Stop talking nonsense. Arabs didn’t defeat the crusaders or mongols. The crusaders were fought by kilij arsalan, nizam ul mulk who were Seljuks (Turkish / Iranian). Nuruddin Zengi, immamuddin shirukh, and salahuddin ayubi were Turkish / Kurdish who fought and defeated the Crusaders. The Fatmids in Egypt were also Berbers from North Africa. The Mamluks who defeated the mongols in ain jalut saifuddin qutuz and Baibars were from the caucuses ie Chechnya / Central Asia. The ones who conquered and fought against the Christians in Al-Andalus ; Tariq Ben Ziyad was a Berber amazigh. The Almohads, Al Murabitun, the Marinids, the Zirids were Berbers. Yusuf ibn tashfin was Berber who defeated the Christian forces in Sagrajas. Mansa Musa who spread and promoted Islam in sub Saharan Africa was a black African. The buyids, samanids etc who spread and defended Islam in Central Asia Pakistan etc were Persians.
Arabs by which I mean khaleeji Arabs from the Arabian peninsula have been impotent and a non factor ever since the Abasdid khalifat collapsed to just Baghdad around 900 ad and the collapse of ummayad rule in Cordoba around the same time. Since then the vanguards of Islam have been Berbers, Africans, Turks, Persians, Indonesians , south asians etc So much so that biggest and wealthiest Muslim powers around 1700 were the ottomans, Safavids, Mughals, Bengal sultanate, and Malay/ Indonesian sultanates, and central Asian Muslim khanates.
It is only recently maybe the last 40-50 years thanks to oil and gas that khaleej Arabs have gained wealth and prominence. Prior to that the centre of the Arabic speaking world was in Cairo, Damascus,, Baghdad who btw are not Arabs but are arabized. The Maghrebis - Libyans, Tunisians, Algerians, etc are also arabized Berbers and culturally different from khakeej Arabs.
What an ignorant post from a Bangladeshi of all people. I suggest you stick to your own local matters that you might have more of a clue about as your clearly have no clues about events in the Arab world.
Mamluks were literal slaves and mercenaries imported by Arabs and employed by Arabs from conquered territories. Look up the meaning of the word in Arabic.
Seljuks were Turkic Central Asian Mamluks with nothing to do with Iranians or Anatolians.
Most if not half of their armies were composed of Arabs.
Mamluks in Egypt later became completely Arabized.
More ignorant nonsense from the troll.
Fatimids were an Arab dynasty of Hijazi origins.
en.wikipedia.org
Nothing Berber about them at all and besides of that Arabs and Berbers are closely related peoples.
Rest of your nonsense is just that.
Arabs from Arabia (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimids) were the largest, most powerful and influential Islamic Caliphates that ruled most of the Islamic world from 620’s until 1258. Formally 1517 in Cairo.
Most of the Muslim dynasties in Al-Andalusia were Arab, including the last one in Granada. The Nasrids.
en.wikipedia.org
Tariq Ibn Zayid was an Arab as was his name and it were the Arabs who conquered all of North Africa and Iberia, not Berbers, who were the conquered people. Later Arabs and Berbers began intermarrying greatly and an Arab-Berber fusion emerged. No people, you Bangladeshis included, are “pure”.
Half of the others you mention were Arab as well. Even Saladin had Arab ancestry (partial) and was fully Arabized and most of his soldiers were local Arabs.
South East Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, South Philippines) became Muslim due to Arabian merchants, Sufis, settlers and rulers due to ancient trade ties. To this day there are millions of Indonesians of Arab (mainly Hijazi and Yemeni) origins. Arabs founded Singapore as well for instance.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
The sultan of Brunei and his dynasty is of Arab origins for instance as are many other past dynasties in South East Asia.
Arabs also spread Islam all across the Muslim world, Africa, South Asia, Caucasus and Central Asia included.
There is an entire community in Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan Moors and other communities in South India who claim partial descent to those early and later Arabs.
More nonsense. Baghdad was founded by the Arab Abbasid dynasty and Iraqi Arabs are closely related to Saudi Arabian next door which every modern day DNA test confirms. Not only that, Arabs have a recorded presence in Mesopotamia dating back 3000 years and Arabs are believed to have originated in the Fertile Crecent where they were first recorded by name.
Arabia became Arabized as well, Yemen included. Means nothing. All pre-Islamic peoples in the Arab world are and were closely related which all modern day DNA tests confirm as well as history itself.
Most Maghrebis are Arab in origin, culture and language. Confirmed by DNA tests as well. Although most are mixed with Berbers, who as I already wrote, are closely related to us and part of the same language family as well.
In fact all Arabs in every Arab country (the cradle of civilisation home to the world's oldest civilisations and culture), are a mixture of Arabs and native Semitic (mostly) and non-Semitic peoples, and non- natives (due to migration and settlement), which creates the incredibly rich Arab mosaic and civilisation which is why talk about Arabs as a single monolith makes no sense, because there are numerous Arabs in every Arab country. In KSA alone there are numerous distinctive Arab subcultures and subgroups depending on the historical region.
, just to please Netanyahu.
