...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
The North-South relationship..Mahgreb and Sudan..
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [qb] The Silent ones were not Africans but Slavs, Germanics and Englishmen.. [IMG]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1121/screenshot20111212at726.png[/IMG] -[b]The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800[/b] By Jay Winik Majority of the slaves in Andalus were white. [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] More from your source, Occident and Orient by Sandor Scheiber, 1988: [IMG]http://picturestack.com/252/139/ROuPicture126Q.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://picturestack.com/252/140/fJOPicture4SIs.png[/IMG] [/qb][/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE]Everyone in the armies of Andalus were not slaves. In fact most were not. That is a bit of an over statement. And of those often referred to as slaves, many were mercenaries. Most of the armies in Andalus were either made up by troops of the various Berber groups, various Syrian or Arab groups or local native levies called up from the Muslim populations of various towns. And among all of these troops you had various ethnic groups. There were white Europeans who became Islamic rules, as in some of the Visigothic kings who invited in the Muslims. There were Africans from across North and West Africa. There were Arabians and Syrians along with Egyptians and other groups. The Islamic population was mixed. And texts from early on in the Islamic occupation distinguish between them very clearly: For example the Mozaribic Chronicle of 754: [QUOTE] Despite the expressions of horror at the invasion, what is perhaps surprising is that the chronicler’s attitude to the Moors is generally even handed. Musa and one or two others are heavily criticised, but others are praised for bringing peace to the land. Perhaps this is because the chronicler does not evaluate the leaders in religious terms, but according to their contribution to political life. Nor does he question their legitimacy as governors.[b] The chronicler also refrains from talking about the invaders’ religion, and does not call them Muslims, or infidels or pagans; rather he refers to them in ethnic terms: Arabs (Arabes), Moors (Mauri), Saracens (Saraceni).[/b] [/QUOTE] http://www.spainthenandnow.com/spanish-history/8th-c-al-andalus-invasion/default_134.aspx Therefore the idea that people didn't recognize various ethnic groups among the Muslim invaders and just lumped them all together is pure nonsense. This is especially true considering that the mistreatment of the Berbers(Mauri) caused no end of ethnic strife in Al Andalus and much of the destruction wrought on the kingdom was due to these internal battles between the Berber groups and various other Arab/Syrian/Spanish Muslim clans along with other Berber groups. Read some of the texts from the period and you will see why the Muslims were often engaged in asking for help from Christians against other Muslims, which theoretically should be a cardinal sin in Islam. Hence the portraits showing the Christians asking Muslims for aid against other Christians and supporting the Muslims against other Muslims. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3