because thier matriarch, hagar, was an egyptian slave, so i think bedouins are related by blood to Egyptians, what do you think.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
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.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
So the bedouins are truly related by maternal ancestry but not related culturally as they were absorbed by arabic culture.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
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.
Posted by abdulkarem3 (Member # 12885) on :
quote:They did not totally destroy ALL Arabs
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.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
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, ...
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by abdulkarem3:
quote:They did not totally destroy ALL Arabs
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 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.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Once again beduin is a lifestyle not an ethnonym. You do understand the difference, do you not?
nobody here know nothing about race, all is culture.
Posted by Beja-Tiffa (Member # 14440) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Comworks (Member # 14562) on :
Arab Bediouns diversity.
Posted by Comworks (Member # 14562) on :
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.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Comworks:
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.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: I think they are half-egyptian racially but completely identify themselves and thier culture also is Arab.
This is so utterly foolish, there is no such thing as an "Egyptian race"!..
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Originally posted by Comworks:
Tippu_Tip famous Afro-Arab slaver.
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.
Posted by Comworks (Member # 14562) on :
Yes bizarre, especially if you take into account that his mother was a east African. Classic process of Arabization.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
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.
Posted by WindBetweenEars (Member # 13344) on :
I enjoyed this topic alot ,pictures are nice .
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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?
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: I think they are half-egyptian racially but completely identify themselves and thier culture also is Arab.
This is so utterly foolish, there is no such thing as an "Egyptian race"!..
so egyptian is only a culture with many races on it,like Puerto Rico, isn't it?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
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?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 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.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 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.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
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.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
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.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doug M wrote:
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? : )
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Mike111 wrote:
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?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Mike111 wrote:
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104:
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Here is more:
Nigeria: Arrival and spread of Islam
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 Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Here is more:
Nigeria: Arrival and spread of Islam
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Sundiata: That little exercise was to discourage argyle104 from simply saying "Prove it" rather than coming up with a competing position.
Islam in Sub-Sahara Africa is of no particular interest to me. But since you commented, do you have a competing position that can be cited?
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Sundiata: That little exercise was to discourage argyle104 from simply saying "Prove it" rather than coming up with a competing position.
I see your reasoning, but argyle104 isn't the one claiming forced conversion. The one making the claim indeed has the burden of proof, and there's no evidence to substantiate the said claim as far as I'm aware.
quote:Islam in Sub-Sahara Africa is of no particular interest to me. But since you commented, do you have a competing position that can be cited?
What do you mean by "competing position"? Is there a competing position to the assertion that the earth revolves around the sun? Is a "competing position" absolutely necessary in the face of established fact?
My "official" position is that the primary kingdoms of west Africa were all for the most part, established prior to any conversion and the lineages remained African (namely Bornu, Mali, and Jenne-Jeno/Djenne) subsequent to the said conversion. Therefore, it is unreasonable to suggest any forced conversion onto the vast majority of these peoples. Unlike North Africa, Arabs never conquered this region.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Sundiata: I'm really more interested in information than argument. I have really never given it much though, but since the subject came up, I figure why not take advantage of it.
To me it seems unlikely that Africans (or any other people) would just adopt a foreign religion, without some kind of coercion. In the Wiki piece, it seems that the Fulani war was the determining factor in Nigeria.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doug M wrote:
quote: 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.
How many Arabs did this?
How many Africans did they conquer?
And how did they conquer North Africa?
And what parts of North Africa?
Which groups did they pull this on?
Give us some details to your nonsense.
The modern nations of so called North Africa were created by the English and the French not Arabs. So there goes another one of your caterwauling lies going down in flames.
You've already had your a-- beat very badly for spouting off the very nonsense that you're repeating in this thread. Shall I bring back that humiliating thread for all to see? You know the one that not only exposed your damaged psyche but also went more indepthly about the absurdity of your hallucination of big bad Arabs slaughering the po helpless Africans.
Hint, Hint it was last winter and the usernames of both posters that pimped slapped you began with an 'A'. And for the inquisitive minds out there, neither one of them was Argyle, baby.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
And so the question remains who forced the Peuhl into Islam? And why did the Islamic reformer of what would be Mauritania seek and live among the Sudanese who adopted Islam before the sahelian Imazighen?
As the Europeans adopted Xianity in favor to what spirituality they had before, so did certain sahel and savanna Africans in toto adopt Islam. Other western Africa places it was mainly the nobility,the intelligentsia, and wide ranging merchants who
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
I'd also like to add, isn't it odd that certain posters seem to be hard up for Africans to be helpless victims.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ No more odd than paranoid trolls like you who go around attacking members of certain racial or ethnic groups and accuse them of exactly what they're guilty of.
Anyway...
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: And so the question remains who forced the Peuhl into Islam? And why did the Islamic reformer of what would be Mauritania seek and live among the Sudanese who adopted Islam before the sahelian Imazighen?
As the Europeans adopted Xianity in favor to what spirituality they had before, so did certain sahel and savanna Africans in toto adopt Islam. Other western Africa places it was mainly the nobility,the intelligentsia, and wide ranging merchants who
Takruri is correct. Take Somalia for example. It was not conquered by Arabs yet Somalis willingfully adopted Islam from the Arab traders who preached it. Not all Muslims in Africa are the result of forceful conversions, and the same can be said with Christians in Africa.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Djehuti
quote: ^ No more odd than paranoid trolls like you who go around attacking members of certain racial or ethnic groups and accuse them of exactly what they're guilty of.
Don't be following me with ad hominems and non-seqtuires. If you can address my points on this thread then do it. But obviously you can't so you're trying to come at me like some pissed off child named Justin, angry at an adult because the adult had the nerve to tell him that he is wrong and why he was wrong.
So don't bring your rage from a past beatdown to this thread and ruin it.
Now either add something "pertinent" to the discussion or get out of it entirely and go somewhere and grow your silly a-- up.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Doug M wrote:
quote: 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.
How many Arabs did this?
How many Africans did they conquer?
And how did they conquer North Africa?
And what parts of North Africa?
Which groups did they pull this on?
Give us some details to your nonsense.
The modern nations of so called North Africa were created by the English and the French not Arabs. So there goes another one of your caterwauling lies going down in flames.
You've already had your a-- beat very badly for spouting off the very nonsense that you're repeating in this thread. Shall I bring back that humiliating thread for all to see? You know the one that not only exposed your damaged psyche but also went more indepthly about the absurdity of your hallucination of big bad Arabs slaughering the po helpless Africans.
Hint, Hint it was last winter and the usernames of both posters that pimped slapped you began with an 'A'. And for the inquisitive minds out there, neither one of them was Argyle, baby.
Actually, where did I say all Africans were FORCED to adopt Islam?
What I said:
Africans realized that in order to survive they needed to adopt Islam
Africans, just like other people, adopted Islam for many reasons and force was PART of the equation in many cases. That is a fact so there is no arguing that point. It is also a fact that in the Islamic kingdoms established in Africa and elsewhere, the LAW gave the Muslims greater freedoms and wealth than NON Muslims. It is also true that non Muslims were subject to enslavement, and attacks because of being infidels. These conditions caused many people (or rulers) to adopt Islam in order to have better relations with the growing Islamic presence. These are all facts and you cannot sit here and try and say that people were just sitting around one day listening to a follower of the Prophet and just jumped up and converted SOLELY because of the words spoken by the believer. THAT is nonsense and a waste of time even arguing about. Non muslim Africans were enslaved by Africans for Arabs and Europeans in many regions across Africa. Slavery was extensive in the Sudan as a result of Islamic Ottoman incursions there. Slavery is STILL practiced in Mauretania. Even worse BOTH muslim and non mulsim blacks were enslaved in many parts of Northern Africa. Not to mention the harsh beatings and punishments handed out in koranic schools that indoctrinate the children, or in sharia societies for infractions of Islamic law.
It is true that some converted PEACEFULLY, while others converted BY FORCE, but it is also true that the conversions USUALLY involved the leaders FIRST and then the people themselves may or may not have been forced to convert in order to follow the leaders example. This is a quite complex story but it is not as simplistic as you make it seem.
As for the rest of your nonsense about modern Nations and the Europeans, it is just IRRELEVANT to the point that was made, being one of GEOGRAPHY as defined by modern boundaries, which APPROXIMATE the regions originally CONQUERED by Islam. And YES Egypt was CONQUERED by Islam. Sudan was CONQUERED by Islam. And Sudan is NAMED after the Arabic term "Bilad es Sud" or land of the blacks. Northern Africa and Spain were CONQUERED by Islam. If you READ your history books you would KNOW this. And your attempts to oversimplify and misrepresent the history of Africa and Islam in order to suit your point of view is the ONLY thing that has been observed so far. Why don't you refer to some actual history books before replying and questioning something from a point of ignorance?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104:
Doug M wrote:
quote: 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.
How many Arabs did this?
How many Africans did they conquer?
And how did they conquer North Africa?
And what parts of North Africa?
Which groups did they pull this on?
Give us some details to your nonsense.
Reasonable questions, particularly if "west Africa" was substituted in lieu of "North Africa"
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The question is whether or not Africans adopted Islam as a means of survival or betterment as a way of life. It refers to the entire continent and those within it who were in contact with Islam as it spread in Africa. It is a question of how Islam was adopted by those Africans who did adopt it and is not specific to a particular region. Therefore, the history of Islam and its spread across Africa is complex and involves many different reasons and factors. The point I made is that many of those who converted weighed the benefits of converting over the negatives of not converting and decided on the benefits. Of course these decisions and the specifics of such differed on a case by case basis, which I never attempting to deny in the first place.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Therefore, the history of Islam and its spread across Africa is complex and involves many different reasons and factors.
If that is the case then why did you spew this comment?
"Africans realized that in order to survive then they needed to adopt islam"
Btw, has anyone told you before that you talk to much?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Actually you have not DIS proven the point. You have provided NOTHING but mere whining about one sentence from one post I made, which is more of a reflection of your desiring not to COMPREHEND what is written as opposed to something being WRONG with what I wrote.
As I said earlier, there is more than enough evidence that shows during the history of the spread of Islam that many groups had many reasons to convert, not the least of which was the potential threat of force from neighboring Islamic states. That does not describe ALL of the reasons, but it is a very potent example. Other examples were the opportunities for trade and the opportunities for learning. Again, you are suggesting that the decision to convert to Islam was PURELY based on a theological bases, ie. belief in the WORD of Islam and nothing else. Point blank: that is nonsense. No matter how you try and argue semantically about the wording of my statement, it is still reflective of the facts for many Africans at the time. And keep in mind again, I am talking about the various African STATES and KINGDOMS that became Islamic, based on the decisions of the ruling elite, as well as individuals.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Yes, this is precisely what happened in 11th century Senegal/Mauritania.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ... you cannot sit here and try and say that people were just sitting around one day listening to a follower of the Prophet and just jumped up and converted SOLELY because of the words spoken by the believer. THAT is nonsense and a waste of time even arguing about.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
But that was one small part of the picture in that particular region. The Takrur LEADERSHIP did convert to Islam and enjoyed some economic prosperity in association with the Almoravids. However, they also came into conflict with the neighboring kingdom of Ghana, which was NOT Islamic. There were various conflicts that occurred between Muslim and Non Muslim states in the region in the times that followed. Some of these conflicts were among muslims and others were between non muslims and muslims. As I said, the history of the kingdoms and empires of Africa and the spread of Islam is quite complex.
But you are right, the adoption of Islam by the Takrur was often noted as being quite peaceful.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Tekrur was Islamic before al~Murabitûn. Look at their origins. Tekrur was inspirational to their founder. Here we have Sudanese impacting "Berber" Islamization.
If you wish, and in another thread of its own, we can examine the whole of the western Sudan kingdom by kingdom to see just how much force (survive or die) was an issue in Islamisation of the entire region, or if indeed Arabs or "Berbers" were masters of the kingdoms and empires and directed puppet rulers to collect slaves for them (a novel idea not even expressed by the white Africanist of the last century who thought very little of the capacities of the blacks).
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
I didn't intend for it to sound as if the Takrur became Muslim as a result of the Almoravids, just that they enjoyed economic prosperity with them. Slavery existed and was allowed for non Muslims.
As for slavery or the spread of Islam I never said it was simply an Arab vs African or puppet vs master affair to begin with. But starting a new thread may be good to clear up many myths surrounding this period.
Point of fact, however, when I first learned of the Empire of Mali, Songhai and ancient Ghana, I was taught that all of these kingdoms converted to Islam as a defense against attacks from Islamic forces. This was in an African Studies class, not any old university class. In fact I am almost sure that such things can be found in the works of Clarke and others.... The point being that these external forces of ideology and economics caused African societies that had previously been relatively stable and peaceful to fragment and start incessant fighting. The entry of Europeans into the mix and the demand for slaves only worsened the situation, with divide and conquer being the number one tactic being used to weaken the African states, until the Europeans were able to come in and take over directly. That is the gist of what was being taught. Now you may agree or disagree, but this is generally where I am coming from.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Yes I disagree. Your original statement was a powerful one for African ineptness and this last one differs little, especially if you really believe western Sudan economics waited for outsiders. Please review the origins of transSaharan trade initiated because of Dar Tichitt's Soninke's expansive economy that Garamantes added little more to than transport across the sands.
This was going on long before Islam and in fact is how there was a town Awdaghust(sp?) full of Libyan/Tunisian/Algerian origin Imazighen who prefered non-Muslim Soninke Ghana to Muslim Sanhadja confederate al~Murabitûn.
Relatively stable and peaceful maybe, but Wagadu was known to send military expeditions against their neighbors whose military technology was inferior to theirs.
Even before attending university I relied more on authors like Levtzion and his Ancient Ghana and Mali with its translated primary documents rather than historians who often backed themselves with secondary sources that lacked quotes from primary relatively contemporaneous documents.
Also I totally disagree with this and don't believe it can be backed by any sources
quote:The entry of Europeans into the mix and the demand for slaves only worsened the situation, with divide and conquer being the number one tactic being used to weaken the African states, until the Europeans were able to come in and take over directly.
Sorry, Africa and Africans weren't hapless dupes and victims of supposedly intellectually superior Europeans who were always easily putting a boot to African(s) arse. Sorry, no way. Sorry, no verifiable history exists to support such a sorry ideology however you might have picked up and embellished it.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Well, since what you posted reflects NONE of what I said it is irrelevant.
I said that the Takrur grew prosperous because of the Almoravids and the opportunity for expansive trade connections through the Almoravid empire of Spain and Northern Africa. I DID NOT say that this REGION of North Africa was just a bunch of broke dummies that were waiting for contact with the Almoravids in order to learn how to trade with outsiders. This was specifically addressing EXAMPLES of the dynamics involved in the spread of Islam in Africa, not intended to be an exhastive portrait of every nut and bolt detail of every culture, group, economic system, kingdom, ideology and people that existed in Africa between 800 AD and 1500 AD. As I said, that is a quite complex discussion and I am not about to pretend to touch on every aspect of it, or to be knowledgeable enough to begin to.
And, if you are going to speak so much of outsiders and their impact on the region around the Takrur, then why even mention the Algerians, Libyans and Tunisians? Awdaghost was founded long before THEY arrived on the scene.
And all this hapless dupes talk is just an appeal to sympathy. Such an appeal does not even begin to describe the reasons for the increased amount of infighting between rival African kingdoms and the number of slaves produced as a result, which were then sent to the coasts and European slave traders. The point is that for most of the period between the 17th and 19th centuries, it was Africans who produced the slaves that were taken to the coasts and "traded" with Europeans. Europeans weren't going into inner Africa and producing the slaves for export.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Well I guess that's one way to retract an erroneous statement without admitting to being mistaken and hurried to conclusion.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
an another topic trnasformed in an African one. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
^It was already one, when this was said:
Are bedouins truly related to egyptians
...or were you under the impression Egypt is a continent of its own.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Don't be following me with ad hominems and non-seqtuires. If you can address my points on this thread then do it. But obviously you can't so you're trying to come at me like some pissed off child named Justin, angry at an adult because the adult had the nerve to tell him that he is wrong and why he was wrong.
First of all, I addressed all the points there are to address on this thread.
Second, you of all people can't accuse me of ad-hominems and such since you wrote this
quote: Your question makes about as much sense as someone saying that if a Phillipeeno has more than an inch and a half of penile then he must be mixed.
LOL
quote:So don't bring your rage from a past beatdown to this thread and ruin it.
Beatdown?! By who?? You?!! LMAO
quote:Now either add something "pertinent" to the discussion or get out of it entirely and go somewhere and grow your silly a-- up.
Again. I've added all there is that's pertinent. So why don't you be a man and stop trying to get a ride on my dick. Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ^It was already one, when this was said:
Are bedouins truly related to egyptians
...or were you under the impression Egypt is a continent of its own.
yes, it is part of Africa, but you are talking about Non-Egypt africa,about pygmies and non-egyptian issues.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
prmiddleeastern wrote:
quote: yes, it is part of Africa, but you are talking about Non-Egypt africa,about pygmies and non-egyptian issues.
Where has anyone in this thread mentioned Pygmies?
Why are you bringing up Pygmies as if they are the only group of Africans?
Do you see how this works now people? Look at how the race freaks operate.
Notice how they try to make Pygmies as representative of Africa. Furthermore if I am not mistaken, Pygmy isn't even an ethnic group.
Also notice that they also try to latently imply that their is something wrong with being a Pygmy. Obviously there is not anything wrong with it. Unless you're one of these race loons (who by the way always seem to be "dateless social misfits"). You really don't need to be worrying about the looks of anyone. Considering that you've posted what you look like. The so called "Pygmies" look a whole lot better than you.
You look like the result of what happened when a Beluga whale got his freak on with a female Berber slave.
Here's what you ought to be doing instead worrying about Pygmies.
Start researching about all of your berber ancestors that were brought over to the carribean and the Americas as slaves. Yeah thats right Ricans, Dominicans and the like are what happens when berbers from africa mix with their fellow africans from the rest of the continent.
From the looks of things alot more of your Berber ancestors were brought over as slaves than the Pygmies that you are obsessing about.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: prmiddleeastern wrote:
quote: yes, it is part of Africa, but you are talking about Non-Egypt africa,about pygmies and non-egyptian issues.
Where has anyone in this thread mentioned Pygmies?
Why are you bringing up Pygmies as if they are the only group of Africans?
Do you see how this works now people? Look at how the race freaks operate.
Notice how they try to make Pygmies as representative of Africa. Furthermore if I am not mistaken, Pygmy isn't even an ethnic group.
Also notice that they also try to latently imply that their is something wrong with being a Pygmy. Obviously there is not anything wrong with it. Unless you're one of these race loons (who by the way always seem to be "dateless social misfits"). You really don't need to be worrying about the looks of anyone. Considering that you've posted what you look like. The so called "Pygmies" look a whole lot better than you.
You look like the result of what happened when a Beluga whale got his freak on with a female Berber slave.
Here's what you ought to be doing instead worrying about Pygmies.
Start researching about all of your berber ancestors that were brought over to the carribean and the Americas as slaves. Yeah thats right Ricans, Dominicans and the like are what happens when berbers from africa mix with their fellow africans from the rest of the continent.
From the looks of things alot more of your Berber ancestors were brought over as slaves than the Pygmies that you are obsessing about.
andnow i am a racist, pathetic. Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: prmiddleeastern wrote:
quote: yes, it is part of Africa, but you are talking about Non-Egypt africa,about pygmies and non-egyptian issues.
Where has anyone in this thread mentioned Pygmies?
Why are you bringing up Pygmies as if they are the only group of Africans?
Do you see how this works now people? Look at how the race freaks operate.
Notice how they try to make Pygmies as representative of Africa. Furthermore if I am not mistaken, Pygmy isn't even an ethnic group.
Also notice that they also try to latently imply that their is something wrong with being a Pygmy. Obviously there is not anything wrong with it. Unless you're one of these race loons (who by the way always seem to be "dateless social misfits"). You really don't need to be worrying about the looks of anyone. Considering that you've posted what you look like. The so called "Pygmies" look a whole lot better than you.
You look like the result of what happened when a Beluga whale got his freak on with a female Berber slave.
Here's what you ought to be doing instead worrying about Pygmies.
Start researching about all of your berber ancestors that were brought over to the carribean and the Americas as slaves. Yeah thats right Ricans, Dominicans and the like are what happens when berbers from africa mix with their fellow africans from the rest of the continent.
From the looks of things alot more of your Berber ancestors were brought over as slaves than the Pygmies that you are obsessing about.
Wow, now attacking people, that is how low you come?we should be talking about Egypt, not the rest of africa, this is Egyptsearch, not Africasearch.about Egypt, not bantu, Yoruba, or any non-Egyptian issue.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: You look like the result of what happened when a Beluga whale got his freak on with a female Berber slave.
and now who is the racist. Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
prmiddleeastern
quote: Wow, now attacking people, that is how low you come?we should be talking about Egypt, not the rest of africa, this is Egyptsearch, not Africasearch.about Egypt, not bantu, Yoruba, or any non-Egyptian issue
Then "you" need to quit bringing up Pygmies now don't you? Now go research them Berbers boy. : )
Posted by Naga Def Wolofi (Member # 14535) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: And so the question remains who forced the Peuhl into Islam? And why did the Islamic reformer of what would be Mauritania seek and live among the Sudanese who adopted Islam before the sahelian Imazighen?
As the Europeans adopted Xianity in favor to what spirituality they had before, so did certain sahel and savanna Africans in toto adopt Islam. Other western Africa places it was mainly the nobility,the intelligentsia, and wide ranging merchants who
You are saying Africans should have converted to Judaism, Islam and Christianity? I just want to be sure I understand you correctly.
I understand that black Americans try to romanticize African history and while doing it making Africans some helpless doves being bulldozed by great wonderful powerful Europeans.
But how does forceful or non-forceful coercion have anything to do with the intelligence, civility, pride or where-with-all of the people that were transgressed upon? This is obviously rubbish.
All cultures and ethnic groups in their respective regions on the continents had their wars and problems, but do not families fight?
It is when one of ANOTHER family transgresses upon you that we as humans see as vile and I think that is what Doug is talking about.
Lets not parrot Eurocentricity by demonizing Africa with faux rationale as per Arabian, Judaic and European incursions in Africa[a place they have no business being].
By the way; what is wrong with African spirituality?
Posted by Naga Def Wolofi (Member # 14535) on :
A few questions for the men here?
1. Do women need a sword or gun to get you to have sex with them? My answer is hell no lol.
2. Do you have sex with them when they ask. My answer is hell yes lol.
3. Is this force?
Here are some definitions that might help in this discussion.
Force: is what causes a mass to accelerate. It may be experienced as a lift, a push, or a pull. The acceleration of the body is proportional to the vector sum of all forces acting on it (known as the net force or resultant force). In an extended body, force may also cause rotation, deformation, or an increase in PRESSURE for the body.
Power (symbol: P): is the rate at which work is performed or energy is transmitted, or the amount of energy required or expended for a given unit of time.
Work: is the quantity of energy transferred from one system to another.
Energy: The potential to cause change or perform work.
In my questions above what part of that analogy and this paradigm of [Force needs Power needs Work needs Energy] denotes the emotion of "pleasure" or "pain" in humans(bodies)?
Foreign religions in Africa are rat poison no matter if shoved in the African's mouth or sprinkled with powered sugar on top.
I acknowledge and respect Alktruri's assessments of African history, but I have to pick a side and although Mike111 and Doug M's data maybe seem tenuous and emotional I have to agree with their intent despite their articulation of the matter.
Africans were not Christian or Muslim or Jewish before the incursion of these faiths, so how can anyone justify them being in those faiths after the fact whether the "force" was "pleasurable" or "painful".
I say this because now WE SEE what these religions have done to the continent and it has been hell ever since.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: prmiddleeastern
quote: Wow, now attacking people, that is how low you come?we should be talking about Egypt, not the rest of africa, this is Egyptsearch, not Africasearch.about Egypt, not bantu, Yoruba, or any non-Egyptian issue
Then "you" need to quit bringing up Pygmies now don't you? Now go research them Berbers boy. : )
Yes, but I won't quit saying tthis forum should be more about egypt itself than the rest of africa.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
and still posting non-Egyptian issues.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: prmiddleeastern
quote: Wow, now attacking people, that is how low you come?we should be talking about Egypt, not the rest of africa, this is Egyptsearch, not Africasearch.about Egypt, not bantu, Yoruba, or any non-Egyptian issue
Then "you" need to quit bringing up Pygmies now don't you? Now go research them Berbers boy. : )
and also you quoted only one post, where I look as my feeling were supposly hurt,man, your black pride won't work on me.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I don't see where you read this in what I posted. Please elaborate and I'll try resonding accordingly.
Nor do I see anything wrong with African spirituality and I've broached a thread dedicated to the "Anago" http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005736;p=1 theology which permanently impacted Christianity in the Americas altering its protestantism for all time and making converts to the Loa from Europeans, "Indians," and mestizos even as far as the office of hogun.
Nobody has contributed anything substantial to it and I currently don't have the time for proper research before expounding upon the subject myself. I had hoped some practicing believer would rise up and fill the void but apparently no one on this forum practices any form of traditional non-Afrisan African spirituality or religious approach to deity or the Creator. Atheist have however been very vociferous on this forum.
Do you care to inform us on your way of relating to Yala? Do you find the Tijaniyya and Quadiriyya harmful to Senegal. Being Muridiyya certainly didn't hurt Cheikh Anta Diop's Africanity.
And my apologies to all, I will split this into an off topic thread. Please wait and reply there.
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: And so the question remains who forced the Peuhl into Islam? And why did the Islamic reformer of what would be Mauritania seek and live among the Sudanese who adopted Islam before the sahelian Imazighen?
As the Europeans adopted Xianity in favor to what spirituality they had before, so did certain sahel and savanna Africans in toto adopt Islam. Other western Africa places it was mainly the nobility,the intelligentsia, and wide ranging merchants who
You are saying Africans should have converted to Judaism, Islam and Christianity? I just want to be sure I understand you correctly.
. . . .
By the way; what is wrong with African spirituality?
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
And my apologies to all, I will split this into an off topic thread.
it is okay
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Djehuti wrote:
quote: So why don't you be a man and stop trying to get a ride on my dick.
You better stop projecting your Gay Guerrero alter ego onto me. Find yourself one of those gaylord therepists to help you out.
But since you're the one that so desperately wants to talk about genitals I'll oblige for this one instant.
I know ain't no woman especially an AA woman trying to get a ride on your d--k. Because at 1 and a quarter inch it would slip out at the slightest move she would make.
Rumor has it that due to its size constraints it would be more apt to refer to it as a ding-a-ling rather than a d--k.
Rumor also has it that when you were in highschool your thang was so small they actually let you use the girls locker room at P.E.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Dude, whatever. First of all, you're the one chasing me around like a puppy craving attention. And second, you can believe in whatever racial fantasies you want but personally I don't go around believing just because you're black you have a huge penis. Then again, I don't even think about mens' penises at all. LOL
Oh, I suggest you get some professional psychological help. Posted by GlobalAfrikanSupremacy (Member # 16906) on :
Interesting.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Up...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Very old thread. But I will add the following as some supporting info:
quote: Ceddo (aka The Outsiders)
Directed by Ousmane Sembene Senegal 1977, 35mm, color, 120 min. With Tabara N’diaye, Ismaila Diagne, Moustapha Yade Wolof with English subtitles
Banned in Senegal on an absurd technicality, Ceddo, Sembene’s most ambitious film, uses the story of a beautiful princess’s kidnapping to examine the confrontation between opposing cultural forces: Muslim expansion, Christianity, and the slave trade. The “Ceddo” - or feudal class of common people - cling desperately to their customs and their fetishistic religion amidst the impending changes. Nominally set in the nineteenth century, Ceddo ranges far and wide to include philosophy, fantasy, militant politics, and a couple of electrifying leaps across the centuries to evoke the whole of the African experience.
This film was initially banned in Senegal because of its depiction of Muslims.
Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
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.
I am not christian and don't know the bible that well but I didn't think it specifically said Hajar was pharaoh's daughter, but a hand maiden. Given what we know of Ancient Kemet they would have NEVER given a daughter of the king to a non royal. Not that those legends are 100% accurate to begin with.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL They would never give a daughter of the pharaoh even to a royal [see here]! The reason being that the Egyptians are partly matrilineal with the actual claim to the throne passed from mother to daughter. Thus any man who marries a royal woman is legitimate to become pharaoh. The Bible does not make any mention of Hagar being a daughter of pharaoh and what Takruri states may come from extra-Biblical texts such as Midrash. IF Hagar was a daughter of pharaoh then she must have been so only in name and not biologically as the pharaoh customarily adopted many children into his household. If such is the case, this then begs the question as to what Hagar's true origins are and if she is 'Egyptian' by nationality only but not ethnically. I will comment more on this in another thread soon.
And yes legends are never to be taken for accurate historical account but there are always grains of truth in them somewhere.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I just want to be sure I understand you correctly.