From what I gather from searching around the net Afro-Brazil is 49% of the population(182 Million).
Peace
"Today, Brazil has about 97 million people declared themselves as black against 91 million declared themselves as whites."
Posts: 2922 | From: World Empire of the Black People | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
The Zanj Rebellion was the culmination of series of small revolts. It took place near the city of Basra, located in southern Iraq over a period of fifteen years (869-883 AD). It grew to involve over 500,000 slaves who were imported from across the Muslim empire and claimed over “tens of thousands of lives in lower Iraq” The revolt was said to have been led by Ali ibn Muhammad, who claimed to be a descendent of Caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib. Several historians, such as Al-Tabari and Al-Masudi, consider this revolt one of the “most vicious and brutal uprisings” of the many disturbances that plagued the Abbasid central government.
Background
As the plantation economy boomed and the Arabic people became richer during the Muslim Agricultural Revolution, agriculture and other manual labor jobs were thought to be demeaning. The resulting labor shortage led to an increased slave market. It is certain that large numbers of slaves were exported from eastern Africa; the best evidence for this is the magnitude of the Zanj revolt in Iraq in the 9th century, though not all of the slaves involved were Zanj. There is little evidence of what part of eastern Africa the Zanj came from, for the name is here evidently used in its general sense, rather than to designate the particular stretch of the coast, from about 3°N. to 5°S., to which the name was also applied.
The Zanj were needed to take care of: the Tigris-Euphrates delta, which had become abandoned marshland as a result of peasant migration and repeated flooding, [which] could be reclaimed through intensive labor. Wealthy proprietors “had received extensive grants of tidal land on the condition that they would make it arable." Sugar cane was prominent among the products of their plantations, particularly in Khūzestān Province. Zanj also worked the salt mines of Mesopotamia, especially around Basra.
Their jobs were to clear away the nitrous top soil that made the land arable. The working conditions were also considered to be extremely miserable. Many other people were imported into the region besides Zanj. Also around the time of the revolts, the Abbasid caliphate was mired in a period of financial weakness, both internally and externally… The financial strain imposed on the accession of each new caliph contributed to the ability of the Zanj revolt, which began in 868 AD, to sustain itself for as long as it did.
The rise of the Shīa also occurred around this time, so the Abbasid government was fighting on two fronts. Some scholars believe that the Zanj revolt was not necessarily a slave revolt. In this view there were also Zanj immigrants in Iraq who were a big part of the revolt. taken by M. A. Shaban who argued:
“All the talk about slaves rising against the wretched conditions of work in the salt marshes of Basra is a figment of the imagination and has no support in the sources. On the contrary, some of the people who were working in the salt marshes were among the first to fight against the revolt. Of course there were a few runaway slaves who joined the rebels, but this still does not make it a slave revolt. The vast majority of the rebels were Arabs of the Persian Gulf supported by free East Africans who had made their homes in the region”
Revolt
The actual revolt started with a descendant of slaves named ʻAlī b. Muhammad. He had grown up as in Samarra and not much else is known about his early life. Eventually he moved to the "Abbasid capital, where he mixed with some of the influential slaves of Caliph al-Muntasir (861-862 A.D.)”. It was here that ʻAlī b. Muhammad learned the workings of the caliphate and financial differences between the Muslim citizens. From here, Alī moved to Bahrain, where he pretended to be Shī and started to rouse the people into rebellion against the caliphate. “Ali’s following in the city grew so large that land taxes were collected in his name. The rebellion eventually failed and Alī relocated to Basrah in 868 CE. Also in 868 C.E. A leader of the Zanj Rebellion claimed to be the incarnated form of the former Alid rebel Yahya ibn Umar.
In Basrah, Alī b. Muhammad preached at the mosque, advocating against the caliphate and for the people. His first actual contact with Basrah’s slaves seems to have been motivated by a vicious outbreak of hostilities between two Turkish regiments, the Bilaliyah and the Sa’diyah, which contributed to the weakening of Basrah’s political regime. Hoping to exploit the resultant anarchy to his advantage, he tried to win to his side members of one of these groups.
The Bilaliyyah and Sadiyyah were described by Tabari as guilds in the town or rivaling quarters.
When he heard news about another scuffle between Basrah’s factions he “began to seek out black slaves working in the Basrah marshes and to inquire into their working conditions and nutritional standards.” He told the Zanj and other slaves that he was sent by God to liberate them from their bonds. Origins have a large part in establishing oneself in Arab society and especially when dealing with slaves. Initially
‘Ali bin Muhammad’s paternal grandfather was said to have been a member of the ‘Abd al-Qays lineage and his paternal grandmother a Sindhi slave woman. His mother, a free woman, was a member of the Asad bin Khuzaimah lineage... later commentators have presumed him to have been of Persian rather than Arab origin.
Sahib al-Zanj [Alī’s title] declared his rebellion at al-Basrah, during the reign of al-Muhtadi, in 255 A.H. He claimed that he was descended from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, but most people recognize this as a false claim and reject it. After Alī’s lineage was not accepted, he started to preach the “extremely egalitarian doctrine of the Kharijites, who preached that the most qualified man should reign, even if he was an Abyssinian slave.”The caliphate eventually sent out a large military force led by the Vizier Al-Muwaffaq.” After several encounters, the caliphate army started to make examples of rebellion leaders.
For instance, Yahya of Bahrain, a noted leader of the rebel troops, was taken with a small group of men and sent to Samarra. There he was flogged two hundred times while Caliph al-Mu'tamid watched. Both his arms and legs were amputated and he was slashed with swords. Finally, his throat was slit and he was burned. This did nothing to hinder the Zanjī and they continued to raid towns and villages. “When the caliphate became preoccupied with the Saffarid secessionist movement in Persia, the Zanjī extended their control further north with the aid of the surrounding Bedouin peoples.” It was probably at this time that the Zanjī constructed their capital which was called Moktara (the Elect City).
Towards the end of the revolution most of the former slaves themselves started to turn into the very masters they despised and started to break down as a community. In 879 C.E. after the revolt in Persia was settled, Al-Muwaffaq came back and continued to wage war on the rebels. In 881 AD, the Zanj were surrounded on all sides by the Abbasid army. With the capture and execution of Alī after the fall of the Zanj capital city of al-Mukhtara the revolt ended. In the end, “most of the Zanj joined Al-Muwaffaq, but not all. Over 1000 died in the desert of exhaustion and thirst, trying to flee the embattled Iraqi territory. Others remained unsubdued in southern Iraq after their leader was killed; they continued to rob, plunder, and murder throughout Abbasid space until they either joined the Abbasid or died refusing to be anyone’s soldier.”
Revisionism
Ghada Hashem Talhami, a scholar on the Zanj revolt, argues that the Zanj rebellion is inaccurately named. In fact, most of the military were not Zanjian to begin with. It was only after a time, after most of the other slaves were freed that the actual Zanj imported slaves took hold. Talhami cites from various historians and works to make her point that the rebellion was more of a religious/social uprising made by the lowly classed and suppressed citizens of the Basrah area, and included a wide variety of people, including white and Indian slaves. She even says that the most significant element of the rebellion was not the Zanj slaves, but bedouin from around Basra, who provided regular support throughout the conflict. “Despite much evidence to the contrary, including the absence of major Arab settlements along the coast, the silence of Arab and Persian geographers on an oceanic trade, and the generalized equation of Zanj with “black,” it has been used to infer an important commercial relationship between Africa and the Middle East several centuries before such an exchange can be proven to have existed…. The assumption that ‘Abbasid writers used Zanj to mean specifically the East African coast, and that therefore the people they called Zanj originated in a specific part of that region, is completely unjustified.”
The Zanj revolt helped Ahmad ibn Tulun to create an independent state in Egypt. It is only after defeating the Zanj Revolt that the Abbassids were able to turn their attention to Egypt, and end the Tulunid dynasty with great destruction.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, I know who both the Zanj are and who Ibn Khaldun was. He is not the only Arabic historian. If you discount the Arab historians of the middle ages then you donot have much ground to reconstructure your conspiracy theories with white Turks. What I noticed if you evaded the question of when the conspiracy of Turkish historians began to white wash so-called Arabic history. I also mentioned historians like al-Jahiz who were contemporary of the prime of Arab slave trading during the Abbasaids. Jahiz would have been eye witness of Zanj slave trading. You cannot accuse Jahiz of being a ''white'' Turk becase his forfathers were actualy black Abyssinians.
This thread is not about the ethnic identification of who the original Arab were. Most people who are well versed in Arabic oral history know that there existed both the Qahtan(real arabs) and Adanan(Arabized Arabs) and that most Arabic speakers today are not ''true Arabs'',but you cannot deny their are desendants of enslaved Africans that exist across the Arabic speaking world.
Mike, I notice you take shoots at me which is fine. I don't care but I think you are using a false pretense considering that you donot know exactly my geneology nor phenotype. I don't believe I ever advocated the whiteness of so-called true Arabs. You will not find that in any of my posts.
