In a bizarre digression from their latest anti-Christian tirade, the Islamic State addressed the question of black slavery, claiming that if Muslims had been in charge of Western states, the slave trade would have continued.

If Muslims rather than Christians had been running things in countries like the U.S., the Islamic State argues in the most recent issue of its propaganda magazine Dabiq, “the lucrative African slave trade would have continued, supporting a strong economy.”

As usual, the Islamic State supports its position with theological arguments, suggesting that Allah is pleased with slavery, as long as the slaves are infidels.

“The Islamic leadership would not have bypassed Allah’s permission to sell captured pagan humans, to teach them, and to convert them, as they worked hard for their masters in building a beautiful country,” the article reads.

Trading in black African slaves, the magazine notes, would not be done for racial reasons but religious ones.

“All of this would be done, not for racism, nationalism, or political lies, but to make the word of Allah supreme. Jihad is the ultimate show of one’s love for his Creator, facing the clashing of swords and buzzing of bullets on the battlefield, seeking to slaughter His enemies – whom he hates for Allah’s hatred of them.”

The article also notes that African slaves who “converted, practiced their religion well, and were freed would be treated no differently than any other free Muslim,” unlike what happened in the United States where slaves’ descendants “still live in a nation divided over those days,” the authors state.

The Islamists blame emancipation and the end to black slavery on a corrupt Christianity that has gone soft and no longer lives according to the most brutal dictates of the Old Testament.

“The clear difference between Muslims and the corrupt and deviant Jews and Christians is that Muslims are not ashamed of abiding by the rules sent down from their Lord regarding war and enforcement of divine law,” the authors claim.

“And since those mujahidin would have done so bound by the Law, they would have been thorough and without some ‘politically correct’ need to apologize years later.”

Along with African slavery, the Islamic State authors also state that “if it were the Muslims,” instead of Christians, who had “fought the Japanese and Vietnamese or invaded the lands of the Native Americans, there would have been no regrets in killing and enslaving those therein.”

“The Japanese, for example, would have been forcefully converted to Islam from their pagan ways – and if they stubbornly declined, perhaps another nuke would change their mind. The Vietnamese would likewise be offered Islam or beds of napalm.”

As for the Native Americans, the article continues, after the slaughter of their men, “then the Muslims would have taken their surviving women and children as slaves, raising the children as model Muslims and impregnating their women to produce a new generation of mujahidin.”

Finally, the Islamic State authors turn to the Jews, saving some of their most bitter vitriol for their sworn enemies..

“As for the treacherous Jews of Europe and elsewhere – those who would betray their covenant – then their post-pubescent males would face a slaughter that would make the Holocaust sound like a bedtime story, as their women would be made to serve their husbands’ and fathers’ killers.”

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter Follow @tdwilliamsrome