An interesting documentary about the wonders of Islamic civilization and leaders like Sala'adin. There is some clear differences from what others have talked about on this board about the original Arabs. The documentary also mentions the Moors, but only never uses the term itself. Instead lumping Moorish civilization in with the larger Muslim civilization. I can understand why this was done, but it could confuse the layman viewer who is not as well read. It's mentioned how the Alhambra is really the only good, surviving structure that shows us what a medieval muslim palace would have looked like. No mention of the Moors African roots of course, and no re-enacters were even shown when they talked about Moorish Spain. Strange. The documentary begins talking about the Moors at the 16:00 mark.
Another interesting thing to note is when they talk about the Mongol invasion and capture of Baghdad. This seems to be a complete culture shift that took place. No longer was Islam controlled only be Arabs. It got me to thinking, this may not have had only strong religious connotations, but also possibly genetic. How much intermarriage occurred between Mongol and Arab populations? Could that have dramatically contributed to the swarthy complexion of many Arabs today? Assuming of course you DO take into account what Dana and others have talked about. The Mongol invasion directly led to the rise of the Ottoman Turk Empire which dominated Muslim culture for centuries to come and has had a major impact on the transforming of the Arab world. Mongol invasion discussion begins at 47:47 in the documentary at the end.
All in all, a good documentary that talks about the influence of Muslim culture on the West. Some minor gripes though. 7/10. I still would rank Bettany Hughes' documentary as the one to see if you're interested in the Moors though.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
King_Scorpion - I think you may have misunderstood something. The Mongol invasion did not directly lead to the rise of the Ottoman Turk Empire. The rise of the Turks led to the Mongol invasions.
The Seljuqs
Toghril Beg proclaimed himself sultan at Neyshabur in 1038, and had espoused strict Sunnism, by which he gained the Arab caliph's confidence and undermined the Buyid position in Baghdad. The Oguz Turks had accepted Islam late in the 10th century, and their leaders displayed a convert's zeal in their efforts to restore a Muslim polity along orthodox lines. Their efforts were made all the more urgent by the spread of Fatimid Isma'ili propaganda (Arabic da'wah) in the eastern Caliphate by means of an underground network of propagandists or da'is, intent on undermining the Buyid regime, and also by the threat posed by the Christian Crusaders.
The Buyids' usurpation of the Arab caliph's secular power, had given rise to a new theory of state formulated by al-Mawardi (died 1058). Al-Mawardi's treatise partly prepared the theoretical ground for Toghril Begs attempt to establish an orthodox Muslim state in which conflict between the Arab caliph-imam's spiritual-juridical authority on the one side, and the secular power of the sultan on the other, could be resolved, or at least regulated, by convention. Al-Mawardi reminded the Muslim world of the necessity of the imamate; but the treatise realistically admitted the existence of, and thus accommodated the fact of military usurpation of power. The Seljuq Turks own political theorist al-Ghazali (died 1111) carried this admission further, by explaining that the position of a powerless Arab caliph, overshadowed by a strong Seljuq Turk master, was one in which the latter's presence guaranteed the former's capacity to defend and extend Islam.
The Arab caliph al-Qa'im (reigned 1031–75) replaced the last Buyid's name, al-Malik al-Rahim, in the khutbah and on the coins, with that of Toghril Beg; and after protracted negotiation ensuring restoration of the caliph's dignity after Shi'ite subjugation, Toghril entered Baghdad in December 1055. The Arab caliph enthroned him and married a Seljuq princess (see below). Buyid power was thus terminated, ending what Vladimir Minorsky, the great Persiaologist, called the “Persian intermezzo.”
After Toghril had campaigned successfully as far as Syria, he was given the title of “king of the east and west.” The new situation was justified by the theory that existing practice was legal whereby a new caliph could be instituted by the sultan, who possessed effective power and sovereignty, but that thereafter the sultan owed the caliph allegiance because only so long as the caliph-imam's juridical faculties were recognized could government be valid.
Toghril Beg died in 1063. His heir, Alp-Arslan, was succeeded by Malik-Shah in 1072, and the latter's death in 1092 led to succession disputes out of which Berk-Yaruq emerged triumphant to reign until 1105. After a brief reign, Malik-Shah II was succeeded by Muhammad I (reigned 1105–18). The last “Great Seljuq” was Sanjar (1118–57), who had earlier been governor of Khorasan.
The Khwarezm-Shah
With the fall of the Seljugs, the Turk Anush Tigin Gharchai, a former slave of the Seljuq sultans, and who was appointed the governor of Khwarezm, established the Khwarezm-Shah dynasty (1077–1231). His son Qutb ud-Dīn Muhammad I by 1205 had conquered the remaining parts of the Great Seljuq Empire, proclaiming himself Shah (king). He eventually became known as the Khwarezmshah. In 1212 he defeated the Gur-Khan Kutluk and conquered the lands of the Kara Khitay, now ruling a territory from the Syr Darya almost all the way to Baghdad, and from the Indus River to the Caspian Sea. Genghis Khan
In 1218, Genghis Khan sent a trade mission to the Khwarezm-Shah, but at the town of Otrara (a Central Asian town that was located along the Silk Road near the current town of Karatau in Kazakhstan) the governor there, suspecting the Khan's ambassadors to be spies, confiscated their goods and executed them. Genghis Khan demanded reparations, which the Shah refused to pay. Genghis Khan then sent a second, purely diplomatic mission, they too were murdered. Genghis retaliated with a force of 200,000 men, launching a multi-pronged invasion, his guides were Muslim merchants from Transoxania. During the years 1220–21, Bukhara, Samarkand, Herat (all Central Asian cities), Tus (Susa), and Neyshabur (Persian cities) were razed, and the whole populations were slaughtered. (This represented the first wholesale slaughter of Black Persians).
The Khwarezm-Shah fled, to die on an island off the Caspian coast. His son Jalal al-Din survived until murdered in Kurdistan in 1231. He had eluded Genghis Khan on the Indus River, across which his horse swam, enabling him to escape to India. He returned to attempt restoring the Khwarezmian empire over Persia. However, he failed to unite the Persian regions, even though Genghis Khan had withdrawn to Mongolia, where he died in August 1227. Persia was left divided, with Mongol agents remaining in some districts and local adventurers profiting from the lack of order in others.
A second Mongol invasion began when Genghis Khan's grandson Hülegü Khan crossed the Oxus river in 1256 and destroyed the Assassin fortress at Alamut. With the disintegration of the Seljuq empire, the Arab Caliphate had reasserted control in the area around Baghdad and in southwestern Persia. In 1258 Hülegü besieged Baghdad, Al-Musta'sim, the last Arab Abbasid caliph of Baghdad, was trampled to death by mounted troops (in the style of Mongol royal executions). The Abbasids rule resumed in Mamluk governed Egypt in 1261, from where they continued to claim authority in religious matters only. That is until 1519, when all power was formally transferred to the Ottomans in their capital of Constantinople.
Hülegü hoped to consolidate Mongol rule over western Asia and to extend the Mongol empire as far as the Mediterranean, an empire that would span the Earth from China to the Levant. Hülegü made Persia his base, but the Mamluks of Egypt (former Turkish slave soldiers of the Arab caliphate, who rebelled in 1250 and established their own dynasty in Egypt.) prevented him and his successors from achieving their great imperial goal, by decisively defeating a Mongol army at Ayn Jalut in 1260. Instead, a Mongol dynasty called the Il-Khans, or “deputy khans” to the great khan in China, was established in Persia to attempt repair of the damage done by the first Mongol invasion. (It is at this time, at the battle of Ayn Jalut, that Black Egyptians demonstrate that almost two thousand years of occupation, had not diminished their genius. At this battle, they unveil the worlds first "Gun" and the Mamluks use it successfully to repel the Mongols).
Turkish subjugation of the Arabs became complete, when Ottoman Sultan Mahmud II (1808-39), instructed the Albanian Turk ruler of Egypt, the viceroy "Muhammad Ali" to put down a rebellion by Wahhabis Arabs in the Hejaz. Muhammad Ali sent an Albanian army to Arabia, that between 1811 and 1813, expelled the Wahhabis Arabs from the Hejaz. 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 also under Albanian control. As in the rest of the Middle East, the Ottoman Turks retained military and political control over Arabia until the end of WW I, after which time, it was passed to local Turks.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ For ONCE in his life, Mike is correct. The Turks controlled most of the trade routes from central to eastern Asia before the rise of the Mongols. By the way, the Turkic peoples are closely related to Mongols genetically and culturally to the Mongols also speaking Altaic languages. Though many Turks obviously mixed with indigenous populations in Central Asia to Southwest Asia and Russia. The country of modern day Turkey is called so after its Turkic conquerors which were relatively in the minority but its original name was Anatolia, and even today the vast majority of its inhabitants are more so Anatolians than actual true Turks.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: King_Scorpion - I think you may have misunderstood something. The Mongol invasion did not directly lead to the rise of the Ottoman Turk Empire. The rise of the Turks led to the Mongol invasions.
The Seljuqs
Toghril Beg proclaimed himself sultan at Neyshabur in 1038, and had espoused strict Sunnism, by which he gained the Arab caliph's confidence and undermined the Buyid position in Baghdad. The Oguz Turks had accepted Islam late in the 10th century, and their leaders displayed a convert's zeal in their efforts to restore a Muslim polity along orthodox lines. Their efforts were made all the more urgent by the spread of Fatimid Isma'ili propaganda (Arabic da'wah) in the eastern Caliphate by means of an underground network of propagandists or da'is, intent on undermining the Buyid regime, and also by the threat posed by the Christian Crusaders.
The Buyids' usurpation of the Arab caliph's secular power, had given rise to a new theory of state formulated by al-Mawardi (died 1058). Al-Mawardi's treatise partly prepared the theoretical ground for Toghril Begs attempt to establish an orthodox Muslim state in which conflict between the Arab caliph-imam's spiritual-juridical authority on the one side, and the secular power of the sultan on the other, could be resolved, or at least regulated, by convention. Al-Mawardi reminded the Muslim world of the necessity of the imamate; but the treatise realistically admitted the existence of, and thus accommodated the fact of military usurpation of power. The Seljuq Turks own political theorist al-Ghazali (died 1111) carried this admission further, by explaining that the position of a powerless Arab caliph, overshadowed by a strong Seljuq Turk master, was one in which the latter's presence guaranteed the former's capacity to defend and extend Islam.
The Arab caliph al-Qa'im (reigned 1031–75) replaced the last Buyid's name, al-Malik al-Rahim, in the khutbah and on the coins, with that of Toghril Beg; and after protracted negotiation ensuring restoration of the caliph's dignity after Shi'ite subjugation, Toghril entered Baghdad in December 1055. The Arab caliph enthroned him and married a Seljuq princess (see below). Buyid power was thus terminated, ending what Vladimir Minorsky, the great Persiaologist, called the “Persian intermezzo.”
After Toghril had campaigned successfully as far as Syria, he was given the title of “king of the east and west.” The new situation was justified by the theory that existing practice was legal whereby a new caliph could be instituted by the sultan, who possessed effective power and sovereignty, but that thereafter the sultan owed the caliph allegiance because only so long as the caliph-imam's juridical faculties were recognized could government be valid.
Toghril Beg died in 1063. His heir, Alp-Arslan, was succeeded by Malik-Shah in 1072, and the latter's death in 1092 led to succession disputes out of which Berk-Yaruq emerged triumphant to reign until 1105. After a brief reign, Malik-Shah II was succeeded by Muhammad I (reigned 1105–18). The last “Great Seljuq” was Sanjar (1118–57), who had earlier been governor of Khorasan.
The Khwarezm-Shah
With the fall of the Seljugs, the Turk Anush Tigin Gharchai, a former slave of the Seljuq sultans, and who was appointed the governor of Khwarezm, established the Khwarezm-Shah dynasty (1077–1231). His son Qutb ud-Dīn Muhammad I by 1205 had conquered the remaining parts of the Great Seljuq Empire, proclaiming himself Shah (king). He eventually became known as the Khwarezmshah. In 1212 he defeated the Gur-Khan Kutluk and conquered the lands of the Kara Khitay, now ruling a territory from the Syr Darya almost all the way to Baghdad, and from the Indus River to the Caspian Sea. Genghis Khan
In 1218, Genghis Khan sent a trade mission to the Khwarezm-Shah, but at the town of Otrara (a Central Asian town that was located along the Silk Road near the current town of Karatau in Kazakhstan) the governor there, suspecting the Khan's ambassadors to be spies, confiscated their goods and executed them. Genghis Khan demanded reparations, which the Shah refused to pay. Genghis Khan then sent a second, purely diplomatic mission, they too were murdered. Genghis retaliated with a force of 200,000 men, launching a multi-pronged invasion, his guides were Muslim merchants from Transoxania. During the years 1220–21, Bukhara, Samarkand, Herat (all Central Asian cities), Tus (Susa), and Neyshabur (Persian cities) were razed, and the whole populations were slaughtered. (This represented the first wholesale slaughter of Black Persians).
The Khwarezm-Shah fled, to die on an island off the Caspian coast. His son Jalal al-Din survived until murdered in Kurdistan in 1231. He had eluded Genghis Khan on the Indus River, across which his horse swam, enabling him to escape to India. He returned to attempt restoring the Khwarezmian empire over Persia. However, he failed to unite the Persian regions, even though Genghis Khan had withdrawn to Mongolia, where he died in August 1227. Persia was left divided, with Mongol agents remaining in some districts and local adventurers profiting from the lack of order in others.
A second Mongol invasion began when Genghis Khan's grandson Hülegü Khan crossed the Oxus river in 1256 and destroyed the Assassin fortress at Alamut. With the disintegration of the Seljuq empire, the Arab Caliphate had reasserted control in the area around Baghdad and in southwestern Persia. In 1258 Hülegü besieged Baghdad, Al-Musta'sim, the last Arab Abbasid caliph of Baghdad, was trampled to death by mounted troops (in the style of Mongol royal executions). The Abbasids rule resumed in Mamluk governed Egypt in 1261, from where they continued to claim authority in religious matters only. That is until 1519, when all power was formally transferred to the Ottomans in their capital of Constantinople.
Hülegü hoped to consolidate Mongol rule over western Asia and to extend the Mongol empire as far as the Mediterranean, an empire that would span the Earth from China to the Levant. Hülegü made Persia his base, but the Mamluks of Egypt (former Turkish slave soldiers of the Arab caliphate, who rebelled in 1250 and established their own dynasty in Egypt.) prevented him and his successors from achieving their great imperial goal, by decisively defeating a Mongol army at Ayn Jalut in 1260. Instead, a Mongol dynasty called the Il-Khans, or “deputy khans” to the great khan in China, was established in Persia to attempt repair of the damage done by the first Mongol invasion. (It is at this time, at the battle of Ayn Jalut, that Black Egyptians demonstrate that almost two thousand years of occupation, had not diminished their genius. At this battle, they unveil the worlds first "Gun" and the Mamluks use it successfully to repel the Mongols).
Turkish subjugation of the Arabs became complete, when Ottoman Sultan Mahmud II (1808-39), instructed the Albanian Turk ruler of Egypt, the viceroy "Muhammad Ali" to put down a rebellion by Wahhabis Arabs in the Hejaz. Muhammad Ali sent an Albanian army to Arabia, that between 1811 and 1813, expelled the Wahhabis Arabs from the Hejaz. 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 also under Albanian control. As in the rest of the Middle East, the Ottoman Turks retained military and political control over Arabia until the end of WW I, after which time, it was passed to local Turks.
True enough. The point I was making though is that both groups played a role in the shift of power that occurred in Islam which would fit into a working model of the identity of the original Arabs. We're in agreement then about the influence of the Turks. I wonder what the motives could have been to make war on other Muslims? The Turkic/Arab Islamic infighting seems to be a pretty big deal. Could this NOT have had a dramatic phenotypical impact on Arabic communities?
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ For ONCE in his life, Mike is correct. The Turks controlled most of the trade routes from central to eastern Asia before the rise of the Mongols. By the way, the Turkic peoples are closely related to Mongols genetically and culturally to the Mongols also speaking Altaic languages. Though many Turks obviously mixed with indigenous populations in Central Asia to Southwest Asia and Russia. The country of modern day Turkey is called so after its Turkic conquerors which were relatively in the minority but its original name was Anatolia, and even today the vast majority of its inhabitants are more so Anatolians than actual true Turks.
And the funny thing is u can actually go to sites on the internet where Eurowackys are at it again claiming to be the true and original Turks and calling Asian Turks like the Turkoman insulting names. These Eurowacky people are so delusional its frightening. I am starting to think Frances Welsing - or whatever her name is - may have been on to something. lol!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
An interesting documentary about the wonders of Islamic civilization and leaders like Sala'adin. There is some clear differences from what others have talked about on this board about the original Arabs. The documentary also mentions the Moors, but only never uses the term itself. Instead lumping Moorish civilization in with the larger Muslim civilization. I can understand why this was done, but it could confuse the layman viewer who is not as well read. It's mentioned how the Alhambra is really the only good, surviving structure that shows us what a medieval muslim palace would have looked like. No mention of the Moors African roots of course, and no re-enacters were even shown when they talked about Moorish Spain. Strange. The documentary begins talking about the Moors at the 16:00 mark.
Another interesting thing to note is when they talk about the Mongol invasion and capture of Baghdad. This seems to be a complete culture shift that took place. No longer was Islam controlled only be Arabs. It got me to thinking, this may not have had only strong religious connotations, but also possibly genetic. How much intermarriage occurred between Mongol and Arab populations? Could that have dramatically contributed to the swarthy complexion of many Arabs today? Assuming of course you DO take into account what Dana and others have talked about. The Mongol invasion directly led to the rise of the Ottoman Turk Empire which dominated Muslim culture for centuries to come and has had a major impact on the transforming of the Arab world. Mongol invasion discussion begins at 47:47 in the documentary at the end.
All in all, a good documentary that talks about the influence of Muslim culture on the West. Some minor gripes though. 7/10. I still would rank Bettany Hughes' documentary as the one to see if you're interested in the Moors though.
Hi Scorpion - in a short response just to remind not all Moors came directly from Africa a good portion of the early Moors were from Arabia which was still occupied by Africans at the time. Islam came to be controlled by the Mongol Turks i.e. true Turks and Iranians and these later intermingled with Arabs and Arabized Syrians and Iraqis as well as the Eastern Europeans or later "Turks". The Abbasid period was ruled by non-Arab Iranians and other Central Asians. Mike is right in pointing out the Founder of modern Egypt was a Turk of Albanian east European descent as were probably a majority of the so called Turks in the Middle East in this late period.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ For ONCE in his life, Mike is correct. The Turks controlled most of the trade routes from central to eastern Asia before the rise of the Mongols. By the way, the Turkic peoples are closely related to Mongols genetically and culturally to the Mongols also speaking Altaic languages. Though many Turks obviously mixed with indigenous populations in Central Asia to Southwest Asia and Russia. The country of modern day Turkey is called so after its Turkic conquerors which were relatively in the minority but its original name was Anatolia, and even today the vast majority of its inhabitants are more so Anatolians than actual true Turks.
And the funny thing is u can actually go to sites on the internet where Eurowackys are at it again claiming to be the true and original Turks and calling Central Asian Turks like the Turkoman insulting names. These people are so delusional its quite frightening. I am starting to think Frances Welsing - or whatever her name is - may have been on to something. lol!
right she does the same thing in reverse
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ For ONCE in his life, Mike is correct. The Turks controlled most of the trade routes from central to eastern Asia before the rise of the Mongols. By the way, the Turkic peoples are closely related to Mongols genetically and culturally to the Mongols also speaking Altaic languages. Though many Turks obviously mixed with indigenous populations in Central Asia to Southwest Asia and Russia. The country of modern day Turkey is called so after its Turkic conquerors which were relatively in the minority but its original name was Anatolia, and even today the vast majority of its inhabitants are more so Anatolians than actual true Turks.
And the funny thing is u can actually go to sites on the internet where Eurowackys are at it again claiming to be the true and original Turks and calling Central Asian Turks like the Turkoman insulting names. These people are so delusional its quite frightening. I am starting to think Frances Welsing - or whatever her name is - may have been on to something. lol!
right she does the same thing in reverse
No doubt - and I was being sarcastic about Welsing anyway.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NABIL.ALI: the documentaries about Islamic Civilization always misses the West African share e.g. Tombokto.
I noticed this too & it's aggravating. West Africa's importance in the gold trade for 200+ years is too important to ignore. Maybe because it's too economic. I noticed many of these programs deal heavily in topics of war leaders like Sala'adin, etc. or it deals with buildings and such. Economic power is often ignored.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the whole on youtube,they clearly HAVE some incorrect info. one EXAMPLE was that steal was more developed in the arab empire then anywhere else. that's false.it's in africa were it was more advanced.ANOTHER EXAMPLE was THE MOST ADVANCED IN THE ARAB AND TURKISH EMPIRE. THAT'S fasle.
knowledge overall at that time was more advanced in mali,songhay,nubia,ABYSSINIA etc etc .
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NABIL.ALI: the documentaries about Islamic Civilization always misses the West African share e.g. Tombokto.
THAT documentary WAS MADE about ten years ago i think or more,been since then we have more clear info about africa,but even then we had enough info about how advanced africa was in the past,so there was no excuses.They just ignore african advancements period in these types of documentaries.
It clear that the most advanced african civilizations were more advanced then the arab or turkish ones.
It was a arabcentric/turkcentric documentary by the way,no better then eurocentric ones.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder when you all will learn that Muslim/Arab centrics don't give to sh#ts about West Africa. Pop open a book or Atlas on the Islamic world and it will barely if ever cover West Africa. You people are of no concern to them
Its really, really sad you all have not figured this out yet...
Pathetic even.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
quote:Originally posted by NABIL.ALI: the documentaries about Islamic Civilization always misses the West African share e.g. Tombokto.
THAT documentary WAS MADE about ten years ago i think or more,been since then we have more clear info about africa,but even then we had enough info about how advanced africa was in the past,so there was no excuses.They just ignore african advancements period in these types of documentaries.
It clear that the most advanced african civilizations were more advanced then the arab or turkish ones.
It was a arabcentric/turkcentric documentary by the way,no better then eurocentric ones.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: I wonder when you all will learn that Muslim/Arab centrics don't give to sh#ts about West Africa. Pop open a book or Atlas on the Islamic world and it will barely if ever cover West Africa. You people are of no concern to them
Its really, really sad you all have not figured this out yet...
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion: Some minor gripes though. 7/10. I still would rank Bettany Hughes' documentary as the one to see if you're interested in the Moors though. [/QB]
what gripes?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: I wonder when you all will learn that Muslim/Arab centrics don't give to sh#ts about West Africa. Pop open a book or Atlas on the Islamic world and it will barely if ever cover West Africa. You people are of no concern to them
Its really, really sad you all have not figured this out yet...
Pathetic even.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
quote:Originally posted by NABIL.ALI: the documentaries about Islamic Civilization always misses the West African share e.g. Tombokto.
THAT documentary WAS MADE about ten years ago i think or more,been since then we have more clear info about africa,but even then we had enough info about how advanced africa was in the past,so there was no excuses.They just ignore african advancements period in these types of documentaries.
It clear that the most advanced african civilizations were more advanced then the arab or turkish ones.
It was a arabcentric/turkcentric documentary by the way,no better then eurocentric ones.
It is not "Muslim/Arab" centrics who are writing these books. it is the Eurocentrics who are writing them. We are going to lay blame, let us lay it in the proper location.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
An interesting documentary about the wonders of Islamic civilization and leaders like Sala'adin. There is some clear differences from what others have talked about on this board about the original Arabs. The documentary also mentions the Moors, but only never uses the term itself. Instead lumping Moorish civilization in with the larger Muslim civilization. I can understand why this was done, but it could confuse the layman viewer who is not as well read. It's mentioned how the Alhambra is really the only good, surviving structure that shows us what a medieval muslim palace would have looked like. No mention of the Moors African roots of course, and no re-enacters were even shown when they talked about Moorish Spain. Strange. The documentary begins talking about the Moors at the 16:00 mark.
Another interesting thing to note is when they talk about the Mongol invasion and capture of Baghdad. This seems to be a complete culture shift that took place. No longer was Islam controlled only be Arabs. It got me to thinking, this may not have had only strong religious connotations, but also possibly genetic. How much intermarriage occurred between Mongol and Arab populations? Could that have dramatically contributed to the swarthy complexion of many Arabs today? Assuming of course you DO take into account what Dana and others have talked about. The Mongol invasion directly led to the rise of the Ottoman Turk Empire which dominated Muslim culture for centuries to come and has had a major impact on the transforming of the Arab world. Mongol invasion discussion begins at 47:47 in the documentary at the end.
All in all, a good documentary that talks about the influence of Muslim culture on the West. Some minor gripes though. 7/10. I still would rank Bettany Hughes' documentary as the one to see if you're interested in the Moors though.
yes, the Arabs lost control even before that though with the Abbasid control given to the Turks and Persians. The Arabs today are markedly lighter than the Arabs of that early Islamic period who were unquestionable black and Abyssinian in appearance like all ancient writings including the earliest Syrian and Persian ones say. Much like the early "Berbers". Of course both these early Arabs and the Africans have been written out of Islamic history.
Also most people don't understand that when you are talking about early Turks or sometimes Persians or even Moguls in India for the most part you are largely talking about peoples who looked like Turkmanistanis, Tajiks, Uzbeks etc many of whom were as Djehuti mentioned Mongol-related and Mongolian-looking populations. These were overtaken later by Eastern European and Caucasus-related groups like Kurds, Slavs and Circassians, Albanians and even sometimes Greeks (as in the Albanian Greek founder of modern Egypt) etc. who've also come to be called "Turks".
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic