|
Post by Wadaad on May 15, 2005 11:52:51 GMT -5
From what I read, Nubia has even more pyramids than Egypt
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 15, 2005 12:02:50 GMT -5
Yes, but I think you can be brought to condivide it. Nope, I don't think so. But the irony is that SSA did produce all of the above. Your lack of knowledge brought you to an untrue conclusion. I don't buy the relativist " if it doesn't compare to Europe, India or China or whatever is deemed the standard" it isn't relevant. You haven't read anyone of the above yet you're already challenging if they relevant or not.
|
|
Baladi
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by Baladi on May 15, 2005 12:03:52 GMT -5
I never said there were no Egyptians in al-Qahria,or Al-Fustat,but that most were lower classes. The Egyptians living in al-Qahria were allowed to do what they wanted and praticed many unorthodox.
Name me a prominent Islamic scholar from al-Qahria that was Egyptian? Ibn Khaldun,al-Maqrizi,and others were all foreign Arabs that recorded the history of Cairo. None were indoigenous Egyptians.
The only non-Arab to ever contribute anything to the intellectual life of Medieval Egypt Dhul'l al-Nun 'Masri that came from modern day Akhmin. We know he was a non-Arab because he was called Mawali in literature.
Who says the ancient Egyptian culture was polytheistic? Also the early Copts not only destoyed temples but they confiscated land from many people in parts of Upper Egypt. The destruction was sanctioned by the Romans.
Many of the early Coptics definately forced people into Christianity as did the Islamic caliphates into Islam. One odd thing about the Monastic Copts is that many older traditions from the ancient Egyptians continued with them despite their harsh regine.
You can read how destrustive the Copts were and killed the priests. Evey secular historianj knows this.
Let me also state that Christianity in Egypt was very slow reaching the rural populations of Upper Egypt. Most of the early converts to Christianity in Egypt were either Greeks or Jews around Alexandria. Contrary to the belief of historians, rural Egyptians never accepted Christianity. This religion was forced on them by maniacs like St. Shenute.
Christians and Muslims in modern Egypt in Upper Egypt live in perfect peace. You had a few incidents with Gam'a Islamiyya. A few incidents with Islamic millitants that were primarily motivated by stopping American secular influence into modern Egypt. What you don't mention is that in rural Egypt Coptics visit Muslims Mawlids and Muslims visit Coptic mawlids. This is fairly widespread.
People dislike Christians because they associate them with the West. It's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 15, 2005 12:06:51 GMT -5
I never said there were no Egyptians in al-Qahria,or Al-Fustat,but that most were lower classes. The Egyptians living in al-Qahria were allowed to do what they wanted and praticed many unorthodox. Name me a prominent Islamic scholar from al-Qahria that was Egyptian? Ibn Khaldun,al-Maqrizi,and others were all foreign Arabs that recorded the history of Cairo. None were indoigenous Egyptians. The only non-Arab to ever contribute anything to the intellectual life of Medieval Egypt Dhul'l al-Nun 'Masri that came from modern day Akhmin. We know he was a non-Arab because he was called Mawali in literature. But are those real Arabs from Arabia or just Arabized Egyptians?
|
|
|
Post by Wadaad on May 15, 2005 12:09:04 GMT -5
Ibn Khaldun was born in Tunis, but his family were upper class Yemenite Arabs
|
|
Baladi
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by Baladi on May 15, 2005 12:12:58 GMT -5
Depending what time period in Medieval Egyptian history they could have been awhole assortment of people:Syrian Christians,Armenians,Arab tribes,Coptis,Upper Egyptians,Kurds,Moroccan Berbers,Sudanese...etc
It was not just Arabs living in large numbers in areas like al-Qahria. Other groups as well. Not one Arabic scholar from around this time has been identified as a native Egyptians.
You know Western Africans from Mali used to migrated to al-Ahzar and this tradition continued untill about the 19th century. Many Western Africans came to Magrebian insitutions of learning also. Al-Ahzar had its own section for Western African pilgrims.
Cairo was a major hajji route for many different people.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 15, 2005 12:15:05 GMT -5
You know Western Africans from Mali used to migrated to al-Ahzar and this tradition continued untill about the 19th century. Many Western Africans came to Magrebian insitutions of learning also. Al-Ahzar had its own section for Western African pilgrims. Cairo was a major hajji route for many different people. That is true. Mansa Musa made a pilgrimage to Mecca and he brought so much gold to Egypt he upset the currency there.
|
|
Baladi
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by Baladi on May 15, 2005 12:17:07 GMT -5
Ibn Khaldun also spent time in Cairo. As did the Jewish intellectual Moses Maimonides. This is why I mentioned his name.
I am still waiting for somebody to name me a prominent native Egyptian scholar besides Dhul'l al-Nun Masri who came from Akhmin.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 15, 2005 12:19:36 GMT -5
Come on, Alex, that is really not fair or even backable. Saying Nubia was a crappy civilization is like saying Egypt was a crappy civilization. Both of them had very much in common and mutually influenced each other, through both trade and conquest. The close relationship of Egypt and the Sudan continued well into the 20th century as the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Sudan could have very well decided to remain a part of the country of Egypt, right? I mean, if you're willing to recognize that Egypt and Syria were a country once, then why not lend the same the same affection to the Sudan? And the Badarians of Upper Egypt came from Nubia, did they not? I'm sorry, Alex, but I would never write off the Nubian civilization simply because it wasn't as grand as that of Egypt. It's still way too important. Who cares if their pyramids weren't as big as those of Egypt? Saying Egypt and Sudan were one country is like saying Egypt and Great Britain were one country. It simply wasn't true. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan simply meant that all the power over Sudan was going on in Cairo and that the khedive or king of Egypt was in charge and the strings were being pulled by his British masters. What do you mean they could've been the same country?
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 15, 2005 12:23:08 GMT -5
Saying Egypt and Sudan were one country is like saying Egypt and Great Britain were one country. It simply wasn't true. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan simply meant that all the power over Sudan was going on in Cairo and that the khedive or king of Egypt was in charge and the strings were being pulled by his British masters. What do you mean they could've been the same country? Part of Ancient Nubia lies in modern day upper Egypt, so yes, Nubia is a part of Egypt.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 15, 2005 12:38:43 GMT -5
Ibn Khaldun also spent time in Cairo. As did the Jewish intellectual Moses Maimonides. This is why I mentioned his name. I am still waiting for somebody to name me a prominent native Egyptian scholar besides Dhul'l al-Nun Masri who came from Akhmin. I don't know any Islamic scholars. I'm not a Muslim. I do know, however, from reading books about Cairo that the basis of the population of Cairo was always Egyptian. Arabians didn't stay in Egypt, they simply invaded it then went on to better things. WHat about the writer al-Marqizi? The historian al-Mas'udi?or writer Ibn Daniyal (a Christian, I do believe)? or the Islamist historian Ibn Taghribirdi? or the physician Ibn Ridwan? or the Christian physical Ibn Butlan? or the Jewish physician Yahuda Ibn Sa'ada? or scientists Ibn Haytham and Ammar ibn Ali? or historian Al-Hassan Ibn Zolaq?Most Fatimid sultan were eventually Egyptian anyway. All the above names were Egyptians. Also, during FAtimid rule, Copts rose to high positions. Because of the Fatimid's Shi'ite state, they felt a natural predilection towards minorities, and thus paid the position of the chief rabbi of the city but gave Christians prominent positions as wazirs and celebrated Christian holidays. The Druze of Lebanon, it is worthy to mention, are actually Muslim Cairenes who fled Cairo in the tenth century to escape religious persecution and ended up in the mountains of Lebanon. There were also native Jews in Egypt and for you to deny that is ridiculous.At the time of the Synod of Toulous in 1229, there wre 7,000 native Jews in al-Fustat alone. After that is when the influx of foreign Jews began since that marked the beginning of the INquisition. However, these foreign Jews were unliked and unwanted by the native Jews, since it made them pay a higher tax burden. The Jews of that period though became throoughly Egyptianized.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 15, 2005 12:39:45 GMT -5
Saying Egypt and Sudan were one country is like saying Egypt and Great Britain were one country. It simply wasn't true. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan simply meant that all the power over Sudan was going on in Cairo and that the khedive or king of Egypt was in charge and the strings were being pulled by his British masters. What do you mean they could've been the same country? What I mean is their histories were intertwined, Alex. Sudan had a choice either to become a part of Egypt or to be its own country. It obviously took the latter route because the Sudanese craved independence. But discussion of modern times really wasn't the objective of my statement. What I really wanted to get across is that I think it's insensitive, unfair, and ridiculously biased that you would call Nubia a crappy civilization. It was a great civilization. Did you read this article by PBS? It's very good.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 15, 2005 12:40:28 GMT -5
Part of Ancient Nubia lies in modern day upper Egypt, so yes, Nubia is a part of Egypt. A part of Nubia is a part of Egypt, but Sudan isn't. Mike the Birton was ridiculous when he said Sudan could have been a part of Egypt, that's like saying India could have been a part of Great Britain. There are great differences between Sudanese and Nubians in Egypt. Whereas Egyptians like Nubians and think of them as being very honest and trustworthy (hence the whole bawab thing), they view the Sudanese, especially Sudanese refugees, as freeloaders and zingi.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 15, 2005 12:42:41 GMT -5
A part of Nubia is a part of Egypt, but Sudan isn't. Mike the Birton was ridiculous when he said Sudan could have been a part of Egypt, that's like saying India could have been a part of Great Britain. There are great differences between Sudanese and Nubians in Egypt. Whereas Egyptians like Nubians and think of them as being very honest and trustworthy (hence the whole bawab thing), they view the Sudanese, especially Sudanese refugees, as freeloaders and zingi. Actually, no, it was a real possibility that Sudan could have joined Egypt as one country after the British left. The Sudanese just chose not to.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 15, 2005 12:42:45 GMT -5
What I mean is their histories were intertwined, Alex. Sudan had a choice either to become a part of Egypt or to be its own country. It obviously took the latter route because the Sudanese craved independence. But discussion of modern times really wasn't the objective of my statement. What I really wanted to get across is that I think it's insensitive, unfair, and ridiculously biased that you would call Nubia a crappy civilization. It was a great civilization. Did you read this article by PBS? It's very good. Mike, Sudan NEVER had the choice to be a part of Egypt. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was a colonial venture. The king of Egypt was overseer of Sudan on behalf of the British, thats how it worked. Also, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan lasted a hundered years, and again, was basically a master-subject relationship with egypt and Britain being joint masters over the subject of Sudan. Also, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was basically a late 19th-century to early 20th-century thing, it didn't even last a century. Do you think India had a chance to be a part of Great Britian? Of course not! It would have always remained a colony.
|
|