quote:Originally posted by ausar: Although I disagree with kawashkar about the ethinicity of the Moors, he is actually correct about the ruling class in Al-Andalucia. The rulership came mostly from appointes of the Abbasid and Umayaad caliphs untill there were a civil unrest leading power to petty kings known as the Tarifas. Many of the govenors were Imazghen[berber] origin.
Many provinces in Spain were divided into Sultantes such as Cordoba;Toledo;Seville and etc.
What Kawashkar does not mention is that many of the so-called Arab leaders probably have Imazghen[Berber] and Western African mothers. ABD-er-RAHMAN had a Nafza Berber mother.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Perhaps I can answer the question and save us more unnecessary trouble than we have now...
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [qb] What Southwest Asian "Arabic" source can you bring to our attention, that refers to southwest Asian Arabic speakers as "Moors"?...Or you are going about it via your own personal etymology of the term, devoid of authenticity, like your colleague Kawashkar?
The answer is there is no such source. Simply because Arabs were *not* called Moors but Saracens by the Spanish.
That's absolutely false, Djehuti.
Muslims where called and ARE CALLED Moors indiscriminately. Yes, the originals Moors are the Moroccian Berbers, but when we talk about "Moorish Spain" we use it in the same sense that "Arabian Spain" or "Muslim Spain".
Moreover "Sarracenos" has a connotation of military bands that could be Berbers, Tuaregs or Beduins, or whatever that use turbants!
In your effort to prove Moors where Blacks you are reinventing history. But you could only convince innocent people, not the ones that know the real history because is a cultural tradition. lol.
quote: Moor has always been reserved for black peoples of North Africa.
Not in SPANISH, dear friend! In Spanish "Negro" (Which means Black in spanish and it is just the name of the color Black and not an insult) is used for Black peoples AND Moors for people of suspected mixed ancestry but closer to Europeans, like most Arabs and Berbers.
In the racial sense:
Moor has always mean DARKER.
It does not mean necesarily Subsahran African.
Moor mean DARKER THAT EUROPEANS.
In Spanish, an Arab, Berber, Persian, Egyptian that pray to Mohammed is a MOOR. And when the meaning is precise it always point to the Maghreb, particularly to Morocco.
Every dark fellow that wear a turbant, pray to the Mecca and rides Camels is a MOOR. But the stereotype of the Moor is the Berber.
Don't you get that Moor was an insult in Spanish? Like the "n" word in English? And it was applied again all Muslims that were presummed to be DARKER than Christians.
Jesus! You make me tell our "ethnic" secrets! LOL.
Yes. No matter how you argue with those "word-definition" games that fact is the Moors are not the people you believe they are.
quote:Moor from Greek. Mauros "black" Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" .... LATER, (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India. - Online Etymology Dictionary.
quote:Not in SPANISH, dear friend! In Spanish "Negro" (Which means Black in spanish and it is just the name of the color Black and not an insult) is used for Black peoples AND Moors for people of suspected mixed ancestry but closer to Europeans, like most Arabs and Berbers.
Couldn't there be "Black Arabs" and "Black Muslims"??
Posts: 290 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
The fact is all the story-telling of a Mauritanean kindom and Mauritanian science in Spain is FALSE. Events did not happens and were not exactly like Van Sertima and other history twisters have propossed. That produce ideas that, although with ground in historical facts, they finish being as false as the "Black Olmecs".
I going to look for precise sources and comming back. But for now I think I my points are quite clear with respect to the Moors in Spain:
(1) Muslim Spain was ruled by Arabs and the society has an Arab culture.
(2) Moorish science and tech is Muslim science and tech.
(3) Every Muslim in Spain was called a Moor.
(That's a point that I am going to prepare and prove once and for all to convince you. Not me, because I know it is true.)
(4) The foreign population of Spain it was small. Most Muslims where local people and not immigrants or colones.
(5) Black people did exist in Spain like in any other Muslim country in the Middle Ages. But Spain was not colonized in large scale or governed by Black people.
