|
Post by sundiata on Apr 16, 2010 13:38:08 GMT -5
Some perspective on Ibn Khaldun. I remember doing a lot of reading on him after having to clean up a biased wikipedia entry which chose to cite all of the negative comments that he made abouts Blacks, but with out context. From the Muquadimah: The only people who accept slavery are the Blacks, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage. Other persons who accept the status of slave do so as a means of attaining high rank, or power, or wealth, as is the case with the Mameluke Turks in the East and with those Franks and Galicians who enter the service of the state [in Spain] On the "civilized" Sudan: The first section of the first zone contains the mouth of the Nile which has its origin in the Mountain of the Qumr, as we have mentioned. (This Nile) is called the Sudanese Nile. It flows toward the Surrounding Sea and into it at the island of Awlil.63 The city of Sila, Takrur, and Ghanah are situated along this Nile. At this time, all of them belong to the Mali people, a Negro nation. Moroccan merchants travel to their country. Close to it in the north is the country of the Lamtunah and of the other groups of the Veiled Berbers (Sinhajah), as well as the deserts in which they roam. To the south of this Nile, there is a Negro people called Lamlam. They are unbelievers. They brand themselves on the face and temples. The people of Ghanah and Takrur invade their country, capture them, and sell them to merchants who transport them to the Maghrib. There, they constitute the ordinary mass of slaves. Beyond them to the south, there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings. All the fruits of the Negro territory come from fortified villages in the Maghrib, such as Touat (Tawat, Tuwat), Tigurarin, and Ouargla (Wargalan). In Ghanah, an 'Alid king and dynasty are said to have existed. (These 'Alids) were known as the Banu Salih. According to the author of the Book of Roger, (Salih) was Salih b. 'Abdallah b. Hasan b. al-Hasan, but no such Salih is known among the sons of 'Abdallah b. Hasan. At this time the dynasty has disappeared, and Ghanah belongs to the Mali ruler.. Read the whole thing dude, you can't quote bits and pieces. Ibn Khaldun said some vile stuff. Has nothing to do with translation either as he has an entire theory to back his beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 13:41:05 GMT -5
What kind of logic is it that one book that doesn't show racism from Ibn Battuta means Ibn Battuta wasn't a racist, but some quotes from an unknown source means Ibn Khaldun is racist despite that there are books with [no racism from Ibn Khaldun]
You haven't explained how he could think that their civilization came from religion when he made it clear that it predated the coming of this religion. Overall his writings don't suggest at all that Islam brought Civilization to these people
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 13:45:17 GMT -5
What I mean by unkown source is you didn't say who translated it, also you'll find earlier translations are different
Also you may notice now there is no reference in Wikipedia to Ibn Khaldun being a racist, at least on most pages since I changed as much as I could find
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 16, 2010 13:45:51 GMT -5
What kind of logic is it that one book that doesn't show racism from Ibn Battuta means Ibn Battuta wasn't a racist, but some quotes from an unknown source means Ibn Khaldun is racist despite that there are books with [no racism from Ibn Khaldun] You haven't explained how he could think that their civilization came from religion when he made it clear that it predated the coming of this religion. Overall his writings don't suggest at all that Islam brought Civilization to these people How in the world is "the Muqaddimah", which I spelled out clearly for you the first time, "an unknown source". In case you don't know, it's his most famous book. www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/And Ibn Battuta in Black Africa (which I've read in its entirety, as with the Muqaddimah) isn't just a "book", its a comilation of all of Ibn Battuta's travels in east and west Africa. It contains all of his encounters with Blacks and I've come across not one racist suggestion. Please point it out via direct citation if I'm wrong, as opposed to quoting second hand sources. I want to know what Ibn Battuta said, not what somebody thinks he said.
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 16, 2010 13:48:32 GMT -5
He just suggested it in the quote that I just gave you.. Key words.. "Alid dynasty"..
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 13:52:13 GMT -5
I made another post after that when I said unknown translator, I've read some old quotes before but can't find them
Can you show any racism from Ibn Khaldun from the 19th century/early 20th century. Also how could one of the most important scholars on the "Sudan" be a racist, that does not make any sense. If the Sudanese already had their own empires and architecture and everything how would religion make them civilized? Also how about the "Corpus of early Arabic sources for West African history".
And why would Ibn Khaldun be a racist?
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 14:00:30 GMT -5
He just suggested it in the quote that I just gave you.. Key words.. "Alid dynasty".. I missed this post so I'll address it: The problem is people don't bother to try to understand this history in it's totality, you have to take everything he said into context. When you do this you'll start becoming suspicious of nonsense like this. Ask yourself why would he say that? Also concerning translations Ahmed Baba cited Ibn Khaldun for the anti-conquest thesis and it was the same passage that is now used to support the anti-conquest thesis. I should also add Ibn Khaldun did not say architecture came from foreigners My next post I'll give another version that was from the corpus of Arabic Views on West Africa.
And yes I have read through different translations"The Negroland of the Arabs examined and explained" By William Desborough Cooley books.google.com/books?id=6swTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false When the conquest of the West (by the Arabs) was completed, and merchants began to penetrate into the interior, they saw no nation of the Blacks so mighty as Ghanah, the dominions of which extended westward as far as the Ocean. The King's court was kept in the city of Ghanah, which, according to the author of the Book of Roger (El Idrisi), and the author of the Book of Roads and Realms (El Bekri), is divided into two parts, standing on both banks of the Nile, and ranks among the largest and most populous cities of the world
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 14:11:40 GMT -5
I want to point out that the book "Negroland of the Arabs" is taking directly from Ibn Khaldun's "the Muqaddimah"Also that passage from "Negroland of the Arabs" seems to have some similarities with the same passage from Franz Rosenthal translation, and it looks like it might be the same passage translated differently. I've read through it a long time ago and think its the same passage because of the text that follows seems to fit so I'll show them side by side Now that I cleared that up I'll try to get the quote from the corpus of Arab views Franz Rosenthal: According to the author of the Book of Roger, (Salih) was Salih b. 'Abdallah b. Hasan b. al-Hasan, but no such Salih is known among the sons of 'Abdallah b. Hasan. At this time the dynasty has disappeared, and Ghanah belongs to the Mali ruler.. From "Negroland of the Arabs": When the conquest of the West (by the Arabs) was completed, and merchants began to penetrate into the interior, they saw no nation of the Blacks so mighty as Ghanah, the dominions of which extended westward as far as the Ocean. The King's court was kept in the city of Ghanah, which, according to the author of the Book of Roger (El Idrisi), and the author of the Book of Roads and Realms (El Bekri), is divided into two parts, standing on both banks of the Nile, and ranks among the largest and most populous cities of the world
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 16, 2010 14:14:25 GMT -5
I made another post after that when I said unknown translator, I've read some old quotes before but can't find them Can you show any racism from Ibn Khaldun from the 19th century/early 20th century. Also how could one of the most important scholars on the "Sudan" be a racist, that does not make any sense. If the Sudanese already had their own empires and architecture and everything how would religion make them civilized? Also how about the "Corpus of early Arabic sources for West African history". And why would Ibn Khaldun be a racist? He wasn't "racist", he just made ignorant comments. Why would he say that? Because he knew nothing about peoples south of the Sahel, he never went there. Exotic tales of man-eaters simply bolstered his theory that there was no civilization below or above the temperate zones, unless such came into contact with civilizing forces, notably Islam. Ibn Khladun said similar things of Arabs.
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 16, 2010 14:17:58 GMT -5
What did Ibn Khladun himself have to say on this matter. We all know the position of Ahmed baba..
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 14:25:49 GMT -5
It might have sounded absurd or that I'm grasping at straws that I said those two things were the same passage but the various nations mentioned appear in both “Corpus of early Arabic sources for West African history” By J. F. P. Hopkins, Nehemia Levtzion books.google.com/books?id=L3tNlgQmT9wC&pg=PA332&dq==onepage&q&f=false#v=onepage&q&f=false When Ifriqiya and the Maghrib were conquered [by the Arabs] merchants penetrated the western part of the land of the Sudan and found among them no king greater than the king of Ghana. Ghana was bounded on the west by the ocean. They were a very mighty people exercising vast authority. The seat of their authority was Ghana, a duel city on both banks of the Nile, one of the greatest and most populous cities in the world. It is mentioned by the authors of the Book of Roger [al-Idrisi] and the Book of Routes and Realms [al Bakri]
Franz Rosenthal: According to the author of the Book of Roger, (Salih) was Salih b. 'Abdallah b. Hasan b. al-Hasan, but no such Salih is known among the sons of 'Abdallah b. Hasan. At this time the dynasty has disappeared, and Ghanah belongs to the Mali ruler.. From Negroland of the Arabs books.google.com/books?id=6swTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=falseWhen the conquest of the West (by the Arabs) was completed, and merchants began to penetrate into the interior, they saw no nation of the Blacks so mighty as Ghanah, the dominions of which extended westward as far as the Ocean. The King's court was kept in the city of Ghanah, which, according to the author of the Book of Roger (El Idrisi), and the author of the Book of Roads and Realms (El Bekri), is divided into two parts, standing on both banks of the Nile, and ranks among the largest and most populous cities of the world
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 16, 2010 14:27:16 GMT -5
I'm not trying to defend ibn Khaldun but I suggest a full and careful read of his work on each and every thing about the various blacks described in it before one concludes what his view was on blacks -- as if 'blacks' are a monolithic category in his Mudaddimah.
Taking this approach I'm sure one will find that many Arabic quotes about 'blacks' are not really quotes about 'blacks' at all but rather quotes that refer to one region or one group of people who are black.
Much of it is tied in to geography and many opprobia apply both to 'blacks' and whites when either of them are of the more remote zones according to earlier Islamic scholarships ideas on geography and its effects on folks rather than innate biology.
In any event there have been African blacks holding high positions in Arab states since Islam's beginnings until this very day.
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 16, 2010 14:27:41 GMT -5
I want to point out that the book "Negroland of the Arabs" is taking directly from Ibn Khaldun's "the Muqaddimah"Also that passage from "Negroland of the Arabs" seems to have some similarities with the same passage from Franz Rosenthal translation, and it looks like it might be the same passage translated differently. I've read through it a long time ago and think its the same passage because of the text that follows seems to fit so I'll show them side by side Now that I cleared that up I'll try to get the quote from the corpus of Arab views Franz Rosenthal: From "Negroland of the Arabs": I just posted the entire Franz Rosenthal translation in context, which you questioned. You questioned the translation yet you post the same translation to counter my point. I don't get it. You have more "clearing up" to do. Ibn Khaldun was writing about past events, of course Mali ruled at his time, yet he cites historians on some fictional Alid clan that founded or ruled Ghana before Mali.
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 16, 2010 14:31:32 GMT -5
I'm not trying to defend ibn Khaldun but I suggest a full and careful read of his work on each and every thing about the various blacks described in it before one concludes what his view was on blacks -- as if 'blacks' are a monolithic category in his Mudaddimah. Taking this approach I'm sure one will find that many Arabic quotes about 'blacks' are not really quotes about 'blacks' at all but rather quotes that refer to one region or one group of people who are black. Much of it is tied in to geography and many opprobia apply both to 'blacks' and whites when either of them are of the more remote zones according to earlier Islamic scholarships ideas on geography and its effects on folks rather than innate biology.Agreed... Which I was trying to explain as he attributed the highest concentration of civilization to the temperate zones of the Mediterranean. North and south of these zones, civilization is said to have decreased, but as noted, a lot of his writings are based on second hand sources and descriptions of places he'd never traveled to. Nearly all the Blacks he actually encountered were "civilized".
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 14:31:43 GMT -5
Ibn Khaldun saw certain people as savage but he did not think that religion was necessary to the "Sudan" to be civilized. He could be said to be ignorant he was also as well informed as anyone for the time period
|
|