Kings and General's "Largest slave revolt in the caliphate"

[Khaemwaset]

Why did he depict all the slaves as blacks? Majority of slaves were obviously Slavic Europeans and Turkic tribes.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Haragwaafi]

Why did he depict all the slaves as blacks? Majority of slaves were obviously Slavic Europeans and Turkic tribes.

The rebellion was mostly consisted of black slaves brought from east Africa in Iraq in Basra province and it was led by Persian Shia (sometimes with khawarij slogans) Alid claiming to be descendant from Ali looking to overthrow the Abbasids

 

[Maakhri from dhahar]

Why did he depict all the slaves as blacks? Majority of slaves were obviously Slavic Europeans and Turkic tribes.

Because it's called the Zanj Rebellion !!!!!
yes most slaves were Slavic Europeans and Turkic tribes but not in this rebellion .

 

[Haragwaafi]

Because it's called the Zanj Rebellion !!!!!
yes most slaves were Slavic Europeans and Turkic tribes but not in this rebellion .

I don't think there was slavic slaves in that period and Turks were recruited by the Abbasids to be their foot soldiers only for them to become more powerful and depose several Abbasid caliphs and install another one having the entire state under their control.

 

[Khaemwaset]

I don't think there was slavic slaves in the period and Turks wee recruited by the Abbasids to be their foot soldiers only for them to become more powerful and depose several Abbasid caliphs and install another one having the state under their control.

The frankish empire were making bank selling slavs as early as the 700-800s

 

[Haragwaafi]

The frankish empire were making bank selling slavs as early as the 700-800s

Not that many made it to the Muslim world as there was not that much of contact between us unlike the Byzantine empire and caucuses kingdoms where many were enslaved after the Muslims won in every battle they had with them

 

[World]

The rebellion was mostly consisted of black slaves brought from east Africa in Iraq in Basra province and it was led by Persian Shia (sometimes with khawarij slogans) Alid claiming to be descendant from Ali looking to overthrow the Abbasids

Persians only became shia in the 16th century, before that it was sunni.

 

[lahaine]

Because the slaves rebelling were black people.

Zanj Rebellion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Haragwaafi]

Persians only became shia in the 16th century, before that it was sunni.

I didn't say all Persians were Shia as this man was a shia and they existed in Khorasan and Fars provinces before the Safavids came in

 

[World]

I didn't say all Persians were Shia as this man was a shia and they existed in Khorasan and Fars provinces before the Safavids came in

There was no khorsan and fars province of the abbasids, it was ruled by a sunni persian kingdom by the mid 9th century.

Shia is an arab thing, not persian. But turkish nomads conquered iran in the 16th century and forced them to learn turkish and shi'ism.

 

[Riftvalley]

This made Al Jahiz pen the first BLM manifesto in the history of the world “Al-Fakhar al-Sudan min al-Abyadh" (Superiority Of The Blacks To The Whites)”.

 

[Haragwaafi]

There was no khorsan and fars province of the abbasids, it was ruled by a sunni persian kingdom by the mid 9th century.

View attachment 333514

Shia is an arab thing, not persian. But turkish nomads conquered iran in the 16th century and forced them to learn turkish and shi'ism.

How there was none ?? when those are provinces that the Ummayads fully conquered and appointed several governors including the Abbasids afterwards??

Saffarids were under the Abbasids caliphate which has lost much of its political power as military leaders were able to establish their autonomous kingdoms relegating the caliph to ceremonial figure head.

Shia is an arab thing, not persian. But turkish nomads conquered iran in the 16th century and forced them to learn turkish and shi'ism.

Shia movement from the early 2nd centaury hijri had presence in most of Muslim lands where they also enjoyed some followers and when Hujjaj al thaqafi fought them many shia's found refuge in Qom in central Iran making it capital of shia theology and Tabaristan

 

[World]

How there was none ?? when those are provinces that the Ummayads fully conquered and appointed several governors including the Abbasids afterwards??

Saffarids were under the Abbasids caliphate which has lost much of its political power as military leaders were able to establish their autonomous kingdoms relegating the caliph to ceremonial figure head.

Shia movement from the early 2nd centaury hijri had presence in most of Muslim lands where they also enjoyed some followers and when Hujjaj al thaqafi fought them many shia's found refuge in Qom in central Iran making it capital of shia theology and Tabaristan

I am not talking about the Ummayad, but the Abbasid's who overthrew them.

Prior to the Saffarid, Khorosan and Greater Iran was ruled by the Tahirid (who were vassal states to the Abbasid), the khawarij, and pagan Zunbils kingdom. The Sunni Persian Ya'qub ibn Layth was the first ruler of the Saffarids, who were independent of the Abbasids. He defeated the khawarij and the pagan Zunbils:

By 873, the Abbasid no longer had a presence in Khorsan and Persia after the defeat of their local Tahirid rulers:

You're correct that Shia were in the northern coast of Iran (Tabaristan) and Qom, but these are not Persian lands to begin with.

Here is an ethnic map of Iran:

In the 16th century, there was two nomadic Oghuz Turkish empires, the Saffavids and the Ottomans. Eastern Anatolia was inhabited by Turkmen nomads who were proto-Alevis(an extreme Shia-like sect combined with Turkish/Pagan pre-islamic culture), they supported the Safavid in fighting and rebelling against the Ottomans. This led to a civil war between these Turks, and the Ottomans invited 13 Sunni Kurdish clans to Eastern Anatolia to populate the region, whilst these Anatolian Turkish nomadic clans left to Safavid territory.

”In day-to-day affairs, the language chiefly used at the Safavid court and by the great military and political officers, as well as the religious dignitaries, was Turkish, not Persian; and the last class of persons wrote their religious works mainly in Arabic. Those who wrote in Persian were either lacking in proper tuition in this tongue, or wrote outside Iran and hence at a distance from centers where Persian was the accepted vernacular, endued with that vitality and susceptibility to skill in its use which a language can have only in places where it truly belongs."

''Turkish is the common language at the Iranian court as well as the mother tongue of the Safavids in distinction of the language of the general populace. The use of Turkish spread from the court to the magnates and notables and finally to all those who hope to benefit from the shah, so that nowadays it is almost considered shameful for a respectable man not to know Turkish.''
Engelbert Kaempfer, Amoenitatum Exoticarum. Fasciculi V, Variae Relationes, Observationes et Descriptiones Rerum Persicarum (Lemgo, 1712 [Tehran, 1976]), 144.

The Safavid kings in Iran, from the beginning till the end of their rules, because of their mother-tongue and the majority of their army-men were Turks and Turkmens and the back-bone of the king‟s power and army, showed a great respect and concerns towards the Turkish language and Its related literature. Along with the progress of Turkification of the Safavid court and army in the beginning, the Turkish language, because of the strength behind it gained prestige and influence over the Persian language. Besides, at the same period the acute influence of Turkish language on Persian society reached such a level that countless Persian literary men left the country and for the better life went to India and the Ottoman Empire. For this reasons and so on the contemporary historians believe that the Persian language and literature had its high decline and “at any rate no doubt that during the Safavid period literature and poetry in Persia had sunk to a very low ebb and that not one single poet; of the first rank on be rekond as representing this epoch.”

Persians, along with Syrians, were the least Shia group in the Middle East until the 16th century, when Anatolian nomadic turks conquered them and Turkified their region, and forced Shi'ism on them. And from the 16th century until 1923, the rulers, language of court, administration, military, were all Turkish. They imported Shia clerics from Lebanon, Bahrain and South Iraq, because Persians never had any Shia tradition.

 

[Haragwaafi]

I am not talking about the Ummayad, but the Abbasid's who overthrew them.

Prior to the Saffarid, Khorosan and Greater Iran was ruled by the Tahirid (who were vassal states to the Abbasid), the khawarij, and pagan Zunbils kingdom. The Sunni Persian Ya'qub ibn Layth was the first ruler of the Saffarids, who were independent of the Abbasids. He defeated the khawarij and the pagan Zunbils:







By 873, the Abbasid no longer had a presence in Khorsan and Persia after the defeat of their local Tahirid rulers:


You're correct that Shia were in the northern coast of Iran (Tabaristan) and Qom, but these are not Persian lands to begin with.

Here is an ethnic map of Iran:


In the 16th century, there was two nomadic Oghuz Turkish empires, the Saffavids and the Ottomans. Eastern Anatolia was inhabited by Turkmen nomads who were proto-Alevis(an extreme Shia-like sect combined with Turkish/Pagan pre-islamic culture), they supported the Safavid in fighting and rebelling against the Ottomans. This led to a civil war between these Turks, and the Ottomans invited 13 Sunni Kurdish clans to Eastern Anatolia to populate the region, whilst these Anatolian Turkish nomadic clans left to Safavid territory.







Persians, along with Syrians, were the least Shia group in the Middle East until the 16th century, when Anatolian nomadic turks conquered them and Turkified their region, and forced Shi'ism on them. And from the 16th century until 1923, the rulers, language of court, administration, military, were all Turkish. They imported Shia clerics from Lebanon, Bahrain and South Iraq, because Persians never had any Shia tradition.

Modern ethnic makeup of Iran mean nothing on the topic we are discussing in as Lorish Tabari and Gilaki are seen as part of Persian larger community regardless of their separate Iranic languages and Shia'sm has had presence in modern day Iran as they were many sects being in there like Ismailis who lived in the mountainous area away from the authorities and the Zaydis who under the Buyidis were able to conquer much of Iran and Iraq and after converting to the newly established Imamiya swct of 12verism they started building shrines and attributing to Ahlu Al Bayt figures that became the Shia we know today their holy places.

And I'm not disputing with you that majority of Persians were sunnis before the Safavids which is undisputed fact but the notion that there was no shia presence in Iran be3fore them is misleading as it was Persians who mostly contributed to the development of shia 12ver sect that found acceptance among the Arabs

 

[World]

Modern ethnic makeup of Iran mean nothing on the topic we are discussing in as Lorish Tabari and Gilaki are seen as part of Persian larger community regardless of their separate Iranic languages and Shia'sm has had presence in modern day Iran as they were many sects being in there like Ismailis who lived in the mountainous area away from the authorities and the Zaydis who under the Buyidis were able to conquer much of Iran and Iraq and after converting to the newly established Imamiya swct of 12verism they started building shrines and attributing to Ahlu Al Bayt figures that became the Shia we know today their holy places.

And I'm not disputing with you that majority of Persians were sunnis before the Safavids which is undisputed fact but the notion that there was no shia presence in Iran be3fore them is misleading as it was Persians who mostly contributed to the development of shia 12ver sect that found acceptance among the Arabs

They are related to Persians, in the same way Kurdish, Pashtun(Afghan/Pakistani) and Baloch(Pakistani) people are.

I’m not sure why you want to group people who don’t understand or speak Persian, as Persian. This makes no sense. They are divided by their mountainous geography that separated their people culturally, linguistically and civilisation.

All of those groups you mentioned, were all non-Persians and originated from the mountainous northern coast of Iran. The Persians were the ones who fought them. I said that Persians have no history of Shi’ism, which doesn’t apply to the non-Persian regions of Iran.

 

[Haragwaafi]

They are related to Persians, in the same way Kurdish, Pashtun(Afghan/Pakistani) and Baloch(Pakistani) people are.

I’m not sure why you want to group people who don’t understand or speak Persian, as Persian. This makes no sense.

All of those groups you mentioned, were all non-Persians and originated from the mountainous northern coast of Iran. The Persians were the ones who fought them.

Those I have mentioned were part of the Persian empire and integrated to its society more than the Kurds or Pashtun or the Baloch who are mostly tribal societies and they speak Persian fluently as it's not a foreign language to them and that's true from the past and now.

 

[World]

Those I have mentioned were part of the Persian empire and integrated to its society more than the Kurds or Pashtun or the Baloch who are mostly tribal societies and they speak Persian fluently as it's not a foreign language to them and that's true from the past and now.

You can see that they were not part of Persian civilisation back then. Whilst the Kurds, Pashtun and the Baloch were.

 

[Haragwaafi]

View attachment 333586

You can see that they were not part of Persian civilisation back then. Whilst the Kurds, Pashtun and the Baloch were.

They part of it during Achaemenid empire and the Sassanid empire and in that map cities of Herat Merv Balkh and Nishapur were seen as the heartland of Persian culture as many of Persian scientist and scholars came from those places

 

[World]

They part of it during Achaemenid empire and the Sassanid empire and in that map cities of Herat Merv Balkh and Nishapur were seen as the heartland of Persian culture as many of Persian scientist and scholars came from those places

So?
Europe and Africa was also part of Achaemenid empire

Pakistan saudi yemen turkey was part of sassanid empire

 

[Haragwaafi]

So?
Europe and Africa was also part of Achaemenid empire

Pakistan saudi yemen turkey was part of sassanid empire

You still don't understand those pe3ople being Iranic settlers were easy to integrate to the Persian society as Achaemenid and Sassanid empires were Iranian empire