While reading “The Lands of the Christians”, the major differences between the travel accounts about Islamic countries written through a western, Christian perspective and those written through the Muslim perspective on “Christian” lands became very clear. One of these major differences being that unlike with Christian writers such as John Mandeville, Qasim has significant background knowledge on the religion of these countries. In fact, he proves to know certain scriptures better than the people practicing do. The other major difference is, despite his plethora of knowledge, he does not go into these countries with the intent of belittling and undermining the Christian religion. Any time that religion is brought up in the text, specifically in the first section, it is done so on the part of the Christians and any seemingly negative commentary made on Qasim’s part is only done so based on fact, and in defense of his own religion. An example of this is on page 12 where Qasim is dining with the noblemen and they ask him about his inability to eat pork based on his religious ideals. Qasim informs the men that even in their own gospel it states that pork is unclean and unholy, and cites the two instances within the gospel that pertain to this: “There were two thousand pigs worth a lot of money. But our Sayyid Issa peace be upon him, permitted that they should perish and be destroyed. Their owners lost the value of the pigs; had they been (unclean) animals that were not forbidden, said our Sayyid Issa, peace be upon him, would not have allowed the crazed spirits to enter them, and lead them to destruction and annihilation.”
We see a similar instance again on page 17 when Qasim’s French admirer questions him about his religion asking “How come you don’t know God?” to which he replies “Muslims, know god better than you.” Though at first this claim seems to be an outrageous one to make, he backs it up by calling her out about worshiping statues that represent spirits, something directly stated in the 10 commandments as unacceptable: “the first commandment of the ten is ‘God almighty said, Do not carve statues, ad do not worship them. Worship God alone.” The differences in conduct and information in regards to travel accounts by the differing groups has to do with motivating factors. As we’ve discussed at length, the goal of a majority of the Christian writers about Islamic countries was to create a dividing line between their ideals and those of the Muslim faith, where, as exemplified in the piece for today’s class, the goal of the Muslim writer was, for the most part, to learn about the Christian land and the way in which the people that dwell there live.
While I do agree that Ahmad Bin Qasim comes across as very knowledgeable in the text, I also gained the impression that he was kind of pretentious in his vast knowledge of the Christian and Muslim religions. Consider the fact that Qasim is a foreigner from a land ruled by an imperial empire, travelling into an unfamiliar country; for him to say something like “Muslims know God better than you” is very alienating and condescending to the native Christians. While you say that Ahmad Bin Qasim’s intent was not to belittle or undermine the Christian religion, he nevertheless flexes his intelligence in conversation in such a way that he makes the Christians he is speaking to seem foolish, which I think was the intent in his writings. Granted, Qasim does raise some valid points in the hypocrisy of Catholic practices in relation to the literal teachings found in the Bible. However, when he paints himself to be the equivalent of a walking encyclopedia, and wields that knowledge to argue for the supremacy of his culture’s piousness in a foreign nation, Qasim makes it hard for himself to come across as a likeable traveler. In class, we discussed that the questions he is posed as a Muslim by the Christians have less to do with a genuine interest in learning about his culture and are posed more as novel entertainment regarding the exoticism of the East. Certainly, there is truth to this point; time and again, European literature regarding the East has proven to be an exercise in thrilling fiction rather than a historically and culturally accurate account of Muslim culture. However, in this particular instance, I do not feel that Qasim helps to defuse the novelty of his culture by presenting himself to the Europeans as more knowledgeable of the Christian religion and more devout in his religion. Rather, Ahmad Bin Qasim perpetuates the novelty by becoming a sort of “know-it-all” character from the East that is asserting his ethnocentrism in a land which that does not take his culture seriously in the first place.
What I thought was one of the more interesting things about the travel journals was the immense amount of Christian ignorance that occurred, and not imply about Muslims, but for their own religion as well. It does more than simply shed a light on the education of Christians at the time, but the superstitions and misinformation that they have acquired in their own faith. They struggle with understanding their own laws in terms of worship and fasting, and even when confronted with this information, they don't realist how they could possibly be mistakenly participating in their worship. One of the biggest faults that the Christians seem to make are their use of iconography in terms of worshipping Christ. Now, there is nothing wrong with wearing a crucifix to be reminded of God's sacrifice for man, but when people worship the cross as a conduit to Jesus, who in the scriptures even stated that he was a mediator for God rather than a deity, then they break the First Commandment. However, Christians had fooled themselves into a loophole about this idol worship by saying that because Jesus is God, then it was ok that they create icons of his form. The problem with thinking this way is that Christians then open themselves up to creating more loopholes in their faith, which could, and eventually would, lead to more grievous betrayals, such as making adultery acceptable, murder tolerable, and theft commonplace (i.e. the Borgia Papal dynasty). It just goes to show how early these transgressions began, and how badly they grew to become. The author of this journal, Ahmad bin Qasim, tries to act as an educator to these Christians, showing the terrible irony that a foreigner understands how to be a better Christians as a Muslim rather than a group of fiercely devout Christians, and seeing his struggle then reflects many struggles that Christians create in our present day.
You make many valid, interesting points. The issue of idolatry is very prevalent in the christian religion. Not only with the issue of worshiping Jesus Christ, but with the idea of sainthood as well. It is common practice in Christianity to pray to a saint, yet essentially this violates the the first commandment. However, I do not believe it is entirely that clear. As we all know, the Bible has been translated countless times, many different versions exist, and too many people who consider themselves Christians have not read a single version of the Bible. The issue becomes, in the case of idolatry and other issues that have arisen, semantics. The interpretation of the bible has changed over the years, along with people's concepts of its meaning. While I agree that an argument can be made that Christianity practices idolatry, it is an enormous and frankly irrational jump to the conclusion that this will lead to the acceptance of murder in the Christian religion. While I have not read every version of the bible that exists, and I can only read an English version as well, I believe I can safely say the interpretation of "thou shalt not kill" has remained pretty steady throughout the course of history. Simply, it's not up for interpretation. Where this is an issue in Bible, it probably will not become an issue for the Koran due to the nature of the text. The arabic language has been maintained purposefully so that the language of the Koran will not become out dated.
I think an important aspect of this text is its tone. What exactly are the authors trying to say in certain sections is a vital question to ask oneself. All of this begins on pages eight through ten. The text starts right off the bat with Qasim trying to tolerate the questions the Christians are asking him. He seems, to me, to be rather frustrated. Yet, at the same time, he wants them to actually learn the truth about Islam, and not spread more false information. Another interesting component of this section is it makes me wonder where their ignorance comes from. The way these Christians talk reminds me of town gossip going back and forth. But is it just that? Do they think these ridiculous notions about Islam because of what others told them, what they read, or just because they don’t care? They generally do seem interested in what Qasim is saying, but nevertheless I wonder will it truly sink in.
The whole thought of whose idea of “fasting” is better or more proficient was very fascinating. I know in other texts we read (like Islam and the West and I believe perhaps also in John Mandeville’s work) the notion that Christians think they are the only ones who properly know how to fast (and vice versa for Muslims) comes up every now and again. This also reminds me of a petty rivalry of sorts too. How did this whole “I’m better than you/No you’re wrong I’m right” saga begin? I always feel like there is so much people can learn from one another, but alas I’m straying from my original point.
The general “tone” of semi-annoyance/wanting to get the truth out is seem a plethora of times in many different parts of the various narratives too. In al-Ghassani’s reflections it is apparent there as well even though his accounts are more straightforward. He gives a summary of events, places, and customs while at the same time slyly putting in his own personal beliefs. I felt as if he was a little bit more reserved than let’s say Qasim, but at the same time he was perplexed quite often about the things the Christians do.
All of the works we have read throughout this course have had their own tones. But in the Land of the Christians I truly feel that the authors were simply just confounded at times by the Christians’ beliefs and notions.
Katie, I agree with you that the tone is an important aspect of the text. Through the author’s tone the audience gets a sense for the frustration, and even shock to an extent, the author experiences from his interactions with the Christians and how much they do not know about their own religion. Although the author is clearly frustrated, he still maintains composure in his debates with the Christians and uses facts from the Bible, Torah, and Quran to support his arguments. For example, when a Christian inquires why Muslims refrain from eating pork, Qasim responds that “it is unclean and only eats unclean things” and that “even in the Gospel it is prohibited”. The Christian challenges this notion, but Qasim follows up by telling the story that indicates its prohibition. The Christian still doesn’t believe him until he goes to look it up himself. It is interesting how patient Qasim is in discussing these matters with the Christians; it speaks to his greater mission to educate others about Islam and even Christianity.
Another thing that I found interesting was how the tone and objectives of all the Muslim travelogues we have read are consistent with the Islamic theme of being open to learning as much about things as possible. Back when we were discussing the medieval and pre-medieval ages of Islam, a lot of our focus was on how Muslim scholars welcomed all types of knowledge and wanted to discover as much as they could about the world and those in it. The acquisition of knowledge is what brought them closer to God; they believed that God wanted them to gain as much knowledge as they could. To learn more, Muslims remained objective in their observations and were not quick to judge others, while at the same time, trying correcting notions that others had about their own culture and beliefs. Clearly this is still evident hundreds of years later as Qasim is in Europe still learning more, but more importantly, trying to educate others about Islam, and how Christianity and Islam are alike and different.
It seems like an issue that is still relevant, even in today's world--these misconceptions and willful ignorance of major world religions and their practices is not something we've grown past, unfortunately. Although this was a very clear and well-stated example of some of those misconceptions Christians have regarding Islam, I was not entirely shocked by many of the questions being asked of Qasim. I was also not shocked by this "we're better at fasting/no we're better at fasting" argument; it goes hand in hand with not fully knowing how the other religion even goes about practicing the ritual. It also goes along with the Christian Church's attempts to make Islam less appealing so that people wouldn't convert--if the Christian church does it better (read: more devoutly), why would they make the switch?
While reading In the Lands of Christians: Arabic travel writing in the 17th century, I immediately began to look for differences between the text and the other travelogues written from the “Western” perspective that we have read up to this point. Since the “Western” perspective has almost always exaggerated the conditions and people of the “East”, I wanted to see whether this would hold true for the reverse. This is mentioned in the beginning of the travelogue in its warnings of a new epistemology (or nature that in which the writing originates from). The text begins by first countering stereotypes that may be formed on the onset of the reading. Similar to the profiling of one of the authors, Ahmad, described later in the text, a “western” reader may see that the text is written by a “Muslim” or “Turk” (used interchangeably in this text) and therefore make assumptions about the text itself. The text refutes this bias, stating that Ottoman “travelers were not harbingers of Islamic imperialism compelled to alterize and to present.” Instead, it offers a new view in which travelers write empirical accounts, and go into the “West” in order to “experience” instead of denounce. I found this relatable to Henry Blount’s account in becoming a “passenger” who is open to the experience. However, a big difference is that Blount’s analysis depicts an account of Ottomanism, where the “East” is idealized and exaggerated in greatness. I found in reading In the Lands of Christians, that the travelogue was not truly objective and empirical itself. This is seen in the interaction between the Arabic travelers and the people they encounter in the “West”. In Ahmad’s encounters in Holland and France, his tone and way of explaining his religion in response to questions on stereotypes of Muslims showed that he saw Christians as, well, idiots. He had little patience for their questions. It is unbelievable that all Christians were as uniformed as he equates them to be. There is a strong sense that Ahmad does not come from an objective and unprejudiced stance himself. This is seen in his disdain for how the Christian faith does not follow its own teachings, as seen in his conversations about iconography and the Ten Commandments. He has a girl read the first commandment which states that Christians are not to create false idols, carve statues and worship those creations. Immediately he indicates that Christians have ignored this concept from the start. It appears that the conversation is regressing to an infantile stage where each side is trying to argue that their religion to “better” rather than using their differences to learn from each other.
The outright dismissal, as well as the ignorance of Arab-Islamic travel within the West was at first a puzzling concept to me as I began to read "In the Lands of the Christians" by Nabil Matar. While it is certainly true that Europeans were quite familiar with the travel and exploration of the lands among as well as beyond them, why was it so unbelievable to them to suppose that a people besides themselves could be and were well-versed as well as well educated in matters pertaining to lands and cultures outside of their own? At this point in the course material, I am quite familiarized with the Euro-centric ideals that prevailed at the time, however I feel as though the whole concept behind saying that "a well cultured Muslim was an anomaly" at the time was more of an affront towards Ahmad Qasim and Islamic culture as a whole, more than anything else. As proven throughout the text, there was much curiosity, travel, and exchange with the West, of which many travelers main incentives besides the allure of the tobacco trade, was to learn and "observe the differences in peoples, skin colors, languages, foods, drinks, clothes, customs and wonders," (xxi). It goes on to say that even though their primary objective centered around the aim to travel to a religious destination in particular, that they were still open-minded to the facets of culture that other cultures and people possessed-- often times the very opposite to the close-minded ways as we have read in which the West views the East. The Arab-Islamic travelers like Ahmad did not deny the religious divides between him and the Christians, however he was in no way ignorant to their religion which to me was very impressive. Qasim might have at times appeared to be too arrogant and/or condescending towards the Christians, but the fact that he had taken the time to learn about a religion so comprehensibly besides merely his own speaks volumes about him not only as a traveler and historian, but as a person as well.
“The outright dismissal, as well as the ignorance of Arab-Islamic travel within the West" is actually precisely what makes me think that Qasim's defensive responses to the uneducated Europeans he encountered aren't genuine in the least. Though Qasim presents both an eye-opening and truthful account of European incomprehension regarding Eastern belief systems, I believe his answers seem too well-thought out to be what he actually said in response to such prodding. I feel this way not only because he seems to be an expert on all things, but also because if you possess strong beliefs, it is unlikely that you would be so cool, calm and collected whilst defending said beliefs to seemingly unconscious people, especially if you were a Muslim whose ancestors have dealt with the many negative effects of Orientalism. In many instances throughout the text, Qasim defends his religious beliefs to the point where he appears to know more about Christianity than the practicing Europeans do. The perfect example of a situation where this occurs can be found on page 12 where, when asked why Muslims don’t eat pork, Qasim recites the passage from the Gospel where this rule can be found without hesitation. Instances such as these lead me to believe Qasim went back after the fact to research and prepare before recording the most potential argument in his travel log. There is nothing wrong in this; in fact I think it admirable that he put so much time and effort in creating the most effective defense of his beliefs as well as learning about the religious beliefs of others. I just do believe that this revision did occur, and that it is highly unlikely Qasim responded to his European inquisitors in such a manner in real life.
I think it's really interesting how these two texts that were written so close together -- to wit, less than a century apart -- have such contradictory connotations. There are alot of things that contribute to the tone in each text, but I am primarily concerned with the situation as a whole in one text and the main action of another; namely, al-Ghassani and Qasim's accounts respectively.
In al-Ghassani's account, Muslims seem to hold some amount of respect. Ghassani is negotiating with Christian Spaniards over the mutual release of prisoners, but both nations treat Islamic literature as if it were a very valuable bargaining chip. The Christians recognize not only that this Islamic nation is a military force, but also a cultural force to be reckoned with. This sort of grudging respect harkens to the tone of Ottomanism, although it lacks the admiration noted in texts like Monague's Turkish Letters.
Qasim's text, however, consists of a relentless tirade of Christians looking for different avenues from which they can mock or insult an Islamic scholar. There is a distinct lack of respect evident here and, prior to their conversation, it is evident that these Christians had nothing but distaste for the Islamic beliefs. There is no trace of Ottomanism visible in their attitudes.
A tentative explanation for this disparity in respect is that in one situation a military power is being exercised by the Islamic empire, whereas in the other one philosophical and religious rhetoric is the only force at play. It saddens me to consider this option, however, since it would imply that the European nations only afforded Islam respect when it was a threat. Ottomanism involves admiration and aspiration toward Islamic ideas and culture; just look at how vaccinations were so thoroughly transmitted westward! Perhaps, though, those ideas are only seen when the west is watching Islam very carefully out of fear.
I also noticed the differences between the tones of the texts that you identified. The al-Ghassani text is definitely more Ottomanist than Orientalist. Clearly the two cultures are not on particularly good terms, but as you said, there is some amount of respect. If nothing else, each party view the other as a serious cultural entity, unlike many Orientalist writers who are dismissive of Eastern cultures as mystic, strange and hedonistic.
The Qasim text on the other hand is very Orientalist. Christians tear down Islamic individuals seemingly at every possible chance, and are very dismissive of Islamic beliefs and practices. I think your explanation for this difference is definitely a possibility.
There is definitely a different tone in al-Ghassani's writing. I would say that he definitely has every right to be frustrated with the treatment Christians have given Muslims. Ismail is still ranting about the events at Granada which had disastrous consequences against Muslims. In this writing al-Ghassani is displeased with the Christian rulers, particularly the Pop for instigating violence against Muslims. His response is harsh in our eyes because we see him referring to Christians as infidels, but in reality this outburst is not with hatred but it is a response to hateful acts against Muslims.
This excerpt, “In the Land of Christians”, honestly had me smirking and shaking my head in disbelief. The diction used by “historians, cultural analysts, and literary critics” isn’t just borderline offensive, but it genuinely seems confused and stumped. They were legitimately astounded that their relentless travel and exploration was not being reciprocated by “the East”. They are arrogantly oblivious, and patronizing. I wonder if they truly could have been so blind, as to react in such shock to Moroccan culture. They chuckle and commend the Muslims for “knowing languages” and “[reading] books”. Bernard Lewis encapsulates this phenomenon, accusing Muslims of “lacking curiosity”. Now how can this be a legitimate claim? It is so transparently self-centered. It is incredibly insecure and inconsiderate of others’ perspectives. Comments like these pervade textual accounts of European travel to Muslim lands. It’s gotten me thinking if there is some noticeable or markable shift from Ottomanist tendencies to Orientalist ones. Now clearly it was not due to a specific event or over the course of a short period of time, however I do feel that through the ages, a focus on cooperation and a focus on imperialism have outweighed one another, fluctuating in presence.
I was also very interested in the beginning of the first chapter, when Ahmad bin Qasim is invited to dinner (by those who commandeered his possessions from him). It actually seems like a little comedy of manners, in which the outsider is questioned about his strange way of life and about the inconsistencies in his faith. He turns many of their statements back at them but they merely laugh. It is ironic, because it seems like they are looser in their interpretation of biblical texts, take alcohol less seriously, and they laugh off every good point Ahmad makes. However, they insinuate that he is the stranger character and that his rituals and practices are absurd. It just made me think back to how concerned and seriously they took their religion during the crusades, and how “Eastern exploration” was barely reciprocated.
After reading “In the Land of Christians,” what stood out to me most was the manner in which many of the concepts and questions about Islam were addressed. In previous texts that we have read, often times the tone used in regards to Christians’ attitude towards Muslims was one of superiority or dominance. In this text, the manner of the Christians’ questions and impositions carried a sense of insulting ignorance. For example, the very first thing that Ahmad is asked is how Islam compares to Christianity. The nature of this question would require an in-depth, extensive, and complex answer, but the fact that this is an opening question to Ahmad suggests that Christians believe it can be answered with a small handful of words. Throughout this text, Ahmad is continuously bombarded with questions about his religion, suggesting that those confronting him have no interest in his substance as a person, but only in his connection to Islam. Even with Ahmad’s compliance, his probers are astounded and taken aback when he is able to answer in a manner that both discloses the desired information, and asserts a certain upper hand in favor of Islam. When Ahmad compares Muslim fasting to Lent, he explains how they are similar, but by not fully abstaining during Lent, Christians are making themselves vulnerable to temptation, and by not fully weakening themselves for the sake of God, they are not truly appreciating, or experiencing their connection to God. Naturally, this notion offends the Christians, not because Ahmad’s tone is insulting, but because he is correct.
“They marveled among themselves and said to me: ‘This book was brought from the island of so-and-so from the East Indies. There is a sea of long travel between us and the people there, just short of a year to cross. This is a miracle, for there is a vast distance between your country and that island, and yet still you can understand what is in the book. This shows that Arabic is the same language in all countries. As for our country, it is different from others; for in the land of the English, there is one language, and the people of France have another language […] but Arabic is the same the world over. Truly,’ they continued, ‘it is a blessed language and whoever speaks it always mentions God. That is why some Andalusians used to say ‘there is no Arabic without God, and no ajami without the Devil.’” (bin Qasim 35)
I was not aware that Arabic is spoken exactly the same the world over. I think this passage may be slightly misleading in that it glazes over the distinction of speech and writing. I think the Andalusians mean that the writing is the same, or similar enough that bin Qasim can understand the gist of what is there, but they say “the language is the same,” and “whoever speaks it always mentions God” as is writing and speech were the same. It is interesting to think of how separate speech and writing really are, as there are millions of perfectly fluent and nuanced speakers in the world that cannot read at all, though the writing may be considered the same language. Considering the range of regional dialects and accents in any language, I think it is most likely that the Andalusians meant the written language is the same in these two regions and not that they would speak exactly the same way.
It is also interesting, well, kind of puzzling, how eagerly the Adalusians renounce ajami and call it a Devil language. Could there have been some postcolonial inferiority complex kicking around since the Ottomans had conquered Spain years before? If so, they would be poisoned to feel inferior to Turkish or something like it, not Arabic.
Much of the text in "In the Lands of Christians" focuses on the aspects of cleanliness and purity. Ahmad bin Qasim clearly recognizes the value of being clean, which is demonstrated numerous times throughout the text but can be fully characterized in this quote: "In terms of what is without, he should be clean in his body, his clothing and the place where she worships. In terms of what is inside, he should not think of anything except what he is reciting. This is the origin of and explanation for the obligation to clean every impurity" (30).
Clearly, both physical and spiritual purity are highly sought after in Islam. Qasim mentions this to the Christian priest on page 30 of the text, to which the priest responds by saying "God gave the Muslims capable minds - in order that their punishment at the end of time be harsher and more severe for not being Christian." Here, the priest is both complimenting and insulting Islam, commenting that Muslims do possess intelligence but that it will ill inevitably lead them to a greater punishment in the afterlife. What is interesting to me is the comment that Quasim writes to himself afterward, where he actually resents not telling the priest that "purity of the heart begins in not worshipping more than one God." This comment seems to imply that the priest was of a religion that was not monotheistic, which is a view that not every Muslim would have had in that situation. The monotheistic aspect of both Christianity and Islam has always been a sort of common ground for the two religions, as well as Judaism.
However, on page 34, Ahmad bin Qasim brings up the idea that the Trinity of traditional Christianity is essentially saying that "three and one make up one thing." Evidently, Quasim views Christians and their "idolatry" within the Trinity as inherently impure. Moreover, this would certainly seem to support his underlying view from throughout the text that Christians are not as rational as Muslims, as he normally uses logic and reason to argue his ideas - Christians invented the Trinity to make sense of God, whereas Muslims found a rational way to make sense of him without dividing him into three "persons."
While reading “The Lands of the Christians”, the major differences between the travel accounts about Islamic countries written through a western, Christian perspective and those written through the Muslim perspective on “Christian” lands became very clear. One of these major differences being that unlike with Christian writers such as John Mandeville, Qasim has significant background knowledge on the religion of these countries. In fact, he proves to know certain scriptures better than the people practicing do. The other major difference is, despite his plethora of knowledge, he does not go into these countries with the intent of belittling and undermining the Christian religion. Any time that religion is brought up in the text, specifically in the first section, it is done so on the part of the Christians and any seemingly negative commentary made on Qasim’s part is only done so based on fact, and in defense of his own religion. An example of this is on page 12 where Qasim is dining with the noblemen and they ask him about his inability to eat pork based on his religious ideals. Qasim informs the men that even in their own gospel it states that pork is unclean and unholy, and cites the two instances within the gospel that pertain to this: “There were two thousand pigs worth a lot of money. But our Sayyid Issa peace be upon him, permitted that they should perish and be destroyed. Their owners lost the value of the pigs; had they been (unclean) animals that were not forbidden, said our Sayyid Issa, peace be upon him, would not have allowed the crazed spirits to enter them, and lead them to destruction and annihilation.”
ReplyDeleteWe see a similar instance again on page 17 when Qasim’s French admirer questions him about his religion asking “How come you don’t know God?” to which he replies “Muslims, know god better than you.” Though at first this claim seems to be an outrageous one to make, he backs it up by calling her out about worshiping statues that represent spirits, something directly stated in the 10 commandments as unacceptable: “the first commandment of the ten is ‘God almighty said, Do not carve statues, ad do not worship them. Worship God alone.” The differences in conduct and information in regards to travel accounts by the differing groups has to do with motivating factors. As we’ve discussed at length, the goal of a majority of the Christian writers about Islamic countries was to create a dividing line between their ideals and those of the Muslim faith, where, as exemplified in the piece for today’s class, the goal of the Muslim writer was, for the most part, to learn about the Christian land and the way in which the people that dwell there live.
While I do agree that Ahmad Bin Qasim comes across as very knowledgeable in the text, I also gained the impression that he was kind of pretentious in his vast knowledge of the Christian and Muslim religions. Consider the fact that Qasim is a foreigner from a land ruled by an imperial empire, travelling into an unfamiliar country; for him to say something like “Muslims know God better than you” is very alienating and condescending to the native Christians. While you say that Ahmad Bin Qasim’s intent was not to belittle or undermine the Christian religion, he nevertheless flexes his intelligence in conversation in such a way that he makes the Christians he is speaking to seem foolish, which I think was the intent in his writings. Granted, Qasim does raise some valid points in the hypocrisy of Catholic practices in relation to the literal teachings found in the Bible. However, when he paints himself to be the equivalent of a walking encyclopedia, and wields that knowledge to argue for the supremacy of his culture’s piousness in a foreign nation, Qasim makes it hard for himself to come across as a likeable traveler. In class, we discussed that the questions he is posed as a Muslim by the Christians have less to do with a genuine interest in learning about his culture and are posed more as novel entertainment regarding the exoticism of the East. Certainly, there is truth to this point; time and again, European literature regarding the East has proven to be an exercise in thrilling fiction rather than a historically and culturally accurate account of Muslim culture. However, in this particular instance, I do not feel that Qasim helps to defuse the novelty of his culture by presenting himself to the Europeans as more knowledgeable of the Christian religion and more devout in his religion. Rather, Ahmad Bin Qasim perpetuates the novelty by becoming a sort of “know-it-all” character from the East that is asserting his ethnocentrism in a land which that does not take his culture seriously in the first place.
DeleteWhat I thought was one of the more interesting things about the travel journals was the immense amount of Christian ignorance that occurred, and not imply about Muslims, but for their own religion as well. It does more than simply shed a light on the education of Christians at the time, but the superstitions and misinformation that they have acquired in their own faith. They struggle with understanding their own laws in terms of worship and fasting, and even when confronted with this information, they don't realist how they could possibly be mistakenly participating in their worship. One of the biggest faults that the Christians seem to make are their use of iconography in terms of worshipping Christ. Now, there is nothing wrong with wearing a crucifix to be reminded of God's sacrifice for man, but when people worship the cross as a conduit to Jesus, who in the scriptures even stated that he was a mediator for God rather than a deity, then they break the First Commandment. However, Christians had fooled themselves into a loophole about this idol worship by saying that because Jesus is God, then it was ok that they create icons of his form.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with thinking this way is that Christians then open themselves up to creating more loopholes in their faith, which could, and eventually would, lead to more grievous betrayals, such as making adultery acceptable, murder tolerable, and theft commonplace (i.e. the Borgia Papal dynasty). It just goes to show how early these transgressions began, and how badly they grew to become. The author of this journal, Ahmad bin Qasim, tries to act as an educator to these Christians, showing the terrible irony that a foreigner understands how to be a better Christians as a Muslim rather than a group of fiercely devout Christians, and seeing his struggle then reflects many struggles that Christians create in our present day.
You make many valid, interesting points. The issue of idolatry is very prevalent in the christian religion. Not only with the issue of worshiping Jesus Christ, but with the idea of sainthood as well. It is common practice in Christianity to pray to a saint, yet essentially this violates the the first commandment. However, I do not believe it is entirely that clear. As we all know, the Bible has been translated countless times, many different versions exist, and too many people who consider themselves Christians have not read a single version of the Bible. The issue becomes, in the case of idolatry and other issues that have arisen, semantics. The interpretation of the bible has changed over the years, along with people's concepts of its meaning. While I agree that an argument can be made that Christianity practices idolatry, it is an enormous and frankly irrational jump to the conclusion that this will lead to the acceptance of murder in the Christian religion. While I have not read every version of the bible that exists, and I can only read an English version as well, I believe I can safely say the interpretation of "thou shalt not kill" has remained pretty steady throughout the course of history. Simply, it's not up for interpretation.
DeleteWhere this is an issue in Bible, it probably will not become an issue for the Koran due to the nature of the text. The arabic language has been maintained purposefully so that the language of the Koran will not become out dated.
I think an important aspect of this text is its tone. What exactly are the authors trying to say in certain sections is a vital question to ask oneself. All of this begins on pages eight through ten. The text starts right off the bat with Qasim trying to tolerate the questions the Christians are asking him. He seems, to me, to be rather frustrated. Yet, at the same time, he wants them to actually learn the truth about Islam, and not spread more false information. Another interesting component of this section is it makes me wonder where their ignorance comes from. The way these Christians talk reminds me of town gossip going back and forth. But is it just that? Do they think these ridiculous notions about Islam because of what others told them, what they read, or just because they don’t care? They generally do seem interested in what Qasim is saying, but nevertheless I wonder will it truly sink in.
ReplyDeleteThe whole thought of whose idea of “fasting” is better or more proficient was very fascinating. I know in other texts we read (like Islam and the West and I believe perhaps also in John Mandeville’s work) the notion that Christians think they are the only ones who properly know how to fast (and vice versa for Muslims) comes up every now and again. This also reminds me of a petty rivalry of sorts too. How did this whole “I’m better than you/No you’re wrong I’m right” saga begin? I always feel like there is so much people can learn from one another, but alas I’m straying from my original point.
The general “tone” of semi-annoyance/wanting to get the truth out is seem a plethora of times in many different parts of the various narratives too. In al-Ghassani’s reflections it is apparent there as well even though his accounts are more straightforward. He gives a summary of events, places, and customs while at the same time slyly putting in his own personal beliefs. I felt as if he was a little bit more reserved than let’s say Qasim, but at the same time he was perplexed quite often about the things the Christians do.
All of the works we have read throughout this course have had their own tones. But in the Land of the Christians I truly feel that the authors were simply just confounded at times by the Christians’ beliefs and notions.
Katie, I agree with you that the tone is an important aspect of the text. Through the author’s tone the audience gets a sense for the frustration, and even shock to an extent, the author experiences from his interactions with the Christians and how much they do not know about their own religion. Although the author is clearly frustrated, he still maintains composure in his debates with the Christians and uses facts from the Bible, Torah, and Quran to support his arguments. For example, when a Christian inquires why Muslims refrain from eating pork, Qasim responds that “it is unclean and only eats unclean things” and that “even in the Gospel it is prohibited”. The Christian challenges this notion, but Qasim follows up by telling the story that indicates its prohibition. The Christian still doesn’t believe him until he goes to look it up himself. It is interesting how patient Qasim is in discussing these matters with the Christians; it speaks to his greater mission to educate others about Islam and even Christianity.
DeleteAnother thing that I found interesting was how the tone and objectives of all the Muslim travelogues we have read are consistent with the Islamic theme of being open to learning as much about things as possible. Back when we were discussing the medieval and pre-medieval ages of Islam, a lot of our focus was on how Muslim scholars welcomed all types of knowledge and wanted to discover as much as they could about the world and those in it. The acquisition of knowledge is what brought them closer to God; they believed that God wanted them to gain as much knowledge as they could. To learn more, Muslims remained objective in their observations and were not quick to judge others, while at the same time, trying correcting notions that others had about their own culture and beliefs. Clearly this is still evident hundreds of years later as Qasim is in Europe still learning more, but more importantly, trying to educate others about Islam, and how Christianity and Islam are alike and different.
It seems like an issue that is still relevant, even in today's world--these misconceptions and willful ignorance of major world religions and their practices is not something we've grown past, unfortunately. Although this was a very clear and well-stated example of some of those misconceptions Christians have regarding Islam, I was not entirely shocked by many of the questions being asked of Qasim. I was also not shocked by this "we're better at fasting/no we're better at fasting" argument; it goes hand in hand with not fully knowing how the other religion even goes about practicing the ritual. It also goes along with the Christian Church's attempts to make Islam less appealing so that people wouldn't convert--if the Christian church does it better (read: more devoutly), why would they make the switch?
DeleteWhile reading In the Lands of Christians: Arabic travel writing in the 17th century, I immediately began to look for differences between the text and the other travelogues written from the “Western” perspective that we have read up to this point. Since the “Western” perspective has almost always exaggerated the conditions and people of the “East”, I wanted to see whether this would hold true for the reverse. This is mentioned in the beginning of the travelogue in its warnings of a new epistemology (or nature that in which the writing originates from). The text begins by first countering stereotypes that may be formed on the onset of the reading. Similar to the profiling of one of the authors, Ahmad, described later in the text, a “western” reader may see that the text is written by a “Muslim” or “Turk” (used interchangeably in this text) and therefore make assumptions about the text itself.
ReplyDeleteThe text refutes this bias, stating that Ottoman “travelers were not harbingers of Islamic imperialism compelled to alterize and to present.” Instead, it offers a new view in which travelers write empirical accounts, and go into the “West” in order to “experience” instead of denounce. I found this relatable to Henry Blount’s account in becoming a “passenger” who is open to the experience. However, a big difference is that Blount’s analysis depicts an account of Ottomanism, where the “East” is idealized and exaggerated in greatness. I found in reading In the Lands of Christians, that the travelogue was not truly objective and empirical itself. This is seen in the interaction between the Arabic travelers and the people they encounter in the “West”. In Ahmad’s encounters in Holland and France, his tone and way of explaining his religion in response to questions on stereotypes of Muslims showed that he saw Christians as, well, idiots. He had little patience for their questions. It is unbelievable that all Christians were as uniformed as he equates them to be.
There is a strong sense that Ahmad does not come from an objective and unprejudiced stance himself. This is seen in his disdain for how the Christian faith does not follow its own teachings, as seen in his conversations about iconography and the Ten Commandments. He has a girl read the first commandment which states that Christians are not to create false idols, carve statues and worship those creations. Immediately he indicates that Christians have ignored this concept from the start. It appears that the conversation is regressing to an infantile stage where each side is trying to argue that their religion to “better” rather than using their differences to learn from each other.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe outright dismissal, as well as the ignorance of Arab-Islamic travel within the West was at first a puzzling concept to me as I began to read "In the Lands of the Christians" by Nabil Matar. While it is certainly true that Europeans were quite familiar with the travel and exploration of the lands among as well as beyond them, why was it so unbelievable to them to suppose that a people besides themselves could be and were well-versed as well as well educated in matters pertaining to lands and cultures outside of their own? At this point in the course material, I am quite familiarized with the Euro-centric ideals that prevailed at the time, however I feel as though the whole concept behind saying that "a well cultured Muslim was an anomaly" at the time was more of an affront towards Ahmad Qasim and Islamic culture as a whole, more than anything else. As proven throughout the text, there was much curiosity, travel, and exchange with the West, of which many travelers main incentives besides the allure of the tobacco trade, was to learn and "observe the differences in peoples, skin colors, languages, foods, drinks, clothes, customs and wonders," (xxi). It goes on to say that even though their primary objective centered around the aim to travel to a religious destination in particular, that they were still open-minded to the facets of culture that other cultures and people possessed-- often times the very opposite to the close-minded ways as we have read in which the West views the East. The Arab-Islamic travelers like Ahmad did not deny the religious divides between him and the Christians, however he was in no way ignorant to their religion which to me was very impressive. Qasim might have at times appeared to be too arrogant and/or condescending towards the Christians, but the fact that he had taken the time to learn about a religion so comprehensibly besides merely his own speaks volumes about him not only as a traveler and historian, but as a person as well.
ReplyDelete“The outright dismissal, as well as the ignorance of Arab-Islamic travel within the West" is actually precisely what makes me think that Qasim's defensive responses to the uneducated Europeans he encountered aren't genuine in the least. Though Qasim presents both an eye-opening and truthful account of European incomprehension regarding Eastern belief systems, I believe his answers seem too well-thought out to be what he actually said in response to such prodding. I feel this way not only because he seems to be an expert on all things, but also because if you possess strong beliefs, it is unlikely that you would be so cool, calm and collected whilst defending said beliefs to seemingly unconscious people, especially if you were a Muslim whose ancestors have dealt with the many negative effects of Orientalism. In many instances throughout the text, Qasim defends his religious beliefs to the point where he appears to know more about Christianity than the practicing Europeans do. The perfect example of a situation where this occurs can be found on page 12 where, when asked why Muslims don’t eat pork, Qasim recites the passage from the Gospel where this rule can be found without hesitation. Instances such as these lead me to believe Qasim went back after the fact to research and prepare before recording the most potential argument in his travel log. There is nothing wrong in this; in fact I think it admirable that he put so much time and effort in creating the most effective defense of his beliefs as well as learning about the religious beliefs of others. I just do believe that this revision did occur, and that it is highly unlikely Qasim responded to his European inquisitors in such a manner in real life.
DeleteI think it's really interesting how these two texts that were written so close together -- to wit, less than a century apart -- have such contradictory connotations. There are alot of things that contribute to the tone in each text, but I am primarily concerned with the situation as a whole in one text and the main action of another; namely, al-Ghassani and Qasim's accounts respectively.
ReplyDeleteIn al-Ghassani's account, Muslims seem to hold some amount of respect. Ghassani is negotiating with Christian Spaniards over the mutual release of prisoners, but both nations treat Islamic literature as if it were a very valuable bargaining chip. The Christians recognize not only that this Islamic nation is a military force, but also a cultural force to be reckoned with. This sort of grudging respect harkens to the tone of Ottomanism, although it lacks the admiration noted in texts like Monague's Turkish Letters.
Qasim's text, however, consists of a relentless tirade of Christians looking for different avenues from which they can mock or insult an Islamic scholar. There is a distinct lack of respect evident here and, prior to their conversation, it is evident that these Christians had nothing but distaste for the Islamic beliefs. There is no trace of Ottomanism visible in their attitudes.
A tentative explanation for this disparity in respect is that in one situation a military power is being exercised by the Islamic empire, whereas in the other one philosophical and religious rhetoric is the only force at play. It saddens me to consider this option, however, since it would imply that the European nations only afforded Islam respect when it was a threat. Ottomanism involves admiration and aspiration toward Islamic ideas and culture; just look at how vaccinations were so thoroughly transmitted westward! Perhaps, though, those ideas are only seen when the west is watching Islam very carefully out of fear.
I also noticed the differences between the tones of the texts that you identified. The al-Ghassani text is definitely more Ottomanist than Orientalist. Clearly the two cultures are not on particularly good terms, but as you said, there is some amount of respect. If nothing else, each party view the other as a serious cultural entity, unlike many Orientalist writers who are dismissive of Eastern cultures as mystic, strange and hedonistic.
DeleteThe Qasim text on the other hand is very Orientalist. Christians tear down Islamic individuals seemingly at every possible chance, and are very dismissive of Islamic beliefs and practices. I think your explanation for this difference is definitely a possibility.
There is definitely a different tone in al-Ghassani's writing. I would say that he definitely has every right to be frustrated with the treatment Christians have given Muslims. Ismail is still ranting about the events at Granada which had disastrous consequences against Muslims. In this writing al-Ghassani is displeased with the Christian rulers, particularly the Pop for instigating violence against Muslims. His response is harsh in our eyes because we see him referring to Christians as infidels, but in reality this outburst is not with hatred but it is a response to hateful acts against Muslims.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt, “In the Land of Christians”, honestly had me smirking and shaking my head in disbelief. The diction used by “historians, cultural analysts, and literary critics” isn’t just borderline offensive, but it genuinely seems confused and stumped. They were legitimately astounded that their relentless travel and exploration was not being reciprocated by “the East”. They are arrogantly oblivious, and patronizing. I wonder if they truly could have been so blind, as to react in such shock to Moroccan culture. They chuckle and commend the Muslims for “knowing languages” and “[reading] books”.
ReplyDeleteBernard Lewis encapsulates this phenomenon, accusing Muslims of “lacking curiosity”. Now how can this be a legitimate claim? It is so transparently self-centered. It is incredibly insecure and inconsiderate of others’ perspectives. Comments like these pervade textual accounts of European travel to Muslim lands. It’s gotten me thinking if there is some noticeable or markable shift from Ottomanist tendencies to Orientalist ones. Now clearly it was not due to a specific event or over the course of a short period of time, however I do feel that through the ages, a focus on cooperation and a focus on imperialism have outweighed one another, fluctuating in presence.
I was also very interested in the beginning of the first chapter, when Ahmad bin Qasim is invited to dinner (by those who commandeered his possessions from him). It actually seems like a little comedy of manners, in which the outsider is questioned about his strange way of life and about the inconsistencies in his faith. He turns many of their statements back at them but they merely laugh. It is ironic, because it seems like they are looser in their interpretation of biblical texts, take alcohol less seriously, and they laugh off every good point Ahmad makes. However, they insinuate that he is the stranger character and that his rituals and practices are absurd. It just made me think back to how concerned and seriously they took their religion during the crusades, and how “Eastern exploration” was barely reciprocated.
After reading “In the Land of Christians,” what stood out to me most was the manner in which many of the concepts and questions about Islam were addressed. In previous texts that we have read, often times the tone used in regards to Christians’ attitude towards Muslims was one of superiority or dominance. In this text, the manner of the Christians’ questions and impositions carried a sense of insulting ignorance. For example, the very first thing that Ahmad is asked is how Islam compares to Christianity. The nature of this question would require an in-depth, extensive, and complex answer, but the fact that this is an opening question to Ahmad suggests that Christians believe it can be answered with a small handful of words. Throughout this text, Ahmad is continuously bombarded with questions about his religion, suggesting that those confronting him have no interest in his substance as a person, but only in his connection to Islam. Even with Ahmad’s compliance, his probers are astounded and taken aback when he is able to answer in a manner that both discloses the desired information, and asserts a certain upper hand in favor of Islam. When Ahmad compares Muslim fasting to Lent, he explains how they are similar, but by not fully abstaining during Lent, Christians are making themselves vulnerable to temptation, and by not fully weakening themselves for the sake of God, they are not truly appreciating, or experiencing their connection to God. Naturally, this notion offends the Christians, not because Ahmad’s tone is insulting, but because he is correct.
ReplyDelete“They marveled among themselves and said to me: ‘This book was brought from the island of so-and-so from the East Indies. There is a sea of long travel between us and the people there, just short of a year to cross. This is a miracle, for there is a vast distance between your country and that island, and yet still you can understand what is in the book. This shows that Arabic is the same language in all countries. As for our country, it is different from others; for in the land of the English, there is one language, and the people of France have another language […] but Arabic is the same the world over. Truly,’ they continued, ‘it is a blessed language and whoever speaks it always mentions God. That is why some Andalusians used to say ‘there is no Arabic without God, and no ajami without the Devil.’” (bin Qasim 35)
ReplyDeleteI was not aware that Arabic is spoken exactly the same the world over. I think this passage may be slightly misleading in that it glazes over the distinction of speech and writing. I think the Andalusians mean that the writing is the same, or similar enough that bin Qasim can understand the gist of what is there, but they say “the language is the same,” and “whoever speaks it always mentions God” as is writing and speech were the same. It is interesting to think of how separate speech and writing really are, as there are millions of perfectly fluent and nuanced speakers in the world that cannot read at all, though the writing may be considered the same language. Considering the range of regional dialects and accents in any language, I think it is most likely that the Andalusians meant the written language is the same in these two regions and not that they would speak exactly the same way.
It is also interesting, well, kind of puzzling, how eagerly the Adalusians renounce ajami and call it a Devil language. Could there have been some postcolonial inferiority complex kicking around since the Ottomans had conquered Spain years before? If so, they would be poisoned to feel inferior to Turkish or something like it, not Arabic.
Much of the text in "In the Lands of Christians" focuses on the aspects of cleanliness and purity. Ahmad bin Qasim clearly recognizes the value of being clean, which is demonstrated numerous times throughout the text but can be fully characterized in this quote: "In terms of what is without, he should be clean in his body, his clothing and the place where she worships. In terms of what is inside, he should not think of anything except what he is reciting. This is the origin of and explanation for the obligation to clean every impurity" (30).
ReplyDeleteClearly, both physical and spiritual purity are highly sought after in Islam. Qasim mentions this to the Christian priest on page 30 of the text, to which the priest responds by saying "God gave the Muslims capable minds - in order that their punishment at the end of time be harsher and more severe for not being Christian." Here, the priest is both complimenting and insulting Islam, commenting that Muslims do possess intelligence but that it will ill inevitably lead them to a greater punishment in the afterlife. What is interesting to me is the comment that Quasim writes to himself afterward, where he actually resents not telling the priest that "purity of the heart begins in not worshipping more than one God." This comment seems to imply that the priest was of a religion that was not monotheistic, which is a view that not every Muslim would have had in that situation. The monotheistic aspect of both Christianity and Islam has always been a sort of common ground for the two religions, as well as Judaism.
However, on page 34, Ahmad bin Qasim brings up the idea that the Trinity of traditional Christianity is essentially saying that "three and one make up one thing." Evidently, Quasim views Christians and their "idolatry" within the Trinity as inherently impure. Moreover, this would certainly seem to support his underlying view from throughout the text that Christians are not as rational as Muslims, as he normally uses logic and reason to argue his ideas - Christians invented the Trinity to make sense of God, whereas Muslims found a rational way to make sense of him without dividing him into three "persons."