What motives lay behind claims of Arab ancestry in pre-modern Muslim societies? This work outlines those motives remarkably well:
The fabrication of genealogies and the creation of legendary ancestors were widespread phenomena throughout the Islamicate world. North Africa and Muslim Spain were no exception. Here, the focus turns to the Berbers, among whom claims of prestigious Arab descent also emerged. The growing influence of Sufism and the social prestige attached to religious offices often provided further incentives for such genealogical fabrications:
Forgeries in Muslim Spain has modern relevance. Some modern Muslims seek to associate themselves with the legacy of 'Muslim Spain', simply because they wish to identify themselves with the celebrated philosophers and scientists whose achievements have endured through the centuries.
The historical reality does not really allow for this, though, since modern Muslims trying to link themselves to these figures do not share any meaningful markers with these historical figures. The overwhelming majority of these philosopher-scientists (think Ibn Rushd and his likes) were natives of al-Andalus, primarily the descendants of the indigenous population, together with substantial Jewish ancestry. Other groups, including Arabs and Berbers, constituted a much smaller proportion of this class. Moreover, most of these figures of al-Andalus did not claim fabricated Arab lineages for themselves.
On the Importance of Lineage in Islam, Arabization, and Theories of Racial Inequality in Islamicate History:
There is another claim worth examining. In the first excerpt I presented, the author claims that the importance attached to lineage throughout Islamic societies across the centuries is, in fact, contrary to the teachings of the Quran and the Hadiths. There is no connection between what was common in history and Islamic teachings whatsoever. Claims of this kind exemplify why I remain deeply skeptical of the current state of Western academia, particularly in the humanities and especially in its scholarship on Islam, Islamic history and Third World societies and populations. Some of the most astonishing claims and some of the greatest absurdities are advanced with unwavering confidence and have become the prevailing position in the literature.
So, what is problematic about this claim? The early Muslim textualists had no difficulty acknowledging a preference for the Arabs, based on Islamic texts. I find Ibn Taymiyya's summary of the issue particularly clear:
The position held by Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah is that the Arab people are superior to the non-Arab peoples, whether the latter be Hebrews, Suryanis, Romans, Persians, or any others. Quraysh are the best of the Arabs, Banū Hāshim are the best of Quraysh, and the Messenger of Allah is the best of Banū Hāshim. Thus, he is the noblest of all creation in both person and lineage.
The superiority of the Arabs, then Quraysh, and then Banū Hāshim is not merely due to the fact that the Prophet belonged to them—although this is itself a virtue. Rather, they are superior in and of themselves. It is on this basis that it is established that the Messenger of Allah is the noblest in both person and lineage; otherwise, the argument would be circular.
(And the reason for this superiority—God knows best—is the distinction granted to them in their intellects, their language, their character, and their deeds. For superiority is attained either through beneficial knowledge or through righteous action.
As for knowledge, it has a beginning, namely the power of the intellect, which consists of understanding and memory; and it has a completion, namely the power of speech, which consists of expression and articulation. The Arabs are more understanding than others, possess stronger memories, and are more capable of clear expression and eloquent speech. Their language is the most complete of languages in clarity and in distinguishing meanings, both by grouping them together and by separating them. It can encompass many meanings in a few words when the speaker wishes to be concise, and then distinguish between two similar things with another brief and precise term. This is evident in their language, for example, in the vocabulary relating to animals: they use comprehensive terms for what is common to animals in general, then distinguish among their various kinds by specific names for every aspect of them—their sounds, their offspring, their dwellings, their young, and other such features of the Arabic language whose excellence is beyond dispute.
As for action, its foundation is character, which consists of the innate dispositions created within the soul. Their dispositions are more inclined towards good than those of others. They are therefore closer to generosity, forbearance, courage, loyalty, and other praiseworthy qualities. Before Islam, however, they possessed a nature capable of good but were not putting it into practice. They had no revealed knowledge sent down from heaven, no religious law inherited from a prophet, nor were they occupied with some of the purely rational sciences such as medicine, arithmetic, and the like. Rather, their knowledge consisted of what their natural talents produced in poetry and oratory, what they preserved of their genealogies and historical traditions, and what they needed for worldly life concerning weather signs, the stars, and warfare.
Qur'an 49:13 is frequently invoked as evidence for a non-hierarchical ethnic perspective in Islam. However, such readings involve extending conceptual assumptions into the verse that are not stated. It does not contradict what Ibn Taymiyya affirms in any way. More generally, the Quran recognizes forms of differentiation between people in other passages (example, example 2), though not on the basis of ethnicity, suggesting that hierarchical distinctions as such are not categorically excluded within its broader framework. If one were to rely on the Quran alone, it would be reasonable to conclude that it does affirm forms of hierarchy as part of a divinely ordained order, while not explicitly grounding such hierarchy in ethnic distinction. I would concur with this reading. There is no clear or explicit affirmation of ethnic inequality or ethnic hierarchy in the Quranic text.
But mainstream Muslims rely on extra-Quranic material. These prophetic narrations are difficult to make sense of without accepting the position articulated by Ibn Taymiyya: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, and the implication of this narration. The reported preference for Quraysh, and, by extension, broader genealogical lineages, becomes difficult to make sense of without presupposing the type of group-based preference described by Ibn Taymiyya, especially when the last example is considered in the historical context Islam emerged out of.
While some modern readers may attribute such views to the distinctive position of Ibn Taymiyya, he is in many respects articulating ideas that were already present in earlier Islamic history and articulated by proto-orthodox figures. Moreover, similar conclusions have been endorsed by later scholars who differ significantly from Ibn Taymiyya in orientation. For instance, Muhammad al-Tahir ibn Ashur, a more recent and widely respected islamic authority, affirms a view broadly consistent with Ibn Tamiyya's.
What many modern readers may not be aware of is that conceptions of ethnic hierarchy were acknowledged by pretty much every significant figure in Islamicate history. The key distinction, in relation to specifically Islamic articulations of such ideas, is that these thinkers did not regard the Arabs as the favored group. The Kurdish philosopher Shahrazuri (13th-century) succinctly summarizes the position of the figures who could count to more than three in Islamicate history:
You should know that wisdom is sought either for the sake of action and is then called practical wisdom, or for the sake of mere learning and is called theoretical. Some philosophers have given the practical part priority over the theoretical, while others have regarded it as subsidiary. In fact, the practical part (of philosophy) bears on good deeds; I mean, the refinement of character, whereas the theoretical part bears on the knowledge of the truth; I mean, knowing the essences of existing entities,.
Those two parts may be attained through perfect reflection, but the reliance of the practical part on other disciplines is greater. Thus, the prophets have been assisted with spiritual instruction (that is, through revelation) to confirm the practical part supplemented by some additions from the theoretical part. The philosophers, bv contrast, have received some rational assistance in confirmation of the theoretical part, as well as some assistance from the practical part. The ultimate goal of the philosopher is the total unfolding of the whole universe to his reason and the emulation of God Almighty, as far as possible; whereas the goal of the prophet is the unfolding of the order of the universe to his reason, whereby he is able to safeguard the welfare of the masses and ensure that the world order endures and the welfare of humanity is regulated. That goal cannot be attained, except through exhortation and warning, or (simulation) and representation. Hence, all that the different religious laws and creeds have prescribed is affirmed by the philosophers, in the way we have mentioned, except for those who received their wisdom from the 'niche of prophecy`, for they are believed to have attained the perfect rank.
Philosophers included the Brahmin philosophers of India, who denied all prophethood, the philosophers of the Arabs, who constitute a small band, most of whose wisdom consists of flights of fancy and mental rambling, and finally the philosophers of Greece and Byzantium. They are divided into the ancients. who are the pillars of that wisdom and the moderns, who include the Peripatetics and the Stoics, and their modern followers, who are the philosophers (of islamicate history).
Shahrazuri's position is echoed by other figures commonly regarded as belonging to the Sunni theological mainstream, particularly those engaged in rational theology. Among them is Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, who writes:
The inhabitants of the remote parts of the earth who have made no progress in their intellects. habits, customs and knowledge, have necessarily grown extremely debased and low. Don't you see that the inhabitants of the first Iqlim (region), the zanj, and those of the Seventh Iqlim (region)- the slaves, possess but little share of real knowledge and sciences, excellent manners, and intellects necessarily confirm their low positions in the minds of men and prove that their stage of progress is very low? As for the inhabitants of the middle part of the earth, since they possess real knowledge and sciences and excellent manners, they have necessarily been, by common consent, confirmed as the best of the human races. This indicates that the excellence and perfection of a man is only realized by means of the sciences, knowledge and excellent manners and not by his eating, drinking, and mating.
These naturalistic theories, which underpin the passages of both Shahrazuri and Razi, remained influential until the Islamicate world came into contact with more recent Western knowledge. The historical reality, therefore, is not that major figures rejected the Islamic position as articulated by Ibn Taymiyya because they believed in ethnic equality with respect to the qualities discussed by Ibn Taymiyya, especially power of the intellect. Rather, they rejected it because they regarded other ethnic groups as superior to the Arabs. Neither Razi nor Shahrazuri leaves much ambiguity about which groups they considered preeminent. This is particularly relevant to the study of Kurdish history, as the Kurds occupy a central place among the peoples they regarded as possessing superior natural qualities by virtue of the location of... Kurdistan. Kurdistan is situated within the third and fourth climatic zones of the classical geographical tradition.
What has often been highlighted by Western academics is Ibn Khaldun, which can create the impression that he was an outlier within the broader intellectual tradition of islamicate history. That impression, however, is misleading. What is particularly noteworthy about Ibn Khaldun is that he introduces what appears to be a somewhat ad hoc modification to the standard climes theory by describing the Hijaz as relatively temperate (but still in the second clime), arguably to soften the stronger implications that might otherwise follow from the broader framework if viewed from strictly naturalistic perspective and because of what he says about these populations (close to animals). Most other authors did not make comparable qualifications or attempt to defend the population of the Hijaz in this way. Ibn Khaldun writes:
The inhabitants of the zones that are far from temperate, such as the first, second, sixth, and seventh zones, are also farther removed from being temperate in all their conditions. Their buildings are of clay and reeds. Their foodstuffs are durra and herbs. Their clothing is the leaves of trees, which they sew together to cover themselves, or animal skins. Most of them go naked. The fruits and seasonings of their countries are strange and inclined to be intemperate. In their business dealings, they do not use the two noble metals, but copper, iron, or skins, upon which they set a value for the purpose of business dealings. Their qualities of character, moreover, are close to those of dumb animals. It has even been reported that most of the Negroes of the first zone dwell in caves and thickets, eat herbs, live in savage isolation and do not congregate, and eat each other. The same applies to the Slavs. The reason for this is that their remoteness from being temperate produces in them a disposition and character similar to those of the dumb animals, and they become correspondingly remote from humanity. The same also applies to their religious conditions. They are ignorant of prophecy and do not have a religious law, except for the small minority that lives near the temperate regions. (This minority includes,) 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."
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 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.
This legacy, where major thinkers accepted frameworks that did entail Arab inferiority as a collective (for example, within the theory of the climes) while still paying lip service to Arab prestige here and there highlights an important historical point: Arabization, and the social value attached to Arab lineage, preceded Islamization. In many cases, Arab affiliation was outwardly adopted for material or political advantage without real acceptance of its underlying religious link and claims. I cited figures such as al-Razi because, despite his family’s reported claim to an Arab Bakri lineage, he is explicit in his philosophical writings that he did not consider himself Arab. He kept the cake and ate it too.
In future blog posts, I will examine specific cases of genealogical fabrications in Kurdish history, many of which have received no scholarly attention. I will also outline the criteria and considerations that support interpreting these claims as unreliable.
