The travelogues of Ibn Fadlan provide his readers with an interpretation of history and culture through the eyes of an Islamic faqih (expert in the rituals and practices of Muslims). He doesn’t take the imperialistic approach that Mandeville seemed to offer. There is no motive of taking over foreign lands in this text; but an overarching theme of objectively understanding other cultures that are intermingling on the trade routes established by Jewish merchants known as the Rudhaniya. I enjoyed the fact that there was some amount of Islamic folklore and mythology that he interjected; especially with considerations to the lands of Malgog and Gog. That is not where I would like to focus though. I would like to talk about the international intermingling that occurred. This trade route, Rudhaniya, provided the people of Euroasia to exchange goods, ideas, and culture all the way from Western Europe to China. It is astounding to think that Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europe had so many connections. We have never really been taught that there are even cultures worth studying in Eastern Europe besides Russians; the same goes for Central Asia with the Mongols and Chinese. The Turkic peoples seemed to have a large claim on Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Europe. Again it is interesting to see the mixing of religions in this area around the Caspian Sea. There are a myriad of groups apparently. As noted during Akman’s lecture, there are Jews in the middle, Muslims to the south and east, and Christians to the west, and pagans interspersed throughout, specifically the people of Rus to the northwest. Why do we learn geography in such black and white terms when apparently the histories of the nomadic and semi-nomadic people as well as the established kingdom of people were not always as concrete as they are nowadays? There must be some way that at least one of these maps could be incorporated into the education systems before taking a class specifically on the travelogues of medieval merchants, pilgrims, and emissaries. I would also like to note the intentions behind the Arabic traveler compared to the intentions behind the British traveler. Ibn Fadlan was roaming through the Islamic metropolises with the mission to clarify the practices of Islam for the satellites under the Abbasid Caliphate. John Mandeville was making “his” way from Briton to Jerusalem in an attempt to conquer the lands and exile the Muslims from the holy land. Is it just me, or does this seems like a stark contrast? Why is it that the Christian pilgrims were so hell-bent on taking lands from other peoples? What made Ibn Fadlan have the objective opinion that he stayed pretty true to in this text? I think it comes from the clarity of the message of Islam. Muslims claim that the Quran is the clarified message of the Abrahamic faiths. I think that it really shows through this comparison. The Christians have consistently been trying to conquer other lands to subject them to hegemony of religion as well as imperialistic economic forces. The caliphate sent someone to help a satellite of Islamic civilization to defend against a kingdom that wanted their lands, as well as to clarify the practices of their religion. To me, this says that Islam has a much more peaceful and coexisting message behind it than Christianity. I think that when the Prophet says that the word of God that the Christians follow has been corrupted; he has every right to that opinion.
Greg-- in regards to your question pertaining to whether or not there is a stark contrast between Mandeville as opposed to Ibn Fadlan, I would say yes and no. I say yes because as many other have already stated, Ibn Fadlan's travels were not only real (as John Mandeville’s were most likely not) but provided descriptions from a far more objective standpoint than the previous text we read. I say no because both in their own way, attempted to convert others to their religion, whether through their travels, actions, and/or their writings. I don't think it is altogether necessary to construct a binary between the religions of Christianity and Islam making one out to be peaceful, while the other is some all-conquering, violently comprised group of religious people. In essence what I am trying to say is one is not inherently better than the other—they have their similarities just much as they have their dissimilarities and no religion is perfect. No, it probably wasn't Christianity's 'shining moment' as it were when during their attempts to convert other nations around the globe they thought it best to resort to violence and in the process thereby killed hundreds of thousands of people-- but to make that the only grounds through which you judge their religion seems a bit naïve and nearsighted to me. While there may be many Christians both in the past and present that have become corrupted in their faith, that doesn't undermine and define the entirety of the message behind Christianity. Many people claim to be Christian—their actions, however as we have so often seen throughout the ages, say otherwise (take for example, the crusades)—does that include all Christians that follow the word of God? Their message? No. This isn't about pitting Islam vs. Christianity or one against the other, with one emerging as the “better” religion. I think this blog is more so about keeping an open mind and an open perspective—slamming Christianity does not achieve that.
Alright, for the most part I agree with your argument in regards to the academic objectivity in this book. However, taking into context where Islam and Christianity stood at the time, the question towards why Christianity wanted to "dominate" whereas Islam wanted to simply obtain objective understanding is pretty pointless. Christianity wanted control in a world that had lost all sense of order, whereas Islam was in one of their many golden ages, therefore establishing pretty clear priorities. Understandibly, Christianity wanted to create a secure kingdom where order could be rebuilt, whereas Islam was fortunate enough to have the luxury of order and security to pursue more intellectual interests, like any civilization in history. What is more important to understand is that yes, while this book is more objective than John Manderville's text, it is still being written by someone looking through a very specific lens, and in reading this text we have to understand that this man still views himself as superior to these other races. This is clearly stated in the fact that he returns to the cleanliness of each non-Islamic race that he comes across, and even brings it up in the case of the Turks. This almost seems to subtly force the reader to see these cultures as lesser, and as such plants the idea of superiority in the Islamic reader. Not to mention that he discusses customs without offering much context as to why each act is being performed, such as the "orgies" that he comes across when visiting the Northmen. If I wanted to truly learn, I would have inquired further if acts so barbaric in appearance had any sort of religious or symbolic meaning (Christianity practices ritualistic cannibalism whereas Islam allows multiple wives, and yet I understand why those practices are acceptable and meaningful). Yes, it is important to see that there is a major difference in quality, but to claim that Ibn is completely objective is simply incorrect. This class is teaching us how to critically read, and rather than bash another religion to build up another, we should examine the text fully and critique it in academic way rather than with a preconceived angle of subjectivity. Also, they aren't pagans, they are either polytheists, spiritualists, or naturalists. Pagan is a slur that was created by Christians to describe those below them, and as such shouldn’t be used to describe these other religions.
In response to the question, What made Ibn Fadlan have the objective opinion that he stayed pretty true to in this text?
Christians view Islamic statements as suspect. They see a Christian witness as a reliable source and distrust an Islamic one. This has come as the result of authors such as John Mandeville who manipulate what they saw in the East in order to help the Church maintain its place in Western culture and to stop Christians from converting to Islam. Ibn Fadlan, on the other hand, writes about his journey to the Turkish King to spread Islam to the nation. Unlike Mandeville, his journey is not in question. On his journey he keeps a relatively objective tone in order to help his cause. He does not want to manipulate others into accepting Islam but show truth to his religion. Already some may be mistrusting because he is a foreigner in their lands. While Fadlan reports on the differences in cultures that he observes and experiences, he refrains from establishing opinions. I think this is a strategy to show that the Islamic faith as more advanced than Christianity. He established repertoire through trust and appreciation as a reliable figure. This can be compared to Gresham’s Law- Fadlan is working to reverse the bad views that may exist towards Islam and replace them with good ones. As Edward Said recommends, rather than establishing a rhetoric of blame, it is more productive to expose the culture through “voyage in” and this is what Ibn Fadlan does. He goes directly into the other lands and depicts the values he hopes that they will accept.
Ibn Fadlān is essentially the opposing figure to John Mandeville. Where Mandeville would alter any story to include the non-existent filth and depravity of Muslims, Fadlān is more interested in the truth. He includes moments that bother him, such as the Viking orgies and the Turk’s unsanitary bathing practices, but these fleeting descriptions take a back seat to informed cultural observations. The most interesting part of his documented travels are the intentions behind writing. Mandeville clearly had ulterior motives in compiling his works. He knew the truth about Islamic nations, yet showed them as depraved enemies with few similarities. Fadlān, on the other hand, created an image of the other as profitable and, for the most part, good. There was even an instance when people warned him not to travel where he was going because the people were dangerous, yet he persisted. The Vikings and Turks were different, but they did not over think these differences and traded instead. Another important aspect of the story is that he was not travelling in order to convert people, by force or any other means. They asked for his knowledge and he went to deliver it to them. This cannot be said of Godfrey of Bouillon, the horrific and violent crusader that Mandeville establishes as a hero. Most of Mandeville’s work went into undercutting the truths that he accidentally included, as opposed to Fadlān’s truths outweighing his critiques. Page 82 establishes that the best way to keep peace is to allow people to follow their own religion. A lord of Constantinople who has Muslim prisoners wants to know why he is being defeated by Muslims. The response is that “the king of Bāshghird has an army of Muslims whom he allows to practice their religion publicly, and they are the ones who have urged him to invade your territory and devastate” (Fadlān 82). This description tells Christians, in a practical manner that they might understand, why it is only harming them to try and forcefully convert Muslims. Their best interests lay with leaving Muslims to their own practices, otherwise they are making themselves an enemy rather than an ally. The book is central to an argument against violence, since all of these different people can benefit from each other. Violence might still occur, but the underlying truth of this book is that it is not necessary for religious reasons.
Though I agree that to an extant Mandeville and Ibn Fadlan do approach many things differently, I think it is important to acknowledge that they do have a lot unifying them. I think they are inherently bound together by the travelogue genre, so that they can never be entirely oppositional. For example, they both render the things they see as mystic to some extant - Mandeville obviously very directly with his stories about one-legged men and dog-headed people, and Ibn Fadlan far more subtly with his discussion of the Northern Lights and the "giant". Though Mandeville takes far more liberty in fictionalizing this mystic, Ibn Fadlan does to some extent create fantasy. Perhaps this is simply the default when travelling and experiencing new cultures. Ibn Fadlan is on the whole much more anthropological and objective. However, because they both operate within the same "traveler" framework, they can never be truly oppositional.
Sophie, I definitely agree with your statement that Ibn Fadlan and John Mandeville are tethered under the genre of medieval tales of travel, and I certainly agree that both contain elements of mysticism. I also agree with Nikki in that Fadlan’s chronicles are more grounded than that of Mandeville’s and are therefore a more reliable source as a historical document. My perspective on the difference between the mysticism contained in both tales principally has to do with the circumstance of their concoction. In the case of the Book of John Mandeville, it is generally recognized that Mandeville himself did not travel across the world but rather drew from the experiences of travel recounted by others. The mysticism of his book is driven more by the desire to design an “exotic other” and is written for an audience whose education and scope of the unknown is generally limited. There is purpose is Mandeville’s mysticism, in that it thrills the imagination and creates separation between the familiar and the foreign. This is in direct contrast to Ibn Fadlan’s log, which is a real firsthand account of the sights and experiences of this man’s travel. Fadlan is more interested in a factual recollection of his experience because he must feel that his travels will merit a scholarly discussion when he returns to Baghdad, where reason and intellect are held in higher regard than tales of exotic fantasy. The mysticism that arises in Fadlan’s account is less about trying to bewilder the reader with tales of the unknown, but are genuine reactions to phenomena that the author cannot rationally explain. In many ways, the mysticism of Fadlan’s book of travels are more organic and human than that of Mandeville’s because it does not have an agenda attached to it.
Although he wastes little time on outright disdain, Ibn Fadlan’s narrative is passive aggressive and hardly what a modern reader would call “fair”—even if this travelogue is much more neutral than Mandeville (or any other, for that matter). He and his caravan are on a mission to civilize—they were asked to make the journey for just that reason, and there are multiple instances wherein the narrator makes markedly disdainful comments regarding the practices or beliefs of indigenous people as he crosses their lands. For instance, on page 23, he mentions that the Bashghirds eat lice and carry a wooden phallus (is this supposed to be a cross?). One of the company is a Bashghird who converted to Islam—he is caught chasing down and eating lice out of his own clothing. This is described in such a way as to make him seem disgusting, in need of the teachings of this more civilized group of Muslim men. They dismiss whatever religion these indigenous people practice, and dismiss the symbol, which every man of that religion carries—they refer to it simply as a “phallus” that is carved out of wood. Then again, on pages 27-28 the narrator relates the incident wherein the King, newly converted to Islam and seeking direction, makes the supreme blunder of being referred to as the King from the pulpit when blessings and prosperity are wished upon him. Ibn Fadlan corrects him, and helps “pronounce the khutba” correctly—even though, as Dr. Akman pointed out in class this evening, at this historical period the religion of Islam had not yet been codified. Later on, the narrator converts a young man and his family who all take the name Muhammad, and teaches them a few basic Arabic phrases. Ibn Fadlan remarks on page 39, “his joy at knowing these two verses was greater than if he had been made king of the Saqaliba.” One of the most obvious instances in which Ibn Fadlan reveals his condescension occurs when he discusses fraternal inheritance, saying, ““I told the king that this was not allowed and explained to him how inheritance should work until he understood” (36). He also begins the entire narrative by stating on page 7 that he would be passing through the “land of Infidels.” Not too much later, Ibn Fadlan mentions that the Ghuzz “live in poverty, like wandering asses” (12).
Ibn Fadlan is obviously a very well educated man, and a qualified Islamic scholar and practitioner—and he certainly wastes much less time on his judgments of the cultures he encounters, and spends more time simply relating the interactions. The commentary is there, however, and although this travelogue is certainly less judgmental than many others which followed in the same narrative tradition, “fair” in terms of representation of native people does not run on a sliding scale.
I certainly agree that this narrative is definitely not what a modern reader would call "fair". Although in class we discussed the positive aspects to Ibn Fadlan's narrative, there are many negative aspects and prejudiced ideas that he brings up in his narrative. However, we also must remember that Ibn Fadlan has never experienced any of this before. You certainly get a sense that Ibn Fadlan and Muslims are civilized, while other civilizations and religions are "otherized", but he does not mean to be prejudiced. While Madeville simply made up fiction in his prejudice against others, Fadlan is simply making his own observations without any intention of being prejudiced. Therefore, there is no fiction in his writing.
I agree that while Ibn Fadlan’s travel narrative is much less biased than that of Mandeville, it is still not necessarily “fair.” However I have to disagree that it is because more modern readers are analyzing the text. I believe that, and it has been discussed in class, that no work of literature is truly unbiased. I do however believe that Ibn Fadlan’s work deserves much more credit that you have given it. I do not try to disagree that Ibn Fadlan comes off as condescending or even pompous at points, but the point of his journey is to teach the new converts to Islam of the Islamic ways. Furthermore you say that Islam was not codified at that point, but that is exactly what Ibn Fadlan was trying to do in his travels. As mentioned by Katie before me, Ibn Fadlan has tried his best to write the truth as he saw and understood it, leaving the aspects of a work purposely made up to increase prejudice to Mandeville.
1. What is the significance of the Turkish phrase ‘bir tengri’ when it comes to being a true believer of the Muslim faith?
While I was reading, I had to pause and study the passage concerning the phrase ‘bir tengri’, “…which means ‘by the one God’ in the language of the Turks, for bir in Turkish means one and tengri is God” (12). I came to the conclusion that bir tengri is similar to the English exclamation of oh my God. In any religion, to use the idea of God in an accusatory light, to ‘take the name of the lord in vain’, is considered a sin because the sinner is, at the most fundamental level, blaming God for some misfortune. However, both phrases can be used in celebratory fashions as well, to thank God for good fortune or within prayer.
Within the context of Ibn Fadlan’s observations, the “tribe of Turks called Ghuzz” (11) were not true believers because, while they used the devout phrases to appease the Muslims in their company, they simultaneously used the phrase to curse God as the result of any injustice or misfortune. In essence, the ‘Ghuzz’ used the phrase bir tengri to swear.
2. What is the significance of the superstition of the ‘Ghuzz’ regarding hydromancy?
The existence of the hydromancy superstition within the ‘Ghuzz’ tribe caused devout Muslims to encounter difficulty when the time came for ablutions. Within Islam it is important to remain clean in the presence of God. Following this logic through, devout Muslims preform ablutions prior to any prayer and after any major pollutions. Some sects of the religion believe that for the duration of the time that a person is unclean, or polluted, he is ejected from the presence of God, and therefore their prayers would not be heard or viable when he is in this state. Because of the ‘taboo on washing’ (14), and the resultant necessity for secrecy, it becomes nearly impossible for the devout Muslim to pray the stipulated seven times each day within the presence of the ‘Ghuzz’.
3. How do the Turkish ideals of hospitality impact foreign travel?
The Turkish ideals of hospitality remind me of modern day loans. The host gives material help to the guest and upon the conclusion of the guest’s journey receives repayment as well as an additional gift of some kind. This method allows foreign travelers to obtain appropriate travel gear as well as means to safely complete their visit. In addition, by encouraging visitation and traveling, the Turkish economy is boosted.
How successful was Ibn Fadlan in providing an objective view of the cultures he came into contact with? While Ibn Fadlan lets his own biases slip through on a few occasions, he tends to offer an objective point of view regarding the societies that he discusses. The violent and sexually deviant practices of the Rus people, (their public orgies, violent executions, slave sacrafices, etc.) are simply recorded. Ibn Fadlan gives no indication that he disapproves of their actions from a moral or religious standpoint. He does, however, condemn them briefly as being “the filthiest of God’s creatures.” He discusses their filthy way of life for a few paragraphs, seemingly disgusted. It is interesting that he gets so hung up on the poor hygiene of the Rus, but not their violent tendencies. Ibn Fadlan again breaks his routine of objectivity when describing the Bashghirds, the Turkish group who eat lice and worship a phallus. He describes them as “the worst of the Turks, the dirtiest and the readiest to kill.” Again, Ibn Fadlan focuses on the cleanliness of a group of clearly questionable morality. Excluding these examples, Ibn Fadlan tends to have very little to say regarding the practices of the cultures he observes. His objectivity looks even more extreme when compared to John Mandeville, who, whenever mentioning the Jews, referred to them as “cruel,” and frequently passed judgment on others. While the Book of John Mandeville read more like Christian propaganda, Ibn Fadlan’s writings read more like a modern anthropological report (as Professor Akman pointed out in class today). There is obviously a religious motivation to his journey, but this does not totally overtake the tone of his writings. Ibn Fadlan’s text is very focused on facts and observations.
I think this is an interesting point, because one of the chief facets of Fadlan's writing that led me to believe he was attempting to be objective, was the craft of his writing. Fadlan wrote in very succinct and observational sentences, as if he was doing nothing more than reports of his sightings. That said, I agree that some of Fadlan's religious motivations occasionally caused him to divert from his objectivity. At certain points I wondered to myself whether some of Fadlan's judgments would have been the same had the not been in the context of religion. For example, different groups of "God's creatures" could certainly be viewed differently if encountered in a less religious light
One thing I found particularly interesting was Ibn Fadlan's discussion of the way the Ghuzz Turks frequently repeated many of the Muslim expressions, such as, "there is no god but God" (11). This expression is obviously of utmost importance to the devout, as it is the basic profession of faith for any Muslim, yet these people say it almost as a greeting, not taking into account its religious significance. I was honestly surprised that Ibn Fadlan did not take serious offense to this. If non-Christians were to use similar expressions of Christian faith, they would be called blasphemers and scorned for their words, because the words have real value to their believers, and to use them without belief would be taken as an insult. Obviously I do not mean to imply that those words have any less meaning to Muslims, yet those who hear the Turks using Muslim proclamations are not threatened by it, and seem almost flattered by it. I am also curious why the Ghuzz would use such powerful proclamations without faith. It seems odd that they would need to try to impress the Muslims on the expedition when they are in their own territory; one would think that Ibn Fadlan and his colleagues would have to try to impress them. Were the Caliphates in Baghdad truly so powerful or respected that the Turks would bow to them as they crossed their lands?
John Mandeville v. Ibn Fadlan: Whose approach in exposing the ways of foreign places, people and cultures was more effective?
Whereas John Mandeville's discourse about the East is an exaggerated and biased account that leaves the uneducated, ignorant reader with biased residues and a new-found disdain for Eastern customs, Ibn Fadlan's honest and informative account succeeds in juxtaposing both the positive and negative aspects (in his opinion) of the ways of life of people he comes across in his travels. Whereas John Mandeville spends a great deal of time recounting the "degraded lifestyle" and violent ways of the Saraccens, Ibn Fadlan counter-balances an account of the uncleanliness of the Rus with a description of what makes them beautiful, despite the fact. Though both Mandeville and Fadlan were firm believers in their respective faiths, Mandeville never not trying to convert those he crosses path with to Christianity, and portraying said people in a negative degrading light, most likely because his nature prevents him from even making a solid argument for conversion's sake. On the other hand, though part of Ibn Fadlan's mission was to "...instruct him (Yamish Yiltawar, leader of the Bulghars) and his people in the Islamic faith..." (xviii), he doesn't take on the role of missionary throughout his journey, choosing instead to educate himself in regards to every aspect of culture he could while on his journey. And though he certainly didn't seem to agree with the customs of various groups of people, he put his feelings aside in his observations- taking the time to see for himself everything that made foreign people different than himself. In one instance, Fadlan even requests that he be taken to see a hung giant in the forest, despite the fact that it would be disturbing for him to witness. (41)
The contrast beween Mandeville and Fadlan's approaches is significant, but the end result of both accounts is that Fadlan is more effective in conveying an account of the unknown to an ignorant reader. Fadlan works in the same way that a travel agent should- focusing on the positive aspects of a foreign place, while at the same time mentioning the places that visitors may want to skip over to save time. Fadlan's account doesn't leave the reader's mind dripping in biased residue, but instead, full of the wonder that drove Fadlan himself.
Although it has been established that Ibn Fadlan is very different from Mandeville (some may even argue that he is the antithesis of Mandeville), I’d like to expand upon the difference between their works. I’d argue that Fadlan’s work is much more of a travelogue. Firstly, we have concluded in past classes that Mandeville may not have even traveled to all of the places he claims to have observed. The tone of Fadlan’s work seems much more honest and thus believable than Mandeville’s. Fadlan tends to expand upon things that may not be as compelling or attractive to readers. A while back in class we discussed the dangers of misrepresenting a people or culture through travelogues as well as the idea that no travelogue can be objective-even the act of leaving things out in one’s writing contributes to a certain level of subjectivity. However, I think the best that writers of travelogues can do is try to accurately represent their travels in ways that don’t skew or exaggerate the nature of particular cultures. I think Fadlan does this exceptionally well when compared to Mandeville. For instance, Fadlan spends a decent amount of time writing about “the cold of hell” and “dressing for the cold” during his travels in Turkish lands. These sections in the book hardly even address the people that Fadlan comes into contact with-unless he’s speaking of the shelter or extra clothing that they gifted to him. Much differently, it’s almost impossible to find a whole page in The Book of John Mandeville that is free of judgment and complete elaboration. Although there are definitely other motives behind Fadlan’s work (to educate about Islam, for example), Fadlan seems to be more truthful in his writing—he ultimately does not aspire to misrepresent other cultures and does not focus on shocking his potential audience. For example, he writes of Turkish marriage customs in an extremely straightforward manner without adding his own personal opinions. He provides very real (and sometimes boring) accounts of his journeys.
Though I agree that John Mandeville's work is far less objective when compared to Ibn Fadlan's, there are also a fair amount of similarities between the two texts that raise the question:can we really consider Fadlan's work to be an objective piece? One of the main similarities that some of our classmates have pointed out in other posts is comparison of certain people to animals in a way that degrades their way of life. Just as Mandeville spoke of Muslims who lived in caves and "hissed like snakes", Fadlan describes the Khwarazmians in a similar manner: "the Khwarazmains are the most barbarous of people, both in speech and customs...their speech sounds exactly like the croaking of frogs" (7-8). Later, he goes on to describe his repulsion towards the Ghuzz explaining "they live in poverty like wandering asses". It is easy to compare the two works and praise Fadlan for being "objective" because Mandeville's piece nothing more than pro-christian propaganda, but it is important to consider the two works' similarities as well, which clearly point out that Fadlan also fails as an objective author.
I definitely agree that Fadlan is a better historical/cultural document than Mandeville's. It seems like the class generally agrees on this, but there hasn’t been a lot of discussion about the implications of the Islamic travelogue being more historically reliable than the Christian one. I think a good place to start is by saying that this does not suggest that the entire tradition of the Islamic travelogue is superior to the Christian, or that Christianity is more violent/persecuting than Islam. After all, even Mandeville doesn’t present his own book as being reliable. He says it is written in French and with spectacular exaggerations on purpose, because “people enjoy reading about things foreign.” It is of course more complicated than that. I think the real observation to be made from Fadlan’s text being better than Mandeville’s is that the dominant Christian tradition (more people the world over, even Muslims, would say that Shakespeare is the greatest poet in the world over Saadi) does not acknowledge the contributions of Islamic literature in historical/anthropological/cultural terms. Abby and Madelyn get at this idea really well, and lots of blog entries have hinted at this nonrepresentation of solid, really important Islamic texts like Fadlan’s, but I think it is important to discuss it directly too.
In Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness, Ibn Fadlan travels to Bulghars’ territory in order to teach the Bulghar Sultan about Islam and bring him a letter from the Commander of the Faithful assuring that he will be assisted with building his fortress that will protect his people from Jewish rule. Ibn Fadlan encounters a wide variety of cultures along his journey and seems to do a decent job with recording what he sees as objectively as he can. Though Ibn Fadlan did present a very objective view in his travelogue, there were still many instances when Ibn Fadlan tried to implement his religion onto those he encountered—whether it was due to orders the Commander of the Faithful gave him or instances he felt it necessary to intervene with other cultural practices.
In the beginning of class tonight we have discussed that Ibn Fadlan was traveling to Bulghar’s territory to educate others about Islam—not necessarily to convert them—I still feel that his mission was to not only educate, but to convince some of the people that he encounters to convert to Islam. Ibn Fadlan was traveling with gifts and letters from Nadhir al-Harami urging people to convert to Islam. These gifts that Ibn Fadlan bestowed to those he tried to convert had sort of a bribery vibe to me. On page twenty Fadlan writes, “He sent him 50 dinars, among which there were many musayybi dinars, three mithqals of musk, some pieces of well-tanned leather, two pieces of cloth from Merv, from which we cut out two tunics for him, leather slippers a brocade robe and five silk garments. We gave him his present and a veil and a ring for his wife. I then read him the letter.” Atrak is from a culture where the custom was to wear clothing “until it falls to pieces” (p. 20). Presenting someone like Atrak with rather luxurious goods and silver as a preface to asking him to convert seems a lot like bribing one to convert.
Another instance of Ibn Fadlan attempting to impose his customs onto others happens on p. 38 just after he discusses mixed bathing: “I tried ceaselessly to induce the women to veil before the men but I did not succeed.” Even though Fadlan does mention his action and the outcome of it objectively, his action alone discloses his inability to be completely objective. This is just one moment where Ibn Fadlan records his attempt to impose his Islamic custom onto another; we must keep in mind that there was most likely other times where he may have tried to impose his traditions in other cultures that are not recorded.
When comparing Ibn Fadlan to John Mandeville one notices right away that John Mandeville presents an extremely ethnocentric and pro-Christian view of the East while Ibn Fadlan write much more objective descriptions. I think it is really interesting to consider the extent to which both impact those around them with their own customs. John Mandeville, though his travelogue is very charged with hatred the Other, he does not act on his hatred nor tries to go out of his way to promote Christianity in the nations he visits along his pilgrimage. Instead he uses the Other to try to highlight in his travelogue how Christianity is the best and rightful religion. On the other hand, Ibn Fadlan presents a much more neutral perspective in his travelogue but does tend to impose his rituals and customs onto those he visits. Though they both may have had different end-goals in mind as to what their journeys were trying to accomplish, it is very interesting to compare their reactions and actions when they encounter someone that is the “Other” to them.
Both Ibn Fadlan and John Mandeville look to undermine those that are different than them. Unlike John Mandeville, Ibn Fadlan is more discreet in his approach; using an objective description of other people and their lifestyle. Occasionally Ibn Fadlan slips and reminds the reader that the author indeed does have an opinion about what is going on in his travels. This is seen when he describes the "uncleanliness if the Rus" in how "they do not clean themselves after urinating or defecating, nor do they wash after having sex. They do not wash their hands after meals. They are like wandering asses." The last part to that is no longer a mere description, but a commentary which provides insight to Ibn Fadlan's reaction to what he was witnessing.
Likewise, John Madeville's account is saturated with personal opinion- often to the extent in which makes it obvious the low-opinion he has towards Muslims and others who are not of the Christian faith. His account may be less effective to an audience than Ibn Fadlan's simply because of this reliance on personal opinion. People tend to look at objective accounts as more credible than personal accounts due to manipulation in the text. Objective accounts are more likely to be credible, but don't let this fool you.
Both John Mandeville and Ibn Fadlan make people of other religions appear weak as easy to persuade to convert to the favored religion (for Mandeville it is Christianity, for Fadlan it is Islam). Mandeville talks about how Muslims are not strng in their faith and would convert quickly to Christianity when persuaded. Ibn Fadlan shows the same kind of tactic. Some may contribute this to the fact that Fadlan is on a journey with the purpose of spreading Islam, but the descriptions make it seem quite easy to convert others. In the section under the category "Converts to Islam" the text states, "we saw a kin group among them numbering 5,000 members, counting men and women, and they had all converted to Islam." The text goes on to show several accounts of how others would convert to Islam. This provides the view that Islam is the "right" religion and that all other ways are "unclean" and "unpure."
Ibn Fadlan's account strongly represents John Mandeville's, but Ibn Fadlan's method allows readers to credit the text as more reasonable that the heavily opinionated tale of John Mandeville.
After having read through the text, I was left with a similar impression on the biased tone of Ibn Fadlan and how it worked within his writing. One of the main reasons he was even chosen for his position was his knowledge and dedication regarding Islam, so we could definitely expect some form of bias within the book. It is true that he mentions aspects such as "the uncleanliness of the Rus" or their similarity to "wandering asses." These are all clearly offensive terms used to insult them on a very primitive level. Because they are relatively spare in the book, most would consider John Mandeville's account to be much less objective. However, Ibn Fadlan does indeed refer to qualities of these foreign peoples on a much deeper level, much like John Mandeville does when he describes what he perceives to be the absurdity of Islam. On page 37, he describes the people as having a custom where they execute the "quick-witted" and "intelligent" as a religious sacrifice. Though it is seemingly an objective view of a custom he must have seen during his travels, a deeper layer insinuates that this alternate religion is devoid of intelligent people (because they would have been killed off in sacrifice). Moreover, this sort of thing happens in an earlier part of the book, on page 24. When asked about the religious totem they valued, some Bashghirds stated that it was essentially based off their creator. However, Ibn Fadlan describes it as a "wooden phallus," again insulting their religion on an even deeper level. His opinion insinuates that that they worship sexual body parts, which is probably one of the most offensive associations one can make in Islam.
Melinda and Zoraida, I would agree that, on average, this text works to portray Islam as a superior breed of religion. Certainly this message is more nuanced than it would seem based on the facts you mentioned, though. Ibn Fadlan's treatment of other cultures. For example, the Turkish king asserts his claim to military funding in an altercation with Fadlan and, even being of a different culture and in opposition to a learned Muslim, was still spoken of as being "good looking" and "inspiring respect" on page 29. A man of another culture is spoken highly of and, indeed, asserted his individuality.
On that note, the Jewish people may be spoken of as an antagonistic force that would "reduce [the Turks] to slavery", but they are also treated as strong and independent of Muslim influence. Later, they destroy a Muslim minaret with impunity. While clearly being treated as amoral, the Jews are still viewed as a powerful entity even without Islam.
Even though Fadlan's opinion may shine through and color his otherwise objective text, it is not just one color that does so. Fadlan also shows some respect for other cultures in places and that needs to be addressed in any critique of his work.
There are times when Ibn Fadlan does show his disapproval towards the people that he encounters during his voyages. However, he does not let his opinions hinder his ability to write the truth about what he is observing. Fadlan’s writing style shows more control over his opinions than Mandeville did in his accounts. Most of the time Fadlan’s accounts report what other people were saying or doing without him interfering or modifying. The only times where he really shows the reader his opinion is in the titles of his accounts and at certain points during the accounts. For example in “The uncleanliness of the Rus”, Fadlan shows his disgust towards their habits by saying these people are unclean and compares them to animals. However, this account stops after just a few sentences and it is not until the last sentence that Fadlan compares the Rus to asses. Also in the account before this one, he talking about something very different and does not show his opinion until the very end of the account and only for a sentence. Fadlan’s writing style is very different than Mandeville because he is more concentrated on his observations and his mission than on criticizing the people.
Often times in Western culture, as seen in The Book of John Mandeville, orientalism has led to the dehumanization, and reduction of the “others” to barbaric, uncivilized, and monstrous. They are portrayed as “dog-like” and “snake-like”, completely unrealistic portrayals. We are so incredibly bombarded with these stereotypes in every aspect of our culture that we have come to accept these ideas on some level. While we recognize from cases such as the clip from Indiana Jones that we often times exaggerate (i.e. no one from the Middle East is eating eyeballs), we still internalize these stereotypes and they impact our opinions. However, in the book Ibn Fadlan we finally get an Eastern perspective. While the majority of the book is relatively free of the biases that plague John Mandeville’s work, the idea of otherness still prevails. For instance, much is discussed in the way of modesty and cleanliness. Discussions of Turks who share bath water, as well as women who openly reveal themselves to men are surely repulsive images to the Eastern world. In fact, all of the images provide the Eastern reader with only the differences between the cultures, neglecting similarities as a whole. Therefore, albeit unbiased as it may be, the tone of the work still exemplifies the notion that orientalism has forever been prevalent in terms of the divide between the east and the west. Therefore, while Fadlan’s work does succeed in educating the people of the east as to western culture, it makes few strides in the way of bridging the gap between the two.
In response to your sentiment that a sense of “otherness” still prevails from Ibn Fadlan’s perspective, I’d like to point out that any travelogue would presumably contain a similar tone. Although he is a member of the so-called “East”, the places and people he visits are still strangers with peculiar ways. Any traveller who isn’t accustomed to orgies and unsanitary bathing rituals would inevitably be appalled to stumble upon such occurrences. Mandeville, on the other hand, likely didn’t actually visit most of the places he mentions in his travelogue. He had a similar luxury that we have now, due to internet anonymity, the luxury of writing hurtful, untrue, slanderous falsities as fact, without ever having to look those people we harmed in the eye. Why would Mandeville relate to those people he never even met. As for the reason Mandeville referred to “others” as mongrels, constructed from sinister animal parts, that was merely because Mandeville hadn’t actually seen those people. There is far too much evidence that Mandeville merely lifted his stories and experiences from others, to give him such credence that his fantasy creatures are anything other than exasperated imaginings.
Alyssa, your blog post really caught my attention. I too kept going back and forth between John Mandeville’s work, and Ibn Fadlan’s narrative. One thing you truly hit on the head was that despite Ibn Fadlan’s work being more objective, there still is that idea of “the other” at play here.
It makes me wonder if there ever can be a truly unbiased book or piece out there. No matter how anyone, past or present tries, I feel like their own personal viewpoints will always somehow find a place in their writing. The author may not even intentionally do this, but, in a way, it cannot be helped. To me, a good example is on page 46 under the heading, “The uncleanliness of the Rus”. That entire paragraph hints at Ibn Fadlan’s disgust. He says, “They are like wandering asses.” Yes, I know in class we mentioned how in Islam the idea of cleanliness is held at a high standard, however, saying, “They are the filthiest of God’s creatures” still is holding these “others” in contempt. Ibn Fadlan is trying to be as impartial as he can be, but it doesn’t always work. Is he as prejudice and ludicrous as John Mandeville? Of course not. Not many people can be. However, he still does see the Rus as these others that baffle him. Their cleaning habits, clothes, facial hair, and so forth all perplex him even though he tries to hide it.
The movie we watched in class, The 13th Warrior, actually illustrates “the other” from both sides pretty well. Ibn Fadlan sees the Rus, the Vikings, as these crazy men who can kill one another easily (like in that tent scene), and who listen to some old woman for advice. However, since the movie is intended for a “Western” audience, I feel like we can even see Ibn Fadlan as “the other” a little bit by the way he dresses, and how he isn’t as strong as the Vikings. So basically the audience can see the Viking’s point of view at times as well.
To conclude my thoughts, and drive home my point, I’m going to use the movie, “The Book of Eli” as a really odd last example. That is a movie that (let’s be honest) sole purpose is to entertain. The idea is that it’s the apocalypse and Eli, the hero, has to deliver this mysterious book to some safe location. Sorry if I’m spoiling the movie, but of course the book ends up being the Bible and everyone wants to possess it (for power, knowledge, etc). I never thought anything of that before, but basically whoever wrote the script is saying how Christianity is the best religion, and the only one that would survive. Why couldn’t it be the Quran? The writer probably didn’t mean any harm by choosing the Bible over the Quran, but he is in fact showing his biases, and presenting this subconscious idea that the West would survive the end of the world over the East. Everyone’s personal preferences always come to light one way or another, even if he or she doesn’t intend for that to happen.
The travelogues of Ibn Fadlan provide his readers with an interpretation of history and culture through the eyes of an Islamic faqih (expert in the rituals and practices of Muslims). He doesn’t take the imperialistic approach that Mandeville seemed to offer. There is no motive of taking over foreign lands in this text; but an overarching theme of objectively understanding other cultures that are intermingling on the trade routes established by Jewish merchants known as the Rudhaniya. I enjoyed the fact that there was some amount of Islamic folklore and mythology that he interjected; especially with considerations to the lands of Malgog and Gog. That is not where I would like to focus though. I would like to talk about the international intermingling that occurred.
ReplyDeleteThis trade route, Rudhaniya, provided the people of Euroasia to exchange goods, ideas, and culture all the way from Western Europe to China. It is astounding to think that Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europe had so many connections. We have never really been taught that there are even cultures worth studying in Eastern Europe besides Russians; the same goes for Central Asia with the Mongols and Chinese. The Turkic peoples seemed to have a large claim on Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Europe. Again it is interesting to see the mixing of religions in this area around the Caspian Sea. There are a myriad of groups apparently. As noted during Akman’s lecture, there are Jews in the middle, Muslims to the south and east, and Christians to the west, and pagans interspersed throughout, specifically the people of Rus to the northwest. Why do we learn geography in such black and white terms when apparently the histories of the nomadic and semi-nomadic people as well as the established kingdom of people were not always as concrete as they are nowadays? There must be some way that at least one of these maps could be incorporated into the education systems before taking a class specifically on the travelogues of medieval merchants, pilgrims, and emissaries.
I would also like to note the intentions behind the Arabic traveler compared to the intentions behind the British traveler. Ibn Fadlan was roaming through the Islamic metropolises with the mission to clarify the practices of Islam for the satellites under the Abbasid Caliphate. John Mandeville was making “his” way from Briton to Jerusalem in an attempt to conquer the lands and exile the Muslims from the holy land. Is it just me, or does this seems like a stark contrast? Why is it that the Christian pilgrims were so hell-bent on taking lands from other peoples? What made Ibn Fadlan have the objective opinion that he stayed pretty true to in this text? I think it comes from the clarity of the message of Islam. Muslims claim that the Quran is the clarified message of the Abrahamic faiths. I think that it really shows through this comparison. The Christians have consistently been trying to conquer other lands to subject them to hegemony of religion as well as imperialistic economic forces. The caliphate sent someone to help a satellite of Islamic civilization to defend against a kingdom that wanted their lands, as well as to clarify the practices of their religion. To me, this says that Islam has a much more peaceful and coexisting message behind it than Christianity. I think that when the Prophet says that the word of God that the Christians follow has been corrupted; he has every right to that opinion.
Greg-- in regards to your question pertaining to whether or not there is a stark contrast between Mandeville as opposed to Ibn Fadlan, I would say yes and no. I say yes because as many other have already stated, Ibn Fadlan's travels were not only real (as John Mandeville’s were most likely not) but provided descriptions from a far more objective standpoint than the previous text we read. I say no because both in their own way, attempted to convert others to their religion, whether through their travels, actions, and/or their writings. I don't think it is altogether necessary to construct a binary between the religions of Christianity and Islam making one out to be peaceful, while the other is some all-conquering, violently comprised group of religious people. In essence what I am trying to say is one is not inherently better than the other—they have their similarities just much as they have their dissimilarities and no religion is perfect. No, it probably wasn't Christianity's 'shining moment' as it were when during their attempts to convert other nations around the globe they thought it best to resort to violence and in the process thereby killed hundreds of thousands of people-- but to make that the only grounds through which you judge their religion seems a bit naïve and nearsighted to me. While there may be many Christians both in the past and present that have become corrupted in their faith, that doesn't undermine and define the entirety of the message behind Christianity. Many people claim to be Christian—their actions, however as we have so often seen throughout the ages, say otherwise (take for example, the crusades)—does that include all Christians that follow the word of God? Their message? No. This isn't about pitting Islam vs. Christianity or one against the other, with one emerging as the “better” religion. I think this blog is more so about keeping an open mind and an open perspective—slamming Christianity does not achieve that.
DeleteAlright, for the most part I agree with your argument in regards to the academic objectivity in this book. However, taking into context where Islam and Christianity stood at the time, the question towards why Christianity wanted to "dominate" whereas Islam wanted to simply obtain objective understanding is pretty pointless. Christianity wanted control in a world that had lost all sense of order, whereas Islam was in one of their many golden ages, therefore establishing pretty clear priorities. Understandibly, Christianity wanted to create a secure kingdom where order could be rebuilt, whereas Islam was fortunate enough to have the luxury of order and security to pursue more intellectual interests, like any civilization in history. What is more important to understand is that yes, while this book is more objective than John Manderville's text, it is still being written by someone looking through a very specific lens, and in reading this text we have to understand that this man still views himself as superior to these other races. This is clearly stated in the fact that he returns to the cleanliness of each non-Islamic race that he comes across, and even brings it up in the case of the Turks. This almost seems to subtly force the reader to see these cultures as lesser, and as such plants the idea of superiority in the Islamic reader. Not to mention that he discusses customs without offering much context as to why each act is being performed, such as the "orgies" that he comes across when visiting the Northmen. If I wanted to truly learn, I would have inquired further if acts so barbaric in appearance had any sort of religious or symbolic meaning (Christianity practices ritualistic cannibalism whereas Islam allows multiple wives, and yet I understand why those practices are acceptable and meaningful). Yes, it is important to see that there is a major difference in quality, but to claim that Ibn is completely objective is simply incorrect. This class is teaching us how to critically read, and rather than bash another religion to build up another, we should examine the text fully and critique it in academic way rather than with a preconceived angle of subjectivity. Also, they aren't pagans, they are either polytheists, spiritualists, or naturalists. Pagan is a slur that was created by Christians to describe those below them, and as such shouldn’t be used to describe these other religions.
DeleteIn response to the question, What made Ibn Fadlan have the objective opinion that he stayed pretty true to in this text?
DeleteChristians view Islamic statements as suspect. They see a Christian witness as a reliable source and distrust an Islamic one. This has come as the result of authors such as John Mandeville who manipulate what they saw in the East in order to help the Church maintain its place in Western culture and to stop Christians from converting to Islam.
Ibn Fadlan, on the other hand, writes about his journey to the Turkish King to spread Islam to the nation. Unlike Mandeville, his journey is not in question. On his journey he keeps a relatively objective tone in order to help his cause. He does not want to manipulate others into accepting Islam but show truth to his religion. Already some may be mistrusting because he is a foreigner in their lands. While Fadlan reports on the differences in cultures that he observes and experiences, he refrains from establishing opinions. I think this is a strategy to show that the Islamic faith as more advanced than Christianity. He established repertoire through trust and appreciation as a reliable figure. This can be compared to Gresham’s Law- Fadlan is working to reverse the bad views that may exist towards Islam and replace them with good ones. As Edward Said recommends, rather than establishing a rhetoric of blame, it is more productive to expose the culture through “voyage in” and this is what Ibn Fadlan does. He goes directly into the other lands and depicts the values he hopes that they will accept.
Ibn Fadlān is essentially the opposing figure to John Mandeville. Where Mandeville would alter any story to include the non-existent filth and depravity of Muslims, Fadlān is more interested in the truth. He includes moments that bother him, such as the Viking orgies and the Turk’s unsanitary bathing practices, but these fleeting descriptions take a back seat to informed cultural observations. The most interesting part of his documented travels are the intentions behind writing. Mandeville clearly had ulterior motives in compiling his works. He knew the truth about Islamic nations, yet showed them as depraved enemies with few similarities. Fadlān, on the other hand, created an image of the other as profitable and, for the most part, good. There was even an instance when people warned him not to travel where he was going because the people were dangerous, yet he persisted. The Vikings and Turks were different, but they did not over think these differences and traded instead. Another important aspect of the story is that he was not travelling in order to convert people, by force or any other means. They asked for his knowledge and he went to deliver it to them. This cannot be said of Godfrey of Bouillon, the horrific and violent crusader that Mandeville establishes as a hero. Most of Mandeville’s work went into undercutting the truths that he accidentally included, as opposed to Fadlān’s truths outweighing his critiques.
ReplyDeletePage 82 establishes that the best way to keep peace is to allow people to follow their own religion. A lord of Constantinople who has Muslim prisoners wants to know why he is being defeated by Muslims. The response is that “the king of Bāshghird has an army of Muslims whom he allows to practice their religion publicly, and they are the ones who have urged him to invade your territory and devastate” (Fadlān 82). This description tells Christians, in a practical manner that they might understand, why it is only harming them to try and forcefully convert Muslims. Their best interests lay with leaving Muslims to their own practices, otherwise they are making themselves an enemy rather than an ally. The book is central to an argument against violence, since all of these different people can benefit from each other. Violence might still occur, but the underlying truth of this book is that it is not necessary for religious reasons.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThough I agree that to an extant Mandeville and Ibn Fadlan do approach many things differently, I think it is important to acknowledge that they do have a lot unifying them. I think they are inherently bound together by the travelogue genre, so that they can never be entirely oppositional. For example, they both render the things they see as mystic to some extant - Mandeville obviously very directly with his stories about one-legged men and dog-headed people, and Ibn Fadlan far more subtly with his discussion of the Northern Lights and the "giant". Though Mandeville takes far more liberty in fictionalizing this mystic, Ibn Fadlan does to some extent create fantasy. Perhaps this is simply the default when travelling and experiencing new cultures. Ibn Fadlan is on the whole much more anthropological and objective. However, because they both operate within the same "traveler" framework, they can never be truly oppositional.
DeleteSophie, I definitely agree with your statement that Ibn Fadlan and John Mandeville are tethered under the genre of medieval tales of travel, and I certainly agree that both contain elements of mysticism. I also agree with Nikki in that Fadlan’s chronicles are more grounded than that of Mandeville’s and are therefore a more reliable source as a historical document. My perspective on the difference between the mysticism contained in both tales principally has to do with the circumstance of their concoction. In the case of the Book of John Mandeville, it is generally recognized that Mandeville himself did not travel across the world but rather drew from the experiences of travel recounted by others. The mysticism of his book is driven more by the desire to design an “exotic other” and is written for an audience whose education and scope of the unknown is generally limited. There is purpose is Mandeville’s mysticism, in that it thrills the imagination and creates separation between the familiar and the foreign. This is in direct contrast to Ibn Fadlan’s log, which is a real firsthand account of the sights and experiences of this man’s travel. Fadlan is more interested in a factual recollection of his experience because he must feel that his travels will merit a scholarly discussion when he returns to Baghdad, where reason and intellect are held in higher regard than tales of exotic fantasy. The mysticism that arises in Fadlan’s account is less about trying to bewilder the reader with tales of the unknown, but are genuine reactions to phenomena that the author cannot rationally explain. In many ways, the mysticism of Fadlan’s book of travels are more organic and human than that of Mandeville’s because it does not have an agenda attached to it.
DeleteAlthough he wastes little time on outright disdain, Ibn Fadlan’s narrative is passive aggressive and hardly what a modern reader would call “fair”—even if this travelogue is much more neutral than Mandeville (or any other, for that matter). He and his caravan are on a mission to civilize—they were asked to make the journey for just that reason, and there are multiple instances wherein the narrator makes markedly disdainful comments regarding the practices or beliefs of indigenous people as he crosses their lands. For instance, on page 23, he mentions that the Bashghirds eat lice and carry a wooden phallus (is this supposed to be a cross?). One of the company is a Bashghird who converted to Islam—he is caught chasing down and eating lice out of his own clothing. This is described in such a way as to make him seem disgusting, in need of the teachings of this more civilized group of Muslim men. They dismiss whatever religion these indigenous people practice, and dismiss the symbol, which every man of that religion carries—they refer to it simply as a “phallus” that is carved out of wood. Then again, on pages 27-28 the narrator relates the incident wherein the King, newly converted to Islam and seeking direction, makes the supreme blunder of being referred to as the King from the pulpit when blessings and prosperity are wished upon him. Ibn Fadlan corrects him, and helps “pronounce the khutba” correctly—even though, as Dr. Akman pointed out in class this evening, at this historical period the religion of Islam had not yet been codified. Later on, the narrator converts a young man and his family who all take the name Muhammad, and teaches them a few basic Arabic phrases. Ibn Fadlan remarks on page 39, “his joy at knowing these two verses was greater than if he had been made king of the Saqaliba.” One of the most obvious instances in which Ibn Fadlan reveals his condescension occurs when he discusses fraternal inheritance, saying, ““I told the king that this was not allowed and explained to him how inheritance should work until he understood” (36). He also begins the entire narrative by stating on page 7 that he would be passing through the “land of Infidels.” Not too much later, Ibn Fadlan mentions that the Ghuzz “live in poverty, like wandering asses” (12).
ReplyDeleteIbn Fadlan is obviously a very well educated man, and a qualified Islamic scholar and practitioner—and he certainly wastes much less time on his judgments of the cultures he encounters, and spends more time simply relating the interactions. The commentary is there, however, and although this travelogue is certainly less judgmental than many others which followed in the same narrative tradition, “fair” in terms of representation of native people does not run on a sliding scale.
I certainly agree that this narrative is definitely not what a modern reader would call "fair". Although in class we discussed the positive aspects to Ibn Fadlan's narrative, there are many negative aspects and prejudiced ideas that he brings up in his narrative. However, we also must remember that Ibn Fadlan has never experienced any of this before. You certainly get a sense that Ibn Fadlan and Muslims are civilized, while other civilizations and religions are "otherized", but he does not mean to be prejudiced. While Madeville simply made up fiction in his prejudice against others, Fadlan is simply making his own observations without any intention of being prejudiced. Therefore, there is no fiction in his writing.
DeleteI agree that while Ibn Fadlan’s travel narrative is much less biased than that of Mandeville, it is still not necessarily “fair.” However I have to disagree that it is because more modern readers are analyzing the text. I believe that, and it has been discussed in class, that no work of literature is truly unbiased. I do however believe that Ibn Fadlan’s work deserves much more credit that you have given it. I do not try to disagree that Ibn Fadlan comes off as condescending or even pompous at points, but the point of his journey is to teach the new converts to Islam of the Islamic ways. Furthermore you say that Islam was not codified at that point, but that is exactly what Ibn Fadlan was trying to do in his travels. As mentioned by Katie before me, Ibn Fadlan has tried his best to write the truth as he saw and understood it, leaving the aspects of a work purposely made up to increase prejudice to Mandeville.
Delete1. What is the significance of the Turkish phrase ‘bir tengri’ when it comes to being a true believer of the Muslim faith?
ReplyDeleteWhile I was reading, I had to pause and study the passage concerning the phrase ‘bir tengri’, “…which means ‘by the one God’ in the language of the Turks, for bir in Turkish means one and tengri is God” (12). I came to the conclusion that bir tengri is similar to the English exclamation of oh my God. In any religion, to use the idea of God in an accusatory light, to ‘take the name of the lord in vain’, is considered a sin because the sinner is, at the most fundamental level, blaming God for some misfortune. However, both phrases can be used in celebratory fashions as well, to thank God for good fortune or within prayer.
Within the context of Ibn Fadlan’s observations, the “tribe of Turks called Ghuzz” (11) were not true believers because, while they used the devout phrases to appease the Muslims in their company, they simultaneously used the phrase to curse God as the result of any injustice or misfortune. In essence, the ‘Ghuzz’ used the phrase bir tengri to swear.
2. What is the significance of the superstition of the ‘Ghuzz’ regarding hydromancy?
The existence of the hydromancy superstition within the ‘Ghuzz’ tribe caused devout Muslims to encounter difficulty when the time came for ablutions. Within Islam it is important to remain clean in the presence of God. Following this logic through, devout Muslims preform ablutions prior to any prayer and after any major pollutions. Some sects of the religion believe that for the duration of the time that a person is unclean, or polluted, he is ejected from the presence of God, and therefore their prayers would not be heard or viable when he is in this state. Because of the ‘taboo on washing’ (14), and the resultant necessity for secrecy, it becomes nearly impossible for the devout Muslim to pray the stipulated seven times each day within the presence of the ‘Ghuzz’.
3. How do the Turkish ideals of hospitality impact foreign travel?
The Turkish ideals of hospitality remind me of modern day loans. The host gives material help to the guest and upon the conclusion of the guest’s journey receives repayment as well as an additional gift of some kind. This method allows foreign travelers to obtain appropriate travel gear as well as means to safely complete their visit. In addition, by encouraging visitation and traveling, the Turkish economy is boosted.
*The page numbers for the answer to question three are 14-15 within the text. I forgot to add that.
DeleteHow successful was Ibn Fadlan in providing an objective view of the cultures he came into contact with?
ReplyDeleteWhile Ibn Fadlan lets his own biases slip through on a few occasions, he tends to offer an objective point of view regarding the societies that he discusses. The violent and sexually deviant practices of the Rus people, (their public orgies, violent executions, slave sacrafices, etc.) are simply recorded. Ibn Fadlan gives no indication that he disapproves of their actions from a moral or religious standpoint. He does, however, condemn them briefly as being “the filthiest of God’s creatures.” He discusses their filthy way of life for a few paragraphs, seemingly disgusted. It is interesting that he gets so hung up on the poor hygiene of the Rus, but not their violent tendencies. Ibn Fadlan again breaks his routine of objectivity when describing the Bashghirds, the Turkish group who eat lice and worship a phallus. He describes them as “the worst of the Turks, the dirtiest and the readiest to kill.” Again, Ibn Fadlan focuses on the cleanliness of a group of clearly questionable morality. Excluding these examples, Ibn Fadlan tends to have very little to say regarding the practices of the cultures he observes. His objectivity looks even more extreme when compared to John Mandeville, who, whenever mentioning the Jews, referred to them as “cruel,” and frequently passed judgment on others. While the Book of John Mandeville read more like Christian propaganda, Ibn Fadlan’s writings read more like a modern anthropological report (as Professor Akman pointed out in class today). There is obviously a religious motivation to his journey, but this does not totally overtake the tone of his writings. Ibn Fadlan’s text is very focused on facts and observations.
I think this is an interesting point, because one of the chief facets of Fadlan's writing that led me to believe he was attempting to be objective, was the craft of his writing. Fadlan wrote in very succinct and observational sentences, as if he was doing nothing more than reports of his sightings. That said, I agree that some of Fadlan's religious motivations occasionally caused him to divert from his objectivity. At certain points I wondered to myself whether some of Fadlan's judgments would have been the same had the not been in the context of religion. For example, different groups of "God's creatures" could certainly be viewed differently if encountered in a less religious light
Delete
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found particularly interesting was Ibn Fadlan's discussion of the way the Ghuzz Turks frequently repeated many of the Muslim expressions, such as, "there is no god but God" (11). This expression is obviously of utmost importance to the devout, as it is the basic profession of faith for any Muslim, yet these people say it almost as a greeting, not taking into account its religious significance. I was honestly surprised that Ibn Fadlan did not take serious offense to this. If non-Christians were to use similar expressions of Christian faith, they would be called blasphemers and scorned for their words, because the words have real value to their believers, and to use them without belief would be taken as an insult. Obviously I do not mean to imply that those words have any less meaning to Muslims, yet those who hear the Turks using Muslim proclamations are not threatened by it, and seem almost flattered by it. I am also curious why the Ghuzz would use such powerful proclamations without faith. It seems odd that they would need to try to impress the Muslims on the expedition when they are in their own territory; one would think that Ibn Fadlan and his colleagues would have to try to impress them. Were the Caliphates in Baghdad truly so powerful or respected that the Turks would bow to them as they crossed their lands?
John Mandeville v. Ibn Fadlan: Whose approach in exposing the ways of foreign places, people and cultures was more effective?
ReplyDeleteWhereas John Mandeville's discourse about the East is an exaggerated and biased account that leaves the uneducated, ignorant reader with biased residues and a new-found disdain for Eastern customs, Ibn Fadlan's honest and informative account succeeds in juxtaposing both the positive and negative aspects (in his opinion) of the ways of life of people he comes across in his travels. Whereas John Mandeville spends a great deal of time recounting the "degraded lifestyle" and violent ways of the Saraccens, Ibn Fadlan counter-balances an account of the uncleanliness of the Rus with a description of what makes them beautiful, despite the fact. Though both Mandeville and Fadlan were firm believers in their respective faiths, Mandeville never not trying to convert those he crosses path with to Christianity, and portraying said people in a negative degrading light, most likely because his nature prevents him from even making a solid argument for conversion's sake. On the other hand, though part of Ibn Fadlan's mission was to "...instruct him (Yamish Yiltawar, leader of the Bulghars) and his people in the Islamic faith..." (xviii), he doesn't take on the role of missionary throughout his journey, choosing instead to educate himself in regards to every aspect of culture he could while on his journey. And though he certainly didn't seem to agree with the customs of various groups of people, he put his feelings aside in his observations- taking the time to see for himself everything that made foreign people different than himself. In one instance, Fadlan even requests that he be taken to see a hung giant in the forest, despite the fact that it would be disturbing for him to witness. (41)
The contrast beween Mandeville and Fadlan's approaches is significant, but the end result of both accounts is that Fadlan is more effective in conveying an account of the unknown to an ignorant reader. Fadlan works in the same way that a travel agent should- focusing on the positive aspects of a foreign place, while at the same time mentioning the places that visitors may want to skip over to save time. Fadlan's account doesn't leave the reader's mind dripping in biased residue, but instead, full of the wonder that drove Fadlan himself.
Although it has been established that Ibn Fadlan is very different from Mandeville (some may even argue that he is the antithesis of Mandeville), I’d like to expand upon the difference between their works. I’d argue that Fadlan’s work is much more of a travelogue. Firstly, we have concluded in past classes that Mandeville may not have even traveled to all of the places he claims to have observed. The tone of Fadlan’s work seems much more honest and thus believable than Mandeville’s. Fadlan tends to expand upon things that may not be as compelling or attractive to readers. A while back in class we discussed the dangers of misrepresenting a people or culture through travelogues as well as the idea that no travelogue can be objective-even the act of leaving things out in one’s writing contributes to a certain level of subjectivity. However, I think the best that writers of travelogues can do is try to accurately represent their travels in ways that don’t skew or exaggerate the nature of particular cultures. I think Fadlan does this exceptionally well when compared to Mandeville. For instance, Fadlan spends a decent amount of time writing about “the cold of hell” and “dressing for the cold” during his travels in Turkish lands. These sections in the book hardly even address the people that Fadlan comes into contact with-unless he’s speaking of the shelter or extra clothing that they gifted to him. Much differently, it’s almost impossible to find a whole page in The Book of John Mandeville that is free of judgment and complete elaboration. Although there are definitely other motives behind Fadlan’s work (to educate about Islam, for example), Fadlan seems to be more truthful in his writing—he ultimately does not aspire to misrepresent other cultures and does not focus on shocking his potential audience. For example, he writes of Turkish marriage customs in an extremely straightforward manner without adding his own personal opinions. He provides very real (and sometimes boring) accounts of his journeys.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree that John Mandeville's work is far less objective when compared to Ibn Fadlan's, there are also a fair amount of similarities between the two texts that raise the question:can we really consider Fadlan's work to be an objective piece? One of the main similarities that some of our classmates have pointed out in other posts is comparison of certain people to animals in a way that degrades their way of life. Just as Mandeville spoke of Muslims who lived in caves and "hissed like snakes", Fadlan describes the Khwarazmians in a similar manner: "the Khwarazmains are the most barbarous of people, both in speech and customs...their speech sounds exactly like the croaking of frogs" (7-8). Later, he goes on to describe his repulsion towards the Ghuzz explaining "they live in poverty like wandering asses". It is easy to compare the two works and praise Fadlan for being "objective" because Mandeville's piece nothing more than pro-christian propaganda, but it is important to consider the two works' similarities as well, which clearly point out that Fadlan also fails as an objective author.
DeleteI definitely agree that Fadlan is a better historical/cultural document than Mandeville's. It seems like the class generally agrees on this, but there hasn’t been a lot of discussion about the implications of the Islamic travelogue being more historically reliable than the Christian one. I think a good place to start is by saying that this does not suggest that the entire tradition of the Islamic travelogue is superior to the Christian, or that Christianity is more violent/persecuting than Islam. After all, even Mandeville doesn’t present his own book as being reliable. He says it is written in French and with spectacular exaggerations on purpose, because “people enjoy reading about things foreign.” It is of course more complicated than that. I think the real observation to be made from Fadlan’s text being better than Mandeville’s is that the dominant Christian tradition (more people the world over, even Muslims, would say that Shakespeare is the greatest poet in the world over Saadi) does not acknowledge the contributions of Islamic literature in historical/anthropological/cultural terms. Abby and Madelyn get at this idea really well, and lots of blog entries have hinted at this nonrepresentation of solid, really important Islamic texts like Fadlan’s, but I think it is important to discuss it directly too.
DeleteIn Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness, Ibn Fadlan travels to Bulghars’ territory in order to teach the Bulghar Sultan about Islam and bring him a letter from the Commander of the Faithful assuring that he will be assisted with building his fortress that will protect his people from Jewish rule. Ibn Fadlan encounters a wide variety of cultures along his journey and seems to do a decent job with recording what he sees as objectively as he can. Though Ibn Fadlan did present a very objective view in his travelogue, there were still many instances when Ibn Fadlan tried to implement his religion onto those he encountered—whether it was due to orders the Commander of the Faithful gave him or instances he felt it necessary to intervene with other cultural practices.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of class tonight we have discussed that Ibn Fadlan was traveling to Bulghar’s territory to educate others about Islam—not necessarily to convert them—I still feel that his mission was to not only educate, but to convince some of the people that he encounters to convert to Islam. Ibn Fadlan was traveling with gifts and letters from Nadhir al-Harami urging people to convert to Islam. These gifts that Ibn Fadlan bestowed to those he tried to convert had sort of a bribery vibe to me. On page twenty Fadlan writes, “He sent him 50 dinars, among which there were many musayybi dinars, three mithqals of musk, some pieces of well-tanned leather, two pieces of cloth from Merv, from which we cut out two tunics for him, leather slippers a brocade robe and five silk garments. We gave him his present and a veil and a ring for his wife. I then read him the letter.” Atrak is from a culture where the custom was to wear clothing “until it falls to pieces” (p. 20). Presenting someone like Atrak with rather luxurious goods and silver as a preface to asking him to convert seems a lot like bribing one to convert.
Another instance of Ibn Fadlan attempting to impose his customs onto others happens on p. 38 just after he discusses mixed bathing: “I tried ceaselessly to induce the women to veil before the men but I did not succeed.” Even though Fadlan does mention his action and the outcome of it objectively, his action alone discloses his inability to be completely objective. This is just one moment where Ibn Fadlan records his attempt to impose his Islamic custom onto another; we must keep in mind that there was most likely other times where he may have tried to impose his traditions in other cultures that are not recorded.
When comparing Ibn Fadlan to John Mandeville one notices right away that John Mandeville presents an extremely ethnocentric and pro-Christian view of the East while Ibn Fadlan write much more objective descriptions. I think it is really interesting to consider the extent to which both impact those around them with their own customs. John Mandeville, though his travelogue is very charged with hatred the Other, he does not act on his hatred nor tries to go out of his way to promote Christianity in the nations he visits along his pilgrimage. Instead he uses the Other to try to highlight in his travelogue how Christianity is the best and rightful religion. On the other hand, Ibn Fadlan presents a much more neutral perspective in his travelogue but does tend to impose his rituals and customs onto those he visits. Though they both may have had different end-goals in mind as to what their journeys were trying to accomplish, it is very interesting to compare their reactions and actions when they encounter someone that is the “Other” to them.
Both Ibn Fadlan and John Mandeville look to undermine those that are different than them. Unlike John Mandeville, Ibn Fadlan is more discreet in his approach; using an objective description of other people and their lifestyle. Occasionally Ibn Fadlan slips and reminds the reader that the author indeed does have an opinion about what is going on in his travels. This is seen when he describes the "uncleanliness if the Rus" in how "they do not clean themselves after urinating or defecating, nor do they wash after having sex. They do not wash their hands after meals. They are like wandering asses." The last part to that is no longer a mere description, but a commentary which provides insight to Ibn Fadlan's reaction to what he was witnessing.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, John Madeville's account is saturated with personal opinion- often to the extent in which makes it obvious the low-opinion he has towards Muslims and others who are not of the Christian faith. His account may be less effective to an audience than Ibn Fadlan's simply because of this reliance on personal opinion. People tend to look at objective accounts as more credible than personal accounts due to manipulation in the text. Objective accounts are more likely to be credible, but don't let this fool you.
Both John Mandeville and Ibn Fadlan make people of other religions appear weak as easy to persuade to convert to the favored religion (for Mandeville it is Christianity, for Fadlan it is Islam). Mandeville talks about how Muslims are not strng in their faith and would convert quickly to Christianity when persuaded. Ibn Fadlan shows the same kind of tactic. Some may contribute this to the fact that Fadlan is on a journey with the purpose of spreading Islam, but the descriptions make it seem quite easy to convert others. In the section under the category "Converts to Islam" the text states, "we saw a kin group among them numbering 5,000 members, counting men and women, and they had all converted to Islam." The text goes on to show several accounts of how others would convert to Islam. This provides the view that Islam is the "right" religion and that all other ways are "unclean" and "unpure."
Ibn Fadlan's account strongly represents John Mandeville's, but Ibn Fadlan's method allows readers to credit the text as more reasonable that the heavily opinionated tale of John Mandeville.
After having read through the text, I was left with a similar impression on the biased tone of Ibn Fadlan and how it worked within his writing. One of the main reasons he was even chosen for his position was his knowledge and dedication regarding Islam, so we could definitely expect some form of bias within the book. It is true that he mentions aspects such as "the uncleanliness of the Rus" or their similarity to "wandering asses." These are all clearly offensive terms used to insult them on a very primitive level. Because they are relatively spare in the book, most would consider John Mandeville's account to be much less objective. However, Ibn Fadlan does indeed refer to qualities of these foreign peoples on a much deeper level, much like John Mandeville does when he describes what he perceives to be the absurdity of Islam. On page 37, he describes the people as having a custom where they execute the "quick-witted" and "intelligent" as a religious sacrifice. Though it is seemingly an objective view of a custom he must have seen during his travels, a deeper layer insinuates that this alternate religion is devoid of intelligent people (because they would have been killed off in sacrifice). Moreover, this sort of thing happens in an earlier part of the book, on page 24. When asked about the religious totem they valued, some Bashghirds stated that it was essentially based off their creator. However, Ibn Fadlan describes it as a "wooden phallus," again insulting their religion on an even deeper level. His opinion insinuates that that they worship sexual body parts, which is probably one of the most offensive associations one can make in Islam.
DeleteMelinda and Zoraida, I would agree that, on average, this text works to portray Islam as a superior breed of religion. Certainly this message is more nuanced than it would seem based on the facts you mentioned, though. Ibn Fadlan's treatment of other cultures. For example, the Turkish king asserts his claim to military funding in an altercation with Fadlan and, even being of a different culture and in opposition to a learned Muslim, was still spoken of as being "good looking" and "inspiring respect" on page 29. A man of another culture is spoken highly of and, indeed, asserted his individuality.
DeleteOn that note, the Jewish people may be spoken of as an antagonistic force that would "reduce [the Turks] to slavery", but they are also treated as strong and independent of Muslim influence. Later, they destroy a Muslim minaret with impunity. While clearly being treated as amoral, the Jews are still viewed as a powerful entity even without Islam.
Even though Fadlan's opinion may shine through and color his otherwise objective text, it is not just one color that does so. Fadlan also shows some respect for other cultures in places and that needs to be addressed in any critique of his work.
There are times when Ibn Fadlan does show his disapproval towards the people that he encounters during his voyages. However, he does not let his opinions hinder his ability to write the truth about what he is observing. Fadlan’s writing style shows more control over his opinions than Mandeville did in his accounts. Most of the time Fadlan’s accounts report what other people were saying or doing without him interfering or modifying. The only times where he really shows the reader his opinion is in the titles of his accounts and at certain points during the accounts. For example in “The uncleanliness of the Rus”, Fadlan shows his disgust towards their habits by saying these people are unclean and compares them to animals. However, this account stops after just a few sentences and it is not until the last sentence that Fadlan compares the Rus to asses. Also in the account before this one, he talking about something very different and does not show his opinion until the very end of the account and only for a sentence. Fadlan’s writing style is very different than Mandeville because he is more concentrated on his observations and his mission than on criticizing the people.
DeleteOften times in Western culture, as seen in The Book of John Mandeville, orientalism has led to the dehumanization, and reduction of the “others” to barbaric, uncivilized, and monstrous. They are portrayed as “dog-like” and “snake-like”, completely unrealistic portrayals. We are so incredibly bombarded with these stereotypes in every aspect of our culture that we have come to accept these ideas on some level. While we recognize from cases such as the clip from Indiana Jones that we often times exaggerate (i.e. no one from the Middle East is eating eyeballs), we still internalize these stereotypes and they impact our opinions.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the book Ibn Fadlan we finally get an Eastern perspective. While the majority of the book is relatively free of the biases that plague John Mandeville’s work, the idea of otherness still prevails. For instance, much is discussed in the way of modesty and cleanliness. Discussions of Turks who share bath water, as well as women who openly reveal themselves to men are surely repulsive images to the Eastern world. In fact, all of the images provide the Eastern reader with only the differences between the cultures, neglecting similarities as a whole. Therefore, albeit unbiased as it may be, the tone of the work still exemplifies the notion that orientalism has forever been prevalent in terms of the divide between the east and the west. Therefore, while Fadlan’s work does succeed in educating the people of the east as to western culture, it makes few strides in the way of bridging the gap between the two.
In response to your sentiment that a sense of “otherness” still prevails from Ibn Fadlan’s perspective, I’d like to point out that any travelogue would presumably contain a similar tone. Although he is a member of the so-called “East”, the places and people he visits are still strangers with peculiar ways. Any traveller who isn’t accustomed to orgies and unsanitary bathing rituals would inevitably be appalled to stumble upon such occurrences.
DeleteMandeville, on the other hand, likely didn’t actually visit most of the places he mentions in his travelogue. He had a similar luxury that we have now, due to internet anonymity, the luxury of writing hurtful, untrue, slanderous falsities as fact, without ever having to look those people we harmed in the eye. Why would Mandeville relate to those people he never even met. As for the reason Mandeville referred to “others” as mongrels, constructed from sinister animal parts, that was merely because Mandeville hadn’t actually seen those people. There is far too much evidence that Mandeville merely lifted his stories and experiences from others, to give him such credence that his fantasy creatures are anything other than exasperated imaginings.
Alyssa, your blog post really caught my attention. I too kept going back and forth between John Mandeville’s work, and Ibn Fadlan’s narrative. One thing you truly hit on the head was that despite Ibn Fadlan’s work being more objective, there still is that idea of “the other” at play here.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me wonder if there ever can be a truly unbiased book or piece out there. No matter how anyone, past or present tries, I feel like their own personal viewpoints will always somehow find a place in their writing. The author may not even intentionally do this, but, in a way, it cannot be helped. To me, a good example is on page 46 under the heading, “The uncleanliness of the Rus”. That entire paragraph hints at Ibn Fadlan’s disgust. He says, “They are like wandering asses.” Yes, I know in class we mentioned how in Islam the idea of cleanliness is held at a high standard, however, saying, “They are the filthiest of God’s creatures” still is holding these “others” in contempt. Ibn Fadlan is trying to be as impartial as he can be, but it doesn’t always work. Is he as prejudice and ludicrous as John Mandeville? Of course not. Not many people can be. However, he still does see the Rus as these others that baffle him. Their cleaning habits, clothes, facial hair, and so forth all perplex him even though he tries to hide it.
The movie we watched in class, The 13th Warrior, actually illustrates “the other” from both sides pretty well. Ibn Fadlan sees the Rus, the Vikings, as these crazy men who can kill one another easily (like in that tent scene), and who listen to some old woman for advice. However, since the movie is intended for a “Western” audience, I feel like we can even see Ibn Fadlan as “the other” a little bit by the way he dresses, and how he isn’t as strong as the Vikings. So basically the audience can see the Viking’s point of view at times as well.
To conclude my thoughts, and drive home my point, I’m going to use the movie, “The Book of Eli” as a really odd last example. That is a movie that (let’s be honest) sole purpose is to entertain. The idea is that it’s the apocalypse and Eli, the hero, has to deliver this mysterious book to some safe location. Sorry if I’m spoiling the movie, but of course the book ends up being the Bible and everyone wants to possess it (for power, knowledge, etc). I never thought anything of that before, but basically whoever wrote the script is saying how Christianity is the best religion, and the only one that would survive. Why couldn’t it be the Quran? The writer probably didn’t mean any harm by choosing the Bible over the Quran, but he is in fact showing his biases, and presenting this subconscious idea that the West would survive the end of the world over the East. Everyone’s personal preferences always come to light one way or another, even if he or she doesn’t intend for that to happen.