1) Did Catholic Church Ever Teach any Curse of Cham? · 2) Cardinal Lavigerie Fought Slavery · 3) Why Curse of Ham Became Negroes among Muslims
I am reading a somewhat longer article than just answering this one, and one which errs in considering that the account in Genesis were a fabrication from the times of David or Solomon to justify slavery of Canaanite neighbours.
It also adds that to Jews, towards beginning of Christian era, Canaanites were more prone to be Black (Kushim) or Slavs. And that to Christians, at first there was no predeliction of ethnic nature as to who were next in line for what was really a penal servitude, then later Slavs were to West Europeans targetted well before Negroes - but that the sugar plantations started to change this near 1500.
Now, as I already spoke about Jews, what the article has to say about Muslims is very interesting.
Black Slavery, according to William McKee Evans*, was not a Muslim priority stemming from the Quran.
It started to become so when light skinned slaves, very rich in supply up to Muhammed, had become scarce since the permanent state of internal warfare between Arab principalities had ceased with Muhammed.
This means that up to Muhammed, Arabs on the Peninsula had been hunting each other for slaves, much as Negroes in Africa up to Western Colonisation, and sometimes beyond.
This confirms a bit what St Thomas said** about what people were first to examine the credentials of Muhammed as "prophet":
 On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.
Let me highlight:
What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.
Well, if they hunted each other for slaves up to the time of Muhammed, as William McKee Evans* said, then it is not possible to deny they were so.
Not by race, but by the culture in those days indigenous - somewhat like that of Swedes prior to Olof Skjötkonung or perhaps even more like that of Ashantis prior to Brazza.
Hans Georg Lundahl
* Evans, William McKee. "From the Land of Canaan to the Land of Guinea: The Strange Odyssey of the "Sons of Ham"" The American Historical Review 85.1 (1980): 15-43. Web.
** Contra Gentiles, Book I, chapter 6
[quoting paragraph 4], by St Thomas Aquinas, OP.