One common mistake about neo-conservative/right-wing thought and the general trend that followed in the wake of Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations, is that Islam “colonised” Africa. This suggestion that Islam “colonised Africa” was reflected in Lyndall Beddy’s comment of 23 July. While I hold no brief for Muslims or Islam, it should be made clear that one historical account of the “arrival” of the religion on the continent explains that it preceded the colonial period in Africa. So, any persistent attempts to link Islam with the colonial period is delusional; by which I mean a person holding onto a belief even when facts to the contrary are presented.
I also do not want this to slide into a debate in which commentators and contributors speak at cross purposes, mix levels of analysis or launch personal attacks such as the one which suggests that I am a typical academic who has no on-the-ground experience. Again, such comments are unproductive and, well, may be delusional. Regardless of what the facts of my background may say the personal comments will continue.
So, here’s a brief reply to Lyndall Beddy’s comment which, like her first (and another, which I shall deal with in a later post) is without factual basis.
Christianity and Islam did not “colonise” Africa.
Christianity, we know, arrived mainly with European colonists. Islam (and to a limited extent, Judaism) came into Africa as early as the 8th Century of the Common Era. Islam came across the Sahara on trade routes to West Africa, and down the Eastern seaboard with merchant vessels. There is/was a small Jewish influence and presence in Timbuktu. I am placing the following graphic in this post, but don’t expect Beddy to change her mind; such is the nature of delusional discourse.
2. The question of Europe’s move from tribalism to feudalism to “democracy” is much too vague. It cuts corners, is intellectually occlusive and generally weak. In fact her biggest mistake is about the transition “from feudalism to democracy”; it needs a lot of explaining. She is quite forceful in her commentary so I suggest she gets a grip on the historical sequence – the transition should be well known to almost anyone. Like her “until recently” comment she is much too simplistic to be taken seriously. I also cannot see the link between her claims about European transition from feudalism “to democracy” and my contention that Africa is complex and that we ought to be cautious when using generalisations.
Finally, a basic requirement of good argument is that when a statement of fact is made, it is usually good practice to present evidence in support of said statement. When discussing historical phenomena such as the transition from feudalism to capitalism (hint) simple phrases like “until recently” and other generalisations simply do not work. If one wants to be taken seriously it might help to make serious contributions to discussions.
Islam in its early days – ie. just in the beginning – when the muslims where been persecuted in Makkah – a group were given permission to perform Hijrah (Emigrate) to Abysinnia which is today known as Ethiopia.
just an FYI
What’s more interesting is that the new breed of fundamentalist Muslim (as funded by the Saudi regime) has recolonized Africa and is the source of much of the strife in Northern Africa. In particular, Sudan and Somalia. Also, apparently, the relative freedom and almost bohemian air of street life in nairobi has now become a rather somber parade of women in full Muslim garb. This information garnered from a very interesting book written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in “Infidel”.
What is fascinating(or scary) about Islam is that there has never been a renaissance within the religion. Compared to Christianity, Islam has not been forced by modern society to accept that women and children are not just the property of men, little more than livestock, or that sex out of wedlock is punishable by death, and many other brutal beliefs acted on by the Muslim community. Even in England, Holland and France there are hundreds of “honour killings” in the immigrant Muslim communities.
Also many of the judicial niceties of more evolved bodies of thought do not exist, in particular within the scope of the “new” super aggressive Islam. Sharia Law is actually spreading in Africa. Talk about devolving.
So, although i have very very little respect for the Christian philosophy, it is in many ways an excercise in moderation and open mindedness compared to the dictates of Islam.
Come on! With a name like Ismael Lagardien you might as well own up to being a tad Islamocentric! Who are you trying to fool?
Well done Ismail on your excellent study of Islam’s influence in Africa-I do also agree with you about’my contention that Africa is complex and that we ought to be cautious when using generalisations.’
However one extra point about the influence of Islam that I would like to throw in to the discussion pot is that ” Islamic boldness also paved the way for the rest of the colonials with it’s followers being amoungst the first purveyers of slaves” so, without generalising either,I would say that all humans are complex and cannot be put into comfortable boxes…most of the ‘vistors’ to Africa influenced the beloved continent either way.
More HOT AIR & bullshit!
Africans (negro / nubian) fought a long hard battle to survive the stronger forces of ‘the then times’, the colonising, enslaving and raping and plundering of their traditional lands in this continent right back to the Carthaginians.
Very largely, their fight was the result of changes in world attitudes and strategies relaxing the physical onslaught, and not their own organised exertion.
The expansion of Islam and muslim practices across Africa in this day and age are just that – COLONISATION by disgusting force and ideology, combined with absorbtion into a foreign belief, lifestyle, and paternal tribalism WORSE than that dished out by the European nations of centuries past.
Possibly the Islamic Headquarters needs to examine themselves with great care, so that they don’t provoke an international equal force in retaliation.
The Eurocentric colonisation at least left a legacy of organised upbeat governance and economic activity.
The muslims are purely leaving a tragic corrupt dirty ripped off dust basket in their wake so far, and a huge number of young Africans I hear nowadays, are “all for” tearing down the minarets.
It seems that the assumption is that Islam came to Africa before the era of colonialism, therefore Islam did not originate as a kind of colonialism in Africa. That seems to me like a far stretch.
If one considers colonialism to be a state where one culture dominates another culture forcefully, the spread of Islam certainly counts as a type of colonialism.
Islam was a foreign rule imposed on Africa, thus it counts as colonialism. In fact, the Umayyad conquest of North Africa (immediately following the death of Muhammad in 632) is described in a serious of ‘invasions’.
With due respect, I do not think it is safe to assume that calling pre-’colonial period’ colonialism colonialism means that you are linking it with the ‘colonial period’.
Also, those fancy arrows only show how forceful the occupation of Africa by the Islamic colonialists had to be. Don’t forget that by trading, slavery is implied. It boils down to one foreign culture dominating an ethnic culture and is thus colonialism at its best.
Lyndall Beddy seems to be wiping the floor with the competition here.
“What is fascinating(or scary) about Islam is that there has never been a renaissance within the religion.”
Another example of delusional ranting, which is not corroborated by the facts.
Anyone familiar with Hirsi Ali knows she is a pathological liar (to obtain Dutch citizenship – she was in fact an illegal non-Dutch parliamentarian, quite an achievement, I must admit; of course the powers that be, decided for once to break their own rules and grant her belatedly Dutch citizenship, on false grounds, knowingly).
It is like going to the polygamist sect in Texas, and claiming the same for the past 2000 years of Christianity. In fact, it is not hard to list dozens of brands of Christianity that still belong to the stone age, in terms of moral thinking. So what enlightenment are we talking about?
In fact, Islam played a large role in spreading Greek and Roman literature, medicine etc., into Europe. The same Europe that was a backward continent in 1300.
“If one considers colonialism to be a state where one culture dominates another culture forcefully, the spread of Islam certainly counts as a type of colonialism.”
Could the same not be said of African colonialism? Or are we pretending all African nations and tribes were living peacefully? Or is cultural oppresion by people of the same “race” wholly justified?
What, no neat graphic to illustrate Islam’s unrelenting conquest into the Iberian peninsula and Southern France, into Eastern Europe as far as the city of Vienna, across Anatolia, through Constantinople, Greece and Sicily?
Does anyone ever ponder the context as to why Europeans, suddenly, had to sail around the tip of Africa to find the Eastern trading routes or sail West and discover the New World in the same vain? Perhaps it is because Europe was slowly being engulfed by Islamic armies and subjected to all manner of what we would today call imperialist and colonialist enterprises.
Of course, all of this was happening before European nation states were doing it so clearly it cannot be called any of those things, right?
“If one considers colonialism to be a state where one culture dominates another culture forcefully, the spread of Islam certainly counts as a type of colonialism.”
“Could the same not be said of African colonialism? Or are we pretending all African nations and tribes were living peacefully? Or is cultural oppression by people of the same “race” wholly justified?”
Yes, Sehlaphi. The same could be said for black colonialism in Africa. I’m not referring to Liberia either. Shaka Zulu for instance was essentially a colonialist.
Could someone enlighten me as to what ‘Islamise’ means? I’d take it as a neat quasi-Americanism meaning ‘to make like or of Islam’.
That implies subjugation, conversion, re-education or similar, doesn’t it?
I fail to get the point of this blog altogether! Is it relevant that Islam preceded the arrival of Christianity and why? – This post is more about who is right than what is relevant…
1) Both religious faiths, i.e. Islam and Christianity, are still present on the continent, despite the fact that that the latter has been introduced by force while the former has been adopted –as implied by the blog above – voluntarily. I guess both statements are to a large extent generalisations…
2) Is Christianity the bad thing or is it the fact that it has been introduced by force? – If it’s the former then you’d have to pardon the colonial oppressors because they were also under the negative influence of Christianity when coming to Africa. If it is the latter, then why is Christianity still prevailing in vast areas of Africa, much like Islam, and why has it not been abandoned?
3) Both religious faiths have been used by oppressors to consolidate their autocratic reign, not least because both religions can be interpreted in a coercive manner and used to nurture largely submissive followers. Martin Luther’s call to “make a virtue out of necessity” is only one example of how religious doctrines have been used to manipulate the many in favour of a few.
4) However, that was in the early 1600s and together with the arrival of Islam and the forceful introduction of Christianity on Africans it is just one in countless pearls on a string of events that – more or less – directly lead to the events that unfold in Africa today. Based on that Robert Mugabe needs to be acquitted from any wrongdoing in Zimbabwe. After all, he was under the strong influence of Christianity! – Conversly, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan should be brought to justice for the crimes in Darfur and other regions in the country. He hasn’t been under the bad influence of Christianity after all…
Hi Guys,
My reply is too long to post as a comment. You will find it on my own blog:
http://letpeoplespeak.com
Or, for those who do not know, just click on my name in red beneath this comment to find:
“Which Africa will the Renaissance Resurrect?”
Ismail
Thanks for the map. It beautifully proves my point – that the forests and the tsetse fly belt of Central Africa saved the Nguni from the Arab slavers.
I find it awfully strange that you say that you do not want commentators to launch personal attacks on your blogs, yet you have devoted 2 successive blogs to personally attacking one of your commentators. Of all the nuts, fascists and idiots on thoughtleader, I can’t find any reason why you would choose this one seems quite a harmless individual. I read many comments on these blogs that upset and enrage me, but seldom do they come from LB. Perhaps you can explain to us what makes her worthy of such attention to you? You must have a lot of respect (or fear?) for her opinions to go to such lengths?
Pippy, taking your words for what I have reason to believe they mean, I agree with you that LB is a mediocrity. Like me, and you, on her own she is nothing but herself. Nevertheless she is representative of a proven dangerous group of people people in SA: the ‘What me a racist!’ bunch that structured one of the most harmful political systems in the modern world. The Nazis were the same. The Israeli Zionists are the same. They may be kids but what they do is not kid’s stuff.
One or two posts from her are tolerable but if you can tolerate her voluminous writing and that of her beddy buddies without pointing out the obvious you are in her camp with her. She is dangerous precisely because she and her ilk are the mediocrity and the mediocrity does not tolerate any intelligence above theirs. Just read the posts around her. Read Bush. She, like he, seems to be very young. She, like her buddies needs to listen more and speak less. She is a baby troll. She needs counselling and education, but it is evident she will not accept it and it is not our job to do it. Visit aljazeera.com to see what can happen to a blog if this is not done.
As any teacher knows when a group of children dominated by a particularly noxious individual are seen to dominate the considerations of more adult students by volume and mundane duplicitous stupidity as opposed to reason the child is told to shut up or is sent out of the room. This is not always fair in life but no meeting can reach a reasonable consensus with a maverick such as LB that is not dealt with. Counselling can follow in private but as anybody knows, in cases like this it is very much a case of he who hesitates is lost. But of course we cannot literally see the child here and so many have hesitated to tell her to be quiet. Ismail is bravely doing so and he is right.
Other blogs reach consensus on matters of precisely this nature and decide to eradicate the noise. And just in case you think so, I must inform you that there is no absolutely no doubt that LB is not a Galileo or a Copernicus or a Mandela. She has her intellectual buddies in the Republican media in the States. We have heard her and them and we just do not need that. Wilfully hurting others is not honourable and if it hurts a hurter to be told this well it is just too bad.
Pippy
I don’t know who Lyndell Beddy is, whether she is from the USA, or Australia or South Africa. I have read only about three comments by her, two of which were factually incorrect. My concerns were only about her factual errors. I don’t particularly care about engaging her personally.
If you care to read my posts about her comments, you may find that I have concerns ONLY about the things she said. Commentators have said I was a typical academic (without knowing me, personally), one suggested that I was Islamocentric (without knowing my views)… I have not said anything about the person of anyone.
Ismail Largardien
If you want to know who I am – Google might help. I do use my own name.
Ismail – My only concern is when there are people such as Consulting Engineer leaving comments on your blog trying to convince the public that the Klu Klux Klan is an innocent organisation, then surely your concerns need to be directed elsewhere?
In my view, the only error this clearly middle-aged woman has made, was to post using her own name. I’m just struggling to find a reason why this comment above all others on your blog, Ismail, has brought such a strong reaction.
A comment I take exception to:
“The Klan is not one group. There are many idependent Klans. They promote the interests of white people and Christian culture. Some of the Klans are international and have affiliations in europe and eslewhere. It is a brotherhood of white Christians. They are damn fine people and active in charity….. In fact the Klan even contains some fine decent older ladies like yourself.” Consulting Engineer on July 14th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Maybe next time you can rather cut this guy down to size, I think there are a lot of TL readers who would be grateful. Although, he doesn’t use his own name so it wouldn’t have half the effect, would it?
As an aside: Lyndall, your URL is malformed. This is the link to your blog:
http://letpeoplespeak.amagama.com/
The good vs bad influence is moot. The fact is both Islam and Christianty have had amazing benefits and incredible devastation as a result of their dominion over other cultures. Stronger cultures survive, weaker cultures don’t. This is the law of the jungle. The most successful current cultures are the ones where the maximum amount of personal freedom is allowed. The most quickly declining cultures are the ones with the least amount of personal freedom. This means tolerance is crucial.
As an example, the dark ages were a result of Christianity not allowing freedom. The Renaissance came as a direct result of a decline of power of the church.
Garg
Thanks for your help. I am barely computer literate!
I don’t think this debate was so much about Islam as a religion, as about Islamic colonisers.
Lyndall,
You point re: Tsetse fly etc is NOT true!
Arabs had posts along the coast in Mozambique, and shipped slaves off from there until the Arabs were replaced by the Portuguese, who continued with the slave trade.
Furthermore, Nguni people themselves captured people from other tribes in Mozambique and used them as slaves.
Some Arabs did penetrate far into Central Africa, right to the Congo basin. Henry Morton Stanley in fact struck a deal with a slave trader whose shortened name was Tippu Tip. Tippu Tip, from Zanibar, was of mixed African and Arab descent, and he personally owned 10 000 slaves. So decades after the British ended its own slave trade and harassed other Euopean nations still trading in slaves, its own explorers in Africa were aided by slave traders!
Oldfox
Muhammed bin Hamed (nickname Tippu Tib) was the most powerful man in the Eastern Congo for the last half of the 19th century. His mother was a pure Muscat Arab of the ruling class. His father was a coastal Swahili and had taken part in the earliest trading expeditions to the interior. He was a vassal of the Sultan of Zanzibar until the Sultan’s claims to East Africa were not upheld at the Berlin Conference, after which he became “Govenor” for King Leopold at Stanley Falls.
What is your point? I have already pointed out that the Arabs did not see eye to eye with the Europeans on the abandoning of the slave trade. By the time Tippu Tib and Stanley went jolling together, Europe had already abolished the slave trade almost half a century before? It was Livingstone (whom Stanley originally went to find) who pointed out that the slave trade WAS continuing in the interior.
The idea of the barrier of forest and tsetse fly is not my idea, but the idea of the authors of the book that I quoted. They maintain that this barrier meant that everything would have to be carried by porters, and soldiers would have to fight on foot, not horseback. That does not mean there was NO trade at all.
Don’t confuse the Tsetse fly with the Malaria mosquito. The one affects horses and cattle. The other affects people.
Lyndall,
The Testse fly was never eradicated, and is still a problem. At best, African governments control this fly type i.e. limit its numbers. There are 22 species of Testse fly, and the diseases it carries can be fatal to humans or animals.
If they have a choice, humans avoid rural areas where the Tsetse fly is prevalant.
Its not at all clear to me why Tsetse fly would have limited Arab slave traders in some parts of Africa, but not in other parts of Africa where this fly is found and where slave trading did take place.
Oldfox
Do read what I wrote. It was the tsetse fly AND the forests!
Lyndall,
The forests bit does not make sense at all – I read it the first time. Equatorial forests are indeed hard to penetrate, but these are found only in equatorial regions.
Slave trading was HIGHLY lucrative – people risk their lives to make money out of lucrative endeavors, as in the drug trade today for example.
So I simply cannot believe that forests (even equatorial forests) and the threat of death from tsetse fly borne disease would have acted as a serious deterrent to greedy and ruthless slave traders.
Oldfox
Send your argument to Cambridge University Press – and tell them that you disagree with their historians.
While you are about it – explain your theory of why Ismail’s map stops in Central Africa.
However, as I have already said in a previous post, this is a very interesting theory and worthy of further research.
Lyndall,
The title of the map is “islam-arrival-africa”.
It is not e.g. “growth of Arab slave trade routes up the the end of the 19th century”.
Such a map would show a different picture.
You are trying to read too much into this map posted by Ismail!
Lyndall,
I will not waste time writing to the folks at Cambridge. I know they are wrong, so why should I write to them?
Mr. Lagardien stated: “While I hold no brief for Muslims or Islam, it should be made clear that one historical account of the “arrival” of the religion on the continent explains that it preceded the colonial period in Africa. So, any persistent attempts to link Islam with the colonial period is delusional; by which I mean a person holding onto a belief even when facts to the contrary are presented.”
This is a rediculous argument! You imply that the “colonial period” belongs to the Europeans and no one else, and thus, any event that falls outside that specific period – like the “arrival” of Islam in Africa – in fact cannot be considered colonialism! Myopic! History is a series of colonialisms – everywhere in the world! Wake up to the reality! If you want to argue that Islam spread naturally and was not imposed, fine! (Although I would beg to differ!) But since your argument is that the spread of Islam occured before the “European colonial period” and thus cannot be considered colonialism is terribly weak – implying that only Europeans – or Christians – can be colonialists. And try to get more than ONE source to back up your argument – just like I try to get my news from more than one source/website for balance and to verify facts!!! Lastly, instead of trying to build a stronger argument, you attack anyone who begs to differ as “delusional.” As I’ve said many times before, if one can’t build a good argument to defend his viewpoint, then possibly his point of view is wrong! If you spent as much energy in attacking those who differ from your views, and put that energy into building a better argument, then I probably would have not had to leave a comment today!
Why begin only at one point in African history. If discussing a chronology of Islam and Christianity in Africa, check out the history of the Copts in Egypt way before Islam existed, the history of Axum, and the history of the Imazighen (Berbers)written by themselves, not Muslims or Europeans. Then check out the slavery in Mauretania over the last decades, somewhat changed now by international opinion. Islam was forced on people because a slave woman’s children had to be Muslims, and psychologically enforced because if one converted one could not supposedly be killed or forced to do certain work etc. In fact, the Islamic corsairs in No. Africa often did not want their European male slaves to convert because then they would have to treat them differently. The female slaves usually never got bought back and were torn because they often had to have children by their masters etc and would have to leave their children behind – same with Mauretanian female slaves.
Mike
I don’t agree that my posts “attacked” people who disagree. I replied to what they SAID. Not the people. You may want to try that yourself.
I teach African politics and political economy and my sources are from established texts. I simply did not want to insert teh references. If you want them I can send them to you.
In the literature, “The colonial period” generally refers to the European colonialism.
So, I repeat. According to the historical record, Islam arrived in Africa from the north across the Sahara, and down the East Coast. Those are the facts that are on the record.
The reference to “delusional” is specifically aimed at the person who (as I have established in thorough examination of commentaries) refuses to accept that they may be wrong. Evidence is there.
Here is an example. I have, now, told you I have historical references, I have explained “the colonial period” and what the reference to “delusion” meant. what are the chances of your not accepting any of that which i have just said…
Thula – the map i placed with my post was for illustrated purposes only. The argument it was meant to illustrate was, of course, ignored. There is no convincing people that Islam did not colonise Africa; that the colonial period generally refers to European colonialism.
Your point about the Coptic church is well taken. My reference was to the EXPANSION of Islam into Africa.
Ismail
Ismail
Your basic premise is wrong, so your whole argument is weak.
Pocket Oxford Dictionary definition of Colony: Settlement, settlers in a new country forming a community fully or partly subject to THE STATE FROM WHICH THEY HAVE EMIGRATED.
Islam is NOT an African indigeneous religion, anymore than Christianity. Both are colonisers.
Without getting drawn into the wider argument I have to say: There seems to be no distinction being made in the above posts between colonising and converting.
“Ruling over” or “converting” are not “colonising”. In many cases in history cultures have conquered and even converted members of another culture, but without significantly displacing them with an influx of citizens from the invading nation. This is cultural domination, not colonialism.
At best, the term “cultural colonialism” could be reasonably used, with the qualifier at least indicating that there is an important distinction between that activity and the process of displacing large numbers of indigenous people to make way for non-military citizens of the conquering people.