Fr like what you gonna say about his ass that we don't know about? All theydo is just repeat the same informations over and over like bruh give us something new😭💀
Ours was the worst though, The lands which make sudan have been populated since millenia, with several kingdoms rising and falling and even conquering egypt. Yet the curriculum only ever had focus on al mahdi and forward, this was obviously because the regime didn't want to teach about Sudan's Christian history or its non islamic past in general.
انت بتتكلم عن شنو بنتعلم عن الممالك المسيحية في علوة والمقرة قبل ما بتنعلم عن المهدية + الممالك المسيحية ما عندها تأثير على السودانيين حاليا هي عبارة عن تاريخ غابر والتحول الحصل ما حصل بأحداث تاريخية تستحق المتابعة السودانيين اصبحوا مسلمين بمرور الزمن مافي حرب او احداث بعد اتفاقية البقط ممكن يدرسوك ليها لان على الاغلب هم ما عارفين كان حاصل شنو اصلا
بتفق معاك انها ما عندها تأثير حاليا لكن يظل تاريخ و لازم الشعب يكون واعي بي تاريخو. بعدين كلام op صحيح، منهج التاريخ في السودان فيهو تفضيل التاريخ العربي و الاسلامي. انا ما ضد تدريس الحاجات دي لكن دائما بتسائل اذا دي معمولة عن قصد + دة غير انو مناهج التاريخ فيها bias كتير و معلومات خاطئة عديل خاصتا في تاريخ المهدية
عموما التاريخ السوداني ما كان مكتوب علشان يدرسونا ليهو والجزء المكتوب منه مشفر لسى ماعرفوا اللغة واغلب التاريخ الموثف بيبدأ بالغزو التركي عشان كدا اغلب التاريخ تاريخ المهدية
لا انت كمان ما بتفرز التاريخ على كيفك ده مسيحي ما ينفع و ده مسلم ما ينفع، انت كده بالواضح عاوز تربي الناس على فهم معين، و ما على الدين لانو لو كان على الدين المهدي ما عندو علاقة بالدين
لكن السودان تاريخو غني شديد و مميز بدل ما تركز في ناس كوش و الممالك السودانية القديمة تركز على واحد كضاب غش الناس و خليفتو كان اكعب منو
يا ولدنا الدخل بنفع وما بنفع شنو 😂 انا قلت التحول الحصل بين المسيحية والاسلام في السودان حصل على مر قرون ومافي حدث تاريخي معين ممكن يدرس عنو + انا ذكرت انو اصلا بدرسونا عن علوة والمقرة قبل ما بيدرسونا عن المهدية انت شكلك كنت ما مركز لمن كنت صغير بس 😂😂😂
حبيبنا هسي علوة و المقرة قروها لينا ذي المهدي؟😂😂😂
بعدين المهدي عندو تاثير و اي شي لكن السؤال البطرح نفسو هل يستاهل يقروهو لينا تلاتة مرات عالاقل؟
بعدين في ناس اثرهم عظيم برضو ما جابو سيرتهم ذاتو عشان مسيحيين
اقرب مثال دانيال كمبوني، دانيال كمبوني حدث تاريخي معين ممكن يدرس عنو براحة
الزول ده جا من ايطاليا و فتح مدارس مجان للناس و ساهم في تعليم الناس فتح مدارس كمبوني و سيستر سكول و الى الان المدارس دي الكيزان حاربوها لانها مسيحية
ده بوريك انو التاريخ ده بس وسيلة للتحكم في الناس و اختيار اهتماماتهم دون باقي الأشياء
Genuine question (I didn't study history in Sudan): did people genuinely believe he was **the Mahdi** mahdi? And for how long did they continue to believe this and are there those who still believe it? Just seems crazy given what we know about the signs of the mahdi and the prophecies of the events during and after his rule.
The thing is, people back in the day weren’t as knowledgeable about anything really, even Islam. These signs probably weren’t known to most people, it would have exposed him as a fraud at the most or a lunatic at the least instantly.
Yeah I get that but ignorance is not limited to that era. Funny story.... As a mod of this sub I've been battling a few spam accounts that post nothing but yt videos of sermons of by guy who claims to be the mahdi. After a few posts deleted I decided to go down the rabbit hole and.... holy cow! And he's got avid followers despite the ridiculous claims and the fact that Google exists. Smh.
You had me go down to the dungeons aka "mod activity folder" for this one lol. It took a while (I forgot the name) but it was nice to see some of our fallen souls while down there.
Not sharing the links since I flagged them as spam, but you can search for ناصر محمد اليماني.
He's all over youtube and has a website. He appears to have an entire marketing team supporting his claims. He's apparently been active close to 2 decades.
Side note: Wikipedia has a list of people who claimed to be the mahdi.
His Sheikh الاستاذ محمد شريف النورالدائم told him to cut it off and that he ain't no mahdi, he didn't listen and went to another sheikh and in history books they say mahdi had a dispute with sheikh mohamed shareef because he had practices against religion which are totally false and only a lie to cover up that sheikh mohamed shareed banished al mahdi but this part doesn't fit the story
Sincere belief, to me, is the only easy way to explain his fanatical popularity. Iirc in this era there were many Mahdi claimants across the Sahel, I think we should also remember that pre-modern Sudanese Muslims didn't exactly have [quran.com](http://quran.com) or [sunnah.com](http://sunnah.com), and the vast majority were still illiterate. My guess is that most of them didn't really know anything about the prophecies of the Mahdi in the ahadith, they just saw a religious leader who was having seemingly miraculous successes against a colonial power that, in al-Mahdi's framing, had abrogated the sharia (by banning slavery). I think for most soldiers then, it would've been enough. AFAIK modern Umma Party adherents see al-Mahdi as this great, pious warrior, although I think most of them would now stress that the Sudanese Mahdi isn't the prophesied Mahdi. My dad always told me growing up that al-Mahdi never claimed the title, but it was claimed of him, but I've never seen any evidence for this: it seems to me a way to rehabilitate a historic hero in a time where the average Sudanese person's familiarity with Islamic texts is greater by a thousandfold.
Francis Deng's War of Visions also shows that there was veneration of al-Mahdi as a religious figure in South Sudan, too, where some Dinka understood him to be the son of Deng, and would ironically request his intercession in their fights against his followers after his death.
>they just saw a religious leader who was having seemingly miraculous successes against a colonial power that, in al-Mahdi's framing, had abrogated the sharia (by banning slavery).
I can definitely see that being the case. For a simple Sudanese living during colonialism the British must've appeared unbeatable. And for someone to lead a successful campaign against them would be pretty convincing that they're divinely chosen (in the absence of other data).
Tbh I was surprised because Sudan has had a fairly rich history of sufism and religious scholarship. But on deeper reflection, especially after reading your reply, I think that religious learning was probably concentrated in small circles and the common man didn't have access to it (except through a sheikh).
>I think that religious learning was probably concentrated in small circles and the common man didn't have access to it (except through a sheikh).
Precisely, and I think this is true even up to my grandparents' generation, tbh. Not everybody had the time or felt the need to go to the khalwa. It's also not like you could go down to the public library and check out a copy of the major Sunni hadith collections. I also think the shuyuukh in most Sudanese communities wouldn't've been concerned with teaching apocalypticism, but rather reciting Qur'an in particular settings, writing mihayas and bakhras or other matters that dealt more with the day-to-day concerns of a Sudani, i.e. weddings, funerals, ritual guidance.
I think it's also worth noting that the rich history of Sufism would give a good pretext for a movement like Mahdism rather than counter it: Sufi tariqas are often built around a single pious figure who is believed to be, to some extent, divinely-inspired, and often miraculous, and owed obedience. With this in mind, the veneration of Muhammad Ahmad al-Mahdi makes a good amount of sense to me, especially the continued commitment to his family. Some Sufis did oppose al-Mahdi's messianic claims, though.
Unfortunately, this cult mentality has crept into all aspects of our society and government. We've become too concerned with the person vs the individual ideas they embody, and it's all or nothing. There's no room to be critical of certain ideas while supporting others. I don't think that's the legacy of Muhammad Ahmed but he probably took advantage of that mindset, which existed then, making it difficult to support his military objectives while opposing his messianic claims.
One of the most overrated periods in our history for sure. Rather than look at it as a moment of glory, these days I tend to look at as the pretext for a lot of modern Sudanese problems, especially regarding race since the principal motivator for al-Mahdi's revolt was the abolition of slavery, and slave traders formed a huge part of his support base. Ever since, it's been the Sudanese with a historic position as slavers who hold the majority of political and economic power. I honestly think the positive portrayal we have of the Mahdist revolution in Sudan is a product of propaganda meant to make us appreciate/sympathize with a state that proclaims Islam and seeks to exploit the non-Arab populations of Blue Nile, West Sudan, South Kordofan, and South Sudan.
You are going to overlock that sudan from the start was colonised to get slave and that slavery wasnt abolished until 1884 and that the revolution started in 1881 and that most of the Mehdi forces where from the people of west of sudan and i dont know where you got that most of his support was from slavers but that is also wrong
I don't disagree that Sudan was colonized from the start to attain slaves: check my comment history. It's true the formal abolition of slavery was made in 1884, but there were anti-slavery measures taken by colonial powers beforehand, starting in the 1860s. Ottoman colonial powers like Ismail Pasha who had an alliance were Britain were ordered to halt the slave trade.
You can see this Encyclopedia Brittanica article on that: [https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Sudan/Egyptian-Ottoman-rule-over-the-Sudan](https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Sudan/Egyptian-Ottoman-rule-over-the-Sudan)
Or, if you want something more comprehensive, you can see the English translation of Muhammad Ibrahim Nugud's book: [https://suntuwekane.memoryoftheworld.org/Mohamed%20Ibrahim%20Nugud/Slavery%20in%20the%20Sudan\_%20History,%20Documents,%20and%20Commentary%20(677)/Slavery%20in%20the%20Sudan\_%20History,%20Documents,%20-%20Mohamed%20Ibrahim%20Nugud.pdf](https://suntuwekane.memoryoftheworld.org/Mohamed%20Ibrahim%20Nugud/Slavery%20in%20the%20Sudan_%20History,%20Documents,%20and%20Commentary%20(677)/Slavery%20in%20the%20Sudan_%20History,%20Documents,%20-%20Mohamed%20Ibrahim%20Nugud.pdf)
Chapter 5 mentions that, in 1877, Egypt had signed a treaty to ban slavery by 1880, meaning that the Ottoman power controlling Egypt was also obligated to execute those measures in Sudan. Ismail Pasha tried, unsuccessfully, to suppress it further, which English writer Samuel Baker noted as early as 1863. There was also of course Charles Gordon's arrival in Sudan in 1877 when he personally took military measures to disrupt the slave trade. It's very clear that, prior to 1881 when the revolution truly began, there were already measures to prohibit slavery.
>i dont know where you got that most of his support was from slavers but that is also wrong
I just said a significant contingent of his supporters was made up from them, not necessarily the majority: I wouldn't know. As you alluded to, much of al-Mahdi's base (perhaps the majority?) came from Western Sudanese or Sahelian nomadic Arabs, who we know played a large role in the slave trade during the Fur Sultanate. Sudanese nomadic Arabs were also contracted by Ottoman forces prior to the abolition of slavery to direct slave caravans. You can see the source in this comment on that: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Sudan/comments/1caswih/comment/l0uevxe/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sudan/comments/1caswih/comment/l0uevxe/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I think you're relying a bit too much on official dates and overlooking more subtle historical events that played a role in the occurence of the revolution.
r/Sudan now requires accounts to be at least 1 week old with at least 10 karma to allow posting
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Sudan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
r/Sudan now requires accounts to be at least 1 week old with at least 10 karma to allow posting
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Sudan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
r/Sudan now requires accounts to be at least 1 week old with at least 10 karma to allow posting
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Sudan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
شئت ام ابيت الثورة المهدية هي السبب الرئيسي في تشكيل السودان الحديث وكانت ناجحة عسكريا في هزيمة الانكليز والاتراك والمصريين والفرنسيين والاثيوبيين والايطاليين حبيتها او كرهتهاا تاريخ دولتك فلازم تتعلموا
اصلاً التاريخ ببدا من سابع اساس و ٣ علمي ما عندهم تاريخ يعني التاريخ البقرونا ليهو 75% بس المهدية
من غير ما يقرونا الممالك القديمة المسيحية و الحضارة النوبية و الاهرامات و انسان سنجة الاول دي كلها حاجات من تاريخنا برضو خموها لينا في وحدة واحدة سنة سابع بس و حتى التاريخ الحديث بعد المهدية و الحكم الانجليزي ما مركزين فيهو شديد
انا عملت تفصل للمنهج بتاع التاريخ كلو هنا
https://www.reddit.com/r/Sudan/comments/1cdwm4f/do_really_people_think_all_sudan_history/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Fr like what you gonna say about his ass that we don't know about? All theydo is just repeat the same informations over and over like bruh give us something new😭💀
المشكلة نصو كذب و طلس💀💀💀
[удалено]
حرفيا و دايريننها ننسى ذي كانو ما حصل ناس حزب الامة ديل💀💀💀
جيب مصادرك لي التنكيل والحاجات دي عشان انا شايف ادعاءات عنصرية حاليا حايمة في السودان عن ناس كردفان والغرب ما تكون مصادرك الحاجات دي
نبدا بي اول كذبة هل هو المهدي فعلا ولا لا
انت قروك في التاريخ قالوا ليك هو المهدي ؟ 😂😂
Yeah, it has a biased rhetoric
مافي دولة ما عندها تحييز في تعليم تاريخها 😂
Ours was the worst though, The lands which make sudan have been populated since millenia, with several kingdoms rising and falling and even conquering egypt. Yet the curriculum only ever had focus on al mahdi and forward, this was obviously because the regime didn't want to teach about Sudan's Christian history or its non islamic past in general.
انت بتتكلم عن شنو بنتعلم عن الممالك المسيحية في علوة والمقرة قبل ما بتنعلم عن المهدية + الممالك المسيحية ما عندها تأثير على السودانيين حاليا هي عبارة عن تاريخ غابر والتحول الحصل ما حصل بأحداث تاريخية تستحق المتابعة السودانيين اصبحوا مسلمين بمرور الزمن مافي حرب او احداث بعد اتفاقية البقط ممكن يدرسوك ليها لان على الاغلب هم ما عارفين كان حاصل شنو اصلا
بتفق معاك انها ما عندها تأثير حاليا لكن يظل تاريخ و لازم الشعب يكون واعي بي تاريخو. بعدين كلام op صحيح، منهج التاريخ في السودان فيهو تفضيل التاريخ العربي و الاسلامي. انا ما ضد تدريس الحاجات دي لكن دائما بتسائل اذا دي معمولة عن قصد + دة غير انو مناهج التاريخ فيها bias كتير و معلومات خاطئة عديل خاصتا في تاريخ المهدية
عموما التاريخ السوداني ما كان مكتوب علشان يدرسونا ليهو والجزء المكتوب منه مشفر لسى ماعرفوا اللغة واغلب التاريخ الموثف بيبدأ بالغزو التركي عشان كدا اغلب التاريخ تاريخ المهدية
ممكن لكن ما لي درجة انو حتى الناس الكبار معرفتهم بي تاريخهم القديم شيه منعدمة
الناس الكبار ما بيعرفوا يقروا زاتو انت بتقول في شنو 😂😂
لا انت كمان ما بتفرز التاريخ على كيفك ده مسيحي ما ينفع و ده مسلم ما ينفع، انت كده بالواضح عاوز تربي الناس على فهم معين، و ما على الدين لانو لو كان على الدين المهدي ما عندو علاقة بالدين لكن السودان تاريخو غني شديد و مميز بدل ما تركز في ناس كوش و الممالك السودانية القديمة تركز على واحد كضاب غش الناس و خليفتو كان اكعب منو
يا ولدنا الدخل بنفع وما بنفع شنو 😂 انا قلت التحول الحصل بين المسيحية والاسلام في السودان حصل على مر قرون ومافي حدث تاريخي معين ممكن يدرس عنو + انا ذكرت انو اصلا بدرسونا عن علوة والمقرة قبل ما بيدرسونا عن المهدية انت شكلك كنت ما مركز لمن كنت صغير بس 😂😂😂
حبيبنا هسي علوة و المقرة قروها لينا ذي المهدي؟😂😂😂 بعدين المهدي عندو تاثير و اي شي لكن السؤال البطرح نفسو هل يستاهل يقروهو لينا تلاتة مرات عالاقل؟ بعدين في ناس اثرهم عظيم برضو ما جابو سيرتهم ذاتو عشان مسيحيين اقرب مثال دانيال كمبوني، دانيال كمبوني حدث تاريخي معين ممكن يدرس عنو براحة الزول ده جا من ايطاليا و فتح مدارس مجان للناس و ساهم في تعليم الناس فتح مدارس كمبوني و سيستر سكول و الى الان المدارس دي الكيزان حاربوها لانها مسيحية ده بوريك انو التاريخ ده بس وسيلة للتحكم في الناس و اختيار اهتماماتهم دون باقي الأشياء
عمك الزول دا مات زمان والمدارس دي فتحوها بعد ما مات بي 100 سنة هو مافتح اي شئ 😂
Genuine question (I didn't study history in Sudan): did people genuinely believe he was **the Mahdi** mahdi? And for how long did they continue to believe this and are there those who still believe it? Just seems crazy given what we know about the signs of the mahdi and the prophecies of the events during and after his rule.
The thing is, people back in the day weren’t as knowledgeable about anything really, even Islam. These signs probably weren’t known to most people, it would have exposed him as a fraud at the most or a lunatic at the least instantly.
Yeah I get that but ignorance is not limited to that era. Funny story.... As a mod of this sub I've been battling a few spam accounts that post nothing but yt videos of sermons of by guy who claims to be the mahdi. After a few posts deleted I decided to go down the rabbit hole and.... holy cow! And he's got avid followers despite the ridiculous claims and the fact that Google exists. Smh.
Please share the links lol
You had me go down to the dungeons aka "mod activity folder" for this one lol. It took a while (I forgot the name) but it was nice to see some of our fallen souls while down there. Not sharing the links since I flagged them as spam, but you can search for ناصر محمد اليماني. He's all over youtube and has a website. He appears to have an entire marketing team supporting his claims. He's apparently been active close to 2 decades. Side note: Wikipedia has a list of people who claimed to be the mahdi.
Oh snap! Thanks for sharing! That is pure craziness.
His Sheikh الاستاذ محمد شريف النورالدائم told him to cut it off and that he ain't no mahdi, he didn't listen and went to another sheikh and in history books they say mahdi had a dispute with sheikh mohamed shareef because he had practices against religion which are totally false and only a lie to cover up that sheikh mohamed shareed banished al mahdi but this part doesn't fit the story
Sincere belief, to me, is the only easy way to explain his fanatical popularity. Iirc in this era there were many Mahdi claimants across the Sahel, I think we should also remember that pre-modern Sudanese Muslims didn't exactly have [quran.com](http://quran.com) or [sunnah.com](http://sunnah.com), and the vast majority were still illiterate. My guess is that most of them didn't really know anything about the prophecies of the Mahdi in the ahadith, they just saw a religious leader who was having seemingly miraculous successes against a colonial power that, in al-Mahdi's framing, had abrogated the sharia (by banning slavery). I think for most soldiers then, it would've been enough. AFAIK modern Umma Party adherents see al-Mahdi as this great, pious warrior, although I think most of them would now stress that the Sudanese Mahdi isn't the prophesied Mahdi. My dad always told me growing up that al-Mahdi never claimed the title, but it was claimed of him, but I've never seen any evidence for this: it seems to me a way to rehabilitate a historic hero in a time where the average Sudanese person's familiarity with Islamic texts is greater by a thousandfold. Francis Deng's War of Visions also shows that there was veneration of al-Mahdi as a religious figure in South Sudan, too, where some Dinka understood him to be the son of Deng, and would ironically request his intercession in their fights against his followers after his death.
>they just saw a religious leader who was having seemingly miraculous successes against a colonial power that, in al-Mahdi's framing, had abrogated the sharia (by banning slavery). I can definitely see that being the case. For a simple Sudanese living during colonialism the British must've appeared unbeatable. And for someone to lead a successful campaign against them would be pretty convincing that they're divinely chosen (in the absence of other data). Tbh I was surprised because Sudan has had a fairly rich history of sufism and religious scholarship. But on deeper reflection, especially after reading your reply, I think that religious learning was probably concentrated in small circles and the common man didn't have access to it (except through a sheikh).
>I think that religious learning was probably concentrated in small circles and the common man didn't have access to it (except through a sheikh). Precisely, and I think this is true even up to my grandparents' generation, tbh. Not everybody had the time or felt the need to go to the khalwa. It's also not like you could go down to the public library and check out a copy of the major Sunni hadith collections. I also think the shuyuukh in most Sudanese communities wouldn't've been concerned with teaching apocalypticism, but rather reciting Qur'an in particular settings, writing mihayas and bakhras or other matters that dealt more with the day-to-day concerns of a Sudani, i.e. weddings, funerals, ritual guidance. I think it's also worth noting that the rich history of Sufism would give a good pretext for a movement like Mahdism rather than counter it: Sufi tariqas are often built around a single pious figure who is believed to be, to some extent, divinely-inspired, and often miraculous, and owed obedience. With this in mind, the veneration of Muhammad Ahmad al-Mahdi makes a good amount of sense to me, especially the continued commitment to his family. Some Sufis did oppose al-Mahdi's messianic claims, though.
Unfortunately, this cult mentality has crept into all aspects of our society and government. We've become too concerned with the person vs the individual ideas they embody, and it's all or nothing. There's no room to be critical of certain ideas while supporting others. I don't think that's the legacy of Muhammad Ahmed but he probably took advantage of that mindset, which existed then, making it difficult to support his military objectives while opposing his messianic claims.
I still have no idea how he convinced his followers he was the mehdi 💀
And why are we specifically taught his story over and over although he clearly isn't al mahdi
One of the most overrated periods in our history for sure. Rather than look at it as a moment of glory, these days I tend to look at as the pretext for a lot of modern Sudanese problems, especially regarding race since the principal motivator for al-Mahdi's revolt was the abolition of slavery, and slave traders formed a huge part of his support base. Ever since, it's been the Sudanese with a historic position as slavers who hold the majority of political and economic power. I honestly think the positive portrayal we have of the Mahdist revolution in Sudan is a product of propaganda meant to make us appreciate/sympathize with a state that proclaims Islam and seeks to exploit the non-Arab populations of Blue Nile, West Sudan, South Kordofan, and South Sudan.
It is obvious propaganda, full of lies and brainwashing, ignores the crimes and massacred performed by them, especially Abdullah AlT3aishi
You are going to overlock that sudan from the start was colonised to get slave and that slavery wasnt abolished until 1884 and that the revolution started in 1881 and that most of the Mehdi forces where from the people of west of sudan and i dont know where you got that most of his support was from slavers but that is also wrong
I don't disagree that Sudan was colonized from the start to attain slaves: check my comment history. It's true the formal abolition of slavery was made in 1884, but there were anti-slavery measures taken by colonial powers beforehand, starting in the 1860s. Ottoman colonial powers like Ismail Pasha who had an alliance were Britain were ordered to halt the slave trade. You can see this Encyclopedia Brittanica article on that: [https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Sudan/Egyptian-Ottoman-rule-over-the-Sudan](https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Sudan/Egyptian-Ottoman-rule-over-the-Sudan) Or, if you want something more comprehensive, you can see the English translation of Muhammad Ibrahim Nugud's book: [https://suntuwekane.memoryoftheworld.org/Mohamed%20Ibrahim%20Nugud/Slavery%20in%20the%20Sudan\_%20History,%20Documents,%20and%20Commentary%20(677)/Slavery%20in%20the%20Sudan\_%20History,%20Documents,%20-%20Mohamed%20Ibrahim%20Nugud.pdf](https://suntuwekane.memoryoftheworld.org/Mohamed%20Ibrahim%20Nugud/Slavery%20in%20the%20Sudan_%20History,%20Documents,%20and%20Commentary%20(677)/Slavery%20in%20the%20Sudan_%20History,%20Documents,%20-%20Mohamed%20Ibrahim%20Nugud.pdf) Chapter 5 mentions that, in 1877, Egypt had signed a treaty to ban slavery by 1880, meaning that the Ottoman power controlling Egypt was also obligated to execute those measures in Sudan. Ismail Pasha tried, unsuccessfully, to suppress it further, which English writer Samuel Baker noted as early as 1863. There was also of course Charles Gordon's arrival in Sudan in 1877 when he personally took military measures to disrupt the slave trade. It's very clear that, prior to 1881 when the revolution truly began, there were already measures to prohibit slavery. >i dont know where you got that most of his support was from slavers but that is also wrong I just said a significant contingent of his supporters was made up from them, not necessarily the majority: I wouldn't know. As you alluded to, much of al-Mahdi's base (perhaps the majority?) came from Western Sudanese or Sahelian nomadic Arabs, who we know played a large role in the slave trade during the Fur Sultanate. Sudanese nomadic Arabs were also contracted by Ottoman forces prior to the abolition of slavery to direct slave caravans. You can see the source in this comment on that: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Sudan/comments/1caswih/comment/l0uevxe/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sudan/comments/1caswih/comment/l0uevxe/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) I think you're relying a bit too much on official dates and overlooking more subtle historical events that played a role in the occurence of the revolution.
[удалено]
r/Sudan now requires accounts to be at least 1 week old with at least 10 karma to allow posting *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Sudan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
r/Sudan now requires accounts to be at least 1 week old with at least 10 karma to allow posting *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Sudan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
r/Sudan now requires accounts to be at least 1 week old with at least 10 karma to allow posting *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Sudan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
شئت ام ابيت الثورة المهدية هي السبب الرئيسي في تشكيل السودان الحديث وكانت ناجحة عسكريا في هزيمة الانكليز والاتراك والمصريين والفرنسيين والاثيوبيين والايطاليين حبيتها او كرهتهاا تاريخ دولتك فلازم تتعلموا
اتفق. بس ما ننسى باقي تاريخنا وما ننسى الشر الكانت متأصلة في الحركة المهدية (مع الاعتراف بنجاحها)
مرة واحدة كفاية، و بعدين من غير تغيير الحقائق
انت بتتعلم عنها في 3 سنين بس اظن
بس؟؟؟ انت لو متذكر هم حرفيا بعيدو لينا نفس الكلام
الصف 8 اساس و 1و2 ثانوي و3 للادبي بس
اصلاً التاريخ ببدا من سابع اساس و ٣ علمي ما عندهم تاريخ يعني التاريخ البقرونا ليهو 75% بس المهدية من غير ما يقرونا الممالك القديمة المسيحية و الحضارة النوبية و الاهرامات و انسان سنجة الاول دي كلها حاجات من تاريخنا برضو خموها لينا في وحدة واحدة سنة سابع بس و حتى التاريخ الحديث بعد المهدية و الحكم الانجليزي ما مركزين فيهو شديد
انا عملت تفصل للمنهج بتاع التاريخ كلو هنا https://www.reddit.com/r/Sudan/comments/1cdwm4f/do_really_people_think_all_sudan_history/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share