|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 16, 2010 14:34:36 GMT -5
Some of the thought on people from deeper within Africa than the Savannah can be laid at the feet of Sahelians.
They invented tales of cannibalism to stave off the gullible from seeking out the sources of the gold for themselves instead of relying on the Dyula.
There's even a record of a staged incident of cannabalism right in a Sahel state put on for no other reason than to impress the image upon a northern travelogue writer who would be sure to spread the tale far and wide and so impact many northern gold traders.
Fact is, we find, that the greatest fear held by forest folk who were to be victims of the slave trade to the Americas is that the Europeans wanted to eat them.
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 16, 2010 14:37:44 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 I'm sure I read that he attributed Mali's and Abyssinia's status to their faith, but I'll back down from that claim until I find the exact passage since I'm working from memory.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 14:44:24 GMT -5
Actually the the passage your thinking of does exist in Franz Rosenthal's translation One curious thing is if allot of this is mistranslated its possible Franz wanted to emphasize that the climate of Yemen was different from most of Africa www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter1/Ch_1_03.htm for instance, the Abyssinians, who are neighbors of the Yemenites and have been Christians from pre-Islamic and Islamic times down to the present; and the Mali, the Gawgaw, and the Takrur who live close to the Maghrib and, at this time, are Muslims. They are said to have adopted Islam in the seventh [thirteenth] century. Or, in the north, there are those Slav, European Christian, and Turkish nations that have adopted Christianity. All the other inhabitants of the intemperate zones in the south and in the north are ignorant of all religion. (Religious) scholarship is lacking among them. All their conditions are remote from those of human beings and close to those of wild animals. "And He creates what you do not know." 217
The (foregoing statement) is not contradicted by the existence of the Yemen, the Hadramawt, al-Ahqaf, the Hijaz, the Yamimah, and adjacent regions of the Arabian Peninsula in the first and second zones. As we have mentioned,218 the Arabian Peninsula is surrounded by the sea on three sides. The humidity of ( the sea) influences the humidity in the air of ( the Arabian Peninsula). This diminishes the dryness and intemperance that (otherwise) the heat would cause. Because of the humidity from the sea, the Arabian Peninsula is to some degree temperate.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 16, 2010 14:46:16 GMT -5
The concept of a 'revealed religion' was one of the qualifiers for civilization to the Islamic scholars. Peoples who had a holy book were esteemed to be of comparable civilization to Muslims. Thos without a prophet or a book were thought to lack civilization. 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 I'm sure I read that he attributed Mali's and Abyssinia's status to their faith, but I'll back down from that claim until I find the exact passage since I'm working from memory.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 14:49:39 GMT -5
He just suggested it in the quote that I just gave you.. Key words.. Alid dynasty You were confused why I posted the same passage 3 times but you'll see these others are translated differently. The Corpus cuts off the quote short because it won't give the preview of the next page but Cooley gives the whole passage. Read carefully the passage is incompatible with the idea of Islam civilizing people “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]
"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 franklin on Apr 16, 2010 14:56:40 GMT -5
The concept of a 'revealed religion' was one of the qualifiers for civilization to the Islamic scholars. Peoples who had a holy book were esteemed to be of comparable civilization to Muslims. Thos without a prophet or a book were thought to lack civilization. Your right, I was using my definition of "civilization" in that they could build their own cities without exposure to Islam. Even if they were considered uncivilized they had cities (Europeans often depicted the Benin empire or the Aztecs as savages, also because of lack of revealed religion) In this translation he is only showed a model for a building in other translations architecture itself is introduced because the natives were supposedly ignorant of it The Negroland of the Arabs examined and explained” By William Desborough Cooley books.google.com/books?id=6swTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=falseMansa Musa, on his return, conceived the idea of building himself a fine palace. Abu Ishak showed him a model, and erected the edifice, with plaster and all kinds of ornaments, for which he received 12,000 mithkals of gold. Mansa Musa maintained an intimate and friendly correspondence with Sultan Abu-l-Hasan, of Al-Maghreb, and reigned twenty-five years.
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 16, 2010 15:04:36 GMT -5
The concept of a 'revealed religion' was one of the qualifiers for civilization to the Islamic scholars. Peoples who had a holy book were esteemed to be of comparable civilization to Muslims. Thos without a prophet or a book were thought to lack civilization. I'm sure I read that he attributed Mali's and Abyssinia's status to their faith, but I'll back down from that claim until I find the exact passage since I'm working from memory. Which makes a lot of sense and puts Ibn Khaldun's writings in context. This may have been evident with Ibn Battuta as well in his distinction between the Swahili Zanj and the "heathen zanj". The difference between these two I believe comes in their approach. One was an explorer, the other a theorist. Ibn Khladun wrote about the world what conformed to his world view (of his past and present), instead of merely describing what he saw through out his travels.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 15:29:40 GMT -5
In terms of military might and power economic strength ect. Ibn Khaldun believed non-Islamic empires could be just as powerful Islamic empires. Ibn Khaldun said that Ghana had one of the largest cities in the world and it suggests that the city had nothing to do with Mediterranean climate or revealed religion. This article has nothing to do with ancient Ghana or "blacks" but it does talk about translations and the misuse of different words and shifting their meanings. It is attached can be downloaded Translation and the Colonial Imaginary: Ibn Khaldun Orientalist, by Abdelmajid Hannoum © 2003 Wesleyan University. www.jstor.org/pss/3590803Edit: "paying tribute to the Kings of Negroland, on whom they depend, and in whose armies they serve." I'm sure Ibn Khaldun is referring to Muslim kings of the "Sudan" but it does show that he could accept that the "Sudanese" could be dominate “The Negroland of the Arabs examined and explained” footnote at the bottom of page 72 books.google.com/books?id=380NAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA72#v=onepage&q=&f=false [Respecting the Masufah, who were generally called el Takshif, that is, the scouts or couriers, and who appear to have occupied the whole road from Teghaza to Tomboktu, there is a passage in Ibn Khaldun (fol. 89) which, with a little abridgment, is worth transcribing.— " After the fall of the Morabite dynasty, the tribes of the Molaththemun returned to the desert, and now occupy the countries which they originally possessed in the vicinity of Negroland. But as we have already observed, the emigration of the Zenagah tribes was but partial: a few only of the Masfifah and Lumtunah obeyed the impulse, while the majority of the tribes remained behind, and keep in our days their old settlements in the Sahra, paying tribute to the Kings of Negroland, on whom they depend, and in whose armies they serve. The Goddalah are directly opposite to the DhawiHassan, a branch of the Moakel Arabs, settled in Siis el Aksa ; the Lumtunah are opposite to the Dhawi-Mansiir and Dhawi 'Obeidu-llah, branches of the same great tribe living in Maghrebu-l-Aksa. The Masufoh face the Zaghabah, an Arab tribe in Maghrebu-l-Ausat ; and the Lamtah adjoin the Benu Riyyah, who occupy Ez-Zab."—Thus it appears that the Masufah inhabiting the tract of desert between Sijilmesah and Tomboktu were in their old settlements, and, therefore, in the tract between Sijilmesah and Ghanah. (See page 17.) Leo (pt. I. c. 17-19) points out the situation of the various families of the Machil (Moakel) tribe of Arabs] Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 16, 2010 19:15:11 GMT -5
Ibn Khaldun actually frequently refers to how the Tuaregs and other people, like the remanent of the Almoravid empire became subject to and dependent on "Sudanese" kings especially the king of Mali 1. Economic domination 2. Royal authority, Muslims relying on pagan organized states "Timbuctoo the mysterious" By Félix Dubois, Diana White "'As tar cures the gall of a camel, so poverty finds its unfailing remedy in the Sudan", was the saying of northern Africa. "books.google.com/books?id=OYELAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA122#v=onepage&q&f=false THE MOORS IN THE SUDAN
The prosperity of the Sudan, and its wealth and commerce, were known far and wide in the sixteenth century. Caravans returning along the coasts proclaimed its splendours in their camel loads of gold, ivory, hides, musk, and the spoils of the ostrich. The Portuguese (always the first traders of Europe), endeavoured at this time to enter into relations with these countries of the Niger, whose magnificence had become a proverb. 'As tar cures the gall of a camel, so poverty finds its unfailing remedy in the Sudan", was the saying of northern Africa. See page 7 and 8 about Muslims being dependent on pagan kings "Islam and Trade in the Bilad Al-Sudan, Tenth-Eleventh Century A.D." by Michael Brett www.arts.ualberta.ca/~amcdouga/Hist446/readings/islam_and_trade_brett.pdf
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 17, 2010 18:43:52 GMT -5
Which makes a lot of sense and puts Ibn Khaldun's writings in context. This may have been evident with Ibn Battuta as well in his distinction between the Swahili Zanj and the "heathen zanj". The difference between these two I believe comes in their approach. One was an explorer, the other a theorist. Ibn Khladun wrote about the world what conformed to his world view (of his past and present), instead of merely describing what he saw through out his travels. This statement doesn't even make sense to me because if revealed religion made people equal, and Ibn Khaldun is certainly an important historian when it comes to the history of the "Sudan", then what Ibn Khladun wrote was indeed accurate. In this supposed theory the only thing that he would say that was inaccurate would be about "Pagan" Sudan. "Ibn Khladun wrote about the world what conformed to his world view"Ibn Khaldun did not write much about "Pagan" Sudan, except for ancient Ghana. The theory thing would have no impact on his view of the Mali empire because it was Muslim, the only distortion based on some "theory" would be the order of dynasty rulers of the Mali empire but thats a whole different story
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 18, 2010 0:02:46 GMT -5
Which makes a lot of sense and puts Ibn Khaldun's writings in context. This may have been evident with Ibn Battuta as well in his distinction between the Swahili Zanj and the "heathen zanj". The difference between these two I believe comes in their approach. One was an explorer, the other a theorist. Ibn Khladun wrote about the world what conformed to his world view (of his past and present), instead of merely describing what he saw through out his travels. This statement doesn't even make sense to me because if revealed religion made people equal, and Ibn Khaldun is certainly an important historian when it comes to the history of the "Sudan", then what Ibn Khladun wrote was indeed accurate. In this supposed theory the only thing that he would say that was inaccurate would be about "Pagan" Sudan. "Ibn Khladun wrote about the world what conformed to his world view"Ibn Khaldun did not write much about "Pagan" Sudan, except for ancient Ghana. The theory thing would have no impact on his view of the Mali empire because it was Muslim, the only distortion based on some "theory" would be the order of dynasty rulers of the Mali empire but thats a whole different story Yea, I'm not even sure what you're saying here. I'd just quoted from him some overtly disparaging comments about Sudane south of Mali. Al Takuri gave a perfect explanation about his motivations and reasons for writing such things. One, because western Sunadese, like some Zanj reinforced this belief to scare people away and secure the trade monopolies they'd enjoyed. Second, because non-religious or non-Islamic peoples were considered uncivilized (still in the dark). I'm not exactly sure why that doesn't make sense, but to each his own. You seem to be promoting the idea that Ibn Khladun was a man without any biases.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 18, 2010 21:12:30 GMT -5
Just about everybody considers Ibn Khaldun as being one of the most important, and many consider him the most important scholar when it comes to the history of the "Sudan". 1. The fact that Ibn Khaldun is accepted as an important scholar on the history of the "Sudan" would be inconsistant with a man with a major bias against the "Sudan" 2. Ibn Khaldun frequently writes about how the Tuaregs and remnants of the Almoravid empire fell under the rule of the kings of the "Sudan" and that this wasn't limited to just the Mali empire ruling over them 3. The fact that Ibn Khaldun did not attribute the Ghana empire to any 'outsiders' and the fact that he did not attribute architecture to outsiders. Even if they were uncivilized in his view the Ghanaians would still have one of the largest cities in the world and be economically and militarily on par with other nations. He could have still seen them as culturally backward The Franz Rosenthal translation is questionable 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. [/b].[/quote] “Corpus of early Arabic sources for West African history” By J. F. P. Hopkins, Nehemia Levtzion translation books.google.com/books?id=L3tNlgQmT9wC&pg=PA332&dq==onepage&q&f=false#v=onepage&q&f=falseFrom "Negroland of the Arabs" translation books.google.com/books?id=6swTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 18, 2010 22:08:54 GMT -5
homeylu and anansi do you have any more info? Things like this have bothered me for a long time and its hard getting an accurate picture.
