one aspect might be unknown to many is why Khorasani Turkic population lead by Abo Muslim sided with Abbasids against Ummayyads, during the Ummayyads expansion to Khorasan many Turks were held captives and offered to either accept Islam or be killed, no Jizya was accepted because Ummayyads believed that Turkic religion ''Tengrism'' believing in the God of skies, was not like Jewish or Christian, so our forefathers had no choice but big section of Khorasani Turks sought revenge through aiding Abbasids. Its unfortunate that some descendants until today have a mixed ideas about faith disguised under a few names, (especially those who later on moved to Anatolia- Türkiye or Iraq and Syria's Turkoman communities). Khorasan was much broader than the little section which is part of North East of Iran, bordering Afganistan and Turkmenistan.
I feel like they should've sent some Duaat to the Maghreb as well. It had already become dependent during the great Berber revolt 740-42, where they annihilated huge Umayyad armies and were a primary cause for the end of the Syrian hegemony. But after their failure to take Qayrawan, they split into many groups, not to be unified again until the AlMoravids. So the abbasids should've sent some Duaat to the berbers when they first started their da'wah in 743. (The berbers seem to have been Sufri khawarij, who usually hate the Ahlul bayt, but the Idrisids managed to establish an Alid state in the region only a few decades later). With Khurasan attacking from the east and the Berbers from the west, the Umayyads would fall even faster. This time, the abbasids would be able to take Andalus, due to its large Berber population. This would also provide secondary powerbase instead of the Khurasani monopoly. Perhaps the 4th fitnah wouldn't be expressed in Dehqans Vs Abna but rather Khurasani Vs Berbers
I think it would have been difficult to manage a rebellion from so far away. Especially with the severe delay in communication back then. I've done research on the Islamic conquest of North Africa. But I'm not very familiar with happenings there after Al-Andalus.
@@adamsnow4979 yes, but the abbasids would reunify the Berbers of the Maghreb, then take Qayrawan since Marwan can't send reinforcements to the the Khurasanis in the east. After taking Qayrawan, the United Maghreb would cross the straits to Andalus, which although governed by Arabs the berbers seem to have outnumbered the Arabs, even after the revolt, especially in northern iberia. Also unlike the 742 revolt, this time the Arabs are much more divided due to the Syrian jund of Balj ibn Bishr. So the massive Maghrebi force, plus the northern iberian Berbers, plus the Arab tribal conflicts and finally the Ifriqiyan navy (Andalus didn't have a navy yet) should make it quite easy to conquer
@@islamichistorypodcast perhaps, but the abbasids were based out of humayma in southern Jordan, so Khurasan is extremely distant as well.... But for Khurasan they had to be hidden about it due to Umayyad governors. In the Maghreb everything west of Qayrawan was independent, giving the Abbasid Duaat much more public Dawah to their revolution.
@@Wakobear. the reason for the success of the Abbasid revolution was their secrecy about their candidacy even the fact that they were banu abbas. I think khurasan was the only place that facilitated this due to the almost non existent loyalty towards banu ummayah in the eastern half. Ummayads were well prepared in terms of scouting secessionist movements which is why despite that they caught ibrahim the leader of banu abbas. In the west they are more fortified so you have to pass through loyal ummayad territory to establish a line of communication
That might be a recent thing. The Umayyads called everything beyond Iraq going into Central Asia Khurasan. The Umayyad government may not have known just how large and vast Central Asia was.
one aspect might be unknown to many is why Khorasani Turkic population lead by Abo Muslim sided with Abbasids against Ummayyads, during the Ummayyads expansion to Khorasan many Turks were held captives and offered to either accept Islam or be killed, no Jizya was accepted because Ummayyads believed that Turkic religion ''Tengrism'' believing in the God of skies, was not like Jewish or Christian, so our forefathers had no choice but big section of Khorasani Turks sought revenge through aiding Abbasids. Its unfortunate that some descendants until today have a mixed ideas about faith disguised under a few names, (especially those who later on moved to Anatolia- Türkiye or Iraq and Syria's Turkoman communities). Khorasan was much broader than the little section which is part of North East of Iran, bordering Afganistan and Turkmenistan.
I feel like they should've sent some Duaat to the Maghreb as well.
It had already become dependent during the great Berber revolt 740-42, where they annihilated huge Umayyad armies and were a primary cause for the end of the Syrian hegemony.
But after their failure to take Qayrawan, they split into many groups, not to be unified again until the AlMoravids.
So the abbasids should've sent some Duaat to the berbers when they first started their da'wah in 743. (The berbers seem to have been Sufri khawarij, who usually hate the Ahlul bayt, but the Idrisids managed to establish an Alid state in the region only a few decades later).
With Khurasan attacking from the east and the Berbers from the west, the Umayyads would fall even faster. This time, the abbasids would be able to take Andalus, due to its large Berber population.
This would also provide secondary powerbase instead of the Khurasani monopoly. Perhaps the 4th fitnah wouldn't be expressed in Dehqans Vs Abna but rather Khurasani Vs Berbers
Al Andalus was under control of the Arabic Jund and during the Berber revolt the berbers tried to take over but they were defeated there
I think it would have been difficult to manage a rebellion from so far away. Especially with the severe delay in communication back then. I've done research on the Islamic conquest of North Africa. But I'm not very familiar with happenings there after Al-Andalus.
@@adamsnow4979 yes, but the abbasids would reunify the Berbers of the Maghreb, then take Qayrawan since Marwan can't send reinforcements to the the Khurasanis in the east.
After taking Qayrawan, the United Maghreb would cross the straits to Andalus, which although governed by Arabs the berbers seem to have outnumbered the Arabs, even after the revolt, especially in northern iberia.
Also unlike the 742 revolt, this time the Arabs are much more divided due to the Syrian jund of Balj ibn Bishr.
So the massive Maghrebi force, plus the northern iberian Berbers, plus the Arab tribal conflicts and finally the Ifriqiyan navy (Andalus didn't have a navy yet) should make it quite easy to conquer
@@islamichistorypodcast perhaps, but the abbasids were based out of humayma in southern Jordan, so Khurasan is extremely distant as well....
But for Khurasan they had to be hidden about it due to Umayyad governors.
In the Maghreb everything west of Qayrawan was independent, giving the Abbasid Duaat much more public Dawah to their revolution.
@@Wakobear. the reason for the success of the Abbasid revolution was their secrecy about their candidacy even the fact that they were banu abbas. I think khurasan was the only place that facilitated this due to the almost non existent loyalty towards banu ummayah in the eastern half. Ummayads were well prepared in terms of scouting secessionist movements which is why despite that they caught ibrahim the leader of banu abbas. In the west they are more fortified so you have to pass through loyal ummayad territory to establish a line of communication
Why Afghanistan is referred as the heart of Khurasan?
That might be a recent thing. The Umayyads called everything beyond Iraq going into Central Asia Khurasan. The Umayyad government may not have known just how large and vast Central Asia was.