What makes you an authority on the history of Arabs? Do you read and write classical Arabic? I understand one must question every historical source they read but what makes your histories more relevent?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...Arab slaver was WORSE then any slavery in the West.....Males had there testicles cut, Women were raped and there babies were killed
AH WHA DI RASS... DO YOU EVEN REALLY KNOW WHAT YOUR PEOPLE DID TO OUR ANCESTORS...THE ATROCITIES....THE MUTILIATIONS...THE LIVE BURNINGS...THE CASTRATIONS...THE LYNCHINGS (WHICH USUALLY ALSO INVOLVED MUTILIATIONS AND/OR CASTRATION)....THE BURYING UP TO NECKS ALIVE IN THE GROUND NEAR INSECT NESTS...THE BRANDINGS...THE AMPUTATIONS...THE RAPES....THE INFANTICIDE....THROWING AFRICANS OVERBOARD ALIVE INTO SHARK-INFESTED OCEANS...CUTTING OPEN MOMMA'S BELLY AND BETTING ON THE SEX OF THE BABY BEFORE IT DROP OUT...THE NECK IRONS...THE LIST IS LONG AND FRIGGIN ENDLESS...
YES, THEY DID THAT AND WORSE IN THE WEST TO BLACK PEOPLE/AFRICANS TOO....REGULARLY... Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I gave you a video to watch, I was wondering if you watched it an can comment on it. Also can you refute what was stated? 2 million Africans were enslaved in the 1800's alone 8 million died on the way. Also the man stated that Children were killed by the Arab slave owners. Also he stated that 28 million Africans were enslaved in the Arab slave trade, where are there descendents?
Also
I KNOW about Black Iraqis, matter of fact Aljazeera has an video about Iraqi youth in Hip Hop. Very Uplifting video about Unity, WOmens rights etc. I hope you enjoy the video:
This number is far too high. How could Arabs get that maney slaves when Europeans took most of them to the Americas. The Americans were the dominant slaver in East Africa. They depopulated vast expanses in Mozambique. This is why the Zanji slave traders had to move deep into Central Africa to get slaves.
There are few decendants of African slaves in Arab lands: North Africa and the Middle East, because there were few slaves taken to rhese areas. The majority of Blacks in these lands were indigenous Blacks. Europeans, Indo-Chinese, Chinese and Turks know this but they prefer to lie and claim all Blacks in these lands were former slaves.
quote: ...Arab slaver was WORSE then any slavery in the West.....Males had there testicles cut, Women were raped and there babies were killed
AH WHA DI RASS... DO YOU EVEN REALLY KNOW WHAT YOUR PEOPLE DID TO OUR ANCESTORS...THE ATROCITIES....THE MUTILIATIONS...THE LIVE BURNINGS...THE CASTRATIONS...THE BURYING UP TO NECKS ALIVE IN THE GROUND NEAR INSECT NESTS...THE BRANDINGS...THE AMPUTATIONS...THE RAPES....THE INFANTICIDE....CUTTING OPEN MOMMA'S BELLY AND BETTING ON THE SEX OF THE BABY BEFORE IT DROP OUT...THE NECK IRONS...THE LIST IS LONG AND FRIGGIN ENDLESS... THEY DID THAT AND WORSE IN THE WEST TO BLACK PEOPLE/AFRICANS TOO....REGULARLY...
Correct. There was no slavery like slavery in the west.
In Spanish areas Black miners were worked until they died--then new slaves were bought. Finally during the South American wars for "liberation" slaves were used to fight on both sides of the wars and must were killed off.
Only negroes and fools believe the Arab slave trade can be compared to slavery in the West.
Blacks were given no rights, domesticated Animals had more rights than the slaves.
posted
I am not justifying slavery in either the west or Islamic world. The Arabs were cruel but I think alot of western historians tend to emphasize the cruelty and racism of Arabs a little too much to obfuscate their role in the trans-atlantic slave trade.
Trust me I am not Arabo-phile and I don't admire nor care much about Arabs as some of the posters here. I simply want truthful discourse so I can set aside any bias I may have towards Arabs.
I also think its dishonest to portray all Africans like they were simply submissive people that could easily be run over by alien forces such as European and Arabs. All parts of Africa including the areas of the Zanj of the Arab sources often had vast kingdoms with organized infastructure. The Arabs could have raided some groups but its doubtful they raided ever region of the Zanj. Swahili traders used to have gold trading networks from Kenya to Mozanbique.
Al Masudi even documents the sophistification of the iron smelted and traded by the Zanj.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Why was the Feritlity rate lower for Black slave women then slave women in the west??
Why does Brazil outside of Nigeria, have the Largest African population in the world?? If assimilation is what happened in Arab countries, why is there no genetic proof of this?
Do you Ausar have an study that states that this is the case?
Peace
Dalits OF INDIA - THE LARGEST BLACK POPULATION OF THE PLANET
It was during the rule of Abbasid caliph Harun ar-Rashid (ruled 786-809), that the caliphs began assigning Egypt to Turks rather than to Arabs. The first Turkish dynasty was that of Ibn Tulun who entered Egypt in about 868 as governer, and because of Abbasid weakness because of the Zanj revolt, siezed total power in about 869 .
Later - The Ikhshidid dynasty (935 A.D.) ushered in the Ikhshidid dynasty of Muhammad ibn Tughj, a Turk from Uzbekistan in Central Asia. The Ikhshidid dynasty was usurped by their Abyssinian slave tutor named Kafur, he ruled Egypt with the caliphate's sanction.