Also about Leo Africanus since the earliest translators had a tendency to associate "blackness" with Moor, these Europeans would not have done that if they read the negative things Leo Africanus was supposed to have wrote
Oh and Sundiata there is one more thing that you didn't take into consideration, 4. the fact that the "Sudan" was universally regarded as a land of riches where people go to make money, and thus the "Sudanese" were rich people.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 18, 2010 22:46:35 GMT -5
This is not about the bias of Ibn Khaldun, this is about the influence and power of "Sudanese" nations
This is stupid because the Greeks were "pagans" and any historian with any interest in history in that period would have acknowledged that 'royal authority' of the "Sudanese" was something that people like the Almoravids and people long before them highly relied on, even relying on "pagan" kings.
And how could religion put people that were inferior in a possession that they could then rule over other nations that they were previously inferior to? Wouldn't Ibn Khaldun see the "Sudan" as naturally having more 'royal authority', perhaps even before they had any kind of 'revealed religion'?
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 18, 2010 23:14:45 GMT -5
So people understand what I'm talking about, I had awhile back compared the article "The Spread of Islam and the Nubian Dam" to the article "Not quite Venus from the waves: Almoravid Conquest of Ghana" the comparison was that in one the "Sudanese" were shown as submissive in the literature and in the other there is brutal honesty in which it is admitted that the "Sudanese" were supreme How are we supposed to understand this history unless we get an accurate view of what these writers actually wrote? The tradition of brutal honesty amongst Muslim writers goes back to the beginning, when they were able to admit to the supremacy of the "Nubians" but as was shown this tradition also takes place in the Muslim west when they were for a long time reliant on "Pagan" kings, this being a mixture of military, economic and cultural imperialism. Ibn Khaldun also admitted to this and what he says goes beyond mere military domination and he specifically says the remnants of the Almoravids were dependent on the "kings of the Sudan" Concerning racist translations none of this list of people can be that racist because they could admit to the strength of a people who were from Ham, plus Masudi said Yemeni learned archery from the "Nubians" al-Tabari, al-Yaqubi, al-Baladhuri, Ibn al-A tham al-Kufi, al-Masudi, Ibn Abd al-Hakim, al-Kindi I believe if more is looked into translations we will find more extreme honesty amongst writers like Ibn Khaldun. Again Ibn Khaldun has shown "Sudanese" supremacy just as much as these writers "The Spread of Islam and the Nubian Dam" by David Ayalon books.google.com/books?id=LcsJosc239YC&lpg=PA18&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q=&f=false [ The absolutely unambiguous evidence and unanimous agree of the early Muslim sources is that the Arabs abrupt stop was caused solely and exclusively by the superb military resistance of the Christian Nubians. That is what I call the Nubian Dam. The array of those early sources includes the two most important chronicles of early Islam, al-Tabari (d. 926) and al-Yaqubi (d. 905); the two best extant books on the Muslim conquests, al-Baladhuri (d. 892( and Ibn al-A tham al-Kufi (d. 926); the most central encyclopedic work of al-Masudi (d.956); and the two best early sources dedicated specifically to Egypt, Ibn Abd al-Hakim (d. 871) and al-Kindi (961). On page 19 he quotes Al-Masudi The people of Hijaz and Yemen and the rest of the Arabs learned archery from them (The Nubians)Bellow on page 20: This act carries a lot of weight for one cannot see any reason for the Arabs to praise the Nubians so highly, along with their admission of their own failure in the field of battle. At the same time it is a great tribute to the objectivity in the case of the Muslim sources, and it also enhances considerably the chances of the reliability of their accounts, at least about the Muslim expansion in other fronts, and perhaps much more beyond that. .3. The awe and respect that the Muslims had for their Nubian adversaries are reflected in the fact that even a rather late Umayyad caliph, Umar b Abd al- Aziz (Umar II 717-720), is said to have ratified the Nubian-Muslim treaty out of fear for the safety of the Muslims (he ratified the peace treaty out of consideration for the Muslims and out of to spare their lives)]
|
|