• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

suppressed history.

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
how was the american navy established and why?
how many Christian slaves were taken between the 17th and 20th century?
how much ransom was paid?

more than 1.2 million Christians were captured and sold as slaved.
1/6 of the US state budget was used to pay ransom for its citizens.
the united states navy was specifically established for this purpose.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Barbary War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Barbary War
Part of the Barbary Wars

USS Enterprise fighting the Tripolitan polacca Tripoli by William Bainbridge Hoff, 1878


The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitanian War and the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two Barbary Wars between the United States, Sweden and the four North African states known collectively as the "Barbary States". Three of these were nominal provinces of the Ottoman Empire, but in practice autonomous: Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis. The fourth was the independent Sultanate of Morocco.[3] The cause of the war was pirates from the Barbary States seizing American merchant ships and holding the crews for ransom, demanding the U.S. pay tribute to the Barbary rulers. United States President Thomas Jefferson refused to pay this tribute, in addition the Swedes had been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800.[4]

Background and overview
Barbary corsairs and crews from the North African Ottoman provinces of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and the independent Sultanate of Morocco under the Alaouite dynasty (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean.[5] Capturing merchant ships and enslaving or ransoming their crews provided the Muslim rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. The Roman Catholic Trinitarian Order, or order of "Mathurins", had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates. According to Robert Davis, between 1 and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries.[6]

Barbary corsairs led attacks upon American merchant shipping in an attempt to extort ransom for the lives of captured sailors, and ultimately tribute from the United States to avoid further attacks, as they did with the various European states.[7] Before the Treaty of Paris, which formalized the United States' independence from Great Britain, U.S. shipping was protected by France during the revolutionary years under the Treaty of Alliance (1778–83). Although the treaty does not mention the Barbary States in name, it refers to common enemies between both the U.S. and France. As such, piracy against U.S. shipping only began to occur after the end of the American Revolution, when the U.S. government lost its protection under the Treaty of Alliance.

This lapse of protection by a European power led to the first American merchant ship being seized after the Treaty of Paris. On 11 October 1784, Moroccan pirates seized the brigantine Betsey.[8] The Spanish government negotiated the freedom of the captured ship and crew; however, Spain offered advice to the United States on how to deal with the Barbary States. The advice was to offer tribute to prevent further attacks against merchant ships. The U.S. Minister to France, Thomas Jefferson, decided to send envoys to Morocco and Algeria to try to purchase treaties and the freedom of the captured sailors held by Algeria.[9] Morocco was the first Barbary Coast State to sign a treaty with the U.S., on 23 June 1786. This treaty formally ended all Moroccan piracy against American shipping interests. Specifically, article six of the treaty states that if any Americans captured by Moroccans or other Barbary Coast States docked at a Moroccan city, they would be set free and come under the protection of the Moroccan State.[10]

American diplomatic action with Algeria, the other major Barbary Coast State, was much less productive than with Morocco. Algeria began piracy against the U.S. on 25 July 1785 with the capture of the schooner Maria, and Dauphin a week later.[11] All four Barbary Coast states demanded $660,000 each. However, the envoys were given only an allocated budget of $40,000 to achieve peace.[12] Diplomatic talks to reach a reasonable sum for tribute or for the ransom of the captured sailors struggled to make any headway. The crews of Maria and Dauphin remained in captivity for over a decade, and soon were joined by crews of other ships captured by the Barbary States.[13]


Captain William Bainbridge paying tribute to the Dey of Algiers, 1800


In 1795, Algeria came to an agreement that resulted in the release of 115 American sailors they held, at a cost of over $1 million. This amount totaled about one-sixth of the entire U.S. budget,[14] and was demanded as tribute by the Barbary States to prevent further piracy. The continuing demand for tribute ultimately led to the formation of the United States Department of the Navy, founded in 1798[15] to prevent further attacks upon American shipping and to end the demands for extremely large tributes from the Barbary States.

Various letters and testimonies by captured sailors describe their captivity as a form of slavery, even though Barbary Coast imprisonment was different from that practiced by the U.S. and European powers of the time.[16]Barbary Coast prisoners were able to obtain wealth and property, along with achieving status beyond that of a slave. One such example was James Leander Cathcart, who rose to the highest position a Christian slave could achieve in Algeria, becoming an adviser to the bey (governor).[17] Even so, most captives were pressed into hard labor in the service of the Barbary pirates, and struggled under extremely poor conditions that exposed them to vermin and disease. As word of their treatment reached the U.S., through freed captives' narratives and letters, Americans pushed for direct government action to stop the piracy against U.S. ships.


1816 illustration of Christian slaves

In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they inquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

(where did ISIS come from again?)
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once." [24]

Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt. Federalist and Anti-Federalist forces argued over the needs of the country and the burden of taxation. Jefferson's own Democratic-Republicans and anti-navalists believed that the future of the country lay in westward expansion, with Atlantic trade threatening to siphon money and energy away from the new nation, to be spent on wars in the Old World.[25] The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships and the return of American hostages. A $1 million payment in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to approximately 10% of the U.S. government's annual revenues in 1800.[26]

Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American Navy in 1794 and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, it became increasingly possible for America to refuse paying tribute, although by now the long-standing habit was hard to overturn.

Declaration of war and naval blockade
Just before Jefferson's inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that 'shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.' ... In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to 'protect our commerce and chastise their insolence—by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and vessels wherever you shall find them.'"[27] On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 (equivalent to $3.24 million in 2016) from the new administration. (In 1800, federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million). Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, on 10 May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate.[28] Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli.

Before learning that Tripoli had declared war on the United States, Jefferson sent a small squadron, consisting of three frigates and one schooner, under the command of Commodore Richard Dale with gifts and letters to attempt to maintain peace with the Barbary powers.[29] However, in the event that war had been declared, Dale was instructed "to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression," but Jefferson "insisted that he was 'unauthorized by the constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'" He told Congress: "I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the constitution to the legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."[27] Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." The American squadron joined a Swedish flotilla under Rudolf Cederström in blockading Tripoli, the Swedes having been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800.[4]


Enterprise capturing Tripoli

On 31 May 1801, Commodore Edward Preble traveled to Messina, Sicily, to the court of King Ferdinand IV of the Kingdom of Naples. The kingdom was at war with Napoleon, but Ferdinand supplied the Americans with manpower, craftsmen, supplies, gunboats, mortar boats, and the ports of Messina, Syracuse and Palermo to be used as a naval base to launch operations against Tripoli, a port walled fortress city protected by 150 pieces of heavy artillery manned by 25,000 soldiers, assisted by a fleet of 10 ten-gunned brigs, 2 eight-gun schooners, two large galleys, and 19 gunboats.[30]

The schooner Enterprise (commanded by Lieutenant Andrew Sterret) defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a one-sided battle on 1 August 1801.

In 1802, in response to Jefferson's request for authority to deal with the pirates, Congress passed "An act for the protection of commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers", authorizing the President to "…employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite… for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas."[31] "The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port."[27]

The U.S Navy went unchallenged on the sea, but still the question remained undecided. Jefferson pressed the issue the following year, with an increase in military force and deployment of many of the navy's best ships to the region throughout 1802. Argus, Chesapeake, Constellation, Constitution, Enterprise, Intrepid, Philadelphia and Syren all saw service during the war under the overall command of Preble. Throughout 1803, Preble set up and maintained a blockade of the Barbary ports and executed a campaign of raids and attacks against the cities' fleets.

Battles

The Philadelphia aground off Tripoli, in October 1803


Stephen Decatur boarding a Tripolitan gunboat during a naval engagement, 3 August 1804


Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon at Derna, April 1805

In October 1803, Tripoli's fleet captured USS Philadelphia intact after the frigate ran aground on a reef while patrolling Tripoli harbor. Efforts by the Americans to float the ship while under fire from shore batteries and Tripolitan Naval units failed. The ship, its captain, William Bainbridge, and all officers and crew were taken ashore and held as hostages. Philadelphia was turned against the Americans and anchored in the harbor as a gun battery.


Burning of USS Philadelphia – "The most bold and daring act of the age."

Horatio Nelson
On the night of 16 February 1804, Lieutenant Stephen Decatur led a small detachment of U.S. Marines aboard the captured Tripolitan ketch rechristened USS Intrepid, thus deceiving the guards on Philadelphia to float close enough to board her. Decatur's men stormed the ship and overpowered the Tripolitan sailors. With fire support from the American warships, the Marines set fire to Philadelphia, denying her use by the enemy. British admiral, Horatio Nelson, himself known as a man of action and courage, reportedly called this "the most bold and daring act of the age."[32]

Preble attacked Tripoli on 14 July 1804, in a series of inconclusive battles, including a courageous but unsuccessful attack attempting to use Intrepid under Captain Richard Somers as a fire ship, packed with explosives and sent to enter Tripoli harbor, where she would destroy herself and the enemy fleet. However, Intrepid was destroyed, possibly by enemy gunfire, before she achieved her goal, killing Somers and his entire crew.[33]

The turning point in the war was the Battle of Derna (April–May 1805). Ex-consul William Eaton, a former Army captain who used the title of "general", and US Marine Corps 1st Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon led a force of eight U.S. Marines [34] and five hundred mercenaries—Greeks from Crete, Arabs, and Berbers on a march across the desert from Alexandria, Egypt, to capture the Tripolitan city of Derna. This was the first time the United States flag was raised in victory on foreign soil. The action is memorialized in a line of the Marines' Hymn—"the shores of Tripoli".[35] The capturing of the city gave American negotiators leverage in securing the return of hostages and the end of the war.[36]

Peace treaty and legacy
Wearied of the blockade and raids, and now under threat of a continued advance on Tripoli proper and a scheme to restore his deposed older brother Hamet Karamanli as ruler, Yusuf Karamanli signed a treaty ending hostilities on 10 June 1805. Article 2 of the treaty reads:

The Bashaw of Tripoli shall deliver up to the American squadron now off Tripoli, all the Americans in his possession; and all the subjects of the Bashaw of Tripoli now in the power of the United States of America shall be delivered up to him; and as the number of Americans in possession of the Bashaw of Tripoli amounts to three hundred persons, more or less; and the number of Tripolino subjects in the power of the Americans to about, one hundred more or less; The Bashaw of Tripoli shall receive from the United States of America, the sum of sixty thousand dollars, as a payment for the difference between the prisoners herein mentioned.[37]

In agreeing to pay a ransom of $60,000 for the American prisoners, the Jefferson administration drew a distinction between paying tribute and paying ransom. At the time, some argued that buying sailors out of slavery was a fair exchange to end the war. William Eaton, however, remained bitter for the rest of his life about the treaty, feeling that his efforts had been squandered by the state department diplomat Tobias Lear. Eaton and others felt that the capture of Derna should have been used as a bargaining chip to obtain the release of all American prisoners without having to pay ransom. Furthermore, Eaton believed the honor of the United States had been compromised when it abandoned Hamet Karamanli after promising to restore him as leader of Tripoli. Eaton's complaints generally went unheard, especially as attention turned to the strained international relations which would ultimately lead to the withdrawal of the U.S. Navy from the area in 1807 and to the War of 1812.[38]

The First Barbary War was beneficial to the reputation of the United States' military command and war mechanism, which had been up to that time relatively untested. The First Barbary War showed that America could execute a war far from home, and that American forces had the cohesion to fight together as Americans rather than separately as Georgians or New Yorkers. The United States Navy and Marines became a permanent part of the American government and American history, and Decatur returned to the U.S. as its first post-revolutionary war hero.[39]

However, the more immediate problem of Barbary piracy was not fully settled. By 1807, Algiers had gone back to taking American ships and seamen hostage. Distracted by the preludes to the War of 1812, the U.S. was unable to respond to the provocation until 1815, with the Second Barbary War, in which naval victories by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments by the U.S.[40]

Monument
The Tripoli Monument,[41] the oldest military monument in the U.S., honors the American heroes of the First Barbary War: Master Commandant Richard Somers, Lieutenant James Caldwell, James Decatur (brother of Stephen Decatur), Henry Wadsworth, Joseph Israel and John Dorsey. Originally known as the Naval Monument, it was carved of Carrara marble in Italy in 1806 and brought to the U.S. on board Constitution ("Old Ironsides"). From its original location in the Washington Navy Yard, it was moved to the west terrace of the national Capitol and finally, in 1860, to the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.[42]

See also
References
  1. Mike Bacarella. "Barbary Wars". daddezio.com.
  2. Joseph Wheelan (21 September 2004). Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror 1801–1805. PublicAffairs. pp. 128–. ISBN 978-0-7867-4020-8.
  3. Wars of the Barbary Pirates. pp. 16, 39. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
  4. Woods, Tom. "Presidential War Powers: The Constitutional Answer". Libertyclassroom.com. Retrieved 9 July 2014.
  5. Masselman, George. The Cradle of Colonialism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. OCLC 242863. p. 205. – via Questia (subscription required)
  6. Davis, Robert. Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800.[1]
  7. Rojas, Martha Elena. "'Insults Unpunished' Barbary Captives, American Slaves, and the Negotiation of Liberty." Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 1.2 (2003): 159–86.
  8. Battistini, Robert. "Glimpses of the Other before Orientalism: The Muslim World in Early American Periodicals, 1785–1800." Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 8.2 (2010): 446–74.
  9. Parton, James. "Jefferson, American Minister in France." Atlantic Monthly. 30.180 (1872): 405–24.
  10. Miller, Hunter. United States. "Barbary Treaties 1786–1816: Treaty with Morocco June 28 and July 15, 1786". The Avalon Project, Yale Law School.
  11. Battistini, 450
  12. Parton, 413
  13. Rojas, 176
  14. Rojas, 165.
  15. Blum, Hester. "Pirated Tars, Piratical Texts Barbary Captivity and American Sea Narratives." Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 1.2 (2003): 133–58.
  16. Rojas, 168–9.
  17. Rojas, 163
  18. Richard Lee (2011). In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional. Thomas Nelson Inc. p. 69. ISBN 978-1-4041-8965-2.
  19. Harry Gratwick (19 April 2010). Hidden History of Maine. The History Press. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-59629-815-6.
  20. United States. Dept. of State (1837). The diplomatic correspondence of the United States of America. Printed by Blair & Rives. p. 605.
  21. Priscilla H. Roberts; Richard S. Roberts (2008). Thomas Barclay (1728–1793): Consul in France, Diplomat in Barbary. Associated University Presse. p. 184. ISBN 978-0-934223-98-0.
  22. Frederick C. Leiner (2006). The End of Barbary Terror: America's 1815 War Against the Pirates of North Africa. Oxford University Press. pp. 17–18. ISBN 978-0-19-518994-0.
  23. United States Congressional Serial Set, Serial No. 15038, House Documents Nos. 129–137. Government Printing Office. p. 8. GGKEY:TBY2W8Z0L9N.
  24. "American Peace Commissioners to John Jay," March 28, 1786, "Thomas Jefferson Papers," Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651–1827, Library of Congress. LoC: March 28, 1786 (handwritten).
    ^ Philip Gengembre Hubert (1872). Making of America Project. The Atlantic Monthly, Atlantic Monthly Co. p. 413. (some sources confirm this wording,[18][19] other sources report this quotation with slight differences in wording.[20][21][22][23])
  25. London 2005, pp. 40,41.
  26. United States Federal State and Local Government Revenue, Fiscal Year 1800, in $ million, usgovernmentrevenue.com.
  27. Woods, Thomas (7 July 2005) Presidential War Powers, LewRockwell.com
  28. Miller, Nathan (1 September 1997). The U.S. Navy: a history. Naval Institute Press. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-55750-595-8. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
  29. Huff, Elizabeth. "The First Barbary War". monticello.org. Retrieved 14 October 2014.
  30. Tucker, Glenn. Dawn like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the U.S. Navy. Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1963. OCLC 391442. p. 293. – via Questia (subscription required)
  31. Keynes 2004, p. 191 (note 31)
  32. Tucker, Spencer. Stephen Decatur: A Life Most Bold and Daring. Naval Institute Press; 2005. ISBN 978-1-55750-999-4. p. xi.
  33. Tucker, 2005, pp. 326 – 331.
  34. Eaton had requested 100 Marines, but had been limited to eight by Commodore Barron, who wished to budget his forces differently. Daugherty 2009, pp. 11–12.
  35. "Battle of Derna". Militaryhistory.about.com.
  36. Fye, Shaan. "A History Lesson: The First Barbary War". The Atlas Business Journal. Retrieved 20 January 2016.
  37. "Treaty of Peace and Amity, Signed at Tripoli June 4, 1805". Avalon.law.yale.edu.
  38. Herring, George C. From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-507822-0. p. 100. – via Questia (subscription required)
  39. Tucker, 2005, p. 464.
  40. Gerard W. Gawalt, America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe, U.S. Library of Congress.
  41. Giovanni C Micali, Tripoli Monument at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, dcmemorials.com
  42. Tucker, 2005, p. 332.
Bibliography
  • Keynes, Edward (2004), Undeclared War, Penn State Press, ISBN 978-0-271-02607-7
  • London, Joshua E. (2005), Victory in Tripoli: How America's War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN 0-471-44415-4
  • Whipple, A. B. C. (1991), To the Shores of Tripoli: The Birth of the U.S. Navy and Marines, Bluejacket Books, ISBN 1-55750-966-2
Further reading
External links
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
The Islamic Conquest of Sicily 500 years before the Crusades.

First Islamic attacks on Sicily (652–827)[edit]

The first attacks by Islamic ships on Sicily, then part of the Byzantine Empire, occurred in 652 under the Rashidun Caliphate of Uthman. These were Arab mujahideen directed by the Governor of Syria, Muawiyah I, and led by Mu'awiya ibn Hudayj of the Kindah tribe, and they remained[citation needed] on the island for several years. Olympius, the Byzantine exarch of Ravenna, came to Sicily to oust the invaders but failed. Soon after, the Arabs returned to Syria after collecting a sufficiently large amount of booty.

A second Arab expedition to Sicily occurred in 669. This time, a strong, ravaging force consisting of 200 ships from Alexandria attacked the island. They sacked Syracuse, Sicily and returned to Egypt after a month of pillaging. After the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb (completed around 700), attacks from Muslim fleets repeated in 703, 728, 729, 730, 731, 733, and 734. The last two Arab assaults were met with substantial Byzantine resistance.

The first true conquest expedition was launched in 740. In that year, Habib ibn Abi Obeida al-Fihri, who had participated in the 728 attack, successfully captured Syracuse. Though ready to conquer the whole island, the expedition was forced to return to Tunisia by a Berber revolt. A second attack in 752 aimed only to sack Syracuse again.

In 805, the imperial patrician of Sicily, Constantine, signed a ten-year truce with Ibrahim I ibn al-Aghlab, Emir of Ifriqiya, but this did not prevent Muslim fleets from other areas of Africa and Spain from attacking Sardinia and Corsica from 806–821. In 812, Ibrahim's son, Abdallah I, sent an invasion force to conquer Sicily. His ships were first harassed by the intervention of Gaeta and Amalfi and were later destroyed in great number by a tempest. However, they managed to conquer the island of Lampedusa and to ravage Ponza and Ischia in the Tyrrhenian Sea. A further agreement between the new patrician Gregorius and the emir established the freedom of commerce between southern Italy and Ifriqiya. After a further attack in 819 by Mohammed ibn-Adballad, cousin of Amir Ziyadat Allah I of Ifriqiya, no subsequent Muslim attacks on Sicily are mentioned by sources until 827.

The Conquest of Sicily (827–902)[edit]

Euphemius and Asad[edit]
The Muslim conquest of Sicily and parts of southern Italy lasted 75 years. According to some sources, the conquest was spurred by Euphemius, a Byzantine commander who feared punishment by Emperor Michael II for a sexual indiscretion. After a short-lived conquest of Syracuse, he was proclaimed emperor but was compelled by loyal forces to flee to the court of Ziyadat Allah in Africa. The latter agreed to conquer Sicily, with the promise to leave it to Euphemius in exchange for a yearly tribute. He entrusted its conquest to the 70-year-old qadi, Asad ibn al-Furat. The Muslim force numbered 10,000 infantry, 700 cavalry, and 100 ships, reinforced by the fleet of Euphemius and, after the landing at Mazara del Vallo, by knights. The first battle against Byzantine troops occurred on July 15, 827, near Mazara, resulting in an Aghlabid victory.

Asad subsequently conquered the southern shore of the island and laid siege to Syracuse. After a year of siege and an attempted mutiny, his troops were able to defeat a large army sent from Palermo backed by a Venetian fleet led by doge Giustiniano Participazio. However, the Muslims retreated to the castle of Mineo when a plague killed many of their troops and Asad himself. They later returned to the offensive but failed to conquer Castrogiovanni (the modern Enna, where Euphemius died), retreating back to Mazara. In 830, they received a strong reinforcement of 30,000 African and Spanish troops. The Spanish Muslims defeated the Byzantine commander Theodotus in July and August of that year, but a plague once again forced them to return to Mazara and then to Africa. The African Berber units sent to besiege Palermo captured it in September 831 after a year-long siege.[9] Palermo, renamed al-Madinah, became the Muslim capital of Sicily.[10]

Abu Fihr Muhammad ibn Abd-Allah[edit]
In February 832, Ziyadat Allah sent his cousin Abu Fihr Muhammad ibn Abd-Allah to the island and appointed him as the wāli of Sicily.[10] He defeated the Byzantines in early 834, and in the following year his troops reached as far as Taormina. The war dragged on for several years with minor Ahglabid victories, while the Byzantines resisted in their strongholds of Castrogiovanni and Cefalù. New troops arrived in the island from the new Emir Al-Aghlab Abu Affan and occupied Platani, Caltabellotta, Corleone, Marineo, and Geraci, granting the Muslims total control of western Sicily.

In 836, Muslim ships helped their ally, Andrew II of Naples, when he was besieged by Beneventan troops,[11] and with Neapolitan support Messina was also conquered in 842. In 845, Modica also fell, and the Byzantines suffered a crushing defeat near Butera, losing about 10,000 men. Lentini was conquered in 846, and Ragusa followed in 848.

Abbas ibn Fadhl[edit]
In 851, the governor and general Al-Aghlab Abu Ibrahim died. He was succeeded by Abbas ibn Fadhl. He started a campaign of ravages against the lands still in Byzantine hands, capturing Butera, Gagliano, Cefalù, and, most important of all, Castrogiovanni, in winter 859.[12] Many of the captives from Castrogiovanni were sent to the Caliph Al-Mutawakkil, as a representation of Abbas ibn Fadhl's victory.[13] In response, the Byzantine emperor sent a large force in 859–860 under Constantine Kontomytes, but the army and the fleet carrying it were defeated by Abbas. Byzantine reinforcements led many of the cities subjugated by the Muslims to revolt, and Abbas devoted the years 860–861 to reduce them. Abbas died in 861, replaced by his uncle Ahmed ibn Yaqub and, from February 862, by Abdallah, son of Abbas; the latter was in turn replaced by the Aghlabids with Khafagia ibn Sofian, who captured Noto, Scicli, and Troina.

Jafar ibn Muhammad[edit]
In the summer of 868, the Byzantines were defeated for the first time near Syracuse. Hostilities resumed in the early summer of 877 by the new sultan, Jafar ibn Muhammad al-Tamini, who besieged Syracuse; the city fell on May 21, 878. The Byzantines now maintained control over a short stretch of coast around Taormina, while the Muslim fleet attacked Greece and Malta. The latter fleet was, however, destroyed in a naval battle in 880. For a while, it seemed that the Byzantines could regain Sicily, but new land victories for the Muslims re-established their control. A revolt in Palermo against Governor Seuàda ibn Muhammad was crushed in 887.

The death of the strong Emperor Basil I in 886 also encouraged the Muslims to attack Calabria, where the imperial army was defeated in the summer of 888. However, the first inner revolt was followed by another in 890, mostly spurred by the hostility between Arabs and Berbers. In 892 an emir was sent from Ifriqiya by Ibrahim II ibn Ahmad to Palermo but was ousted again a few months later. The prince did not relent and sent another powerful army to Sicily under his son, Abu l-Abbas Abdallah, in 900. The Sicilians were defeated at Trapani (August 22) and outside Palermo (September 8), the latter city resisting for another ten days. Abu l-Abbas moved against the remaining Byzantine strongholds and was also able to capture Reggio Calabria on the mainland on June 10, 901.

As Ibrahim was forced to abdicate in Tunis, he decided to lead in person the operations in southern Italy. Taormina, the last main Byzantine stronghold in Sicily, fell on August 1, 902. Messina and other cities opened their gates to avoid a similar massacre. Ibrahim's army also marched on southern Calabria, besieging Cosenza. Ibrahim died of dysentery on October 24. His grandson stopped the military campaign and returned to Sicily.

Aghlabid Sicily (827–909)[edit]
At this point (902), Sicily was almost entirely under the control of the Aghlabids with the exception of some minor strongholds in the rugged interior. The population had been somewhat increased by Muslim migrants from Iberia, North Africa, and the Middle East. The emir in Palermo nominated the governors of the main cities (qadi) and those of the less important ones (hakim), along with the other functionaries. Each city had a council called a gema, composed of the most eminent members of the local society, which was entrusted with the care of the public works and of the social order. The conquered Sicilian population lived as dhimmi or converted to Islam.

The Arabs initiated land reforms that increased productivity and encouraged the growth of smallholdings, a mere dent in the dominance of the landed estates. The Arabs further improved irrigation systems. With about 300,000 inhabitants, Palermo in the 10th century was the most populous city in Italy.[14] A description of the city was given by Ibn Hawqal,[citation needed] a Baghdad merchant who visited Sicily in 950. A walled suburb called the Kasr (the citadel) was (and remains) the center of Palermo, and the great Friday mosque stood on the site of the later Roman cathedral. The suburb of Al-Khalisa (Kalsa) contained the sultan's palace, baths, a mosque, government offices, and a private prison. Ibn Hawqal reckoned there were 7,000 individual butchers trading in 150 shops.

Fatimid Sicily (909–965)[edit]
In 909, the African Aghlabid dynasty was replaced by the Fatimid Caliphate, an Ismaili Shi'i dynasty. Three years later, the Fatimid governor was ousted from Palermo when the island declared its independence under Emir Ibn Qurhub.[15] His failed siege of Taormina,[16] which had been rebuilt by the Christians; weakened his influence.[16] By 917, a Fatimid fleet, brought by pleas from a dissatisfied Sicilian faction, placed Palermo under siege. After a six month siege, Ibn Qurhub and his son were captured and executed.[16]

The island was governed by a Fatimid emir for the following 20 years. In 937, the Berbers of Agrigento revolted again but after two resounding successes were decisively beaten at the gates of Palermo. An army was then sent by the new Fatimid caliph, Al-Qa'im bi-Amr Allah, to besiege Agrigento twice until it fell on November 20, 940. The revolt was totally suppressed in 941 with many of the prisoners sold as slaves and Governor Khalil boasting to have killed 600,000 people in his campaigns.

Independent emirate of Sicily (965–1091)[edit]

Southern Italy circa 1000, showing the Kalbid emirate before its collapse.​

After suppressing another revolt in 948, the Fatimid Caliph Ismail al-Mansur named Hassan al-Kalbi as emir of the island. As his charge soon became hereditary, his emirate became de facto independent from the African government. In 950, Hassan waged war against the Byzantines in southern Italy, reaching up to Gerace and Cassano allo Ionio. A second Calabrian campaign in 952 resulted in the defeat of the Byzantine army; Gerace was again besieged, but in the end Emperor Constantine VII was forced to accept having the Calabrian cities pay a tribute to Sicily.

In 956, the Byzantines reconquered Reggio and invaded Sicily; a truce was signed in 960. Two years later a revolt in Taormina was bloodily suppressed, but the resistance of the Christians in Rometta led the new Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas to send an army of 40,000 Armenians, Thracians, and Slavs under his nephew Manuel, who captured Messina in October 964. On 25 October, the Byzantines were defeated in a fierce battle with the Kalbids. Manuel, along with 10,000 of his men, was killed in the fray.

The new Emir Abu al-Qasim (964–982) launched a series of attacks against Calabria in the 970s, while the fleet under his brother attacked the Adriatic coasts of Apulia, capturing some strongholds. As the Byzantines were busy against the Fatimids in Syria and with the partial conquest of the Bulgarian Empire, the German Emperor Otto II decided to intervene. The allied German-Lombard army was defeated in 982 at the Battle of Stilo. However, as al-Qasim himself had been killed, his son Jabir al-Kalbi prudently retreated to Sicily without exploiting the victory. In 1006 a new Saracen fleet was defeated again near Reggio Calabria by the Pisans.[17]

The emirate reached its cultural peak under the emirs Jafar (983–985) and Yusuf al-Kalbi (990–998), both patrons of the arts. The latter's son Ja'far was instead a cruel and violent lord who expelled the Berbers from the island after an unsuccessful revolt against him. In 1019, another uprising in Palermo was successful, and Ja'far was exiled to Africa and replaced by his brother al-Akhal (1019–1037).


Southern Italy in 1084, showing the remains of
the Kalbid emirate, then fought over by multiple
claimants, on the eve of the final Norman conquest.​

With the support of the Fatimids, al-Akhal defeated two Byzantine expeditions in 1026 and 1031. His attempt to raise a heavy tax to pay his mercenaries caused a civil war. Al-Akhal asked the Byzantines for support while his brother abu-Hafs, leader of the rebels, received troops from the Zirid Emir of Ifriqiya, al-Muizz ibn Badis, which were commanded by his son Abdallah.

The local population conquered by the Muslims were Romanized Catholic Sicilians in Western Sicily and partially Greek speaking Christians, mainly in the eastern half of the island, but there were also a significant number of Jews.[18] These conquered people were afforded a limited freedom of religion under the Muslims as dhimmi, but were subject to some restrictions. The dhimmi were also required to pay the jizya, or poll tax, and the kharaj or land tax, but were exempt from the tax that Muslims had to pay (Zakaat). Under Arab rule there were different categories of Jizya payers, but their common denominator was the payment of the Jizya as a mark of subjection to Muslim rule in exchange for protection against foreign and internal aggression. The conquered population could avoid this subservient status simply by converting to Islam. Whether by honest religious conviction or societal compulsion large numbers of native Sicilians converted to Islam. However, even after 100 years of Islamic rule, numerous Greek speaking Christian communities prospered, especially in north-eastern Sicily, as dhimmi. This was largely a result of the Jizya system which allowed co-existence. This co-existence with the conquered population fell apart after the reconquest of Sicily, particularly following the death of King William II of Sicily in 1189.

Decline (1037–1061) and Norman conquest of Sicily (1061–1091) <--- oh those vile Crusaders.
Main article: Norman conquest of southern Italy
In 1038, a Byzantine army under George Maniaces crossed the strait of Messina. This included a corps of Normans which saved the situation in the first clash against the Muslims from Messina. After another decisive victory in the summer of 1040, Maniaces halted his march to lay siege to Syracuse. Despite his conquest of the latter, Maniaces was removed from his position, and the subsequent Muslim counter-offensive reconquered all the cities captured by the Byzantines.

The Norman Robert Guiscard, son of Tancred, invaded Sicily in 1060. The island was split between three Arab emirs, and the Sicilian population rose up against the ruling Muslims. One year later, Messina fell, and in 1072, Palermo was taken by the Normans.[19] The loss of the cities, each with a splendid harbor, dealt a severe blow to Muslim power on the island. Eventually all of Sicily was taken. In 1091, Noto in the southern tip of Sicily and the island of Malta, the last Arab stongholds, fell to the Christians. By the 11th century, Muslim power in the Mediterranean had begun to wane.[20]

Many repressive measures were introduced by Frederick II to please the popes who were afraid of Islam close to the papal state.[21] This resulted in a rebellion by Sicilian Muslims,[22] which in turn triggered organized resistance and systematic reprisals[23] and marked the final chapter of Islam in Sicily. The Muslim problem characterized Hohenstaufen rule in Sicily under Henry VI and his son Frederick II. The annihilation of Islam in Sicily was completed by the late 1240s when the final deportations to Lucera took place.[24]

Deportation of the last Muslims from Lucera (1300)[edit]
Main article: Muslim settlement of Lucera
Some of the expelled Muslims were deported to Lucera (Lugêrah, as it was known in Arabic). Their numbers eventually reached between 15,000 and 20,000,[25] leading Lucera to be called Lucaera Saracenorum because it represented the last stronghold of Islamic presence in Italy. The colony thrived for 75 years until it was sacked in 1300 by Christian forces under the command of the Angevin Charles II of Naples. The city's Muslim inhabitants were exiled or sold into slavery,[26] with many finding asylum in Albania across the Adriatic Sea.[27] After the expulsions of Muslims in Lucera, Charles II replaced Lucera's Saracens with Christians, chiefly Burgundias and Provençal soldiers and farmers,[28] following an initial settlement of 140 Provençal families in 1273.[29] A remnant of the descendants of these Provençal colonists, still speaking a Franco-Provençal dialect, has survived till the present day in the villages of Faeto and Celle di San Vito.
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
suppressed history continued.

this is the map of the eastern mediterranean basin and the middle east in 620 showing the persian/sassanian empire and the areas it occupied from the byzantine empire, 10 years before what the world knows as the rise of islam. more on the subject:
Byzantine–Sasanian wars



SassanianEmpireHistoryofIran.png
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
846AD غزوة روما
غزو الأغالبة لروما سنة 846م

غزو الأغالبة لروما سنة 846م هي عملية عسكرية قام بها مسلمون ينتمون لدولة الأغالبة في شهر أغسطس الموافق لشهر صفر من عام 232هـ في أيام الأمير أبي العباس محمد بن أبي عقال الأغلب، رابع أمراء الأغالبة (حكم من سنة 226هـ-841م إلى سنة 242هـ-856م). لم تكن لهذه الغزوة أية أهداف توسع، وإنما كانت أهدافها هي إضعاف النفوذ العسكري البابوي، وجني الغنائم، وإظهار النفوذ العسكري المتزايد للأغالبة في إيطاليا أو ما كان يعرف لديهم ب"البر الطويل".



نهر التيبر

"كنيسة القديس بطرس" التي دخلها المسلمون غزاةً سنة 846م

قام مسلمون ينتمون لدولة الأغالبة بغزو الأراضي البابوية في عام 846م، حيث أنزلوا على ساحل أوستيا "الإيطالية: Ostia" قواتٍ هزمت القوات الموجودة فيها[1][2]، ثم إن المسلمين ركبوا نهر الطيبر (التيفر- التيبر)، {وهوثاني أطول نهر في إيطاليا، يبدأ من سلسلة جبال توسكان ويتدفق جنوباً، وفي نهايته يعبر بمدينة روما قبل أن يصب في البحر المتوسط في منطقة أوستيا}،[3] وبركوبهم نهر التيبرتمكن المسلمون من الإغارة على ضواحي روما ذاتها.[2]

إثر وصولهم لروما، لم يقم المسلمون بمحاصرتها أو بمحاولة فتحها، حيث كانت أسلحتهم أسلحة خفيفة، ولكنهم هاجموا الأحياء المحيطية (من ضمنها حي الفاتيكان)، والتي كانت تقع خارج الجدار الأورلياني آنذاك. وعاد المسلمون بالغنائم من كنائس القديسين: بطرس، وبولس، ومن الفاتيكان نفسه، ومن تلك الأحياء المحيطية للمدينة ولكنهم لم يدخلوا المدينة نفسها. ويقال أن من بين ما غنموه تابوتاً من فضة من كنيسة مار بطرس. في تلك السنة أيضاً غزا المسلمون جنوة، ففتحت، ويذكر أيضاً أن المسلمين حاصروا قلعة القديس آنج في غزوتهم المذكورة على روما.[4]

كما يشير شكيب أرسلان إلى أن المسلمين غزوا سواحل سيفيتة فكشيا بقرب روما قبل ذلك التاريخ بسنوات عدة[5].

خلاصة: تعتبر غزوة الأغالبة لروما سنة 846م بمثابة عمل عسكري، يهدف إلى إظهار النفوذ العسكري المتزايد للأغالبة على حساب النفوذ العسكري لللدولة البابوية في شبه الجزيرة الإيطالية، ولم تكن عملاً بهدف الفتح وترك الحاميات، حيث اكتفى الأغالبة في غزوتهم تلك بالأسلحة الخفيفة دون ورود ذكر لقيامهم بأي حصار أو أي استعمال لأسلحة ثقيلة كالمجانيق وغيرها.

الأغالبة في إيطاليا

الأغالبة في إيطاليا
الأغالبة أو بنو الأغلب هم سلالة عربية من بني تميم حكمت في شمال أفريقيا (شرق الجزائروتونس وغرب ليبيا) مع جنوب إيطاليا وصقلية وسردينيا وكورسيكا ومالطة. اتخذوا منالقيروان عاصمة لهم، واستمر حكمهم من 184هـ(800م)-296هـ(9099م). ومؤسس دولة الأغالبة هو إبراهيم بن الأغلب بن سالم بن عقال التميمي، الذي استقل بولاية أفريقية عن الدولة العباسية سنة 800م، ومؤسس دولة بسطت نفوذها حتى سقوطها على يد الفاطميين العبيديين.

اشتهرت هذه الدولة باهتمامها بالجهاد البحري، فأنشأت أسطولاً قوياً تمكنت بفضله من فتح جزيرة صقلية بقيادة القاضي أسد بن الفرات وذلك في عهد أميرها الثالث زيادة الله بن إبراهيم سنة 212 هـ.

وبعد صقلية، انطلق الأغالبة نحو إيطاليا، فهاجمت قواتهم مدينة برنديزي سنة (221هـ - 836م)، ثم استولوا على نابولي في السنة التالية لها، واستولوا على كابوا في سنة (227هـ -841م)، وافتتح المسلمون تارانتو، وفي عهد محمد بن الأغلب افتتحت مناطق واسعة من قلورية (كلابرية) في جنوبي إيطالية، حتى قاربت قواته رومة.[6]


 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
870AD غزوة روما الثانية

غزو الأغالبة لروما سنة 870م
وقد عانت الأَملاك البابوِية الأَمرين حين ازداد ضغط المسلمين على الشاطئ الغربي لإيطاليا -المطلِ على البحر التيراني- بفعل غارات إسلامية حدثت خلال عامي 868-872 م على مدينتي جايتا، وسالرنو، كما أنزل الأغالبة بروما جيشاً قوياً وحاصروها بقوة هذه المرة، وأوشكت أن تسقط، فأرسل البابا يوحنا الثامن إلى ملك الفرنجة الكارولنجيين، وإلى الإمبراطورية البيزنطية، وإلى مدن: أمالفي، وجايتا، ونابولي، يلتمس لنفسه، ولأَمْلاكه الحِماية، ولكنه لم يظفر بأي نجاح.

وقد ترتب على تخلي هؤلاء جميعًا عن بابا روما إلى أن اضطر إلى دفع جزية للمسلمين، قدرها خمس وعشرون ألف (25000) مكيال من الفضة[7][8]، ولأن التشريع الإسلامي يقبل بالجزية، فقد قبل بها الأغالبة وانصرفوا عن المدينة.
 

Nayla

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
الغزو العربي الاجرامي

الإعتقاد الذي رسخه العربان واصبحت حقيقة مقدسة لا يسمح المساس بها أن الفتح الإسلامي لشمال افريقيا تم سلما وبضربة واحدة قاصمة حاسمة، ومارسوا الطمس والإخفاء قدر الإمكان قصد التمكين لأنفسهم وذويهم، وكثيرا ما قالوا بأن الإسلام نشروه سلما بين الأمازيغ ، وما جاءوا إلا محررين وناشرين لديانة رحيمة تدعوا للإخاء والتسامح والمحبة ، وأثبت التاريخ عكس ذلك كله.
لم يكن هدف العرب الغزاة نشر رسالة الاسلام فالعلامات الدالة على نشر الإسلام غائبة تماما ولا ذكرلها في المصادر والمراجع فالجهد كله موجه للقتل والقتال والمغانم والسبي ، فلا فقهاء ، ولا دعوة صريحة ، ولا لقاءات سلمية حميمية بين العرب المسلمين والامازيغ لإفهامهم فحوى هذا الدين الجديد .
كان المحرك الاساسي لجيوش المرتزقة العربية هي جمع اكبر عدد من المرتزقة واغرائهم بالغنائم و النساء و الاطفال لانها اللغة الوحيدة التي كان يفهمها العرب البدو والحافز الاساسي لكل حروبهم.
وهذه بعض جرائم السفاحيين العرب المذكورة في بعض المراجع التاريخية
الكامل في التاريخ ابن الأثير او البداية والنهاية لابن كثير وغيرها والتي تروي احداث الغزو على افريقيا لم تشر الى اي جهد للتبشير بالدين الجديد
كل الذي ذكر لا يخرج عن نطاق النهب و سبي النساء والاطفال والافتخار بالجرائم والابادة ولعل الجملة التي ذكرها ابن الاثير في وصف احدى غزوات السفاح عقبة ابن نافع للامازيغ اكبر دليل على جرائم عقبة حيث ذكر في كتاب الكامل في التاريخ ( وقتل المسلمون فيهم حتى ملّوا !!! يعني اصيب العرب الغزاة بالممل من كثرة القتل !!
كان عقبة سفاحا بجيمع المقاييس ولو كان في عصرنا هذا لكان مطلوبا في محكمة لاهاي بتهمة الابادة الجماعية لم تكن فكرة نشر الإسلام هدفاً أساسياً في السياسة فكان يغزو قبائل قد أعلنت إسلامها مسبقاً
في كتاب فتوح افريقية و الأندلس يقول أبي عبد الحكم
قدم عقبة ودان ففتحها , و أخذ ملكهم فجذع أذنه , فقال :
لم فعلت بي هذا و قد عاهدتني ؟ .
فقال له عقبة :
فعلت هذا بك أدباً لك , و إذا مسست أذنك ذكرته , فلم تحارب العرب .
وبغضّ النظر على همجية عقبة في التعامل حتى مع من قبلوا بالاسلام الا اني اتوقف عند ما قاله عقبة لملك ودان حيث انه لم يقل (فلم تحارب المسلمين) بل ركز على كلمة عرب وهذا يدل على ان الغزوات الاسلامية كانت لتمكين العرب من السيطرة على الشعوب الاخرى وهذا ما اتضح لاحقا عندما نصبوا حكاما عرب على جميع الشعوب التي احتلوها رغم اعتناقها الاسلام ودام هذا الوضع حتى بروز الدولة العثمانية التي قامت هي الاخرى بتنصيب الاتراك حكاما على جميع شعوب الخلافة العثمانية بما فيها الشعوب العربية.
وبعد مقتل عقبة على يد كسيلة فكان وريث جرم عقبة زهير بن قيس اللبوي الذي دخل شمال إفريقيا بدافع انتقامي مطالب بدم عقبة و الذي اختار زهيرا !! فكانت حملته حملة – تأديبية – و لم تكن استكمالاً لعملية فتح أو لغاية نشر الإسلام
فكان مفرطا في قتل الامازيغ
فبناء على أمر من موسى بن نصير قام أبناء عقبة قتلوا من الامازيغ 6000 رجل من كبارهم ثأرا لأبيهم , فأصبحت المسألة مسألة ثأر بعدما كانت مسألة استعمار وقتل ونهب وسبي
اما السبي والاستعباد فكانت جرائم العرب الغزاة وهوايتهم المفضلة التي جاءوا لاجلها فيذكر هنا ابن كثير : وكان موسى بن نصير هذا ذا رأي وتدبير وحزم و خبرة بالحرب، قال البغوي: ولي موسى ابن نصير إمرة بلاد إفريقية سنة تسع وسبعين فافتتح بلادا كثيرة جدا مدنا وأقاليم، وقد ذكرنا أنه افتتح بلاد الأندلس، وهي بلاد ذات مدن وقرى وريف، فسبى منها ومن غيرها خلقا كثيرا، وغنم أموالا كثيرةً جزيلةً، ومن الذهب والجواهر النفيسة شيئا لا يحصى ولا يعد، وأما الآلات والمتاع والدواب فشيء لا يدرى ما هو وسبى من الغلمان الحسان والنساء الحسان شيئا كثيرا، حتى قيل أنه لم يسلب أحد مثله من الأعداء !!
كيف سنصف جرائم سبي النساء و الااطفال وبيعهم واهدائهم الى الاقارب والمقربين وهنا يذكر ابن كثير مرة اخرى عن موسى ان نصير :

إنه بعث ابنه مروان على جيش فأصاب من السبي مائة ألف رأس(وكانهم غنم يحسبون بالرأس) وبعث ابن أخيه في جيش فأصاب من السبي مائة ألف رأس أيضا من البربر ، فلما جاء كتابه إلى الوليد وذكر فيه أن خمس الغنائم أربعون ألف رأس قال الناس: إن هذا أحمق، من أين له أربعون ألف رأس خمس الغنائم؟ فبلغه ذلك فأرسل أربعين ألف رأس وهي خمس ما غنم، ولم يسمع في الإسلام بمثل سبايا موسى بن نصير أمير المغرب.
1000 الف هو عدد ما غنم به موسى بن النصير ولنا ان نتخيل كم عدد ما غنم به كل مرتزقة من مرتزقة جيشه !!
هذه فقط بعض ما ذكر في بعض الكتب والمراجع وليس كلها وهنا علينا ان نتخيل الكارثة التي حلت على شعوب الامازيغ بقدوم العرب الغزاة من قتل و نهب لخيراتهم وابادتهم و سبي و بيع اطفالهم في اسواق النخاسة لتلبية الرغبات الجنسية لاصحابها
لا تختلف جرائم العرب الغزاة عن جرائم ألمانيا النازية او جرائم الاوروبيين ضد الهنود الحمر او جرائم العبودية ضد الافارقة السود بل في بعض الجوانب قد تفوقها كلها.
الفرق الوحيد الذي يميز جرائم الغزو العربي الاسلامي وهذه الجرائم التي ذكرتها هي ان جرائم العرب الغزاة مازالت تمجّد و تمدح حتى بعد مرور اكثر من ثلاثة عشر قرن فهذا مسجد عقبة و هذه كتب تتحدث عن بطولات موسى بن نصير و هذه كتب مدرسية تملق وتزين هذا التاريخ الاسود بعناوين جميلة على شاكلة الفتوحات الاسلامية العظيمة و وصف عقبة او بالشهيد او المجاهد العظيم فاتح بلاد المغرب!!
والسؤال هل توقف الغزو العربي ام ان النزعة الاستعمارية مازالت قائمة ومازلت ؟!
لا اعتقد لان مقاومة حركة او مطلب امازيغي مازال قائم حتى الان وفي بعض الاحيان يستعمل قمع الشرطة والجيش لاخماد اي ثورة للمطالبة بالهوية الامازيغية
لان احفاد عقبة و موسى بن نصير يعتقدون انهم ورثة هذه الارض التي تركها لهم اجدادهم السفاحين وعليهم اكمال المسيرة.
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
we all know about the Mongol's invasion of the middle east and the destruction of persia and baghdad. but what they do not teach at schools, is why genghis khan's army invaded. the story in the history books is as if one day the arabs and the muslims woke up to find genghis khan on their borders attacking.

it is not so. genghis khan sent merchants with gifts and goods to trade in a big caravan of 500 people. the merchants were all beheaded by the governor of otrar, and the goods were stolen and sold in the local market.

genghis khan then sent an ambassador to sultan muhammed to present a complaint and have the governor punished, but the sultan responded by beheading the ambassador and sending his head back in a bag to genghis khan. genghis khan at this point vowed to destroy that nation and to exterminate its people.


Inalchuq (or Inalchuk) (died 1219) was governor of Otrar in the Khwarezmian Empire in the early 13th century, known mainly for helping to provoke the successful and catastrophic invasion of Khwarezmia by Genghis Khan.

Inalchuq was an uncle of Sultan Muhammad II of Khwarezmia. His name meant "little Inal" in his native Turkic, and he held the title Ghayir-Khan.[1]

In 1218, a Mongolian trade caravan of around 450 men arrived in Otrar, including an ambassador of Genghis Khan. Inalchuq accused them of being Mongolian spies and arrested them.[2] There may in fact have been spies in the caravan;[1] however Inalchuq may have also been provoked by having been called Inalchuq rather than the less familiar Ghayir-Khan by one of the members of the caravan,[1] or perhaps was motivated by simply wanting to seize the caravan's riches.[2] With the assent of Sultan Muhammed, he executed the entire caravan, and its goods were sold in Bukhara.[2] A camel driver escaped this massacre to report back to Genghis Khan, who responded by sending a delegation of two Mongol and one Muslim diplomats to Sultan Muhammad demanding Inalchuq be punished. Muhammad responded by beheading the Muslim ambassador and shaving off the beards of his two Mongol companions, provoking Genghis Khan's retaliatory invasion.[2]

Genghis Khan besieged Otrar for five months in 1219, eventually breaching its walls. Inalchuq barricaded himself in its inner citadel, and as the Mongols wished to capture him alive in order to publicly execute him, he managed to hold out another month. Eventually he was trapped with his last remaining bodyguards on the upper floors of the citadel, resorting to throwing bricks down on the Mongols, was captured, and executed by means of having molten silver poured into his eyes and ears, though the method of execution might be apocryphal.[3]

The Khorasan campaign[edit]
As the Mongols battered their way into Urgench, Genghis dispatched his youngest son Tolui, at the head of an army, into the western Khwarezmid province of Khorasan. Khorasan had already felt the strength of Mongol arms. Earlier in the war, the generals Jebe and Subutai had travelled through the province while hunting down the fleeing Shah. However, the region was far from subjugated, many major cities remained free of Mongol rule, and the region was rife with rebellion against the few Mongol forces present in the region, following rumors that the Shah's son Jalal al-Din was gathering an army to fight the Mongols. Tolui's army consisted of somewhere around 50,000 men, which was composed of a core of Mongol soldiers (some estimates place it at 7,000[21]), supplemented by a large body of foreign soldiers, such as Turks and previously conquered peoples in China and Mongolia. The army also included "3,000 machines flinging heavy incendiary arrows, 300 catapults, 700 mangonels to discharge pots filled with naphtha, 4,000 storming-ladders, and 2,500 sacks of earth for filling up moats."[7] Among the first cities to fall was Termez then Balkh. The major city to fall to Tolui's army was the city of Merv. Juvayni wrote of Merv: "In extent of territory it excelled among the lands of Khorasan, and the bird of peace and security flew over its confines. The number of its chief men rivaled the drops of April rain, and its earth contended with the heavens."[21]

The garrison at Merv was only about 12,000 men, and the city was inundated with refugees from eastern Khwarezmia. For six days, Tolui besieged the city, and on the seventh day, he assaulted the city. However, the garrison beat back the assault and launched their own counter-attack against the Mongols. The garrison force was similarly forced back into the city. The next day, the city's governor surrendered the city on Tolui's promise that the lives of the citizens would be spared. As soon as the city was handed over, however, Tolui slaughtered almost every person who surrendered, in a massacre possibly on a greater scale than that at Urgench. After finishing off Merv, Tolui headed westwards, attacking the cities of Nishapur and Herat.[22] Nishapur fell after only three days; here, Tokuchar, a son-in-law of Genghis was killed in battle, and Tolui put to the sword every living thing in city, including the cats and dogs, with Tokuchar's widow presiding over the slaughter.[21] After Nishapur's fall, Herat surrendered without a fight and was spared. Bamian in the Hindukush was another scene of carnage during the 1221 siege of Bamiyan, here stiff resistance resulted in the death of a grandson of Genghis. Next were the cities of Toos and Mashad. By spring 1221, the province of Khurasan was under complete Mongol rule. Leaving garrison forces behind him, Tolui headed back east to rejoin his father.[citation needed]

The final campaign and aftermath[edit]
After the Mongol campaign in Khurasan, the Shah's army was broken. Jalal al-Din, who took power after his father's death, began assembling the remnants of the Khwarezmid army in the south, in the area of Afghanistan. Genghis had dispatched forces to hunt down the gathering army under Jalal al-Din, and the two sides met in the spring of 1221 at the town of Parwan. The engagement was a humiliating defeat for the Mongol forces. Enraged, Genghis headed south himself, and defeated Jalal al-Din on the Indus River. Jalal al-Din, defeated, fled to India. Genghis spent some time on the southern shore of the Indus searching for the new Shah, but failed to find him. The Khan returned northwards, content to leave the Shah in India.

After the remaining centers of resistance were destroyed, Genghis returned to Mongolia, leaving Mongolian garrison troops behind. The destruction and absorption of the Khwarezmid Empire would prove to be a sign of things to come for the Islamic world, as well as Eastern Europe.[16] The new territory proved to be an important stepping stone for Mongol armies under the reign of Genghis' son Ögedei to invade Kievan Rus' and Poland, and future campaigns brought Mongol arms to Hungary and the Baltic Sea. For the Islamic world, the destruction of Khwarezmid left Iraq, Turkey and Syria wide open. All three were eventually subjugated by future Khans.

The war with Khwarezmia also brought up the important question of succession. Genghis was not young when the war began, and he had four sons, all of whom were fierce warriors and each with their own loyal followers. Such sibling rivalry almost came to a head during the siege of Urgench, and Genghis was forced to rely on his third son, Ögedei, to finish the battle. Following the destruction of Urgench, Genghis officially selected Ögedei to be successor, as well as establishing that future Khans would come from direct descendants of previous rulers. Despite this establishment, the four sons would eventually come to blows, and those blows showed the instability of the Khanate that Genghis had created.

Jochi never forgave his father, and essentially withdrew from further Mongol wars, into the north, where he refused to come to his father when he was ordered to.[20] Indeed, at the time of his death, the Khan was contemplating a march on his rebellious son. The bitterness that came from this transmitted to his sons, and especially grandsons, Batu and Berke Khan, (of the Golden Horde) who would conquer Kievan Rus.[10] When the Mamluks of Egypt managed to inflict one of history's more significant defeats on the Mongols at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260, Hulegu Khan, one of Genghis Khan's grandsons by his son Tolui, who had sacked Baghdad in 1258, was unable to avenge that defeat when Berke Khan, his cousin, (who had converted to Islam) attacked him in the Transcaucasus to aid the cause of Islam, and Mongol battled Mongol for the first time. The seeds of that battle began in the war with Khwarezmia when their fathers struggled for supremacy.[16]
 

rita Y. boulos

New Member
man , you should make it more alive, like : do you think that having no real history for america helped this country to integrate in business beside the ethnicity prbs that affected it ! what do you think ,
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
man , you should make it more alive, like : do you think that having no real history for america helped this country to integrate in business beside the ethnicity prbs that affected it ! what do you think ,
the americans are very objective about their history and do not live in denial. on our side of the world people falsify ancient history and continue to live in continuous denial. they continuously attempt to play the roles of the victims and blaim others for the miseries they themselves have inflicted on the world and on themselves. for 600 years they incessantly and relentlessly attacked the Christian world, they reached few km away from paris, they raided rome several times, occupied italian cities for hundreds of years, sicily for more than 500 years, attacked and destroyed all of northern africa which was a beacon for civilization, and yet when the europeans finally started defending themselves and began to react, we still have not heard the end of it for the last 900 years, despite that the ottomans themselves restarted the conquests and went all the way up to vienna, and the pirate fleets under the name of islam were hammering the atlantic and extorting more than 20% of the american budget every single year in ransoms.

if they do not recognize their past nothing will change and the same people will continue doing the same things all while being in complete denial about what happened in the past. the world also should know and should realize what awaits at the end of this tunnel.

so from this perspective you really think that yours is the appropriate question to ask?
 

rita Y. boulos

New Member
the americans are very objective about their history and do not live in denial. on our side of the world people falsify ancient history and continue to live in continuous denial. they continuously attempt to play the roles of the victims and blaim others for the miseries they themselves have inflicted on the world and on themselves. for 600 years they incessantly and relentlessly attacked the Christian world, they reached few km away from paris, they raided rome several times, occupied italian cities for hundreds of years, sicily for more than 500 years, attacked and destroyed all of northern africa which was a beacon for civilization, and yet when the europeans finally started defending themselves and began to react, we still have not heard the end of it for the last 900 years, despite that the ottomans themselves restarted the conquests and went all the way up to vienna, and the pirate fleets under the name of islam were hammering the atlantic and extorting more than 20% of the american budget every single year in ransoms.

if they do not recognize their past nothing will change and the same people will continue doing the same things all while being in complete denial about what happened in the past. the world also should know and should realize what awaits at the end of this tunnel.

so from this perspective you really think that yours is the appropriate question to ask?
yes sure,

I dont think they are doing all this , since the theory of victimization means someone who doesnt know what happening and be the victim of others . all our people are victims in this case, they dont falsify anything , they just dont know , and arent really aware of whats happening , philosophy , is a tool , its science having scienific basics Dark,

they dont live denial because they dont know , to deny you should know first , unless ur talking about people whom were a combatant on the front lines , that would be another story ,

about america , i didnt critize , i ve said because they dont have a bloody history , they could manage to create a quicker future,

no offense ,
 

rita Y. boulos

New Member
متل كانك حطيت لواحد بككبايتو مخدرات وشربها ومفكرها عصير وتضغط عليه بعد ذلك انو يعترف بحششش نتيجة ترككيبة ملف هيدا اكتر من ضحية ، هيدا سببولو بمصيبة ،

اذا متكل اسكت بهيك جواب، مغلط بالشخص
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
yes sure,

I dont think they are doing all this , since the theory of victimization means someone who doesnt know what happening and be the victim of others . all our people are victims in this case, they dont falsify anything , they just dont know , and arent really aware of whats happening , philosophy , is a tool , its science having scienific basics Dark,

they dont live denial because they dont know , to deny you should know first , unless ur talking about people whom were a combatant on the front lines , that would be another story ,

about america , i didnt critize , i ve said because they dont have a bloody history , they could manage to create a quicker future,

no offense ,

you can criticize all you want. the point is not what people know, it is what they officially record and teach. i do not expect the average westerner to know everything about his or her own history, but i expect that he if he intends to learn he could walk into a library and learn history objectively from the works scholars and historians.

it is precisely the scholars and the historians in the arabic world who falsify history, the books that are being taught in schools and used as references are intentionally changing and omitting facts on purpose.

when these facts are brought up, they react pretty much the same way you are reacting right now, in all directions, it seems to be a genetic reaction of sorts.
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
متل كانك حطيت لواحد بككبايتو مخدرات وشربها ومفكرها عصير وتضغط عليه بعد ذلك انو يعترف بحششش نتيجة ترككيبة ملف هيدا اكتر من ضحية ، هيدا سببولو بمصيبة ،

اذا متكل اسكت بهيك جواب، مغلط بالشخص

with all due respect, i could care less isa sakatte aw la2.
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
well i know that, just exposing it
honestly, why do you this to yourselves?
would you feel better if i tell you something of this sort:
the only thing you have exposed is that you can react hysterically to a general topic that has nothing to do with you personally.
??

if you think the material i am publishing is not factual and is historically wrong point it out. if not, and although i know the answer to the question, i'll ask it anyway, what exactly is your problem?
 
Top