Abu al-Misk Kafur became the de-facto ruler of Egypt in 946. He died in Cairo in 968 and was probably buried in Jerusalem. Kafur is notable in that he used Berber troops for his army.
When Kafur died in 968, the Arabs returned with the Fatimid dynasty, who at first used the Berber troops of Kafur. But they soon began importing Turkish troops also. By the end of the Fatimid dynasty, the army was under the control of Armenian Turkish generals.
In 1250 A.D. The White Turkish Mamluk troops rebelled and took over full control of Egypt's government and army.
posted
Ausar - Above you asked me: "When do you suppose this white Turkish conspiracy started to exist?"
My guess is that it started at about the same time as the Turks in Turkey began to fabricate a history for themselves.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: In about 1932, after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks figured that if they were to be a stand-alone country, they must have a country history, just like all other countries.
Thus the Ministry of Education in 1932, produced the Turkish Nations creation myth in the form of tomes. These taught Turks that at the dawn of history, their ancestors, led by a mythical gray she-wolf, started migrating outwards from the heart of Central Asia. As the numbers of their people swelled and droughts dried the traditional grazing lands on the steppe, some of them, they are told, even crossed the Bering Strait into the Americas. Presumably becoming the American Indians.
In his later years, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (the founder of the modern Turkey nation), himself adopted a creed known as the "Sun Theory", which depicts the Turks as the mother race of all mankind, and proposed that all human languages are descendants of one proto-Turkic primal language.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, taught that the Turks discovered the America's fifty years before Christopher Columbus. The proof of this assertion, he told journalist, was that the Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean, had obviously been named by Turks, especially since their capital was called Grand Turk. (The islands are in fact named after a fez-shaped cactus).
I find it funny and silly, that Turks - in their own "Made-up" founding myth: ADMIT that they are CENTRAL ASIANS, and yet stupidly claim at the same time, that they are Arabs, Berbers, Persians, Egyptians, etc,etc. Don't you people think that others would notice?
But to the point: They were all in the same boat, Turks ruling former Black nations, how were they to explain that? Well, the first thing to do is to explain-away the remaining "Pure-Blacks".
As we have seen, they decided to do that by claiming that those Blacks were brought to those countries as slaves. Thus the creation of that totally ridiculous Arab slave nonsense. The indigenous Blacks, being totally dependent on degenerate Turks for their history, had no way of knowing any better.
So that today, Blacks in Turkey believe that they derive from Slaves. The Blacks of Iraq, believe they derive from Slaves. The Blacks of Iran, believe they derive from Slaves.
Question:
I hear you people clamoring for Democracy, well do you know that democracy means that sooner or later, people will start searching for the truth, and there will be no "Police State" to stop them? What will happen when all of those Blacks who you have kept illiterate and out-of-government, start demanding their democratic rights? He,he, my guess is that you will quickly return to a police state - that is if you ever leave that form of government at all.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW Ausar - Though most Whites are more than happy to go-along with the nonsense history you Turks have created - because it dove-tails with their own made-up history.
Not all Whites are so degenerate.
I quote the eminent François Auguste Ferdinand Mariette (1821 – 1881) French scholar, Archaeologist, Egyptologist, and the founder of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. I quote from his book: "OUTLINES OF ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HISTORY"
Quote:
"How often do we see in Eastern monarchies and even in European states a difference of origin between the ruling class, to which the royal family belongs, and the mass of the people!
We need not leave Western Asia and Egypt; we find there Turks ruling over nations to the race of which they do not belong, although they have adopted their religion. In the same way as the Turks of Baghdad, who are Finns, now reign over Semites, Turanian kings may have led into Egypt and governed a population of mixed origin where the Semitic element was prevalent.
If we consider the mixing up of races which took place in Mesopotamia in remote ages, the invasions which the country had to suffer, the repeated conflicts of which it was the theatre, there is nothing extraordinary that populations coming out of this land should have presented a variety of races and origins."Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: I am not justifying slavery in either the west or Islamic world. The Arabs were cruel but I think alot of western historians tend to emphasize the cruelty and racism of Arabs a little too much to obfuscate their role in the trans-atlantic slave trade.
Trust me I am not Arabo-phile and I don't admire nor care much about Arabs as some of the posters here. I simply want truthful discourse so I can set aside any bias I may have towards Arabs.
I also think its dishonest to portray all Africans like they were simply submissive people that could easily be run over by alien forces such as European and Arabs. All parts of Africa including the areas of the Zanj of the Arab sources often had vast kingdoms with organized infastructure. The Arabs could have raided some groups but its doubtful they raided ever region of the Zanj. Swahili traders used to have gold trading networks from Kenya to Mozanbique.
