Talk:Saqaliba

from which the English word slave is also derived

i can't see why this is important and should be in the article, since slavs and saqaliba are therms from the common era to middle ages, when english language did not exist. not even the old english language. maybe slave is a celtic word? or frankish? and through which process slave derived from slav. some etymology link maybe?Edi1kanobi (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You can see the etymology in the OED, which is cited in the text. The English word slave comes from OFrench esclave, from Med. Latin sclavus, from Byz. Greek σκλάβος. None of this is remotely controversial; that the Byzantines thought the Slavs were slaves is a regrettable (and indeed deplorable) fact, but it is a fact.

As for its relevance to the article: this is an article about an Arabic word for slave derived from the same Greek word; the English association is a fact of minor but not nonvaluable illustrative importance. -Senori (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

read about macedonian sclavinia. it was a state with kings. hacon and pribond. that is not what slaves have. slaves have nothing. and if they were slaves why did they attack and pillage much of Byzantium cities? shouldn't they be obidient? the word comes from slava-fame. take byzantine sources with caution. none of it means absolute thruth. it's just one way of looking at the things.Edi1kanobi (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Etymological fallacy: just because something means something now doesn't impute anything on the ancient uses of the word. It doesn't matter what the ancient Slavs so described actually were, it's just the coincidence of history that their name became a word for someone in forced servitude (see the Slave people of Canada for something similar). -Senori (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

and once again scientists and etymologyst got it all wrong. sclavinoi, siklab or saqaliba means saka libi which roughly translates reads: saka people. read a bit about saka people. the first rulling class of persia. this article has nothing to do with slavery and the corrupt ways the english language picked up the words from other languages. when slavs(not slaves) had their literacy and a state, english people were still talking in vulgar french language.77.28.218.181 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

from VfD:

The article says it's a term for "Soldiers of fortune from western and eastern Europe", but a Google search turned up nothing.Senori 02:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Note: the above comment was removed by user 216.165.38.142, who also added the comment below. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 03:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To find the definition, Source: "A History of the Arab Peoples" Albert Hourani page 189. Not everything can be found on the internet.

• Keep and make it a stub. However, I do not appreciate anon's act of removing comments. Expanding the article would have been more appropriate - Skysmith 10:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: this seems real, but it would be nice if somebody could verify this and expand the article. Jeltz 12:03, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
• It's misspelled for Saqaliba - which I've now moved it to, with expansion. - Mustafaa 14:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, with spelling fix. But it should really be expanded. Katefan0 19:34, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Saqaliba. I added the stub template. Paul August ☎ 23:34, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Dbachmann's deletion

Reverted. The fact that russians cannot make chinese from japanese does not invalidate the fact that arabs could not make russians from poles. Not to say that this observation is important in the article's context. `'mikka (t) 17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

thus in the Serb lands?

Ibrahim ibn Yaqub placed the people of "Saqalib" in the mountainous regions of Central Balkans, west of the Bulgarians and east from the "other Slavs" (Croats), thus in the Serb lands. The Saqalib had the reputation of being "the most courageous and violent".[2]

You have forgotten the Slovens men! And Ibrahim ibn Yaqub means surely not just Serb lands. That´s includes also Croat land!--Zrin22 (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

west from bulgarians and east from the other slavs could only mean Macedonia. there are no other slavs west from slovenia and bosnia and serbia.89.205.2.29 (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong date

"Theophanes mentions that the Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I settled a whole army of 5,000 Slavic mercenaries in Syria in the 660s." In 660s arabic muslim Ummayyad caliph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.10.156 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Artanians

This term is cited as not fully explained in the article text, yet surely this is a reference to Carantanians, or derived from the name of the territory known as Carantania - inhabitants of the borderlands of present-day Northern Slovenia, Croatia and Austria in the period of the early Slavic settlement. This population would have been multi-ethnic, consisting not solely of Slavic tribes, but also remnants of the many earlier peoples who 'passed through' this territory during the Late Roman and Migration Periods, e.g. Sarmatians, Avars, Bulgars, Goths and groups from other Germanic tribes. 'Illyrians' (i.e. Albanians) and Greeks would almost certainly have featured among the slave population: the Arab slavers would have sought their human goods from all along the northern coasts of the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and the Aegean and their many islands. 86.162.246.47 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The term Saqaliba refers to ALL Europeans (Balkans, Italy, Iberia - Spain and Portugal, France, Britain, Ireland...) captured in wars or in peace from European coasts

Te word refers not only to Balkan Slavs but also to other Europeans who were kidnapped by slave traders, or captured in war periods, even from as far north as Iceland. Here is the resource: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/history/conant/mushin1998. It is very well referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.242.0 (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Saqaliba comes from "Siqlabi" and means "Slavic laborers". How come you omit Poland in your description if it is clearly stated that those Slavs of darker skin are nearer the sea ("west of the Bulgarians and east from the other Slavs" meaning they have to be Serbs) while those of more fair skin are further inland (Poles and Rusyns)? Since when North-Western Europeans (Germanics), and South-Western Europeans (Romanics) are Slavs? 192.162.150.105 (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. “Sakaliba“ doesn't mean slavs. Saqaliba is a direct translation of “Kipchak“ = “Pale Saka“. From the “Book of precious treasures” by Ibn Rusta (lived circa the first half of the 10-th c.) ... The Bulgarian territory is adjacent to the Burtases’ (Mordva/Mordvins/Mordovians, Finno-Ugric people, with m/b alternation) land. Bolgars live on the bank of the river, flowing to the Khozarian (Caspian) Sea and called Itil (Itil), which is running between Khozarian and Sakaliba (In Russian literature ‘Sakaliba’ - ‘Kipchaks’ are interpreted as ‘Slavs’, though on the east side of Itil were located Kipchaks, not the Slavs.) The Volga Bulgar king (btw his name was Almysh) is not mentioned by Ibn Fadlan as "king of bulgars, turks, AND saqaliba", but only as "king of saqaliba". That means his whole country was full of the saqaliba, so could he be named as their king, right? In controversy with that we know in Volga Bulgaia there were not the slavs who were the majority, but bulgars and turks, finno-ugric and there were some slavs but the country was not made of full slavs and not even the majority were slavs. So, if the king of Volga Bulgaria was "King of Saqaliba", than we have a problem identifying Saqaliba with tha Slavs, because it is not possible that Ibn Fadlan made such a big mistake that he saw a lot of turk and bulgar fighters and for some reason he writes slavs (at that time: slaves).178.48.177.1 (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Context?

When did this practice occur? During certain dynasties or throughout the period of the whole Ottoman Empire? Was it done by Arab countries outside of the Empire? Right now, while descriptive, there is no historical context that even provides a century when this practice occurred. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Origin of term

rv'd edit containing the following:

Arab word Saqaliba could also come from much older Persian therm Saka. Saka or Saqaliba are known to babylonians as Gomer or Cimmerians or Celts.

No source listed, no Google hits. Needs a source. -Senori (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources Senori: “Sakaliba“ is a direct translation of “Kipchak“ = “Pale Saka“ From the “Book of precious treasures” by Ibn Rusta (lived circa the first half of the 10-th c.) ... The Bulgarian territory is adjacent to the Burtases’ (Mordva/Mordvins/Mordovians, Finno-Ugric people, with m/b alternation) land. Bolgars live on the bank of the river, flowing to the Khozarian (Caspian) Sea and called Itil (Itil), which is running between Khozarian and Sakaliba (In Russian literature ‘Sakaliba’ - ‘Kipchaks’ are interpreted as ‘Slavs’, though on the east side of Itil were located Kipchaks, not the Slavs.) The Volga Bulgar king (btw his name was Almysh) is not mentioned by Ibn Fadlan (who visited Almysh) as "king of bulgars, turks, AND saqaliba", but only as "king of saqaliba". That means his whole country was full of the saqaliba, so could he be named as their king, right? In controversy with that we know in Volga Bulgaia there were not the slavs who were the majority, but bulgars and turks, finno-ugric and there were some slavs but the country was not made of full slavs and not even the majority were slavs. So, if the king of Volga Bulgaria was "King of Saqaliba", than we have a problem identifying Saqaliba with tha Slavs, because it is not possible that Ibn Fadlan made such a big mistake that he saw a lot of turk and bulgar fighters and for some reason he writes slavs (at that time: slaves). 178.48.177.1 (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Slavery template should be removed

The Arabic word Saqaliba did not mean "slave." This word referred to the inhabitants of eastern Europe (wither they were Slavic, Turkic, Uralic, etc.). The Volga Bulghar king was called by Ibn Fadlan "King of the Saqaliba." He obviously did not mean "King of the slaves." The slavery tag on this article is misleading and should be removed.--HD86 (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Saqaliba, despite meaning "the Slavic workers", became the term to describe the SLAVic SLAVes, because the Muslims saw ALL Slavs as potential Slaves. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

“Sakaliba“ is a direct translation of “Kipchak“ = “Pale Saka“ From the “Book of precious treasures” by Ibn Rusta (lived circa the first half of the 10-th c.) ... The Bulgarian territory is adjacent to the Burtases’ (Mordva/Mordvins/Mordovians, Finno-Ugric people, with m/b alternation) land. Bolgars live on the bank of the river, flowing to the Khozarian (Caspian) Sea and called Itil (Itil), which is running between Khozarian and Sakaliba (In Russian literature ‘Sakaliba’ - ‘Kipchaks’ are interpreted as ‘Slavs’, though on the east side of Itil were located Kipchaks, not the Slavs.

About what HD86 says: the Volga Bulgar king (btw his name was Almysh) is not mentioned by Ibn Fadlan as "king of bulgars, turks, AND saqaliba", but only as "king of saqaliba". That means his whole country was full of the saqaliba, so could he be named as their king, right? In controversy with that we know in Volga Bulgaia there were not the slavs who were the majority, but bulgars and turks, finno-ugric and there were some slavs but the country was not made of full slavs and not even the majority were slavs. So, if the king of Volga Bulgaria was "King of Saqaliba", than we have a problem identifying Saqaliba with tha Slavs, because it is not possible that Ibn Fadlan made such a big mistake that he saw a lot of turk and bulgar fighters and for some reason he writes slavs (at that time: slaves).

178.48.177.1 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Eastimated regions of Saqaliba origin

It ts deemed that the Saqaliba were mostly Poles and Serbs. The geographical descriptions perfectly fit to the territories of East-Central Europe and South-Eastern Europe. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)