posted
because thier matriarch, hagar, was an egyptian slave, so i think bedouins are related by blood to Egyptians, what do you think.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancient Egyptians (Kemetians) were most closely related to their contiguous African contemporaries, which would of course be expected seeing as how they were natives of Africa, unlike Bedouins.
Modern Egypt is a more complicated situation, many may or may not be, Egypt (today's Arab republic of) is diverse. I don't put much stock into some biblical traditions, however, according to the 9th century Al-Jahiz, the Arabs were a result of an infusion between Abraham and an Egyptian woman.
Quote: The Copts natives of Egypt are also a black race. Abraham wished to have a child by one of their race and thus Ishmael the ancestor of the Arabs was born. The Prophet Mohammad also had a child by Mary the Copt.
quote:Al-Jahiz, the Arabs were a result of an infusion between Abraham and an Egyptian woman.
this is a true statement and for sake of extension, there were arabic speaking populations in the peninsula already before abraham and hajr. ismael was taught arabic by a yemeni klan called jurhum who used to transit the hijaz valley all the time. He married from their crew. This tribe itself was arabized from a time afar for you have 'amaleeq, ameem, ad, thamud, and etc.
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ttbomk beduin is a mode of life not a people and Hagar of Hebrew literature was a pharaoh's daughter.
Where al~Jahiz speaks of an Abraham and an Egyptian woman he does no more than rely on what you call the Bible. If stock isn't taken in the latter neither can be in the former.
And yes, Ishmael is representative of peoples who entered the north of the peninsula and adapted the language and select mannerisms of the pure Arabian Kushites.
There are two Arabian bloodlines and three societal divisions. The many stories tales and legends are in disagreement, as to who is what, except for one fact, the original pure Arabs were undone and ceased from history.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
AlTakruri - Though it is true that when Turkish Sultan Mahmud II (1808-39), had Muhammad Ali send an expedition to Arabia that between 1811 and 1813 expelled the Wahhabis from the Hejaz, and in a further campaign (1816-18), Ibrahim Pasha, the viceroy's eldest son, defeated the Wahhabis in their homeland of Najd, and brought central Arabia under Albanian control.
They did not totally destroy ALL Arabs. I think that they were mostly displaced to the extreme south in protectorate reservations like Kathiri, Mahra, Quaiti. {The Turks seem to have taken a page from White America in how to deal with indigenous populations}. Hopefully, unlike the American Indian, the Arab will survive in their original state.
It's funny; how when one can't find support for ones position on ancient history in science, the alternative is always religious literature, Which is itself NOT ancient. I can't figure out how that is suppose to work.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the bedouins are truly related by maternal ancestry but not related culturally as they were absorbed by arabic culture.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: AlTakruri - Though it is true that when Turkish Sultan Mahmud II (1808-39), had Muhammad Ali send an expedition to Arabia that between 1811 and 1813 expelled the Wahhabis from the Hejaz, and in a further campaign (1816-18), Ibrahim Pasha, the viceroy's eldest son, defeated the Wahhabis in their homeland of Najd, and brought central Arabia under Albanian control.
They did not totally destroy ALL Arabs. I think that they were mostly displaced to the extreme south in protectorate reservations like Kathiri, Mahra, Quaiti. {The Turks seem to have taken a page from White America in how to deal with indigenous populations}. Hopefully, unlike the American Indian, the Arab will survive in their original state.
It's funny; how when one can't find support for ones position on ancient history in science, the alternative is always religious literature, Which is itself NOT ancient. I can't figure out how that is suppose to work.
What citations do you have for these expeditions in central Arabia? Not doubting your info but I just want to know where to look. I have heard many times that a lot of the modern Arabians are more descended from Turks than Arabians.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: AlTakruri - Though it is true that when Turkish Sultan Mahmud II (1808-39), had Muhammad Ali send an expedition to Arabia that between 1811 and 1813 expelled the Wahhabis from the Hejaz, and in a further campaign (1816-18), Ibrahim Pasha, the viceroy's eldest son, defeated the Wahhabis in their homeland of Najd, and brought central Arabia under Albanian control.
They did not totally destroy ALL Arabs. I think that they were mostly displaced to the extreme south in protectorate reservations like Kathiri, Mahra, Quaiti. {The Turks seem to have taken a page from White America in how to deal with indigenous populations}. Hopefully, unlike the American Indian, the Arab will survive in their original state.
It's funny; how when one can't find support for ones position on ancient history in science, the alternative is always religious literature, Which is itself NOT ancient. I can't figure out how that is suppose to work.
What citations do you have for these expeditions in central Arabia? Not doubting your info but I just want to know where to look. I have heard many times that a lot of the modern Arabians are more descended from Turks than Arabians.
I thought Turks descended from Arabians, what are their differences.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
true but you must remember alot of them intermingled alot with persians, turks, and byzantians and kept the arabic culture and name just like how the indian bureau and other native american affairs are headed and ran by people who look no different from europeans. If you look at some of the royal saudia family you will see that they have the color of the shaam and if you look at qaboos of oman and abdullah of yemen you will see they have the colors of the original inhabitants. They always had range of different colors on the peninsula.
quote: thought Turks descended from Arabians, what are their differences.
Original turks are "mongolic" type people and have no immediate lineages with arabs except that which has interminged in the peninsula. There are people with the name al-turki to show you their origins. I remember seeing a kuwaiti with the body plan of a european and shaqr(blond) and he told me that his origins were german. I remember seeing another kuwaiti who color was like that of moses(as) and a tropical body plan and he told me his family origins were nubia.
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry. I'm not speaking of the modern era. I'm referring to a time at least 2800 years ago when outsiders entered the peninsula.
The oldest and purest Arabian Kushite bloodlines are extinguished. No more of al-'Arab ul-'Aribah are around as a distinct population unless it's those street sweepers (untested conjectural speculation). Dj & co. (Hikuptah, Yom, Yazid) posit that the old pure Arabian Kushite remainders are among the Qarra, Harasis, and most particularly the Mahra.
You need to look up those who abdul~karem mentioned. I suggest starting with Thamud and the Adites.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: AlTakruri - Though it is true that when Turkish Sultan Mahmud II (1808-39), had Muhammad Ali send an expedition to Arabia that between 1811 and 1813 expelled the Wahhabis from the Hejaz, ...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
true but you must remember alot of them intermingled alot with persians, turks, and byzantians and kept the arabic culture and name just like how the indian bureau and other native american affairs are headed and ran by people who look no different from europeans. If you look at some of the royal saudia family you will see that they have the color of the shaam and if you look at qaboos of oman and abdullah of yemen you will see they have the colors of the original inhabitants. They always had range of different colors on the peninsula.
quote: thought Turks descended from Arabians, what are their differences.
Original turks are "mongolic" type people and have no immediate lineages with arabs except that which has interminged in the peninsula. There are people with the name al-turki to show you their origins. I remember seeing a kuwaiti with the body plan of a european and shaqr(blond) and he told me that his origins were german. I remember seeing another kuwaiti who color was like that of moses(as) and a tropical body plan and he told me his family origins were nubia.
yes, turks are said to descend from Huns.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M and all: Arabs are part of one of the first groups to leave southern Africa some 70,000 years ago. This group crossed southern Arabia on their way to Australia, so logically you would have to think that the two are genetically similar. (Except for the nose, they look the same to me).
Turks on the other hand, are the last group of Caucasians to leave the Eurasian plains. They count among their number Albanians, Armenians, Khazars (Jews), and of course, the people who now occupy Turkey (ancient Anatolia). They (Turks) and Greeks were the main elements of the mis-labeled Arab invasion of north Africa and the Middle east.
It was under Umayyad Caliph Umar II (reigned 717-720), that these mawali (non-Arab Muslims) were placed on the same footing with all other Muslims, without respect to nationality. This decree allowed Greeks, Turks and other Eurasians to fully assimilate into the Muslim brotherhood.
With this legitimization, and under the banner of Arab Muslim-hood, they quickly usurped the Arabs and expanded their rule over all of North Africa and the middle-east. (That is why you will find no true Arab in charge of ANY of these areas, Only Turks).
I think that what may confuse you and others, is the fact that they call themselves "Arab". I have no answer for that, just as I have no answer as to why the Khazars of their group, call themselves Hebrews. But I think it may be an attempt to legitimize their presence and rule in these areas.
To my knowledge one of the best histories of the Turks is found at Encyclopedia Britannica (It's a pay site). A similar but abbreviated one is here (below). But simply putting Turks, Ottoman, etc. into your browser search should yield more than enough sources, it is a well documented history.
posted
Once again beduin is a lifestyle not an ethnonym. You do understand the difference, do you not?
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: So the bedouins are truly related by maternal ancestry but not related culturally as they were absorbed by arabic culture.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Takuri is correct. 'Bedouin' essentially means desert nomads and is a lifestyle or economic mode than an actual ethnic group.
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: because thier matriarch, hagar, was an egyptian slave, so i think bedouins are related by blood to Egyptians, what do you think.
By "Bedouin" I assume you mean 'Arab'. If that's so, then yes that is what the ancient legends and tales say.
To start off, we must be clear that the Biblical story of Hagar and Abraham is mythological or legendary. That said, all myths and legends are based on some truth. The claim that Arabs share African ancestry (whether Egyptian or not) is a fact that has been verified.
But another problem is the identity of so-called Arab peoples themselves.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ttbomk beduin is a mode of life not a people and Hagar of Hebrew literature was a pharaoh's daughter.
Where al~Jahiz speaks of an Abraham and an Egyptian woman he does no more than rely on what you call the Bible. If stock isn't taken in the latter neither can be in the former.
And yes, Ishmael is representative of peoples who entered the north of the peninsula and adapted the language and select mannerisms of the pure Arabian Kushites.
There are two Arabian bloodlines and three societal divisions. The many stories tales and legends are in disagreement, as to who is what, except for one fact, the original pure Arabs were undone and ceased from history.
The two main bloodlines of Arabs are the Qahtaani and Adnani. The Qahtaani or al-'Arab ul-'Aribah who are the original Arabs of southern and central Arabia. Then there are the Adnani or al-'Arab ul-Muta'aribah who are from the north and mixed with the Qahtaani and adopted some of their culture. The third division is the al-'Arab ul-Musta'ribah who are not a single group or Arabs at all but basically non Arabian foreigners who have been assimilated into Arab culture or 'Arabized'. A perfect example would be Africans such as the northern Sudanese.
As to Takruri's claim of the original Arabs somehow being extinct, I'm not so sure about that. Surely there are some remnant groups of Qahtani somewhere in southern Arabia whether it be in the form of the Akhdaam or not, I don't know.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the Original ARabs are in the Hijaz & Medina that is were arabic was only spoken u have to remember that Yemen Northern Yemen is the Home of All Arabs as they are the Original. Southern Yemen was ruled by Himyarites and Sabeans who are not arabs and Oman had the Julandi Brothers. If u read the Quran it speaks of the Ad and Thamud people these people are the Kushites the Ones of Old. Bedouin is just the term for a lifestyle as the other guys told u but Arabs have been invovled in many mixing for instance the arabs of old use to marry into other tribes and families just for treaties and to establish peace between tribes and they also had alot when i say alot i mean alot of Slaves Concubines with alot of different people Africans,Europeans,Persians,Indians and so one. But to say Arabs are related to ancient Egyptians is like saying Greeks are related to Egyptians. The Original Arabs are the Quraish and a few other tribes remember the arab was not that large they became many people because of concubines from Africa.
Posts: 68 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug M and all: Arabs are part of one of the first groups to leave southern Africa some 70,000 years ago. This group crossed southern Arabia on their way to Australia, so logically you would have to think that the two are genetically similar. (Except for the nose, they look the same to me).
Turks on the other hand, are the last group of Caucasians to leave the Eurasian plains. They count among their number Albanians, Armenians, Khazars (Jews), and of course, the people who now occupy Turkey (ancient Anatolia). They (Turks) and Greeks were the main elements of the mis-labeled Arab invasion of north Africa and the Middle east.
It was under Umayyad Caliph Umar II (reigned 717-720), that these mawali (non-Arab Muslims) were placed on the same footing with all other Muslims, without respect to nationality. This decree allowed Greeks, Turks and other Eurasians to fully assimilate into the Muslim brotherhood.
With this legitimization, and under the banner of Arab Muslim-hood, they quickly usurped the Arabs and expanded their rule over all of North Africa and the middle-east. (That is why you will find no true Arab in charge of ANY of these areas, Only Turks).
I think that what may confuse you and others, is the fact that they call themselves "Arab". I have no answer for that, just as I have no answer as to why the Khazars of their group, call themselves Hebrews. But I think it may be an attempt to legitimize their presence and rule in these areas.
To my knowledge one of the best histories of the Turks is found at Encyclopedia Britannica (It's a pay site). A similar but abbreviated one is here (below). But simply putting Turks, Ottoman, etc. into your browser search should yield more than enough sources, it is a well documented history.
Actually you are over simplifying a long and complex story in order to make a point.
The ORIGINAL "Arabs" were arabians who swept into Syria and Baghdad. This is where the earliest main dynasties of Islam originated. Not in Turkey. The initial dynasties of the Syrians started the spread of Islam across Northern Africa. From 600-1000 there was a long series of wars and infighting between various factions in Syria, Baghdad and North Africa. During this time, Islam spread to Spain and Italy and created new kingdoms. It was also during this time that Islam spread into India. Yes, there were Mamluks (turkish slave soldiers) used in the early days of the Islamic conquest. But they did not begin to gain control until after 1000, when various Seljuk sultans began to rise to power. Then the Mamluks became a powerful force in Egypt. The Mamluks in Egypt then began to go and conquer Arabia. Of course, after 1300, the Ottomans rose to power and of course this was the beginning of Turkish domination of a good part of the Islamic world.
But ALL of these rulers Turkish, Syrian, Arab or otherwise, used soldiers from ALL OVER and it was definitely a conglomerate of groups. However, it is also true that the term "turn Turk" refers to Europeans who converted to Islam and became pirates or renegades in the Mediterranean world, which harks back to the historic Turkish presence in Islamic society.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M: I'm not real sure of what you are saying or where you got it from. But here is a short chronology, I hope it helps
The Tulunid dynasty: It was during the rule of Abbasid caliph Harun ar-Rashid (ruled 786-809), that the caliphs began assigning Egypt to Turks rather than to Arabs. The first Turkish dynasty was that of Ibn Tulun who entered Egypt in 868.
The Ikhshidid dynasty: 935 A.D. ushered in the Ikhshidid dynasty of Muhammad ibn Tughj, a Turk from Uzbekistan in Central Asia.
The Ikhshidid dynasty was usurped by their Abyssinian slave tutor named Kafur, he ruled Egypt with the caliphate's sanction.
The Fatimid Dynasty: When Kafur died in 968, the Fatimids (a contending force for the Caliphate), took advantage of the disorder in Egypt to attack, the attack was successful and led to the occupation of Egypt by a Berber army led by the Fatimid general Jawhar. The early Fatimids' reliance on Berber troops was soon replaced by the importation of Turkish, Sudanese, and Arab contingents. By the time of their decline however, the Fatimid army was under the leadership of Eurasian Armenian generals, (not Aramaean).
The Ayyubid dynasty: In 1169 The Turkish governor of Syria sent an army lead by Saladin (a Kurd born in Tikrit Iraq), to occupy Egypt. He was appointed Fatimid vizier. Two years later Saladin restored Egypt to Abbasid allegiance, abolished the Fatimid caliphate, and established the Ayyubid dynasty. The Ayyubids depended on Turkish slaves - called Mamluks, as a means of manning their armies.
The Mamluk dynasty: In 1250 A.D. The Mamluks rebelled and established their own dynasty.
The Ottoman dynasty: In 1516 A.D. the Ottoman Turks along with other Eastern European troops (Serbs and Bosnians), defeated the Mamluks.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Takuri is correct. 'Bedouin' essentially means desert nomads and is a lifestyle or economic mode than an actual ethnic group.
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: because thier matriarch, hagar, was an egyptian slave, so i think bedouins are related by blood to Egyptians, what do you think.
By "Bedouin" I assume you mean 'Arab'. If that's so, then yes that is what the ancient legends and tales say.
To start off, we must be clear that the Biblical story of Hagar and Abraham is mythological or legendary. That said, all myths and legends are based on some truth. The claim that Arabs share African ancestry (whether Egyptian or not) is a fact that has been verified.
But another problem is the identity of so-called Arab peoples themselves.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ttbomk beduin is a mode of life not a people and Hagar of Hebrew literature was a pharaoh's daughter.
Where al~Jahiz speaks of an Abraham and an Egyptian woman he does no more than rely on what you call the Bible. If stock isn't taken in the latter neither can be in the former.
And yes, Ishmael is representative of peoples who entered the north of the peninsula and adapted the language and select mannerisms of the pure Arabian Kushites.
There are two Arabian bloodlines and three societal divisions. The many stories tales and legends are in disagreement, as to who is what, except for one fact, the original pure Arabs were undone and ceased from history.
The two main bloodlines of Arabs are the Qahtaani and Adnani. The Qahtaani or al-'Arab ul-'Aribah who are the original Arabs of southern and central Arabia. Then there are the Adnani or al-'Arab ul-Muta'aribah who are from the north and mixed with the Qahtaani and adopted some of their culture. The third division is the al-'Arab ul-Musta'ribah who are not a single group or Arabs at all but basically non Arabian foreigners who have been assimilated into Arab culture or 'Arabized'. A perfect example would be Africans such as the northern Sudanese.
As to Takruri's claim of the original Arabs somehow being extinct, I'm not so sure about that. Surely there are some remnant groups of Qahtani somewhere in southern Arabia whether it be in the form of the Akhdaam or not, I don't know.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug M: I'm not real sure of what you are saying or where you got it from. But here is a short chronology, I hope it helps
The Tulunid dynasty: It was during the rule of Abbasid caliph Harun ar-Rashid (ruled 786-809), that the caliphs began assigning Egypt to Turks rather than to Arabs. The first Turkish dynasty was that of Ibn Tulun who entered Egypt in 868.
The Ikhshidid dynasty: 935 A.D. ushered in the Ikhshidid dynasty of Muhammad ibn Tughj, a Turk from Uzbekistan in Central Asia.
The Ikhshidid dynasty was usurped by their Abyssinian slave tutor named Kafur, he ruled Egypt with the caliphate's sanction.
The Fatimid Dynasty: When Kafur died in 968, the Fatimids (a contending force for the Caliphate), took advantage of the disorder in Egypt to attack, the attack was successful and led to the occupation of Egypt by a Berber army led by the Fatimid general Jawhar. The early Fatimids' reliance on Berber troops was soon replaced by the importation of Turkish, Sudanese, and Arab contingents. By the time of their decline however, the Fatimid army was under the leadership of Eurasian Armenian generals, (not Aramaean).
The Ayyubid dynasty: In 1169 The Turkish governor of Syria sent an army lead by Saladin (a Kurd born in Tikrit Iraq), to occupy Egypt. He was appointed Fatimid vizier. Two years later Saladin restored Egypt to Abbasid allegiance, abolished the Fatimid caliphate, and established the Ayyubid dynasty. The Ayyubids depended on Turkish slaves - called Mamluks, as a means of manning their armies.
The Mamluk dynasty: In 1250 A.D. The Mamluks rebelled and established their own dynasty.
The Ottoman dynasty: In 1516 A.D. the Ottoman Turks along with other Eastern European troops (Serbs and Bosnians), defeated the Mamluks.
No problem. I understand your point. It is good to point out that even Jahwar was a Turkic slave troop originally. But, as I said, these Turks and Europeans did not really run Islam until the Ottomans. Prior to that they were military slaves in various parts of the Islamic world, who achieved high rank, but did not necessarily control the Islamic world. Also keep in mind that the Central Asian Turkic Caliphates became predominant in Eastern Islam, from Persia to India. Overall given what transpired, I now understand why people say that the original Arabs were overrun by Turks in relatively recent times.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tippu_Tip famous Afro-Arab slaver. http://www.ntz.info/gen/n00880.html Slavery always existed in Africa as part of a social system but trade started with Arab raiders arriving around the 9th century to take Africans to markets in Mesopotamia, India, Persia and Arabia. In the 19th century slave trading was a flourishing commercial practice with regular and massive deportations organised by Arab slavers helped by local tribes such as the Nyamwezi who became their redoubtable partners. The most renowned Arab trader was Tippu Tip (Hemedi bin Muhammad el Marjebi), born in Zanzibar, who at 18 began slave and ivory trading between the interior and coastal towns, and by 1880 he had built a large commercial empire between the Upper Congo, Lake Tanganyika and Bagamoyo on the coast, where the slaves were shipped-off to Zanzibar for sale to foreign merchants. In East Africa all the main routes, such as the above, lay in Tanganyika: a route in the North passed through Karagwe and North of Lake Victoria and divided to head north to Bunyoro and north-east towards Buganda. A less frequented route in the south exploited by the Yao, led from Lake Nyasa to Kilwa.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ Takuri is correct. 'Bedouin' essentially means desert nomads and is a lifestyle or economic mode than an actual ethnic group.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: [qb] because thier matriarch, hagar, was an egyptian slave, so i think bedouins are related by blood to Egyptians, what do you think.
By "Bedouin" I assume you mean 'Arab'. If that's so, then yes that is what the ancient legends and tales say.
To start off, we must be clear that the Biblical story of Hagar and Abraham is mythological or legendary. That said, all myths and legends are based on some truth. The claim that Arabs share African ancestry (whether Egyptian or not) is a fact that has been verified.
But another problem is the identity of so-called Arab peoples themselves.
I think they are half-egyptian racially but completely identify themselves and thier culture also is Arab.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tippu_Tip famous Afro-Arab slaver. http://www.ntz.info/gen/n00880.html Slavery always existed in Africa as part of a social system but trade started with Arab raiders arriving around the 9th century to take Africans to markets in Mesopotamia, India, Persia and Arabia. In the 19th century slave trading was a flourishing commercial practice with regular and massive deportations organised by Arab slavers helped by local tribes such as the Nyamwezi who became their redoubtable partners. The most renowned Arab trader was Tippu Tip (Hemedi bin Muhammad el Marjebi), born in Zanzibar, who at 18 began slave and ivory trading between the interior and coastal towns, and by 1880 he had built a large commercial empire between the Upper Congo, Lake Tanganyika and Bagamoyo on the coast, where the slaves were shipped-off to Zanzibar for sale to foreign merchants. In East Africa all the main routes, such as the above, lay in Tanganyika: a route in the North passed through Karagwe and North of Lake Victoria and divided to head north to Bunyoro and north-east towards Buganda. A less frequented route in the south exploited by the Yao, led from Lake Nyasa to Kilwa.
Actually, this isn't a question of general diversity amongst Arabians, the issue was how related are the ABORIGINAL lineages of Egypt to the Aboriginal lineages of Arabia.
And no, Africans did not always practice "slavery" and not in the sense that you are putting it. Africans most often took prisoners of war as "slaves" but these were not slaves in the modern sense. Modern slavery in began with the Arabs who targetted whole GROUPS as slaves. They initially started with people of Eastern Europe, the Turks and Slavs, which gave rise to the name SLAVE. Islam created a system of slavery, which justified war against infidels and allowed infidels to be enslaved. This form of slavery involved all sorts of duties from military to political. They also practiced sex slavery, which allowed women to be used up as sexual objects and then discarded. Africans did not practice this. And blacks were not the biggest slave traders in Africa. In fact they were the middle men. The rise of Islamic kingdoms in Africa promoted open warfare between Africans and Non muslim animists. These wars provided slaves for Islam. But as time went on, even Muslims were taken as slaves by non African Arabs. The pressure in East Africa was on the Zanzibar kingdoms to produce slaves for the slave markets of Cairo and Arabia. Therefore the East Africans had to up their quota of slaves. Again, this is for houseworkers and concubines and the East Africans and other Muslim kingdoms began to push their wars against non muslim kingdoms, not because of any sense of spreading Islam, but in order to obtain more slaves. A similar situation occurred in West Africa, both due to Muslim pressure, but especially due to Western traders along the coast. These traders purposely instigated all sorts of wars and conflicts between African groups in order to extract more slaves. But this became especially rampant After the trade in gold, salt and other spices began to dry up in Africa and Africans had to rely more and more on slave trading for capital.
None of this existed in Africa before the Arabs.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I believe tippu tup was the man who brought some of the somali bantu to the Benadir coast, he considered himself a Omani arab and didn't identify with the people he raided and sold although feature wise they looked no different than himself.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes bizarre, especially if you take into account that his mother was a east African. Classic process of Arabization.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, lets face facts. The Muslim community has never been one force or one nation for any amount of time. There have been wars and strife between and among Muslims as much as Muslims and non Muslims. The issue here was one of survival. Africans realized that in order to survive they needed to adopt Islam and once they did they knew they what they were expected to do, which was continue the fight against the infidels (non believers). That same thing happened everywhere the Muslims went, from Europe, to Persia and South Asia. That is how it spread. So this isn't something unique to African history. The point is that once you adopt Islam you identify with Islam because that is how you are indoctrinated. Everyone else is an infidel in this way of thinking. And the majority of these slaves were intended for the Turks and Arabs, so from any perspective the Africans were not in control or chiefs of the slave trade. The people who bought and used the slaves and kept up the demand for the slaves were the ones behind the slave trade. The Africans were being pressured to keep the slaves flowing and pressured to treat the captives as inhumanely as possible. BOTH were victims of the SAME system. This system ALWAYS murdered the men then enslaved and impregnated the women, in order to produce children loyal to the father (Islam), so that Islam would be all that they knew. That took place everywhere Islam spread.
quote:Doug M: Africans realized that in order to survive they needed to adopt Islam and once they did they knew they what they were expected to do, which was continue the fight against the infidels (non believers).
Why you always talk as if africans consist of one nation, one people and one thought? Which specifically africans "realized that in order to survive they needed to adopt Islam"??
quote:The Africans were being pressured to keep the slaves flowing and pressured to treat the captives as inhumanely as possible. BOTH were victims of the SAME system.
Again which africans were "pressured to keep the slaves flowing"?? Most did not engage in such activities, and in east africa the majority of the slave raiding were limited to a specific area of defensless tribes controlled by a handfull of people from zanzibar.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M: Africans realized that in order to survive they needed to adopt Islam and once they did they knew they what they were expected to do, which was continue the fight against the infidels (non believers).
Why you always talk as if africans consist of one nation, one people and one thought? Which specifically africans "realized that in order to survive they needed to adopt Islam"??
I mean people dwelling on the continent of Africa faced with an onslaught of Islam. It is intended to be a geographic description. I don't see why this is hard to understand.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: I think they are half-egyptian racially but completely identify themselves and thier culture also is Arab.
You base this on the Biblical/Quranic claim of descent from Ishmael via Abraham and Hagar. Again, while all ancient myths and legends are based on some truth, you must not take everything but only for some grains of salt.
That many 'Arabs' have partial African ancestry is an established fact, but whether this is maternal or even Egyptian is another issue.
Most genetics that show African ancestry is paternal not maternal and that this ancestry is very ancient much older than Egypt itself, so how can you say that it is 'Egyptian' ancestry?
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've come to realize the subject header of this thread is rhetorical and is really a statement rather than a question.
The broacher cares not a whit about facts such as the fact that the Arabs themselves readily admit that Ishmael was not the first Arab and that the "Ishmaelites" grafted onto the Arabs of the west coast and the south parts of the peninsula.
As far as Hebrew mythos go they acknowledge the peninsula was peopled well before Ishmael and the Hagarines (descendents of Qeturah aka Hajar). Per Hebrew sacred literature Hajar was Egyptian and the mother(s) of Ishmael's children were Egyptian.
It's unwise to purport that there were no Arabs before the birth of Islam. Because of Islam the Arabs latched onto the Hebrew mythos for their connection to Abraham/Ibrahim whom they too consider a link in the chain of their prophets and the one who first erected the Qa'aba which Muhammed later cleared of the idols placed there by polytheist who took the place over.
What bearing this has on the population genetics of the peninsula is moot. After Ishmael's sons and daughter took spouses what record do we have of their ethnic origin? I don't know but I doubt that after Ishmael and his immediate progeny that spouses were obtained from Egypt rather than from the surrounding pre-existing peninsular populations.
In any event the broacher of this thread is not concerned with any of that and just wants support for Arabians being 3/4 Egyptian because of Hajar and Ismael's Egyptian wives regardless of even common sense deduction that there was little if any Egyptian fusion after that generation.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: I think they are half-egyptian racially but completely identify themselves and thier culture also is Arab.
You base this on the Biblical/Quranic claim of descent from Ishmael via Abraham and Hagar. Again, while all ancient myths and legends are based on some truth, you must not take everything but only for some grains of salt.
That many 'Arabs' have partial African ancestry is an established fact, but whether this is maternal or even Egyptian is another issue.
Most genetics that show African ancestry is paternal not maternal and that this ancestry is very ancient much older than Egypt itself, so how can you say that it is 'Egyptian' ancestry?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Good point Takruri. I myself never implied that there were no Arabian populations before Ishamael, although I notice the emphasis of Arab identity on that personage.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Good point Takruri. I myself never implied that there were no Arabian populations before Ishamael, although I notice the emphasis of Arab identity on that personage.
yes, there were other arab population before Ishtmael,cannanites, Amorrites etc.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The Canaanites were not Arabs nor were they even nomads but sedentary people of the Levant. The Amorites were nomads, but I am unsure of their supposed lineage as to say whether or not they were 'Arabs'.
An 'Arab' by definition is an inhabitant of the Arabian peninsula who speaks Arabic language and is associated mainly with Arabic speaking nomads today.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really sorry to say this but I fear a solid enough base in history, anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics is lacking in some posters to grasp the answers to their shakily composed question-statements.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Really sorry to say this but I fear a solid enough base in history, anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics is lacking in some posters to grasp the answers to their shakily composed question-statements.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Africans realized that in order to survive they needed to adopt Islam
So according to you the Indonesians, Malaysians, Chinese, Persians, Turks, Pakistanis, Bosnians all converted because they wanted to and weren't scared.
But the Africans were scared, helpless, and pitiful so unlike any of the others they had no choice.
This sad thing is this makes sense to you.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: DougM wrote:
quote: Africans realized that in order to survive they needed to adopt Islam
So according to you the Indonesians, Malaysians, Chinese, Persians, Turks, Pakistanis, Bosnians all converted because they wanted to and weren't scared.
But the Africans were scared, helpless, and pitiful so unlike any of the others they had no choice.
This sad thing is this makes sense to you.
Read what I wrote and you will see that what you are saying makes no sense. I did not write just one sentence.
Seeing as this sentence you quoted is followed by, That same thing happened everywhere the Muslims went, from Europe, to Persia and South Asia. That is how it spread. So this isn't something unique to African history.
Reading is fundamental.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
argyle104 wrote: So according to you the Indonesians, Malaysians, Chinese, Persians, Turks, Pakistanis, Bosnians all converted because they wanted to and weren't scared. But the Africans were scared, helpless, and pitiful so unlike any of the others they had no choice.
I think you misunderstand Muslim expansion, and who did it. Hint; it wasn't Arabs. Further Hint; Before WW-I, Islam was referred to, as the "Turkish" religion. Lastly conquered people like Egyptians and Persians didn't CHOOSE anything, Do or Die is not a real choice. You might do well to do some reading on the conversion of the others that you mentioned.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Read what I wrote and you will see that what you are saying makes no sense. I did not write just one sentence.
Seeing as this sentence you quoted is followed by, That same thing happened everywhere the Muslims went, from Europe, to Persia and South Asia. That is how it spread. So this isn't something unique to African history.
Reading is fundamental.
Provide proof of this. Provide proof the people of China, Nigeria, Somalia, Indonesia and the like were coerced by the big bad Arabs into Islam. Also add how many of these big bad Arabs did it.
It sounds like the Arabs are your personal boogeyman. Let me try an experiment. My name is Abdul Hassan Habib Jabbar.
BOO!
Are you hiding in your closet? : )
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think you misunderstand Muslim expansion, and who did it. Hint; it wasn't Arabs. Further Hint; Before WW-I, Islam was referred to, as the "Turkish" religion. Lastly conquered people like Egyptians and Persians didn't CHOOSE anything, Do or Die is not a real choice. You might do well to do some reading on the conversion of the others that you mentioned.
Provide proof.
And also tell me what Africans laid down with fear of the big bad arabs and made Islam their religion.
Was it the Nigerians? Was it the Somalis? Was it the Chadians? Was it the Zulus? Was it the Malians? Was it the Burkino Fasians? Also any of the Africans not listed above.
Provide details of which group(s) and\or members of modern day nations were the fearful ones.
Let me guess, you and DougM are Americans aren't you?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
argyle104: I was merely pointing out that there might be a reality different from what one would gather from looking at the present. Things weren't always as they are now, and what is now, will certainly change.
There are many threads on this board that speak about the conversion of North Africa and the Middle-East. If you want to read them, do so. As regards other places, the same holds, if you want to read, do so. I feel no obligation to do your research for you.
As regards to the Turks and the Ottoman Empire, which were the chief instruments or perhaps weapons of conversion: Yes, many nations did tremble before them.
Lastly: It seems to me, that when you contemplate these things; you are using as a base, a Sub-Sahara Africa that did not exist. Perhaps your first order of business might be to study up on the current-era history of Sub-Sahara Africa.
As I recall, up until about 40 years ago, pretty much the entire area was a colony of one European power or another. There might even still be some small area that is still a colony. So why the concept of a foreign power, forcing it's will on Sub-Saharan's, would seem strange to you, is a mystery to me.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are many threads on this board that speak about the conversion of North Africa and the Middle-East. If you want to read them, do so. As regards other places, the same holds, if you want to read, do so. I feel no obligation to do your research for you.
As regards to the Turks and the Ottoman Empire, which were the chief instruments or perhaps weapons of conversion: Yes, many nations did tremble before them.
Lastly: It seems to me, that when you contemplate these things; you are using as a base, a Sub-Sahara Africa that did not exist. Perhaps your first order of business might be to study up on the current-era history of Sub-Sahara Africa.
As I recall, up until about 40 years ago, pretty much the entire area was a colony of one European power or another. There might even still be some small area that is still a colony. So why the concept of a foreign power, forcing it's will on Sub-Saharan's, would seem strange to you, is a mystery to me.
Don't try to change the subject because you and him cannot back up your wild claims. This is about (per Doug) big bad A-rabs coming in and forcing po, pitiful scared Nigerians, Somalis, Chadians, Zulus, Malis, Burkino Fasians and other Africans into Islam.
quote:Africans realized that in order to survive they needed to adopt Islam
Now provide details of which group(s) and\or members of modern day nations were the fearful ones. We need facts not convoluted conjecture you hash out from the American media that knows it can tell you anything (which is always negative) about Africa because it knows its people are dumb enough to believe it.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Africans realized that in order to survive they needed to adopt Islam
Now provide details of which group(s) and\or members of modern day nations were the fearful ones. We need facts not convoluted conjecture you hash out from the American media that knows it can tell you anything (which is always negative) about Africa because it knows its people are dumb enough to believe it.
Well how about Sudan? How about Egypt and the rest of North Africa? How about Zanzibar?
Of course, the question reflects ignorance on your part concerning the history of Islam.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
argyle104: In an effort to impress upon you the importance and ease of doing research, I looked it up, and found this at Wikipedia.
North Africa Arab Conquest to modern times
The Arab Islamic conquest reached North Africa in 640 AD. By 670, most of North Africa had fallen to Muslim rule. Indigenous Berbers subsequently started to form their own polities in response in places such as Fez, Morocco, and Sijilimasa.
In the eleventh century a reformist movement made up of members that called themselves Almoravids, launched a jihad against the kingdoms to the south in the Savanna. This movement solidified the faith of Islam, and allowed for penetration into Sub-Saharan Africa.
After the Middle Ages the area was loosely under the control of the Ottoman Empire, except Morocco. After the 19th century, it was colonized by France, the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy.
In World War II from 1940 to 1943 the area was the setting for the North African Campaign. During the 1950s and 1960s all of the North African states gained independence. There remains a dispute over Western Sahara between Morocco and the Algerian-backed Polisario Front.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Islam first arrived in Nigeria in the ninth century. It was adopted as the religion of the majority of the leading figures in the Bornu Empire during the reign of Mai (king) Idris Alooma (1571-1603), although a large part of that country still adhered to traditional religions.[2] He furthered the cause of Islam in the country by introducing Islamic courts, establishing mosques, and setting up a hostel in Mecca, the Islamic pilgrimage destination, for Kanuris.[3]
The Fulani War
In the early 1800s, Islamic scholar Usman dan Fodio launched a jihad , the Fulani War, against the Hausa Kingdoms of Northern Nigeria. He was victorious, and established the Fulani Empire with its capital at Sokoto.
The Bornu Empire. The Sayfawa dynasty is the name of the kings (or mai, as they called themselves) of the Kanem-Bornu Empire, centered first in Kanem in western Chad, and then, after 1396, in Borno (today north-eastern Nigeria).
The German historian Dierk Lange has argued that the advent of the Sayfawa dynasty came in the 11th century, when Hummay introduced Islam in Kanem. Lange adds that Hummay's advent represented the ascent of a Berber dynasty and ruling class over a previous Zaghawa one. Other theories have also been made: they have either been considered Tubu or being an indigenous dynasty.
The Sayfawa themselves claimed as their eponymous ancestor a late pre-islamic Yemenite king Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan. This tradition was first mentioned by the Andalusian scholar Ibn Said in the 13th century, and Lange believes it to be mainly the fruit of Muslim scholars who arrived to Kanem from regions where Himyarite traditions were strong.[1][2]
The dynasty, one of Africa's longest living, lost the throne in 1846.
Group of Kanem-Bu warriors. From The earth and its inhabitants, Africa, (published 1890-1893 Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Islam first arrived in Nigeria in the ninth century. It was adopted as the religion of the majority of the leading figures in the Bornu Empire during the reign of Mai (king) Idris Alooma (1571-1603), although a large part of that country still adhered to traditional religions.[2] He furthered the cause of Islam in the country by introducing Islamic courts, establishing mosques, and setting up a hostel in Mecca, the Islamic pilgrimage destination, for Kanuris.[3]
The Fulani War
In the early 1800s, Islamic scholar Usman dan Fodio launched a jihad , the Fulani War, against the Hausa Kingdoms of Northern Nigeria. He was victorious, and established the Fulani Empire with its capital at Sokoto.
The Bornu Empire. The Sayfawa dynasty is the name of the kings (or mai, as they called themselves) of the Kanem-Bornu Empire, centered first in Kanem in western Chad, and then, after 1396, in Borno (today north-eastern Nigeria).
The German historian Dierk Lange has argued that the advent of the Sayfawa dynasty came in the 11th century, when Hummay introduced Islam in Kanem. Lange adds that Hummay's advent represented the ascent of a Berber dynasty and ruling class over a previous Zaghawa one. Other theories have also been made: they have either been considered Tubu or being an indigenous dynasty.
The Sayfawa themselves claimed as their eponymous ancestor a late pre-islamic Yemenite king Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan. This tradition was first mentioned by the Andalusian scholar Ibn Said in the 13th century, and Lange believes it to be mainly the fruit of Muslim scholars who arrived to Kanem from regions where Himyarite traditions were strong.[1][2]
The dynasty, one of Africa's longest living, lost the throne in 1846.
Mike111.. If the point you look to make in citing wikipedia, was that Islamic foreigners converted west Africans against their will, then of course not even your notes here support you in the least. Where is it stated and where's the primary source of attestation? Also, wikipedia is so flawed that even when information is distorted, much will still be omitted.
For instance, the Sayfawa dynasty of Bornu is thought by most to have been a creation of the Kanembu of Chad, hence "Kanem-Bornu". The Ghanain kings claimed descent from Alexander the Great and the kings of Mali claimed descent from Bilal,...so what? With the exception of Ghana (the Almoravids), I'm not sure that you'd be able to name one kingdom in west Africa that was forcefully converted and in the case of Ghana, it still isn't clear that the indigenous inhabitants themselves were ever forcefully converted given that the kingdom was already in a state of disequilibrium and the non-muslim Sosso kingdom rose to prominence directly proceeding, conquering much of Ghana's territory, before Mali did the same.
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic