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?
The following were the first Islamic Conquests
The conquest of Syria, 637 The conquest of Armenia, 639 The conquest of Egypt, 639 The conquest of North Africa, 652 The conquest of Cyprus, 654
^^^within this, the Rashidun period, some of this was comprised of black Africans. There were also slaves brought in from Ethiopia.
You describe Arabia as being flooded with captives. This seems odd that the Arabs had a large enough army to conquer these places yet they brought in so many captives (some black as per some of the regions above) but so many not black that these non-black slaves captives then intermingled with the native population to the extent large enough to change the basic character of the population in general. With this many incoming captives it's a wonder they were defeated. How do you even them them all in line?
If the Arabs allowed more outsders in then they themselves comprised what is the value of an Arab identity? And where in the history do Arabs distinguish themselves from these influxes? For example, conquests of non-blacks aside. Let's look at the Conquest of Nubia 700-1606:
Regularly renewed treaties known as AlBaqt (pactum) with the Nubians that governed relations between the two peoples for more than six hundred years. Therefore Islam progressed peacefully in the area through intermarriage and contacts with Arab merchants and settlers over a long period of time after the earlier attempts at conquering Nubia (in the 7th century) failed. This period of peacful interaction inlcuded annual tributes paid in slaves and other goods. However, In 1171 AD the Nubians invaded Egypt, but they were defeated by the Muslim Ayyubids. From 1172 - 1173 AD the Ayyubids fought and defeated another Nubian invasion force which had penetrated Egypt. This time the Ayyubids not only repelled the invasion, but actually conquered some parts of northern Nubia in retaliation. In the late 13th century the Sultan of Egypt,Sultan Baybar, defeated and subjugated the kingdom of Nubia. Sultan Baybar made the Kingdom of Nubia a vassal state of Egypt. Decades later In 1315 the Christian kingdom of Nubia was conquered by the Mamelukes, and a Muslim prince of Nubian royal blood was placed on the throne of Dongola as king. During the 15th century, the Funj, an indigenous people appeared in southern Nubia and established the Kingdom of Sinnar, also known as As-Saltana az-Zarqa (the Blue Sultanate). The kingdom officially converted to Islam in 1523 and by 1606 it had supplanted the old Christian kingdom of Alwa (Alodia) and controlled an area spreading over the northern and central regions of modern day Sudan thereby becoming the first Islamic Kingdom in Sudan. Their kingdom lasted until 1821.
Given this intermarriage and captives taken in war, part of this "flooding" of Arabia with foreigners how could you distinguish these Nubians from what you call the "true Arabs" ? We also have the eralier conquest of Egypt in 639. Again, the same question, if some of them were blacks then how can we, based on looks, distinguish them from the "true Arabs" ? Because of this what good is it to describe the skin and hair of the "original Arabs" when this "flooding" of foreigners you mention includes various people also black Africans who had, according tou you, the same type of hair and skin- yet were not "original Arabs" ?? This means that dark skinned persons with kinky hair who have lived in Arabia for hundreds of years may or may not be, according to your skin color definitions, "true Arabs".
___________________________________________
In a separate issue:
Amongst pre-Islamic Arabs people classified themselves according to their Confederation, their tribe, their clan, and then their house/family. There were two Tribal Confederations;
1) the Adnani (originating from "Adnan", the traditional ancestor of the Arabs of northern, central and western Arabia), Muhammad belonged to the Banu Hashim is one of the clans of the Quraysh tribe, of the Adnani confederation.
2) the Qahtani (originating from "Qahtan", the traditional ancestor of the Arabs of southern and south eastern Arabia).
Are both tribes, Adani and Qahtani "true Arabs" ?
They seem to have different origins. Genetically the Adani are halpogroup J1 while the Qahtani are haplogroup J2
Haplogroup J1 (Adani's haplogroup) is associated with Northeast Caucasian peoples in Dagestan and Semitic peoples in Mesopotamia, the Levant, the Arabian Peninsula, Ethiopia, and North Africa
Haplogroup J2 M172) Qahtani's halplogroup) Found mainly in Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Levant, Greece, the Balkans, Italy and the Caucasus
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| 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.
Well, if you are reluctant to do such a simple thing as backing up your claims, then one has to figure that you have something to hide. Surely, if you learnt your information from somewhere, it should not take too much of your time to cite or name the source, should it. Why must you rely on others to verify your own claims for you? The burden of proof does not lie with them.
quote: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.
So, now asking someone to corroborate his/her post is tantamount to "picking a fight"? This comment makes it seem that you are ignorant of the concept of burden of proof. King, you are in the wrong place, if you think you are going to get away with saying unverifiable things, and yet, qualify any request to verify it thereof as "picking a fight".
quote: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.
You act like this is some sort of "charity", saying that "nevertheless" you'll provide your source, LOL...like you aren't supposed to be doing it in the first place. Having said that, I went through your source, and reviewed several other sources.
Going by your own source, your 182 million "African" Brazilians does not pan out, whether the percentage of this segment of the Brazilian population is placed at 7%, or 6% according to some sources. Nor does it even come close to the 97 million that someone else cited here.
With a total population size of 190.755.799, according to the Brazilian census site, that your source purports to be referencing its info from, at 7%, the black-identified population only amounts to around 13 million and 352,906 people accounted for.
This is well below the figures I've seen for Ethiopia, or say Cameroon...and even South Africa, which has populations of different geographic ancestries. And of course, you correctly observed that it is nowhere near the population size of Nigeria.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notwithstanding the above, I did find something interesting in your link...
It says, for example, with regards to that 52% you were referring to:
But there is more about that.
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.
And then, it goes onto say:
Another number that Census shows, 2%, refers to people who, 10 years ago, said to the collector that they were white, but, now, they want to change their category, some choosing to be mestiços, some mulattos, some indigenous. These are very light-skinned black persons who used to pass as white, but now are not ashamed to declare their real origin. They don’t want to be white, anymore.
Which is an interesting development, going by the info.
Furthermore,
(A good question would be “Why would a light-skinned person want to pass as white?” Well, I don’t want to answer, because my words wouldn’t be sympathetic to them.)
So, the Brazilian black population not only is the second largest in the world, but also exhibits the record of being the most mixed. In this sense, it reserves first place. Mulattos, in Brazil, are, mainly, a product of the Portuguese, who colonized the country, and the Africans, brought there to be slaves. And this mixture was always so dense that, in slavery times, there were more mulattos than today, proportionally to the total population.
But the readers must not take this last information as a sign of racial liberalism from the Portuguese side, because it actually hides violence, a crime.
From this alone, one can see how arbitrary ethnic demarcation can be, since as this author notes, some people who could phenotypically be considered "black", have historically simply identified themselves as "mulattos" or some "other" category. But the situation seems to have improved, as noted, whereby some of these people are increasingly more open and willing to identify themselves as "blacks". I say good for them, for finally putting some value in their African roots.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| 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?
Because the pure Adnani Arabs are the descendants of Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar. Any descendants of this union are pure Arabs because bring descended from Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar is what makes one a pure Adnani Arab. Concerning the hadith that you mentioned, it's a weak hadith.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Man Explorer, Your a Hardass, but a very respectable poster.
I found Goodness in that source also Explorer. Seeing that slow and steady, African people are claiming there heritage, and being proud of who they are makes me see that the people CAN change for the Better and that no one is an loss cause.
I really dislike selfhate, and I always respected Brazilians as people who have blended African and European culture into a beautiful mosiac. I really hope in these coming years, That the Black Brazilians will stand strong for there ethnicity and say out loud "I'M BLACK and PROUD". They have many things to be greatful for and see that being African is a symbol of respect and honour and never let anyone take there love for there people away from them.
Sadly though one of the great Black Leaders in Brazil recently died at an ripe old age. Hopefully a new breed of Black Leaders will take his place and uplift there people, because really man, Brazil is over 60% Black Affiliated and slowly they are waking up to an consious level where they are more aware of themselves and the uplifting of their people. Unity is something ALL People should try and promote to the people and I am happy to see the people in Brasil standing for whats right.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yah, well, I suppose it sometimes pays to be "a hardass". Couldn't agree more with the general sentiment of the rest of the post.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Also don't we (as in Muslims) have a hadith that say a Arab is one who speaks Arabic?
I find this illustrative of the self-serving nature of your culture, if it suits your purpose, then the claim is made. Below is a list of English speaking countries, they have people of all races, types, and cultures.
No one would claim that the countries or their people, have a commonality other than having been ruled by the British or Americans. If having been ruled by the Arabs is criteria for being an Arab, then how would that be a religious issue worthy of a Hadith? And what about their own indigenous culture, were they asked if they wanted to abandon it, or was that forced on them?
BTW - the person making that edict was NOT an Arab, where did the authority, moral or otherwise, come from to make such a claim?
Countries where English is the official language or the de facto language
Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Beliza, Botswana, Brunei, Cameroon, Canada, Dominica, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United States, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe, American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Guam, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Montserrat, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Pitcairn Islands, Puerto Rico, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Sint Maarten, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| 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?
Because the pure Adnani Arabs are the descendants of Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar. Any descendants of this union are pure Arabs because bring descended from Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar is what makes one a pure Adnani Arab. Concerning the hadith that you mentioned, it's a weak hadith.
weak according to who? Also bro I find it hard to believe ALL those arabs came from the union of just TWO people. Also there are ahadith that says rasolollah (s3w) was white, so are you saying then he wasn't a pure Arab or can "pure Arabs" be any color? I have not looked much into this matter so I am just picking your brain to see where you stand on the issue.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Also don't we (as in Muslims) have a hadith that say a Arab is one who speaks Arabic?
I find this illustrative of the self-serving nature of your culture, if it suits your purpose, then the claim is made. Below is a list of English speaking countries, they have people of all races, types, and cultures.
No one would claim that the countries or their people, have a commonality other than having been ruled by the British or Americans. If having been ruled by the Arabs is criteria for being an Arab, then how would that be a religious issue worthy of a Hadith? And what about their own indigenous culture, were they asked if they wanted to abandon it, or was that forced on them?
BTW - the person making that edict was NOT an Arab, where did the authority, moral or otherwise, come from to make such a claim?
Countries where English is the official language or the de facto language
Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Beliza, Botswana, Brunei, Cameroon, Canada, Dominica, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United States, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe, American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Guam, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Montserrat, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Pitcairn Islands, Puerto Rico, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Sint Maarten, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands.
I am not sure at all what that has to do with what is being discussed? The hadith says a arab is one who speaks arabic. My family is from Sierra Leone, and arabic is not spoken there by the people who are native to Salone so we are not Arabs. So I am very confused as to what you are saying? In the hadith it is the Prophet Muhammad (s3w) saying that to others who are living among him, he is telling them that those who live among them who speak arabic are Arabs, thats all.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
typeZeiss - Apparently that is a pretty controversial quote. Below is typical of what I found.
Ibn Asakir in his "Tarikh Dimashq": "Qurra Bin Isa Al-Wasiti narrated to us from Abu Bakr Az-Dzuhli narrated to us from Malik Bin Anas from Abu Salama Ibn Abdur-Rahman who said: Qays Bin Mattatiyya came to a circle in which were sitting Salman the Persian, Suhayb the Roman, and Bilal the Ethiopian, whereupon he said: People! The Lord is One and the Father [Adam] is one. Being an Arab is not, in any of you, inherited from father or mother but it is only the language that is spoken (Innama Hiya Al-lisan). So, whoever speaks Arabic then he is an Arab." Then Mu'adzh Bin Jabal stood - still holding the other's collar - and said: 'What do you order us to do with this hypocrite, O Messenger of Allah?' He replied, 'Leave him to the Fire.' And Qays was among those who committed apostasy during the Ridda, at which time he was killed."
This however is not a sound Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad, rather a statement of a religious hypocrite, Qays Ibn Matatiya.
I also found this while looking for the other. Very interesting, you've got rules for everything.
Translation of Malik's Muwatta, Book 29:
Rules for Coitus Interruptus
Book 29, Number 29.32.95:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Habban that Ibn Muhayriz said, "I went into the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri and so I sat by him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said al-Khudri said, 'We went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on the expedition to the Banu al-Mustaliq. We took some Arabs prisoner, and we desired the women as celibacy was hard for us. We wanted the ransom, so we wanted to practise coitus interruptus. We said, 'Shall we practise coitus interruptus while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is among us before we ask him?' We asked him about that and he said, 'You don't have to not do it. There is no self which is to come into existence up to the Day of Rising but that it will come into existence.' "
Book 29, Number 29.32.96:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah from Amir ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas from his father that he used to practise coitus interruptus.
Book 29, Number 29.32.97:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah from Ibn Aflah, the mawla of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari from an umm walad of Abu Ayyubal-Ansari that he practised coitus interruptus.
Book 29, Number 29.32.98:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar did not practise coitus interruptus and thought that it was disapproved.
Book 29, Number 29.32.99:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Damra ibn Said al-Mazini from al-Hajjaj ibn Amr ibn Ghaziya that he was sitting with Zayd ibn Thabit when Ibn Fahd came to him. He was from the Yemen. He said, "Abu Said! I have slave-girls. None of the wives in my keep are more pleasing to me than them, and not all of them please me so much that I want a child by them, shall I then practise coitus interruptus?" Zayd ibn Thabit said, "Give an opinion, Hajjaj!" "I said, 'May Allah forgive you! We sit with you in order to learn from you!' He said, 'Give an opinion! 'I said, 'She is your field, if you wish, water it, and if you wish, leave it thirsty. I heard that from Zayd.' Zayd said, 'He has spoken the truth.' "
Book 29, Number 29.32.100:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a man called Dhafif said that Ibn Abbas was asked about coitus interruptus. He called a slave-girl of his and said, "Tell them." She was embarrassed. He said, "It is alright, and I do it myself."
Malik said, "A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a free woman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practising coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone who has someone else's slave-girl as a wife, does not practise coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission."
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| 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?
Because the pure Adnani Arabs are the descendants of Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar. Any descendants of this union are pure Arabs because bring descended from Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar is what makes one a pure Adnani Arab. Concerning the hadith that you mentioned, it's a weak hadith.
weak according to who? Also bro I find it hard to believe ALL those arabs came from the union of just TWO people. Also there are ahadith that says rasolollah (s3w) was white, so are you saying then he wasn't a pure Arab or can "pure Arabs" be any color? I have not looked much into this matter so I am just picking your brain to see where you stand on the issue.
The hadith is weak according to the Islamic scholars of hadiths. You shouldn't find it strange that all Adnani Arabs descend from Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar. Don't we all descend from Adam and Eve? Concerning the description of the Prophet's (SAWS) complexion, I've explained many times that white didn't mean oi n the past what it means today. Also, the Prophet was described as asmar complexioned.
what it means today
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?
Because the pure Adnani Arabs are the descendants of Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar. Any descendants of this union are pure Arabs because bring descended from Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar is what makes one a pure Adnani Arab. Concerning the hadith that you mentioned, it's a weak hadith.
weak according to who? Also bro I find it hard to believe ALL those arabs came from the union of just TWO people. Also there are ahadith that says rasolollah (s3w) was white, so are you saying then he wasn't a pure Arab or can "pure Arabs" be any color? I have not looked much into this matter so I am just picking your brain to see where you stand on the issue.
The hadith is weak according to the Islamic scholars of hadiths. You shouldn't find it strange that all Adnani Arabs descend from Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar. Don't we all descend from Adam and Eve? Concerning the description of the Prophet's (SAWS) complexion, I've explained many times that "white" to the Arabs of the past didn't mean what it means today. Also, the Prophet (SAWS) was described as asmar.
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?
Because the pure Adnani Arabs are the descendants of Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar. Any descendants of this union are pure Arabs because bring descended from Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar is what makes one a pure Adnani Arab. Concerning the hadith that you mentioned, it's a weak hadith.
weak according to who? Also bro I find it hard to believe ALL those arabs came from the union of just TWO people. Also there are ahadith that says rasolollah (s3w) was white, so are you saying then he wasn't a pure Arab or can "pure Arabs" be any color? I have not looked much into this matter so I am just picking your brain to see where you stand on the issue.
The hadith iud weak according to the Islamic scholars of hadiths. You shouldn't find out strange that all Adnani Arabs descend from Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar. Don't we all descend from Adam and Eve? Concerning the description of the Prophet's (SAWS) complexion, I've explained many times that "white" to the Arabs of the past didn't mean what out means today. Also, the Prophet (SAWS) was described as asmar.
i am new here so don't think I have read your stuff and am ignoring it, not the case. Anyway I will research on this. As for nabi Adam and Eve, this was far longer in time than the time of nabi Ibrahim which was what, 3,000 plus years ago, no? The description I had read of rasolollah description was he was white with reddish checks. Also supposedly there was/is a painting of him from back then some where (again supposedly). Any books you can suggest on this or is it all from your personal investigation into this?
Jazallah khayr
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Qahtani قحطان refer to Semitic peoples either originating in, or claiming genealogical descent from the southern extent of the Arabian Peninsula, especially from Yemen.Arab tradition maintains that a semi-legendary ancestral figure named Qahtan and his 24 sons are the progenitors of the southern inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula known as Qahtani. Early Islamic historians identified Qahtan with the Yoqtan (Joktan) son of Eber of the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 10:25-29). Among the sons of Qahtan are noteworthy figures like A'zaal (believed by Arabs to have been the original name of Sana'a, although its current name has been attested since the Iron Age) and Hadhramaut. Another son is Ya'rub, and his son Yashjub is the father of 'Abd Shams, who is also called Saba. All Yemeni tribes trace their ancestry back to this "Saba", either through Himyar or Kahlan, his two sons.
Hertitage of Qahtani Arabs or Adnani Arabs is not determined by looking. It's determined by geneological record and genetics. For example if your DNA is tested and you are not halpogroup J1 or J2 you are not Qahtani (Southern Arab) or or Adnani Arab (Northern Arab)
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Traders from Arabia (mostly Yemen), the Persian Gulf region of Iran (especially Shiraz), and west India probably visited Zanzibar as early as the 1st century AD was under Omani influence from the reign of Imam Sultan bin Seif who conquered the islands from the Portuguese in 1652. Before he returned to Oman, Imam Sultan bin Seif appointed a member of the El-Harthy family to rule the Islands of Zanzibar. The third pillar of the economy was slaves, giving Zanzibar an important place in the Arab slave trade, the Indian Ocean equivalent of the better-known Triangular Trade. The Sultan of Zanzibar controlled a substantial portion of the East African coast, known as Zanj, and extensive inland trading routes. Sometimes gradually, sometimes by fits and starts, control came into the hands of the British Empire; part of the political impetus for this was the movement for the abolition of the slave trade. In 1890 Zanzibar became a British protectorate. Traders began to settle in small numbers on Zanzibar in the late 11th or 12th century, intermarrying with the indigenous Africans. Eventually a hereditary ruler (known as the Mwenyi Mkuu or Jumbe), emerged among the Hadimu, and a similar ruler, called the Sheha, was set up among the Tumbatu. Neither had much power, but they helped solidify the ethnic identity of their respective peoples.
In 1698, Zanzibar became part of the overseas holdings of Oman, falling under the control of the Sultan of Oman. The Portuguese were expelled and a lucrative trade in slaves and ivory thrived, along with an expanding plantation economy centring on cloves. The height of Arab rule came during the reign of Seyyid Said (more fully, Sayyid Said bin Sultan al-Busaid), who in 1840 moved his capital from Muscat in Oman to Stone Town. He established a ruling Arab elite and encouraged the development of clove plantations, using the island's slave labour. Zanzibar was famous worldwide for its spices and its slaves. It was East Africa's main slave-trading port, and in the 19th century as many as 50,000 slaves were passing through the slave markets of Zanzibar each year. (David Livingstone estimated that 80,000 Africans died each year before ever reaching the island.) Tippu Tip was the most notorious slaver, under several sultans, and also a trader, plantation owner and governor.
Tippu Tip
_____________________________________________________ Sayyid Majid bin Said Al-Busaid
Sayyid Majid bin Said Al-Busaid (1834 - October 7, 1870) the first Sultan of Zanzibar. He ruled Zanzibar from October 19, 1856 to October 7, 1870. Majid became Sultan of Zanzibar and Oman on the death of his father, Sayyid Said bin Sultan, but his accession was contested. Following the struggle over the accession to the position of Sultan of Oman, Zanzibar and Oman were divided into two separate principalities, with Majid ruling Zanzibar and his older brother Sayyid Thuwaini bin Said al-Busaid ruling Oman. His reign was infamous in that he consolidated his power around the East African slave trade. His descendants would later follow this practice. Barghash bin Said claimed to halt the slave trade, but he continued this until the United Kingdom gained protectorate over the colony.
___________________________________________
Sayyid Barghash bin Said Al-Busaid
Sayyid Barghash bin Said Al-Busaid was the second Sultan of Zanzibar. He signed an agreement with Britain in 1870, prohibiting slave trade in his kingdom, and closing the great slave market in Mkunazini but trade was still going on. Britain had passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833 abolishing slavery throughout most of the British Empire .
From the earliest times, slaves were one of the many 'commodities' exported from Africa to Arabia, Persia, India and beyond. In the 18th century the demand increased considerably and Arab trading caravans from Zanzibar penetrated mainland Africa in search of suitable slaves. Various contemporary accounts describe all aspects of the trade, from the initial capture of the slaves to their sale in the infamous market of Zanzibar Town.
In the interior, the Arab traders would often take advantage of local rivalries and encourage powerful African tribes to capture their enemies and sell them into slavery. In this way, men, women and children were exchanged for beads, corn or lengths of cloth. When the Arab traders had gathered enough slaves, sometimes up to a thousand, they returned to the coast. Although the Koran forbade cruelty to slaves, this was frequently ignored on the long journey to Zanzibar: the slaves were tied together in long lines, with heavy wooden yokes at their necks or iron chains around their ankles which remained in place day and night until they reached the coast.
The trade in slaves was closely linked to the trade in ivory: the Arab traders also bought tusks from the Africans and some of the captured slaves may have had to carry these on their heads as they marched towards the coast. If a woman carrying a baby on her back became too weak to carry both child and ivory, the child would be killed or abandoned to make the ivory load easier to carry. Any slaves unable to march were also killed and left behind for the vultures and hyenas. The passage of a slave caravan was marked by a long line of decaying corpses.
After many weeks or months of marching, the slave caravans reached the coast at ports such as Kilwa and Bagamoyo. Here, the slaves were loaded onto dhows, seldom more than 30–35m long, and taken to Zanzibar. Each dhow carried between 200 and 600 slaves, all crammed below decks on specially constructed bamboo shelves with about 1m of headroom. There was not enough room to sit, or to kneel or squat, just a crippling combination of the three. Sometimes slaves were closely packed in open boats, their bodies exposed day and night to the sea and the rain. They were thirsty, hungry and seasick and many died of exhaustion. Meals consisted of a daily handful of rice and a cup of stagnant water. Sanitation was non-existent and disease spread rapidly. When any illness was discovered, infected slaves were simply thrown overboard.
By the time the slaves reached Zanzibar, they were suffering from starvation and the effects of torturously cramped conditions: it was sometimes a week after landing before they could straighten their legs. The slave traders paid customs duty on all slaves who landed, so any considered too weak to live were thrown overboard as the ship approached the port. Even so, many more slaves died in the Customs House or on the streets between the port and the market.
Before being put on sale, the slaves who did survive were cleaned so that they would fetch a better price. Men and boys had their skins oiled and were given a strip of material to put around their waist. Women and girls were draped in cloth, and sometimes even adorned with necklaces, earrings and bracelets. Generous layers of henna and kohl were smeared onto their foreheads and eyebrows.
The slaves were put on sale in the market in the late afternoon. They were arranged in lines, with the youngest and smallest at the front and the tallest at the rear, and paraded through the market by their owner, who would call out the selling prices. The owner would assure potential buyers that the slaves had no defects in speech or hearing, and that there was no disease present. Buyers would examine the arms, mouths, teeth and eyes of the slaves, and the slaves were often made to walk or run, to prove they were capable of work. Once their suitability had been established, they were sold to the highest bidder. After being sold to a new owner, slaves were either put to work in the houses and plantations of Zanzibar or else transported again, on a much longer sea voyage, to Oman or elsewhere in the Indian Ocean. However, the slaves were relatively well treated when they arrived at their new homes. They were fed, housed and clothed, and given small plots of land, with time off to tend them. Young mothers were rarely separated from their children, and good slaves were often freed after a few years. Many took paid jobs, such as gardeners and farmers, for their previous masters: some even became leaders of slave caravans or masters of slave ships. Source: Charles Miller 'The Lunatic Express', Macmillan 1971
Seyyid Ali BinHamoud,
the 7th Sultan of the Arab State of Zanzibar (including Zanj region) 1902-1905 was appointed by the British Government as the Sultan of the Arab State of Zanzibar.He issued the final decree abolishing slavery from Zanzibar on 6 April 1897 and for this, he was knighted by Queen Victoria.
Sayyid Ali bin Hamud Al-Busaid (June 7, 1884 - December 20, 1918) was the eighth Sultan of Zanzibar. Ali ruled Zanzibar from July 20, 1902 to December 9, 1911, having succeeded to the throne of the death of his father, the seventh Sultan. He served only briefly as sultan because of illness. In 1911 he abdicated in favour of his brother-in-law Sayyid Khalifa bin Harub Al-Busaid.[
Posts: 42921 | 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.
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?
Because the pure Adnani Arabs are the descendants of Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar. Any descendants of this union are pure Arabs because bring descended from Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar is what makes one a pure Adnani Arab. Concerning the hadith that you mentioned, it's a weak hadith.
weak according to who? Also bro I find it hard to believe ALL those arabs came from the union of just TWO people. Also there are ahadith that says rasolollah (s3w) was white, so are you saying then he wasn't a pure Arab or can "pure Arabs" be any color? I have not looked much into this matter so I am just picking your brain to see where you stand on the issue.
The hadith iud weak according to the Islamic scholars of hadiths. You shouldn't find out strange that all Adnani Arabs descend from Ibrahim (AS) and Hajar. Don't we all descend from Adam and Eve? Concerning the description of the Prophet's (SAWS) complexion, I've explained many times that "white" to the Arabs of the past didn't mean what out means today. Also, the Prophet (SAWS) was described as asmar.
i am new here so don't think I have read your stuff and am ignoring it, not the case. Anyway I will research on this. As for nabi Adam and Eve, this was far longer in time than the time of nabi Ibrahim which was what, 3,000 plus years ago, no? The description I had read of rasolollah description was he was white with reddish checks. Also supposedly there was/is a painting of him from back then some where (again supposedly). Any books you can suggest on this or is it all from your personal investigation into this?
Jazallah khayr
Yes, TypeZeis. The time of Adam and Eve (AS) was far longer than the time of Ibrahim (AS). That's why there are far more descendants of Adam and and Eve than there are of Ibrahim and Hajar.
Concerning that description you read of the Prophet, surely you read it in a book translated into English. That's n ot a correct description of the Prophet (SAWS). He was described as "white", but "white" to the Arabs of the past meant a color much darker than what the color means today. I explain this in my e-book A White Complexion According to the Arabs of the Past. A White Complexion According to the Arabs of the Past. Also, bear in mind that the Prophet (SAWS) was also described as asmar complexioned. Of course there are no paintings of the Prophet (SAWS). I also talk about the meanings of terms used by the Arabs of the past to describe complexions in my book The Unknown Arabs. The Unknown Arabs
To learn more about the appearance of the original Arabs, visit my website Save the True Arabs. Click hereto visit the website.
Baarak Allah Fik.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Hertitage of Qahtani Arabs or Adnani Arabs is not determined by looking. It's determined by geneological record and genetics. For example if your DNA is tested and you are not halpogroup J1 or J2 you are not Qahtani (Southern Arab) or or Adnani Arab (Northern Arab)
Whose words are these Lioness?
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Hertitage of Qahtani Arabs or Adnani Arabs is not determined by looking. It's determined by geneological record and genetics. For example if your DNA is tested and you are not halpogroup J1 or J2 you are not Qahtani (Southern Arab) or or Adnani Arab (Northern Arab)
Whose words are these Lioness?
The above paragraph is all my own words. For example I made a mistake and typed the word "or" twice. This showed I typed it rather than used copy and paste commands as I did when copying other historical information.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Traders from Arabia (mostly Yemen), the Persian Gulf region of Iran (especially Shiraz), and west India probably visited Zanzibar as early as the 1st century AD was under Omani influence from the reign of Imam Sultan bin Seif who conquered the islands from the Portuguese in 1652. Before he returned to Oman, Imam Sultan bin Seif appointed a member of the El-Harthy family to rule the Islands of Zanzibar. The third pillar of the economy was slaves, giving Zanzibar an important place in the Arab slave trade, the Indian Ocean equivalent of the better-known Triangular Trade. The Sultan of Zanzibar controlled a substantial portion of the East African coast, known as Zanj, and extensive inland trading routes. Sometimes gradually, sometimes by fits and starts, control came into the hands of the British Empire; part of the political impetus for this was the movement for the abolition of the slave trade. In 1890 Zanzibar became a British protectorate. Traders began to settle in small numbers on Zanzibar in the late 11th or 12th century, intermarrying with the indigenous Africans. Eventually a hereditary ruler (known as the Mwenyi Mkuu or Jumbe), emerged among the Hadimu, and a similar ruler, called the Sheha, was set up among the Tumbatu. Neither had much power, but they helped solidify the ethnic identity of their respective peoples.
In 1698, Zanzibar became part of the overseas holdings of Oman, falling under the control of the Sultan of Oman. The Portuguese were expelled and a lucrative trade in slaves and ivory thrived, along with an expanding plantation economy centring on cloves. The height of Arab rule came during the reign of Seyyid Said (more fully, Sayyid Said bin Sultan al-Busaid), who in 1840 moved his capital from Muscat in Oman to Stone Town. He established a ruling Arab elite and encouraged the development of clove plantations, using the island's slave labour. Zanzibar was famous worldwide for its spices and its slaves. It was East Africa's main slave-trading port, and in the 19th century as many as 50,000 slaves were passing through the slave markets of Zanzibar each year. (David Livingstone estimated that 80,000 Africans died each year before ever reaching the island.) Tippu Tip was the most notorious slaver, under several sultans, and also a trader, plantation owner and governor.
Tippu Tip
_____________________________________________________ Sayyid Majid bin Said Al-Busaid
Sayyid Majid bin Said Al-Busaid (1834 - October 7, 1870) the first Sultan of Zanzibar. He ruled Zanzibar from October 19, 1856 to October 7, 1870. Majid became Sultan of Zanzibar and Oman on the death of his father, Sayyid Said bin Sultan, but his accession was contested. Following the struggle over the accession to the position of Sultan of Oman, Zanzibar and Oman were divided into two separate principalities, with Majid ruling Zanzibar and his older brother Sayyid Thuwaini bin Said al-Busaid ruling Oman. His reign was infamous in that he consolidated his power around the East African slave trade. His descendants would later follow this practice. Barghash bin Said claimed to halt the slave trade, but he continued this until the United Kingdom gained protectorate over the colony.
___________________________________________
Sayyid Barghash bin Said Al-Busaid
Sayyid Barghash bin Said Al-Busaid was the second Sultan of Zanzibar. He signed an agreement with Britain in 1870, prohibiting slave trade in his kingdom, and closing the great slave market in Mkunazini but trade was still going on. Britain had passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833 abolishing slavery throughout most of the British Empire .
From the earliest times, slaves were one of the many 'commodities' exported from Africa to Arabia, Persia, India and beyond. In the 18th century the demand increased considerably and Arab trading caravans from Zanzibar penetrated mainland Africa in search of suitable slaves. Various contemporary accounts describe all aspects of the trade, from the initial capture of the slaves to their sale in the infamous market of Zanzibar Town.
In the interior, the Arab traders would often take advantage of local rivalries and encourage powerful African tribes to capture their enemies and sell them into slavery. In this way, men, women and children were exchanged for beads, corn or lengths of cloth. When the Arab traders had gathered enough slaves, sometimes up to a thousand, they returned to the coast. Although the Koran forbade cruelty to slaves, this was frequently ignored on the long journey to Zanzibar: the slaves were tied together in long lines, with heavy wooden yokes at their necks or iron chains around their ankles which remained in place day and night until they reached the coast.
The trade in slaves was closely linked to the trade in ivory: the Arab traders also bought tusks from the Africans and some of the captured slaves may have had to carry these on their heads as they marched towards the coast. If a woman carrying a baby on her back became too weak to carry both child and ivory, the child would be killed or abandoned to make the ivory load easier to carry. Any slaves unable to march were also killed and left behind for the vultures and hyenas. The passage of a slave caravan was marked by a long line of decaying corpses.
After many weeks or months of marching, the slave caravans reached the coast at ports such as Kilwa and Bagamoyo. Here, the slaves were loaded onto dhows, seldom more than 30–35m long, and taken to Zanzibar. Each dhow carried between 200 and 600 slaves, all crammed below decks on specially constructed bamboo shelves with about 1m of headroom. There was not enough room to sit, or to kneel or squat, just a crippling combination of the three. Sometimes slaves were closely packed in open boats, their bodies exposed day and night to the sea and the rain. They were thirsty, hungry and seasick and many died of exhaustion. Meals consisted of a daily handful of rice and a cup of stagnant water. Sanitation was non-existent and disease spread rapidly. When any illness was discovered, infected slaves were simply thrown overboard.
By the time the slaves reached Zanzibar, they were suffering from starvation and the effects of torturously cramped conditions: it was sometimes a week after landing before they could straighten their legs. The slave traders paid customs duty on all slaves who landed, so any considered too weak to live were thrown overboard as the ship approached the port. Even so, many more slaves died in the Customs House or on the streets between the port and the market.
Before being put on sale, the slaves who did survive were cleaned so that they would fetch a better price. Men and boys had their skins oiled and were given a strip of material to put around their waist. Women and girls were draped in cloth, and sometimes even adorned with necklaces, earrings and bracelets. Generous layers of henna and kohl were smeared onto their foreheads and eyebrows.
The slaves were put on sale in the market in the late afternoon. They were arranged in lines, with the youngest and smallest at the front and the tallest at the rear, and paraded through the market by their owner, who would call out the selling prices. The owner would assure potential buyers that the slaves had no defects in speech or hearing, and that there was no disease present. Buyers would examine the arms, mouths, teeth and eyes of the slaves, and the slaves were often made to walk or run, to prove they were capable of work. Once their suitability had been established, they were sold to the highest bidder. After being sold to a new owner, slaves were either put to work in the houses and plantations of Zanzibar or else transported again, on a much longer sea voyage, to Oman or elsewhere in the Indian Ocean. However, the slaves were relatively well treated when they arrived at their new homes. They were fed, housed and clothed, and given small plots of land, with time off to tend them. Young mothers were rarely separated from their children, and good slaves were often freed after a few years. Many took paid jobs, such as gardeners and farmers, for their previous masters: some even became leaders of slave caravans or masters of slave ships. Source: Charles Miller 'The Lunatic Express', Macmillan 1971
Seyyid Ali BinHamoud,
the 7th Sultan of the Arab State of Zanzibar (including Zanj region) 1902-1905 was appointed by the British Government as the Sultan of the Arab State of Zanzibar.He issued the final decree abolishing slavery from Zanzibar on 6 April 1897 and for this, he was knighted by Queen Victoria.
Sayyid Ali bin Hamud Al-Busaid (June 7, 1884 - December 20, 1918) was the eighth Sultan of Zanzibar. Ali ruled Zanzibar from July 20, 1902 to December 9, 1911, having succeeded to the throne of the death of his father, the seventh Sultan. He served only briefly as sultan because of illness. In 1911 he abdicated in favour of his brother-in-law Sayyid Khalifa bin Harub Al-Busaid.[
I don't understand what you want to say by posting all of this.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
the topic is Arab slavery, obviously Zanzibar is pertinant to that topic and includes two Sultans who appear on your website
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Hertitage of Qahtani Arabs or Adnani Arabs is not determined by looking. It's determined by geneological record and genetics. For example if your DNA is tested and you are not halpogroup J1 or J2 you are not Qahtani (Southern Arab) or or Adnani Arab (Northern Arab)
Whose words are these Lioness?
For example I made a mistake and typed the word "or" twice. This showed I typed it rather than used copy and paste commands as I did when copying other historical information.
Does it? How does it show that you typed it? You can copy and past it and then add an or to say what you are saying now. You must really take me for a fool.
Anyway, I just asked you if they were your words so you can tell me how you know that J1 and J2 are Qahtani and Adnani haplogroups. Do you have samples of Qahtan and Adnan's DNA?
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| 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?
The following were the first Islamic Conquests
The conquest of Syria, 637 The conquest of Armenia, 639 The conquest of Egypt, 639 The conquest of North Africa, 652 The conquest of Cyprus, 654
^^^within this, the Rashidun period, some of this was comprised of black Africans. There were also slaves brought in from Ethiopia.
I honestly don't understand what you are talking about here. And what are you saying about Ethiopia? And when and how were slaves brought in from Ethiopia??? During which war???
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
awlaadberry - So you want to "Save the true Arabs".
WHY????
Oh, BTW, here is a better picture of ALI BIN HAMUD.
Back to the point, those Negroes CHOSE their path. Their path was White pussy - and they made sure that their harems were well stocked with it.
(Members of the Arabian harem)
Logically, even the most ignorant self-hating Negro, knows that when he makes babies with White women, his offspring is likely to become lighter and lighter, as they too continue the process.
Logically then, this Negro does not WANT to be Black! Thus if you are a self-respecting Black man, why would you want to waste your time on self-hating Negroes like them?
This is what they wanted. And this is what they got! Leave them to it.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: the topic is Arab slavery, obviously Zanzibar is pertinant to that topic and includes two Sultans who appear on your website
What about the two Sultans? And what about Hamad bin Muḥammad bin Jumah bin Rajab bin Muḥammad bin Sa‘īd al-Murghabī (Tippu Tip)?
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^My people are Black people, not ignorant Negroes. Take note, even the Berbers, who had a similar love of White pussy. When given the chance, they aspired to greater things. They can at least point to the great civilization they created in Spain.
What can the Arabs point to?
Only Mulattoes, lots and lots of Mulattoes. He,he, BLACK HATING MULATTOES! Ha, ha, ha.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: What can the Arabs point to?
They can point to conquering the Roman and Persian superpowers of the time and ruling most of the civilized world for quite some time and conquering Egypt and all of the Berber lands and giving them their language, and, and, and... Need I continue?
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^My people are Black people, not ignorant Negroes.
What's the difference between Black and Negro? One is Spanish and the other is English, but same meaning.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
1) The "Arab" army was not really Arab. Where would all of those troops have come from - it was Greeks and other leftovers - the "Mawali".
2) Egypt did NOT fight them - they wanted to be rid of the Greeks.
3) Persia destroyed itself, the Arabs just put them out of their misery.
4) The TURKS destroyed what was left of the Romans.
Then they took it ALL from the ignorant Arabs!
Quote: The Arab caliph al-Qa'im (reigned 1031–75) replaced the last Buyid's name, al-Malik al-Rahim, in the khutbah and on the coins, with that of Toghril Beg; and after protracted negotiation ensuring restoration of the caliph's dignity after Shi'ite subjugation, Toghril entered Baghdad in December 1055. The Arab caliph enthroned him and married a Seljuq princess.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think these pictures are wrong and racist. these pictures are from 1800. long after the Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula (700 - 1500) Always the black woman appears below of white woman. black women is always servant
sure the painter was white and wished to highlight white women. We know that the protagonists were blacks. The white always wanting to appear!
Posts: 2922 | From: World Empire of the Black People | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^My people are Black people, not ignorant Negroes.
What's the difference between Black and Negro? One is Spanish and the other is English, but same meaning.
Yes, same meaning, but a much different connotation!
A Negro is a dark skinned person who is uncomfortable with being called Black, and Blackness in general. Being called Black is much too assertive for one like him, who has been beaten-down and intimated by the Whites. He has learned that to please Whites, he must be more like Whites, therein lays his love of White pussy. Thus he needs the same meaning from another language to give him comfort.
Black is the opposite of that.
BTW - Don't ask me who did this to the Arabs - Greeks, Romans, Bactrians???
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Yes, you DO need to continue!
1) The "Arab" army was not really Arab. Where would all of those troops have come from - it was Greeks and other leftovers - the "Mawali".
2) Egypt did NOT fight them - they wanted to be rid of the Greeks.
3) Persia destroyed itself, the Arabs just put them out of their misery.
4) The TURKS destroyed what was left of the Romans.
1) The "Arab" army was not really Arab. Where would all of those troops have come from - it was Greeks and other leftovers - the "Mawali".
THE ARAB ARMY WAS ARAB. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
2) Egypt did NOT fight them - they wanted to be rid of the Greeks.
WHATEVER. THEY WERE CONQUERED AND RULED BY THE ARABS WHETHER THEY WANTED TO BE CONQUERED AND RULED OR NOT.
3) Persia destroyed itself, the Arabs just put them out of their misery.
YES. CHOSROES II TORN UP HIS KINGDOM WHEN HE TORN UP THE LETTER THE PROPHET MOHAMED (SAWS) SENT TO HIM INVITING HIM AND HIS PEOPLE TO ISLAM. WHEN HE TORE UP THE LETTER, THE PROPHET (SAWS) PRAYED "MAY ALLAH TEAR UP HIS KINGDOM". AND HE DID. SO YOU ARE RIGHT. PERSIA DESTROYED ITSELF.
4) The TURKS destroyed what was left of the Romans.
THE ARABS CONQUERED THE ROMANS.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QUOTE]Originally posted by awlaadberry: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness: [qb]
Given this intermarriage and captives taken in war, part of this "flooding" of Arabia with foreigners how could you distinguish these Nubians from what you call the "true Arabs" ?
First of all, Nubia wasn't conquered by the Arabs. Persian, Roman, and Byzantine territories were. That's were the bulk of slaves were taken from. Those are the outsiders who flooded the Arabian Peninsula. Why are you looking at Nubia and Nubia was never conquered by the Arabs? Most of the slaves came as a result of being war captives after being conquered. Look at the conquered countries to see where the slaves came from.
Secondly, on the other thread I showed you the description of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia and I showed you the fact that there was NO NON-ARAB BLOOD RUNNING THROUGH HIS VEINS. That means no Nubian blood either. Didn't I distinguish there between Nubians and true Arabs??? I don't understand what it takes for you to understand this. HIS DESCRIPTION SHOWS YOU WHAT A TRUE ARAB LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE HE WAS A PURE ARAB. I can't be any clearer than this Lioness.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QUOTE]Originally posted by awlaadberry: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness: [qb]
Because of this what good is it to describe the skin and hair of the "original Arabs" when this "flooding" of foreigners you mention includes various people also black Africans who had, according tou you, the same type of hair and skin- yet were not "original Arabs" ?? This means that dark skinned persons with kinky hair who have lived in Arabia for hundreds of years may or may not be, according to your skin color definitions, "true Arabs".
WHAT???
I said that Arabia became flooded with Romans, Persians, Greeks, Turks, Slavs. I didn't say it became flooded with Nubians and it didn't because Nubia wasn't conquered by the Arabs. The Arabs who were dark-skinned with kinky hair were known Arabs because they knew their genealogy - not just because they had dark skin and kinky hair. I told you description of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia and and told you about his pure Arab genealogy. I told you the description of 'Ubada ibn Al-Samit, who was pure Arab descendant of Sabaa from his father's side and his mother's side. They weren't from Nubia or Ethiopia. Their dark skin and kinky hair is from their Arab genes. There were no Nubian or Ethiopian genes running through their bodies.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [qb] ^Yes, you DO need to continue!
1) The "Arab" army was not really Arab. Where would all of those troops have come from - it was Greeks and other leftovers - the "Mawali".
2) Egypt did NOT fight them - they wanted to be rid of the Greeks.
3) Persia destroyed itself, the Arabs just put them out of their misery.
4) The TURKS destroyed what was left of the Romans.
Then they took it ALL from the ignorant Arabs!
Quote: The Arab caliph al-Qa'im (reigned 1031–75) replaced the last Buyid's name, al-Malik al-Rahim, in the khutbah and on the coins, with that of Toghril Beg; and after protracted negotiation ensuring restoration of the caliph's dignity after Shi'ite subjugation, Toghril entered Baghdad in December 1055. The Arab caliph enthroned him and married a Seljuq princess.
1) The "Arab" army was not really Arab. Where would all of those troops have come from - it was Greeks and other leftovers - the "Mawali".
THE ARAB ARMY WAS ARAB. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
Did you look up "Mawali"?
THE ARABS CONQUERED THE ROMANS.
Damn awlaadberry, I thought you were a serious person. Even if you had only gone to Wiki, you would have learned better.
Mehmed II "the Conqueror" in Ottoman Turkish, or, in modern Turkish, Fatih Sultan Mehmet; was Sultan of the Ottoman Empire (Rûm until the conquest) for a short time from 1444 to September 1446, and later from February 1451 to 1481. At the age of 21, he conquered Constantinople and brought an end to the Byzantine Empire, absorbing its administrative apparatus into the Ottoman state. Mehmet continued his conquests in Asia, with the Anatolian reunification, and in Europe, as far as Belgrade. Mehmed II is regarded as a national hero in Turkey, and his name is given to Istanbul's Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [qb] ^Yes, you DO need to continue!
1) The "Arab" army was not really Arab. Where would all of those troops have come from - it was Greeks and other leftovers - the "Mawali".
2) Egypt did NOT fight them - they wanted to be rid of the Greeks.
3) Persia destroyed itself, the Arabs just put them out of their misery.
4) The TURKS destroyed what was left of the Romans.
Then they took it ALL from the ignorant Arabs!
Quote: The Arab caliph al-Qa'im (reigned 1031–75) replaced the last Buyid's name, al-Malik al-Rahim, in the khutbah and on the coins, with that of Toghril Beg; and after protracted negotiation ensuring restoration of the caliph's dignity after Shi'ite subjugation, Toghril entered Baghdad in December 1055. The Arab caliph enthroned him and married a Seljuq princess.
1) The "Arab" army was not really Arab. Where would all of those troops have come from - it was Greeks and other leftovers - the "Mawali".
THE ARAB ARMY WAS ARAB. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
Did you look up "Mawali"?
THE ARABS CONQUERED THE ROMANS.
Damn awlaadberry, I thought you were a serious person. Even if you had only gone to Wiki, you would have learned better.
Mehmed II "the Conqueror" in Ottoman Turkish, or, in modern Turkish, Fatih Sultan Mehmet; was Sultan of the Ottoman Empire (Rûm until the conquest) for a short time from 1444 to September 1446, and later from February 1451 to 1481. At the age of 21, he conquered Constantinople and brought an end to the Byzantine Empire, absorbing its administrative apparatus into the Ottoman state. Mehmet continued his conquests in Asia, with the Anatolian reunification, and in Europe, as far as Belgrade. Mehmed II is regarded as a national hero in Turkey, and his name is given to Istanbul's Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge.
I don't need to look up the word "mawaali" because I know what it means. What about it? Do you really need me to tell you that the Arabs defeated the Romans??? Ask Heraclius whether the Arabs defeated the Romans. Have you ever heard of the Battle of Yarmouk?
And why are you posting pictures of events that took place in the 15th century. I'm talking about way before that, Dude.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, I never thought I would see Mike School anyone on authentic history, but Alwaad has just been exposed.
1) Mike is correct the Arabs did not conquer the Romans alone, nor did they conquer Byzantium, the Turks did, as Mike is implying.
2) The Egyptians wanted to get rid of the Greeks, and the Byzantines and Persians were already weak and vunerable from wars they had waged. The Arabs simply took advantage.
3) Mike is correct(GASP) that the Arabs have nothing to point to or claim as civilization, except Petra and Bhagdad and even that was influenced by non Arabs..
How pathetic...Why would an African in his right mind want to claim Arab identity..LMAO
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: LOL, I never thought I would see Mike School anyone on authentic history, but Alwaad has just been exposed.
1) Mike is correct the Arabs did not conquer the Romans alone, nor did they conquer Byzantium, the Turks did, as Mike is implying.
2) The Egyptians wanted to get rid of the Greeks, and the Byzantines and Persians were already weak and vunerable from wars they had waged. The Arabs simply took advantage.
3) Mike is correct(GASP) that the Arabs have nothing to point to or claim as civilization, except Petra and Bhagdad and even that was influenced by non Arabs..
How pathetic...Why would an African in his right mind want to claim Arab identity..LMAO
I definitely don't have time for YOUR nonsense.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Arabs did not defeat the Romans alone..stop lying. First off Rome had already fell by this time,The Roman army was not the same Army. Second Many non Arabs were involved....for example the Berbers were involved in conquering Italy, Spain, etc.
The Arabs could barely handle the Island of Sicily.
The Turks took Byzantium....
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [qb] ^Yes, you DO need to continue!
1) The "Arab" army was not really Arab. Where would all of those troops have come from - it was Greeks and other leftovers - the "Mawali".
2) Egypt did NOT fight them - they wanted to be rid of the Greeks.
3) Persia destroyed itself, the Arabs just put them out of their misery.
4) The TURKS destroyed what was left of the Romans.
Then they took it ALL from the ignorant Arabs!
Quote: The Arab caliph al-Qa'im (reigned 1031–75) replaced the last Buyid's name, al-Malik al-Rahim, in the khutbah and on the coins, with that of Toghril Beg; and after protracted negotiation ensuring restoration of the caliph's dignity after Shi'ite subjugation, Toghril entered Baghdad in December 1055. The Arab caliph enthroned him and married a Seljuq princess.
1) The "Arab" army was not really Arab. Where would all of those troops have come from - it was Greeks and other leftovers - the "Mawali".
THE ARAB ARMY WAS ARAB. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
Did you look up "Mawali"?
THE ARABS CONQUERED THE ROMANS.
Damn awlaadberry, I thought you were a serious person. Even if you had only gone to Wiki, you would have learned better.
Mehmed II "the Conqueror" in Ottoman Turkish, or, in modern Turkish, Fatih Sultan Mehmet; was Sultan of the Ottoman Empire (Rûm until the conquest) for a short time from 1444 to September 1446, and later from February 1451 to 1481. At the age of 21, he conquered Constantinople and brought an end to the Byzantine Empire, absorbing its administrative apparatus into the Ottoman state. Mehmet continued his conquests in Asia, with the Anatolian reunification, and in Europe, as far as Belgrade. Mehmed II is regarded as a national hero in Turkey, and his name is given to Istanbul's Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge.
I don't need to look up the word "mawaali" because I know what it means. What about it? Do you really need me to tell you that the Arabs defeated the Romans??? Ask Heraclius whether the Arabs defeated the Romans. Have you ever heard of the Battle of Yarmouk?
posted
you are trying to distort history, I don't care what you have time for. Stop Lying the Arabs did not conquer Rome?? Muslims conquered certain parts of the Roman Empire like Spain, Sicily, and Italy but it was short lived and comprised of many non Arabs.
The Arabs did not conquer Britian nor Western Europe, the Normans quickly ousted the Muslims, and the Spanish under Castile and Navarre eventually ousted the Muslims from Spain.
Heck the Arabs did not even conquer Byzantium..lol.
To say the Arabs conquered the Roman Empire is a lie and you know it...
Pathetic.
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: LOL, I never thought I would see Mike School anyone on authentic history, but Alwaad has just been exposed.
1) Mike is correct the Arabs did not conquer the Romans alone, nor did they conquer Byzantium, the Turks did, as Mike is implying.
2) The Egyptians wanted to get rid of the Greeks, and the Byzantines and Persians were already weak and vunerable from wars they had waged. The Arabs simply took advantage.
3) Mike is correct(GASP) that the Arabs have nothing to point to or claim as civilization, except Petra and Bhagdad and even that was influenced by non Arabs..
How pathetic...Why would an African in his right mind want to claim Arab identity..LMAO
I definitely don't have time for YOUR nonsense.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing the Arabs could conquer is other Arabs and disorganized Jewish Tribes. Once Islam spread to non Arabs then we suddenly see "Arab Culture" flowering and "Arab Empires". It was the takng of Egypt that gave the Arabs any legitimacy and as Mike said it was not even a real victory. The Greeks in Egypt were defenceless because Byzantium was already in a War with Persia, and the Greeks were hated by the Egyptians.
Majority of Islamic culture comes from Byzantine Influences.
The Syrians and Greeks were also vital to Arab victories. The Perisan Influence is also vital.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
awlaadberry - I see that you are confused. The Battle of Yarmouk: The result of the battle was a complete Muslim victory which permanently ended Byzantine rule south of Anatolia.
That is not the same as ending or destroying the Roman Empire.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
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?
The following were the first Islamic Conquests
The conquest of Syria, 637 The conquest of Armenia, 639 The conquest of Egypt, 639 The conquest of North Africa, 652 The conquest of Cyprus, 654
^^^within this, the Rashidun period, some of this was comprised of black Africans. There were also slaves brought in from Ethiopia.
You describe Arabia as being flooded with captives. This seems odd that the Arabs had a large enough army to conquer these places yet they brought in so many captives (some black as per some of the regions above) but so many not black that these non-black slaves captives then intermingled with the native population to the extent large enough to change the basic character of the population in general. With this many incoming captives it's a wonder they were defeated. How do you even them them all in line?
If the Arabs allowed more outsders in then they themselves comprised what is the value of an Arab identity? And where in the history do Arabs distinguish themselves from these influxes? For example, conquests of non-blacks aside. Let's look at the Conquest of Nubia 700-1606:
Regularly renewed treaties known as AlBaqt (pactum) with the Nubians that governed relations between the two peoples for more than six hundred years. Therefore Islam progressed peacefully in the area through intermarriage and contacts with Arab merchants and settlers over a long period of time after the earlier attempts at conquering Nubia (in the 7th century) failed. This period of peacful interaction inlcuded annual tributes paid in slaves and other goods. However, In 1171 AD the Nubians invaded Egypt, but they were defeated by the Muslim Ayyubids. From 1172 - 1173 AD the Ayyubids fought and defeated another Nubian invasion force which had penetrated Egypt. This time the Ayyubids not only repelled the invasion, but actually conquered some parts of northern Nubia in retaliation. In the late 13th century the Sultan of Egypt,Sultan Baybar, defeated and subjugated the kingdom of Nubia. Sultan Baybar made the Kingdom of Nubia a vassal state of Egypt. Decades later In 1315 the Christian kingdom of Nubia was conquered by the Mamelukes, and a Muslim prince of Nubian royal blood was placed on the throne of Dongola as king. During the 15th century, the Funj, an indigenous people appeared in southern Nubia and established the Kingdom of Sinnar, also known as As-Saltana az-Zarqa (the Blue Sultanate). The kingdom officially converted to Islam in 1523 and by 1606 it had supplanted the old Christian kingdom of Alwa (Alodia) and controlled an area spreading over the northern and central regions of modern day Sudan thereby becoming the first Islamic Kingdom in Sudan. Their kingdom lasted until 1821.
Given this intermarriage and captives taken in war, part of this "flooding" of Arabia with foreigners how could you distinguish these Nubians from what you call the "true Arabs" ? We also have the eralier conquest of Egypt in 639. Again, the same question, if some of them were blacks then how can we, based on looks, distinguish them from the "true Arabs" ? Because of this what good is it to describe the skin and hair of the "original Arabs" when this "flooding" of foreigners you mention includes various people also black Africans who had, according tou you, the same type of hair and skin- yet were not "original Arabs" ?? This means that dark skinned persons with kinky hair who have lived in Arabia for hundreds of years may or may not be, according to your skin color definitions, "true Arabs".
___________________________________________
In a separate issue:
Amongst pre-Islamic Arabs people classified themselves according to their Confederation, their tribe, their clan, and then their house/family. There were two Tribal Confederations;
1) the Adnani (originating from "Adnan", the traditional ancestor of the Arabs of northern, central and western Arabia), Muhammad belonged to the Banu Hashim is one of the clans of the Quraysh tribe, of the Adnani confederation.
2) the Qahtani (originating from "Qahtan", the traditional ancestor of the Arabs of southern and south eastern Arabia).
Are both tribes, Adani and Qahtani "true Arabs" ?
They seem to have different origins. Genetically the Adani are halpogroup J1 while the Qahtani are haplogroup J2
Haplogroup J1 (Adani's haplogroup) is associated with Northeast Caucasian peoples in Dagestan and Semitic peoples in Mesopotamia, the Levant, the Arabian Peninsula, Ethiopia, and North Africa
Haplogroup J2 M172) Qahtani's halplogroup) Found mainly in Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Levant, Greece, the Balkans, Italy and the Caucasus
My thoughts on slavery are that it shouldn't exist and yet black people and all the worlds people have practiced it. It was like everything else most likely started among black people, whether in Mesopotamia or in Africa.
It is the colonialist administrators that said Hijaz was flooded by foreigners even in their time. Hence we learn for example that the inhabitants “of Mecca , with the exception of a few Hedjaz Bedouin are foreigners, either foreigners or the offspring of foreigners…” - same thing with Jiddah. M’Culloch’s Universal Gazeteer: A dictionary geographical, statistical and historical of the various countries places, and principal natural object of the world. Vol. 2 part I. NY: Harper & Brothers. p. 332.
The majority of the foreign habitation has come in the last few centuries Hijaz as in North and Central Arabia came in the last few centuries.
In the Yemen it came earlier from Persia as early as the Parthian period round headed Armenoid people were trickling in but most came in the early Abbasid period. Even forcing the Arabs out of places like Sana'a which is probably how the Arabs turned into black nationalists and racists looking down on fair skin. Someone told me Arabs in the Persian Gulf today speak Arabic with Iranian accents.
The original southern Arabs existing in Muhammad's time and the Adnanis claimed biological connection in early times. The tradition you talk about only developed among non-Arabs in Persia and Syria which was carried Westward by European Jews to other places and refers more to a political division rather than an ethnic one. Tariq tried to tell you that and I also showed you that south Arabian genealogy does not seperate Ismailites or Adnanis from the Qahtanis.
Banu Adnan, if that's what you mean came to be called Kidar, Nabit (Nabataeans), Sulaym, Hawazin, Ghatafan and Beni Amir bin Zaza'a or Kinaaniyya Hudhail etc. In Arabia, Syria and Iraq most of these tribes are still near black and in Iraq are among those denigrated with the term "abid". I have posted many times about the Banu Kinaaniyya or Kena'ana from whom we get the term Canaanite - a people that came to epitomize blackness for the Iranians and Syrians such as Qutaybah, Wah ibn Munabbih and St. Ephraim, etc.
Attempts to link these black people i.e. abid genetically with the fairer skinned Armenoid looking people of the Levant have not been attempted for obvious reasons.
I am personally trying to figure out how the tribes of Adnan always described still dark and near black in color wearing kinky plaits in their hair ever came to be confused with modern Syrians.
The Nabit, Kedar and Canaan all came to mean black because of them not some white Syrian. " the Akkbar al Zaman, which lists the Nabit , among the children of Canaan… also said the word, ‘Nabit’ signifies ‘black’…” The Curse of Ham(David Goldenberg, p. 313 and 352)
Needless to say the word Kedar, Qidar also meant black and is probably related to the word akhdar.
The tribes of the volcanic harra region like Harrat al Sulaymi where dwelt Banu Sulaym, Hawazin and Azd are referred to as "black" clans taking Byzantine women as slaves. Ibn Athir also says that Saad al Aswad was black because he was a pure Arab from Sulaym.
Ibn Khaldun mentions the Hawazin groups of Bani Amir bin Sa sa'a now called abid in Iraq as the most numerous of all the Adnan or Mudar tribes. "Ibn Khaldun states on the authority of Ibn Hazm that the great sept of the banu ‘Amir ibn Sa’sa’ah alone equaled in numbers all the other Modarite tribes." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland Vol, 18 (McKay, 1886, pp. 492-493).
Those groups known as Beni Amir bin Sasa'a who left Central Nejd in the 9th century and conquered Syria and Iraq are complaining about being called "abid" and being treated like dogs in Iraq are the northern Arabs of the time of 14th century. So called Arabs by adoption from Hajar a tribe of the Azd.
Thats how much the current population of north Arabia has changed in the last 600 years.
Obviously the Chinese manuscripts that describe the people of Hijaz as of a "deep purple color" in the 14th c. are not the Arabs of modern day Lebanon and Syria.
The Quraysh descendants of Kena'ana still live among the latter in Israel/Syria Palestine today despising their own black skin. Kinaanah and Quraish are both described as black in Abbasid texts.
Now what is the importance of their Arab identity is that what your asking? Well I fail to see why these people should be written out of their own history just because fair-skinned Syrian and Iranian people with other genes decided at some point they wanted to be related to Muhammad.
or because people like you would rather rely on some European "scholars" that still don't know what early Syrians and Central Asians said about the appearance of the Arabs because they would rather rely on a Westernized Hebrew view of "Noah" and Afro-Asiatic history.
BTW - I can assure you the kinky-haired dark brown Mahra, Yafa'a, and other true Qahtan people mentioned in Himyarite and Sabaean inscriptions stretching between Africa and Eastern Arabia still speaking their Himyarite dialects have little genetically in common with people from modern Levant. I can also assure you they haven't even been included in studies of the Qahtan people. lol!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alwaad is trying to distort history by claiming Muslim=Arabs. The fact is the Muslims who competed with the Byzantines were mainly non Arabs and were people who were experienced in Warfare like Syrians etc.
The Rushidun Army..
Only Muslims were allowed to join the Rashidun army as regular troops. During the Ridda wars in the reign of Caliph Abu Bakr, the army mainly consisted of the corps from Madinah, Mecca and Taif. Later on during the conquest of Iraq in 633 many bedouin corps were recruited in the forces as regular troops. During the Islamic conquest of Sassanid Persia (633-656), some 12,000 elite Persian troops converted to Islam and served later on during the wholescale invasion of the empire. During the Muslim conquest of Roman Syria (633-638) some 4,000 Greek Byzantine soldiers under their commander Joachim (later Abdullah Joachim) converted to Islam and served as regular troops in the conquest of both Anatolia and Egypt. During the conquest of Egypt (641-644), Coptic converts to Islam were recruited and eased the conquest. During the conquest of North Africa, Berber converts to Islam were recruited as regular troops, who later made the bulk of the Rashidun army and later the Ummayad army in Africa.
Let the Lies stop Alwaadberry!!!
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: you are trying to distort history, I don't care what you have time for. Stop Lying the Arabs did not conquer Rome?? Muslims conquered certain parts of the Roman Empire like Spain, Sicily, and Italy but it was short lived and comprised of many non Arabs.
The Arabs did not conquer Britian nor Western Europe, the Normans quickly ousted the Muslims, and the Spanish under Castile and Navarre eventually ousted the Muslims from Spain.
Heck the Arabs did not even conquer Byzantium..lol.
To say the Arabs conquered the Roman Empire is a lie and you know it...
Pathetic.
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: LOL, I never thought I would see Mike School anyone on authentic history, but Alwaad has just been exposed.
1) Mike is correct the Arabs did not conquer the Romans alone, nor did they conquer Byzantium, the Turks did, as Mike is implying.
2) The Egyptians wanted to get rid of the Greeks, and the Byzantines and Persians were already weak and vunerable from wars they had waged. The Arabs simply took advantage.
3) Mike is correct(GASP) that the Arabs have nothing to point to or claim as civilization, except Petra and Bhagdad and even that was influenced by non Arabs..
How pathetic...Why would an African in his right mind want to claim Arab identity..LMAO
I definitely don't have time for YOUR nonsense.
"Benefiting from their weakened condition, the Arab Muslim armies swiftly conquered the entire Sassanid Empire, and deprived the Eastern Roman Empire of its territories in the Levant, the Caucasus, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa. Over the following centuries, most of the Eastern Roman Empire came under Muslim rule."
"The Rashidun Caliphate Army or Rashidun army was the primary military body of the Rashidun Caliphate's armed forces during the Muslim conquests of the 7th century, serving alongside the Rashidun Navy. The Rashidun army maintained a high level of discipline, strategic prowess, and organization.
In its time, the Rashidun army was one of the most powerful and effective military forces in the world. The size of the Rashidun army was initially 13,000 troops in 632, but as the Caliphate expanded, the army gradually grew to 100,000 troops by 657. The two most successful generals of the Rashidun army were Khalid ibn al-Walid, who conquered Persian Mesopotamia and conquered Roman Syria, and 'Amr ibn al-'As, who conquered Roman Egypt."
Only Muslims were allowed to join the Rashidun army as regular troops. During the Ridda wars in the reign of Caliph Abu Bakr, the army mainly consisted of the corps from Madinah, Mecca and Taif. Later on during the conquest of Iraq in 633 many bedouin corps were recruited in the forces as regular troops. During the Islamic conquest of Sassanid Persia (633-656), some 12,000 elite Persian troops converted to Islam and served later on during the wholescale invasion of the empire. During the Muslim conquest of Roman Syria (633-638) some 4,000 Greek Byzantine soldiers under their commander Joachim (later Abdullah Joachim) converted to Islam and served as regular troops in the conquest of both Anatolia and Egypt. During the conquest of Egypt (641-644), Coptic converts to Islam were recruited and eased the conquest. During the conquest of North Africa, Berber converts to Islam were recruited as regular troops, who later made the bulk of the Rashidun army and later the Ummayad army in Africa.
The Rushidun Army was not pure Arabs!!!
LET THE LIES STOP!!!!!!!
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: you are trying to distort history, I don't care what you have time for. Stop Lying the Arabs did not conquer Rome?? Muslims conquered certain parts of the Roman Empire like Spain, Sicily, and Italy but it was short lived and comprised of many non Arabs.
The Arabs did not conquer Britian nor Western Europe, the Normans quickly ousted the Muslims, and the Spanish under Castile and Navarre eventually ousted the Muslims from Spain.
Heck the Arabs did not even conquer Byzantium..lol.
To say the Arabs conquered the Roman Empire is a lie and you know it...
Pathetic.
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: LOL, I never thought I would see Mike School anyone on authentic history, but Alwaad has just been exposed.
1) Mike is correct the Arabs did not conquer the Romans alone, nor did they conquer Byzantium, the Turks did, as Mike is implying.
2) The Egyptians wanted to get rid of the Greeks, and the Byzantines and Persians were already weak and vunerable from wars they had waged. The Arabs simply took advantage.
3) Mike is correct(GASP) that the Arabs have nothing to point to or claim as civilization, except Petra and Bhagdad and even that was influenced by non Arabs..
How pathetic...Why would an African in his right mind want to claim Arab identity..LMAO
I definitely don't have time for YOUR nonsense.
"Benefiting from their weakened condition, the Arab Muslim armies swiftly conquered the entire Sassanid Empire, and deprived the Eastern Roman Empire of its territories in the Levant, the Caucasus, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa. Over the following centuries, most of the Eastern Roman Empire came under Muslim rule."
"The Rashidun Caliphate Army or Rashidun army was the primary military body of the Rashidun Caliphate's armed forces during the Muslim conquests of the 7th century, serving alongside the Rashidun Navy. The Rashidun army maintained a high level of discipline, strategic prowess, and organization.
In its time, the Rashidun army was one of the most powerful and effective military forces in the world. The size of the Rashidun army was initially 13,000 troops in 632, but as the Caliphate expanded, the army gradually grew to 100,000 troops by 657. The two most successful generals of the Rashidun army were Khalid ibn al-Walid, who conquered Persian Mesopotamia and conquered Roman Syria, and 'Amr ibn al-'As, who conquered Roman Egypt."
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic