posted
^It should be noted that in the Dutch conversation about Slavery, it was argued that since the Africans were already Slaves in their own countries, they would prove to be more docile Slaves in the Americas. This was important because of the uprisings staged by ostensibly European Slaves.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
According to the revised official data, slightly over two millions troops were in the United States Volunteers, over 316,000 died (from all causes), or 15.2%. Of the 67,000 Regular Army (white) troops, 8.6%, or not quite 6,000, died. Of the approximately 180,000 United States Colored Troops, however, over 36,000 died, or 20.5%. In other words, the mortality rate amongst the United States Colored Troops in the Civil War was thirty-five percent greater than that among other troops, notwithstanding the fact that the former were not enrolled until some eighteen months after the fighting began.
The Confederate Army
"Nearly 40% of the Confederacy's population were slaves. The work required to sustain the same society during war naturally fell disproportionately on black shoulders as well. By drawing so many white men into the army, indeed, the war multiplied the importance of the black work force." Even Georgia's Governor Joseph E. Brown noted that "the country and the army are mainly dependent upon slave labor for support."
It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, "saw the elephant" also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, "Will you fight?" Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that "biracial units" were frequently organized "by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids". Dr. Leonard Haynes, an African-American professor at Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."
The impressment of slaves, and conscription of freedmen, into direct military labor, initially came on the impetus of state legislatures, and by 1864 six states had regulated impressment (Florida, Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, in order of authorization) as well as the Confederate Congress. Slave labor was used in a wide variety of support roles, from infrastructure and mining, to teamster and medical roles such as hospital attendants and nurses.
The idea of arming slaves for use as soldiers was speculated on from the onset of the war, but not seriously considered by Davis or others in his administration. As the Union saw victories in the fall of 1862 and the spring of 1863, however, the need for more manpower was acknowledged by the Confederacy in the form of conscription of white men, and the national impressment of free and slave blacks into laborer positions.
State militias composed of freedmen were offered, but the War Department spurned the offer. One of the more notable state militias was the all black 1st Louisiana Native Guard, a militia unit composed of free men of color. It was the first of any North American unit to have African American officers. The unit was short lived, and forced to disband in February 1862. The unit was "intended as a response to demands from members of New Orleans' substantial free black population that they be permitted to participate in the defense of their state, the unit was used by Confederate authorities for public display and propaganda purposes but was not allowed to fight." A Union army regiment was later formed under the same name after General Butler took control of the city.
Slave Narratives - July, 1937, interview with James Cape, former slave and by his own words Black Confederate combat soldier wounded in action:
"One day Marster Bob comes to me and says, 'Jim, how you like to jine de army? You see, de war had started. I says to him 'What does I have to?' And he says, "Tend hosses and ride 'em' So de first thing I knows, I's in de army away off east from here [Southest Texas].' . . . After I gits in de army, it wasn' so much fun 'cause tendin' horses and ridin' wasn' all I does. No, sar, I has to do shootin' and git shooted at! . . . You's heard of de battle of Independence [Missouri]? Dat's whar we fights for three days and nights. I'se not tendin horses that time. Dey gives me a rifle and sends me up front fightin', when we wasn' runnin! . . . I gits shot in de shoulder in dat fight . . . 'nother time we fights two days and nights . . ."
This man obviously lacked the mental capacity to decide what was in his own self interest.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slave Narratives, June 5, 1937 - Alexander B. Johnson, Birmingham, Alabama -
They is all gone, scattered, and old massa and missus have died....Then de war came and we all went to fight the Yankees. I was a body servant to the master, and once a bullet took off his hat. We all thought he was shot but he wasn't, and I was standin by his side all the time...I remember Stonewall Jackson. He was a big man with long whiskers, and very brave. We all fought wid him until his death. We wasn't beaten, we was starved out! Sometimes we had perched corn to eat and sometimes we didn't have a bite of nothing, because the Union mens come and tuk all de food for theirselves. I can still remember part of my ninety years. I remembers dey fought all de way from Virginia and winded up in Manassahas Gap...In all de years since de war I cannot forget old massa. He was good and kind. He never believed in slavery but his money was tied up in slaves and he didn't want to lose all he had...I knows I will see him in heaven and even though I have to walk ten miles for a bite of bread I can still be happy to think about the good times we had then. I am a Confederate veteran but my house burned up wid de medals and I don't get a pension."
This man obviously suffered from Stockholm syndrome: In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors, that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, essentially they are mistaking a lack of abuse from their captors, as an act of kindness.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
"An Enthusiastic Negro. Jim Moore, a negro barber of Bolivar, Hardiman county, in this State, a slave of Dr. Thomas Moore, subscribed $50 for a military company to fight against Lincoln. He also visited Montgomery to see Jeff Davis inaugurated.
This man made a seemly free choice to support the forces that were in fact, his enslavers and oppressors.
On January 11, 1865 General Robert E. Lee wrote the Confederate Congress urging them to arm and enlist black slaves in exchange for their freedom. On March 13, the Confederate Congress passed legislation to raise and enlist companies of black soldiers. The legislation was then promulgated into military policy by Davis in General Order No. 14 on March 23, 1865. The emancipation offered, however, was reliant upon a master's consent;"no slave will be accepted as a recruit unless with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as far as he may, the rights of a freedman.
In "Between Two Fires - Black Soldiers in the Civil War," Joyce Hansen, 1993, tries (unsuccessfully) to explain this strange behavior with this explanation:
"This war between the North and the South gave enslaved men and women an opportunity to take advantage of unstable conditions created by the warring whites. This was one way for some black people to initiate their march for their own freedom. Caught between two fires, they to find a way to survive the conflict. And for some, one way to survive was to volunteer to help the Confederates...The promise of freedom for themselves and their families was enough of an incentive to join the Confederate Army, and the Union had said that it was not fighting to end slavery."
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ive always advocated that the Civil War was fought over more than just slavery, As Im against the idea of some Union Whites coming to free the Slaves narritive parroted by whites and accepted by dumb nigg#rs such as yourself.
Fact is Lincoln did not want to Free the Slaves, if there was a way to preserve the Union and keep slavery he would have. Also another fact, the RailRoad(Northern Industry) went west(through the South) before a blink of the eye after the Civil War, Dummy it was about the Money...but keep on believing the White-washed version...Little Monkey.
BTW, Lincoln allowed Slave-holding states to join the Union...Bet you did'nt know that one.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Jari - I though that you of all people would understand.
Descendant Quote: "He was brave enough and honor [sic] enough to go in and fight against his freedom- that made me feel good."
Which confirms to me that this Negro stupidity thing is hereditary.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jari - Thanks for the history lesson - straight from that guy in Lionesses video.
Actually Lincoln was a bit player in the on-going conversation about Slavery. And yes, he would have been quite happy to allow Slavery - he only abolished it after it was a "fait accompli".
BTW - Slavery had been abolished a few times previously.
As to Slave holding states entering the Union, that was a very complicated negotiation with many compromises on both sides.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
On the Stockholm syndrome thing--note that the same thing is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya where stupidity has been pushing indigenes of those countries to fight on the side of long-standing genocidal and imperialist Uncle Sam.
A couple days ago a blind Chinese "dissident" rushed into the U.S. Embassy in Beijing asking for "freedom" stupidly not aware of the fact that the U.S. is historically the biggest abuser of freedoms world-wide. The world's biggest and most racist state in history.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ive always advocated that the Civil War was fought over more than just slavery, As Im against the idea of some Union Whites coming to free the Slaves narritive parroted by whites and accepted by dumb nigg#rs such as yourself.
Fact is Lincoln did not want to Free the Slaves, if there was a way to preserve the Union and keep slavery he would have. Also another fact, the RailRoad(Northern Industry) went west(through the South) before a blink of the eye after the Civil War, Dummy it was about the Money...but keep on believing the White-washed version...Little Monkey.
BTW, Lincoln allowed Slave-holding states to join the Union...Bet you did'nt know that one.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Jari - I though that you of all people would understand.
Descendant Quote: "He was brave enough and honor [sic] enough to go in and fight against his freedom- that made me feel good."
Which confirms to me that this Negro stupidity thing is hereditary.
Further, if Lincoln had had his way all Black People in this country would have been deported out the U.S. of A. ....
Most people should know by now the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves, as is taught us in the educational system....
A great book on this particular subject (I own a copy):
Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream by Lerone Bennett, Jr.
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lamin - I am not prepared to demonize the Albinos en-mass. It should be noted that before they outlawed Slavery, the only society known to have done that was certain Indian (India) societies.
And when they did - certain African countries were quite upset about it!
Part of their PR problem is the excesses of modern Albinos, who out of pure stupidity, have believed the bullsh1t modern Albinos have introduced into history, and acted on it - that is still happening.
Historically they have always anguished over slavery - no doubt because of their own experiences. See Egmonds thing about the White shoes - it may not be that far off.
As to Iraq, Afghanistan, what they had - and will have again - is far worse than anything the Americans will do. I think Libya was a little different, but in all of those cases, it seems to me that the Turkish culture, and the Islam that it generated, is the greater culprit.
As to the Chinese, they are certainly no bargain. Note their current conflict with the Philippines over territorial rights. Those pompous bullies claim the entire South China Sea as their territorial waters - EVEN UP TO THE SHORES OF NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES! Imagine a world where people like them are allowed free reign.
So no lamin, nothing is quite as simple as it seems.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but little monkeys like Mike and Lioness accept the idea that Lincoln and his band of white Union saviors came to rescue the slaves. (I mean can you imagine hundreds of White Men running to join the Union simply to defend black people with their lives and health..LMFAO)They like little reactionary and simple minded monkeys get all up in Arms about the Confederate flag but wont make a peep about the Union flag, when it was under that flag that Segregation, Lynchings, and demaning of blacks was accepted just as under the Dixie flag. The little Monkey that goes around claiming European history and every non African history for a living is trying to call me out...
LMFAO..
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ive always advocated that the Civil War was fought over more than just slavery, As Im against the idea of some Union Whites coming to free the Slaves narritive parroted by whites and accepted by dumb nigg#rs such as yourself.
Fact is Lincoln did not want to Free the Slaves, if there was a way to preserve the Union and keep slavery he would have. Also another fact, the RailRoad(Northern Industry) went west(through the South) before a blink of the eye after the Civil War, Dummy it was about the Money...but keep on believing the White-washed version...Little Monkey.
BTW, Lincoln allowed Slave-holding states to join the Union...Bet you did'nt know that one.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Jari - I though that you of all people would understand.
Descendant Quote: "He was brave enough and honor [sic] enough to go in and fight against his freedom- that made me feel good."
Which confirms to me that this Negro stupidity thing is hereditary.
Further, if Lincoln had had his way all Black People in this country would have been deported out the U.S. of A. ....
Most people should know by now the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves, as is taught us in the educational system....
A great book on this particular subject (I own a copy):
Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream by Lerone Bennett, Jr.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's all this soft stuff about whites and slavery. In Africa slavery was not a big plantation and cotton-picking thing or bone crunching road building like in Brazil[ In Salvador in Bahia, Brazil, each cobblestone in Pelorhino is called "cabeza do negro".] it was mainly domestic enslavement in a household or herding cattle or guarding palaces in the more expansive areas.
Stands to reason: there was no wholesale capitalism in Africa in those areas where there were slaves, so no bone-crunching work to make plantation owners rich.
And re Philippines: they are right next to China--unlike the white bully the U.S. butting in where it doesn't belong.
quote:As to Iraq, Afghanistan, what they had - and will have again - is far worse than anything the Americans will do. I think Libya was a little different, but in all of those cases, it seems to me that the Turkish culture, and the Islam that it generated, is the greater culprit.
Bad history on this: Islam is not of Turkish origin and you just understand American imperialism and fascism. The U.S. killed half of the Philippines in its war with them and the U.S. is the only nation to drop nuclear bombs on sleeping children.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yes, but little monkeys like Mike and Lioness accept the idea that Lincoln and his band of white Union saviors came to rescue the slaves. (I mean can you imagine hundreds of White Men running to join the Union simply to defend black people with their lives and health..LMFAO)They like little reactionary and simple minded monkeys get all up in Arms about the Confederate flag but wont make a peep about the Union flag, when it was under that flag that Segregation, Lynchings, and demaning of blacks was accepted just as under the Dixie flag. The little Monkey that goes around claiming European history and every non African history for a living is trying to call me out...
LMFAO..
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ive always advocated that the Civil War was fought over more than just slavery, As Im against the idea of some Union Whites coming to free the Slaves narritive parroted by whites and accepted by dumb nigg#rs such as yourself.
Fact is Lincoln did not want to Free the Slaves, if there was a way to preserve the Union and keep slavery he would have. Also another fact, the RailRoad(Northern Industry) went west(through the South) before a blink of the eye after the Civil War, Dummy it was about the Money...but keep on believing the White-washed version...Little Monkey.
BTW, Lincoln allowed Slave-holding states to join the Union...Bet you did'nt know that one.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Jari - I though that you of all people would understand.
Descendant Quote: "He was brave enough and honor [sic] enough to go in and fight against his freedom- that made me feel good."
Which confirms to me that this Negro stupidity thing is hereditary.
Further, if Lincoln had had his way all Black People in this country would have been deported out the U.S. of A. ....
Most people should know by now the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves, as is taught us in the educational system....
A great book on this particular subject (I own a copy):
Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream by Lerone Bennett, Jr.
Low the 'monkey' talk It's bad enough when yte people refer to Black People as such...there are more appropriate things that can be used to refer to those two deh lol....
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lamin quote: Bad history on this: Islam is not of Turkish origin.
Yes, Islam is very much a Turkish religion, just as Christianity is very much a European religion.
It doesn't matter who started it, the fact that all current incarnations are of Turkish and European origin is all that matters.
Interestingly, in both cases, there is no original version in existence. Don't you kinda think that with something so important, the originals would have been safeguarded at all costs? Just something to think about.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets not put makeup on a pig, slavery is slavery and while the form in Africa was at times more docile it was still a demeaning condition esp. in places where so called "Arabs" and delusional "Light skinned" black Africans who saw themselves as superior to Dark Skinned blacks(despite being a 1 shade lighter than these so called Dark black).
Hell Sometimes Africans treked other Africans across the deserts and terrain with little to no care about the slaves life.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: What's all this soft stuff about whites and slavery. In Africa slavery was not a big plantation and cotton-picking thing or bone crunching road building like in Brazil[ In Salvador in Bahia, Brazil, each cobblestone in Pelorhino is called "cabeza do negro".] it was mainly domestic enslavement in a household or herding cattle or guarding palaces in the more expansive areas.
Stands to reason: there was no wholesale capitalism in Africa in those areas where there were slaves, so no bone-crunching work to make plantation owners rich.
And re Philippines: they are right next to China--unlike the white bully the U.S. butting in where it doesn't belong.
quote:As to Iraq, Afghanistan, what they had - and will have again - is far worse than anything the Americans will do. I think Libya was a little different, but in all of those cases, it seems to me that the Turkish culture, and the Islam that it generated, is the greater culprit.
Bad history on this: Islam is not of Turkish origin and you just understand American imperialism and fascism. The U.S. killed half of the Philippines in its war with them and the U.S. is the only nation to drop nuclear bombs on sleeping children.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike. You are off on this one. Islam is a syncretic religion made up of bits of Torah and Christian stuff. The only novelty is that it is written in the Arabic of the Arabian peninsula. Sunni and Shia Muslims are not of Turkish origin. And the Muslim Holy book was not written in Turkish from the start. Pilgrimages are not to Ankara but to Macca, etc., etc.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jari, you are right. Slavery is very bad news. We have to thank machines for that. They are the new slaves. A slave was/is a simply a labour-saving device for the lazy and pompous.
But you have to admit that building roads in the hot sun is different from being an owned African captive page-boy for the Marquise of Fontainbleu who slept on silk sheets and massaged Madame when she needed it. Egmond has some pictures of this kind of slavery.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Lamin quote: Bad history on this: Islam is not of Turkish origin.
Yes, Islam is very much a Turkish religion, just as Christianity is very much a European religion.
It doesn't matter who started it, the fact that all current incarnations are of Turkish and European origin is all that matters.
Interestingly, in both cases, there is no original version in existence. Don't you kinda think that with something so important, the originals would have been safeguarded at all costs? Just something to think about.
Can you prove any of what you are saying?
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shortly after Muhammad's death the Quran was compiled into a single book by order of the first Caliph Abu Bakr and at the suggestion of his future successor Umar. Hafsa, Muhammad's widow and Caliph Umar's daughter, was entrusted with that Quranic text after the second Caliph Umar died. When the third Caliph Uthman began noticing slight differences in pronunciation of the Qur'anic Arabic by those whose dialect was not that of the Quraish, sought Hafsa's permission to use her text and commissioned a committee to produce a standard copy of the text of Qur'an to which added diacritical marks ensured correct pronunciation, and to be set as the standard dialect, the Quraish dialect, now known as Fus'ha (Modern Standard Arabic) (see Origin and development of the Qur'an). Five of these original Qur'ans (Mus'haf) were sent to the major Muslim cities of the era, with Uthman keeping one for his own use in Medina. Any variations to standardized text were invalidated and ordered to be destroyed, all other versions of the Qur'an copied by scribes subsequently were from this codex. This process of formalization is known as the "Uthmanic recension". The present form of the Quran text is accepted by most scholars as the original version compiled by Abu Bakr.
The Othman Qur'an (also termed the Othmanic codex, Othmanic recension, Samarkand codex, Samarkand manuscript and Tashkent Qur'an), named for the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, is a manuscript Qur'an kept in the Hast Imam library. Along with the Sana'a manuscripts, it is considered to be the oldest in the world.
This copy of the Qur'an is attributed to the third caliph Uthman. In 651, 19 years after the death of Muhammad, Uthman commissioned a committee to produce a standard copy of the text of Quran (see Origin and development of the Qur'an). Five of these original Qur'ans were sent to the major Muslim cities of the era, with Uthman keeping one for his own use in Medina. The only other surviving copy is said to be held in Topkapı Palace, in Turkey.
Uthman was succeeded by Ali, who took the Uthman Qur'an to Kufa, now in Iraq. When Tamerlane destroyed the area, he took the Qur'an to his capital, Samarkand, as a treasure. It remained there for four centuries until, in 1868, when the Russians invaded, captured the Qur'an and brought it back to the Imperial Library in St. Petersburg (now known as the Russian National Library). The Uthman Qur'an, Sura 7 (Ala'araf), verses 86 & 87.
After the October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin, in an act of good will to the Muslims of Russia gave the Qur'an to the people of Ufa, Bashkortostan. After repeated appeals by the people of Turkestan ASSR, the Qur'an was returned to Central Asia, to Tashkent, in 1924, where it has since remained.
The parchment manuscript now is held in the library of the Telyashayakh Mosque, in the old "Hast-Imam" (Khazrati Imom) area of Tashkent, Uzbekistan, close to the grave of Kaffal Shashi, a tenth-century Islamic scholar.
The manuscript is incomplete, only a third of the Qur'an surviving: it begins in the middle of verse 7 of the second sura and ends abruptly at Surah 43:10. The manuscript has between eight and twelve lines to the page and, showing its antiquity, the text is devoid of vocalisation.
From December 1055 when the Turk chieftain Toghril Beg deposed the last Arab caliph al-Qa'im, until 1921 when the Ottoman Empire was dissolved, Turks were the one and only, totally in charge, rulers and custodians of Islam.
A little common sense goes a long way.
IMPORTANT PEOPLE OF ISLAM:
Al-Bukhari was NOT a Persian, he was a Tajik: Tajiks descended from ancient peoples of Central Asia, such as the Soghdians and the Bactrians (Turks).
Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari. al-Tabari was NOT a Persian. The place of his birth was Parthian territory, they also were simply vassals of the Persian Empire.
Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah. Ishaq was NOT a Persian. The place of his birth was also Parthian territory, they were simply vassals of the Persian Empire.
typeZeiss - Ever hear of a thing called research?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will be the first to admit that the main reason slavery does'nt exist in today's society, or at least not overtly, is because of the Industrial Revolution and introduction of Machine labor.
That said, Slavery in Africa 9 times our of 10 was mild compared to Atlantic Plantation slavery, but you also had slaves who did menial stuff, I mean it depended on where you lived. In the Megreb for example Slavery was demeaning and belittling, so it all depends.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Jari, you are right. Slavery is very bad news. We have to thank machines for that. They are the new slaves. A slave was/is a simply a labour-saving device for the lazy and pompous.
But you have to admit that building roads in the hot sun is different from being an owned African captive page-boy for the Marquise of Fontainbleu who slept on silk sheets and massaged Madame when she needed it. Egmond has some pictures of this kind of slavery.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Shortly after Muhammad's death the Quran was compiled into a single book by order of the first Caliph Abu Bakr and at the suggestion of his future successor Umar. Hafsa, Muhammad's widow and Caliph Umar's daughter, was entrusted with that Quranic text after the second Caliph Umar died. When the third Caliph Uthman began noticing slight differences in pronunciation of the Qur'anic Arabic by those whose dialect was not that of the Quraish, sought Hafsa's permission to use her text and commissioned a committee to produce a standard copy of the text of Qur'an to which added diacritical marks ensured correct pronunciation, and to be set as the standard dialect, the Quraish dialect, now known as Fus'ha (Modern Standard Arabic) (see Origin and development of the Qur'an). Five of these original Qur'ans (Mus'haf) were sent to the major Muslim cities of the era, with Uthman keeping one for his own use in Medina. Any variations to standardized text were invalidated and ordered to be destroyed, all other versions of the Qur'an copied by scribes subsequently were from this codex. This process of formalization is known as the "Uthmanic recension". The present form of the Quran text is accepted by most scholars as the original version compiled by Abu Bakr.
The Othman Qur'an (also termed the Othmanic codex, Othmanic recension, Samarkand codex, Samarkand manuscript and Tashkent Qur'an), named for the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, is a manuscript Qur'an kept in the Hast Imam library. Along with the Sana'a manuscripts, it is considered to be the oldest in the world.
This copy of the Qur'an is attributed to the third caliph Uthman. In 651, 19 years after the death of Muhammad, Uthman commissioned a committee to produce a standard copy of the text of Quran (see Origin and development of the Qur'an). Five of these original Qur'ans were sent to the major Muslim cities of the era, with Uthman keeping one for his own use in Medina. The only other surviving copy is said to be held in Topkapı Palace, in Turkey.
Uthman was succeeded by Ali, who took the Uthman Qur'an to Kufa, now in Iraq. When Tamerlane destroyed the area, he took the Qur'an to his capital, Samarkand, as a treasure. It remained there for four centuries until, in 1868, when the Russians invaded, captured the Qur'an and brought it back to the Imperial Library in St. Petersburg (now known as the Russian National Library). The Uthman Qur'an, Sura 7 (Ala'araf), verses 86 & 87.
After the October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin, in an act of good will to the Muslims of Russia gave the Qur'an to the people of Ufa, Bashkortostan. After repeated appeals by the people of Turkestan ASSR, the Qur'an was returned to Central Asia, to Tashkent, in 1924, where it has since remained.
The parchment manuscript now is held in the library of the Telyashayakh Mosque, in the old "Hast-Imam" (Khazrati Imom) area of Tashkent, Uzbekistan, close to the grave of Kaffal Shashi, a tenth-century Islamic scholar.
The manuscript is incomplete, only a third of the Qur'an surviving: it begins in the middle of verse 7 of the second sura and ends abruptly at Surah 43:10. The manuscript has between eight and twelve lines to the page and, showing its antiquity, the text is devoid of vocalisation.
From December 1055 when the Turk chieftain Toghril Beg deposed the last Arab caliph al-Qa'im, until 1921 when the Ottoman Empire was dissolved, Turks were the one and only, totally in charge, rulers and custodians of Islam.
A little common sense goes a long way.
IMPORTANT PEOPLE OF ISLAM:
Al-Bukhari was NOT a Persian, he was a Tajik: Tajiks descended from ancient peoples of Central Asia, such as the Soghdians and the Bactrians (Turks).
Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari. al-Tabari was NOT a Persian. The place of his birth was Parthian territory, they also were simply vassals of the Persian Empire.
Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah. Ishaq was NOT a Persian. The place of his birth was also Parthian territory, they were simply vassals of the Persian Empire.
typeZeiss - Ever hear of a thing called research?
Hello Brother Mike
1. I wasn't trying to be rude when I asked my question. I was simply interested to see what proof you have to support your claims. I am Muslim but I am open to any and all information. If someone can prove my current beliefs wrong then i must, as a civilized human being revise my beliefs to match reality.
2. I agree research goes a long way when done properly. However reading things off the net to prove ones preconceived notions and prejudices leads to ruin.
3. You mentioned Hadith, well the oldest Hadith Collection is that of Muslim (Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Ubaydullah) which was two generations after the fact and he was a Arab so your wrong on this count.
4. Also in Sunni Islam you have four Madhhab i.e. schools of jurisprudence. Maliki (most of W. Africa is this). The Imam who founded this schools is Imam Malik Ibn Anas and he was born in Medinat an nabi i.e. Medinat.
Shafi school founded by Imam Abū ʿAbdullāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi‘ī also a Arab.
Then There is the Hanafi school founded by Imam Nuʿmān ibn Thābit ibn Zūṭā ibn Marzubān born in I'raq.
Lastly we have the Hanbali school founded by Imam Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal Abu `Abd Allah al-Shaybani, also a Arab born in Iraq. So your Turkish claims and "doing research goes a long way" doesn't hold up on your end brother. When one researches you must put away your prejudice, and your preconceived notions. It will only lead you to find semi truths to prove your perverted ideology. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Arabs, don't have one Arab friend and don't particularly care for them one bit. However, I can put my dislike for them aside and look for truth where ever it may be.
5. There is also the book Sirat Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq (I own this book, good info in it). Who is from Medinat as well, and a Arab. Wrote this book a few generations after the holy prophet. There is a older book (whose name escapes me) that was written the generation after Prophet Muhammad but it is no longer in existence (that we know of) also written by a Arab. I wouldn't be shocked if it is in a library somewhere, I have come to realize there have been huge fabrications in religion to promote one group over another.
I didn't even get into the Shi'i Imams and their writings and their schools like Imam Ja'far As Saadiq etc. These Imams (all Arabs) wrote profusely on the life of their grandfather/great grandfather Muhammad Ibn A'bdullah (saw) and his religion. I should also add, at one point these Imams started to strictly marry African women and also promoted their students marrying African women, specifically Somalis. Why, I don't know. It is funny because when you go to Iran and Iraq and you see paintings of these Imams they are painted as snow white, although the hadith and books like Kitab Al Irshad clearly state these men were heavily africanized via marriage.
Now, I am not saying the Turks didn't have some influence, I believe they did. For example some sunni's believe you care not allowed to revolt against an unjust ruler if they are Muslim, which is absurd and goes against what the Quran says. However because of some supposed hadith they believe in such a ridiculous notion. Muslim men are also not supposed to wear gold. I have been searching for the reason in the Quran and have yet to find it. However there are supposed hadith, which I find suspect. But to say that current day Islam is a Turkish invention is outside of the bounds of reality and there is nothing you have presented to support such a claim, other than pure conjecture. I studied under a Mufti for a number of years. The old man was like a grandfather to me. I know more about my religion than any google search will ever give you. So please don't insult, lets discuss rationally and if our opinions can not be validated with facts then we should abandon them, and that goes for me as well as anyone else.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
typeZeiss - Yes I'm sure you're right. Though for almost a thousand years the Turks controlled all printing and manuscripts, and gave Arabs no say in anything, the only attention given to them being the ass-kickings when they got out of line, nonetheless the Arabs managed to control and protect the purity of Islamic dogma. Silly me, I should have known.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: typeZeiss - Yes I'm sure you're right. Though for almost a thousand years the Turks controlled all printing and manuscripts, and gave Arabs no say in anything, the only attention given to them being the ass-kickings when they got out of line, nonetheless the Arabs managed to control and protect the purity of Islamic dogma. Silly me, I should have known.
Again you saying something based on your imagination means nothing. What we need is documented facts otherwise its just you making up ****.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
typeZeiss - You know, you have a lot in common with Christians and Hebrews. Their religious history is very similar to yours.
In both cases miraculously, the Arabs and Hebrews managed to control the purity of their religious writings, even though they were in the hands and total control of their conquers for one and two thousand years respectively.
Just like you say about Islam, Christians also say that their religion is truly Hebrew and pure. But just look at how many hands it passed through - it's truly amazing that it's still so pure.
The first Bible: The Septuagint - Greek 282 B.C. (Said to have been done with 72 Hebrews).
The Masoretic text (MT) Turkic Khazars (Jews) 1000 A.D.
The Vulgate Bible - Roman Catholic Church 382 A.D.
John Wycliffe - Lollards - The first complete English-language version of the Bible dates from 1382
The Gutenberg Bible - German 1455
The Tyndale Bible - England 1525
The Coverdale Bible - England 1535
The Matthew Bible - England 1535
The Great Bible - England 1540
Geneva Bible - 1557
The Bishops Bible - English 1564
King James Bible - English 1604
The New English Bible - 1946
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ok, what we are now getting into is psychobabble. Your pseudo history doesn't mean anything to me. What I want is proof of your claims. What you have given me so far is conjecture. If your attempt to classify me with a "jew" or a Christian is your attempt at making me feel upset, let me assure you, you can't. I don't get upset with people who do not know enough to have intelligent conversations with me. If anything, I get bored and move on, which I feel I will be doing here very soon.
You claimed the ahadith were compiled by non arabs, I proved that to be a lie.
You claimed that the turks played with religion, I showed that the schools of jurisprudence were alive and well and their founders were Arabs. Turks didn't rule all over the islamic world and those schools were alive in and well inside and outside of turkish control. The problem is, you do not know enough to have this conversation with me. You armed with Google and reading fantastic stories which appeal to you because of your prejudices, ignorance and preconceived notions, isn't going to get you anywhere in an intelligent conversation. What you are dealing with is emotion, and raw, negative emotions will get you no where. Now I get it, some silly blog has convinced you of your absurd opinions, I get it. But the thing is info based on second, third and fourth hand made up information is not going to trump my actual involvement and years of research, just never going to happen. It may happen in your imaginary, bizarro world, but here in reality, nope, wont happen.
Anyway, this conversation has stopped being intelligent. As usual on these boards I have given books you can go read yourself, that are authentic sources and you in turn have given your opinion (which frankly means little to nothing). So I will excuse myself.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Mike111 You claimed that the turks played with religion, I showed that the schools of jurisprudence were alive and well and their founders were Arabs. Turks didn't rule all over the islamic world and those schools were alive in and well inside and outside of turkish control.
.
That which the Ottoman Turks didn't control - the Safavid Turks did!
posted
Bro, Its best to leave Mike in his own stench of failure. He is a Fraud, his so called "Research" is simply spamming pictures and making claims with out backing it up. Its quite easy to make a fool out of him as you have done so. All he can do is keep spamming pictures.
Mike is such a fraud, a self loathing loser...LMAO
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Mike111
Ok, what we are now getting into is psychobabble. Your pseudo history doesn't mean anything to me. What I want is proof of your claims. What you have given me so far is conjecture. If your attempt to classify me with a "jew" or a Christian is your attempt at making me feel upset, let me assure you, you can't. I don't get upset with people who do not know enough to have intelligent conversations with me. If anything, I get bored and move on, which I feel I will be doing here very soon.
You claimed the ahadith were compiled by non arabs, I proved that to be a lie.
You claimed that the turks played with religion, I showed that the schools of jurisprudence were alive and well and their founders were Arabs. Turks didn't rule all over the islamic world and those schools were alive in and well inside and outside of turkish control. The problem is, you do not know enough to have this conversation with me. You armed with Google and reading fantastic stories which appeal to you because of your prejudices, ignorance and preconceived notions, isn't going to get you anywhere in an intelligent conversation. What you are dealing with is emotion, and raw, negative emotions will get you no where. Now I get it, some silly blog has convinced you of your absurd opinions, I get it. But the thing is info based on second, third and fourth hand made up information is not going to trump my actual involvement and years of research, just never going to happen. It may happen in your imaginary, bizarro world, but here in reality, nope, wont happen.
Anyway, this conversation has stopped being intelligent. As usual on these boards I have given books you can go read yourself, that are authentic sources and you in turn have given your opinion (which frankly means little to nothing). So I will excuse myself.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Jari - because I expect that most people can look at a map of the Ottoman Empire and see that typeZeiss is just another delusional Turk mulatto.
But so-far he has not demonstrated the sad, pathetic nature that you display.
BTW - You did not answer my question from the other thread:
I said: Tell me, does this mean that you are finally dropping the "I am Black" nonsense?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
smh
A great book on this particular subject (I own a copy):![[Mad]](mad.gif)
It's bad enough when yte people refer to Black People as such...there are more appropriate things that can be used to refer to those two deh lol....
Printer-friendly view of this topic