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. The argument may be stated as follows:
1. Quran 49:13 does not entail the absence of all natural differences. Islam teaches that all people are morally accountable and that righteousness is the criterion of ultimate honor before Allah. But this does not imply that all peoples are identical in every natural or social respect or even that there is an absence of a cheat code for entire groups in attaining "honor before Allah".
2. The hadiths recognizes collective distinctions. The Prophet explicitly says Allah chose Isma'il, then Kinanah, then Quraysh, then Banu Hashim. He also restricted leadership to Quraysh. These are not merely observations but normative judgments.
3. Normative distinctions require explanation for the basis. If Quraysh possessed no distinguishing excellence whatsoever, restricting leadership to them would seem arbitrary. The restriction presupposes some real excellence that makes Quraysh especially suited for that role.
4. The hadith of the "mines of gold and silver" provides the anthropological principle. It teaches that people differ in their underlying capacities and dispositions. Islam perfects these qualities but does not erase them. Thus, revelation itself recognizes that groups may have enduring characteristics relevant to 'perfections' in a religious context.
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 sunni figures. Moreover, similar conclusions have been endorsed by later muslim authorities who differ significantly from Ibn Taymiyya in orientation. For instance, Muhammad al-Tahir ibn Ashur, a more recent and widely respected 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. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment