Arabic should become the single official national language in all muslim countries

[Firdousi]

I am from Logar. My family, related and all people I know related are Farsi speakers, although my grandmother from father side was Pashtun. but I don't know about if I should consider myself ''Tajik''. This term I have searched it on the internet, and it seems very confusing, so I don't know if it's the correct name for Farsi speakers. Apparently It's a name given by outsiders to Farsi speakers of Afghanistan that are not ethnically Hazara, Uzbek, Turkmen, Nuristani, Baloch or Pashayi and various other minority groups. Tajik supposedly means ''non-Turk'' and it can mean any group of people. I am aware of Afghan originally meaning Pasthun, I don't know either about calling myself Afghan since Afghan originally means Pashtun. I think Tajik is kinda pointless term, as people in tajikistan call themselves Tajik as well, and I have searched on those people, I can't see very much resemblence between myself, my family, farsi speaking people I know, and general Tajikistani people who seem to either look more East Asian (even Hazara people have more an ''Afghan'' look than them, like Zohib Islam Amiri for example) or Russian/North/East European (although there are Tajikistani people who look typical Afghan like this lady:



Although I don't believe in race, but being brought up in the West among people who look like this (and being called ''sandnegger'' on a few past occasions by some nasty racistt White people):




and a society where race is considered very important, you become racially aware.

People in my family look this, which in my experience is a general look of Afghan people:






















or the Afghanistan national team:



For me, as an Afghan or Afghanistani, ethnicity isn't that important matter. What matters is culture, and 2nd language. If culture and language is the same, then we have most important things in common. Luckily most Afghan groups more or less share same culture, religion, etc. and only difference and what keeps the country disunited is language (wether Farsi vs Pashto should be official language). After that physical appearance is relevant, but only so people cannot be discriminated or judged/valued differenty as human beings based solely on their appearance, although in my experience people in Afghanistan don't have a concept of race like Europeans/Americans/Whites do so perhaps we shouldn't give this any importance (my own sister is light haired while my brother has green eyes). I was told Pasthuns hated Hazaras for other reasons than their looks. I had a few Hazara friends (I live in America), and I never considered them any different way or another ''race'' like Europeans/Americans/whites do, since we shared same language, religion and culture and the way we think and see life and the world is similar.

I don't really care about the ''Tajik'' term. My father doesn't use Tajik or even Afghan either. He sometimes uses ''Afghanistani'' to refering to Afghan farsi speakers, he prefers Logari, since it makes most sense as that's where our entire familyroot is from. I don't know if it's true or not that some Farsi speakers may use ''Persian'' to identify but in my opinion that is also not correct, since ''Persian'' is what Greeks used to call everyone who lived from Pars/Fars province in Iran all the way to India (as you may know Achaemenid Empire covered an area from Egypt to India, but its capital was in Pars, so Greeks called all these Farsi speaking people Persian, so technically only people in Fars province are ''Persian'' or '''Farsi/Parsi'' kinda like if any empire had it's capital in Kabul, the people in the entire empire would be called ''Kabuli'' since Ancient Greece was a city states, so someone from Sparta was ethnically called Spartan, or someone from Athen = Athenian, or someone from Olympia = Olympian), kinda like ''Roman'' refered to people not just from city of Rome but all people in Roman empire which covered most of Europe.

Btw. I am not even sure the language was ever originially called ''Farsi'' since Farsi or Persian emplies the language came from Pars province in Iran, and the rest of people who speak Farsi in Iran and Afghanistan either came from Pars and populated deserted areas or were forcibly ''converted''/''Persianized''. I don't believe this to be the case, as Iranians sound so different from Afghan farsi speakers, even people in Logar have a different accent compared to Kabulis although not as different as Afghan Farsi/Dari and Iranian Farsi. I can barely understand Iranians talking and their version of Farsi sound very feminine/kinda gay (no disrespect btw.)

Anyway from my experience in Afghanistan (childhood), it seems farsi speaking people generally don't refer to themselves as tajik either. they identify from which city or province they are from like ''Herati, ''Zabuli'', ''Kabuli'', ''Logari'', ''Charkhi'', ''Kohistani'' etc.

In Herat we don't use the term "Tajik". We rather prefer call ourselves "Farsizabon". Those Pashtuns from SHindand, Adraskan or Pashtun Zarghun we call them "Awghon". But you are right: we don't care so much about ethnicity. We rather prefer to call ourselves "Herati", "Kabuli" or "Kandahari".

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Its not just a linguistic assimilation. Its an identity transformation. Many people from Sudan or Somalia, despite being completely black they call themselves "Arabs". Most of Arabs in northern Africa are just Arabized berbers. All this happened after Islam arrived. No wonder so many Amazigh nationalists hate to death Islam because they consider it an Arab nationalist tool.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Similarly, Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Haafiz al-Koofi, who is known as Mateen, told us: al-‘Ala’ ibn ‘Amr al-Hanafi told us: Yahya ibn Zayd al-Ash’ari told us: Ibn Jurayj told us, from Ibn 'Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Love the Arabs for three reasons: because I am an Arab, the Qur’aan is Arabic, and the language of the people of Paradise is Arabic.”

Ok first you downplay that your argument was about linguistic considerations, but your citation seems to focus on linguistic considerations.

The fact that many people in Sudan or Somalia identify as Arab is simply an anthropological phenomena. Tajiks of today identify as Persians however, they were not originally Persians, surely you wouldn't argue that Tajiks are really victims of Persian cultural subjugation and Perso-centric nationalistic supremacy? In fact you have at least on some level a certain affinity with Persian culture even though it was transmitted indirectly

And Indeed there was No Megalithic Perso-Nationalistic policy to push Persian on the remnants of Soghdians, Khwarzemians and Bactrians who the Modern Day Tajiks are descendants of. It simply happened because of the market trends. It was an Anthropological transition based on habit and popularity rather than policy or agenda driven. Today tajiks identify as Persians despite being of disparate origins.

A similar pattern occurred with Arabic

As for your quote; Nothing here indicates anything than simply having a friendly attitude towards the Arabs as a people. It does not say "Let the Arabs bully you around" nor does it say "Abandon your own cultural or hereditary identity for the Arabic one".

You're extrapolating a meaning that is not clearly apparent within the text. Furthermore the text itself is a bit suspect, It does not seem to be a SAHIH (corroborated) Hadith, and more over it claims that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was Arab, which is true, HOWEVER< He Himself was an Arabized Arab, meaning his ancestors were not Arab. This is known even in the mainstream Arab Geneaologies. If there was such a drive to erase people and have Arabs as the only identity left over, Why then do we have records of Muhammad(saw) himself having Non-Arab roots ...and this information is preserved by people who are Arabs themselves?

the argument just does not add up under critical analysis. Even if we take this citation as reliable, the other existent evidence that is more popularly available would signify that this quote does not mean what you think it does. that Islam represents Arab Nationalism.

[Firdousi]

Ok first you downplay that your argument was about linguistic considerations, but your citation seems to focus on linguistic considerations.

The fact that many people in Sudan or Somalia identify as Arab is simply an anthropological phenomena. Tajiks of today identify as Persians however, they were not originally Persians, surely you wouldn't argue that Tajiks are really victims of Persian cultural subjugation and Perso-centric nationalistic supremacy? In fact you have at least on some level a certain affinity with Persian culture even though it was transmitted indirectly

And Indeed there was No Megalithic Perso-Nationalistic policy to push Persian on the remnants of Soghdians, Khwarzemians and Bactrians who the Modern Day Tajiks are descendants of. It simply happened because of the market trends. It was an Anthropological transition based on habit and popularity rather than policy or agenda driven. Today tajiks identify as Persians despite being of disparate origins.

A similar pattern occurred with Arabic

As for your quote; Nothing here indicates anything than simply having a friendly attitude towards the Arabs as a people. It does not say "Let the Arabs bully you around" nor does it say "Abandon your own cultural or hereditary identity for the Arabic one".

You're extrapolating a meaning that is not clearly apparent within the text. Furthermore the text itself is a bit suspect, It does not seem to be a SAHIH (corroborated) Hadith, and more over it claims that Prophet Muhammad(saw) was Arab, which is true, HOWEVER< He Himself was an Arabized Arab, meaning his ancestors were not Arab. This is known even in the mainstream Arab Geneaologies. If there was such a drive to erase people and have Arabs as the only identity left over, Why then do we have records of Muhammad(saw) himself having Non-Arab roots ...and this information is preserved by people who are Arabs themselves?

the argument just does not add up under critical analysis. Even if we take this citation as reliable, the other existent evidence that is more popularly available would signify that this quote does not mean what you think it does. that Islam represents Arab Nationalism.

100% disagree. Khorasan/Aryana has been under Persian influence for 2500 years now. Farsi was lingua franca of khorasan. After Arab invasion many Persians had to leave Western provinces and moved into Eastern provinces, mainly inhabited by non Persian Iranic tribes such as Bactrians, Soghdians and Parthians, which were away from Arabs. Was then when modern Persian was developed but Farsi has been in this place for a long time. It was the people of Khorasan who saved and bgourhgt back to life Persian culture when Arabs tried to wipe out our culture. Daqiqi, Rudaki, Ferdowsi, Barmakids,.. all of them were Khorasanis and patrons of Persian culture. Persian culture was not imposed on us. Point to be noted.

Brother, don't get me wrong: I don't hate Arabs. I actually like Arab culture. Nor I want to bring them down, nor I consider them "inferior" to me. At the end of the day we are all human beings and honestly I like Islam just because i consider it the "backbone" of our region: only Islam can bring together all the people living across the ME and CA. What else do we have in common? My point is that Islam has worked as an Arab nationalist movement. I will let evidences speak for itself.

I have been all the time talking about language and race/ethnic identity.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

100% disagree. Khorasan/Aryana has been under Persian influence for 2500 years now. Farsi was lingua franca of khorasan. After Arab invasion many Persians had to leave Western provinces and moved into Eastern provinces, mainly inhabited by non Persian Iranic tribes such as Bactrians, Soghdians and Parthians, which were away from Arabs. Was then when modern Persian was developed but Farsi has been in this place for a long time. It was the people of Khorasan who saved and bgourhgt back to life Persian culture when Arabs tried to wipe out our culture. Daqiqi, Rudaki, Ferdowsi, Barmakids,.. all of them were Khorasanis and patrons of Persian culture. Persian culture was not imposed on us. Point to be noted.

Brother, don't get me wrong: I don't hate Arabs. I actually like Arab culture. Nor I want to bring them down, nor I consider them "inferior" to me. At the end of the day we are all human beings and honestly I like Islam just because i consider it the "backbone" of our region: only Islam can bring together all the people living across the ME and CA. What else do we have in common? My point is that Islam has worked as an Arab nationalist movement. I will let evidences speak for itself.

I have been all the time talking about language and race/ethnic identity.

The fact that Distinct cultures and languages existed in areas that Tajiks currently inhabited is solid Anthropological Evidence that Tajiks of Modern Days were not Always Persians.

So whether you agree or not, the evidence exists that shows otherwise.

Let's not play the Double Standard game of the "Iranic" card, Iranic and Persian are not Synonymous. If Iranic was an acceptable concession of common bonds. Then you should welcome Pashtun Enthocentrists with Open Arms, After all Pashto is Iranic.

You are very right to oppose Pashtun Nationalists and Fascists, they OPENLY ,want to impose specific policies that curtail Farsi speaking and relay the dominance of Pashtun identity.

Yes the Khurasanis saved Persian culture true, but this wasn't their culture Since they were of other ethnic origins; Iranic yes, but not Persian. Furhermore Abu Muslim Khurasani was under the patronage of the Arab Abbasid dynasty, not exactly Arabs trying to thwart Persian culture or any culture for that matter.

But that only comes to show that the argument Islam is "Arab Nationalism" was very Poorly demonstrated. Not to mention that the Early Muslim communities was surprisingly ethnically diverse with important members like Salman Al farsi and Bilal Al Habshi as having prominent roles. Not exactly something an Arab Nationalist movement would tout.

It'd be like the BNP celebrating Jackie Chan as one of their heroes ....see what I'm getting at?

I'm not accusing you of hating Arabs, I'm simply saying the statement you made is wrong.

[Firdousi]

The fact that Distinct cultures and languages existed in areas that Tajiks currently inhabited is solid Anthropological Evidence that Tajiks of Modern Days were not Always Persians.

So whether you agree or not, the evidence exists that shows otherwise.

Let's not play the Double Standard game of the "Iranic" card, Iranic and Persian are not Synonymous. If Iranic was an acceptable concession of common bonds. Then you should welcome Pashtun Enthocentrists with Open Arms, After all Pashto is Iranic.

You are very right to oppose Pashtun Nationalists and Fascists, they OPENLY ,want to impose specific policies that curtail Farsi speaking and relay the dominance of Pashtun identity.

Yes the Khurasanis saved Persian culture true, but this wasn't their culture Since they were of other ethnic origins; Iranic yes, but not Persian. Furhermore Abu Muslim Khurasani was under the patronage of the Arab Abbasid dynasty, not exactly Arabs trying to thwart Persian culture or any culture for that matter.

But that only comes to show that the argument Islam is "Arab Nationalism" was very Poorly demonstrated. Not to mention that the Early Muslim communities was surprisingly ethnically diverse with important members like Salman Al farsi and Bilal Al Habshi as having prominent roles. Not exactly something an Arab Nationalist movement would tout.

It'd be like the BNP celebrating Jackie Chan as one of their heroes ....see what I'm getting at?

I'm not accusing you of hating Arabs, I'm simply saying the statement you made is wrong.

Never denied Khorasan had a huge ethnic diversity. Actually in my previous comment I pointed out that khorasan was mainly inhabited by Bactrians, Soghdians and Parthians. Persians migrated into the provinces after Arab invasion.

I must say you have made some valid points. But I still consider Islam an Arab nationalist movement. Brother, you have to bender yourself five times a day toward Arabia! Isn't that cultural imperialism? Not that I care so much. Still prefer that than Western cultural imperialism (I don't hate West and think they have many good things we should learn from them)..

Abu Muslim Khorasani fought along Abbasids. Do you know how he ended up? Betrayed and killed. He was too popular among Iranians. Same thing happened to Barmakids. Anyway Abbasids were not "pure Arabs". Once they moved their capitol to Baghdad (which is BTW a Persian name) they slowly became Persianized. Most of Caliphs married Persian women and their courts were crowded with Persian wisemen, poets and so on. Actually Abbasid elite troops were Khorasanis (Turk slaves replaced them after few decades).

[ComradePashtun]

Ferdousi is not the only one, alot of Tajiks are going through a similar disease being stressed and anxious with their identity.

[Firdousi]

Ferdousi is not the only one, alot of Tajiks are going through a similar disease being stressed and anxious with their identity.

We want to preserve our identity. Pashtuns are the main threat to it. Don't expect too much comprehension. Our culture is much more important than Pashtun Talibanism.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The fact that Distinct cultures and languages existed in areas that Tajiks currently inhabited is solid Anthropological Evidence that Tajiks of Modern Days were not Always Persians.

So whether you agree or not, the evidence exists that shows otherwise.

Let's not play the Double Standard game of the "Iranic" card, Iranic and Persian are not Synonymous. If Iranic was an acceptable concession of common bonds. Then you should welcome Pashtun Enthocentrists with Open Arms, After all Pashto is Iranic.

You are very right to oppose Pashtun Nationalists and Fascists, they OPENLY ,want to impose specific policies that curtail Farsi speaking and relay the dominance of Pashtun identity.

Yes the Khurasanis saved Persian culture true, but this wasn't their culture Since they were of other ethnic origins; Iranic yes, but not Persian. Furhermore Abu Muslim Khurasani was under the patronage of the Arab Abbasid dynasty, not exactly Arabs trying to thwart Persian culture or any culture for that matter.

But that only comes to show that the argument Islam is "Arab Nationalism" was very Poorly demonstrated. Not to mention that the Early Muslim communities was surprisingly ethnically diverse with important members like Salman Al farsi and Bilal Al Habshi as having prominent roles. Not exactly something an Arab Nationalist movement would tout.

It'd be like the BNP celebrating Jackie Chan as one of their heroes ....see what I'm getting at?

I'm not accusing you of hating Arabs, I'm simply saying the statement you made is wrong.

Dude you're like Einstein trying to teach a pinhead. These guys go to some persiofascist nationalist websites where they have cut and paste fests and even generate pseudo evidences like the now thoroughly debunked letter from Khosrow to Omar containing the same garbage these guys generate today. The caretaker at the London Museum refuted any such letter existed at his institution.

The hadith he is even siting was examined by Al Albani, Jawzi and others and the isnaad chain was criticized. Al Albaani went so far as to include it into his daaef collection. The rest of the logic you are citing is completely accurate.

So what? Jesus spoke Aramaic and Arabic was essential to resurrecting ancient Hebrew and also to sustaining the other semitic languages.

The Church heirarchy had Vulgate Latin limited to their monasteries and manipulated an uninformed European population as is the current American and Euro evangelist population that are detached from the Aramaic, Greek, and Ancient Hebrew of the Bible ... the Persiofascists are dumb in attempting to remove any semblance of Arabic from Muslim countries. A population that has at least a grasp of Arabic has the ability to debate and have discussions regarding the texts that motivate millions of Muslims worldwide in their day to day actions and beliefs. A more egalitarian vision (e.g. how the Quranic text permits Divorcees to remarry vs many cultural limitations) can emerge from this knowledge.

Their notion that somehow by stamping out Arabic they can stop preacher or clerical manipulation is proven wrong by the very example of how it continues to go on in the regions dominated by the other Abrahamic faiths which have NO familiarity with their own books.

[ComradePashtun]

We want to preserve our identity. Pashtuns are the main threat to it. Don't expect too much comprehension. Our culture is much more important than Pashtun Talibanism.

You are a clown my sust Herati friend.

[Firdousi]

Dude you're like Einstein trying to teach a pinhead. These guys go to some persiofascist nationalist websites where they have cut and paste fests and even generate pseudo evidences like the now thoroughly debunked letter from Khosrow to Omar containing the same garbage these guys generate today. The caretaker at the London Museum refuted any such letter existed at his institution.

The hadith he is even siting was examined by Al Albani, Jawzi and others and the isnaad chain was criticized. Al Albaani went so far as to include it into his daaef collection. The rest of the logic you are citing is completely accurate.

So what? Jesus spoke Aramaic and Arabic was essential to resurrecting ancient Hebrew and also to sustaining the other semitic languages.

The Church heirarchy had Vulgate Latin limited to their monasteries and manipulated an uninformed European population as is the current American and Euro evangelist population that are detached from the Aramaic, Greek, and Ancient Hebrew of the Bible ... the Persiofascists are dumb in attempting to remove any semblance of Arabic from Muslim countries. A population that has at least a grasp of Arabic has the ability to debate and have discussions regarding the texts that motivate millions of Muslims worldwide in their day to day actions and beliefs. A more egalitarian vision (e.g. how the Quranic text permits Divorcees to remarry vs many cultural limitations) can emerge from this knowledge.

Their notion that somehow by stamping out Arabic they can stop preacher or clerical manipulation is proven wrong by the very example of how it continues to go on in the regions dominated by the other Abrahamic faiths which have NO familiarity with their own books.

Ana tekalom Arabiya shwei shwei, khuya lmao

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Never denied Khorasan had a huge ethnic diversity. Actually in my previous comment I pointed out that khorasan was mainly inhabited by Bactrians, Soghdians and Parthians. Persians migrated into the provinces after Arab invasion.

I must say you have made some valid points. But I still consider Islam an Arab nationalist movement. Brother, you have to bender yourself five times a day toward Arabia! Isn't that cultural imperialism? Not that I care so much. Still prefer that than Western cultural imperialism (I don't hate West and think they have many good things we should learn from them)..

Abu Muslim Khorasani fought along Abbasids. Do you know how he ended up? Betrayed and killed. He was too popular among Iranians. Same thing happened to Barmakids. Anyway Abbasids were not "pure Arabs". Once they moved their capitol to Baghdad (which is BTW a Persian name) they slowly became Persianized. Most of Caliphs married Persian women and their courts were crowded with Persian wisemen, poets and so on. Actually Abbasid elite troops were Khorasanis (Turk slaves replaced them after few decades).

But the Argument that you have to "bend yourself 5 times a day towards Arabia" is a bit anachronistic since there was no "Arabia" as a national identity then. Not even during the Muslim Khilafah do they proclaim they're pointing yourself towards Arabia, as opposed to the Ka'aba. Which I may add was established by People who were not Arabs if we take the Qur'anic narrative that The Prophetic patriarchs Abraham(as), Isma'il(as) as true. An Arab Nationalist movement wouldn't stress that.

In fact Arabs of his time perceived Islam as foreign to their culture and lands. and the idea they made reference to Non-Arabs may have been one of the reasons. Not really what you'd expect within an Arab Nationalist movement.

The "bowing towards Arabia" in this case seems simply incidental; something more rooted in theology than ethnic identity.

You'd think an Arab Nationalist would stress that, yet we find nothing of the sort.

Abu Muslim Khurasani was killed, but was he killed for being Persian or killed for just being someone that rivaled their power? Because if it's the latter, Then recall Abu Muslim Khurasani fought Al-Mansur's Uncle, who was Arab, because Al Mansur's uncle threatened his power. Which was little to nothing to with ethnicity.

Your description of the Abbasids, would only serve to confirm that Islam played no role in Any Arab Nationalism that you seem to be suggesting.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Never denied Khorasan had a huge ethnic diversity. Actually in my previous comment I pointed out that khorasan was mainly inhabited by Bactrians, Soghdians and Parthians. Persians migrated into the provinces after Arab invasion.

I must say you have made some valid points. But I still consider Islam an Arab nationalist movement. Brother, you have to bender yourself five times a day toward Arabia! Isn't that cultural imperialism? Not that I care so much. Still prefer that than Western cultural imperialism (I don't hate West and think they have many good things we should learn from them)..

Abu Muslim Khorasani fought along Abbasids. Do you know how he ended up? Betrayed and killed. He was too popular among Iranians. Same thing happened to Barmakids. Anyway Abbasids were not "pure Arabs". Once they moved their capitol to Baghdad (which is BTW a Persian name) they slowly became Persianized. Most of Caliphs married Persian women

Is that code for what you did with yours with the Russians?

and their courts were crowded with Persian wisemen,

Then your ancestors were definitely absent LOL

poets and so on. Actually Abbasid elite troops were Khorasanis (Turk slaves replaced them after few decades).

x

[Barakzai Supply]

Why not go even further and learn Hebrew - the real language of Bani Israel and cousin Semitic language of Arabic

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Nothing wrong with learning Hebrew, what we're talking is making Arabic an international linga fracna between Muslim populatiions, it will open up better trade whole allowing us a degree of independence from Western capitalist states.

it doesn't mean we abolish our own regional languages or catering to Arab Nationalism or any other silly conspiracy theorist claim.

[Firdousi]

But the Argument that you have to "bend yourself 5 times a day towards Arabia" is a bit anachronistic since there was no "Arabia" as a national identity then. Not even during the Muslim Khilafah do they proclaim they're pointing yourself towards Arabia, as opposed to the Ka'aba. Which I may add was established by People who were not Arabs if we take the Qur'anic narrative that The Prophetic patriarchs Abraham(as), Isma'il(as) as true. An Arab Nationalist movement wouldn't stress that.

In fact Arabs of his time perceived Islam as foreign to their culture and lands. and the idea they made reference to Non-Arabs may have been one of the reasons. Not really what you'd expect within an Arab Nationalist movement.

The "bowing towards Arabia" in this case seems simply incidental; something more rooted in theology than ethnic identity.

You'd think an Arab Nationalist would stress that, yet we find nothing of the sort.

Abu Muslim Khurasani was killed, but was he killed for being Persian or killed for just being someone that rivaled their power? Because if it's the latter, Then recall Abu Muslim Khurasani fought Al-Mansur's Uncle, who was Arab, because Al Mansur's uncle threatened his power. Which was little to nothing to with ethnicity.

Your description of the Abbasids, would only serve to confirm that Islam played no role in Any Arab Nationalism that you seem to be suggesting.

Brother, we are not talking about Arabs, but about Prophet Muhammad and the religion he founded: Islam. Arabs back then were a bunch of greedy uneducated tribal fools, 24/7 fighting and killing each other. Not much different than Pashtuns today. Prophet Muhammad brought them together, he gave them a powerful ideological tool for their expansion and they were able to defeat the strongest nations. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Muhammad. It does not matter if blacks or Persians fought along him. Still does not change this fact: Muhammad loved Arabia and wanted it to become the center of the world.

Abu Muslim Khorasani was killed because he was too powerful and famous. He could represent a trouble for Abbasids in the future. Obviously the guy was some sort of Persian nationalist after all many Persian nationalist claimed to be a descendent of him after his death: Babak Khorramdim, Sundpadh and Muqanna (both Khorasanis) and so on.

During Abbasids most of the Islamic Ummah left the Caliphate. Khorasan, Modern Morocco, Tunisia and Mauritania, Spain,.. little by little they Caliphs lost all their power and became puppets of their own Turkish slaves. Of course still they were considered spiritual leaders by most of Muslims but they had no de fact power over most of the Islamic world.