• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Why Arabs Lose Wars

I don't know if anyone has ever read this book or not, but considering the subject, I'd highly recommend it after leafing through a copy:

Arabs At War: Military Effectiveness, 1948â “1991
by Kenneth Pollack

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0803287836/qid=1099324273/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8289334-4384133?v=glance&s=books
 
The Egyptians were actually African not "christian", however after the Islamic conquest Arabia began exporting massive numbers of people, Arab people.
The Coptic point is only partially true, there was a coptic church in Egypt was one of the oldest around(churches in Arabia stretched right back to Jesus himself, as did the coptics) but the great majority of Christians in egypt were under the rule of byzantine lineage where the Coptics were unto themselves.

Quite right the majority of the Islamic world is not Arab, the Majority of the Arab world is however Muslim and all Arabs are..Arab.
I wouldn'y jump to the Bin Laden, Umayyid comparison either.

Bin Laden is attacking a western world which has bestowed a great many liberties and freedoms upon its citizens.
However the Umayyid conquest of North Africa and Andalusia (Modern Spain) was against a much less benevolent empire.
The Muslim political system bestowed more rights on Christians and Jews than they had ever had under Byzantine rule, charged lower taxes and tributes and protected the indigenous population much more than the previous rulers have. Contemporary sources at the time will verify that the majority of Egyptians were welcoming of the Muslim Caliph in place of any previous empire as with Spain. Do I deny that there were exceptions? Of course not, I would be glad to point you to examples of Big bad Muslim conquerors as well, but you'll find the population of North Africa and Andalusia were warm towards the Caliph (While most Arabia at the time actually wasn't, which is partly why they left Syria.
In Spain it was a very similar situation to North Africa.
IE The indigenous population found themselves under better rule than they had under the previous empire (though it would pale in comparison to todays standards yes yes yes)

But you're right about the assumption that the majority of the Islamic world is Arab when it is in fact a majority south-east Asian.
But Arabs are traditionally quite divided and are often too hot headed to see themselves as brothers, Islam went along way to improve and unite that, but it still exists very much today. Combine this tribal family first attitude with ideas of nationalism and war, you find the present situation can be traced back to pre-Islamic Arabia.
 
The original Egyptians can be called African, as they rose in that continent. However, the majority of today's Egyptians are more Arab than Maghreb Arabs or Sudanese. It is generally accepted that Arabs are the majority in North Africa, the Levant and Iraq, as well as the Arabian Peninsula.

The core of Islam may be benevolent, however its implementation wasn't always so. This is especially true in Africa, where the people were generally a commodity for trade by Arab slavers.

Acorn
 
Don't forget folks that the slavery was practiced here in North AMerica up until the 1860s so before we condemn Arab slavers we ourselves have a lot to atone for.
 
QUOTE,
Don't forget folks that the slavery was practiced here in North AMerica up until the 1860s so before we condemn Arab slavers we ourselves have a lot to atone for.

I hate this way of thinking, its sad, I will repeat it as often as I need too....I have never had a slave, my kids have never had a slave, my parents have never had a slave.....I need not atone for slavery!
 
Nor have I Bruce, but my point is we point fingers at the Arabs yet forget we have done some nasty things as well.
 
Slavery was banned in Canada at the same time as the rest of the British Empire, long before the 1860s. Dodgy moral equivalency anyway.

Acorn
 
Was referring to North America not just Canada and the British Empire.   ::)

We had slaves and  so did the Arabs either way its wrong, but you can't point at one aspect of the slave trade without taking responsibility as well. Geez that should have been fairly obvious folks.
 
Acorn is right, dodgy moral equivalence.

Just as we cannot rest on our laurels, we cannot continue to be culpable for the misdeeds of centuries ago.  Here and now is what is important.
 
No whats done in the past is done but S_Baker brought up the ALgerian slave markets (which were closed by the French in the 1830s), so I felt the slave trade here in North America was a fair comparison.
 
Oh, Ok.

I thought we were referring to the current African Slave Trade.
 
I am of the "what's done is done" school and put those fingers of blame away.  Every culture, every nation, every race, on every continent  - without exception - has been turned into slaves and has kept slaves. 

Old habits die hard in some places - but die they must and die they will.

 
Precisely, and I question why the Major felt it neccessary to bring it up other than as a cute little historical anecdote to move peoples focus from the bigger picture.
 
Actually it's mAlik,
Meem, Alif Lam Kaaf, Meaning: Provider and owner.
Malik without the Alif is King.

I am familiar with the slavery that occurred during the Muslim Imperial days. I wouldn't say slavery is good, however relative to the slavery most of us are familiar with and relative to the slavery that was occuring at the time, it was different and notable in the sense that slaves were more a part of the family and had the opportunity to move up in the society (Re:Mamluks, also from the same root as Malik)

And yes Major I am very much a Western Muslim and make no attempt to hide it. However you brought up an historical anecdote about Slavery (which was common occurence everywhere at the time) which was designed to detract from the larger picture that is the Muslim empire RELATIVE to the byzantines or any other empire at the time was leaps and bounds ahead of them in terms of treatment of their subjects etc.
You brought up the Jizyah or pole tax. The Jizyah, although was only for non-Muslims, was not given to anyone who could not afford it AND was a damn sight lower than anything that had been previously imposed.

IF we're going to compare these empires to the enlightened states of today then yes we're going to be disgusted.
 
By the way Maj you have to get online more often this is the most drawn out debate yet!
 
I do think it is silly to say that slaves were like part of the family...that is just wrong.  How about freedom of choice

Fair enough, one last thing though.

Mawali--->Clients.
Arab tribes would Absorb slaves as Mawali or "Clients" and the clients would eventually be freed of their slave status, allowed to own land and enter marriage etc.

Of course they didn't have freedom of choice, but once again...relative to the other forms of slavery (chattle etc.) Most slaves were taken in times of war as prisoner and then adopted, I can point you at the texts if you like. The slave "market" developed a little later on, and of course went on to produce the modern conept of chattle slavery.
Of course if we're going to go through history with a fine tooth comb and say how much better it would have been if these people hadn't enslaved these or this war hadn't been fought over this stupid reason I could do that all night because there's a plethora of examples.

Anyhow, yeah this has nothing to do with why Arabs lose wars.
PM me with more before we make this thread hurt more peoples head.
 
I'd be one to continue this [Arab culture and history] discussion, but understand that it's drifted somewhat off the plot for the topic.

Perhaps a new subject under Political or Off Topic min fadlak?

Ma issalame,

Acorn
 
Why Arabs lose wars?
Too much waving shoes around in crowds and screaming Allah Akbar and too little sophisticated planning, intelligence and tactics. Funny bunch those Arabs though. Thirteenth century mentality + twentieth century Eastern European technology (AK series rifles) + no regard for human life and radicalism = self-erradication.
 
Back
Top