Al Masudi even documents the sophistification of the iron smelted and traded by the Zanj.
There was a tradition in both East and West Africa where the locals themselves would tell foreign traders preposterous stories of savages and cannibals who'd kidnap and eat humans. This was to deter them from traveling into the interior, thus securing the various gold mines, ivory, salt, slaves and other sources of material wealth. It worked but unfortunately it added fuel to stereotypes. Indeed, people like Ibn Khaldun relied on 2nd hand sources and never traveled further southwest than Mali or further southeast than Abyssinia, two kingdoms that he praised for their civility (attributing it to religion) while denigrating the pagan south. People like Ibn Battuta who visited Zanj territory described beautiful cities and Black "moors" were described by the Portuguese as still occupying Swahili towns once they showed.
What's important to remember is that most coastal Zanj (Swahili) were Muslim and it was forbidden to enslave fellow Muslims. This goes to show that the Arab slave trade was just that, a trade. Raids into the interior wouldn't have been the rule anyhow, even if Arab slavers had the capability to do so (which I doubt they had).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: awlaadberry or dana what are your thoughts on Arab slavery? How do you think the Arabs handled their slaves? They seemed to have organized and expanded African slavery. They did it their way. Supposedly over a 1400 year period they killed or castrated a lot of African men and millions died on long import routes. They seemed to prefer female slaves for sex and household duties.
I can tell you about the many Persian, Roman, Greek, Turkish, Slavik slaves that flooded the Arabian Peninsula so much so that a light-skinned person on the Arabian Peninsula was described as looking like a slave. Would you like to know about those slaves? You should want to know about them because they are the ones who flooded the Arabian Peninsula and gave the current population their. appearance.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^They weren't Persians. They were former inhabitants of the Persian Empire. Bactrians, Cimmerians, and the like.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, if both Turks and whites are making up all history then where do you get your sources from. Contrary to whatever you may think of me I don't completely buy into westernized history nor Islamicized history. My reserch has taught me to scrutinize all historical source reagrdless of the academic credentials or motives of the historian. If I simply believed mainstream Egyptology or academic I would believe in the Hamitic myth.
I must consider also that I have no funding for archaeological digs nor can I speak or write the languages of the people I study so I must depend upon second hand sources. I suspect the same is true for you Mike but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Never have I been openly hostile to any of your arguements despite the fact I may find them questionable and even detracting from any legitimate claims.
You seem to champion primitive European groups like the Celts and Germanics but ignore and groups in central Africa and western Africa that may not meet your standards of civlization.
Anyway, if you choose to believe that the Arab slave trade was a simply a orthestration of Turkic Arabic interlopers than so be it. I am definately not the one supressing you from your observation of history nor supressing other people. Personally, I think it does not matter if one has a glorious history or non glorious history but one that controls the natural resources and technology who wins the battle. That is one thing that history has taught me is if you have no technology or military might you get your history stolen from you.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^No argument on the last part. My effort is to get it back! To that end, I NEVER read books, I read scientific papers and scholarly articles, and I search for artifacts. Those things together, provide a basis for further research.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most scientific studies that deal with history, artifacts and linguistics cite books. The books are published by Universities and other educational centers.
I am guessing you dismiss most genetic and osteological studies as well?
BTW, can you cite any of these scientific studies? How do we know that said studies are not altered by Europeans or Turks? Is there a golden standard for such discernment?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
as per dana and other awlaadberry their concept is this:
1) Arab = Black blacks native to the Arabian peninsula
(proof: select hadith about skin color and hair i.e. black = black, "white" also = black etc) black = African phenotype (incl. kinky hair)
2) Muhammad died in 632 Five years later, beginning in 637, with the Islamic Conquests, of Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa and Cyprus Arabia became flooded with foreigners, many non-Black. This to the extent that the population became predominantly non-Black, therefore non-Arab. (however incoming North Africans and others who were Black already were indistinguishable from Arabs so they are counted as Arabs) More Conquests followed
3) So when, after the Islamic Conquests Arabia became predominantly non-Black, they organized and expanded slavery and although Arabia had become predominantly non-Black they only had white slaves .
Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ausar, don't even bother with Mike Spam.
as per dana and other awlaadberry their concept is this:
1) Arab = Blacks native to the Arabian peninsula
(basis select hadith about skin color and hair i.e. black = black, "white" also = black etc) black = African phenotype
2) Muhammad died in 632 shortly thereafter beginning with Islamic Conquests five years later, of Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, Cyprus Arabia became flooded with foreigners, many non-Black. This to the extent that the population became predominantly non-Black, therefore non-Arab. (however incoming North Africans and others who were Black already were indistinguishable from Arabs so they are counted as Arabs)
3) So when, after the Islamic Conquests Arabia became predominantly non-Black, they organized and expanded slavery and although Arabia had become predominantly non-Black they only had white slaves
.
Lioness,
You can't speak for what my concept is or what I base what I say on.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ausar, don't even bother with Mike Spam.
as per dana and other awlaadberry their concept is this:
1) Arab = Black blacks native to the Arabian peninsula
(proof: select hadith about skin color and hair i.e. black = black, "white" also = black etc) black = African phenotype
2) Muhammad died in 632 Five years later, beginning in 637, with the Islamic Conquests, of Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa and Cyprus Arabia became flooded with foreigners, many non-Black. This to the extent that the population became predominantly non-Black, therefore non-Arab. (however incoming North Africans and others who were Black already were indistinguishable from Arabs so they are counted as Arabs) More Conquests followed
3) So when, after the Islamic Conquests Arabia became predominantly non-Black, they organized and expanded slavery and although Arabia had become predominantly non-Black they only had white slaves
.
^Just like a poorly disciplined child, interrupting the adults when they attempt to talk.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ If what I have stated is not a fair summation of some of your views please correct any or all of the above 3 concepts. (although I realze you're very busy and don't have time for a lioness thread)
But getting back to the original topic, slavery in Arabia. It's mentioned in the Qu'ran. Presumably it was a practice going on before Islam. The Qu'ran says don't mistreat your slaves. If we look to the Islamic conquests in Eurasia and Africa some of the slavery was considered fair booty in war. no pun intended Slaves were also purchased from other nations. What say you to this?
Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
there are many black African people in the Gulf region. Many arabs in this region also have African features like tightly curled hair and thick lips and noses.
Can you post a picture of one or two Ausar?
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Nubia had been "supply zone" for slaves since antiquity. The Ethiopian coast, particularly the port of Massawa and Dahlak Archipelago, had long been a hub for the exportation of slaves from the interior, even in Aksumite times. The port and most coastal areas were largely Muslim, and the port itself was home to a number of Arab and Indian merchants.
see > Pankhurst, Richard. The Ethiopian Borderlands: Essays in Regional History from Ancient Times to the End of the 18th Century (Asmara, Eritrea: Red Sea Press, 1997), pp.416
Bernard Lewis, Race and Slavery in the Middle East
Slaves sometimes formed part of the tribute required from vassal states beyond the Islamic frontiers. The first such treaty ever made, that of the year 31 of the Hijra (= 652 A.D.), with the black king of Nubia, included an annual levy of slaves to be provided from Nubia. This may indeed have been the reason why Nubia was for a long time not conquered.
posted
You ever heard of the Miami Kuwati music group? How about the Saudi Arabian singer Waed? They would be the examples of the Arabs I am talking about. Bandar Bin Sultan also has African features.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: You ever heard of the Miami Kuwati music group? How about the Saudi Arabian singer Waed? They would be the examples of the Arabs I am talking about. Bandar Bin Sultan also has African features.
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Most scientific studies that deal with history, artifacts and linguistics cite books. The books are published by Universities and other educational centers.
That is quite true, and over time, one develops the the ability to identify the nonsense, and ignore it. I think the concept is called "Data Mining"
I am guessing you dismiss most genetic and osteological studies as well?
Remember when we had idiots on the forum declaring that Blacks and Whites had different bodies? osteology is not for laymen! I sometimes use Observable craniofacial to identify a broad-nosed Black person. Of course this is completely useless when dealing with a high-bridged Black person.
As with osteology, genetics in the hands of a layman is unending stupidity. I have tried to tell them that you cannot identify races with it, but you can confirm race with it, but to no avail.
BTW, can you cite any of these scientific studies? How do we know that said studies are not altered by Europeans or Turks? Is there a golden standard for such discernment?
Good point: years ago, I used to use a paid service. Originally it provided a wealth of material from many sources, and I was quite satisfied with it. But over time, it began to look just like White-boy central, same as Wiki, so I dropped it. Now I just scrounge and scavenge, but I still often find little gems.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ If what I have stated is not a fair summation of some of your views please correct any or all of the above 3 concepts.
No matter what I say to you and how clearly I say it to you, you will always play dumb and pretend that you don't understand and twist my words and put words into my mouth. I'm onto you and your games, Lioness.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ If what I have stated is not a fair summation of some of your views please correct any or all of the above 3 concepts.
No matter what I say to you and how clearly I say it to you, you will always play dumb and pretend that you don't understand and twist my words and put words into my mouth. I'm onto you and your games, Lioness.
o.k. we'll keep the whole thing vague, fuzzy with ample wiggle room, proceed
Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: You ever heard of the Miami Kuwati music group? How about the Saudi Arabian singer Waed? They would be the examples of the Arabs I am talking about. Bandar Bin Sultan also has African features.
I'm now going to give you the description of Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas and I want you to tell me what you think about his features:
quote:Originally posted by ausar: What is your purpose on this awlaadberry?
