Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) on the Arabs in his "The Muqaddimah"

I am convinced that today anyone writing such a thing would be called "racist" or "not PC".

But this was actually written back in the 1300s, by a Tunisian Muslim scholar, Ibn Khaldun:

From page 199 out of 1252 of "The Muqaddimah":

https://asadullahali.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ibn_khaldun-al_muqaddimah.pdf

25. Places that succumb to the Arabs are quickly ruined.

The (139) reason for this is that (the Arabs) are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery and the things that cause it. Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership. Such a natural disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization. All the customary activities of the Arabs lead to travel and movement. This is the antithesis and negation of stationariness, which produces civilization. For instance, the Arabs need stones to set them up as supports for their cooking pots. So, they take them from buildings which they tear down to get the stones, and use them for that purpose. Wood, too, is needed by them for props for their tents and for use as tent poles for their dwellings. So, they tear down roofs toget the wood for that purpose. The very nature of their existence is the negation of building, which is the basis of civilization. This is the case with them quite generally.

Furthermore, it is their nature to plunder whatever other people possess. Their sustenance lies wherever the shadow of their lances falls. They recognize no limit in taking the possessions of other people. Whenever their eyes fall upon some property, furnishings, or utensils, they take it. When they acquire superiority androyal authority, they have complete power to plunder (as they please). There no longer exists any political (power) to protect property, and civilization is ruined.

Furthermore, since they use force to make craftsmen and professional workers do their work, they do not see any value in it and do not pay them for it. Now, as we shall mention, (140) labour is the real basis of profit. When labor is not appreciated and is done for nothing, the hope for profit vanishes, and no (productive) work is done. The sedentary population disperses, and civilization decays.

Furthermore, (the Arabs) are not concerned with laws. (They are not concerned) to deter people from misdeeds or to protect some against the others. They care only for the property that they might take away from people through looting and imposts. When they have obtained that, they have no interest in anything further, such as taking care of (people), looking after their interests, or forcing them not to commit misdeeds. They often level fines on property, because they want to get some advantage, some tax, or profit out of it. This is their custom. It does not help to prevent misdeeds or to deter those who undertake to commit (misdeeds). On the contrary, it increases (misdeeds), because as compared to getting what one wants, the (possible financial) loss (through fines) is insignificant.(141)

Under the rule of (the Arabs), the subjects live as in a state of anarchy, without law. Anarchy destroys mankind and ruins civilization, since, as we have stated, the existence of royal authority is a natural quality of man. It alone guarantees their existence and social organization. That was mentioned above at the beginning of the chapter.(142)

Furthermore, (every Arab) is eager to be the leader. Scarcely a one of them would cede his power to another, even to his his father, his brother, or the eldest (most important) member of his family. That happens only in rare cases and pressure of considerations of decency. There are numerous authorities and amirs among them. The subjects have to obey many masters in connection with the control of taxation and law. Civilization, thus, decays and is wiped out.

'Abd-al-Malik asked one Arab who had come to him on an embassy about al-Hajjaj. He wanted him to praise al Hajjaj for his good political leadership (for the benefit of) civilization. But the Arab said: "When I left him, he was acting unjustly all by himself." (142a)

It is noteworthy how civilization always collapsed in places the Arabs took over and conquered, and how such settlements were depopulated and the (very) earth there turned into something that was no (longer) earth. The Yemen where (the Arabs) live is in ruins, except for a few cities. Persian civilization in the Arab 'Iraq is likewise completely ruined. The same applies to contemporary Syria. When the Banu Hilal and the Banu Sulaym pushed through (from their homeland) to Ifrigiyah and the Maghrib in (the beginning of) the fifth [eleventh] century and struggled there for three hundred and fifty years, they attached themselves to (the country), and the flat territory in (the Maghrib) was completely ruined. Formerly, the whole region between the Sudan and the Mediterranean had been settled. This (fact) is attested by the relics of civilization there, such as monuments, architectural sculpture, and the visible remains of villages and hamlets.

Click to expand...

Whether you like Islam or not doesn't matter. Muslims aren't gonna leave Western countries any time. If you think Islam is barbaric, you still gotta find a way to have Islam in your countries. I think It'll work. It works in many places in America.

Fire Haired14 said:

Whether you like Islam or not doesn't matter. Muslims aren't gonna leave Western countries any time. If you think Islam is barbaric, you still gotta find a way to have Islam in your countries. I think It'll work. It works in many places in America.

Click to expand...

the problem is when they start to associate themselves with the fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East or Pakistan, which is non-secular and which discriminates heavily between their Islam followers and kaffars
I'm willing to accept Islam that clearly distantiates their Islam from that Islam and condemns that kind of Islam
they should also clearly state that the laws and values of the secular state where they live are more important than Islam
if not, you can't trust them
you might as well say if you had a lot of nazi sympathisers in your country that you should find a way to have nazism in your country

That writing seems applicable to nomads in general. Including I guess the initial steppe indo-euros too.

arvistro said:

That writing seems applicable to nomads in general. Including I guess the initial steppe indo-euros too.

Click to expand...

the writing is dated 14th century and speaks in the present

and systematic plundering by nomads only started in the iron ages when they had archers on horseback

arvistro said:

That writing seems applicable to nomads in general. Including I guess the initial steppe indo-euros too.

Click to expand...

I agree. It could apply to any invading force that is seen as less sedentary and "civilized". Contemporary peoples described the Huns, the Vandals (St. Augustine thought their arrival signified the destruction of the cities of men, which is part of why he wrote of the "City of God", which is eternal) in that way. You don't have to stop there either, you have the Lombards turning forums into cow pastures, the coming of the Slavs to Byzantine territories, and indeed the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. You could just substitute any of their names.

Plus, I fail to see what that says about the nature, talents or proclivities of "Arabs" as an "ethnicity". It captures them, and perhaps in an exaggerated way, only at a specific period of time. The Arabs very quickly adopted agriculture when in the right climate. They immensely boosted agriculture in both Sicily and Spain, for example, through the building of very sophisticated water delivery systems, introduced all sorts of new plants etc. They also created some of the most beautiful architecture in the world. Plus, they preserved, studied and expanded the learning in old Classical texts, learning which they then passed on to the West.

When the Crusaders arrived in the Near East, who was more civilized and more humane, the illiterate, filthy, smelly, and murderous "Franks" who had just tried to rape, murder and burn every Jew in Europe before they left, or the Levantine Arabs?

Passages like the one in the OP would convince only some uneducated racist with absolutely no knowledge of history.

Angela said:

I agree. It could apply to any invading force that is seen as less sedentary and "civilized". Contemporary peoples described the Huns, the Vandals (St. Augustine thought their arrival signified the destruction of the cities of men, which is part of why he wrote of the "City of God", which is eternal. You don't have to stop there either, you have the Lombards turning forums into cow pastures, the coming of the Slavs to Byzantine territories, and indeed the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. You could just substitute any of their names.

Plus, I fail to see what that says about the nature, talents or proclivities of "Arabs" as an "ethnicity". It captures them, and perhaps in an exaggerated way, only at a specific period of time. The Arabs very quickly adopted agriculture when in the right climate. They immensely boosted agriculture in both Sicily and Spain, for example, through the building of very sophisticated water delivery systems, introduced all sorts of new plants etc. They also created some of the most beautiful architecture in the world. Plus, they preserved, studied and expanded the learning in old Classical texts, learning which they then passed on to the West.

When the Crusaders arrived in the Near East, who was more civilized and more humane, the illiterate, filthy, smelly, and murderous "Franks" who had just tried to rape, murder and burn every Jew in Europe before they left, or the Levantine Arabs?

Passages like the one in the OP would convince only some uneducated racist with absolutely no knowledge of history.

Click to expand...

Indeed that can be said perhaps for any invader,then we have also the Romans who were doing the same thing during their expansion destruction of many cities,Pliny the elder have detail for example in Macedonia that the Romans only in one day looted 70-cities,however the general and the soldiers couldn't agree on their share so they went to pillage Epyrus,cities with sophisticated water delivery systems,libraries,forum,columns,mosaics gold etc were razed to the ground,also many other regions,archeologically this can be traced,taking people in slavery and so on..
Destruction of Alexandria,then much later on the "fourth crusade" sack of Constantinople by Venetians and Franks,burning the imperial library which probably the Ottomans haven't harm the city that much,some Byzantine historians describe this people with same connotation.

Milan.M said:

Indeed that can be perhaps said for any invader,then we have also the Romans who were doing the same thing during their expansion destruction of many cities,Pliny the elder have detail for example in Macedonia that the Romans only in one day looted 70-cities,however the general and the soldiers couldn't agree on their share so they went to pillage Epyrus,cities with sophisticated water delivery systems,forum,columns,mosaics gold etc were razed to the ground,also many other regions,archeologically this can be traced,taking people in slavery and so on..
Destruction of Alexandria,then much later on the "fourth crusade" sack of Constantinople by Venetians and Franks,burning the imperial library which probably the Ottomans haven't harm the city that much,some Byzantine historians describe this people with same connotation.

Click to expand...

That's exactly my point, Milan. This is human history, unfortunately. This is how empires are made, this is how territories are gained. Sometimes it's a relatively unsophisticated, migrating group of people, like the Arabs in their initial expansion, or Corded Ware or the Lombards or whatever, take your pick, and sometimes it's a pretty sophisticated nation state, like the Hellenes or the Romans. How civilized were the French Catholic troops during the Albigensian Crusade in southern France when they burned to death every man, woman and child in the towns they conquered, or the Lutheran troops of Charles V when they vandalized the Vatican, letting their horses defecate on the altars? It amazes me how little people know of the past, even the recent past. My God, World War II is only seventy-five years ago, when a modern nation state, one that produced Mozart and Beethoven and Goethe rivaled the Huns in brutality, and was joined in its insanity by a good chunk of other Europeans.

It's time to stop stereotyping only "the other" as evil by nature, and start trying to figure out how to stop the devolvement of the Muslim world. That's a process in which Muslims of good will also have to engage. Everything that has gone wrong in their countries since the 1200s cannot be laid at the door of the oppressive West, which they have been taught to see as the enemy since the days of the Crusades. They have their own myopia, in which they don't see that they too were a "colonizing" expansive power; what do they think the conquest of North Africa, Spain and Portugal, Sicily, was all about? One could argue that the Crusades were in some part, although there were a lot of causes, an attempt to stop the expansion of Islam in the West.

What can I say? It's all so complicated, and a lot of people are only comfortable with simplicity, even if it's wrong.

Angela said:

That's exactly my point, Milan. This is human history, unfortunately. This is how empires are made, this is how territories are gained. Sometimes it's a relatively unsophisticated, migrating group of people, like the Arabs in their initial expansion, or Corded Ware or the Lombards or whatever, take your pick, and sometimes it's a pretty sophisticated nation state, like the Hellenes or the Romans. How civilized were the French Catholic troops during the Albigensian Crusade in southern France when they burned to death every man, woman and child in the towns they conquered, or the Lutheran troops of Charles V when they vandalized the Vatican, letting their horses defecate on the altars? It amazes me how little people know of the past, even the recent past. My God, World War II is only seventy-five years ago, when a modern nation state, one that produced Mozart and Beethoven and Goethe rivaled the Huns in brutality, and was joined in its insanity by a good chunk of other Europeans.

It's time to stop stereotyping only "the other" as evil by nature, and start trying to figure out how to stop the devolvement of the Muslim world. That's a process in which Muslims of good will also have to engage. Everything that has gone wrong in their countries since the 1200s cannot be laid at the door of the oppressive West, which they have been taught to see as the enemy since the days of the Crusades. They have their own myopia, in which they don't see that they too were a "colonizing" expansive power; what do they think the conquest of North Africa, Spain and Portugal, Sicily, was all about? One could argue that the Crusades were in some part, although there were a lot of causes, an attempt to stop the expansion of Islam in the West.

What can I say? It's all so complicated, and a lot of people are only comfortable with simplicity, even if it's wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes that is true,here is the same and worst in stereotypes when it come to that question for example to the Ottoman empire,i don't think they differentiated much in it's beginings,i do not symphatize with muslims some of them went to far with their ideology,but for example the people here will always say that Ottomans do this or that and will blame them for everything but the reality was different,they will not want to hear certain things from that history,for example; there is Byzantine historians that praise the Turks instead the Franks,making them much good just like "Christians",many previosly noble familes allied with them,many of them change their ideology and just came to conquer the Balkans for the empire,The further Ottoman expansion to the European frontiers was shared with semi-independent warriors, with the most notable being the four families of Evrenosoğulları, Mihaloğulları, both of which were of Anatolian Christian origin, Turahanoğulları of undetermined Christian origin, and the Malkoçoğulları of South-Slavic origin,these four families made up the ghazi (warrior) nobility,don't want to exaggarate but maybe the majority in that empire and prominent figures were "the others" not the Turks except the Sultan,most grand viziers,warior families etc happen to be from previous noble families,or they just arose to high rank from the Janissaries,the Turks themselves were complaining that they could not enter in that unit which was elite unit,the case in the Ottoman realm, as in the 16th century it was the South Slavs who were the most prominent in Imperial affairs,In time, a Slavic presence in the administration gradually became a hazard for the Ottoman rulers, as it was prone to offer full support to Habsburg armies in the context of the Great Turkish War.They were replaced by the Greek Phanariotes,there was many Christian-Muslim aliances in the West just like in East everything for political gains,the Ottomans in it's beginings and expansion wasn't bad for the Christian peasant population to them it was the same like any empire,but later they begin to opress the population with taxes,sharia law etc,this brought them to their demise,so many people just switch their ideology or religion,Byzantine based empire but instead of Greek language with Persian-Arabic like language as administrative and Islamic religion.Even the first Turkish president have been of Balkan origin.