Saturday, July 9, 2011

The African-Arabian Conquest of Egypt and the Rest of North Africa

By Wesley Muhammad, PhD © 2011 Wesley Muhammad

1.      Islam and the Sword in Africa?

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 Africa¼From 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 century¼Nor 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 peacefully¼The 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 arms¼The 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 born¼The 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 force¼generations of scholars have¼clearly 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 AfricanArabian 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)¼(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 Islam¼At 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 problems¼Just as the Arabs had no interest in changing the religious situation, they had no desire to disturb the social and administrative order¼local situations were left in local hands¼(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. Nor¼did 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 Muslims¼had 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 known¼as the baqt. The baqt exemplified the institution of administered diplomatic trade through which eastern Sudanic kings normally preferred to conduct their foreign relations¼With 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]¼secured the independence of the Christian Nubian state for many centuries to come. Although there were occasional attempts to convert the rulers¼the 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 culture¼Thus 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 of¼reconciliation and progress¼Even 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.


Abu-Bakr, Mohammed. (1993) Islam's Black Legacy: Some Leading Figures (Denver: Purple Dawn Books, 1993)

Berry, Tariq (2010) “What Did The Arabs Who Conquered Egypt Look Like,”

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.

Muhammad, Wesley. (2011) “ ‘Anyone who says that the Prophet is black should be killed’: The De-Arabization of Islam and the Transfiguration of Muhammad in Islamic Tradition.” Unpublished Paper @

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)

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Was Muhammad and the Arabs Really African? A Breif Exchange

The following exchange took place last year on an Islamic Rearch discussion group on Facebook. I was invited to particpated because the subject was the ethnicity of the Prophet Muhammad. Many, such as the participants below, were argueing in defense of the popular myth that the Arab prophet was a white-skinned man and could not have been in any way an African. The following is a small portion of that exchange that included a great many persons. This portion that follows stands on its own and is complete, as far as my participation was concerned.

1.      1. Ismail Bey:

Just a thought: The Ummayads kept slaves who were of African origin. Bilal was such a slave. Muhammad had Bilal climb to the top of the Kaaba to give the call to prayer when the Muslims entered Mecca victoriously and cleaned out the Kaaba of the idols. This act certainly displays Muhammad's attempt at equality, and therefore reveals a racist attitude among the Meccans towards their African subjects. Their dealing in African slavery is well known, and they were certainly an imperialistic and racist group. To this day non Arabic speaking Sudanese are looked upon as inferior, just study the Darfur situation or the problems in south Sudan to understand that. Libyans have that tendency as well, as do many of the north African ruling houses, as they too are proud descendants of the early Ummayad conquerors. In other words, it is unlikely that the Ummayads were African. Perhaps there was some African blood here & there, but Ummayad racist policies were well known, and all this before the coming of the Turks, Circassians and Byzantine slaves. The revolt of the Zanji of Iraq was a revolt of Africn slaves against their Arab rulers. The jihads into central Africa in the 14th-15th centuries were also a product of that same kind of imperialistic racism. Zanzibar was a slave market, and the slavers were continuing an ugly tradition into the 20th century that goes back millenia.

2.     2.  Charles Lohman:

My final thought: Muhammad was NOT from Africa. It's that simple!

Now, can you trace his ancestry to Africa. Regardless - it still does NOT make him from Africa. He's from where he's from. It's like saying I'm a White-European because I look it BUT I've never been to Europe.

But I understand Kidr and Wesley's points AND learned a lot from these posts :-)

Kidr - I understand yours and Wesley's points AND I learned a lot from these posts. AND Muhammad as well as Jesus was probably a lot darker THAN I initially thought or initially cared to think. I admit this AND will read your posts about the history. Because if this is a concern of some of my Muslim brothers who have darker skin than I do THEN it's a concern for me.

Please accept my apology for not being more sensitive and open? Sorry!

Peace, LOVE and Respect!

