HISTORY Do you believe Spain would’ve been Muslim country if it’s was ruled by Arabs ?

[Tewahedo]

Yes ?
If the we have the evidence of the names of those people also their tribes then your claim is nothing but a lie .
Ain’ there a book of Islamic scientists their names and tribes ?

yeah I suppose all the arabs from al Andalus to Uzbekistan were pure hijazi bedouins while the local populations never got arabized and became clients of arab tribes nor played any role in Science. The genius of Arabs can only express itself outside their homeland subhanallah

 

[Garaad diinle]

The primary reason why al-andalus was lost was tribal conflict rebellions and the fact that there were no serious effort to convert the local spaniards. The division and the fact that muslims were cooperating and asking for help from the spaniords made it worse.

Northern spain were getting additional forces from europe but al-andalus weren't except if you count almoravids as reinforcement who were there to rule not to help and they were the only force that went to help the muslims in al-andalus. What is funny is that northern spain consisted of various kingdoms that weren't friendly with each other but they didn't cooaporate with muslim meanwhile the taifa were eager to work with the spaniords.

 

[The alchemist]

Iberians today got 0-12% North African DNA. If the Muslims kept dominance and the Reconquista never happened, perhaps you would have a range between 30% to 70% MENA DNA in the Iberian Peninsula.

 

[Tewahedo]

Iberians today got 0-12% North African DNA. If the Muslims kept dominance and the Reconquista never happened, perhaps you would have a range between 30% to 70% MENA DNA in the Iberian Peninsula.

South-east spaniards were already around 50% north african even prior the Muslim conquest :

In the southeast, we recovered genomic data from 45 individuals dated between the 3rd and 16th centuries CE. All analyzed individuals fell outside the genetic variation of preceding Iberian Iron Age populations (Fig. 1, C and D, and fig. S3) and harbored ancestry from both Southern European and North African populations (Fig. 2D), as well as additional Levantine-related ancestry that could potentially reflect ancestry from Jewish groups (21). These results demonstrate that by the Roman period, southern Iberia had experienced a major influx of North African ancestry, probably related to the well-known mobility patterns during the Roman Empire (22) or to the earlier Phoenician-Punic presence (23); the latter is also supported by the observation of the Phoenician-associated Y-chromosome J2 (24). Gene flow from North Africa continued into the Muslim period, as is clear from Muslim burials with elevated North African and sub-Saharan African ancestry (Fig. 2D, fig. S4, and table S22) and from uniparental markers typical of North Africa not present among pre-Islamic individuals (Fig. 2D and fig. S11). Present-day populations from southern Iberia harbor less North African ancestry (25) than the ancient Muslim burials, plausibly reflecting expulsion of moriscos (former Muslims converted to Christianity) and repopulation from the north, as supported by historical sources and genetic analysis of present-day groups (25). The impact of Muslim rule is also evident in northeast Iberia in seven individuals from Sant Julià de Ramis from the 8th to 12th centuries CE who, unlike previous ancient individuals from the same region, show North African–related ancestry (Fig. 2C and table S19) and a complete overlap in PCA with present-day Iberians (Fig. 1D).

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

 

[The alchemist]

South-east spaniards were already around 50% north african even prior the Muslim conquest :



View attachment 261739

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

True, there were sporadic influences from North Africa before the Muslims came, but we have to remember, the demographic pressure would have reduced the genetics from the Northern Iberians as you see with the current levels and geneflow events. We have evidence of North African genetic profiles in Iberia since the Calcholithic. They would not influence a great deal. Phonecian trading posts and cosmopolitan trade from the Iron Age (which likely got reduced before the Romans came because of demographic weakness) and Antiquity created a limited substructure in the southern fringes with decreased radiation northward. But you would still need a continuity of strong positive migration from North Africa to stabilize a 30-70% throughout the whole of the peninsula for generations even after if the expulsion never happened.

 

[Guure⁸]

Yes you know how the amazigh took over and ruled Spain until they lost it.
Would’ve been different if Arabs from Middle East ruled Spain rather then amazigh ?

Andalusia was ruled by both Arabs and amazighs and one of the reasons it fell is ethnic conflicts between the amazigh and the arabs

 

[Doctorabdi]

Andalusia was ruled by both Arabs and amazighs and one of the reasons it fell is ethnic conflicts between the amazigh and the arabs

It's simply because the ummyads had employed arab superiority, even though much of the bulk of the army invading spain was indeed of berber origin. They still looked down upon them as second class citizens, even when berbers indeed did convert they still forced to pay jizya to the arabs for example.

The Arabs never originally intended for berbers to convert, merely as a way to extract revenue. Coupled with the fact that berbers revolted and kicked out ummyad rulers and what not lead to these ethnic conflicts. They founded their own kingdoms and states, one of the first to do so of non arab origin.

The Almohads and Almoravids, pretty much stopped christian spain for making any more advances, without that pivtol role. Al Andalus would have likely stopped a few centuries earlier.

I'd say, the abbasids were much better in this regard as they were heavily influenced by persians culture and thought especially considering their geography. Although in the later years, they merely were figureheads for different turkic populations.

What is the most intriguing, is after the abbasids and later fatamids turkic populations and turks pretty much dominated the islamic world. Malmuks, for example being an earlier example. Seljuks, who defended the holy cities from the first crusades.

It was the century of turks pretty much, although muslims lost al andalus they gained anatolia and from then on much of the balkans until recent history.

 

[Guure⁸]

It's simply because the ummyads had employed arab superiority, even though much of the bulk of the army invading spain was indeed of berber origin. They still looked down upon them as second class citizens, even when berbers indeed did convert they still forced to pay jizya to the arabs for example.

The Arabs never originally intended for berbers to convert, merely as a way to extract revenue. Coupled with the fact that berbers revolted and kicked out ummyad rulers and what not lead to these ethnic conflicts. They founded their own kingdoms and states, one of the first to do so of non arab origin.

The Almohads and Almoravids, pretty much stopped christian spain for making any more advances, without that pivtol role. Al Andalus would have likely stopped a few centuries earlier.

I'd say, the abbasids were much better in this regard as they were heavily influenced by persians culture and thought especially considering their geography. Although in the later years, they merely were figureheads for different turkic populations.

What is the most intriguing, is after the abbasids and later fatamids turkic populations and turks pretty much dominated the islamic world. Malmuks, for example being an earlier example. Seljuks, who defended the holy cities from the first crusades.

It was the century of turks pretty much, although muslims lost al andalus they gained anatolia and from then on much of the balkans until recent history.

Yeah the ummayads were somehow racist