Monday, February 04, 2008

1492

I'm an avid reader of history and one of my favourite periods has to be that of the Islamic presence in the Andalus. Today I felt inclined to read up a bit about the story of Abd el Rahman the First, the founder of the Ummayad dynasty which ruled in the Iberian peninsula for another three hundred years (many Syrians were in the Andalus by then). Whilst reading an entry about him on Wikipedia, I noticed that it is said he is buried under the Mezquita, now a church, in Cordoba. A morbid fascination overtook me, what happened to the cemetaries for all those Muslim Andalusians who had lived there for over eight hundred years? I began searching for information about the normal people who lived in that era, where were they buried? What trace did they leave behind? What was life like for them? I even wonder what the Andalusian accent would have sounded like, since each part of the Arab world developed it's own distinctive accent by then and I'm sure they would have been no different. My search brought up something very interesting. Google allow you to preview books and amongst the search results, I came across "Muslims in Spain, 1500 to 1614" by Leonard Patrick Harvey. It wasn't quite what I was after, but it opened my eyes to something I had only noticed fleetingly before. The plight of Muslims in Spain after the fall of Granada in 1492.

1492 is often taken to be the fall of Granada and also the year that the "New World" was discovered. In my opinion, it is a massive watershed, marking the increasing power of a well armed and expansionary Europe and the decline in power of the East. However, I've always tended to think that the expulsion of the "Moors" and Jews of Spain took place in 1492 and that was the end of it. Far from it. What Harvey's book tells us is that in spite of the forced conversion of the Moors or "moriscos" many retained their customs for a very long time and in fact there were three key periods of armed rebellions. The Ottomans were providing logistical and material support from Algiers and the local Muslim community leaders in Granada and other areas were in regular contact with Algiers and Morroco. The period after the fall of Granda was one marked by intense bloodshed, violence and genocide as Spains Islamic identity was steadily purged. During this time, leaders of the various rebel groups sported names such as Ben Humeya (also known as Fernando de Valor), El Zaguer (al saghir or small one), Diego al Guazir, Bernardino Abu Amer and Gonzalo al Seniz. Ben Humeya (Bin Ummaya) claimed to be the final descendant of the Ummayads and led a rebellion against the Spanish crown from the mountains, eventually being strangled in a power struggle and chucked to the bottom of a ravine (somethings never change!). It's almost amusing to read such Spanish/Arabic names which I had never heard of nor thought possible. Yet is it really so difficult to imagine? So many Arabs also moved to Latin America in the late 19th and 20th century and today form a vibrant and wealthy part of the countries they inhabit that retains it's Arab identity. In many ways, these men whose grandparents would have called themselves Andalusian and lived in Granada, were precursors to this merging of cultures and identities, yet who even 4 decades after the exile of King Boabdil, retained enough of their identity and culture to rebel.

From what I can tell, Harvey's book describes the details of what was happening to those Muslims who chose to remain in Spain and the tensions and power struggles which occurred between the community and also with the Spanish conquerors. I find it fascinating that it ties in the rest of the Islamic world at the time and how the Ottomans were inciting rebellion and supporting the Moriscos, until the rise of the Safavids in Iran forced them to turn their attention eastwards. It brings to life the Andalus and connects it with later events, not just as a place that was lost in the depths of history. In Morroco there are still families which keep as family heirlooms the keys to their long lost homes in Granada and Cordoba. As in Sicily, Malta and elsewhere, the Western Mediteranean was a vibrant yet volatile exchange between Europe and the Islamic world, with ideas and people flowing back and forth, rather than a static boundary where the differences are clearly demarcated. His book is definitely on my ever increasing to-read list and should prove a fascinating insight into what many of us think is a long vanished world, but which remains alive within ourselves and cultures.

I try to imagine what living in 1614 would have been like. Did the Muslims still living in Spain and North Africa remember al Andalus like Palestinians remember their home cities? Did the people who lived in al Maghreb imagine the horrors which awaited them only a short time later and the arrival of the first Spanish and French soldiers? Can we even imagine a Morocco or Algeria where it is alien for someone to speak French? Many families in Damascus are descended from those early refugees escaping French and Spanish slaughters and of course who can forget Abd al Qader al Jaza'iri who until recently was buried in Damascus and who played an instrumental role in protecting the Christians of Damascus from slaughter from rampaging mobs? Did the people of Damascus complain of the increase in prices and hardships brought about by that early influx of refugees? At the time, Muslim refugees from Eastern Europe were also settling in the area of Damascus called the Muhajreen.

Some may argue that history is boring or irrelevant, yet I counter by saying that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. Yet reading history is not without its dangers, those who read history can sometimes fall in love with it to the point that they resent the present and wish to reside only in the past. It is truly a fine line that we must tread.

71 comments:

bint battuta said...

Lovely post, Wassim - very thought-provoking.

Lirun said...

so the spaniards were the conquerors of spain? and the invading muslims were the legitimate populace?

sounds familiar..

Abu Kareem said...

Lirun,

You make a valid point but consider the timeframe. By 1492, the Moors had been in Spain and mixed with the indigenous population for some 800 hundred years. So 1492 muslim residents of the Iberian penisula could hardly be considered invaders.

Wassim,

Here is another one for you to read list: God's Crucible: Islam and the making of Europe 570-1215 by David Levering Lewis; that is if you will take a suggestion from a member of the "smug, Syrian expat, nouveau elite" ;)

Wassim said...

Sure Lirun, there was such a massive flow of refugees going to Europe when the Muslim horde crossed from Africa. Besides, if you want to play that game, what right did the Romans have to be there? Or the Visigoths? I personally blame the Carthaginians. Oh, you only wanted to go as far back as would help your silly comment?

Abu Kareem,
Of course I can take suggestions :) You have to admit - that was pretty original?

Lirun said...

wassim.. knickers in a twist?

what i find interesting is the deep resentment that so many spaniards still have against muslims today.. many i met while travelling through the country carry a historical hatred due muslim rule even all these years later..

i find it facsinating that anywhere muslims touch foot can be considered muslim land in perpetuity.. i read an article today about the significance of sharia law in muslim communities and the right of muslims to take over political systems to ensure that access to islam is facilitated and assured..

i dont blame people for thinking they are correct.. but the arrogance in it is astounding..

the spaniards being the 'illegitimate conquerors' of spain just doesnt pass the straight face test..

Lirun said...

abu karrim.. i can agree that time does matter.. but whether someone comes home after a generation or two or ten - does it matter? do people have (as nations) any entitlement to their homelands? or does time erase this? if you displace/conquer a population.. what is the used-by date of their claim?

Lirun said...

let me also make one thing abundantly.. i agree that people losing their homes is always sad..

Wassim said...

Lirun, it is interesting that you find this post worthy of comment because you feel it can justify the existence of Israel. You're argument rests on the premises that the Spaniards "liberated" Andalusia after 800 years, what you don't realise is that the Spaniards remained in Andalusia and many were themselves Muslim. Those you speak of pushed down from France and elsewhere rather than some "De Gaullist" style Free-Spanish forces or whatever romantic notion you attach to them. By all means, if that narrative makes you feel good about living in someone elses house then be my guest, but I think you're only lying to yourself.

poshlemon said...

Interesting read, especially for someone who is more interested in certain histories other than al-Andalus. But, regarding your last comment on history, I would like to borrow the following from John Tosh, "history reminds us that there is usually more than one way of interpreting a predicament or responding to a situation."

Lirun said...

wassim - i dont need to justify anything..

in wishing for peace for my country and palestine i do not necessarily reveal what my personal feelings are.. its interesting the assumptions you make..

my family is part of israel's continuous jewish population.. having lived for generations in tiberias (as a rabbinical family) and jerusalem..

one of the biggest problems in our region is to my mind hypocracy.. sometimes blatant and sometimes inadvertant.. no one is really fair..

we may justify our hypocracy with our fears but at the end of the day no one is fair.. i am the first who is willing to admit to this..

i am trying to understand how people think.. interesting when i ask questions (and it may be the way they are written or the knowledge that the questions are coming from an israeli) draws out suspicion and delivers some sort of boring response like:

bla bla bla justify zionism bla bla..

i would really appreciate if you did actually respond to my post about the duration of time that the right to land survives.. because under international concepts of native title laws there are clear paradigms.. having said that neither of our societies were sufficiently low tech to qualify.. except maybe for the bedouins..

Abu Kareem said...

Lirun,

With regards to the Spaniards reflexive dislike of Muslims, how do you know that their reaction is not just religious chauvinism against Islam? or a reaction to their own national historical narrative of that time? They did not have much sympathy for Jews either in 1492. Also, please remember that these are the same people who then went on a genocidal crusade in South America.

Regarding your question of "duration of time and right to land", I really don't know what the right answer is. But if we go by your assumption, we would have battles over claims of ancestral rights to a piece of land all over the world. Because of migration, war etc, I would argue that there is scarely an area of the world where the majority of the people can trace their ancestry to that same land for more than a few generations.

Lirun said...

hey AK

thanks for honing in with me..

re the spaniards and their extraterritorial conquests.. yes pretty gross.. i agree.. and about their sentiments to muslims? im just going by what most people told me and many told me that they havent forgotten the muslim rule.. not that i claim to have spoken to a representative sample of society.. but as a traveller i came across a lot of people who surprised me with their viciousness and i found myself repeatedly defending muslims and islam as a religion in the face of some very harsh accusations.. dont worry - not asking for medals..

in terms of linkage to the land however i disagree.. these things are often better documented than you can imagine..

one of the greatest projects of my country lies with the office of state antiquities.. everything undergoes archiological examination.. and just as we discover the most amazing (seriously breath taking) artifacts from our ancient history in our land we also discover the remnants of the suffering of those displaced in the course of our state being re-established in the last century..

in any event.. you may or may not be aware that the brits were quite creative when they attempted to resolve our national homeland aspirations.. realising that palestine might be a troublesome spot - they proceeded to offer us larger territories in more resourceful lands.. including the northern territories of australia for example.. could you imagine australia today? 6 aussie states all english speaking and one of them hebrew? hehehehheheh

instead we preferred our (by then) swamp infested maleria dripping tiny strip of original homeland and even then we were content to receive only a portion of it acknowledging that others had national identity claims that they sought to materialise.. but this was the same one we had come from and the only one in which we could ever possibly exist as a nation again.. anywhere else is diaspora.. anywhere else is spiritually vacuous and irrelevant..

its not about stealing someone else's land but rather about finally coming home after we were denied that journey for so long and tortured all the while by europeans asians and arabs alike.. and we paid for the lands we sat on.. good hard currency that was lapped up by the local land lords..

i have had the good fortune of an education spanning this troubled planet and people often ask me why i now choose to live in israel after tasting so many other more idyllic options..

the response is plain.. its not a choice.. i belong to this land - like a child to its parents.. whether in my house in yaffo - at a cafe in telaviv - next the to the wailing wall in jerusalem - or overlooking the dead sea from the judean desert i always feel 100% at home.. i hope you understand what im trying to say..

now - the question of duration of absence is important only because in our conflict every side is claiming a right of return of sorts.. and it is imperative to ascertain how long that right lasts for.. when we speak of justice - we implicitly refer to that right when we assess future solutions.. and justice is a concept that most sides are very ademant about.. as vague and inconclusive as it may be..

obviously neither you nor i will resolve it.. but i am encouraged by the idea that we are at least learning of eachother's views..

Amre El-Abyad said...

Lirun,

I support the rights of the Hebrews to go back to Palestine. Unfortuantely, to my own disappointment, they are an extinct people.

Reliable historical and genetic studies pin down the Ashkenasi Jews to the Khazar Turco-Tartaricc tribes who adopted Judaism in the 9th century in defiance to the Arabic conquests of central Asia by Quatayba Ibn Muslim. As for the rest, well, we could very well see that Flashas are Ethiopians.

Moreover, Who were the Hebrews in the very first palce. A totally historically insignifcant confederacy of the some villagers, where much mysticism is attached to their fictional holy -text based history, due the structural elemnts of Judeo-chritian faiths in post- Roman western civilsation.

Their legacy is purely Arabic- Baylonian semitc, Aramaic and Pharoanic Egyptians. The former groups melted eternally in th Arabic identity. Hence, the claim of some religous cults to Palestine remains unfounded, ahistorical and rather mythologically based rather than scientific realty.

Lirun said...

hahahha

ur saying israel is just a bunch of khazars and ethiopians.. oh man.. talk about brain washed..

i have more scientists in my family than you can point a stick at..

and not matter how much you close your eyes and say i dont exist.. i assure you that this comment is not comupter generated.. haha a real live jewish person.. with very clear geneology dating back to king david and before has typed it..

that is probably the most racist thing i have heard you say..

that i dont even belong to a nation but rather purport to be a part of an extinct group.. i think i know now how palestinians feel when people say that they are just a bunch of random immigrants who got caught between borders..

dude (probably a random descendant of cruisaiders).. u lost me..

ciao

Amre El-Abyad said...

Larun

Kindly provide me with some sientific evidence about the existance of King David?:))

Glad to inform you that Egyptian temples are taken to be one of the most scientifically used chronological records of the ancient Arab world. They refered Babylonians, Assyrians, Ammorites, Kanaanites, Lybians, Ethiopians, Aramaics, Pilistines, Greeks. But they never ever mentioned the word Israel in any of their recrds or temples.

Hats off

Lirun said...

perhaps you should leave the hat off.. i thinks it might be getting a little warm in there.. ;)

Amre El-Abyad said...

Oh boy.. the desendant of king Aurther and Sir Lancelotte de lake...ow, excuse my Laccanian slip, I meant king David and king soleman, can find nothing but silly jokes and I am -kind and good- but you -all- misunderstand- me demeanour to prove the existance of his granfather- the king.

No worries prince. I will take your word for it.

Nobody said...

i think that a few quotes from the wikipedia can bring some clarity into this "Reliable historical and genetic studies pin down the Ashkenasi Jews to the Khazar Turco-Tartaricc tribes who adopted Judaism in the 9th century in defiance to the Arabic conquests of central Asia by Quatayba Ibn Muslim."

DNA clues

Efforts to identify the origins of Ashkenazi Jews through DNA analysis began in the 1990s. Like most DNA studies of human migration patterns, these studies have focused on two segments of the human genome, the Y chromosome (inherited only by males), and the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA, DNA which passes from mother to child). Both segments are unaffected by recombination. Thus, they provide an indicator of paternal and maternal origins, respectively.

A study of haplotypes of the Y chromosome, published in 2000, addressed the paternal origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Hammer et al[14] found that the Y chromosome of some Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East. The male admixture proportion in Ashkenazi Jews (roughly 0.5% per generation), indicating that they remained, to a large extent, genetically isolated throughout their history and that the Ashkenazim possibly have a small number of male founder ancestors from the Middle East.

Research on Ashkenazi maternal ancestry has been less conclusive. Until recently, geneticists had largely attributed the genesis of most of the world's Jewish populations, including the Ashkenazim of Northern and Central Europe, to have been founded by the males who migrated from the Middle East with some of their brides coming from the local areas they settled. But new studies suggest that both the original male and female ancestry comes from the Middle East.[15] A 2002 study by Goldstein et al[16] found that "the women's origins cannot be genetically determined".

Nonetheless, recent research indicates that a significant portion of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is also likely of Middle Eastern origin. A 2006 study by Behar et al[1], based on haplotype analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women, or "founder lineages", that were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Near East in the first and second centuries CE. The other 60% descended from other 150 women. According to the authors, "the observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population."

. . .

In a study by Almut Nebel et al[19] attention has been brought to chromosome haplogroup R-M17, which is to be found in 11.5% of present day Ashkenazim, and also is found very rarely in non-Jewish populations in East Europe and in Central Asia. However, it is not known in which direction this genetic component may have flowed.

These findings are presented by the researchers as perhaps demonstrating vestiges among Jews of the mysterious Khazars, a Turkic tribe in Central Asia, who were nomads that migrated to the Caspian Sea region from the Far East. Faced with threats from Christian Russia to the North and Islamic Persia to the South, to avoid war, the Khazars officially adopted Judaism as a politically neutral religion.

The haplogroup is found rarely in Central Asia and southern Russia/Ukraine. Therefore, it might have been present in the Khazars. This could indicate that the Oriental Khazars inter-mingled with European Jews after Khazaria dissolved as a nation. No DNA samples from the Khazars are known to exist. It is not known whether the haplogroup was actually present among any of the Khazars.

. . .

Also, the results from this study (another study) support the hypothesis of a single male founder who introduced R-M17 haplogroup (which is almost 3 times fold more common in Ashkenazi Jews than in Sephardic Jews) into the Ashkenazi gene pool at the beginning of the Jewish Diaspora in Europe, about 1600 years ago.

Source

so we have around 11-12% of the ashkenazi population of possibly khazar origin, never mind that judaism accepts converts and they are considered jewish as any jew can be ...

i would say that the findings pointing to the khazar origin of ashkenazi jews are few and unconvincing and in any case are relevant only for a small section of the population... notice that the article says no dna samples of khazars are known to exist ... you know why ??? because the khazars no longer exist !!! :D :D

:D :D

so much about reliable genetic research pointing to the khazar origin of the ashkenazi jews ... to start with, no one knows what the khazars were genetically :D :D

yet not everything is lost ... on the bright side i am all too happy to agree that at least when it comes to saddam hussein, most researchers seem to agree that saddam was for real ...

:D :D

Amre El-Abyad said...

“The European Journal of Human Genetics" a study titled Y chromosome evidence for a founder effect in Ashkenazi Jews. Near the end, the abstract concludes "...R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars”

You can order the journal, for some reason the website of the study is shut down!!



Study published by Chicago university press refering a Khazari origin on the male side :)) was hugely critised despite of being very reliable. No need to talk American politics here.)


"G2c is a major Y chromosome haplogroup, and yet unique: It is extremely rare, almost completely specific to a single ethnic group in Europe, Ashkenazi Jews, and shows strong evidence of a very recent settlement in Europe. It has not proven to have been found in any other region until now except in a single Turk from Kars Province in Turkey in the border with Armenia, an Uzbek from Uzbekistan, a single Pashtun from the area of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan in the Hindu Kush range, and a single Burusho from the Hunza Valley in the"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G2c_(Y-DNA)



Michael A. Hoffman- the star of David fisrt appeared in 968 A.D on a statue of Turkic Khazar soldier in Battle with Ukranians:)

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/747


Have fun

Nobody said...

man


no need to copy paste sentences from my wikipedia link and quote other material making the same point ... as was mentioned in the wikipedia a small segment of the ashkenazi population contains a certain genetic element that cannot be positively identified with any group...

yes, this researcher says that 11% of the ashkenazi population may carry genetic vestiges of the mysterious khazars .. never mind that if anything these 11% are not 100% descendants of khazars .... it only means that they may have a certain khazar ancestry ... in fact one single person of khazar origin to marry one of their jewish ancestors would be enough to account for the presence of this element...

but the thing is that you simply refute your own point with your own quotes ... you quote a piece here that claims that this element was found in no other group expect askenazim ... so what it has to do with the khazars ??? the khazars are generally held to have been of turkish origin ... they were not aliens from outer space ... there exists no reason to believe that their genetics were dramatically different from other turkish groups ... yet your quote says that there only one turk, one uzbek and one burusho from kashmir with this g2c and burushos are no turks !!! if anything your links prove that 11-12% of ashkenazim may indeed have some non jewish ancestry but it's not khazars !!!

as to the star of david what it has to do with the topic at hand ??? or it's meant to be another irrefutable scientific evidence of the khazar origin of the majority of ashkenazim ???

generally speaking you dont have to work so hard to prove the same point i do ... thanks for your help but i am not tired or something ...

Nobody said...

by the way ... a small correction regarding the statue ....

Michael A. Hoffman- the star of David fisrt appeared in 968 A.D on a statue of Turkic Khazar soldier in Battle with Ukranians:)

there were no ukranians in 968 ... there was only kiev rus and in the old slavic language these people spoke they called themselves something very similar to russians ... they would say rusich instead of ruskii as in modern russia but ukranians were nowhere around at that time ...

actually i dont know if the khazars used to pain magen david on their shields ...let alone their armies were packed with muslims and other people ... a very small segment of the population practiced judaism in the khazar empire ... the statue in question was erected in 2005 ... it was not ordered by sviatoslov to celebrate his victories ... i hope you realize that in 968 no one in kiev rus was capable of mounting statues of this kind ...

أبو عريب said...

Two or three months ago, Al-Jazeera aired a documentary about the part of Moroccan population whose origins are Andalusian. It was very interesting, cause till now, you can sometimes see some physical differences between these people (who live mostly in the north of Morocco) and the rest of the population (I mean blue eyes and blond hair...). A lot of these people even keep "family trees" of their origins, and some of them still consider themselves as Andalusian.
I also recommend this book:
http://www.rawicordoba.com/
It is actually a novel about the last days of the Ummayad dynasty in Andalusia.

Wassim said...

Thanks for the headsup on the book, sounds very interesting. It's also fascinating to hear about those people in the north of Morroco. I've got to go there one day! What an amazing place.

Lirun said...

it is an amazing place..

some of my pics taghazout

and

essaouirra

tanger

Nobody said...

Amre El-Abyad said...

“The European Journal of Human Genetics" a study titled Y chromosome evidence for a founder effect in Ashkenazi Jews. Near the end, the abstract concludes "...R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars”

You can order the journal, for some reason the website of the study is shut down!!


dunno if it's still of interest to you, amre el-abyad, but i found the website of this study by following the wikipedia link and it's up and running ... no need to order it as it's available online for all to see ...

as a matter of fact near the end the abstract concludes:

R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars.

do you know the difference between "represent" and "may represent" ???

the study actually concludes with this

It is historically well documented that the Khazar King Bulan and his court converted to Judaism at the end of the 8th century CE.1 The Khazars were originally a Turkic tribe from Central Asia who settled in the northern Caucasus and later spread to southern Russia and eastern Ukraine. Some authors argue that after the fall of their kingdom in the second half of the 10th century CE, the Khazar converts were absorbed by the emerging Ashkenazi Jewish community in Eastern Europe. Since R-M17 haplogroup is also found at moderate to high frequencies in Central Asia and southern Russia/Ukraine, this haplogroup could have been present in the Khazars. However, if the R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then, according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed ~12% of the present-day Ashkenazim.

source


never mind that in the introduction they have this:

Ashkenazi Jews, who have resided in various European countries during the Diaspora, traditionally trace their origin to the Jewish people that lived in the Holy Land before the Roman exile. However, some studies claimed that a substantial part of Ashkenazim were descendants of Eastern European non-Jews. In particular, according to Middle Age historians, the Khazars from a small kingdom near the Caspian Sea converted en masse to Judaism1 and therefore might have contributed to the composition of the emerging Ashkenazi community. Yet, recent genetic studies, based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, clearly showed that Ashkenazim are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe. Those findings argue against large-scale male-mediated gene flow into the Ashkenazi community during the Diaspora. The male admixture proportion of Europeans in Ashkenazi Jews was estimated to be 0.5% per generation, indicating that Ashkenazim remained, to a large extent, genetically isolated throughout their history.

dunno if i need to explain this to you... what they say is that recent genetic studies show clearly that ashkenazi jews have their origin in the middle east and are closely related to other jewish groups such as sephardic jews ... no more than 12% of them may carry vestiges of the khazars ... and it's only "may" and no more than "vestiges" ... they are not khazars ...

Nobody said...

so, amre el-abyad ...

first you claim that a certain study pined down the ashkenazi jews to the khazars ... then you say the study was taken offline and unavailable while the site was online all the time and its conclusions are just the opposite of what you have attributed to it...

finally you say that "the star of David fisrt appeared in 968 A.D on a statue of Turkic Khazar soldier in Battle with Ukranians" while the statue in your link was set up by ukranian nationalists in belgorod in 2005 ...

to put it short, man ... too many inaccuracies... some are not even inaccuracies but blatant lies ... let me remind you that telling truth is still considered a virtue in all major religions, including islam ....

Amre El-Abyad said...

Nobody,

Come on try harder.. you will get there someday. Leonard Cohen once said: "Everydbody knows".

That was just slight tease. I am sure that You can figure out the serious issues yourself.

At your service Middle eastern.

Bwahaaaaaaaaah

The Raccoon said...

NB -

Silence, you Khazarian infidel!

I kill you! :>

Nobody said...

dont worry amre

i am using you only for demonstration purposes ... dont you think that i can be arguing in serious with a saddamite diehard :D :D

Oswald said...

I don't see how Mr. Amre can keep arguing his racialist theories in the face of so many facts. Did he miss Lirun's post above:

"my family is part of israel's continuous jewish population.. having lived for generations in tiberias (as a rabbinical family) and jerusalem.."

If you want to deny the continuity of existence of the Jewish people, go ahead, but it is only wishful thinking. We have not yet become extinct, although many people have tried to make us!

Amre El-Abyad said...

Osburne,

Don't ypo think it is quite strange a nation based on mere religon!

"If you want to deny the continuity of existence of the Jewish people, go ahead, but it is only wishful thinking. We have not yet become extinct, although many people have tried to make us"

I never denied the continuity of existance of Jewish people:) I only denied the continuity of existance of Hebrews:)

Can you figure out the difeerence?

Amre El-Abyad said...

@ Racoon. You have the perfect Turkic look.

Nobody said...

Amre El-Abyad said...

Osburne,

Don't ypo think it is quite strange a nation based on mere religon!


first of all strange things do happen ...

second, jews are not defined by judaism .. judaism simply believes that jews should practice judaism but it views jews as a nation ...

actually judaism defines jews largely by blood lineage ... so jews are not even a nation so much .. they are more like an extended family ...

Lirun said...

re the turkish look

it is arguable that one truly native to this region should look eastern mediterranean rather than like someone hailing from the saudi peninsula..

Amre El-Abyad said...

Larun

Turkic is not Eastern Mediterranean.

Roman Kalik said...


I support the rights of the Hebrews to go back to Palestine. Unfortuantely, to my own disappointment, they are an extinct people.

Reliable historical and genetic studies pin down the Ashkenasi Jews to the Khazar Turco-Tartaricc tribes who adopted Judaism in the 9th century in defiance to the Arabic conquests of central Asia by Quatayba Ibn Muslim. As for the rest, well, we could very well see that Flashas are Ethiopians.

Moreover, Who were the Hebrews in the very first palce. A totally historically insignifcant confederacy of the some villagers, where much mysticism is attached to their fictional holy -text based history, due the structural elemnts of Judeo-chritian faiths in post- Roman western civilsation.

Their legacy is purely Arabic- Baylonian semitc, Aramaic and Pharoanic Egyptians. The former groups melted eternally in th Arabic identity. Hence, the claim of some religous cults to Palestine remains unfounded, ahistorical and rather mythologically based rather than scientific realty.


Amre, would you care to bring actual scholarly support to these claims? Because, you see, the only people who seem to fervently support the claim that Ashkenaz Jews are descended from Khazars are history revisionists, antisemites, the Christian Identity Movement, Black Hebrews, British Israelitists, and Arab nationalists.

The communities of Ashkenaz Jews were already widespread and well recorded at the time the Khazars converted to Judaism. Where do you think that the Khazars sent emissaries to ask for learned rabbis?

Charlemagne brought a large influx of Jews to Frankish lands in the 8th century (from the middle-east, in case you were in any way wondering), mainly because he granted them the rights that they once enjoyed as (nearly) equal citizens and promises of good economic conditions. In later times, when France and west-European countries began expelling their Jewish populations (which didn't come from Khazar, unless you seem to think that it was a sort of Jew-generator, relentlessly spawning hordes of migrating Jews), they began consolidating in the area of modern-day Germany and Poland.

Amre, your "reliable tests" are little more than re-publications of the likes of Lothrop Stoddard, who was working with the racial theory crap of the 1920's - and the fervent reincarnations of these theories by Christian Identity groups.

For actual *studies* that were done in these field, look for these:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/43026_Doron.pdf
http://www.kulanu.org/old/jewishdna.html

Maybe that study that you mentioned, the one in Chicago U., was shot down because it - much like previous studies that had similar claims - were both sloppy and politicized?

Because to be quite frank with you, Amre, you don't need to step into the realm of genetical study to realize just how stupid the Khazar descent theory is.

You just need to read a little history, and compare some dates.

As for historical evidence of the existence of Jewish states in the region of current-day Israel - Amre... it's quite fortunate that the Egyptians weren't the only record-keepers in the area. The Assyrian king Sennacherib kept records, and the Babylonians kept even more. The Persians added even more into the collected records of the region.

Victories, Amre. Invading kingdoms always kept records of who they crushed, for the greater glory of the king. And the Persian Empire kept records of the rule of Cyrus the Great, and the restoration of the Jewish exiles.

The Raccoon said...

LOL :)

RK -

Silence, infidel! I (exhibit a: Turcic Raccoon {procyon lotor turcicus)) kill you!

This is a brilliant discussion. Reminds me of Twosret...I wonder when she'll show up here :)

Nobody said...

by the way RK

i dont know if you noticed it.. there is an article in today's Jpost about the Jewish genetics .. i am sure this cannot be a mere coincidence ... should be some sort of conspiracy :D :D

anyway ... they are quite positive about the Khazar theory ... not in the sense of "all Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars" of course :D :D ... but they say it's likely in the case of Levi'im ...
The obvious next step was to ask whether the DNA of the Levi'im also shows descent from a single ancestor. According to the Bible, all Levi'im, who had a separate ritual role in the ancient Temple, descend from Jacob's son Levi. However, Y chromosome haplotypes of the Levi'im have proven much more diverse than those of kohanim. Although a haplotype common to 52% of Ashkenazi Levi'im was found, the origins of this genetic marker appear to derive from central Asia - not the Middle East - and it is essentially absent from Levi'im of Sephardi descent.

Where did that central Asian haplotype come from? Most Jews are vaguely aware of the Khazars; their king plays the role of interlocutor in Yehuda Halevi's 12th-century defense of Jewish doctrine, The Kuzari. The Khazars, however, were not a mere literary device. They were a real people with a major kingdom north of the Caspian Sea, and in the eighth or ninth century the Khazar leaders and some of the people converted to Judaism. After the 10th century, they disappear from history. The common ancestor of the Ashkenazi Levi'im who carry this particular haplotype lived less than 2,000 years ago. A good guess is that at roughly the time the Khazar kingdom disappeared, a very small number of closely related individuals with the tradition of being Levi'im, or perhaps only a single male, came from the general region of the Khazar kingdom to join the then-small Ashkenazi community in Europe. If this is so, it may indicate that the Khazar Jews had created a native class of Levi'im.

Source

another thing they say is that Cohanim have such a distinctive haplotype that it's now scientifically known as "cohen modal haplotype" :D :D

Amre El-Abyad said...

"Victories, Amre. Invading kingdoms always kept records of who they crushed, for the greater glory of the king. And the Persian Empire kept records of the rule of Cyrus the Great, and the restoration of the Jewish exiles".

Egyptian according the unscientific holly book had enslaved the Hebrews untill they were fred by Moses. Starting from the 18th dynasty and up to the Persian invasion, Palestine, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria and Parts of Northern Iraq were parts of the Egypt. Palestine, however, remained effectively under Egyptian sovereinity untill the Assyrian invasion in about 1000 B.C. Consequantly, according to the victor write history " maxime", Egyptians must have recorded the word Israel. Secondly, Babyloyans and Egyptians mentioned conquering Hebrew tribes in Palestine. In fact, I never denied that. What I am denying is ascribing the various tribal nations in Palestine to the Hebrew one. Also I think that there is a deliberate unjustified irrational mixing up of Jews with Hebrews. Hebrews were most propbaly some tribal confideration or so that invaded Palestine and imposed their Arab semitic Babylonian cult of Judaism( which they got fro Iraqis)- after interjecting it with Egyptian elemnts like, life after death, resurrection, prize and punishment..etc- on the native Kannanite and Pilastines; yet they never managed to fully assimilate them . That in turn explains the Jewish cast system which is quite similar to the Indian one in terms of its being ethnically based. Also, the mother tongue of Jesus, who was suppesedly a jew, was Aramiac i.e Arabic as he was a Syrian man. So, most probaly the semtic people of greater Syria were not fond of the Hebrew dominance via Judaism.

Nobody said...

well amre

i dont know what kind of history you arabs are learning in your countries but the science fiction you are writing here has even less relation to the science than what you call unscientific holly book ... babylonians were no arabs and aramaic is not arabic ... if anything it's closer to hebrew than to arabic ...

and judaism is not a caste system ...and indian castes are not ethnic based ...

you started with jews having no relation to hebrews, you ended with everybody being arabs from hebrews and babylonians to jesus christ :D :D ... now this is something i hear for the first time ... and your "Arab semitic Babylonian cult of Judaism" will remain with me forever now ... i will teach this to my grandchildren :D :D

for god's sake man, start getting hold of yourself ...

Nobody said...

Also, the mother tongue of Jesus, who was suppesedly a jew, was Aramiac i.e Arabic as he was a Syrian man. So, most probaly the semtic people of greater Syria were not fond of the Hebrew dominance via Judaism.

i think this part about jesus christ leading a popular arab revolt against hebrew domination in palestine is a crown jewel of this thread ... i would like to ask the author of this blog not to remove this thread ... we should preserve it for the posterity :D :D

:D :D

Nobody said...

amre

my advise to you ... dont waste your time on books, documentaries, lectures ... you dont need this shit ... you can write your own history of the middle east ... better than any bernard lewis :D :D

Amre El-Abyad said...

Nobody,

Babylonians, Aramaics and Yemenses were all semitc peoples who spoke semitic languages that, in addition Hyroglyphic, may well be considered the ancestors to Arabic- the most modern of the semitic familly. Arabism is the integral sum of the ancient semitic world, Babylonians, Pharoahnic, Ammoprite empires all, failed to make the the very compatible peaces fit in.

The semitic Arabic wave that was set off by Islam had the final word. Triumph of Arabism:)

The similarties between Arabic, Aramaic, Babylonian or even Hebrew is more than those between modern and ancient chinese. As regards Egyptians, they were special case of semitism due to the unique character of the Nile valley- a quasi oasis you could say.

About Jesus, apparently you can't make out the difference between christianity as a religon and culture, and later on a civilsation on the one side, and the anthropolgical and cultural roots of it on the other.

Despite of the brilliance and elightenment of western civilisation they fall short when it comes level of objectivity involved in the ancient near east history. For it is clear that role of Hebrews is being excessively exaggerated. I don't blame them, though. Since Judeo-christian faiths are an integral part of that civilisation. That said, I have to emphathise that I do believe that Hebrews were close to Babylonians, Aramaics and Ammorites. Never the less, I am positvely sure that over time they fused into the bigger Syrian body where the Arabism is its sole natural extension.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Indian cast system is not ethnically based, at modern times, however its roots go back to the Aryan invasion of India and the subjugation of the indeginous Dravidian population.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Judaism, in modern times, only retain some minor insignificant elements of its ancient caste system, yet, still, they are quite obvious ones.

On a different note, Nobody.. please don't misquote me and contextualise my lines in a way that suits what you wish I had been saying, so as to discredit the whole issue. I never said that Hebrews are not related to jews. I only said that Judaism was fundamentallty the religous cult of the Hebrew tribes. Later on it metamorphed and was adopted by many other peoples. All your mates here have acknowledged that, at least, a little portion of Ashkenasi jews are Turks!

Nobody said...

i think you got it all mixed up ... that all semitic languages are related is obvious ... but it does not make all people arabs !!!

and egyptian languages are not semitic .. you are wrong about it ... though they are related to semitic languages... there is a larger group of afro semitic or afro and god knows what languages ... egyptian and semitic languages belong to this group...

and i've never heard that akkadian and aramaic are considered ancestors of arabic .. and even if it's so it does not make them arabs ... but start with your assumption is not true ...

as to your problems with hebrews it's your own problem ... and i dont see how the role of hebrews was exaggerated ... nobody claims that all people are hebrews .. something that you do regarding the arabs ...

Nobody said...


On a different note, Nobody.. please don't misquote me and contextualise my lines in a way that suits what you wish I had been saying, so as to discredit the whole issue. I never said that Hebrews are not related to jews.


this is what you said man .. sorry ... go and read your first comment ...

Roman Kalik said...

Amre, it's late and I'm tired, but I'll say just this - your knowledge of Egyptian conquests and dominion is quite limited, in that while Egypt had some vassal-kings in the region of the Levant, these kings did not last long. The various small kingdoms may have paid tribute to Egypt at times (just as they did to other empires) but to call the overstreched and often limited Egyptian forces "dominion"... Pfeh to that.

As for Jesus, yes, he spoke Aramaic. So did most of the region's populace - and do you know why? It was the lingua franca of the Middle-East, the standardized spoken and written language of the Persian Empire. The language saw widespread use even in Egypt (yes, the Persians got all the way there, though not fully). Perhaps you wish to argue that Egyptians were rebelling against the Pharaoh by their use of the Imperial Persian language?

Incidentally, the Assyrians recorded both the conquest of Israel and the failed military campaign in Judah - funny how a bunch of tiny tribes ruling by tyranny and caste systems (we're still waiting for you to explain to us just what racial caste system the Hebrews had, by the way) managed to beat back the Assyrians.

Roman Kalik said...

And Amre, you did indeed claim that all (or the vast majority of) Ashkenazi Jews are of Khazari descent - I'm afraid that backpedalling on that one won't do the trick.

Nobody said...

the actual words were:

Reliable historical and genetic studies pin down the Ashkenasi Jews to the Khazar Turco-Tartaricc tribes who adopted Judaism in the 9th century in defiance to the Arabic conquests of central Asia by Quatayba Ibn Muslim. As for the rest, well, we could very well see that Flashas are Ethiopians.

Roman Kalik said...

Oh, and Amre... The Middle-East and northern Africa are about as Arab as Europe is Roman. Conquest, colonialism, and imperial policies that erase most local cultures, languages, and religions don't magically turn everyone into Arabs - no matter how similar the spoken languages of the region are (they're not dialects anymore, Amre. With dialects two people with different dialects can still understand each other, and this is no longer the case).

Like the Roman Empire, the dead Arab Empire will evolve into something greater if but given the chance. But just like with the Roman Empire, there's always someone who tries to dream up old myths...

Amre El-Abyad said...

Roman I am exhaused, so I want to finish off the argument as soon a possible. Quoting "your mates" acknowledge clearly that Judaism is not restricted to Hebrews, would suffice:). It foils the foundations of the claim of Hebrew, as opposed to Jewish" continuity.

Nizo said...

Amre is right when he says that Arabs are an amalgam of past civilizations in the region. So is the Arabic language a descendant of Proto-Semitic parents, with influences from other Semitic languages. Nevertheless, this doesn’t make the past civilizations Arab nor are sister languages like Aramaic or Hebrew equivalent to Arabic.

By the same logic, while Islam is built on Jewish and Christian foundations, this does not turn Abraham/Mary/Jesus/Moses into Muslims - or even Arabs.

Furthermore, I diagnose Amre with an Arab/Muslim affliction of reverse-appropriation, whereby history is reinvented and reinterpreted to fit into the mythical time frame of a “glorious Arab Past that goes back 10,000 years in time”. Source Amre’s profile.

It’s the same pattern that Hamas follows when they claim that a mythical city of Tal Al-Rabi existed prior to Tel Aviv. Instead of picking from hundreds of locales and villages that did truly exist, they chose to translate Tel Aviv into Arabic and claim that it was some long-lost mega-metropolis.

Amre El-Abyad said...

There is no such thing as Persians!!! the savage illiterate Achaemenids sacked Babaylon and adopted Iraqi writings and learnings. Later Parthians from the North liberated Iran from the Greek colonisation. In the end, came the Sassanides. Those were all groups who spoke different languages from an Indo-Iranian origin. They were collectively known as Persians- much the same as Egyptians, Aramaics and Assyrians are collectively known as Arabs:))


There is almost a consensus that Tohtmos the third of the 18 th dynasty crossed the Euphrates and reached Asia- Minor as well as parts of Mesoptamia. Besides, Egypt was so big and rich of a society back then. They didn't need to go so far:)

we're still waiting for you to explain to us just what racial caste system the Hebrews had, by the way) managed to beat back the Assyrians.

As for Egypt and Persians- Egyptians kicked the persians out in the 28th dynasty and liberated Egypt. However they came back only to be kicked out by the the Greek invasion of the middle east.

As regards the caste system, that was imposed on the local tribes in Palestine of Kannanite and Pilistine origin where some of them adopted Judaism. That is why they accepted christiuanity quite easily- much as Egyptians accepted it in defiance the Roman-Hebrew opressors.

Nobody said...

Quoting "your mates" acknowledge clearly that Judaism is not restricted to Hebrews, would suffice:). It foils the foundations of the claim of Hebrew, as opposed to Jewish" continuity.

amre ... you confuse yourself without a good reason ... judaism was not restricted to hebrews ... in the same way as it is not restricted to jews ... the same principle cannot "foil the foundations of the claim of Hebrew" continuity while at the same time upholding the claim of the jewish continuity !!!

the article that you falsely claimed taken offline gives a very good idea of what it means practically ... ashkenazi jews have a certain admixture of non jewish elements, yet all studies clearly show their overwhelmingly middle eastern origin and their relation to other jewish groups ...

the same goes about the ancient hebrews ... one simply cannot admit the jewish continuity but to deny the hebrew one ...

the khazar theory may contradict all facts and evidence but at least it has some internal logic .. but what you say now does not make any sense ... it's nonsense

Nobody said...

They were collectively known as Persians- much the same as Egyptians, Aramaics and Assyrians are collectively known as Arabs:))

man .. you have to warn people in advance that you are writing your own history of the middle east because nowhere egyptians, aramaics and assyrians are collectively known as arabs ... otherwise people won't understand what you are talking about

Roman Kalik said...

Amre,

Again, show me this caste system of yours. When or where did you hear of it, and reference it - including the actual day-to-day life under this system, and the period in question. Because when you speak crap about my history, you'd better have a couple of references to back it up.

Also, "Jews accepted some converts over the years" does not equal "Jews are not Hebrews", unless by your definition of a Hebrew one must practice some policy of extreme racial purity (or at the very least, not allow any outsider into the tribe-nation, like the Druze do). Also, I'm sorry to inform you that your modern-day Arab has about as much a connection to the actual Penisula Arabs (who I might add were already known by such a name, and as nomadic desert traders, in Jewish texts dating back a couple of milleniums) as the Ptolmean Empire had to Greeks.

You were conquered by Arabs, Amre, and you speak an Arabic language, practice an Arabic religion, and follow Arabic cultural trends today because of that conquest. But reverse-defining Arabs to rationalize the imperial expansion and pan-Arab nationalism as defined by Nasser is pretty lame on your side.

And the Persians existed, I assure you. The Persian empires had an enormous impact on the region, and were probably the most advanced imperial entity to over conquer the area. You slinging mud at them so far into the past only shows you in a bad light, and marks you not just as a history revisionist but also as an insecure one. Oh, and they did have to go far to have an impact on Egypt - all the way into what we call Sinai today. In that period, Egyptian vassals in the Levant were already far gone into the past, with Egypt proper having its major holdings much farther to the south, so it wasn't that easy for the Persians to find any Egyptians around. Why, maybe they conquered lands all the way here so they could find some of those mighty Egyptians. They certainly weren't impressed by the "Arvyiim" desert clans at the time, so maybe they just wanted to find themselves a better precursor of Arab might to grovel in front of.

The Raccoon said...

RK and NB... and Nizo too... cm'on, you guys are busted. Amre clearly knows the secret:

There are no Hebrews and Jews are actually Khazarians.

The only indigenous population of the Middle East is Arabs. There were never any others.

The Hebrews, while clearly nonexistent and wholly and completely different from Jews (those are Khazars), oppressed everyone and were Romans in addition to being Hebrew.

Oh, and Persians are just weird Arabs. Or somesuch.

Yalla, RK and NB, pack your stuff, leave Yehuda and Israel to their original, eternal, glorious and ever-so-indigenous Arab owners. You Khazarians should be heading back to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

OK, that was the last one. Seriously.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Persia had no imapct whatsoevr on the middle east.

It is an undeniable fact that Achaemenids were savage indo-Iranian people who sacked the semitc Babylon. They were illiterate savage tribes ( consensus) that is why they had to adopt the Iraqi semitic alphabet. Their contribution was never original. They merely mimced the original briliant semitic Iraqi culture.Later on after Arabs had liberated Iraq from their colonialism, they had some contribution to civilisation but only when they wrote in Arabic and lived within an Arabic cultral framwork.

Those are facts dude.

And Persians were never one people. Those were Baraberous Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids and Medians. There were bitter wars going on among each other . They never a spoke one language, however all their languages came from a common Indo-Iranian origin. Those are facts Roman.

One more thing, dspite of our irreconciable geopolitical and cultural differences, I have to admit that you have more wits, humour and common sense than Iranians.


Let's just forget that Iam an Arab and you are Israeli, and let pure objectivity dominate the argument

Roman Kalik said...

Amre,

False. Read up on the rise of the Achaemenid Empire (your "illeterate tribes" were far more advanced than you give them credit - and when they went up against the Babylonian Empire they were already well developed) and further reading on Imperial Aramaic seems prudent, as is comparative unbiased reading regarding the local kingdoms of the era, their structure, and how having a faction vying for power here and there is daily routine (and stayed daily routine throughout the world in many countries to this day). Oh, and you've just about mixed up several periods of Persian history together, it would seem.

And again, Amre, the region wasn't Arabic in nature. It had a myriad of cultures, kingdoms, religions, and languages. The Arabs of the Penisula (note the violent infighting tribes, supposedly an indication of being illeterate savages incapable of progress - by your logic) would take a long time to have any meaningful impact on the region.

As for cultural divides - I speak, read and write both modern and old Hebrew, and read Aramaic. What does that make me, an eccentric? A novelty? A relic of the past that shouldn't be around anymore, as some kind academics once said? Our cultural differences are fewer than you might think. And I have been doing my best to be objective, I assure you.

Nobody said...

it's without a doubt a very tempting proposition - to theorize the poor persians out of existence ... however for the sake of objectivity i will have to agree with roman ....

Amre El-Abyad said...

Roman,

And again, Amre, the region wasn't Arabic in nature. It had a myriad of cultures, kingdoms, religions, and languages. The Arabs of the Penisula (note the violent infighting tribes, supposedly an indication of being illeterate savages incapable of progress - by your logic) would take a long time to have any meaningful impact on the region.

Pennisula Arabs were according to both mythology and history a mix of Bbaylonians, Aramaics, Yemenese and Egyptians. They were not alliens super-imposed on the Arab world.

Here you are presuming a static history of isolated elemnts. Ypou totally overlook the way cultures evolve and interact in dialectical proceses to forge new cultural identies.

Pennisula Arabs had one the richest and most noble value system man-kind has ever know. I suggest that you start reading pre-Islamic Arabic poetry and the jewels of the Arabic civilisation and sciense in Spain Baghdad Damascus and Cairo.

Don't forget that under the Arabic rule Jews expressd freedoms and tolerance never ever witnessed, maybe untill post world war two Europe.

Regarding Achaemenids, it remains a fact that they were illiterate with no aplhabet. They adopted the semitc babylonian ways.

they dint have an original civilisation nor a considerable impact to human civilisation.

The Parthians tribes who kicke the Greeks out Iran and the Saassanid nation-tribe never spoke one languyage. However their languages are of an indo-iranian origin, as opposed, to semitic.

If those groups who are now in addition to Turks( 25% of Iranian population) and the occupied Arabs on the westewrn shore of the Arabian gulf can forge an Iranian identity, why do you want to deny the Arabs who have richer, more ancient and more brilliant culure the right to forge their nation?

Isn't that that natural course of things?

people are supposed to be moving forward towards what bring them together. So Arab nationalism is a progressive force.


Well since you have shown an interest in objectivity and interest in studying the main ancestor of Arabic-Aramaic. Why don't you learn Arabic as well?

Since you are keen on being objective, What do you think about the possibilty of peaceful multi- religous and Multi-ethnic state solution? for the Arab-Israeli conflict? where Arabs and Jews live peacefully together in a secualr state? if the palestinains refugees are allowed to go back to their homes and live as equal citizens, Arabs will be left with no choice but to normailse and integrate the new state in the region?

Nobody said...

Since you are keen on being objective, What do you think about the possibilty of peaceful multi- religous and Multi-ethnic state solution? for the Arab-Israeli conflict? where Arabs and Jews live peacefully together in a secualr state? if the palestinains refugees are allowed to go back to their homes and live as equal citizens, Arabs will be left with no choice but to normailse and integrate the new state in the region?

we would have gladly considered this option were it not for a small technical detail, namely an unfortunate loss of our hebrew continuity ... without it our natural partners in the region can be only the similarly discontinued persians ... we will have to satisfy ourselves with enviously watching from afar lebanon, iraq, darfur and other places where arabs implement their peaceful multi-ethnic and multi-religious state solutions ...

Amre El-Abyad said...

Iraq is not multi-ethnic. 85% ( according to U.S fact book ) are Arabs-shunnis and shiites alike. Kurds had no problem except when they carried arms against the state.

Anyway I am serious. If we are to settle a quarrel both parties have to make concessions. Don't they?


Look at you racist anti semitic remarks on Arabs, or maybe you don't consider the Arabs to be semites in the first place. Huh?

Definetly that sort of a condescending attidude is not one of someone keen on peace and co-existance.

Nobody said...

Anyway I am serious. If we are to settle a quarrel both parties have to make concessions. Don't they?

we have already made our concessions when we invited arafat to come here to take his part as a part of the two state solution ... sorry man ... but we are in our Khazar mood these days ... the two state solution is as much as we can be ready to discuss today if at all ...

Roman Kalik said...

Pennisula Arabs were according to both mythology and history a mix of Bbaylonians, Aramaics, Yemenese and Egyptians. They were not alliens super-imposed on the Arab world.

Here you are presuming a static history of isolated elemnts. Ypou totally overlook the way cultures evolve and interact in dialectical proceses to forge new cultural identies.


Firstly, Egyptians never entered that particular equation. Secondly, I do not overlook cultural interaction and evolution - I simply implore you to realize that the people of that era were not mere proto-Arabs waiting to become the Arab nationalists of today, and that the only people who defined themselves (and were seen by others ) as Arabs were the nomads of the Penisula, while their "origin nations" existed and thrived.

The expansion of the Arabs, and thus the Arab identity, came much later. Mere ethno-linguistic affiliation does not define a single nation - the Arabs were one group of many in the region that had similar ethnic and linguistic characteristics.

Don't forget that under the Arabic rule Jews expressd freedoms and tolerance never ever witnessed, maybe untill post world war two Europe.

False. The rights enjoyed by Jews even in Al-Andalus were those of second-class citizens. They could become part of the government or army, had to pay special taxes, and were gently yet quite clearly separated from the population majority. The Jews enjoyed similar status in the Frankish lands under Charlemagne, and in Prussia under King Ferdinand II, as well as many Caribbean colonies.

Al-Andalus, don't forget, ended with the new Muslim power (Almuhads) massacring, expelling, and forcibly converting the Jews.

The main advantage of Muslim lands to European Christian ones was that overall, from the Jewish perspective, there was a much lesser chance of being massacred, but this is not the same as universal rights.

Regarding Achaemenids, it remains a fact that they were illiterate with no aplhabet. They adopted the semitc babylonian ways.

they dint have an original civilisation nor a considerable impact to human civilisation.


Then what was the Elamite language, please? The language had a written form for several milleniums before the rise of the empire. At the decline of the Elamite tongue, Old Persian was already the dominant language.

You mistake deciding using a common language to the empire as an official Imperial language - thus making communication over an incredibly vast territory simpler - with not having a previous language at all.

As for the impact of the empire on humanity, are you kidding me here? The cultural advances in art and architecture aside, the first Persian empire represented the first global superpower - a nation ruling most of the known (to us) world, an empire built on the foundations of tolerance and mutual acceptance - Cyrus the Great, in the form of the Cyrus Cylinder, formed was what in essence the first bill of rights.

With the Silk Road, as well as other large projects to build and connect the various parts of the empire, the Persians connected the Far East not only to the Middle East, but to Europe as well.

Compared to the imperial Persian policy, just about any power that followed formed its dominion on power, supremacy, and the eradication of conquered cultures and religions rather than actual advancement of mankind.

Fast forward to the Sassanian Empire - that not only had an incredible impact on those who followed it (such as the Muslim empires), but also on the Roman Empire and beyond.

And I wouldn't discount the Partians out of hand - we know little of them save through the accounts of foreign nations about them, but even that displays a nation that wasn't at all inferior.

Amre... to revise history to such an extent that one of the greatest imperial powers known to Man, and truly one of the greatest nations of its era and whose echoes remained long after the empire was gone, becomes little more than a bunch of savages who got lucky in a couple of battles...

people are supposed to be moving forward towards what bring them together. So Arab nationalism is a progressive force.


Amre, you have absolutely no idea how many times my parents heard a similar argument about the Soviet Union - only in much greater, lecture-sized format.

It's not progress when you advance by forming a large group identity and starting to super-impose it on anyone nearby who doesn't fit into the mold.

Progress is when you make people realize that they don't need to hate and kill and maim each other over their differences - rather than trying to erase the differences altogether.

Since you are keen on being objective, What do you think about the possibilty of peaceful multi- religous and Multi-ethnic state solution?

A dead solution before it even started. "peaceful" isn't possible when the "multi-religious and multi-ethnic" involves groups that don't like each other to say the least. We'd end up like Lebanon, or Sudan, or Iraq. A civil war and genocide waiting to happen.

And then there is another simple fact - Jews want to have an independent sovereign state of their own because the alternatives end up pretty badly (I can't help but wonder if someone ever wrote a book titled History of the Jews: Massacres Throughout the Ages), and because controlling your own fate and developing your own culture is something most self-identifying groups want to have.

where Arabs and Jews live peacefully together in a secualr state? if the palestinains refugees are allowed to go back to their homes and live as equal citizens, Arabs will be left with no choice but to normailse and integrate the new state in the region?

And what happens when Arabs become a majority? Who will maintain the rights of the Jews then? I think that Arabs would only have no choice but to integrate the state into the region if it does not identify itself as Jewish in any way, shape, or form, but rather is just another Arab state - albeit one with a large Jewish population.

In this new state, a different nationalism would soon gain power - Arab nationalism, the nationalism of the majority. And where will the Jews be then, Amre? Second rate citizens, their culture and language and religion swept away from the state's daily discourse for not being "Arabic".

Kurds had no problem except when they carried arms against the state.

False. The Kurds did not enjoy the same rights as the Arabs of Iraq - they were essentially treated as a conquered region that had nothing to do with Iraq, with the exception of being harvested for resources. Arabic identity failed to interest them, and even after post-revolt agreements that promised them government representation and eventual autonomy, Iraq began colonization projects to relocate Arab citizens into Kurdish-majority regions.

Once Iraq became an full ally of the Soviet Union, it became emboldened enough to tear up the Kurdish autonomy agreements altogether and crush them, though the full scale of their misery would not come until later.

The Kurds suffered immensely during the Iraq-Iran war. When the war started, the logic was simple - Kurds are not Arabs, Kurds can't be trusted, so the Kurds have to be treated like traitors, rounded up, and killed.

Forced relocation, official and state-ordered Arab re-population of oil-rich regions by Arabs, and genocide - these were what the Kurds got from the government of Iraq.

Anyway I am serious. If we are to settle a quarrel both parties have to make concessions. Don't they?

To settle a quarrel, you have to realize that the other party in the quarrel is just as legitimate and worthy of respect as you are - demanding that Jews effectively give up their sovereignty and trust in the benevolence of their former enemies not only disregards the Jews as a group with their own wants and needs and core issues - no less important than those of Arabs - but is also utterly unreasonable in a purely logical sense of the word.

Amre, if you had come from a nation that suffered over 2000 years of being crushed under the boot of anyone who *had* a boot, often with the boot being quite expertly ground in, how would you feel at being offered to return to potential oppression as a solution to a current conflict?

Roman Kalik said...

Correction: The Jews could *not* become part of the government or army under Muslim rule.

Amre El-Abyad said...

According to mythology, Pennisula ASrabs are the descendant of Ismael the Hal Egyptian:) Prophet Muhammed talked about the blood line he has with Egyptians.

Now back to histyory, The kingdoms of norh western Arabia like Adomites were so much influenced by Egyptian tongue and writings. The sinai Arab kingoms..etc. Egyptian ancient history is full of stories about Egyptians banished to the Arabian deserts:)

10000 common words exist between modern standard Arabic and hieroglyohic.


Elamites were semites dude:)))))


The savage Indo- Iranian groups invaded the Iranian plateau roughly about 2000 B.C. western Iran is historically part of the Arab Iraq.

Time after time I tell you that Achaemenids had no alphabet and were illiterate. Aramiac became the standard language of the Empire because they had no other literary language. No point argueing on this, Roman:)

Parthians, Sassanids and the various peoples whió lived in what is called Iran, mereley mimiced the semitic Babylonian heritage and transfered to the pennisula Arabs, both the ancestors and descendants of Iraqis:)))

The entire history of ancient Iraq is made up of numerous semitic settlements from The Arabian pennisula in addition to Ammorites from Jordan- the ancestors of northern or Adnani Arabs.


About Kurds - those enjoyed a cultral specifity in Iraq never witnessed in the medieval retarded Iran or the ultra-nationalist Turkey. Saddam Built them the solemeniya university where teaching was excluisively in Kurdish. Kurdish language was imposed as a second language in all Iraqi school and there was never a Kurdish village denied schooling and health care.

In 1988 some terrorist Kurdish traitors infiltrated Iranian troops inside Iraq while Arabs were going through heroic battles against the baraberous fanatic extremist khomeinist Iranian hords in the south. Iraq wa facing an existentialistic threat. All possible means had to be used.

Besides, If some Kurdish factions opt to cooperate with Mossad, they have to pay for it. Fair is fair. I think we all know thelink between some Kurdish factions and Mossad which date as far backas the early sixties.


About Iraq there is no killing there. It is the evil malicious Iran which had pushed IRANIAN, AS DISTINCT FROM SHIITE, ELEMNTS AT THE INCEPTION OF THE INVASION TO WREAK BLOOD AND DSTRUCTION IN IRAQ. They can't heal from their shatering defeat in 1988 by Iraq and Egypt. That's why their hatred of Arab nationalism and grudge on Arabs- their tutors and educators have got no limits.

Nobody said...

you know amre

you are very lucky that you have us here ... somebody to hate to keep you from messing with each other ... without us, i dont even dare to think of what you would have been doing to each other here

Lirun said...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/migrant-row-flares-before-spanish-election/2008/03/01/1204227050198.html

hard core.. cranky cycles of history..

Anonymous said...

Actually the Ashkenazis might have been Khazars. Most likely there was a small mongoloid/central asian population that turkicized the non-turkish masses as has happened in anatolia. Northern Caucasians are not Eastern Europeans/Slavs. They are proven to have J1,J2 blood. E1b1b has not been tested in the Northern Caucasus. Haplogroup G is also believed to have originated from the Caucasus. Ashkenazis are proven to have g1, g2a1 and G2a3b1. All of these haplogroups are link to Central Asia and the caucasus. G2c is a mystery, however it has not been more comprehensively investigated in the caucasus region.