3.     3.  Ismail Bey:

My point about the story of Bilal is that he was once despised, in the Hejaz, and Mohammad gave him a position of equality & importance. Could Muhammad not[have] had an idea in his mind to make a point about the equality of human beings? That's what I get out of the story of Bilal climbing to the top of the Kaaba to call all to Islam. By ordering this, Muhammad let it be known to all the Meccans that '"truth has come, and falsehood has vanished". Racism is clearly a falsehood and an evil in any society, and Muhammad rebuilt Meccan society from the ground up.

I hear the term 'dark skin' and 'black skin' used alot here in this thread. We all know that race is more than just the pigment of one's skin.

The term 'zanji' is from the word for chain 'zanj'. It is from this word that the name Zanzibar comes, literally the chained or 'slavery' coast. If all human beings look back far enough, all of our DNA comes out of east Africa. That doesn't mean that 7th century Arabs were Africans, however. The view I am expressing is that the Arabs of the Hejaz were keepers of African slaves, long before Muhammad, as well as long after him, with or without the Persian & Byzantine connections.


4.     4.  Wesley Muhammad:

Charles Lohman wrote:

“Kidr - I understand yours and Wesley's points AND I learned a lot from these posts. AND Muhammad as well as Jesus was probably a lot darker THAN I initially thought or initially cared to think. I admit this AND will read your posts about the history. Because if this is a concern of some of my Muslim brothers who have darker skin than I do THEN it's a concern for me.  Please accept my apology for not being more sensitive and open? Sorry!

Peace, LOVE and Respect!”

Kidr said it right – All praise belongs to Allah, and it is not me nor Kidr to whom any apologies are due Charles. I do, however, appreciate the humility and your openness to growth. We should all be humble and open to growth, and I pray that Allah finds me likewise or, if I am lacking, grants me humility and openness. 

You say also Charles:

“My final thought: Muhammad was NOT from Africa. It's that simple! Now, can you trace his ancestry to Africa. Regardless - it still does NOT make him from Africa. He's from where he's from. It's like saying I'm a White-European because I look it BUT I've never been to Europe. But I understand Kidr and Wesley's points AND learned a lot from these posts :-)”

Well, this final thought is factually right is one sense, and factually incorrect in another. Where it is factually right, it is a moot point because that was never the argument. That is to say, up to this point neither I nor Kidr argued that the Prophet was “from Africa”. He was from Mecca in west-central Arabia. No one disputes that. On the otherhand, I said that his people, the pure Arabs, were African-Arabians or Afrabians, but this is not the same as saying that he was “from Africa.” I am a so-called African-American, but when I introduce myself to academic colleagues at international conferences I don’t say “I’m from Africa”. While such a claim has some ‘distant truth-value’ to it, the most immediately factual statement is: “I’m from the US, specifically Michigan.” However, the immediate factuality of this latter statement does not diminish the distant truth-value of the former statement. In any case, please not that your “final thought” is a modification of your original claim that Muhammad was not “Black-African” either in appearance or otherwise. That original claim is factual incorrect, and your final thought is as well, from one perspective.

Muhammad and his Arab kin are actually ‘from Africa’ in one sense: Arabia, as Kidri points out, is actually Northeastern Africa. All of the physical evidence indicates this, and it was European map-makers that ‘de-Africanized’ the peninsula, arbitrarily making the Red Sea the dividing line between Africa and Africa. But the physical, linguist, cultural, and ethnographic evidence all indicate that Arabia is Northeast Africa and indigenous Arabians are Northeast Africans.

Physical evidence indicates that Arabia is

Ò  A geomorphic and climatological extension of NE Africa and
Ò  A phytogeographical (plant geography) and zoogeographical  (animal geography) extension of NE Africa

Plate tectonics separated the Arabian Plate from the African Shield five to six million years ago, creating the Red Sea. However, plate tectonics never de-Africanized Arabia, which still remains, as Maurizio Tosi points out, “the geological extension of Africa.” He has further pointed out in his discussion, “The Emerging Picture of Prehistoric Arabia” (Annual Review of Anthropology 15 [1986]: 461-490) that “Physically the (Arabian) peninsula is a part of Africa, landscaped by the same geological and climate processes as the eastern Sahara and the Ethiopian highlands.” This fact was pointed out much early by William H. Worrell in his A Study of Races in the Ancient Near East. He affirmed: “Geologically Africa includes that part of Asia which we now call Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria…Arabia and the Syrian Desert are merely the extension of the great deserts of Northern Africa”.

Coupled with this geological and climatalogical evidence is the ecological data. In 1982 Stacey International published its Saudi-endorsed study of the region, noting:

“Maps and geography books make Arabia a part of Asia, but plant and animal life clearly bear out the theory that it is really an extension of Africa…Saudi Arabia’s wildlife is…an African complex of species…The animals and plants of northern and northeastern Saudi Arabia are generally closely related to or identical with Saharan species.”

All of this physical evidence indicates that the Northeastern part of the continent of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula together constitute a single continuous region, the so-called “Saharo-Arabian Region” (see photo).  Put simply, the Arabian Peninsula is actually just the north-eastern extremity of the African continent, a fact which the ‘tyranny of the Red Sea’ imposed by European map-makers obscures. As Ali Mazrui notes:

“a European decision to make Africa end at the Red Sea has decisively de-Africanized the Arabian peninsula…the tyranny of the sea is in part a tyranny of European geographical prejudices. Just as European map-makers could decree that on the map Europe was above Africa instead of below (an arbitrary decision in relation to the cosmos) those map-makers could also dictate that Africa ended at the Red Sea instead of the Persian Gulf. Is it not time that this dual tyranny of the sea and Eurocentric geography was forced to sink to the bottom? (Ali A. Mazrui, Euro-Jews and Afro-Arabs: The Great Semitic Divergence in World History, 2008).

It is indeed time that this arbitrary European decision is rendered ineffective and we recognize Arabia for it physically is: Northeast Africa. And the indigenous peoples of Arabia, including the Arabs, are African peoples. The Encyclopedia Britannica (9th Edition) correctly points out:

“(Regarding) [t]he origin of the Arab race…the first certain fact on which to base our investigations is the ancient and undoubted division of the Arab race into two branches, the ‘Arab’ or pure; and the ‘Mostareb’ or adscititions…A second fact is, that everything in pro-Islamitic literature and record…concurs in representing the first settlement of the ‘pure’ Arabs as made on the extreme south-western point of the peninsula, near Aden, and then spreading northward and eastward…A third is the name Himyar, or ‘dusky’…a circumstance pointing, like the former, to African origin. A fourth is the Himyaritic language language…(The preserved words) are African in character, often in identity. Indeed, the dialect commonly used along the south-eastern coast hardly differs from that used by the (Somali) Africans on the opposite shore…Fifthly, it is remarkable that where the grammar of the Arabic, now spoken by the ‘pure’ Arabs, differs from that of the north, it approaches to or coincides with the Abyssinian…Sixthly, the pre-Islamitic institutions of Yemen and its allied provinces-its monarchies, courts, armies, and serfs-bear a marked resemblance to the historical Africao-Egyptian type, even to modern Abyssinian. Seventhly, the physical conformation of the pure-blooded Arab inhabitants of Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, and the adjoining districts-the shape and size of head, the slenderness of the lower limbs, the comparative scantiness of hair, and other particulars-point in an African rather than an Asiatic direction. Eighthly, the general habits  of the people,-given to sedentary rather than nomade occupations, fond of village life, of society, of dance and music; good cultivators of the soil, tolerable traders, moderate artisans, but averse to pastoral pursuits-have much more in common with those of the inhabitants of the African than with those of the western Asiatic continent. Lastly, the extreme facility of marriage which exists in all classes of the southern Arabs with the African races; the fecundity of such unions; and the slightness or even absence of any caste feeling between the dusky ‘pure’ Arab and the still darker native of modern Africa…may be regarded as pointing in the direction of a community of origin.”

The Pure Arabs and the East Africans are indeed kith and kin. Bertram Thomas, historian and former Prime Minister of Muscat and Oman, reported in his work ‘The Arabs’:

“The original inhabitants of Arabia…were not the familiar Arabs of our time but a very much darker people.  A proto-negroid belt of mankind stretched across the ancient world from Africa to Malaya.  This belt…(gave) rise to the Hamitic peoples of Africa, to the Dravidian peoples of India, and to an intermediate dark people inhabiting the Arabian peninsula.  In the course of time two big migrations of fair-skinned peoples came from the north…to break through and transform the dark belt of man beyond India (and) to drive a wedge between India and Africa…The more virile invaders overcame the dark-skinned peoples, absorbing most of them, driving others southwards…The cultural condition of the newcomers is unknown.  It is unlikely that they were more than wild hordes of adventurous hunters.”
You see Charles, this is the premise:

1.]Muhammad is from Mecca, Arabia
2.]Arabia is, according to all of the relevant physical data, simply Northeast Africa
3.]Ergo, Muhammad is from Northeast Africa.

Thank for the discussion Charles. I enjoyed it.

Thank you Ismail Bey for your contribution to this discussion. It is refreshing because it offers an attempt at historical analysis rather than repetitive dogma. However, Kidri correctly describes what you have presented as ‘distorted history’. It falls far below the bar of historical-critical standards, and suggests nothing more than a casual familiarity of the topics invoked by you, topics which – I might add – are indeed very relevant to the overall discussion.

Ismail Bey claims that “The Ummayads kept slaves who were of African origin. Bilal was such a slave.” You, Ismail, go on to suggest that Bilal’s experience “reveals a racist attitude among the Meccans towards their African subjects.” This, in your mind, means that “it is unlikely that the Umayyads were African.”This is logically fallacious and historical inaccurate.

Your claim that Bilal was a slave of the Umayyads is incomprehensible. The Umayyad Dynasty began in 661 with Mu’awiyyah from the Banu Umayyah and ended in 750. Bilal was never a slave to the Umayyads. He had been long freed by then. You were probably led to this error by the coincidence that Bilal’s Jahili slave-master was named Umayyah ibn Khalaf ibn Safwan. But the name is just that, a coincidence. Umayyah ibn Khalaf was not from the Banu Umayyah; he was from the Banu Jumah, another Qurayshi clan. Also erroneous is the implication you draw from it, that Bilal’s enslavement to Uamyyah ibn Khalaf signals Mecca “racism”. But Umayyah himself was black-skinned! The famous Syrian Muslim scholar al-Dhahabi, in his ‘Siyar a’lam al-nubala’ (I:160), informs us that this Qurayshi clan, like the others, was noted for their black-skins. So we have a black-skinned Arab enslaving a black-skinned son of an Arab father and Ethiopian mother: anti-black racism is certainly not operative here. And As Kidr Amari rightly pointed out, the Arab prejudice against Bilal was based on his cast – slave – not his blackness. In fact, the evidence is clear – there was little to NO anti-black racism in Pre-Islamic or Islamic Arabia! Dana Marniche, scholar of Arabian ethnography, observes:

“As if the world has been turned upside down, blackness in the early Arab culture as in pre-Ptolemaic Egypt and early Dravidian India (according to Marco Polo), was revered as representative of what was archetypically good, holy and powerful, while in European culture, even in early times, it appears to have been the exact opposite.”
This observation of a pro-black sentiment in early Arab and Islamic culture is echoed by a number of scholars. John Alembillah Azumah, in his The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa, points out that,

“There is hardly any trace of antagonism or discrimination on the basis of the skin color in pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabia… In social life in pre-Islamic and early Arabia there were black slaves as well as white slaves, mainly captured during war, and there is no evidence that the former suffered any specific discrimination by virtue of the colour of their skin. On the contrary, the Habash (Ethiopians), who were active in sixth-century Arabia as allies of the Byzantines, were usually regarded as people with a higher civilization than the Arabs and respected during early Islamic times as people with a revealed religion. It was partly due to the high esteem with which the Habash were held in the early Islamic period that Muhammad advised his persecuted followers to seek asylum in Abyssinia in 615 CE. 

So too the late Professor St Claire Drake, in his “Black Folk Here and There”:

“In early Islam, there were positive associations with blackness…The rabbinic and midrashic stories that interpret black skin as a curse was apparently not part of early Arab oral tradition…However…they became known after the seventh-century Arab conquests, among scholars in Mesopotamia who were developing Islamic religious thought The scholars…some [were] Arabs, [most were] Persians.” 

But what about the anti-black racism evident in pre-Islamic poetry?.[1] How do we account for this, in the light of the above observations of the lack of anti-black racism in pre- and early Islamic Arabia and in the light of the overwhelming evidence that the Arabs of pre- and early Islamic Arabia were themselves black? Bernard Lewis rightly points out in this regard:

"There are verses, indeed many verses, attributed to pre-Islamic and early Islamic poets which would suggest very strongly a feeling of hatred and contempt directed against persons of African birth or origin. Most, if not all of these, however, almost certainly belong to later periods and reflect later problems, attitudes, and preoccupations…pagan and early Islamic Arabia seems to have shared the general attitude of the ancient world, which attached no stigma to blackness."

Pre- and early Islamic poetry was manipulated or fabricated and an anti-black racism was retrojected back to the ‘old’ Arabs. Later Iranian mawali or converts introduced into Islam a virulent anti-black racism. Thus, Bilal’s experience in pre-Islamic Arabia cannot be cited as evidence that the Arabs weren’t Black but were racist whites.

Nor is your grasp of the history of slavery in the Muslim world sufficient. Africans were NOT the main slaves of Pre-Islamic Arabia the Umayyads: whites were! Mark Perrey, in his article “Perceptions of Race in the Arab World,” affirms: “slavery in Islam for most of its history was not color-specific; indeed, the preferred slaves…came from the Slavonic regions of Europe.”

Ronald Segal, in ‘Islam’s Black Slaves’, notes as well:

“For much of Islamic history…there is no such virtually exclusive identification of slavery with blackness as came to exist in the Christian West with colonial expansion and the Atlantic Trade. This would not have been compatible with the widespread use of white slaves…The process of enslaving blacks did come, in the nineteenth century, to involve violence and brutality on a gigantic scale. But many of the leading slavers then were Afro-Arab blacks themselves.”   

Ismail, you say: “Ummayad racist policies were well known, and all this before the coming of the Turks, Circassians and Byzantine slaves.”

I consider myself well acquainted with the Umayyads, please inform me and us about these “well-known racist policies”.

You say further, “The revolt of the Zanji of Iraq was a revolt of African slaves against their Arab rulers.”

This is profoundly misleading and indicates a very shallow knowledge of the subject. Firstly, the major Zanj revolt was against the Abbasids, not the Umayyads. Secondly, the Abbasids were famously NOT “Arab rulers”. The Bannu Abbas were Black Arabs indeed, but the Abbasid caliphs were not pure Arabs. As Leslie Pierce documents in her,  ‘The Imperial Harem’:

“ While the caliphs of the Umayyad dynasty had prided themselves on the purity of their Arab lineage through marriage with noble Arab women, by the second century of Islamic history many of the caliphs of the Abbasid dynasty were the sons of slave concubines.”

This is actually an understatement: while practically all of the Umayyad caliphs were proud, pure, Black Arabs, practically all of the Abbasid caliphs, with the exception of the first, were sons of slave, mainly Persian, mothers. Many of these caliphs preferred the culture of the Persian mothers to that of the pure black Arabs. Many of the Abbassid caliphs were racists, but they were as racist to the Black Arabs as they were to the Black African! So the Zanj did not revolt against racist Arab rulers, they revolted against racist half-breeds, who were racist against both Arab and East African blackness.

Ismail, you then mention the notorious slave markets of Zanzibar, and want to attribute this to the ‘Arabs’, I guess the Umayyads. This is very wrong. It was the Persian Shirazi dynasty, founded by Ali ibn Hasan, which ruled the coast of East Africa for > 500 years (980-1513) and prospered due to their flourishing slave trade.

Ismail, the true Arabs are black-skinned (not tanned!), descendents of the African Arabians who initially populated the peninsula. Prophet Muhammad (saw) was one of these Black Arabs, as were the Umayyads. Kidr Amari is absolutely correct: the pronounced anti-black racism that characterizes the Muslim world today was initially introduced into Islam by non-Arab converts, mainly Persians, Byzantines and Turks. This is what I call the ‘Aryanization of Islam.’ The logo of this Aryanized Islam is that white-skinned Muhammad.