It is the case that the empire of Islam entered Africa with the sword. Black imperialism from all eras, including ancient Kemetic imperialism, relies on military advancement. It is not the case, however, that the religion of Islam spread at the same time and by the same means. In fact, the African Arabian Muslims saw Islam as exclusive to themselves and refused to proselytize at all [See Muhammad, 2009: 202-204]. The religion did not begin spreading in Africa until centuries after the Muslim conquest, and when it did it was carried by merchants and religious specialists, not soldiers. Too many scholars, black and white, have debunked the myth of the Arabs violently imposing Islam on Africans for it to still have circulation, though in some circles it still does. Cheikh Anta Diop, in his Pre-Colonial Black Africa, affirms:
Much has been made of Arab invasions of Africa: they occurred in the North, but in Black Africa they are figments of the imagination. While the Arabs did conquer North Africa by force of Arms, they quite peaceably entered Black AfricaFrom the time of the Umayyad setbacks in the eighth century, no Arab army ever crossed the Sahara in an attempt to conquer Africa, except for the Moroccan War of the sixteenth centuryNor was there ever any Arab conquest of Mozambique or any other East African territory. The Arabs in these areas, who became great religious leaders, arrived as everywhere else individually and settled in peacefullyThe Arab conquests dear to sociologists are necessary to their theories but did not exist in reality.
Only during the Almoravide movement of the first half of the eleventh century did some white people, Berbers,784 attempt to impose Islam on Black Africa by force of armsThe primary reason for the success of Islam in Black Africa, with one exception, consequently stems from the fact that it was propagated peacefully at first by solitary Arabo-Berber travelers to certain Black kings and notables, who then spread it about them to those under their jurisdiction"[Diop, 1987: 101-102, 162, 163].
Joseph E. Harris in his Africans and Their History says as well: "it is noteworthy that except for the northern coast, Islam spread rather peacefully until the eighteenth century, with one significant interruption-the Almoravid conquests"[Harris, 1987: 74]. J. Spencer Trimingham, in A History of Islam in West Africa, agrees:
The role of the Murabitun (Almoravids) in the Islamization of the Sudan has been exaggerated. The peaceful penetration of Islam along trade routes into borderland towns had begun before this movement was bornThe Murabitun simply accelerated a process that had already begun, and their conquest was ephemeral because the attraction of Morocco was stronger than that of the Sudan (emphasis mine-WM)” [Trimingham, 1970: 29-31].
I. Hrbek and M. El Fasi note:
During the great Arab conquests, there was certainly no attempt to convert the ahl al-kitāb (Jews and Christians) by forcegenerations of scholars haveclearly demonstrated that the image of the Muslim Arab warrior with sword in one hand and the Qoran in the other, belongs to the realm of mythology.[ Hrbek and El Fasi, 1992: 31]
Z. Dramani-Issifou: "Prior to the twelfth century, Islam advanced on African soil without wars, without violent proselytism [Dramani-Issifou, 1992: 54].” And finally Sylviane Anna Diouf notes:
In contrast to its arrival in North Africa, where it had been brought by the invading Arabs, the spread of Islam in sub-Saharan Africa followed a mostly peaceful and unobtrusive path. Religious wars or jihad, came late-in the eighteenth and especially in the nineteenth century-and Islam was diffused not by outsiders…but by indigenousness traders, clerics, and rulers…Some fundamental features of traditional religions and customs, such as ritual immolation of animals, circumcision, polygamy, communal prayers, divination, and amulet making, also were present in Islam. Such affinities facilitated conversion as well as accommodation and tolerance of others’ rituals and beliefs. Africans themselves considered Islam an African religion. [Diouf, 1998, 4].
It is thus inaccurate to claim that the religion of Islam spread throughout Africa at the end of and by means of the Arabian sword. It is the case that there are some exceptions to this, but in general the religion established itself on the continent rather peacefully. And while the empire of Islam did indeed establish itself in North Africa by means of the sword, this was in the main neither a non-African nor an anti-African conquest.
2. The Conquest of Egypt
The Prophet Muhammad had told one of his companions and military generals, “When you conquer Egypt, be kind to its Copts because you have a covenant of protection and kinship (rahim/rihm) with them.” This recipient of this instruction, the Arab general ‘Amr b. al-‘As (d. 664), will later lead the conquest of Egypt. This acknowledgment by Muhammad that the Arabs and the indigenous African population of Egypt (the Copts) were kith and kin is consistent with the archaeological and ethnographic evidence indicating the same: that the indigenous populations of Arabia and Northern and Eastern Africa were culturally and ethnically related [Muhammad, 2011: 8 n. 38, 9 n. 45; idem, 2009: 1-7]. Nor did ‘Amr and the African Arabian conquerors of Egypt disregard Muhammad’s command regarding treatment of the Copts.
The conquest of Egypt by the Arab Muslims in 641 was in the main carried out by black-skinned Arabs. The historical and the genetic evidence indicates that “tribes of Yemeni origin formed the bulk of those Muslim contingents that conquered Egypt in the middle of the 7th century CE [Nebel et al, 2002: 1595; Diop, 1967: 52].” What do we know about these “Yemeni tribes,” i.e. South Arabian Arabs? Major-General Maitland, Political Resident in Aden for Britain, noted in 1932 that “All authorities agree that the southern Arabs are nearly related by origin to the Abyssinians” [Bury, 1998: xiii]. The South Arabian has been somatically or culturally identified with the dark skinned Toda and Dravidian of India, the Vedda of Ceylon, and the Ethiopian and Somalian “Hamites” of East Africa. Thus Carleton Coon observed in his, The Races of Europe:
It’s easy enough to account for the southern Arabian Bedawi of the course type. He is obviously related to the Veddas of Ceylon, and to the most important element in the Dravidian-speaking population of India. His hair form, his facial features, his pigmentation, and his general size and proportions confirm this relationship”[Coon, 1939: 429].
It was this dark-skinned, Africoid/Dravidoid Arabian who formed the bulk of the troops who conquered Egypt, not the Europoid Arab that graces the cover of Chancellor Williams’ iconic text, The Destruction of Black Civilization. Nor were the black-skinned troops led by white-skinned Arab commanders. The second caliph who authorized the conquest was ‘Umar b. al-Khattāb (d. 644), the chief architect of the Islamic state. ‘Umar was a Qurayshi Arab from the Banū Adi. His mother Hantama bt. Hāshim b. al-Mughīra, was from the exceptionally black Banū al-Mughīra. Al-Mas'ūdī (Prairies, IV, 192) says she was Black. His paternal grandmother was an enslaved Ethiopian. He was certainly no "fair, pale man, with a touch of redness [contra Abu-Bakr, 1993:32]. He was specifically described as a bald, black-skinned man (rajul ādam). His famous son, ‘Abd Allāh, was himself "very dark-skinned and huge" and said regarding their blackness: "We inherited our black complexion from our maternal uncles." [See sources in Muhammad, 2011: 15; Berry, 2002: 67].
Leading the troops into Egypt was the Arab general ‘Amr b. al-‘As who had previously commanded the Muslim forces in southern Palestine. He too had an Ethiopian mother and Qurashi father and was specifically described as “black-skinned, tall and bald, asmar shadīd al-sumra tawīil asla” [Berry, 2010]. ‘Amr was sent 4000 reinforcements divided into four detachments of 1000, each led by one of four commanders: al-Miqdād b. al-Aswad, who was black-skinned (ādam) and tall; the black (aswad) and tall Muhammad b. Maslama, an Arab from the Banū Aws; al-Zubayr b. al-Awwan, the cousin of the Prophet and nephew of Khadījah, who was dark brown-skinned (asmar al-lawn); and the famously black (aswad) ‘Ubāda b. al-Sāmit (d. 654) [See sources in Muhammad, 2011: 16].
A famous incident involving ‘Ubāda b. al-Sāmit illustrates the overall complexion of the Muslim conquest of Egypt. When Cyrus, the Byzantine governor of Egypt, sought negotiations with ‘Amr in October 640, the latter deputed ten of his officers to negotiate. They were led by ‘Ubāda. When the tall and black ‘Ubāda was ushered into Cyrus’ presence, the governor was terrified and exclaimed: “Take away that black man: I can have no discussion with him!” The party insisted that ‘Ubāda was the wisest, best, and noblest among them and their appointed leader, declaring that “though he is black he is the foremost among us in position, in precedence, in intelligence and in wisdom, for blackness is not despised among us.” ‘Ubāda himself then replied to Cyrus: “There are a thousand blacks, as black as myself, among our companions. I and they would be ready each to meet and fight a hundred enemies together.” Benard Lewis makes an important observation here: “‘Ubāda is not African nor even of African descent but (as the chroniclers are careful to point out) a pure and noble Arab on both sides”[Lewis, 1990: 26]. ‘Ubāda was an eminent Ansārī from the tribe Awf b. al-Khazraj, in particular the clan Banu Ghanm b. Awf b. al-Khazraj, thus a pure, very black-skinned Arab. The thousand fellow blacks, possibly the detachment of which he was commander, were no doubt black Arabs like him.
The conquest of Egypt by the Muslims in 641 was thus a Black Op from top to bottom. The mainly southern Arab troops, ethnically Africoid/Dravidoid, were led by similarly black-skinned Arab commanders, all under the caliphal leadership of the black-skinned Umar. The phenomenon of one Black nation conquering another did not begin with these African Arabian Muslims. In 340 CE Axum’s ruler invaded and claimed Himyar, Raydan and Saba in South Arabia, ruling there from 340-378. The Axumites were kicked out by native Himyarites. However, Axum still claimed rulership over Himyar and Saba for another two centuries. In 523 Dhu’l Nuwas, a Himyarite Jewish ruler who was bitter over the Axumite rule and pretensions to rule, massacred some Arab Christians in Najran. The Byzantine emperor Justin I prompted the Negus of Abyssinia to assert his claims over the region. The Negus sent 70, 000 men across Red Sea who were victorious in reconquering southern Arabia. As Philip Hitti notes: “The Abyssianians came as helpers, but as often happens remained as conquers. They turned colonists and remained from 525 to 575 in control of the land” [Hitti, Arabs, 62]. In other words, the African-Arabian conquest of African Egypt followed an Ethiopian conquest of southern Arabia.
Nevertheless, the conquest of Egypt should not be seen as an example of ancient black-on-black violence. On the contrary, the target of the African Arabian Muslim aggression was the oppressive Byzantine rulers of Egypt. As W.E.B. Du Bois affirmed: “the Arabs invaded African Egypt, taking it from Eastern Roman Emperors and securing as allies the native Negroid Egyptians [Du Bois, 1979: 185-86]. As Mamadou Chinyelu put it as well: "These African Copts no doubt saw the African Muslims from Arabia as liberators; after all they were kith and kin” [Chinyelu, 1991: 367]. This overthrowing of ‘white power’ in Africa was just leg of a larger campaign. Umar’s African-Arabian troops "broke the power of the Persian Sassanid empire and proceeded to annex Iran and Iraq to Arabia." He further brought Syria, Phoenicia, Persia, Jerusalem, and Egypt into the Dār al-Islām, out of the hands of the Byzantines. With the destruction of Carthage in the third Punic War (150-146 BCE) Rome became the supreme power in North Africa. It was ‘Umar and the black-skinned Muslim troops that broke up this White power block in Africa. Thus, Diop’s keen observation: “Except for the Islamic breakthrough, Europe has ruled Africa down to the present day” [Diop, 1967:119]. It was African Arabian Muslims who relived Africa of European rule for a brief period.
3. Relations of Black Muslims in Egypt and Black Christians in Egypt and Nubia
Having secured Egypt in 641-642, the Muslims attempted to take Nubia in 643. These excursions are given special treatment in Chancellor Williams classic work, The Destruction of Black Civilization [1987]. The main weaknesses of Williams discussion of the Muslim invasion of Egypt in 641 and attempted invasions of Nubia in 643 and again in 651-52 is his inaccurate ethnographic assignments. Williams saw the Muslim/Nubian conflict as one between White Arabs and Black Nubians: the Arab conquerors were "Caucasians," he informs us [142-148]. As we have demonstrated above, the Muslims who conquered Egypt were mainly Black Arabs from Southern Arabia led by Black Arabs from Mecca in North Central Arabia. With regard to the Nubian invasion, we thus have to do with a Black-on-Black conflict, not a White on Black one.
The Byzantine emperor Heraclius supported the minority Chalcedean church led by the Patriarch from the Caucasus, Cyrus, against the majority Coptic (Monophysite) church. Coptic sources tell of ruthless and systematic persecution of the Copts by the Byzantines. As St. Clair Drake observes: "The Coptic Christians of Egypt welcomed the Arab Muslims as 'liberators' from what they considered the tyranny of their fellow Christians in Constantinople." [Drake, II:90]. According to Hugh Kennedy's research, the Arabian conquerors distinguished between the Egyptian Copts and what they called the 'Rūm' (Romans): the latter were considered the enemy and the former actually assisted the Muslim 'liberators' who were as black as they and even darker [Kennedy, 2007: 149-150]. Copts at Farāma for instance aided the Muslims, and at the little town of Bahnasā the African-Arabian Muslims slaughtered all the 'Rūmī' men, women and children they came across. When Babylon fell to the Muslims, ‘Amr granted protection to the Copts and killed the Romans [Kennedy, 2007: 150; Morimoto, 1997: 98].
There was no attempt to convert the Copts to Islam. As Ira Lapidus explains:
The necessary arrangements between the conqueror(s) and conquered were implemented in the reign of the second Caliph, 'Umar (634-644)...(A) principle of 'Umar's settlement was that the conquered populations should be disturbed as little as possible. This meant that the Arab Muslims did not, contrary to reputation, attempt to convert people to IslamAt the time of the conquests, Islam was meant to be a religion of the Arabs, a mark of caste unity and superiority. When conversions did occur, they were an embarrassment because they created status problems...Just as the Arabs had no interest in changing the religious situation, they had no desire to disturb the social and administrative orderlocal situations were left in local hands(In the conquered lands) the whole of the former social and religious order was left intact [Lapidus, 2002: 36; idem, 1972].
In terms of the local Christian community, Lapidus points out that "Arab policy attached no liability to the church or to membership in it. Nordid the Arabs encourage conversion to Islam." The black Muslims had a 'pro-Black' policy: in direct contrast to the Byzantines who empowered the minority, Roman church, the Muslims empowered the Coptic church. In fact, the Muslims gave all of the Chalcedonian churches over to the Copts and refused to appoint any Chalcedonian Patriarchs. "Thus the [Copts] gained in Egypt and gained in Nubia as well” [Lapidus, 1972: 249]. The Umayyad caliphs Mu’āwīya and ‘Abd al-Mālik (d. 705) built several churches in Alexandria and Fustat, as did the Egyptian governor ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. Marwān (d. 705). The Church of St. George and the monastery of Abū Qarqar at Hawān are but two examples. This policy lasted for most the Umayyad period (661-750), when Islam was 'a Black thing'. However, toward the end of this period, attitudes and then policy changed. The reign of ‘Umar II (717-720) signaled this changed attitude. He was less protective of the Coptic church and more encouraging of conversion, though Egyptian policy did not change in that regard except that he decreed any converts exempt from the poll-tax that non-Muslims paid. By the Abbasid period, however, things are radically different. Chalcedian Patriarchs were being appointed again and their churches returned to them from the Copts. In other words, the transition from 'Pro-Black Isam' under the black Umayyads to Aryanized Islam under the Abbasids signaled a change in the status for the Coptic church. From 767-868 numerous Coptic revolts occurred in Egypt. In the ninth century Egypt was mainly governed by Turks. From 832 onward, Arabs and Copts together revolted against the government.
In terms of Nubia, ‘Amr b. al-‘As, the conqueror-turned- governor of Egypt, had a non-aggression policy. As Chancellor Williams admits: "despite the continued raids by the Blacks [of the South] he (‘Amr) chose not to extend his operations into their land." This policy, however, will be revoked in 643 by then governor ‘Abd Allāh b. Abī Sarh, who launched an invasion of the northern Nubian kingdom of Makuria. This invasion was a failure, to say the least: the Nubians dealt the Muslims a devastating defeat, and again in 651-652. Williams, aptly describing this conflict as 'one of the decisive battles of history', perceptively remarks: "The psychological effects of being defeated by the Blacks twice on national fronts caused the Arabs to adopt a peaceful relationship with these countries that lasted 600 years." This six-hundred year peace was the result of the baqt agreement, signed by both parties at the conclusion of the 651-652 battle. The baqt was both a non-aggression pact and a trade agreement between Muslim Egypt and Nubia, terms which were determined by the victors: Nubia. The basic terms were:
1. The citizens of each country were allowed free passage to the other, with security guaranteed by the host country. 2. A mosque was to be built in Nubia and a church in Egypt. 3. 360 slaves annually sent by Nubia to Egypt, in exchange for 1300 ardeb of wheat and 1300 kanīr of wine, linen and cloth.
The last stipulation has been the focus of some criticism and misrepresentation in some Christian and Afrocentrist circles, with support even from Muslim misrepresentation. This part of the agreement is often described as tribute imposed on the hapless Nubians by the lustful Muslim slavers, a covert plan to eventually conquer the Sudan. But this interpretation completely fails to take proper notice of a simple fact: the Nubians were the victors and therefore had the leverage. As Jay Spauling explains:
The Nubians won decisively. 'The Muslimshad never suffered a loss like the one they had in Nubia.' For the next six centuries thereafter the Nubian authorities were able to impose their own terms upon relations with the Islamic world, an arrangement commonly knownas the baqt. The baqt exemplified the institution of administered diplomatic trade through which eastern Sudanic kings normally preferred to conduct their foreign relationsWith the passage of centuries, various Islamic intellectuals, eager to forget the initial Nubian victory, devised increasingly elaborate and fanciful accounts that undertook to construe baqt shipments as payment of tribute (emphasis mine-WM) [Spauling, 2000:117].”
The baqt was thus a Nubian arrangement made with the defeated Muslims, not the other way around, and it had precedent in common Sudanic diplomacy: trading with Nubian slaves goes back to ancient Kemet [Redford, 2004]. In fact, the import of slaves from Nubia to the Muslims in Egypt should probably be seen in context of earlier Egyptian/Nubian relations. As Drake points out:
(Ancient) Egyptian cultural imperialism there certainly was-and it involved economic exploitation of Nubia as well-but there was no color discrimination involved. Some of the pharaohs were as dark or darker than any of their Nubian subjects…The Egyptian and Nubian masses were both exploited, although Egyptians were never enslaved. Some Nubians undoubtedly were enslaved, but slavery was not racial. European and Asian war captives predominated in Egypt and in Nubian gold mines as slaves [Drake, 1987, II:218-219].
Nonetheless, it should be reemphasized that in the working out of the baqt agreement, the victorious Nubians had the leverage. The arrangement guaranteed Nubia's independence and facilitated Nubian national/cultural progress for six centuries.
The [baqt]...secured the independence of the Christian Nubian state for many centuries to come. Although there were occasional attempts to convert the rulersthe general policy of the Muslim Egyptian government was to leave the Christian kingdom undisturbed. The friendly relationship between the Egyptian rulers and Nubian monarchs opened the door for (Muslim traders) [Hrbek and El Fasi, 1992: 44].
The resulting trade opportunities contributed to a Nubian florescence. As S. Jakobielski notes in his study of Christian Nubia:
The truce was upheld throughout the next five centuries of Christian civilization in Nubia and in its initial phase was crucial for maintaining peace and the possibilities for national development. The lack of any real threat on the part of the Arabs and the possibilities of carrying on trade with Egypt and maintaining contacts with Byzantium led to the development of a distinctive Nubian cultureThus the end of eighth century saw Nubia moving into its period of prosperity, which lasted up to and including over a half of the twelfth century and was also conditioned by a favorable economic situation. [Jakobielski, 1992: 103].
Williams makes the same point:
The 600-year détente with the Arabs in Egypt was a period of...reconciliation and progressEven church and cathedral building expanded from this center of Black culture over the Western regions of Chad and adjoining states." [Williams, 1987:147].
Hostilities between Muslim Egypt and Christian Nubia began in the 13th century. Egypt was ruled by the Turkish oligarchy, the Mamluks. In 1269 the Mamluk sultan Baybars rejected a Makuria baqt initiative, a rejection for which the Nubian king retaliated by sacking the Egyptian Red Sea port of Aydhab in 1272. Four years later Mamluk forces invade and conquer Makuria and by 1324 the land became a rich slaving ground for Muslim merchants. It is to be emphasized here that while Islam was 'still black', if you will, relations with the Copts and Nubians were relatively peaceful and mutually beneficial. As John Henrik Clark admits: "The peaceful Arab and African partnership in the city- states of Africa went on for more than a century before the Arabs turned their normal trading apparatus into a human slave trading enterprise." [Clarke, 1992: iv]. That century was the period of the black Umayyad Dynasty. In post-Umayyad Islam which went through a process of Persianization and Turkifization (sic) or, in short, Aryanization, racism became rampant such that Islam went from Pro-Black to Anti-Black. This process impacted the literature, the theologies, and the policies of the Islamic world. The most horrendous legacy of this process is the East African Slave Trade.
References
Abu-Bakr, Mohammed. (1993) Islam's Black Legacy: Some Leading Figures (Denver: Purple Dawn Books, 1993)
Idem. (2002) The Unknown Arabs: Clear, Definitive Proof of the Dark Complexion of the Original Arabs and the Arab Origin of the So-Called African Americans (n.p., n.p.).
Bury, Wyman. (1998) The Land of Uz (Garnet & Ithaca Press, 1998 [reprint]), xiii.
Chinyelu, Mamadou, "Africans in the Birth and Spread of Islam," in Ivan van Sertima, Golden Age of the Moor (Journal of African Civilizations, Vol 11, Fall 1991: Transaction Publishers).
Clarke, John Henrik.(1992) "Introduction," in Alfred Butler, The Arab Invasion of Egypt and the Last Years of Roman Domination (New York: A&B Publishers, 1992 [1902]).
Coon, Carleton Stevens. (1939) The Races of Europe (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1939): 429
Damani-Issifou, Z. (1992) "Islam as a social system in Africa since the seventh century," in I Hrbek (ed.), UNESCO General History of Africa, III: Africa from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century (Abridged Edition; Paris, UNESCO, 1992)
Diouf, Sylviane Anna. (1998) Servants of Allah: African Muslims enslaved in the Americas (NYU Press, 1998).
Diop, Cheikh Anta. (1967) The African Origin of Civilization (Westport: Lawrence Hill & Company, 1967)
Idem. (1987) Precolonial Black Africa: A Comparative Study of the Political and Social Systems of Europe and Black Africa, From Antiquity to the Formation of Modern States (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1987)
Drake, St. Clair. (1987) Black Folk Here and There 2 vols. (Los Angeles: Center For Afro-American Studies University of California, 1987)
Du Bois, W.E.B. (1979). The World and Africa (Intl Pub; Revised edition, 1979).
Harris, Joseph E. (1987) Africans and Their History, Revised Edition (New York: New American Library, 1987)
Hrbek I. and M. El Fasi. (1992) "Stages in the Development of Islam and its Dissemination in Africa," in I Hrbek (ed.), UNESCO General History of Africa, III: Africa from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century (Abridged Edition; Paris, UNESCO, 1992)
Jakobielski, S. (1992) "Christian Nubia at the Height of its Civilization," in I Hrbek (ed.), UNESCO General History of Africa, III: Africa from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century (Abridged Edition; Paris, UNESCO, 1992)
Kennedy, Hugh. (2007) The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In (Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2007)
Lapidus, Ira M. (1972) "The conversion of Egypt to Islam," Israel Oriental Studies 2 (1972): 248-261.
Idem. (2002). A History of Islamic Societies, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Lewis, Bernard. (1990) Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990). Morimoto, Kōsei. (1997) “Muslim Controversies Regarding the Arab Conquest of Egypt,” Orient 13: 89-105.
Idem. (2009) Black Arabia and the African Origin of Islam (Atlanta, A-Team Publishing).
Nebel, Almut et al, (2002) "Genetic evidence for the Expansion of Arabian Tribes into the Southern Levant and North Africa," American Journal of Human Genetics 70 (2002): 594-1596.
Redford, Donald B. (2004) From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins Press, 2004).
Spaulding, Jay. (2000) "Precolonial Islam in the Eastern Sudan," in Nehemia Levtzion and Randall L. Pouwels (edd.), The History of Islam in Africa (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2000)
Trimingham, J. Spencer. (1970) A History of Islam in West Africa (London: Oxford University, 1970)
Williams, Chancellor. (1987) The Destruction of Black Civilization: Great Issues of a Race From 4500 B.C. to 2000 A.D. (Chicago: Third World Press, 1987)
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This guy propagates the myth of an al-Murabitun (aka Almoravids) conquest of Sudan and fictitiously portrays the al-Murabitun as "white", while ironically bent on emphasizing the "blackness" of Arab invaders of Egypt.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: This guy propagates the myth of an al-Murabitun (aka Almoravids) conquest of Sudan and fictitiously portrays the al-Murabitun as "white", while ironically bent on emphasizing the "blackness" of Arab invaders of Egypt.
Actually, I dont portray the Al-Murabitun as white. Do to n apparently shallow reading of the article you mistook the words of Diop for my words. Actually, I am well aware of the work of Ivan Sertima (Golden Age of the Moors) and others who have demonstrated that they were indigenous Africans. I was making a completely different point by my citation of Diop above.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I see it now. You are right that I rashly mistook a Diop citation as the author's (I take it 'yourself'). So, my bad and apologies. Having said that, on the account that you were using Diop's citation to convey a "different point", one has to scratch one's head as to how that could have been achieved, when the point of your citing the Diop piece, and other's that shortly followed, was supposed to have been this:
The religion did not begin spreading in Africa until centuries after the Muslim conquest, and when it did it was carried by merchants and religious specialists, not soldiers. Too many scholars, black and white, have debunked the myth of the Arabs violently imposing Islam on Africans for it to still have circulation, though in some circles it still does. Cheikh Anta Diop, in his Pre-Colonial Black Africa, affirms
While the Diop citation says this, on the other:
Much has been made of Arab invasions of Africa: they occurred in the North, but in Black Africa they are figments of the imagination. While the Arabs did conquer North Africa by force of Arms, they quite peaceably entered Black AfricaFrom the time of the Umayyad setbacks in the eighth century, no Arab army ever crossed the Sahara in an attempt to conquer Africa, except for the Moroccan War of the sixteenth century Nor was there ever any Arab conquest of Mozambique or any other East African territory. The Arabs in these areas, who became great religious leaders, arrived as everywhere else individually and settled in peacefullyThe Arab conquests dear to sociologists are necessary to their theories but did not exist in reality.
Only during the Almoravide movement of the first half of the eleventh century did some white people, Berbers,784 attempt to impose Islam on Black Africa by force of armsThe primary reason for the success of Islam in Black Africa, with one exception, consequently stems from the fact that it was propagated peacefully at first by solitary Arabo-Berber travelers to certain Black kings and notables, who then spread it about them to those under their jurisdiction"[Diop, 1987: 101-102, 162, 163].
I can see why you post the piece to make your point, but it also defeats that point. The central theme of your intent was to presumably use the Diop quote to demonstrate that Islam subsequently spread into Africa "peacefully", after the initial Muslim conquests in coastal north Africa. And while you make a point about "Arabs" not violently imposing Islam on Africans [which I take it, excludes coastal north Africans], which to some extent the Diop post seems to reinforce, the same Diop post does also go onto suggest that there was one exception to this, wherein he obviously equates Moroccans with Arabs. It is interesting how Diop treats Moroccans as Arabs, i.e. by way of what's apparent in this citation, while treating the al Murabitun as "white people". The al Murabitun are the people who created Morocco as a central polity to begin with. The subtlety here being that he treats "the Moroccan war" as an Arab affair, while on the other hand, treats the al Murabitun as "some white people" and calls them "berbers" instead of "Arabs".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting how many Blacks see Islam as an alternative to "White" Christianity, as rewritten by Whites. When in fact, Islam as rewritten by Turks, is often "Openly" antiBlack, whereas Christianity is only antiBlack in practice, NOT in text.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^^ I think "Sad" or "Pathetic" would be a better term than "interesting"..as I said to you before Islam was not "Rewritten" by Turks Dumbass, the Koran was compiled by Uthman an ARAB Caliph.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jari - you are a known ignoramus who generally talks out of his ass. Therefore asking you to logically support that contention, would be a waste of time.
In 1075 A.D. The Seljuq Turk king "Toghril Beg" deposed the last actual Arab Abbasid caliph al-Qa'im of Baghdad (reigned 1031–75). Soon after, The Turkish Mamluke's in Egypt were conquered.
For the next 850 years, Turks were the sole rulers of Islam, and authority's over Islam, indeed, Islam was referred to as the "Turkish" religion.
Only a pathetic idiot such as Jari, would believe that Islam would not reflect Turkish ideology.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Only during the Almoravide movement of the first half of the eleventh century did some white people, Berbers,784 attempt to impose Islam on Black Africa by force of armsThe primary reason for the success of Islam in Black Africa, with one exception, consequently stems from the fact that it was propagated peacefully at first by solitary Arabo-Berber travelers to certain Black kings and notables, who then spread it about them to those under their jurisdiction"[Diop, 1987: 101-102, 162, 163].[/i]
I can see why you post the piece to make your point, but it also defeats that point. The central theme of your intent was to presumably use the Diop quote to demonstrate that Islam subsequently spread into Africa "peacefully", after the initial Muslim conquests in coastal north Africa. And while you make a point about "Arabs" not violently imposing Islam on Africans [which I take it, excludes coastal north Africans], which to some extent the Diop post seems to reinforce, the same Diop post does also go onto suggest that there was one exception to this, wherein he obviously equates Moroccans with Arabs. It is interesting how Diop treats Moroccans as Arabs, i.e. by way of what's apparent in this citation, while treating the al Murabitun as "white people". The al Murabitun are the people who created Morocco as a central polity to begin with. The subtlety here being that he treats "the Moroccan war" as an Arab affair, while on the other hand, treats the al Murabitun as "some white people" and calls them "berbers" instead of "Arabs".
Dr. Muhammad would also be well served to check up on recent scholarship (Conrad and Fisher, 1982 and 1983; Lange, 1996; Insoll 2003) which debunks the OLD hypothesis of an almoravid conquest. Citing Diop in that regard to begin with I don't think is wise, even with reference to the specific point that he was making, since the point is supplemented with a non-fact derived from older speculation. The conquest never happened, there were NO "exceptions" besides the Moroccan one Diop alluded to and of course they weren't "Arabs" (not to mention that they mostly used Spanish mercenaries and arms for the frontal assault). Indeed, previous rulers were even distinctly described as African Blacks, such as Abu l-Hasan Ali a.k.a "the Black Sultan" who enjoyed diplomatic relations with Mansa Musa.
^Beyond that the article was a good read and seemingly well researched. Much respect to Dr. Muhammad.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cheik Anta Diop was an intellectual - NOT a Pan-Afrikan or an Afrocentrist. He was a Muslim educated in a traditional Islamic school in Senegal. He also never opposed Christianity in Africa either. Chancellor Williams and John Henrik Clarke differed in their opinions with Diop over the role of Islam in Africa.
Diop on indigenous African religion:
African religions, more or less forgotten, were in the process of atrophying [dying] and being emptied of their spiritual content, their former deep metaphysics. The jumble of empty forms they had left behind could not compete with Islam on the moral or rational level. And it was on that latter level of rationality that the victory of Islam was most striking. That was the fourth cause of its success. Precolonial Black Africa, page 166 Cheik Anta Diop.
On Morocco:
"It is impossible to describe this atrocious war waged by Morocco against Black Africa" Cheik Anta Diop
As per the nature of slavery under Islamic rule, correct me if I'm wrong, Diop spoke little of it.
quote:Originally posted by the wesleymuhammad: In other words, the transition from 'Pro-Black Isam' under the black Umayyads to Aryanized Islam under the Abbasids signaled a change in the status for the Coptic church.
Islam was first brought to Morocco in 680 by an Arab invasion under general Uqba ibn Nafi (622–683) who was serving under the Umayyads of Damascus. who began the Islamic conquest of the Maghreb, including present-day Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco in North Africa. He was the nephew of 'Amr ibn al-'As. Uqba is often surnamed al-Fihri in reference to the Banu Fihri, a clan connected to the Quraysh
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cheik Anta Diop was an intellectual - NOT a Pan-Afrikan or an Afrocentrist.
Wrong. Being "intellectual" is not inconsistent with being "Pan African" or "Afrocentric".
Diop was Pan African. See his texts "Pre-colonial Black Africa" and "The Cultural Unity of Black Africa". In the latter he attempted to link all African cultures as having elements in common. He even linked the blacks of the Americas to Africa on cultural and racial grounds. He argued that despite having lost their ancestral languages they were still part of the African Commonwealth.
Diop's text: "Black Africa: The Economic and Cultural Basis for a Federated State" is also evidently a Pan African text.
The issue of "Afrocentrism" and Diop is a bit more problematic if only because the term has not been fully and cleanly defined. Is it a stance in the sense that an adherent would interpret world necessarily through an "African optic".
It is often said that Jews(in general) historically view events in the world in terms of "Is it good for the Jews. I imagine that a strict Afrocentric would be one who would seek to maximally enhance the idea of being African from the standpoints of psychology, economics, and culturally. Does Diop fit in here?
And Diop's 2 cradle theory:there is a natural/environmental African personality and facon de vie which is distinct from the European and West Asia(Arab) cultural styles.
quote:He was a Muslim educated in a traditional Islamic school in Senegal. He also never opposed Christianity in Africa either. Chancellor Williams and John Henrik Clarke differed in their opinions with Diop over the role of Islam in Africa.
His rationale here was that Diop surmised that Christianity and Islam by way of Judaism were just individual cultural instantiations of Egyptian Monotheism, developed by Akhenaten the heretic Amarna pharaoh(19th dynasty).
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In today's world the most successful nations have no truck with Western monotheism. Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan. It boils down to no need for Western gods.
The Scandinavian nations are consistently on the top of the annual list of nations that fulfill best "quality of life" criteria. They just haven't waited for God to help them; they chose to help themselves. In fact, most Scandinavians are atheists or agnostics.
The U.S. is the only industrialised nation that is heavily religious--on the surface and for show--but it has been an historically predatory and violently racist nation. Most of what it has achieved has been in full aversion to the tenets of its Christian monotheism.
In this regard, religion is not a necessary and sufficient condition for black/African progress in this world. In fact, it leads to spiritual alienation and servility to others: Pope in Rome, Archbishop in Canterbury, Macca, etc.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin - Interesting definition of true Afrocentrism. Though I am not a practitioner in that strict sense, it is one that I don't necessarily disagree with.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO this is the same dude that claimed the Turks created the Hadiths.
Mike if you were not such a fucking idiot I would dabate you seriously and give your ass another defeat like I did to you and Clyde Winters on the Persians, but you are a fraud and not worth my time.
As I said the KORAN was COMPILED by an ARAB CALIPH named UTHMAN, So your claim that Islam is "Anti-Black" in writing(The Koran) because of Turks is absurd, as it was a God Damn Arab that compiled the oldest Koran.
Islam is Anti-African because Arabs were Anti-African, plain and simple. Your simple minded "Da Arabs bes Black" has no bearing on the fact that Islam was a burden on Africa.
Uthman Compiled the Koran, not a Turk.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Jari - you are a known ignoramus who generally talks out of his ass. Therefore asking you to logically support that contention, would be a waste of time.
In 1075 A.D. The Seljuq Turk king "Toghril Beg" deposed the last actual Arab Abbasid caliph al-Qa'im of Baghdad (reigned 1031–75). Soon after, The Turkish Mamluke's in Egypt were conquered.
For the next 850 years, Turks were the sole rulers of Islam, and authority's over Islam, indeed, Islam was referred to as the "Turkish" religion.
Only a pathetic idiot such as Jari, would believe that Islam would not reflect Turkish ideology.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jari - Please find something else to do. I did not elicit your comments, nor do I want your comments.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Indeed. One thing that I will say is that this is a discussion forum, not one reserved for self-advertisement. We appreciate the take but when contributors are unable or unwilling to discuss or defend their work it defeats the purpose of posting it here. Obviously we don't soak up and regurgitate any and everything posted here by wandering scholars browsing the web. People like Dana and Clyde for example have absolutely no qualms about discussing their work here (they are not ABOVE doing so). Then again, many people don't necessarily contribute to making this a friendly environment to engage in so that may be understandable (see Confirming Truth's most recent hate thread).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Then again, many people don't necessarily contribute to making this a friendly environment to engage in so that may be understandable .
posted
Then don't post here if you can't take the heat..
quote:Originally posted by wesleymuhammad:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Then again, many people don't necessarily contribute to making this a friendly environment to engage in so that may be understandable .
Bingo
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
or SURPRISE! adults could actually reason like adults... Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has never been a good venue for religious discourse; for the simple reason that religious dogma, which is based on belief, and secular anthropology/history, which is based on scientific fact, are always going to be antithetical to each other.
I think wesleymuhammad understands that now, and realizes that coming here was a mistake. Lets just say nice knowing you, and wish him the best.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike's just upset that Dr. Muhammad references his work with footnotes, It makes Mike's unsourced picture book methods seem childish , besides Mike's albino concepts are religious. He purports that God is an albino, therefore the source of our problems
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wesley Muhammed, I encourage you not to leave this forum despite the less than warm reception. You will find the debates on here are hostile but can also be rewarding.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find funny is how everyone here is sucking up for this person, yet the enviroment here is no different than other forums. If Trolls like Cassiterides can take the heat, yet this supposed "Dr" and Academic(Compared to cAssiteredes) can't handle it here...LOL....Almost every forum has a hostile enviroment, places such as Anthroscape, Youtube, etc. come to mind. This place has always been hostile, and if you cant take the heat don't post. Plain and Simple, no need to shed tears.
Most of the people here are apologists for Islam anyway, he found a great forum to promote his agenda.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
We appreciate the take but when contributors are unable or unwilling to discuss or defend their work it defeats the purpose of posting it here.
Obviously Wesley Muhammad is around to account for his work, judging by his earlier reaction. Whether or not he wants to allow questions or doubts about his work to propagate and linger on, is certainly up to him, but for reminders, it was lioness who posted the piece. So, he wasn't exactly promoting or advertising his work in this instance.
Jari is on target in pointing out the general hostile environment of forums. So anyone experienced in these sorts of meeting avenues should expect what they are signing themselves onto. Discussion forums are certainly not for the fainthearted, because humans are generally egocentric creatures most of the time whether or not they openly admit; only the inexperienced come into these avenues expecting something more pleasantly different. And it doesn't end with internet forums; just take a cue from the level of "civility" of ads and words exchanged between politicians competing for office, and even between talking heads on TV networks. Be forewarned: If you can't take criticism or take an insult, then this is apparently not the place for you.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Thank you for posting my work Sis Lioness. For the record, and with due respect, your sources who suggested I am "shy" certainly have no familiarity with me or my work. No one who is aware of my body of work would dare make that claim, Im sure. These people here who claim I cant take "heat" too show their ignorance. Unlike most who I have observed on this forum and others who like to intellectually 'bang' behind the safety of the internet, I have presented all of my positions to live public audiences, hostile and sympathetic, from the ivory towers to the streets ciphers. My positions and I have been fire-tested -indeed battle-tested - in real arenas and have been engaged by real life opposition, unlike most internet intellectuals who presume to hold some belt because they succeeded in devolving substantive dialogue into a shouting match or a scene for "YoMama". For the record, it is not "heat" that turns me away from continuous dialogue here or elsewhere: its the non-academic, childish ranting and name-calling that tends to derail these originally sound discussions. Im an academic and that is the type of discourse I rather partake in these days. While my history shows that I can do that other discourse, and do it well, I choose not to nowadays. I value scholarship and scholarly integrity too much. So Mike...Jari...whoever, while you presumptuously pat your unknown selves on the back for "running the Doctor" out of Dodge, please know that it certainly was not intellectual weight on your part that earned you this victory. And before you scream "he's so arrogant", please consider what inspired these comments.
quote:...yet the enviroment here is no different than other forums. If Trolls like Cassiterides can take the heat, yet this supposed "Dr" and Academic(Compared to cAssiteredes) can't handle it here...LOL....Almost every forum has a hostile enviroment, places such as Anthroscape, Youtube, etc. come to mind
I will just say, while I don't know about the forums listed in the quote above, MOST FORUMS I frequent, certain ish just isn't acceptable from adults and thus there are rules and MODS ENFORCE THEM, TO INCLUDE ACCOUNT SUSPENSION AND THEN BANNING IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY to do so....
quote: Jari is on target in pointing out the general hostile environment of forums..... because humans are generally egocentric creatures most of the time whether or not they openly admit; only the inexperienced come into these avenues expecting something more pleasantly different. And it doesn't end with internet forums; just take a cue from the level of "civility" of ads and words exchanged between politicians competing for office, and even between talking heads on TV networks. Be forewarned: If you can't take criticism or take an insult, then this is apparently not the place for you.
Respectfully, and all that makes it okay for ADULTS to act so childish and ignorant, much less to the levels it reaches here, yes? You talk about the 'civility' level, which is spiraling down in society, mainly because more people are hiding behind computers and talk ish they wouldn't outta street TO someone (among many other reasons I won't get into here)...and because it's already at a low, it's ok to contribute to the low standard? Help me out here, I want to overstand this mentality. I really do.
How many of us (yes US, including mySelf) would be PROUD for our students or teachers or our children or parents, to come on this forum and read how we 'debate' with each other here. Would some of you, going back and reading some of your posts, feel any shame atall if your students or children or parents read what you say to others here?
Just something to think about.
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off you can keep my name out of your post. Secondly, Jari did not run out out of anything, as I(Jari) never formally engaged you, that was Mike and a Poster named Afronut on a thread he created about your credibility. So please learn to read and comprehend before trying to bolster your ego.
I never claimed to hold any belt or any title. Also the internet is not as safe as you think, as a Homosexual Jew hacked my Myspace, so Im not "Banging from the Safty of the Internet" as the people who witnessed the Homosexual Jew post my picture and info know who I am in real person. I let people know my opinion on matters I discuss here if the conversation is brought up, I don't hide behing anything son. The thing is unlike you I don't have an agenda to spread so you don't see my on the internet or my education funded by the NOI.
Also I was commenting on how people seem to pander to you. Claiming that this place is "Hostel" as if we should turn it down because of you...LMAO. You are nothing special in my eyes and plenty of veteran posters here who have contributed far greater to Africana and the study of African civilzation than you ever will endured the abuse, so honestly Who the hell are you?? My comments stand, If you can't take the heat don't post.
Take as it how it hits you son...
That Pedalstool you are on is a glass house...
quote:Originally posted by wesleymuhammad:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
But sources tell me Dr. Muhammad is a little shy
________________________________________________
Thank you for posting my work Sis Lioness. For the record, and with due respect, your sources who suggested I am "shy" certainly have no familiarity with me or my work. No one who is aware of my body of work would dare make that claim, Im sure. These people here who claim I cant take "heat" too show their ignorance. Unlike most who I have observed on this forum and others who like to intellectually 'bang' behind the safety of the internet, I have presented all of my positions to live public audiences, hostile and sympathetic, from the ivory towers to the streets ciphers. My positions and I have been fire-tested -indeed battle-tested - in real arenas and have been engaged by real life opposition, unlike most internet intellectuals who presume to hold some belt because they succeeded in devolving substantive dialogue into a shouting match or a scene for "YoMama". For the record, it is not "heat" that turns me away from continuous dialogue here or elsewhere: its the non-academic, childish ranting and name-calling that tends to derail these originally sound discussions. Im an academic and that is the type of discourse I rather partake in these days. While my history shows that I can do that other discourse, and do it well, I choose not to nowadays. I value scholarship and scholarly integrity too much. So Mike...Jari...whoever, while you presumptuously pat your unknown selves on the back for "running the Doctor" out of Dodge, please know that it certainly was not intellectual weight on your part that earned you this victory. And before you scream "he's so arrogant", please consider what inspired these comments.
Thank you for posting my work Sis Lioness. For the record, and with due respect, your sources who suggested I am "shy" certainly have no familiarity with me or my work. No one who is aware of my body of work would dare make that claim, Im sure. These people here who claim I cant take "heat" too show their ignorance. Unlike most who I have observed on this forum and others who like to intellectually 'bang' behind the safety of the internet, I have presented all of my positions to live public audiences, hostile and sympathetic, from the ivory towers to the streets ciphers. My positions and I have been fire-tested -indeed battle-tested - in real arenas and have been engaged by real life opposition, unlike most internet intellectuals who presume to hold some belt because they succeeded in devolving substantive dialogue into a shouting match or a scene for "YoMama". For the record, it is not "heat" that turns me away from continuous dialogue here or elsewhere: its the non-academic, childish ranting and name-calling that tends to derail these originally sound discussions. Im an academic and that is the type of discourse I rather partake in these days. While my history shows that I can do that other discourse, and do it well, I choose not to nowadays. I value scholarship and scholarly integrity too much. So Mike...Jari...whoever, while you presumptuously pat your unknown selves on the back for "running the Doctor" out of Dodge, please know that it certainly was not intellectual weight on your part that earned you this victory. And before you scream "he's so arrogant", please consider what inspired these comments.
PLEASE, DO STAY AWHILE....THO, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT ISLAM HAS BEEN JUST AS DETRIMENTAL TO BLACK PEOPLE AS CHRISTIANITY HAS... Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Christianity, Islam, Judaism. It seems most Africans and AA's have their higher enlightenment hindered by the crushing weight of religion and have virtually forgotten their previous grasp of cosmic spirituality. For Africans, Faith have replaced common sense, while the myths of Jesus, Mohammad, and Abraham have resulted in mass devastation and long term genocide.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: Religion versus spirituality?
Christianity, Islam, Judaism. It seems most Africans and AA's have they higher enlightenment hindered by religion and have virtually no grasp on spirituality. ...while the myths of Jesus, Mohammad, and Abraham have resulted in mass devastation and long term genocide.
I can agree with this, wholeheartedly....
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religion is a burden on Humanity esp. Africans. Now when we had our own religions like in Egypt and other places o.k.
Some of the Greatest Empires on African soil were so called Pagan, thousands of years before Islam or Christianity or Judaism.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Respectfully, and all that makes it okay for ADULTS to act so childish and ignorant, much less to the levels it reaches here, yes? You talk about the 'civility' level, which is spiraling down in society, mainly because more people are hiding behind computers and talk ish they wouldn't outta street TO someone (among many other reasons I won't get into here)...and because it's already at a low, it's ok to contribute to the low standard? Help me out here, I want to overstand this mentality. I really do.
How many of us (yes US, including mySelf) would be PROUD for our students or teachers or our children or parents, to come on this forum and read how we 'debate' with each other here. Would some of you, going back and reading some of your posts, feel any shame atall if your students or children or parents read what you say to others here?
Just something to think about.
You are obviously not carefully reading what I'm saying in that post, or you are choosing to not understand it. As a veteran here and other forums elsewhere, I can say from experience, that discussion forums are generally hostile environments. And yes, people--especially "adults" --get into back and forth name exchanges and flame wars. Naturally anonymity has some element in encouraging this, but also because, like I said earlier, almost everyone wants to safeguard their egotistical interests. One is generally going to find that either a forum is relatively free of heavy-handed moderation like the one we have going here, in which case, the environment will be ripe for all sorts of personalities, behavior and mannerism, OR one may come across a forum wherein a cabal or cult gathering of people has developed, generally with the aid of those who administer the forum, which are built around towing a certain ideological line, and so any newcomer or anyone who deviates from the accepted culture, will likely find themselves isolated and subject to the rigors of one-sided moderation, and associated intimidation--in other words, the selective curtailing of free speech. That is the reality of discussion forums. Only the naive and the inexperience come to these forums with the expectation of something pleasantly gentle. If you sign up for membership in discussion forums like the ones we have here and elsewhere, you should be prepared to take insult and criticism. If you can't bear these sort of things, then your safest bet is to look elsewhere to socialize. That's just the way it is. It has nothing to do with "justifying" them or promoting them. That's just the way forums work, no more than saying that crime happens in the real world, and people kill each other in the real world over material things or over how different they are; acknowledging these things is not tantamount to justifying them, but rather accepting them as such--i.e. human nature. If one can't stand being here, then it is simple: just leave.
As far as all this "notion about hiding behind the computer" goes, from a personal standpoint that means nothing. If you are a person who can hold on his/her own in a live debate or situation, then I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to hold on your own in anonymity. If you can defend a viewpoint in public, then you should equally be able to do in anonymity. In fact, anonymity is the best indicator, imo, to test someone's debating ability, because some people might not be as open in a public gathering, and so, might hinder their performance. However, in anonymity, everyone is relaxed and in their comfort zone, and hence, show their true ability to defend their positions. That's just my personal observation.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thankyou. As I said earlier Im not hiding from anyone. I have no agenda other than to learn and discuss Africana, Genetics, and general history from some of the the top experts in the nation and on the internet. I agree with you about anonymity but as I said the internet is not safe. We have trolls such as Lioness and Nonprophet stalking posters and posting personal information to win "Gothca" points.
Im not Putting my name out to sell a book and push an Agenda, So you won't see my in an Armani suit debating Christians on whose relgion enslaved more or whose holy book and 2,000 yr old cult is better. If anything My contention is that this info should be Free and public for all who want to learn about Africa before Barbarics ruined and distorted African history.
My goal is to make more Youtube clips informing the world of Kemet's African affinity otuside of the same tired, Kemet was Black agument. Also to shed more light on African Empires.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
As far as all this "notion about hiding behind the computer" goes, from a personal standpoint that means nothing. If you are a person who can hold on his/her own in a live debate or situation, then I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to hold on your own in anonymity. If you can defend a viewpoint in public, then you should equally be able to do in anonymity. In fact, anonymity is the best indication, imo, to test someone's debating ability, because some people might not be as open in a public gathering, and so, might hinder their performance. However, in anonymity, everyone is relaxed and in their comfort zone, and hence, show their true ability to defend their positions. That's just my personal observation.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: [QUOTE]
PLEASE, DO STAY AWHILE....THO, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT ISLAM HAS BEEN JUST AS DETRIMENTAL TO BLACK PEOPLE AS CHRISTIANITY HAS...
In fact I will. I just read the post "Lets help wesleymuhammad out: He wants to know if Muhammad was Black or White." I will be responding shortly, in sha' Allah.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: [QUOTE]
PLEASE, DO STAY AWHILE....THO, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT ISLAM HAS BEEN JUST AS DETRIMENTAL TO BLACK PEOPLE AS CHRISTIANITY HAS...
In fact I will. I just read the post "Lets help wesleymuhammad out: He wants to know if Muhammad was Black or White." I will be responding shortly, in sha' Allah.
Respect, and thank you for staying awhile...
I do hope you overstood that my response was an indication that I liked what you had to say... Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^I wonder if he meant this year?
Indeed I do Mike. But please note, I'm a professional academic with responsibilities beyond the Academy. This all limits my time and opportunities to intellectually wrestle on the internet. Though when I do make the time, I try to make the most of it. Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Cheik Anta Diop was an intellectual - NOT a Pan-Afrikan or an Afrocentrist. He was a Muslim educated in a traditional Islamic school in Senegal.
Actually Lyin _ss - Diop was an Afrocentrist in the original sense of the word, someone a lot like Wyatt MacGaffey, Christopher Ehret, Henri Frankfort, Gamal Mokhtar, Bernard Leeman, Basil Davidson, Ivan Van Sertima, Dierke Lange and other great African specialists - individuals that recognize African cultures and people south of the Sahara could not logically be put in a sub-Saharan box disconnected from its links to the great and widespread complex civilizations of old.
Of course, for Diop, Arabia in Muhammed's time was a colony of les "Negres".
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Cheik Anta Diop was an intellectual - NOT a Pan-Afrikan or an Afrocentrist. He was a Muslim educated in a traditional Islamic school in Senegal.
Actually Lyin _ss - Diop was an Afrocentrist in the original sense of the word, someone a lot like Wyatt MacGaffey, Christopher Ehret, Henri Frankfort, Gamal Mokhtar, Bernard Leeman, Basil Davidson, Ivan Van Sertima, Dierke Lange and other great African specialists - individuals that recognize African cultures and people south of the Sahara could not logically be put in a sub-Saharan box disconnected from its links to the great and widespread complex civilizations of old.
Of course, for Diop, Arabia in Muhammed's time was a colony of les "Negres".
Some Afrocentrists are really out there, far beyond left field. Martin and I don't mind that they use our work, as long as they are grounded in the evidence. But Classicists say, well, Bernal is just an Afrocentrist. And he isn't. He's someone who's got real evidence, and who's got a valid critique of European scholarly understanding of Greece over the last century and a half or so. Of course, some of the people he criticizes are among the founding fathers of Classics.Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Ehret has a different definition of what entails "Afrocentrism". Indeed, due to the negative connotations within academia associated with the term, many distance themselves from it which caused people like Asante to distinguish Afrocentrism from Afrocentricity, the latter of which is rooted more in methodology (as opposed to ideology).
At the end of the day, it simply means "African-centered" (focused on Africa), which by trade is the aim of any Africanist. As is widely known in cultural studies, the scholar must also study from an African perspective (see 'cultural relativity') for any accurate assessment so in their foundation, the Africanist is Afrocentric to his/her core (if he/she is doing their job).
BTW, even by this definition, Bernal is NOT an "afrocentric", so Ehret is right. Bernal specializes in East Asian Languages and Black Athena was a comparative history. The people listed by Dana can indeed be referred to as Afrocentrists though.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Cheik Anta Diop was an intellectual - NOT a Pan-Afrikan or an Afrocentrist. He was a Muslim educated in a traditional Islamic school in Senegal.
Actually Lyin _ss - Diop was an Afrocentrist in the original sense of the word, someone a lot like Wyatt MacGaffey, Christopher Ehret, Henri Frankfort, Gamal Mokhtar, Bernard Leeman, Basil Davidson, Ivan Van Sertima, Dierke Lange and other great African specialists - individuals that recognize African cultures and people south of the Sahara could not logically be put in a sub-Saharan box disconnected from its links to the great and widespread complex civilizations of old.
Of course, for Diop, Arabia in Muhammed's time was a colony of les "Negres".
Some Afrocentrists are really out there, far beyond left field. Martin and I don't mind that they use our work, as long as they are grounded in the evidence. But Classicists say, well, Bernal is just an Afrocentrist. And he isn't. He's someone who's got real evidence, and who's got a valid critique of European scholarly understanding of Greece over the last century and a half or so. Of course, some of the people he criticizes are among the founding fathers of Classics.
Bravo for Dr. Ehret. I agree with every word he said. Its good he was thoughtful enough to mention supposedly educated Classicists as well!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
PLEASE, DO STAY AWHILE....THO, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT ISLAM HAS BEEN JUST AS DETRIMENTAL TO BLACK PEOPLE AS CHRISTIANITY HAS... 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic