posted
Come on Alwaadberry, that was just a warm up. Lets go for round two....
Answer Mike's question...what can the Arabs point too??
Mike is right...why should we help the Pure Arabs, they got themselves into their situation, even you yourself claim White slaves flooded Arabia and changed the phenotype of the original Arabs so why should we care, What have the Arabs done??
Don't run, that was just a warm up.... MUH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
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-: LET THE LIES STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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."
This is the "black ops" period Wesley talks about in Black Arabia.lol! The descriptions of Khalid and Amr and the Arab groups in the armies of this time prove that. According to P. Crone Khalid alias teh Drawn sword of Allah was black and over 6 ft. (small in respect to other Arabs) from the extremely black clan of al Mughira mentioned by Jahiz belonging to the still mainly black tribe of Quraysh.
Amr ibn al as a black Arab whose black mother was "from Ethiopia" led troops of the black Mahra/Mahara from Banu Quda'a and the black giant Banu Akk of the extremely black southern Arabian Banu Azd Sanuah branch of Kahlan (son of Qahtan). From the name of Akk comes the Biblical name Og.
Why shouldn't these Mahra, Azd and tar black and dark brown Quraysh people's being harassed all over the Middle East learn their history.
YES - LET THE LIES STOP!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Persians, Greeks, Berbers and Copts...OH MY!!!
Nothing Arab about the Rushidun Army.. Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: [QUOTE]Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [qb] LET THE LIES STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
The Rushidun Army was not pure Arabs!!!
LET THE LIES STOP!!!!!!!
[QUOTE]
Not to depress you black man or make MIKE happy - but European scholars say the Persians, are referred to by "Islam’s first caliphs" as “the freedmen” or “the slaves” See Spanish Islam: A history of the Muslims in Spain. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.by Dozy, & Stokes, 2003, pp. 87, 88 and 405).
Why do you neglect that information?
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: This is the "black ops" period Wesley talks about in Black Arabia.lol! The descriptions of Khalid and Amr and the Arab groups in the armies of this time prove that.
As I tried to show: When dealing with Arab history and culture issues, you will get two sets of lies from different directions for different purposes.
On the one had, as awlaadberry is showing, you get the lies of Arab glory from Turkic historians who have taken-on the Arab identity.
On the other hand, you get the lies of Turkic writers, religious and otherwise, who wish to claim that THEY are Arabs, and the Blacks are something else.
Thus they write of the many colors of Arabs. Re; Wesley earlier posts. Whereas for most of humanity, there is Black, White, and Mulatto.
For Arabs, there must have been ten descriptions of Arab skin color, one for even the most minor change in hue.
Now even the most poorly trained psychologist could tell you that Arabs have a very UNHEALTHY fixation on skin color. To put it plainly, they are ill with it.
awlaadberry says that he wants to save the true Arabs. Well, their Mulattoes seem determined to banish them into obscurity. Since they are THEIR Mulattoes, I say let them, there is nothing worth saving.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: This is the "black ops" period Wesley talks about in Black Arabia.lol! The descriptions of Khalid and Amr and the Arab groups in the armies of this time prove that.
As I tried to show: When dealing with Arab history and culture issues, you will get two sets of lies from different directions for different purposes.
On the one had, as awlaadberry is showing, you get the lies of Arab glory from Turkic historians who have taken-on the Arab identity.
On the other hand, you get the lies of Turkic writers, religious and otherwise, who wish to claim that THEY are Arabs, and the Blacks are something else.
Thus they write of the many colors of Arabs. Re; Wesley earlier posts. Whereas for most of humanity, there is Black, White, and Mulatto.
For Arabs, there must have been ten descriptions of Arab skin color, one for even the most minor change in hue.
Now even the most poorly trained psychologist could tell you that Arabs have a very UNHEALTHY fixation on skin color. To put it plainly, they are ill with it.
awlaadberry says that he wants to save the true Arabs. Well, their Mulattoes seem determined to banish them into obscurity. Since they are THEIR Mulattoes, I say let them, there is nothing worth saving.
The same could said of black African Americans have 10 ways to express there color if not more. Wesley is talking about how the color of blackness was expressed in ARabia not about MULATOS!
And of course todays arabs are mixed people and Taiq is also not claiming them as blacks!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Neglect what information, please tell me how what you posted has any bearing on the fact that the Rushidun Army had signifigant numbers of NON-ARABS Including the Persians whom were referred to as slaves.
OR....
Is this an attempt at red herring fallacy...??
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Neglect what information, please tell mw how what you posted has any bearing on the fact that the Rushidun Army had signifigant numbers of NON-ARABS Including the Persians whom were referred to as slaves.
OR....
Is this an attempt at red herring fallacy...??
No one ever stated the Arabs didn't have slave armies working for them JARI. That's the whole point the ARabs were able to convert enormous numbers of of non-ARab non-black people thru conquest to ISLAM. WHy are you saying these Persians converted to Islam.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Neglect what information, please tell me how what you posted has any bearing on the fact that the Rushidun Army had signifigant numbers of NON-ARABS Including the Persians whom were referred to as slaves.
OR....
Is this an attempt at red herring fallacy...??
I am just trying to figure out Black man why are you more upset than a Syrian Arab that black people had so much power in the Middle East. History is history. I am still wondering what are you getting at. You don't seem to get upset at EUROPEAN CRUSADERS!
Would you rather discuss Borgou and other slave states of Markellion's Negroland. THere were no Arabs involved in there.
Tell me you don't have a problem with Muslims. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't know what you are talking about.
Like always you jump into this conversation with out even understanding the arguments.
First off the subject is the Rushidun Army not a Slave Army...(Alwaad is trying to equate the Muslim Rushidun with pure Arabs)...
Second the Persians who joined the Rushidun Army converted but that has no bearing on me and Alwaad's debate. As a matter of fact it gois in my favor.
My debate is not with you.... but off...
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
Why do you neglect that information?
Neglect what information, please tell mw how what you posted has any bearing on the fact that the Rushidun Army had signifigant numbers of NON-ARABS Including the Persians whom were referred to as slaves.
OR....
Is this an attempt at red herring fallacy...??
No one ever stated the Arabs didn't have slave armies working for them JARI. That's the whole point the ARabs were able to convert enormous numbers of of non-ARab non-black people thru conquest to ISLAM. WHy are you saying these Persians converted to Islam.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW a "red herring" is something someone throws in to divert attention from the facts. I think you used that word wrong JARI, NOT THEM. Thats exactly what you have been doing!
Stop PROJECTING!
-------------------- D. Reynolds-Marniche Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I honestly don't know what you are talking about.
Like always you jump into this conversation with out even understanding the arguments.
First off the subject is the Rushidun Army not a Slave Army...(Alwaad is trying to equate the Muslim Rushidun with pure Arabs)...
Second the Persians who joined the Rushidun Army converted but that has no bearing on me and Alwaad's debate. As a matter of fact it gois in my favor.
My debate is not with you.... but off...
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
Why do you neglect that information?
Neglect what information, please tell mw how what you posted has any bearing on the fact that the Rushidun Army had signifigant numbers of NON-ARABS Including the Persians whom were referred to as slaves.
OR....
Is this an attempt at red herring fallacy...??
No one ever stated the Arabs didn't have slave armies working for them JARI. That's the whole point the ARabs were able to convert enormous numbers of of non-ARab non-black people thru conquest to ISLAM. WHy are you saying these Persians converted to Islam.
Where did TARIQ say all of the Muslim armies were pure ARabs? Any debate that goes on I can jump into when I feel an urge to Jari. Especially when it is a subject I've been researching for two decades.
Thank you for your advice... but NO THANKS! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am just trying to figure out Black man [Roll Eyes] why are you more upset than a Syrian Arab that black people had so much power in the Middle East.
What are you talking about, Who is upset??
History is history.
LOL, so then tell Alwaad to stop distorting history..
You don't seem to get upset at EUROPEAN CRUSADERS!
You are a mentally challenged nut, where in this converstation has anyone mention the Crusades or Europeans??? This is about the lie that the Arabs conquered the Roman(Byzantine) Empire spouted by Alwaadberry. This is also about the lie that the Rushidun Empire was Pure Arab.
Let me guess is this another atempt at strawman fallacy...quick better go find a youtube poster and claim I am him instead of actually debating me with facts..LMAO.
ould you rather discuss Borgou and other slave states of Markellion's Negroland. THere were no Arabs involved in there.
I honestly don't know how to answer this as I have no clue what you are talking about??
can you say Red Herring fallacy...
Tell me you don't have a problem with Muslims.
My feelings toward Muslims has no bearing in this debate. What I am posting(unlike alwaad) is unbiased truth. Don't like it, tough tidy. You can stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
Fact-The Arabs did no conquer the Roman/Byzantine Empire...
fact-The Rushidun Army was not pure Arab..
fact-The Arabs were never a major player in the middle East...
Game over, you lose...
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-: I honestly don't know what you are talking about.
Like always you jump into this conversation with out even understanding the arguments.
First off the subject is the Rushidun Army not a Slave Army...(Alwaad is trying to equate the Muslim Rushidun with pure Arabs)...
Second the Persians who joined the Rushidun Army converted but that has no bearing on me and Alwaad's debate. As a matter of fact it gois in my favor.
My debate is not with you.... but off...
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
Why do you neglect that information?
Neglect what information, please tell mw how what you posted has any bearing on the fact that the Rushidun Army had signifigant numbers of NON-ARABS Including the Persians whom were referred to as slaves.
OR....
Is this an attempt at red herring fallacy...??
No one ever stated the Arabs didn't have slave armies working for them JARI. That's the whole point the ARabs were able to convert enormous numbers of of non-ARab non-black people thru conquest to ISLAM. WHy are you saying these Persians converted to Islam.
Jari - I don't care if you are black or no but you do realize that people who respond like KU Klux Klansmen and racist Moroccans to the history of black people get response from me. That is the way I was brought up - so excuse for not understanding why you just neglected the fact that Arabs had slave armies working for them. Now all of a sudden slave armies aren't slave armies. No Black man - history doesn't work that way. Persian and Turkish soldiers just like later Zanj troops armies were CONSIDERED SLAVES!
You must have gone STORMFRONT AND lost your mind boy! Just because Stormfront says Ppersians soldiers and Turkish soldiers weren't considered slaves doesn't make it so. lol!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a strawman fallacy. We are talking about the Rushidun army for the 5th damn time.
Second I don't need to inform you of the positions in this debate. Had you even the slightest idea of me and alwaad's positions you would not be asking such a request...but for the sake of the forum and anyone who happens to follow this debate and witness your fallacious ways and reckless ignorance..
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry:
[/qb][/QUOTE]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?
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Where did TARIQ say all of the Muslim armies were pure ARabs? Any debate that goes on I can jump into when I feel an urge to Jari. Especially when it is a subject I've been researching for two decades.
Thank you for your advice... but NO THANKS!
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry: [
"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."
posted
LMAO, you know what a red herring is..so follow the conversations and debate between me and Alwaad.
Look at your posts, your whole arguments are full of Fallacy, trying to divert my attention away from the fact that the Roman Empire was not conquered by the Arabs...PERIOD!!
Anyone can clearly see who is using red herring fallacy between me and you...LMAO.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: BTW a "red herring" is something someone throws in to divert attention from the facts. I think you used that word wrong JARI, NOT THEM. Thats exactly what you have been doing!
Stop PROJECTING!
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-: I am just trying to figure out Black man [Roll Eyes] why are you more upset than a Syrian Arab that black people had so much power in the Middle East.
What are you talking about, Who is upset??
History is history.
LOL, so then tell Alwaad to stop distorting history..
You don't seem to get upset at EUROPEAN CRUSADERS!
You are a mentally challenged nut, where in this converstation has anyone mention the Crusades or Europeans??? This is about the lie that the Arabs conquered the Roman(Byzantine) Empire spouted by Alwaadberry. This is also about the lie that the Rushidun Empire was Pure Arab.
Let me guess is this another atempt at strawman fallacy...quick better go find a youtube poster and claim I am him instead of actually debating me with facts..LMAO.
ould you rather discuss Borgou and other slave states of Markellion's Negroland. THere were no Arabs involved in there.
I honestly don't know how to answer this as I have no clue what you are talking about??
can you say Red Herring fallacy...
Tell me you don't have a problem with Muslims.
My feelings toward Muslims has no bearing in this debate. What I am posting(unlike alwaad) is unbiased truth. Don't like it, tough tidy. You can stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
Fact-The Arabs did no conquer the Roman/Byzantine Empire...
fact-The Rushidun Army was not pure Arab..
fact-The Arabs were never a major player in the middle East...
Game over, you lose...
First off stop projecting just because I called you a schizoid for flying into your rages when you don't like something someone says That doesn't make me the nut. Although I do admit I do get rougher than a lot of men on here, and without your type of cursing and losing it I might add. lol!
You know what I'm talking about when I mention Crusaders and Iberians Jari, here and on other threads on this forum.
Why are you mad at Awlaad because this history doesn't match your video game version of it. How do you think the Byzantines lost their power JARi. It may not have been the exact time of the Rashidun but the ARabs had a lot to do with the FALL of the Byzantines.
In any case thats not the main reason why Awlaad is on here. Its to make known the origins of teh true ARabs and how their blackness has beeen disrepected and dismissed from history.
You have not said a single thing on this forum supporting these facts.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jari - I don't care if you are black or no but you do realize that people who respond like KU Klux Klansmen and racist Moroccans to the history of black people get response from me.
Blah, blah, blah, more emotional drivel. How am I responding like a Klansman or a Moroccan?? You are deluded. Both me an Mike have called out Alwaad for tryng to distort history, and lying that the Arabs conquered the Romans..
If you cant understand that, then I don't know.
That is the way I was brought up - so excuse for not understanding why you just neglected the fact that Arabs had slave armies working for them. Now all of a sudden slave armies aren't slave armies. No Black man - history doesn't work that way. Persian and Turkish soldiers just like later Zanj troops armies were CONSIDERED SLAVES!
You are mentally handicapped. I believe this is the 3rd time I wil have to say that me and alwaad are talking about the Rushidun Army which was not a slave Army and further if the Arabs used non Arabs be they slave or not that means the Arabs DID NOT CONQUER anything on their own, the credit goes to all people who participated. But again this is just another attempt at red Herring fallacy to divert the debate from Alwaad's beating he was getting..LOL..
You must have gone STORMFRONT AND lost your mind boy! Just because Stormfront says Ppersians soldiers and Turkish soldiers weren't considered slaves doesn't make it so. lol!
What are you talking about?? Seriously does anyone know what this dumb-a is talking about.
Where have I ever denied Persian and Turkish slaves and even the fact that the Saqalibba and Slavs were the default slave during this time...
Take you meds....
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-: LMAO, you know what a red herring is..so follow the conversations and debate between me and Alwaad.
Look at your posts, your whole arguments are full of Fallacy, trying to divert my attention away from the fact that the Roman Empire was not conquered by the Arabs...PERIOD!!
Anyone can clearly see who is using red herring fallacy between me and you...LMAO.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: BTW a "red herring" is something someone throws in to divert attention from the facts. I think you used that word wrong JARI, NOT THEM. Thats exactly what you have been doing!
Stop PROJECTING!
I don't make arguments about things I know nothing about black man. You just threw in another red herring saying my arguments are filled with fallacy. I only post what Europeans say somewhat like you but not from STormfront and the Broomhilda site only from academics and early historians. Arabs were black I don't care if you don't like Muslims or not. You've been calling me a liar ever since you've been on this topic and I know what your deal is. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The expansion of the Islamic empire led to the emergence of a substantial class of nontribal Muslims (mawali), who became the base from which anti-Ummayad movements drew their supporters. The most notable of these movements was the Abbasid, which eventually succeeded in toppling the last Ummayad caliph, Marwan II, in 750.
Abu Muslim's revolution After the conquest, little time was needed before a new Islamic beginning: Abu Muslim's movement, which began in Khorasan in 747 A.D, was caused by Arab assimilation with Persians in colonized regions. This revolution followed years of conspiracy directed from Medina and across to Khorasan along the trade route that linked East Asia with Merv and then with the West. Along this route, merchants with contacts in the Mesopotamian Arab garrison cities of Al-Kufah, Wasit, and Al-Basrah acted as intermediaries.
Persians who converted to Islam and became clients, or al-mawali, of Arab patrons, also played direct and indirect parts in the revolutionary movement. The movement also involved Arabs who had become partners with Khorasanian and Transoxanian Persians in ventures in the great east-west trade and inter-city trade of northeastern Persia. The revolution was, nevertheless, primarily an Arab Islamic movement that intended to supplant a militaristic, tyrannical central government—whose fiscal problems made it avid for revenue—by one more sympathetic to the needs of the merchants of eastern Islam. Abu Muslim, a revolutionary of unknown origin, was able to exploit the discontent of the merchant classes in Merv as well as that of the Arab settlers. The object of attack was the Umayyad government in Damascus.
Umayyad Dynasty
Umayyad rule was divided between two branches of the family: the Sufyanid (reigned 661–684), descendants of Abu Sufyan, and the Marwanid (reigned 684–750), Marwan I and his successors. The Sufyanids, notably Mu'awiyah I (reigned 661–680), centralized caliphal authority in Damascus. The Syrian army became the basis of Umayyad strength, enabling the creation of a united empire through greater control of the conquered provinces and of Arab tribal rivalries.
Under 'Abd al-Malik (reigned 685–705), the Umayyad caliphate reached its peak. Muslim armies overran most of Spain in the west and invaded Mukran and Sind in India, while in Central Asia, the Khorasanian garrisons conquered Bukhara, Samarkand, Khwarezm, Fergana, and Tashkent. In an extensive program of Arabization, Arabic became the official state language; the financial administration of the empire was reorganized, with Arabs replacing Persian and Greek officials; and a new Arabic coinage replaced the former imitations of Byzantine and Sasanian coins. Communications also improved with the introduction of a regular post service from Damascus to the provincial capitals, and architecture flourished.
Decline began with the disastrous defeat of the Syrian army by the Byzantine Leo III, the Isaurian (717). Then the fiscal reforms of the pious 'Umar II (reigned 717–720), intended to mollify the increasingly discontented mawali (non-Arab Muslims) by placing all Muslims on the same footing, without respect of nationality, led to financial crisis, while the recrudescence of feuds between southern (Kalb) and northern (Qays) Arab tribes seriously reduced military power.
Hisham (reigned 724–743) was able to stem the tide temporarily. As the empire was reaching the limits of expansion—the Muslim advance into France was decisively halted at Poitiers (732), and Arab forces in Anatolia were destroyed (740)—frontier defenses, manned by Syrian troops, were organized to meet the challenge of Turks in Central Asia and Berbers in North Africa.
But in the years following Hisham's death, feuds between the Qays and the Kalb erupted into major revolts in Syria, Iraq, and Khorasan (745–746), while the mawali became involved with the Hashimiyah ( q.v.), a religio-political sect that denied the legitimacy of Umayyad rule. In 749 the Hashimiyah, aided by the western provinces, proclaimed as caliph Abu al-'Abbas as-Saffah, who thereby became first of the 'Abbasid dynasty.
The last Umayyad, Marwan II (reigned 744–750), was defeated at the Battle of the Great Zab River (750). Members of the Umayyad house were hunted down and killed, but one of the survivors, 'Abd ar-Rahman, escaped and established himself as a Muslim ruler in Spain (756), founding the dynasty of the Umayyads of Córdoba.
.
^I assume that everyone understands that the Syrian Army was GREEK!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Jari - I don't care if you are black or no but you do realize that people who respond like KU Klux Klansmen and racist Moroccans to the history of black people get response from me.
Blah, blah, blah, more emotional drivel. How am I responding like a Klansman or a Moroccan?? You are deluded. Both me an Mike have called out Alwaad for tryng to distort history, and lying that the Arabs conquered the Romans..
If you cant understand that, then I don't know.
That is the way I was brought up - so excuse for not understanding why you just neglected the fact that Arabs had slave armies working for them. Now all of a sudden slave armies aren't slave armies. No Black man - history doesn't work that way. Persian and Turkish soldiers just like later Zanj troops armies were CONSIDERED SLAVES!
You are mentally handicapped. I believe this is the 3rd time I wil have to say that me and alwaad are talking about the Rushidun Army which was not a slave Army and further if the Arabs used non Arabs be they slave or not that means the Arabs DID NOT CONQUER anything on their own, the credit goes to all people who participated. But again this is just another attempt at red Herring fallacy to divert the debate from Alwaad's beating he was getting..LOL..
You must have gone STORMFRONT AND lost your mind boy! Just because Stormfront says Ppersians soldiers and Turkish soldiers weren't considered slaves doesn't make it so. lol!
What are you talking about?? Seriously does anyone know what this dumb-a is talking about.
Where have I ever denied Persian and Turkish slaves and even the fact that the Saqalibba and Slavs were the default slave during this time...
Take you meds....
Why do you keep saying there were no slaves in the Rashidun army delusional illiterate!. Don't try to put words in my mouth and say I said the Rashidun were all slaves. You, Uncle Jari, are pathetic. Anything to make the people you worship not look like what they were. We are told you several times what the Persians were called at that time according to Dhahabi and other people. You persist on trying to cast doubt on that fact by putting words in my mouth. Worse than lyin_ss!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
[After weeding out Dana's fallacious arguments and trying to find anything that is on topic...]
Why are you mad at Awlaad because this history doesn't match your video game version of it.
Im not mad at all, Alwaad is the one who lost the debate.
It may not have been the exact time of the Rashidun but the ARabs had a lot to do with the FALL of the Byzantines.
The Byzantines were conquerd by the Turks(Non Arabs), and the Rushidun army comprised of non Arabs...
End of story...Got anything that refutes that please be my guest...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please inform the forum what slaves have to do with the fact that Non Arabs were part of the Rushidun Army...Please explain what this has to do with non Arabs in the Rushidun Army??
If this is not a fallacy argument you should have no problem informing us why your slave comments proves non Arabs were not a part of the Rushidun army.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
Why do you keep saying there were no slaves in the Rashidun army delusional illiterate!. Don't try to put words in my mouth and say I said the Rashidun were all slaves. You, Uncle Jari, are pathetic. Anything to make the people you worship not look like what they were. We are told you several times what the Persians were called at that time according to Dhahabi and other people. You persist on trying to cast doubt on that fact by putting words in my mouth. Worse than lyin_ss! [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Next thing you'll be telling us Islam wasn't started by Arabs, Jari.
Even Wikipedia knows what about who the Persian Mawali were. "On his death bed Umar vacillated to appoint his successor, however it has been reported that he said that if Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah, Khalid ibn Walid or Salim, the mawali and freed Persian slave, were alive he would have appointed one of them his successor."
"Open revolt broke out on June 9, 747. Abu-Muslim, a PERSIAN FREEDMAN, at the head of a South Arabian tribe which included many clients and Iranian peasants, entered Marw, the Khura- san capital." from the text of Islam and the Arabs Rom Landau 1959.
And the above is for those EURCENTRICS on this thread who don't believe there were significant numbers of Iranians were entering the Yemen at that time.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Britannica articles
The expansion of the Islamic empire led to the emergence of a substantial class of nontribal Muslims (mawali), who became the base from which anti-Ummayad movements drew their supporters. The most notable of these movements was the Abbasid, which eventually succeeded in toppling the last Ummayad caliph, Marwan II, in 750.
Abu Muslim's revolution After the conquest, little time was needed before a new Islamic beginning: Abu Muslim's movement, which began in Khorasan in 747 A.D, was caused by Arab assimilation with Persians in colonized regions. This revolution followed years of conspiracy directed from Medina and across to Khorasan along the trade route that linked East Asia with Merv and then with the West. Along this route, merchants with contacts in the Mesopotamian Arab garrison cities of Al-Kufah, Wasit, and Al-Basrah acted as intermediaries.
Persians who converted to Islam and became clients, or al-mawali, of Arab patrons, also played direct and indirect parts in the revolutionary movement. The movement also involved Arabs who had become partners with Khorasanian and Transoxanian Persians in ventures in the great east-west trade and inter-city trade of northeastern Persia. The revolution was, nevertheless, primarily an Arab Islamic movement that intended to supplant a militaristic, tyrannical central government—whose fiscal problems made it avid for revenue—by one more sympathetic to the needs of the merchants of eastern Islam. Abu Muslim, a revolutionary of unknown origin, was able to exploit the discontent of the merchant classes in Merv as well as that of the Arab settlers. The object of attack was the Umayyad government in Damascus.
Umayyad Dynasty
Umayyad rule was divided between two branches of the family: the Sufyanid (reigned 661–684), descendants of Abu Sufyan, and the Marwanid (reigned 684–750), Marwan I and his successors. The Sufyanids, notably Mu'awiyah I (reigned 661–680), centralized caliphal authority in Damascus. The Syrian army became the basis of Umayyad strength, enabling the creation of a united empire through greater control of the conquered provinces and of Arab tribal rivalries.
Under 'Abd al-Malik (reigned 685–705), the Umayyad caliphate reached its peak. Muslim armies overran most of Spain in the west and invaded Mukran and Sind in India, while in Central Asia, the Khorasanian garrisons conquered Bukhara, Samarkand, Khwarezm, Fergana, and Tashkent. In an extensive program of Arabization, Arabic became the official state language; the financial administration of the empire was reorganized, with Arabs replacing Persian and Greek officials; and a new Arabic coinage replaced the former imitations of Byzantine and Sasanian coins. Communications also improved with the introduction of a regular post service from Damascus to the provincial capitals, and architecture flourished.
Decline began with the disastrous defeat of the Syrian army by the Byzantine Leo III, the Isaurian (717). Then the fiscal reforms of the pious 'Umar II (reigned 717–720), intended to mollify the increasingly discontented mawali (non-Arab Muslims) by placing all Muslims on the same footing, without respect of nationality, led to financial crisis, while the recrudescence of feuds between southern (Kalb) and northern (Qays) Arab tribes seriously reduced military power.
Hisham (reigned 724–743) was able to stem the tide temporarily. As the empire was reaching the limits of expansion—the Muslim advance into France was decisively halted at Poitiers (732), and Arab forces in Anatolia were destroyed (740)—frontier defenses, manned by Syrian troops, were organized to meet the challenge of Turks in Central Asia and Berbers in North Africa.
But in the years following Hisham's death, feuds between the Qays and the Kalb erupted into major revolts in Syria, Iraq, and Khorasan (745–746), while the mawali became involved with the Hashimiyah ( q.v.), a religio-political sect that denied the legitimacy of Umayyad rule. In 749 the Hashimiyah, aided by the western provinces, proclaimed as caliph Abu al-'Abbas as-Saffah, who thereby became first of the 'Abbasid dynasty.
The last Umayyad, Marwan II (reigned 744–750), was defeated at the Battle of the Great Zab River (750). Members of the Umayyad house were hunted down and killed, but one of the survivors, 'Abd ar-Rahman, escaped and established himself as a Muslim ruler in Spain (756), founding the dynasty of the Umayyads of Córdoba.
.
^I assume that everyone understands that the Syrian Army was GREEK!
Dana, you and Jari keep mentioning non-Turk Slave soldiers. I know of no such members of the so-called Arab armies.
Please let me explain the above:
The Greeks were the primary component of the Umayyad army, they were particularly useful because they didn't care about Arab rivalries.
They and other mawali, then helped overthrow the Umayyad's and brought in the Abbasid dynasty.
The Abbasid's then brought in the Turks as slaves, and made them the mainstay of their dynasty.
The Turks then over-through the Abbasid's, and made themselves masters.
Just to show the value of being able to think - even a little bit. The Turks (their former slaves) have been the Arabs masters for over a thousand years!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Islam was started an Arab, where have I denied this. As I have always said the Arabs were insignifigant until the 7th Century A.D.
Truth Hurts huh...
I believe its Mike who contends that the Koran and Islam is the result of Turks not Arabs...take that up with him.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Next thing you'll be telling us Islam wasn't started by Arabs, Jari.
Tell me "black man" (your words) - why should it bother me that the black people of Arabia were insignificant until the 7th century. Now you no Jari we all know that you don't believe the Himyarites and Sabaeans of Qahtan were not - correction - are not black, so you didn't even include them did you. LOL! You always give yourself away.
Mike is likely correct about the hadith (commentaries) of the Quran being authored and translated or handed down largely by non-Arabs which I first said on this forum.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Britannica articles
The expansion of the Islamic empire led to the emergence of a substantial class of nontribal Muslims (mawali), who became the base from which anti-Ummayad movements drew their supporters. The most notable of these movements was the Abbasid, which eventually succeeded in toppling the last Ummayad caliph, Marwan II, in 750.
Abu Muslim's revolution After the conquest, little time was needed before a new Islamic beginning: Abu Muslim's movement, which began in Khorasan in 747 A.D, was caused by Arab assimilation with Persians in colonized regions. This revolution followed years of conspiracy directed from Medina and across to Khorasan along the trade route that linked East Asia with Merv and then with the West. Along this route, merchants with contacts in the Mesopotamian Arab garrison cities of Al-Kufah, Wasit, and Al-Basrah acted as intermediaries.
Persians who converted to Islam and became clients, or al-mawali, of Arab patrons, also played direct and indirect parts in the revolutionary movement. The movement also involved Arabs who had become partners with Khorasanian and Transoxanian Persians in ventures in the great east-west trade and inter-city trade of northeastern Persia. The revolution was, nevertheless, primarily an Arab Islamic movement that intended to supplant a militaristic, tyrannical central government—whose fiscal problems made it avid for revenue—by one more sympathetic to the needs of the merchants of eastern Islam. Abu Muslim, a revolutionary of unknown origin, was able to exploit the discontent of the merchant classes in Merv as well as that of the Arab settlers. The object of attack was the Umayyad government in Damascus.
Umayyad Dynasty
Umayyad rule was divided between two branches of the family: the Sufyanid (reigned 661–684), descendants of Abu Sufyan, and the Marwanid (reigned 684–750), Marwan I and his successors. The Sufyanids, notably Mu'awiyah I (reigned 661–680), centralized caliphal authority in Damascus. The Syrian army became the basis of Umayyad strength, enabling the creation of a united empire through greater control of the conquered provinces and of Arab tribal rivalries.
Under 'Abd al-Malik (reigned 685–705), the Umayyad caliphate reached its peak. Muslim armies overran most of Spain in the west and invaded Mukran and Sind in India, while in Central Asia, the Khorasanian garrisons conquered Bukhara, Samarkand, Khwarezm, Fergana, and Tashkent. In an extensive program of Arabization, Arabic became the official state language; the financial administration of the empire was reorganized, with Arabs replacing Persian and Greek officials; and a new Arabic coinage replaced the former imitations of Byzantine and Sasanian coins. Communications also improved with the introduction of a regular post service from Damascus to the provincial capitals, and architecture flourished.
Decline began with the disastrous defeat of the Syrian army by the Byzantine Leo III, the Isaurian (717). Then the fiscal reforms of the pious 'Umar II (reigned 717–720), intended to mollify the increasingly discontented mawali (non-Arab Muslims) by placing all Muslims on the same footing, without respect of nationality, led to financial crisis, while the recrudescence of feuds between southern (Kalb) and northern (Qays) Arab tribes seriously reduced military power.
Hisham (reigned 724–743) was able to stem the tide temporarily. As the empire was reaching the limits of expansion—the Muslim advance into France was decisively halted at Poitiers (732), and Arab forces in Anatolia were destroyed (740)—frontier defenses, manned by Syrian troops, were organized to meet the challenge of Turks in Central Asia and Berbers in North Africa.
But in the years following Hisham's death, feuds between the Qays and the Kalb erupted into major revolts in Syria, Iraq, and Khorasan (745–746), while the mawali became involved with the Hashimiyah ( q.v.), a religio-political sect that denied the legitimacy of Umayyad rule. In 749 the Hashimiyah, aided by the western provinces, proclaimed as caliph Abu al-'Abbas as-Saffah, who thereby became first of the 'Abbasid dynasty.
The last Umayyad, Marwan II (reigned 744–750), was defeated at the Battle of the Great Zab River (750). Members of the Umayyad house were hunted down and killed, but one of the survivors, 'Abd ar-Rahman, escaped and established himself as a Muslim ruler in Spain (756), founding the dynasty of the Umayyads of Córdoba.
.
^I assume that everyone understands that the Syrian Army was GREEK!
Dana, you and Jari keep mentioning non-Turk Slave soldiers. I know of no such members of the so-called Arab armies.
Please let me explain the above:
The Greeks were the primary component of the Umayyad army, they were particularly useful because they didn't care about Arab rivalries.
They and other mawali, then helped overthrow the Umayyad's and brought in the Abbasid dynasty.
The Abbasid's then brought in the Turks as slaves, and made them the mainstay of their dynasty.
The Turks then over-through the Abbasid's, and made themselves masters.
Just to show the value of being able to think - even a little bit. The Turks (their former slaves) have been the Arabs masters for over a thousand years!
Mike - Turks and Persians are two different though largely intermingled (after a time) people. You are the only one I have seen consistently calling Iranians Turks. Turkoman do not look anything like later Turks i.e. Europeans nor did they look like the Iranian Persians.
Every book that I have ever seen off and on-line does not consider these people one people, anymore than Saqaliba (Slavic) people were really Turks. Granted at one time they all played a major part as slaves, clients and freedmen in the Arab and then Turkish-ruled armies.
Of course when I talk about Persians I'm referring to the people that came after Darius and the dark skinned previous populations of Persia.
BTW - even Jahiz separates Turks from Persians.
I also prefer the word Byzantines or Greco-Romans for the Rumi not "Greeks" or "Romans" whose empires were in reality long gone. The Byzantines are often referred to as blond, while Greeks and Romans obviously weren't.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [b]...and further if the Arabs used non Arabs be they slave or not that means the Arabs DID NOT CONQUER anything on their own, the credit goes to all people who participated. But again this is just another attempt at red Herring fallacy to divert the debate from Alwaad's beating he was getting..LOL..
[.
I forgot about this do you see how you always come up short when it comes to your Arabs did nothing analysis or lack there of. WHAT people pray tell conquered an region as large as the Middle East on their own? I was just wondering.
Not that I care about conquest as I am neither morally supportive of war or military things in general.
In any case let us all know about it, Jari.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
dana, below is a list of Islamic historical periods prior to the Ottomans, there are numerous Caliphs associated with these periods
1 Rashidun Caliphs (632-661) 2 Umayyads Caliphs (661-750/1031) 2.1 Caliphs of Damascus (661-750) 2.2 Emirs of Córdoba (756-929) 2.3 Caliphs of Córdoba (929-1031) 3 Abbasid Caliphs (750-1258/1517) 3.1 Caliphs of Baghdad (750-1258) 3.2 Caliphs of Cairo (1261-1517) 4 Other Caliphates (910-1269) 4.1 Fatimid Caliphs (910-1171) 4.2 Almohad Caliphs (1145-1269)
If one takes the position that the Arabs were black and later foreigners changed the "pure" black complexion of Arabia, naturally one would wonder:
1) at what period of time did Arabia become majority non-black?
2) were any of the Caliphs prior to the Ottomans not black?
3) (assuming that all Arabs are black) given that Egypt was conquered in 639 and North Africa was conquered in 652, captives taken into Arabia, this during the Rashidun period and given the fact that that African slaves were imported into Arabia if you look at blacks who have been living in Arabia for hundreds of years from the aforementioned backgrounds, how can you tell them apart from indigenous Arabs?
4) is an historical approach the best approach in dealing with racism against blacks in Saudi Arabia?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Neglect what information, please tell me how what you posted has any bearing on the fact that the Rushidun Army had signifigant numbers of NON-ARABS Including the Persians whom were referred to as slaves.
OR....
Is this an attempt at red herring fallacy...??
I am just trying to figure out Black man why are you more upset than a Syrian Arab that black people had so much power in the Middle East. History is history. I am still wondering what are you getting at. You don't seem to get upset at EUROPEAN CRUSADERS!
Would you rather discuss Borgou and othero slave states of Markellion's Negroland. THere were no Arabs involved in there.
Tell me you don't have a problem with Muslims.
Dana, He has a big problem with Muslims. That's why I'm just ignoring him. For anyone to deny THE FACT that the ARABS defeated the Romans and the Persians in the 7th century is simply retarded and is not worth debating. It shows pure ignorance. So I'm going to just let them babble.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Mike - Turks and Persians are two different though largely intermingled (after a time) people. You are the only one I have seen consistently calling Iranians Turks. Turkoman do not look anything like later Turks i.e. Europeans nor did they look like the Iranian Persians.
Every book that I have ever seen off and on-line does not consider these people one people, anymore than Saqaliba (Slavic) people were really Turks. Granted at one time they all played a major part as slaves, clients and freedmen in the Arab and then Turkish-ruled armies.
Of course when I talk about Persians I'm referring to the people that came after Darius and the dark skinned previous populations of Persia.
BTW - even Jahiz separates Turks from Persians.
I also prefer the word Byzantines or Greco-Romans for the Rumi not "Greeks" or "Romans" whose empires were in reality long gone. The Byzantines are often referred to as blond, while Greeks and Romans obviously weren't.
Dana - I think that part of the problem here, is that most members view other peoples posts, as an opportunity to argue rather than an opportunity to learn.
Though I have posted many times on the subject: It seems that as with the Arabs, many people find it impossible to distinguish between people who call themselves Persians/Arabs and people who actually WERE Persians/Arabs. Of course actually reading the history of these lands is totally out of the question.
But all that aside, I recently demonstrated that the so-called "Persian" writers of the Hadiths were actually Turkmen. I would think that anyone paying attention would easily extrapolate that the Whites from the eastern Persian satraps had quickly assimilated themselves into the Arab fold.
I mean, I don't think that even an ignorant Arab would allow just ANYONE to write religious texts about what the Prophet did, thought, and actually meant for good Muslims to do.
That was an extremely important and powerful role these Turkmen took on - albeit under the guise of being Persians - and were ALLOWED to take on by the Arabs. Though admittedly I can't say if all of these Hadiths were written before the Turks took total control of Islam.
I believe I posted a history of post-Persian Iran only recently. But if you would like, I will re-post.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Historically spearking no one has conquered the Middle East, the only people to come close were the Achaemenid Persian and the Greeks under Alexander.
As I said one can eaisily see who is using Red Herring and other fallacy here.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [b]...and further if the Arabs used non Arabs be they slave or not that means the Arabs DID NOT CONQUER anything on their own, the credit goes to all people who participated. But again this is just another attempt at red Herring fallacy to divert the debate from Alwaad's beating he was getting..LOL..
[.
I forgot about this do you see how you always come up short when it comes to your Arabs did nothing analysis or lack there of. WHAT people pray tell conquered an region as large as the Middle East on their own? I was just wondering.
Not that I care about conquest as I am neither morally supportive of war or military things in general.
In any case let us all know about it, Jari.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: I know what eunuchs are. This was a barbaric act.
One thing left out here: there'd been non-African and Euro eunuchs since ancient times in that region.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Come on Alwaadberry, that was just a warm up. Lets go for round two....
Answer Mike's question...what can the Arabs point too??
Mike is right...why should we help the Pure Arabs, they got themselves into their situation, even you yourself claim White slaves flooded Arabia and changed the phenotype of the original Arabs so why should we care, What have the Arabs done??
Don't run, that was just a warm up.... MUH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I answered Mike's question. Now, out of curiosity, I want you to answer a question for me. In your dream world, who won the battle of Yarmouk and who led the Arabs - an Arab our a non-Arab? And the overwhelming majority of the soldiers in the Arab army were Arab or non-Arab? And how did the Arab begin to occupy and rule the Eastern Roman territories? Were they just given to them by the Romans or did they get them by DEFEATING the Romans?
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Awlaad the arabs didnt defeat the romans and persians by themselves most of those fighters were non arabs.
Anyone trying to say arabs didnt take slaves is a fool. Arabs didnt bring islam to africa inorder to better the life and righteousness of africans please.
UNESCO had a conference on slavery in eastafrica and the indian Ocean. They invited 50 arab scholars and not a single one showed up little kaffir bitches.
Ausar,Awlaaad,and Dana you seem to be hiding from the question that arabs inslaved many africans. Ausar even rambling about how arabs treated there slaves kindly and made them part of the family shut the **** up please.
I have no respect for arabs at all even Coptic christians in egypt are a bunch of racist idiots.
Im getting tired of this arabs black bullshit they aint black and never will be black they are a bunch of kaffirs period.
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can the Arabs claim the ancient city of Ubar and the Sabean kingdom ar Marib in Yemen? How about the archaeological sites in the Gulf country of Oman connected with Dilmun in Sumerian texts? Did non Arabs found these ancient civilizations?
posted
The Battle Of Yarmuk *The Battle Of Yarmuk, 636* by Dan Fratini
Introduction
Islam. From the Atlantic coast of North Africa to the Pacific Isles of Indonesia this faith holds sway. As one of the world's great religions Islam has had an immeasurable impact on the human race, not only in those regions populated by Muslims, but, throughout history, in areas such as Spain, Portugal, India, Israel, Sicily, Greece, Bosnia, Serbia, and even the United States. As all religions, as all people, Islam has had its share of victories and defeats, rising to heights of shining glory and sinking to the darkest depths. In its infancy Islam was a conquering faith, storming out of the vast Arabian deserts intent on world conquest. The first major threat Islam faced took the form of the ancient and equally historically important Roman Empire. The Roman Empire, at the time based in Greece, and soon to be known to history as the East Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire, would confront the forces of Islam on the battlefield of Yarmuk, in the year 636 A.D. Here Islam would fight for its life. Victory for the Muslims would mean survival and the chance to storm the globe, defeat would mean an end to the Islamic faith only a few scant years after the Prophet's death.
Prelude
The year 622 A.D. saw the Hegira, when the Prophet Muhammad (570-632) fled from Mecca to Medina to escape the pagan Arab Qurayshites, rulers of Mecca. From 624-630 the Prophet and the followers of the new religion of Islam warred against the Qurayshites, seizing Mecca in a bloodless invasion in January of the year 630. From that date until the present Mecca has been the holiest city in all Islam. Following the Prophet's death in 632 came the Riddah Wars, a military conflict which from 632-633 saw all of Arabia under the sway of the Islamic Caliphate. As early as late 633 the forces of Caliph Umar Ibn Al Khattab (581-644) were pushing north into present day Israel and Jordan. As the Muslim armies surged forth all who they met were given three choices, convert to Islam, pay the jizyah, a tax, or die by the sword. Such an uncompromising philosophy and utter religious devotion soon brought the Muslims into conflict with the great Middle Eastern power of the day, the Roman Empire.
By the year 636 A.D. the Roman Empire was hardly recognizable to that of earlier centuries. Based in Constantinople, formerly known as Byzantium, the Roman Empire was metamorphosing into a Greek Empire, and would soon be known to history as the East Roman or Byzantine Empire. This changing Roman Empire had in common with the days of old a vast involvement in the Middle East. Constantinople ruled over not only Egypt and Asia Minor, but also present-day Israel, Lebanon, and portions of Jordan and Syria. Roman influence extended to the borders of Arabia, tribal Arabic sheiks being in the pay of Constantinople. The East Roman-Persian War of 603-628 had seen the ancient enemy of both Rome and Greece, Persia, soundly defeated in a brutal and prolonged conflict. Roman Emperor Heraclius (575-641) had at long last forced the submission of Rome's oldest foe. Emperor Heraclius had no concept of what was soon to face him from the sands of Arabia.
The Muslim advance into Roman territory began slowly at first, taking the form of minor battles and skirmishes against Roman garrisons and allied Christian Arabs. As the armies of Islam advanced they set their sights on capturing cities, on establishing themselves permanently in the Roman Middle East. In 634 separate Muslim forces were launching more than raids into Roman Palestine and Jordan, capturing Areopolis and Busra, and defeating Roman garrisons and their Arab allies at battles such as Dathin, Marj Rahit, and Pella. Arab raids into Roman territory were not unheard of, and at first Emperor Heraclius did not fully grasp the magnitude of what he faced. The threat of Islam became clear on the 4th of September 635 as the Muslims conquered Damascus, one of the finest cities in all the Roman Empire.
With the fall of Damascus Emperor Heraclius realized that this new foe of the Arabian deserts must be soundly crushed. He set about raising an army to drive the Muslims from Roman ground. A vast force, perhaps 50,000 strong set out to destroy the incipient Islam. Faced with overwhelming numbers the Muslims abandoned Damascus and their other conquests, retreating south with the Romans in pursuit. The southward march took both armies to a site northeast of Jerusalem, the Yarmuk River.
Army Composition
Not yet the incredibly organized themal military of later days, nor the nearly unstoppable legions of the past, the East Roman army of 636 was still one of the most professional military forces on the Earth. A polyglot force composed of Greeks, Armenians, Copts, Christian and pagan Arabs, Slavs, Goths, and even Persian defectors, the East Roman army was partially a standing force, partially a mercenary unit. Within the capital of Constantinople, and in garrisons throughout the empire there were regular, paid troops, with an officer corps as well structured as anything found in the present day. During a military campaign the standing units could be further augmented by paid mercenaries, such as Christian Arabs, in particular the Ghassanid tribe, Persian heavy cavalry cataphracts, Gothic heavy cavalry, the precursors of Western European knights, and Slavic infantry.
The East Roman army had the two basic divisions of cavalry and infantry. The infantry fell into two main categories, the skutatoi and psiloi. The skutatoi were the front line infantry. These troops were armed with spear, long or short sword, and axe. Defensively they carried a circular or oval shield, wore chainmail or padded leather shirts, and a segmented helm, often with a crest, to identify their unit. The psiloi were the missile troops, armed with javelin and most importantly composite shortbow, their armor being the same or slightly less than the skutatoi. On the attack the psiloi could weaken the enemy with a barrage of arrows, followed by a charge of spearmen and swordsmen to break the enemy formation. Defensively the skutatoi could form a shield wall, interlocking their shields and presenting their spears en masse, with the psiloi stationed to the rear and still capable of launching volleys into the enemy ranks.
The East Roman cavalry was based on the cataphract, a cavalry type originating in Persia and nearly as old as that civilization. The cataphract would be armored in the same fashion as the skutatoi, save that some cataphracts also wore a chestpiece of lamellar armor, small square or rectangular iron plates sown onto a leather backing, and they replaced the larger oval or circular shields with a small circular target shield, often attached to the left arm. The cataphract's weapons consisted of lance, composite shortbow, and longsword. Whether they wore stirrups or not is still a matter of contention, the stirrup appearing in the Middle East, at the earliest, in the 600s. The cataphract on the attack would weaken the enemy flank with arrow volleys, followed by a charge to the enemy flank or rear, destroying the enemy formation and/or pining the enemy in place, allowing the skutatoi to charge and finish the battle. Defensively the cataphracts would protect the Roman flanks and rear from enemy cavalry attacks, both by arrow volleys and close range combat.
In overall command of the East Roman army was Vahan the Armenian (???-636?). Vahan was the highest ranking officer in the Roman Middle East, second only to Emperor Heraclius himself. The ethnically mixed army under Vahan's command possibly numbered as many as 50,000, its exact numbers being unknown but all sources agreeing it was larger than the typical East Roman expeditionary force of 20,000.
Facing the Romans were the Muslim Arabs. Unlike their foes, the Muslims were ethnically united, with perhaps the exception of a small number of Persian defectors. Driven by a religious fervor the world has rarely known, the single greatest advantage of the Muslims was their mastery of desert travel. Riding camels and horses, the Muslims were intimately acquainted with the Middle Eastern deserts, giving them a strategic mobility that allowed them to appear out of the desert as if from nowhere, much like the Viking raiders of the 800s and 900s would appear on their victims' shores. This desert raiding ability had served the Muslims well from 634-635, allowing independent forces to attack Roman garrisons and allied Arabs with little warning. The Muslims not only knew the locations of vital desert oases, but also traveled with the camel, an animal evolved for the hot sands, and moved with camp followers in a logistic role, including the wives of the Islamic commanders.
Recruited from their tribes and commanded by emirs the Muslim army fell into the two basic categories of infantry and cavalry. The Arab cavalryman, the faris, was armed with lance and sword, his main role being the attack of the enemy flanks and rear. Armor was relatively light, often consisting of a chainmail shirt and segmented helm. Unlike later Middle Eastern field armies the early Muslims relied heavily on their infantry. Muslim infantrymen were armed with spear, shortsword, and composite bow. Defensively the Muslim infantry were equipped with chainmail shirts, segmented helms, and large wooden or wickerwork shields. On the attack Muslim infantry would weaken the enemy with arrow volleys, followed by a spear/sword charge, pining the enemy in place for a cavalry attack on the flanks and rear. Defensively the Muslim spearmen would close ranks, forming a protective wall for archers to continue their fire.
In command of the Muslim army at Yarmuk was Khalid Ibn al Walid (???-642). Khalid was an experienced military commander, though he had once been an opponent of the Prophet he was now known as the Sword Of God. Under his command were the combined Muslim units that had been raiding into Roman territory since 633, a force numbering roughly 25,000, quite large for a Muslim army of the day, though still leaving Khalid heavily outnumbered.
The Battle
The Battle of Yarmuk took place from the 15th-20th of August, 636 A.D. After years of raids, skirmishes, counterattacks, and negotiations the assembled armies of the East Roman Empire and the Islamic Caliphate met on the field of battle.
The Roman army was arranged with the Wadi Allan gorge to their right, the Wadi Ruqqad to their left. The East Roman right consisted mainly of infantry and formed a base for the center and left. The center, composed mostly of Armenians, was commanded by Vahan, while allied Arabs took position on the far left. The Muslim infantry covered the front, with cavalry behind the center and flanks, an additional cavalry unit in the rear. The East Romans had established a base camp at Yaqusah, northwest of Yarmuk, the Muslims camped immediately behind the battle lines.
The first day of this six day battle begin with dueling by champions of each side, a common event in battles of the time, with Muslim sources recording a string of victories. Vahan probed the Islamic lines with his infantry, the Muslim lines held, and both sides took the measure of the other.
On the second day dueling champions and probing attacks were forgotten as Vahan launched an attack across the Muslim front. Combined Roman cataphract and skutatoi formations, heavily outnumbering the Muslims, struck hard at the Muslim center, pining it in place while the Muslim flanks were charged. Roman cavalry and infantry broke the Muslim right flank, forcing Muslim infantry and cavalry back to their camps. Here the Muslim wives forced their men to hold their ground, using every tactic from singing songs to throwing rocks at them. The Muslim right held, and with cavalry reserves were able to drive the Romans back. The Roman skutatoi drove into the Muslim left flank and were similarly repelled, the Muslim wives forcing their men into combat. As the second day of battle closed neither side held any clear advantage, though both had suffered casualties.
Vahan focused his attention on the Muslim right flank on the third day of battle. Roman cataphracts, skutatoi, psiloi, and Arab allies charged into the Muslim right flank, which once again held, thanks to the efforts of the Muslim reserve cavalry and the wives.
The fourth day of combat again saw Vahan committed to breaking the Islamic right flank. Cataphracts and Arab faris allies charged the Muslim right. In response Khalid ordered a counterattack of the Roman center and right, leaving the Roman left flank dangerously exposed. The Muslims countered the Roman left flank, successfully forcing the Arab allied cavalry away from their supporting infantry. Cut off from the rest of the army the Arab allies fled, pursued by the Muslims to the Wadi Ruqquad, site of the bridge that lead to the main Roman camp at Yaqusah. The Roman left flank had lost its Arab contingent, and had failed to protect its main avenue of retreat to the Roman base camp.
The only saving grace for the Romans on the fourth day was on the Muslim left flank, where Roman psiloi and cataphract archers inflicted the Day of Lost Eyes on the Muslims. With the Muslim cavalry crushing the Roman left flank, the Muslim infantry of the left flank suffered heavy casualties holding the line against the Roman attack. The Muslims were able to hold, though this time several of the wives themselves fell to Roman blades.
The fifth day saw fruitless negotiations being carried out by both sides. With neither Roman nor Muslim willing to negotiate both sides used the fifth day to rest and regroup.
Khalid knew on the sixth day that victory was within his grasp. He sent his forces into a full attack on the Roman lines, concentrating on the weakened Roman left flank. The Roman left, cut off from its base camp and having suffered heavy losses on the fourth day, collapsed entirely. Following the collapse of the Roman left the center and right broke formation. Roman troops fled for their lives, the bloodied Muslims taking no prisoners and slaughtering any stragglers. Vahan himself was most likely killed in the disorganized retreat. Thousands of Romans, in small groups or individually, were able to escape the battlefield, fleeing south to Egypt or north to Emesa.
Aftermath
With their overwhelming victory on the battlefield of Yarmuk the Muslim army faced only small garrison units in the immediate future. By the year 640 the Muslim forces had conquered all of present day Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, and were invading Egypt. By the year 700 Islam would be permanently established in the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, and would be poised to invade Spain. Never again would the East Roman Empire, or any power, have such a chance as Yarmuk presented. The Muslims had concentrated the bulk of their offensive power at Yarmuk. Had they lost the battle the Roman army could've marched to the borders of Arabia. While a Roman invasion of Arabia seems unlikely, at the least Islam would've been confined to the Arabian peninsula. Whether the Muslims ever would've broken out of the Arabian deserts again is impossible to say, but if they hadn't the past 1,400 years of human history would've taken a completely different course.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aswani, did I ever state that Arabs always treated their slave humanely? You clearly did not read my post nor my references on the conditions of Arab slavery. I simply stated that according to Quranic juripurdence slaves were supposed to be treated very in a very humane way. We have evidence otherwise that slaves were not always treated according to Quranic law.
Western historians attempt to offset their own role in slavery by inditing Arabs of the same atrocities they are clearly guilty of. You are ignorance of my stance on Arabs and also get too emotionally involved in discussion. When discussing such issues we should look at what the historical records say instead of opinions or perceptions.
Aswani, you just figured out that modern Egyptians and Copts have racial bias against ''black Africans"? This has been a common theme in Egyptian society going back to at least the 1800's. This attitude was fostered by influences from European and Turkish disdain for ''black African'' groups south of Egypt. Often this included black faced caritures of Nubians. Even to this day black Egyptians from Aswan and Nubians are sterotyped as sexualy passive and docile.
I also know of educated Egyptians who see both Sa3eedi and Nubians as continous represenatives of the ancient Egyptians in physical apperance and mannerisms.
I also believe the racist aspect of most Copts comes from their close ties with the religious right in America. The religious right in America have always been on the forefront of racism towards Africans and African-Americans. Don't be fooled by their sponsoring of southern Sudan and Nubas in the Sudan.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: Awlaad the arabs didnt defeat the romans and persians by themselves most of those fighters were non arabs.
Anyone trying to say arabs didnt take slaves is a fool. Arabs didnt bring islam to africa inorder to better the life and righteousness of africans please.
UNESCO had a conference on slavery in eastafrica and the indian Ocean. They invited 50 arab scholars and not a single one showed up little kaffir bitches.
Ausar,Awlaaad,and Dana you seem to be hiding from the question that arabs inslaved many africans. Ausar even rambling about how arabs treated there slaves kindly and made them part of the family shut the **** up please.
I have no respect for arabs at all even Coptic christians in egypt are a bunch of racist idiots.
Im getting tired of this arabs black bullshit they aint black and never will be black they are a bunch of kaffirs period.
AswaniAswad - Though I certainly have no admiration for the Arabs, the Turks, or their Mulattoes. I think that it is important that you not allow your thinking to be clouded by emotionalism like so many do.
The fact is that the Arabs WERE Black, and those in the interior, and the south, still are.
posted
Mike please you are showing pictures of all non arabs.
Not anyone of those pictures you showed is of an arab who is from arabia.
No one is getting emotional you have never been to arabia nor has ausar ever been to arabia you will never understand the arab because they are a bunch of kaffirs.
Awlaad and Dana are totally confused individuals they act like they are more arab than the arab and more african than the african hypocrits.
You trying to trick everyone into your arabs are black scheme. I wear jalabiya i speak arabic i am more arab than any of those fake arabs you posted.
Africans in arabia try so hard to be arab that they even confuse you into thinking they are arabs stop trying to fit in be yourself.
Ausar please spare me the bullshit i have lived in egypt i know all about Sa3eedi,Nubians,Bedu,and etc they are all racist to black africans the nubians even hate themselves.
Arabs didnt inslave africans at all Awlaaad just keep it a secret like your fake arab lineage. YOu keep talking about the blacks of arabia Wow i wonder how they got outnumbered by the white ones.
I even saw this special about the black arabs of Iraq haram wallahi. So Awlaad what is your point of trying to show that arabs are black makes you feel more better about being muslim or what.
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
I hope your wrong Aswani, but I would not be surprised.
The Arab brainwashing has got into the heads of the Nubians and Saidi. I hope that with time, these people come to love themselves and love there African brothers.
I also posted an Video about Black Iraqis, They were not hiding the fact they were Black and looked quite proud. I hope more Blacks in Arabia come to know themselves and defend there heritage.
posted
You may have lived in Egypt but you know very little about Egyptian nationality, Aswani. You are a Eritrean claiming to be from Aswan. I suspect you may have some bias considering Egyptians and Ethiopians are fighting for water rights to the nile. Sa3eedi and Nubians are indeed biased against black African groups and donot consider them equal. You can definately blame the Arabs but make sure you include the Ottoman slave traders and Europeans. Sorry to say but this is true. However, I know of many Egyptians who see Nubians and dark skinned Upper Egyptians as the original Egyptians. Contrary to what Aswani said many people in Egypt see Nubians as the original Egyptians.
I don't advocate the Nubians nor Sa3eedi being openly racist against black Africans but I see no reason why they should be pressured to identify with most Africans. I support Pan-Africanism as a means to keep away oppression but people are free to ethnically identify themselves as whatever. This has no bearing on the identification of the ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: Mike please you are showing pictures of all non arabs.
Not anyone of those pictures you showed is of an arab who is from arabia.
No one is getting emotional you have never been to arabia nor has ausar ever been to arabia you will never understand the arab because they are a bunch of kaffirs.
Awlaad and Dana are totally confused individuals they act like they are more arab than the arab and more african than the african hypocrits.
You trying to trick everyone into your arabs are black scheme. I wear jalabiya i speak arabic i am more arab than any of those fake arabs you posted.
Africans in arabia try so hard to be arab that they even confuse you into thinking they are arabs stop trying to fit in be yourself.
Ausar please spare me the bullshit i have lived in egypt i know all about Sa3eedi,Nubians,Bedu,and etc they are all racist to black africans the nubians even hate themselves.
Arabs didnt inslave africans at all Awlaaad just keep it a secret like your fake arab lineage. YOu keep talking about the blacks of arabia Wow i wonder how they got outnumbered by the white ones.
I even saw this special about the black arabs of Iraq haram wallahi. So Awlaad what is your point of trying to show that arabs are black makes you feel more better about being muslim or what.
AswaniAswad who are you? Before I even respond to you, tell me who you are and what you are.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
we find the person featured on the front of the homepage as an example of a "true Arab" is not even an Arabian but an African Sultan of Zanzibar endorsed by the British. Zanzibar is not even in the horn, it's much further down near Central East Africa. If you want to say "true Arab" at least put up a photo of someone who lived in Arabia !
we find the person featured on the front of the homepage as an example of a "true Arab" is not even an Arabian but an African Sultan of Zanzibar endorsed by the British. Zanzibar is not even in the horn, it's much further down near Central East Africa. If you want to say "true Arab" at least put up a photo of someone who lived in Arabia !
Sayyid Ali bin Hamud Al-Busaid
.
If you weren't so ignorant of Arab history, you would know from his family name that he is an Arab from the Al Busaid family of Oman. The same family as the current ruler of Oman Sultan Qaaboos. If you weren't so ignorant of Arab history, you would know that the sultans of Oman and the sultans of Zanzibar are from the same family.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Have you ever heard of the Battle of Yarmouk?![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
lol!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic