|
Post by franklin on Apr 15, 2010 8:46:00 GMT -5
This is something that has confused me for a long time because if you read different material they say different things, my main question is why Ahmad Baba cited Ibn Khaldun in order to support the "anti conquest thesis", because this is an essential question when it comes to understanding the history of the Almoravids and I don't think the history can be understood unless we have an accurate view of what these scholars actually wrote. This is not just a little bit important, but absolutely essential Another thing is Leo Africanus, first off pictures of him show him as dark skin but some of the literature as shown depict him as a bigot. And also for Leo to say that "blacks" lived as brutes would be in contrast with what earlier writers, like Ibn Khaldun, said about the history. Plus early translators of Leo Africanus, at least as far as I know, didn't have much difficulty associating "black" with "Moor" while on the other hand the account shown here shows a sort of sharp contrast Interestingly there is one author who took it for granted that Ibn Khaldun made no mention of an Almoravid conquest of Ghana, while the same author says Ibn Khaldun wrote allot about Ghana itself. Another author shows two translations one from the 19th century and the other modern, they are similar but also kind of different. Another example is Chiek Anta Diop almost seems like he read another version of much of this literature because of Diop's famous saying that there is no documentation in the literature about a conquest to the south. Also I've read some works from missionary minded people from the 19th century who I know would love to point out any racism in Muslim literature but are strangely silent about it, this despite the fact that they obviously dwell on any real or imagined flaw about Mohammed. On the other hand in the mid 1950's there is one European scholar who stated that Ibn Battuta was appalled to see "blacks", who were slaves in the Muslim world, acting as masters in their own country, while Ibn Battuta is now seen as being non-racist today as opposed to other Muslim scholars. The below is just a few examples and while there was certainly bigotry, and probably a great deal of bigotry in much of these writings, some of it might have been exaggerated by Europeans "The Maghrib in question” Michel Le Gall, Kenneth J. Perkins books.google.com/books?id=N7WM3vx-0X8C&pg=PA182&dq=onepage&q&f=false#v=onepage&q&f=false Even Ibn Khaldun, who wrote during the period of the three-hundredth anniversary of the alleged conquest, does not specifically state that the Almoravids conquered Ghana, albeit he talks about Ghana extensively in the geographical discussion Page 3 "Not quite Venus from the Waves: The Almoravid conquest of Ghana" www.arts.ualberta.ca/~amcdouga/Hist446/readings/conquest_in_west_african_historiography.pdf According to Leo Africanus, "The Land of Blacks was then "inhabited by people, who lived like brutes, without kings, lords, republics, government and any customs, and without knowing husbandry." And it goes on about Leo Africanus's attitudes toward "blacks" (this is just to show a picture of Leo Africanus) See page 6 here "Not quite Venus from the Waves: The Almoravid conquest of Ghana". Talking about Ahmad Baba www.arts.ualberta.ca/~amcdouga/Hist446/readings/conquest_in_west_african_historiography.pdf His emphatic rejection of any form of the "conquest hypothesis" carries parciular weight since he was writing relatively early, more or less on the spot geographically, and - a little curiously, we confess - he cited precisely the Almoravid/Ghana confrontation passage from Ibn Khaldun to prove his own anti-conquest opinion. More than two centuries later, as we shall soon see, this notorious passage would lead European scholars to draw a quite opposite conclusion concerning the same manner From page 10 and 11 A modern English translation of the relevant passage, for instance, is this:
Later the authority of the people of Ghana waned and their prestige declined as that of the veiled people, their neighbors on the north next to the land of Berbers, grew (as we have related). These extended their domination over the Sudan, and pillaged, imposed tribute (itawat) and poll-tax (jizya), and converted many of them to Islam. Then the authority of Ghana dwindled away and they were overcome by the Susu, a neighboring people of the Sudan, who subjugated and absorbed them.
Cooley’s own rendering of the same passage keeps the attention of the veiled people fixed more specifically on Ghana:
The people of Ghana declined in course of time, being overwhelmed or absorbed by the Molaththemun (or muffled people-that is, the Morabites), who, adjoining them on the north towards the Berber country, attacked them, and, taking possession of their territory, compelled them to embrace the Mohammedan religion. The people of Ghana, being invaded at a later period by the Susu, a nation of the Blacks in their neighbourhood, were exterminated, or mixed with other Black nations. “The myth of continents: a critique of metageography” By Martin W. Lewis, Kären Wigen 1997 books.google.com/books?id=C2as0sWxFBAC&pg=PA117#v=onepage&q&f=false In Asante's view, such famous Arabic writers as Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Battuta demonstrate the superior quality of a distinctly African Civilization…
….There is also irony in Asante's sanctification of Arabic writers such as Ibn Khaldun as exemplars of uniquely African sensibilities….
Ibn Battuta, another prominent scholar from the Maghreb, entertained similarly disparaging ideas... Like Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Battuta ill suits the role of pan-African cultural hero
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 15, 2010 9:01:42 GMT -5
I remember some racist quotes attributed to Ibn Battuta, which is interesting because he is normally considered non-racist. I only have some secondary material that has interpretations of Ibn Battuta being racist though, it does make my point 1. the sharp contrasting between "Moor" and "black" 2. The interpretation or even translation changes over timeHowever the idea that Ibn Battuta was racist could probably be simply interpretation and not translation differences "Review: Questions of Context: Ibn Battuta and E. W. Bovill on Africa", by Nina Berman © 2003 Indiana University Press. www.jstor.org/pss/4618304page 5 Bovill interprets Arab-African relations through the lens of race and color. He speaks, for example, of the “traditional contempt of Muslims for negroes” (61), and the fact that he collapses “Muslim” and “Arab” muddles his argument even further. Bovill praises Mansa Musa for supposedly breaking the “curtain of color” (90), and he misinterprets Ibn Battuta’s comments on the inhabitants of Mali by suggesting that the traveler was appalled by black Africans, “whom hitherto he had known only as slaves, behaving as masters in their own country” (93). He fails to understand the religious and cultural roots of Ibn Battuta’s comments and projects European racism on the encounter. One could compare these writers saying positive things to that of racist Europeans who said some positive things about Africans, but Europeans say these things in a very paternalistic way and at least have some kind of logic to their racism while reading various literature from Medieval writers sometimes seems very awkward and don't seem compatible with other things the same writer said. Like in some translations of Ibn Khaldun where he comes out of nowhere and says "Negroes are of all people those most submissive to slavery" which seems to be out of no where and for no reason. I've been criticized for questioning it but it makes no sense to me, I have trouble reconciling all the things that seem to be in stark contrast with each other Another important element to discuss would be Jahiz's hatred for the Zanj Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 15, 2010 21:47:40 GMT -5
Markillon if you can find it get the book Black folks Here and There by This is in two vol. the second deals with the Africans in Islam inside and out side Africa..especially the soldier class..their rise to power from the onset of Islam... and their first fall under Saladin the Kurd. It's too bad those volumes is no longer in my possession.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 15, 2010 22:24:47 GMT -5
Thanks. Do they talk about translations because or how this comes into context because there are some things that don't seem to add up. "West Asian views on black Africans during the medieval era" www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2002&x=arabviews"Like the crow among mankind are the Zanj for they are the worst of men and the most vicious of creatures in character and temperament."7
Al Jahiz, Kitab al-Hayawan, vol. 2
Galen says that merriment dominates the black man because of his defective brain, whence also the weakness of his intelligence."
Al-Masudi (d. 956 AD), Muruj al-dhahab Edit: I read one explanation on this quote from Masudi and the explanation was that Masudi made it up and attributed it to Galen. But other things I've read from Masudi were positive about the Zanj, so why would Masudi make something up and attribute it to Galen?
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 15, 2010 23:56:58 GMT -5
Thanks. Do they talk about translations because or how this comes into context because there are some things that don't seem to add up. "West Asian views on black Africans during the medieval era" www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2002&x=arabviews Edit: I read one explanation on this quote from Masudi and the explanation was that Masudi made it up and attributed it to Galen. But other things I've read from Masudi were positive about the Zanj, so why would Masudi make something up and attribute it to Galen?Yes the book is in essence a sociology book..
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 1:21:36 GMT -5
Do you remember what it have to say about this issue?
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 3:06:35 GMT -5
See the translation from Masudi bellow, it does have the quote where Masudi said Galen called Zanj inferior, but in the whole translation Masudi himself doesn't show himself to be racist he only quotes racism from other people And remember Chiek Anta Diop said that there is no documentation of a conquest in those countries from Arabs "A REGION OF THE MIND: MEDIEVAL ARAB VIEWS OF AFRICAN GEOGRAPHY AND ETHNOGRAPHY AND THEIR LEGACY"* JOHN O. HUNWICK Page 26 www.hf.uib.no/smi/sa/16/16Hunwick.pdfQuoting Ibn Khaldun We have seen that Negroes are in general characterized by levity, excitability, and great emotionalism. They are found to dance wherever they hear a melody. They are everywhere described as stupid. … Al-Masüdı undertook to investigate the reason [for this]. However, he did no better than to report on the authority of … al-Kindı and Jalinüs that the reason is a weakness of their brains which results in a weakness of their intellects. This is an inconclusive Al-Mas'udi sites.google.com/site/historyofeastafrica/al-masudiThe Zanj speak elegantly, and they have orators in their own language. Often a ascetic (zahid) man of the country, will get up and address a large crowd exhorting them to draw near to their god and render him obedience; frightening them with his punishment and authority, recalling them to the example of their former kings and ancestors. They have no revealed law to turn to but the customs of their kings.
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 16, 2010 8:03:29 GMT -5
Some of these translations are not only questionable but the motive behind them is questionable as well.
For example the claim by Ibn Qutayba "[Blacks] are ugly and misshapen, because they live in a hot country." ;
The following is noted by Islamic scholars- “It is likely a spurious work not penned by him. Shaykh Muhib al-Din al-Khatib states in his edition of the work "`Awasim min al-Qawasim" of Abu Bakr ibn al-`Arabi al-Maliki, "Nothing from it has been credibly attributed to Ibn Qutaybah at all. Al-Imamah wa-l Siyasah is rife with ignorance, stupidity, falsehoods and deception..."
You have to question the authenticity of these translations, and the sensationalized aspect of them being taken out of context, this is not to say that they are all false, who knows, but to use a few select quotes and try to attribute them to Arabs: From the link you provided In the Arab world, as in Europe, there was a necessity to justify the enslavement of black Africans by portraying them as subhuman.
Medieval Arab views of Black Africans is extremely IMAGINATIVE, to say the least. Especially since most of the quotes claim to be from Indo-Iranian (Persians), Persians have NEVER claimed to be ARAB, yes, both are Muslim, but ethnically different.
The fact is, both Persians and Africans had both been enslaved by Arabs in the pre-Islamic era. Slavery was NOT based on race during those days. They need to stop administering White European racial concepts to every historical incidence of African slavery!
In the era of the muslim Prophet Mohamed, it is widely known in Islamic scholarship, that several slaves were held by Arabs, of several nations and several skin colors. Of his three closest and dearest companions, 2 had been slaves; one a Black Ethiopian named Bilal, and the other a white Persian named Salman, both were freed after embracing Islam, neither were forced to embrace Islam, they did so on their own accord, specifically the Black Ethiopian when he learned from the Prophet that there was one God of all people, whereas the nonbelievers in Arabia used to preach that the slaves came from a lesser god than the masters.
We also know that the prophet turned to the Ethiopian rulers when the non-believing Arabs sought to persecute him. He looked to this Black ruler, King Negus of Abyssinia with great admiration and respect. And these other Arabs, also held high regards for this King, as they didn’t DARE enter his kingdom to force Mohamed out.
These Arabs knew that Abyssinia was a highly developed kingdom of Black people, even after returning to Arabia, the prophet would announce that they are “an unlearned illiterate” people (Arabs). He and the other Arabs were will aware of the magnificence and intelligence throughout the “Black” Abyssinian Kingdom which pre-existed their rule. Come on, they were still dwelling in tents, while these Africans were a highly developed society.
Even Malcom X, realized that it was AMERICA that was built on the foundation of racism, when he first traveled to Mecca. For the first time in his life, he sensed a universal ‘brotherhood’ between whites and blacks, as the White American HATRED was non-existent.
“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over a white, except by piety and good action.”
And from this, I do believe that any SERIOUS Islamic scholar would take heed to the final words of their beloved prophet. And to also note the propaganda from these so-called translators to cause division between Black and White Muslims, that is far from a reality, as Mohamed truly loved and adored his Black companion, no less than the others. Even the Arabs themselves sometimes referred to this Black companion as their master. Remember the same racist type scholars tries to deny that Abraham married an Egyptian, and Moses and Solomon, married Ethiopians. Even going so far as to claim the Bible was mistranslated, but only in the instances where Blacks play important roles. Its their intent to only keep Blacks in ‘The Books’ as nothing more than slaves; THEIR invention, not the invention of the ancient scholars.
I do recall, one their most relied upon Ancient Scholars writing about the “Black” Ethiopians, that; “They were the tallest and most handsome of all mankind” ..Herodotus.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 10:17:58 GMT -5
Thank you for the information and perspective but: Remember the same racist type scholars tries to deny that Abraham married an Egyptian, and Moses and Solomon, married Ethiopians. Even going so far as to claim the Bible was mistranslated, but only in the instances where Blacks play important roles. Its their intent to only keep Blacks in ‘The Books’ as nothing more than slaves; THEIR invention, not the invention of the ancient scholars. I'm not sure what you meant by this because certainly much of the propaganda in the bible translations isn't necessarily about "blackness" for example the way Jesus goes from confronting the money changers and he doesn't hold anything back but then he says give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. And Jesus also goes from extreme passivism to a world conquerer because prophesies have it that Jesus will come back in the Apocalypse and rule earth. The two contradictions of passivism and violence are both balanced in such a way that they are both negative, rather than fighting tyranny it is accepting tyranny, and there is also the belief that non-believers deserve torture. Also there were many Roman "Pagans" who actually said positive things about Jesus, but if Jesus had claimed to be God this would have been seen as gross blasphemy since in the ancient world a living man could be a god, but to claim to be a major god there is nothing worse than that. Pharaohs were divine mediators because they still gave offerings to higher gods and Roman Emperors were gods but ranking far bellow the Olympian gods. Also many early Christians debated whither Jesus was God manifested as a man and one side won and the other side was suppressed. Point being that some of the translations in the bible would probably have been distortedApocalypse Jesus This is one noticeable case of context in which one scholar actually says something that is in blatant contradiction to all his other writings. However in this case it could be attributed to bad editing Ibn-Hawqal, the Cheque, and Awdaghost by Nehemia Levtzion Bottom page 8 and top of page 9 www.arts.ualberta.ca/~amcdouga/Hist446/readings/ibn_hawqal_the_cheque_levtzion.pdf
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 16, 2010 12:06:37 GMT -5
EDIT: Nevermind, you posted the source for my first question. Leo Africanus was indeed Northafro-centric....
Franklin. Where have you seen depictions of Leo Africanus at all, let alone of him being dark skinned? There's one on wikipedia claimed to be of him which looks like a typical Spaniard (where he was from). The one from the book you posted is a novel. Not even sure if that picture is supposed to be an accurate representation of him at that time.
Anyways, if anything, Ibn Khaldun has stated some of the most vile things about Africans (and not about just how they "USED" to be), and merely based on what he'd been mislead to believe seeing as how every group of blacks that he met were a part of some civilization of sorts, be it the Abyssinians or the Malians (attributing their high levels of civilization to organized religion).
P.S. And anyone who has read "Ibn Battuta in Black Africa" would know that he never spoke on word of ill against blacks. there was never one negative comment made about Blacks in general, his only complaints in Mali was the lack of hospitality of the part of the Mansa (Mansa Suleyman). He was taken a back because of the memories he'd had of Mansa Musa's elegance and generosity. Overall, he had nothing but good things to say about Mali.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 12:15:17 GMT -5
I actually forgot but I remember hearing something about Hinduism and how the colonialists distorted the text or at least misinterpreted it, and it is not too outrageous to think Europeans have had a big impact on that religion because they were certainly obsessed with the texts and calling themselves Aryans There was certainly a lot of effort in some Islamic hadiths to say that women were in a lower position, but even the reformist translation Koran is very disturbing and there are some things in it that are anti-feminist. However it does talk about translations. But Also concerning the Koran: "QURAN A Reformist Translation" www.irshadmanji.com/PDFS/ReformistTranslation.pdfSurah 4:34 (does the Quran allow wife abuse?) (this deals with translation) www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5b2bPoppxY
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 12:21:44 GMT -5
I posted the last post before I saw Sundiata. My point was to show how there were other distortions in translations in other books, so its not just racial but homeylu is right allot of this racism doesn't seem to have much context Many scholars have seen Ibn Battuta as being very racist, and also many depictions of Leo also have him very dark. Also if you read this whole thing overall Leo Africanus is more racist than Ibn Khaldun"Not quite Venus from the Waves: The Almoravid conquest of Ghana" page 3. www.arts.ualberta.ca/~amcdouga/Hist446/readings/conquest_in_west_african_historiography.pdf
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 12:36:28 GMT -5
P.S. And anyone who has read Ibn Battuta in Black Africa" would know that he never spoke on word of ill against blacks. there was never one negative comment made about Blacks in general, his only complaints in Mali was the lack of hospitality of the part of the Mansa (Mansa Suleyman). He was taken a back because of the memories he'd had of Mansa Musa's elegance and generosity. Overall, he had nothing but good things to say about Mali. That is because of the book that you read. I've seen some quotes that were different that people got elsewhere but I think the idea that Ibn Battuta was not a racist became popular after that book came out. In the 19th century book "Negroland of the Arabs" the author interpreted an incident with Ibn Battuta as Ibn Battuta believing that "white men" should be paid homage. Yet n the whole book even in the author's opinions he didn't think Ibn Khaldun showed any sort of prejudice. So in this book at least Ibn Battuta could be said to be more prejudiced. Again, in the whole book Ibn Khaldun is not shown as having prejudice, while other scholars are interpreted as having some amount of prejudice"The Negroland of the Arabs examined and explained" By William Desborough Cooley 1841 books.google.com/books?id=380NAAAAQAAJ&dq=&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=falseThese people saw Ibn Battuta as a racist Review: Questions of Context: Ibn Battuta and E. W. Bovill on Africa", by Nina Berman © 2003 Indiana University Press. www.jstor.org/pss/4618304page 5 Bovill interprets Arab-African relations through the lens of race and color. He speaks, for example, of the “traditional contempt of Muslims for negroes” (61), and the fact that he collapses “Muslim” and “Arab” muddles his argument even further. Bovill praises Mansa Musa for supposedly breaking the “curtain of color” (90), and he misinterprets Ibn Battuta’s comments on the inhabitants of Mali by suggesting that the traveler was appalled by black Africans, “whom hitherto he had known only as slaves, behaving as masters in their own country” (93). He fails to understand the religious and cultural roots of Ibn Battuta’s comments and projects European racism on the encounter. “The myth of continents: a critique of metageography” By Martin W. Lewis, Kären Wigen 1997 books.google.com/books?id=C2as0sWxFBAC&pg=PA117#v=onepage&q&f=false In Asante's view, such famous Arabic writers as Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Battuta demonstrate the superior quality of a distinctly African Civilization…
….There is also irony in Asante's sanctification of Arabic writers such as Ibn Khaldun as exemplars of uniquely African sensibilities….
Ibn Battuta, another prominent scholar from the Maghreb, entertained similarly disparaging ideas... Like Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Battuta ill suits the role of pan-African cultural hero
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 12:43:08 GMT -5
and merely based on what he'd been mislead to believe seeing as how every group of blacks that he met were a part of some civilization of sorts, be it the Abyssinians or the Malians (attributing their high levels of civilization to organized religion). This is impossible as Ibn Khaldun made it exceedingly clear that Ghana was a great empire before Islam even reached that country. Also Ibn Khaldun did not attribute architecture to outsiders, he only said that outsiders introduced a model How can their civilization only come from religion when it predates that religion
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 13:09:04 GMT -5
To give some perspective on the situation this talks overall about "Negroes" being forbidden in Egypt, however this is well known “African glory: the story of vanished Negro civilizations” By John Coleman De Graft-Johnson 1954 books.google.com/books?id=LY5Lmc-To7cC&lpg=PA10&dq=sonepage&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false I am the king; [my] word is performed. My hand performs what my mind conceives.. I attack my attacker... The man who retreats is a vile coward; he who is defeated on his own place is no man. Thus is the Black. He falls down at a word of command, when attacked he runs away - When perused he shows his back in flight. The blacks have no courage, they are weak and timid, their hearts are contemptible. I have seen them, I am not mistaken about them. I seized their women, I took their goods, I stopped up their wells, I slew their bulls, I reaped their crops, I burnt their house. I am speaking the truth... My son who maintains this boundary is indeed my son; he who allows it to be thrust back is no son of mine, and I never begot him. I have setup up a statue of myself here, not only for your benefit, but also that ye should do battle for it
|
|