(6) The Almoravides that invaded Spain during the 12th Century were called by the Moors in Spain, and in fact, those troops WERE BLACK MEN OF SUBSAHARAN ORIGIN, not Moors.
(7) The genetical evidency show above by me shows clearly the major contact between Spain and Africa point to Berbers of the Maghreb, not Subharan African.
(8) Finally, the ruling classes of Arabs and the Arab-Berber troops that invaded Spain were the same that subjugated Subsaharan Africa. They were the ones that established a high scale worlwide slave trade on Subsaharan people. And they were the model the Europeans copied later.
So I believe both Spaniards and Subsaharan have more that a reason to reject the Moors.
So what else you got except the "definition of Moor in Greek". Lol
Couldn't there be "Black Arabs" and "Black Muslims"?? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Yes, they did exist indeed. I have never said there was no Black Arabs or Black Berebers between the population of the Moors. What I have said is that the largest majorities of foreign Muslims in Spain were Arabs, Coastal Berbers and other foreigners.
I don't deny the presency of Blacks in Spain or in any other Muslim country of the time. I don't deny that indeed existed some Black generals in the Moors' armies that become famous, or that there were very sucessful Black troops in Spain during the Almoravides attacks of the 12th century.
What I deny is confussing the term "Moorish Spain" with the idea of an African subsaharan colonization and even civilizazing of Spain (Spain already had an advanced culture, although decadent).
Al-Andalus was a Spanish society dominated by a small foreign minority compossed mainly by Berbers and Arabs, and ruled by an Arab elite. That's the truth.
Not my definition. It's THE ORIGIN of the word Moor.
Sorry....
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Moor from Greek. Mauros "black" Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" .... LATER, (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India. - Online Etymology Dictionary.
What I deny is confussing the term "Moorish Spain" with the idea of an African subsaharan colonization and even civilizazing of Spain (Spain already had an advanced culture, although decadent).
Exactly, you choose to be in denial of truth; you are not unaware of it. However, that this what historical sources are for; to refresh memory, particularly for those who choose to forget :
And Yusuf ibn Tashfin, leader of the Almoravid forces, was "a brown man with wooly hair", according to the Arab chronicler Al-Fasi. (per Miriam DeCosta [who utilizes the "Cantigas" scripts of Medieval Spain )
^^Not surprising, given that Almoravids were of Sub-Saharan extraction; Oh yeah, I remember; according to you, the Almoravids never ruled spain.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Kawashkar whines: keep your definition
Not my definition. It's THE ORIGIN of the word Moor.
Sorry....
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Moor from Greek. Mauros "black" Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" .... LATER, (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India. - Online Etymology Dictionary.
That citation itself is plentiful; nothing more needs to be said. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Jesus! You make me tell our "ethnic" secrets! LOL. KAWASHKAR
More like...
Jesus! You make me tell our "racist" secrets! LOL.Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: One thing that Washkar is desperate to deny is that there were (and still are) blacks living in the African Magrhreb. These blacks are indigenous to the area and obviously have been living there far longer than the light-skinned/'white' Berbers that he loves to post picture of.
Even Ausar said it himself that white Berber groups like the Kabyle were fleeing from the Islamists at the same time Iberia was being invaded, so how can the Muslim invaders be them?
Better yet, how can the very etymology of the word (Moor/Mauros-- black) mean them, considering that Greco-Roman sources distinguished 'white' Berbers as being Leuko-Aethiopes??
'Moor' definitely does not mean Arab since both Arabs whether Yemeni or Palestinian as well as even Iranians were collectively called Saracens.
It's all basic logic and common sense, yet Karwash performs all these futile acrobatics and maneuvers to get around it. All in vain.
Actually, it is deeper than that and goes beyond Kawashkar himself. This WHOLE issue goes to the CORE of ISLAM and where it originates.
First off, the EARLY waves of Arab hordes invading Africa and the East were NOT really Islamic in the modern sense of the word. The initial rise of Islam was PURELY an act of Imperial expansion on behalf of the powerful chiefs who inherited the remains of the old Roman Empire (Byzantium). As Dr. Walter Williams puts foward in his book "The Historical Origins of Islam", the concepts behind Christianity and Islam go back to the split between the Monophysites and the Dyophysites. This THEOLOGICAL debate was based around the Roman Emperor wishing to CREATE a new religion using the OLDER forms of Ausar, Auset, Osiris, etc, which were embodied in the form of Serapis, the Greek prototype of Jesus Christ. The priesthood of the time were the remnants of the ancient order of priests of Egypt, some of whom had become priests of Serapis. These PRIESTHOODS became the basis of the early sects of Islam AND Christianity.
In MY opinion, the early Arabs were driven to move towards better lands partly in search of better land, but MORE because of the exhortions of their chiefs. Raiding and inter tribal warfare seems to have been an ancient tradition amongst the people of the Arabian peninsula over water and other scarce natural resources. It seems that this institution of tribal leadership became most enshrined in the instituion of the Caliphs.
The early Arab empire was based around the concept of Hadith (revelation of the prophet) and Salat (prayer/meditation). This EARLY form of belief is ACTUALLY more akin to paganism than what we call Islam today. The TRUE idea of Hadith stems from the idea that A PERSON can attain ONENESS with god and therefore become HIS MESSENGER. The MESSAGE is the TRUTH of God and being a MESSENGER is SACRED because you are engaging in the SPREADING of the TRUTH (of the word). ALL of this goes back to the ancient systems of belief that came out of Egypt and elsewhere and the monophysitic doctrines of the former priests of the ancient Egyptian mystery system. This concept of Hadith began to be corrupted and USED by the chieftans or "prophets" as a way of GALVANIZING their "holy" warriors into acts of "itjihad" against "nonbelievers", as "mahdi" melitiamen (army of the prophet) to force "submission" (Islam). Basically, this ORIGINAL version of what we called Islam allowed a person to form a following based on his/her interperetation of UNIVERSAL laws and principles (itjihad) and to defend that position using his holy warriors, with himself as the CHIEF holy warrior. (Definition of a Mahdi) http://www.answers.com/topic/mahdi (Definition of Itjihad) http://www.answers.com/topic/ijtihad
The contradictions and TRUE meaning of Hadith and the role of the Mahdi can be seen in the split between Sunni and Shia Muslims, or in the stories surrounding the rise and fall of the various muslim dynasties in Syria, North Africa and elsewhere. At the CORE of this was WHO had the right to be the CHIEF and being the chief (prophet) had the right to interperet and enforce the WAYS of the prophet within the community. Therefore, the CHIEF was the prophet and his HADITH was the basis of THE law. ALL of it is a big farce, because so many people have come along writing Hadiths justifying almost EVERY conceivable thing under the sun, making it IMPOSSIBLE to establish TRUTH. It is THIS that caused the original split between Sunni and Shia. Keep in mind that in MANY ways a Hadith is just a "wise saying", "saying" or "instruction". (Description of the Hadith) http://www.answers.com/topic/hadith (Way of the prophet: Sunnah) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah (Sunna the trodden path) http://lexicorient.com/e.o/sunna.htm
Suffice to say, much of the discussion so far has been on the various ways in which various Arab groups have been trying to use Islam as a basis for colonial control and exploitation of foreigners, by ensuring that ARABS would be in power. But we have yet to get to the CORE of the issue about how MUCH of the legacy of Islam is REALLY just ancient "pagan" culture and tradition warmed over.
