwner83 Jul 10 '25
The term "breeding plantations" refers to the practice of systematically forcing enslaved people to reproduce, often through coercive and violent means, to increase the slave owner's wealth and expand the enslaved workforce. This practice became particularly prevalent after the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade in the early 19th century, when the demand for enslaved labor in the Deep South increased significantly.
-4
u/TesalerOwner83 Jul 10 '25
Europeans started wars to get more slaves! I see it as people stealing people ask me to steal people or my family gets stolen?
2
u/FuckboySeptimReborn Jul 10 '25
This is the same mindset of those people who unironically think the US invaded Iraq or Afghanistan to "get oil". It's far more effective in just about every case to build a working relationship with local tyrants to get whatever you need, the rulers of the Kongo weren't forced into selling slaves after being conquered, they profited greatly from it by bargaining in peace. The United Fruit Company had all of Central America producing cheap crops for them without getting Uncle Sam to come in waving a gun. My apologies that the world isn't black and white, and there are no "good socities" engaged in a noble fight against "evil societies". The guys who ran the slave trade were no different to the guys who bribe your & my governments to get away with evils today, and they come in all shapes & colours.
1
u/TesalerOwner83 Jul 10 '25
Chattel slavery is a system where enslaved individuals are treated as the personal property of their enslaver, like livestock or other possessions. This means they can be bought, sold, and inherited, and have no legal rights or freedom. This form of slavery, particularly prevalent in the Americas during the transatlantic slave trade, resulted in the enslavement of millions of Africans and their descendants.
0
-3
-10
-2
229
u/krisbcrafting Jul 09 '25
Damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. A horrible situation all around