The discussion of Roger II and Al-Idrisi’s collaboration parallels a lot of points raised in the comparison of Mandeville and Ibn Fadlan. Roger II sought out Al-Idrisi because he wanted to extend cartography past the limited realm Europeans had worked from prior. As the article states, “Christian Europe's approach to map-making was still symbolic and fanciful, based on tradition and myth rather than scientific investigation, and used to illustrate books of pilgrimage, Biblical exegesis and other works” (Gies). This reminded me of the second half of Mandeville, which relied heavily on myth and fantasy. It would even seem that many of the myths used in Mandeville were also used in Christian Europe cartography like “men with dogs' heads” or “men with feet shaped like umbrellas with which they protected themselves from the sun while lying down” (Gies). Conversely, Ibn Fadlan’s account is much more scientific and anthropological, which parallels the general Muslim approach to science and knowledge. There is a broader parallel here in terms of the Bible and the Qur’an. Though both are often regarded as beautiful in terms of imagery and story, it is the Bible that is more often analyzed specifically as literature. As Mustansir Mir writes in the article “The Qur’an as Literature”, “But most [analyses] are, in respect of their orientation, premises, and structure, works of theology rather than of literary criticism, a typical example being The Inimitability Of The Qur'ān by the medieval scholar Abū Bakr Baqillanī (950-1013). This being the case, studying the Qur'ān as literature - and purely as literature - is not unlike setting foot on new territory.” The Bible, on the other hand, is often studied from a secular literary stance – so much so that Geneseo has a course on it. At the risk of generalizing, it may be possible that the Qur’an isn’t analyzed as often as literature because it doesn’t work on the same fantastical base that the Bible does. Though of course there are elements of transcendent force and grandeur, the Qur’an is more comparable to how we understand poetry. There seems to be some underlying difference in Islam and Christianity in how mythology functions, where Christianity seems to rely heavily on more symbolic characters and stories, while Islam approaches things more poetically and systematically.
While reading the sections for this week, I noticed that one section in particular included a common theme seen throughout our readings so far, and that theme is the view of the “other” religion as shallow, leading the members of that certain religion to be easily converted to the other. Section 38: “Yaqut on Hungary 1228”, deals with the conversion of the Bashghird soldiers from Christian to Islam. Yaqut asks them how they came to be Muslim in the middle of a Christian country, a country he refers to as being “unbelieving” despite that clearly Christianity is a belief in something. In reply they tell him that a group of seven men came to their country, and pointed out their errors in their Christian beliefs and lead them to the “true” religion of Islam. This is especially interesting when compared to John Mandeville’s text where he continuously refers to Islam as an ignorant faith, and mentions that once the “true” religion of Christianity is revealed to them, they are eager to convert. These similarities point out the egocentric tendencies of both religions, and ironically only add to the similarities between the opposing groups.
Building off of your point, a couple other instances of hasty conversions of religious beliefs can be seen in various other places throughout Ibn Fadlan's discourse. For instance, on page 11 Fadlan writes of a Turk who is questioning what God must want of him if he is making him suffer so from the frigid temperatures. Fadlan replies, "Tell him that what He wants of you is this: that you should say: "There is no god but God." The Turk responds to this statement by laughing and saying, "If we had been taught how to say this, we would say it." This is an instance where I think either something was lost in translation, or Fadlan was just imagining an ideal situation in which people of other religions renounced their previous faiths because of a lack of education in the ways of Islam. Contrary to Mandeville, I truly don't believe Fadlan is an ignorant person, or wrong in thinking this way because after all, he is a faqih, and therefore his religion is a significant aspect of his life. Throughout his entire discourse, Fadlan never gives unwarranted advice, he only states the simple truths of his religion and what God asks of the Muslim people, proving he is both tolerant and skilled in exercising self-control when it comes to matters of conversion.
The last few sections of this book are, at best, a little convoluted. There are different documents detailing the different kinds of people that the Muslim travelers encountered in their travels. First is an example of Frankish warriors who converted to Islam, and practice their religion within the reasonability of their military in which they serve (i.e., they shave their beards to keep in the general uniform of the Frankish warriors). However, in the next section the following author appears to be only taking into account the mythic description of a tribe that lives beyond the mountain. At this point I had to think about the comparison that the second piece drew up to Mandeville’s monsters, as the men that were described sounded more monstrous than what had been previously detailed in this book. Then I looked at the language, and realized the massive difference that not only persisted within Ibn Fadlān’s writings, but in the writings of his peers as well. It seemed that it was an almost universal ideal for these scholars to actually be incredibly objective with their writings. Before I had believed that even with Ibn’s writing that some bias would exist, but the majority of most of these writings are offering very aptly phrased observations, that which would keep the reader interested, but wasn’t offering anything that was fantastical as truth. Essentially, what was mostly written in this latter part was “this is what we found, and we leave this for you to do with as you will”. This to me was incredibly progressive thought, however I can’t help but bring up the idea that possibly this objective presentation in being used to mock the people who believe in legends and myths, but overall I was compelled to believe that they were in fact simply presenting the strangeness that they came into contact with.
“This is what we found, and we leave this for you to do with as you will” I know what passage you’re talking about, and I was surprised too. It seemed very out-of step with the rest of the accounts. Sure, perhaps the author was trying to keep the reader interested, but as I understand it these writings existed for the purpose of informing, not to be compelling reading. I think that that’s where these authors begin to make mistakes: when they go outside the realm of merely reporting and trying to embellish the writing. The approach of “this is what we found…” succeeds because it admits that the information is partial and un-authoritative. On the other hand the writing fails when it assumes authority on something the writer clearly has no knowledge of. I think that’s the craziest part about the whole map-making spiel, as well as Ibn Fadlan’s journey. Today we’re desensitized by the internet and all our technology that makes everything so instant. [This makes fact-checking, to a high degree of accuracy, as simple as hopping online.] That people in the 900s and earlier were making efforts to catalog the known world is a testament to human curiosity and organization. And the accuracies and inaccuracies reflect the methods they had to employ to get their results. Since nobody had seen all the land comprising Africa, Europe and Asia, those interested in map making and cataloging information had to compile as many verbal accounts as possible. Those verbal accounts had to all be taken with a grain of salt, compared and checked for plausibility. It sounds almost crazy that people would try and map the world only having verbal accounts to go on, and crazier still how accurate the eventual maps turned out being.
As I read through the Gies text, it seemed very odd to me that neither Rogers nor Al-Idrisi have received recognition in the western media and culture. Not only was the map they created a marvel for its time in accuracy and artistry, but it was also extremely popular and wide-spread, as we can see in a line later in the text where we are informed that the "great work lived on, winning widespread fame, serving as a model for Muslim geographers and historians for centuries." If a text was so famous and effective, that in itself is enough to raise suspicion at the fact that this is the first I've heard of it.
Then again, in this class there has been a running theme of Muslim scientific works and advances going unknown (or perhaps, more accurately, unrecognized) by the west. On top of that, this text wasn't "available to Europeans in Latin until the 17th century," so it might be understandable that an outdated Muslim text would garner little interest in a Europe-obsessed society. Normally I would discount this anomaly based on the fact that one of its principle architects was a Muslim, were it not for the fact that the other person who orchestrated the atlas was a king, and a Christian king to boot.
It seems very odd that an achievement accomplished partly by a Christian king wouldn't be publicized, even if it was several centuries late. My tentative thesis is that by this time it had been taught for so long that Galileo was the man who found that the Earth was round that the educational system had settled into that way of thinking and had no impetus to change it. After all, school children are still taught today that Columbus discovered America before anyone else for quite a few years. If this is true, I am curious what else we may be miseducated about for the sake of not changing time-tested curriculum.
I was also very surprised by the fact that this was the first time I had ever heard of either Al Idrisi or his maps. I also was quick to write it off as part of the anti-Muslim sentiment prominent in Europe at the time, but you bring up a good point, that the King who commissioned the map was a Christian. I have to wonder, though, if our never having heard about these scholars and their accomplishments is due to a conscious omission, or whether the people who create the curriculum and write textbooks are as unaware as we were about the significance of their having created realistic maps hundreds of years before Christian Western Europe. As the knowledge spreads that Christopher Columbus was not the first man to set foot in the Americas (and also that he was a racist imperialist) more and more people use days like Columbus day to share what they really think about Columbus, rather than reinforce the idea of him as a hero.
I am curious about the omission of knowledge, and how far reaching it is. For instance, are children educated in, say, China taught about Al Idrisi or are they taught the European standard? History belongs to those in power, America was founded by Europeans so our education system is based off of that, but not everyone was colonized by Europe, so where does education stand around the world. I would not mind going to elementary school for my whole life if I had the opportunity to see all of the different view points.
Just like in Part I of Ibn Fadlan, Part II is written much in the same way. I think what struck me so much about this travel log is how the author rarely mentions his religion. As they travel place to place, none of them ever really makes much of a comment on their religion or beliefs. This is pretty surprising to most, since the Islamic religion is a huge part of a Muslim’s life. This is what gives each speaker a much less biased description of the cities, people, cultures and religions that the see on their journeys. This is in great contrast to Mandeville’s work, for example. Mandeville constantly reminds us of his religion…in what seems like every other paragraph. He constantly explodes with “Praise be to God! Glorious Almighty! In the name of God! (and so on and so forth). Every Arabic explorer in Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness simply states what they see when they make their travels. There is no hidden meaning of how the Islamic religion trumps all others, they are simply making statements about what they see and how they see things. This is why their narratives are so incredibly unbiased. Not only is Mandeville outright prejudiced against the Jewish and Muslim religions, but the fact that he has to brag about how great the Christian religion is every other sentence only adds to this bias. The Arab explorers barely add any of their own religious beliefs, and when they do, the often wait until the very end of their log. “God suffices us, for He is the most excellent Protector!” (92) They never drown us with their religion, where in The Book of John Mandeville he is incredibly annoying with his constant outbursts of Christianity.
I agree entirely with your statement. What truly sets Ibn Fadlan apart is his remarkable ability to retain his unbiased observations in the face of actions that strongly contradict his beliefs. Fadlan begins the entirety of his book by introducing that he is of the Islamic faith. Fadlan is entirely transparent in his background as well as his mission. Yet his ability to remain unbiased is seen when he visits the land of the Turks, in which the men pass around a bowl in which they are all using to clean themselves, spitting, and blowing their noses as well. Fadlan who’s faith is of the strong belief of cleanliness, still holds true to his ability to report without passing his judgments. This is further seen later in the travel log, when Ibn Fadlan witnesses the burning of slave women with their masters. Fadlan makes not a single comment, rather depicts and moves on. While this must have been an altering experience in his life, to watch the horrific nature, he is able to separate his emotions from his writings. Conversely, Mandeville is unable to set his personal agenda aside, and focuses entirely of making a spectacle of the “other”. Mandeville wishes to entertain his readership under the preconceived stereotypes of the mythical figures that exist in the east. Fadlan is much more interested in depicting exactly what he witnesses for the purpose of learning.
After our discussion in class about how Al-Idrisi’s theory of the world being a sphere was dismissed and/or ignored by Western culture until centuries later, it made me think about what other aspects of culture or knowledge are overlooked simply because they were not discovered by Europeans or those of the West. This notion reminds me of a passage in Ibn Fadlan’s text, “The Origin of the Name Bulghar.” This passage tells the story of a king and queen who were dying of a deadly illness. After all of their previous remedies had failed, they turned to a Muslim merchant who told them he would cure the king and queen if they accept his faith. Ultimately, the merchant cures the king and queen and they convert to Islam. I bring up this story because this is an example of two individuals who only chose to trust the ways of a foreign Muslim merchant because they were on the verge of death. It should not have to take the threat of death for us to be open-minded to foreign treatments or knowledge. As a society, we should be able to turn to the teachings of those outside our own culture without being on our death bed, or having a gun to our head. In class, Professor Akman said that it will likely be decades before we begin teaching in schools that Al-Idrisi developed the theory that the Earth was a sphere centuries before Galileo, and while that may likely be true, it’s a shame. We should be able to objectively accept and analyze all the knowledge that the world has to offer, without selectivity based on race or culture.
In class when Professor Akman asked us to each pick out a passage we thought was significant, I immediately knew what I wanted to share. On page 62 and 63 of Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness there is a very short section entitled, “The amir’s sister asks for legal advice.” I know we touched upon it in class, but I would like to expand why I think this part is so noteworthy.
Honestly the first time I read it, I was a little confused. I wasn’t sure if this section was praising the woman, or perhaps being sarcastic. However, once completing the entire book I can now obviously tell how genuine that segment is. We know throughout how objective and curious Ibn Fadlan is about other cultures, geographical places, and religions. But it wasn’t until I read part three of the text (where there are many different writers, with many different viewpoints), that everything made sense to me. For example on page 194 (chapter 40) the writer, Marco Polo, is not objective at all about the people he is encountering. He has nothing but contempt for them. It immediately reminded me of John Mandeville’s work, where he simply wants to entertain and shock his readers. Marco Polo and John Mandeville don’t want to inform their readers, just get good reactions.
That is why “The amir’s sister asks for legal advice” really struck me. There the writer was being so honest and frank about sex, law, and how religion ties into everything. There was no, “Gasp! The husband did what?!” or “The woman, a pig, did....” It praises the people while still keeping a firm distance. There is no hostility, or hatred, or contempt. Just, “This is what happened. Good for the woman for thinking this.” That’s all! This passage is so great to show how certain writers can be objective, but at the same time find the people they are “studying” fascinating and perplexing.
The passage on pages 62 and 63 also stood out to me since a Muslim man was praising a woman for using her brain. In today’s culture, the opposite is always played on our TVs. There are so many reports and news stories saying women in Islamic states are being suppressed by the men in their lives. Malala Yousafza, a girl who the Taliban shot in the head for advocating women should have an education, has been in the news for the past year. However, going back to Islamic roots, it is clear that according to their original beliefs a woman using her brain is not the worst thing in the world. And, as we know from class and all our lectures about Islam, knowledge and religion go hand in hand. So then why is this one group trying to say that no, women cannot have an education?
What makes all of this even worse is how people assume that the Taliban, one radical group, are speaking for every Muslim. We know, for example, from our readings that Muslim girls make up a large percentage of university students. They are becoming doctors and lawyers and using knowledge to make them successful. But because of the media, many people simply believe that every single Islamic area decrees that women cannot get an education.
To sum all of this up, that one, single passage can connect to so many things past and present. It shows a “different” side to Islam that not many people know of. This is why it is such an important section in the text.
(Also in case anyone is interested here is a link to a NY Post article about Malala Yousafza.)
Katie, I agree with you on your stance about that particular section. It originally struck me to as odd and I found myself reading it over a few times to see what Ibn Fadlan’s tone about the whole situation was. I was also skeptical about whether or not he was commending her for her seeking out advice, but when finishing his travelogue and reading this along with the other more subjective pieces like Mandeville and Marco Polo, one comes to realize how blatantly objective and honest Ibn Fadlan was being. Though he was not 100% objective in the way that he was commending her for seeking advice, it does reflect that he was stating what happened and rather than writing her off, he more or less thought “oh, that was good of her”. His reaction to her most definitely does oppose the way American media usually prefers to portray Muslim ethics. In light of Mulala’s situation being portray in the media, I found the opposite to be true about the education of women. Although the Taliban is clearly against the education of women, I found in a few articles that the Taliban’s ideals were not misconstrued with the ideals of the people they were trying to control. Malala’s father, an activist himself, was more than encouraging of Malala pursuing her education. He would allow her to stay up late to do her studies or have intellectual discourse with others while her brothers were told to go to bed. He recognized that she was very intelligent and did everything he could to help her flourish. Although this is only one case of the western media recognizing that Muslims approve of the education of women, it still shows that certain westernized media outlets do recognize that Taliban beliefs do not apply to all Muslims.
One of the things I found most interesting, especially while reading sections of Part III of Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness, is the portrayal of the Rus or Viking culture. While western teachings have always portrayed the Vikings as a fierce and savage culture that did little more than pillage innocent villages, it is actually the Islamic culture that provides a well-rounded view of this culture. While western writers, such as Mandeville, are busy tearing down other cultures in order to glorify western Christianity, their Islamic counterparts are doing quite the opposite. An example of this is in part III section 13, Ibn Rusta on the Rus. In this section, a Muslim writer outlines the Rus culture as he witnessed it, trying his best to avoid bias. For example on the first page of this section, in my edition, Ibn Rusta states of the Rus, “Their clothing is always clean. The men wear gold bracelets. They treat their slaves well…” In this section the good of the Rus is pointed out in a straight forward manner. Similarily on the second page of the section, Ibn Rusta writes, “Treachery is endemic, and even a poor man can be envied by a comrade, who will not hesitate to kill him and rob him.” Here again is the simple statement of fact as Ibn Rusta sees it, no making a farce of the culture or making outrageously derogatory comments. I find this section to be so important, not just because it describes the Rus culture in a somewhat unusually forgiving way, but it is also very telling of Islamic culture. In the Qur’an the People of the Book, meaning people who follow the Scriptures (Christians and Jews), are meant to be accepted and respected. While Christianity also preaches acceptance, the writings of Christian authors such as Mandeville and even Chaucer can be very unforgiving to other cultures. However in the above passage we see this follow through by a Muslim writer to be as respectful and understanding as he can be. In this way I think passages like this are important because they depict an accepting Islam, as opposed to the hateful extremist side of Islam today’s media so often portrays.
What really caught my attention when reading the third part of Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness was the amount of contrast between ideas in the passages. In one paragraph, an author will inform the reader about something that might come across as unpleasant and the next paragraph will be about something completely different or opposite. This shows that this text presents the reader with both bad and good descriptions of their encounters.
One of the examples is in the passage, Marco Polo on dog sleds and the Land of Darkness. In this passage, Marco Polo starts out describing a snowy white landscape with white bears and other kinds of animals and the king. Fallowing this landscape, Marco Polo transitions into describing the Kingdom of darkness. Polo says, “There is a region that bears the name Darkness, because neither sun nor moon nor stars appear, but it is always dark as with us in twilight. The people have no king of their own…they live like beasts” (193). Marco polo immediately transitions from talking about order and white snow to having no order and complete darkness. Polo is also describing the people in the Land of Darkness as animals instead of humans. In the passage before Polo mentions humans hunting animals, but in the Land of Darkness the humans are described animals themselves.
Fallowing the description of the Land of Darkness, Polo mentions the trading between Tartars and the country of Light. Polo is shifting towards describing the light, which contrasts with the previous description of Darkness. Marco Polo’s shifts back to the Light shows how he is trying to reassure his readers that there is a bright side.
As it was mentioned in class, it is quite an unfortunate predicament that Muslims and Christians can't just get together and draw maps. It would appear that Abu Hamid Al-Andalusi Al-Gharnati felt the same, as he included a bit in Part II about the king of the Byzantines, and how he ended up choosing to no longer "force any Muslim to embrace [the Christian] faith…so that they will fight [for him]" (82). This was actually an idea inspired by the Muslims talking to the Byzantine king, as they were the ones who managed to convince him that it would be beneficial to his state. The king finds it beneficial because he will have a bigger, more powerful army, but there are others who see other benefits of Muslim and Christian coexistence and peace. Two passages over, in fact, in "Muslim and Christian attitudes to wine," a Christian sees the wisdom in a Muslim argument about alcohol - which, though a poor argument in itself, provides an example of a Christian seeing the good in Islam, and a Muslim using gentle persuasion to explain his perspective to a Christian. Furthermore, in the readings for this week, Mas'udi comments on how "if the Muslims and the Christians united, the king would have no power over them" (134). Evidently, an alliance between Muslims and Christians during this time would mean so much more than merely peace; it would mean power as well.
Related to the last exercise in today's class, a certain sentence I found interesting in Part III of the book was in section 20, page 140. Mas'udi is talking about the Saqaliba, and the sections of people divided among them. He writes that some of them belong to the "Christian faith," but interestingly enough, some others are described as "pagans" that "have no scripture and know nothing of divine law." While the Muslims are continuously referred to as "beasts" or something of the like in old Christian descriptions, it is clear that many Muslims respected the Christian faith. In this quote, it became clear to me that one of the major aspects of Christianity that perhaps stimulated this tolerance and acceptance in Muslims is the Bible and the fact that it is "divine law" to many Christians - something that Muslims can relate to and understand.
The class has picked up on some pretty hilarious moments in part II when Abu Hamid makes observations about natural surroundings or wild animals. Some of his errors are due to the myths he is told about what he sees, as in the “Works of the Jinn” where allegedly a thousand canals and a thousand mounds were dug by spirits, or jinn. Sometimes, though, his own interpretive steps are in error where his natural observations are accurate. This is where he sets himself apart from Ibn Fadlan in terms of scientific accuracy. There are some easy examples of this, like when he sees huge bones and interprets them to be those of the gigantic people of ‘Ad. He writes about them as if they are indisputably those of a giant race of people, “In this country are found the bones of the people of ‘Ad” (67). Fadlan describes a very similar episode in terms of an interpersonal exchange with a local guide, who showed him massive skeletons and identified them as the bones of Gog and Magog. Fadlan then goes no further than to describe how huge they were. This makes him a lot less ridiculous to us now that we know that those bones were most likely those of northern inland bears, or maybe mammoths. Abu Hamid’s story is clearly embellished with a ghost-story like presentation of weird skeletons that we now know are from a large northern mammal. Abu Hamid also mentions in his section on skis that the snow definitely does not freeze and the wolves’ furs change to white in the winter. While arctic fox and hares do change from brown to white and back again with the seasons, wolves do not, even in the arctic circle. He must have been told this, since if he has seen wolves in the summer he would have seen all color variations, including white. If I have the geography right, the Bulghars were located in the very southeast of modern day Russia, about 55⁰N, where the snow would most definitely freeze by winter and melt by summer. By comparison, it is at the same latitude as Edinburgh. As far as his remarks on honey, I don’t think there is any evidence that eating honey makes people more resistant to cold, though it does immunize people against certain allergic reactions to pollen. Abu Hamid’s beaver chapter is pretty funny when we read it, knowing that beavers definitely do not keep slaves. However, his observations are ultimately grounded in fact. Those of us with sufficiently rural upbringings can perhaps vouch for this. In regards to judging beaver furs in terms of size and rubbed hair, it is true that large, adult beavers have fewer rubbed patches than young “kit” beavers, and that the litter of the previous year do live in the lodge while the young of the year are being raised. This might have let on that the kits are actually slaves serving the parents and their little brothers and sisters in the chamber above. The parents and two generations together form a cohesive “colony” with a social hierarchy and unequal living arrangements, whereby the parents take the lovely main chamber of the lodge and the kits get offshoot chambers, which are not as well lined with grasses and are often wet or icy, and so rub the hair off of their sides when they enter and exit. The kits also have to range further from the lodge to cut their own food, since the underwater “feed pile” is eaten mostly by the parents.
The discussion of Roger II and Al-Idrisi’s collaboration parallels a lot of points raised in the comparison of Mandeville and Ibn Fadlan. Roger II sought out Al-Idrisi because he wanted to extend cartography past the limited realm Europeans had worked from prior. As the article states, “Christian Europe's approach to map-making was still symbolic and fanciful, based on tradition and myth rather than scientific investigation, and used to illustrate books of pilgrimage, Biblical exegesis and other works” (Gies). This reminded me of the second half of Mandeville, which relied heavily on myth and fantasy. It would even seem that many of the myths used in Mandeville were also used in Christian Europe cartography like “men with dogs' heads” or “men with feet shaped like umbrellas with which they protected themselves from the sun while lying down” (Gies). Conversely, Ibn Fadlan’s account is much more scientific and anthropological, which parallels the general Muslim approach to science and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThere is a broader parallel here in terms of the Bible and the Qur’an. Though both are often regarded as beautiful in terms of imagery and story, it is the Bible that is more often analyzed specifically as literature. As Mustansir Mir writes in the article “The Qur’an as Literature”, “But most [analyses] are, in respect of their orientation, premises, and structure, works of theology rather than of literary criticism, a typical example being The Inimitability Of The Qur'ān by the medieval scholar Abū Bakr Baqillanī (950-1013). This being the case, studying the Qur'ān as literature - and purely as literature - is not unlike setting foot on new territory.” The Bible, on the other hand, is often studied from a secular literary stance – so much so that Geneseo has a course on it.
At the risk of generalizing, it may be possible that the Qur’an isn’t analyzed as often as literature because it doesn’t work on the same fantastical base that the Bible does. Though of course there are elements of transcendent force and grandeur, the Qur’an is more comparable to how we understand poetry. There seems to be some underlying difference in Islam and Christianity in how mythology functions, where Christianity seems to rely heavily on more symbolic characters and stories, while Islam approaches things more poetically and systematically.
While reading the sections for this week, I noticed that one section in particular included a common theme seen throughout our readings so far, and that theme is the view of the “other” religion as shallow, leading the members of that certain religion to be easily converted to the other. Section 38: “Yaqut on Hungary 1228”, deals with the conversion of the Bashghird soldiers from Christian to Islam. Yaqut asks them how they came to be Muslim in the middle of a Christian country, a country he refers to as being “unbelieving” despite that clearly Christianity is a belief in something. In reply they tell him that a group of seven men came to their country, and pointed out their errors in their Christian beliefs and lead them to the “true” religion of Islam. This is especially interesting when compared to John Mandeville’s text where he continuously refers to Islam as an ignorant faith, and mentions that once the “true” religion of Christianity is revealed to them, they are eager to convert. These similarities point out the egocentric tendencies of both religions, and ironically only add to the similarities between the opposing groups.
ReplyDeleteBuilding off of your point, a couple other instances of hasty conversions of religious beliefs can be seen in various other places throughout Ibn Fadlan's discourse. For instance, on page 11 Fadlan writes of a Turk who is questioning what God must want of him if he is making him suffer so from the frigid temperatures. Fadlan replies, "Tell him that what He wants of you is this: that you should say: "There is no god but God." The Turk responds to this statement by laughing and saying, "If we had been taught how to say this, we would say it." This is an instance where I think either something was lost in translation, or Fadlan was just imagining an ideal situation in which people of other religions renounced their previous faiths because of a lack of education in the ways of Islam. Contrary to Mandeville, I truly don't believe Fadlan is an ignorant person, or wrong in thinking this way because after all, he is a faqih, and therefore his religion is a significant aspect of his life. Throughout his entire discourse, Fadlan never gives unwarranted advice, he only states the simple truths of his religion and what God asks of the Muslim people, proving he is both tolerant and skilled in exercising self-control when it comes to matters of conversion.
DeleteThe last few sections of this book are, at best, a little convoluted. There are different documents detailing the different kinds of people that the Muslim travelers encountered in their travels. First is an example of Frankish warriors who converted to Islam, and practice their religion within the reasonability of their military in which they serve (i.e., they shave their beards to keep in the general uniform of the Frankish warriors). However, in the next section the following author appears to be only taking into account the mythic description of a tribe that lives beyond the mountain. At this point I had to think about the comparison that the second piece drew up to Mandeville’s monsters, as the men that were described sounded more monstrous than what had been previously detailed in this book. Then I looked at the language, and realized the massive difference that not only persisted within Ibn Fadlān’s writings, but in the writings of his peers as well. It seemed that it was an almost universal ideal for these scholars to actually be incredibly objective with their writings. Before I had believed that even with Ibn’s writing that some bias would exist, but the majority of most of these writings are offering very aptly phrased observations, that which would keep the reader interested, but wasn’t offering anything that was fantastical as truth. Essentially, what was mostly written in this latter part was “this is what we found, and we leave this for you to do with as you will”. This to me was incredibly progressive thought, however I can’t help but bring up the idea that possibly this objective presentation in being used to mock the people who believe in legends and myths, but overall I was compelled to believe that they were in fact simply presenting the strangeness that they came into contact with.
ReplyDelete“This is what we found, and we leave this for you to do with as you will”
DeleteI know what passage you’re talking about, and I was surprised too. It seemed very out-of step with the rest of the accounts. Sure, perhaps the author was trying to keep the reader interested, but as I understand it these writings existed for the purpose of informing, not to be compelling reading. I think that that’s where these authors begin to make mistakes: when they go outside the realm of merely reporting and trying to embellish the writing. The approach of “this is what we found…” succeeds because it admits that the information is partial and un-authoritative. On the other hand the writing fails when it assumes authority on something the writer clearly has no knowledge of.
I think that’s the craziest part about the whole map-making spiel, as well as Ibn Fadlan’s journey. Today we’re desensitized by the internet and all our technology that makes everything so instant. [This makes fact-checking, to a high degree of accuracy, as simple as hopping online.] That people in the 900s and earlier were making efforts to catalog the known world is a testament to human curiosity and organization. And the accuracies and inaccuracies reflect the methods they had to employ to get their results. Since nobody had seen all the land comprising Africa, Europe and Asia, those interested in map making and cataloging information had to compile as many verbal accounts as possible. Those verbal accounts had to all be taken with a grain of salt, compared and checked for plausibility. It sounds almost crazy that people would try and map the world only having verbal accounts to go on, and crazier still how accurate the eventual maps turned out being.
As I read through the Gies text, it seemed very odd to me that neither Rogers nor Al-Idrisi have received recognition in the western media and culture. Not only was the map they created a marvel for its time in accuracy and artistry, but it was also extremely popular and wide-spread, as we can see in a line later in the text where we are informed that the "great work lived on, winning widespread fame, serving as a model for Muslim geographers and historians for centuries." If a text was so famous and effective, that in itself is enough to raise suspicion at the fact that this is the first I've heard of it.
ReplyDeleteThen again, in this class there has been a running theme of Muslim scientific works and advances going unknown (or perhaps, more accurately, unrecognized) by the west. On top of that, this text wasn't "available to Europeans in Latin until the 17th century," so it might be understandable that an outdated Muslim text would garner little interest in a Europe-obsessed society. Normally I would discount this anomaly based on the fact that one of its principle architects was a Muslim, were it not for the fact that the other person who orchestrated the atlas was a king, and a Christian king to boot.
It seems very odd that an achievement accomplished partly by a Christian king wouldn't be publicized, even if it was several centuries late. My tentative thesis is that by this time it had been taught for so long that Galileo was the man who found that the Earth was round that the educational system had settled into that way of thinking and had no impetus to change it. After all, school children are still taught today that Columbus discovered America before anyone else for quite a few years. If this is true, I am curious what else we may be miseducated about for the sake of not changing time-tested curriculum.
I was also very surprised by the fact that this was the first time I had ever heard of either Al Idrisi or his maps. I also was quick to write it off as part of the anti-Muslim sentiment prominent in Europe at the time, but you bring up a good point, that the King who commissioned the map was a Christian.
DeleteI have to wonder, though, if our never having heard about these scholars and their accomplishments is due to a conscious omission, or whether the people who create the curriculum and write textbooks are as unaware as we were about the significance of their having created realistic maps hundreds of years before Christian Western Europe. As the knowledge spreads that Christopher Columbus was not the first man to set foot in the Americas (and also that he was a racist imperialist) more and more people use days like Columbus day to share what they really think about Columbus, rather than reinforce the idea of him as a hero.
I am curious about the omission of knowledge, and how far reaching it is. For instance, are children educated in, say, China taught about Al Idrisi or are they taught the European standard? History belongs to those in power, America was founded by Europeans so our education system is based off of that, but not everyone was colonized by Europe, so where does education stand around the world. I would not mind going to elementary school for my whole life if I had the opportunity to see all of the different view points.
DeleteJust like in Part I of Ibn Fadlan, Part II is written much in the same way. I think what struck me so much about this travel log is how the author rarely mentions his religion. As they travel place to place, none of them ever really makes much of a comment on their religion or beliefs. This is pretty surprising to most, since the Islamic religion is a huge part of a Muslim’s life. This is what gives each speaker a much less biased description of the cities, people, cultures and religions that the see on their journeys. This is in great contrast to Mandeville’s work, for example. Mandeville constantly reminds us of his religion…in what seems like every other paragraph. He constantly explodes with “Praise be to God! Glorious Almighty! In the name of God! (and so on and so forth). Every Arabic explorer in Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness simply states what they see when they make their travels. There is no hidden meaning of how the Islamic religion trumps all others, they are simply making statements about what they see and how they see things. This is why their narratives are so incredibly unbiased. Not only is Mandeville outright prejudiced against the Jewish and Muslim religions, but the fact that he has to brag about how great the Christian religion is every other sentence only adds to this bias. The Arab explorers barely add any of their own religious beliefs, and when they do, the often wait until the very end of their log. “God suffices us, for He is the most excellent Protector!” (92) They never drown us with their religion, where in The Book of John Mandeville he is incredibly annoying with his constant outbursts of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely with your statement. What truly sets Ibn Fadlan apart is his remarkable ability to retain his unbiased observations in the face of actions that strongly contradict his beliefs. Fadlan begins the entirety of his book by introducing that he is of the Islamic faith. Fadlan is entirely transparent in his background as well as his mission. Yet his ability to remain unbiased is seen when he visits the land of the Turks, in which the men pass around a bowl in which they are all using to clean themselves, spitting, and blowing their noses as well. Fadlan who’s faith is of the strong belief of cleanliness, still holds true to his ability to report without passing his judgments. This is further seen later in the travel log, when Ibn Fadlan witnesses the burning of slave women with their masters. Fadlan makes not a single comment, rather depicts and moves on. While this must have been an altering experience in his life, to watch the horrific nature, he is able to separate his emotions from his writings. Conversely, Mandeville is unable to set his personal agenda aside, and focuses entirely of making a spectacle of the “other”. Mandeville wishes to entertain his readership under the preconceived stereotypes of the mythical figures that exist in the east. Fadlan is much more interested in depicting exactly what he witnesses for the purpose of learning.
DeleteAfter our discussion in class about how Al-Idrisi’s theory of the world being a sphere was dismissed and/or ignored by Western culture until centuries later, it made me think about what other aspects of culture or knowledge are overlooked simply because they were not discovered by Europeans or those of the West. This notion reminds me of a passage in Ibn Fadlan’s text, “The Origin of the Name Bulghar.” This passage tells the story of a king and queen who were dying of a deadly illness. After all of their previous remedies had failed, they turned to a Muslim merchant who told them he would cure the king and queen if they accept his faith. Ultimately, the merchant cures the king and queen and they convert to Islam. I bring up this story because this is an example of two individuals who only chose to trust the ways of a foreign Muslim merchant because they were on the verge of death. It should not have to take the threat of death for us to be open-minded to foreign treatments or knowledge. As a society, we should be able to turn to the teachings of those outside our own culture without being on our death bed, or having a gun to our head. In class, Professor Akman said that it will likely be decades before we begin teaching in schools that Al-Idrisi developed the theory that the Earth was a sphere centuries before Galileo, and while that may likely be true, it’s a shame. We should be able to objectively accept and analyze all the knowledge that the world has to offer, without selectivity based on race or culture.
ReplyDeleteIn class when Professor Akman asked us to each pick out a passage we thought was significant, I immediately knew what I wanted to share. On page 62 and 63 of Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness there is a very short section entitled, “The amir’s sister asks for legal advice.” I know we touched upon it in class, but I would like to expand why I think this part is so noteworthy.
ReplyDeleteHonestly the first time I read it, I was a little confused. I wasn’t sure if this section was praising the woman, or perhaps being sarcastic. However, once completing the entire book I can now obviously tell how genuine that segment is. We know throughout how objective and curious Ibn Fadlan is about other cultures, geographical places, and religions. But it wasn’t until I read part three of the text (where there are many different writers, with many different viewpoints), that everything made sense to me. For example on page 194 (chapter 40) the writer, Marco Polo, is not objective at all about the people he is encountering. He has nothing but contempt for them. It immediately reminded me of John Mandeville’s work, where he simply wants to entertain and shock his readers. Marco Polo and John Mandeville don’t want to inform their readers, just get good reactions.
That is why “The amir’s sister asks for legal advice” really struck me. There the writer was being so honest and frank about sex, law, and how religion ties into everything. There was no, “Gasp! The husband did what?!” or “The woman, a pig, did....” It praises the people while still keeping a firm distance. There is no hostility, or hatred, or contempt. Just, “This is what happened. Good for the woman for thinking this.” That’s all! This passage is so great to show how certain writers can be objective, but at the same time find the people they are “studying” fascinating and perplexing.
The passage on pages 62 and 63 also stood out to me since a Muslim man was praising a woman for using her brain. In today’s culture, the opposite is always played on our TVs. There are so many reports and news stories saying women in Islamic states are being suppressed by the men in their lives. Malala Yousafza, a girl who the Taliban shot in the head for advocating women should have an education, has been in the news for the past year. However, going back to Islamic roots, it is clear that according to their original beliefs a woman using her brain is not the worst thing in the world. And, as we know from class and all our lectures about Islam, knowledge and religion go hand in hand. So then why is this one group trying to say that no, women cannot have an education?
What makes all of this even worse is how people assume that the Taliban, one radical group, are speaking for every Muslim. We know, for example, from our readings that Muslim girls make up a large percentage of university students. They are becoming doctors and lawyers and using knowledge to make them successful. But because of the media, many people simply believe that every single Islamic area decrees that women cannot get an education.
To sum all of this up, that one, single passage can connect to so many things past and present. It shows a “different” side to Islam that not many people know of. This is why it is such an important section in the text.
(Also in case anyone is interested here is a link to a NY Post article about Malala Yousafza.)
http://nypost.com/2013/10/07/new-taliban-threat-against-girl-they-shot-in-head/
Katie, I agree with you on your stance about that particular section. It originally struck me to as odd and I found myself reading it over a few times to see what Ibn Fadlan’s tone about the whole situation was. I was also skeptical about whether or not he was commending her for her seeking out advice, but when finishing his travelogue and reading this along with the other more subjective pieces like Mandeville and Marco Polo, one comes to realize how blatantly objective and honest Ibn Fadlan was being. Though he was not 100% objective in the way that he was commending her for seeking advice, it does reflect that he was stating what happened and rather than writing her off, he more or less thought “oh, that was good of her”. His reaction to her most definitely does oppose the way American media usually prefers to portray Muslim ethics.
DeleteIn light of Mulala’s situation being portray in the media, I found the opposite to be true about the education of women. Although the Taliban is clearly against the education of women, I found in a few articles that the Taliban’s ideals were not misconstrued with the ideals of the people they were trying to control. Malala’s father, an activist himself, was more than encouraging of Malala pursuing her education. He would allow her to stay up late to do her studies or have intellectual discourse with others while her brothers were told to go to bed. He recognized that she was very intelligent and did everything he could to help her flourish. Although this is only one case of the western media recognizing that Muslims approve of the education of women, it still shows that certain westernized media outlets do recognize that Taliban beliefs do not apply to all Muslims.
http://www.rferl.org/content/pakistan-gandhara-malala-family/25159006.html
One of the things I found most interesting, especially while reading sections of Part III of Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness, is the portrayal of the Rus or Viking culture. While western teachings have always portrayed the Vikings as a fierce and savage culture that did little more than pillage innocent villages, it is actually the Islamic culture that provides a well-rounded view of this culture.
ReplyDeleteWhile western writers, such as Mandeville, are busy tearing down other cultures in order to glorify western Christianity, their Islamic counterparts are doing quite the opposite. An example of this is in part III section 13, Ibn Rusta on the Rus. In this section, a Muslim writer outlines the Rus culture as he witnessed it, trying his best to avoid bias. For example on the first page of this section, in my edition, Ibn Rusta states of the Rus, “Their clothing is always clean. The men wear gold bracelets. They treat their slaves well…” In this section the good of the Rus is pointed out in a straight forward manner. Similarily on the second page of the section, Ibn Rusta writes, “Treachery is endemic, and even a poor man can be envied by a comrade, who will not hesitate to kill him and rob him.” Here again is the simple statement of fact as Ibn Rusta sees it, no making a farce of the culture or making outrageously derogatory comments.
I find this section to be so important, not just because it describes the Rus culture in a somewhat unusually forgiving way, but it is also very telling of Islamic culture. In the Qur’an the People of the Book, meaning people who follow the Scriptures (Christians and Jews), are meant to be accepted and respected. While Christianity also preaches acceptance, the writings of Christian authors such as Mandeville and even Chaucer can be very unforgiving to other cultures. However in the above passage we see this follow through by a Muslim writer to be as respectful and understanding as he can be. In this way I think passages like this are important because they depict an accepting Islam, as opposed to the hateful extremist side of Islam today’s media so often portrays.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhat really caught my attention when reading the third part of Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness was the amount of contrast between ideas in the passages. In one paragraph, an author will inform the reader about something that might come across as unpleasant and the next paragraph will be about something completely different or opposite. This shows that this text presents the reader with both bad and good descriptions of their encounters.
ReplyDeleteOne of the examples is in the passage, Marco Polo on dog sleds and the Land of Darkness. In this passage, Marco Polo starts out describing a snowy white landscape with white bears and other kinds of animals and the king. Fallowing this landscape, Marco Polo transitions into describing the Kingdom of darkness. Polo says, “There is a region that bears the name Darkness, because neither sun nor moon nor stars appear, but it is always dark as with us in twilight. The people have no king of their own…they live like beasts” (193). Marco polo immediately transitions from talking about order and white snow to having no order and complete darkness. Polo is also describing the people in the Land of Darkness as animals instead of humans. In the passage before Polo mentions humans hunting animals, but in the Land of Darkness the humans are described animals themselves.
Fallowing the description of the Land of Darkness, Polo mentions the trading between Tartars and the country of Light. Polo is shifting towards describing the light, which contrasts with the previous description of Darkness. Marco Polo’s shifts back to the Light shows how he is trying to reassure his readers that there is a bright side.
As it was mentioned in class, it is quite an unfortunate predicament that Muslims and Christians can't just get together and draw maps. It would appear that Abu Hamid Al-Andalusi Al-Gharnati felt the same, as he included a bit in Part II about the king of the Byzantines, and how he ended up choosing to no longer "force any Muslim to embrace [the Christian] faith…so that they will fight [for him]" (82). This was actually an idea inspired by the Muslims talking to the Byzantine king, as they were the ones who managed to convince him that it would be beneficial to his state. The king finds it beneficial because he will have a bigger, more powerful army, but there are others who see other benefits of Muslim and Christian coexistence and peace. Two passages over, in fact, in "Muslim and Christian attitudes to wine," a Christian sees the wisdom in a Muslim argument about alcohol - which, though a poor argument in itself, provides an example of a Christian seeing the good in Islam, and a Muslim using gentle persuasion to explain his perspective to a Christian. Furthermore, in the readings for this week, Mas'udi comments on how "if the Muslims and the Christians united, the king would have no power over them" (134). Evidently, an alliance between Muslims and Christians during this time would mean so much more than merely peace; it would mean power as well.
ReplyDeleteRelated to the last exercise in today's class, a certain sentence I found interesting in Part III of the book was in section 20, page 140. Mas'udi is talking about the Saqaliba, and the sections of people divided among them. He writes that some of them belong to the "Christian faith," but interestingly enough, some others are described as "pagans" that "have no scripture and know nothing of divine law." While the Muslims are continuously referred to as "beasts" or something of the like in old Christian descriptions, it is clear that many Muslims respected the Christian faith. In this quote, it became clear to me that one of the major aspects of Christianity that perhaps stimulated this tolerance and acceptance in Muslims is the Bible and the fact that it is "divine law" to many Christians - something that Muslims can relate to and understand.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe class has picked up on some pretty hilarious moments in part II when Abu Hamid makes observations about natural surroundings or wild animals. Some of his errors are due to the myths he is told about what he sees, as in the “Works of the Jinn” where allegedly a thousand canals and a thousand mounds were dug by spirits, or jinn. Sometimes, though, his own interpretive steps are in error where his natural observations are accurate. This is where he sets himself apart from Ibn Fadlan in terms of scientific accuracy.
ReplyDeleteThere are some easy examples of this, like when he sees huge bones and interprets them to be those of the gigantic people of ‘Ad. He writes about them as if they are indisputably those of a giant race of people, “In this country are found the bones of the people of ‘Ad” (67). Fadlan describes a very similar episode in terms of an interpersonal exchange with a local guide, who showed him massive skeletons and identified them as the bones of Gog and Magog. Fadlan then goes no further than to describe how huge they were. This makes him a lot less ridiculous to us now that we know that those bones were most likely those of northern inland bears, or maybe mammoths. Abu Hamid’s story is clearly embellished with a ghost-story like presentation of weird skeletons that we now know are from a large northern mammal.
Abu Hamid also mentions in his section on skis that the snow definitely does not freeze and the wolves’ furs change to white in the winter. While arctic fox and hares do change from brown to white and back again with the seasons, wolves do not, even in the arctic circle. He must have been told this, since if he has seen wolves in the summer he would have seen all color variations, including white. If I have the geography right, the Bulghars were located in the very southeast of modern day Russia, about 55⁰N, where the snow would most definitely freeze by winter and melt by summer. By comparison, it is at the same latitude as Edinburgh.
As far as his remarks on honey, I don’t think there is any evidence that eating honey makes people more resistant to cold, though it does immunize people against certain allergic reactions to pollen.
Abu Hamid’s beaver chapter is pretty funny when we read it, knowing that beavers definitely do not keep slaves. However, his observations are ultimately grounded in fact. Those of us with sufficiently rural upbringings can perhaps vouch for this. In regards to judging beaver furs in terms of size and rubbed hair, it is true that large, adult beavers have fewer rubbed patches than young “kit” beavers, and that the litter of the previous year do live in the lodge while the young of the year are being raised. This might have let on that the kits are actually slaves serving the parents and their little brothers and sisters in the chamber above. The parents and two generations together form a cohesive “colony” with a social hierarchy and unequal living arrangements, whereby the parents take the lovely main chamber of the lodge and the kits get offshoot chambers, which are not as well lined with grasses and are often wet or icy, and so rub the hair off of their sides when they enter and exit. The kits also have to range further from the lodge to cut their own food, since the underwater “feed pile” is eaten mostly by the parents.