They wrote about the burning of their dead by Russian pagans and "eating zinj to humans" and justified the Indians' ban on cows.. How did Muslim travelers study the "other"?

desire and dread;

Muslim travelers roamed the favelas and crossed the seas, so they measured the roads and paths, and they endured hardships and perils for the sake of that, then they told about the conditions of the kingdoms, their peoples, and their cultures.

Some of them traveled for political purposes, as they were ministers, postal workers, spies, and ambassadors.

and with their news recorded;

The map of the globe expanded and its topography lit up, and historians, geographers and cartographers reported from them the distances between countries, and the conditions of the peoples residing in them.

The Muslims toured all the coasts of the Indian Ocean (the “Great Eastern Sea” as Ibn Khordadhabh called it, who died in 280 AH / 893 AD) from East Africa to the islands of Silla (perhaps the Korean Peninsula);

And they fought the country of the Turks in the east, and the Russians in the north, all the way to Siberia ("the land of darkness," as Ibn Battuta called it, who died in 779 AH / 1377 AD).

They also roamed the sides of Europe, which they called 'Urfi' (this is how Yaqoot al-Hamawi, who died in 626 AH / 1229 AD - in the 'Dictionary of Countries' - and said: "I also found it in the handwriting of Abu al-Rayhan al-Biruni, accurate and verified," as for al-Masudi, who died 346 AH / 957 AD, made it - in ' “Alert and supervision” - “Urfa”, which is close in pronunciation to the current word “Europe”), and they told about its inhabitants from the Jalalaq, the Franks, the Germans, the people of Britain, Austria and Hungary.

Perhaps they did not reach the far north of the continent, even if a large amount of their currency and money reached Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland and others.

They also knew Africa - which they call 'Loubia' - east, west, and center, and some of their cartographers drew their south;

Indeed, some of them dared to enter the “Sea of ​​Darkness” (= Atlantic) westward to the unknown, including the “deceived boys” mentioned by Al-Masoudi in his book “Meadows of Gold”, and how they reached the Canary Islands in West Africa.

Among them - as narrated by Ibn Fadlallah Al-Omari (d. 749 AH / 1348 AD) in 'Massal al-Absar' - the Sultan of Mali Mansa Abu Bakr II (died after 712 AH / 1312 AD), who relinquished the kingship in 712 AH / 1312 AD to his brother Mansa Musa (d. 737 AH / 1336 AD) and sailed in the Atlantic Ocean with two thousand ships in search of the unknown in the West and did not return;

Did he arrive?

Has anyone else arrived?

About this there are long debates between Muslim historians and modern Westerners, many of which are purely intent.

This is not our topic. The literature on “The Journey,” “The Paths and Kingdoms,” and “The Wonders” is a broad literature that does not meet the lengths.

Rather, our topic is to address a specific cultural part of this broad literature, which is the knowledge and study of the “other”.

What position did travelers and historians take in studying other peoples?

And what method did they follow?

And what pitfalls did they fall into?

And what did they achieve from fairness or inclination?

Western Orientalism has been subjected to abundant criticism that touched upon its method, tools, and political function, and it is a valid criticism even if it does not obscure our attention from the many fair efforts made by Orientalists with purely scientific and epistemological purposes.

But our question: To what degree were the errors of Orientalism specific to the West and not others?

Does not every nation, a lady with imperial ambitions, fall into a tendency toward favoritism and degrading the other?

Then, does it not seek to employ its knowledge of other nations in the service of its political, commercial and religious purposes?

I do not seek to provide a conclusive answer to these questions, rather all my intention is to touch them and refer to some of their chapters without presenting a comprehensive thesis.

The reason for this shortcoming are two things: that we do not find a single systematic position between travelers and historians in their fairness or inclination;

Moreover, historians have taught us that the historical comparison between different eras is incorrect, due to their different formative conditions, political and economic structures, and the nature and aspirations of their states.

If it is necessary to compare, let it be between those who were brought together by one era.

Openness and openness

Undoubtedly, the universality of the message of the Qur'an and its urging for acquaintance between peoples and walking in the land has contributed to making the culture of Muslims open to the other.

The Muslims did not think, like some Indians, “in the earth that it is their land, and in people that they are their race, and in kings that they are their chiefs, and in religion that it is their bee, and in knowledge that it is with them, so they are elevated. A knowledge other than theirs, to the extent that if they were reported to a knowledge or scholar in Khurasan or Persia, they would ignore the informant and did not believe him.”

As Al-Biruni says in his book “Achieving what India has of a saying that is acceptable in the mind or reviled,” but that they saw in wisdom what they wanted, wherever they found it, so they were more deserving of it.

However, another objective factor contributed to this openness, which is the trade orientation that the Arabs knew in the past in the trade line connecting Yemen and Abyssinia and between the Gulf shores, India and China, and in the Quraish trade line between Yemen and the Levant, and then confirmed with the Islamic conquests that included the central extended region. Between the Nile and the Gihon rivers, the heart of the ancient world, and the strategic trade route between east and west, north and south.

Thus, Baghdad and other cities of Iraq were the meeting place of the world’s markets, receiving merchants from the ends of the earth. Hear with me the description of Al-Ya’qubi – at the end of the third century – of Baghdad, as he says: “What is not in a city of this world gathers with it… Trades and merchandises come to it by land and sea and with the ease of pursuit, until it is integrated It contains every store that is carried from the East and the West, from the land of Islam and other than the land of Islam, for it is carried to it from India, Sindh, China, Tibet, the Turks, Daylam, Khazar, Abyssinia and other countries, so that there are more trades from countries than in those countries from which trades originated, and with that it will be more abundant and possible. It is as if the bounties of the earth were brought to it, and the treasures of the world were collected in it, and the blessings of the world were integrated with it.”

Merchants would be more open-minded and more flexible, by virtue of their mixing with various types of people, the high and low, and they would have wider horizons and openness to the stranger by virtue of their frequent wanderings and travels.

The cities of merchants would absorb these morals, and would receive the cultures of strangers with their goods, which would loosen the characteristics of self-loathing and encourage multilingualism and diversity of cultures.

and then;

Trade has enriched Muslim cities with goods and science at the same time, and made Muslim metropolises cosmopolitan (global) cities that receive the whole world, as was the commercial city of Khanfu in China;

According to what Al-Masudi and others tell us.

It is not surprising that Al-Jahiz (d. 255 AH / 869 AD) told us about the news of nations and peoples, but rather that he tells us about the conditions of countries (and he has a message on this), and he is the one who, most likely, did not leave the Fertile Crescent except occasionally.

This resulted in high social mobility in Muslim civilization - as the American orientalist Marshall Hodgson explains (d. 1388 AH / 1968 AD) in his book “The Adventure of Islam” - Muslims felt that they were global citizens, the whole earth had a mosque and purification, and perhaps the clearest proof of that is what is presented to the reader in Travelers wrote about meeting the sons of their homelands in exile. Ibn Fadlan met a tailor from Baghdad in the country of Saqqalib, and Ibn Battuta met in China with a jurist from Ceuta, and it is amazing that after years he met the brother of that jurist in the country of Sudan from Central Africa.

In this article, I will focus on tracing three models from the writings of travelers and historians, and explaining their approach to the story of the other and telling about his conditions: They are Ibn Fadlan (his journey was in the years 309-310 AH / 1309-1310 AD and the date of his death is unknown) and Abu al-Hasan al-Masudi (d. 346 AH / 957 AD). ), and Abu al-Rihani al-Biruni (d. 440 AH/1049 AD).

Let's start with the Muttafaq of Baghdad, whose beard froze in the roar of the land of the Saqlabah.

The adventure of a jurist

Like many travelers and geographers - who are mostly middle-class men - we do not know the date of Ibn Fadlan's birth, and Yaqut al-Hamawi - in the "Mu'jam al-Buldan" - mentioned that he was loyal to the Abbasid military leader Muhammad bin Suleiman al-Hanaifi (d. 304 AH / 916 AD), He was called several times: "Ahmed bin Fadlan bin Al Abbas bin Rashid bin Hammad Mawla Muhammad bin Suleiman: Messenger of [Caliph] Al Muqtadir" Al Abbasi (d. 320 AH / 932 AD).

Perhaps the best source about him is his very journey in which it was stated that his name is “Muhammad”, a scholar of Sharia law with a good literary culture, a beautiful and unobtrusive language, meticulous observation, albeit with a wide imagination, daring in telling the truth and correcting errors. Civilization and its literature.

He left Baghdad in Safar of the year 309 AH / 921 AD - during the era of Caliph al-Muqtadir - for a specific purpose that he mentions at the beginning of his message: “When the book of Almish bin Yaltowar (which was later named by Ibn Fadlan as Ja`far bin Abdullah), the king of the Saqlabah reached the Commander of the Faithful al-Muqtadir asking him about it. The mission is to the one who understands him in the religion, introduces him to the laws of Islam, builds a mosque for him and sets up a pulpit for him to establish the call to him in his country and all his kingdom, and asks him to build a fortress in which he fortifies from the kings who oppose him (= the kingdom of the Khazar Jews), so I respond to what he asked.”

Islam entered the country of the Bulgars and the Saqlabah before this date, and the 'country of the Bulgarians' meant here is their ancient kingdom, and the dispute over its appointment exists, but it - according to the investigator of the 'Risala Ibn Fadlan' Sami al-Dahan (d. 1391 AH / 1971 AD) - is located to the northeast of the Caspian Sea;

As for 'Saqqaba', it is a general term that includes the Slavic and Germanic peoples and the inhabitants of Eastern Europe, and it was also called some Turkish tribes living in the east of the Caspian Sea, especially the Volga River Basin (= Atl River), and their kingdom was within what is known today as the Russian Republic of Tatarstan.

Al-Masoudi says in 'Morouj al-Zahab' - "In the country of the Khazars... they were created from the Saqaliba and the Russians..., and this kind of the Saqlabah... are connected to the East."

Ibn Fadlan did not prove his arrival in the eastern European region until he met its skeleton.

The geographer Ibn Rustah al-Isfahani (d. about 300 AH/912 AD) says that most of the Bulgars and Saqlabs impersonate Islam, but Islam was - in his era - still weak in influence and presence in these peoples, and did not establish their morals and customs.

We find evidence of this in Ibn Fadlan when he mentions a lot of what is denied to them in the rituals of “burial” and their ignorance of inheritance, and that they “wash naked” and do not cover up, and “if they do not commit adultery” and even kill the adulterer and the thief with heavy penalties.

We know from the traveler Abu Hamid Al-Gharnati (d. 565 AH / 1170 AD) - who toured around the Volga basin for about thirty years and traded among them and married them - that Islam had spread and settled there, and that mosques had increased during his reign.

The historian Ibn al-Atheer (d. 630 AH / 1233 AD) - in 'Al-Kamil' - states that a delegation of them had come for Hajj, and they came to Baghdad in 433 AH / 1043 AD.

Zarazir and Frogs

Ibn Fadlan - part of an official delegation - walked through stations that led him to Khurasan, Khwarazm and Bukhara. Then he made his way between the Ural Lake and the Caspian Sea, penetrating the Turks along the Volga River until he reached the Saqlabah and the Russians;

On a journey that lasted - in its confirmed line of departure - 11 months, during which it traveled about 5,000 km, via a path that goes from Baghdad in the west to Bukhara in the east, and from there to the outskirts of the Russian city of Kazan today in the north.

And since the man had come from Baghdad - which at that time was the capital of civilization rich in etiquette of living, tactful speech, clean clothes and etiquette - it was natural for him to resent what he saw of the "brutality" of those he met from the Turks, Russians, and Saqlabs.

Therefore, when he descended in the city of Al-Jurjaniyah - which is today in western Uzbekistan and its days was the capital of the Kingdom of Khwarazm - he described its people as “the most savage people in words and in nature”, and he told us that “their words are like something like the shouting of starlings” (= the plural of starlings, which is a small bird), and he told us about other people. neighboring them that their words are like "the croaking of frogs".

Undoubtedly, this kind of impression of describing the pronunciation of the languages ​​of the people is hasty and stems from the ear's familiarity with its mother tongue;

Al-Biruni, for example - even though he recommends Arabic as a language of science - tells us - in his book 'Al-Saydana' - that "every nation adopts its own language that it has become familiar with and used for its purposes with its thousands and forms".

Ibn Fadlan’s speech about the languages ​​of these peoples does not depart from the description of the Umayyad poet, the genius Al-Shaibani (d. 125 AH / 744 AD) of the Roman language as:

foreign voices if they approach them ** as the sound of hooks in the morning

Then Ibn Fadlan describes the 'Ghazis' (= the Turkish tribes of Al-Ghaz - or Oghuz - including the Seljuks and the Ottomans) in his talk about the Bedouin herding life in which they live;

That they "are like stray donkeys, they do not owe God a religion, they do not return to reason, they do not worship anything, but they call their great lords", "and they do not cleanse themselves from faeces or urine, and they do not wash from impurity or anything else, and there is no action between them and the water."

He adds that their Muslim merchants used to wash secretly, because if they saw someone washing themselves, they would have thought that he wanted to charm them, and that their women did not hide from men, but that women did not care to expose their private parts in front of strangers, even if they “do not know adultery” and the punishment for the adulterer is to split him in half!

Ibn Fadlan also spoke about 'the country of al-Bashkard' and said, "They are a people of the Turks called al-Bashkard, so we warned them to be very careful, and that is because they are the worst of the Turks, the dirtiest of them and the most aggressive in killing. A man meets a man and separates his head and takes it and leaves him, and they shave their beards and eat lice."

accurate details

and far from value judgments of disapproval and denial;

Ibn Fadlan excels at the work of an ethnographic researcher who depicts the character, customs and beliefs of peoples, and transmits them to us accurately.

It tells us about health policies taken by these peoples, such as sanitary isolation - when left and Russian - for the patient and not approaching him until he recovers or dies;

And about the pagan beliefs of some of them in the worship of twelve lords of natural phenomena: Lord of winter, Lord of summer, wind and death...etc., and about the worship of some Turks for animals and the blessing of the cross-dressers with the barking of dogs;

And about the habit of the skeleton to eat alone, each one is alone with his table and no one shares it with him.

He also gave us information about the burial customs of the different peoples;

He painted for us a detailed picture in ten pages of the Russian burial of one of their chiefs, and some of his followers and maidservants volunteering to die with him, and how they cremated his body (a note that was later received by Al-Masoudi and Al-Biruni, who we compared to India), and what they sing, drink and do during those rituals.

Ibn Fadlan's description is still the most important description of the rites of death for the Russians.

Ibn Fadlan was neither an accurate geographer nor a news reporter who scrutinized what he transmitted with the balance of reason or transmission.

Therefore, Yaqoot Al-Hamawi - who said about Ibn Fadlan’s journey that it is “a well-known blog known by people’s hands, of which I have seen several copies.” Rather, it was transmitted in the “Dictionary of Countries” close to two-thirds of it, according to the estimation of its investigator Al-Dahan - corrects many of his descriptions in geography and discredits some of his sayings. And he controls some of the customs he mentioned, saying that they are specific to the countryside, not the city, and so on;

And sometimes he places responsibility on him for what he quotes from him, disavowing its accuracy, saying: “And he has a custody of what he narrated, and God knows best.”

Ibn Fadlan also tells us that the custom of raising the hat has existed in the countries of the Saqlabah since the tenth century AD. If the king crosses the market, “there is no one left but to get up and take his cap from his head and put it under his armpits.

What was transmitted here refutes the well-known saying that the custom of raising the modern hat dates back to the Middle Ages, when the European knight used to remove his war helmet from his head for women, kings or his peers, to indicate that he was safe from them and that he had no need to protect himself in their presence, or for Christians to take off their hats at the door of homage churches;

These Saqlabs were not Christians before their conversion to Islam, but they were pagans.

The cut in this matter requires further investigation.

And among the anecdotes of his news among the Saqlabah is that a man of them called “Talut” embraced Islam at his hand, so he was called “Muhammad,” then his wife and children converted to Islam, so the man asked him to name them all “Muhammad”!

On his way back, Ibn Fadlan passed through the countries of the Kingdom of Khazars, where he narrated from them a nice mechanism for the transfer of power, which is that if the king ruled for more than forty years, the subjects killed him, and they said: “This has lost his mind and confused his opinion.”

I said: Forty years is a lot, but at least they have set a limit that the king should not exceed!

Ibn Fadlan was an expressive example of the status of travelers and their approach, and it is a method characterized by accurate description and truthfulness of the news - as much as possible - without applying criticism in the incoming news, neither in terms of comparing it with other news nor in terms of presenting it to the mind (= current habit), which allows the passing of myths. And wonders without justifying their reasons or explaining them, and it is a method based in its rulings on personal impressions - sometimes hasty - so he becomes lonely at what he is not familiar with, and despises what goes against the morals and Sharia of Muslims, and despises what deviates from their morals.

A class of encyclopedic authors appeared since the fourth century - whose first decade witnessed the organization of Ibn Fadlan's journey and perhaps writing his treatise on it - a class of encyclopedic authors who took the approach to studying the "other" a major step forward.

The authors of this class - among them Al-Masoudi and Al-Biruni - were not just travelers, and the chapters of their scientific work cannot be limited to "history". And the study of civil politics and its comparison between different nations.

Perhaps the classification proposed by the French orientalist Andre Mikel to describe their field of work (Al-Masoudi and Al-Biruni) as “human geography” is true, in that this geography was not only measuring the distances between countries and telling about their architecture, but rather placing humans at the heart of their perceptions, they are the subject of the study and the same .

The Belgian science historian George Sarton (d. 1376 AH / 1956 AD) had previously realized - in his book 'Introduction to the History of Science' - the scientific importance of both Al-Masoudi and Al-Biruni;

Where he called the first half of the fourth century "the era of al-Masudi", and the first half of the fifth century AH "the era of al-Biruni".

Before proceeding to talk about the approach of Al-Masoudi and Al-Biruni, and what they meet and divide in;

A brief introduction to them is necessary.

This is because their method of telling about the other was affected by their scientific formation, their ideological doctrine, their economic and political position, and even their personal character.

As for Al-Masudi;

He is Abu Al-Hasan Ali bin Al-Hussein bin Ali, and his lineage is related to the great companion Abdullah bin Masoud (d. 32 AH / 654 AD).

He was born in the Babylon region of Iraq, to ​​whom he yearns and is proud of. We do not know the date of his birth. As for his death, it was "in Jumada al-Akhirah in the year three hundred and forty five (345 AH / 956 AD)";

As Al-Dhahabi says (d. 748 AH / 1347 AD) in 'Sir Al-Alam Al-Nubala'.

He was "a Mu'tazilite", as al-Dhahabi asserts, and a "Mu'tazilite Shiite", as Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH / 1448 AD) says in 'Lisan al-Mizan'.

It seems that he was a student of the Sheikh of Historians al-Tabari (d. 310 AH / 922 AD), and he quoted a lot of his encyclopedia and historical methodology;

As we find him saying in his book 'Al-Tanbah and Supervision': "Abu Jaafar Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari told us...etc."

Diversity of knowledge

Al-Masoudi's writings varied from speech and the origins of religion to geography and astronomy, and Ibn Hajar said that "his classifications are dear (= rare in circulation) except for 'The Meadows', he was famous." We only get a small part of it.

It appears that Al-Masoudi was from a rich family, and that he was traveling at his own expense, independent of any political purpose. His goal was to write his most famous book, “Morouj Al-Zahab and Minerals of the Essence”: going to."

His travels expanded to include Persia, Sindh, India, China, the eastern coast of Africa and its islands, then Azerbaijan, Armenia, Syria, the Levantine border and Palestine. He settled in Egypt, where he died.

And he knew languages: Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Syriac and Greek.

That is why the Russian orientalist Alexander Vasiliev (d. 1373 AH / 1953 AD) - in his book 'The Arabs and the Romans' says: "We see that Al-Masoudi deserves the title 'Herodotus of the Arabs' which Cromer gave him."

He means what the Austrian orientalist von Kremer (d. 1306 AH / 1889 AD) said about him in his book 'The History of Culture in the East'.

As for Abu al-Rayhan al-Biruni;

He was born in 362 AH / 974 AD, and was attributed - in one of the sayings - to the city of "Birun", which was at that time within the Khwarizmian state and is located today in western Uzbekistan.

His books amount to about 180 books, distributed between history, medicine, mineral sciences, astronomy, and more.

Al-Biruni - who contacted the physician and philosopher Avicenna in his youth - was faithful to the tradition of philosophy and its arts.

He was a scholar of Greek, Syriac, Al-Khwarizmi, Persian, and Sanskrit (and translated from them), in addition to Arabic.

Al-Biruni contacted the Ghaznavid court, and accompanied Sultan Masoud al-Ghaznawi (d. 432 AH / 1042 AD) in his conquest of northwestern India, but we know that he remained self-taught, independent of opinion, and he informed a witness to this - if the historical narrative is correct - that the sultan wanted to reward him for his book 'Al-Qanun al-Masoudi' in Astronomy and meteorology, so he sent him to carry three camels of silver!!

But Al-Biruni replied apologetically.

Al-Biruni's political website cast a shadow over his book on India, 'Achieving India's Saying';

When referring to his purpose in writing it, he mentioned that the “Professor” (he probably means Abu Sahl Abd al-Mun’im bin Ali al-Taflisi, who died after 423 AH/1033 AD) “was keen to liberate what I knew from them (= the Indians) to be a support for those who wanted to contradict them and ammunition for those who wanted to mix with them. ".

But he immediately follows up by saying: “And he asked that, and I did it without fading to an opponent (= slandered by what he did not say), and not embarrassed by the narration of his words.

Methodological commonalities

when reviewing the Al-Masoudi and Al-Biruni approach;

We will find that they shared two main methodological determinants, and differed in two;

They agreed in the following:

1- The two men agree that the goal of their books (in particular here is 'Morouj al-Dhahab' by Al-Masudi, and 'Achievement of what India is saying' by Al-Biruni) is to tell and tell about the "other", without arguing with him or judging the correctness of his opinion from his mistake.

Al-Masoudi says: “Our book is a book of news, not a book of opinions and solutions,” and he repeats this meaning several times.

Al-Biruni praises the approach of “the bare tale without inclination or flattery,” and he says about his book that “it is not … a book of pilgrims and controversy until it was used in it by citing the arguments of opponents and contradicting the aberration among them about the truth.

Al-Masoudi - who lived in the midst of populist controversies - mentioned a part of these controversies and the responses to them, but - despite the nobility of his contention - he concluded an important ethical and methodological principle, which is that "it is the duty of a person of honorable lineage and high glory not to make this a ladder to lax actions... The honor of lineages motivates the honor of deeds.”

It is as if by this he wants to end the controversy over bragging about lineages because he knows that every nation claims credit for itself and thinks itself exclusive to it.

Didn't Al-Biruni say - in the face of his insult to the Indians' closing in on themselves and their ignorance of others - that "if they traveled and mixed with others, they would change their opinion".

and, most importantly;

Al-Masudi - in his practical application - was open to the wisdom of all peoples, as he elaborates on the commandments of the Persian kings (Ardashir and Khosrau Ansharwan in particular) and elaborates on the wisdom of India and Greece, even in contravention of the Arabs and Muslims' customary;

That is why we find him - may God honor you, my reader - conveying the wisdom of the Indians in forbidding the trapping of the wind in the hollow, and their lack of modesty in releasing it because of the harm that it generates, and he does not express any objection to that, rather what appears to be his saying is admiration for their wisdom!

And with Al-Masoudi’s description of the East African Negro, that “among them there are races [who] have specific teeth that eat each other,” and that they “do not have a law to which they can return, but rather drawings of their kings and types of policies by which they govern their subjects”;

It praises their political justice and the strength of their keenness on it, because they believe in their rule that God “chosen him for their kingdom and justice in them, so when the king is against them in his rule and deviates from the truth, they will kill him and deprive the king.”

He also praises their linguistic eloquence, saying: "The Zanj are the most eloquent in their tongues, and among them are preachers in their language. The ascetic man stands among them and addresses many of them, desires them to be close to their Creator (= their Creator), and sends them to obey Him and terrifies them from His punishment."

Despite Al-Masoudi's confirmation of Ibn Fadlan's conclusions - without mentioning his name - when he describes, for example, the Russians as a "ignorant nation that does not submit to a king or to Sharia";

We do not find - in his history of their events and their conditions - the tone of disapproval and resentment that we find in the folds of the story of Ibn Fadlan.

Rather, he committed himself to avoiding that explicitly when he said: “And let those who looked into it (= his book ‘Murouj al-Dhahab’) know that I did not support it for a doctrine and did not take sides with a saying, and I did not talk about people except their news boards, and I did not refer to anything else.”

2- Al-Masoudi and Al-Biruni agree on the need to justify the phenomena and not be satisfied with the news without analysis and interpretation;

Al-Masudi conveys to us what Galen mentioned about the character of Sudan, saying, “Galen mentioned ten qualities in the black that met in him and were not found in others: fine hair, lightness of the eyebrows, spreading of the nostrils, thickening of the lips, defining the teeth, foul skin, darkening of the pupils, and cracked hands and feet. long remembrance, and a great deal of mirth.”

However, Galen attributes “the abundance of raptures” to corruption in the brain, which is what Al-Masudi responds to. He begins by establishing the principle of “illness” according to the Canadian philosopher (d. 256 AH/870 AD).

Al-Masoudi's explanation of the nature of peoples is based on two causes: the influence of astronomy and the environment (climate and soil).

If we today describe these two causes as naive and classify them among “pseudosciences” in the language of researchers in issues of knowledge (epistemology);

The adoption of the principle of reasoning and its use in accordance with the sciences of the age is a definite scientific virtue.

The explanation for the nature of peoples by the climate remained in circulation until recently, before the development of genetic sciences and more complex economic/social analyzes;

It was used by the French philosopher Montesquieu (d. 1169 AH / 1755 AD), and before him it was used by Ra’id al-Andalusi (d. 462 AH / 1071 AD) and Ibn Khaldun (d. 808 AH / 1406 AD);

And if their opinions differed in determining the natures of peoples, the coldness in the north bequeaths the activity of the mind and love of adventure for Montesquieu, while it bequeaths dullness and lack of accuracy of understanding in the ascender.

Perhaps the smartest observations by Al-Biruni in explaining and explaining the phenomena - which scholars of human societies (anthropology) have made - is what he said in explaining the Indians’ prohibition of cows and refraining from slaughtering them.

And it is that “cows are the animal that serves on travels, transporting loads and burdens, and in agriculture with anguish and agriculture… by dairy, and what comes out of it, then benefit from its dung (= its dung), but in the winter with its breath. Al-Sawad (= an agricultural area in Iraq).

That is, the economic benefit resulting from the survival of the cow is greater than the economic benefit resulting from slaughtering it and benefiting from its meat.

This reasoning is the same that we read faces in the book of the American anthropologist Marvin Harris (d. 1422 AH / 2001 AD) 'Holy things, taboos and wars'.

Differences

and discrepancies As for the methodological differences between them, they are discrepancies within the circle of agreement, and are summarized as follows:

1- The two men agree on the need to scrutinize the news and not report everything that reached them, but their approach to scrutinizing the news is different.

Al-Masudi relies on the approach of the hadithers in judging the news through its chains of transmission and comparing it with other narrations, but if the chain of transmission is delivered, then his rational acceptance approach is based on the fact that everything that falls within the circle of mental possibility is permissible, waiting for a narration that testifies to him to accept it.

The rational possibility here is not equivalent to the “current habit” of Al-Biruni, but rather it is the existential possibility, in accordance with the speakers’ division of the states of existence into: obligatory, impossible and possible.

On this basis, Al-Masudi, for example, transmits news that exaggerates the size of the whale, and transmits the news of the centenarians who are over three hundred years old!!

Perhaps this is what prompted a narrator like Al-Dhahabi to describe him as “the owner of… oddities and wonders.”

Later, we will discuss some of the exaggerations and errors that occurred about India and compare them with what Al-Biruni mentioned shortly.

It is generally noted that Al-Masudi was more critical and scrutinizing in issues of geography than in matters of humans, their customs and fees.

As for Al-Biruni, he was more dependent on the intellect, so we see him rejecting the “intellectually abstaining” by virtue of the current habit, even though he was included in the “existential possibility” as defined by the speakers.

Therefore, he explains the magic of the Indians as a kind of camouflage and games of lightness, and not a creation of the abstaining as the common people believe, and mentions what they were famous for in hunting antelopes with composition until they take them in their own hands, and mentions that this and its likes are “characteristics in which there is no entrance to sophistication… All nations are equal in this sense. ";

Therefore, they are natural techniques that can be used equally by all peoples.

And his story about India is devoid of mentioning the wonders that were lavishly described by Zurg ibn Shahryar al-Ramramzi (died in the fourth century AH) in his book “The Wonders of India”;

Al-Biruni did not mention it except as a way of “they claimed that such-and-such.”

Al-Biruni was more reliable in reasoning and analysis than Al-Masoudi and was more insightful.

For example, he justifies the worship of idols by the tendency of the common people to the personal sensible, and he may suffice with the news without justification and say, “The mind has no entrance in this.”

His analysis may reach an investigation of the difference between the theoretical ideal among the people and the practical application subject to human natures and the constraints of politics.

Al-Biruni opens the chapter on penalties in India by saying: “The case with them is similar to the case of Christianity, for it is based on goodness and the cessation of evil from abandoning killing in the first place (= the principle of ‘ahimsa’/non-violence)… empowering the aggressor from the other cheek, and praying for the enemy with goodness and prayers upon him.” And for my life it is a virtuous biography, but not all the people of this world are philosophers, but most of them are ignorant and misguided, only the sword and the whip can straighten them, and since the victory of Constantius Al-Muzaffar neither of them (= sword and whip) did not rest from the movement, without them politics is not complete. Likewise India", then proceeds in detail The emergence of their political governance mechanism and their penalties for crimes.

2- Al-Masoudi and Al-Biruni stress the necessity of examining the countries they study and not being satisfied with news from others.

The first issue that Al-Biruni makes in his book is the eye and the news and the pests that follow the news, and similar to that in Al-Masudi’s introduction he mentioned the query “The Goods of Nations by Observation” and knowledge of “the properties of the regions by inspection.”

Rather, Al-Masoudi blames those who “clung to the jams of his homeland and were content with the news that has grown to him,” and he has that Al-Jahez is one of them.

Despite this, Al-Masoudi sometimes transmits news of the countries that he did not visit from those he trusts with their knowledge and understanding of its people;

When he tells us about the “country of oases” in western Egypt and the power of its emir, he says: “I saw the owner of this man (= the emir) residing in the oases…, and I asked him about many news of their country, and what I needed to know about the properties of their land, and so was my action with others - in the rest of the world. Times - from those who did not reach their country.

شمولية وتخصص
ولذلك نجد المسعودي يقسو على الجاحظ في أكثر من موضع، ويصف كتابه ‘الأمصار وعجائب البلدان‘ بأنّه "في غاية الغثاثة، لأنّ الرجل لم يسلك البحار ولا أكثر الأسفار ولا تقرّى الممالك والأمصار، وإنّما كان صاحب ليل ينقل من كتب الورّاقين". وعلى سبيل المقارنة بين مزاجيْ الرجلين؛ نذكر أنّ البيروني ردّ رأي الجاحظ في نفس المسألة بأدبٍ جمّ بأن قال: "حتى ظنّ الجاحظ -بسلامة قلبه وبُعده عن معرفة مجاري الأنهار وصور البحار- أن نهر مهران (يقع جنوب غربي إيران) شعبة من النيل".

فضرورة المعاينة إذن مسألة مُقرّرة لدى الرجلين؛ ولكنّهما يختلفان في جزئيّة مهمّة حكمتها أقدارهما وظروفهما، وأثّرت من ثمّ في جودة أعمالهما؛ وهي اتساع الجغرافيا التي يُغطّيها المسعودي في مقابل اختصاص البيروني بالهند وحدها. فصحيحٌ أنّ البيروني كان يُقارن باستمرار بين حكمة الهند وحكمة اليونان وبين عقائد الهند وعقائد الصوفيّة والنصارى "لتقارب الأمر بين جميعهم في الحلول والاتحاد"، إلا أنّه ظلّ مُخلصاً لدراسة منطقة بعينها، الأمر الذي سمح له بمزيد من التعمّق والرسوخ في أحوالها ولغاتها، والتدقيق في عقائدها وتمحيص سِيَرها وخرافاتها، وهو ما جعل منه مرجعاً أكثر دقّة وموثوقيّة في وصف أحوال تلك البلاد.

يظهر أثَر هذين الاختلافين المنهجيين في المقارنة بين ما نقله المسعودي عن الهند وما حكاه البيروني عنها؛ فالمسعودي يقول إنّ "الهند تمنع من شرب الشراب ويعنّفون شاربه، لا على طريق التديّن لكن تنزّهاً عن أن يوردوا على عقولهم ما يغشيها ويزيلها عمّا وضعت له فيهم. وإذا صح عندهم عن ملك من ملوكهم شربه استحق الخلع عن ملكه، إذ كان لا يتأتى له التدبير والسياسة مع الاختلاط". أما البيروني فإنّه يُبيّن أنّ حرمة الخمر مخصوصة بالطبقات العليا دون الطبقة الدنيا (أي طبقة الشودرا = المنبوذون) في نظام الطبقات الهندوسي.

ثمّ نجد أنّ المسعوديّ يبالغ فيما يحكيه عن مقامرات أهل الهند، فيقول: "والأغلب عليهم القمار في لعبهم بالشطرنج والنرد على الثياب والجواهر؛ وربما أنفد الواحد منهم ما معه فيلعب في قطع عضو من أعضاء جسمه… فإذا لعب في إصبع من أصابعه وقُمِر (= خسر في القمار)، قطعها.. [بـ]ـالخنجر وهو مثل النار… ثمّ عاد إلى لعبه، فإن توجّه عليه اللعب أبان (= قطع) إصبعاً ثانيةً، وربما توجّه عليه اللعب في قطع الأصابع والكفّ، ثمّ الذراع والزند وسائر الأطراف"!! وهذا خبر تأنف منه العقول ويمتنع في العادة الجاريّة، ولا يذكره البيروني.

وإضافة إلى ما سبق؛ يُصحّح البيروني ما ذكره غير واحدٍ من الرحالة (السيرافي المتوفى بعد 237هـ/851م وابن خُرْدَاذَبَه) من عقوبات الهند وقتلهم الزاني والسارق؛ فيذكر عقوباتهم بتفصيل دقيق قائلا إن من "كبائر الآثام" عندهم "قتل البقر ثم شرب الخمر ثم الزناء…، وأما السرقة فعقوبة السارق بمقدارها، فإنّها ربما أوجبت التنكيل بإفراط والتوسّط (= شقّ جسد المجرم نصفين)، وربما أوجبت التأديب والتغريم، وربما أوجبت الاقتصار على الفضيحة والتشهير…، وعقوبة الزانية أن تخرج من بيت الزوج وتنفى".

معوقات ونقد
يُحمد للبيروني وعيه بالمنهج ومزالق الحكاية عن الآخر، وأعتقدُ أنّ الدرسَ الإبستمولوجي الذي قدّمه في الإنصاف لا يزال صالحاً إلى اليوم. فقد عَرضَ -في مقدّمة كتابه- لبيانٍ مفصّل للآفات التي تلحق بالخبر، فذكر أنها: 1- تفاوت الهمم بين المخبرين؛ 2- والانحياز الناجم عن "غلبة الهراش والنزاع بين الأمم"؛ 3- والخبر الكاذب الذي يقصد به المُخبـِر "تعظيم جنسه"؛ 4- أو الخبر الكاذب عن "طبقةٍ يحبّهم لشكر أو يبغضهم لنُكْر"؛ 5- أو الخبر الكاذب بنيّة التقرّب إلى خير ومنفعة أو اتقاء الشرّ؛ 6- والجهل والتقليد لمن سبق؛ 7- ومنها -وانظر دقّة الفهم- أن يميل المُخبـِر ويداهن بحكم طبعه "كأنّه محمولٌ عليه غير متمكّن من غيره".

وهذه الآفة الأخيرة هي أشدّ أنواع الانحيازات فتكاً لأنّها تأتي من الانحياز اللاواعي. وفي وجه هذه المزالق؛ يُذكّرنا البيروني ويُذكّر نفسه بأنّ الصدق "مرضيّ محبوب لذاته مرغوبٌ في حسنه"، وأنّ واجب المؤرّخ -بل والمسلم عموما- هو أن يقول الحقّ ولو على نفسه، وأنّ هذه الدرجة من الصدق لا تتأتّى إلا بالشجاعة، والتي هي في حقيقتها "الاستهانة بالموت"!

ثمّ إنّ البيروني يتواضعُ بين يديْ موضوع دراسته، إذ يذكر المعوّقات التي تحول دون المعرفة الصحيحة واستشفاف أحوال الهند: فـ"القوم يباينوننا بجميع ما تشترك به الأمم، وأوّلها اللغة" التي تحوز مخارج حروف لا نظير لها في العربيّة، وتلتقي فيها السواكن، وتتعقّد فيها أساليب التعبير وتكثر فيها المجازات، ويحكم معانيها سياق العبارة، ويقع فيها الاسم الواحد على عدّة مسمّيات. ثم يُفصّل في منهجه في نقل المصطلحات وتعريبها.

وثاني هذه المعوقات "أنّهم (= الهنود) يباينوننا في الديانة مباينة كلّية لا يقع منّا شيء من الإقرار بما عندهم ولا منهم بشيء مما عندنا"؛ و"يباينوننا في الرسوم والعادات" ويستوحشون من عادات المسلمين ويستنكرون "تسويتنا بين الناس"، أي رفض التقسيم الطبقي للمجتمع (وهو ما يرى البيروني أنّه من أعظم الحوائل دون دخول الهنود في الإسلام)؛ ويرون غير الهنديّ -ويسمّونه "مُليج" (= القذر)- نجِساً لا يؤاكل ولا يُخالط، ويضنّون عليه بعلومهم وأخبارهم؛ ثمّ إنّ غزو المسلمين أرضَهم قد زادهم استيحاشاً من المسلمين.

In addition to these constraints;

Al-Biruni admits his shortcomings - and the shortcomings of every researcher - in collecting all that the people wrote about themselves and repeatedly declares that he transmits to us what he heard from their sciences "until the time of editing these letters", as if he intends to add to them and correct them if new knowledge arrives;

He admits that one of the obstacles is to study their sciences "from the outside", and this is an accurate understanding, because the difference between knowing the cultural tradition from within, and trying to understand it from outside, which is something that orientalists rarely understand!