I want to show you clearly why what you say about the appearance of those people and Basra and that group in Kuwait called Miami and the Saudi singer Waed is totally wrong and that they have pure Arab features. I want you to understand this clearly.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have much argument with me about the origin of the ancient Arabs. I never have seen Arabs as ''mediterranean caucasoid'' people. However, I pictured Arabs as being related more so to Africans from the Horn of Africa than western or central Africans due to the close proximity of the Horn and also that is considered the home of the Afro-asiatic phylum by most linguists.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
But getting back to the original topic, slavery in Arabia. It's mentioned in the Qu'ran. Presumably it was a practice going on before Islam. The Qu'ran says don't mistreat your slaves. If we look to the Islamic conquests in Eurasia and Africa some of the slavery was considered fair booty in war. no pun intended Slaves were also purchased from other nations. What say you to this?
Yes. I told you that myself. Arabia was flooded with Persian, Roman, Greek, Turkish, etc captives who were enslaved. Before Islam, different Arab tribes also raided each other and made the captives their slaves. So what about it? And yes Muslims were commanded to treat their slaves well and encouraged to give them their freedom. So what's your point?
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: I don't have much argument with me about the origin of the ancient Arabs. I never have seen Arabs as ''mediterranean caucasoid'' people. However, I pictured Arabs as being related more so to Africans from the Horn of Africa than western or central Africans due to the close proximity of the Horn and also that is considered the home of the Afro-asiatic phylum by most linguists.
So you agree that what you said about the people you mentioned above having "African features" is wrong and you agree that they, in fact, have pure Arab features. Right?
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I think the phenotype of Arabic people is constantly in flux because the definition of Arab changes with each expansion of Arabic speaking people. Arabs have historically incorporated various ethnic and linguistic groups so its hard sometimes to distinguish between formerly enslaved populations and original populations. We have early Arabic writing describing the earliest Arabs but what of skeletal remains or archaeological remains? How do these historical descriptions relate to the ancient Arabs.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Why was the Feritlity rate lower for Black slave women then slave women in the west??
Why does Brazil outside of Nigeria, have the Largest African population in the world?? If assimilation is what happened in Arab countries, why is there no genetic proof of this?
Do you Ausar have an study that states that this is the case?
Peace
1. have you been to the middle east? 2. do you speak arabic? 3. do you know the history/culture of the middle east very well? 4. what countries in particular are you talking about?
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: You ever heard of the Miami Kuwati music group? How about the Saudi Arabian singer Waed? They would be the examples of the Arabs I am talking about. Bandar Bin Sultan also has African features.
Ausar with all due respect you have to be careful when talking about "black" arabs. Not saying there are no native ones but remember Axum ruled over Arabia for AT LEAST 400 years and there was a LOT of mixing going on as africans poured into the middle east and naturally coupled with "arab" women. This also ignores what the advent of ancient egyptians and their colonizes in the region must have done to change the look of the people "again through coupling" Many of these people are decendents from these Axumite kingdom, especially in el yemen, oman, parts of the gulf etc. That doesnt explain the blacks in the islands in the persian sea and in the southern portions of Iran (which is majority black).
I don't even think there is a such thing as a "arab" so to speak. They are a mixed group of people, always have been. I dont think there was ever one look to them. Heck even their own history of who their forefathers were tells that story i.e. Abraham and Hajar (the egyptian)
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Personally, I think the phenotype of Arabic people is constantly in flux because the definition of Arab changes with each expansion of Arabic speaking people. Arabs have historically incorporated various ethnic and linguistic groups so its hard sometimes to distinguish between formerly enslaved populations and original populations. We have early Arabic writing describing the earliest Arabs but what of skeletal remains or archaeological remains? How do these historical descriptions relate to the ancient Arabs.
Clearly Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas isn't from a formerly enslaved population, but from a pure Arab population. Same for Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia. So they are legitimate representatives of the pure Arab original type. Their description tells us much more than what skeletal or archaeological remains tell us.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: You ever heard of the Miami Kuwati music group? How about the Saudi Arabian singer Waed? They would be the examples of the Arabs I am talking about. Bandar Bin Sultan also has African features.
Ausar with all due respect you have to be careful when talking about "black" arabs. Not saying there are no native ones but remember Axum ruled over Arabia for AT LEAST 400 years and there was a LOT of mixing going on as africans poured into the middle east and naturally coupled with "arab" women. This also ignores what the advent of ancient egyptians and their colonizes in the region must have done to change the look of the people "again through coupling" Many of these people are decendents from these Axumite kingdom, especially in el yemen, oman, parts of the gulf etc. That doesnt explain the blacks in the islands in the persian sea and in the southern portions of Iran (which is majority black).
I don't even think there is a such thing as a "arab" so to speak. They are a mixed group of people, always have been. I dont think there was ever one look to them. Heck even their own history of who their forefathers were tells that story i.e. Abraham and Hajar (the egyptian)
Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas wasn't descended from anyone from Axum or from ancient Egyptian colonizers. Nor was Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia. And there is such a thing as an Arab. Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas and Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia are examples of pure Arabs.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: You ever heard of the Miami Kuwati music group? How about the Saudi Arabian singer Waed? They would be the examples of the Arabs I am talking about. Bandar Bin Sultan also has African features.
Ausar with all due respect you have to be careful when talking about "black" arabs. Not saying there are no native ones but remember Axum ruled over Arabia for AT LEAST 400 years and there was a LOT of mixing going on as africans poured into the middle east and naturally coupled with "arab" women. This also ignores what the advent of ancient egyptians and their colonizes in the region must have done to change the look of the people "again through coupling" Many of these people are decendents from these Axumite kingdom, especially in el yemen, oman, parts of the gulf etc. That doesnt explain the blacks in the islands in the persian sea and in the southern portions of Iran (which is majority black).
I don't even think there is a such thing as a "arab" so to speak. They are a mixed group of people, always have been. I dont think there was ever one look to them. Heck even their own history of who their forefathers were tells that story i.e. Abraham and Hajar (the egyptian)
Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas wasn't descended from anyone from Axum or from ancient Egyptian colonizers. Nor was Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia. And there is such a thing as an Arab. Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas and Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia are examples of pure Arabs.
how can there be a "pure" arab when they admit themselves to being the offspring of two distinct groups? Also don't we (as in Muslims) have ahadith that say a arab is one who speaks arabic?
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
The countries I am talking about is Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain etc. WHerever the slave trade impacted Africans. If Africans were brought to the ME in numbers, why does the genetic profile not show an larger amount of African genes? Assimilation I hear, but yet still not much genetic evidence.
Look at Brazil, an Country that has a large African population someone on these forums say 97 million.
Now I know that Blacks live in Iraq, I posted an video showing Black Iraqis, I'm just saying though if the arab slave trade was 700 years longer then the Trans Atlantic, why do we not see more of an imprint in the regions?
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
King, there are black populations in Iran, Bahrain, Oman and especially Saudi Arabia. If you are looking for them to make a large impact like in the western hemisphere then you will never see much proof. No many black people were imported in these regions and the ones that were never left large amounts of population. Their genetic input is definately there though.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
No Disrespect Explorer but I don't really feel comfortable posting any studies.
I Always thought that people knew that next to Nigeria, Brazil had the 2nd Largest African population.
Peace
You know, King, you avoiding to provide the specifics of your source and how its information had been obtained, makes me think that you were trying to deceive people.
If it is "common knowledge" as you say, that's all the more reason you should be supplying this information promptly.
And as much as you want treat this matter as "trivial", it is quite far from that, because you were using your Brazilian headcount of African descendants to prove a point about the American slaves being better off than the Arabian ones.
We have to know if you weren't trying to base your claims on false premises, just to win points. But hey, if having the rep of deception is fine by you, then maybe you are doing the wise thing by not daring to corroborate yourself. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I always thought that the Arab Slave trade in Africa started 700 years ago in the ME, If this is the case, you are trying to tell me that with an 700 year head start, that they had LESS Africans in these countries, then the TA Slave trade?
we also know that 2 million Africans were brought to the ME in the 1800's. Are we to believe that Arabs did not bring even more to the ME in centuries past?
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
How am I decieving ANYONE? All you gotta do is look around google and you will find articles stating that Africans are 49%+ of the Brazilian population.
Why would you make the charge I was trying to deceive people simply because I did not post any info for you? You pick way too much fights Explorer.
Nevertheless, I will post this Article for you to read that states Brazil is 52% Black:
These 7% might be added to 45% of those who said to the collector that they are mulattos, and the result will be a population of 52% of blacks and mulattos, and 49% of whites. So, in an American sense, the Brazilian black population is now larger than the white one. In the Brazilian sense, as was said, blacks and biracial are two different categories.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
AH WHA DI RASS... DO YOU EVEN REALLY KNOW WHAT YOUR PEOPLE DID TO OUR ANCESTORS...THE ATROCITIES....THE MUTILIATIONS...THE LIVE BURNINGS...THE CASTRATIONS...THE LYNCHINGS (WHICH USUALLY ALSO INVOLVED MUTILIATIONS AND/OR CASTRATION)....THE BURYING UP TO NECKS ALIVE IN THE GROUND NEAR INSECT NESTS...THE BRANDINGS...THE AMPUTATIONS...THE RAPES....THE INFANTICIDE....THROWING AFRICANS OVERBOARD ALIVE INTO SHARK-INFESTED OCEANS...CUTTING OPEN MOMMA'S BELLY AND BETTING ON THE SEX OF THE BABY BEFORE IT DROP OUT...THE NECK IRONS...THE LIST IS LONG AND FRIGGIN ENDLESS... 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic