History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedSassanids vs Arabs

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
kingofmazanderan View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kingofmazanderan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2006 at 21:19
Ok wait Bulldog you said that Islam made it easier for blacks because they had a hard time during that period.  I know for sure that Muslim arabs constantly made incursians into Africa to take blacks as slaves.  Please tell me how this makes things easier on the black.
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 644
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 00:35
Originally posted by Maziar Maziar wrote:

I am someone who says his critics freely everywhere. And for sure i have the right to critisize islam too. If you want to dissmiss my critics as "anti-islamic" so i am so sorry for you.
How about more objectivity?
How about intelligent criticism? The kind that doesnt make others believe you are a dumb idiot? That kind of criticism is appreciated in all cultures.
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 644
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 00:40
Originally posted by kingofmazanderan kingofmazanderan wrote:

Ok wait Bulldog you said that Islam made it easier for blacks because they had a hard time during that period.  I know for sure that Muslim arabs constantly made incursians into Africa to take blacks as slaves.  Please tell me how this makes things easier on the black.
 
Very simple statement.
 
In my opinion, all Islam is is a Creed based on Monotheism with a guidebook describing how a Muslim has to live his life. Yes many Muslims can use it for good or bad.
 
As far as Africa goes, Islam also made slaves out of Circassians, Turks, Persians, French, Italians, Spaniards, West Africans, East Africans, Central Africans, Berbers, and finally Indians.
 
The only thing you need to realize is the status of the slave, as in, is Slavery in Islam the same thing as slavery in the Modern day Western definition.
 
The Eras of the Mamluke Empire, Ghaznavid Empire, Delhi Sultanate and Ottoman Empire beg to differ.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 17:38
Quote
The only thing you need to realize is the status of the slave, as in, is Slavery in Islam the same thing as slavery in the Modern day Western definition.
 
The Eras of the Mamluke Empire, Ghaznavid Empire, Delhi Sultanate and Ottoman Empire beg to differ.
 
Regardless of cultural background, a slave in the Islamic Middle East was:
 
1. owned
2. subject to beating
3. did not have the same rights as a free man
4. female slaves were raped and impregnated
5. some male slaves were made eunuchs
 
Now as the empires mentioned above, the "military-slave" (i.e. the "mamluke") was the freest of slaves in Islamic societies.  They "slave-master" was essentially the head-of-state (either an amir, a sultan, or a caliph).  The circumstances of their rise to rulership essentially followed the same lines:  namely, a power vaccuum occurred within the state, and the most powerful leader was the "general" of the "slave-army".  He then takes power, and becomes the new ruler.  We note, then, that they were no longer "slaves".   Hence, nothing is really changed when mentioning the names of such empires.  Their rise to rule was purely opportunistic, not the result of benevolence on the behalf of the former rulers. 
Back to Top
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 01:58
Even it differed in early times of the Hilafet and Abbassid times.
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 12:29
Not really.  The only real difference was in the frequency of slaves.  Remember, most slaves were the result of captures either by slave traders or by conquest of non-Muslim neighboring states.  As Islam expanded, slaves became more scarce.  The other difference then was where they were coming from.  Africa presented opportunities for slave traders, and to this day, slavery is still practiced there among some Islamic countries against non-Muslim inhabitants.  Because one cannot enslave a Muslim, there is an effort by some Muslims NOT to proselytise natives in order to maintain a steady supply of slaves.  Some still do find their way to Saudi Arabia, although the Saudi government officially banned slavery.  The problem is with the Wahhabis.  They still recognize slavery as Islamic.
Back to Top
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 14:48
Sure, but still slaves were differed, by area. And I believe early times they had more rights, like at the times of 4 Khalif.
 
Also, late in Abbasid times Turkish Qulams were very famous and they were not really slaves even though they were called so.
 
Thats why I asked.
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 15:46
Originally posted by Mughaal Mughaal wrote:

Originally posted by Maziar Maziar wrote:

I am someone who says his critics freely everywhere. And for sure i have the right to critisize islam too. If you want to dissmiss my critics as "anti-islamic" so i am so sorry for you.
How about more objectivity?
How about intelligent criticism? The kind that doesnt make others believe you are a dumb idiot? That kind of criticism is appreciated in all cultures.

(The emphasis is mine)

Does the second sentence of your statement reflect the type of "intelligent criticism" you would--as you claim--like to see?

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 13-Jul-2007 at 15:47
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 22:51
Quote Sure, but still slaves were differed, by area. And I believe early times they had more rights, like at the times of 4 Khalif.
 
Also, late in Abbasid times Turkish Qulams were very famous and they were not really slaves even though they were called so.
 
Thats why I asked.
 
Doubtful.  I remember reading an account of one of the future Rasidum caliphs.  He was beating one of his slaves while Muhammad looked on and laughed.  As for the Qulams, I could not find anything on them.  If they were so privileged, than they were an exception, rather than the rule.  In all regions and in all times, however female slaves were the sexual playthings of their male masters, and some of their children were sold to others.
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 644
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 00:24
I would love to see that account of the "Rasidum" Caliph please. Where? When?
 
Definitely, slavery was practiced differently in all areas of the Islamic World: slaves were given previliges under Islam, but the way the muslims practiced it or not practiced it, differed time and place. And sex slavery still exists in Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, UAE, and African Nations.
 
You need to realize the laws regulating slavery in Islam were much better than the laws regulating slavery in the European Empires.
 
Muslim Slave Empires:
Ghaznavid Empire
Dehli Sultanate
Mamluke Empire
Ghourid Kingdom
 
Muslim Empires Using Slaves as a Fighting Force:
Ottoman Empire
Safavid Empire
Sokoto Khilafat
Al Murabitun Empire
Al Muhaddith Empire
Ummayud Khilafat
Abbasid Khilafat
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 644
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 00:28
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:



Does the second sentence of your statement reflect the type of "intelligent criticism" you would--as you claim--like to see?

 
It should be realized that when we come to debate about issues, we should do so for the sake of seeking the truth; not for furthering our own agendas.
 
Im all for tolerating ignorant claims, as i would appreciate all others tolerate my own. I am also capable for tolerating arrogant statements, whether intentional or unintentional.
 
What i dislike is stubborness and placing the blame on others when you know you were wrong. Freedom of Criticism doesnt imply you can go about running false statements (when youve been educated) without criticism being placed on your stubborn idiocy.


Edited by Mughaal - 14-Jul-2007 at 00:29
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 644
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 00:35
Originally posted by kingofmazanderan kingofmazanderan wrote:

Ok wait Bulldog you said that Islam made it easier for blacks because they had a hard time during that period.  I know for sure that Muslim arabs constantly made incursians into Africa to take blacks as slaves.  Please tell me how this makes things easier on the black.
 
In the sense that, slavery will exist in one form or another (sex slavery exists today). When it does exist, follow these rules that make it easier upon the slave, rather than more abusive rules conjured up by the self/society.
 
There are actually types of Slavery that Islam doesnt agree with, but then again, how many people can follow Islam to begin with (even among Muslims).
 
What you see is people mixing their culture with religion and now you have different methods of praciticng the same religion in all parts and places of the world.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What is slavery? Owning another man as property.
How was it transacted in Africa? One African Kingdom raided a weaker tribe and sold the tribesmen to sellers.
 
What is modern day slavery? Sex Slavery, the buying and selling of children and teenagers (at younger ages) for the carnal pleasures of men/women.
How does it exist? In thirld World nations, pimps approach poor people, give false promises of giving their daughters a better life - poor people sell their children and got a few dollars lasting a couple of months. Daughter is forever entering the world of slavery.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 01:11
Quote I would love to see that account of the "Rasidum" Caliph please. Where? When?
 
Hadith of Abu Dawud, vol. 2 chapter 597, #1814
 
This was prior to Abu Bakr becoming caliph.
 
Quote Definitely, slavery was practiced differently in all areas of the Islamic World: slaves were given previliges under Islam, but the way the muslims practiced it or not practiced it, differed time and place. And sex slavery still exists in Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, UAE, and African Nations.
 
It is a given that regardless of "privileges" they were still exploited.
 
Quote You need to realize the laws regulating slavery in Islam were much better than the laws regulating slavery in the European Empires.
 
There is no debate that slavery in Islam was relatively better than slavery in the European Empires.  Even some slaves under European masters had "privileges".  However, when it came (or come) to blacks, many of them died in the countries of their masters more than they did among the Europeans, usually due to disease because they were taken out of their environmental context.  Now, regardless of the Islamic regulations, when one human has power over another, the tendency is to exploit them.  The "regulations" set out to keep abuses at a minimum, but human nature will always find ways to circumvent them. 
 
Quote Muslim Slave Empires:
Ghaznavid Empire
Dehli Sultanate
Mamluke Empire
Ghourid Kingdom
 
Again, these were NOT "slave empires".  Once the "slave" has the power, he is NO LONGER a slave.
 
Quote Muslim Empires Using Slaves as a Fighting Force:
Ottoman Empire
Safavid Empire
Sokoto Khilafat
Al Murabitun Empire
Al Muhaddith Empire
Ummayud Khilafat
Abbasid Khilafat
 
These were the most "privileged" of the slaves.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 01:07
Hello to You all
 
Dear Sharrukin you need to chill out a little. I already talked about slaves in another ost so feel free to read it and then comment on it.
 
As for the Jews Beni Quraidhah, well unfortunatly the rules of war during that period in Human history said that allies who betray treaties are killed, it was done by the Romans, Byzantines, Sassanids, Arabs, Mongols, English, French etc. So though brutal as it was, it was the law then and everyone accepted it. Yes it was a terrible fate and many objected especially that forgivness was preferred but it was done. All those who took part in the rebellion were killed and those who did not were not.
 
Finally for the war with the Byzantines and Sassanid, well they asked for it and got it. The Prophet sent emisseries to the two great ruler and their vassals and they were either humiliated or killed which also during those days was a declaration of war. Even worse, the Persian governer of Yemen, which was under a brutal occupation, was asked to attack muslims which he did not, instead he became muslim and shook of Sassanid authority. Persians have for long humiliated Arabs and ruled them with terror and After the Arabs were victorious in Dhi Qar things were about to change. Early Muslims had far more zeal in the begining to take down the Byzantines because they were far more stronger and war was already being fought before the prophet died.
 
A final note to you and All people writing history here is that remember, we are talking history. many costums that were accepted 100 years ago are now considered war crimes like deliberate bombing of civilian targets. Back in the early 19th century surrender after heroic resistance was considered honourable and the commander was often rewarded even if his country lost the war but now he is court martialled and might get his head chopped off. Back then collective punishment was accepted if the populace was hostile and were active in resistance nowadays it is a war crime. Do not make the mistake of judging 7th century practices no matter how savage they were with a 21st century meter.
 
Thank you
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Suren View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1673
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Suren Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 09:30
No offense, but there is no excuse for savagery. At the time of prophet Mohammad, Arabs were famous for being savage, but Mohammad came to teach them act civilized and behave properly. Is this one of prophet Mohammad's teaching to slaughter the people who has broken their words? I doubt. I think some Muslim fighters didn't act properly at the first days of Islamic history and gave a bad name to Islam especially Hajaj ibni Yousef who was famous for his savagery.


Edited by Suren - 08-Oct-2007 at 19:15
Back to Top
YusakuJon3 View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 219
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote YusakuJon3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 00:38
One has to consider that at the time when the Arabs began to confront the Sassanid Persians (starting in 611 AD when they won a battle on the deserts of Mesopotamia), the latter were quite weakened due to their centuries-long conflict with the Byzantine Empire.  Soon after the peace treaty was signed to end that war, they were simply too badly beaten to put up a resistance to the Arab armies which invaded their territory.  There was really no chance given for them to make a recovery and build up their defenses in time to deal with the onslaught, and so they fell apart.
 
Were there not an ongoing war with Byzantium, the Sassanids might've been able to more strongly defend their frontier.  Crossing the deserts to get to the Arab heartland was a different matter all together.
"There you go again!"

-- President Ronald W. Reagan (directed towards reporters at a White House press conference, mid-1980s)
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 01:24
Hello Yusaku
 
I have indicated in an earlier post that saying that the reason for the speed the Arab conquest came about was the weakness of the enemy was a myth especially for the Byzantines. Arabs defeated Sassanids in the famous battle of Dhi-Qar in 609 during the hight of the Sassanids just before they crushed the Byantines in those years and in Iraq. The subsequent raids reached as far as present day Mosul and Sassanids tried and failed. When Arabs were united and started their expansion the only disadvantage of the Sassanids was the civil war. But in all the battles they were far more than Arab forces and when Yazdegerd came the resistance was indeed stif and even successful. Remeber, Mazandran held out for 60 years after the they managed to literally completely annihilate a 20 000 strong army that deeply hurt the Arabs and made them hell bent on crushing them which was done later.
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Maziar View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Arteshbod

Joined: 06-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 1157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maziar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2007 at 23:15
Originally posted by Mughaal Mughaal wrote:

Originally posted by Maziar Maziar wrote:

I am someone who says his critics freely everywhere. And for sure i have the right to critisize islam too. If you want to dissmiss my critics as "anti-islamic" so i am so sorry for you.
How about more objectivity?
How about intelligent criticism? The kind that doesnt make others believe you are a dumb idiot? That kind of criticism is appreciated in all cultures.


yea, i can see the brilliance of  intelligent criticism in your so called answer.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2007 at 13:55
Originally posted by Mughaal Mughaal wrote:

It should be realized that when we come to debate about issues, we should do so for the sake of seeking the truth; not for furthering our own agendas.


Ideally, yes, but it's a rare achievement when people have a personal stake in the disputed topic. For example, if you are a Muslim yourself, then you do further your own agenda by giving slavery in the Islamic world a favourable comparison with European slavery.

I'll agree that slavery was generally more varied in Islamic cultures than European ones in the post-classical age, but slaves in both cultures did fulfill many of the same functions as well. Black slaves for example were used for hard manual labour on plantations and in mines in the Middle East just like in the American south states, although to a lesser extent as the need for manual workers was greater in the American plantations. Slaves could also be household manservants with a comparatively high living standard in renaissance Italy and early modern Europe, as had been the practice in Islamic regions for centuries and earlier in the Roman Empire.

That being said, the Europeans never came near the Islamic world's use of slaves in nearly every branch of society. As far as I know there was never a European army which relied heavily on slaves, nor were there artist slaves such as musicians or artisan slaves, cook slaves or eunuchs (exempting Byzantium). As a whole paying a labour force was the norm rather than buying it.

From a moral point of view, the Quran's regulation of the slave-master relationship was truly progressive in the 7th century. It urges (though does not command) Muslims to treat their slaves well and considers it a pious act to give them their freedom. In the 19th century however this was no longer as progressive, and the Quran's acceptance of slavery might have contributed to its endurance in the Middle East when most European states had abolished it. Even though certain individual Muslims freed their slaves as an act of piety, no popular emancipataion movements on par with those in Europe and America were to be found, and it was only through pressure from European nations that it was finally abolished in the 20th century.

Btw. we seem to have two parallel threads here.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
-ohcrapitsnico- View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 03-Nov-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote -ohcrapitsnico- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Nov-2007 at 16:39
Originally posted by LilLou LilLou wrote:

If you look at the facts, there was no happy convert, islam or get your head chopped.

 
Don't speak in absolutes the majority of converts did so peacefully. Look at East Africa, West Africa, Indonesia, the Mongols, etc etc.
Allahu Akbar
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.