Firstly, let us take note that in all reality the Almoravids, Almohads and Fatimids are in many ways the PUREST expression of early Islamic thought ANYWHERE in the Islamic world. If you do not know, it should be clear by now that if the basic fundamentals of early Islam as I discussed were SO fundamentally ARABIC, then WHY would they reach their PEAK of expression in Africa amongst AFRICANS? Why would the first movements to be spear headed by TRUE WARRIOR prophets, representing some of the MOST fundamental aspects of Islam be in AFRICA, fighting in the FIRST recorded Jihads ANYWHERE? WHY would the Almohades be pronouncing the MOST PROFOUND wisdom in the simplicity of the theology of Tawhid as expressed by Ibn Tumart as "the ONENESS of God" the CORE princple of al Islam? Why are some of the GREATEST theologians of Islam found in Spain and North Africa? MANY have said and continue to say that the MYTH of Mohammed and his followers is REALLY only a retelling of the events in North Africa and Spain during the Moorish period. Once again, WHY would some of the most FIERCE wars and armies of believers in the NAME of Islam EVER, be found in an area SO FAR AWAY from the "home" of the prophet? Also, why is there a MASSIVE crater or asteriod in Mauretania, with LARGE circles going around it? (remember the KABBA, the stone of worship that is circled?)
My fundamental belief is that MOST of what we call Islam is REALLY based on the theology and ideas of ANCIENT cultures, especially Africa. But as I have noted earlier, the USE of Islam as a tool of OPPRESSION and ARAB Colonialism is has CLOUDED the history of Islam. It has put the earliest teachingsin the hands of a few "Persian" philosophers and a Mythical saints at the earliest periods, while the REAL scholars and holy prophets of early Islam are relegated to a back burner. To see this MOST clearly, however, one must TRULY read the EARLIEST works of the philosophers from Andalus, Morocco and Mauretania as well as those from Baghdad and Syria. It is there you will see the expression of ANCIENT thought that would become ISLAM.
quote: WE have now anticipated one of the strangest and most characteristic figures and movements in the history of Islam. The preceding account, except as relates to Ibn Khaldun, has told of the triumphs of the Ash‘arites in the East only. In the West the movement was slower, and to it we must now turn. The Maghrib--the Occident, as the Arabs called all North Africa beyond Egypt--had been slow from the first to take on the Muslim impress. The invading army had fought its way painfully through, but the Berber tribes remained only half subdued and one-tenth Islamized. Egypt was conquered in A.H. 20, and Samarqand had been reached in 56; but it was not till 74 that the Muslims were at Carthage. And even then and for long after there arose insurrection after insurrection, and the national spirit of the Berbers remained unbroken. Broadly, but correctly, Islam in North Africa for more than three centuries was a failure. The tribal constitutions of the Berbers were unaffected by the conception of the Khalifate and their primitive religious aspirations by the Faith of Muhammad. Not till the possibility came to them to construct Muslim states out of their own tribes
p. 244
did their opposition begin to weaken. And then it w as rather political Islam that had weakened. When the Fatimids conquered Egypt in 356 and moved the seat of their empire from al-Mahdiya to the newly founded Cairo, Islam assumed a new meaning for North Africa. The Fatimid empire there quickly melted away, and in its place arose several independent states, Berber in blood though claiming Arab descent and bearing Arab names. Islam no longer meant foreign oppression, and it began at last to make its way. Again, in the preceding period of insurrection the Berber leaders had frequently appeared in the guise and with the claim of prophets, men miraculously gifted and with a message from God. These wild tribesmen, with all their fanaticism for their own tribal liberties, have always been peculiarly accessible to the genius which claims its mission from heaven. So they had taken up the Fatimid cause and worshipped Ubayd Allah the Mahdi. And so they continued thereafter, and still continue to be swayed by saints, darwishes, and prophets of all degrees of insanity and cunning. The latest case in point is that of the Shaykh as-Sanusi, with whom we have already dealt. As time went on, there came a change in these prophet-led risings and saint-founded states. They gradually slipped over from being frankly anti-Muhammadan, if also close imitations of Muhammad's life and methods, to being equally frankly Muslim. The theology of Islam easily afforded them the necessary point of connection. All that the prophet of the day need do was to claim the position of the Mahdi, that
p. 245
[paragraph continues] Guided One, who according to the traditions of Muhammad was to come before the last day, when the earth shall be filled with violence, and to fill it again with righteousness. It was easy for each new Mahdi to select from the vast and contradictory mass of traditions in Muslim eschatology those which best fitted his person and his time. To the story and the doctrine of one of these we now come.
At the beginning of the sixth century a certain Berber student of theology, Ibn Tumart by name, travelled in the East in search of knowledge. An early and persistent western tradition asserts that he was a favorite pupil of al-Ghazzali's, and was marked out by him as showing the signs of a future founder of empire. This may be taken for what it is worth. What is certain is that Ibn Tumart went back to the Maghrib and there brought about the triumph of a doctrine which was derived, if modified, from that of the Ash‘arites. Previously all kalam had been under a cloud in the West. Theological studies had been closely limited to fiqh, or canon law, and that of the narrowed school of Malik ibn Anas. Even the Qur’an and the collections of traditions had come to be neglected in favor of systematized law-books. The revolt of Ibn Hazm against this had apparently accomplished little. It had been too one-sided and negative, and had lacked the weight of personality behind it. Ibn Hazm had assailed the views of others with a wealth of vituperative language. But he had been a controversialist only. There is a story, tolerably well authenticated, that the books of al-Ghazzali were solemnly condemned by the Qadis
p. 246
of Cordova, and burnt in public. Yet, against that is to be set that all the Spanish theologians did not approve of this violence.
Ibn Tumart started in life as a reformer of the corruptions of his day, and seems to have slipped from that into the belief that he had been appointed by God as the great reformer for all time. As happens with reformers, from exhortation it came to force; from preaching at the abuses of the government to rebellion against the government. That government, the Murabit, went down before Ibn Tumart and his successors, and the pontifical rule of the Muwahhids, the asserters of God's tawhid or unity, rose in its place. The doctrine which he preached bears evident marks of the influence of al-Ghazzali and of Ibn Hazm. Tawhid, for him, meant a complete spiritualizing of the conception of God. Opposed to tawhid, he set tajsim, the assigning to God of a jism or body having bulk. Thus, when the theologians of the West took the anthropomorphic passages of the Qur’an literally, he applied to them the method of ta’wil, or interpretation, which he had learned in the East, and explained away these stumbling-blocks. Ibn Hazm, it will be remembered, resorted to grammatical and lexicographical devices to attain the same end, and had regarded ta’wil with abhorrence. To Ibn Tumart, then, this tajsim was flat unbelief and, as Mahdi, it was his duty to oppose it by force of arms, to lead a jihad against its maintainers. Further, with Ibn Hazm, he agreed in rejecting taqlid. There was only one truth, and it was man's duty to find it for himself by going to the original sources.
p. 247
This is the genuine Zahirite doctrine which utterly rejects all comity with the four other legal rites; but Ibn Tumart, as Mahdi, added another element. It is based on a very simple Imamite philosophy of history. There has always been an Imam in the world, a divinely appointed leader, guarded by isma, protection against error. The first four Khalifas were of such divine appointment; thereafter came usurpers and oppressors. Theirs was the reign of wickedness and lies in the earth. Now he, the Mahdi, was come of the blood of the Prophet and bearing plainly all the necessary, accrediting signs to overcome these tyrants and anti-Christs. He thus was an Imamite, but stood quite apart from the welter of conflicting Shi‘ite sects the Seveners, Twelvers, Zaydites and the rest--as far as do the present Sharifs of Morocco with their Alid-Sunnite position. The Mahdi, it is to be remembered, is awaited by Sunnites as by Shi‘ites, and is guarded against error as much as an Imam, since he partakes of the general isma which in divine things belongs to prophets. Such a leader, then, could claim from the people absolute obedience and credence. His word must be for them the source of truth. There was, therefore, no longer any need of analogy (qiyas) as a source, and we accordingly find that Ibn Tumart rejected it in all but legal matters and there surrounded it with restrictions. Analogical argument in things theological was forbidden.
But where he absolutely parted company from the Ash‘arites was with regard to the qualities of God. In that, too, he followed the view of Ibn
p. 248
[paragraph continues] Hazm sketched above. We must take the Qur’anic expressions as names and not as indicating attributes to us. It is true that his creed shows signs of a philosophical width lacking in Ibn Hazm. Like the Mu‘tazilites, e.g. Abu Hudhayl, he defines largely by negations. God is not this; is not affected by that. It is even phrased so as to be capable of a pantheistic explanation, and we find that Ibn Rushd wrote a commentary on it. But it may be doubted whether Ibn Tumart was himself a pantheist. All phases of Islam, as we have seen, ran toward that; and here there is only a little indiscretion in the wording. But it may easily have been that he had besides, like the Fatimids, a secret teaching or exposition of those simpler declarations which were intended for the mass of the people. Among his successors distinct traces of such a thing appear; both Aristotelian philosophers and advanced Sufis are connected with the Muwahhid movement. That, however, belongs to the sequel.
But you must remember that the HISTORY of early Islam is corrupted and bound up in code words. The early Arab invasion of Africa and the Levant was just that an Arab invasion, nothing more and nothing less. The MOVEMENT of the Arabs did not become bound up in the religion that we call "Islam" until they reached western Africa and the Moors. THIS is historical fact. The early writings of scholars and mystics of what became Islam are DATED to this period and MOST of that came out of Al-Andalus along with North and West Africa. The early philosophers were NOT talking about MOHAMMED when they talked about the WAY of the prophet. They were talking about AN INDIVIDUAL in pursuit of PERFECTION or one who had ATTAINED ENLIGHTENMENT. These early works do NOT mention Mohammed or any of the other followers by name. This is stuff that was ADDED LATER by Islamic theologians. The ORIGINAL philosophy was that of Greece and Egypt or Persia, pure and simple. Dont take my word for it, look up the works of Ghazzali, Bin Arabi and the others and you WONT see a reference to Mohammed ANYWHERE. It is in THIS way that you see the SIGNIFIGANCE of these movements in Africa and how they become the BASIS of Islam. Modern Islam is purely about the SUBMISSION of one to this or that AUTHORIZED messenger of the messenger, which can be in the form of ANY act that constitutes SUBMISSION. It is in THIS way that Islam is now a tool of OPRESSION, through ENFORCEMENT of Sharia in the name of SOME messenger and has NOTHING to do with the attainment of ONENESS with God. Slavery is an act of submission......
quote: (All known things were borne by the First Intellect)
Know that the bearer of all known things, celestial and terrestial, is the Intellect which takes from Allah without intermediary. None of the knowledge of higher and lower being is hidden from it. The self's gnosis of things comes from His giving and generosity, and from His manifestation to it, His light and His purest overflowing. The Intellect learns from Allah and teaches the self. The self learns from the Intellect and action comes from it. This applies to all that knowledge of the Intellect connects to things below it. We are limited by "what is below it" in respect of the learning we mentioned. Be careful when you ponder, remembering that Allah said, "until We know" (47:31). He is the All-Knower, so recognise the proper ascriptions!
(..except the Bewildered World)
Know that the Bewildered World does not learn anything from the First Intellect and the First Intellect has no power over those who are bewildered by love. They and it are on the same rank, like individuals among us who are outside of the jurisdiction of the Pole (Qutb), even though the Pole is one of the individuals. But the Intellect was selected to inform as the Pole is selected for appointment among the individuals.
(...and except the science of the isolation (tajrid) of tawhid)
The principle of the Intellect teaching those below it is transpires in all that the knowledge of the Intellect is connected to - except for 'the isolation of tawhid'. The science of the isolation of tawhid is different from all known things in all aspects since there is no relationship at all between Allah and His creation, even if the 'relationship' is applied to it on a certain day as was done by Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali in his books, and other people. That is a sort of mannerism and very far from the realities. What relationship is there between the in-time and the timeless? Or how can a likeness be made of the One Who does not accept a likeness with someone who does accept a likeness? This is impossible as Abu'l-'Abbas ibn al-'Arif as-Sanhaji said in Mahasin al-Majalis, "There is no relationship between Allah and the slaves except concern. There is no cause except judgement and no time except pre-Time. Whatever else is blindness and deceptive ambiguity." One variant has "knowledge" in place of "blindness". See how excellent these words are and how complete this gnosis of Allah is and how pure this contemplation (mushahada)! May Allah give us the benefit of what he said!
quote: The essential insight and consistent point of view of Islam is tawhid: the fundamental Oneness underlying all of existence. From the perspective of tawhid, everything is emerging from God, being sustained by God, and ultimately returning to God. This has profound significance for all of our experience within this existence. All areas of human knowledge are related to this fundamental, unifying Truth.
THIS is the concept that Tumart and the Almohads were persuing, not some BLIND abstract fanatical concept that many modern writers describe. Once again WHY did such a CENTRAL theme of Islam burn so bright in AFRICA?
Remember, the FIRST and most important phrase in Islam, "there is No God but God". THAT was the core around Islam is built and that is th MONOPHYSITIC tradition that is TRUE Islam. The REST of the nonsense about LAW and WHO is the MAHDI contradicts ALL OF THAT, since ULTIMATELY the true believer is trying to gain ONENESS with the Godhead.
quote: Mu'tazilis believed that the first obligation on humans, specifically adults in full possession of their mental faculties, is to use their intellectual power to ascertain the existence of God, and to become knowledgeable of His attributes. One must wonder about the whole existence, that is, about why something exists rather than nothing. If one comes to know that there is a being who caused this universe to exist, not reliant on anything else and absolutely free from any type of need, then one realizes that this being is all-wise and morally perfect. If this being is all-wise, then his very act of creation cannot be haphazard or in vain. One must then be motivated to ascertain what this being wants from humans, for one may harm oneself by simply ignoring the whole mystery of existence and, consequently, the plan of the Creator. This paradigm is known in Islamic theology as wujub al-nazar, i.e., the obligation to use one's speculative reasoning to attain ontological truths. About the "first duty," 'Abd al-Jabbar said (Martin et al., 1997): [It is] speculative reasoning (al-nazar) which leads to knowledge of God, because He is not known by the way of necessity (daruratan) nor by the senses (bi l-mushahada). Thus, He must be known by reflection and speculation.
The difference between Mu'tazilis and other Muslim theologians is that Mu'tazilis consider al-nazar an obligation even if one does not encounter a fellow human being claiming to be a messenger from the Creator, or even if one does not have access to any alleged God-inspired or God-revealed scripture. On the other hand, the obligation of nazar to other Muslim theologians materializes upon encountering prophets or scripture.
As I said, all Islamic theology stems from the ORIGINAL concept of the path to attainment of enlightenment (oneness with all) through revealed wisdom: through the "word", through the "prophet" or through the "self". ALL are considered valid ways of enlightenment and MANY of the derivations and arguments come about as a result of ARGUMENTS about HOW the three are to be considered TRUE expressions of DIVINE expression.
quote: The life of Muhammad or sira which generated both the Qur'an (revelation) and hadith (his daily utterances and discourses on social and legal matters), during which philosophy was defined by acceptance or rejection of his message. Together the sira and hadith constitute the sunnah and are validated by isnad ("backing") to determine the likely truth of the report of any given saying of Muhammad. Key figures are Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud and Al-Nasa'i. Each sifted through literally millions of hadith to accept a list of under 10,000. This work, which was not completed until the 10th century, began shortly after The Farewell Sermon in 631, after which Muhammad could not mediate disputes. After his death Abu Bakr began to collect all fragments of his sayings. In this period, Muhammad was simply authority and philosophy distinguished from his personal style only by the revelation. [edit]
Dominance of Kalam
With kalam, in which questions about the sira and hadith, as well as science and law, began to be investigated beyond the scope of Muhammad's beliefs. This period is characterized by emergence of ijtihad and the first fiqh. As the Sunnah became published and accepted, philosophy separate from Muslim theology was discouraged due to a lack of participants. During this period, traditions similar to Socratic method began to evolve, but philosophy remained subordinate to religion. [edit]
Mutazilite school
The rise of the Mutazilites, which built on Greek philosophy to challenge the kalam, integrate Plato and Aristotle in particular, and expand the use of ijtihad ("independent thought") to open questions of science and society, and what we today call modern philosophy. During this period the procedural traditions of Islam were highly developed. Ijtihad had strong influences on the development of the modern scientific method, while isnad is indistinguishable in form from modern scientific citation. With these tools, the Mutazilites were able to revive Greek views, and correct them. Early Muslim medicine and Early Muslim sociology in particular benefited from the Mutazilite approach, but it led to very strong reaction. [edit]
Rise of the Asharite school
The Asharites put an end to philosophy as such in the Muslim world, but permitted these methods to continue to be applied to science and technology. This marked the 12th-to-14th century peak of innovation in Muslim civilization, after which lack of improvements in the basic processes and confusion with theology and law had degraded methods. During this period many remarkable achievements of engineering and social organization were made, and the ulama began to generate a fiqh based on taqlid ("emulation") rather than on the old ijtihad. An influential 12th-century work, "The Incoherence of the Philosophers", by Al-Ghazali, laid the groundwork to "shut the door of ijtihad" later on in the 15th-century, with the assistance of the new Ottoman Empire.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ...And Yusuf ibn Tashfin, leader of the Almoravid forces, was "a brown man with wooly hair", according to the Arab chronicler Al-Fasi. (per Miriam DeCosta [who utilizes the "Cantigas" scripts of Medieval Spain )
And what? Yusuf was not representative of the "Moors" of Spain. Tarik conquered Spain under the orders of the Arabs, not Yusuf! Yusuf is TOO LATE in the history of Spain. He just managed to retard the reconquist of Spain a little.
quote: ^^Not surprising, given that Almoravids were of Sub-Saharan extraction; Oh yeah, I remember; according to you, the Almoravids never ruled spain.
So, all the famous "Black (Moor) empire of Spain", according to you, is the Yusuf staff? Well, that reduces the "African" influence in Spain to a minimum.
I am talking about the Moors of Spain, not of a particular event directed by Yusuf. LOL.
Yes. Keep going on with the "Greek definition".
But historias are better informed:
quote:"History named these Muslim conquerors of Spain "Moors", probably because they arrived by way of Morocco. The Moors themselves never used them. They were Arabs, from Damascus and Medina, leading armies of North Africans Berber converts".
When the Moors Ruled Spain Thomas J. Abercrombie [ National Geographics July 1988
Therefore: Moor=Moroccan, North African Berber.
Look at the path of the conquest of North Africa and you will find they followed a coastal path.
Black Africa it was not conquered as yet by the Muslims. By they time they started the conquest of the south, they were already being pushed out of Spain!
posted
this is real funny! we tork about black Africa but we rarely say white Europe or yellow Asia. It only alerts me to a type of social engineering trying to pass itself off as science in the greater scheme (in the true sense of deception and skullduggery).
It would have worked!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Black Africa" is a historical term, no matter than in recent years it has been targeted as "politically incorrect".
"Black Africa" has two meanings: the land of the Black people, that is, the place where the Black people predominates. But also it got the meaning of the "unknown continent" (for the Europeans, of course), because it was the last continent to be explored.
Today, because of that fashion of changing labels, people don't talk about "Black Africa" anymore, but of "Subsaharan Africa". However, a campain is going on to eliminate that last label as well.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
:![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic