What's new

Samanid king Isma'il ibn Ahmad and the mass conversion of Turks to Islam

Charon 2

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
350
Reaction score
0
Country
Turkey
Location
Germany
Abu Ibrahim Ismail ibn Ahmad (Persian: ابو ابراهیم اسماعیل بن احمد سامانی‎, d. November 907),[2] better known as Isma'il ibn Ahmad, was the Samanid amir of Transoxiana (892-907) and Khorasan (900-907). His reign saw the emergence of the Samanids as a powerful force. He was the son ofAhmad ibn Asad and a descendant of Saman Khuda, the founder of the Samanid dynasty who renounced Zoroastrianism and embraced Islam.[3]

Gaining approval of the local population, Ismail was described as good natured devout Muslim, relying exclusively on Allah[4]in accordance with the Islamic principle of tawheed. During his brother Nasr's reign, Isma'il was sent to take control of Bukhara which had been devastated by looting on the part of forces from Khwarazm. The citizens of the city welcomed Isma'il, seeing him as someone who could bring stability.

Soon afterwards, a disagreement over where tax money should be distributed caused a falling out between Nasr and Isma'il. A struggle ensued, in which Isma'il proved victorious. Although he took effective control of the state, he did not formally overthrow his brother, instead remaining in Bukhara. He did so because Nasr had been the one whom the Caliph had given the formal investiture of Transoxiana to; in the caliph's eyes, Nasr was the only legitimimate ruler of the region. Furthermore, the Saffarids of Sistan had claims on Transoxiana; the overthrow of Nasr would have given the Saffarids a pretext for invading. Isma'il therefore continued to formally recognize Nasr as ruler until the latter's death in August 892, at which point he officially took power.


Isma'il was active to the north and east, steadily spreading Samanid influence as well as solidifying his control over other areas including Kirman, Sistan andKabul.[5] Ismail was successful in establishing economic and commercial development and organized a powerful army.[6] It was said that he made his capital Bukhara into one of Islam's most glorious cities,[7] as Ismail attracted scholars, artists, and doctors of law into the region.[8] The first translation of theQu'ran into Persian was completed during Samanid rule. Sunni theology greatly cultivated during Ismail's reign, as numerous mosques and madrassas were built.[9]

In 893, Ismail took the city of Talas, the capital of the Karluk Turks, taking large numbers of slaves and livestock. In addition, a Nestorian church was converted into a mosque.[10] He also brought an end to the Principality of Ushrusana, extendingSamanid control over the Syr Darya river.[11] Ismail and other Samanid rulers propagated Islam amongst the inhabitants and as many as 30,000 tents of Turks came to profess Islam. During his reign he subjugated numerous regional states to the east, directly incorporating some within his boundaries and retaining the local rulers of others as vassals. Khwarezm to the north was partitioned; the southern part remained autonomous under its Afrighid rulers, while the northern part was governed by a Samanid official. Another campaign in 903 further secured the Samanid boundaries. These campaigns kept the heart of his state safe from Turkish raids, and allowed Muslim missionaries to expand their activities in the region.


Isma'il ibn Ahmad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  1. The Samanids, R.N. Frye, The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol.4, ed. R. N. Frye, (Cambridge University Press, 1999), 138.
 
.
In 893, Ismail took the city of Talas, the capital of the Karluk Turks, taking large numbers of slaves and livestock. In addition, a Nestorian church was converted into a mosque.[10] He also brought an end to the Principality of Ushrusana, extendingSamanid control over the Syr Darya river.[11] Ismail and other Samanid rulers propagated Islam amongst the inhabitants and as many as 30,000 tents of Turks came to profess Islam. During his reign he subjugated numerous regional states to the east, directly incorporating some within his boundaries and retaining the local rulers of others as vassals. Khwarezm to the north was partitioned; the southern part remained autonomous under its Afrighid rulers, while the northern part was governed by a Samanid official. Another campaign in 903 further secured the Samanid boundaries. These campaigns kept the heart of his state safe from Turkish raids, and allowed Muslim missionaries to expand their activities in the region.

If you want to see how it must have been during this period, visit the present day Yazidis in Iraq. I am sure it must have been a peaceful acceptance of the religion -- just like Yazidis are accepting right now!!!

Similarly, future generations will venerate ISIS people as liberators and peaceful propagators of Islam -- just as this person Ismail is described in OP!

:tup:
 
.
If you want to see how it must have been during this period, visit the present day Yazidis in Iraq. I am sure it must have been a peaceful acceptance of the religion -- just like Yazidis are accepting right now!!!

Similarly, future generations will venerate ISIS people as liberators and peaceful propagators of Islam -- just as this person Ismail is described in OP!

:tup:

How does it correlate? Let me guess because you said so? Re-writing history based on hypothetical's is butt hurt hindu historiography at its finest don't expect the rest of the world to play your games.
 
.
How does it correlate? Let me guess because you said so? Re-writing history based on hypothetical's is butt hurt hindu historiography at its finest don't expect the rest of the world to play your games.


The OP itself says so!!! Read it again!

Here it is:

"In 893, Ismail took the city of Talas, the capital of the Karluk Turks, taking large numbers of slaves and livestock. In addition, a Nestorian church was converted into a mosque.[10] He also brought an end to the Principality of Ushrusana, extendingSamanid control over the Syr Darya river.[11]Ismail and other Samanid rulers propagated Islam amongst the inhabitants and as many as 30,000 tents of Turks came to profess Islam."

How does it correlate? Let me guess because you said so? Re-writing history based on hypothetical's is butt hurt hindu historiography at its finest don't expect the rest of the world to play your games.

Or you suppose that the taking of "slaves and livestock" was done peacefully and without harming anybody in the process?
 
.
The OP itself says so!!! Read it again!

Here it is:

"In 893, Ismail took the city of Talas, the capital of the Karluk Turks, taking large numbers of slaves and livestock. In addition, a Nestorian church was converted into a mosque.[10] He also brought an end to the Principality of Ushrusana, extendingSamanid control over the Syr Darya river.[11]Ismail and other Samanid rulers propagated Islam amongst the inhabitants and as many as 30,000 tents of Turks came to profess Islam."

The OP is saying something very different, and the Yazidi case is entirely different. Using the recent IS assault on the Yazidis and then assuming the Samanids must have behaved in the same way is not just revisionist history but also giving legitimacy to the IS **** tards. The Samanids were the ones who spread Islam to the Persians and Central Asians, before them the conversions were few and far in between but after Zoroastrian nobles began converting them they spread it to the rest of the region. Arab rulers of the past preferred the tax wages to propagation.

Or you suppose that the taking of "slaves and livestock" was done peacefully and without harming anybody in the process?

I am saying the taking of slaves and livestock had nothing to do with their propagation efforts after the fact which if you bothered to read up on the Samanids dynasty itself was something they were renowned for.
 
.
The OP is saying something very different, and the Yazidi case is entirely different. Using the recent IS assault on the Yazidis and then assuming the Samanids must have behaved in the same way is not just revisionist history but also giving legitimacy to the IS **** tards. The Samanids were the ones who spread Islam to the Persians and Central Asians, before them the conversions were few and far in between but after Zoroastrian nobles began converting them they spread it to the rest of the region. Arab rulers of the past preferred the tax wages to propagation.

Read the OP again without bias! It clearly talks about taking people as "slaves" and capturing "livestock", converting a church to a mosque! At least, I can't imagine how it would have been done without a violence and a massacre that usually follow after such defeats!

How can it be different compared to the case of Yazidis? Why is it difficult to understand?

Just because you say ISIS are not true Muslims, doesn't cut it! In fact, they are more convincing in their argument about their version of Islam -- remember, they are ready to fight and die for their version of Islam!
 
.
I am saying the taking of slaves and livestock had nothing to do with their propagation efforts after the fact which if you bothered to read up on the Samanids dynasty itself was something they were renowned for.

Just because Samanids were powerful or even went on to create a renowned dynasty, doesn't give them any more legitimacy with regard to their taking slaves and converting people en-masse and very very likely the rapes that must have followed too!

Just answer my simple question! How do you take someone as a "slave and capture their livestock" peacefully? How do you get 30,000 people to accept a foreign religion without shedding a drop of blood?

Why would it be any different to what is happening to Yazidis???

I tell you this much! If ISIS go on to become powerful and establish a "renowned dynasty", people like you would be saying the same thing in future -- that they were "renowned" and they wouldn't have been involved in mass murder, rape, perjury and mass conversion!
 
.
If you want to see how it must have been during this period, visit the present day Yazidis in Iraq. I am sure it must have been a peaceful acceptance of the religion -- just like Yazidis are accepting right now!!!

Similarly, future generations will venerate ISIS people as liberators and peaceful propagators of Islam -- just as this person Ismail is described in OP!

:tup:

Ironically the same Turks who were enslaved and converted to Islam by the Persian Samanids overthrew them 100 years later as the Ghaznavids

Two military families arose from the Turkic slave-guards of the Samanids — the Simjurids and Ghaznavids – who ultimately proved disastrous to the Samanids. The Simjurids received an appanage in the Kohistan region of eastern Khorasan(northern Afghanistan). Samanid generals Alp Tigin and Abu al-Hasan Simjuri competed for the governorship of Khorasan and control of the Samanid empire by placing on the throne emirs they could dominate after the death of 'Abd al-Malik I.

Ghaznavids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
Ironically the same Turks who were enslaved and converted to Islam by the Persian Samanids overthrew them 100 years later as the Ghaznavids

Two military families arose from the Turkic slave-guards of the Samanids — the Simjurids and Ghaznavids – who ultimately proved disastrous to the Samanids. The Simjurids received an appanage in the Kohistan region of eastern Khorasan(northern Afghanistan). Samanid generals Alp Tigin and Abu al-Hasan Simjuri competed for the governorship of Khorasan and control of the Samanid empire by placing on the throne emirs they could dominate after the death of 'Abd al-Malik I.

Ghaznavids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But hey, win-win for Islam, eh?! :enjoy:
 
.
Read the OP again without bias! It clearly talks about taking people as "slaves" and capturing "livestock", converting a church to a mosque! At least, I can't imagine how it would have been done without a violence and a massacre that usually follow after such defeats!

How can it be different compared to the case of Yazidis? Why is it difficult to understand?

Just because you say ISIS are not true Muslims, doesn't cut it! In fact, they are more convincing in their argument about their version of Islam -- remember, they are ready to fight and die for their version of Islam!

You are reading the first part that describes their initial invasion and then assuming that they forcibly converted Turks thereafter when the second part clearly states it was due to the conversion efforts of Ismail and other Samanid rulers that Turks became Muslims, unless all the Samanids rulers were Kings in one point in history at one time it is clearly talking about over a period of time. So you are the ones having comprehension problems and bringing up yazidis for no other reason other than to troll.

Wrong, all Muslims are willing to die for Islam. Being a martyr is the most honorable death, what separates us from IS is that they are willing to kill for their version. So if murder means legitimacy for you then you are as fucked up in the head as the ISIS fuckers.
 
.
You are reading the first part that describes their initial invasion and then assuming that they forcibly converted Turks thereafter when the second part clearly states it was due to the conversion efforts of Ismail and other Samanid rulers that Turks became Muslims, unless all the Samanids rulers were Kings in one point in history at one time it is clearly talking about over a period of time. So you are the ones having comprehension problems and bringing up yazidis for no other reason other than to troll.

Genius, how do you miscomprehend this section of the OP? How do you take hundreds of people slaves without violence or threat of violence?

"In 893, Ismail took the city of Talas, the capital of the Karluk Turks, taking large numbers of slaves and livestock. In addition, a Nestorian church was converted into a mosque."

You are nothing but a typical "moderate" trying to gloss over religious crimes like this by simply stating them innocently as "initial invasion"!!! No wonder, groups like ISIS manage to get enough support and legitimacy to carry out crimes like that!!!

Wrong, all Muslims are willing to die for Islam. Being a martyr is the most honorable death, what separates us from IS is that they are willing to kill for their version. So if murder means legitimacy for you then you are as fucked up in the head as the ISIS fuckers.

Getting personal now, are we!!! After all, that is the sign of a good debate!!!
 
.
Just because Samanids were powerful or even went on to create a renowned dynasty, doesn't give them any more legitimacy with regard to their taking slaves and converting people en-masse and very very likely the rapes that must have followed too!

Just answer my simple question! How do you take someone as a "slave and capture their livestock" peacefully? How do you get 30,000 people to accept a foreign religion without shedding a drop of blood?

Why would it be any different to what is happening to Yazidis???

I tell you this much! If ISIS go on to become powerful and establish a "renowned dynasty", people like you would be saying the same thing in future -- that they were "renowned" and they wouldn't have been involved in mass murder, rape, perjury and mass conversion!

See the bold, your statement itself is a revisionist attempt due to your blatant hindutva bias. First you say it is very very likely implying that it is not fact but a possibility and then you say rapes must have followed declaring it basically history itself. Retarded blatant attempt to rewrite history but then you already knew that.

Nothing wrong with converting people if they convert willingly, you are the one making an assumption they forced everybody to convert with nothing to back it up except your own belief that "it must have happened because I say so".

Your questions are just as retarded, for the first in this day and age you cannot because we have geneva laws but in that day and age such a thing was common. For the second part during those times entire tribes would convert if the elders or tribal leader converted and your statement of "foreign religion" is once again your own retarded opinion.

Yazidis as being killed for being non-Muslims straight up by IS sickos there are not converting at all and what you so happily seem to forget is that they are seeking refuge in Muslim Southern Iraq and Muslim Iraqi Kurdistan.

For the last part again that is your own bigoted opinion and what do you mean by, "people like you". Are you going to assume that you now know anything about me, you tard? Also just because something is happening today does not mean you can go back and rewrite history, today Indians are mighty fond of gang rapes so should we assume your ancestors were also gang rapists? I mean it is very very likely so it must have happened.

Genius, how do you miscomprehend this section of the OP? How do you take hundreds of people slaves without violence or threat of violence?

"In 893, Ismail took the city of Talas, the capital of the Karluk Turks, taking large numbers of slaves and livestock. In addition, a Nestorian church was converted into a mosque."

You are nothing but a typical "moderate" trying to gloss over religious crimes like this by simply stating them innocently as "initial invasion"!!! No wonder, groups like ISIS manage to get enough support and legitimacy to carry out crimes like that!!!

Did you fall on your head and forget your initial post of this thread where you highlighted both this sentence and the following sentence and declared that they were connected or did you skip that part? Anyway I never doubted that this occurred what I rejected was your statement that you made in sarcasm that it must have been a peaceful acceptance, implying that you believe they were forcibly converted.

If you want to see how it must have been during this period, visit the present day Yazidis in Iraq. I am sure it must have been a peaceful acceptance of the religion -- just like Yazidis are accepting right now!!!

Similarly, future generations will venerate ISIS people as liberators and peaceful propagators of Islam -- just as this person Ismail is described in OP!

:tup:

Namely the part in bold above. ^^ Like I said keep your sarcastic revisionist bakwas confined to your saffron chaddi circle jerk functions because no one else is buying it. Anyway we can continue this tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
.
Nothing wrong with converting people if they convert willingly, you are the one making an assumption they forced everybody to convert with nothing to back it up except your own belief that "it must have happened because I say so".

There is nothing in this OP to suggest anything remotely that they converted willingly. If at all, it only talks about "taking slaves and livestock"!!! And, it is not unheard of, of Islamists to employ threat of rape and slavery to convert people en-masse! Nobody is going to buy your "converted willingly" arguments -- not after seeing ISIS and Boko guys in action!


Your questions are just as retarded, for the first in this day and age you cannot because we have geneva laws but in that day and age such a thing was common. For the second part during those times entire tribes would convert if the elders or tribal leader converted and your statement of "foreign religion" is once again your own retarded opinion.

I very well understand the lack of Geneva conventions are all that in those times. What I have trouble tolerating is when you start claiming that the conversions were all peaceful and your religion conquered the regions with message of peace!

Yazidis as being killed for being non-Muslims straight up by IS sickos there are not converting at all and what you so happily seem to forget is that they are seeking refuge in Muslim Southern Iraq and Muslim Iraqi Kurdistan.

If they are taking refuge in Southern Iraq, it is only because of geographic compulsions! It took USA of all countries, to come and rescue the Yazidis!!!

For the last part again that is your own bigoted opinion and what do you mean by, "people like you". Are you going to assume that you now know anything about me, you tard? Also just because something is happening today does not mean you can go back and rewrite history, today Indians are mighty fond of gang rapes so should we assume your ancestors were also gang rapists? I mean it is very very likely so it must have happened.

Oh well, like I said, the way you are justifying occupation and conversion is enough of a hint that you are a typical "moderate". By attacking personally rather than answering my questions directly, you are only displaying your bigotry here! And you happen to be a Muslim!! No surprises with with your display bigotry then!!!

And, there are no gang-rapes in Pakistan, right?

Namely the part in bold above. ^^ Like I said keep your sarcastic revisionist bakwas confined to your saffron chaddi circle jerk functions because no one else is buying it. Anyway we can continue this tomorrow.

Oh well, I am off! Keep ranting and justifying the conversions! If we didn't know how it was to go through such an experience in those times, your comrades in ISIS are giving us an opportunity to see it first hand!!!
 
.
Genius, how do you miscomprehend this section of the OP? How do you take hundreds of people slaves without violence or threat of violence?

"In 893, Ismail took the city of Talas, the capital of the Karluk Turks, taking large numbers of slaves and livestock. In addition, a Nestorian church was converted into a mosque."

You are nothing but a typical "moderate" trying to gloss over religious crimes like this by simply stating them innocently as "initial invasion"!!! No wonder, groups like ISIS manage to get enough support and legitimacy to carry out crimes like that!!!



Getting personal now, are we!!! After all, that is the sign of a good debate!!!
They converted a church into a mosque peacefully. They invaded and people are peacefully become slave. Dont you know that ? And their heroes are Ghaznawi who peacefully destroyed somnath temple. You idiot . How dare you saying all these ?
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom