How did the Arabs get through North Africa so fast in the 7th century

[Chesirecatdaddy]

so the arabs lived peacefully with the persians who spoke a different language?

Well there were revolts I'm sure but they persians had overextended themselves and the arabs were able to win because of it. Many persian Generals accepted Islam and made it even easier for the arabs because they knew what weakpoints to attack.. The arabs lured out the persians by spreading their armies thins and then attacking their capital when all their troops were elsewhere. Once the battles are over though usually there is peace that was usually the M.O. for the muslims before the Ottoman turk era. You're not supposed cause calamity and chaos (fitnah).

I'm sure it wasn't 100% peaceful.. there were some persians who converted and secretly plotted from the inside... like some accuse a specific high ranking persian of assassinating one of the caliphs.

 

[aRoMaN21]

I didnt read about numbers no. Please share your sources.

i compared 3 articles online to see if they matched info. but i never read it in any books or researched for it in a book.
thats why i asked you to see if it was right.

 

[Chesirecatdaddy]

i compared 3 articles online to see if they matched info. but i never read it in any books or researched for it in a book.
thats why i asked you to see if it was right.

I got numbers like 18,000 for the first wave

 

[aRoMaN21]

I got numbers like 18,000 for the first wave

i read 40,000 the first wave
im gonna try to find the right number.


so how many heads for all 3 conquests? i dont think the Byzantine empire was that weak to fall to 60,000 heads max

 

[Mr. Somebody]

i compared 3 articles online to see if they matched info. but i never read it in any books or researched for it in a book.
thats why i asked you to see if it was right.

I just dont think the arab influence/invasion in africa can be quantified into a few battles. There were many fronts to the takeover that went beyond war. War was kind of like the iceing on top. THink of it like a nation that takes a lot of influence from the United states via trade and culture for some years and then at some point the leader of that nation gets into a fight with the us and loses their military power. At that point that nation, which is already sharing a lot of inflluences with the invader is easily assimilated into the culture of the now dominant group whos military has paved the way for more settlements into the nation. In all of the african nations there are still many so called pure africans living among the people, they're just a minority group now.

 

[Blackking]

the children were taken away? what does that even mean? taken away where?

a lot of your post was irrelevant, what does pourtguese and spaniards have to do with british? which is who enslaved african americans and the other aspect you are avoiding is that muslims themselves were engaged in the slave trade, so suggesting that people that participated in the slave trade were standing up to it is just a lie

the arabs did participate in the slave trade.... They even had another trade that out lasted the Atlantic.

The British had the same views as the Portuguese and you can look it up . But it's not irrelevant because the British, you ignorant fool, weren't the only ones who brought slaves to the 'New world' .....

You're on here saying-- " bringing up the Portuguese is irrelevant", when you should know that they were the first ones that popped the atlantic trade off. SMH. and the French and Dutch also participated. You put it all on the British.. then laughably Hype up and promote Western Imperialism and anything else you can think of - that Directly affected Black Americans negatively.

1)People of all faiths were involved in the atlantic trade that affects your people and black Americans. Mainly the traders were Christians, and the Principle practice of this system was Christian conversions.
2) I mentioned there were conversions... and you said that Proved (against all historians and historical records) that Muslim slaves didn't struggle to keep their way of life.
3) I said their children were taken. You are clueless about what that means because you're clueless about slavery, history in general.
4) It means that even if the first generation was oppressed or killed.... the children could still be converted because "they were taken away"... aka placed on other plantations, forced to attend church, forced to denounce their african ties.... and also their Muslim ties.

 

[Food Mane]

N. Africa was already weakened from internal fighting, and fighting Greeks/Romans (Alexander The Great) They were also working with Roman and Greek converts to Islam On top of converts in Egypt and around Africa. Basically a lot of allies and men against a nation that was ripe for overthrow and practically crushed by the time they decided to take it over.

My god you are stupid. Stick to trolling. Alexander was about 1000 years before the time period being discussed.

 

[Blackking]

so suggesting AAs shouldn't be Pan Africans cause Africans and other blacks don't think highly of us all the while preaching Islamic brotherhood with a-rabs isn't trying to create devision between blacks.

I doubt you have any real interactions with the people you mentioned in their countries of origin to make such an broad generalization

I'm not suggesting anything... I said in my opinon- AA should focus on our children with regards to group economics, technology and business.

and I'm not preaching any Arab brotherhood. There are search functions on this site for you to use. I am cool w Muslims who aren't black if they are cool w me that's it. But I preach black unity-- pro black isn't anti- any other group. We don't have time for hate. At the same time... I'm not generalizing every group of people on Earth either... especially when my own people have been generalized and hated on for generations.

And unlike you I went to a large university.... I doubt that you finished high school. I interacted with many different types of people. I deal w different types of people now because of business.... and during and after the military, I traveled a lot. But I really wouldn't have needed to travel to realize the obvious.... And I get it, I've been in the Afrocentric circles.. my bm went to an afrocentric high school w all these fake revolutionaries n shyt.... I get it.

Afrocentric live under the glamorized false idea that everyone in the diaspora is our friend... and if we just learn OUR history then we will progress.

I know my history.. I know my shyt going back forever. I also know that not everything that happened in Africa is all of OUR history... most of us don't know where we are really from. You have different shyt to be proud of being from South Africa and being from Benin. I also know that black Americans need to focus on US before anything. I know that muthfackers out there or in here -don't care about us..... as much as we care about them. I think I meet one dude in Africa that broke shyt down the way that an AA afrocentrist would. Most of the world is more realistic.

peace

 

[Mr. Somebody]

My god you are stupid. Stick to trolling. Alexander was about 1000 years before the time period being discussed.

And in that time frame Africa was weakened militarily. Actually even before Alexander the beginning of egypt being weakened had begun with the coming of other invaders like the assyrians. After alexander, there was another battle where as you posture to know, Cleopatra was killed. From that point the romans ruled egypt which in a lot of ways made Egypt, Not the Egypt it once was and set the stage for Muslims to conquer the nation. Sorry i couldnt gloss over 1500 years of history in a couple of sentences to your liking, friend. The point is to show that before the Arabs Africa had been through very Major battles with foreigners that weakened their military and their culture which allowed anyone who had enough men with swords an ability to come into their nation and influence their people.

You're to eager to jump into the conversation to just spread demonic filth instead of engaging in mature exchanges of information that make you appear to be an adult. Pull yourself together.

Its so demonic, friend.

 

[Food Mane]

And in that time frame Africa was weakened militarily. Actually even before Alexander the beginning of egypt being weakened had begun with the coming of other invaders like the assyrians. After alexander, there was another battle where as you posture to know, Cleopatra was killed. From that point the romans ruled egypt which in a lot of ways made Egypt, Not the Egypt it once was and set the stage for Muslims to conquer the nation. Sorry i couldnt gloss over 1500 years of history in a couple of sentences to your liking, friend. The point is to show that before the Arabs Africa had been through very Major battles with foreigners that weakened their military and their culture which allowed anyone who had enough men with swords an ability to come into their nation and influence their people.

You're to eager to jump into the conversation to just spread demonic filth instead of engaging in mature exchanges of information that make you appear to be an adult. Pull yourself together.

Its so demonic, friend.

You don't know what you are talking about. Time to start pretending you are trolling and save some face here, mowgli.

 

[Blackking]

You don't know what you are talking about. Time to start pretending you are trolling and save some face here, mowgli.

Do you have anything of value to add to the conversation?

IF Not....

 

[Mr. Somebody]

You don't know what you are talking about. Time to start pretending you are trolling and save some face here, mowgli.

I see, you've been silenced

 

[theworldismine13]

the arabs did participate in the slave trade.... They even had another trade that out lasted the Atlantic.

The British had the same views as the Portuguese and you can look it up . But it's not irrelevant because the British, you ignorant fool, weren't the only ones who brought slaves to the 'New world' .....

You're on here saying-- " bringing up the Portuguese is irrelevant", when you should know that they were the first ones that popped the atlantic trade off. SMH. and the French and Dutch also participated. You put it all on the British.. then laughably Hype up and promote Western Imperialism and anything else you can think of - that Directly affected Black Americans negatively.

1)People of all faiths were involved in the atlantic trade that affects your people and black Americans. Mainly the traders were Christians, and the Principle practice of this system was Christian conversions.
2) I mentioned there were conversions... and you said that Proved (against all historians and historical records) that Muslim slaves didn't struggle to keep their way of life.
3) I said their children were taken. You are clueless about what that means because you're clueless about slavery, history in general.
4) It means that even if the first generation was oppressed or killed.... the children could still be converted because "they were taken away"... aka placed on other plantations, forced to attend church, forced to denounce their african ties.... and also their Muslim ties.

im not talking about arabs, im talking about black muslims that engaged in slavery in africa, there is no evidence of muslims standing up to slavery in particular

no the british did not have the same views about muslims, the spaniards and Portuguese had a history of dealing with muslims, the british didnt and we arent talking about the new world we are taking about the united states

1. i agree which is why its a lie to try to paint a picture of there being something different about muslims

2. if they converted then they werent muslim

3. you make it sound as if muslim children in particular where taking away or as if muslim children were treated differently, if not then what is your point, people that didnt believe in islam also had children taken away, whats your point?

4. so what? muslims were treated just like anybody else, whats your point? none of that is evidence that muslims in particular stood up to slavery, the reality is that you are simply spreading a lie

 

[Food Mane]

Do you have anything of value to add to the conversation?

IF Not....

Well I was trying to tell you not to listen to this idiot's timelines. Alexander had nothing to do with Rome's dominance over Egypt. Rome wasn't a thing when Alexander was conquering. And Cleopatra had nothing to do with an Arab military dominance in N. Africa. Cleopatra died fighting with Augustus. This is around 20bc. The time period we are talking about is 700-800 years later. Mowgli is conflating events that happened hundreds and thousands of years apart.

To answer the threads question, the split (and decline) of the roman empire is the reason the arabs got through North Africa so fast. Egypt was basically a roman state with from augustus on.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

Well I was trying to tell you not to listen to this idiot's timelines. Alexander had nothing to do with Rome's dominance over Egypt. Rome wasn't a thing when Alexander was conquering. And Cleopatra had nothing to do with an Arab military dominance in N. Africa. Cleopatra died fighting with Augustus. This is around 20bc. The time period we are talking about is 700-800 years later. Mowgli is conflating events that happened hundreds and thousands of years apart.

To answer the threads question, the split (and decline) of the roman empire is the reason the arabs got through North Africa so fast. Egypt was basically a roman state with from augustus on.

You just wanted to be the one to say the same thing, in a different way. We see you friend, you know stuff to. Food Mane Party Props. I cant believe how much stuff you know. I gotta go get some water after this post.